The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave

[Anomalocaris]

You are entitled to your opinion. I base my answers on the Truth of God's Word and what I feel is sound reasoning. If you call that being dishonest then what can I say?

You might say you are capable of improvement over the gullible supertitious moron of biblical proportions, as it were, that you are now.

But not only are you too stupid to actually improve upon it, you are too stupid to even see it as desirable to say you can improve upon it.

[Minimalist]

If I hold up a watch and say, "someone created this"

Because it is a mechanical device, you dumb twit. Two clocks didn't fuck and give birth to it!

[Simon Moon]

Look what you are saying,,,"blindly accept" If I hold up a watch and say, "someone created this" and you reply, "how could you blindly accept that?" How is that logical? The watch itself is the thing that points to an intelligent designer. If I had not watch then it would be a different story. However, the fact there is a planet, and every observable thing has a cause, then we have to reasonable conclude that there is a Creator.

We don't detect design by complexity or function. We detect design by contrasting it with nature.

The watch is obviously designed because watches don't appear naturally. Every example of a watch, is known to be designed. Usually by multiple people.

I base my answers on the Truth of God's Word and what I feel is sound reasoning. If you call that being dishonest then what can I say?

By definition, sound reasoning, is based on valid and sound logic. You have never exhibited any. This very post contains unreasonable arguments; argument from ignorance, special pleading, begging the question and probably others.

Something miraculous happened this time apx. 2,000 years ago. That is why this Sunday billions of people will observe this miracle. I encourage you to read the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Texts are not evidence for the miraculous.


Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by unknown authors and they weren't eyewitnesses.

[Esquilax]

This is why I feel the burden of proof IS ON the atheist.

What you feel means very little; we have the burden of proof set up a certain way because it's the only one that logically makes sense. If the atheist isn't making the claim- and we're not- then obliging us to shoulder a burden of proof entails that everyone else who isn't making a claim also have one regarding things they don't believe, and that's ridiculous.

We are not having a discussion in a vacuum or in nothingness. We are alive and well on what we call planet earth. That in itself naturally screams, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

Yes, yes, and the atheist answer "we don't know yet" makes you uncomfortable, I understand. Why does that mean you get to twist the burden of proof?

If a child comes home from school with a black eye he can't ignore the question from his parent, how did you get that? We all are presented with the question of why we exist, how did we get here, how did it all began.

I agree, that is definitely a question with an answer. I'm just saying I don't know what it is yet, and for all your pretensions of knowing yourself, you've utterly failed to give us any reason to accept your claims as knowledge. Trite nothings like "the empty tomb," don't cut it.

Even if the atheist says, "I don't believe in God," that is dodging the question that needs to be addressed.

No, it's providing a position on the answer to that question that you've broached. Don't mistake our disagreement with the entirety of our position on any given question.

The atheist can't answer how did this all come to be using clear evidence from where they base all their beliefs - empirical science. The creationist can, an all-powerful intelligent designer.

So in your estimation it's more important to have an answer, any answer, even an incorrect answer, than to just honestly admit ignorance? A lie is preferable to not having the truth, so long as you just assert that you know it? Why the hell do you think this is an argument for your position?



Do you actually think the last panel is a compelling answer?

Then you can say, were is your proof. I answer,,,creation is proof.

Right, so you baselessly assert that what we're living in is a creation, offer absolutely no proof of that beyond your circular reasoning that creations need a creator, and expect all the rational people to just play along with your sophistic word game. Nope, I'm not going to do that.

Just like if I held up a watch, a lot less complicated then this planet and say, this had a creator, it was not an accident. If you were to say that the watch was an accident, perhaps, you would be receiving the insults instead of I.

Ha ha, I haven't had to deal with the watchmaker argument for a while, that's cute.

So, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere in this thread, we don't just magically intuit design; we recognize design via comparison to the natural. Here's a watch, and everything we know about watches demonstrates that they're designed by people. We have plenty of evidence that watches are designed by people, and none that they are naturally occurring.

Conversely, we have no evidence at all that planets, universes and so on are designed, aside from your profound misunderstanding of how one recognizes design, and so we can't possibly think that they're designed.

In fact, you're kinda begging the question when you say that complex things must have been designed, because you've got no reason to think that, at all. Got anything else?

[Minimalist]

This is why I feel the burden of proof IS ON the atheist.

No one gives a shit what you feel.

Learn.

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

[Cyberman]

The atheist can't answer how did this all come to be using clear evidence from where they base all their beliefs - empirical science. The creationist can, an all-powerful intelligent designer.

I can answer any question you care to throw at me, as long as I get to make it all up as I go along and never have to prove any of it. Having answers is easy - having correct answers, not so much.

[Revelation777]

The atheist can't answer how did this all come to be using clear evidence from where they base all their beliefs - empirical science. The creationist can, an all-powerful intelligent designer.

I can answer any question you care to throw at me, as long as I get to make it all up as I go along and never have to prove any of it. Having answers is easy - having correct answers, not so much.

I see your post is #666...yikes

[Minimalist]

And my post is #668.
Go Blow Jesus Out Your Ass.

[KichigaiNeko]

Happy Zombie day Rev7

No go out and drink the blood and eat the flesh of your saviour.

[Revelation777]

The atheist is not saying the watch was an accident; we are saying we do not blindly accept your claim that it was designed, intelligently or not. That is something you need to demonstrate, not merely assert it.

Similarly, we are not saying god and/or gods do not exist, we are saying we do not accept your claim that such things do exist. The atheist carries no burden of proof, because the atheist is not trying to prove anything. It really is that simple.

Evading the issue of the basic existence of god/gods by throwing up red herrings about "how did all this come to be" is transparently dishonest and a desperate attempt to pretend you have supportive evidence when it is clear for all to see that you do not.

Dear Atheist Friend,
I want to let you know that I will not be replying to any posts from Good Friday to Resurrection Sunday for obvious reasons. I am planning on presenting on new threads, one at a time, what I will refer to as "The Seven Arguments." If my atheist friends answer each argument convincingly and satisfactory, then I will voluntarily and permanently leave this board. I am hoping the the discussion over seven arguments can be cordial, respectful, void of foul language and name calling. In the meantime, I would like to thank everyone on this board for your perspectives and sharing your views. I also am thankful for allowing a Christian like me to be here in the first place. I especially would like to thank: Esquilax, Stimbo, Minimalist, Aral Gamelon, Angry Cloud Face, Steel Curtain, Tonus, Deidre32, Chas, Kitanatos, Beccs, Brian37, Tartarus Sauce, DarkHorse, whateverist, faithnomore, and to anyone I have forgotten. I love you all in the Lord Jesus Christ and pray for you daily. Have a great weekend to you and your families.
In His Service,
Rev777

---

Regarding the magic coin analogy and burden of proof. An athiest believes that there is no God. Ok, the burden of proof is now on you. Prove to me there is no God.

Okay, so we can now add "what an atheist is," to the list of things Rev didn't bother to know anything about before he came here. It can sit right alongside "how the burden of proof works."

But can I say, Rev, how monumentally damn frustrating it is to see you constantly dodging questions and points in order to respond with inane, petty gotcha questions that aren't even logically well formed? This is the height of poor argumentation, and if you don't have an answer to something, don't try to slip around it and go on the attack, because we will notice and we will hold you accountable for this shoddy con tactic. This ain't our first time at this rodeo, even if it is yours.

Now, corrections. First of all, an atheist doesn't "believe there is no god," not necessarily. Most of us here don't believe in a god, and that's a small but important distinction: it's a "we don't know," backed up by a "there's still no evidence for your position, theists."

Secondly, it's not up to us to prove to you that god doesn't exist; we don't have to disprove something that has no basis in itself. We don't have to run, because you aren't chasing us. Without any evidence- which you have conspicuously failed to supply- then the default position is to disbelieve the claim. If you think it's otherwise, then in order to be logically consistent you'd have to believe every claim until you could prove it false, which makes you a polytheist shacked up with all kinds of gods.

But privileging your god with this "you can't prove he doesn't exist!" nonsense is called special pleading, and it's a logical fallacy. Inadmissible, but nice try.

Dear Atheist Friend,
I want to let you know that I will not be replying to any posts from Good Friday to Resurrection Sunday for obvious reasons. I am planning on presenting on new threads, one at a time, what I will refer to as "The Seven Arguments." If my atheist friends answer each argument convincingly and satisfactory, then I will voluntarily and permanently leave this board. I am hoping the the discussion over seven arguments can be cordial, respectful, void of foul language and name calling. In the meantime, I would like to thank everyone on this board for your perspectives and sharing your views. I also am thankful for allowing a Christian like me to be here in the first place. I especially would like to thank: Esquilax, Stimbo, Minimalist, Aral Gamelon, Angry Cloud Face, Steel Curtain, Tonus, Deidre32, Chas, Kitanatos, Beccs, Brian37, Tartarus Sauce, DarkHorse, whateverist, faithnomore, and to anyone I have forgotten. I love you all in the Lord Jesus Christ and pray for you daily. Have a great weekend to you and your families.
In His Service,
Rev777

---

Look what you are saying,,,"blindly accept" If I hold up a watch and say, "someone created this" and you reply, "how could you blindly accept that?" How is that logical? The watch itself is the thing that points to an intelligent designer. If I had not watch then it would be a different story. However, the fact there is a planet, and every observable thing has a cause, then we have to reasonable conclude that there is a Creator.

We don't detect design by complexity or function. We detect design by contrasting it with nature.

The watch is obviously designed because watches don't appear naturally. Every example of a watch, is known to be designed. Usually by multiple people.

I base my answers on the Truth of God's Word and what I feel is sound reasoning. If you call that being dishonest then what can I say?

By definition, sound reasoning, is based on valid and sound logic. You have never exhibited any. This very post contains unreasonable arguments; argument from ignorance, special pleading, begging the question and probably others.

Something miraculous happened this time apx. 2,000 years ago. That is why this Sunday billions of people will observe this miracle. I encourage you to read the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Texts are not evidence for the miraculous.


Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by unknown authors and they weren't eyewitnesses.

Dear Atheist Friend,
I want to let you know that I will not be replying to any posts from Good Friday to Resurrection Sunday for obvious reasons. I am planning on presenting on new threads, one at a time, what I will refer to as "The Seven Arguments." If my atheist friends answer each argument convincingly and satisfactory, then I will voluntarily and permanently leave this board. I am hoping the the discussion over seven arguments can be cordial, respectful, void of foul language and name calling. In the meantime, I would like to thank everyone on this board for your perspectives and sharing your views. I also am thankful for allowing a Christian like me to be here in the first place. I especially would like to thank: Esquilax, Stimbo, Minimalist, Aral Gamelon, Angry Cloud Face, Steel Curtain, Tonus, Deidre32, Chas, Kitanatos, Beccs, Brian37, Tartarus Sauce, DarkHorse, whateverist, faithnomore, and to anyone I have forgotten. I love you all in the Lord Jesus Christ and pray for you daily. Have a great weekend to you and your families.
In His Service,
Rev777