- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,676
- 52,517
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's my point --- tested on who?Myopia can be tested regardless. bad example
It means history has evidence. You said science cannot comment on things historical. I disagree. There is no evidence for Christianity Like there is for most history.Not sure what that means at all.
It means history has evidence. You said science cannot comment on things historical. I disagree. There is no evidence for Christianity Like there is for most history.
Well, yes, exactlyNo, it is valid as evidence. It's just whether one accepts it as true evidence that is the debate.
Scepticism isn't the same as irrationality: the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that Obama did indeed succeed Bush as the US President. Scepticism means you don't believe in anything without due justification, not that you have impossibly high standards of proof. Believing we've been visited by aliens is irrational, while believing atoms exist is not. And there is no such thing as being too scepticalOr, for instance, were I to be skeptical enough, you would fail to convince me that Bush preceded Obama as president of the United States. No matter what you showed me, I would just think it fabricated. Exagerated example, but you get the point.
Or, if you think that too much time had passed between the events and the writing (most historians do not) then you would have to throw out any textual evidence for historical characters such as Alexandar the Great.
Scepticism isn't the same as irrationality: the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that Obama did indeed succeed Bush as the US President. Scepticism means you don't believe in anything without due justification, not that you have impossibly high standards of proof. Believing we've been visited by aliens is irrational, while believing atoms exist is not. And there is no such thing as being too sceptical.
And it's not for nothing the historicity of Alexander is a matter of some debate. However, it is overly simplistic to disregard any and all non-contemporary documentation: simply being a second-hand (or a belated first-hand) source doesn't mean it's automatically false. It does cast significant doubts on its authenticity, though.
That's my point --- tested on who?
You have to be willing to admit you have it.
Who's locked up? It's science that continues to shed new light on how we view the world around us. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the advances science has made, both theoretically and practically.Being locked up is never a good thing.
So faith is evidence...Evidence.
And faith is... proof? So faith is evidence is proof. Nice to see Christians are still twisting language to suit their presuppositions.Faith.
A vacuous answer, followed by...God. God.
... a non-sensible one. Faith is proof? To have faith in God is to prove he exists? I think you need to spend some time with a dictionary.Faith.
All you have to do is look at the style of writing of the bible and compare it to actual journals or first hand accounts that have been written down.I find that to be an untrue statement.
I would accept any sufficient quantity of evidence as sufficient proof of anything. You could convince me my head was made out of cheese if you could provide enough evidence (good luck with thatSo it should be a simple answer. What mathematical forumula or scientific study would you accept as proof?
Most historians don't have a problem with the authenticity of the Gospels.
You don't have a clue what I'm saying, do you?Sure. Anyone can deny reality. But really All I have to do is ask how many fingers I am holding up to the person with Myopia. If they get it wrong where someone can guess correctly they know something is wrong.
This is something that can be observed and tested by science
I would accept any sufficient quantity of evidence as sufficient proof of anything. You could convince me my head was made out of cheese if you could provide enough evidence (good luck with that). Not everything is scientifically proven by mathematical formulae or studies. Most of the time it comes down to presenting the cold, hard facts.
That's an inaccurate statement: most historians accept the New Testament texts are get the gist more or less right, in that there was a man called Jesus who did founded the Christian religion, etc. They're decidedly less certain on the authenticity of the miraculous claims. Appeals to authority are infamous around here. Simply stating that most historians accept the Gospels as gospel truth (ba dum tish) is hardly conducive to civil debate.
In the religious context, faith is just a euphemism for credulity, misrepresented as a virtue. It is evidence of nothing other than the credulity of religious believers. You offer yet another example of the intractable, absolute certainty of religious believers despite the fact that you havent a single shred of sound, objective evidence to support your beliefs. It is impossible to reason with someone who has abandoned reason.Being open minded is to be open to correction or new ideas, but on this point - "Faith is the evidence" - I am correct, therefore there is no need for me to be open minded here since I have conclusive "proof" that I am absolutely right.
Your uncontained glee at what you hope will be someones eternal torture reveals your true character. Your gloating and desire for revenge is really something to behold.Justice is sweet. God gives us the choice between a blessing and cursing, life and death, and we see the route you choose. Life and death are in the power of the tongue. As you deny the Lord Jesus Christ, it is only fair for Him to keep His word and deny you before the Father. You know that I do not like you at all, but I am told to bless and not curse. Of course, I do not have to curse, by your free-will you curse yourself. Oh, sweet vindication. You have been given plenty of evidence as well as warning, but we cannot seem to get through the scales on your eyes and your closed ears.
Your uncontained glee at what you hope will be someones eternal torture reveals your true character. Your gloating and desire for revenge is really something to behold.
However, there is zero sound, objective evidence that what you hope for will ever come to pass. All the evidence we have suggests that when we die, there is nothing. We just stop and our consciousness ceases forever. There is no sound reason to believe that I will spend an eternity in torture or that you and your children will have eternal life. Death is the permanent end to our existence.
So-called higher criticism has been around for as long as there has been anything to criticise. It's as new as Christianity.No, it's pretty accurate. It's relatively new to throw out so much of the text as to make it meaningless, ala the Jesus Seminar folks.
No.And aren't you one of the ones that thought the anthropic principle was a creationist concoction?
Your uncontained glee at what you hope will be someone’s eternal torture reveals your true character. Your gloating and desire for revenge is really something to behold.
However, there is zero sound, objective evidence that what you hope for will ever come to pass. All the evidence we have suggests that when we die, there is nothing. We just stop and our consciousness ceases forever. There is no sound reason to believe that I will spend an eternity in torture or that you and your children will have eternal life. Death is the permanent end to our existence.
So-called higher criticism has been around for as long as there has been anything to criticise. It's as new as Christianity. No.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?