(April 20, 2012 at 11:28 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(April 20, 2012 at 10:55 am)sarah888 Wrote: Explain, show me ONE phenomenon that has been discovered
by science that was theory.?

You mean like how the sun comes up in the sky and wasn't pushed there by a giant dung beetle? Things like that?

Every scientific explanation has cut away the things previously explained as "goddidit". Almost every single one.

Or do you mean something more mundane?

Ball Lightning? Science got it
Water running up hill? Science got it
Water turning to blood? yeah, we figured that out too
Corpse Candles? blah blah

Your turn; name some Miracles that are undisputed scientific fact. I.e. with evidence to prove the cause of that "miracle" as supernatural

(April 20, 2012 at 10:55 am)sarah888 Wrote: Prove it, why cant NDE's, Medical miracles, etc. etc. etc be explained by your scientist. Again the I dont know theory applies.

Let me state it again. Why do you think that NDE's align with the individuals experiences rather than allow for new information they could not have known.
Instead NDE's commonly state information shown to be false in reality.

Currently unexplained (But several likely theories btw more likely than the supernatural) does not equal "God".

(April 20, 2012 at 10:55 am)sarah888 Wrote: My assertions come from history and faith, they are not assertions, but beliefs and facts.

Belief is assertion of reality without evidence, and therefore cannot be fact, merely belief.

You clearly have not read any history, all you've done, is read the bible and asserted it is historically correct.
Why don't you try writing a history book based on events that happened in the 1800's, based purely on things that people alive today say.
How accurate do you think it'll be.

(April 20, 2012 at 10:55 am)sarah888 Wrote: Why would a Jew or musilum see the afterlife, why would anyone who goes through this experience see anything else but that specific occurance. ???WHY. I know .. YOU DONT KNOW.!

Why do they see, their OWN afterlife. Basically, your argument must be, that all religions are true, because their NDE's confirm what they already culturally predisposed towards.

If you must know, hallucination is a common feature when the mind tries to draw on experiences that do not exist and tries to fill the gaps.
How much experience of dying do you have?
Even more commonly is the presence of hallucination while the brain is oxygen starved.. like... when you are dying. Funny that.

(April 20, 2012 at 10:55 am)sarah888 Wrote: science does not speak regarding all of history, only explains theory and hypothosis regardless of any topic.

I agree. However, nobody said this.
It should also be noted that even Christian historians cannot prove the historical basis of the bible.

Also, science can speak regarding history to a certain extent when historical events are said to affect the whole planet in a noticeable way.

Wheres that flood btw..............

(April 20, 2012 at 10:55 am)sarah888 Wrote:

NoMoreFaith Wrote:All science does, is try to explain the world. All you want to do is deny explanation to preserve a need for magic in your life.

yep. that is real nice.

Doesn't change the facts thou. You actively don't WANT explanations. What you want to do, is assert your explanation for something without evidence.
You want to call something that is unexplained as evidence for your cause. Can you not see a basic problem with this?

Its not a matter of being nice, the matter is that you have no filter for the imaginary. You accept what you have been told without any critical thinking whatsoever, and then you have the audacity to claim what you've been told is a FACT™.
That is truly offensive to anyone seeking a truthful answer in this world.

Finally. Learn how to use forum tags.. please... bold isn't helping. There are some great guides to BBCode (thats what you use for bold which you've worked out). Now could you please learn to use the [ quote ] (spaces intentional) tags. It would be very helpful, cheers.

As an Atheist your beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature.. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

You simply deny history, you exclude a man known as Jesus of Nazereth..

"Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

"message from mr. Darwin "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God” – Letters of Charles Darwin "

Sarah I use bold to see better.

---

(April 20, 2012 at 11:27 am)Insanity x Wrote: I may have to convert. I think god made these kinds of people to amuse me. There is no other explanation!

"message from mr. Darwin "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God” – Letters of Charles Darwin "

Sarah

sarah888, you are awfully antagonistic for someone who was just recently complaining that atheists were all angry. Perhaps what you see in the mirror is the real problem here. I am content to let you believe what you would like without having to shout at you from the rooftops in bold lettering, but that is because I am secure in what I believe.

Also, maybe you should look up the definition of fact. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: As an Atheist your beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature.. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

Scientific knowledge consists of data that may not be personally known to everyone but the data is there to be reviewed by anyone who wishes to take the time to do so.

For example, I'm not a cosmologist and have not looked through a telescope with my own eyes. However, I still accept their assertions about the nature of our universe, like say, there are other solar systems in this galaxy, because I know this data can be reviewed by anyone. If I wanted to pursue a degree in astronomy, I could personally verify all of their data or disprove it with repeatable experiments and observations that can run the gauntlet of peer review.

Another example, I don't believe in evolution because Dawkins says so. I accept evolution because of the evidence. There is more evidence that I can also discover if I pursue a degree in biology. All this is data that is out there which can be reviewed by anyone at any time. No faith is required.

Religious claims, by contrast, can't be verified by anyone, no matter how much time and study they pour into it. Miracles and faith healing are not repeatable experiments. God and Heaven are out of reach. There are no holy artifacts with magical properties that can be examined by science. None of these fanciful claims have any evidence to back them up nor can any be found by research and experimentation.

And no, folklore =/= history.

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: As an Atheist your beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature.. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

Ever read my signature. Its very apt.

Private self-authenticating evidence is useless because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it.

But essentially, you're right, I do not accept invisible, undetectable, internal convictions as evidence.

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: You simply deny history, you exclude a man known as Jesus of Nazereth..

So where are the contemporary accounts of his life. I don't deny history, but it is only sensible that documents should account for a major historical figure.

The bible, is not a contemporary account, its the books of the church that sprung up decades after that time, nothing more.

White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4: Wrote:This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry.

You claim I deny history, then you don't know how historians verify sources for claims.
For instance, Apollonius of Tyana lived at the same time as Jesus, contemporary accounts all over the place, and he was just a philosopher, not "the son of god".

I'm not trying to offend you, simply point out, that your claims are baseless. Believe whatever you like, but ignorance and lying are quite distasteful, which is exactly what you are doing when you call these things fact.

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: "Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Thats not what Hebrews 11:3 says thou is it.
Hebrews 11:3 says "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
It implies nothing about particles indiscernible to our eyes, it merely states God created ex nihilo, from nothing and believers take that on faith alone. In fact in context, a statement about particles would be insanely non-sequitor. Hebrews is talking about what faith is, faith that Gods Word made things from nothing.

Let's stick your interpreted "quote" in context.

Hebrews 11 Wrote:Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
This is what the ancients were commended for.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes
By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

Nope, batshit insane non-sequitor.

In short, you're either lying or ignorant (I mean that literally not offensively), and copy/pasting things without looking at the basis for what you say, even when it comes to your own bible.

Oooh, do the spherical earth bit, I never get bored of tearing the factual error in that one either.

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: I use bold to see better.

That doesn't help as you write it, unless you are only reading your own posts after you post them. Unless you are saying it helps to put [ b ] in front of everything to make it readable.

(BTW I suggest if you have trouble seeing, you increase text size in your browser, pressing CTRL and + together will do that on most browsers)

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: As an Atheist your beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind.

Actually, it would be more correct to say that, as an atheist, my CONCLUSIONS are based upon a lack of evidence provided by people like you.

Quote:It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature.. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

The evidence I accept is observable, repeatable and peer reviewed. You have anything like that to demonstrate that your deity is real?

Quote:You simply deny history, you exclude a man known as Jesus of Nazereth..

There is zero evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus who was executed by the Romans and returned from the dead. You might as well say that I deny history because I exclude Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan.

Quote:"Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3).

I pulled out my handy dandy Babble and this is not what it has for Hebrews 11:3. Here is what it actually says: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."

Hmmm... no mention of "particles" here.

Quote:Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Yes, I'm sure the ignorant goat herders who wrote the Babble were talking about invisible particles that make up all matter.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

We've had people come in here trying to claim that the Babble contains information that people of the time couldn't possibly have known about. They pull out some verse and try to claim it's telling us about how the circulatory system works, or other such nonsense.

If these people had advanced scientific knowledge, why didn't they tell us how to cure diseases? Why didn't they warn us of microbes that could make us ill? I'll tell you why.... because they had no idea!

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: "message from mr. Darwin "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God” – Letters of Charles Darwin "

Sarah

This means nothing to me. Care to explain the point your trying to make?

(April 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(April 20, 2012 at 11:52 am)robsenelstun Wrote: Tell him to Skype me... 'crusty7208' and he can try to convert me...I relish any opportunity I have to debate theists...admittedly not best friends, that seems messy...but I don't mind offering him my soul for saving.

You are a glutton for punishment from my POV. It gets old after a while.

i enjoy arguing..what can i say?

It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city.
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D. " Harry V Martin"

Sarah

---

The ancient historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person. We will look at what some of these people have said.

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.


A little about the historic Jesus

Sarah

---

(April 20, 2012 at 2:40 pm)Insanity x Wrote:

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: "message from mr. Darwin "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God” – Letters of Charles Darwin "

Sarah

This means nothing to me. Care to explain the point your trying to make?

Yes, there are no Atheist in fox-holes. Everyone cries out for GOD at somepoint in their life. We have no reason for being here if there is no God. Everything in life has a meaning and a purpose along with reasoning. To simply state "I dont know why we are here is not enough, it seems null and invalid for us as humans to just simply exsist.

Sarah

---

(April 20, 2012 at 2:13 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: As an Atheist your beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature.. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

Ever read my signature. Its very apt.

Private self-authenticating evidence is useless because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it.

But essentially, you're right, I do not accept invisible, undetectable, internal convictions as evidence.

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: You simply deny history, you exclude a man known as Jesus of Nazereth..

So where are the contemporary accounts of his life. I don't deny history, but it is only sensible that documents should account for a major historical figure.

The bible, is not a contemporary account, its the books of the church that sprung up decades after that time, nothing more.

White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4: Wrote:This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry.

You claim I deny history, then you don't know how historians verify sources for claims.
For instance, Apollonius of Tyana lived at the same time as Jesus, contemporary accounts all over the place, and he was just a philosopher, not "the son of god".

I'm not trying to offend you, simply point out, that your claims are baseless. Believe whatever you like, but ignorance and lying are quite distasteful, which is exactly what you are doing when you call these things fact.

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: "Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Thats not what Hebrews 11:3 says thou is it.
Hebrews 11:3 says "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
It implies nothing about particles indiscernible to our eyes, it merely states God created ex nihilo, from nothing and believers take that on faith alone. In fact in context, a statement about particles would be insanely non-sequitor. Hebrews is talking about what faith is, faith that Gods Word made things from nothing.

Let's stick your interpreted "quote" in context.

Hebrews 11 Wrote:Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
This is what the ancients were commended for.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes
By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

Nope, batshit insane non-sequitor.

In short, you're either lying or ignorant (I mean that literally not offensively), and copy/pasting things without looking at the basis for what you say, even when it comes to your own bible.

Oooh, do the spherical earth bit, I never get bored of tearing the factual error in that one either.

(April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm)sarah888 Wrote: I use bold to see better.

That doesn't help as you write it, unless you are only reading your own posts after you post them. Unless you are saying it helps to put [ b ] in front of everything to make it readable.

(BTW I suggest if you have trouble seeing, you increase text size in your browser, pressing CTRL and + together will do that on most browsers)

Hello,


Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Sarah , Hope this is ok, I try not to use bold, however I have trouble seeing and Im not so much the computer literate.

thank you

Quote:Everyone cries out for GOD at somepoint in their life.

I can refute that, I've never believed in god.

Quote:We have no reason for being here if there is no God. Everything in life has a meaning and a purpose along with reasoning.

That's your belief, whether it's true or not is another matter.

Quote:To simply state "I dont know why we are here" is not enough,

No, it is. It's an answer to a question. If we don't know something then the answer to the question is a question mark - ?.
You just don't like the unknown, I on the other hand am ok with it.

Thanks for withdrawing the bold Sarah.

Again, you've proven again that even the best sources you can find, there are still no contemporary accounts, not one reference of yours is written when Jesus is supposed to have lived or even shortly after.

The written record existed and records were kept, yet no one wrote about Jesus while he lived, in fact, it took DECADES before anyone thought to put anything on paper/papyrus etc.
Don't you find that even a little bit curious?

sarah888 Wrote:Yes, there are no Atheist in fox-holes. Everyone cries out for GOD at somepoint in their life. We have no reason for being here if there is no God. Everything in life has a meaning and a purpose along with reasoning. To simply state "I dont know why we are here is not enough, it seems null and invalid for us as humans to just simply exsist.

I do not think invalid means what you think it means. You phrase it as "its not enough", which implies an internal need for everything to be explained. However, this simply is not the case, there are plenty of things that remain unexplained, but it is foolish to invoke a supernatural being to explain everything.
It seems telling that most of what was attributed to a supernatural being, has now been shown to be nothing of the sort.
To be honest, it is somewhat childish to demand that "Everything in life has a meaning". Its an immature demand for answers that cannot be meaningfully given. Even by religion, considering how many different religions there are.
Otherwise you are left to demand that the popular religion by geographical location local to yourself, happens to be the "right" one.. is absurdly naive.

In terms of Pascals Wager, the premise of this thread, if failing to believe in God, or believing in the wrong God is sinful, then it makes a mockery of the lottery of geographical location. Don't you find that a little unfair?