No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Flann 5 · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:54 am

Gnostic Bishop wrote:I do not recall telling people that, like your Inquisition, I will kill then for not thinking my way.

You could though, if you decided that in your opinion it was morally good to do so. Others just don't share your opinion on this particular point.
I don't agree with them, but I take the ten commandments as divine revelation. Those Inquisitorial "Christians" apparently did not.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Your post speaks to moral issues around God becoming man's scapegoat.

I have asked you to debate that issue and you chose not to.

In case you are ready now, let me throw this bit out to get you started.

The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did to Jesus murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

================

No, Ive answered all this before. You pick a verse here and there ignoring the entire context of the books you take them from, and entire books like Hebrews and the entire bible which you think is negated by out of context quotes.

Gnostic Bishop · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:38 am

Flann 5 wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote:I do not recall telling people that, like your Inquisition, I will kill then for not thinking my way.
You could though, if you decided that in your opinion it was morally good to do so. Others just don't share your opinion on this particular point.
I don't agree with them, but I take the ten commandments as divine revelation. Those Inquisitorial "Christians" apparently did not.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:Your post speaks to moral issues around God becoming man's scapegoat.

I have asked you to debate that issue and you chose not to.

In case you are ready now, let me throw this bit out to get you started.

The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did to Jesus murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

================
No, Ive answered all this before. You pick a verse here and there ignoring the entire context of the books you take them from, and entire books like Hebrews and the entire bible which you think is negated by out of context quotes.

You answered nothing.

You will note that my argument does not rely on any quote but just good old common sense that says that to punish the innocent instead of the guilty is immoral.

Your common sense cannot argue the opposite so don't pretend that you have.

Regards
DL

Flann 5 · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:49 am

Gnostic Bishop wrote: You answered nothing.
Flann 5 wrote:No, Ive answered all this before. You pick a verse here and there ignoring the entire context of the books you take them from, and entire books like Hebrews and the entire bible which you think is negated by out of context quotes.
You will note that my argument does not rely on any quote but just good old common sense that says that to punish the innocent instead of the guilty is immoral.

Your common sense cannot argue the opposite so don't pretend that you have.

Flann 5 wrote:
It's pointless repeating to you the voluntary nature of this action, as you just don't listen.

Gnostic Bishop · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:28 am

Flann 5 wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote: You answered nothing.
Flann 5 wrote:No, Ive answered all this before. You pick a verse here and there ignoring the entire context of the books you take them from, and entire books like Hebrews and the entire bible which you think is negated by out of context quotes.
You will note that my argument does not rely on any quote but just good old common sense that says that to punish the innocent instead of the guilty is immoral.

Your common sense cannot argue the opposite so don't pretend that you have.
Flann 5 wrote:
It's pointless repeating to you the voluntary nature of this action, as you just don't listen.

Exactly.

As you ignore the biblical quote that shows you are wrong and even if right, that does not change the fact that even voluntary sacrifice from the one who condemned you is not moral.

Your sense of justice is as foolish and immoral as your God's. The fact that you cannot argue for his position tells it all.

He volunteered is not a valid argument for injustice.

Regards
DL

Interbane · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:30 am

Flann wrote:The difference is that theists say that it is God who always existed not matter or energy.

That's what is commonly referred to as a distinction without a difference. As long as it qualifies as something instead of nothing, there is no difference. You open the door on a thousand impossible questions. Has god existed eternally? If so, then what did he do for an eternity before he turned the nothingness around him into something? Where is your evidence?

You don't see these things as ridiculous, because you've accepted them for so long, like the idiosyncracies of a lifelong friend that have never been questioned. But step back and take a long hard look. Appealing to god instead of nature does not make this any less ridiculous.

Flann wrote:The most commonly held view in science currently is the big bang hypothesis. The expanding universe and the second law of thermodynamics require for them a beginning to space,time,and matter.

No, a beginning is not required, neither logically nor hypothetically. The two dominant naturalistic hypotheses do not propose a beginning.

Flann wrote:The complexity of the cosmos with it's order and laws suggests creative intelligence behind it.

The blind indifference of the cosmos and it's order and laws suggest no creative intelligence behind it.

The complexity of the cosmos does not "suggest" an intelligence either. Expand on this "suggestion". It's your own presupposition, reflected back in your beliefs. That there is complexity give no hints as to why there is complexity. We know that the laws of nature can and do alter simple things into complex things. So to say that this suggests intelligence is simply false.

Flann wrote:There are other theories like mutiverses but what scientific evidence is there for this or the "Wonderlands"of string theory?

What scientific evidence is there for a god? You're applying double standards. You can't dismiss alternative views for reasons that you refuse to apply to your own views.

There is no part in any of this that makes sense of a supernatural worldview. Every single point falls apart, all the way down to the turtles. The very best you can admit is agnosticism, which is the only thing I'm defending here. Saying "something came from nothing" is a dismissive gesture aimed at supporting your belief in the supernatural.

Gnostic Bishop · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:44 am

Interbane wrote:[

What scientific evidence is there for a god? You're applying double standards. You can't dismiss alternative views for reasons that you refuse to apply to your own views.

.

What is disheartening is that Christians also end with a moral double standard where they forgive their God for the same infraction that they would condemn men for.

They even admit it and do not care. That is how the fear of God makes good people do evil things.

Regards
DL

Interbane · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:52 am

GB wrote:What is disheartening is that Christians also end with a moral double standard where they forgive their God for the same infraction that they would condemn men for.

The same reason is given on both accounts, because a god is an explanatory black hole. You can't presume to ask questions about a god, therefore his existence resolves all logical conundrums. This solves the question about "what came first" as well. Because you can't ask "what came before god", or "why does god exist". God is the ultimate termination point for any and all questions, which is why he's such a popular stopping point for a worldview.

Flann 5 · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:01 pm

Interbane wrote:No, a beginning is not required, neither logically nor hypothetically. The two dominant naturalistic hypotheses do not propose a beginning.

What are these two dominant naturalistic hypotheses,Interbane?

Interbane · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:11 pm

Flann wrote:What are these two dominant naturalistic hypotheses,Interbane?

What they are is a red herring. The other points I make render this irrelevant.

With that said, Chaotic Inflation Theory and Smolin Selection. But this doesn't matter. All this does is give you something tangible to investigate for a reason to disbelieve. A reason to disbelieve does not support belief in an alternative. Only evidence for the alternative gives support for the alternative.

Gnostic Bishop · Unread post Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:15 pm

Interbane wrote:
GB wrote:What is disheartening is that Christians also end with a moral double standard where they forgive their God for the same infraction that they would condemn men for.
The same reason is given on both accounts, because a god is an explanatory black hole. You can't presume to ask questions about a god, therefore his existence resolves all logical conundrums. This solves the question about "what came first" as well. Because you can't ask "what came before god", or "why does god exist". God is the ultimate termination point for any and all questions, which is why he's such a popular stopping point for a worldview.

Termination point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgLfOrVJJMg

Jesus said the same thing but he is sure slow.

Regards
DL

No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Re: No Evidence that Jesus was a Myth

Login • Register

Quick Links