braces_for_impact

Posted by Magus55
Magus. We do not accept your evidence because it is not good evidence! Scholarly, peer reviewed, consensary archeology is a better basis for evidence. One starts to look for the answer by looking at the evidence at hand to see where it leads. Good query does NOT come from presuming a premise and attempting to gather information to prove it. I personally, am tired of theists that find evidence to support their presumptions, and then accuse others of not reviewing the evidence. It is time these people face up to the fact that they are being straight out LIED to by others that profess their religion. Whether out of ignorance or for greed is of no matter.

Is that why they remain so steadfast next to evidence they have been shown time and again to be false? Because they would have to face the fact they are wrong about so much? Or right about so little? Are they trying to stave off a feeling of betrayal?

Edited to add

Magus, have the courage to do your own research and to do your best to remain unbiased as to your conclusion. There is misinformation everywhere, regardless of topic. And also realize, if you had actual proof of your beliefs faith would not be required from you!

Mageth

How many atheists seriously do extensive research into Christianity before dismissing it? I've present numerous arguments, evidencial proofs, testimonies, eyewitness accounts, and archaeological findings to the validity of the Bible and Jesus. Yet you don't even take a second glance at them before dismissing them as being invalid.

"Not take a second glance"? Most or all of your arguments have been refuted (not simply "dismissed") at least once.

In my experience, quite a few, if not the majority, of atheists know as much or more about the bible, Christianity and the arguments for and against it than most Christians do. I was a Christian for 45 years before, on about my 1000th "glance" at the evidence, including all you've presented here, I finally found the courage to admit to myself that it was a house of cards, and that reason and critical thinking knocks out most of the first floor. Many other atheists on this board, likewise, are former theists, and no doubt many of them would describe their experiences in much the same way.

The only thing left to prove it is for God to stand before you and say Hi!. Of course his holiness is so profound and radiant you would literally die by looking upon him so don't think that would work anyway.

As a struggling theist, many times I asked god to reveal himself to me in some way, to strengthen my faith sagging from one more card being knocked down. He never did. I was left with the options that either he didn't care or that he doesn't exist (note: there may be more options, but these are the two that were most relevant to me). I chose the latter.

Defiant Heretic

Umm...I said that there was no reason to assume they weren’t using generation in the usual sense. Was this just a typo (you meant to say I was wrong)? Anyway, I think that since Mark 9:1 is clearly referring to the current generation ("That there be some of them that stand here…"), it is unreasonable to assume that he changed the meaning of "generation" four chapters later.

I didn’t mean this was a contradiction. I meant it’s a scientific impossibility. The sun can’t be made to stand still, because it’s stationary (relative to the Earth). The moon does orbit around the Earth, but if it ever stopped, it would lose the momentum necessary to keep it from being pulled in by the Earth’s gravity and crashing into the planet.

This doesn’t say that only the apostles will possess these traits; it says that anyone who believes will.

Yes. The first verse says that not only were they victorious, but they completely wiped out the city. The second verse lists the number of people living in the city (after it was wiped out completely). At the very least, this shows that the bible has some books in the wrong order.

And the Nile drying up. This never happened.

DMB

Two small points for Magus:[list=1][*]Unlike many of the people who post regularly in this forum, I am not an expert on the bible. I have never been a theist and so only have a slightly greater interest in the bible than in other holy scriptures. Nevertheless, I remember noticing when I read the NT lines that actually said something like "that it might be fulfilled that...". IOW the writer was drawing attention to something that allegedly fulfilled an OT prophecy. This immediately made me think that he had slipped in that little incident to make it look as though something about jesus fulfilled the prophecy.[*]Have you ever come across historical fiction? It is quite a popular genre. The writer will set his/her work at some specified time in the past and may bring in real characters who were living at the time. S/he may even quote from their known speeches or writings. But s/he will almost certainly add fictional characters and imaginary conversations and events. Think of the film Forrest Gump in whichthe hero is shown interacting with real (dead) people. Now, just because the fictional story deals some of the time with real places, events and people, it doesn't follow that's its not fiction. If in 2000 years time, Forrest Gump were to be the only evidence left of the history of the 20th Century, how easy would it be to determine what was truth and what was fiction? I write all this simply to underline the point that while no-one denies that the bible does refer to some actual events, places and people, a lot of it could well be fiction.[/list=1]

Magus55

Wow. You go to sleep and miss everything.

Well too much to directly quote but will try to point out some things i noticed.

lpetrich - no the Gospel records are not fiction - Explain to me how prophets 500-1000 years before Jesus was even born states exactly how, where and under what conditions Jesus would be born, die and be ressurected? No the Apostles can't have made it up to make Jesus seem to fulfill all the prophecies since he fulfilled many of them BEFORE he even met the apostles - sorry flawed logic on your part. For the apostles to have made up all the prophecies ( to which they didn't even prophecise - most prophecies were made hundreds and hundreds of years before the Apostles were even born), they would have had to known Jesus from Birth. Which still doesn't explain how Jesus fulfilled numerous prophecies at his birth. How do you explain King David giving a detailed description of how Jesus would be executed, before Crucifixition was even invented?

Its impossible to make up all of those prophecies to make Jesus seem like he fulfilled them - The apostles didn't write the prophecies, only recorded them taking place ( after they met Jesus).

Gooch's Dad, read above - I understand the complete lame argument you are writing, but they are true accounts. While were at it ill play this game too. Do you understand - the accounts of Ceasar, Cleopatra, Columbus, Napolean etc. were all made up to seem like they actually made a difference on the world! They were only stories written by followers.

To those saying you've shown scripture that is false and the promises are lies - think again - you just have no clue how to read scripture. Iv'e already refuted the points before showing what it actually means - lets take one example of the claims listed.


God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

That has aboslutely nothing to do with God saying Adam will die the second he eats the tree - all your doing is looking at the line and claiming its inaccurate - yet you have the presupposition that most scripture is false - therefore you can't look at it without automatically assuming methods of speaking and explaining things were different whent the Bible was written.

God is saying when he eats the tree - he will no longer live for eternity ( as in be immortal) - He is saying when you eat from the tree, you bring in the first sin and your body will now age and die. But Adam had alot of procreation to do to populate the earth and people lived a long time in the beginning of the Bible. So no its not inaccurate - every scriptural passage you claim to be wrong can easily be explained by some one who can understand scripture.


And the claim that the sun standing still is scientifically impossible? Um, assuming it is true - its not exactly difficult for God to stop time - he is omnipotent - thats a really weak claim.

And anyone, science is meaningless as is math - you completely deny scientific studies on probability saying they aren't right. Well im sure you guys hav emuch better understanding than those scientists /nod how could i be so foolish to think you don't know everything....

But think i'm done with this thread now - since most of you have said even if God stood before you and said Hi - you would deny it or not believe in him - nothing anyone says will ever get through your thick heads.

But again, when you find out Christians are right and your stupid free-thinking individualism - lets express ourself and deny anything else attitudes are shoved in your face by God himself - try not to kick yourself too hard - there will be enough pain in Hell for you. God has the final say not you - deny Him all you want - you will be judged.

Spaz

Look, when they talk about the apostles writing shit to make it look like jesus did that, they mean that the apostles made stuff up, they were telling a story, that if jesus existed he DID NOT DO THOSE THINGS AND THE APOSTLES WROTE THAT HE DID. This does not require predicting jesus's birth or anything, it only requires looking at old prophecies and writing something to fulfill them, CHRIST.

Now that that's over, can you at least try to think about it more? You seem to just go with the claim that you're right and that's it, I used to be christian too dude, but when I finally decided to question my beliefs and actually accept that I could be wrong, I realized that I was.

BRO3886

And you completely deny scientific studies on virtually everything else. "10,000's of scientists are worng becuase I believe goddidit" is not an answer.

And yes , there are a number of people on this board , both with professed and confirmed degrees who have vastly more relevant knowledge in biology and probability than two astronomers have.

Jack the Bodiless

Magus55:

I think you are underestimating the willingness of theists to lie in support of their religion. "Lying for the Lord" is a well-known phenomenon, we've seen many examples of it.

We have explained WHY the theologians and "scientists" you quoted were lying (in some cases, theologians simply lie about what various scientists have actually claimed: creationists do this a lot).

We have provided actual Biblical examples of failed prophecies, and referred you to many more. We have also dissected some claimed successful prophecies and shown why the claim of successful prophecy was fradulent.

We have also pointed out errors in "scientific" probability arguments. The errors are real. We did not invent them.
It is not possible for us to "find out" that the Christians were right. If, by "Christians", you mean Biblical inerrantists: the Bible is far from inerrant, therefore the Biblical God CANNOT exist. It is simply not possible.

So God, being nonexistent, is incapable of shoving anything in our faces. Nonexistent beings also cannot judge us, or send us to a nonexistent Hell. It simply won't happen.

You don't seem to understand how empty your threats are.

May you be eaten by the Monster Under The Bed!

diana

Magus,

I'd like to thank you.

You have single-handedly provided the finest example of The Snowstorm Defense I have ever witnessed.

The Snowstorm Defense works like this: throw out so many lame arguments, unsupported assertions, misconceptions and ridiculous explanations that any number of opponents have no real hope of diffusing them all, if they can even find a place to begin.

I've seen Xns do this in debate. Contrary to what you seem to think, it isn't a sign that they have oodles of irrefutable arguments. It is a sign that they are terrified their opponent will have a chance to actually discuss their evidence and reasoning on any given point.

"Communication" means you have to not only shut up and listen when we disagree with your points, but you must take the time to consider our points in the light of evidence and logic, and respond that we either have a point or we're wrong. If you take the position that we're wrong, you must point out why, also in the light of evidence and logic.

Assertions don't go 'round here, lawdog.

If you are truly interested in actual discussion of any given point, pick ONE (your choice) and start a thread on it. Somehow I doubt this is the case, but I'll spot you the benefit of the doubt.

If, say, you're truly interested in actual discussion of any of the baseless assertions you made to me in your last response to me, start a thread on it. Until then, I'll assume you aren't truly interested in knawing any bone long enough to determine, for real, whether there is any truth whatsoever to anything you have claimed.

Quite frankly, I think you're terrified there isn't. The only other explanation I can imagine for your behavior isn't very complimentary, so I'll go with the first, as I don't like thinking poorly of people.

d

Luiseach

How very disappointing.