• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Heaven and Hell

If you had logic you would realize that he didn't say that. You don't have to disprove that there is a fantastic tea shop with great scones on the moon, just because I say there is. Logic requires that I prove it not the other way around.

You say that you believe something fantastic happened 2,000 years ago but you have no proof and you ask others to prove that it didn't instead. That's not logic, that's illogical and your belief isn't logic either, it's faith which you are welcome to have as long as you call it what it is, not what it isn't.

I have multiple, independent, historical Gospels along with various epistles and other early historical sources. You have what, denial of these sources? That't your logic? I was hoping you'd have more than that.
 
I have multiple, independent, historical Gospels along with various epistles and other early historical sources. You have what, denial of these sources? That't your logic? I was hoping you'd have more than that.
I have the history of mankind and the numerous religions he has created, all of which get tossed aside given time.

What you have are the Approved Gospels, and your favorite is undoubtedly the worst of the four, John.
 
I have multiple, independent, historical Gospels along with various epistles and other early historical sources. You have what, denial of these sources? That't your logic? I was hoping you'd have more than that.

Can you prove your sources are any more accurate than any other ancient texts such as the Iliad?
 
I have the history of mankind and the numerous religions he has created, all of which get tossed aside given time.

It's atheism that's on the wane. There's less than 5% of the population that don't believe. If you place that on a bell curve it would fall into the abnormal belief range.

What you have are the Approved Gospels, and your favorite is undoubtedly the worst of the four, John.

You can call them all approved if you want. The traditional Gospel authors are all attested to by the earliest church fathers. What do you have?
 
The manuscripts evidence is better.

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability|Accuracy of the New Testament | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Did you ever study the manuscript evidence for comparable ancient writings such as the New Testament vs. the Iliad, before you asked your question?

Seriously the first thing the site says is that there are a lot more manuscripts this proves it comes from God?
Got any actual proof that your scripture is the work of God?
 
Last edited:
Agnostics don't say there is no God. We say Christianity is bunk. You have faith, but that's what it is, faith.

You are representing Agnosticism as your view. Agnostics don't apply declarative statements to any specific religion, but just declare that they don't really know. It's actually an open-minded concept, whereas your mind appears to have been closed, at least selectively.
 
It's atheism that's on the wane. There's less than 5% of the population that don't believe. If you place that on a bell curve it would fall into the abnormal belief range.



You can call them all approved if you want. The traditional Gospel authors are all attested to by the earliest church fathers. What do you have?
The Gospels were written Anonymously for one. And how many people believe in something matters not a damn. If 99% of the people believe the Earth is flat they are still wrong.

I'll help you out here and then I must go. I say, Jesus was a drunk. You say, prove it. I say Jesus was married. You say, prove it. I say Jesus was gay. You say, prove it. You say Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, others say, prove it. See how that works?
 
You are representing Agnosticism as your view. Agnostics don't apply declarative statements to any specific religion, but just declare that they don't really know. It's actually an open-minded concept, whereas your mind appears to have been closed, at least selectively.

It's a sweeping statement but I'm comfortable with it. If God is unknown then the chances that the Christians are right about their personal god are essentially zero.
 
Seriously the firs thing the site says is that there are a lot more manuscripts this proves it comes from God?
Got any actual proof that your scripture is the work of God?

What I have in the independent, historical Gospels and epistles, etc., is the preponderance of the evidence, and the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies (the signature of God).
 
It's a sweeping statement but I'm comfortable with it. If God is unknown then the chances that the Christians are right about their personal god are essentially zero.

It's fine that you're comfortable with it, but it really isn't agnosticism, which is what you seemingly claim to adhere to.
 
What I have in the independent, historical Gospels and epistles, etc., is the preponderance of the evidence, and the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies (the signature of God).

No you have a bunch of people who all believe basically in the same God claiming their work comes from said God. That is not proof.
 
The Gospels were written Anonymously for one. And how many people believe in something matters not a damn. If 99% of the people believe the Earth is flat they are still wrong.

I'll help you out here and then I must go. I say, Jesus was a drunk. You say, prove it. I say Jesus was married. You say, prove it. I say Jesus was gay. You say, prove it. You say Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, others say, prove it. See how that works?

The Gospels were written anonymously? That's a sad claim. Let's just take one of them - Matthew.

Were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

So Matthew is anonymous you say? Sorry, the evidence says otherwise.
 
No you have a bunch of people who all believe basically in the same God claiming their work comes from said God. That is not proof.

It's impractical to try to use the scientific model of proof for historical personalities and events.

So back to what I do have that you don't - multiple, independent, historical confirmations (Gospels and Epistles) plus additional sources.
 
There may very well be a "beforelife" as well as an afterlife, at a level of consciousness outside the human brain itself. I recently finished a pretty interesting book on the subject, which was written by a neurosurgeon who had a very severe case of bacterial meningitis, from which he was expected to die, but instead lived to tell of his experiences while his brain was essentially dead. Admittedly, I am a skeptic in some ways still, but his story was rather compelling from a medical standpoint. I know that our human tendency is to discount anything which cannot be scientifically proven, but there are plenty of reasons to believe that science is not the ultimate arbiter of reality.
If there is a beforelife that we can't remember, what good it it?
 
It's impractical to try to use the scientific model of proof for historical personalities and events.

So back to what I do have that you don't - multiple, independent, historical confirmations (Gospels and Epistles) plus additional sources.

I have no problem agreeing to the people in the bible existing I want to you to provide proof of the God inspired bit.
The Iliad is about the Trojan war which historically is an accepted fact so why are the Gods mentioned in it fictional according to you but God in scripture is real?
Number of texts is not proof it merely means many people wrote about similar subjects.
 
If the resurrection is so absurd, why can't you falsify it? Should be a piece of cake for someone with such great insight. Where's the beef?

When you falsify the existence of Santa Claus, I'll take a stab at falsifying the resurrection.
 
What does it matter to you what other people believe? Does someone elses belief in the afterlife or Jesus harm you in some way?

Yes. Adults believing childish things is a huge problem and holds us back.
 
If there is a beforelife that we can't remember, what good it it?

The same good that "afterlife" would be. If all that we are is a result of the human brain, then neither has any value whatsoever, and if that is what you believe, then I have no issue with that. My point was that just because we can't recall having some type of consciousness before physical birth, it does not mean that is was non-existent. We really don't know for certain. We want to believe that we have everything under control, and that we know everything, so we try to deny anything that science cannot prove. That is a logical stance to take, but humans are often anything BUT logical. I'm glad that is the case, because to function only in a logical state would be the ultimate form of a boring existence, devoid of anything meaningful.
 
What are you being held back from?
You know, that whole "undermining science" thing, for one.
Undermine Science By Redefining It
We can start with a real doozie: Evolution is only a science issue, Smith declares, "depending on what is meant by the term".

What?

Now, for calibration, keep in mind works for the Discovery Institute, which exists to undermine evolution. It is no surprise he declares evolution is 'only a science issue' depending on how you define it. So if you define evolution as some new world order to overthrow religion and impose an atheistic scientocracy, then evolution is not science to you. And you are also a crackpot. Smith does not know many biologists so his data pool is limited but I have never once heard a biologist define evolution as "proof of atheism and materialism" - yet he says that is what biologists are out to do. It isn't even a straw man, he just pulls something untrue out of thin air and claims to debunk it.
 
I have no problem agreeing to the people in the bible existing I want to you to provide proof of the God inspired bit.

Fulfilled Messianic prophecies (the signature of God). You can start with what's in Matthew.

The Iliad is about the Trojan war which historically is an accepted fact so why are the Gods mentioned in it fictional according to you but God in scripture is real?
Number of texts is not proof it merely means many people wrote about similar subjects.

See above. The other religions don't have that signature.
 
When you falsify the existence of Santa Claus, I'll take a stab at falsifying the resurrection.

Jesus vs. Santa Claus

First of all, Jesus is presented as an historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. Santa Claus is simply presented as a fictional character.

Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally, and knowingly, presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.

Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults, whereas the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.1

Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit an historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization, except to state that there is a North Pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.

Fifth, the facts are that parents buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children, and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth a comment, since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly. This further adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washington D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced.

Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him), that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least that Jesus was an actual historical person. But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus. We have found no reindeer tracks on the roofs of millions of snow-covered homes on Christmas Eve. There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples' homes. We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected -- particularly in this technologically advanced culture. Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world, risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don't have much evidence at all that Santa exists, except in the minds of children.

Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can reasonably be proven to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus, and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality -- particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them Santa is real.

For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical, verifiable documents and known, constructed childrens' stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

Source: CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Now, what do you have to falsify the resurrection?
 
Does anyone not 12 or younger actually believe that the good, or more specifically, those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, go to heaven while everyone else goes to hell? Seriously?

Try reading 23 Minutes in Hell. It is an eye opener to say the least.
 
Back
Top Bottom