Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:11 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 9:12 am by Epimethean.)
"If Mark is reliable, then Jesus is god.Therefore, Jesus and god are not separate entities, but the same, which is why I said the FSM cannot be compared to Jesus (god).I am an atheist, but I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable, which can be backed up with evidence."
This can be reduced to:
If Mark is reliable, Jesus is god.
I assume Mark is reliable, because there is evidence.
Therefore, I assume Jesus is god, based on the evidence in Mark.
Troubling reasoning for an atheist.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 126
Threads: 10
Joined: December 8, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:18 am
Wait, I just re-read and I DID NOT have a typo. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
I never said Mark is reliable. If someone wants to believe that Mark is reliable, then they could believe what Papias wrote.
This is what I said can be reduced to:
If Mark is reliable, then Jesus is god.
I am an atheist, and do not believe that Mark is reliable.
It is possible for someone to believe that Mark is reliable because of various texts.
I have qualified and qualified my statements all night/morning because I do not believe that Mark is reliable.
Now, you can stop trying to do whatever you are trying to do.
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:20 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 9:22 am by Epimethean.)
Did you state that you were operating on the assumption that Mark is reliable?
(June 30, 2012 at 8:44 am)Micah Wrote: Skepsis, tell me that you are kidding. You cannot be serious. I do not understand how you think that I believe that Mark is reliable. I said "If mark is reliable..." or "I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable..." If I thought Mark was reliable, I would have said, "Mark is reliable," or "because Mark is reliable," but I did not say that because I do not believe that. And this is all apparent in what I wrote. Any argument I made was based on "ifs" because I was only trying to show possibilities. How can you not see this? I would suggest that you go back and re-read this thread.
Norfolk and Chance,
Just because you think that you don't have a need to prove that there are not any gods does not mean that there are not gods. That is all that I am trying to say.
Oh, yes. You did.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 126
Threads: 10
Joined: December 8, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:22 am
That is irrelevant. I could not believe x, but operate under the assumption that x is true for the sake of argument, which does not mean that I believe x.
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:24 am
Your decision not to accept the rhetorical relevance of what you stated is not helping you rehabilitate your case.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 126
Threads: 10
Joined: December 8, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:28 am
We are discussing whether or not I believe Mark is reliable. I do not see how anyone could think that I do. All you have to do is look at this thread. I have stated repeatedly that I do not believe that it is reliable.
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:30 am
You put yourself way out on a creaking limb in your affair with conditionals. What was your purpose in getting lost in that limbic wasteland?
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 126
Threads: 10
Joined: December 8, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:35 am
I am not lost in anything. You are looking for things that are not there.
At best, all you can say is that I said that people who think that Mark is reliable have evidence.
BUT I am not one of those who think Mark is reliable.
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Posts: 276
Threads: 3
Joined: August 20, 2011
Reputation:
6
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:42 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 9:45 am by Skepsis.)
(June 30, 2012 at 9:35 am)Micah Wrote: I am not lost in anything. You are looking for things that are not there.
At best, all you can say is that I said that people who think that Mark is reliable have evidence.
BUT I am not one of those who think Mark is reliable.
Usually when you think that others have evidence, you, too, accept the damn evidence. If I thought that those who believed aliens have landed on Earth have evidence, wouldn't it be fair to assume that I accept that evidence? Contextually, anyway. Especially if I said it just like that. Kind of like you did...
Usually I would overlook your mistake as a typo, but you came back defending your phrasing, fists flailing.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:47 am
Let us deconstruct.
1) I do not understand how you think that I believe that Mark is reliable. Here you suggest incredulity.
2) I said "If mark is reliable..." or "I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable..." Here you restate the reasons for which you were questioned regarding your statements.
3) If I thought Mark was reliable, I would have said, "Mark is reliable," or "because Mark is reliable," but I did not say that because I do not believe that. Here you sidestep away from explaining your choice of rhetoric by pointing people at a more definitive version of what they suggested your sentiments might be.
4) And this is all apparent in what I wrote. Here you run off the rails by suggesting the opposite of what has been apparent.
5) Any argument I made was based on "ifs" because I was only trying to show possibilities. Here you show a sentimentality toward "possibilities," despite any need to do so based on the defensiveness you are now showing.
6) How can you not see this? Here you are making an appeal to reason based on insufficient evidence.
7) I would suggest that you go back and re-read this thread. Apparently, many of us did, and reached the same state of concern regarding your line of reasoning.
8) Just because you think that you don't have a need to prove that there are not any gods does not mean that there are not gods. That is all that I am trying to say. Here you essentially say that your agenda is to be an agnostic (theist or atheist: hard to tell).
Trying to update my sig ...
|
