Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He's 18? OMG, now I feel I've been attacking a child. I apologize amazed. I didn't realize you were so young. You have a while to learn. He had his age listed at first, but later removed it. i don't recall ever giving anyone my age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 There's no reason we couldn't be friends, if you had any amount of respect for me. I have nothing personal against you and have no reason to disrespect you because we see things differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 There's no reason we couldn't be friends, if you had any amount of respect for me. I have nothing personal against you and have no reason to disrespect you because we see things differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 If there are a dozen or so eyewitnesses to a battle of Alexander the Great does that mean its real or a fiction? In other words what would be necessary for you to know that such a battle took place? There is more evidence of Alexanders existence than just historical accounts, there is also archeological evidence, one can often go to the place the battle was, and find evidence of a battle that happened about the same time. But point of fact, there is debate among historians as to whether everything claimed about him is true. Furthermore, we have different standards of evidence depending on the action, saying Alexander the great fought a battle is some place is rather easy to believe because we know that people fight wars. Its like if I told you I drove to work today you would believe me without asking for further proof, but If I said I put on my magic shoes and clicked my heels together and teleported to work, you would want more proof than just my word. In the same way, saying Jesus was walked on water or died for our sins, are not substantively equal to the claim that Alexander the great crossed a river. We know rivers exist, and that people cross them, but I do not know of any other claims of people walking on water, so my standard for evidence is quite reasonably higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I have nothing personal against you and have no reason to disrespect you because we see things differently. And yet your manner has been disrespectful and dismissive since you came here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. Oh please! Your 500 people is also hearsay. Do you have anything from these 500 people...any statements or anything? Two points about this: 1. Paul spoke of 500 witnesses - but he may have lied. His "testimony" about the 500 witnesses is all the evidence there is of 500 witnesses. To then claim that the "500" (not 499 or 501, but exactly 500) witnesses are evidence of jesus resurrection is nonsense. If I said there were 1,000 witnesses that would have testified that the 500 lied, does that overrule the 500? I just wrote it. Can you disprove it? I would have to see on what grounds the 1000 witnesses were claiming the 500 lied before i could say. 2. There are accounts of Jesus resurrection that start simply and grow increasingly complex. Same for the crucifixion (what was written on the cross?). Remember that the end of Mark was a late interpolation. So there were a couple of witnesses, several, 12, and then 500. The story grows and grows and grows, like Paul's nose. The appearances of Christ happened over a period of 40 days in different situations to different people. Some to groups, some to individuals. There is legend growing before your eyes. Mixed up stories that elaborate and get more and more detailed and complicated, with better stuff on the cross, more people as witnesses, and changing from a man into a god. Actually there is not enough time for a legend to develop. That takes a lot longer and there are no eyewitnesses who are alive. What evidence do you have Paul is lying? I'll restate what I wrote above so you can understand it. 1. The number 500 is a round number. Do you think this number is exact, or a guess? Its probably an approximation. Not a guess. 2. The gospels contradict Paul. Every person who supposedly saw Jesus (even if they couldn't recognise him) is accounted for and, although the gospels disagree with one another, none of them come close to 500 people. The NT does not give an exhaustive account of everything that went on. I suspect it could have been Christ' ascension recorded in Acts 1:9-11. Where specifically do the gospels contradict Paul? 3. Paul admitted that a lie, if it brought people closer to Jesus, was acceptable. Christians have been lying ever since. I will need chapter and verse for this assertion. Can you provide it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The disadvantage i have is that i'm trying to have a conversation with a number of people at once and all you have is one conversation to deal with. Your job is far simpler than mine. I would be more than willing to debate you in a one on one setting on any topic of your choosing. if that would be more comfortable to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I have nothing personal against you and have no reason to disrespect you because we see things differently. And yet your manner has been disrespectful and dismissive since you came here. That's not true. What i see happening are people not liking being challenged for their beliefs and some respond with some nasty remarks. I have never called anyone names or stupid for what they believe while i have continually been mocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The disadvantage i have is that i'm trying to have a conversation with a number of people at once and all you have is one conversation to deal with. Your job is far simpler than mine. I would be more than willing to debate you in a one on one setting on any topic of your choosing. if that would be more comfortable to you. Thanks for the offer but i prefer to dialogue with as many as i can even though it can be difficult. Bring your points to the table and we can discuss just as we are trying to do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I have nothing personal against you and have no reason to disrespect you because we see things differently. And yet your manner has been disrespectful and dismissive since you came here. That's not true. What i see happening are people not liking being challenged for their beliefs and some respond with some nasty remarks. I have never called anyone names or stupid for what they believe while i have continually been mocked. You know, if I keep repeating the same thing as truth over and over again and people keep telling me it isn't, yet I keep on and on, I would hope someone would mock me. Maybe I could go back and see what I'm doing or not doing. You haven't given one inch on showing us that you even understand what we're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I have nothing personal against you and have no reason to disrespect you because we see things differently. And yet your manner has been disrespectful and dismissive since you came here. That's not true. What i see happening are people not liking being challenged for their beliefs and some respond with some nasty remarks. I have never called anyone names or stupid for what they believe while i have continually been mocked. You have, however, insinuated that we had never read the bible before deconverting. You have have preconceived ideas about us - I think people here would like to see you make more of an effort to find out who we are. And, incidentally, you're not really challenging us at all, we've been all through every point you've raised several times on this site. My own position is very well thought out, and for my part I will apologize for the nasty comments I've made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That's not true. What i see happening are people not liking being challenged for their beliefs and some respond with some nasty remarks. I have never called anyone names or stupid for what they believe while i have continually been mocked. Do you think that calling someone names is the only way you disrespect people? I have absolutely no problem having my beliefs challenged, as a skeptic I believe that is very important, but the things you are saying are simply not challenging to me. You are bringing up things which most of us mulled over years ago, and already found the most reasonable answers, but when we offer those you dismiss them and tell us we should "read the bible" or suggest that we don't really understand Christianity properly. Say what you will, but that is extremely disrespectful to people like myself who agonized over their choice to leave Christianity at the time I was going through it. It was the best choice I ever made, and I stand by that 100%, I already offered to debate you one on one. If you have sound arguments then by all means bring them, but do not expect me to to just accept any old load of poorly constructed syllogisms. Most of your arguments seem to come from Josh McDowell or one of the other very sloppy apologists out there, you should know (if you are actually 18) that I was studding theology while you were still in diapers, so to suggest I do not know what I am talking about IS most EMPHATICALLY insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Thanks for the offer but i prefer to dialogue with as many as i can even though it can be difficult. Bring your points to the table and we can discuss just as we are trying to do here. I am not surprised, you would not stand a chance in a formal debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He says he wishes he were 18 again. He denies it now. Hell, he should let us think that. His arguments would at least have an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He says he wishes he were 18 again. He denies it now. Hell, he should let us think that. His arguments would at least have an excuse. Ignorance can be cured if one is willing, stupidity on the other hand........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The evidence for the historical Jesus is quite strong and early. Is not. For one its the best explanation for the founding of the church and its continued existence through time. Sure, a cult leader is the best explanation, I can agree with that, but a miracle working cult leader is not. Many other religions have started because of cult leaders, but the miracles they claim to have are usually made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Thanks for the offer but i prefer to dialogue with as many as i can even though it can be difficult. Bring your points to the table and we can discuss just as we are trying to do here. I am not surprised, you would not stand a chance in a formal debate. Your probably right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The evidence for the historical Jesus is quite strong and early. Is not. For one its the best explanation for the founding of the church and its continued existence through time. Sure, a cult leader is the best explanation, I can agree with that, but a miracle working cult leader is not. Many other religions have started because of cult leaders, but the miracles they claim to have are usually made up. Do you know of any examples in history that have inspired millions of people to change the course of their lives like Christ has? Are their any great atheists of the past that inspired mankind to do great things in areas of charity, education, or medicine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He says he wishes he were 18 again. He denies it now. Hell, he should let us think that. His arguments would at least have an excuse. Ignorance can be cured if one is willing, stupidity on the other hand........ Yes. I'm hoping he's young and ignorant of his religion and not stupid. Indoctrination is forced stupidity. There is hope for that, but it's much harder than ignorance alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He says he wishes he were 18 again. He denies it now. Hell, he should let us think that. His arguments would at least have an excuse. Where did i deny wanting to be 18 again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Do you know of any examples in history that have inspired millions of people to change the course of their lives like Christ has? Are their any great atheists of the past that inspired mankind to do great things in areas of charity, education, or medicine? This is why you get called names and mocked amazed. People have told you this over and over and there you go asking the question again. Before you post, go back and re-read your threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He says he wishes he were 18 again. He denies it now. Hell, he should let us think that. His arguments would at least have an excuse. Where did i deny wanting to be 18 again? Apologies, I meant that you deny being 18 not that you deny wishing you were again. It seems you put somewhere that you 18 and then removed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He says he wishes he were 18 again. He denies it now. Hell, he should let us think that. His arguments would at least have an excuse. Ignorance can be cured if one is willing, stupidity on the other hand........ Yes. I'm hoping he's young and ignorant of his religion and not stupid. Indoctrination is forced stupidity. There is hope for that, but it's much harder than ignorance alone. Since it seems you are quite intelligent can you tell me if there is life after death with certainity? What is your proof and how do you deal with near death expierences that clearly show some existence of an immaterial part of man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He says he wishes he were 18 again. He denies it now. Hell, he should let us think that. His arguments would at least have an excuse. Where did i deny wanting to be 18 again? Apologies, I meant that you deny being 18 not that you deny wishing you were again. It seems you put somewhere that you 18 and then removed it. I think you have me mixed with someone else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 He says he wishes he were 18 again. He denies it now. Hell, he should let us think that. His arguments would at least have an excuse. Ignorance can be cured if one is willing, stupidity on the other hand........ Yes. I'm hoping he's young and ignorant of his religion and not stupid. Indoctrination is forced stupidity. There is hope for that, but it's much harder than ignorance alone. Since it seems you are quite intelligent can you tell me if there is life after death with certainity? What is your proof and how do you deal with near death expierences that clearly show some existence of an immaterial part of man? Of course I can't tell you if there is life after death. No one can. You can't either. So, why would anyone claim they know anything about it? Ahhh...I believe in the immaterial amazed. It and the material go together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts