God really exists as an emanation from the human mind

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

[...]your fucking partison ship[...]

My ship is not named "Partison."

Andrew66 wrote

Your Spiderman example isn't great however, because the Spiderman narrative is portrayed as fiction, while the Biblical narratives are portrayed as actual truth.

Is this why you're trying to convert atheists? Because if more people start believing your god is fiction, then it will just disappear? What a weak thing your god is.

Andrew66 wrote

Of course you, as you belong to an inferior intelligence species, wouldn't realize that.

You think I'm less intelligent than you? No wonder you're so butt hurt every time I show you how you're wrong.

Andrew66 wrote

By the way, ironically I collect Amazing Spiderman comics! I have Spidey 10, 16, 20 39 and 40 in Mint condition with perfect page quality.

Sure... sure you do...

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

There I said something nice, no please bend over and let me fuck you in the ass (I'm assuming because of your flowery language your a girl - I hope).

We're probably too far apart for that sort of thing, but you could find me in Cockaigne & wank yourself red raw if it's what you need.

BTW, are you equally convinced with the risen jebus & Mathew's night of the living dead, where it is reported downtown was actually riddled with zombies that weekend?

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

I thought I made it extremely clear.

It's quite clear, but that doesn't prevent it from being a load of tedious wank.

One can then define these cluster of cells (and their neurochemical activity) as God's "mind"

One would be better to define them as the mind of a credulous, deluded, pea-brained fuckwit.

- a real and actual physical manifestation which takes a life of its own (i.e. becomes a "real independent living entity) !

I think I've spotted your 'leap of logic' - or as you called it in one of your ancient, almost long forgotten gems - "something magical happened"

Once strong enough these cells gain the power to greatly influence and control the overall mind of the human host - to do things the host would not necessarily have done otherwise.

Now we're back to deluded fuckwittery.

***sigh*** ... do let me know when you finally get to ram that Jesus shaped peg into your gaping-goatse shaped rectum.

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

You collect comics, Really?

Yes, and what's wrong with that?

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

It's quite clear, but that doesn't prevent it from being a load of tedious wank.

One would be better to define them as the mind of a credulous, deluded, pea-brained fuckwit.

I think I've spotted your 'leap of logic' - or as you called it in one of your ancient, almost long forgotten gems - "something magical happened"

Now we're back to deluded fuckwittery.

***sigh*** ... do let me know when you finally get to ram that Jesus shaped peg into your gaping-goatse shaped rectum.

You can poo poo the argument, but you cannot deny that I have rationally and undeniably shown that a real, actualized "God" like entity, with will, power, enablement and activity - truly exists within our society.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

You can poo poo the argument,

Thank you - I will.

but you cannot deny

I can, and I will.

that I have rationally and undeniably shown that a real, actualized "God" like entity, with will, power, enablement and activity - truly exists within our society.

You've shown nothing other than you still crave a Jesus-shaped peg rammed up your ring-piece.

[Kinich Ahau]

Andrew66 wrote

However, easily explained, the Catholic Church accepts that Jesus was fully a man (therefore very plausibly - and I personally believe - imperfect while on Earth), and then obviously he gained his full powers after he ascending in spiritual form into heaven. You'll note there are also Bible passages which state clearly that no one accept the Father (including not the Son), knows the date of return.

That just implies that nothing Jesus is supposed to have said should be taken seriously. Maybe Jesus was like Donald Trump, just making up shit as he went along.

Well done for continuously making points for us. keep it up.

[Kinich Ahau]

Andrew66 wrote

Yes, and what's wrong with that?

I bet you once bought a pair of X-ray glasses didn't you? C'mon admit it.

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I bet you once bought a pair of X-ray glasses didn't you? C'mon admit it.

Sure, I was into that sort of stuff as a kid.
What about you? What are your interests beyond your obsession with Theism?

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

That just implies that nothing Jesus is supposed to have said should be taken seriously. Maybe Jesus was like Donald Trump, just making up shit as he went along.

Well done for continuously making points for us. keep it up.

Interestingly, I believe Jesus and Mohammed were first and foremost politicians. I know you don't know much about history, but if you read enough I think you would agree.

It was just that back in those days it was very common to require backing from at least one of the Gods to gain popularity. So yes, Jesus may have used rhetoric - which may have been spun - sometimes not always 100% truthful perhaps.

But Jesus's underlying themes, like Trump's, weree honorable and just, and from the heart.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Thank you - I will.
I can, and I will.
You've shown nothing other than you still crave a Jesus-shaped peg rammed up your ring-piece.

You obviously don't like to delve in " honest" discussion or debate - when the debate isn't going in your favor towards your cause - Atheism. You should try having an open mind.

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

I'm going to forgive your outburst of bad language because it can't be comfortable for you, being caught in a lie.
Will you now revise the age of your so called evidence which you lied is 2000 years old?

Dogpet,
Firstly you should please put Evidence for Ressurection discussion in my Jesus thread - the fact you don't have a sense of order should not surprise me given the weakness and errors in your assertions. It is also very impolite to earnest readers of the site, eager to hear the Gospel.

You obviously don't understand early Christian scholarship - you should read and learn.

Taken from a text easily found on the internet

The earliest available Christian texts are the letters of the apostle Paul. Scholars date his epistles from approximately 50 to 60 C.E. Therefore, many poorly educated individuals (like Dogpet of the Raving Atheist forum) think that there is a twenty year gap between the death of Christ and the earliest Christian writings. However, most do not realize that the epistles of Paul contain creedal summaries of early Christian beliefs which possibly date as early as 35-40 C.E.1 - very close to the resurrection

Importantly, the general nature of these creeds includes the death and resurrection of Christ. Some of this material is found in Acts, while some is found in the letters of Paul.2 Perhaps the earliest creedal material that we have is found in 1 Corinthians 15.

Lets see, its 2017 - 35 = the data is 1982 years old. You complain about me rounding up to 2000 - I don't recall even saying that anyway?

The main take away here is who cares if the data is 2000 years old, it is close - what matters is that Christian Ressurection narratives were being spoken of and written (and flourishing) virtually immediately after the happening. This is data collected directly after the fact.

1. C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 16.
2. Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 81. Baultmann lists a number of creedal and formulaic statements in the New Testament including Romans 10:9, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 1:1 and Romans 8:11.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

You obviously don't like to delve in " honest" discussion or debate - when the debate isn't going in your favor towards your cause - Atheism. You should try having an open mind.

Honest debate with a theist is impossible - as you've aptly shown.
All you've demonstrated with your brilliant 'argument' is that everybody who hears about a god concept will have their own interpretation of a 'god' - leaving you with about 6 billion different deities. I'd opt for the far more rational option that their brains are processing faulty data, leaving them carrying a spectacular delusion, or put in language you may have come across - square peg in round butt hole.

[Davin]

I wonder if Andrew66 would explain what how the differences between a god and Spiderman that make one real and the other not. It said that it was because Spiderman was presented as fiction... if that's the only thing that matters then this would kill its god:

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Lets see, its 2017 - 35 = the data is 1982 years old. You complain about me rounding up to 2000 - I don't recall even saying that anyway?

The main take away here is who cares if the data is 2000 years old, it is close - what matters is that Christian Ressurection narratives were being spoken of and written (and flourishing) virtually immediately after the happening. This is data collected directly after the fact.

Stop lying! Early talk of risen is from earlier tradition & nowt to do with resurrection, (you can't even spell it). There is no report of the walking dead until 1932 years ago, which is more than a contemporary lifetime outside your claim.