(July 7, 2016 at 8:56 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 7, 2016 at 6:28 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: How is a of third person hearsay (the new testament) better evidence than first person belief (ufo "abductees")? At least the ufo people can talk about what they think happen to them, the best you can say for a few books of the new testament is that they are based off letters wriiten by a man who never met his religious leader, thirty years after that leader's death, while at doctrinal odds (in his own words) with those who knew this leader. And then you've got the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy.

Ufology has more going for it in evidential terms than christianity.

Why is the NT third-person hearsay? Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses. The gospels editors borrowed from even earlier sources so those sources would certainly be from near the time of the events. UFO abductees do not have corroborating testimony such as the 27 different documents from 8 authors and a pre-existing church that believed the same thing. This is how historical events work. By your standard, we could not believe anything about history ever.

Please present your scholarly backup for: "the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy." (when I say scholarly, something more than a 1-off, Christian bashing, obviously biased, never been published in academic journals, popular level book-writing, author). Then we can discuss it.

On Mark Pocaras has answered you. No need for me to repeat him. On your wikipedia definition, it's wrong. If you have evidence that something exists you don't believe in it. I neither believe in th chair I'm sitting on, the phone I'm posting on nor the pork steak dinner I just et because I have sufficient evidence they all exist. I do not believe in things that can be shown to exist, and neither should you.

Edit: Your 27 corroborating documents are at best 27 tertiary source documents for which we have no primary nor secondary source corroboration, and we know that those 27 documents have been significantly doctored in order to conform to a theology which was largely created after the religion was adopted by the Roman state.

(July 7, 2016 at 9:18 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: On Mark Pocaras has answered you.

My bold.
I... just...ARGHHHHH!

(July 7, 2016 at 9:22 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 7, 2016 at 9:18 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: On Mark Pocaras has answered you.

My bold.
I... just...ARGHHHHH!  

---

jk!

---

Crap, I'm sorry. How many hail Marys should I say?

(July 7, 2016 at 9:31 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(July 7, 2016 at 9:22 am)pocaracas Wrote: My bold.
I... just...ARGHHHHH!  

---

jk!

---

Crap, I'm sorry. How many hail Marys should I say?

Hail Marys?
No, no, no, no.... I'm not that archaic.
I have a sense of humor.

Hail poca!
Hail pocar!
Hail pocara!
Hail pocarac!
Hail pocaraca!
Hail pocaracas!

(July 7, 2016 at 9:18 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: On Mark Pocaras has answered you. No need for me to repeat him. On your wikipedia definition, it's wrong. If you have evidence that something exists you don't believe in it. I neither believe in th chair I'm sitting on, the phone I'm posting on nor the pork steak dinner I just et because I have sufficient evidence they all exist. I do not believe in things that can be shown to exist, and neither should you.

Edit: Your 27 corroborating documents are at best 27 tertiary source documents for which we have no primary nor secondary source corroboration, and we know that those 27 documents have been significantly doctored in order to conform to a theology which was largely created after the religion was adopted by the Roman state.

What is your evidence that they have been significantly doctored? There are some changes, but my understanding is that these do not effect doctrine. Also, because of the abundance of manuscripts from a across a geographical divide, we can often track many changes to a particular time and place (sometimes to a particular scribe). And most of the discrepancies are insignificant, anyway.

I don't find that your definition you are using for "believe" to be all that common. Would it be accurate to say, that you do not believe in gravity? Would you feel the need to clarify what is meant if so?

Why should anyone need to believe in Gravity? When I hold a ball in the air and let go, it falls. Ta da! Gravity. No beliefs necessary.

(July 7, 2016 at 9:42 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why should anyone need to believe in Gravity?  When I hold a ball in the air and let go, it falls.  Ta da!   Gravity.  No beliefs necessary.

I think that this usage does give new meaning, to the definition heard often here, that atheism is a lack of belief in God!

(July 7, 2016 at 8:58 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 7, 2016 at 8:39 am)SteveII Wrote: Which authors don't claim Jesus rose from the dead? Mark? How does the 'original' verses 1-8 not claim Jesus rose from the dead? Did you remember there were 27 different documents? They would have ALL had to been significantly altered to remove the resurrection of Jesus. There is simply no evidence that happened.

Mark... why not?...
What was the original ending?
" When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

Can you spot the problem here?
1 - They just decided to go do that but wouldn't even have remembered that there was a huge ass stone blocking the entrance. Either they're all 3 a bit dumb, or... like many others, the story is fabricated, with a particular objective.
2 - "Oh yay, someone else got the stone out for us... and told us that 'he has risen' and went off into the world" No need to take a look in the tomb, then... this unknown figure is totally believable.
3 - Oh... instead of rejoicing, they cower in fear, flee, and TELL NO ONE!! How does this tale come to be in writing, then?

Bah.... I don't care to discuss the stupid book. It was written with a purpose in mind.
It is astonishing that that purpose is still working.

So you are changing your tune. You said Mark does not claim that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, it does (see bold). Your response: they told no one...because of their fear. Obviously their fear wore off and they eventually did tell someone--we have the account.

At the end of the day at least we all agree that there's definitely no God [emoji6]

(July 7, 2016 at 9:18 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(July 7, 2016 at 8:56 am)SteveII Wrote: Why is the NT third-person hearsay? Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses. The gospels editors borrowed from even earlier sources so those sources would certainly be from near the time of the events. UFO abductees do not have corroborating testimony such as the 27 different documents from 8 authors and a pre-existing church that believed the same thing. This is how historical events work. By your standard, we could not believe anything about history ever.

Please present your scholarly backup for: "the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy." (when I say scholarly, something more than a 1-off, Christian bashing, obviously biased, never been published in academic journals, popular level book-writing, author). Then we can discuss it.

On Mark Pocaras has answered you. No need for me to repeat him. On your wikipedia definition, it's wrong. If you have evidence that something exists you don't believe in it. I neither believe in th chair I'm sitting on, the phone I'm posting on nor the pork steak dinner I just et because I have sufficient evidence they all exist. I do not believe in things that can be shown to exist, and neither should you.

Edit: Your 27 corroborating documents are at best 27 tertiary source documents for which we have no primary nor secondary source corroboration, and we know that those 27 documents have been significantly doctored in order to conform to a theology which was largely created after the religion was adopted by the Roman state.

So, 1) you want to redefine belief and 2) you have no backup for your assertion highlighted above but are willing to reassert it.