The Role of the Unrepentant Skeptic

Originally posted by dj2becker
And this realization somehow required no weighing up of evidence or critical thinking on your part, as you have lead yourself to believe.

You seem to be ignoring the content of messages that I am typing and addressing to you.

Originally posted by FMF
I asked you about archeological evidence. What archeological evidence is there that "Christ appeared" or that there is an "empty grave"?

I'm sure you've been presented with this before and decided to reject it, so I'm not going to waste my time. If you were really open to evidence you would do your own digging. But it seems your choice is made.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
They do sir when it comes to religion.

In no way do I think religious people are irrational human beings. Indeed, some of the smartest and clear thinking people I know are theists. However, when such a rational individual takes a 'leap of faith' and becomes a Christian, Jew or Muslim, they are not doing it on the same rational basis they would for ...[text shortened]... e edge of a cliff in the 'hope' that he will survive the fall. - An irrational decision, surely?

There is plenty evidence for the existence of God, your rejection of it is your choice.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I'm sure you've been presented with this before and decided to reject it, so I'm not going to waste my time. If you were really open to evidence you would do your own digging. But it seems your choice is made.

I am interested in your evidence.

Is anything that you will offer NOT from the Bible?

Do you take the Bible as fact, or on faith?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I'm sure you've been presented with this before and decided to reject it, so I'm not going to waste my time. If you were really open to evidence you would do your own digging. But it seems your choice is made.

So that's no archeological evidence or place name evidence indicating that Jesus was a supernatural being then?

Originally posted by dj2becker
There is plenty evidence for the existence of God, your rejection of it is your choice.

Actually there is no choice to make, so 'rejection' is irrelevant.

There is for example a lack of evidence to suggest the existence of the loch Ness monster. It is therefore not necessary and rather silly for me to reject him.

Originally posted by FMF
I made a decision as to what to say about myself in public.

So you have never made a decision to reject any evidence for Christianity?

Originally posted by chaney3
I am interested in your evidence.

Is anything that you will offer NOT from the Bible?

Do you take the Bible as fact, or on faith?

If you are genuinely interested:

http://www.gracechapelsomd.org/books/The_New_Evidence_That_Demands_A_Verdict.pdf

Originally posted by FMF
So that's no archeological evidence or place name evidence indicating that Jesus was a supernatural being then?

If you are genuinely interested in possible evidence I gave a link to chaney. I have no interest in playing your games.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you have never made a decision to reject any evidence for Christianity?

I never made a decision to be superstitious and never made a decision to not be superstitious. I don't think anyone does. I think it rings false psychologically speaking, although I understand its ideological purpose for those who insist it's a valid take on how belief in supernatural things works.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Actually there is no choice to make, so 'rejection' is irrelevant.

There is for example a lack of evidence to suggest the existence of the loch Ness monster. It is therefore not necessary and rather silly for me to reject him.

You have decided there is a lack of evidence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you are genuinely interested:

http://www.gracechapelsomd.org/books/The_New_Evidence_That_Demands_A_Verdict.pdf

Isn't this the same link Fetchmyjunk gave?

Originally posted by FMF
I never made a decision to be superstitious and never made a decision to not be superstitious. I don't think anyone does. I think it rings false psychologically speaking, although I understand its ideological purpose for those who insist it's a valid take on how belief in supernatural things works.

So back to my question, yes or no?

Originally posted by FMF
Isn't this the same link Fetchmyjunk gave?

Maybe if you actually looked at it you could make an informed decision, no?

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you are genuinely interested in possible evidence I gave a link to chaney. I have no interest in playing your games.

I'll take that as a rather graceless "no" from you then.