• 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.

Morer Questions For The Atheist [W:839]

Believing in a source, that it most likely existed, based on the evidence, is VERY different from saying that you believe everything that a source says. You are conflating "believing in something's existance" and "believing that something accurately represents reality".

There has been reliable credible evidence supporting the idea that there is some source that the gospels borrowed from.

No, all there is, is a THEORY something (Q or whatever) once existed. No archaeological, historical, or traditional evidence.

There is no reliable credible evidence that the gospels are accurate when claiming that a man was resurrected from the dead.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Stand to Reason | Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

You only replied to the first part of my argument and ignored the rest. A few versions of a story floating around the area at the time were written down and don't agree with each other.

"and don't agree with each other"? Give me just one example - your best 1, and only 1 for now. Because last time I checked all four Gospels and various epistles confirmed the resurrection of Jesus.

We have no evidence that they were written down by or even had actually talked to, eyewitnesses. To say that they "documented" the resurrection is to make a mockery of the english language.

Wrong again!

The Eyewitness Written Record of the New Testament
 
My AnswerS were NUMEROUS and contained in the post you DISHONESTLY 'quoted' but left them All out but one.

Lying-for-Jesus again.

Stop LYING FOR JESUS.
Address the points above this time.


Well indeed, you've spouted off so many things....

except that you've conveniently ignored the fact that

THERE ARE INDICATIONS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD'S EXISTENCE.



That God exists is more plausible than His non-existence.

And after all that big speech - where is your reason for believing God does not exist? None!

If science says it cannot prove His non-existence, what made atheists CONCLUDE He does not exist?
The least you could've done is to admit to agnosticism. Period.

If there is an irrational belief here, it would be atheism. Hands down!



But logically, there is No Proof or even evidence of Any god,

That's where you're dead wrong.
We have reasons to believe that He exists. You have not given a single reason to support that He does not.



and All gods on which we have a verdict have been proven Bogus.

Of course they're bogus. They're false gods!
 
Last edited:
Most of you totally ignore this which is posted on the other thread....so let me put it up again:


Here are some of the evidences supporting God's existence. You may or may not agree with them, but this is just to show you why there's reason(s) to believe that God exists.


There are so many reasons actually....so I'm just pulling some out of google.



The first one is a short clip from William lane Craig.







Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.

Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as a gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.









We also have the Bible. It's a long thread.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/156711-word-god.html



And of course, there are the "walking miracles." Those who'd come back to life, or had recovered from fatal illnesses whom doctors described as miraculous.



We also have the millions of testimonies of God-experience(s), that made converts out of non-believers (some of them prominent and learned men who not only believed and converted, but became active defenders of the faith. Some of those are William Lane Craig, Francis Collins and Lee Strobel.)



Francis Collins btw, is not the first atheist who'd set out to prove that there is no God..... only to end up being convinced instead by their own investigation(s).








Speaking of conversions - the latest phenomenon are the thousands of Muslims around the world claiming to have had visions of Jesus, and have converted.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/197888-god-work.html



Ramoss poked only at the personal experiences by millions of Christians - a lot of atheists who end up believing and converting! He disregarded the other reasons given!

THE REASONS ALL ADD UP!
 
Last edited:
THE REASONS ALL ADD UP!

I prefer a Buddhist point of view. The particular quality or character of faith in Buddhism is that it is something that must be put to the test for it to be authentic. Which is to say that its value and authenticity are measured in the extent to which it can be validated as truth through your own efforts. It hast to be governed and moderated by the critical faculty of the mind. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, in which faith is not an educational tool but something that must be believed without question or, by its definition of the word, empirically verifiable proof. One of the more fundamental examples of this in Christianity, and other religions, is the faith in the existence of a God. Deuteronomy 6:16 and Matthew 4:7-10 are great examples of the Christian perspective that this belief should not or cannot be validated as truth through empirical means. A human being cannot test the most basic and essential of all Christian teachings.

In Buddhism, that is an unacceptable position as the foundation of any belief. Logic and reason can yield hypotheses and theories but those are not proof of anything. Questions with answers that cannot be independently empirically verified or no answers at all have no value as educational tools and are therefore not worth contemplating. The teachings of Buddhism and Christianity simply disagree on what should happen next. From a Christian perspective, you must have faith that your faith is truth. From a Buddhist perspective, how can something be regarded as truth if its most fundamental and necessary article of faith is unprovable? At the end of the day, all the reasons add up to bupkis.
 
Last edited:
No, all there is, is a THEORY something (Q or whatever) once existed. No archaeological, historical, or traditional evidence.



Sorry, but that's incorrect.

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Stand to Reason | Is the New Testament Text Reliable?



"and don't agree with each other"? Give me just one example - your best 1, and only 1 for now. Because last time I checked all four Gospels and various epistles confirmed the resurrection of Jesus.



Wrong again!

The Eyewitness Written Record of the New Testament
I claimed "There is no reliable credible evidence that the gospels are accurate when claiming that a man was resurrected from the dead."

And you gave me two random links full of random things. Then you demand that I give you one and only one piece of evidence.

So I'll do that if you do the same in return. Thats how this works. Give me youre best reason for why we know that the gospels are accurate when saying that a man was resurrected from the dead and I'll give you my best for my claim.

But you can't just continually throw down links to blogs and random websites and expect me to sift through all the information and then demand only one piece of evidence from me.

So let's agree to that. Best piece of evidence for your claim and then I'll give you mine.
 
It's trash even at the 20 second time mark.

Worthless garbage.
 
Thats how this works. Give me youre best reason for why we know that the gospels are accurate when saying that a man was resurrected from the dead and I'll give you my best for my claim.

From the link below:

The 1st Corinthians Creed

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” – Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

While the word “received” (a rabbinical term) can also be used in the New Testament of receiving a message or body of instruction or doctrine (1 Cor.11:23; 15:1, 3; Gal. 1:9, 12 [2x], Col 2:6; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6), it also means means “to receive from another.” This entails that Paul received this information from someone else at an even earlier date. 1 Corinthians is dated 50-55 A.D. Since Jesus was crucified in 30-33 A.D. the letter is only 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. But the actual creed here in 1 Cor. 15 was received by Paul much earlier than 55 A.D.

As Scholar Gary Habermas notes:

“Even critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.” Ulrich Wilckens declares that this creed “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” (8) Joachim Jeremias calls it “the earliest tradition of all.” (9) Even the non-Christian scholar Gerd Ludemann says that “I do insist that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional foundations is one of the great achievements in the New Testament scholarship.”

The majority of scholars who comment think that Paul probably received this information about three years after his conversion, which probably occurred from one to four years after the crucifixion. At that time, Paul visited Jerusalem to speak with Peter and James, each of whom are included in the list of Jesus’ appearances (1 Cor. 15:5, 7; Gal. 1:18–19).This places it at roughly A.D. 32–38.

Even the (liberal) Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan, writes:

“Paul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. But he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “I handed on to you as of first importance which I in turn received.” The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he “went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days.”

Habermas, among others, would contend that this creed could have been composed within mere months after the resurrection of Jesus. He notes that no credible scholar disputes Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, which was likely written between 55-57 AD. But Paul says in 15:3 that he passed the creed on to the Corinthian Church at some point in the past, predating his visit there in 51 AD. That places the composition of the creed no later than within 20 years of the original event.

But Habermas – and others – think the creed goes back even further: between 32-38 AD, when Paul received it, in all likelihood in Jerusalem. Three years after Paul’s conversion, he traveled to Jerusalem to interview the Apostles Peter and James. Habermas draws our attention to the fact that, when Paul described this trip in Galatians 1:18-19, he uses the Greek word historeo, which indicates a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection was being made. So, in all likelihood, this creed was delivered to Paul by the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus, Peter and James.

The 1 Corinthians creed authenticates the resurrection of Christ in many ways, not the least of which is this: its incredibly early, eyewitness testimony precludes any possibility of legendary accretion.

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report
 
I prefer a Buddhist point of view. The particular quality or character of faith in Buddhism is that it is something that must be put to the test for it to be authentic. Which is to say that its value and authenticity are measured in the extent to which it can be validated as truth through your own efforts. It hast to be governed and moderated by the critical faculty of the mind. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, in which faith is not an educational tool but something that must be believed without question or, by its definition of the word, empirically verifiable proof. One of the more fundamental examples of this in Christianity, and other religions, is the faith in the existence of a God. Deuteronomy 6:16 and Matthew 4:7-10 are great examples of the Christian perspective that this belief should not or cannot be validated as truth through empirical means. A human being cannot test the most basic and essential of all Christian teachings.

In Buddhism, that is an unacceptable position as the foundation of any belief. Logic and reason can yield hypotheses and theories but those are not proof of anything. Questions with answers that cannot be independently empirically verified or no answers at all have no value as educational tools and are therefore not worth contemplating. The teachings of Buddhism and Christianity simply disagree on what should happen next. From a Christian perspective, you must have faith that your faith is truth. From a Buddhist perspective, how can something be regarded as truth if its most fundamental and necessary article of faith is unprovable? At the end of the day, all the reasons add up to bupkis.


We're not talking about preferences here.
We're talking about the logical reasons that made you believe what you preferred to believe.


I can say that my belief for the existence of God has been (what you say), " governed and moderated by the critical faculty of the mind." Just scroll up and refer to my post that precedes yours.


Yes, there is indeed a stark contrast between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism doesn't believe in a God or Creator. For all the nice character definition of Buddhism, unfortunately you sail on the same leaky boat with the atheists.

Buddhism actually contradicts its own character of faith, which according to you, "must be put to the test for it to be authentic. Which is to say that its value and authenticity are measured in the extent to which it can be validated as truth through your own efforts. It hast to be governed and moderated by the critical faculty of the mind."

Science says it cannot prove the non-existence of God. Buddhism says there is no God.

How did it come to that conclusion?


So I ask you the same question I ask atheists.
 
Last edited:
From the link below:

The 1st Corinthians Creed
.....
While the word “received” (a rabbinical term) can also be used in the New Testament of receiving a message or body of instruction or doctrine (1 Cor.11:23; 15:1, 3; Gal. 1:9, 12 [2x], Col 2:6; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6), it also means means “to receive from another.” This entails that Paul received this information from someone else at an even earlier date. 1 Corinthians is dated 50-55 A.D. Since Jesus was crucified in 30-33 A.D. the letter is only 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. But the actual creed here in 1 Cor. 15 was received by Paul much earlier than 55 A.D.

So far, what I'm gathering, is that we have Paul claiming, 20 to 25 years after the supposed death of Jesus, that he has a bunch of information backing up the resurection of Jesus. But I don't see anything in the text that gives any kind of sibstance to his claim. If anyone was trying to convince anyone of any claim, saying that other people were eyewitnesses would be a good thing to say. It's just a claim, that I have yet to see any evidence to support. But let's go on...

As Scholar Gary Habermas notes:

“Even critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.” Ulrich Wilckens declares that this creed “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” (8) Joachim Jeremias calls it “the earliest tradition of all.” (9) Even the non-Christian scholar Gerd Ludemann says that “I do insist that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional foundations is one of the great achievements in the New Testament scholarship.”

The majority of scholars....This places it at roughly A.D. 32–38.


I'm seeing alot of "probably's" and "about's". We have no idea exactly when or even if he did actually receive this information. All that we know for sure is that it was written about. Some 20 years after the supposed event.

Even the (liberal) Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan, writes:

“Paul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. But he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “I handed on to you as of first importance which I in turn received.” The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he “went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days.”

Habermas, among others, would contend that this creed could have been composed within mere months after the resurrection of Jesus. He notes that no credible scholar disputes Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, which was likely written between 55-57 AD. But Paul says in 15:3 that he passed the creed on to the Corinthian Church at some point in the past, predating his visit there in 51 AD. That places the composition of the creed no later than within 20 years of the original event.
I'm still not seeing anything impressive about this. None of this is showing that there's any truth to the claims. We are debating whether a man was actually raised from the dead or not. When you present such an astounding claim, good evidence for this claim is not "well we might even have evidence that people talked about it only a few years after it happened" Stories spread fast, and myths and fables spread even faster. None of this constitutes good evidence. These writings are evidence that there were stories about a man named Jesus in the area at around those times. It is not evidence that this man actually was raised from the dead.

But Habermas – and others – think the creed goes back even further... So, in all likelihood, this creed was delivered to Paul by the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus, Peter and James.

The 1 Corinthians creed authenticates the resurrection of Christ in many ways, not the least of which is this: its incredibly early, eyewitness testimony precludes any possibility of legendary accretion.

We don't have eyewitness testimony. We have a guy claiming, 20 to 25 years after the supposed event, that there were numerous eyewitness testimonies. Yes, these writings are fairly early, but that doesn't make them true. These are writings from a man trying to convince people to agree with him, and many people have been known to greatly exaggerate or even come up with stories when trying to convince others.


I don't think you would give this leeway to another religion. Lets say I found writings that mention that Joseph smith really did have gold tablets and dictated from them, and it even says that hundreds of other people saw these tablets and that he can dictate from them. Would you really take that as evidence that Joseph Smith did what he claimed to do?
 
Uh, yes. Most famously, authors like Dawkins and Hitchens and Dennett have written about their views at length.

Their opinions are worth squat. They've been proven ridiculous....and Dawkins' actually got ridiculed for his ignorance! He's been adviced to stick to his lab! :lol:

Why don't you refer to the other topic, THE RELIGION OF NEW ATHEISM. I bumped it up because I knew there'll be some desperate stragglers who'll be foolish enough to invoke the names of the 4 Horsemen. I wasn't wrong.

Here....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/160417-religion-new-atheism.html




Didn't you watch the video in the OP?







• No actual evidence for it
• The claims made by believers are frequently in direct contradiction with what we know scientifically (e.g. origin of life and species; cosmology; causes of disease and natural events, etc)
• Religion is a legacy from pre-scientific eras
• The basic concept of deities is almost always inconsistent and illogical

That's becoming like a mantra to you atheists. Me thinks it's more to convince yourself than anyone else.....:lol:

Recite your mantra to your heart's content.....btw, are you kneeling when you do? :mrgreen:
 
I do not believe that anything supernatural exists.

I do not define myself as being in opposition to religious points of view. Hence, I do not use the term "atheist." I prefer terms like realist, materialist and physicalist.


Trying to abandon the sinking boat, are we? You've found yourself a life boat, have you? :lol:


If you think you've insulated yourself with that sort of excuse............sorry to burst your bubble.

That life boat is leaky too.




God is considered metaphysical. That means, SUPERNATURAL.


You're back in that sinking boat with the atheists.
 
Last edited:
Their opinions are worth squat. They've been proven ridiculous....and Dawkins' actually got ridiculed for his ignorance! He's been adviced to stick to his lab! :lol:

Why don't you refer to the other topic, THE RELIGION OF NEW ATHEISM. I bumped it up because I knew there'll be some desperate stragglers who'll be foolish enough to invoke the names of the 4 Horsemen. I wasn't wrong.

Here....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/160417-religion-new-atheism.html




Didn't you watch the video in the OP?









That's becoming like a mantra to you atheists. Me thinks it's more to convince yourself than anyone else.....:lol:

Recite your mantra to your heart's content.....btw, are you kneeling when you do? :mrgreen:


However long this goes on for there's only going to be one, simple reason why atheists don't believe in god: no evidence. This can go on for another fifty pages and that one fact is never going to change.
 
I'm familiar with the God particle also. Wonder why they call it that?

Scientists are sometimes smarmy and sarcastic, and their humor doesn't translate well to most others.

What, did you think there was any significance regarding the probability or existance of gods because someone named a boson the "God Particle"?
 
You can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Why are you ignoring what atheists are actually telling you they believe in?

Because it doesn't fit their definitions and they are trying to reverse engineer an argument, so they have to maintain the definition that allows that to work. Despote it being wrong.
 
Scientists are sometimes smarmy and sarcastic, and their humor doesn't translate well to most others.

What, did you think there was any significance regarding the probability or existance of gods because someone named a boson the "God Particle"?

If I recall correctly, their little inside joke has long since become a headache for them and they've come to loathe the term.
 
Scientists are sometimes smarmy and sarcastic, and their humor doesn't translate well to most others.

What, did you think there was any significance regarding the probability or existance of gods because someone named a boson the "God Particle"?

Th e y're probably just having a cya .moment
 
Stephen Hawking believes in God, he just hates him.

Not that I expect a serious response to this, but...link?
 
So far, what I'm gathering, is that we have Paul claiming, 20 to 25 years after the supposed death of Jesus, that he has a bunch of information backing up the resurection of Jesus. But I don't see anything in the text that gives any kind of sibstance to his claim. If anyone was trying to convince anyone of any claim, saying that other people were eyewitnesses would be a good thing to say. It's just a claim, that I have yet to see any evidence to support. But let's go on...

I'm seeing alot of "probably's" and "about's". We have no idea exactly when or even if he did actually receive this information. All that we know for sure is that it was written about. Some 20 years after the supposed event.

I'm still not seeing anything impressive about this. None of this is showing that there's any truth to the claims. We are debating whether a man was actually raised from the dead or not. When you present such an astounding claim, good evidence for this claim is not "well we might even have evidence that people talked about it only a few years after it happened" Stories spread fast, and myths and fables spread even faster. None of this constitutes good evidence. These writings are evidence that there were stories about a man named Jesus in the area at around those times. It is not evidence that this man actually was raised from the dead.

We don't have eyewitness testimony. We have a guy claiming, 20 to 25 years after the supposed event, that there were numerous eyewitness testimonies. Yes, these writings are fairly early, but that doesn't make them true. These are writings from a man trying to convince people to agree with him, and many people have been known to greatly exaggerate or even come up with stories when trying to convince others.

I don't think you would give this leeway to another religion. Lets say I found writings that mention that Joseph smith really did have gold tablets and dictated from them, and it even says that hundreds of other people saw these tablets and that he can dictate from them. Would you really take that as evidence that Joseph Smith did what he claimed to do?

You've already been linked to eyewitness testimony about Jesus. You dismissed that also.

But that's fine you want to dismiss what was presented. That's your opinion. I doubt there's going to be anything that will sway you.

Now, where's your best one (1) example of an important point / issue where the Gospels 'don't agree with each other'?
 
Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, went on to say he believed there was a
"magnetic pull" that kicks in if humans stray off the path they were destined to take.


http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...nglican.now.hes.a.secular.christian/37673.htm


Okay, dear atheists....that boldened part took me by surprise. Can someone clear this up for me, please.


Is that an atheistic belief - having paths you're destined to take?
 
Back
Top Bottom