cuchulain

This is my point. See above where you claim you didnt say there was a thousand bc manuscript? Well you literally did.

I dont believe in an effort to interfere with christian beliefs. Can you provide proof? I dont believe removing religion from public space such as money and schools is oppression. Oppression is defined as unjust treatment. Can you prove removing religion from public spaces, such as satanic symbols, is oppression? I dont believe satanic symbols are for the purpose of ruining christian holidays. Can you provide proof? I dont believe atheists arent bound by morals. Can you provide proof?

You said a thousand years before christ...what would that date be? Why...approximately 1000 bce of course, since the time of christ was...6 to 4 bce, unless your nitpicking a couple of years. You DID say 1000 bce, by saying 1000 years before christ. Unless your changing the timeline to seem more reasonable. The translation i gave was original hebrew which should trump kjv...not my fault your bible doesnt make sense, that's the authors failing.

The oldest dated dead sea scrolls, the oldest documents containing the bible at all, have been dated to 480 bce and some(not duplicates, but original text) as late as 318 ce. So...no. Not a specific writing over a thousand years prior. In addition, the original translates 'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion' not 'they pierced my hands and feet'. I took your word for the dating and translation until i heard the dead sea scrolls dated, then looked a few things up myself...i wont take your word again.

When I was on this forum under a different name years ago, we had a member who was a jedi. He was interesting to talk with, though my memory is too poor to remember their name at this moment unfortunately. I watched this video and wondered at some of the things being said, more specifically if those same things weren't said by other people when other religions began. "if it isn't hurting anybody and the basic tenents are be nice to each other, what's the harm?" I wonder if some people didn't have that thought about Christianity or Islam. From my understanding of the history of the church, it started off as a mild mannered religion which promoted peace, like their bible says. Then it evolved with interpretation and branched, and many branches were more like noxious weeds that were trying to choke the life out of everything else. I wonder if a few hundred years from now there will be serious interpretations of star wars that cause the same things, the same bigotry and persecution of others. And of course, the identification of religion as just as mythical as star wars I wholeheartedly agree with.

I never understood the offense at happy holidays...it's a saying that has been around in the united states for more than a hundred years, it doesn't have any blatantly negative connotations, it doesn't persecute Christmas or demand that the person hearing it said believe something other than they already do... There I go again, expecting rational thought...

I think it's ironic that the deistic view demonizes atheists in an attempt to "cast us out", castigate us, make us into lesser beings who are somehow lacking...and then decry that we have no morals and are evil to others. It's like they simply project what they are doing to us, onto us as if we are doing it to them...when the reverse is true. I had a debate on a local board with a Christian who insisted he was persecuted, yet for the life of him he couldn't answer how. He couldn't name one single instance, even though I repeated the question over and over, but he insisted it was true that he was a persecuted Christian. I don't think they understand that when you do something to another group, it's not you that's persecuted but rather it's you that's doing the persecuting.

I don't believe in that. If you can prove that a soul exists, I will reevaluate that.

I dont believe that. If you can prove spirit exists i will reevaluate.

yeah I think it might be time to stop this debate...about three pages ago.

the original argument from the atheist perspective is that we don't believe in god until you can prove his existence. It's a very simple premise. You changed the argument to "the verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of god as being folly." the verse asks for proof that god doesn't exist, from our asking for proof that god does exist. You switched our argument to yours, which is not defeated because you cannot prove a negative, and then declare victory with the switched argument. That is the very definition of straw man...but if you decry that it isn't, that's fine. I'll pull one from a different member and simply ask repeatedly for evidence to the existence of god. As to your scripture...if man is natural, and the spirit cannot be perceived by natural man...then you have defeated your own argument with your own verse, because you cannot perceive the spiritual either, and the spiritual is the way you have your proof of god's existence(I.E. the holy spirit). Ah well...it's really irrelevant because you will insert some other interpretation here to prove you are correct, and it will be very circular all around until we come back to the same points again, and you will still have failed to address the basic and simple question of proof of god's existence, and demand that we actually do have a burden to disprove your deities existence if we don't believe in him.

The argument is: "I believe everything the bible says literally"...then someone says, "but the bible says your a fool if you don't...", then you say..."But I didn't say you were a fool". There is a direct link. You fully believe the bible, which calls us fools, you repeatedly express that you believe the bible and its full message, then deny calling anyone a fool. It seems like a loophole in forum policy, from our perspective. You are allowed to express your beliefs and views freely so long as you don't directly attack a fellow forum member. But the attack is built in to your religious views. I could claim to be a Satanist, claim that those religious views demand that I attack and deride Christians, and then hide behind that as well...and it would all be true from my perspective. It would all fit neatly in the forum policy. But that's all an aside, just my interpretation of Johnathan's point to you, Dan. I see it as well, though it did take me a while to see it. I simply don't care that you continually do such. But all an aside...your point about spiritual matters not being discernible by the physical. Your continual shifting of the burden of proof. "The verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of god as being folly." That is a straw man argument and shifting the burden rolled up in one. YOU are the one claiming we need to disprove your deity, not us(the definition of straw man argument is making an argument that someone else has made differently and then defeating it in the new form instead of its original, which you do here). And by making it sound like we are trying to find physical evidence to disprove something, you are shifting the burden of proof. You know perfectly well that you cannot disprove the existence of that magical unicorn that's completely undetectable but likes to hide behind your back...but you still don't believe that ridiculous nonsense is real, either. It's the same with us and your god...and the analogy isn't as far off, either. The unicorn would leave evidence of its existence, tracks, feces, eaten things, various other details that I don't care to think about. So too would your god leave tracks...but he doesn't, any more than the unicorn.

Are you calling me a pickle, referencing that i am sour, attempting to bait me, pointing out i may be taking it too seriously, or something i havent listed? I ask for clarification. To the question, i dont know if morality is subjective or objective and from my perspective i havent enough information to answer that accurately. However, given human ability and disposition to be irrational, i believe our stance toward morality to be subjective. Hence, the view of god as a monster is a subjective supposition placed on the character of an imaginary being(in my belief).

Repetition seems like baiting

In speaking of terrorism, we speak of deliberate fear inflicted on others. The bible instructs us to be afraid of god...matthew 10 28' fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. God is the one who created hell and casts us there. So we should fear god, and that is a terroristic threat.

You choose to interpret the lake of fire as something other than what is stated, as a metaphor for non existence? Why?

As has been ignored by you before and again, we are discussing christianity in general, not your very own version that conveniently ignores the rest(vast majority) that claims hell is a real place. Terrorist threats eminate from christians who believe in a real hell. Historically catholocism was the preeminent doctrine for a long time that specifically moved this idea along. Of course, you know your christian history enough to debate it, but i guess cant be bothered to recall the bad points? Or...cherry pick. Revelations 21 8... They will be consigned to the fiery lake of sulpher. This is the second death. Psalm 9 17... the wicked go down to the realm of the dead. Matthew 13 50...and throw them into the blazing furnace... I opt to stop here, with the understanding that any verse contrary to these is a contradiction which cannot exist innn a perfect book.

It also promotes a hell, which is the terrorist part we keep referring to. Just because you ignore thousands of years of terrorist threat doesn't negate it.

I just have to ask...how do you live in southern illinois and not know metropolis is a real place? They have Supermanfest every year. And i could add popeye to the list...chester is also southern illinois and in comics. And you think that defeats the point that just because your myths used real places they arent true? You never responded about Greek mythology...you DO believe in zeus because there are real places in those myths, right?

Hence the lack of proof and my assertion that apologetics should apologize for trying to get us to believe without evidence and then acting like its our fault. You did make a nice circle with the argument though.

It was written after the fact...if you can prove a crucifixion of christ, whom you also cant prove lived.

The cities of greek and roman and even celtic mythology have also been substantiated...so have locations in the superman comics, and numerous other works of fiction. This is not an acceptable test for truth, unless you believe everything on the same premise its called special pleading.

There is a vast difference in the claim of a man said something mundane and normal vs magical and divine. See, Hercules is mythology in that he's the son of a god who did miraculous things and the stories were written by people who claimed it was truth. Sound familiar?

Since you can't prove Pilate said or did that I call it mythology...irrelevant at that.

See what i mean about blaming those who don't believe? "its not so much about convincing as recognizing the truth" implies we aren't doing our part. Quote 2, some accept and believe while others ignore and reject...if you choose to disregard... All of your posts seem to have built in language like this, an attempt to shift or assign blame for not believing as if its a perfect and clear message we deliberately fail to grasp. What's perfect and clear about a message with literally thousands of interpretations and thus denominations? Biblical contradiction with reality, considering 1 corinthians 1:10, at least my interpretation. still as has been stated to me by christians, songster in this thread, and i apply to allegedly perfect god...gods lack of ability to communicate effectively doesn't place a burden on the recipient of the message to properly interpret and apply it, its a failure to communicate from a being incapable of failure...or evidence that your mythology is flawed.