If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Freddy Figbottom]

Correct. I have many "private matters" in my life. I do not bring them up in a forum dedicated to discussions of what people present.

Cannot help but wonder why you do.



Actually, you stated what you DO NOT believe.

Yes it is. But either you are here for discussion or you are just doing a benign form of trolling.

I am interested in why someone who DOES NOT "BELIEVE" there are no gods...and who DOES NOT "BELIEVE" IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT THERE ARE NO GODS THAN THAT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE...

...WOULD USE AN SELF-DESCRIPTOR LIKE "ATHEIST."

It makes no sense to me, and I thought you could be of some help with that. But apparently you think you are above such a discussion.

Too bad. I would have loved to hear what you have to say on that.

winterborn is a neocon idiot who's main argument is to try to close threads by asserting they're topic change.

 

[IBDaMann]

If you walk on wet asphalt, you are walking on water.

Again, you're playing dumb.

Are you officially stating for the record your denial of any water in wet asphalt? Your positions get stupider by the day.

 

[Cypress]

Is that so? Other gospels mention other instances of Jesus bringing people back from the dead (Jairus's daughter, for one example). If Jesus could do it with other people, why not Lazarus? And that's not even getting into the accounts of Jesus HIMSELF rising from the dead.

People walk on water all the time, Cypress... It's very easy to do.

I'll let Catholics speak to what they claim about it (I'm not a Catholic).

Yes, they were VERY convinced that they had seen Jesus after the crucifixion. Many of them were even KILLED (martyred) for expressing that belief, and they stuck with that belief even unto death (instead of renouncing it and remaining alive).

The words "esteemed", "scholar", and Bart Ehrmann should NEVER be used in the same sentence.

MANY were willing to be martyred for what they claim to have seen.

I doubt it.

I strongly doubt it.

This. I believe that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead (IOW, having authority over death). If God was capable of creating the heavens and the earth (IOW, having authority over all things), then it stands to reason that he would likewise be capable of rising from the dead (having authority over death).

The only things you have to believe in to be Christian are the death and resurrection of Christ and salvation through faith in Christ. The Catholics are a sacramental religion, so they have sacraments play a role in salvation.

Believing in the literal truth of Noah's Ark, Lazarus, walking on water is not a requirement, and I don't remember seeing anything in Paul's epistles that says you have to believe those are literally true.

 

[IBDaMann]

o

IBD is a bad faith poster. Word games are his forte.

Cypress is a cowardly ignoramus who can't participate in an honest discussion at the adult's table.

 

[IBDaMann]

Hmmm... And here I thought that IBD was a "no faith" poster..... ??

Hmmm...And here I thought that you believed that what I didn't believe was that there was no faith in posting my beliefs about faith. I don't believe that you put your faith in the right belief about posting in bad faith. Shame on you.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

No, it's simply considered an incomplete argument. I can say that a rock is evidence of the historicity of Jesus. Your response is "OK, I'm admitting that rock into evidence. Now, make your case."

If you were to say "I'm not admitting the rock into evidence because I don't know how you intend to use it to support your argument which you cannot make without the evidence that I am not allowing" then the fallacy is on your end.

partial argument isn't a thing. dum dum.

appeal to popularity is largely considered a fallacy.

though I will grant you it's at best bad evidence.

thinking you can win with bad evidence is the fallacy.

you = dum

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

all you "atheism isn't a thing" idiots are just Zionist war monger fuck hounds.

 

[IBDaMann]

The only things you have to believe in to be Christian are the death and resurrection of Christ and salvation through faith in Christ.

Are you stating for the record that one can be a Christian without following a single word of Christ's teachings? You are saying that meta-beliefs are all that are necessary to be a Christian, i.e. believe that some things happened and believe that "faith in Christ" is "salvation"?

The Catholics are a sacramental religion, so they have sacraments play a role in salvation.

Catholic sacraments don't award any bonus points for salvation. They mostly make one feel holier for having affirmed one's faith.

Believing in the literal truth of Climate Change / Global Warming is not a requirement, and I don't remember seeing anything in Paul's epistles that says you have to believe in catastrophic extreme weather that is worse that scientists previously feared.

FTFY.

 

[IBDaMann]

partial argument isn't a thing. dum dum.

Of course you are totally correct. Attorneys never fight to get evidence tossed. You have a firm handle on this one, I can see that now.

appeal to popularity is largely considered a fallacy.

Yes, it is a fallacy. Consider it fully stipulated.

though I will grant you it's at best bad evidence.

This is not for you to determine for your opponents. Your opponents determine the evidence they wish to present. You are free to dismiss their evidence, but you don't get to declare it as "not their evidence."

thinking you can win with bad evidence is the fallacy.

Nope. Dismissing evidence without consideration, and without listening to the entire argument, is the fallacy.

you = dum

But I is a collage graduate.

all you "atheism isn't a thing" idiots are just Zionist war monger fuck hounds.

Help me out here. I am an atheist. Does that make me an "atheism isn't a thing" person or an "atheism is a thing" person?

 

[ZenMode]

Yeah, that is pretty much what I said. When dealing with the issue of the REALITY of existence, in particular "whether there are any gods or not"...you depend on your blind guesses.

Religionists insist their blind guesses are correct...and call that insistence "faith."

What do you atheists call your insistence that your blind guesses are correct?

It's not blind guesses. It's looking at the available evidence and deciding what makes sense.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Of course you are totally correct. Attorneys never fight to get evidence tossed. You have a firm handle on this one, I can see that now.


Yes, it is a fallacy. Consider it fully stipulated.


This is not for you to determine for your opponents. Your opponents determine the evidence they wish to present. You are free to dismiss their evidence, but you don't get to declare it as "not their evidence."


Nope. Dismissing evidence without consideration, and without listening to the entire argument, is the fallacy.


But I is a collage graduate.


Help me out here. I am an atheist. Does that make me an "atheism isn't a thing" person or an "atheism is a thing" person?

sounds like you're in the is a thing camp.

but you are still a Zionist genocide fuckhound for moral reasons I guess.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It's not blind guesses. It's looking at the available evidence and deciding what makes sense.

It is nothing but blind guessing.

The religionists insist they are not guessing also.

You atheists are the same way.

Go in peace.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Of course you are totally correct. Attorneys never fight to get evidence tossed. You have a firm handle on this one, I can see that now.


Yes, it is a fallacy. Consider it fully stipulated.


This is not for you to determine for your opponents. Your opponents determine the evidence they wish to present. You are free to dismiss their evidence, but you don't get to declare it as "not their evidence."


Nope. Dismissing evidence without consideration, and without listening to the entire argument, is the fallacy.


But I is a collage graduate.


Help me out here. I am an atheist. Does that make me an "atheism isn't a thing" person or an "atheism is a thing" person?

bad evidence is not the same as partial evidence.

though we could say partial evidence would be bad evidence, if only it were a thing.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I understand the topic more than you. But, apparently you are a wiseass youngster and nothing I can do about that.

Everyone understands more than JPP's biggest liar and retard, @gmark77. LOL

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why don't you go fuck yourself, instead.


Continue to wait. Hold your breath until you turn blue. Kick your heels at the floor.

Mommy may hug you and make you feel better.
Then...maybe you will be able to play nicely with others.

@gmark77 already does. If it wasn't for Rosie Palm and her five sisters, he'd be a virgin. Jus' sayin'. LOL

A plastic laundry bag would help too.

Probably so since he still lives at home but I doubt it would improve him. He lacks the ability. Sad.

 

[ZenMode]

People walk on water all the time, Cypress... It's very easy to do.

 

[Cypress]

The only things you have to believe in to be Christian are the death and resurrection of Christ and salvation through faith in Christ. The Catholics are a sacramental religion, so they have sacraments play a role in salvation.

Are you stating for the record that one can be a Christian without following a single word of Christ's teachings?!!

Having genuine faith in Christ is supposed to change you ethically. That's what the Protestants teach.

If you don't notice any ethical improvement at all, it means your faith was not genuine.

That's what makes Christianity unique among world religions. It's not a merit based religion where you earn points towards salvation. Grace was freely given by the life and death of Christ.

 

[ZenMode]

You never consider anyone else's evidence after you have been told what to believe by the people who do your thinking for you.


You swapped the order. First you are told what you are to believe and how to think, then you dismiss all differing views.

There's no "anyone else's evidence". There's nothing new happening that would offer additional evidence.

I grew up Lutheran, went to Sunday School/church for most of my life and believed in the Christian god.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you officially stating for the record your denial of any water in wet asphalt? Your positions get stupider by the day.

Why would walking on a wet, solid surface be mentioned in the Bible as something notable that Jesus did?

 

[Cypress]

Is that so? Other gospels mention other instances of Jesus bringing people back from the dead (Jairus's daughter, for one example). If Jesus could do it with other people, why not Lazarus?

Jairus's daughter was sick, the story of her dying and being resurrected by Jesus sounds like a later addition. Or maybe she slipped into a coma. The literary evidence is that Jesus was widely known as a healer

And that's not even getting into the accounts of Jesus HIMSELF rising from the dead.

But Jesus wasn't exactly simply a human according to the NT narrative. So that resurrection account is internally consistent.

People walk on water all the time, Cypress... It's very easy to do.

Not liquid water on a lake. The Sea of Galilee doesn't freeze over.

MANY were willing to be martyred for what they claim to have seen.

If I am to be historically critical, Peter, Paul, James son of Zebedee, James brother of Jesus were almost certainly martyred. Andrew and Thomas were probably martyred. The evidence for most of the rest is circumstantial at best, and it's equally possible they were not martyred as much as its possible they were.

But it is noteworthy that there is no competing body of literature saying after the resurrection any of the disciples abandoned Jesus or submitted to Roman or Jewish authorities. Any time there is a lack of a competing narrative that can be a line of evidence .

www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/historicity-of-the-martydoms-of-the-apostles.240710/#post-6738690

This. I believe that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead (IOW, having authority over death). If God was capable of creating the heavens and the earth (IOW, having authority over all things), then it stands to reason that he would likewise be capable of rising from the dead (having authority over death).

Nothing wrong with that. It's only a vocal minority that give the impression Democrats hate Christianity