Atheists are mentally ill

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Let me remind you what happened:
you: all morality and good things came from Christ.

No it comes God who provides with the Moral Law. Deviation from the Moral Law results in sin and potentially evil. Not that sin automatically means evil what it means is "to make a mistake". It so happens of course that Christ is God, as described in John 1:3 here we go.

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

So naturally the morality of Jesus the Christ is also the morality of God himself right there. Everything he taught is what God taught us. So that's what I'm what I'm saying here.

me: what about countries that have other religions?
you: all those religions are similar to Christianity that's why.
me: if they are Christianity stole from them because they predate Christianity.
you: The parts where they're similar they got from the holy spirit, others they just got it wrong.

Well yes, otherwise they're all equally as valid but that would be something of a knockout punch you would be delivering if you could demonstrate that. But if you can name a faith I could tell you a reason why Christianity is better and you would probably agree with me. That's the test right there.

1. When speaking to nonChristians, you can quote scripture like it's a fact if you like, but it's a waste of time.
2. They're all equally valid, because they all equally do not have evidence that their god(s) were anything more than humans. (None of them are valid)
3. I've said this before, making more sense than religions is not something to boast about.

Like really? So every religion in this world that preached anything you agree with came from the holy spirit, and if they preached anything that you disagree with they got that part wrong. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. You're just saying that because you cannot explain why morality is so similar in different cultures and you're twisting reality to attribute all the "good things" to your god.

Again if you want to propose a religion/religious founding figure with the superior morality and view of life you can have a go.

None of them have to be true for yours to be untrue. All the religions can be wrong. And in case you haven't noticed, atheist forum. ATHEIST forum. We tend not to think much of religions.

Virgin birth is in the bible.

So is Noah's Ark you don't have believe 100% the entire whole thing. The birth narrative to me seems largely symbolic anyway and it's in only two of the four gospels. This was an open question historically within the Church and the Catholics only officially accepted it as dogma in the 19th century. I would tend to believe he had a normal human birth if like us he was a normal human man. There is an argument that this wouldn't make him "supernatural enough" to be the Messiah but I would say being fully one with God as God as part of the Trinity makes him more than supernatural enough as he is. The Old Testament prophecy that says the Messiah will be born of a virgin can be read as "young woman" the Hebrew word for virgin and young woman being one and the same. But id someone wants to have faith as Christian that he was born of a virgin I think that's perfectly fine, perhaps he was who knows? But that's my view on that.

If you want to treat something as true because it is in the bible, then everything in the bible has to be true.

It can be true in the sense that it's an archetypal hero myth narrative that sets the scene of the coming of Christ into the world and humanities ultimate salvation through him. There are questionable doubts over there was a census of all Roman citizens to their home towns to be fair. But there is true and there is true. The Bible isn't a book of Harry Potter it's the word of God in some sense or other.

You claimed that there were eyewitness accounts of jesus's resurrection because it was recorded in the bible. You were the one who treated the bible as a an accurate source of history, not me. You have to stay consistent with that or you need to come up with extrabiblical sources that talked about the resurrection as a historical event.

Actually you're so dishonest you'll probably try to sneak this in again and again. But ummm ... no. If virgin birth can be written but did not happen, then the same goes for the resurrection. Did not happen.

No because there is a good case that the resurrection did actually happen. That is the only miracle you really have to believe in to be a Christian. It may not have happened exactly as described and the original accounts seem to end at the discovery of the empty tomb. The resurrection account being added slightly later. But either way that's the main event there anything else is a bit academic.

This is another one of those things where you say something you have no evidence for, right?

Until you prove the bible to be a true account of history, there were no eyewitness reports. I've already said they're equally ridiculous, you don't believe that because you grew up in a culture where so many people believe in it, but it is equally ridiculous.

There is true accounts of history in there and we know of Christianity and it's origins as a historical event. There is some metaphor and symbolism in there as well and the gospel of John is particularly heavy with this. But it does give the first full account of the Trinity and Christs divine status.

Because your position is that the resurrection happened because it's written in the bible that people saw it happened, the entire book has to be historically accurate, and you need to prove that it is before your claim of the resurrection is even valid.

No I don't. No it wasn't, you haven't showed that it was.

The beginning of Christianity as a movement within Judaism wasn't a historical event? Or you mean the life and crucifixion of a man called Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth wasn't a historical event? The discovery of the empty tomb wasn't an historical event? (if it wasn't why didn't someone just point out the body still inside there?) You mean Saint Paul's vision on the road to Damascus and his mission to the Gentiles wasn't an historical event? I think you find it all was but you have to explain all these details and all this came to be without it being any kind of significant supernatural event from God. There is quite a lot there to explain there. Now other religions have some kind of hazy origin lost in the vast reaches of ancient history or are based on some guy who said some stuff. What they say may well be very good, but lets see them return to life from death and say something. There has to be something to distinguish the genuine article from the competition and that is why the resurrection of Christ is critical. If that didn't happen then Christianity is a croc, and says this in the NT itself.

Yea I meant all that. Give me evidence other than the bible that said all that happened. Btw, that's not the end of things, as apophenia said, none of those are supernatural events, so even if they happened, doesn't prove god.

I'll say this one more time: they're all equally ridiculous.

You think Christianity is equal to Scientology?

They're equally ridiculous yes.

What the fuck is naturalism?

The belief that the natural world, natural processes and the byproduct of natural processes is all there is to exist. This is essentially what you yourself believe, as an atheist.

Funny how you think you know what I believe in better than myself. God complex?

If someone can properly explain what supernatural is and show that it exists, it'd be natural.

It would be beyond the natural world as we understand it and therefore be a little more "super". Of course the resurrection of Christ would have to be a supernatural event as there would be no way to do this naturally. And if you think about it, God is a fairly supernatural kind of guy. If God was the natural universe he would just be the universe.

Oh you really had me convinced when you said "God is a fairly supernatural kind of guy". Makes so much sense!

Supernatural is just another word used to make people like you feel better, because otherwise you'd have to say, I believe in imaginary things.

Well it's good to feel better, better in a real moral compassionate sense in the loving God. As long as what you believe is actually true that's the trick right there. To do this you need to demonstrate how Christianity is the most substantive of the religions in the world and demonstrate the flaws with the naturalist worldview, which if you really look into it doesn't really hold water. There is still going to be a little bit of faith involved but faith is a good thing to have, providing it's not a blind faith you have no good reason to have.

I said you used the word to make yourself to feel less stupid, I was trying to get you to understand that the trick doesn't work with me. No need to go into preaching mode.

Atheism is the lack of belief. Get that through your head. Your bullshit isn't that hard to refute, it really is so ridiculous that's why we don't believe in it.

No I think once you get to the stage where you're properly hardcore and arguing against the existence of God/theism/supernatural/immortality/freewill/objective morality/purpose to the universe and all life then what you have is the full equivalent of a religious belief, we can call it scientific naturalism. I think like any religious belief there some things here you have to take with a little bit of faith. Assuming you don't God exists of course.

I don't take you seriously when you pretend to know what I believe in.

It's not random chance. Is that what joseph did? So where did he collect the sperm of the holy ghost?

If the universe wasn't purposefully created by God then it's a coincidence that it happened to be 100% perfectly ideally constructed and laid out for complex biological life to form. That would be us right here, we would be the byproduct not the intent. If God doe exist (and he does) and did create the universe (and he did) and he had something in mind (ourselves) then the situation is somewhat different in nature. I'd confidently claim that the evidence we have strongly supports the notion of a God or intelligence created natural order in a universe that was created for life.

[/quote]
That's a false dichotomy. You're talking in such broad terms that I'm not inclined to explain anything to you because that would steer this debate into what the scientific facts are. And I don't believe in debating scientific facts. So here, you're just plain wrong, you need to read a book to figure out why. There is no evidence. You don't know how to draw valid conclusions from evidence, you conclude something that the evidence doesn't clearly support, that's why Creationism isn't a science and will never be a science, cos it's stupid and dishonest.