Upload
Login or register
Highest Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
✖ Too many comments. Images disabled to prevent lag.
Latest users (1): platinumaltaria, anonymous(40).
Anonymous comments allowed.
#127294 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
so far I've taken down whoozy, caette, theism, and thebritishguy in debate. i'm getting really confident.
If you aren't Christian, keep in mind that even if you win the argument in this life, you'll lose it in the next, when it really counts.
#127387 to #127294 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Deciding you won isn't the same thing as winning. You never shared the evidence you claimed to have.
#127391 to #127387 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
What facts do you have to support your interpretation of the events?
#127401 to #127391 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
The fact that you have none.
#127402 to #127401 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
maybe you just can't recognize facts
#127404 to #127402 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Show me your facts.
#127405 to #127404 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Jesus' tomb was found empty
Jesus appeared to hundreds of people
There's no evidence of embellishment from the disciples
#127407 to #127405 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Those aren't facts unless you back them up with a source.
#127355 to #127294 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
"taken down"
nice meme
#127304 to #127294 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
oh yes you are in the beginning of the first step to join the board.

you will taste more psuedo-rationalism.
#127309 to #127304 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Come to think of it his reasoning reminds me a lot of yours.

You'd make a perfect couple.
#127310 to #127309 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
oh jee yes indeed.
#127312 to #127310 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
/religion/127011
fixed link*
#127311 to #127310 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
It's a good thing he don't want you and your people all dead or something
/religion/127011#127011
#127320 to #127311 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I would make an exception for any person of that faith who has shown me that they're capable of, and amenable to reason and critical thinking. shekel has passed this test and demonstrated his intellectual strength, character and integrity
#127322 to #127320 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Reason and critical thinking is it? Sure.
It's not due to the fact that he has the same unreasonable hatred as you.
#127325 to #127322 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I never expressed any hatred of atheists, only pity, and a helping hand
#127328 to #127325 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Poison, toxic and condemning is such helping words
#127446 to #127328 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
You've never experienced zlamous have you? He is not the same as Omar, you are foolish to make this mistake.
-lulz
#127465 to #127446 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
So that's zlamous? Yeh i met him on frontpage
#127330 to #127328 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
didn't i use those words to describe your beliefs rather than your character?
#127334 to #127330 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
No, you said I was corrupted.
Ah so if I described Christianity as a mind poisoning sand cult for retarded people you wouldn't be bothered?
#127339 to #127334 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
i'd view that description as infinitely more applicable of a certain other group.
#127313 to #127311 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
is a shame you still say this to me. you know i just give a big grin for it
#127314 to #127313 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I know you're just a troll, but at least you could defend yourself against someone who openly hates your religion.
#127315 to #127314 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
A TROLL?

HAHAHA. i almost about to pee myself from the laugh.
#127316 to #127315 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Good
That's your reasoning for coming here after all isn't it?
#127318 to #127316 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
look. all these christians i can end them with a single or 50 post. i will make the book they believe against their own agenda.

but i have some respect to my christian friends. so i am calmed down against some pricks.
#127321 to #127318 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
You're calmed down against the ones who would see you and your family dead? Interresting.
#127323 to #127321 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
if i am about to strike the board with anti christian and anti atheist post and eliminate both of them.

it will be boring after that. the tension between you guys are amusing and what keeps me here.

do not underestimate me. you know what i have did years ago and you know what will happen if i did it again,
#127326 to #127323 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Do as you please
I've got the popcorn ready
#127327 to #127326 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
lets play civ v
#127329 to #127327 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
But I don't have that game.
Play something I have!
#127331 to #127329 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
CSGO?
#127335 to #127331 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I can do that.

When?
#127447 to #127335 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I'll play CSGO with you guys, demolition or deathmatch
#127464 to #127447 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Dunno
Ask Omar what he wanna do
#127336 to #127335 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
now?
#127338 to #127336 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
No time
Heading of in 5

I was thinking thursday or friday
#127341 to #127338 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
k den thursday is fine. gib ur steam
#127306 to #127304 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
perfect description of it. they try to hide their bias and incredulity under a thin veil of pseudo-skepticism, pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-rationallity. it's so transparent
#127298 to #127294 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
And by what other means besides your personal ego did you determine that you "took us down" in this discussion?

#127299 to #127298 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
via objective verification of all the claims that were made
#127356 to #127299 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Surprisingly enough. No one is born believing in God. That is something that was taught to you.

Back to the Descartes dilemma? I believe in an objective world and in subjective interpretations of said world. My views are grounded in my perception of reality, just like yours.
#127358 to #127356 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
so you think

on your worldview everything you know can be wrong. you have no basis for anything. you live in a world of uncertainty

my beliefs are based directly in God and His revelations, there's no room for subjective interpretations in my worldview
#127359 to #127358 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
We all live in uncertainty. If we didn't we'd know everything.

That's fine and all, but they are still beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less
#127361 to #127359 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
my experience and personal revelations of God can't be false. i know this because He has revealed things in such a way that I can be certain
#127362 to #127361 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Good for you.
#127364 to #127362 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I'm free to believe in the reality of certainty and absolute standards. your worldview precludes this. you are chained
#127368 to #127364 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I've stated several times that you're allowed to have your own view.
All I've done is demonstrate that it's just a point of view out of many.
#127301 to #127299 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Objective verification?
When comparing the different religions you claimed that the christian sources was numerous. When I said the same goes for all religion you said the christian sources were somehow more reliable without giving any further reason when asked.

Then you proceeded to call me toxic, corrupted or poisoned so I left.

You don't win an argument simply by replying until the other person leaves.
#127303 to #127301 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
does any other religion have a provably reliable source like Paul?
#127308 to #127303 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
You never answered when I asked you what spesific qualities you were looking for when determining reliability.

Furthermore you never backed up your reasoning for claiming your source is more reliable than everyone else.

Until those two are answered I can't look for paralels since your definition of "reliable" is unclear.

All I see is a person who's swallowed the account of a single source and somehow fails to understand why science is "biased against the supernatural".
#127317 to #127308 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
>spesific qualities looking for determining reliability

You look at the information, from the source, which can be verified and assess the accuracy of it.
Acts contains accurate titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, and much more

>fails to understand why science is "biased against the supernatural".

Science should be open to the supernatural because to disregard it without justification is a bias.
the problem is that any time someone criticizes "scientism" some fool calls them unscientific. we just want the definition of science to be broader with regard to the supernatural so that new information, and theories can be investigated, and so that old theories can be amended and critically examined free of the type of bias i've described
#127319 to #127317 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
How do you verify the accuracy of your SINGLE source?

Science disregards everything until proven. It's like those asians claiming this mystical force Qi controls everything. It can't be measured, it can't be observed and it can't be tested.
It has no substance and the only foothold on reality is in peoples minds.
#127324 to #127319 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
If a source has reported information accurately in every known case, it's safe to say that the other information provided by this source, even if it can't necessarily be verified by other means, is accurate.

closing off an entire methodology of investigation is obviously stifling to scientific progress and inquiry.
#127332 to #127324 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Hahahahahahaha! No that's ridiculous. I could be honest my entire life and no reasonable person is going to believe me if I claim I saw a teleporting pink elephant.

Scientiphic hypothesis has to be tested and have solid evidence behind it. You're absurd.
#127337 to #127332 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
the track record of the source is an acceptable way to evaluate the type claims i've described.

i agree with that second to last statement, and never indicated otherwise
#127340 to #127337 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
No it's not. That would be ridiculous.
At this point I'm pretty much certain you're not saying this with a straight face.

#127342 to #127340 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
to you, the claims of Jesus' miracles are in the same category a "teleporting pink elephant". this is because you fervently believe in naturalsim/physicalism. we have different philosophical groundings
#127343 to #127342 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Which I accepted earlier in our debate and we agreed we've reached a conversational stand still. Yet you come up with this post claiming to dominate the debates.
#127344 to #127343 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
in the end, God will be the judge. like i said though, you can't win this argument in the next life
#127345 to #127344 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
That might be, but you've yet to win it in this one.
#127346 to #127345 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
the only people who would think that are brainwashed atheists
#127347 to #127346 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Brainwashed? I'm not the one whos given entirely in to a spesific ideology here.
#127348 to #127347 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
that's BS. every aspect of your thinking is tainted with secualism
#127353 to #127348 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
When all your views are "concordant" with a single source you're consumed by a spesific ideology. You believe you're correct based on your own belief.

My basis is that of critical thinking. If you don't like it so be it. It doesn't make you correct in any way. It's just your point of view.
#127354 to #127353 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
everything's based on the innate knowledge of God that I was born with.

how do you know that your thinking is grounded in reality without God as a basis? you have no reason to trust your own reasoning in the absence of God
#127351 to #127348 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
That's just your view.
Do you realise these concepts?
We're different people. We have different views, these views shape our perception of reality thus we might think differently about the same objects.
#127352 to #127351 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I know that my views are accurate because they are concordant with the Bible. you have no such basis
#127349 to #127348 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions?
That's really all secularism means. But hey, don't take my word for it:
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secularism

It's as silly as claiming every aspect of your thinking is tainted with Christianity.
#127350 to #127349 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I view it as the most corrupt influence in America today

I'm actually mindful of my faith every time i open my mouth, especially here.
#127295 to #127294 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
What topics were these debates over?
#127296 to #127295 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
debate with theism and whoozy- evidence of the resurrection and the nature of said evidence
debate with thebritishguy- the probability of the resurrection
debate with caette- i demonstrated that her lack of belief is due to personal moral failings, and has nothing to with a supposed lack of evidence for Chrisitianity

#127300 to #127296 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Last Summer/Fall I went through basic training for the AF, and on Sundays we had dozens of different services we could have chosen to go to. I eventually went to a Muslim service as I had made a friend who was Muslim and he wanted me to go, as I was a known atheistic person.

The service was very interesting, but the topic was mainly about where Christianity and Islam divide, mainly on Jesus Christ and his Resurrection. This guy was pulling quotes directly from different versions of the bible and claiming that their stories differed in significant ways. In every one Jesus rose from the dead, but the details of how many angels there were, who went to see Jesus, when the stone was moved from the Tomb, how it was moved from the Tomb, what the conversations consisted of, etc. Almost every detail from every version was significantly different, and some even followed a totally different series of events leading up to and following the conversations with the angels. Was a very interesting service. Would you have any sort of explanation for that?

And do you surmise that atheism is a due to personal moral failings in all cases or just caette's case?
#127302 to #127300 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Bart Airhead(Ehrman) make similar claims. he makes a living off writing books about these supposed discrepancies. he contorts the truth in cartoonish ways

lets say that all the apparent discrepancies are irresolvable. it simply wouldn't matter.
any "contradictions" that exist fail to undermine the historical credibility of the facts in support of Jesus' life and miracles.

> who went to see Jesus, when the stone was moved from the Tomb,

A group of women, including Mary Magdalene. this is established in all the gospels

>how it was moved from the Tomb, what the conversations consisted of

i don't know of any contradicting accounts of how the stone was moved. Jesus moved it Himself.
the angels told them to go to Galilee. Luke didn't plan on writing down the Galilean appearances, so he altered Mark’s wording of the angel’s message for literary purposes.
#127305 to #127302 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Obviously it's been several months, so I can't continue to back up any of his claims, but I was just curious on what your opinion of it was. My deeply religious friend has similar things to say.

Now what about my second question about Atheism and personal morality?
#127307 to #127305 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
>do you surmise that atheism is a due to personal moral failings in all cases or just caette's case?

i'd say that atheists fool themselves into thinking that they have intellectual reasons for denying God, when it's really due to moral failings. it's comforting to them to hide under the veil of pseudo intellectualism
#127265 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Should I believe in God and why?
#127297 to #127265 - anon
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
Yes.
Because He wants you to.
#127291 to #127265 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
but you already know why
#127289 to #127265 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
why would you want to incur the punishment of disbelief?
#127290 to #127289 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
for disbelief*
#127288 to #127265 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
If you want to
#127217 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
/religion/127212#127212
/religion/127215#127215

i'm putting your cowardice on display, whoever you are. a dozen or so of my comments were thumbed down in a 5 minute period, i know you did that. log in and face me like a man
#127219 to #127217 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
/religion/127206
/religion/127208
/religion/127211
/religion/127212
/religion/127215

the hide all feature shows that these are all from the same anon. I'm coming after you
#127230 to #127219 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
rationalism in progress
#127450 to #127230 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Omar, this man is your friend, you have very similar goals. I hope you get along well. These next few months will be very interesting.
-lulz
#127206 - anon
Reply -1
(01/26/2016) [-]
Real classy
#127210 to #127206 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I understand the sentiment
#127199 - mvtjets
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
jesus was OK I guess
#127292 to #127199 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
idk he said/did some dickish/crazy
#127293 to #127292 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
things
#127237 to #127199 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
meh, makes fish and doesn't afraid of anything
#127204 to #127199 - anon
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
Jesus is just alright with me, Jesus is just alright, oh yeah
Jesus is just alright with me, Jesus is just alright
#127205 to #127204 - mvtjets
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Rappin' for Jesus
#127188 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
/user/poncakeforlife

If he also came back my dreams would come true, wonder wtf happened to him.
#127151 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
if the filthy heretical atheist neckbeards goes loss on here. im going to start purging them again like good ol days and bring my boys with me.
#127189 to #127151 - theism
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
That's kind of sad tbh.
#127201 to #127189 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
prepare ur angus
#127180 to #127151 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
Happy meming Omar
#127203 to #127180 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
imo i must do this fam
#127173 to #127151 - marinepenguin
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
I shall return as the filthy heretical atheist neckbeard and refuse to be purged like before
#127202 to #127173 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
i will bring my Canadian friends to deal with you mr. penguin.
#127207 to #127202 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
My resolve shall remain unfaltering.
#127156 to #127151 - thumbfortrump
Reply -1
(01/26/2016) [-]
Yeah right, we are anomalous dude, we are legion and we do not forgive and forget.
#127157 to #127156 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
wanna join?
#127160 to #127157 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
All I can do is shitpost. I literally know nothing about computers n shit.
#127161 to #127160 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
this is what i want exactly.
#127162 to #127161 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Sure.
#127163 to #127162 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
then i will wait and see this shithole being swarmed by cancer or not. for now we have mostly 2 TheBritishBastard and (A)theist
#127190 to #127163 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Fuckin Fite me bithc.
#127200 to #127190 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
nigga i will fug u raw
#127166 to #127163 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I just like taking a piss at people. Just holla when you need some secondgrade memes.
#127167 to #127166 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
you just call fedora neckbeards people?

this is is thebritishbastard. he is an unearthly abomination!
#127168 to #127167 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
is that him?
#127169 to #127168 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
yes. you can see the lack of soul in his eye
#127170 to #127169 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
black eyes..... like a doll's eyes
#127172 to #127170 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
you should see him when he is fatter. with acne and neckbeard and shit
#127154 to #127151 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
i don't think a purge is necessary yet
#127158 to #127154 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
iz fun tbh
#127159 to #127158 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
go ahead with it if u want
#127181 to #127159 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
lulz here

you should have fucking seen what Omar did the last purge, he had a multiple month long conquest against atheists on this board that basically fucking destroyed it and kicked most the atheists out, remember the originals - 8, britishguy, others fucking left because of him
#127198 to #127181 - mvtjets
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
>left the board
>last posted here yesterday

lmao t0p propaganda
#127451 to #127198 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
past events dumbfuck
#127182 to #127181 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
brutal.
#127148 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
/religion/127143#127143

some real hostility here. why are so many atheists like this?
#127185 to #127148 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
Because you're the friendliest type out there?
/religion/127011#127011
#127186 to #127185 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
that comment was made in jest....

actually no it wasn't. you kinda got me there
#127187 to #127186 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
on other hand, my comment was not a personal attack on anyone here
#127149 to #127148 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
want me to start purging it again?
#127152 to #127149 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
how would you go about uh... purging?
#127153 to #127152 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
like the old day. God-Mode shitposting
#127145 - caette
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127132 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/25/2016) [-]
Hey lulz, shockofgod was me all those years ago.

phwew glad to get that off my chest
#127183 to #127132 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
HOLY SHIT

I never knew, I always wondered who that was. I remember when you called me really edgy for listening to children of bodom even though I didn't even like the song I was referencing but you were kinda right though anyhow.

-lulz
#127184 to #127183 - zlane
Reply -1
(01/26/2016) [-]
lol i don't even remember that
#127174 to #127132 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Damn, I had wondered.
#127175 to #127174 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I kept making it more and more obvious and no one seemed to catch on
#127176 to #127175 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
That was right about the time I had left, before Syrians "purges" and nonstop shitposting.
#127177 to #127176 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
i appreciate his devotion
#127178 to #127177 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
His stubbornness is definitely something to be admired.
#127179 to #127178 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
noble, like the stubbornness of the Starks
#127135 to #127132 - caette
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
who cares
#127138 to #127135 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
lulzforsandyhook probably cares a little bit
#127139 to #127138 - caette
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
ok
#127087 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
If you don't believe in god, then you must know that there are aliens that are waiting for us. They chilling up there and some are hiding among us. Roger from American Dad is my nigga and should be yours too.
#127136 to #127087 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
And?
#127103 to #127087 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/25/2016) [-]
>implying space is even real
It's just the ceiling painted black
#127105 to #127103 - whitechino
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
I mean it could be. Just a shity texture we can't see cause we're stuck in the 3rd dimension in a 4th dimension cube.
#127090 to #127087 - caette
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
There's no evidence that aliens exist
#127092 to #127090 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
There is no evidence I can give you, especially you that'll make you see my side. Do you really think apollo 11 was legit from start to finish? Nasa are a group of the shitest people on the planet.
#127122 to #127092 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
yeah, I know you're just fucking around but for the sake of argument... dude... it's a fucking moon. it reflects light off from the sun. there are craters. we've landed on it. get a good enough telescope and you can see the shit we left on it. not to mention there are dozens of other moons in our solar system. it's a very common occurrence for it to happen.
#127123 to #127122 - whitechino
Reply +1
(01/25/2016) [-]
Dude, you can't see anything we left on it. Not the flag, not he tracks, not the shity rover car. Nothing, not even the most powerful telescopes can it. They won't even send a drone to scan the moon because they know they'll have to cover up mad shit. There are a bunch of astronauts who've said they've seen some shit and believe too and these are some of the smartest men on the planet. I'm not fucking, I'm been 99% serious, 1% humor to lighten the mood.
#127093 to #127092 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
remind me again what Apollo 11 was
#127094 to #127093 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
A T.v show. How the hell did you roll me?
#127095 to #127094 - caette
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
then its a tv show. that doesn't mean aliens exist
#127097 to #127095 - whitechino
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
My bro from another mother thousands of years ago, why would they make a fake moon landing? Because the moon is cracked or really fucked up and that there are aliens on top chilling and waiting.
#127098 to #127097 - caette
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
LoL bye
#127100 to #127098 - whitechino
Reply +1
(01/25/2016) [-]
Bro. You must know we can't be alone. You can't be an agnostic and not believe there's something else out there. You're being as egotistical as a fucking christian. "Because It's only us so there can't be someone else" The Universe is unending. Unending, we just found out there's another planet in our system, there's volcanoes on a moon of Jupiter. Mars had water. Shit has been happening before the first cave painting was made. Really what's good with you Fj'ers?
#127101 to #127100 - caette
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
I said LoL bye at your conspiracy theory about the moon with no evidence
I believe it's very unlikely that there isn't life somewhere else in the universe, but still there's no evidence for them.
#127104 to #127101 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
All right give me this answer. Why do you think that moon up there, which Americans and British call Luna is legit? Is it because you've seen it since you were a boy? What if I tell you that the moon struck Mars's Phobos. You can see that Phobos has a white stains from an impact that's suspiciously looks similar to out moon. Just look up the picture. Why do you believe that the moon up there looks guccie normal?
#127107 to #127104 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
also im not sure how this theory would prove aliens live on the moon
#127110 to #127107 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
I can go deep into why I think aliens are there because I don't think that moon is the moon but a projection through a bowl like disk so it looks the same from every angle. Like eyes on a portrait. You're not going to find hard evidence cause the gov hides the evidence. Any shit I show you, you won't believe unless Obama, prince william, or putin release it. Russians want to cause they know America BELIEVES we're on top of the Pyramid, which we are.
#127112 to #127110 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
and im just realizing how inconsistent your theory is.
first you say the moon has a crack on it and aliens live on it
then you say the moon crashed into phobos
then you say the moon is just a projection
I thought from the start you were trolling but this proves it.
#127115 to #127112 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
The moon is cracked because phobos was probably the moon that hit it around 6-8000 years ago before the time of our literacy. What's left of it is hidden behind a projection because If people see it they'll realize how insignificant they truly are and how amazing the universe really is. How can I be trolling if you're the only one here. I remember one day I was with my friend to his car after school. We looked up into the sky and it a big fucking spark of light illuminated the sky above the Atlantic. It's burst like a supernova then shot down towards the horizon like if it was a ship from star wars. I know that shit was not natural. That was a fucking ship, and I hope you see something like that one day.
#127116 to #127115 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
this is boring
#127117 to #127116 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
It's boring cause there's only three people here. If we were next to each other, we'll be laughing and smoking, and getting some head, bro.
#127118 to #127117 - caette
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
wtf
#127119 to #127118 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
I'll love to switch it to politics but I don't think you're even old enough to vote.
#127120 to #127119 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
stop
#127121 to #127120 - whitechino
0
(01/25/2016) [-]
Lol, Ight I guess we'll leave it here, unless you got any questions of why I believe what I believe. I just don't 100% believe that that moon is what you think it is and part of the reason is cause I hate governments too much to believe Nasa on most things.
#127111 to #127110 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
LoL you're using the same kind of persuasion tactics the quran uses "you wont believe because there's no evidence, so there's no point in trying. just letting you know it's true tho"
what reason would the government have to hide something like that? if aliens have always been here then it would never have been surprising or reason to hide it
#127113 to #127111 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
If the U.S tells us, all of us. Then you know how bad it will get if all religions pull up there pants and say bullshit. The other 2 billion will like we want to know, show us, then they'll come. We're called the human RACE- Race meaning who's ever first. If and when we get to space, with our destructive nature, the aliens know too since they've been here before we could talk and huge egos like some people here, would like like to takeover shit, and fuck everything. Look up on proxy servers about alien corpses being found on the moon, chile, and Russia.
#127114 to #127113 - caette
Reply -2
(01/25/2016) [-]
LoL
#127106 to #127104 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
'Grooves and crater chains appear to radiate from Stickney. These have led to theories about the impact that formed Stickney nearly destroying the moon. However, evidence from the Mars Express orbiter indicate that they are unrelated to Stickney and may have been formed by material ejected from impacts on Mars."
#127108 to #127106 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
1-don't cite from Wiki. They still don't know what caused the impact, it's a theory. You can see bullshit from the start cause it said Asaph abandoned looking into it cause of his wife. A woman convinces him to stop adventuring, a fitting end to a mans life.
#127109 to #127108 - caette
Reply -2
(01/25/2016) [-]
then you have no basis to believe this theory over any other, and expecially not believe the moon is cracked and aliens live on it because of an incomplete theory
#127125 to #127109 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
What if I told you these:
The scientist who worked on the Apollo 11 mission went to Antarctica to get some moon rocks and claimed to go there only to test equipment for the affects of intense cold.
Buzz became a Muslim or a deist because In the Quran it said the world will crack and red dust will flow. Keep reading, I need to read more myself.
The pyramid of Dashur used to shine bright enough to the moon at was perfectly aligned to the north poles axis. A lot of ancient wonders from the Mayan pyramid to Stonehenge is too fucking special for us to be smart enough to perfectly align them
#127126 to #127125 - caette
Reply -2
(01/25/2016) [-]
you could tell me they found water on the other side of the moon and I wouldn't look it up
#127127 to #127126 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
I mean there is water on the moon. The aliens got them in bottles. Luna Springs. You won't look it up cause It doesn't interest you cause you know there's nothing you can do about it. But you can do something, the least you can do is educate, and tell the gov that they're liars and enlighten you kids and the next generation who will be able to fly across the sky.
#127128 to #127127 - caette
Reply -2
(01/25/2016) [-]
bye forever retard
#127129 to #127128 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
Nigga, you knoe you love me, and you ain't going no where. Remember you're on the same site as me, on the same planet as me. So there's nothing special about neither of us.
#127060 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
guys the quran is uber wack yo
countless times it says you go to hell for not believing, clear as day.
what kind of loving merciful god would do this? I can't help what I believe, that's beyond my control. just because I'm unconvinced in believing something, that's worthy of burning in unbearable torture of all eternity?
#127208 to #127060 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Loving... Merciful...
They're trying to bring back that old testament hater Jew god
Why are you still reading that garbage
#127209 to #127208 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
he's a loving all merciful god. it literally says it every page
#127131 to #127060 - shekelnator
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
well of course it says that.

it is how you fail exams for not studying.
#127134 to #127131 - caette
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
???????????????????????????
#127133 to #127131 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
You also fail exams if you lack critical thinking
#127137 to #127133 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
and this is how u go to hell.
#127140 to #127137 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
Or how you waste the precious little time we have
Ready to roll the dice?
#127141 to #127140 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/25/2016) [-]
>benefits
>wasting time for it
>MFW
#127062 to #127060 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I believe you can directly choose your beliefs because i believe in freewill, but even under your worldview you can still choose to ignore or pay attention to information which will shape your beliefs, and you can choose to give some beliefs more credence than others.

>just because I'm unconvinced in believing something, that's worthy of burning in unbearable torture of all eternity?

You're committing an offense against an infinitely great being, therefore the offense is infinite and warrants infinite punishment
#127064 to #127062 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I can easily pretend to believe, but that's apparently not good enough. I actually have to change my entire way of thinking to believe in something I'm unconvinced is real. That's impossible to do.
That's like if I told you there's a wall next to you in while we're in the middle of the desert. can you choose to believe there's a wall there even when the evidence of there visually not being anything there and you can't touch it?
#127068 to #127064 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
you're saying you have no control over your subconcious. this ability can be learned. the mind can be trained to do things that seem impossible
#127070 to #127068 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
that's not fair.
so people who are indoctrinated into faith never have to think about it are automatically allowed in heaven cause they never gave it thought
what you're telling me is that now I have to undo 10 years of education of philosophy and religion so that I can blindly follow a religion which has absolutely no evidence that it is even true in the slightest
#127072 to #127070 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
i don't see how you have to undo your education. education doesn't entail atheism.
God doesn't want you follow Him blindly. He wants you to see the evidence and more importantly, to experience His mercy and love
#127074 to #127072 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
But there is no evidence. Anytime anyone ever says they find evidence it gets debunked immediately.
#127076 to #127074 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Your experience with God is more important than the evidence. but I think there are many unrefuted arguemnts for Christianity
#127078 to #127076 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
my experience with god? I have no experience with god and you can't prove that I do.
#127081 to #127078 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
you've repressed your experiences in unrighteousness. luckily you can have new experiences with God if you want to
#127083 to #127081 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
LoL
#127063 to #127062 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
That's entirely wrong. I can't choose to believe in something if I'm unconvinced of its existence.

And I'm not committing any offense against any being. All I'm saying is I fail to see how I could believe. That's not my fault.
#127067 to #127063 - zlane
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
my experience of my own consciousness leads me to believe that it is possible to choose beliefs. everyone deserves to go to hell, but God is merciful and provides a way out. if you refuse to accept this offer you suffer the consequences
#127069 to #127067 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
lmao
that's a poisonous way of thinking.
so god MADE us all to be deserving of hell
this is how he designed us
god MADE hell
god SENDS us there because he sees us not good enough for him
but he's merciful enough to provide a way out of going to hell

that's like building a toy that's designed to be broken then yelling at the toy for not working right
#127071 to #127069 - zlane
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
He gave us freewill. freewill entails the ability to sin which makes us deserving of hell. What would be the point of making us incapable of sinning? we'd have no more value than a machine
#127073 to #127071 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
What IS the point? I still fail to see it.
Why did he create inadequate humans just so he could torture them for not being perfect? Especially since nobody even heard of this god until less than 4 thousand years ago
did literally all humans before that go to hell for not believing in Yahweh?
#127075 to #127073 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
The point was to create valuable, morally free agents who can freely choice to accept Him. take away that freedom and there is no point
#127077 to #127075 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
there's a difference between freewill of actually committing sin or not
and knowing whether or not sin is actually a thing.
If I am unconvinced that sin is real, I have no reason to take those commandments seriously, therefore I see nothing wrong with breaking them
if I knew this commandments had actual consequences, I can them CHOOSE to still commit sin or not. The freewill is still there

if god revealed himself and we all believed in him, we would still all have freewill to worship him and sin or not.
#127080 to #127077 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
i think you're unconvinced because of choices you've made. you've chosen to listen and give credence to atheistic ideas and arguments. You've chosen to ignore arguments in favor of Christianity.

He WILL reveal Himself to you if you ask
#127082 to #127080 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
LoL
#127211 to #127082 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Why are you wasting time with that robot
I swear caette, you suffer too many fools and waste too steps rehashing tired ass biblical drivel
#127213 to #127211 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
hi
#127218 to #127213 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
who is that fag?
#127232 to #127218 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
idk
#127235 to #127232 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I'm in the process of tracking him down. He will not last
#127056 - caette
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
my big piranha don't want none unless you fry the bun
oh my bod
look at that cud
oh my god
I like halibut
#127057 to #127056 - anon
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
#127030 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
The way i view it, the debates here are not about changing the mind of the person you're debating, they're more about providing information for the onlookers and possibly changing their minds or getting them to see things from a different perspective.
#127091 to #127030 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
We can show different perspectives here so everyone can get a 360 view of the topic and connect the missing answers in our history and for the future since religion is going to be here till either the sun implodes, Jesus comes for us, or aliens get tired of waiting for us to advance.
#127033 to #127030 - caette
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
but that's wrong
#127047 to #127033 - theism
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
That's how the vast majority of debates go though.
#127050 to #127047 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
who cares
#127051 to #127050 - theism
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
You should because you're fundamentally wrong.
#127052 to #127051 - caette
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
nope
#127053 to #127052 - theism
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
OH MY GOD, SHUT THE FUCK UP
#127054 to #127053 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
#127055 to #127054 - theism
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
#127037 to #127033 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
nobody here debating is going to be swayed, but some onlooker who's on the fence on some issue might be.
#127039 to #127037 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I could be wrong about a fundamental fact that you could correct me on
#127041 to #127039 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
well i'm glad that you're amenable to reason, but most here aren't.
#126992 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
**caette used "*roll picture*"**
**caette rolled image**
Almost half way through the quran
what should I read next?
I'm thinking book of Mormon only because 99% of my family is Mormon and Mormons are inclined to believe that simply reading the book is enough to convince anyone that it's true and I take that as a challenge.
#127038 to #126992 - whitechino
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
ya should, it's the newest and most interesting new testament of Jesus.
#127040 to #127038 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
stop
#127042 to #127040 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
send me private mess if there's a prob
#127043 to #127042 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
are you Mormon
#127044 to #127043 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
No, but I get the main points of those guys. But you know, they're the same as every other church. Except theirs is more like a big vanilla castle.
#127045 to #127044 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
stop
#127046 to #127045 - whitechino
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
It's not like anyone else want's to talk to you
#127008 to #126992 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I believe every set of beliefs should be investigated, but the quran is such a virulent, mind-poisoning book that maybe it should be disregarded by everyone without consideration. I understand its historical significance, but still it should be forgotten by humanity.
#127212 to #127008 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
As should the bible
#127214 to #127212 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
coward
#127010 to #127008 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
too bad 1.6 billion people believe it and I still want to understand their point of view.
#127011 to #127010 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
too bad those 1.6 billion people exist
#127012 to #127011 - caette
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
regardless
#126941 - anon
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
lulz are u still here? hope you keep comin back
#126982 to #126941 - anon
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
yes of course, its easy to change my IP

its been like this since August dude
#127007 to #126982 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
i wish your comments would stop being deleted.
#126923 - zlane
Reply +2
(01/24/2016) [-]
Well I think it's safe to say there's no other YECs here....
#126985 to #126923 - anon
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Omar is anti-evolution and YEC so he can comment on that
#126943 to #126923 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
You were always pretty much alone on that position.
I'm pretty much the opposite radicalism on the creation "spectrum"
#126944 to #126943 - zlane
Reply +2
(01/24/2016) [-]
I've come to accept that the age of the earth, and other aspects of YEC are not that important. I know it's possible to be a good Christian and yet believe in evolution and an old earth
#126946 to #126944 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Although I now remember that we had a mormon here for a while which are usually YEC
Also when I say racial I mean really radical, I doubt my views are common
#126924 to #126923 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
i like how idiot scientist compare god years to our years.
#126925 to #126924 - zlane
Reply +2
(01/24/2016) [-]
I think they overstretch the purview of science, applying it where it isn't meant to be applied in some cases. secularists view the evidence through the lens of 'scientism' which is obviously a very flawed philosophy.
#126926 to #126925 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
secularist cant see because they are blind from their heart that even their "Proofs" playing the same game as religion does. not even science and evidence is safe from the power of time.

the thing is God explain the universe in HIS own view and NOT our view.

in my religion, a day to God is like equals a thousand years of our years. quran 22:47

BUT WAIT! what is our year exactly? which year do we follow? the jewish? the muslim? the christian? north korean??? the day when universe is created????!!! or the day since the first man stepped foot in this earth and started to make the first date of man from his first breath??
#126927 to #126926 - zlane
Reply +2
(01/24/2016) [-]
the evidence for their claims is actually equally supportive of my beliefs. they're just interpreting it differently. to extrapolate evolution and an old earth from the geologic column, fossil record, carbon dating etc... is, in my opinion, a bigger leap of faith than any claim proposed by YEC.
#126928 to #126927 - shekelnator
Reply +2
(01/24/2016) [-]
evolution does make sense you know that right? but it wouldn't make sense if the creation didnt exist from the beginning.

Look at you keyboard as an example. it changed quit a lot from heavy plastic and circuit board machine to a wireless light weight flat machine.

in here comes my philosophy of the Evolutionary Creationism. things change time by time by creating the same thing with some modification.
#127049 to #126928 - whitechino
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
^thank you
#126929 to #126928 - zlane
Reply +2
(01/24/2016) [-]
i think evolution looks good on the surface to people who are unversed in logic and scientific rigor. it only takes a tiny bit of critical examination to see the gaping holes present in it's tenets. for example, to extrapolate macro evolution from micro evolution, you commit the fallacy of composition. any first year philosophy student should see right through evolution. from a scientific perspective, genetic entropy completely debunks evolution.

I like the keyboard analogy.
#126987 to #126929 - anon
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Can you show any holes in the evolution theory?
-lulz
#126993 to #126987 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
genetic entropy pokes one giant-ass hole in evolution
#126999 to #126993 - anon
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Will check it out, anything else?
#127003 to #126999 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
irreducible complexity is a big one. there are plenty of other lines of anti-evolutionary evidence though. conservapedia's articles are a good place to start researching
#126886 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
AMA: A Protestant Anti-Literalist.
#126895 to #126886 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
What is the right interpretation of the Bible?
#127124 to #126895 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
In my opinion, it'd have to come from a moral and cultural place as opposed to a literal, dogmatic one.
#127378 to #127124 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Wow, that's the most rational thing I've ever seen you say
#126894 to #126886 - whoozy
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#126890 to #126886 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
>Protestant
>Anti-Literalist
>implying that even exists
#126885 - theism
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Scenario:

-Due to the physical strain of crucifixion Jesus falls unconscious on the cross.
-As has been known to happen somebody mistakes this for death
-Later in the cave he regains consciousness
-This is mistaken for a resurrection

Plausible?
#126919 to #126885 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
If you were to consider the gospels as accurate they put spears in his side to make sure he was dead. A more plausable explanation is that someone else claimed to be him, since people, even his own mother didn't recognise him and thought he was a gardener. Or considering that the vast majority of hallucinations are of someone who recently died and that the most inconsistent parts of the gospels are the ressurection sections it seems they were hallucinations to me, the earliest account has a boy saying he has risen, the last ones have angels and earthquakes and levitation. So there seems to be more ellaboration over time. Any naturalistic explanation is more plausable than a supernatural explanation, even if the naturalistic explanation is very implausable. There aren't many accounts of people being mistaken for the dead, but there are 0 accounts of the supernatural. There are a lot of accounts of people seeing loved ones who recently past, so I don't think it's implausable at all. I don't consider the gospels to be reliable historically though.
#126922 to #126919 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Really? the best explanation is that they hallucinated or mistook Him for someone else? In that case, there should be evidence of mental illness among the disciples, but there is no evidence of this. All evidence points to the disciples being reliable sources who accurately reported everything they witnessed.

>So there seems to be more ellaboration over time

you confuse the factual sequence of events with elaboration/exaggeration

>Any naturalistic explanation is more plausable than a supernatural explanation

you're just admitting to an anti-supernatural predisposition here. goes to show how biased, and unsophisticated your thinking is in this regard.

>there are 0 accounts of the supernatural

not true. just one example- the disciples accounts. they're considered accurate by most Biblical scholars.
#127972 to #126922 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
//we know there was an empty tomb, that's the important bit.// How did you determine that from me saying that Paul made no reference to an empty tomb and that no ones found Jesus's tomb? how could you possibly think I would agree to that?

>if there was an empty tomb it would be very mundane as there are lots of empty tombs but not lots of resurections.

this is something that Bart Airhead said IIRC? its a shitty piece of rhetoric. Jesus' tomb was found empty, and there's no plausible naturalistic explanation of this.// Yes, mentuioning that a highly respected New Testament scholar who is respected among his peers agrees with me will discredit this. Implausable things happen every day, that we would have this conversation is very implausable considering all the things that had to happen in order for us to speak. A naturalistic explanation doesn't have to bhe plausable it only has to be more plausable than something which is defined as miraculous,. defined as implausable. So any naturalistic explanation is more plausable than a supernatural one. But I don't have to explain something which has no mention in history and that no one can find, I don't require an explanation for something that has no evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

//i can't give you an exact number for a conditional probability. i can give you a mathematical ratio of the variables showing what's more likely to be the case//
Unless I know what value the ratios are it's a waste of everyones time.

//> you don't know what you're talking about. An empty tomb would more likly be evidence of a robbery or trick than a ressurection.

again you refer to the intrinsic probability while ignoring the whole evidential aspect, showing that you, not me, is the one who doesnt know what they're talking about//
One is so intrinsictly more probable than the other, which is defined as being so implausable that it goes against the laws of nature, the other factors are irrelevant. The starting probability of both things before you consider the other factors are so imbalanced that the other factors are irrelevant.
#127977 to #127972 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
>Yes, mentuioning that a highly respected New Testament scholar who is respected among his peers agrees with me will discredit this.

not what i said mate.

>A naturalistic explanation doesn't have to bhe plausable it only has to be more plausable than something which is defined as miraculous,. defined as implausable. So any naturalistic explanation is more plausable than a supernatural one

assuming that any naturalistic explanation is more plausible is an unjustified bias. you have to refute God's existence to support this claim

>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

the evidence is the post mortem sightings and the fact that there's no natural explanation for the empty tomb

>One is so intrinsictly more probable than the other, which is defined as being so implausable that it goes against the laws of nature, the other factors are irrelevant.

only on atheism. you haven't supported your atheistic assessment of the facts
#127982 to #127977 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
You're clearly trying to discredit Bart Ehrman by calling him airhead, although him agreeing with me helps my case, so I don't know why you say it like it is a point for you that a highly respected New Testament scholar thinks your arguments are bullshit, if I were you I would be embaressed by that.

//you have to refute God's existence to support this claim//
My probability of 1/6000 has gone unrefuted mate. I don't have to disprove something that hasn't been proven, in fact I can't. You have provided no point for a ressurection that has been the least bit convincing nevermind for a God.

Thinking that walking across ice is more plausable than walking across water is a justified position. That's not controvoersial among anyone, if these things were just as likely as each other then the miracles would not be miraculous. Miracles are miraculous, they are not common and likely. However I've already demonstrated that there's a fair chance of hallucination or mistaken identity as that's very common.

Answer the question, what's more plausable walking across ice or water?

There's no evidence for a tomb am I talking to a fucking bot, are you even reading my points? I always expect that when I say that there's no evidence for an empty tomb you will try to provide some but instead you make blind statements with no sources or evidence and what the fuck do you expect me to be convinced by that? do you expect me to say "Well I needed evidence but instead I got a repetition of the claim with no evidence, that's convincing to me!" are you high?

Anecdotal evidence is worth next to nothing, next to nothing, guess what third person, anonymous, outdated, inconsistent and hisorically innacurate anecdotal evidence is worth? nothing!

Again I've already demonstrated that even if I accept theism there's a 1/6000 chance and that's being very liberal. Unless the theistic religion accepts that miracles are so everyday that they are just as likely to happen as eating breakfast this is true irregardless of whether there's a God.
#127984 to #127982 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
do you really want to continue this debate?

>My probability of 1/6000 has gone unrefuted mate.

irrelevant because it ignores the evidence

>Miracles are miraculous, they are not common and likely.

mate i've explained this, the question is not whether miracles are common in every day life, the question is that, based on all the background info and evidence, is a miracle the most likely explanation for the resurrection. it doesn't matter if miracles are uncommon, if the evidence points to one, then that's the most likely scenario

>However I've already demonstrated that there's a fair chance of hallucination or mistaken identity as that's very common.

not in this case, as ive explained

>Anecdotal evidence is worth next to nothing

over 500 people witnessed and had experiences with Jesus after His crucifixion- this is an established fact. they couldn't have all collectively hallucinated
#127997 to #127984 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
I'll go as long as you do.

You've given me no evidence of a God, even if you could prove a resurection that would be as much proof of God as it is proof of voodoo, zombies, ghosts etc.

In order to ask what's more likely you must consider the likelyhood of both things. How you determine likelyhood is by how common something is. It is common to see dead loved ones. It's common for your identity to be mistaken. It's common for graves to be robbed. It's common for stories to be made up and exagerated by religious groups. What's definitely not common is for someone to come back from the dead, that's something which has never been demonstrated. If how common something is is irrelevant when you consider probability then you would fail at a maths test. If in town A people are hit by cars every single day you are likely to be hit by a car. If in a town B no one has been hit by a car in 10 years then you are unlikely to be hit by a car. This is taught to children. Which town would you visit A or B? I hope you choose A so that your hit by a car and can't reproduce.

I've seen people pretend to be peoples loved ones who have died to reduce the confusion of Alzheimers patients and I've met people who say they have lkong conversations with their loved ones who have died long ago. These aren't implausable explanations.

There are 500 eye witness accounts? oh no, wait, no, there's not even one. What you mean to say is that in your book it says with no evidence that over 500 people saw it. That is also worth nothing. The whole of Mecca saw Muhammad flty away in a winged horse. Do you consider that to be strong evidence or do you consider that to be complete shit?
#128001 to #127997 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
>You've given me no evidence of a God,

you've just ignored it all or explained it away with fallacies

Natural explanations may be preferred in almost every situation, but this situation is different, there's evidence suggesting a super natural cause that you will never accept
#128284 to #128001 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
Fcuk this, your not laying out a case you're just making assertions, there's no point talking to you you may as well talk to a wall.
#128411 to #128284 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/31/2016) [-]
go ahaed, even a wall could refute your claims
#127036 to #126922 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
As I said the most common hallucination is a dead loved one, I have even mistaken several people for my Mum after she died and my Dad used to see her walking to the door but there was no one there. It's very common I've spoken to several people who aren't in any way mentally ill who have seen ghosts.

His own mother didn't recognise him.
"He asked her, "Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.""
So it could be that he was a gardener and he went along with it to make her feel better. Is that likely? no. Is it more likely that he came back from the dead, is the son of God, is God, born from a virgin etc. yes of course it's more likely because it's within the realm of physics, it's physically possible and has happened before in many cases, for instance with people who have alzheimers sometimes people do pretend to be their dead loved ones.

One gospel writer said that there was one angel, another said two angels, another said a man and another said they were alone. This is just one of many contradictions between the gospel writers. Who were of course anonymous and writing long after the event in the third person. They have no historical value. Biblical scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman on the Gospels

Probability is based upon how many times something has happened. If someone walks on frozen water it's not implausable or unlikely because it happens every single day. If someone walks on liquid water then that is very implausable, it's not very common at all. So naturalistic things like walking on ice are plausable while supernatural things like walking on water are implausable and miraculous, there implausability is what makes them miraculous. The words are even interchangeable. Historians jobs are to find what is the most likely explanation, so using history to find something miraculous is just cute.

I'm sure that chemtrails are considered to be poisonous to most conspiracy theorists to, it's not worth anything though. If you want to prove the supernatural you must try better than anecdotes, I have heard many personal anecdotes about bigfoot, elvis, aliens, ghosts, illuminati, witches, monsters etc. and they are written in the first person shortly after the event, so they are more reliable than the gospels.
#127048 to #127036 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
to persistently hallucinate something is mental illness. there was no mental illness among the disciples. visions of Jesus were experienced by multiple people, people had interactions with Him, this can't be explained away by mental illness or hallucination. the reports are consistent. any inconsistencies were from mistranslation rather than differing experiences of the people who witnessed Jesus after crucifiction.

Bart Airhead does not understand Bayesian probability. something like walking on water is extremely implausible IF it occurs naturally. the probability that it could happen supernaturally is not established. you have yet to demonstrate the implausibility of supernatural events. to say that any natural event is more plausible than a supernatural event is simply an anti-supernatural bias. it's not supported by anything other than opinion

most of the personal anecdotes you mentioned (some of which are true) are not comparable to the accounts of Jesus' miracles, which were supported by reliable, independent sources
#127058 to #127048 - thebritishguy
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
Wow didn't realise you were a psychologist. They saw Jesus once, that's not persistent. Seeing or hearing things is very common, once I didn't sleep for 3 days and I started seeing faces watching me in all the windows. I'm not just saying it's common anecdotally though
"Studies indicate (link is external) that almost half of widowed elderly Americans experience a hallucination of the departed spouse, and such after-death communications appear to be a healthy coping mechanism and a normal part of the bereavement process (link is external)." www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-ooze/201507/why-some-people-see-ghosts-and-other-apparitions

There is a 50 percent chance, so actually this isn't implausable at all, there's a fair chance of it happening. Of course you are completely ignoring that these accounts were anonymous in third person though, by saying that these were there experiences rather than hear say of their experiences many years after the event by who knows who. More accurate anecdotes of people still being alive are the ones of Elvis or Tupac, these happened directly after the event and were in first person.

In some specific cases it was because of mistranslation, like whether Mary was alone or not. However Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar so the examples he uses are valid. It is in no way consistent, it starts with a boy saying he has risen and ends in angels, earthquakes, levitation, meeting the discieples. Clearly the tale has changed over time. Particularly that specific aspect of it, the ressurection, as opposed to the historic elements which were largely consistent. The truth doesn't change over time in this way, but myths and legends always do.

Bayesian probability doesn't have any method of distinguishing between natural and supernatural because it's not fucking woo, it's mathematically valid. You can't calculate the probability of fairies using Bayes theorum that's silly. If somethings common it's plausable, if somethings rare it's implausable. Is walking on water common?

Even if Jesus did walk on water it would still be unlikely, the event of walking on water would be something that's been done once in humanity. I don't have to do shit about supernatural events until you meet the burden of proof and demonstrate that supernatural events have happened. If anecdotal evidence meets the burden of proof then Tupac being alive or Elvis surviving also meets the burden of proof.

They clearly aren't as reliable as the first person accounts which happened shortly after the event like the people who saw Elvis or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Also these people aren't anonymous so they are far more reliable historically.
#127059 to #127058 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
They didn't just see him for a split second. they interacted with Him, talked to Him, Thomas felt his wounds. the nature of the hallucinations you're describing in the first paragraph aren't at all like the experiences people had with Jesus after His crucifiction. The accounts are given by Paul who has a proven track record of reliability

>Bayesian probability doesn't have any method of distinguishing between natural and supernatural

I'm saying it can be applied here without an anti-supernatural bias. On what basis can you say that Jesus' miracles were improbable if they were supernatural? how do you know that supernatural events are impossible or that they're unlikely to have happened in this context?
#127061 to #127059 - thebritishguy
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
Well according to the most reliable source, as it was the first one written just 30 years afterwards (keep in mind how a story would change if it's spread through word of mouth for 30 years) a boy just said he has risen and then the story ends. So in the earliest and most reliable account no one sees him except for some boy, who isn't even mentioned in the other stories there are angels or men or no one. I've known people who have spoken to their dead wives or husbands that's not uncommon either but again, those accounts aren't even conistent with the most reliable source.

Paul never saw Jesus and he didn't write the gospels. If I have a crazy story about seeing David Bowie and an expert writes my crazy story down, does that make it more valid just because experts have written down my story? of course not. There's no difference between me telling you the story or an expert telling you the story, except if I told you the story it would be more reliable because it would be a first hand, eye witness account.

Science has an anti-supernatural bias, when you base an epistemology on distinguishing what is fact and fiction it will always have a bias against the supernatural. When you have a body of knowledge it has an anti-supernatural bias. Reality is biased against the supernatural.

Improbable means that it doesn't happen very much, it is rare. If something only happens once it is rare, therefore it is unlikely. If something only happens once it's unlikely, if something happens alot then it is likely. Those aren't my opinion that is what those words literally mean. I never said they were impossible I said they were implausable.
#127130 to #127061 - improbable
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
thx for the mention
#127142 to #127130 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
it's cool fam
#127065 to #127061 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Jewish oral traditions were highly practiced, developed and reliable. to report something inaccurately was highly shameful

>Paul never saw Jesus and he didn't write the gospels

doesn't matter

>Science has an anti-supernatural bias

modern science does have this bias and really shouldn't, but that's irrelevant. this isn't science. there's no science involved in assessing the probability of Jesus' miracles.

how do you know that it was improbable for a supernatural event to occur in the context of Jesus' life? How can you demonstrate that supernatural rarely occur?
#127079 to #127065 - thebritishguy
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
In the game of Chinese whispers there are similar rules and usually the games last a few minutes rather than 30 years and they still end up with bollocks at the end of the game. People usually make mistakes in the retelling of stories by accident, when we remember our childhood we are remembering memories rather than actually remembering the account itself. Which is why you revise, you remember the memory from revising you don't remember the first time you learnt the subject. Otherwise you wouldn't need to revise you'd just remember hearing it for the first time, if only that were true. Even when my relatives are trying to retell stories they often have completely different accounts even though they are trying desperately to remember the story.
These accounts are still far less reliable than first hand and historically accurate accounts of Tupac, Loch Ness Monster and Elvis and you completely disregard them. Don't you see the irony?

It matters to Historians or in the court of law. If you were in court and your evidence was a third person account written 30 years after the crime anonymously rather than an eye witness testimony from after the crime it would matter to the court room, you must believe that or you really have no idea wtf you're talking about. If you think the lawyer would shrug and say "it doesn't matter"!?

Bayes theorum is used in Science and Mathematics. If it isn't science and it isn't mathematics then why are you talking about Bayes theorum? if this is just nice stories then don't try and implement scientific and methematical tools to this discussion. If there's no assessment of probability don't start talking about a theorum which assess's probability it's entirely irrelevant.

My claim is that natural things happen more than the supernatural so they are more likely. If supernatural things happen all the times miracles would not be miraculous they would be boring and mundane, miracles are miraculous, they are less likely to happen than say, a door opening. This is assuming that miracles happen, which you haven't met the burden of proof for in any way, you've only given me evidence which would be laughed at in a court of law.
#127084 to #127079 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
first century Palestine was an oral culture, and therefore the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly developed skill. children were taught to memorize large tracts of oral tradition. The disciples would have been very careful to not add or subtract any of Jesus' teachings.

bayes theorem can be used to assess events. it's called conditional probability.

>My claim is that natural things happen more than the supernatural so they are more likely.

But in this context a supernatural event may have been very likely. You can't demonstrate that it was not. miracles don't appear to happen very often, but how do you know that they're unlikely to happen in special circumstances or situations?
#127085 to #127084 - thebritishguy
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
The disciples didn't write the story it was written by a highly literate Greek person, the Palestinians didn't even write it.

Give me the number of the probability? if you have calculated it using Bayes theorum then give me the number.

I can't demonstrate that there is not a 10 foot black man who is fucking you in the ass with no lube, that doesn't mean that it's credible or reliable. There are already more plausable naturalistic explanation, explanations which are very common like mistaken identities or seeing a lost loved one which happens 50 percent of the time. There's nothing special about seeing someone who died, there's a fair chance of it happening.
#127086 to #127085 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
Palestinians carried the traditional before it was written. the disciples almost certainly didn't embellish the accounts

in order to figure out the probability of the resurrection, you have to factor background knowledge of the world apart from any evidence for the resurrection, and the specific evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. if the only factor you consider is the intrinsic probability of the resurrection alone, apart from other factors, the probability appears quite low, but this is fallacious reasoning.

the intrinsic probability of a miracle occurring at all is distinct from the specific probability of a miracle occurring in a given context.

In order to show that the resurrection theory is improbable you’d have to show that God’s existence is improbable. you can't do that
#127088 to #127086 - thebritishguy
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
Zombies, levitation, angels, meeting a dead person, earthquakes. No they didn't embelish at all. Except for all that embellishment that was added after the first account of Mark.

What a suprise, Bayes theorum was entirely irrelevant, if only I could have predicte- oh wait I knew you weren't going to use Bayes theorum the first time you trotted it out.

You must demonstrate that it is probable, I've already explined that even if it did happen it is improbable because it only happened once, one time events are by definition improbable.

This has nothing to do with Gods existence. God could exist and not ressurect anyone. Someone could ressurect and God could not exist. I can do a very basic probability though because there are about 6000 Gods recognised in the Encyclopedia of religion so if I assume that a God exists the probability of any one God existing would be 1/6000. That's assuming that a God exists.
#127089 to #127088 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/25/2016) [-]
i'm not aware of any evidence of embellishment

>What a suprise, Bayes theorum was entirely irrelevant

No....factoring information like this IS baye's theorem. I just haven't put it into an equation, which can be done.

>You must demonstrate that it is probable, I've already explined that even if it did happen it is improbable because it only happened once, one time events are by definition improbable.

the probability relative to the specific evidence (empty tomb, post-mortem appearances) is very high.
you're saying resurrection is an improbable explanation because it only happened once? that doesn't logically follow. you're not understanding the difference between the probability of the resurrection given the evidence and the probability of the resurrection in the absence of this evidence. the probability of a specific event is always relative to a body of background information

>This has nothing to do with Gods existence.

If God exists, the resurrection is very plausible, if God does not exist, the resurrection is incredibly implausible
#127096 to #127089 - thebritishguy
Reply -1
(01/25/2016) [-]
Your not aware.

Put up or shut up.

Which empty tomb are you talking about? there are thousands of empty tombs, so do you think there are thousands of ressurections?
//the probability of a specific event is always relative to a body of background information //
That background information includes how many times something happens. For instance if you live in a place where people are constantly attacked by cats then the likelyhood that you're going to be attacked by cats is very high. If you live in a place where it never rains then the likelyhood that it will rain is very low. Lets also include the background information I have provided, there's a 50% chance of people seeing him after he has died and also there's a chance that he was a gardener and he was playing along like many people do with Alzheimers patients every day. I don't have to refute this just listen to yourself talk and realise what you have done.

If God exists a lot of people still die without being ressurected, if Jesus was the only person to be ressurected the probability of ressurection would be 1/billions of billions. If God exists ressurection is still unlikely since it happens to one in billions of billions of people. You could also say that if voodoo exists then it is very plausable. You've completely ignored my calculation though it is roughly 1/6000 that's not including the Hindu Gods which there are millions of and assuming that one god exists.
#127102 to #127096 - zlane
Reply +2
(01/25/2016) [-]
Let B stand for the background knowledge of the world apart from any evidence for the resurrection.
Let E stand for the specific evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.
Let R stand for Jesus’ resurrection.

R/B would be the intrinsic probability alone

R/B x E/B&R would be the intrinsic probability with the evidence factored in
#127971 to #127102 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
Congratulations, you've wasted both mine and your time creating an equation which no one can solve to prove what exactly? fuck knows.
#127976 to #127971 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
your choice to waste your own time mate.
the formula is obviously not complete, these are just factors
#127143 to #127102 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Give me the number then faggot.
#127147 to #127143 - zlane
Reply +2
(01/26/2016) [-]
we're talking about conditional probability here. i gave you the necessary information to put it into an equation. Pr (not-R/B) × Pr (E/B& not-R)
#127155 to #127147 - thebritishguy
Reply -1
(01/26/2016) [-]
The probability should be something like 0.5, that would be a fair chance. What is the probability?
#127165 to #127155 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
you're not looking at the full scope of the probability calculus
#127099 to #127096 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/25/2016) [-]
pretty sure you know which empty tomb i'm referring to.

>That background information includes how many times something happens
>if Jesus was the only person to be ressurected the probability of ressurection would be 1/billions of billions.

If you just factor this information and nothing else, the resurrection is very implausible. given our general knowledge of the world, resurrection seems very unlikely to occur. this is the intrinsic probability of the resurrection.

So now the evidence of Jesus' , like the post-mortem appearances, needs to be factored in against the background information in a mathematical ratio. after factoring in the evidence, it becomes clear that probability is not extremely low.

why aren't you getting this?
#127144 to #127099 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
No ones found an empty tomb which they can show belonged to Jesus. I don't know what you're talking about.

I've already mentioned that there's a 50 percent chance that they would hallucinate and see Jesus as 50% of widowers do. So there's a 50% chance that Mary hallucinated and a 1/bilions of billions chance that he ressurected. I'm not a mathematician but I know which explanation is more likely. Also a 1/6000 chance that any given God exists, roughly and under the assumption that a God exists.
#127146 to #127144 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
the exact location of the tomb isn't actually important. Paul’s testimony of the empty tomb is sufficient evidence. plus, It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb wasn't empty

you're just not getting what i'm saying. in light of the evidence(i mentioned the post mortem appearances, Paul's testimony, empty tomb) the likelihood is high
#127150 to #127146 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Again for you it isn't important because you are in no way a credible source on anything. To historians it's extremely important. Paul never mentions an empty tomb, I don't even know if there was a tomb as there's no evidence of one but if there was an empty tomb it would be very mundane as there are lots of empty tombs but not lots of resurections.

Calculate it then. An empty tomb, if you found one, would be evidence of an empty tomb. If you say that an empty tomb is evidence of anything other than an empty tomb then you are talking beyond what is known, you don't know what you're talking about. An empty tomb would more likly be evidence of a robbery or trick than a ressurection.
#127164 to #127150 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
we know there was an empty tomb, that's the important bit.

>if there was an empty tomb it would be very mundane as there are lots of empty tombs but not lots of resurections.

this is something that Bart Airhead said IIRC? its a shitty piece of rhetoric. Jesus' tomb was found empty, and there's no plausible naturalistic explanation of this.

i can't give you an exact number for a conditional probability. i can give you a mathematical ratio of the variables showing what's more likely to be the case

> you don't know what you're talking about. An empty tomb would more likly be evidence of a robbery or trick than a ressurection.

again you refer to the intrinsic probability while ignoring the whole evidential aspect, showing that you, not me, is the one who doesnt know what they're talking about
#127066 to #127065 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
supernatural events*
#126940 to #126922 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Disciples accounts is evidence?
#126945 to #126940 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
They are bio- and historiographical, if you remove the literal aspects such as references to the OT, mytholoigcal motivs i.e. parthenogenesis etc you have at the core a reflection of history, and now before you come "unhistoricity" I have to remind you that writing like that was quite common in the hellenic and latin antiquity for example the biography of Hannibal by Livius contains parts that the author could not possible have known.
#126948 to #126945 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Literal sources are great for experiencing the mindset of the people who wrote it. But they cannot be taken as direct evidence for a spesific event without multiple sources and/or archeological data to back it up.

There's a reason a lot of fields cooperate studying history. It's important to remember that our history is made by the people of the present who's interpreting the past.
#126951 to #126948 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
There are multiple sources.

to demand archaeological evidence of miracles is outrageous and completely illogical. Bayes Theorem can be used to establish a past event, super natural or not.
#126953 to #126951 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Religion and/or "miracles" is manifest in every society.
The mythology of ancient Greece, Pagan mythology etc.

Every one of these communities genuinely believed in their religion as it was an important part of their society. We're no different today.
These beliefs are separated from the actual world for logical reasons. The story of Jesus and the miracles he performed is no different.
#126955 to #126953 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
I think you've run away from my point. but i'll address your points anyway

Jesus' miracles and resurrection is not comparable with myths legends or other religious doctrine. This is because these events are supported by multiple independent sources.

what supposed logical reasons are there to deny Jesus' miracles?
#126959 to #126955 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
Multiple independendt sources? Like who?
Jesus story was believed by his followers. Just like any other religion.

When religion spreads you'll obviously have multiple people supporting these events.

Miracles are illogical because there isn't a scientific explanation for them. It simply means beyond the realm of logic.
#126960 to #126959 - zlane
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
The established appearances to Peter, the twelve disciples, the 500 witnesses, and James is not sufficient evidence? nothing at all about the past can be established using your standards, rendering these standards useless

>When religion spreads you'll obviously have multiple people supporting these events.

Hence the value of concurrent reports.

>Miracles are illogical because there isn't a scientific explanation for them. It simply means beyond the realm of logic.

Classic misunderstanding of the laws of logic. physical laws and laws of logic are two separate categories of things
#126969 to #126960 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Thousands of people claim to see UFOs. Is this evidence that we're being watched by aliens?

These 500 witnesses of yours, are they written down in separate books by people who didn't have any contact with each other. Or are people actively being converted by this exiting new fate that promises salvation for all?
#126972 to #126969 - zlane
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
Their claims are wildly inconsistent. are there any consistent physical descriptions of aliens or their ships, tools, etc.?

>Or are people actively being converted by this exiting new fate that promises salvation for all?

these people were not invested in Christianity before this event.
#126978 to #126972 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Of course they weren't interrested before being convinced
#126980 to #126978 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
..demonstrating the compelling nature of the event of resurrection
#127286 to #126980 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Do you want a medal for devoting minimal effort to something?
#127287 to #127286 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
can't wait for you to face God
#127283 to #126980 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Honestly that means absolutely nothing to me.
#127285 to #127283 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
as expected
#127284 to #127283 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127281 to #126980 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
It's more an interpretation of a broad look at how you've conducted yourself.
#127282 to #127281 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
You know that i'm actually loving enough to still pray for you? i take pride in the strength of my character and faith. you have no idea what it's like to be a good Christian. you'll never know this joy
#127279 to #126980 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
So once again, you know you're full of shit, you just can't bring yourself to say it.
#127280 to #127279 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
fuck your stupid misinterpretations of my words
#127277 to #126980 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Because I'm not going to read thousands of documents to test a claim it would take you 30 seconds to verify.
#127278 to #127277 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
i will no longer talk to scum
#127275 to #126980 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
You gave me names of individuals who wrote on Jesus. Am I supposed to read everything Tacitus and Josephus wrote to test your claim. If such a document exists you'd know the name of it.
#127276 to #127275 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
you're unwilling to search for the truth.
#127273 to #126980 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Because of burden of proof. If I claimed to have a source saying Jesus was gay would you believe me?
#127274 to #127273 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
i gave you plenty of avenues to search for sources
#126984 to #126980 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Compelling sure
Factual... no, not really
#126998 to #126984 - factual ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
it's a fact
#126986 to #126984 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
then give an explanation of why it was so compelling that has a greater probability of being true
#127271 to #126986 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I have no reason to believe your sources exist, actually pretty solid logic.
#127272 to #127271 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
because of personal incredulity and bias
#126989 to #126986 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Can you elaborate on this question? I want to answer as best I can.
#126991 to #126989 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
give me a better explanation of the facts than the resurrection theory
#127269 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
It has a bearing on the existence of the sources you claim to have.
#127270 to #127269 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
actually no it doesn't. poor logic there
#127267 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Not citing your sources is sufficient admission.

Unless of course the afterlife doesn't exist.
#127268 to #127267 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
me failing to cite some source has no bearing on the reality of Jesus Christ
#127264 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
So you are full of shit then? Why lie to yourself? Admit your worldview is hard to accept, there's no shame in it.
#127266 to #127264 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
no such admission was made or will be made.

and hey, even if you were to win this debate(you haven't) or some other debate with Christian, you're the one who really loses. the afterlife is what's important
#127262 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Ironically I think you might be the one with the self awareness problem and you can't tell it.

Again, I have no reason to believe these people exist and they're simply a figment of your imagination. Do you have a citation or not? If you don't provide one I can only assume you're bullshitting me.
#127263 to #127262 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
wow, another layer of irony on your end.

I will pray for you tonight, even after all you've said
#127260 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Yes, however you're the one responsible for pulling the conversation in this direction, distracting from the issue and pulling into weird tangents.

Except that it's not a ridiculous conspiracy to believe that 500 people (or very likely many fewer than that) were convinced of some bullshit story. Or that these 500 people simply don't exist and you're bullshitting me because you have yet to source anything. You've done nothing to explain your position, cite your sources.
#127261 to #127260 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
>you're the one responsible for pulling the conversation in this direction, distracting from the issue and pulling into weird tangents.

self awareness is not your strong suit. you are incapable of accurately assessing reality

> it's not a ridiculous conspiracy to believe that 500 people (or very likely many fewer than that) were convinced of some bullshit story.

They saw Jesus first hand and interacted with Him.

I think we're done here

#127258 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Except you don't even no what my worldview is, if I had to hazard a guess this is all a deflection because you know everything you've said is bullshit and you don't want to face that fact. If I'm being generous you're just really bad at talking to people and this is your interpretation of how a discussion is supposed to go.

Except it's not a highly implausible conspiracy theory as it happened 2000 years ago and you or I have no direct evidence. That the event simply never happened isn't that hard to believe.
#127259 to #127258 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
> If I'm being generous you're just really bad at talking to people and this is your interpretation of how a discussion is supposed to go.

You know that you've contributed to the direction of this discussion as well right? i'm not completely at fault here. i think your people skills are equally in question, my hell-bound friend.

>Except it's not a highly implausible conspiracy theory as it happened 2000 years ago and you or I have no direct evidence.

I've already explained why a massive conspiracy is non nonsensical. you ignore all my explanations because of your bias. you have no leg to stand on. I refer you back to the image. let the words sink in
#127256 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Since you haven't presented any evidence it's a bit odd that you presume how I'd react to any you did. See from my perspective no evidence for your claim exists so I'm treating as unsubstantiated, therefore basing my understanding on the apparent validity, rather than the actual validity. If you continue to not source your claims we could start discussing why that is.
#127257 to #127256 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
i can predict how you'd react based on your worldview. your worldview is anti evidence

> from my perspective no evidence for your claim exists so I'm treating as unsubstantiated, therefore basing my understanding on the apparent validity, rather than the actual validity

even if it was unsubstantiated, how can you justify accepting a highly implausible conspiracy theory as a more likely scenario? you find the resurrection less probable because you have an anti-supernatural bias. it's not skepticism, it's a bias

at this point i have to refer you to this image because i don't have much else to say to you
#127254 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
It's a fallacy of incredulity that you haven't backed up a single claim you've made?
#127255 to #127254 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
no, that you find the established version of events, which is backed up by evidence, less probable than some conspiracy theory for which there's no evidence. any evidence i present will be ignored
#127252 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
You actually haven't shown anything since you haven't pointed me to one specific document.

It's actually not, since I don't have a single source to your claim I can refute on that ground alone, I simply find your version of events harder to believe than the alternative.
#127253 to #127252 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
> since I don't have a single source to your claim I can refute on that ground alone, I simply find your version of events harder to believe than the alternative.

sounds like a fallacy of personal incredulity to me.
#127249 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Because the narrative laid out in the bible may be entirely false.
#127251 to #127249 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
But it's not. it's backed up by reliable sources, as i've shown
#127248 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Can you link me ONE document backing your claims up?

The vast majority I would assume. Since I have no reason to believe a group of 500 people was documented well enough to verify that story without an actual source to look to.
#127250 to #127248 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
>The vast majority I would assume. Since I have no reason to believe a group of 500 people was documented well enough to verify that story without an actual source to look to.

no they wouldn't because they had no reason to do so. your argument is a textbook argument from personal incredulity

#127245 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Can you give me an example of a specific document referencing all this? Historians is a pretty broad group.

They actually had every reason to lie or believe the story actually since they were members of a newly formed cult desperate for members.
#127247 to #127245 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
When the disciples of Jesus were confronted with his crucifixion, their reactions were along the lines of "Wait, I thought He was the Messiah. He can't be the Messiah and be dead"

you're saying they saw it as an opportunity to lie? Why would they do this?
#127246 to #127245 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
all historians of antiquity consider Paul reliable

>They actually had every reason to lie or believe the story actually since they were members of a newly formed cult desperate for members

the 500 witnesses?
#127243 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
By who?

Have all 500 of those accounts been verified? Because again, it's not hard for 500 people to come up with a lie, or be convinced of one or simply be made up.
#127244 to #127243 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
By historians.
Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period and received first hand testimony. then he conferred with various witnesses of Jesus after the crucifixion. the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death

>it's not hard for 500 people to come up with a lie, or be convinced of one or simply be made up.

yeah 500 people got together and lied about something they had no reason to lie about. they had every reason to NOT believe, as i've outlined in previous comments. why would they go to such lengths for something they had no devotion to beforehand?
#127241 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
With sufficient documentation. What kind of sources do these historians cite?

The writers of Alexander's biography had hundreds of sources to pull from, the disciples were a group of under one hundred people. It's not unreasonable to expect a group of that size to establish a false narrative about an event.
#127242 to #127241 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
Paul's writings have been objectively verified

>The writers of Alexander's biography had hundreds of sources to pull from

there were over 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. it's a historical fact
#127239 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
That's insufficient to support the claim though. Over several generations facts could be warped as is a well documented fact of history. There's no way to be certain of what happened.
#127240 to #127239 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
>That's insufficient to support the claim though.

how do you support this claim?

the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is too short for the facts to have been warped.

the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, yet they are universally considered trustworthy
#127236 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Then you understand why any interpretation of that history is dubious yes?
#127238 to #127236 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
/religion/127084

first paragraph applies here
#127233 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Nobody wrote about events in their own lifetime then? That's hard to believe.
#127234 to #127233 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
not in an oral culture like ancient Palestine
#127229 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
A single document can't verify an event especially when the document is ideological.
#127228 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
That's not what I mean by citation, I meant more of a specific source document. But none of them are contemporary to christ. Josephus and tacitus were born 50 years too late and the rest are hundreds of years later. They don't qualify as corroboration.
#127231 to #127228 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
look up the specific documents of his writings.

there are no contemporary records for any ancient person. your standards are unreasonable.
#127224 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Do you have a citation?
#127226 to #127224 - zlane
+1
(01/26/2016) [-]
btw, why do you keep asking for sources outside the Bible? the new testament gospels meet all the criteria for historical reliability
#127225 to #127224 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
the writings of Josephus for one
#127222 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
What sources cite the ressurection? Does any document besides the bible refer to it?
#127223 to #127222 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
the accounts from apostles can all be independently verified.

Lucian, Talmud, Tacitus all mention Jesus and the resurrection
#127220 to #126991 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Some Jews fanfiction got taken way to seriously.

Or it was a story told to add legitimacy to a newly formed cult.
#127221 to #127220 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Explain the post mortem appearances.
btw, the disciples had every predisposition to NOT believe, yet they did. resurrection was not part of the jews beliefs about the afterlife. their messiah was not supposed to have been crucified.

The fact that He rose from the dead is attested to by multiple, independent sources. to say that the witnesses made it all up and that it's just a story is a conspiracy theory. what other insane conspiracy theories do you believe in, theism? you're obviously prone to these type of beliefs
#127215 to #126991 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS FAG
#127216 to #127215 - zlane
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
coward
#127001 to #126991 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
The ressurecting story is just that. A story.

We don't know a lot about the actual life of Jesus. If I were to come up with an alternate story I'd do just that. Make another story.
#127004 to #127001 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
until a more likely explanation is given, the greatest current explanation(resurrection,) stands. this fits with Bayes Theorem. i am confident that i'm applying it correctly
#126977 to #126972 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Ufohunters made quite a database actually

www.ufosightingsdaily.com/?m=1
#126979 to #126977 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
any consistency of reports on that site is due to confirmation bias and selective memory. the same can not be said of Christianity. it would be a fools errand to try and find any similarities between followers of Christ and UFO abduction believers
#126983 to #126979 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Different times different beliefs.
After a while you have a network of believers and all the sources you could ever dream off.
#126988 to #126983 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
I must reiterate that the sources I'm referring to, namely Paul's accounts, were not tainted in any way
#126994 to #126988 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I don't believe they're tainted in any ways.
I believe Jesus existed (as does most historians)

The stories however is a bit over the top (like all religious figures).

An eyewitness is valuable in court, but almost worthless in science.
#126996 to #126994 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
I think you fundamentally misunderstand or at least fail to appreciate the utility of the historical method
#127023 to #126996 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
If you're convinced that everyone who disagree with you are corrupted theres nothing else to say about it really. It is what it is
#127026 to #127023 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
i don't like to make overly broad statements about groups of people, but yeah, anyone who disagrees with the facts regarding Jesus' life is corrupted
#127020 to #126996 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I'd be equally appreciative if you respected mine instead of claiming me to be corrupted.
#127022 to #127020 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
to respect your beliefs i'd have to betray my faith and convictions
#127016 to #126996 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
We have indeed
I doubt we'll ever agree on this either, but that's fine by me. I respect religious views
#127017 to #127016 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
i'm appreciative of your respect for my views
#127009 to #126996 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
That's value-laden statements to make

If that's your opinion so be it
#127013 to #127009 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
guess we've reached a conversational stand still
#126997 to #126996 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
I think you fail to realise how historians actually work

You should take a course. Maybe you'd learn a thing or two
#127006 to #126997 - zlane
-1
(01/24/2016) [-]
i guess your understanding of the historical method has been corrupted by secular thinking. atheism poisons everything
#126942 to #126940 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
are the accounts of Plato, Socrates or any ancient person evidence of their life and works? it's a huge, unjustifiable double standard to accept other accounts of ancient persons yet reject the Accounts of Jesus and the miracles He performed
#126947 to #126942 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I don't
Some historians have questioned whether Socrates was an actual person for example.

The difference is that his philosophical discussions is just that. Philosophical dilemma.
You can't take ancient literature as proof without more backup. That's ABC in history
#126949 to #126947 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
I thought consensus among scholars was important among your type? scientific consensus of evolution, for example, is one of your purported trump cards right?

you don't accept the accounts of Jesus' miracles because there's a supernatural component. to ask for more evidence because of this compotent is to take on an anti-supernaturalistic philosophy. This is a an obvious bias

#126950 to #126949 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I don't accept accounts without the necessary archeological data to back it up.
Read my response to ragnar above for more info on this.

Are you going to believe every myth and story out there because someone wrote it down?
#126952 to #126950 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
tons of universally accepted historical events have no archaeological component attached to them. are you going to reject every past event for which there's no physical evidence? btw, demanding physical evidence for a non physical event is logically incoherent.

and no, I don't just blindly accept every story without evidence. multiple independent sources are necessary to establish historical facts
#126956 to #126952 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
If you believe every story with multiple sources you'll soon have to accept every religion out there because they ALWAYS have multiple sources.

Separating faith from everyday life is key. Faith however are great sources for investigating people's thoughts and values.
#126957 to #126956 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
If on multiple occasions and under separate circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experience something, that's pretty compelling evidence.

Faith is not involved with my acceptance of Jesus' miracles
#126961 to #126957 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
I'm afraid you're not getting any further.
Your eyewitness accounts is written down in a book. This book tells you a story.
People used to believe these stories.

You believe this story because of faith alone and it's no more reasonable than any of the other big religions out there. If you want to believe all power to you, but you have no proof that this miracles is anything other than myth.
#126962 to #126961 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
to deny these accounts is to deny the historical method. nothing more to say really. you must also deny the holocaust if you really have these standards.(I'm not saying I accept the presented account of the holocaust.)


You misunderstand the nature of faith. faith, as currently accepted, is not belief without evidence
#126965 to #126962 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Every account is a product of its own time after all
#126964 to #126962 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Historical accounts isn't denied. They are interpreted and put in context with other accounts and the time period they were written in.
#126968 to #126964 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
The original accounts were preserved extremely well. the existence of some different interpretations can't explain away the facts
#126971 to #126968 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
As is other historical accounts. Their preservation has nothing to do with the authenticity of the events described in it.

There's a lot of good stories out there with tons of "sources" from people who genuinely believed in them. You've picked the one you really like and I have nothing against that.

Enjoy your evening.
#126974 to #126971 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
>Their preservation has nothing to do with the authenticity of the events described in it.

Agreed. the source must be examined. in the case of my beliefs, the sources have been examined, as ive explained.

I didn't just pick Christianity because I liked it. there's real evidence for it that your worldview has blinded you to. it's horrible how materialism, secularism, and other atheistic doctrines infect minds
#126954 to #126952 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Mention one of these events please and I'll make sure to have a look at it.
#126958 to #126954 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
The lives of thousands of notable ancient persons
#126963 to #126958 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
That's a brilliant example. Hopefully this will illustrate my point.

The lives of ancient people is documented in written sources. These multiple sources indicates that the person existed and had a big impact on the world. When a person becomes famous people write about said person. Then they start telling great stories that's often full of myth. This is why historians read these texts with critical eyes.

For example: People believe Karl the Great existed, but I bet the fewest of us believe he had magic powers.
#126966 to #126963 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels was too short for any mythologization to have occured. this is just one problem with this line of thinking
#126967 to #126966 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
There's no time frame for
mythologization

Scientology have lots of myths based around their founder. All you need is a really good story and faith.
#126970 to #126967 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
what you're saying implies that Paul mythologized the accounts himself. any other account by Paul, which can be verified, has turned out to be correct. there's no evidence to suggest any sort exaggeration by Paul
#126973 to #126970 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
He could have or others could have when writing about him. There are all these complex layers of information that needs to be pieced together to form a full picture. Sadly most of our past is lost and we're left with fractures. It's up to us to interpret what little we have.
#126975 to #126973 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
There is no better interpretation that than the fact that Jesus is the son of God. this explanation of the evidence has the greatest explanatory power, and plausibility(barring a biased naturalistic position)
#126981 to #126975 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Biased naturalistic position?
You're describing a religion. You're making the same claim as every other religion out there.

I have a cow. All can see this cow. For someone it's food for others it's something holy.

Again you've simply picked a religion you like and believe in. That's fine, but it isn't fact.
#126990 to #126981 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
disregarding a naturalistic bias doesn't entail rejecting an evidential basis for belief in Christianity.

my personal preferences with respect to religion is irrelevant
#127028 to #126990 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Every source is unrealiable on its own.
This doesn't just go for Paul.

I'm going to end the argument here though. Given your last comment it is clear that my words are nothing other than poison to you.

Hope you find what you're looking for.
#127029 to #127028 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
i didn't say Paul is somehow self-proving.

Your words are not poison to me. i believe there is value in this conversation
#127025 to #126990 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
To your view of reality*

There are no reliable sources in history where their words are taken as the truth on it's own.

That's just not how the subject works
#127027 to #127025 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
it is false to say that Paul is unreliable- this is not to say that his words should be taken as absolute truth without looking at the supporting evidence
#127021 to #126990 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
They all agree that his description of miracles is "reliable"?
#127024 to #127021 - zlane
-1
(01/24/2016) [-]
no, but logically they should. to reject his descriptions of Jesus' miracles is to call him unreliable. to call him unreliable is contrary to reality
#127018 to #126990 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Did you just say that almost every scholar of antiquity shares your christians views?
#127019 to #127018 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
no, that Paul is a reliable source
#126995 to #126990 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
If your personal belief is irrelevant tell me why you think Christianity is true while Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or any other religion is false.

All have tremendous amounts of sources.
#127000 to #126995 - zlane
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
the quality and quantity of the evidence in support of Christianity is compelling. I don't think that's true of any other religion. the number of sources is not the main factor.
#126976 to #126975 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
better interpretation than*
#127002 to #126976 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
If the number of sources isn't your "main factor" then by all means present how you determine the "quality" of your sources and compare the different religions by that standard.
#127015 to #127002 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
it's not just a personal viewpoint. it's a view that's accepted by almost every scholar of antiquity
#127005 to #127002 - zlane
Reply -1
(01/24/2016) [-]
The faster we're fallin',
We're stoppin' and stallin'.
We're running in circles again

...


it's about the reliability of the sources. Paul has been confirmed to be reliable
#127014 to #127005 - whoozy ONLINE
0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Personal viewpoint and not an answer to the questions I asked you above.
#126930 to #126922 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
DONT waste your time with him. a legend existed here and died kicking him and all the atheists from this place.

#126931 to #126930 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
I definitely remember his stubbornness. sad to see that his beliefs have not gotten any closer to reality
#126932 to #126931 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
you clearly see his fedora and his REAL reddit tier face.

just dont feed them. unless you know how to feed from them.
#126933 to #126932 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
I bet he wears it to brony meetups
#126934 to #126933 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
oh he is worse
#126935 to #126934 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
worse? *shudders*
#126936 to #126935 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
only oldfags could know his cringe
#126937 to #126936 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
i'm intrigued... think i'll do some searching
#126938 to #126937 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
just take care not being a JIDF watchlist mkay?
#126939 to #126938 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
didn't expect him to go down that route
#126889 to #126885 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
Unlikely, if you were unconscious for 3 days you'd simply die without any medical care
Also fun fact: The population in Judea was actually allowed to take people from the cross after they died, jewish rites required you to be buried as quick as possible and to not cause any tension the roman officials allowed them to do so since usually the crucified would rot on the cross for days to come
#126891 to #126889 - theism
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Alternative scenario: Jesus had an evil twin who took over his identity.
#126892 to #126891 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
Alternate Alternative scenario: Jesus WAS the evil twin
#126893 to #126892 - theism
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
OH SHIT
#126888 to #126885 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
the fact that Jesus died is universally accepted among historians. the medical knowledge required to resuscitate a crucified person didn't exist at the time

www.answers2prayer.org/bible_studies/jesus/resurrectionpre.html

educate yourself
#141632 to #126888 - platinumaltaria ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>There isn't any concrete evidence that he existed at all.
>There is no way to resurrect a crucified person, their neck is broken.

EJUMACATE YOSELF
#141634 to #141632 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
two can play this game
#141635 to #141634 - platinumaltaria ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>defend matey.
#126887 to #126885 - feelythefeel
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
If I recall, the Romans tortured him first, and left him up there for a while. Not exactly injuries you just sleep off.
#126863 - theism
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
>2016
>Still pretending the crusades weren't economically motivated
#126865 to #126863 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
You are aware that that only third parties such as the genoese profited a little through small scale trade with Outreme, right?
#126871 to #126865 - theism
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
>Mobilize the poor and politically inconvenient to march on an easy to hate target
>Attempt to capture a hotly desired territory
>Establish a weird pseudo-government
>End up sacking Constantinople

But Deus vult right?
#126880 to #126871 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
">Mobilize the poor and politically inconvenient to march on an easy to hate target "
You're mistaking the the people's crusader with the offical crusaders, the latter were professional soldiers
">Establish a weird pseudo-government"
Pseudo? The crusader states were quite normal duchies and kingdoms with royal family and claim and all
">End up sacking Constantinople"
Just because I go to a third world country for vacation and end up as a brutal dictator doesn't mean overthrowing the local government was my holiday plans
#126881 to #126880 - theism
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
The 4th crusade in it's entirety was the sack of Constantinople, although that could be more a matter of the Crusader states gradually shifting from their original goal.
#126882 to #126881 - ragnarfag ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/24/2016) [-]
Okay, the 4th crusades began with the crusaders asking the venetians to build them ships, turns out that not all everyone came to the party and they didn't had enough money to pay them for the ships.
The venetians then requested as compensation that the crusaders should go to that adrian city and conquer it, they massacre the city and the pope isn't happy, excommunicates the army and the venetians and cancels the crusade all together
Out of job the ex-crusaders get hired by some byzantine prince to take over constantinople and make him king.
They then do that and after not being payed plunder and take over the city themselves together with the venetians, them we get the latin empire, some more crusader states, former byzantine now venetian trade posts in greece and smaller roman successor states
All in all the 4th crusade itself never existed, I mean no one went on a armed pilgrimage
I was essentially just excommunicated opportunismus which comes closest to "economically motivated"
#126884 to #126882 - theism
Reply 0
(01/24/2016) [-]
That makes a lot more sense.