Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

God was demonstrated and revealed in Christ.. Unfortunately, that's all He's going to do, and it was more than enough.

 

 

When I say that you believe in nothing, I'm referring to nothing divine or spiritual. And everyone does get a chance for eternal life (John 3:16). Belief is a choice that we all make, you have chosen to believe in man (science) and I've chosen God.

 

 

Man has discovered and invented things, but he's created nothing.

 

 

Why would God create what we can make? He's given us the raw materials but expects us to do the work.

 

 

 

 

You tell me.  Why does God need Human scribes?  Why can't God self publish the inerrant Book of Books?  Why are Bibles not fire proof?  Why can't God make earthquake proof churches?  It's almost as though God doesn't exist.

 

 

:coffee:

 

Link to post
  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think I can clarify things here -- at the risk of my putting words into Damnthing's mouth.   It is not the pendant which Damnthing is reacting too.  It is the attitude behind the pendant,

Dan is always ready to define Atheism.  We are the people who believe in nothing.          Dan is always ready to define Agnosticism.  We are the people who know nothing.        Da

I understand.  Dan's comments are like a mosquito bite.  It's trivial but it itches.     When you have to vent, talk to me.  

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

God was demonstrated and revealed in Christ.. Unfortunately, that's all He's going to do, and it was more than enough.

 

 

When I say that you believe in nothing, I'm referring to nothing divine or spiritual. And everyone does get a chance for eternal life (John 3:16). Belief is a choice that we all make, you have chosen to believe in man (science) and I've chosen God.

 

 

Man has discovered and invented things, but he's created nothing.

 

 

Why would God create what we can make? He's given us the raw materials but expects us to do the work.

 

 

 

 

Dan, even the concept of evidence eludes you.  Spouting doctrine is not proof.

 

:coffee:

Link to post
On 1/13/2021 at 6:06 PM, Dan56 said:

 


"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). God is not a science experiment, nor can science demonstrate God, let alone prove He exist. You can't verify a spiritual entity by physical observation or experimentation. God's existence is demonstrated by all that exist, of which science has no provable answer for. Science can't create anything, it can only discover what has always been here.

 

 

I agree with your last 3 words :)

Exactly the degree of arrogance I would expect from someone who worships a dead man on a stick. And you know it all because of a collection of faerie tales from outcasts, drunks, pedophiles and sociopaths? 

 

Maybe pick up a real book sometime, one that actually required research, effort, field work, knowledge, deduction, conclusions...not your religiopathic collection of nonsense that you just 'absolutely know' is the word of ƃop. Please, give the rest of us a break and for once, use the brain you believe was given to you by your ƃop. Remember that ad; a mind is a terrible thing to waste

Link to post
8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Dan, even the concept of evidence eludes you.  Spouting doctrine is not proof.

 

:coffee:

But that is all that people like dan can do, spout doctrine because to spout anything else would indicate some level of free will which dan et al have abdicated in favor of being scripted.

 

Nothing says religion like empty-headed doctrinal, canned responses that require nothing more than rote memorization.

 

dan doesn't have to (and likely doesn't even) understand his comments, he just needs a handful of ready-to-go pithy comments that are little more than x tian version of Mad Libs

Link to post
8 minutes ago, damnthing said:

But that is all that people like dan can do, spout doctrine because to spout anything else would indicate some level of free will which dan et al have abdicated in favor of being scripted.

 

Nothing says religion like empty-headed doctrinal, canned responses that require nothing more than rote memorization.

 

dan doesn't have to (and likely doesn't even) understand his comments, he just needs a handful of ready-to-go pithy comments that are little more than x tian version of Mad Libs

 

 

I think that you're giving Dan too much credit.  He's not a deep thinker.  More like a conditioned response.  It's more than a reflex, but not much more.

 

:bye:

Link to post

Dan you quote from your bronze age collection of writings. You have no proof there is a god, no proof the bible has anything to do with this god, no proof belief gets you eternal life and no proof there is eternal life. You can call it faith, spiritual or whatever words you want to use but you have nothing conclusive or evidence based proof to support it.

It is all myth based supported by further myth.. No wonder people don't take you seriously.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I think that you're giving Dan too much credit.  He's not a deep thinker.  More like a conditioned response.  It's more than a reflex, but not much more.

 

:bye:

That's exactly what I was saying, nothing more than knee-jerk reactions. Dog knows I wasn't implying he was a deep thinker, quite the opposite in fact

Link to post
16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Dan, even the concept of evidence eludes you.  Spouting doctrine is not proof

 

 

Some people accept a written record of past events as evidence. Even courts accept sworn transcripts (affidavits) as evidence. So what your really spouting is that the written testimony of eye witnesses is not acceptable. You have concluded that something is false with no evidence to support your conclusion. If proof really matters to you, then you shouldn't be so quick to discount something without the necessary proof to prove its fraudulent. That's like saying, "Well I don't know if this guy is guilty or not, but just in case he did it, someone get a rope."

 

7 hours ago, Pete said:

Dan you quote from your bronze age collection of writings. You have no proof there is a god, no proof the bible has anything to do with this god, no proof belief gets you eternal life and no proof there is eternal life. You can call it faith, spiritual or whatever words you want to use but you have nothing conclusive or evidence based proof to support it.

It is all myth based supported by further myth.. No wonder people don't take you seriously.

 

You have faith that you are correct, with no evidence to support what you believe. You have automatically written off the bible as myth, with no proof to substantiate your assumption. That is tantamount to me saying that the US Constitution is a fake fairy tale, written hundreds of years ago by a bunch of backwoods stump-kicking hillbillies. All we have is an unproven document, so why take it seriously. Truth is, you'll believe what you like without evidence, but demand proof to believe what you don't like.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Some people accept a written record of past events as evidence. Even courts accept sworn transcripts (affidavits) as evidence. So what your really spouting is that the written testimony of eye witnesses is not acceptable. You have concluded that something is false with no evidence to support your conclusion. If proof really matters to you, then you shouldn't be so quick to discount something without the necessary proof to prove its fraudulent. That's like saying, "Well I don't know if this guy is guilty or not, but just in case he did it, someone get a rope."

 

 

You have faith that you are correct, with no evidence to support what you believe. You have automatically written off the bible as myth, with no proof to substantiate your assumption. That is tantamount to me saying that the US Constitution is a fake fairy tale, written hundreds of years ago by a bunch of backwoods stump-kicking hillbillies. All we have is an unproven document, so why take it seriously. Truth is, you'll believe what you like without evidence, but demand proof to believe what you don't like.

It is not a question of like and it is you that is making an assertion.  All I am saying is you have no proof  and that is correct is it not. You cannot show me god.  You cannot show me heaven. You cannot show me that the bible is anything but the words of men. All I am saying is that is the case.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Some people accept a written record of past events as evidence. Even courts accept sworn transcripts (affidavits) as evidence. So what your really spouting is that the written testimony of eye witnesses is not acceptable. You have concluded that something is false with no evidence to support your conclusion. If proof really matters to you, then you shouldn't be so quick to discount something without the necessary proof to prove its fraudulent. That's like saying, "Well I don't know if this guy is guilty or not, but just in case he did it, someone get a rope."

 

 

You have faith that you are correct, with no evidence to support what you believe. You have automatically written off the bible as myth, with no proof to substantiate your assumption. That is tantamount to me saying that the US Constitution is a fake fairy tale, written hundreds of years ago by a bunch of backwoods stump-kicking hillbillies. All we have is an unproven document, so why take it seriously. Truth is, you'll believe what you like without evidence, but demand proof to believe what you don't like.

 

 

Are you talking about the Bible?

  • a written record of past events          :birgits_giggle:
  • sworn transcripts (affidavits)          :birgits_giggle:
  • written testimony of eye witnesses          :birgits_giggle:

Seriously?  The Bible?  As evidence?     :lol:

 

 

 

Link to post
17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Are you talking about the Bible?

  • a written record of past events          :birgits_giggle:
  • sworn transcripts (affidavits)          :birgits_giggle:
  • written testimony of eye witnesses          :birgits_giggle:

Seriously?  The Bible?  As evidence?     :lol:

 

 

 

 

As usual, you guys missed the point.. By your criteria, you can't believe any book that can't be proven. Whereby, all history is myth, the Constitution is a fabricated lie, the Revolutionary War never happened, etc. We only know that George Washington crossed the Delaware River on  December 25, 1776 because of a written record and witnesses. Its the same with the bible, yet you believe one and not the other. That's selective belief, because you accept that Washington crossed the Delaware with no verifiable facts, no physical evidence, and no scientific proof, while using those same qualifications to reject the bible.

Link to post

Yes but they did not claim magical things happened which not only goes against science. It also goes against reality and therefore not reliable as history. Most of the things you mentioned are supported by other reporters to the events. The bible stands alone in its report. It is just not credible. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

As usual, you guys missed the point.. By your criteria, you can't believe any book that can't be proven. Whereby, all history is myth, the Constitution is a fabricated lie, the Revolutionary War never happened, etc. We only know that George Washington crossed the Delaware River on  December 25, 1776 because of a written record and witnesses. Its the same with the bible, yet you believe one and not the other. That's selective belief, because you accept that Washington crossed the Delaware with no verifiable facts, no physical evidence, and no scientific proof, while using those same qualifications to reject the bible.

 

:coffee:  Missed the point?  Your bald assertions count for nothing.

 

I have a quotation concerning the Bible.  "The Bible is equal parts history, science and pizza."

 

In the meantime, I will repeat myself.  A god which can not be demonstrated to exist, is irrelevant and meaningless.  Even if that god actually exists -- so what? 

 

Christian doctrine is not a demonstration of anything.  Certainly, not history or fact.

 

I have zero interest in debating your fact free faith.  I'm done with arguing with your beliefs.  "If you can't show it, then you don't know it."  (Aaron Ra)

 

When you have empirical evidence.  Objective, verifiable facts, we can resume.  Until then, I will continue to regard even the question of God's existence, to be pointless and futile and meaningless.

 

:coffee:

Link to post
57 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

When you have empirical evidence.  Objective, verifiable facts, we can resume.  Until then, I will continue to regard even the question of God's existence, to be pointless and futile and meaningless.

 

 

I'm aware that you don't believe in God, my point was that by your own criterion, you don't believe in George Washington either. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'm aware that you don't believe in God, my point was that by your own criterion, you don't believe in George Washington either. 

 

The concept of evidence continues to elude you.  You do not understand my criteria.  Again, you are mistaken.

 

:coffee:

 

Link to post
9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The concept of evidence continues to elude you.  You do not understand my criteria.  Again, you are mistaken.

 

:coffee:

 

Regarding the G Washington obfuscation, correct me if I'm wrong but pretty sure it wasn't just washington crossing the river on his own, or with a few confused apostles trusted soldiers, he had an army with him so...yea, lot of eye witnesses.

 

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) dano is conflating actual eye witnesse with (hearsay (which is a stretch at that)). Anything written down regarding cheeses was done so decades after the supposed groundhog appearance.

 

The romans were pretty notorious note takers yet the first (and I think the only) mention of cheeses was 80 or so years after he was supposedly nailed to a tree so obviously, not an eyewitness report. Even with the new testacle the first written accounts of the shaman cheeses doesn't happen until about 30 years after cheeses floated up and away.

 

Interestingly, there was also made mention by another roman writer around the same time of x tians being cannibals (it was known that early x tians practice their religion by eating the flesh and drinking the blood), so we have that as an 'eyewitness' account. So I guess we either believe that a guy named cheeses existed AND x tians were cannibals, or we dispute both of them. What to do, what to do.

 

Consider this; A cable tv show called America: Fact or Fiction, explores the myths surrounding american history and how myths grew up over just a matter of decades (sometimes less). Things we were taught in school, that we believe to be true, were false.  This is a testament (pun intended) to both the imagination of people and their willingness to embellish (if not outright fabricate from whole cloth) entirely new accounts.

 

So if it can happen with us, in our country, within our own lifetimes, it can certainly happen in an age where practically no one could write, there was no education (for the masses). Life was whatever happened in between birth (if you made it thru the birth canal) to death (probably lucky to live to 40 (if even that). When your life was one **e experience after another it took no imagination (well, frankly it took a LOT of imagination, just no proofs) to pretend there was a better life waiting after you died. There was no one to refute it and if it made people feel a little less awful then have at it.

 

But for Satan's sake at least admit that it's all made up, false memory, mythology, wishful thinking, magical thinking, etc, have fun with it if it makes you feel better about yourself (dano) but give the whole 'the bible is true because the bible says it's true' tautological cranial gymnastical nonsense a rest. Ramen, may the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless You With His Noodley Arms

 

Edit: I realized it may sound as if I'm chiding you Jonathan, which I am not. I am chiding dano but it seemed more effective overall if I quoted you for my response.

 

Edited by damnthing
Link to post
10 minutes ago, damnthing said:

Regarding the G Washington obfuscation, correct me if I'm wrong but pretty sure it wasn't just washington crossing the river on his own, or with a few confused apostles trusted soldiers, he had an army with him so...yea, lot of eye witnesses.

 

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) dano is conflating actual eye witnesse with (hearsay (which is a stretch at that)). Anything written down regarding cheeses was done so decades after the supposed groundhog appearance.

 

The romans were pretty notorious note takers yet the first (and I think the only) mention of cheeses was 80 or so years after he was supposedly nailed to a tree so obviously, not an eyewitness report. Even with the new testacle the first written accounts of the shaman cheeses doesn't happen until about 30 years after cheeses floated up and away.

 

Interestingly, there was also made mention by another roman writer around the same time of x tians being cannibals (it was known that early x tians practice their religion by eating the flesh and drinking the blood), so we have that as an 'eyewitness' account. So I guess we either believe that a guy named cheeses existed AND x tians were cannibals, or we dispute both of them. What to do, what to do.

 

Consider this; A cable tv show called America: Fact or Fiction, explores the myths surrounding american history and how myths grew up over just a matter of decades (sometimes less). Things we were taught in school, that we believe to be true, were false.  This is a testament (pun intended) to both the imagination of people and their willingness to embellish (if not outright fabricate from whole cloth) entirely new accounts.

 

So if it can happen with us, in our country, within our own lifetimes, it can certainly happen in an age where practically no one could write, there was no education (for the masses). Life was whatever happened in between birth (if you made it thru the birth canal) to death (probably lucky to live to 40 (if even that). When your life was one **e experience after another it took no imagination (well, frankly it took a LOT of imagination, just no proofs) to pretend there was a better life waiting after you died. There was no one to refute it and if it made people feel a little less awful then have at it.

 

But for Satan's sake at least admit that it's all made up, false memory, mythology, wishful thinking, magical thinking, etc, have fun with it if it makes you feel better about yourself (dano) but give the whole 'the bible is true because the bible says it's true' tautological cranial gymnastical nonsense a rest. Ramen, may the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless You With His Noodley Arms

 

 

 

The story of Jesus is worse than that.  It's inconsistent.  Consider.

 

Everywhere that Jesus went, there were great huge crowds.  Following.  Pressing in.  Crowding.  Following.  Everywhere, great huge crowds, following and pushing to get close.  That's why the Romans had to pay Judas, simply to point Jesus out to them.  They didn't know who he was.

 

:coffee:

 

These Gospel accounts are supposed to be evidence?  Silly stories that contradict each other?  That fly in the face of actual history?

 

Of course, we can believe that Jerusalem was over run by zombies.  Well, I can't.  It's too silly.  My lack of belief is because I did read the Book.

 

:birgits_giggle:

 

 

 

 

Link to post
10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The concept of evidence continues to elude you.  You do not understand my criteria.  Again, you are mistaken.

 

 

Not at all, I get the concept of evidence... But the concept of faith seems to elude you. Your criteria is objective verifiable proof, while God's criteria is faith and trust. Having undeniable facts to confirm a truth requires no belief. We are here to make a choice (John 3:16), irrefutable evidence defies the necessity of choice and negates free will. 

 

1 hour ago, damnthing said:

Regarding the G Washington obfuscation, correct me if I'm wrong but pretty sure it wasn't just washington crossing the river on his own, or with a few confused apostles trusted soldiers, he had an army with him so...yea, lot of eye witnesses.

 

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) dano is conflating actual eye witnesse with (hearsay (which is a stretch at that)). Anything written down regarding cheeses was done so decades after the supposed groundhog appearance.

 

The romans were pretty notorious note takers yet the first (and I think the only) mention of cheeses was 80 or so years after he was supposedly nailed to a tree so obviously, not an eyewitness report. Even with the new testacle the first written accounts of the shaman cheeses doesn't happen until about 30 years after cheeses floated up and away.

 

Interestingly, there was also made mention by another roman writer around the same time of x tians being cannibals (it was known that early x tians practice their religion by eating the flesh and drinking the blood), so we have that as an 'eyewitness' account. So I guess we either believe that a guy named cheeses existed AND x tians were cannibals, or we dispute both of them. What to do, what to do.

 

Consider this; A cable tv show called America: Fact or Fiction, explores the myths surrounding american history and how myths grew up over just a matter of decades (sometimes less). Things we were taught in school, that we believe to be true, were false.  This is a testament (pun intended) to both the imagination of people and their willingness to embellish (if not outright fabricate from whole cloth) entirely new accounts.

 

So if it can happen with us, in our country, within our own lifetimes, it can certainly happen in an age where practically no one could write, there was no education (for the masses). Life was whatever happened in between birth (if you made it thru the birth canal) to death (probably lucky to live to 40 (if even that). When your life was one **e experience after another it took no imagination (well, frankly it took a LOT of imagination, just no proofs) to pretend there was a better life waiting after you died. There was no one to refute it and if it made people feel a little less awful then have at it.

 

But for Satan's sake at least admit that it's all made up, false memory, mythology, wishful thinking, magical thinking, etc, have fun with it if it makes you feel better about yourself (dano) but give the whole 'the bible is true because the bible says it's true' tautological cranial gymnastical nonsense a rest. Ramen, may the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless You With His Noodley Arms

 

Edit: I realized it may sound as if I'm chiding you Jonathan, which I am not. I am chiding dano but it seemed more effective overall if I quoted you for my response.

 

 

Talk about conflating! Washington may have had 5400 soldiers who crossed the Delaware with him, but Jesus fed 5000 is a single afternoon. And once all the 'eyewitnesses' are dead and gone, it could all be construed as hearsay evidence couldn't it.

 

The Romans didn't care, nor did they record anything about the religious territories they conquered, so the fact that it was mentioned later is a testimony that Christ was not fictional.

 

The cannibalism remark is nonsense, its confusion by Gentile infidels who were ignorant and confused about the wine and bread as being actual blood and flesh, when they were symbolic of the life and sacrifice of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:24-25).

 

There was no one to refute the Risen Christ because they couldn't. There's no argument for a prophecy come true.

 

For Satan's sake? You believe in him but not Jesus? Interesting... If a +2000 year old book is false, you ought to be able to prove it, but the fact that its irrefutable beyond all unsubstantiated allegations lends credibility to its authenticity and  reliability. We each choose the legitimacy of what we have knowledge of.

 

46 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The story of Jesus is worse than that.  It's inconsistent.  Consider.

 

Everywhere that Jesus went, there were great huge crowds.  Following.  Pressing in.  Crowding.  Following.  Everywhere, great huge crowds, following and pushing to get close.  That's why the Romans had to pay Judas, simply to point Jesus out to them.  They didn't know who he was.

 

These Gospel accounts are supposed to be evidence?  Silly stories that contradict each other?  That fly in the face of actual history?

 

Of course, we can believe that Jerusalem was over run by zombies.  Well, I can't.  It's too silly.  My lack of belief is because I did read the Book.

 

 

When you look for inconsistencies in something that you deny, you'll find them, or better said, you'll make them up.

 

The Romans didn't pay Judas, the High Priest did.. The crowds and followers of Jesus were the reason they wanted to arrest him at night in order to avoid resistance. Judas gave them the exact location of where the Temple guards could get him under the cover of night.

 

No biblical contradictions, just excuses to justify disbelief.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Not at all, I get the concept of evidence... But the concept of faith seems to elude you. Your criteria is objective verifiable proof, while God's criteria is faith and trust. Having undeniable facts to confirm a truth requires no belief. We are here to make a choice (John 3:16), irrefutable evidence defies the necessity of choice and negates free will. 

 

 

Talk about conflating! Washington may have had 5400 soldiers who crossed the Delaware with him, but Jesus fed 5000 is a single afternoon. And once all the 'eyewitnesses' are dead and gone, it could all be construed as hearsay evidence couldn't it.

 

The Romans didn't care, nor did they record anything about the religious territories they conquered, so the fact that it was mentioned later is a testimony that Christ was not fictional.

 

The cannibalism remark is nonsense, its confusion by Gentile infidels who were ignorant and confused about the wine and bread as being actual blood and flesh, when they were symbolic of the life and sacrifice of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:24-25).

 

There was no one to refute the Risen Christ because they couldn't. There's no argument for a prophecy come true.

 

For Satan's sake? You believe in him but not Jesus? Interesting... If a +2000 year old book is false, you ought to be able to prove it, but the fact that its irrefutable beyond all unsubstantiated allegations lends credibility to its authenticity and  reliability. We each choose the legitimacy of what we have knowledge of.

 

 

When you look for inconsistencies in something that you deny, you'll find them, or better said, you'll make them up.

 

The Romans didn't pay Judas, the High Priest did.. The crowds and followers of Jesus were the reason they wanted to arrest him at night in order to avoid resistance. Judas gave them the exact location of where the Temple guards could get him under the cover of night.

 

No biblical contradictions, just excuses to justify disbelief.

 

 

This much is true.  When we have facts, we don't need faith.  You think this goes against free will?  I suppose it does damage the ability to believe in nonsense.  That is a good thing.  

 

:coffee:

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.