(May 20, 2023 at 10:08 am)KerimF Wrote:

(May 20, 2023 at 9:51 am)Angrboda Wrote: This village has too many idiots.

Fortunately, this village has some fantastic non-idiot persons, like you are. Naturally, it has to be very proud of having you.

Oh sorry, I forgot you see me just an idiot, so what I wrote on the first line has to be lunatic, at least to you 

A lunatic is one whose mental faculties have been deranged.

You don’t seem to have mental faculties to derange. 

So you can never be a lunatic.

The word is actually halfwit.    A conceited halfwit, but very much still a halfwit.

(May 20, 2023 at 10:58 am)KerimF Wrote: ……A real human is whoever can trust that his given human intelligence has no limit…..

You, even more so than most, ought not to trust any such thing, even if you do.       So you are not a real human, even if you delusionally think yourself to be.

(May 20, 2023 at 8:59 am)KerimF Wrote: I guess it is well known that a formal Christian is supposed to believe in Jesus (The Savior) based solely on faith, as Pagans do towards their Idols. 

Apologies for the double post, but I've just seen this.

I do not agree with that at all. For the first Christians such as Peter and John, it was 100% evidence based. For many, many Christians since then, their 'faith' is evidence based. One can never be sure, but a worldview that sees Jesus as God-as-human makes more sense to us of the evidence than the alternatives.

(May 29, 2023 at 5:33 am)Vicki Q Wrote:

(May 20, 2023 at 8:59 am)KerimF Wrote: I guess it is well known that a formal Christian is supposed to believe in Jesus (The Savior) based solely on faith, as Pagans do towards their Idols. 

Apologies for the double post, but I've just seen this.

I do not agree with that at all. For the first Christians such as Peter and John, it was 100% evidence based. For many, many Christians since then, their 'faith' is evidence based. One can never be sure, but a worldview that sees Jesus as God-as-human makes more sense to us of the evidence than the alternatives.

What evidence, exactly?

Boru

Nothing about Abraham and his god make any sense. It is all stories fabricated by delusional, scientifically illiterate, goat fucking, desert dwellers who did not have a clue to how the natural sciences around them operated. They invented explanations to quell their fears. They were also abundantly arrogant.


god, any god, from any religion, is 100% pure grade A absurd drivel.


There is definitely a defect in the reasoning skills of anyone who accepts this garbage.

(May 29, 2023 at 5:33 am)Vicki Q Wrote: I do not agree with that at all. For the first Christians such as Peter and John, it was 100% evidence based.

And how do we know this? From the book that was written by some anonymous people that lived many decades later than the supposed story and who couldn't get their stories to match.

(May 29, 2023 at 5:33 am)Vicki Q Wrote:

(May 20, 2023 at 8:59 am)KerimF Wrote: I guess it is well known that a formal Christian is supposed to believe in Jesus (The Savior) based solely on faith, as Pagans do towards their Idols. 

Apologies for the double post, but I've just seen this.

I do not agree with that at all. For the first Christians such as Peter and John, it was 100% evidence based. For many, many Christians since then, their 'faith' is evidence based. One can never be sure, but a worldview that sees Jesus as God-as-human makes more sense to us of the evidence than the alternatives.

Christianity was never evidence based. The firs accounts started appearing, at best, 40 years after Yeshua's alleged death and contained references to events that couldn't have happened and others we know didn't happen from other sources. The accounts' history and geography both got badly mangled.

Even if there were a Peter or a John, we can't know what they thought because we have no evidence for them.

(May 30, 2023 at 4:49 am)GUBU Wrote:

(May 29, 2023 at 5:33 am)Vicki Q Wrote: Apologies for the double post, but I've just seen this.

I do not agree with that at all. For the first Christians such as Peter and John, it was 100% evidence based. For many, many Christians since then, their 'faith' is evidence based. One can never be sure, but a worldview that sees Jesus as God-as-human makes more sense to us of the evidence than the alternatives.

Christianity was never evidence based.  The firs accounts started appearing, at best, 40 years after Yeshua's alleged death and contained references to events that couldn't have happened and others we know didn't happen from other sources.  The accounts' history and geography both got badly mangled.

Even if there were a Peter or a John, we can't know what they thought because we have no evidence for them.

It never ceases to impress me how many religionists fail to realize that ‘faith’ and ‘evidence’ are mutually exclusive.

Boru