(August 21, 2009 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(August 21, 2009 at 4:08 pm)maxbigwood Wrote: The bible, more specifically the new testament

Come now, we asked for evidence. I can recite my holy book (Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) as evidence for Hell having stale beer, but just because I believe it doesn't make it true.

So give us your evidence as to why the Bible should be trusted (or believed in any way), and what parts of the Bible lead you to the conclusion of Hell.

Uh, well, first off there is a huge number of new testrament manuscripts, many more than any other ancient writings including those of Ceasar, aristotle, plato, etc. They're also incredibly similar indicating very little forgery. They were also written very shortly after the events were said to occur. The internal consistency of the new testament documents is about 99.5% textual purity and the entire new testament was compiled within 70 years. The closest copy of Homer iliad to the original is 500 years which means that there was a lot of time for textual corruption and yet scholars dont dismiss the reliability of it. So just quit it with all the "bible is made up bible is a fairy tale" bullshit, it's been proven time and time again that the new testmanet is a reliable source of history

I don't doubt that a lot of the New Testament history is accurate; it's the parts that make Jesus appear like some sort of God that I dispute. There is no evidence that Jesus did any of the miracles that he supposedly did, other than the writings of men who believed in him and elevated him to godly status as was done with many other "heroes" in that time.

(August 21, 2009 at 4:54 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I don't doubt that a lot of the New Testament history is accurate; it's the parts that make Jesus appear like some sort of God that I dispute. There is no evidence that Jesus did any of the miracles that he supposedly did, other than the writings of men who believed in him and elevated him to godly status as was done with many other "heroes" in that time.

That's fine, but there is some evidence of Jesus miracles. Jews ackowledged that his tomb was empty, witnesses and disciples of Jesus were killed by authorities because they did not give up faith in Jesus after they had seen his miracles. Multiple people also said they witnessed Jesus after he had died

1) Graverobbing? A faction of followers taking his body to bury him somewhere else? Both of those are more rational explanations than "he rose from the dead".

2) People die for their beliefs all the time. If that is an argument for the truthfulness of beliefs, then the Islamic terrorists are winning on that front in this modern age.

3) Multiple people can lie and/or be mistaken. If you want to carry on the teachings of your prophet when he dies, what better way than to tell his followers that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. Again, a far more likely explanation that "he rose from the dead".

(August 6, 2009 at 8:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Question: does something denifined as non evidential provide evidence
Answer: WTF???

"denifined"? Is that a new word of something

I'm sure you meant "defined" ... here's a question in response.

Q. Just because something has been defined does it necessarily exist?
A. Er ... um ... well ... er ... right I'll define something else that can't be tested then!

You see this is the problem ... you can define your god all you like as being something that science can't test but you can't prove it exists because you supply no evidence and the really interesting thing is that you define these things as being what you define them as yet it's impossible to tell those things apart from something that doesn't exist! How do you tell things that can't be tested (can't be proved) apart from things that don't exist Frodo?

Kyu

Haha!

Same outcome - an illogical question. I repeat.. you fall to marginalist philosophy / oddball thinking to reach your worldview - something that seems to oppose your stated realist stance.

(August 22, 2009 at 3:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Same outcome - an illogical question. I repeat.. you fall to marginalist philosophy / oddball thinking to reach your worldview - something that seems to oppose your stated realist stance.

Way to dodge the question Frodo!

Kyu

There was no dodge in that answer Kyu - you're the one dodging there.

(August 22, 2009 at 4:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There was no dodge in that answer Kyu - you're the one dodging there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... you didn't answer the point I made, specifically ...

Kyu Wrote:You see this is the problem ... you can define your god all you like as being something that science can't test but you can't prove it exists because you supply no evidence and the really interesting thing is that you define these things as being what you define them as yet it's impossible to tell those things apart from something that doesn't exist! How do you tell things that can't be tested (can't be proved) apart from things that don't exist Frodo?

... and imply you've already answered it but that's what you always do isn't it?

Kyu

(August 22, 2009 at 3:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Haha!

Same outcome - an illogical question. I repeat.. you fall to marginalist philosophy / oddball thinking to reach your worldview - something that seems to oppose your stated realist stance.

If your worldview is one without evidence then it's delusional. A philosophy that requires evidence in order to believe is a rational one, call it marginal if you will, it's actually sane.

Got any evidence or not?

EvD