Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Upload For Atheists, For Agnostics

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 10:09:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If a Christian is granted eternal life, wouldn't a non-believer truly be the one who dies in faith? You couldn't call an atheist a liar for "denying" the existence of God if you thought along those lines.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 10:09:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

Hm. Indeed, this is a valid point.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:18:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.

You're right. It isn't the same, it's better. He claimed to be the savior himself, which is more direct than claiming to have witnessed the savior being resurrected.

So his belief trumps that of the disciples.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:20:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:18:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.

You're right. It isn't the same, it's better. He claimed to be the savior himself, which is more direct than claiming to have witnessed the savior being resurrected.

So his belief trumps that of the disciples.

not better at all he claimed to be the savior, he didn't necessarily have to be lying, he could have believed that. On the other hand many diciples physically saw the resurrection and reported it. That claim is far harder to convince yourself of since it requires you believing something you have witnessed without witnessing it, its near impossible.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:22:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:20:40 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:18:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.

You're right. It isn't the same, it's better. He claimed to be the savior himself, which is more direct than claiming to have witnessed the savior being resurrected.

So his belief trumps that of the disciples.

not better at all he claimed to be the savior, he didn't necessarily have to be lying, he could have believed that. On the other hand many diciples physically saw the resurrection and reported it. That claim is far harder to convince yourself of since it requires you believing something you have witnessed without witnessing it, its near impossible.

This is all just special pleading. Any argument for dismissing the Heaven's Gate leader can be used against the disciplines and any argument that can be used in support of them can be used in support of the Heaven's Gate leader.

Do you have anything that hasn't been debunked over hundreds of years?
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:28:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:22:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:20:40 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:18:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.

You're right. It isn't the same, it's better. He claimed to be the savior himself, which is more direct than claiming to have witnessed the savior being resurrected.

So his belief trumps that of the disciples.

not better at all he claimed to be the savior, he didn't necessarily have to be lying, he could have believed that. On the other hand many diciples physically saw the resurrection and reported it. That claim is far harder to convince yourself of since it requires you believing something you have witnessed without witnessing it, its near impossible.

This is all just special pleading. Any argument for dismissing the Heaven's Gate leader can be used against the disciplines and any argument that can be used in support of them can be used in support of the Heaven's Gate leader.

Do you have anything that hasn't been debunked over hundreds of years?

I respectfully disagree, it really is you who are committing the fallacy. You are equivocating a mental belief based on no physical evidence with a belief that you saw an actual event. They are different.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:32:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:28:32 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:22:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:20:40 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:18:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.

You're right. It isn't the same, it's better. He claimed to be the savior himself, which is more direct than claiming to have witnessed the savior being resurrected.

So his belief trumps that of the disciples.

not better at all he claimed to be the savior, he didn't necessarily have to be lying, he could have believed that. On the other hand many diciples physically saw the resurrection and reported it. That claim is far harder to convince yourself of since it requires you believing something you have witnessed without witnessing it, its near impossible.

This is all just special pleading. Any argument for dismissing the Heaven's Gate leader can be used against the disciplines and any argument that can be used in support of them can be used in support of the Heaven's Gate leader.

Do you have anything that hasn't been debunked over hundreds of years?

I respectfully disagree, it really is you who are committing the fallacy. You are equivocating a mental belief based on no physical evidence with a belief that you saw an actual event. They are different.

Whatever you say champ. Don't quit your day-job with the trying to convince atheists the error of their ways.

This, of course, assumes that the accounts of the disciples is accurate as written, which I do not grant. So even if you were able to successfully argue your point, you still have that little hurdle to get over.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:36:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:32:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:28:32 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:22:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:20:40 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:18:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.

You're right. It isn't the same, it's better. He claimed to be the savior himself, which is more direct than claiming to have witnessed the savior being resurrected.

So his belief trumps that of the disciples.

not better at all he claimed to be the savior, he didn't necessarily have to be lying, he could have believed that. On the other hand many diciples physically saw the resurrection and reported it. That claim is far harder to convince yourself of since it requires you believing something you have witnessed without witnessing it, its near impossible.

This is all just special pleading. Any argument for dismissing the Heaven's Gate leader can be used against the disciplines and any argument that can be used in support of them can be used in support of the Heaven's Gate leader.

Do you have anything that hasn't been debunked over hundreds of years?

I respectfully disagree, it really is you who are committing the fallacy. You are equivocating a mental belief based on no physical evidence with a belief that you saw an actual event. They are different.

Whatever you say champ. Don't quit your day-job with the trying to convince atheists the error of their ways.

This, of course, assumes that the accounts of the disciples is accurate as written, which I do not grant. So even if you were able to successfully argue your point, you still have that little hurdle to get over.

You have 4 authors telling the same story about the resurrection.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:39:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:36:37 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:32:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:28:32 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:22:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:20:40 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:18:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.

You're right. It isn't the same, it's better. He claimed to be the savior himself, which is more direct than claiming to have witnessed the savior being resurrected.

So his belief trumps that of the disciples.

not better at all he claimed to be the savior, he didn't necessarily have to be lying, he could have believed that. On the other hand many diciples physically saw the resurrection and reported it. That claim is far harder to convince yourself of since it requires you believing something you have witnessed without witnessing it, its near impossible.

This is all just special pleading. Any argument for dismissing the Heaven's Gate leader can be used against the disciplines and any argument that can be used in support of them can be used in support of the Heaven's Gate leader.

Do you have anything that hasn't been debunked over hundreds of years?

I respectfully disagree, it really is you who are committing the fallacy. You are equivocating a mental belief based on no physical evidence with a belief that you saw an actual event. They are different.

Whatever you say champ. Don't quit your day-job with the trying to convince atheists the error of their ways.

This, of course, assumes that the accounts of the disciples is accurate as written, which I do not grant. So even if you were able to successfully argue your point, you still have that little hurdle to get over.

You have 4 authors telling the same story about the resurrection.

There are competing hypotheses about the authorship of the gospels. Furthermore, those aren't first hand accounts. They were written decades after the events in which they describe. Also, just writing something doesn't make it true.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:42:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:39:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:36:37 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:32:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:28:32 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:22:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:20:40 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:18:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:12:41 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:31:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:22:39 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:17:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 10:00:04 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:57:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 9:32:43 AM, bigbob91 wrote:


LOL.

I guess the Heaven's Gate Cultists were right in their beliefs too, then? Eh?

If you had watched the video, you would have seen the difference, the heavens gate cultists had not actually experienced anything, so they believed it but had no such experience. The Disciples on the other hand had experienced the resurrection first hand and would not have died for it if that was lie.

No, it's the same because the Heaven's Gate leader would have known if what he was spouting was a lie or not. Yet he died for his 1st hand belief.

Did the heaven's gate leader claim to have first hand experience?

Yes. He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. So he would have known if he was right or not. Yet he died for that belief.

Not the same as a personal experience with an actual resurrected savior.

You're right. It isn't the same, it's better. He claimed to be the savior himself, which is more direct than claiming to have witnessed the savior being resurrected.

So his belief trumps that of the disciples.

not better at all he claimed to be the savior, he didn't necessarily have to be lying, he could have believed that. On the other hand many diciples physically saw the resurrection and reported it. That claim is far harder to convince yourself of since it requires you believing something you have witnessed without witnessing it, its near impossible.

This is all just special pleading. Any argument for dismissing the Heaven's Gate leader can be used against the disciplines and any argument that can be used in support of them can be used in support of the Heaven's Gate leader.

Do you have anything that hasn't been debunked over hundreds of years?

I respectfully disagree, it really is you who are committing the fallacy. You are equivocating a mental belief based on no physical evidence with a belief that you saw an actual event. They are different.

Whatever you say champ. Don't quit your day-job with the trying to convince atheists the error of their ways.

This, of course, assumes that the accounts of the disciples is accurate as written, which I do not grant. So even if you were able to successfully argue your point, you still have that little hurdle to get over.

You have 4 authors telling the same story about the resurrection.

There are competing hypotheses about the authorship of the gospels. Furthermore, those aren't first hand accounts. They were written decades after the events in which they describe. Also, just writing something doesn't make it true.

I do apologize, but just asserting they are not first hand accounts does not change that they are eye-witness testimony.
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:46:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Then again, the Heavens Gate leader could never raise up others from the dead, or restore sight to the blind. He was a wannabe.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:49:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:42:49 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
There are competing hypotheses about the authorship of the gospels. Furthermore, those aren't first hand accounts. They were written decades after the events in which they describe. Also, just writing something doesn't make it true.

I do apologize, but just asserting they are not first hand accounts does not change that they are eye-witness testimony.

They aren't eye-witness testimony because they were written decades after the events they describe. And just calling them eye-wintess testimony doesn't make them eye-witness testimony.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:52:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:49:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:42:49 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
There are competing hypotheses about the authorship of the gospels. Furthermore, those aren't first hand accounts. They were written decades after the events in which they describe. Also, just writing something doesn't make it true.

I do apologize, but just asserting they are not first hand accounts does not change that they are eye-witness testimony.

They aren't eye-witness testimony because they were written decades after the events they describe. And just calling them eye-wintess testimony doesn't make them eye-witness testimony.

Even if they were written decades later, that is merely an assertion by you, that does not rule them out as coming from eyewitnesses. In 30 years I could go back and write about my current college experiences, they would still be eyewitness accounts even though it took me several decades to actually write them.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:57:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The assertion that the disciples were prepared to die for Jesus after he was resurrected in not "powerful evidence for Christianity", it's not evidence at all. Like the rest of the Bible, it's all hearsay.

If Jesus really did exist, why did he "enlighten" only a small number of people in the Middle East and leave people in the rest of the world to continue to believe that their own faiths were valid?

Even now, most of the world are non-Christians so why doesn't Jesus come back and tour the entire world performing independently verifiable miracles in order to prove, without any shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is the one and only true religion?

Is he too busy? Or does he simply not care if Asians, Africans, Arabs, Aborigines and Amazonians aren't ‘saved' because he's a racist who thinks these people are worthless savages?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:58:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:52:17 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:49:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:42:49 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
There are competing hypotheses about the authorship of the gospels. Furthermore, those aren't first hand accounts. They were written decades after the events in which they describe. Also, just writing something doesn't make it true.

I do apologize, but just asserting they are not first hand accounts does not change that they are eye-witness testimony.

They aren't eye-witness testimony because they were written decades after the events they describe. And just calling them eye-wintess testimony doesn't make them eye-witness testimony.

Even if they were written decades later, that is merely an assertion by you, that does not rule them out as coming from eyewitnesses. In 30 years I could go back and write about my current college experiences, they would still be eyewitness accounts even though it took me several decades to actually write them.

Uhm, no, it isn't merely an assertion by me. This is pretty much accepted. But fine, you don't want to base anything on mere assertions.

So prove the gospels are more than just mere assertions.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:58:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:57:33 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
The assertion that the disciples were prepared to die for Jesus after he was resurrected in not "powerful evidence for Christianity", it's not evidence at all. Like the rest of the Bible, it's all hearsay.

If Jesus really did exist, why did he "enlighten" only a small number of people in the Middle East and leave people in the rest of the world to continue to believe that their own faiths were valid?

Even now, most of the world are non-Christians so why doesn't Jesus come back and tour the entire world performing independently verifiable miracles in order to prove, without any shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is the one and only true religion?

Is he too busy? Or does he simply not care if Asians, Africans, Arabs, Aborigines and Amazonians aren't ‘saved' because he's a racist who thinks these people are worthless savages?

If you aren't going to be respectful why should I respond?
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:01:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:58:24 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:52:17 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:49:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:42:49 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
There are competing hypotheses about the authorship of the gospels. Furthermore, those aren't first hand accounts. They were written decades after the events in which they describe. Also, just writing something doesn't make it true.

I do apologize, but just asserting they are not first hand accounts does not change that they are eye-witness testimony.

They aren't eye-witness testimony because they were written decades after the events they describe. And just calling them eye-wintess testimony doesn't make them eye-witness testimony.

Even if they were written decades later, that is merely an assertion by you, that does not rule them out as coming from eyewitnesses. In 30 years I could go back and write about my current college experiences, they would still be eyewitness accounts even though it took me several decades to actually write them.

Uhm, no, it isn't merely an assertion by me. This is pretty much accepted. But fine, you don't want to base anything on mere assertions.

So prove the gospels are more than just mere assertions.

You are asserting that the gospels are not written by who they say they are. That is your responsibility not mine.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:06:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 12:01:55 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:58:24 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:52:17 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:49:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:42:49 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
There are competing hypotheses about the authorship of the gospels. Furthermore, those aren't first hand accounts. They were written decades after the events in which they describe. Also, just writing something doesn't make it true.

I do apologize, but just asserting they are not first hand accounts does not change that they are eye-witness testimony.

They aren't eye-witness testimony because they were written decades after the events they describe. And just calling them eye-wintess testimony doesn't make them eye-witness testimony.

Even if they were written decades later, that is merely an assertion by you, that does not rule them out as coming from eyewitnesses. In 30 years I could go back and write about my current college experiences, they would still be eyewitness accounts even though it took me several decades to actually write them.

Uhm, no, it isn't merely an assertion by me. This is pretty much accepted. But fine, you don't want to base anything on mere assertions.

So prove the gospels are more than just mere assertions.

You are asserting that the gospels are not written by who they say they are. That is your responsibility not mine.

Apparently you're not keeping track of the conversation. YOU started this thread with a borrowed argument, an argument that depends on the Gospels being accurate. So demonstrate that they are accurate.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:06:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It says right at the start that Luke was not written by an eye witness. Matthew is practically an expanded version of Mark. All three have chunks of narrative tgat were copied word for word. John is radically different than the other gospels.

These are not firsthand eye witness accounts. They are narratives that were compiled after the fact. This is something even Christian scholars agree on. It isn't at all likelt these are eyewitness accounts.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:20:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 12:06:48 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It says right at the start that Luke was not written by an eye witness. Matthew is practically an expanded version of Mark. All three have chunks of narrative tgat were copied word for word. John is radically different than the other gospels.

These are not firsthand eye witness accounts. They are narratives that were compiled after the fact. This is something even Christian scholars agree on. It isn't at all likelt these are eyewitness accounts.

So the witnesses remembering the exact same things is evidence against them, then if they say one tiny small thing against each other you take that as evidence against them. I do apologize but isn't that like having your cake and eating it too?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:23:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm talking straight up copy and paste, brah.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:29:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 12:23:10 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm talking straight up copy and paste, brah.

you don't think if someone reported the same speech that it would look copied and pasted, considering it was the same speech.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:37:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, ok, that confirms it again for me, very funny.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp