The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave

[Cyberman]

I'm not surprised that some (most) here won't be able to discern spiritual matters. After all... You're self-professed non-spiritualists. I do not expect you or any atheist/agnostic to apprehend spiritual matters - you've shut that door.

Says who? Personally I'm as spiritual as my basic rationality tempered by evidence allows. It's god-claims that my atheism addresses; nothing else about me is yours on which to speculate, based on that label alone, and how dare you presume to make that judgement, sir?

[Esquilax]

"Kind" is extremely important and wish you wouldn't cast it to the side.

You want me to take that term seriously, you've only got to do one thing: define what it means in specific terms, and then stick to that definition regardless of all the problems we'll undoubtedly find with it.

See, most creationists use the term interchangeably with a variety of other, mutually exclusive scientific terms like species and genus and so on, so that they can have this magic handwavey thing to object to evolution with, without ever being held accountable to what it means. I'm sure you can see how dishonest such a tactic is, and so you'll surely have a definition of "kind" that you'll tell us before we get into an actual discussion on it, right?

Yes, when we pet a poodle we both can agree that this may of evolved over many many years from a different looking dog. But you lose me if you say that billions of years ago this evolved from a frog.

And again, merely asserting that without explaining the mechanism that would stop small changes from accumulating into larger ones isn't compelling. It's just an argument from incredulity; the fact that you think it's implausible isn't an argument against evolution, it's a demonstration of your inability to properly absorb facts.

[Cinjin]

When the hardened Roman Centurian witness what He did at the cross two thousand years ago he said, "Certain, this was the Son of God!"

Again - that phrase is taken from the same book that makes the claim of his deity.
With that sort of logic, every religion can argue that they have proof of their deity simply by drawing attention to the witnesses they wrote in for themselves.

You mentioned that we can call you a 'Fool for Christ.' Sadly for you the word fool has a certain happy-go-lucky foppishness to it. The word is rather endearing in a way ... as if to say, "yes he's the town fool, but he's our beloved town fool." You sir are no such thing. You sir, are a blithering idiot.

Can we call you a blithering idiot for christ instead?

[Jiggerj]

He appeared to His disciples. These men's lives were changed and God used them to change the world.

And thank god for Jesus and his disciples! Without them there'd still be war today. And cruelty to animals and children. And starvation in impoverished nations. And greed and tyranny and murder and rape and intolerance and honor killings and wife beatings and pedophiles and...?

How did they change the world again?

[Cinjin]

How did they change the world again?

they stopped the progression of humans for 1000+ years

[Crossless2.0]

Rev, let's try this: In your own words, tell us why you think atheists would find the testimony of the NT to be insufficient for establishing the truth of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, was divine, etc. I ask because I'm pretty sure you don't get it.

[Chas]

[Esquilax]

And do you actually think that the Institute for Creation Research is scientifically credible? Here's where you stole that text from.

I had a feeling it'd be something like that, but I wanted him to admit it himself.

Now, lemme just do my "creation science" bias check...

Ah, here we go!

All origins research must begin with a premise. ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days.

Oh, so they start from the presupposition that the bible is one hundred percent correct before they write anything, huh? You mean, their approach to science is the complete opposite of the scientific method, which comes in with no preconceptions other than what the facts show, and have rigorous mechanisms in place to weed out biases based on previously held beliefs?

Yeah, such a convincing piece of scientific literature, Rev.

[pocaracas]

All origins research must begin with a premise. ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days.

Oh, so they start from the presupposition that the bible is one hundred percent correct before they write anything, huh? You mean, their approach to science is the complete opposite of the scientific method, which comes in with no preconceptions other than what the facts show, and have rigorous mechanisms in place to weed out biases based on previously held beliefs?

Yeah, such a convincing piece of scientific literature, Rev.

Of the myriad interactions with Stat, rev should proceed along the lines of:
"
No, science has its own preconceptions, presuppositions. That electrons always work in the same way. That photons always travel at the same speed in the same medium. That every single repeatable physical experiment always works the same way.
You cannot explain why it always works in the same way.
I explain it with god. God maintains everything and keeps everything in operation.
Furthermore, in the past, god made things work in a different way, so that what you perceive as billions of years, under your assumption, actually happened in a few thousands, which is in accordance with the biblical text.
So, clearly, science's presuppositions are clearly wrong and you can't rely on science for anything about the past.
"

There you go, rev, I did all your work, now enjoy Esq's (and every one else's) reply.

[DeistPaladin]

Of the myriad interactions with Stat, rev should proceed along the lines of:
"
...
You cannot explain why it always works in the same way.
I explain it with god. God maintains everything and keeps everything in operation.
...
"

There's so much about presuppositionalism that is just so laughably batshit but for now this part is my favorite.

Essentially, it boils down to "Look! Nothing! That proves something!"

Or more specifically, "Look! Nothing unusual happened! That proves some unseen supernatural force must have acted upon it to prevent anything unusual from happening!"

It's a masterfully deft display of mental slight of hand. It turns zero evidence into evidence of its own kind.

You know what would be more impressive than nothing unusual happening?

Something unusual happening!