Why I am non-religious

[phattonez]

People have already claimed the Dragon or Zeus to be there.
You cannot see or hear the dragon, all you have is their word. SO Ill ask again would you believe the Dragon or Zeus is in the garage?

Who was willing to die for the dragon or Zeus? Who had evidence of their existence from disinterested sources?

 

[Quag]

Who was willing to die for the dragon or Zeus? Who had evidence of their existence from disinterested sources?

Well aside from the bible being written by INTERESTED sources. I already told you the 10 people have nothing to gain from saying the dragon/Zeus is in the garage and are willing to die for that belief. I will allow for the owner of the garage being interested in the claim

 

[phattonez]

Well aside from the bible being written by INTERESTED sources. I already told you the 10 people have nothing to gain from saying the dragon/Zeus is in the garage and are willing to die for that belief. I will allow for the owner of the garage being interested in the claim

The existence of Jesus is attested to by disinterested sources. He's not only mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Quag]

The existence of Jesus is attested to by disinterested sources. He's not only mentioned in the Bible.

Existence is not the same a supernatural nature.

So will you accept the dragon/Zeus if your only source is the claims of the 11 people?

 

[phattonez]

Existence is not the same a supernatural nature.

So will you accept the dragon/Zeus if your only source is the claims of the 11 people?

Accept? If they were the only source? No. But you act as if the Gospels are all the evidence that we have of Jesus. I'd argue that in addition to that we have the Church itself, contemporary historians, the burial shroud, and the more recent miracles. Can anyone produce all of that for any other god?

 

[Quag]

Accept? If they were the only source? No. But you act as if the Gospels are all the evidence that we have of Jesus. I'd argue that in addition to that we have the Church itself, contemporary historians, the burial shroud, and the more recent miracles. Can anyone produce all of that for any other god?

You are trying to turn the dragon/Zeus into a dog.
There is NO evidence ONLY claims of the supernatural.
The shroud even if it wasn't already debunked doesn't mean supernatural. the miracles are all debunked and even if they weren't not knowing how something happens doesn't mean it has a supernatural origin.
Rain, drought, wind, earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis, blizzards these were all once thought to have been the work of the supernatural.
You have literally nothing but some claims and claims are NOT evidence that the claim is true.

 

[phattonez]

You are trying to turn the dragon/Zeus into a dog.
There is NO evidence ONLY claims of the supernatural.
The shroud even if it wasn't already debunked doesn't mean supernatural. the miracles are all debunked and even if they weren't not knowing how something happens doesn't mean it has a supernatural origin.
Rain, drought, wind, earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis, blizzards these were all once thought to have been the work of the supernatural.
You have literally nothing but some claims and claims are NOT evidence that the claim is true.

Seems like a lot claims you have to keep ignoring.

 

[Quag]

Seems like a lot claims you have to keep ignoring.

Claims with nothing to back them up.
But any claims that Jesus existed are no more proof of the supernatural than claims the dog in the garage could talk and turn water into wine.
I have asked for evidence and shown you non supernatural explanations.
You have provided no evidence and hand waved away the explanations, preferring the supernatural to the natural.

Guess which way a logical mind would consider the likely answer?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Lol, even modern (aka liberal) Bible scholars give you away. The Gospel of Mark "was probably written c.AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Composition

So not in JC's life then.

So what is it that you think makes your chosen myth better than the Osiris one where the magically born son of the God brings back the just rule of the true reborn God?

 

[RAMOSS]

Lol, even modern (aka liberal) Bible scholars give you away. The Gospel of Mark "was probably written c.AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Composition

One thing that also should be brought up is the the Gospel of Mark was most likely written in Rome, and the author of it did not have first hand knowledge of Judah.

 

[Cephus]

No, I'm not going to dump all of them, neither are you.

So in other words, you care more about your emotions than the facts. No surprise there.

 

[devildavid]

Who was willing to die for the dragon or Zeus? Who had evidence of their existence from disinterested sources?

People have been willing to die for kith and kin, kings, emperors, country, and every ideology and superstition ever invented by man. Willingness to die for something is not evidence of the truth or validity of something. It simpy demonstrates the power of ideology and the hold it can have over men to the point of dying over it.

 

[phattonez]

People have been willing to die for kith and kin, kings, emperors, country, and every ideology and superstition ever invented by man. Willingness to die for something is not evidence of the truth or validity of something. It simpy demonstrates the power of ideology and the hold it can have over men to the point of dying over it.

Who chose to die for Zeus, after attesting to personally see him?

 

[phattonez]

So in other words, you care more about your emotions than the facts. No surprise there.

The guy who's willing to dump all of ancient history rather than accept Christ is going to tell me about emotion? Okay.

 

[Cephus]

The guy who's willing to dump all of ancient history rather than accept Christ is going to tell me about emotion? Okay.

This is about evidence, not feelings.

 

[devildavid]

Who chose to die for Zeus, after attesting to personally see him?

I don't know and you don't either. You don't have to equate dying for something perfectly one for one. Many Christians died who never saw Jesus in person. The basic principle remains. People willing to die for something doesn't prove the ultimate truth of what they died for.

 

[devildavid]

The guy who's willing to dump all of ancient history rather than accept Christ is going to tell me about emotion? Okay.

It is not about accepting Christ, it is about believing he was god incarnate. I don't believe it.

 

[Logicman]

You miss the point. It isn't my claims that matter, it is your inability to back your claims up, and indeed, keep on making claims that have been quite forcefully falsified.

Nonsense. It's easier to believe in the resurrected Christ than to buy into thousands of denials you automatically put out with little thought behind them.

 

[Logicman]

Given that this happened before writing and before reliable dating was about how would that be possible.

That's hilarious. If it took that long between when the accounts of Osiris were written, and when they actually occurred God knows when, then how can you be comfortable that the accounts you're trying to defend are accurate?

We don't have that problem with the Gospels, etc., as the first mention of the resurrection arguably goes back to within 5 years of the event.

 

[RAMOSS]

Nonsense. It's easier to believe in the resurrected Christ than to buy into thousands of denials you automatically put out with little thought behind them.

The irony of that statement is probably lost on you.

 

[Logicman]

The irony of that statement is probably lost on you.

That's just more of your usual nonsense.

 

[RAMOSS]

That's just more of your usual nonsense.

I guess you do not have the proper spiritual discernment to understand.

 

[zyzygy]

Nonsense. It's easier to believe in the resurrected Christ than to buy into thousands of denials you automatically put out with little thought behind them.

Easier for you. Not for those who ask for proof of the Resurrection.

 

[William Rea]

Nonsense. It's easier to believe in the resurrected Christ than to buy into thousands of denials you automatically put out with little thought behind them.

it is much easier to lack belief in claims made without evidence, believing things with no good evidence or even in spite of the evidence is hard work, as you have found on here.

So, why do you dismiss our perfectly valid requests as having no thought behind them? If you think that we are not sincere or that we are responding superficially then why are you bothering, other than to proselytise that is. I have never seen you come back with a reasoned counter point to any response you get to your unevidenced claims.

 

[zyzygy]

it is much easier to lack belief in claims made without evidence, believing things with no good evidence or even in spite of the evidence is hard work, as you have found on here.

So, why do you dismiss our perfectly valid requests as having no thought behind them? If you think that we are not sincere or that we are responding superficially then why are you bothering, other than to proselytise that is. I have never seen you come back with a reasoned counter point to any response you get to your unevidenced claims.

When backed into a corner he says flush. That is the extent of his "debating".