MQTA Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 I'm reading this page now http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html and just finished reading http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm and http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm and glanced at http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm Read all them and show me where they don't got it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 And in case you didn't notice, I'm calling you out on your little rabbit trail tactic. All this comparison to the historiocracy of Alex et al just distracts from the main point of your claims, which is that Jesus is a deity and that this somehow has implications on the whole of mankind. I for one am not going to play that game. Show me the money. The ultimate question isn't why is your story better than the Koran or even Alexander, but why is your story true? Why should I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and is somehow master of the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 [ quote name='Vigile_del_fuoco1' date='Dec 6 2005, 12:23 PM' post='115069]Dude, you are breaking my balls. Give me a break. You come in here with this as your evidence: KH> I try not to ever use circular logic. I have given lines of evidence to support various views here. Each line of evidence can be examined and fleshed out individually. So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration. 1). There is good reason to believe God exists. 2). The New Testament documents are reliable. 3). Being reliable, they reliably report the life and words of Christ. 4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead. 5). Therefore we can conclude Jesus was the divine Son of God and the predicted Messiah. 6). As such, he is authoritative in all he affirms. 7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament. 8). Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God. 9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny. 10). Therefore, as a cumulative case, we can conclude that the Bible is the word of God. And then you have the nerve to tell us that we don't understand the meaning of evidence and basically insult our intellectual capacity. I'm happy you found a few friends to play with here, but seriously, what have you brought to the table. Back up your claims to our ignorance by providing some meat to your argument. Again, you make extraordinary claims and then provide us with this shit? "There is good reason to believe God exists." Could have fooled me. What is that good reason oh great debator sir? We await your reply with bated breath. KH> Those are lines of evidence. See? I told you! Take it to the Arena if you're interested. Kevin H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 And in case you didn't notice, I'm calling you out on your little rabbit trail tactic. All this comparison to the historiocracy of Alex et al just distracts from the main point of your claims, which is that Jesus is a deity and that this somehow has implications on the whole of mankind. I for one am not going to play that game. Show me the money. The ultimate question isn't why is your story better than the Koran or even Alexander, but why is your story true? Why should I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and is somehow master of the universe? I wonder what he can say that we haven't already heard ATT before PRATTs are all I ever see.. same old same old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 KH> Those are lines of evidence. See? I told you! Take it to the Arena if you're interested. Kevin H I personally don't have the patience for the Arena with you. I'm already sick of your smoke screens and unanswered questions. A child could see through your "evidence" though. It seems that you confuse "evidence" with "claims." Now go look up the meaning of "extraordinary" please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 KH> I try not to ever use circular logic. I have given lines of evidence to support various views here. Each line of evidence can be examined and fleshed out individually. So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration. 1). There is good reason to believe God exists. 2). The New Testament documents are reliable. I said it before... 1) is not able to be deduced from the available evidence... there is a gap between evidence for a supernatural agent and that agent being BibleGod. 2) is the basis of all your following lines of evidence... they are all assuming that the NT is reliable. The problem is, you are using those lines of evidence to prove that the NT is reliable! At that point, you are using circular logic to prove that you don't use circular logic. As I said, the irony is breathtaking... KH> Those are lines of evidence. See? I told you! Take it to the Arena if you're interested. Kevin H It's all circular, and if you try using that in the Arena, you're gonna get busted at high speed. Now, I asked you a question and made a request... a: What is the reasoning that takes you from there possibly being a supernatural agent to it being a God to it being the God of the Bible? b: Since there were no written accounts made by any of Jesus' contemporaries, and since those accounts that are assumed to be by his contemporaries are second-hand at best, and since there are admitted fakes in amongst those accounts, please explain how the NT documents could possibly be reliable. I'm still waiting for a response... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Kevin, please learn how to quote properly. All those extra quote tags are probably what is breaking your quotes and making your posts harder to read. And you still have not shown any convincing evidence that Jesus even existed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 I'm still waiting for a response... Join the club. I'm still waiting for evidence to back up CLAIM number 2. 2). The New Testament documents are reliable. Kevin, I wouldn't try for the Arena if I were you. You don't know the meaning of the word evidence at all if you believe your list constitutes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 I'm still waiting for a response... Join the club. I'm still waiting for evidence to back up CLAIM number 2. 2). The New Testament documents are reliable. Kevin, I wouldn't try for the Arena if I were you. You don't know the meaning of the word evidence at all if you believe your list constitutes it. KH> My list constitutes lines of evidence. Like I said, I tested the waters to check the fishing. I'll debate at the Arena if there are any takers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 KH> My list constitutes lines of evidence. Like I said, I tested the waters to check the fishing. I'll debate at the Arena if there are any takers. Well, unlike you, I require more than "lines" of "evidence" in order to believe something. However, if you're interested, I have been requested by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to contact you for assistance in resolving a matter of great import... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 KH> My list constitutes lines of evidence. Like I said, I tested the waters to check the fishing. I'll debate at the Arena if there are any takers. Well, unlike you, I require more than "lines" of "evidence" in order to believe something. However, if you're interested, I have been requested by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to contact you for assistance in resolving a matter of great import... KH> Are there no takers? None? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 It's only been 23 minutes. I think you'll have your pick of opponents by tomorrow. There's probably a queue forming right now. I know I want to see it... popcorn is on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 I know I want to see it... popcorn is on me. Chocolate too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 KH> My list constitutes lines of evidence. Like I said, I tested the waters to check the fishing. I'll debate at the Arena if there are any takers. What lines...? The first doesn't even manage to make sense, since you still haven't answered this question... What is the reasoning that takes you from there possibly being a supernatural agent to it being a God to it being the God of the Bible?Without an answer, all you have there is a line of speculation.The second is a statement of belief that denies historical fact. Everything else is based on the second line of evidence, but those lines are the evidence to prove the second line of evidence. All you have is one huge lump of circular logic with no evidence to back it up. Test the waters to see what the fishing is like, by all means... but is it a good idea to use a rod with no line to try to catch a nuclear attack sub? It's only been 23 minutes. I think you'll have your pick of opponents by tomorrow. There's probably a queue forming right now. I know I want to see it... popcorn is on me. Jose... if Kevin had used anything more than assertions and circular logic, I might've considered it... As it is, he's not worthy of debating in the Arena. (hell, he's not even worthy of the Colloseum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 KH> My list constitutes lines of evidence. Like I said, I tested the waters to check the fishing. I'll debate at the Arena if there are any takers. What lines...? The first doesn't even manage to make sense, since you still haven't answered this question... What is the reasoning that takes you from there possibly being a supernatural agent to it being a God to it being the God of the Bible?Without an answer, all you have there is a line of speculation.The second is a statement of belief that denies historical fact. Everything else is based on the second line of evidence, but those lines are the evidence to prove the second line of evidence. All you have is one huge lump of circular logic with no evidence to back it up. Test the waters to see what the fishing is like, by all means... but is it a good idea to use a rod with no line to try to catch a nuclear attack sub? It's only been 23 minutes. I think you'll have your pick of opponents by tomorrow. There's probably a queue forming right now. I know I want to see it... popcorn is on me. Jose... if Kevin had used anything more than assertions and circular logic, I might've considered it... As it is, he's not worthy of debating in the Arena. (hell, he's not even worthy of the Colloseum) KH> I am baffled! You could use all that against me in debate if you are so confident in it! I have offered lines or headings of evidence, each of which can be fleshed out. So I will answer your question. One does not necessarily get from Supernatural Agent or First Cause to the God of the Bible instantly. But, it is one of the first steps. A good case requires cumulative evidence. For example, consider this syllogism: 1). Things which begin to exist have a cause. 2). The universe began to exist. 3). Therefore, the universe had a cause. Now, we are a few steps away from arriving at the God of the Bible, but we are in the ballpark. In fact, we are on the field! What I would give evidence for in a debate is that the agent required is identical to the God of Christian or Classic Theism. But no one takes me up on it so far. Just nagging! LOL! Kevin H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration. 1). There is good reason to believe God exists. (1) Why is it necessary to believe God exists, and likewise (2) what is lost, absent, or otherwise not achieved when one does not believe God exists? 2). The New Testament documents are reliable. Which NT documents from which bible? 3). Being reliable, they reliably report the life and words of Christ. The bible reports a fraction of the life of Jesus... 4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead. ...and not much else. 5). Therefore we can conclude Jesus was the divine Son of God and the predicted Messiah. Which god? There are many gods, and I get confused as to which you speak of. 6). As such, he is authoritative in all he affirms. Appeal to Authority. 7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament. Circular argument. Why do you use the bible (the supposed "word of God") as evidence thereof, and nothing else? 8). Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God. This is the infamous circular argument, which you say you avoid. Being jesus is written about in the the bible, this affirms the bible is the word of god? You argue that the bible is the evidence of what the bible says! 9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny. Are you serious? I bet you are serious. 10). Therefore, as a cumulative case, we can conclude that the Bible is the word of God.[/color] Wait... what evidence have you presented that (1) the bible is the 'word of God', and (2) that the God of which is portrayed as author of the bible, is indeed the Christian God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted December 6, 2005 Author Share Posted December 6, 2005 I messaged Kevin and asked why he’s ignoring my questions He said he finds my avatar of me having sex with Jesus offensive. I told him it was Jesus and Marge perrin of trading spouse doubt that makes a difference. Them fundies are so sensitive shit What a cop out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 KH> I am baffled! You could use all that against me in debate if you are so confident in it! I have offered lines or headings of evidence, each of which can be fleshed out. So I will answer your question. One does not necessarily get from Supernatural Agent or First Cause to the God of the Bible instantly. But, it is one of the first steps. A good case requires cumulative evidence. For example, consider this syllogism: 1). Things which begin to exist have a cause. 2). The universe began to exist. 3). Therefore, the universe had a cause. Now, we are a few steps away from arriving at the God of the Bible, but we are in the ballpark. In fact, we are on the field! What I would give evidence for in a debate is that the agent required is identical to the God of Christian or Classic Theism. But no one takes me up on it so far. Just nagging! LOL! Kevin H Since this seems to be headed toward the old and oft rehashed 'First Cause' argument, how is it you know that God initiated such a cause? I'm not asking where you read about it (Gen 1:1); I'm asking how do you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 KH> I am baffled! You could use all that against me in debate if you are so confident in it! I have offered lines or headings of evidence, each of which can be fleshed out. So I will answer your question. One does not necessarily get from Supernatural Agent or First Cause to the God of the Bible instantly. But, it is one of the first steps. A good case requires cumulative evidence.Evidence is one thing you lack...For example, consider this syllogism: 1). Things which begin to exist have a cause. 2). The universe began to exist. 3). Therefore, the universe had a cause. #1 is an unproven assertion. All we can say is that things which begin to exist in this universe have a cause as far as current knowledge indicates. #2 is the assumption that the universe had a beginning AND that it needed a cause. There's no proof that it did... #3 is based on unproven assumption and assertion. Now, we are a few steps away from arriving at the God of the Bible, but we are in the ballpark. In fact, we are on the field! What I would give evidence for in a debate is that the agent required is identical to the God of Christian or Classic Theism. This is why I won't debate you... You are making massive leaps of assumption and assuming that you've proven it. Here... this is what will happen if you manage to find a debate partner... A:. Is Christianity Credible? Since Christianity is based on the information in the Bible and since the Bible is known to include fakes, errors and contradictions, Christianity is not credible. (you have to prove the Bible is credible before you can even start about Christianity being credible) B: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Since there is no evidence outside the Bible for this, and since all other tales of people rising from the dead are fictional, logically the answer is no. (again, you need to prove the Bible is correct on this... until you do, you're going to get your arse kicked) C:. Does God Exist? This is an interesting one... but it depends what you mean by God. If you mean BibleGod, forget it. Since something which contradicts itself cannot exist, BibleGod (who contradicts itself with the Omnipotent claim) cannot exist. It's taken me two minutes to destroy all three topics... and I'm not even trying. But no one takes me up on it so far. Just nagging! LOL! Thanks... this is what I picture you like as you say that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willybilly30 Posted December 7, 2005 Author Share Posted December 7, 2005 Go hide your head in the sand like an ostrich Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Hey all, Since Kevin here doesn't seem to understand what constitutes verifiable evidence, as he seems to think his LINES are evidence....(yes, we know the difference between "claim" and "evidence", he apparantly doesn't) I know our great minds here don't even want to bother much with the idea of a formal debate with this mook. For very good reason. Most of us recall that offensive sham of a debate between Asimov and Razor: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4269 http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4268 In case anyone has forgotten. But we of course are in a Catch-22. If no one debates this kook, he will try to claim it as some sort of victory (the absence of logic is indeed baffling), DESPITE there being no contest to be victorious over. Sorry Kevin, we've seen patterns like your's before. We are neither surprised, or impressed. Nothing about you is unique. Kind of tedious instead. I sure don't want to waste 2 days of research and argument formulation on....."The bible says this...so it's true! Hyuck! Hyuck!". Why not try addressing some of the topics brought up in here? I've yet to see you truly come up with a rebuttal to anything. Instead you just change the subject. And you think you could hold your own in the Arena? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 But no one takes me up on it so far. Just nagging! LOL! Thanks... this is what I picture you like as you say that... It could be worse.... I pictured something along the lines of this pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I seriously hate you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I seriously hate you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin H Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 [ quote name='white_raven23' date='Dec 6 2005, 07:42 PM' post='115271]Hey all, Since Kevin here doesn't seem to understand what constitutes verifiable evidence, as he seems to think his LINES are evidence....(yes, we know the difference between "claim" and "evidence", he apparantly doesn't) I know our great minds here don't even want to bother much with the idea of a formal debate with this mook. For very good reason. Most of us recall that offensive sham of a debate between Asimov and Razor: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4269 http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4268 In case anyone has forgotten. But we of course are in a Catch-22. If no one debates this kook, he will try to claim it as some sort of victory (the absence of logic is indeed baffling), DESPITE there being no contest to be victorious over. Sorry Kevin, we've seen patterns like your's before. We are neither surprised, or impressed. Nothing about you is unique. Kind of tedious instead. I sure don't want to waste 2 days of research and argument formulation on....."The bible says this...so it's true! Hyuck! Hyuck!". Why not try addressing some of the topics brought up in here? I've yet to see you truly come up with a rebuttal to anything. Instead you just change the subject. And you think you could hold your own in the Arena? KH> You are free to take me up on my offer, but as I said, I am not interested in a grudge match. That is what you apparently prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts