Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(20-11-2015 03:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 10:15 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But, when a guy takes selfie shots with his cat and posts them online, I guess I shouldn't expect anything less (not that this has any relevance, it is just funny). Laugh out load

Is that your best shot? Weak. Drinking Beverage

It's a guy who doesn't even conceptualize how there is varying differences in the realms of believe and doctrine within Christianity. He doesn't have much beyond his strengthening bubble. I no longer wonder why he had threads from even people like KC calling him out on that, that he seemed to skirt any answer from.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2015, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2015 07:04 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(18-11-2015 09:40 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You just can't win, GWOG.





it's the truth,
it's actual,
everything is satisfactual.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-11-2015, 08:05 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2015 12:06 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
Sigh

I will interject my replies in bold at the end of each of your ridiculous quoted replies. Click snip and "witness" yet another ass beating delivered to your hubris, ignorant and ineducable replies

(18-11-2015 09:35 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Sad attempt for a comparison. We have Abraham Lincoln's writings, personal affects, home, pictures of him, his speeches, people who wrote about him who ....wait for it....knew him, met him, listened to him, and wrote down what he said.....and....get this...they were ALIVE at the time WITH Abraham.

How do you know they were alive at the time WITH Abraham? Do you know, or are you going by what you were told?

The latter.

It is much easier to believe in hearsay if there are no supernatural implications stapled to the message, isn't it?

GWG: You have GOT to better than that COTW...oh wait, you aren't capable

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  To compare that with a fabricated super hero who was born of a god and a mortal, just like ALL other hero-god stories from Horus in 3000 BCE, all the way to jesus and beyond...same recipe

Well I will put it to you this way; as ridiculous as your rendition of what theists have believed over the centuries...in my opinion, that is still better than the notion that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk and think.

Either way, something happened...something that is beyond normal everyday protocol.

Now, you can either believe that a personal agent caused the whole shebang , or you can believe that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing and that inanimate matter eventually came to life.

Any theistic position is better than that.

GWG: Truly? So your laughable and ineducable position is since we don't know for sure yet, how life began, then we must embrace a fabricated, disproven fairy tale about talking snakes, global floods, angry gods, zombie invasions and a false messiah named jesus? lol...surely you jest, is your mind only capable of such a dimwitted view?

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  .....where not one single word was ever written AT THE TIME

Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

GWG: mhmmm, well one would think, I know that is not a position you find yourself in often, but one would think that if these wonderful, extraordinary, magical, miraculous events had occurred, we would find mention of it by an actual witness at the very minimum....nope.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  by someone who actually knew him, met him, or witnessed his Benny Hinn show...not one.

Yet despite that, the majority of all historians accept Jesus as a historical figure..and also despite all of that, Christianity spread and grew to be the world's #1 religion in terms of total followers.

Not bad, considering the entire religion is based upon a guy that no one "actually knew, met him, or witnessed his Benny Hinn show...not one."

In other words, your criterion as to what it should be just doesn't really matter in terms of overall significance and influence.

GWG: Have I ever claimed that a man never existed, upon which these ridiculous exaggerations may have been based upon? It doesnt matter if there once upon a time was a man named jesus from nazareth who perhaps was quite the charismatic fellow and had a small following as he walked amongst the many who claimed they too were the messiah. Doesn't matter in the slightest. The list is long for those who have claimed to be the messiah, all discredited to no surprise.

There is a reason it grew, and that has been pointed out to you over time in exhaustive detail...i.e. holy crusades, the inquisition, Emperor Constantine, Constantinople blah blah blah Argumentum ad populum is not the litmus test for truth my dear delusional friend.


(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  One would think...I know you don't do that often, but one would think if zombies were bursting out of the ground

It said "out of their tombs".

GWG: No shit? Out of their tombs then, one would think that would create quite a stir.......oddly not one word written at the time about it...one would surmise it is bullshit.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  earth went dark

The whole earth, or the local earth?

GWG: Nice try; Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  and jesus flew up into the sky

Someone could be ascending into heaven right now in Cleveland, but I don't know, because I am here...and the person is there.

Catch my drift?

GWG: No. That is nonsense. That area was full of literate people, historians, astronomers, royal scribes....not one word written.....bullshit

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  SOMEONE would have thought that noteworthy....nope.

Someone did...Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.

GWG: No my dear uneducated in theology buddy, they didn't. Years later, stories were written down by anonymous groups. Contradictional stories by the way. People LOVE to tell stories dont they COTW? back then that was prime time TV, that was going to the movies...that WAS entertainment...the better the story, the more popular and more it would be retold, and embellished....voila!

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Philo of Alexandria recorded events of the day to great detail and lived and traveled the area...not....one....word of jesus....perhaps Justus who lived in Galilee...nope, not one word.....so you are trying to compare someone who was an ordinary man, where there is a plethora of tangible, empirical evidence for his existence and actions, with a fairy tale with zero evidence.......surely you can do better than that...oh wait, I remember now....you can't.

*pats on head* now now now, my little pet...you are arguing from silence. In philosophical circles this would be called a "logical fallacy".

And usually, those type of things can be dismissed without further ado. Such is the case hereBig Grin

GWG: You can dismiss it all you like. The fact is, major, reknown, and credible historians who lived in the area at the time of these alleged events failed to even mention jesus...one would presume that is because he was not noteworthy. THINK.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No, in reference to John, biblical experts, and those who have spent their lives studying the historicity of jesus....know John didn't write john.

And the majority of those same Biblical experts also believe in the historicity of Jesus..in other words, Jesus is a historical figure. As far as who wrote John, look, arguments can be made on both sides...and I've always emphasized that even if John himself didn't write it, someone close to him wrote it, in other words; the context of the the book came from him, regardless a damn if he actually wrote the words.

GWG: jesus potentially having been a real person is irrelevant. Romulus was a real person too....and has the same story as jesus, and it predates jesus by 800 years....I dont believe Romulus was a messiah/half god/half human either. I do believe people love stories though....apparently you do too. Aren't stories fun? Did you hear the one about a guy who walked on water? The first version of that story was probably about a guy who walked through a puddle and didn't get his sandals wet, and upon the 137th retelling and embellishing...he "walked on water".... lol

Someone else who wrote it down, years after John died is called "based on hearsay"...you do know the least credible evidence is an eyewitness testimony...for example.. just think Michael Brown...the friend ten feet away SWORE in testimony the cop shot MB in the back while he had his hands raised.....um...yeah...actually that DIDNT happen, as proven by forensic evidence...like no bullet holes in the back, so even less credulous then eyewitness testimony, is someone who heard a story about, a guy who heard something, from someone who said they knew someone, who saw MAGIC....that isnt evidence...this is called HEARSAY..get it? Think about the thousands of eyewitness testimony daily of UFOs sneaking around the planet....BS..if the story was about a guy who ate a whole dozen of eggs in one sitting, no one would care there is no evidence of it...but when it involves magic, and zombies.....evidence is required beyond second hand hearsay.


(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Only dipshits like you and Ken Ham believe in the fairy tale in its literal form, while the vats majority of the educated world who study theology know otherwise based on facts.....

If you want to believe that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk, think, etc..then I will leave you to your absurdities.

GWG: if you want to believe a sky genie created at least 400+ billion planets (that is how many the hubble telescope can see) until he got at least one juuuust right, then grabbed a handful of dirt and blew into it creating man!..then I will leave you to your absurdities.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  All four gospels are anonymous.

Thanks for telling me that, Captain Obvious.

GWG: No prob Dr Delusional


(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  John identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle).

You are erronously making it seem as if just because it is "tradition", as if that somehow negates the true value of what is being applied. Traditions could actually be derived from true events.

If your great-great-great grandfather started a tradition in your family at which every third Thursday of September, he went deer hunting...now imagine if this is still prevelent in your family today...only to have some asshole decades later deny that your grandfather began the tradition, that the tradition began because your great-great-great auntie disliked deers because one day they trampled through her garden, and she disliked them ever since and began to hunt them down, thus, the tradition began.

You may be able to make a strong case that John didn't actually write the book, but what you can't make a case for is whether or not the core material of the book came from John, the Apostle. You just don't know, and it is disingenuous and even more foolish to come on here claiming as if your knowledge of this stuff is so damn complete and you have all of the answers, because face it, you don't.

GWG: See my above comments about stories, tradition, and magic.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The majority of biblical scholars do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John

If the traditions can be traced to John, that would mean that John existed, right? That would also mean that Jesus existed, right?

GWG: Who said a man named john and a man named jesus didn't exist? A MAGICAL half god/half man didnt exist...big difference.

(17-11-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process. The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth

Sources:

Anderson 2007, p. 19."These facts pose a major problem for the traditional view of John's authorship, and they are one of the key reasons critical scholars reject it."

Lindars, 1990, p. 20."It is thus important to see the reasons why the traditional identification is regarded by most scholars as untenable."

The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Volume 3 Abingdon Press, 2008. p. 362 "Presently, few commentators would argue that a disciple of Jesus actually wrote the Fourth Gospel,..."

Marilyn Mellowes The Gospel of John From Jesus to Christ: A Portrait of Jesus' World. PBS 2010-11-3. "Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion;..."

D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. Zondervan; 2 New edition. 2005. Pg 233 “The fact remains that despite support for Johannine authorship by a few front rank scholars in this century and by many popular writers, a large majority of contemporary scholars reject this view.”

"To most modern scholars direct apostolic authorship has therefore seemed unlikely." "John, Gospel of." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005


Someday when you actually learn to read, research, and utilize comprehension skills, you can join the rest of the adults in the conversation about mythology.

We all have our sources, don't we? Laugh out load

GWG: Yes, yes we do. I have credible, scholarly, theological expert sources, and you have Ken Ham and the fictional fairy tale called the bible.....I wonder who wins that comparison?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
22-11-2015, 04:46 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
how do we know that Abraham Lincoln was a real person while jesus, yahweh and every other entity mention in the bible and every other religious books are not


here's how


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: