Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

You really don't get this basic logic stuff too well, do you.

Yes! I understand that you and JJ believe the Bible is true.

I am asking WHY?




What witnesses?

You have some texts, written decades or longer after the alleged events, by unknown authors, who were not eyewitnesses.



The Bible is NOT a record of any of that. It is stories, written well after the alleged events by non-eyewitnesses.



BS!

No secular or non Christian Biblical scholar claims that the resurrection narrative is legit. That statement is idiotic on its face. If they found the resurrection narrative to be legit, they wouldn't be non Christians.

And again, all we have is stories in some texts, claiming that that all that is true.



Sorry, but none of that is a basis for belief. It is what you believe, not evidence for the validity of your beliefs.

To put it succinctly, the Bible is NOT evidence for your claim, the Bible IS the claim.

Using the Bible to support your claim that the supernatural, god claims in the Bible are true, is a dictionary definition of circular logic.




Incorrect.

All of the philosophical arguments (Kalem, design argument, ontological argument, TAG, etc) are all fallacious. They are all fatally flawed.

They were the last thing that kept me a believer. That quickly faded after a couple years of college logic and philosophy courses.

If you want to open a new thread with the philosophical argument you think is the strongest, I will be glad to demonstrate why they are fallacious.

Simon
There are lots of points you make which are debatable.

First - the Bible is, primarily, a historical document of events. It also has stories and stuff which are likely fiction, but alot is historical. Scholars have sorted out what is likely historical.

Second main stream biblical new testament scholars accept the Resurrection narrative as legit. Not necessarily the belief in the actual resurrection (else they would all be Christians, not the case) but the narrative - that the writers of the books collected within the bible believed what they were writing. There was evidence back then, some believed taken from eye witnesses, that Jesus existed, died on cross, and later was seen alive - a miracle.

Third, sure many if not all philosophical arguments which suggest existence of a higher power are technically fallacious - there is no absolute perfect logical deduction that concludes for sure God exists. But many arguments are nonetheless persuasive, not perfect but enough to open the possibility - enough for reasoned faith.

[JerryJohn]

hertz vanrental wrote

Fuck off jerrypong, you deluded, glam-rock obsessed twat.

Go and pray to your invisible friend you christard half-wit.

You really are christard-thick.

JJ had a secret post,
that when he posted it pleased the Lord,
but you don't really stay away from JJ do ya?

Your faith was lacking and you needed proof,
you were drunk and on the roof
when they Holy Spirit came down and "threw ya"
down to helll etc etc etc...........

Don't say we didn't warnl ya, Hertzy.
Allelulia.

Andrew, hope we don't have to see Hertzy sizzle,:perhaps his culpability for such stupidness will be forgiven due to his mental illness.

JJ

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

Simon
There are lots of points you make which are debatable.

Not among the best Biblical scholars at theological departments at the best universities.

Textual criticism and what is known of history is far more convincing for the points I brought up, than not.

First - the Bible is, primarily, a historical document of events. It also has stories and stuff which are likely fiction, but alot is historical. Scholars have sorted out what is likely historical.

The Bible certainly does get some historical fact correct. It also gets many wrong.

But the fact that there is some accurate historical events in the Bible, lends zero credence that any of the supernatural events occured.

Second main stream biblical new testament scholars accept the Resurrection narrative as legit. Not necessarily the belief in the actual resurrection (else they would all be Christians, not the case) but the narrative - that the writers of the books collected within the bible believed what they were writing. There was evidence back then, some believed taken from eye witnesses, that Jesus existed, died on cross, and later was seen alive - a miracle.

If all you meant was that the Bible authors believed what they were writing, sure. I'll agree.

So what?

So much of your justification for your acceptance of the Bible as true, also works for other religious texts. The Koran, Book of Mormon, The Avesta, all have historical events, towns, people known to have existed, etc.

Special pleading much?

Third, sure many if not all philosophical arguments which suggest existence of a higher power are technically fallacious - there is no absolute perfect logical deduction that concludes for sure God exists. But many arguments are nonetheless persuasive, not perfect but enough to open the possibility - enough for reasoned faith.

Sorry, but if you accept a fallacious argument to support your case, despite knowing that it is fallacious, you have divorced yourself from claiming you are being rational.

[Sinfidel]

JerryJohn wrote

J
Seeds planted here just may grow on soil that....

JJ

and...for Hertzy,

I heard there was a secret chord

that bleep played and it pleased the lord

but you don't really care for music, do you

well it goes like this the fourth, the fifth

the minor fall and the major lift

the baffled (Think chess, Hertzy) composing hallelujah

La la la la....

well your faith was strong but you needed proof

you saw her bathing on the roof

her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you

Plagiarizing Leonard Cohen, are we! We already knew you don't have an original thought.

[Sinfidel]

JerryJohn wrote

I am actually here for the same reason you are; to learn why atheists believe what they believe

JJ

And if JJ wanted to learn about kayaking, he's go to a forum of non-kayakers. Whatta marooon!

[JerryJohn]

Sinfidel wrote

And if JJ wanted to learn about kayaking, he's go to a forum of non-kayakers. Whatta marooon!

Amazing how you always show back up Sinny to my thread when you know that I AM a Christian and so is Andrew. I haven't forced you to post here. You can't resist reading and posting here sometimes, can you?

Why not post on the other threads on this dead ass forum?

JJ

[JerryJohn]

Sinfidel wrote

And if JJ wanted to learn about kayaking, he's go to a forum of non-kayakers. Whatta marooon!

PS: I want to learn about atheists so of course I'm on an atheist forum. This one drew my interest because of the colorful cast of characters.

JJ

[Michael]

Is this shit still going on

[JerryJohn]

Michael wrote

Is this shit still going on

Yes. The adolescent and immature posts from the atheists continue.

JJ

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

Not among the best Biblical scholars at theological departments at the best universities.

Textual criticism and what is known of history is far more convincing for the points I brought up, than not.



The Bible certainly does get some historical fact correct. It also gets many wrong.

But the fact that there is some accurate historical events in the Bible, lends zero credence that any of the supernatural events occured.



If all you meant was that the Bible authors believed what they were writing, sure. I'll agree.

So what?

So much of your justification for your acceptance of the Bible as true, also works for other religious texts. The Koran, Book of Mormon, The Avesta, all have historical events, towns, people known to have existed, etc.

Special pleading much?




Sorry, but if you accept a fallacious argument to support your case, despite knowing that it is fallacious, you have divorced yourself from claiming you are being rational.

I'm glad you agree that the writers of the Bible, at the time, believed (with at least in regards to the resurrection) that they were writing truth. Whether it actually happened (or any of the supernatural claims) is a matter of faith, in light of this evidence. It appears the eye witnesses which passed their story along saw some stuff they deemed as supernatural - that's all we can go on.

With regards to accepting fallacious philosophical arguments - its not for me at least about blind "acceptance" but rather - as long as the argument is well reasoned and plausible- about providing hope. If you want to place the bar so high that only rigid logical deductive proofs are worth considering as truth - arguably the only absolutely true statement possible is "I think therefore I am" - nothing else can be certain. There should be a little room for speculation in the quest for deciphering reality.

If you want the truth, you must admit at least uncertainty whether God exists.

[hertz vanrental]

JerryJohn wrote

JJ had a secret post,
that when he posted it pleased the Lord,
but you don't really stay away from JJ do ya?

Your faith was lacking and you needed proof,
you were drunk and on the roof
when they Holy Spirit came down and "threw ya"
down to helll etc etc etc...........

Don't say we didn't warnl ya, Hertzy.
Allelulia.

Andrew, hope we don't have to see Hertzy sizzle,:perhaps his culpability for such stupidness will be forgiven due to his mental illness.

JJ

If de lard is so powerful, why did he make christards as thick as trees, glam-rock loving tit, jerrypong?

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

I'm glad you agree that the writers of the Bible, at the time, believed (with at least in regards to the resurrection) that they were writing truth. Whether it actually happened (or any of the supernatural claims) is a matter of faith, in light of this evidence. It appears the eye witnesses which passed their story along saw some stuff they deemed as supernatural - that's all we can go on.

With regards to accepting fallacious philosophical arguments - its not for me at least about blind "acceptance" but rather - as long as the argument is well reasoned and plausible- about providing hope. If you want to place the bar so high that only rigid logical deductive proofs are worth considering as truth - arguably the only absolutely true statement possible is "I think therefore I am" - nothing else can be certain. There should be a little room for speculation in the quest for deciphering reality.

If you want the truth, you must admit at least uncertainty whether God exists.

Weirdo, illiterate, android IQ 66

How come, if your lard is so powerful, how come he made you as thick as a tree?

Wanker.

[JerryJohn]

hertz vanrental wrote

If de lard is so powerful, why did he make christards as thick as trees, glam-rock loving tit, jerrypong?

Hertzy,

Why do you read and post on a thread that has two Christians posting if you they Christians are "thick as trees?"

JJ

[hertz vanrental]

JerryJohn wrote

Hertzy,

Why do you read and post on a thread that has two Christians posting if you they Christians are "thick as trees?"

JJ

Would you like to translate your post into English?

What a glam rock dumb christard asshole you are jerrypong.

[Andrew66]

hertz vanrental wrote

Weirdo, illiterate, android IQ 66

How come, if your lard is so powerful, how come he made you as thick as a tree?

Wanker.

Thick as a tree, hmmmm yes. This will get KA hot.

Thanks for the compliment

LOL!!