(June 7, 2015 at 3:38 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Randy, you equivocate as if the strength of the two claims are equal.  They are not.

First, let me say that I appreciate your decision to respond to my argument rather than simply curse at me.

Quote:One is a mundane claim, the other is not.  Nonetheless, I would not expect you to accept that claim on the basis of my word alone.

I did accept your claim based upon the very human reason that we normally accept people at their word unless we have reason to doubt them. I have no reason to doubt your experiences; so, I accept that you have been honest.

Quote:However, if you cared as much about truth as you apparently do about scoring cheap rhetorical points, you could:

* Speak to people who were there, all of which (to my knowledge) are still alive.
* Speak to the attending physician.
* Speak to the E.R. physician who intubated me.
* Speak to the anesthesiologist who put me into an induced coma.
* Speak to the multitude of nurses and technicians who cared for me.

Yep, all of that's just testimony, but it's first person testimony.  But wait, there's more!

* You could examine the medical records
* You could examine the insurance records
* ...and the billing records
* ...and the canceled checks that paid for the service.

All of this would tell a coherent and mundane story, all within the realm of ordinary human experience, backed by documentation written by people who were actually there, who's identities are known, and who may be questioned about it.

I agree. If I were to investigate matter very carefully, I could write a full account of what I learned.

So did Luke.

Quote:In any case, the cheap rhetorical point you're so desperately trying to make is wholly irrelevant in my case, because I'm completely uninterested in yours, or anyone else's analysis as to the veracity of the gospels, because, quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whether they're true or not. 

So, if it were undeniably demonstrated that the gospels are true, you wouldn't care?

Why not?

---

(June 7, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 2:57 pm)abaris Wrote: So I'm not the only one noticing that he constantly moved the goalposts.

Not at all.  It's pretty damned obvious he's here to serve his own agenda, and nothing more.  He's apparently not interested in listening or comprehending where we're actually coming from and the positions we actually hold.

My agenda? Well, duh. I'm a Christian posting in an atheist forum. What do you think my agenda is? To exchange cookie recipes? 

I am listening and responding to the best of the posts (I have to keep my waders on, though).

For example, only after a half dozen or so epithet-laced personal attacks did you finally decide to write a coherent response to me that I could respond to.

Why not be calm and reasonable in your discussions from the get-go?

Wow. The base level of cognitive dissonance that you must live with is astounding. Hats off on doing more than methodically beating your head against a wall, Randy. It really is amazing.

Once again, you missed the point that CD, Esquilax, and I have made.

It is not just that the gospel authors did not see these events first hand, it is also the ridiculous, mythic, bronze age stories they contain within that makes them unreliable as a historic document.

(June 7, 2015 at 7:08 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: It is not just that the gospel authors did not see these events first hand [emphasis added], it is also the ridiculous, mythic, bronze age stories they contain within that makes them unreliable as a historic document.

Can you prove your assertion, Mike?

Do you plan on presenting any evidence?

Or is this one of those fiat things that I'm accused of making?

I'm always aware of the increase of words like "eye-witness" when discussing the NT. It's as if as time went on, and civilizations evolved and grew, the writers were aware of the need for witnesses for the sake of believability. A thing that is missing from earlier writings in the OT, as if there was a time where simply asserting something was good enough. You'll notice nobody talks about a witness when discussing Adam and Eve talking to a Snake, or god separating night and day. Its as if things were just accepted, but by the early centuries C.E., suddenly we see qualifying situations.

But, that's the OT. That's completely different than the NT. Nobody believes that nonsense.

@Randy Carson

I have already presented information on why the gospels are not eyewitness reports. However, You still have refused to address the stories of Zeus and the other gods. There is as much information validating them if not more.

(June 7, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Exian Wrote: I'm always aware of the increase of words like "eye-witness" when discussing the NT. It's as if as time went on, and civilizations evolved and grew, the writers were aware of the need for witnesses for the sake of believability. A thing that is missing from earlier writings in the OT, as if there was a time where simply asserting something was good enough. You'll notice nobody talks about a witness when discussing Adam and Eve talking to a Snake, or god separating night and day. Its as if things were just accepted, but by the early centuries C.E., suddenly we see qualifying situations.

But, that's the OT. That's completely different than the NT. Nobody believes that nonsense.

I'm not into Genesis 1-3 as a literal account personally, but let's say that it was.

Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time. Who would the eyewitnesses have been? 

(June 7, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you prove your assertion, Mike?

Do you plan on presenting any evidence?

Or is this one of those fiat things that I'm accused of making?

So you're demanding evidence for the supernatural not happening. Seriously?

A couple of pages before you have been asked, why you don't consider Zeus, Odin and all the other gods and their stories as equally credible. Not a good enough question in your opinion?

I was asking you for a list of your countless famous atheists turning to deism and theism after having studied the bible. Not a good enough question either, I assume.

You went around questioning our credibility without presenting even one shred of your own besides claiming to be a catholic. So why are you asking for a polite conversation? And more importantly, why has anything you have to say even a shred of credibility. All you offered is your believe in the gospels and their authors. And that, to put it bluntly and as polite as possible, doesn't amount to much.

And your last remark about Adam and Eve is the sound of the last shred of taking you seriously zooming out of the window

(June 7, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Exian Wrote: I'm always aware of the increase of words like "eye-witness" when discussing the NT. It's as if as time went on, and civilizations evolved and grew, the writers were aware of the need for witnesses for the sake of believability. A thing that is missing from earlier writings in the OT, as if there was a time where simply asserting something was good enough. You'll notice nobody talks about a witness when discussing Adam and Eve talking to a Snake, or god separating night and day. Its as if things were just accepted, but by the early centuries C.E., suddenly we see qualifying situations.

But, that's the OT. That's completely different than the NT. Nobody believes that nonsense.

I'm not into Genesis 1-3 as a literal account personally, but let's say that it was.

Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time. Who would the eyewitnesses have been? 

And when god was creating everything, there were zero people on the planet, and yet, your book gives us an account.

But, like I said, that was a different time, when you could write down any assertion and have it be believed. A convenience not enjoyed by the time of the NT authors. They seemed to need to qualify their stories in their more evolved civilization.

(June 7, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time.

Then who did Cain fuck?

(June 7, 2015 at 7:43 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you prove your assertion, Mike?

Do you plan on presenting any evidence?

Or is this one of those fiat things that I'm accused of making?

So you're demanding evidence for the supernatural not happening. Seriously?

And you guys question MY reading comprehension?

Dude, Mike wrote, "the gospel authors did not see these events first hand". Now, we can get to the supernatural events in due course, but the thrust of the discussion so far is about whether Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (or alternatively, whoever the actual authors were) were even present during Jesus' lifetime.

So, yeah, Mike as made a positive claim that the authors did not see the events of Jesus' life personally. I'm asking for his arguments and evidence in support of his claim.

Quote:A couple of pages before you have been asked, why you don't consider Zeus, Odin and all the other gods and their stories as equally credible. Not a good enough question in your opinion?

Not good enough for Ehrman. Not good enough for O'Neill. Not good enough for the majority of NT scholars who admit that Jesus was a real person. So, I'll go with that. But if you are REALLY interested, there are lots of websites written by people who have taken the time to refute this freshman-level argument.

Quote:I was asking you for a list of your countless famous atheists turning to deism and theism after having studied the bible. Not a good enough question either, I assume.

have you ever heard of Google? I found 18 atheists who converted to Catholicism on this page in less than one minute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_con...atholicism

If we consider all of Christianity and theism/deism, the number goes up dramatically.

Quote:You went around questioning our credibility without presenting even one shred of your own besides claiming to be a catholic. So why are you asking for a polite conversation? And more importantly, why has anything you have to say even a shred of credibility. All you offered is your believe in the gospels and their authors. And that, to put it bluntly and as polite as possible, doesn't amount to much.

Look for the thread entitled, "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament". Start with post #1. Read slowly and carefully to the end.

Then let's chat, okay?

---

(June 7, 2015 at 7:54 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time.

Then who did Cain fuck?

His wife.