[split] Debating Lion IRC

[Lion IRC]

Atothetheist's case so far...

* Assumption - that the historical record is exaggerated or false.

Still waiting for the basis on which Atothetheist assumes this.

Calling your own assumptions ''reasonable'' is circuitous special pleading.

[Lion IRC]

(13-01-2013 10:28 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  The real question is what evidence do you have to base your claims so that they can carry some sort of weight. So far I haven't seen any.

I havent made any claims yet. Nor am I the one begging for a debate about a poorly-defined topic.

[Atothetheist]

(13-01-2013 10:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  You case so far...
* Assumption - that the historical record is exaggerated or false.
Still waiting for the basis on which you assume this.
Calling your own assumptions ''reasonable'' is circuitous special pleading.

Historical record? What historical record? The Bible is not a Historical record. Historians do not consider it a historical record.

The Bible is filled with nonsense and magic. Since there is no evidence for the magic in the a bible being true, I disbelieve in the miracles and resurrection. If you disbelieve in the resurrection and in the miracles, but believe in a historical base, you can say that the Bible is an exaggeration.

[Atothetheist]

(13-01-2013 10:36 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(13-01-2013 10:28 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  The real question is what evidence do you have to base your claims so that they can carry some sort of weight. So far I haven't seen any.

I havent made any claims yet. Nor am I the one begging for a debate about a poorly-defined topic.

You have asked me to provide evidence that Jesus Did NOT preform miracles . Do you see how this is impossible?

[cheapthrillseaker]

(13-01-2013 10:39 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  

(13-01-2013 10:36 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I havent made any claims yet. Nor am I the one begging for a debate about a poorly-defined topic.

You have asked me to provide evidence that Jesus Did NOT preform miracles . Do you see how this is impossible?

Ten bucks says he'll use what you just said to make himself look right.

[EvolutionKills]

(13-01-2013 10:09 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  It's still just an unsubstantiated claim.
What additional information do you have to share which shows that the actual historical person did NOT do what the allegedly overblown myth (bible) states about Him?
In order to claim that a story is exagerated, you need to know the ACTUAL story for comparison.

Okay, do me a quick favor and catch yourself up on the Burden of Proof.






Once you're done with that, watch these presentations from Richard Carrier, a PhD in ancient history and philosophy. He makes some very good points and raises some very good questions, and I'd be interested in hearing your rebuttal.

[Lion IRC]

(13-01-2013 10:39 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  

(13-01-2013 10:36 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I havent made any claims yet. Nor am I the one begging for a debate about a poorly-defined topic.

You have asked me to provide evidence that Jesus Did NOT preform miracles . Do you see how this is impossible?

Yes. But that is what your claim amounts to.
Bummer that you picked your own unfounded assumption about Jesus as the basis for a debate topic.

[cheapthrillseaker]

While Lion catches up on those videos, I'll post my thoughts on how the debate (oh, I'm very sorry, should it be called the pre-debate warmup? Well, I'm calling it debate to save on typing since Lion jumped the gun several times already) is going so far...





So far not very well, and very slowly.

[Lion IRC]

Am I supposed to be watching all those videos?
Hmmm.

[EvolutionKills]

(13-01-2013 11:11 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(13-01-2013 10:39 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  You have asked me to provide evidence that Jesus Did NOT preform miracles . Do you see how this is impossible?

Yes. But that is what your claim amounts to.
Bummer that you picked your own unfounded assumption about Jesus as the basis for a debate topic.

Your holy book can't be assumed to be correct, it is one of the very things being debated. You cannot assume that what the Gospels say is true, then use that as a bedrock to assert that the skeptic needs to prove to you that Jesus did not do what is claimed in the scriptures.

If you want to use the Gospels to prove Jesus, you first need to establish the validity of the Gospels.

I take it that you're not even aware of the history behind your God, so I'll help you out with that as well. Here is a quick synopsis of the information in Karen Armstrong's book 'A History of God', and it represents the majority opinion of anthropologists, archeologists, and religious studies professors.

Now that you can see just how man-made the Old Testament is, how are you going to argue that the New Testament is any more divinely inspired than it, beside just pulling the 'faith' card? By now you should know very well that 'faith' just doesn't cut it for skeptics (or anybody else that requires evidence for their beliefs).










:Edited for Grammar: