1. Hello! You are currently viewing our community as a guest. Register today and apply to be a member of one of the longest standing gaming communities around. Once you have registered learn about our team and how to apply!

About this "terrorism" crap

Discussion in 'General Open/Public Discussion' started by Ground Chuk, 31 Oct 2006.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. So you know his historical account of Jesus is because he spoke of Adam and Eve? Bit of a stretch there, don't you think?

    No, its not. You've made an assetion without a founding source the burden of proof is on you to validate your assertion with facts, not speculation.

    The abscence of evidence ain't evidence.

    I did cite 2 sources. Most historians never met the people they wrote about. You're argument against Josephus is invalid as his belief in how the world was created has zip to do with his historical account of Jesus.

    You still have offered no evidence Tacitus only had religious teachings and texts as his source material. You're complaint against Josephus seems to me to say, "Because he believes in Creationism his historical referrence to Jesus cannot be correct." Not a valid argument from where I sit;)

    Since when is meeting someone a prereq for writing about them in a non-secular context? Especially regarding the time period to which we are referring?

    Tacitus has provided a secular record of Jesus. Your *abscence of evidence is evidence* argument just doesn't fly.

    You asked "Please show to me one non-christian historical source of evidence of Jesus' existence, please. A roman or jewish census, for example, will suffice... or some other secular piece of evidence." and they were presented. I am content you have not credibly shown these sources to be invalid.

    Of course, if you ever find evidence instead of speculation these historians used religious texts as a basis for their account of Jesus, feel free to offer it.
     
    Last edited: 8 Nov 2006
  2. Yup.
     
  3. Funny... the abscense of evidence to disprove God is one of the main points religious folk use to 'prove' god. In fact, 'you can't disprove God' was said multiple times in this thread.
     
  4. Wow. Couldn't have said it better myself. A pretty good example of the religious using arguments only when it suits them. Hypocrisy is fun!
     
  5. In mockery of every bit of credible scientific evidence we have. By the way, in case you were confused, this would be the same 'science' that gave you this computer you're writing on and the medicine that may have had a hand in keeping you from catching, say, tetenous and smallpox. So let's not bag on science unless we're living as hermits in the woods, hmm?
     
  6. I was not 'bagging' on science at all. I don't know how you even came to that conclusion. I think science is a great thing. Do I agree with everything that science teaches...absolutely not because alot of it is just theory with no proof. But that is what this whole debate is about isn't it...proof.

    As for you saying I am bagging science, you must be getting pretty desperate to try and just argue for no reason. I in know way mentioned science nor bagged it in anyway. I was merely correcting a statement you made or quoted that the earth was created in 7 days. Whether you believe it or not, if you are going to be quoting things and debating them, at least get it right.

    Oh and your blatant misquoting/misrepresentation of the Bible is totally ridiculous. Like Manitou said earlier, everything written has a context to it. The Bible while written to be a literal text, is something that is to be studied to understand the context it was written. Who wrote it, when was it written and what were the customs of that day and how they used certain terms. You actually have to go back and study it in conjunction with the original Hebrew and Greek texts to understand the meaning behind what was written.

    I do not claim to be a Bible scholar or an expert, but I do know that the meaning behind what was written goes much deeper than just the words on the page. Just like anything else you might read, you have to understand exactly where the writer was coming from in order to fully understand their words. Any man that has ever been in a relationship, married or just dating, knows that it's not always what you say but HOW you say it.
     
  7. Your point relevant to the context in which I used this phrase is?
     
  8. If you can't see the point he's trying to make, I call into question anything you've said in this thread. Seriously, its fairly obvious, and if you're just going to ignore it when people catch you slipping up in your logic, then I don't see any reason to listen to you.
     
  9. Call into question all you wish. Doesn't answer my question though, does it? But, by all means, "call into question" everything I've written if you feel a need to do so.

    Perhaps, since you claim it's *fairly obvious* to you, you had answered my question instead of writing 2 sentences which have only added to the discussion you don't see *any reason to listen* to me--the discussion might have been advanced a lil' bit.

    I'll read what you write and you can listen to me, k? :D
     
    Last edited: 8 Nov 2006
  10. Manitou

    Manitou Old War Horse DragonWolf

    Since I don't seem to be getting anywhere in this debate, and at the risk of appearing to be retreating, I must withdraw and let the chips fall where they may.

    I wanted to say one last thing before I stop posting in this thread. Theology is a noble study and one that should never be ignored. I can honestly say I have been where those here have been who do not believe. I did not believe during a period in my life as well. But that changed, and now I do believe and study daily in that belief process. So I understand both sides of this debate, although I do not agree with one side. ;)

    But my disagreement does not come from misunderstanding or ignorance, it comes from practical experience and diligent study. My wish for my opponents in this short debate is that they at least honestly study what I have touched on here.

    It has been a pleasure and very enlightening to debate with all of you. :)

    Now, Cyrus and Asp may get back to cuddling. :p
     
  11. in the cage ???? :)
     
  12. There's no shame in falling back. I honestly don't blame you. Your points are indefensible, and you're a love for trying. I never once expected you to a) admit defeat, b) convert to atheism, or even so much as admit to a single one of the points I made. In fact, I counted on and secretly hoped you would oppose me at every step, because this, for me, is an exercise.

    See, I'm a recent convert to Atheism. I was an agnost since high school, and I realized that the only reason I was that was because I hadn't done enough reading, and I wasn't being honest with myself. I'm just now getting into theological debate and when Cyrus mentioned you, Verdi and Faith, I took the opportunity to cut my teeth.

    I'm not delusional. I've already stated that there's no talking to people such as yourself. You're so deep in the dogma, so completely conquered by these fanciful stories and the crazy myths that go along with them, and no amount of me posting on the internet was ever going to change that. This argument was not for your benefit. It was for mine, and anyone who may be reading the thread who hasn't yet surrendered reason for madness.
     
  13. Ever read the Screwtape Letters? Great read...your writing reminds me of a couple of sections

    I'm also reminded of a character from a book called Father Elijah as I read your writing above.

    Thanks be to God, the Father for our intellect. May we endeavor to always use it in accordance with His Will.
     
  14. Here is some interesting reading about whether Atheism is viable or not. This comes from Mathew J. Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:

    Is Atheism viable?



    Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.
    In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn’t to say that atheists haven’t attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there were a proof of God’s non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don’t hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying God’s existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism’s truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
    Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God’s existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.
    There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
    At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
    But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God’s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.
    This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God’s existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
     
  15. What validity do any of these have over Evolution or the idea that the earth is older than what the Bible implies it is? None. None what-so-ever. Someone claiming that arguments against God are not valid because of a lack of proof, but then claims that ideas with the same amount of 'proof' are THE proof of a God is ridiculous.

    Going even further, the secondary argument in this thread, although passive, is the act of questioning things. Religion stifles the human trait of curiosity. It tells you exactly what it wants to tell you about the universe, and anything otherwise is blasphemous. Only a few pages back, Verdictis claimed to have no questions about life or the universe. What is that? That's a perfect example of the negative 'sheep' mentality that religion causes. The inability to, or even worse the refusal to, question theories about life and the universe, be they theology or science driven, is quite saddening.
     
    Last edited: 8 Nov 2006
  16. Also I would invite everyone to read A Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, an Atheist who set out to disprove the existence of God and the validity of Christianity.
     
  17. Ingwë

    Ingwë DragonWolf<BR>The Goose!

  18. This canard always makes me chuckle. As a Catholic I am free to wonder about God's universe and ask all the questions I wish.

    It's an honest answer to a reasonable question. I'll be 46 in March. I've lived enough life in that time to know all the answers I need are provided as I need them. Not one moment before.

    What questions about life and the universe do you want me to be asking? I'm curious, since you brought the issue up and all, again;)

    I have a wonderful wife, great kids (that are nearly grown YIPEE!!!) gas in the car, food in the fridge and jobs/means to keep it all going. I thank God everyday for my life and the Blessings, seen and unseen, He showers us with.

    What would you have me question?


    Same ol' canard with different wording.
     
    Last edited: 8 Nov 2006
  19. I've noticed hardcore atheists can be as dilligent as hardcore born agains with trying to get their message across...both sides always trying to prove their point, too much concentration on always trying to prove the other side wrong.

    Cut your teeth all you want there Sheppy, but you are as dilligent in getting your point across as any born again I've met.

    Remember - it's not always the subject matter that makes the nut...but how that nut presents themself.

    Good show on this thread everybody! :rawr:
     
  20. Manitou

    Manitou Old War Horse DragonWolf

    :O

    Wow, simply, wow.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page