[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2013, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2013 12:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(24-01-2013 03:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Well BEFORE the written Gospels appeared.

...many of whom would have been eye-witness corroboration sources for what we read in those Gospels.

No proof even attempted. Assertion. No evidence. No corrobortion. No supporting evidence. No scholarly reference. Guessing. Wishful thinking. How is "who physically wrote them down" different from the person who "wrote" them ? Please explain how they "wrote them" if they didn't "write them down".

(24-01-2013 03:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Neither do we know for certain that the oldest extant text is the very first time the accounts were written. What we have may be the later result of earlier drafts.
It stands to reason that the sources would want to cross-check and verify details BEFORE committing them into writing.
And as I said earlier, the sources may have required translation.
That the Gospels are given appropriate ''names'' (or letter designations like "Q") for simplicity and convenience has never been a problem for any bible scholars INCLUDING theist scholars.

Assertion. No evidence. No corroboration. No supporting evidence. No scholarly reference. Guessing. Wishful thinking. IRC has proven he has no education on the subject, therefore anythat he says is unreliable. Show us evidence for "earlier drafts". Tell us how exactly you know that, and all the Biblical scholars in the entire world DON'T know that, or claim that.

(24-01-2013 03:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Now lets get to your noble lie theory and see if it applies to people who faced crucifixion for their stating their unshakable belief that Jesus was seen alive after death.

Assertion. No evidence. No corrobortion. No supporting evidence. No scholarly reference. Guessing. Wishful thinking. You call "unshakeable faith" what it says in Matthew 28:17 ? "They worshiped, but they doubted". Hahaha

(24-01-2013 03:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The Gospels dont ''sound nice''.

The Gospels state things which make their sources look like idiots, cowards, doubters, disloyal to Jesus. The Gospels assert things which, in context, are laughable such as...Jewish women in 33AD being reliable primary witnesses testifying to a male Jewish audience, like the Jewish Messiah being flogged and Crucified, like a physical Resurrection, etc. They would otherwise be ashamed to profess much of what is in the Gospels. And the way a historical text sounds IS a valid method historians use to evaluate its likely authenticity.

Nobody is saying it PROVES anything, but it is certainly a factor used by historians. Embellishment and self-flattery is a motive which distorts the likelihood of a text being entirely factual.

And in this case the historical sources had the additional motive not to write or say anything at all if they wanted to avoid arrest and execution! So they were writing unflattering stuff about themselves that could get them stoned, beheaded, crucified....

Assertion. No evidence. No corrobortion. No supporting evidence. No scholarly reference. Guessing . Wishful thinking. The 9/11 bombers also flew the planes into the towers, and got themselves killed. Is IRC saying Islam is therefore true ? That someone "thought" something true, does not make it true. Doesn't even know who wrote them, yet asserts they were a part of persecuted group.

(24-01-2013 03:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The Gospel writers were doing what they were told by a person they NOW thought without doubt was a divine Being. If they had doubts, they would have waited until the risk of arrest and execution had subsided - they would have waited maybe 400-600 years to pass.

Assertion. No evidence. No corroboration. No scholarly reference. Guessing. Wishful thinking. A "divine being" in Hebrew culture does NOT mean they were gods. See my resurrection thread, referenced MANY times. Has not stated WHO DID write the gospels. Has not provided a shred of evidence for them, that they are true, or that there was a resurrection.
Fail. Fail, and fail again.
Obviously no one "cross checked" if they couldn't even get the day or time he died the same, or what he did or did not say during the trial the same, or ALL the other contradictions in the gospels. Try harder IRC.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
What's wrong Lion IRC, you didn't get slapped around enough over on atheistsforum.org., so you come over here for some more. Sheeeeshck!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
What's the deal with this rise of online anti-atheism crusading? Dodgy

It's like religion is aware of its own volatility and in response sends out these buffoons as a defense mechanism. Funny how they only solidify our notions about religion and its followers.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
25-01-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 11:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  What's the deal with this rise of online anti-atheism crusading? Dodgy

It's like religion is aware of its own volatility and in response sends out these buffoons as a defense mechanism. Funny how they only solidify our notions about religion and its followers.
But they fly the flag Wink I confess, after the walls of text appeared I no longer cared to scale the ramparts - and neither does anyone else I suspect. Ergo, the debaters themselves may gain something, but all the outsiders see is heated theological debate...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2013, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2013 11:55 AM by Vera.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 11:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  What's the deal with this rise of online anti-atheism crusading?
It's like religion is aware of its own volatility and in response sends out these buffoons as a defense mechanism.
Death rattle, dear.

[Image: TDT_death_bed.jpg]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
25-01-2013, 11:54 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 11:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  What's the deal with this rise of online anti-atheism crusading? Dodgy

It's like religion is aware of its own volatility and in response sends out these buffoons as a defense mechanism. Funny how they only solidify our notions about religion and its followers.
Well, it's not like religion has historically engaged in crusades jihads activism against those who espouse different ideas.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
25-01-2013, 12:07 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 11:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-01-2013 11:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  What's the deal with this rise of online anti-atheism crusading? Dodgy

It's like religion is aware of its own volatility and in response sends out these buffoons as a defense mechanism. Funny how they only solidify our notions about religion and its followers.
But they fly the flag Wink I confess, after the walls of text appeared I no longer cared to scale the ramparts - and neither does anyone else I suspect. Ergo, the debaters themselves may gain something, but all the outsiders see is heated theological debate...

I really don't mind the 'wall of text" and it's within Lion's "personal and highly subjective rules," for debate. He clearly stated that he doesn't want links, or YouTube videos -- so the wall of text is a natural result -- otherwise, lion will scream that he 'won.'

I'm still reading it and waiting for something more substantive from Lion. So far he's inferred that prechristains all shared the exact same beliefs. I've never heard that...I know at least one bibical scholar who would be interested to know about that.

Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
25-01-2013, 04:11 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 11:01 AM)tokutter Wrote:  What's wrong Lion IRC, you didn't get slapped around enough over on atheistsforum.org., so you come over here for some more. Sheeeeshck!


Welcome tokutter,
Are you following me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2013, 04:38 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2013 04:45 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(24-01-2013 04:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-01-2013 03:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Well BEFORE the written Gospels appeared.

...many of whom would have been eye-witness corroboration sources for what we read in those Gospels.

No proof even attempted. Assertion. No evidence. No corrobortion. No supporting evidence. No scholarly reference. Guessing. Wishful thinking. How is "who physically wrote them down" different from the person who "wrote" them ? Please explain how they "wrote them" if they didn't "write them down".

I dont need to prove YOUR assertion. You already acknowledged (quite rightly) that the accounts were circulating BEFORE they were written down. Whats for me to prove?

You quite rightly acknowledged the lack of evidence needed to determine who wrote what and whether the oldest extant texts were the very first ever written. Therefore, the written accounts they RETELL need not have been physically written down by the same people who provided the testimony.

If a disciple or eyewitness didnt speak very good Greek or couldnt write in Greek, it stands to reason that the person translating/writing or recopying their original testimony wasnt named Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke or John or "Q"

The central point here is that irrespective of the dating of the text, the events recorded in the text were ALREADY thought to be factual be an existing group of people before those events were documented.

And you have yet to explain your own self-contradiction viz;

a) Gospel writers produced the texts as liturgy for an existing known audience
b) Gospel writers had no idea who would read the texts.

You first claimed a) when trying to refute their intent to serve as permanent historical record.

Then you refuted yourself by asserting b) when I mentioned canonical exegesis and that the Gospel CONTENT itself explains that the authors were doing Gods will to spread the teaching of Jesus - Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, forgiveness is offered, death is not the end, life has teleological/eschatological significance beyond atheism's pointless and depressing materialism/nihilism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2013, 05:04 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Are people seriously still humouring this guy...?
(25-01-2013 04:38 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Then you refuted yourself by asserting b) when I mentioned canonical exegesis and that the Gospel CONTENT itself explains that the authors were doing Gods will to spread the teaching of Jesus - Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, forgiveness is offered, death is not the end, life has teleological/eschatological significance beyond atheism's pointless and depressing materialism/nihilism.
Oh because that's just the ONLY possibility right? Couldn't be stories that were passed around like rumours today, that changed piece by piece and ended up miracle stories, no need for any gods will.

The Kingdom of Heaven has never been observed.
Forgiveness is not given by imaginary friends.
Since our mind is a direct result of the brain which is what evidence suggests, death is the end.
The only significance or purpose in life is the one we ascribe to it.
And materialism is view of reality that best fits the evidence, just because you think it's depressing doesn't mean it is. Even if some find it depressing what does that have to do with it being true or not? We don't determine whether things are true or false based on how they feel, that's the expertise of a theist.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

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