Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Christianity! What is it?

bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 7:50:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's the question, let's have each of our christians answer before you start fighting with each other.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 8:00:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1- If theists don't agree with each other, then God doesn't exist.
2- Theists don't always agree with each other.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

1- Unlike theists, atheists always agree with each other.
2- Agreement on objectivity of morality, absolute truths, the existence of the universe, or the existence of God do not count under the first premise.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

1- If we can't agree on the definition of something, it doesn't exist.
2- There is no universal consensus on the definition of atheism.
3- But hey! They still call each other "atheists". that is what matters!
C: Therefore, God doesn't exist.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 8:04:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 8:00:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
1- If theists don't agree with each other, then God doesn't exist.
2- Theists don't always agree with each other.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

1- Unlike theists, atheists always agree with each other.
2- Agreement on objectivity of morality, absolute truths, the existence of the universe, or the existence of God do not count under the first premise.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

1- If we can't agree on the definition of something, it doesn't exist.
2- There is no universal consensus on the definition of atheism.
3- But hey! They still call each other "atheists". that is what matters!
C: Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Lovely rant, I asked christians, but thanks.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:02:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 8:00:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
1- If theists don't agree with each other, then God doesn't exist.
2- Theists don't always agree with each other.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

1- Unlike theists, atheists always agree with each other.
2- Agreement on objectivity of morality, absolute truths, the existence of the universe, or the existence of God do not count under the first premise.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

1- If we can't agree on the definition of something, it doesn't exist.
2- There is no universal consensus on the definition of atheism.
3- But hey! They still call each other "atheists". that is what matters!
C: Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Wow, you're on fire today. Really put OP into his place, good job.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 12:34:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:45:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
I guess either nobody knows or they are to afraid to answer, oh well I tried.

Tried what? Christianity is a faith based upon a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Atheism is a type of faith based upon a lack of belief in any higher deity.

Land's sakes, you can look up Christianity on Wikipedia and get a definition.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 2:18:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 8:00:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
1- If theists don't agree with each other, then God doesn't exist.
2- Theists don't always agree with each other.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

The sun... what is it?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 2:22:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 12:34:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:45:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
I guess either nobody knows or they are to afraid to answer, oh well I tried.

Tried what? Christianity is a faith based upon a belief
So it's a belief without evidence, based on belief... a belief based on belief. That's accurate.

in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Teaching alleged to have come from Jesus (also called "Christ", by Christians), despite the fact none of those teachings can be, in any way connected to a man known as "Jesus", because we can't even be certain any such man existed, and we can track most of these rather simply and mundane ideas to other cultures long before the supposed time of Jesus.

Atheism is a type of faith based upon a lack of belief in any higher deity.
Atheism does not require or employ any faith. Atheism is purely consistent with all of the available evidence. So it's an evidence-based belief, just like belief that Earth isn't flat, and doesn't have 15 mooons.

Land's sakes, you can look up Christianity on Wikipedia and get a definition.
But it's a lot more fun to look at all of the diverse and often mis-aligned claims made by Christians themselves.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 2:44:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 2:22:51 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/28/2014 12:34:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:45:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
I guess either nobody knows or they are to afraid to answer, oh well I tried.

Tried what? Christianity is a faith based upon a belief
So it's a belief without evidence, based on belief... a belief based on belief. That's accurate.

in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Teaching alleged to have come from Jesus (also called "Christ", by Christians), despite the fact none of those teachings can be, in any way connected to a man known as "Jesus", because we can't even be certain any such man existed, and we can track most of these rather simply and mundane ideas to other cultures long before the supposed time of Jesus.

Atheism is a type of faith based upon a lack of belief in any higher deity.

Atheism does not require or employ any faith.

Sure it does! Just look at your performance on here. You have made assertion after assertion after assertion on here, and have yet to back up a single one with any sort of detailed argument. One need only review your methodology of book-dating to verify that. Heck, on the Book of Matthew, all you did was quote the editors who wrote the preface to a Bible version, although you won't accept them on much of anything else. You assured us that either Luke copied from Josephus, or Josephus copied from Luke - without providing any evidence of plagiarism by either one! Having jumped to that conclusion, you decided that Luke copied from Josephus. You've invoked the use of a "Q" document, knowing that such a thing does not exist, solely on the basis of "so-and-so thinks so." You've stood up and told us that the last twelve verses of Mark are later additions, but failed (i. e., refused: it's not that you didn't see them) to answer a single question regarding it.

And to think, the whole thing - not some of it - boils down to this: "I have faith that Jesus did not accurately prophesy the fall of Jerusalem with such accuracy; therefore, I'll take whatever measures are necessary - defensible or not - to foster such a belief." That's the driving force, the little tap root from whence all the assertions come. You don't even deny it! "I've decided what I'm gonna believe so I'll construe as much as I can to support my decision." You've excused it in the past by saying that Christians do the same thing. Well, I've never denied it. Nor do I deny that you do it just as much. There's the difference.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:37:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 2:44:58 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/28/2014 2:22:51 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/28/2014 12:34:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:45:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
I guess either nobody knows or they are to afraid to answer, oh well I tried.

Tried what? Christianity is a faith based upon a belief
So it's a belief without evidence, based on belief... a belief based on belief. That's accurate.

in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Teaching alleged to have come from Jesus (also called "Christ", by Christians), despite the fact none of those teachings can be, in any way connected to a man known as "Jesus", because we can't even be certain any such man existed, and we can track most of these rather simply and mundane ideas to other cultures long before the supposed time of Jesus.

Atheism is a type of faith based upon a lack of belief in any higher deity.

Atheism does not require or employ any faith.

Sure it does! Just look at your performance on here. You have made assertion after assertion after assertion on here, and have yet to back up a single one with any sort of detailed argument. One need only review your methodology of book-dating to verify that. Heck, on the Book of Matthew, all you did was quote the editors who wrote the preface to a Bible version, although you won't accept them on much of anything else. You assured us that either Luke copied from Josephus, or Josephus copied from Luke - without providing any evidence of plagiarism by either one! Having jumped to that conclusion, you decided that Luke copied from Josephus. You've invoked the use of a "Q" document, knowing that such a thing does not exist, solely on the basis of "so-and-so thinks so." You've stood up and told us that the last twelve verses of Mark are later additions, but failed (i. e., refused: it's not that you didn't see them) to answer a single question regarding it.

And to think, the whole thing - not some of it - boils down to this: "I have faith that Jesus did not accurately prophesy the fall of Jerusalem with such accuracy; therefore, I'll take whatever measures are necessary - defensible or not - to foster such a belief." That's the driving force, the little tap root from whence all the assertions come. You don't even deny it! "I've decided what I'm gonna believe so I'll construe as much as I can to support my decision." You've excused it in the past by saying that Christians do the same thing. Well, I've never denied it. Nor do I deny that you do it just as much. There's the difference.

The pure fact of the matter (and everyone here who has debated with you can attest to this), is that you challenge assertions demanding evidence, and then simply hand-wave that evidence when it is provided. Within hours, you're falsely claiming the evidence was never provided. For example, just last night I gave a rather lengthy and detailed list of evidences against the proclaimed validity of the gospels. Tonight, you not only don't seem to remember most of it, but have most of it purely wrong. But let me start here... you have this constant chip on your shoulder about the use of a dating method which you admit, is purely rational, logical and consistent with reason in every respect of our daily lives. You would instantly doubt a newspaper dated 5-years ago, which carried detailed accounts of events which occurred only yesterday. But in your distorted, irrational, twisted and illogical Christian mind, you can't fathom why anyone would apply precisely the same techniques when it comes to stories picked from a stack by a group of intellectually feeble men from the 4th century. Suddenly - simply because these poorly educated and mentally deficient men - after 42-years of in-fighting, finally managed to agree on a list of stories - you insist that we should throw all reason, all logic, everything we've ever known about the continual and relatively steady forward progression of time - right out the window, simply because it serves what you WANT to believe. And you see yourself as somehow justified in repeatedly issuing that same complaint.

Well... sorry "lady", but that's the way reality works. And when you part with reality to support your beliefs, then your beliefs aren't real.

I'm not going to fully entertain the ignorance and half-interest you've displayed here; but a few things should be pointed out in case anyone should happen along and not realize that they're reading the ravings of a maniacal ultra-conservative, who believes all logic should be inverted for the sake of her personal affectionately-held, but thoroughly ridiculous beliefs.

Firstly, I didn't say that either Luke copied from Josephus, or Josephus copied from Luke. If you're going to pretend to relay events, then have some integrity and make reasonable attempts to remain accurate and honest. I fully explained that there are only four ancient documents to have certain details. One of them is the gospel called "Luke", one is the gospel called "John" one is "Antiquity of the Jews" and the last is "Jewish War". The final two were written by Flavius Josephus, and completed in 93CE. And the information they contain provides both greater detail, and greater accuracy than that found in the two "gospel" stories, showing that the gospel authors copied from Josephus, and not the other way around. Is that concept too difficult for someone such as yourself to understand?

As for the "Q", it's a document which has been re-constructed, or nearly re-constructed on the same basis you proclaim preserves the integrity of the original biblical manuscripts - quotations in Bible commentaries and other ancient writings. We know that approximately 600 of the verses in "Matthew" are parallels taken from "Mark". "Luke" contains approximately 300 such verses. But both "Luke" and "Matthew" contain verses not found in "Mark", which are found in other writings. This suggests a common source, and that common source - while lost or destroyed - is the "Q"... whether that fits with your childish world of absurd beliefs or not.

In short, I've done a rather complete and admirable job of supporting the assertions I've made, and wouldn't have made them were there not good objective evidences to support them. And the fact that you can't provide credible counter-arguments simply eats you up inside. So you stoop to the common Christian apologetic practice of willful blindness. What you can't refute, you simply develop a blindness to, and then even act upon that blindness, in proclaiming that the evidence was never presented.

If you care at all about truth, Anna... you should spend some serious moments reflecting upon that. In fact, flip back to my post from last night in regard to the lack of authenticity of the gospels, and compare what I provided to the claim you've made tonight. Make a list of evidence, and a list of the evidences you insist weren't provided. If you have even a moment of clarity, you'll embarrass yourself. You're headed to BogLand, whether you realize it or not. That's what happens when reality becomes so unbearable, that you'll dismiss it in favor of silly fantasy stories, and farcical grants of personal entitlement.

Jesus doesn't love you.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:45:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:37:22 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/28/2014 2:44:58 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/28/2014 2:22:51 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/28/2014 12:34:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:45:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
I guess either nobody knows or they are to afraid to answer, oh well I tried.

Tried what? Christianity is a faith based upon a belief
So it's a belief without evidence, based on belief... a belief based on belief. That's accurate.

in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Teaching alleged to have come from Jesus (also called "Christ", by Christians), despite the fact none of those teachings can be, in any way connected to a man known as "Jesus", because we can't even be certain any such man existed, and we can track most of these rather simply and mundane ideas to other cultures long before the supposed time of Jesus.

Atheism is a type of faith based upon a lack of belief in any higher deity.

Atheism does not require or employ any faith.

Sure it does! Just look at your performance on here. You have made assertion after assertion after assertion on here, and have yet to back up a single one with any sort of detailed argument. One need only review your methodology of book-dating to verify that. Heck, on the Book of Matthew, all you did was quote the editors who wrote the preface to a Bible version, although you won't accept them on much of anything else. You assured us that either Luke copied from Josephus, or Josephus copied from Luke - without providing any evidence of plagiarism by either one! Having jumped to that conclusion, you decided that Luke copied from Josephus. You've invoked the use of a "Q" document, knowing that such a thing does not exist, solely on the basis of "so-and-so thinks so." You've stood up and told us that the last twelve verses of Mark are later additions, but failed (i. e., refused: it's not that you didn't see them) to answer a single question regarding it.

And to think, the whole thing - not some of it - boils down to this: "I have faith that Jesus did not accurately prophesy the fall of Jerusalem with such accuracy; therefore, I'll take whatever measures are necessary - defensible or not - to foster such a belief." That's the driving force, the little tap root from whence all the assertions come. You don't even deny it! "I've decided what I'm gonna believe so I'll construe as much as I can to support my decision." You've excused it in the past by saying that Christians do the same thing. Well, I've never denied it. Nor do I deny that you do it just as much. There's the difference.

The pure fact of the matter (and everyone here who has debated with you can attest to this), is that you challenge assertions demanding evidence, and then simply hand-wave that evidence when it is provided. Within hours, you're falsely claiming the evidence was never provided.

Maybe the problem is that what you call "evidence" is not exactly what I'd call "evidence". You said that Luke copied Josephus. I asked for evidence. You pointed me to the fact that you said it. Case closed.

For example, just last night I gave a rather lengthy and detailed list of evidences against the proclaimed validity of the gospels. Tonight, you not only don't seem to remember most of it, but have most of it purely wrong.

I remember all of it.

We'll start here. You informed us that Luke copied Josephus. I asked for evidence anyone plagiarized anybody else. Did you provide any? You're right: I don't recall it!

So if you'll provide the post #, I'll be sure and go back and read it.

You do not seem to realize that you can't just blurt out nonsense and expect people to accept it just on the basis that you uttered it. Now if you'll kindly provide the post in which you answered that very simple request, then I'll most assuredly apologize. If not, we'll have to write it off to yet another unfounded assertion by you.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:55:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:45:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

Maybe the problem is that what you call "evidence" is not exactly what I'd call "evidence". You said that Luke copied Josephus. I asked for evidence. You pointed me to the fact that you said it. Case closed.
Lies, lies and more lies. Do you really think that a string of lies is necessary to promote truth, Anna?

YOU claimed that I left it open that either Josephus copied from the author of "Luke", or that the author of "Luke" copied from Josephus. Just own up to that. You can sit here and continue to deny it, but it's right there in your own words for everyone to see. So what I did tonight was to correct you on that. I never claimed to be adding more evidence to my previous argument. My point is that you simply ignore evidence when it's provided, completely distort reasons when they're given, and then whine and moan incessantly when people tire of your dishonest bullcrap and walk away. You're a completely hopeless, and (on an intellectual front), worthless individual. You have this crap chiseled in your brain, and you'll never even try to see any of it for what it is. Your entire set of tactics is to lie, misrepresent, insist the Bible doesn't say what is most definitely DOES say, insist evidence and arguments aren't given and supported when they are, and then to repeat the process endlessly, until people begin to talk and complain about you behind your back because you're so horribly irrational and dishonest.

Tell me how many people you've won over to Christianity using those techniques. You're the best tool an atheists could hope to have. Your disingenuousness, lack of integrity, and penchant for lying illustrates why Christianity simply couldn't possibly be true. If one adheres to integrity, honesty and truth, they are left without even a single tool to support Christian doctrine. And you demonstrate that fact as well as any here.

G'night
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:59:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:55:06 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:45:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

Maybe the problem is that what you call "evidence" is not exactly what I'd call "evidence". You said that Luke copied Josephus. I asked for evidence. You pointed me to the fact that you said it. Case closed.
Lies, lies and more lies. Do you really think that a string of lies is necessary to promote truth, Anna?

YOU claimed that I left it open that either Josephus copied from the author of "Luke", or that the author of "Luke" copied from Josephus. Just own up to that.

Nope, I claimed that you ASSERT that (1) it is a FACT that either Luke copied from Josephus, or Josephus copied from Luke and (2) knowing that, you further ASSERTED that Luke copied from Josephus. Sure, I'll own up to that. You won't deny it.

You can sit here and continue to deny it, but it's right there in your own words for everyone to see. So what I did tonight was to correct you on that. I never claimed to be adding more evidence to my previous argument.

Adding more evidence? Adding it to EXISTING evidence? Then by all means, point us to the EXISTING evidence that you offered.

Just give the post number, and as stated I will be happy to apologize for my oversight.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."