666

[Wretched Excess]

So in your first rebuttal you dismiss the Mt Sinai account out of hand. There is one interesting point of the Mt Sinai account: the recorders present an extremely unflattering account of themselves. Generally, when people lie they flatter themselves. Here the Jews speak of themselves as scared, cowardly, disobedient, conceited, arrogant, depraved, malicious, ungrateful...

Compare that with your average Mohammedan or liberal.

In your second rebuttal you dismiss a general, time-proven evidence of humanity's folly in order to affirm an untested faith that were humans confronted with God they would suddenly fall in line.

All without the slighest hint of a sense of irony or self-contradiction.

Regardless of how convincing you believe the Bible to be, the fact remains that it is not hard evidence of anything other than what some people wrote in the past. The Bible is, at the very most, testimony.

this is getting annoying, TNO.

I am not willing to discuss whether or not God exists.  He does.  I say so.  and on this board, that is good enough.

I am ready to discuss the nuances of religion, and I look forward to you continuing your relationship with
our website along those lines.

[The Night Owl]

I am ready to discuss the nuances of religion, and I look forward to you continuing your relationship with
our website along those lines.

If the owners of CC adopt a DU/CU style of management which prohibits certain points of view, then I will see no reason for me to continue posting at this site.

Owners, let me know what you want to do.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So in your first rebuttal you dismiss the Mt Sinai account out of hand. There is one interesting point of the Mt Sinai account: the recorders present an extremely unflattering account of themselves. Generally, when people lie they flatter themselves. Here the Jews speak of themselves as scared, cowardly, disobedient, conceited, arrogant, depraved, malicious, ungrateful...

Compare that with your average Mohammedan or liberal.

In your second rebuttal you dismiss a general, time-proven evidence of humanity's folly in order to affirm an untested faith that were humans confronted with God they would suddenly fall in line.

All without the slighest hint of a sense of irony or self-contradiction.

Regardless of how convincing you believe the Bible to be, the fact remains that it is not hard evidence of anything other than what some people wrote in the past. The Bible is, at the very most, testimony.

Testimonies are legal statements. Testimony can be overturned if the witness is shown to be unreliable or self-interested. That's an established legal standard far more worthy of--say--the peer review process of the Nobel committee.

Really, these "conversations" with you are getting rather tedious because you puff yourself up as being all scientificalish but you fail to understand even the rudiments of logic, evidence or even basic definitions.

[The Night Owl]

Testimonies are legal statements. Testimony can be overturned if the witness is shown to be unreliable or self-interested. That's an established legal standard far more worthy of--say--the peer review process of the Nobel committee.

I'm not using the words testimony and evidence in a legal sense and I'm not suggesting that testimony is not evidence. What I'm saying is that testimony is not hard evidence.

Really, these "conversations" with you are getting rather tedious because you puff yourself up as being all scientificalish but you fail to understand even the rudiments of logic, evidence or even basic definitions.

Which definition have I misunderstood?

[Chris_]

I am ready to discuss the nuances of religion, and I look forward to you continuing your relationship with
our website along those lines.

If the owners of CC adopt a DU/CU style of management which prohibits certain points of view, then I will see no reason for me to continue posting at this site.

Owners, let me know what you want to do.

Oh, please don't take away our Bobo!

[Chris_]

Testimonies are legal statements. Testimony can be overturned if the witness is shown to be unreliable or self-interested. That's an established legal standard far more worthy of--say--the peer review process of the Nobel committee.

I'm not using the words testimony and evidence in a legal sense and I'm not suggesting that testimony is not evidence. What I'm saying is that testimony is not hard evidence.

Really, these "conversations" with you are getting rather tedious because you puff yourself up as being all scientificalish but you fail to understand even the rudiments of logic, evidence or even basic definitions.

Which definition have I misunderstood?

The evidence is all around you, but you refuse to acknowledge it.  Your refusal does not mean it does not exist.

[The Night Owl]

The evidence is all around you, but you refuse to acknowledge it.  Your refusal does not mean it does not exist.

When crop circles gained noteriety, many people became absolutely convinced that they were too elegant and too intricate to be of human origin. So, they became convinced that crop circles had to be the work of extraterrestrials. Of course, now we all know that crop circles were a clever hoax perpetrated by pranksters using crude tools in clever ways. Sometimes, what we think is evidence of one thing is actually evidence of something else.

[Chris_]

The evidence is all around you, but you refuse to acknowledge it.  Your refusal does not mean it does not exist.

When crop circles gained noteriety, many people became absolutely convinced that they were too elegant and too intricate to be of human origin. So, they became convinced that crop circles had to be the work of extraterrestrials. Of course, now we all know that crop circles were a clever hoax perpetrated by pranksters using crude tools in clever ways. Sometimes, what we think is evidence of one thing is actually evidence of something else.

Your statement proves absolutely nothing.
 

[FlaGator]

Testimonies are legal statements. Testimony can be overturned if the witness is shown to be unreliable or self-interested. That's an established legal standard far more worthy of--say--the peer review process of the Nobel committee.

I'm not using the words testimony and evidence in a legal sense and I'm not suggesting that testimony is not evidence. What I'm saying is that testimony is not hard evidence.

Really, these "conversations" with you are getting rather tedious because you puff yourself up as being all scientificalish but you fail to understand even the rudiments of logic, evidence or even basic definitions.

Which definition have I misunderstood?

Actually testimony is evidence and as with all evidence it is up to the jury to determine the importance or relevence of the evidence presented. There is much testimony about the life and existence of Jesus Christ. Some of it is hard to refute. At the time when Paul was writing his epistles he is citing events that had happened in the life time of his readers. Events that anyone witnessing could easily have disputed had Paul been lying. Paul's first epistles where written around 20 years after the death of Christ. There were many people still alive who witnessed the curcifixion and not one called him a liar. That, to some degree, validates Paul's testimony. Also, if Paul and the other Apostles had been knowingly lying about the events that they describe do you think that they would have being willing to die and become martyrs for that lie? All but one of the Apostles were executed for their beliefs. None is recorded as recanting their position that Christ died upon the cross, was buried and then rose from the dead. Would you be willing to die for a lie you told if by telling the truth you could spare yourself a horrible death?

[TheSarge]

I'm not using the words testimony and evidence in a legal sense and I'm not suggesting that testimony is not evidence. What I'm saying is that testimony is not hard evidence.

To a Godless cretin like yourself...NOTHING will ever be "hard evidence".  You lack the imagination or depth of thought to even accept the possibility that there is a force greater than anything you've ever known or can fathom that is in control of everything and is influencing everything you do...good...bad...or otherwise.

You're of the belief that if you can't see it touch it or taste it...it doesn't exist...therefore anyone who DOES believe in that undeen force we call God...are just a bunch of nutty fools.

You try to act all tough and brave and claim logic this and proof that...but it doesn't mask the fact that the thought of your life...your soul...being in control of anyone other than yourself frightens the every loving sh*t out of you.

And if you don't want to believe...fine...that's your life...everyone must live with their decisions.

But why come here like some petchulant child and taunt people who DO believe?

If you are right and we are wrong we have lost nothing.  Because there won't be an afterlife in which to complain about what happened.

But if YOU are wrong and the majority of us are right...I feel really sorry for you and the bad choices you've made where faith and belief in God is concerned.

Which definition have I misunderstood?

All of them.

[The Night Owl]

Actually testimony is evidence and as with all evidence it is up to the jury to determine the importance or relevence of the evidence presented.

I know that testimony is a form of evidence. What I wrote is that testimony is not hard evidence.

There is much testimony about the life and existence of Jesus Christ. Some of it is hard to refute. At the time when Paul was writing his epistles he is citing events that had happened in the life time of his readers. Events that anyone witnessing could easily have disputed had Paul been lying. Paul's first epistles where written around 20 years after the death of Christ. There were many people still alive who witnessed the curcifixion and not one called him a liar. That, to some degree validates Paul's testimony. Also, if Paul and the other Apostles had been knowingly lying about the events that they describe do you think that they would have being willing to die and become martyrs for that lie? All but one of the Apostles were executed for their beliefs. None is recorded as recanting their position that Christ died upon the cross, was buried and then rose from the dead. Would you being will to die for a lie you told if by telling the truth you could spare yourself a horrible death?

I have little doubt that Jesus Christ was a real person or at least a figure based on a real person or persons. But even if we find hard evidence that Christ existed that evidence doesn't prove his alleged divinity.

[FlaGator]

Actually testimony is evidence and as with all evidence it is up to the jury to determine the importance or relevence of the evidence presented.

I know that testimony is a form of evidence. What I wrote is that testimony is not hard evidence.

There is much testimony about the life and existence of Jesus Christ. Some of it is hard to refute. At the time when Paul was writing his epistles he is citing events that had happened in the life time of his readers. Events that anyone witnessing could easily have disputed had Paul been lying. Paul's first epistles where written around 20 years after the death of Christ. There were many people still alive who witnessed the curcifixion and not one called him a liar. That, to some degree validates Paul's testimony. Also, if Paul and the other Apostles had been knowingly lying about the events that they describe do you think that they would have being willing to die and become martyrs for that lie? All but one of the Apostles were executed for their beliefs. None is recorded as recanting their position that Christ died upon the cross, was buried and then rose from the dead. Would you being will to die for a lie you told if by telling the truth you could spare yourself a horrible death?

I have little doubt that Jesus Christ was a real person or at least a figure based on a real person or persons. But even if we find hard evidence that Christ existed that evidence doesn't prove his alleged divinity.

The testimony of the Apostles verify that Christ rose from the dead is a validation of His divine nature. As I stated in my previous post, do you believe that they would have made this tale up and then allowed themselves to be horribly executed for something that they new to be a lie? Allow me to ask the question another way. If you had met someone and He proved to you beyond all doubt that He was God your creator, would you recant what you know to be the truth just to save your own life or would you hold fast to that truth as you were crucified upside down or stoned to death or flayed alive?

[FlaGator]

Actually testimony is evidence and as with all evidence it is up to the jury to determine the importance or relevence of the evidence presented.

I know that testimony is a form of evidence. What I wrote is that testimony is not hard evidence.

<snip>

By the way, there is no such thing as hard evidence. There is just evidence that is more or less believable. The prosecution thought that they had "hard evidence" in the OJ trial but in the end just how "hard" was that evidence since a jury did not believe it?

[The Night Owl]

To a Godless cretin like yourself...NOTHING will ever be "hard evidence".  You lack the imagination or depth of thought to even accept the possibility that there is a force greater than anything you've ever known or can fathom that is in control of everything and is influencing everything you do...good...bad...or otherwise.

Not true. I don't completely rule out the possibility that something which could be described as a supreme being has evolved during the many billions of years that the Universe has been around. If the ocean of time which has so far passed has led to us, then who knows what else it has led to.

You're of the belief that if you can't see it touch it or taste it...it doesn't exist...

Not true. I consider the probability that the Universe is populated by technological civilizations to be high. I have no evidence that the Universe is populated by technological civilizations or even life in general, but the Drake equation leads me to believe that mankind is, at the very least, not alone in the Universe and, at the very most, one of many technological civilizations.

therefore anyone who DOES believe in that undeen force we call God...are just a bunch of nutty fools.

I do not consider believers to be fools. I see no reason to look down on anyone for choosing to believe improbable explanations for what science cannot explain.

[The Night Owl]

The testimony of the Apostles verify that Christ rose from the dead is a validation of His divine nature. As I stated in my previous post, do you believe that they would have made this tale up and then allowed themselves to be horribly executed for something that they new to be a lie?

An excellent question. Here is my take...

Assuming that the story of the apostles testifying that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead is true, it does not prove that the resurrection of Christ took place. What it proves is that the apostles deeply believed that the resurrection took place.

I have no doubt that people who claim to have had religious experiences truly believe they happened. I just don't consider their subjective experiences to be sufficient evidence that what they think happened actually happened.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The testimony of the Apostles verify that Christ rose from the dead is a validation of His divine nature. As I stated in my previous post, do you believe that they would have made this tale up and then allowed themselves to be horribly executed for something that they new to be a lie?

An excellent question. Here is my take...

Assuming that the story of the apostles testifying that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead is true, it does not prove that the resurrection of Christ took place. What it proves is that the apostles deeply believed that the resurrection took place.

I have no doubt that people who claim to have had religious experiences truly believe they happened. I just don't consider their subjective experiences to be sufficient evidence that what they think happened actually happened.

So logic tells you that the first assumption of corraborating personal testimony is: they shared a mass hallucination to the exact details?

[The Night Owl]

So logic tells you that the first assumption of corraborating personal testimony is: they shared a mass hallucination to the exact details?

If a group of people testify to experiencing some event which cannot be explained rationally, then of course we should suspect a hoax or a mass hallucination. Consider accounts of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens... People of various backgrounds and geographies all reporting strikingly similar stories of being abducted and examined by aliens.

[Wretched Excess]

I thought we talked about this.

[The Night Owl]

I thought we talked about this.

I wrote in post #76 that I will wait for the owner of CC to tell me if I can express an atheistic point of view or not. If you are the owner or are speaking for the owner, then you need to tell me that you are.

[Wretched Excess]

I thought we talked about this.

I wrote in post #76 that I will wait for the owner of CC to tell me if I can express an atheistic point of view or not. If you are the owner or are speaking for the owner, then you need to tell me that you are.

I am the owner.  or I am one of them.

[The Night Owl]

I am the owner.  or I am one of them.

Okay. Thanks. I will assume that you speak for all the owners of CC and that all are in agreement that CCers, like CUers, are delicate people who must be shielded from certain points of view.

I will be at the NU if anyone would like to continue discussing some of the points I brought up in this thread.

Goodbye.

[Wretched Excess]

I am the owner.  or I am one of them.

Okay. Thanks. I will assume that you speak for all the owners of CC and that all are in agreement that CCers, like CUers, are delicate people who must be shielded from certain points of view.

I will be at the NU if anyone would like to continue discussing some of the points I brought up in this thread.

Goodbye.

hasta la vista.

[FlaGator]

So logic tells you that the first assumption of corraborating personal testimony is: they shared a mass hallucination to the exact details?

If a group of people testify to experiencing some event which cannot be explained rationally, then of course we should suspect a hoax or a mass hallucination. Consider accounts of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens... People of various backgrounds and geographies all reporting strikingly similar stories of being abducted and examined by aliens.

So you are saying that the Apostles and others mass hallucinated for 40 days and then suddenly stopped? That's a leap of faith isn't it? Actually I don't believe that there has been a single validated case of mass hallucination in recorded history. Interesting isn't it. It seems that mass hallucination is what skeptics fall back on when they can not explain away events that are beyond their grasp. Apparently it is easier to make up an explaination than it is to further investigate the events. Skeptics, instead of looking for proof that the event happened or simply looking at the event with unbiased eyes, look for reasons that it couldn't happen and thus eliminate potential avenues of explaination.

[TheSarge]

Not true. I don't completely rule out the possibility that something which could be described as a supreme being has evolved during the many billions of years that the Universe has been around. If the ocean of time which has so far passed has led to us, then who knows what else it has led to.


Not true. I consider the probability that the Universe is populated by technological civilizations to be high. I have no evidence that the Universe is populated by technological civilizations or even life in general, but the Drake equation leads me to believe that mankind is, at the very least, not alone in the Universe and, at the very most, one of many technological civilizations.


I do not consider believers to be fools. I see no reason to look down on anyone for choosing to believe improbable explanations for what science cannot explain.

Then it comes down to one simple fact that you chose to avoid in all of this.

The thought of an all powerful force controlling your life whether you realize it on a daily basis frightens the sh*t out of you.

And instead of trying to understand it or accept it you deny it and use that denial as a mask for your fear.

[TheSarge]

it does not prove that the resurrection of Christ took place.

Explain the Shroud of Turin then.