Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, rather than leave, you could end all arguments by posting any or all of the " over 100 evidences to show that God exists. " you've been saying for years that you have but refuse to post.
I have asked Jeff to dissect and explain all the problems with evolution and the associated theory. Still no response. He doesn't seem to be too scientifically minded.
Then you don't want to seek the truth. Folding your arms and demanding that we convince you is not seeking truth. Atheists won't even define what parameters are necessary for a miracle to be proven because then they couldn't dispute a miracle that met those parameters.
Anyone who has hardened their heart towards God can not be convinced by evidence. God certainly knows this as even the amazing miracles of Jesus didn't prevent the masses from crucifying him.
You can point holes in evidence for ANYTHING.
Again, you are looking for excuses as to why the dozens of claimed miracles (Fatima is the classic one) do not stand up to examination. Just as the evidence you put forward for your religion does not. It is yet again trying to blame atheists for you not having any decent evidence.
We atheists don't complain or make excuses about the evidence, even though some believers will not accept it (some do). That's because the evidence, including evidence that miracles do not and did not happen, is quite good enough for us. And we don't need to blow smokescreens about defining what a miracle is, because everyone knows what we are talking about here.
Excuses are plainly seen as excuses.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-23-2018 at 06:42 PM..
I don't believe Tertullian's writings are inspired or infallible. Do you?
It's simply a question of whom the intended audiences were.
Because Tertullian would be talking about the gospel as it was in his day, and others could look at it too. Why on earth should we assume he was wrong or lying? Apart from denying even undeniable evidence, if it isn't what you want to hear.
Quote:
No, they don't conflict. And no--they were not invented separately. But they had different intentions when they wrote their Gospels.
Denial of what's in your own Bible - right before yore werry eyes - could not be more evident. The angel's message at the tomb (which Luke alters because he does not want his disciples going to Galilee - they have to stay in Jerusalem) isn't in John. The women run into Jesus in Matthew. In Luke they don't see him.
To say this was a different point of view or a different audience was intended is just denial of facts that you don't want to accept, even if those facts are in your werry own Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
OK? I don't use either of the texts that they "edited".
That's pretty evident. You seem to be using a mental Bible that says whatever you want it to say, and never mind what was in it in Tertullian's day, or what is in it now.
The "Ghost Bible" was a phenomenon that I ran into in the early debating days. But I never saw such denial in such a virulent form as you display.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-23-2018 at 06:21 PM..
Again, you are looking for excuses as to why the dozens of claimed miracles (Fatima is the classic one) do not stand up to examination. Just as the evidence you put forward for your religion does not. It is yet again trying to blame atheists for you not having any decent evidence.
My point stands. Atheists won't even define what parameters are necessary for it to "stand up to examination". Atheists just want the freedom to say, nope not good enough without clearly explaining they auto reject it. Besides even if I provided evidence that shut down any possible way to cast doubt on it, atheists would simply fall back on the "correlation doesn't equal causation" response. If atheists approach their lives with that degree of skepticism, then you couldn't believe in anything as all evidence would become questionable. You would have to propose crazy possibilities like your parents might be aliens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
We atheists don't complain or make excuses about the evidence, even though some believers refuse to accept it (some do). That's because the evidence, including evidence that miracles do not and did not happen. And we don't need to blow smokescreens about defining what a miracle is, because everyone knows what we are talking about here.
Excuses are plainly seen as excuses.
You've already made up your mind that miracles don't exist so why should one expect you to fairly accept evidence?
I have asked Jeff to dissect and explain all the problems with evolution and the associated theory. Still no response. He doesn't seem to be too scientifically minded.
He doesn't need to. I can do it for you. I probably know a few that he doesn't - like several humanid species might perhaps all be the same species. Some dinosaur species may actually be juvenile forms of others. And of course, we cannot prove how life started. But apart from that, all the evidence supports evolution (1) and none supports creationism. And evolution -theory is irrelevant to the god -question anyway. It's only a debunker of Genesis - literalism.
Not only do the Creationists lose the argument, but it's the wrong argument anyway. I fully agree with those believers who say 'why take it all as literal?" Well, those who see any of the Bible as metaphorical are arguing a different argument and one in fact that isn't as urgently needed to be debunked as cover -to cover Bible literalist Creationism.
Those who see Eden as metaphor of the human condition of the Flood as a myth based on a local event are not a problem for us, because they have effectively debunked the Bible for us.
(1) it has to be said that most of these 'problems' are merely nit -picking, like punctuated equilibrium, or not having every single example of transitional forms in fossils. The rest are misrepresentations and lies. They at first claimed that Archeopteryx was clearly a dinosaur and ignored the birdlike features. Now that feathered donosaurs are proved, the say Archaeopteryx is a true bird and ignore the obvious dinosaur features.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-23-2018 at 06:39 PM..
My point stands. Atheists won't even define what parameters are necessary for it to "stand up to examination". Atheists just want the freedom to say, nope not good enough without clearly explaining they auto reject it. Besides even if I provided evidence that shut down any possible way to cast doubt on it, atheists would simply fall back on the "correlation doesn't equal causation" response. If atheists approach their lives with that degree of skepticism, then you couldn't believe in anything as all evidence would become questionable. You would have to propose crazy possibilities like your parents might be aliens.
You've already made up your mind that miracles don't exist so why should one expect you to fairly accept evidence?
This is silly.
It's like you're asking a doctor to prescribe a treatment before the diagnosis is confirmed.
My point stands. Atheists won't even define what parameters are necessary for it to "stand up to examination". Atheists just want the freedom to say, nope not good enough without clearly explaining they auto reject it. Besides even if I provided evidence that shut down any possible way to cast doubt on it, atheists would simply fall back on the "correlation doesn't equal causation" response. If atheists approach their lives with that degree of skepticism, then you couldn't believe in anything as all evidence would become questionable. You would have to propose crazy possibilities like your parents might be aliens.
Don't be absurd. We have 'defined the parameters' several times - it should be evidence that supports your position (whatever it is) is what you say it is and is the most probable interpretation of the data. That's the way we present our evidence, and we don't need excuses about you won't say what evidence would convince you and so we have no duty to produce anything, or for you to tell us what evidence would convince you, because we already know. No evidence even right in front of your face, would convince you.
But it doesn't matter because it speaks for itself, an denial of it just makes our case better.
Quote:
You've already made up your mind that miracles don't exist so why should one expect you to fairly accept evidence?
You are right - not about me, so much (I do not use the 'Jesus didn't do miracles because miracles don't happen' argument because of course Jesus would be a One Off) at least with the others. They do use that argument. And it doesn't matter. If you had evidence of miracles that was good enough to be convincing, our refusal to accept it would be irrelevant and would just hurt our case, just as your inability to back your case up does our case good and hurts yours.
Sorry but atheists have not made a single valid case that the Bible is untrustworthy. They stubborned refuse to study language (words in Hebrew have mutiple meanings , ya know) context and culture. Futhermore, even from a logical standpoint, it doesn't make sense the authors separated by hundreds of years would all conspire to deceive the world by writing a collection of fiction stories heavily based on reality. The OT Jews were not out there recruiting new members. The early Christians had their bodies lit on fire to serve as lamposts for the cruel Romans. The apostles died horribly for their faith. People don't sacrifice everything for a fiction. I can wish and hope that the religion of Jedi is real, but I certainly wouldn't stake my life on it.
Yes, archaeology. You know, the main tool to verify ancient history. At the very least, it gives credibility to the Biblical accounts. The alternative is to believe that the fiction writers somehow had amazing inside intel into innner workings of governments and kings. Even the story of Joseph aligns with what is known about Egyptian culture. There are countless finds that always support the Bible like Tel Dan Stela which confirmed that David was a real king. The fact that you so casually dismiss the entire field is an insult to archaeologists.
Muslims crashed planes into buildings thinking they were going to be met with virgins in some paradise Jeff. People can and do die for all sorts of beliefs, both real and imaginary.
Why would you think I care what Tertullian said in 190 AD? Why would you believe him?
Because he was a Christian who was recording what the gospel of John said. He was there at the time. And he said John ended at chapter 20. And if you read John, it does read as if it ended at chapter 20.
Incidentally, he was also the first person to formally record the doctrine of the Trinity. So if you do not want to believe him, why should we believe all of your claims?
Yes, I was surprised to realise that. What is interesting is that I already knew that the episode of the miraculous draught of fish appears in Luke in the context of the calling of the disciples. Which then of course conflicts with Matthew and mark as they have no such event. I remember that latter point surprised me when I first compared the gospels. Hadn't anyone noticed? Did they keep quiet about it? Would they play the different point of view' card?
I know how Eusebius would explain it - There were two such events.
People noticed, they just made up excuses, or hid the problems. People have argued over the Gnostic nature of John for centuries, so one of the popes forbade Catholics from discussing this sometime in the 1800's.
Here is an excuse from the original Eusebius (260/265 – 339/340AD).
12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.
13. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit.
It has been excuses all the way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He doesn't need to. I can do it for you. I probably know a few that he doesn't - like several humanid species might perhaps all be the same species. Some dinosaur species may actually be juvenile forms of others. And of course, we cannot prove how life started. But apart from that, all the evidence supports evolution (1) and none supports creationism. And evolution -theory is irrelevant to the god -question anyway. It's only a debunker of Genesis - literalism. 
