Oh, so you can't respond to them with any credible sources? There's a fucking surprise.

(July 12, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Oh, so you can't respond to them with any credible sources? There's a fucking surprise.

Sorry. I have looked up statistics. Its possible for a prisoners to commit serious crimes and maybe dont even see it as a bad thing, while at the same time claiming being religious.

There is no way to test sincerety and sainity of prisoners, regarding claims about their religious beliefs.

Religion indocrinates people in to sacrifice of their resources for the common good and judgment day faith. It doesnt promote crime(except for Jihadis).

(July 12, 2016 at 1:15 pm)robvalue Wrote: Mind you, I am thoroughly prepared, should I be forced to enter a combat survival situation.

https://youtu.be/AoqZgcsF1lc

(July 12, 2016 at 6:07 pm)purplepurpose Wrote:

(July 12, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Oh, so you can't respond to them with any credible sources? There's a fucking surprise.

Sorry. I have looked up statistics. Its possible for a prisoners to commit serious crimes and maybe dont even see it as a bad thing, while at the same time claiming being religious.

There is no way to test sincerety and sainity of prisoners, regarding claims about their religious beliefs.

Religion indocrinates people in to sacrifice of their resources for the common good and judgment day faith. It doesnt promote crime(except for Jihadis).

So, you're just pulling a really convoluted "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  Cool.

(July 12, 2016 at 5:43 pm)purplepurpose Wrote:

(July 12, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: But you never addressed FAF, Kevin and Thumps point.

If religion usually indoctrinates people trough fear in hell, to make them more compassionate and caring. Then how the fuck such person managed to commit serious crimes if he believes in God and his judgment? He cannot justify It to himself.

Probably because talk is cheap. Being religious doesn't make one immune to the very human failing of hypocrisy.

(July 12, 2016 at 6:07 pm)purplepurpose Wrote:

(July 12, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Oh, so you can't respond to them with any credible sources? There's a fucking surprise.

Sorry. I have looked up statistics. Its possible for a prisoners to commit serious crimes and maybe dont even see it as a bad thing, while at the same time claiming being religious.

There is no way to test sincerety and sainity of prisoners, regarding claims about their religious beliefs.

Religion indocrinates people in to sacrifice of their resources for the common good and judgment day faith. It doesnt promote crime(except for Jihadis).

You're disregarding the numbers solely on the basis of a hypothetical because you don't like what they say about your argument.

You'd best get a set of earplugs. Your arms are going to get tired after a while.

If 1.5 billion people can believe in Islam, then people can believe just about anything. It's a testament to our primitive origins.

(July 12, 2016 at 3:43 pm)madog Wrote:

(July 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that a circumstantial case can be made, that Jesus was the Son of God.  And some of it may be considered empirical evidence (seeing the miracles). 

Are you talking about a modern day automobile?   There where steam powered vehicles during Napoleon's time.   But yes, my first question would be, why they thought it was Napoleon Bonaparte.

You are being very dishonest here, you stated "The Gospel is based on empirical evidence as well" the Gospel is based on the Crucifixion of the "Son of God" .... Did you just make that statement to win another argument and hoped it would slip by?

I have asked for the empirical evidence for the Gospel because you said it exists ... not evidence that a some ordinary man was nailed to a cross, this is nothing special in Roman times and isn't the teachings of the Gospel ....

You are now saying "I think that a circumstantial case can be made, that Jesus was the Son of God" .... why are you wasting my time?



As for "steam powered vehicle" question, more of your equivocation   a) I explicitly stated the victim CLAIMED he was Napoleon Bonaparte  b) even if it was stated it was a one legged donkey drawn vehicle, their accounts were inconsistent with much stronger historical evidence ...

Wow... are you looking for the quickest opportunity to attack my character.   I can understand your point, and I do think that Jesus being the Son of God, is integral to the Gospel message.  However you are the one who brought up the topic "Son of God"; not I.  I don't know what empirical evidence you would expect to specifically show that Jesus was the "Son of God".  You can read what the authors attested to concerning him, and see if the evidence matches the claim.   I also notice that you only mention half of the Gospel.   Just so you are aware, the Gospel is not just that Jesus was just crucified to a cross as I referenced in 1 Corinthians 15.  You say I'm wasting your time, but you are not imbuing a lot of confidence in a good discussion yourself.

And just to clarify, I mentioned the steam powered vehicle, to ascertain the "when" of the claim in your statement concerning Napoleon.  This could be important to determine if the people making the claim where in a position to know the things they where claiming.

(July 12, 2016 at 10:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 12, 2016 at 3:43 pm)madog Wrote: You are being very dishonest here, you stated "The Gospel is based on empirical evidence as well" the Gospel is based on the Crucifixion of the "Son of God" .... Did you just make that statement to win another argument and hoped it would slip by?

I have asked for the empirical evidence for the Gospel because you said it exists ... not evidence that a some ordinary man was nailed to a cross, this is nothing special in Roman times and isn't the teachings of the Gospel ....

You are now saying "I think that a circumstantial case can be made, that Jesus was the Son of God" .... why are you wasting my time?



As for "steam powered vehicle" question, more of your equivocation   a) I explicitly stated the victim CLAIMED he was Napoleon Bonaparte  b) even if it was stated it was a one legged donkey drawn vehicle, their accounts were inconsistent with much stronger historical evidence ...

Wow... are you looking for the quickest opportunity to attack my character.   I can understand your point, and I do think that Jesus being the Son of God, is integral to the Gospel message.  However you are the one who brought up the topic "Son of God"; not I.  I don't know what empirical evidence you would expect to specifically show that Jesus was the "Son of God".  You can read what the authors attested to concerning him, and see if the evidence matches the claim.   I also notice that you only mention half of the Gospel.   Just so you are aware, the Gospel is not just that Jesus was just crucified to a cross as I referenced in 1 Corinthians 15.  You say I'm wasting your time, but you are not imbuing a lot of confidence in a good discussion yourself.

And just to clarify, I mentioned the steam powered vehicle, to ascertain the "when" of the claim in your statement concerning Napoleon.  This could be important to determine if the people making the claim where in a position to know the things they where claiming.

You said as regards evolution you could show empirical evidence for the Gospels .... If you take out the claim that Jesus was the son of God the rest is just a story about a stone age preacher that did some tricks and got crucified
.

(July 12, 2016 at 10:35 pm)madog Wrote: You said as regards evolution you could show empirical evidence for the Gospels .... If you take out the claim that Jesus was the son of God the rest is just a story about a stone age preacher that did some tricks and got crucified

Are we now taking out any claims that are not directly empirical?  Are they removed from consideration all together?  I am following your lead on this, but I would caution against creating rules so strict, that little can hold up to them.I will hold you to it later. Under such conditions, I don't think that the fossil record will hold up as anything more than fancy rocks, and would be discounted as empirical evidence for evolution.

But back to the claim of the Gospel.   So.... I agree, that there is not direct empirical evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (unless you count what was heard during His baptism).  And that it is a circumstantial case, based on the empirical evidence, and His claims.  So then what we are left with, is the evidence gathered through the senses for the miracles that where done, that He was crucified, and resurrected.  You seem to keep leaving out that last part.... Why is that?