Atheists are mentally ill

[Sword of Christ]

Or- and please, try to follow me on this one- it was made up. Or it was embellished after the fact. Or the witnesses were fabricated, or their stories were twisted by their perception of events, or any number of other things.

It's technically possible but it's still going to be far less likely to be a fabrication than say the revelations of Mohammed, Joesph Smith and L Ron Hubbard due to the complexity of the situation and the number of people involved. So if you had to pick one religion that was based on God and hiss revelation to humanity then you will probably have to agree that this is the one to go for. There are for other reasons for choosing this one specifically but at any rate this a is a good start.

Of course this isn't going to be compelling enough by itself to convince an atheist/naturalist or perhaps a deist of anything. The first thing you would have to do is take out all those specific supporting belief structures and assumptions of reality you have assembled/constructed before something like this can be driven in and conquer yo from within in the name of Christ. You know in Return of the Jedi when they had to take out the power generator on Endor before they could go in and attack the Death Stars power core? It will be like that. While your force field is fully operational nothing will get through.

You are assuming, from the outset, that what was described in the story is literally true, and then challenging the atheist to come up with a way for this real and true event to have happened without a miracle. You can't do that, because we have no confirmation that the event actually occurred at all, just an old storybook.

That's because you're making all these naturalist assumptions about the nature of reality. You get to the resurrection once these assumptions have been cleared away. And they are just assumptions they don't necessarily just represent the "scientific worldview" or the "default setting "everyone is born with and you must maintain this primal rational purity or whatever. The existence of God is a fully rational and scientifically compatible concept and the association of miraculous events and a loving human relationship with this God is a fully rational and scientifically compatible concept as well. Nothing about the nature of reality would be violated if this is in fact the nature of reality. On this understanding you can accept the resurrection of Christ and the empty tomb and our eternal salvation through the grace and love of God, which is the central "Good News" of the gospels.

[Faith No More]

I see we have completely ignored my insistence you back up any claims. Every post of your is shameless bare assertion after shameless bare assertion.

Which leads me to have to ask, what is your objective? Are you here to have a constructive discussion, or are you here to simply proselytize to the godless? Because if you want to engage in the former, support your evidence. If it is the latter you desire, please, stick a sock in your mouth.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Or- and please, try to follow me on this one- it was made up. Or it was embellished after the fact. Or the witnesses were fabricated, or their stories were twisted by their perception of events, or any number of other things.

It's technically possible but it's still going to be far less likely to be a fabrication than say the revelations of Mohammed, Joesph Smith and L Ron Hubbard due to the complexity of the situation and the number of people involved. So if you had to pick one religion that was based on God and hiss revelation to humanity then you will probably have to agree that this is the one to go for. There are for other reasons for choosing this one specifically but at any rate this a is a good start.

Summary: Yes it can be made up. But if you want to pick made up crap to believe in I think it's more believable than other made up crap.

Of course this isn't going to be compelling enough by itself to convince an atheist/naturalist or perhaps a deist of anything. The first thing you would have to do is take out all those specific supporting belief structures and assumptions of reality you have assembled/constructed before something like this can be driven in and conquer yo from within in the name of Christ. You know in Return of the Jedi when they had to take out the power generator on Endor before they could go in and attack the Death Stars power core? It will be like that. While your force field is fully operational nothing will get through.

Summary: It doesn't fit in with reality as you know it, so you need to reject reality in order to accept this made up crap.

You are assuming, from the outset, that what was described in the story is literally true, and then challenging the atheist to come up with a way for this real and true event to have happened without a miracle. You can't do that, because we have no confirmation that the event actually occurred at all, just an old storybook.

That's because you're making all these naturalist assumptions about the nature of reality. You get to the resurrection once these assumptions have been cleared away. And they are just assumptions they don't necessarily just represent the "scientific worldview" or the "default setting "everyone is born with and you must maintain this primal rational purity or whatever. The existence of God is a fully rational and scientifically compatible concept and the association of miraculous events and a loving human relationship with this God is a fully rational and scientifically compatible concept as well. Nothing about the nature of reality would be violated if this is in fact the nature of reality. On this understanding you can accept the resurrection of Christ and the empty tomb and our eternal salvation through the grace and love of God, which is the central "Good News" of the gospels.

Summary: Your idea of reality needs to be cleared away before you'll believe the resurrection is possible. Oh btw, your reality is not in sync with scientific facts, although I have no proof of that. Scientific facts allow for the existence of god, you have to take my word for it, no proof of that either.




What compelling argument! It's a wonder there are nonChristians at all!

[Sword of Christ]

Let me remind you what happened:
you: all morality and good things came from Christ.

No it comes God who provides with the Moral Law. Deviation from the Moral Law results in sin and potentially evil. Not that sin automatically means evil what it means is "to make a mistake". It so happens of course that Christ is God, as described in John 1:3 here we go.

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

So naturally the morality of Jesus the Christ is also the morality of God himself right there. Everything he taught is what God taught us. So that's what I'm what I'm saying here.

me: what about countries that have other religions?
you: all those religions are similar to Christianity that's why.
me: if they are Christianity stole from them because they predate Christianity.
you: The parts where they're similar they got from the holy spirit, others they just got it wrong.

Well yes, otherwise they're all equally as valid but that would be something of a knockout punch you would be delivering if you could demonstrate that. But if you can name a faith I could tell you a reason why Christianity is better and you would probably agree with me. That's the test right there.

Like really? So every religion in this world that preached anything you agree with came from the holy spirit, and if they preached anything that you disagree with they got that part wrong. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. You're just saying that because you cannot explain why morality is so similar in different cultures and you're twisting reality to attribute all the "good things" to your god.

Again if you want to propose a religion/religious founding figure with the superior morality and view of life you can have a go.

Virgin birth is in the bible.

So is Noah's Ark you don't have believe 100% the entire whole thing. The birth narrative to me seems largely symbolic anyway and it's in only two of the four gospels. This was an open question historically within the Church and the Catholics only officially accepted it as dogma in the 19th century. I would tend to believe he had a normal human birth if like us he was a normal human man. There is an argument that this wouldn't make him "supernatural enough" to be the Messiah but I would say being fully one with God as God as part of the Trinity makes him more than supernatural enough as he is. The Old Testament prophecy that says the Messiah will be born of a virgin can be read as "young woman" the Hebrew word for virgin and young woman being one and the same. But id someone wants to have faith as Christian that he was born of a virgin I think that's perfectly fine, perhaps he was who knows? But that's my view on that.

If you want to treat something as true because it is in the bible, then everything in the bible has to be true.

It can be true in the sense that it's an archetypal hero myth narrative that sets the scene of the coming of Christ into the world and humanities ultimate salvation through him. There are questionable doubts over there was a census of all Roman citizens to their home towns to be fair. But there is true and there is true. The Bible isn't a book of Harry Potter it's the word of God in some sense or other.

Actually you're so dishonest you'll probably try to sneak this in again and again. But ummm ... no. If virgin birth can be written but did not happen, then the same goes for the resurrection. Did not happen.

No because there is a good case that the resurrection did actually happen. That is the only miracle you really have to believe in to be a Christian. It may not have happened exactly as described and the original accounts seem to end at the discovery of the empty tomb. The resurrection account being added slightly later. But either way that's the main event there anything else is a bit academic.

Until you prove the bible to be a true account of history, there were no eyewitness reports. I've already said they're equally ridiculous, you don't believe that because you grew up in a culture where so many people believe in it, but it is equally ridiculous.

There is true accounts of history in there and we know of Christianity and it's origins as a historical event. There is some metaphor and symbolism in there as well and the gospel of John is particularly heavy with this. But it does give the first full account of the Trinity and Christs divine status.

No I don't. No it wasn't, you haven't showed that it was.

The beginning of Christianity as a movement within Judaism wasn't a historical event? Or you mean the life and crucifixion of a man called Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth wasn't a historical event? The discovery of the empty tomb wasn't an historical event? (if it wasn't why didn't someone just point out the body still inside there?) You mean Saint Paul's vision on the road to Damascus and his mission to the Gentiles wasn't an historical event? I think you find it all was but you have to explain all these details and all this came to be without it being any kind of significant supernatural event from God. There is quite a lot there to explain there. Now other religions have some kind of hazy origin lost in the vast reaches of ancient history or are based on some guy who said some stuff. What they say may well be very good, but lets see them return to life from death and say something. There has to be something to distinguish the genuine article from the competition and that is why the resurrection of Christ is critical. If that didn't happen then Christianity is a croc, and says this in the NT itself.

I'll say this one more time: they're all equally ridiculous.

You think Christianity is equal to Scientology?

What the fuck is naturalism?

The belief that the natural world, natural processes and the byproduct of natural processes is all there is to exist. This is essentially what you yourself believe, as an atheist.

If someone can properly explain what supernatural is and show that it exists, it'd be natural.

It would be beyond the natural world as we understand it and therefore be a little more "super". Of course the resurrection of Christ would have to be a supernatural event as there would be no way to do this naturally. And if you think about it, God is a fairly supernatural kind of guy. If God was the natural universe he would just be the universe.

Supernatural is just another word used to make people like you feel better, because otherwise you'd have to say, I believe in imaginary things.

Well it's good to feel better, better in a real moral compassionate sense in the loving God. As long as what you believe is actually true that's the trick right there. To do this you need to demonstrate how Christianity is the most substantive of the religions in the world and demonstrate the flaws with the naturalist worldview, which if you really look into it doesn't really hold water. There is still going to be a little bit of faith involved but faith is a good thing to have, providing it's not a blind faith you have no good reason to have.

Atheism is the lack of belief. Get that through your head. Your bullshit isn't that hard to refute, it really is so ridiculous that's why we don't believe in it.

No I think once you get to the stage where you're properly hardcore and arguing against the existence of God/theism/supernatural/immortality/freewill/objective morality/purpose to the universe and all life then what you have is the full equivalent of a religious belief, we can call it scientific naturalism. I think like any religious belief there some things here you have to take with a little bit of faith. Assuming you don't God exists of course.

It's not random chance. Is that what joseph did? So where did he collect the sperm of the holy ghost?

If the universe wasn't purposefully created by God then it's a coincidence that it happened to be 100% perfectly ideally constructed and laid out for complex biological life to form. That would be us right here, we would be the byproduct not the intent. If God doe exist (and he does) and did create the universe (and he did) and he had something in mind (ourselves) then the situation is somewhat different in nature. I'd confidently claim that the evidence we have strongly supports the notion of a God or intelligence created natural order in a universe that was created for life.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I think this guy's a troll.

[Gil Gaudia]

Let me remind you what happened:
you: all morality and good things came from Christ.

No it comes God who provides with the Moral Law. Deviation from the Moral Law results in sin and potentially evil. Not that sin automatically means evil what it means is "to make a mistake". It so happens of course that Christ is God, as described in John 1:3 here we go.

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

So naturally the morality of Jesus the Christ is also the morality of God himself right there. Everything he taught is what God taught us. So that's what I'm what I'm saying here.

me: what about countries that have other religions?
you: all those religions are similar to Christianity that's why.
me: if they are Christianity stole from them because they predate Christianity.
you: The parts where they're similar they got from the holy spirit, others they just got it wrong.

Well yes, otherwise they're all equally as valid but that would be something of a knockout punch you would be delivering if you could demonstrate that. But if you can name a faith I could tell you a reason why Christianity is better and you would probably agree with me. That's the test right there.

Like really? So every religion in this world that preached anything you agree with came from the holy spirit, and if they preached anything that you disagree with they got that part wrong. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. You're just saying that because you cannot explain why morality is so similar in different cultures and you're twisting reality to attribute all the "good things" to your god.

Again if you want to propose a religion/religious founding figure with the superior morality and view of life you can have a go.

Virgin birth is in the bible.

So is Noah's Ark you don't have believe 100% the entire whole thing. The birth narrative to me seems largely symbolic anyway and it's in only two of the four gospels. This was an open question historically within the Church and the Catholics only officially accepted it as dogma in the 19th century. I would tend to believe he had a normal human birth if like us he was a normal human man. There is an argument that this wouldn't make him "supernatural enough" to be the Messiah but I would say being fully one with God as God as part of the Trinity makes him more than supernatural enough as he is. The Old Testament prophecy that says the Messiah will be born of a virgin can be read as "young woman" the Hebrew word for virgin and young woman being one and the same. But id someone wants to have faith as Christian that he was born of a virgin I think that's perfectly fine, perhaps he was who knows? But that's my view on that.

If you want to treat something as true because it is in the bible, then everything in the bible has to be true.

It can be true in the sense that it's an archetypal hero myth narrative that sets the scene of the coming of Christ into the world and humanities ultimate salvation through him. There are questionable doubts over there was a census of all Roman citizens to their home towns to be fair. But there is true and there is true. The Bible isn't a book of Harry Potter it's the word of God in some sense or other.

Actually you're so dishonest you'll probably try to sneak this in again and again. But ummm ... no. If virgin birth can be written but did not happen, then the same goes for the resurrection. Did not happen.

No because there is a good case that the resurrection did actually happen. That is the only miracle you really have to believe in to be a Christian. It may not have happened exactly as described and the original accounts seem to end at the discovery of the empty tomb. The resurrection account being added slightly later. But either way that's the main event there anything else is a bit academic.

Until you prove the bible to be a true account of history, there were no eyewitness reports. I've already said they're equally ridiculous, you don't believe that because you grew up in a culture where so many people believe in it, but it is equally ridiculous.

There is true accounts of history in there and we know of Christianity and it's origins as a historical event. There is some metaphor and symbolism in there as well and the gospel of John is particularly heavy with this. But it does give the first full account of the Trinity and Christs divine status.

No I don't. No it wasn't, you haven't showed that it was.

The beginning of Christianity as a movement within Judaism wasn't a historical event? Or you mean the life and crucifixion of a man called Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth wasn't a historical event? The discovery of the empty tomb wasn't an historical event? (if it wasn't why didn't someone just point out the body still inside there?) You mean Saint Paul's vision on the road to Damascus and his mission to the Gentiles wasn't an historical event? I think you find it all was but you have to explain all these details and all this came to be without it being any kind of significant supernatural event from God. There is quite a lot there to explain there. Now other religions have some kind of hazy origin lost in the vast reaches of ancient history or are based on some guy who said some stuff. What they say may well be very good, but lets see them return to life from death and say something. There has to be something to distinguish the genuine article from the competition and that is why the resurrection of Christ is critical. If that didn't happen then Christianity is a croc, and says this in the NT itself.

I'll say this one more time: they're all equally ridiculous.

You think Christianity is equal to Scientology?

What the fuck is naturalism?

The belief that the natural world, natural processes and the byproduct of natural processes is all there is to exist. This is essentially what you yourself believe, as an atheist.

If someone can properly explain what supernatural is and show that it exists, it'd be natural.

It would be beyond the natural world as we understand it and therefore be a little more "super". Of course the resurrection of Christ would have to be a supernatural event as there would be no way to do this naturally. And if you think about it, God is a fairly supernatural kind of guy. If God was the natural universe he would just be the universe.

Supernatural is just another word used to make people like you feel better, because otherwise you'd have to say, I believe in imaginary things.

Well it's good to feel better, better in a real moral compassionate sense in the loving God. As long as what you believe is actually true that's the trick right there. To do this you need to demonstrate how Christianity is the most substantive of the religions in the world and demonstrate the flaws with the naturalist worldview, which if you really look into it doesn't really hold water. There is still going to be a little bit of faith involved but faith is a good thing to have, providing it's not a blind faith you have no good reason to have.

Atheism is the lack of belief. Get that through your head. Your bullshit isn't that hard to refute, it really is so ridiculous that's why we don't believe in it.

No I think once you get to the stage where you're properly hardcore and arguing against the existence of God/theism/supernatural/immortality/freewill/objective morality/purpose to the universe and all life then what you have is the full equivalent of a religious belief, we can call it scientific naturalism. I think like any religious belief there some things here you have to take with a little bit of faith. Assuming you don't God exists of course.

It's not random chance. Is that what joseph did? So where did he collect the sperm of the holy ghost?

If the universe wasn't purposefully created by God then it's a coincidence that it happened to be 100% perfectly ideally constructed and laid out for complex biological life to form. That would be us right here, we would be the byproduct not the intent. If God doe exist (and he does) and did create the universe (and he did) and he had something in mind (ourselves) then the situation is somewhat different in nature. I'd confidently claim that the evidence we have strongly supports the notion of a God or intelligence created natural order in a universe that was created for life.

I'm convinced after reading your stuff on several forums that you are a master at sophistry and are not really interested in an exchange of ideas as much as you are a lover of the destruction of other people's balls . . . especially atheists. And to the degree that you are able to suck them (and me) into your semantic legerdemain, I applaud you.

[Angrboda]

Actually you're so dishonest you'll probably try to sneak this in again and again. But ummm ... no. If virgin birth can be written but did not happen, then the same goes for the resurrection. Did not happen.

No because there is a good case that the resurrection did actually happen. That is the only miracle you really have to believe in to be a Christian. It may not have happened exactly as described and the original accounts seem to end at the discovery of the empty tomb. The resurrection account being added slightly later. But either way that's the main event there anything else is a bit academic.

An empty tomb has many explanations that do not require a supernatural event. An empty tomb gets you nothing, and as you admit, the resurrection stories are a later embellishment, and therefore suspect. It's worth noting that in the first centuries after the alleged death and resurrection of the hypothetical Jesus, there was no veneration of his tomb. This is odd because even for figures who were similarly said to have been resurrected or taken up in antiquity, there is often tomb veneration. Perhaps the best explanation for the lack of tomb veneration is that the story of the empty tomb didn't develop until many years after the supposed event. There is no tomb veneration, because by the time the story of the empty tomb was created, nobody knew where the original tomb actually was. If you actually know the location of Christ's tomb and can prove that it is Christ tomb, that would be helpful for your case. Failing that, what we have is a claim that a tomb was empty (made many years after the event by an anonymous author), with no actual tomb to examine. That's pretty weak.

The beginning of Christianity as a movement within Judaism wasn't a historical event?

The beginning of Christianity is not a supernatural event and therefore needs no supernatural explanation.

Or you mean the life and crucifixion of a man called Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth wasn't a historical event?

Not a supernatural event.

The discovery of the empty tomb wasn't an historical event?

Not a supernatural event.

You mean Saint Paul's vision on the road to Damascus and his mission to the Gentiles wasn't an historical event?

Again, not a supernatural event.

I think you find it all was but you have to explain all these details and all this came to be without it being any kind of significant supernatural event from God.

Since none of the laundry list of events you've given is supernatural in character, explaining them without reference to the supernatural is trivially easy. That you think the task would be difficult only suggests that you're a confused idiot who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

[pocaracas]

Oh.... about the empty tomb... here's the REAL explanation!





Millions of japanese people can't be wrong!

[Gil Gaudia]

Someone please help me to understand who is saying what to whom. I think I am writing to myself . . . but considering some of what I have read, may be my best option. I am referring to the words of "Sword of Christ."

[Cyberman]

I think this guy's a troll.

Loquaciously expressive for the species though.