Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by thunderbolt

Saul of Tarsus was the chief persecutor of early Christians. He dragged people to prison. When they did not recant their faith, he was a party to their execution. But he had a dramatic encounter with the risen Christ on his way to Damascus and he was transformed from Saul, the enemy of Christianity, to Paul, the main propagator of its message. He left his position of prestige in Jewish society, to become a travelling missionary who experienced incredible suffering in order to share the love of Christ throughout the Roman empire.

Roman governor Plinius Secundus wrote in his Epistles X96 that Christians were people who loved the truth at any cost. of Nazareth.

two points:

1) Saul of Tarsus - in other words, Paul - never actually claims to have met jesus. history shows almost conclusively that Paul was part of a group called the Gnostics...that he in fact never even suggests that the Jesus story is meant to be real. I really doubt you have any idea what i'm talking about, so i'll stop.

2) Romans wrote of "Christians" - ie, people who believed in christ. they never actually wrote of jesus himself. they were just reporting that, at that time, there existed a bunch of people called "christians". that is well known. it does not constitute proof that jesus lived.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by thunderbolt


When confronted by solid indisputable evidence, he could no longer deny that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Later, Lew Wallace wrote the book Ben Hur, one of the greatest English novels ever written concerning the time of Christ.

resorting to cutting and pasting now are we?? (the last refuge of a bullshit artist!)

why are you hiding this "solid, indisputable evidence"? why not show me it? so i too can believe!
i mean, if it is really indisputable, i would have no choice but to believe right? why are you denying me this opportunity to be saved???

 

[aphexcoil]

Mr. Gekko,

How can they be winning? These bumbling idiots aren't even using the correct terminology! They are calling themselves atheists when, as axeman erroneously stated in a previous post, he really means he is AGNOSTIC. There is a difference. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity or supreme being.

Danny Boy is just bouncing around trifle semantics and half-proven logic to try and prove his points on various aspects of religion, but the only thing he can do is regurgitate paradoxes that are over hundreds of years old.

They aren't wasting anything except their precious time here on Earth.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by aphexcoil
Mr. Gekko,

How can they be winning? These bumbling idiots aren't even using the correct terminology! They are calling themselves atheists when, as axeman erroneously stated in a previous post, he really means he is AGNOSTIC. There is a difference. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity or supreme being.

no, he means ATHEIST.

(by the way, you reckon you've read all those impressive sounding writers you listed? .....yeah right!)

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by thunderbolt
Later, Lew Wallace wrote the book Ben Hur, one of the greatest English novels ever written concerning the time of Christ.

I thought that the word "novel" meant "fiction". I could be wrong. I went to grad school for journalism at Columbia. They never really talked about this. Maybe I cut school that day.

 

[aphexcoil]

Daniel,

No Danny Boy, I just picked some names off the top of my head because I felt like lieing to you. ?!?!

Perhaps you should see a proctologist to get that head out of your ass and then go see a dentist to get that shoe out of your mouth.

 

[axeman]

Originally posted by aphexcoil


Yeah, right. You don't know what I've read. I've read everything from all of Darwin's works to Paul Sartre, Niccolo Machhiavelli, Plato, Descartes, Martin Luther (not king), yada yada yada -- I've also read all the paradoxes, the refutes to those paradoxes, the refutes to the refutes -- yada yada yada.


Apparently you read all that stuff and didnt remember any
of it or you wouldn't be trying to use an argument
as old and as weak and as refuted as Pascals Wager.

Your not making sense. Your contradicting yourself.

WHY did you attempt to use Pascals Wager if you already
KNEW it was an old, crusty, easily torn to shreds position?

Why????



To put it all together for you -- the reason I don't feel like debating is because I don't want to get drawn into a debate that has no winners.



This debate clearly has a winner. Its been the atheists.
If this was scored formally, it wouldn't even be close.



Everyone knows that this debate cannot be won and I have no interests in stroking my ego on a message board using eloquent prose that shows I'm some sort of "deep" thinker.


Not true. Another empty assertion.
The debate has clearly already been won.
You have failed to defend your position of there
being a creator. That is clear.


I'd much rather sit here and look at these ES charts and play around with some ideas which I could profit from.


Fine, then do it. Stop wasting your time with
old, weak, theistic positions with KNOWN flaws.


God is a debate that cannot be solved and YOU KNOW IT. Any attempt by you to drag me into this debate will fail because it is futile and pointless to argue with you over something that supercedes logic.


No, I don't know it.
Yet another empty assertion.
You boldly assert that is supercedes logic, yet failed
to prove this.


If you and Danny Boy can't understand that, then perhaps you should log off and go play with your legos and tinker toys.

We understand fine. We understand that you have
failed to defend your position. We understand that
you use weak arguments. We understand that you
like to make many empty assertions which you fail to back up.
We understand that you would be no challenge in
a formally scored debate.

Daniel. don't even bother. This one ended at the start line

peace

axeman

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by aphexcoil
Daniel,

No Danny Boy, I just picked some names off the top of my head because I felt like lieing to you. ?!?!

.

it'd really be better for you if you hadn't. you have obviously learnt nothing from them.

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by daniel_m


it'd really be better for you if you hadn't. you have obviously learnt nothing from them.

Watch your spelling, your grammar, and your capitalization. Also your punctuation could use a little work!


(just trying to help sonny boy)

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by aphexcoil


Danny Boy is just bouncing around trifle semantics

the word "semantics" really seems to have become a pejorative, epsecially amongst theists.

it means: the study of meaning in language

it is actually quite important. otherwise theists could just throw out any old words and claim it's up to the atheists to make sense of them
wait a minute....that's exactly what they're doing!