(August 19, 2016 at 1:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: You are quoting me, and asking me that?  lolwut?

Looks that way from your wording, can you clarify?

I want to applaud the patience of those rebutting these attempts to drag science down into the gutter in order to make fairy tales seem plausible. Particularly LFC! Go team

And like I said, even if you let them do so, it still doesn't address the point of this thread. I'm starting to wonder if some people have even read the opening post.

NEW GOD.
For the past two thousand years human thought they found the right GOD to look up to pray for him asking for strength and other limitation that comes with the human body they live in. but as times goes by it become more Cleary that there is something not right why he is not coming back, the suffering the misunderstanding in high godly institutions.
Now is time to reinvent the new god who is going to look for the shortcoming the expiring god has. This god should have respect for the power of the human brain that we capable of solving our issue. He just watch us become better versions of our self in time. He should love those wanting to solve the problem facing their field of specializations and his great gift to mankind is science.
By taking this step we will be closely reaching our goal of humanism.

(August 18, 2016 at 10:25 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(August 18, 2016 at 6:56 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: So some, not all, of the NT were not written by those attributed to them (unknown author) yet you accept and defend them. Thomas (unknown author) was written as early as 40AD but that you reject that. What if the unknown author "compiled earlier docs and information from a particular group of people who followed the apostle for which it was named"? Plus, how do you know and prove that your quoted position is even true?  The authors are unknown. You can't possibly know that they followed a particular apostle. And "31 sayings that do not have parallels in other writings" makes it not true? The author couldn't include unique material that he learned? He had to be a plagiarist like the authors of Matthew and Luke?

Theme of christianity? Sounds like you're discussion something not completely accurate or trustworthy but close enough for government work.

Wow, underlined. Must make me believe it. Nice effect.

I'm tired of you. Good bye.

I don't understand what you think the Gospel of Thomas not being included in the original canon proves. There are reasons it was not thought to authentic back in the second century.  

The gospels were called "the memoirs of the apostles" in the second century until they became know by the different apostolic communities they originated in. You also seem to think the early church would not have known their origins. Why would the editors name be important if the church new from which community the accounts came from and passed copies around to each other--even as the apostles and/or their immediate followers were still alive?

I understand you wanting to quit this discussion. This whole "Steve would have to accept the gnostic and other non-canonical gospels as truth too" was a silly notion to begin with and even harder to keep defending. I underline because you seemed to be having a problem picking out my main points.

I'll just let you revel in your delusion and move on.

(August 19, 2016 at 12:04 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Begging the question.... LMAO. Guys, you need to establish that the NT and other documents were written by credible witnesses, and that such testimony regarding Jesus' magic was accurate. The questions raised about them is, and has always been, about corroboration. Is there anything credible that can back these stories up? Things provided by unbiased sources that don't have a vested interest in it being true?

Instead, we keep getting deflections.

"The apostles were there!" - Okay
"They witnessed Jesus' death..." - Okay, since death by crucifixion was a known means of punishment
"...and resurrection!" - Given that such a resurrection violates everything we know about the universe, we're going to need more evidence before we accept that it happened
"Why would they lie?" - Why are you assuming they're telling the truth? These people had a motive for lying, namely a burgeoning religious/political revolution. And, again, it doesn't conform to what we know about the universe
"Why would they risk torture and death?" - Because that's what zealous revolutionaries/cultists do?
"How could the church gain such popularity so quickly?" - Popularity has nothing to do with veracity. See: anti-vaxxers
"You cannot provide any evidence that this is false!" - I don't need to. I'm not the one claiming the documents and testimony are true. I'm raising objections that must be sufficiently addressed before I believe it's true, while giving plausible alternatives
"Evolution!" - Oh, fuck off

So, with the bullshit out of the way, please provide actual corroborating evidence that supports the magical aspects of the NT. Or accept that you've simply made a leap of faith without such evidence because the thought of a magic zombie savior gives you warm fuzzies. Either way works for me.

QFT!

And the reason we keep going around in circles with Road Runner is because every time he is presented with the challenge of meeting his burden of proof, he waffles back and says, "I'm not making any claims about Christianity, in this discussion I'm just talking about acceptable evidence." (wriggling) So, we never actually GET to the crux of the issue.

RR, bull CRAP you're not making any claims. Of course you are. You're a Christian on an atheist forum. That's exactly why you are here. To talk about the claims of Christianity that you believe are true. Trying to shirk your religious convictions in order to avoid the responsibility of providing evidence is dishonest. Period. And turning around and saying, "well, by YOUR standards you shouldn't believe in evolution," is not only a continuation of this shirking, it's:

A: factually wrong

B: A tu quoque fallacy (and not even a good one because it's factually wrong as stated above)

C. A big fat argument from ignorance (that is also factually wrong because evolution is a scientific fact)

RR, this has nothing to do with epistemology and EVERYTHING to do with YOU shifting goal posts to avoid having to make a positive case for your religious beliefs.

TRY. AGAIN.

(August 19, 2016 at 1:09 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 18, 2016 at 10:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regarding the list of what you want to see, you are just repeating an old tired objection that in reality had we had those things, they would be challenged under the standard fair atheist arguments like "hearsay, eyewitnesses are not reliable, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The real problem is the atheist presupposition that God does not exist and miracles do not happen and therefore the content of the NT can never be true no matter what piece of "evidence" turns up.

You know what would put all this to rest, right away?  God bothering to show up today, and to work the same wonders He did 2000 years ago.  Is God dead?  If not, demonstrate that he has a non-zero degree of interaction with the world today-- beyond of course, how fantastic people claim they feel when they hold hands and pray, or their claims that God helped them score a touchdown or whatever.

Here's a hint-- if you need to go back to 2000 year-old texts to demonstrate the existence of something which is eternal, either it doesn't exist, or you're doing it wrong.

It would indeed put it to rest. However remember when he was here last, he left with us the possibility of a personal relationship with him. So, in effect he is here today working in the lives of Christians and non-Christians every day. I don't think that most people who point to God after a touchdown or race are saying "God made it so I would win", they are just simply acknowledging where they get their strength from. 

I am not trying to convince you of anything other than to point out that Christian evidence of the existence of God is multi-layered and cumulative and therefore warranted. Anyway, this subject seems to be wrapping up.  Hope you have a nice day and weekend.

(August 19, 2016 at 2:03 am)robvalue Wrote: I want to applaud the patience of those rebutting these attempts to drag science down into the gutter in order to make fairy tales seem plausible. Particularly LFC! Go team

And like I said, even if you let them do so, it still doesn't address the point of this thread. I'm starting to wonder if some people have even read the opening post.

How is it that requiring consistent standards is dragging science down into the gutter? Please explain...

As to the OP, I see a lot of changes in who I am, and how I think. I have also seen it in others. I didn't answer in the beginning, because I didn't think that you would like the answer. I think that it is difficult to explain, unless you have experienced it. It is not a reformation, but something that comes from the inside. I also don't think it Is exactly the same for each person. Some things where immediate, others came in time, and I know that some things I still struggle with and need to work on. But it was the things that I didn't struggle with (other than accepting the change), that I notice.


It seemed to me, that what you where looking for was a measurable outward gain. In Christianity, that is not promised. And at times we may suffer because of our Faith. I do believe that God answers prayer, not as a proof or a formula, like rubbing a genie bottle. This has never been within the Christian tradition. We get sick, and suffer loss, the same as everyone else as a consequence of sin. I have back issues, that cause a number of problems.

The other issue is, that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian has their heart in the right place. It's not all about you, and what you can gain, which is why I think that your question is starting from the wrong point of view.

As usual god sits on his hands does nothing to help anybody, but gets all the credit for it when things go well.

(August 19, 2016 at 7:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: QFT!  

And the reason we keep going around in circles with Road Runner is because every time he is presented with the challenge of meeting his burden of proof, he waffles back and says, "I'm not making any claims about Christianity, in this discussion I'm just talking about acceptable evidence."  (wriggling)  So, we never actually GET to the crux of the issue.

RR, bull CRAP you're not making any claims.  Of course you are.  You're a Christian on an atheist forum.  That's exactly why you are here.  To talk about the claims of Christianity that you believe are true.  Trying to shirk your religious convictions in order to avoid the responsibility of providing evidence is dishonest.  Period.  And turning around and saying, "well, by YOUR standards you shouldn't believe in evolution," is not only a continuation of this shirking, it's:

I think that your clairvoyance is broken today... but go ahead, and keep straw manning what you believe I am thinking. Even when I say directly, you still tell me I'm wrong... I give up.

Quote:A: factually wrong

B:  A tu quoque fallacy (and not even a good one because it's factually wrong as stated above)

C. A big fat argument from ignorance (that is also factually wrong because evolution is a scientific fact)

RR, this has nothing to do with epistemology and EVERYTHING to do with YOU shifting goal posts to avoid having to make a positive case for your religious beliefs.

TRY.  AGAIN.

A. What is factually wrong
B. Please explain..... What do you think the argument is, that the tu quoque fallacy applies and how?
C. That's not the what the argument from ignorance is. (But perhaps we should start another thread, and we can list the facts about evolution).

Actually epistemology is about determining where the goal posts should be. Philosophically, it's not saying that the goal posts are not to be moved, but why they are moved.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage

(August 19, 2016 at 7:13 am)mungu hayupo Wrote: NEW GOD.
For the past two thousand years human thought they found the right GOD to look up to pray for him asking for strength and other limitation that comes with the human body they live in. but as times goes by it become more Cleary that there is something not right why he is not coming back, the suffering the misunderstanding in high godly institutions.
Now is time to reinvent the new god who is going to look for the shortcoming the expiring god has. This god should have respect for the power of the human brain that we capable of solving our issue. He just watch us become better versions of our self in time. He should love those wanting to solve the problem facing their field of specializations and his great gift to mankind is science.
By taking this step we will be closely reaching our goal of humanism.

Welcome to the forum