The Reasons to Believe in Yahweh

[Voltron]

This is a really fucking stupid way to argue your point. You have to know that right?

What do you think my point was? I'm curious as I'm getting the feeling that no one is really listening.

You're attempting to excuse delusion by fabricating different standards for what should be accepted as evidence, all the while disregarding our ability to reason. Nothing more.

[John V]

You're attempting to excuse delusion by fabricating different standards for what should be accepted as evidence, all the while disregarding our ability to reason. Nothing more.

Yes, I got the general drift from your first post. I'm asking specifically regarding the Gettysburg address point. Do you think I'm saying that someone who accepts the Gettysburg address must also accept the Biblical miracles?

[Voltron]

You're attempting to excuse delusion by fabricating different standards for what should be accepted as evidence, all the while disregarding our ability to reason. Nothing more.

Yes, I got the general drift from your first post. I'm asking specifically regarding the Gettysburg address point. Do you think I'm saying that someone who accepts the Gettysburg address must also accept the Biblical miracles?

No. What draws you to that conclusion?

[John V]

No. What draws you to that conclusion?

Your protest.

Can you tell me specifically what's wrong with the Gettysburg bit?

[Minimalist]

Yes. You are FUCKING WRONG.

[Voltron]

No. What draws you to that conclusion?

Your protest.

Can you tell me specifically what's wrong with the Gettysburg bit?

Fuck you and your strawman.

This has already been answered several times throughout the last couple of pages of the thread.

[overlord fombax]

No. What draws you to that conclusion?

Your protest.

Can you tell me specifically what's wrong with the Gettysburg bit?

The Gettysburg address and the life of Yeshua bar Joseph of Maybenazareth are not remotely comparable as historical events. Gettysburg was a landmark speech by the leader of the free world a mere 150 years ago. We have several documented eyewitness accounts, 5 manuscripts given by the man himself to his secretaries which give us insight into the drafting of the speech, and coverage of the event in major newspapers around the nation the very next day. The speech's impact on history is visible and traceable back to a clear starting point.

For Jesus, we don't even seem to have a source outside of the Bible that even proves his existence, let alone one that documents his ministry, which supposedly swept thousands of people into its thrall. We have only secondary sources that seem to have originated at least 50 years after the "fact," many of which show signs indicating them to be deliberate fiction (i.e. Homeric references in Mark, non-prophecies turned into prophecies in Matthew.) How is our willingness as historians to accept the truth of the two events even vaguely part of the same discussion?

[median]

No. What draws you to that conclusion?

Your protest.

Can you tell me specifically what's wrong with the Gettysburg bit?

Funny how you just skirted/ignored my rebuttal and refutation of your argument attempts (#33 - pg.4). You have so much to lose, don't you? You just CAN'T allow that your religion might be false.