Originally posted by Agergwell, think again dear Agers, indeed, how many orbiting tea cups have influenced
I'm quite sure there is as much evidence for orbiting teacups as there is for *magic* Jesus (as opposed to non-son of "God" Jesus)
generations of persons with its teaching, do tell! for practically all we know is written in
the gospels, which quite frankly paints a different picture than you people, indeed,
which one of the gospel accounts are you wiling to state, did not happen and on what
basis, do tell dear Agers.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...no its a religious belief! ...”
no its a religious belief! your paradoy was in your insistence of
terming a religious belief, the same as if there was a tea cup orbiting Mars, which i
think you'll find less evidence of, than if there was a historical personage known as
Jesus Christ, who just happened to, well, against tremendous odds, start a religion.
atheism is the absence of the belief that there is a god. That is clearly not a “ religious belief”.
“...your paradoy was in your insistence of
terming a religious belief, the same as if there was a tea cup orbiting Mars, ...”
I said “Atheists only point out that there is no rational in the belief that there is a god just as there is no rational in the belief that there is a tea cup orbiting Mars. “ which states one thing we atheists see in common with belief that there is a god and the belief that there is a tea cup orbiting Mars.
-no parody; I am just stating a fact.
“...which i think you'll find less evidence of ...”
No; I find the some amount of evidence for both ….none.
“...than if there was a historical personage known as
Jesus Christ, who just happened to, well, against tremendous odds, start a religion. ...”
I was not comparing the evidence that there is a teacup orbiting Mars with the evidence that there is a Jesus but the evidence that there is a teacup orbiting Mars with the evidence that there is a god and you know it.
Jesus existed and there is evidence for that. There is no evidence for the existence of a god.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwhatever, i am now past the point of caring. As for evidence of the existence of God, i think there is, in fact, I would say that there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
“...no its a religious belief! ...”
atheism is the absence of the belief that there is a god. That is clearly not a “ religious belief”.
“...your paradoy was in your insistence of
terming a religious belief, the same as if there was a tea cup orbiting Mars, ...”
I said “Atheists only point out that there is no rational in the belief Jesus existed and there is evidence for that. There is no evidence for the existence of a god.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a classic example of you blurring the meanings of what you're talking about and why Agers has to spend so much time going through 'definitions' with you. We've gone from irrational to unusual to improbable in consecutive posts. An analogy if you will -
no its doesn't, but neither does improbable equate to impossible, does it.
Me having to take a dump after 9pm is 'unusual', it's not 'impossible' as my bowels can move at anytime, and it's certainly not 'irrational' to hold the view that this can happen.
A woman having a child without having sex with a man is more than 'unusual' (obviously i'm excluding medical techniques which could impregnate her), it's 'impossible' and to hold the view that this could happen is 'irrational'.
Originally posted by Proper Knobits not irrational if you believe in the divine, i was, after all, speaking from your perspective, not mine. Perhaps that was not made obvious enough.
So how does an irrational force which produces an irrational event make the outcome rational?
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy position on this matter is simple:
well, think again dear Agers, indeed, how many orbiting tea cups have influenced
generations of persons with its teaching, do tell! for practically all we know is written in
the gospels, which quite frankly paints a different picture than you people, indeed,
which one of the gospel accounts are you wiling to state, did not happen and on what
basis, do tell dear Agers.
If Jesus existed (big if) then he was a normal person, a nice/wise guy perhaps who later got shafted and became the subject of exaggerated stories and tall tales by human writers of the Bible. He was not the son of "God", didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, and so on...
The notion of Jesus you're refering to, for which there is zero evidence is magic Jesus. To that end there is as much evidence for tea pots orbitting mars as there is for this twinkle dust character you refer to.
4 edits
Originally posted by Agergno there is a plethora of evidence contained with in the gospel accounts dear Agers, but
My position on this matter is simple:
If Jesus existed (big if) then he was a normal person, a nice/wise guy perhaps who later got shafted and became the subject of exaggerated stories and tall tales by human writers of the Bible. He was not the son of "God", didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, and so on...
The notion of Jesus you're refering ...[text shortened]... dence for tea pots orbitting mars as there is for this twinkle dust character you refer to.
because you have not read, nor studied them, you do not know. It was pointed out to
you, after you acknowledged that Christ was a historical personage, which you are
now seeking to retract, that what we know about Christ is found in the Bible. Indeed
where else would you go to learn about him? Thus, it follows, that on that basis, you
were asked, which portion of scripture has led you to the conclusion and you produce
nothing but hearsay, uninformed and unsubstantiated gibberish! mere opinion
masquerading as truth! Obviously you were not there, therefore the question remains,
you dont know nada, all you can state with any certainty is that to you, it appears
improbable, is that not the case Agers? Fess up Agers, is that not the case?
Sigh is it any wonder that RJHinds is joe the toff?
typical atheistic dogma, 'if Jesus existed', sooo, dear Agers, can you think of any
other fictional character, that was born a carpenter, to a poor Jewish family, that
has influenced millions of persons through his example and teaching, do tell.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere's a plethora of information contained within Greek mythology but it doesn't logically follow that you believe in flying horses and a women with snakes for hair who turns people to stone.
no there is a plethora of evidence contained with in the gospel accounts dear Agers, but
because you have not read, nor studied them, you do not know. It was pointed out to
you, after you acknowledged that Christ was a historical personage, which you are
now seeking to retract, that what we know about Christ is found in the Bible. Indeed
whe ...[text shortened]... gers? Fess up Agers, is that not the case?
Sigh is it any wonder that RJHinds is joe the toff?
Originally posted by Proper Knoband your point is? for if you want to learn about Greek mythology, you read and study
There's a plethora of information contained within Greek mythology but it doesn't logically follow that you believe in flying horses and a women with snakes for hair who turns people to stone.
those passages, do you not? If you want to learn about whether Christ was a real
person you would study what? that is correct, the place where it is written about him,
the gospels, but you , nor Agers have not done that, have you, noooo, therefore i am
giving you homework, research a miracle of Christ any one and i can guarantee that
the details of the gospel accounts lend themselves to the conclusion that not only was
Christ real, but so were his miracles.!
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've retracted nothing Robbie - The evidence you have for *magic* Jesus from the Bible is no more persuasive than the evidence for Xenu contained within the writings of scientology.
no there is a plethora of evidence contained with in the gospel accounts dear Agers, but
because you have not read, nor studied them, you do not know. It was pointed out to
you, after you acknowledged that Christ was a historical personage, which you are
now seeking to retract, that what we know about Christ is found in the Bible. Indeed
whe h family, that
has influenced millions of persons through his example and teaching, do tell.
Indeed were you around 75 million years ago to observe whether Xenu did dump a load of humans into a volcano or not!? I think you weren't.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo we analyse the veracity of Jesus miracles contained in the Bible by examining the Bible. That might wash for you, but that sounds about as circular as an argument can get to me. If that's all you need that's cool, but i need a little more than that.
and your point is? for if you want to learn about Greek mythology, you read and study
those passages, do you not? If you want to learn about whether Christ was a real
person you would study what? that is correct, the place where it is written about him,
the gospels, but you , nor Agers have not done that, have you, noooo, therefore i am
givi ...[text shortened]... ts lend themselves to the conclusion that not only was
Christ real, but so were his miracles.!
Originally posted by Agergi have one thing to say to you dear Agers, 'yeah like you would know', make with the
I've retracted nothing Robbie - The evidence you have for *magic* Jesus from the Bible is no more persuasive than the evidence for Xenu contained within the writings of scientology
reddies, the gauntlet has been thrown down, you and Noobster need to come up with
some goodies or you will be failed!
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhere else are you going to examine them? huh? no its not circular at all, its a matter
So we analyse the veracity of Jesus miracles contained in the Bible by examining the Bible. That might wash for you, but that sounds about as circular as an argument can get to me. If that's all you need that's cool, but i need a little more than that.
of, there are no other writings anywhere else, your objection is unfounded, like, i dont
want to study Shakespeare because his works are contained in the Complete works of
Shakespeare, huh? 😕
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI find it difficult to parse your long posts, and extract the nature of your challenge...care to spell it out for me!???
i have one thing to say to you dear Agers, 'yeah like you would know', make with the
reddies, the gauntlet has been thrown down, you and Noobster need to come up with
some goodies or you will be failed!