Absurd REALLY stupid stories in the bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I notice you haven't answered my question. Are you for, or against ignorance? Given the opportunity to talk to the detectives, would you simply say you would rather not know assuming that you have no idea whether they found any evidence of your wife cheating on you.

[b]but what you are saying is no longer ignorance. after one is presented with proof th ...[text shortened]... o doubt that you are in the same boat as he is. You know the truth and wilfully act against it.

first of all: yes, i am a christian.


"You know the truth and wilfully act against it"
what truth is that? that there is no god? that is not a truth. it is simply a "best practice" for science: do not assume something without proof. it is not the same as going to the north pole and proving there is no santa there.


i thought i did answer. you are talking about a different scenario. someone is coming to you with evidence on your wife betrayal. you ask me if i would ignore that. i said no, and people who choose to ignore it can no longer remain blissfully ignorant. they have information, yet they ignore it. it becomes an illogical conduct.

i talked about how nobody gives you any evidence about your wife cheating on you. your wife is displaying her love for you constantly. do you then hire a detective to search for evidence of her possibly non-existent betrayal? do you remain skeptic of her love until a period of time that you find sufficient passes and call off the investigation? or do you allow yourself to be happy?

likewise, i choose to believe there is a god, based on evidence that is perhaps insuficient, because it makes me happy, and there is no proof that god doesn't exist. i won't look for evidence that denies that view because i am happy like this, and i find no reason to spend my time like that. i will however allow for the possibility to change my view if you provide me with conclusive proof.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The problem with your argument is that it only works against people
who accept the laws of physics.

RJHinds doesn't.

God can wave his magic swinging cod and make anything happen.
So the response would be that god made the moon pre-impacted
with lots of craters because it looks pretty... or something.

If, like RJHinds, you allow magic then a ...[text shortened]... that you can't explain anything, but they don't care about
that. They like being ignorant.

i can accept fundies claiming "magic did it". i can put them in the same category as children and forget about them as well as anyone who would listen to them.

i have issue with asholes that claim "there is real science that supports this stupidity i am claiming". those are dangerous. they would pervert science. they would insert themselves into schools. they would waste the time of every teacher trying to navigate through the BS

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
likewise, i choose to believe there is a god, based on evidence that is perhaps insuficient,

What evidence?

Seriously, what evidence?

I/we are not saying that evidence for gods is insufficient...

It's non-existent.


I challenge you to provide one single solitary piece of evidence that is actually
FOR the existence of the Christian god.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What evidence?

Seriously, what evidence?

I/we are not saying that evidence for gods is insufficient...

It's non-existent.


I challenge you to provide one single solitary piece of evidence that is actually
FOR the existence of the Christian god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.[21][22]


now comes the part where you forget what i said about faith and you dismantle this and whatever else you wish from that page. go!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.[21][22]


now comes the part where you forget what i said about faith and you dismantle this and whatever else you wish from that page. go!

Well first off it is not true that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree
that a historical Jesus existed".
There is a major bust up between those who think JC was historical and those
who think he's purely mythical. (I come down on the mythical side, but it doesn't
actually matter for this discussion)

However, even if we do allow that JC was a historical figure and was not purely
mythical.

That is not in any way shape or form evidence that the god of the bible exists.
Which is what I asked for.

The existence of a person who claims to be the son of a god is not evidence for
the existence of that god. As that person being deluded is vastly more likely than
that person being right.
Just as Ron Hubbard claiming that "we all contain the souls of dead aliens and are
polluted by evil spirits that have to be removed by dianetrics (that will be your life
savings please)" is not evidence that the claim is right.
So someone claiming that someone existed who claimed that they were the son of
god is not in any way shape or form evidence that that god exists.

So I ask again.

Show me one single solitary shred of evidence FOR the existence of the bible god.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what truth is that? that there is no god? that is not a truth. it is simply a "best practice" for science: do not assume something without proof. it is not the same as going to the north pole and proving there is no santa there.

Going to the North Pole and not finding Santa does not rule out the existence of Santa. Yet I suspect you would criticize people who believe in Santa the same way you criticized RJ.
The fact is that there is no evidence for God and lots of evidence against there being one and you willfully choose to go against the evidence, yet criticize RJ for doing exactly the same. If anything I think you are brighter than he is and better able to make accurate judgements about the evidence.

i thought i did answer. you are talking about a different scenario.
Maybe so, but I would still like an answer to the new scenario.

i talked about how nobody gives you any evidence about your wife cheating on you. your wife is displaying her love for you constantly. do you then hire a detective to search for evidence of her possibly non-existent betrayal? do you remain skeptic of her love until a period of time that you find sufficient passes and call off the investigation? or do you allow yourself to be happy?
Thats not an answer, thats a question. Lets suppose you didn't have to hire a detective. Lets suppose the detective had been hired, has the results in a notebook, the notebook is on the table in front of you. Do you open it?
You consider it highly unlikely she would cheat on you, but there is that small chance....
Would you rather not know?

likewise, i choose to believe there is a god, based on evidence that is perhaps insuficient, because it makes me happy, and there is no proof that god doesn't exist. i won't look for evidence that denies that view because i am happy like this, and i find no reason to spend my time like that. i will however allow for the possibility to change my view if you provide me with conclusive proof.
I think that you are in exactly the same boat as RJ and would dismiss any proof I presented. That you demand 'conclusive proof' betrays your attitude. You think you have a water tight excuse for your irrationality, but you recognize that you are being irrational nonetheless.
You also recognize that your belief is based primarily on a desire for personal happiness not on the truth.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.

Why did you pick on Jesus? Surely you know that the historicity of Jesus is a least debatable? You at least admit that much of the Gospel narratives are debateable.
Why didn't you simply point out that the current Pope is a known historical figure whose existence is generally agreed upon? It would carry far more weight surely? Or does the existence of Jesus in particular have more evidentiary value than the existence of the Pope. If so, in what way?

And what conclusions do you draw from the fact that most historians agree that Mohamed was a real historical person. Is that evidence for Islaam?

Originally posted by googlefudge
The problem with your argument is that it only works against people
who accept the laws of physics.

RJHinds doesn't.

God can wave his magic swinging cod and make anything happen.
So the response would be that god made the moon pre-impacted
with lots of craters because it looks pretty... or something.

If, like RJHinds, you allow magic then a ...[text shortened]... that you can't explain anything, but they don't care about
that. They like being ignorant.

Why are you telling lies about us creationists? You know we are trying to keep you guys from being ignorant. That is why we Christian are attempting to spread the good news of Christ. We also have Creation scientists looking into these false teaching being spread by evilutionists, so we can rebutt them, so people like you, who have been led astray, don't continue to remain ignorant of the truth of God and His Christ.

But I do not want you to be ignorant...

(1 Thessalonians 4:13 NKJV)

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why are you telling lies about us creationists? You know we are trying to keep you guys from being ignorant. That is why we Christian are attempting to spread the good news of Christ. We also have Creation scientists looking into these false teaching being spread by evilutionists, so we can rebutt them, so people like you, who have been led astray, don't ...[text shortened]... [b]But I do not want you to be ignorant...

(1 Thessalonians 4:13 NKJV)

The Instructor[/b]

I know nothing of the kind.

You are (collectively) doing your damnedest to spread ignorance and superstition.
And to attack and discredit science and reason and critical thinking...
Or thinking of any kind really.



Also, any-time you talk about the "good news of Christ" I am going to post this video.

YouTube

To show you how stupid I think that is.


Full video here:

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
I know nothing of the kind.

You are (collectively) doing your damnedest to spread ignorance and superstition.
And to attack and discredit science and reason and critical thinking...
Or thinking of any kind really.



Also, any-time you talk about the "good news of Christ" I am going to post this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=854J4ffK ...[text shortened]... w stupid I think that is.


Full video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dup6xkvj1S0

All that does for me is to confirm the truth of the prophecies of false teachers arising in the last days to lead people away from God. That man demonstrates what a fool he is by thinking he is so wise to mock the truth of God, which he does not even understand. If you wish to believe such a man, then you will also remain ignorant and a fool just like him.

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

(Romans 1:25 NASB)

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well first off it is not true that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree
that a historical Jesus existed".
There is a major bust up between those who think JC was historical and those
who think he's purely mythical. (I come down on the mythical side, but it doesn't
actually matter for this discussion)

However, even if we do a ...[text shortened]... gain.

Show me one single solitary shred of evidence FOR the existence of the bible god.

"That is not in any way shape or form evidence that the god of the bible exists.
"However, even if we do allow that JC was a historical figure and was not purely mythical."
yes, jesus existed. that is fact. whether he was the son of god, that is a matter of faith. even if he appeared in the sky and said "yo, fudge, i am the son of god, worship me". you would believe he is a very powerfull alien, and not the son of god. you cannot prove he is the supreme being that he is the
son of god. you simply believe.
Which is what I asked for."

this is what you fail to understand from my "wife loving you" example. believers don't require hard evidence. we have faith. believing in someething is what makes us happy. if god was proven beyond a doubt to exist (which you asked me to) only the insane and retarded would deny his existence.

"The existence of a person who claims to be the son of a god is not evidence for the existence of that god."
i agree. and just like i don't ask someone to prove to me mathematically that monet paintings are awesome please let it go and stop asking believers to prove god exists. we can offer you circumstantial and isufficient evidence that prove somewhat that a person like that existed. the muslims can offer you evidence that mohammed existed. the rest you have to take on faith, or not. it is your personal choice.


and try not to put all believers in the same boat as rjhinds. it is very insulting.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
this is what you fail to understand from my "wife loving you" example. believers don't require hard evidence.

You apparently don't require any evidence, because when asked for some, what you produced, does not constitute evidence.

and try not to put all believers in the same boat as rjhinds. it is very insulting.
So what do you see as being different between you and RJ?
Do you see your beliefs as not yet being ruled out by science whereas his beliefs as contradicting the findings of science? If so, I would claim that your beliefs are just as much in contradiction to the findings of science as his are.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why did you pick on Jesus? Surely you know that the historicity of Jesus is a least debatable? You at least admit that much of the Gospel narratives are debateable.
Why didn't you simply point out that the current Pope is a known historical figure whose existence is generally agreed upon? It would carry far more weight surely? Or does the existence of Je ...[text shortened]... t most historians agree that Mohamed was a real historical person. Is that evidence for Islaam?

i am not a catholic, the pope means nothing to me.

the historicity of Jesus is a least debatable?
of course it is.


"And what conclusions do you draw from the fact that most historians agree that Mohamed was a real historical person. Is that evidence for Islaam?"
as a christian? nothing more than that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You apparently don't require [b]any evidence, because when asked for some, what you produced, does not constitute evidence.

and try not to put all believers in the same boat as rjhinds. it is very insulting.
So what do you see as being different between you and RJ?
Do you see your beliefs as not yet being ruled out by science whereas his b ...[text shortened]... laim that your beliefs are just as much in contradiction to the findings of science as his are.[/b]

it is weak evidence that proves some of what i believe. the rest is faith. i am not trying to prove god, nobody can. why do you keep asking that?

"So what do you see as being different between you and RJ?"
is this a joke?

" If so, I would claim that your beliefs are just as much in contradiction to the findings of science as his are"
you may claim whatever you want, however i choose this time to not take your claim on faith. how about you give an example how my faith contradicts science. not supported by science, yes. contradicting? prove it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is weak evidence that proves some of what i believe. the rest is faith. i am not trying to prove god, nobody can. why do you keep asking that?

"So what do you see as being different between you and RJ?"
is this a joke?

" If so, I would claim that your beliefs are just as much in contradiction to the findings of science as his are"
you may claim ...[text shortened]... le how my faith contradicts science. not supported by science, yes. contradicting? prove it.

Do you believe Jesus resurrected Lazarus after he had been dead for four days? If so, that would contradict science.