[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2013, 10:28 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 10:19 AM)tokutter Wrote:  Bucky Ball, Mark Fulton...don't ever leave this forum. Really appreciate all the information and insights. Rock on.
Smmmmmoochy bun. Drinking Beverage





Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2013 06:54 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(13-02-2013 06:31 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  A lot of you must be college students, studying philosophy....when someone has an extraordinary just ask for the evidence. Its game over after that. You dont need big speeches, your not the person on trail here....the claimants are.

Thanks StorMFront.

Not wanting God to exist,
disliking Christians,
saying "thats not evidence",
automatic unsubstatiated gainsaying,
stating your own personal skeptical opinion,

...doing that over and over again is easy.

I want to see what evidence the Resurrection mythers have to offer. They are the ones claiming the event never happened.
Show me...

Proof that Gospel witnesses DIDNT see what they claimed they saw.
Proof that God CANT do miracles.
Proof that God doesnt EXIST.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2013 11:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 06:47 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(13-02-2013 06:31 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  A lot of you must be college students, studying philosophy....when someone has an extraordinary just ask for the evidence. Its game over after that. You dont need big speeches, your not the person on trail here....the claimants are.

Thanks StorMFront.

Not wanting God to exist,
disliking Christians,
saying "thats not evidence",
automatic unsubstatiated gainsaying,
stating your own personal skeptical opinion,

...doing that over and over again is easy.

I want to see what evidence the Resurrection mythers have to offer. They are the ones claiming the event never happened.

Proof that Gospel witnesses DIDNT see what they claimed they saw.
Proof that God CANT do miracles.
Proof that God doesnt EXIST.

Nope. That's not the way it works. No one can prove a negative. When you get big, and go to school Pussy Cat, dear, teacher will tell you about logic, and how proving negatives is impossible, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So now, not being able to provide evidence, you think we're as stupid as you, and won't notice you try turn the tables, and think you will try another tactic.
But thanks for the opportunity. Here's a great series that show that the gospels are probably almost entirely a work of fiction, based on a template from Homeric heroic mythology. :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOzCMy9e5E

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-02-2013, 07:08 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 07:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. That's not the way it works. No one can prove a negative.


The legal system has no problem proving negatives. Happens all the time. Proof that they DID do it. And proof that they DIDNT.

[Image: Casey-Anthony-Trial-VERDICT-NOT-GUILTY-H...20_240.JPG]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 07:14 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
If I wanted to prove there was no cat in the box, (prove a negative) all I would have to show is an empty box.
Yes, Bucky Ball, you can prove a negative. You can prove that something didnt happen.

[Image: catinboxkevinsteeleflickerphoto.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 07:08 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The legal system has no problem proving negatives. Happens all the time. Proof that they DID do it. And proof that they DIDNT.

Seriously. Seriously ? Are you THAT dumb Pussy Cat ? A "not guity" verdict is a prosecutions case, ie a positive assertion, (she did it) NOT PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt. Ya know, Puss, you are SO dumb, I'm starting to feel sorry for you. NOTHING has been proven. THAT is what a not guilty verdict is. Don't tell me you didn't take Civics either ? So, this is starting to tally up. No Bible Study, no Civics, no Logic. You should call and ask your mom why did she home-school you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-02-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Habeas corpus Bucky Ball.
Produce the body.
That would prove a negative. That would prove the Resurrection DIDNT happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 07:24 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 07:17 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Habeas corpus Bucky Ball.
Produce the body.
That would prove a negative. That would prove the Resurrection DIDNT happen.

No it wouldn't. Religionists would say it's not HIS body, just like the apostles didn't recognize him, and were afraid of him.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 07:32 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Here's another way of looking at it.

Suppose someone claims that a certain thing went missing or disappeared or died. And suppose the theory was that the cause was theft or murder.

In order to disprove the claim that something disappeared the skeptic requires proof that it it DID NOT.

And you could prove a negative (ie. that the thing did NOT disappear) simply by finding the missing thing.

I think you are confused about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and are mistakenly assuming that means the defense counsel dont actively seek to DISPROVE the case against their client.

Positive claim - person died. Negative claim - no they didnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, here they are still alive.

Positive claim - There is a cat in that box. Negative claim - no there isnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, the tomb box is empty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 08:18 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 07:33 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 07:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Here's another way of looking at it.

Suppose someone claims that a certain thing went missing or disappeared or died. And suppose the theory was that the cause was theft or murder.

In order to disprove the claim that something disappeared the skeptic requires proof that it it DID NOT.

And you could prove a negative (ie. that the thing did NOT disappear) simply by finding the missing thing.

I think you are confused about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and are mistakenly assuming that means the defense counsel dont actively seek to DISPROVE the case against their client.

Positive claim - person died. Negative claim - no they didnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, here they are still alive.

Positive claim - There is a cat in that box. Negative claim - no there isnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, the tomb box is empty.






Hey Lion, you're getting yourself in a real muddle. It's not this complex.

Extraordinary claims (such as that someone rose from the dead) require extraordinary evidence. Your evidence is not extraordinary.

I can even demonstrate to you, in simple terms, some of the reasons why. After you've read the following, why not look it up for yourself. You do know how to "google" something, right? Please...after you have done that, comment, so we ( Bucky and I and anyone else reading this) know you have made the effort. Just maybe I might learn something from your opinion.
Jesus’ Resurrection

“If Christ has not been raised, you are still in your sins. And what is more serious, all who have died in Christ have perished. If our hope for Christ has been for this life only, we are the most unfortunate of all people.” (1 Cor. 15:17–19, NJB).

"If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of the resurrection is not believable, and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the truth and authenticity of Jesus' resurrection, also is not believable." (Bishop John Shelby Spong).

The Romans crucified Jesus. It must have been a devastating, humiliating blow to his supporters. The Gospel authors couldn’t have their hero disappear after such a dreadful demise. The rank and file wouldn’t idolize a loser. The scriptwriters had to spruce up the story. Jesus had to rise from the dead, just like a god was expected to. The Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysus, the Persian Mithras, and many others had all risen from the dead. Resurrection is a timeless theme; if a character is charismatic enough, people like to imagine death has been defeated, even today. Consider Elvis Presley.

The resurrection of Christ proved the divinity of Jesus. It’s the central tenet of the faith, the one most important belief upon which Christianity is based. Mark’s gospel, the first to be written, and the one that the others copied, should’ve made a big deal about this exceptional event. Yet the author only devotes the second half of his last chapter to it, as if it was tacked on like an afterthought. Mark has only twenty or so lines describing what many people presume was the premiere event in the history of the world. The character and style of the last twelve verses in Mark (the resurrection story) are different from the rest of the Gospel. At 16:9 there’s an abrupt end to the narrative flow and the style loses its descriptive quality. Mary Magdalene is spoken of in 16:9 as if she hadn’t been mentioned before.

What’s more, the whole resurrection story is absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts, the oldest Latin manuscript, the oldest Syriac manuscript, and from about one hundred early Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written 897 CE and 913 CE). In many later texts that include verses 9–20, asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Moreover, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian are completely unaware of the existence of a resurrection story in Mark. Eusebius and Jerome are, but they’re fourth century commentators, and they note that it’s absent from their earlier Greek transcripts.

The original author of Mark created the first biblical biography of Jesus, but failed to mention that he rose from the dead! The resurrection ending (16:9–20) was added to the end of Mark by an unknown author sometime after the latter part of the second century, a fact admitted by most New Testament scholars in the past century! (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16). A footnote in the Jerusalem Bible states,

“The ‘long ending’ of Mark, vv.9–20, is included in the canonically accepted body of inspired scripture. This does not necessarily imply Markan authorship which, indeed, is open to question.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“Catholics are not bound to hold these verses (16:9–20) were written by Saint Mark.” The arrogant authors are assuming they can tell Catholics what they’re allowed to believe. They then make the following ridiculous claim as one of several possible explanations for the lack of a resurrection ending:

“If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more.” Imagine Mark sitting at his desk, pen poised, just about to create history by writing the final twenty lines of his epic when—oops—he dies! A trail of ink meanders off the page.

The Catholic encyclopedia states:


“Whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.”

Consider their tone; they’re ordering their readers what to believe!

There was no resurrection. It only became a popular belief in some circles in the early to mid second century, maybe when Paul’s letters became more widely circulated. It had to be added to the gospel. The same interpolator(s) also added lines into Mark in which Jesus predicts he will rise from the dead. Most Church leaders who know about the interpolated ending don’t advertise it. There’s don’t want to compromise the faith of their flock. That’s fraudulent.

The authors of the other Gospels probably included a resurrection because by the time they were writing the myth had been widely circulated. The other three give different reports of events after the death of Jesus because they didn't have this part of Mark's chronicle to copy, so each made up their own. Matthew adds an earthquake and the corpses of holy men walking around Jerusalem. Jesus wasn’t the only Jew to rise from the dead! I wonder whether these walking corpses helped remove the rubble from the earthquake? Did they rejoin their relatives around the table? It might have been disturbing divvying up dinner to your dead half decayed dad!

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes this about the gospels:

“First of all, they commended themselves by their tone of simplicity and truthfulness, which stood in striking contrast with the trivial, absurd, or manifestly legendary character of many of those uncanonical productions.”

I think they’re reading their canonical accounts with rose-colored glasses. Luke and John have the risen Jesus appearing in Jerusalem, far more prestigious than Galilee, which was believed to be a backward badland, yet was where Mark has him appearing. There are numerous other inconsistencies. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the four very different resurrection reports, with no success.

Jesus did have brothers, two of who, James and Jude, have probably written their own letters in the Bible. If one’s brother had risen from the dead, one would be elated and awestruck, but neither even mentions the fact. Nor do we find any testimony to the resurrection in the Epistles of Peter or John, as they too were written in the first century, long before the idea of the resurrection had taken root.


Paul believed in a resurrection, but this is how he got to know his risen Christ:

“Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me” (Gal. 1:15–16, NJB). He was writing at least twenty years after Jesus died, and gave no description of God’s son. His experience wasn’t a physical reappearance of a dead Jesus, but one that emerged from his own imagination that he thought was inspired by God.

There’s no first-century secular writer who mentioned Jesus, let alone a risen Jesus. If a resurrected Jesus had appeared to as many people as claimed, contemporary historians would have shouted it from the rooftops, yet there’s not a word about it.

Why are millions of people today convinced Jesus rose from the dead? If a tale is told often enough, it takes on a life of its own. Some commentators dissect the four accounts of the resurrection to try to reconcile them with each other (unsuccessfully), as if that proved they were true
.The truth is the believers have been duped.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: