Are you sure there is no God ? [W: 352]

[Tanngrisnir]

Nonsense. The multiple, independent, historical Gospel accounts bury you on that.

Nope. Not even remotely relevant to the truth. There are no credible sources that you can cite.;

I've asked you thing many times in the past, and never had an answer for it. The Gospel accounts aren't historical.

It's clear from your posts that you hate Jesus Christ, you don't know his teachings and you're totally ignorant of the Bible.

Why do you pretend to be a Christian?

Does it have to do w/some issue in your past?

It's clear you're not a Christian, and that gives most people who know the bible a sad.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Really?? How does it misrepresent your position?? How is it a bad argument??? Can you show that there is physical evidence for the resurrection? Can you show a verified incident of another resurrection ??? Can you show that any evidence that the story in the Gospels of the resurrection is not merely' 'just so' stories for the faithful?

Irony: Writ Large.

Logicman weeps for the ignorance of logic.

Sigh.

 

[devildavid]

You have nothing of substance to back up that wild claim!

I don't need substance for a claim that a being beyond physical reality exists. Imaginary beings aren't real. Anyone who makes up stories about them is making a claim with no substantial evidence. Different religions have all claimed to know this being yet they are unable to come to an agreement on the nature of it. That's because it is all made up.

 

[devildavid]

Nonsense. The multiple, independent, historical Gospel accounts bury you on that.

And how many sources other than gospel accounts confirm it?

 

[Logicman]

Really?? How does it misrepresent your position?? How is it a bad argument??? Can you show that there is physical evidence for the resurrection? Can you show a verified incident of another resurrection ??? Can you show that any evidence that the story in the Gospels of the resurrection is not merely' 'just so' stories for the faithful?

Ramoss, don't bother me with your continued, anti-Christian nonsense. You've got zero credibility with it.

 

[Logicman]

Irony: Writ Large.

Logicman weeps for the ignorance of logic.

Sigh.

Horse manure.

 

[Logicman]

And how many sources other than gospel accounts confirm it?

See? You haven't done your homework, or you'd know the answers to that.

 

[zyzygy]

See? You haven't done your homework, or you'd know the answers to that.

We do know the answer.

Who Wrote What About Jesus Outside the Bible?

Josephus

When challenged about the veracity of the Bible and the paucity of references to Jesus Christ anywhere other than the Bible, Christians are quick to mention Josephus, the author of a 21 volume tome “The History of the Jews” written around 90 CE.

The Truth Is…

Josephus, in 127 words, (now referred to as the “Testimonium Flavianum“) gives the entire story of a divine Jesus. However no biblical scholar today believes that Josephus actually wrote those 127 words. All references to the divinity of Jesus that appear in Josephus have been proven to have been added long after the Josephus wrote his manuscript. Josephus wrote in 90 CE; the references to Jesus dying and being resurrected did not appear in his “writings” until the third century. All scholars agree that the references to a divine Jesus were added to the manuscript by an over zealous copiest.

The third century Church ‘Father’ Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this ‘golden paragraph’ from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

Origen did not quote the ‘golden paragraph’ because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen’s third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum. In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.
https://thechurchoftruth.org/no-evidence-for-jesus-outside-bible/
A review of references to Christ outside the Bible

 

[devildavid]

See? You haven't done your homework, or you'd know the answers to that.

Why don't you enlighten me as to these other sources?

But more important, if god is in all our hearts in exactly the same way, why do we need to study and research any religion or religious history? Can't we all find the truth in our hearts without having to read any religious books or learn the precepts of all religions?

 

[RAMOSS]

Ramoss, don't bother me with your continued, anti-Christian nonsense. You've got zero credibility with it.

Yet, for all your rhetoric, you can't show you speak the truth

 

[Cally]

an agnostic atheist, yes.

one who doesn't know whether or not there is a god vs. one who Knows there is no god. yea there's varying degrees of lacking knowledge or belief. Some people are certain that there is no god while others aren't sure. but just to clear things up, let us hyphenate these two words, combine their meanings, and further clarify this all important issue.

You've shown you are a poor debater, making inaccurate statements, propping up strawman arguments, resorting to false claims of "out of context," failing to adequately answer questions posed to you

Nice description of your own posting style. Foolishly using ridiculous sources as "support" for your erroneous and ILlogical positions, and failing to answer a single question honestly.

(http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...n-w-1129-a-post1066576731.html#post1066576731), and failing to recognize and admit when you've lost arguments, etc., etc. In short, it's a waste of time dealing with you.

In short, it's a waste of time dealing with fanatical religious imbeciles.

 

[Cephus]

one who doesn't know whether or not there is a god vs. one who Knows there is no god. yea there's varying degrees of lacking knowledge or belief. Some people are certain that there is no god while others aren't sure. but just to clear things up, let us hyphenate these two words, combine their meanings, and further clarify this all important issue.

But the reality is that nobody knows if there are gods or not because there is no intellectual basis upon which to base that claim of knowledge. Anyone who says they know there is a god or knows there are no gods is full of it. It is literally impossible to make that claim verifiably, with the exception of gods that are logically impossible and contradictory.

 

[Cally]

an agnostic atheist, yes.

But the reality is that nobody knows if there are gods or not because there is no intellectual basis upon which to base that claim of knowledge. Anyone who says they know there is a god or knows there are no gods is full of it. It is literally impossible to make that claim verifiably, with the exception of gods that are logically impossible and contradictory.

True.. which makes terminology like "agnostic-atheist" pointless. "Agnostic" is all that is needed...

 

[Logicman]

Nice description of your own posting style. Foolishly using ridiculous sources as "support" for your erroneous and ILlogical positions, and failing to answer a single question honestly.

What ridiculous 'source' are you referring to?

And what's the question I'm supposedly not answering? Pose the question.

 

[Logicman]

Yet, for all your rhetoric, you can't show you speak the truth

You've demonstrated you're unable to accept Biblical truths, like the resurrection.

 

[Cephus]

True.. which makes terminology like "agnostic-atheist" pointless. "Agnostic" is all that is needed...

In reality, it makes the term "agnostic" utterly pointless. If that's what you think agnostic means, then absolutely everyone is agnostic, hence the term is meaningless.

 

[Cally]

In reality, it makes the term "agnostic" utterly pointless. If that's what you think agnostic means, then absolutely everyone is agnostic, hence the term is meaningless.

No. it doesn't mean that at all. Most people are certain of their beliefs. hardly even questioning the precepts they learned from their parents, church, and school. people are spoon fed "knowledge" and rarely question it. So-- nope.. again on yet another interpretation of word(s). it's a wonder people even manage to communicate when terminology is so pathetically and utterly subjective.

 

[Tucker Case]

I'm not sure that there is no god, but I am sure that there's no logical reason to believe that there is one.

I can buy into the idea that there are emotional reasons to believe, but logical reasons do not exist.

 

[RAMOSS]

You've demonstrated you're unable to accept Biblical truths, like the resurrection.

I don't see any evidence that the resurrection is truth.. nor do I see the New Testament as what I consider biblical.

 

[Logicman]

I don't see any evidence that the resurrection is truth.. nor do I see the New Testament as what I consider biblical.

Your judgment on those issues is not trustworthy, IMO.

 

[winston53660]

Your judgment on those issues is not trustworthy, IMO.

So how do you justify any so called truth? Can you tell me anything about this?

 

[Cally]

In his mind: if he says it, it must be true. no logic required. Which is why his username is particularly hilarious..

 

[winston53660]

In his mind: if he says it, it must be true. no logic required. Which is why his username is particularly hilarious..

To me it seems he is on a self involved mission despite anything else.

 

[Cephus]

No. it doesn't mean that at all. Most people are certain of their beliefs. hardly even questioning the precepts they learned from their parents, church, and school. people are spoon fed "knowledge" and rarely question it. So-- nope.. again on yet another interpretation of word(s). it's a wonder people even manage to communicate when terminology is so pathetically and utterly subjective.

But that's not what knowledge is. That's why I asked for your definition of agnosticism. If we say it's actual knowledge, then agnosticism is a pointless word because absolutely no one can possibly have knowledge about the existence of gods. That makes everyone agnostic by definition and if 100% of everyone fits a definition, then the term is useless. You seem to be confusing actual knowledge with wishful thinking.

 

[ataraxia]

Ancient scriptures, accounts, and literature, are all notorious for a mixing of actual events with the supernatural (perhaps with the exceptions of Herodotus and Thucidydes). To ancient peoples, the natural and supernatural worlds were always completely and inextricably intermingled. Lightning scaring you tonight? Well that's obviously because you probably just did something to upset Zeus, so now he is throwing his lightning spears around in anger. So what did you do wrong, huh?

Take, as another example, the story recounted in the epic poem the Iliad. For a long time, it was not clear if the accounts of the 10 year war waged between the Greeks and Trojans was real, or a fictitious event. The work itself is estimated to have been written around 700 BC, talking about events which may have happened approximately 400 years earlier, so we are talking about a war waged about 3100 years ago. The, in the late 19th century (AD), a wealthy retired German businessman turned amateur archeologist used clues from the poem itself to uncover an ancient city in what is now modern Turkey. At first, there was a lot of skepticism about whether this was the true ancient city of Troy. Many of the artifacts found there were later dated to the medieval period, around the 12th century AD, and found to be from the Byzantine empire (2000 years later than what they needed to be to be Trojan). So it seemed that this find was a dud.

But more recently, it has become clear that this site is extraordinarily rich: there are artifacts dating from about 9 layers of cities built on more ancient cities built on more ancient cities. They date from as late as the Byzantine period to adobe walls dating to around 3000 BC (around 2000 years even earlier than the city Troy as recounted in the Iliad). This is still an area of very active archeological exploration. But interestingly, and more to the point here, they have found in layer VI of this site evidence of soot and ash, consistent with the city having been burned to the ground. Carbon dating of the ash puts it at around 1200 BC- exactly consistent with the date of the ancient city of Troy as recounted in the Iliad. Fascinating!

So the Iliad is not just complete fiction. There is now substantial evidence that there really was a large walled city there, and that it was burned to the ground, as recounted in the Iliad. That's tremendous vindication of the truth of the story in the Iliad. But the Iliad also tells us that the Sea God Poseidon was on the side of the Greeks against the Trojans. So are we going to have to believe that as well and take it seriously now?

The same holds for stories of the resurrection. There probably was a Jewish prophet in 1st century Palestine, and he probably was crucified by the Romans for causing trouble. But having that mean that we must now accept a literal resurrection? I would believe that as much as I would believe the Sea God Poseidon helped the Greeks burn down Troy.