Speechless

[madog]

Now I'm confused? are you saying then that the Gospel isn't the teachings of Jesus and his apostles?

Those books are called the Gospels, because they contain the Gospel story.  The Gospel or "Good News" is what Paul describes in 1 Cor 15 1-4.  The death and resurrection of Jesus and what that entails.

You are really tap dancing here. So OK forget most definitions of what the word "Gospel" means and just deal with the "Gospel" you wish to discuss.

So OK, what empirical evidence do you have that the "son of God" was crucified?

[Thumpalumpacus]

It doesn't harm anyone to watch an evolution video or any documentaries for that matter.

I doubt that anyone has been harmed from reading the bible either - unless they where doing so while driving.

The Bible is mental candy: Lots of empty calories, and if you imbibe to much, you get cavities.

[RoadRunner79]

Those books are called the Gospels, because they contain the Gospel story.  The Gospel or "Good News" is what Paul describes in 1 Cor 15 1-4.  The death and resurrection of Jesus and what that entails.

You are really tap dancing here. So OK forget most definitions of what the word "Gospel" means and just deal with the "Gospel" you wish to discuss.

So OK, what empirical evidence do you have that the "son of God" was crucified?

There are a number of witnesses who recorded seeing it happen, not just the written accounts we have now, but also the historical tradition given to the early Church who didn't write down an account.

[madog]

You are really tap dancing here. So OK forget most definitions of what the word "Gospel" means and just deal with the "Gospel" you wish to discuss.

So OK, what empirical evidence do you have that the "son of God" was crucified?

There are a number of witnesses who recorded seeing it happen, not just the written accounts we have now, but also the historical tradition given to the early Church who didn't write down an account.

That didn't answer my question and certainly isn't empirical evidence that the "Son of God" was crucified  ....

A group of people can state they knew some people that saw a man that claimed he was the historic napoleon Bonaparte being run over by a car. Even though I might even question this first/second hand account as empirical evidence, I would certainly discount that their account as empirical evidence that the man was actually the historic Napoleon Bonaparte.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He's one of those people who thinks he's better than both theists and atheists. I don't know how he thinks he escapes being in one of those categories himself. Probably by not understanding what the words mean.

Non believers have total freedom over their lifes. And certainly there are many atheists in jail, who in time of desperation acted like animals. 

On the other hand theistic people fueled by fear in God often evade such catastrophe.

That isn't borne out by American prison demographics.

[FatAndFaithless]

Non believers have total freedom over their lifes. And certainly there are many atheists in jail, who in time of desperation acted like animals. 

On the other hand theistic people fueled by fear in God often evade such catastrophe.

That isn't borne out by American prison demographics.

I raised the same objection, somehow I doubt he'll address it.

[robvalue]

Oh my good god Roadrunner. Did you just try and dismiss and tu quoque away my whole list?

You are living in a fantasy land for real. You can't just keep saying "evolution" and expecting real harmful things to go away.

You don't even understand the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. Until you do, you should really stop bringing it up. And look up the tu quoque fallacy, because it's the only play you seem to have. Except plain denial of reality.

I am almost speechless at the tactics you are stooping to. "I could say the same about evolution?"

You could, but it would be a meaningless thing to say as you don't even understand what it is.

This is when the opponent deflects criticism of their argument towards you instead, saying, "You too!" The problem with this is that they have not addressed the criticism of their argument at all. They are trying to get around it by implying that your position has similar problems, and so is not superior.

It may be the case that your position has problems, but that is irrelevant when discussing their position. That is a separate discussion. Of course, your position may not have such problems, in which case it is just a cheap deflecting tactic to cover the weakness of their position.

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!tu-quoque/c17iz

[RoadRunner79]

There are a number of witnesses who recorded seeing it happen, not just the written accounts we have now, but also the historical tradition given to the early Church who didn't write down an account.

That didn't answer my question and certainly isn't empirical evidence that the "Son of God" was crucified  ....

A group of people can state they knew some people that saw a man that claimed he was the historic napoleon Bonaparte being run over by a car. Even though I might even question this first/second hand account as empirical evidence, I would certainly discount that their account as empirical evidence that the man was actually the historic Napoleon Bonaparte.

I think that a circumstantial case can be made, that Jesus was the Son of God.  And some of it may be considered empirical evidence (seeing the miracles). 

Are you talking about a modern day automobile?   There where steam powered vehicles during Napoleon's time.   But yes, my first question would be, why they thought it was Napoleon Bonaparte.

[robvalue]

This is why I stopped debating you before. I'm completely done reading anything you write this time, wow. I can't deal with this level of blatant dishonesty.

[RoadRunner79]

This is why I stopped debating you before. I'm completely done reading anything you write this time, wow. I can't deal with this level of blatant dishonesty.

I assume that you are talking to me.... without a quote, it is difficult to tell what or even who you are referring to.   I am curious, what you feel was blatant dishonesty (and would like the opportunity to change or clarify what I said), but if you don't want to talk, then that is fine, and I wish you well.   As I offered before, I will continue to comment on posts, but if you like, I won't address anything directly to you.