@avalanchethecat saidHow does that alter if something was done with intent or not? Seriously you just said I don’t believe the supernatural is possible so anything that may point to that ONLY by how YOU define things cannot be true. I have to say you saying that there isn’t any evidence for the supernatural isn’t because of evidence, but ONLY how you define things.
An absence of belief in a god or gods.
How do you tell the difference between something that requires intelligence and what doesn’t?
I’m looking forward to the first images as well, but I read somewhere on here that they won’t be available for like six months
Yes. It will take another six months to position it and use it.
The thing I worry about is a tiny meteorite smashing into it in high speed. One little stray rock or something hitting those mirrors and there would be damage.
I can see some advantage of moving it far, far from the earth. There is so much high speed garbage swirling around the earth now.
1 edit
@pb1022 saidAuthorship is disputed, there are ground for reasonable doubt as to when and by whom these books were penned.
Try again: You’re the “claimant” stating something contrary to accepted authorship.
You’re just angry and getting personal because you got caught telling two big whoppers and destroyed your credibility.
Try to be honest, cap’n. It’s the only way to go 😉
You keep on with this garbage, everything I said was true.
I'm in no way angry, I'm just seeing you still behaving as a troll despite the change of name.
@kellyjay said"How do you tell the difference between something that requires intelligence and what doesn’t?"
How does that alter if something was done with intent or not? Seriously you just said I don’t believe the supernatural is possible so anything that may point to that ONLY by how YOU define things cannot be true. I have to say you saying that there isn’t any evidence for the supernatural isn’t because of evidence, but ONLY how you define things.
How do you tell the difference between something that requires intelligence and what doesn’t?
Unless you know everything, you can't.
@avalanchethecat saidIf you’re not angry, why are you getting personal?
Authorship is disputed, there are ground for reasonable doubt as to when and by whom these books were penned.
You keep on with this garbage, everything I said was true.
I'm in no way angry, I'm just seeing you still behaving as a troll despite the change of name.
Practically everything is disputed. But the accepted author of the Gospel of John is the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it forward.
You’re the one getting personal and trolling, not me.
And we both know my catching you telling those two big whoppers is the reason why 😉
1 edit
@pb1022 saidI'm getting personal because you persist in calling me a liar, when in fact the only one of the two of us who has lied is you. You claimed that you were using the term 'champ' as a term of endearment, when of course you were not, you were being deliberately antagonistic and patronising.
If you’re not angry, why are you getting personal?
Practically everything is disputed. But the accepted author of the Gospel of John is the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it forward.
You’re the one getting personal and trolling, not me.
And we both know my catching you telling those two big whoppers is the reason why 😉
You are a troll, and a liar, and your true character is still available for all to read on this website under your original name.
@avalanchethecat saidAre you saying you didn’t claim to have read the Gospels “a bunch of times” after becoming an atheist?
I'm getting personal because you persist in calling me a liar, when in fact the only one of the two of us who has lied is you. You claimed that you were using the term 'champ' as a term of endearment, when of course you were not, you were being deliberately antagonistic and patronising.
You are a troll, and a liar, and your true character is still available for all to read on this website under your original name.
Are you saying you didn’t claim to have looked into the Holy Bible “extensively?”
You made both those claims, and they’re both obviously false.
But since you dispute the author of the Gospel of John is the Apostle John, why not bring forth evidence demonstrating that?
You seem to shoot from the hip, and, when asked for evidence, you start getting personal and trolling.
You did it when I asked you for evidence of macroevolution and you’re doing it again.
@pb1022 saidI have read the Gospels more times than I can count. You may not believe that, but it is true. I have studied the bible as an ancient historical text. Again, you may not believe that, but it is true.
Are you saying you didn’t claim to have read the Gospels “a bunch of times” after becoming an atheist?
Are you saying you didn’t claim to have looked into the Holy Bible “extensively?”
You made both those claims, and they’re both obviously false.
But since you dispute the author of the Gospel of John is the Apostle John, why not bring forth evidence demonstrating that ...[text shortened]... d trolling.
You did it when I asked you for evidence of macroevolution and you’re doing it again.
I don't need to provide evidence that the Gospels were not written by those for whom they are named. Authorship of the books of the bible has been subject to argument by learned authorities for centuries. They could not agree. For you to claim that authorship is beyond question is dishonest.
@avalanchethecat said<<I have read the Gospels more times than I can count. You may not believe that, but it is true.>>
I have read the Gospels more times than I can count. You may not believe that, but it is true. I have studied the bible as an ancient historical text. Again, you may not believe that, but it is true.
I don't need to provide evidence that the Gospels were not written by those for whom they are named. Authorship of the books of the bible has been subject to argument ...[text shortened]... r centuries. They could not agree. For you to claim that authorship is beyond question is dishonest.
That’s not what you originally stated. You originally stated you had read the Gospels “a bunch of times” *after* becoming an atheist, which is an obvious lie. You’re now trying to muddy the waters to claim you were being truthful when you obviously weren’t.
<<I have studied the bible as an ancient historical text. Again, you may not believe that, but it is true.>>
Based on your knowledge of the Holy Bible as displayed in this forum, I would say this is also false.
<<I don't need to provide evidence that the Gospels were not written by those for whom they are named.>>
Since you stated the Holy Bible has no eyewitness accounts, then yeah, I think you do need to provide evidence the Apostle John did not write the Gospel of John since the Apostle John was an eyewitness to what he wrote.
<<Authorship of the books of the bible has been subject to argument by learned authorities for centuries. They could not agree. For you to claim that authorship is beyond question is dishonest.>>
Never said the authorship was “beyond question.” You really like to play fast and loose with the facts, don’t you?
And it’s quite amusing that you’re bearing false witness against me and then claiming I’m dishonest based upon your false witness.
But that, in my experience, is typical of atheists.
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidUnder those conditions we can absolutely know nothing about anything.
"How do you tell the difference between something that requires intelligence and what doesn’t?"
Unless you know everything, you can't.
@pb1022 saidIt's not a lie at all. Actually I read Luke and Matthew earlier this year, and Thomas too. Where do you get off just telling people that they are lying without any grounds whatsoever other than your own petty prejudice?
<<I have read the Gospels more times than I can count. You may not believe that, but it is true.>>
That’s not what you originally stated. You originally stated you had read the Gospels “a bunch of times” *after* becoming an atheist, which is an obvious lie. You’re now trying to muddy the waters to claim you were being truthful when you obviously weren’t.
<<I have studied ...[text shortened]... I’m dishonest based upon your false witness.
But that, in my experience, is typical of atheists.
Where do you think I have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the bible on this forum?
In a court of law, an eyewitness testimony must be made by an eyewitness; a written statement which you believe to be from an eyewitness is not eyewitness testimony. There are grounds for reasonable doubt regarding the authors of the Gospels. If you deny this, you are being dishonest.
Given your posting history, that comes as no surprise.
1 edit
It's not a lie at all. Actually I read Luke and Matthew earlier this year, and Thomas too.
Why did you read The Gospel According to Thomas?
Did you go to read Thomas because you thought it would help you to rationalize not believing what is written in Matthew and in Luke?
Did you rationalize this way:
"I don't care for what Matthew or Luke has told me. But I might nullify that effect by lumping in with them Thomas, dulling their effect."
I can read John's Gospel. But if I do not like how it convicts my conscience, l can reach for the Apocryphal books to neutralize the power of John and get it off my conscience.
@avalanchethecat saidNo longer interested in engaging with someone as blatantly dishonest as you.
It's not a lie at all. Actually I read Luke and Matthew earlier this year, and Thomas too. Where do you get off just telling people that they are lying without any grounds whatsoever other than your own petty prejudice?
Where do you think I have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the bible on this forum?
In a court of law, an eyewitness testimony must be made ...[text shortened]... If you deny this, you are being dishonest.
Given your posting history, that comes as no surprise.
Sell your saddle soap somewhere else, cowboy.
@pb1022 saidOh I see, having made an unfounded accusation and been called out on it, now you don't want to engage. Pretty much what I'd expect from a troll.
No longer interested in engaging with someone as blatantly dishonest as you.
Sell your saddle soap somewhere else, cowboy.
@sonship saidI read Thomas because I was chasing up a particular quote that I'd encountered elsewhere and I thought I remembered reading it there. Is that ok with you? Are you not allowed to read Apocrypha in your cult?
@avalanchethecatIt's not a lie at all. Actually I read Luke and Matthew earlier this year, and Thomas too.
Why did you read The Gospel According to Thomas?
Did you go to read Thomas because you thought it would help you to rationalize not believing what is written in Matthew and in Luke?
Did you rationalize this way:
[i] ...[text shortened]... reach for the Apocryphal books to neutralize the power of John and get it off my conscience.