Two Smart Men Who Believed in the Bible...

[bomberfox]

Your denials aren't going to hold an ounce of water at the final Judgment, Gordy.

You cant make us fear hell. It has no impact on my life at least .

 

[Gordy327]

You cant make us fear hell. It has no impact on my life at least .

Indeed. Boogeyman stories/threats may work on impressionable children, but not on rational adults.

 

[Logicman]

Indeed. Boogeyman stories/threats may work on impressionable children, but not on rational adults.

Well, they should work on liberals then.

 

[Gordy327]

Well, they should work on liberals then.

I'm sure you think you said something clever. But in reality, it's just childish taunting. But I never expect any better from you anyway.

 

[Questerr]

Well, they should work on liberals then.

Thank you for being such a good Atheist ally. You’re entire demeanor is perfectly designed to drive people away from Christ.

 

[Gordy327]

Thank you for being such a good Atheist ally. You’re entire demeanor is perfectly designed to drive people away from Christ.

Indeed. If he's a representative of his religion and/or Christ, then I'll take Satan. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Galactic Spin]

You cant make us fear hell. It has no impact on my life at least .

They have spent too much time with like-minded people. They don't understand that their magical threats carry no weight with anyone not in their religion. They don't understand that they sound like any enthusiastic representative from any religion on Earth who pounds on your door and asks if you have properly cared for your own soul.

 

[btthegreat]

There are still people who believe in various Gods but are very smart in other areas. The cults have a long tradition of beginning indoctrination at a young age. Cult stuff is taught before letters or numbers.

LOL, its not with the religion that you have a problem, its with the parents of the child. Parents have been 'indoctrinating' their kids with their religious, political, social and cultural views since prehistory, and those same parents that plop little Eddie and Suzie, in a church pew, spend even more time talking about everything from sexuality, race, social conventions, war and politics either to their kids or around their kids. Parents are the big indoctinators in the lives of their kids. Some kids grow apart from the views of their parents, some retain them. Its a combination of their personality, the speed of cultural change in their times, and yes there is a role for education accessibility in the equation.

Notice how I am NOT cherry-picking some of those kids as 'smart' and others as not 'smart', and how I am refusing to identify religious teaching as a 'cult'. That is because I am far more careful about the use of loaded words than you are. Look down, your bias is showing!

 

[jpevans]

LOL, its not with the religion that you have a problem, its with the parents of the child. Parents have been 'indoctrinating' their kids with their religious, political, social and cultural views since prehistory, and those same parents that plop little Eddie and Suzie, in a church pew, spend even more time talking about everything from sexuality, race, social conventions, war and politics either to their kids or around their kids. Parents are the big indoctinators in the lives of their kids. Some kids grow apart from the views of their parents, some retain them. Its a combination of their personality, the speed of cultural change in their times, and yes there is a role for education accessibility in the equation.

Notice how I am NOT cherry-picking some of those kids as 'smart' and others as not 'smart', and how I am refusing to identify religious teaching as a 'cult'. That is because I am far more careful about the use of loaded words than you are. Look down, your bias is showing!

All religions are cults is my bias. A cult is the worship of a person or imaginary being, size is not a factor, IMO. Not all cultist are bad people is my point, not how they became indoctrinated. I mean it’s on our money for Christ sakes. In the Pledge of Alegence.

 

[Mulefoot]

Let's hear it.

But why draw it out? What you are calling evidence is not actually evidence.

As we are about to see.

What I believe as evidence for the resurrections isn't actually evidence?

For you to discount what I believe is an interesting approach, I gotta say.

 

[Galactic Spin]

What I believe as evidence for the resurrections isn't actually evidence?

Correct. A very safe bet. Just as when someone says that they saw something in the sky, and it convinced them that flying unicorns exist.

Resurrection does not happen. Any claim that it does is a lie, as told by a liar or otherwise, and anyone claiming they have evidence can be assumed to be mistaken or lying.

 

[Mulefoot]

At least you're honest about your presuppositions. Do you find flying unicorn debate forums worthy of your time on Sunday afternoon?

 

[Galactic Spin]

At least you're honest about your presuppositions. Do you find flying unicorn debate forums worthy of your time on Sunday afternoon?

That only seems absurd to you, as you have faith in magical ideas you think are special, and they are being put on the same shelf as flying unicorns.

To someone who does not share your magical beliefs, they go on the same shelf as do flying unicorns. Which is exactly how you feel about the claims of religions which you think are silly and false. If I were to claim I was shown, by evidence, that your God is false, and the real God is not pleased with your false claims, you would react in precisely the same manner

The only dfference between you and me, in this respect, is that I include your favorite, magical beliefs.

 

[Mulefoot]

That only seems absurd to you, as you have faith in magical ideas you think are special, and they are being put on the same shelf as flying unicorns.

To someone who does not share your magical beliefs, they go on the same shelf as do flying unicorns. Which is exactly how you feel about the claims of religions which you think are silly and false. If I were to claim I was shown, by evidence, that your God is false, and the real God is not pleased with your false claims, you would react in precisely the same manner

The only dfference between you and me, in this respect, is that I include your favorite, magical beliefs.

It doesn't necessarily seem absurd to me to not believe in the resurrection. My point is that your interest and response to it on this beautiful day likely betrays the your proposed grouping with flying unicorns. I do feel similar about the claims of religions which I think are silly and false. In fact, they're so silly, I don't really think much about them.

 

[Galactic Spin]

My point is that your interest and response to it on this beautiful day likely betrays the your proposed grouping with flying unicorns.

My response is to the claim of resurrection, very specifically. It is a lie. Resurrection does not happen. And you have zero evidence that it does or ever has. Not a shred.

Why would you even make such an absurd claim otherwise? Faith is belief without evidence. Are you embarrassed of your faith? Is your faith very shaky, and this is an exercise in you trying to bolster it?

Why even mention evidence, when your faith is belief without evidence? One would then rightly assume that this is some kind of dog and pony show.

 

[Mulefoot]

My response is to the claim of resurrection, very specifically. It is a lie. Resurrection does not happen. And you have zero evidence that it does or ever has. Not a shred.

Why would you even make such an absurd claim otherwise? Faith is belief without evidence. Are you embarrassed of your faith? Is your faith very shaky, and this is an exercise in you trying to bolster it?

Why even mention evidence, when your faith is belief without evidence? One would then rightly assume that this is some kind of dog and pony show.

All you have done so far is to repeatedly claim that there is no evidence that would change your mind. Which, of course, would perfectly explain why you would take the position that zero evidence exists. Apparently, you won't allow for it.

 

[Galactic Spin]

All you have done so far is to repeatedly claim that there is no evidence that would change your mind.

That is patently false. I have said there currently exists no evidence that resurrection does, has, or even could occur. Not a shred. Not that evidence could never exist. Your strawman does not help your arguments.

It's also a contrived excuse for you to cover for the fact that you have no evidence. Instead of admitting this obvious truth, you try to pretend that you do have some, but it would be a waste of your time to present it, because mean internet man will laugh at it. Or something.

That's not going to work.

 

[Jacksprat]

We know from experience that no one has ever lived and died. So a religion basing itself on this idea is alienating.

 

[Mulefoot]

That is patently false. I have said there currently exists no evidence that resurrection does, has, or even could occur. Not a shred. Your strawman does not help your arguments.

It's also a contrived excuse for you to cover for the fact that you have no evidence. Instead of admitting this obvious truth, you try to pretend that you do have some, but it would be a waste of your time to present it, because mean internet man will laugh at it. Or something.

That's not going to work.

I'm not going to waste my time as to post my own thoughts, as I have better things to do as well - like put together a shelf, I wish I were kidding. My own thoughts take time. But in the spirit of addressing your claim that "no evidence that resurrection does, has, or even could occur", I submit Craig's work on the subject. Evidence absolutely does exist. Whether you reject the event prima facia without considering the evidence is certainly within your right to do so, but it's patently false to claim that no evidence exists.

https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/craig-william-lane-22contemporary-scholarship-and-the-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ22.pdf

 

[Galactic Spin]

Evidence absolutely does exist.

False. And every time you repeat that falsehood without making any attempt to post any, you further erode your own credibility, which is, as of now, the only support offered for your claim.

Why not just admit you have faith? Is your faith shaky? Are you embarrassed of your own faith?

 

[Mulefoot]

False. And every time you repeat that falsehood without making any attempt to post any, you further erode your own credibility, which is, as of now, the only support offered for your claim.

Why not just admit you have faith? Is your faith shaky? Are you embarrassed of your own faith?

I originally thought better of the link, but alas. We done. Enjoy your Sunday afternoon dogfighting teapots, Gods, unicorns and spaghetti monsters. Fight the good fight, bro.

 

[Mulefoot]

"Exists" obligates ex/istere. Out/standing: shape and form. Materiality. Physicality. Matter-energy within spacetime.

Help me out here.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I originally thought better of the link, but alas. We done. Enjoy your Sunday afternoon dogfighting teapots, Gods, unicorns and spaghetti monsters. Fight the good fight, bro.

And not even an attempt to present the evidence you claim to have or know. I wonder who could have predicted this?!?!

Have a good one.

 

[Mulefoot]

What evidence supports the resurrection? The Bible is just a book of claims. It can’t be evidence for its own claims. And there is no external evidence of the resurrection.

It's not just a book of claims. Certainly writers of the NT certainly make the claim, but many writers of the NT also relay evidence of what was seen, heard, etc.

 

[Questerr]

It's not just a book of claims. Certainly writers of the NT certainly make the claim, but many writers of the NT also relay evidence of what was seen, heard, etc.

We don’t even know who those writers were nor do we have any original copies. There is no reason to believe they are actual eyewitness testimony.