Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
March 10, 2014 at 10:54 pm (This post was last modified: March 10, 2014 at 10:56 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
(March 10, 2014 at 10:48 pm)discipulus Wrote:
(March 10, 2014 at 10:47 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I'm perfectly willing to debate you regarding the existence of God. The question is will you actually accept and stop bullshitting and backpedalling with every response you give.
The proposed debate topic?
Whenever I mention the word "debate"....
All I hear is the chirping of crickets........
You could try reading my posts... And I accepted, so don't be an impatient prick.
How about: "Does historical evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus whose teachings feature prominently in the bible, shed any light whatsoever on whether that man was divine?"
March 10, 2014 at 11:04 pm (This post was last modified: March 10, 2014 at 11:05 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(March 10, 2014 at 10:47 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:
(March 10, 2014 at 10:44 pm)discipulus Wrote: My arguments are being destroyed by you all and yet no one will debate me.
I am beginning to think you guys are teasing me. : )
I'm perfectly willing to debate you regarding the existence of God. The question is will you actually accept and stop bullshitting and backpedalling with every response you give.
Good luck with that.
(March 10, 2014 at 10:58 pm)discipulus Wrote:
(March 10, 2014 at 10:54 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: You could try reading my posts... And I accepted, so don't be an impatient prick.
A debate topic usually takes the form of a question.
Be that as it may, I choose not to debate you. When you are able to be respectful then we can talk.
March 10, 2014 at 11:05 pm (This post was last modified: March 10, 2014 at 11:06 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
Do I have to think for you now? I can hardly take you seriously when I agree to debate you on the existence of God, you go on about how no one has accepted to do one with you, and you complain that I didn't phrase it in the form of a question...
Really, are you being serious?
"Does the Christian God Exist?"
"Is there good evidence for the Christian God's existence?"
"Is God's Existence More Likely than Not?"
Come on dude.
Oh great, now you choose not to debate after complaining no one would debate you. You are a joke.
(March 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm)discipulus Wrote: The mainline atheist response would be something to the effect:
!!!!Religion is dangerous!!!!
Many no doubt see themselves as valiant warriors against the social ills fostered by those who are religious.
And I can understand that. Religion has been used as an excuse for everything from genocide to parents disowning their own children. Personally, I think advocating responsible use of religion is a more pragmatic first step than trying to eradicate it.
But I digress, my point was that if you want to argue against Christianity, there are so much better ways than the existence of a historical Jesus.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(March 10, 2014 at 5:54 pm)discipulus Wrote: I am not at all against using empirical evidence to determine the veracity of a truth claim where empirical evidence is expected to be present.
I do not expect empirical evidence to exist for historical accounts of anything that happened 2,000 years ago because what happened 2,000 years ago is beyond the scope of observation and experimentation.
I do not throw my hands up and say, "My goodness! I cannot know anything about what happened 2,000 years ago because I cannot verify any historical claims or accounts empirically!"
If historians thought like you do, then historiography would be impossible Esquilax. Any endeavor to provide an account about what happened in the past would be rendered futile a priori.
Wrong again: we do have empirical evidence for historical events. We have writings and accounts from that time, which exist empirically. We have as much of their culture and the remnants of their civilization as exists today. We have their effects on the landscape, even. Granted, those might not be the sure fire, smoking guns you want, when compared to stuff that we can demonstrate today, but that is all empirical evidence.
It's really funny that you think there's no empirical evidence for what happened two thousand years ago, given that we can find empirical evidence for things that happened millions of years ago in the form of fossils and so on. Methinks this is just another way to veil your unverifiable claims in history, so as not to be called on how ridiculous they are.
You can't just toss aside empirical evidence when it comes to historical claims, because if you do then there's nothing to stop me from making a claim about a pretend emperor that ruled ninety percent of the planet; that claim passes your minimum barrier of evidence- none- if you're intent on never needing to empirically verify historical claims.
The fact is, you do have empirical evidence you're attempting to use here, in Tacitus and so on, and frankly, I'm fine with the idea that Jesus existed, if you're dead set on that. I find it curious and strange that the level of evidence for his existence is markedly lesser than for other figures of equivalent reputation, but fine, whatever. What you don't have is evidence for any of his miracle claims, and that's why you're attempting to devalue such claims now.
Do you understand?
Oh, and just by the way: as to your "Ooh, nobody will debate me!" nonsense, I offered you a debate topic back on page three, and so far you're ignored it completely in favor of spinning silly, condescending stories. Who is avoiding who, here?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(March 10, 2014 at 10:13 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Lies aren't hard to start, especially amongst people who wanted such to be the case. No advanced fabrication necessary. But oh, I'm sure you think the disciples were above lying.
Yeah, people have lied about supernatural claims. In fact, as the narrow-minded Christian you likely are, you HAVE to believe that aboit ALL other religions. Mohammed riding a flying horse(?) to heaven? Why would the Muslims lie? Buddha attaining enlightenment after an incredible feat of meditation? No way Buddhists could have lied about that.
Worse, you don't seem to consider that people's psychology can warp their view of reality to preserve deep-seated wants. You don't have to "know something is a lie" to defend a falsehood.
They were ALREADY ostracized. And according to the Bible, Jesus ALREADY claimed that he would redeem their sins, as being God he could do so.
And religious fanatics are no strangers to WANTIMG persecution. It often is validation that they are on the right path, and Jesus says as much in the Bible ("You will be persecuted in my name", and the like).
A GROSSLY exaggerated claim, something Christians are no steanger to.
Sometimes people are willing to die for a cause. That says NOTHING about the veracity of what they're dying for, nor whether or not they "knew it was a lie". Certainly Muslims and Jews have suffered persecution and death for their faith. The Jews FAR more than Christians. Please, be consistent.
Again, people can be persuaded to believe something is true when it is in fact not. You are very simple-minded if you don't know that from... living.
Pretty much EVERY major religion EVER accomplished that. Or is Islam based on truth? Certainly you don't believe Hindus are right in revering the Vedas? There is no valid inference rule regarding people's belief in something and whether or not what they believe is in fact true. This is stupidly obvious.
1) Wasn't overnight.
2) They weren't leaderless; they were fractured into mutually exclusive subsets with their own pioneers like Marcion.
3) They didn't "turn the world upside-down", at least not in any sense that Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism didn't, or Zoroastrianism before it died down.
If the prophet Mohammed didn't receive the final revelation and meet Moses in Heaven, it is so improbable that there would be nearly 2 billion Muslims today, and for Islam to be the fastest growing religion...
Oh wait, I'm not using probability correctly, just as you weren't. You can't work backwards to retrodict things like that, especially when you have shown no awareness nor given any of the variable priors from which you could actually use Bayesian probability to determine the likelihood of something so complex.
Again, this is stupid. We know that people have died for falsehoods, regardless of if they knew them to be so.
Oh joy, massacreing Ockam's Razor now are we? Dude, go read up on some damn philosophy, history and Bayesian inferencing PLEASE.
Do you expect me to address any of the above?
(March 10, 2014 at 10:16 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 1,984-ish years and counting.
No, I mean you will die soon and you will know the truth.
When you die and there's no afterlife how will you know? And supposed there was an afterlife but you never get resurrected. Won't that be the same as there not being an afterlife?
The afterlife scenario only works if there is an afterlife and if you are resurrected to experience it. So you have to have two conditions fulfilled or there isn't one.
