Quote from Wild2000 “Jesus was real. The other characters you mention from mythology never existed. Zeus is not real and neither is the tooth fairy. Mythology is fiction. Christianity is based on a real living person. This is a huge difference.”
Well I think Jesus is a Mythological character.
Nothing you have posted has change that fact.
Your evidence for Jesus being real is that a Roman said so and it has a large entry in an Encyclopaedia ???
Nice job.
Quote from Wild2000 “Those who do not really want to find God will not. They will always find excuses. A person has to maintain an open mind to all things and remove the bias that it is not possible for God or the supernatural to exist.”
Oh you mean abandon logic, I see.
@Mr:
Quote from Wild2000 “Jesus was real. The other characters you mention from mythology never existed. Zeus is not real and neither is the tooth fairy. Mythology is fiction. Christianity is based on a real living person. This is a huge difference.”
Well I think Jesus is a Mythological character.
Nothing you have posted has change that fact.
God is as mythological as Zeus, Odin, Wotan or Belenos ! Only the prophet is not mythological, but we attribute him mythological power, so i don’t see why christianism is less mythological than the Norse, German, Celtil or Greek mythology.
:lol:
Theres lots of “Proof” that Aliens landed at Roswell. Theres lots of “Proof” the Loch-Ness Monster exists. Are either fact? No.
:lol:
@Mr:
Your evidence for Jesus being real is that a Roman said so and it has a large entry in an Encyclopaedia ???
Nice job.I gave a dozen sources and only two were Roman related. I do not rely on the Encyclopaedia, it is just another interesting additional source that is non-biblical. If Jesus was Mythical, a “logical” person would surely think that the Encyclopaedia would recognize this like it does for the Greek, Egyptian, Norse, and Celtic mythologies.
@Mr:
Quote from Wild2000 “Those who do not really want to find God will not. They will always find excuses. A person has to maintain an open mind to all things and remove the bias that it is not possible for God or the supernatural to exist.”
Oh you mean abandon logic, I see.
If your definition of logic includes only what we as humans are able to understand, then yes. I am sorry if I am asking someone to keep an open mind when trying to evaluate these things objectively. Do I have a bias? Yep. Do you? I am just trying to remind people that their personal bias affects how they accept any evidence placed before them.
I think it is one thing to look at all of the evidence and make a decision based on it. I can accept that. However, I get the feeling that for many of you, there is not any amount of evidence that could be provided that would make you accept the idea that God exists. - I think I will add that to the existence thread.
The problem is that what you claim is evidence is weak at best.
And your angrements for it are fallaicous in your appeals to authority.
:lol:
@Mr:
The problem is that what you claim is evidence is weak at best.
And your angrements for it are fallaicous in your appeals to authority.Please tell me what would you consider as a valid source of authority? Please show me where my fallacies are. I am not presenting fictious evidence. These are hostile sources which have no relation to Christianity.
Maybe what we need to do is define how a book of antiquity gains creditability. Any experts out there before I take a stab at it?
When I was searching web sites about prophecies I found every site, in there augrements for Bible truth, where saying something like " Well non-chirstans wrote about a Jesus". That is weak evidence in my opinion.
As well as saying Jesus was real because three men saw him rise from the grave and that they would rather die than say it was untrue.
Would they die for a lie? was there stance on it being valid agurment for truth.
Thats great evidence……its not eh.
@Mr:
@Mr:
The problem is that what you claim is evidence is weak at best.
And your angrements for it are fallaicous in your appeals to authority.Please tell me what would you consider as a valid source of authority? Please show me where my fallacies are. I am not presenting fictious evidence. These are hostile sources which have no relation to Christianity.
Maybe what we need to do is define how a book of antiquity gains creditability. Any experts out there before I take a stab at it?
When I was searching web sites about prophecies I found every site, in there augrements for Bible truth, where saying something like " Well non-chirstans wrote about a Jesus". That is weak evidence in my opinion.
As well as saying Jesus was real because three men saw him rise from the grave and that they would rather die than say it was untrue.
Would they die for a lie? was there stance on it being valid agurment for truth.
Thats great evidence……its not eh.
Actually many people saw Jesus after he had arisin - according to the scriptures - many more than 3.
Also when you are looking back 2000 years, there is going to be limited evidence left. How do we know that which happened 200 years ago (say the Napoleonic Wars) really happened? Because some books were written? How do we confirm those books as fact? Collaborating books written by other “observers”. Even if we had 200 year old people hanging about with any sense left, how could we believe them when they say that the war happened? How can we believe anything that is written about anything - historical, scientific, etc.?
The fact is, the bible has withstood the test of time quite nicely. Events in it are confirmed by independent/3rd party historians present at the time, as well as current archeologists (to a small degree).
tsssss, i NEVER said that was an argument for Atheism !!! I am just asking a question !!! I never even said Scientists were more atheist, i am just asking a question, i never use such fallacious argument to caution atheism. YB said the fact 85% of the poppulation is theist constitute an argument about the concept of god (and you support the fallacies), i just ask a question i never use that as an argument for atheism ! How can i be fallacious if i am not even making an argument ? It does not even implie anything, i have not said “why xx% of scientist and blablabla” !!!
it’s obvious you think i’m naive, but puh-lease. a person with an IQ greater than a hammer could have seen your implications a mile away. you were caught in a fallacious argument. Deal with it.
field marshall - i’ve many times wondered about the passages you quoted. There are others - the book of Job where God meets with his “sons”, and Romans where Paul refers to other "g"ods ("we know that there are other gods . . . "). I seriously consider that there are other celestial beings other than angels . . . kind of a la polytheistic religions. It would not surprise me to at the end of it all find that there is some kind of a pantheon out there that provides the fodder for all of the myths (not too say i yet believe in it). The important thing for Christians is that there is one "G"od - creator/saviour, etc.
@cystic:
@Mr:
@Mr:
The problem is that what you claim is evidence is weak at best.
And your angrements for it are fallaicous in your appeals to authority.Please tell me what would you consider as a valid source of authority? Please show me where my fallacies are. I am not presenting fictious evidence. These are hostile sources which have no relation to Christianity.
Maybe what we need to do is define how a book of antiquity gains creditability. Any experts out there before I take a stab at it?
When I was searching web sites about prophecies I found every site, in there augrements for Bible truth, where saying something like " Well non-chirstans wrote about a Jesus". That is weak evidence in my opinion.
As well as saying Jesus was real because three men saw him rise from the grave and that they would rather die than say it was untrue.
Would they die for a lie? was there stance on it being valid agurment for truth.
Thats great evidence……its not eh.Actually many people saw Jesus after he had arisin - according to the scriptures - many more than 3.
Also when you are looking back 2000 years, there is going to be limited evidence left. How do we know that which happened 200 years ago (say the Napoleonic Wars) really happened? Because some books were written? How do we confirm those books as fact? Collaborating books written by other “observers”. Even if we had 200 year old people hanging about with any sense left, how could we believe them when they say that the war happened? How can we believe anything that is written about anything - historical, scientific, etc.?
The fact is, the bible has withstood the test of time quite nicely. Events in it are confirmed by independent/3rd party historians present at the time, as well as current archeologists (to a small degree).tsssss, i NEVER said that was an argument for Atheism !!! I am just asking a question !!! I never even said Scientists were more atheist, i am just asking a question, i never use such fallacious argument to caution atheism. YB said the fact 85% of the poppulation is theist constitute an argument about the concept of god (and you support the fallacies), i just ask a question i never use that as an argument for atheism ! How can i be fallacious if i am not even making an argument ? It does not even implie anything, i have not said “why xx% of scientist and blablabla” !!!
it’s obvious you think i’m naive, but puh-lease. a person with an IQ greater than a hammer could have seen your implications a mile away. you were caught in a fallacious argument. Deal with it.
field marshall - i’ve many times wondered about the passages you quoted. There are others - the book of Job where God meets with his “sons”, and Romans where Paul refers to other "g"ods ("we know that there are other gods . . . "). I seriously consider that there are other celestial beings other than angels . . . kind of a la polytheistic religions. It would not surprise me to at the end of it all find that there is some kind of a pantheon out there that provides the fodder for all of the myths (not too say i yet believe in it). The important thing for Christians is that there is one "G"od - creator/saviour, etc.
I see you what saying, however, people do not routinely rise for the grave, its not something that happens in the world we know. People do not walk on water and turn water into wine.
There is plenty of evidence to support that the above does not happen.
Poeple who wish to see UFOs usually claim they do.
If you chose to belive something enough and want to convice others, who knows what you’ll do.
All the porphecies about Jesus, as writing in the bible, came true. correct well that right there makes me wonder.
The Napoleonic war history does nothing that defies my sense of logic, so its easy to accept the general facts about that time period.
It Napoleon’s history was covered in stories of how he was walking on water, rising his soldiers from the dead and was born of immaculate conception, I wouldn’t belive it either.
it’s obvious you think i’m naive, but puh-lease. a person with an IQ greater than a hammer could have seen your implications a mile away. you were caught in a fallacious argument. Deal with it.
That was a question without implication, i am still asking why so many scientist cannot see god. Is it a new way to find excuse not to answer ? You are making paranoiac extrapolation, i never use this kind of fallacies.
Anyway what implication, that all scientist are atheist ? You and I know it is false…
@Mr:
I see you what saying, however, people do not routinely rise for the grave, its not something that happens in the world we know. People do not walk on water and turn water into wine.
There is plenty of evidence to support that the above does not happen.Poeple who wish to see UFOs usually claim they do.
If you chose to belive something enough and want to convice others, who knows what you’ll do.All the porphecies about Jesus, as writing in the bible, came true. correct well that right there makes me wonder.
The Napoleonic war history does nothing that defies my sense of logic, so its easy to accept the general facts about that time period.
It Napoleon’s history was covered in stories of how he was walking on water, rising his soldiers from the dead and was born of immaculate conception, I wouldn’t belive it either.
Fair enough. So in your mind, the fact that these miracles are listed in the bible are evidence that the whole thing is a corrupt myth? Or part myth/some history? Or interesting literature piece (except for the book of Numbers and Leviticus)?
*Still waits for Wilds reply :) *
Another word for religion is faith. The best defination of faith I ever heard was from the character Archie Bunker from All in the Family. Archie said, “Faith is believing in something common sense tells you not to.” One of his few intellegent comments.
For those who believe, nothing can shake their faith. For the non-believers, nothing will convince them. It’s the people sitting on the fence that are up for graps!
:lol:
:lol:
Belief and faith are two separate things. I can say that I believe I have no faith. I still believe also that facts and evidence are outside the scope of this discussion. I’ll side with the previous poster, religion and God are a matter of faith…
:lol:
I agree that faith can be based without reason. But Christianity is one religion that faith can be based on evidence. I think faith is a lot easier to justify when it is based on evidence.
Only empirical/personal evidence. And these evidence can caution every religion. You cannot justify god with logic and rationality, anyway i never saw an argument for god that was not fallacious (not from my point of view; from a logical point of view, by using law of logic)
I agree that faith can be based without reason. But Christianity is one religion that faith can be based on evidence. I think faith is a lot easier to justify when it is based on evidence.
Only empirical/personal evidence. And these evidence can caution every religion. You cannot justify god with logic and rationality, anyway i never saw an argument for god that was not fallacious (not from my point of view; from a logical point of view, by using law of logic)
Here here!
