Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Atheists say the darndest things part deux

IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 7:54:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

I love how Christianity attacks Atheists by stating that the Atheist belief is on just as shaky ground as Christian belief. It does not really do anything to strengthen the Christian position.

With in the first 1 minute and half Craig basically eludes to the point that Agnosticism is technically the right position because it does not "make a claim to knowledge" like both Christianity and Atheism does.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:21:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.

Just saw your Epicurus quote. He is probably the most unappreciated philosopher of all times. Genius that man was.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:22:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.

Part one was fallaciously attacked by atheists. Part deux is to layer on why atheism is so silly.

And surely you are the born loser for always bickering on a debate site rather than engaging in formal debate.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:23:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:21:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.

Just saw your Epicurus quote. He is probably the most unappreciated philosopher of all times. Genius that man was.

Not really, since his arguments are ignorantio elenchi at best.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:54:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:23:29 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:21:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.

Just saw your Epicurus quote. He is probably the most unappreciated philosopher of all times. Genius that man was.

Not really, since his arguments are ignorantio elenchi at best.

Yeah, but what about WLC fessing up and admitting that Agnosticism is the more logical position because it doesn't make claims that are not provable like Atheism and Christianity makes.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:54:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:23:29 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:21:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.

Just saw your Epicurus quote. He is probably the most unappreciated philosopher of all times. Genius that man was.

Not really, since his arguments are ignorantio elenchi at best.

HAHAHAHAHA
Obliterated.
That's precisely why started #2 and you ain't doin' any better.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:27:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

First, William L Craig is a brilliant christian debater and one of the leading champions for supporting christianity. And while I take nothing away from WLC his opponent does not represent the best arguments in support of atheism. In fact I would qualify his answers to some of the questions pretty thin and poor.

It is quite easy to ride the shirt tail of some propitious orator by finding supporting vignettes on Youtube. The challenging question is - have you done your own research or work on the subject? How many books have you read or lectures have your watched / gone to not only in support of your position but against it?

If you are using primarily others arguments to support your claims - I would venture that you have not done much work at all.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:04:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:54:41 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

I love how Christianity attacks Atheists by stating that the Atheist belief is on just as shaky ground as Christian belief. It does not really do anything to strengthen the Christian position.

With in the first 1 minute and half Craig basically eludes to the point that Agnosticism is technically the right position because it does not "make a claim to knowledge" like both Christianity and Atheism does.
I don't see any such thing. Can you expound on this a bit?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:06:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
What exactly is the extraordinary claim concerning Jesus Christ?
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:11:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:06:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
What exactly is the extraordinary claim concerning Jesus Christ?

it could possibly be that he resurrected, you know something scientifically impossible.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:27:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:11:16 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:06:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
What exactly is the extraordinary claim concerning Jesus Christ?

it could possibly be that he resurrected, you know something scientifically impossible.
That I think is part of the point Craig is making. There's nothing extraordinary about a man named Jesus existing. Nothing extraordinary about a man with that name gaining a following. It's not until you get to the resurrection that the claim is considered extraordinary. However, to eliminate the resurrection altogether requires extraordinary explanations that no one can really give solid provision for. The historical evidence that leads up to the resurrection creates a huge problem for the skeptic because they've got to come up with reasons as to why the resurrection wasn't proven false by those in authority who would have jumped at the opportunity, and why Jesus' followers continued to promote the Gospel message if it was obviously a hoax. It's not that explanations cannot be given, but the explanations are more unlikely at face value (e.g., it's more likely that a group of followers would continue to promote a message that is true or not proven to be a hoax).
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:21:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:27:17 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:16 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:06:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
What exactly is the extraordinary claim concerning Jesus Christ?

it could possibly be that he resurrected, you know something scientifically impossible.
That I think is part of the point Craig is making. There's nothing extraordinary about a man named Jesus existing. Nothing extraordinary about a man with that name gaining a following. It's not until you get to the resurrection that the claim is considered extraordinary. However, to eliminate the resurrection altogether requires extraordinary explanations that no one can really give solid provision for. The historical evidence that leads up to the resurrection creates a huge problem for the skeptic because they've got to come up with reasons as to why the resurrection wasn't proven false by those in authority who would have jumped at the opportunity, and why Jesus' followers continued to promote the Gospel message if it was obviously a hoax. It's not that explanations cannot be given, but the explanations are more unlikely at face value (e.g., it's more likely that a group of followers would continue to promote a message that is true or not proven to be a hoax).

Why would the authority take these claims seriously? Christianity wasn't big until much later. This argument is about as useful as saying the lady in white walks the highway looking for her prom date/fiancee, because the us government hasn't taken the time to disprove these stories. Come on now.

As for more unlikely, yeah because anything can be more unlikely then actually physically impossible nope, not really sorry try again.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:30:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:21:25 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:27:17 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:16 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:06:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
What exactly is the extraordinary claim concerning Jesus Christ?

it could possibly be that he resurrected, you know something scientifically impossible.
That I think is part of the point Craig is making. There's nothing extraordinary about a man named Jesus existing. Nothing extraordinary about a man with that name gaining a following. It's not until you get to the resurrection that the claim is considered extraordinary. However, to eliminate the resurrection altogether requires extraordinary explanations that no one can really give solid provision for. The historical evidence that leads up to the resurrection creates a huge problem for the skeptic because they've got to come up with reasons as to why the resurrection wasn't proven false by those in authority who would have jumped at the opportunity, and why Jesus' followers continued to promote the Gospel message if it was obviously a hoax. It's not that explanations cannot be given, but the explanations are more unlikely at face value (e.g., it's more likely that a group of followers would continue to promote a message that is true or not proven to be a hoax).

Why would the authority take these claims seriously? Christianity wasn't big until much later. This argument is about as useful as saying the lady in white walks the highway looking for her prom date/fiancee, because the us government hasn't taken the time to disprove these stories. Come on now.

Are you implying that the authorities did not take these claims seriously?

As for more unlikely, yeah because anything can be more unlikely then actually physically impossible nope, not really sorry try again.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you please elaborate?
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:35:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:30:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:21:25 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:27:17 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:16 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:06:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
What exactly is the extraordinary claim concerning Jesus Christ?

it could possibly be that he resurrected, you know something scientifically impossible.
That I think is part of the point Craig is making. There's nothing extraordinary about a man named Jesus existing. Nothing extraordinary about a man with that name gaining a following. It's not until you get to the resurrection that the claim is considered extraordinary. However, to eliminate the resurrection altogether requires extraordinary explanations that no one can really give solid provision for. The historical evidence that leads up to the resurrection creates a huge problem for the skeptic because they've got to come up with reasons as to why the resurrection wasn't proven false by those in authority who would have jumped at the opportunity, and why Jesus' followers continued to promote the Gospel message if it was obviously a hoax. It's not that explanations cannot be given, but the explanations are more unlikely at face value (e.g., it's more likely that a group of followers would continue to promote a message that is true or not proven to be a hoax).

Why would the authority take these claims seriously? Christianity wasn't big until much later. This argument is about as useful as saying the lady in white walks the highway looking for her prom date/fiancee, because the us government hasn't taken the time to disprove these stories. Come on now.

Are you implying that the authorities did not take these claims seriously?

As for more unlikely, yeah because anything can be more unlikely then actually physically impossible nope, not really sorry try again.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you please elaborate?

Im claiming that Jesus was killed for crimes against rome, and that get this, he was a common criminal in romes eyes, and that Christianity was small and not big enough for the authorities to actually disprove it, anywhere near the time they would have access to such information, by time the gospels were written in 70 Ce and later, how were they going to disprove this, even by time paul is writing his first letters late 40s or early 50s we are talking 15 plus years after the fact in a much less technically advanced society then we are in.

Elaborate? Really, dead bodies can't come back to life after 3 days, too much brain damage, scientific fact. End of dead body resurrecting hypothesis.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:49:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Christians say the darndest things, also. They actually believe the body of a man named Jesus, their false deity, will come floating in the clouds to join up with them and take care of them forever.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 12:40:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:35:24 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:30:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:21:25 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:27:17 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:16 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:06:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
What exactly is the extraordinary claim concerning Jesus Christ?

it could possibly be that he resurrected, you know something scientifically impossible.
That I think is part of the point Craig is making. There's nothing extraordinary about a man named Jesus existing. Nothing extraordinary about a man with that name gaining a following. It's not until you get to the resurrection that the claim is considered extraordinary. However, to eliminate the resurrection altogether requires extraordinary explanations that no one can really give solid provision for. The historical evidence that leads up to the resurrection creates a huge problem for the skeptic because they've got to come up with reasons as to why the resurrection wasn't proven false by those in authority who would have jumped at the opportunity, and why Jesus' followers continued to promote the Gospel message if it was obviously a hoax. It's not that explanations cannot be given, but the explanations are more unlikely at face value (e.g., it's more likely that a group of followers would continue to promote a message that is true or not proven to be a hoax).

Why would the authority take these claims seriously? Christianity wasn't big until much later. This argument is about as useful as saying the lady in white walks the highway looking for her prom date/fiancee, because the us government hasn't taken the time to disprove these stories. Come on now.

Are you implying that the authorities did not take these claims seriously?

As for more unlikely, yeah because anything can be more unlikely then actually physically impossible nope, not really sorry try again.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you please elaborate?

Im claiming that Jesus was killed for crimes against rome, and that get this, he was a common criminal in romes eyes, and that Christianity was small and not big enough for the authorities to actually disprove it, anywhere near the time they would have access to such information, by time the gospels were written in 70 Ce and later, how were they going to disprove this, even by time paul is writing his first letters late 40s or early 50s we are talking 15 plus years after the fact in a much less technically advanced society then we are in.

And what were Jesus' crimes against Rome?

I also think you're mixing up disproving the resurrection with disproving a major world religion. Just because Christianity was not yet a major religion has nothing to do with disproving the resurrection.
Elaborate? Really, dead bodies can't come back to life after 3 days, too much brain damage, scientific fact. End of dead body resurrecting hypothesis.
Do you think it's impossible for an intelligent sentient being to create a universe?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 12:58:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:22:48 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.

Part one was fallaciously attacked by atheists. Part deux is to layer on why atheism is so silly.
In other words, your first thread was so thoroughly refuted by atheists, that you decided to abandon it and try the same tactic again. Expect the same result.

And surely you are the born loser for always bickering on a debate site rather than engaging in formal debate.
He produces some of the most profound one-liners to be found on either side of the issues in the religion forum. You should hope to ever demonstrate that level of intelligence, instead of ignorance and unqualified derision.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:05:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:23:29 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:21:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.

Just saw your Epicurus quote. He is probably the most unappreciated philosopher of all times. Genius that man was.

Not really, since his arguments are ignorantio elenchi at best.

Did someone tell you that if you stuck a Latin phrase in the middle of an English sentence that it would make you look intelligent? You need to do more than just make the assertion. You need to explain why you believe the argument from Epicurus fails and you haven't even tried to do that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:15:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:27:17 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:16 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:06:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:03:58 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Wow craig is an idiot, Atheism and theism(christianity) deal in belief, where as agnosticism deals in the realm of knowledge, yet he starts right out by stating atheism and theism deal in knowledge claims. How does one get to be a supposed expert and not even know that distinction?

In his explanation of probability he also screws up because it does take extraordinary evidence to show that with the evidence this event isn't most likely false, when it is so highly improbable, which by definition means must likely false. Im not really sure there is a topic that craig does understand when he speaks about it.
What exactly is the extraordinary claim concerning Jesus Christ?

it could possibly be that he resurrected, you know something scientifically impossible.
That I think is part of the point Craig is making. There's nothing extraordinary about a man named Jesus existing. Nothing extraordinary about a man with that name gaining a following.
Unless you assert a very large following like "multitudes" from the population of a large city, and then try to combine that with the absolute lack - even of mention - among any of the historians of the time, or even the followers themselves. There's not a single mention of Jesus by anyone writing during the time he is claimed to have existed.

It's not until you get to the resurrection that the claim is considered extraordinary. However, to eliminate the resurrection altogether requires extraordinary explanations that no one can really give solid provision for.
Like perhaps the fact that the resurrection appears to be based on the last 12-verses of the "Gospel of Mark" which weren't even written by the original author - leaving us to suggest that he either knew of the resurrection but didn't think it was pertinent to the story, or that he didn't know of it because that part of the myth wasn't yet popular.

The historical evidence that leads up to the resurrection creates a huge problem for the skeptic because they've got to come up with reasons as to why the resurrection wasn't proven false by those in authority who would have jumped at the opportunity, and why Jesus' followers continued to promote the Gospel message if it was obviously a hoax.
Then the challenge for you here is to present this suggested " historical evidence that leads up to the resurrection". What evidence are you suggesting? We don't have any historical evidence for Jesus, for the crucifixion, or for the resurrection. We have no mention of Jesus whatsoever from the time when these events were said to have transpired. And that provides a very good explanation as to why the authorities of the day didn't bother to disprove it - the myth hadn't grown to acceptance yet.

It's not that explanations cannot be given, but the explanations are more unlikely at face value (e.g., it's more likely that a group of followers would continue to promote a message that is true or not proven to be a hoax).
In that day and age, (i.e. decades after the supposed time of Jesus), how exactly do you propose that anyone would go about proving stories to be false so that the bulk of believers would become aware of the reality? Even today when we have much better methods for examining evidence, and far better methods for spreading information, Christians still refuse to accept the obvious reality rather than their fanciful myths.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:27:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:05:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:23:29 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:21:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 8:01:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
Part one was destroyed, obliterated really and you come back for more.
Good for you.
Born losers are just so endearing at times.

Just saw your Epicurus quote. He is probably the most unappreciated philosopher of all times. Genius that man was.

Not really, since his arguments are ignorantio elenchi at best.

Did someone tell you that if you stuck a Latin phrase in the middle of an English sentence that it would make you look intelligent? You need to do more than just make the assertion. You need to explain why you believe the argument from Epicurus fails and you haven't even tried to do that.

C'mon, man, all the cool DDO users are doing it. QED visa vis, caveat canem.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:30:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

How do you know this is the best atheists can do?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:37:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 7:44:02 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
After listening to intellectual argments, this is the best atheists can do to attack Christianity https://www.youtube.com..., funny and yet so sad! LOL.

Well, we thought about abducting everyone who doesn't believe what we believe and torture them until they adopt our belief, but that's just so damned Christian that we decided to try reasoning instead. We're finding that both sides have to be able to reason or it just doesn't work.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire