Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Roylion]

Well you keep hanging around for scraps.

Just here to try and push back the darkness of ignorance and superstition by refuting those unsupported and unfounded claims to truth that offer no evidence in support of such claims.

You keep asking for evidence of god and when we give you the steps to follow to find the evidence you don’t want the evidence anymore

Steps to nowhere.

Go and pray to God( don’t worry what he looks like)

What is this ‘god’ I’m supposed to pray to and I presume worship. You can’t even answer that.

For a proselytizer of your belief system you are remarkably ineffective.

 

[Opine]

Boston tiger, in pursuance of scripture verse Mark 6:11, Matthew 10:14 and one or 2 related others, I think it’s time you tell Roy to go forth and multiply. He’s repeated insistence on having you prove your faith to him on his terms every time is evedince he has no interest in understating you or your faith.

 

[Roylion]

Boston tiger, in pursuance of scripture verse Mark 6:11, Matthew 10:14 and one or 2 related others, I think it’s time you tell Roy to go forth and multiply. He’s repeated insistence on having you prove your faith to him on his terms every time is evedince he has no interest in understating you or your faith.

We continue to push back the darkness of ignorance and superstition by refuting those unsupported and unfounded claims to truth (which for many is nothing more than proselytizing). These claims to 'truth' offer no evidence in support of such claims.

People are free to believe what they like on faith only (such as the resurrectioin), but when claiming such as truth in order to proselytise, then their claims will be questioned.

 

[Boston tiger]

Just here to try and push back the darkness of ignorance and superstition by refuting those unsupported and unfounded claims to truth that offer no evidence in support of such claims.



Steps to nowhere.



What is this ‘god’ I’m supposed to pray to and I presume worship. You can’t even answer that.

For a proselytizer of your belief system you are remarkably ineffective.

You can lead a horse to water Roy.

Plenty of evidence of Roy … just have a drink.

I think though I understand.. with your mind .. for you to believe you would need to be a fundamentalist. Is that what is bothering you ?

Are all atheists fundamentalists ?

 

[Opine]

We continue to push back the darkness of ignorance and superstition by refuting those unsupported and unfounded claims to truth (which for many is nothing more than proselytizing). These claims to 'truth' offer no evidence in support of such claims.

People are free to believe what they like on faith only (such as the resurrectioin), but when claiming such as truth in order to proselytise, then their claims will be questioned.

Blah blah blah

 

[Roylion]

Blah blah blah

So in response that's the best you can come up with. Underwhelming once again.

 

[Roylion]

You can lead a horse to water Roy.

For a proselytizer of your belief system you are remarkably ineffective.

Plenty of evidence of Roy … just have a drink.

No there's not.

Are all atheists fundamentalists ?

Don't know. I'm not an atheist.

 

[Boston tiger]

We continue to push back the darkness of ignorance and superstition by refuting those unsupported and unfounded claims to truth (which for many is nothing more than proselytizing). These claims to 'truth' offer no evidence in support of such claims.

People are free to believe what they like on faith only (such as the resurrectioin), but when claiming such as truth in order to proselytise, then their claims will be questioned.

Plenty of evidence . People even wrote about it .
Your whole existence is based on chance Roy . Surely you aren’t going to go down the road that there are laws in our existence that deem the resurrection no chance of happening. Laws in a Godless existence?? Preposterous!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Boston tiger, in pursuance of scripture verse Mark 6:11, Matthew 10:14 and one or 2 related others, I think it’s time you tell Roy to go forth and multiply. He’s repeated insistence on having you prove your faith to him on his terms every time is evedince he has no interest in understating you or your faith.

Blah blah blah.

Am I doing this right?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Plenty of evidence . People even wrote about it .
Your whole existence is based on chance Roy . Surely you aren’t going to go down the road that there are laws in our existence that deem the resurrection no chance of happening. Laws in a Godless existence?? Preposterous!

Sure, Jesus rose from the dead. So long as you use a definition of "dead" which is considerably less strict than the customary definition of the word.

What's your definition of the word "dead"?

 

[Roylion]

Plenty of evidence . People even wrote about it .

We've gone through this ad nauseum. Theological works are not historical works. Historical fiction is not necessarily factual history. There are many writings on various subjects that are not factual. Many stories, set in historical contexts that are not factual. Writing about such does not make them factual.

Your whole existence is based on chance Roy .

Very possibly. So?

the resurrection no chance of happening.

The 'resurrection' is the least likely explanation of the so-called facts you keep trotting out such as the so called 'empty tomb'. We can go through it again if you want.

 

[Roylion]

What's your definition of the word "dead"?

My definition is as follows:

'Dead' is something which has obviously completed the process of 'death'.

'Death' being the state of the body after the heart has stopped beating for a period of time and the brain has starved from lack of oxygen. The whole network of neurons has largely disintegrated, dissolved from massive cell death and the pooling of blood acids. Gases and fluids have pooled in the extremities and body cavities. Rigor mortis has set in and the body has begun to decompose.

I see no reason to accept that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[carltonchelsea]

It requires commitment and an honest heart in search of your truth.

It took me, one hour, twice a week for around a year and a half to get the confirmation that only I knew was true.

Once again; I am not trying to convert you only god can do that.

Confirmation bias isn’t very impressive.

You are incapable of converting me to anything, particularly your god delusion.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Remember when we asked you how to explain “existence” and you said Darwin. Oh we laughed and laughed.
You only have to root one goat.

No, I don’t remember this at all, I’m sure you can evidence this claim easier than your god claim??

 

[Rosscoe]

Confirmation bias isn’t very impressive.

You are incapable of converting me to anything, particularly your god delusion.

Nearly every miracle Jesus performed was because of faith. Faith comes from reading the Bible.

Confirmation bias is an assumption.

 

[Number37]

Dawkins isn’t my man for staters, although I do greatly admire him for his actual lifes work, as an evolutionary biologist and author of scientific books enabling lay folk a window into that work.
The god delusion was terrible, the problem Richard has, is that when you discuss a topic so much and it may not necessarily be your expertise, you can find ways to very easily send out mixed messages.
He’s no Christopher Hitchens, that’s for sure, Hitch never butchered a sentence, let alone a valuable idea.

Hitchens, another one of those "I don't believe in God, that's soooo stupid" but I will spend my entire life talking about God....because...... reasons.
Don't you think it is a little bizarre how so many of the high profile Atheists are obsessed with religion?

Um, I’m not sure you actually understand the meaning behind the Tyson quote I posted?
If that’s what you glean from it…..?

Does it only apply to certain people, or everybody?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Nearly every miracle Jesus performed was because of faith. Faith comes from reading the Bible.

Confirmation bias is an assumption.

Well I had the bible drummed into me from an early age and the last thing it gave me was faith (which, let's be honest here, is just wishful thinking).

 

[Number37]

Ask Roylion, he’s the site’s historian.

Take what Roylyin says with a grain of salt.
Roylyin said there's no way the Earth could be covered in water.

 

[Roylion]

Nearly every miracle Jesus performed was because of faith.

A miracle is an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

I see no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the originator/creator and ruler of the universe and exists outside time and space definitely exists. How could I?

What I do argue is that I or anyone else (despite their claims to knowledge of deities suich as Yahweh/Allah/Jesus or whatever) also cannot know the existance of such phenomena, beyond pure faith.

With faith, any imagined phenomena can be claimed as true.

Until robust, repeated supporting evidence for such a claim is presented, then I cannot ascertain its truthfulness and therefore see no reason in the meantime to believe / suppose that it is true.

Why should I accept one version of a claimed belief arrived at by faith over another claimed belief system also arrived at by faith?

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the claimed premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe (by whatever name they are called by their followers) by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than reacting with skepticism when others invoke or claim that being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency through proselytizing their faith.

Faith comes from reading the Bible.

I've read the Bible many times.

 

[Roylion]

Take what Roylyin says with a grain of salt.
Roylyin said there's no way the Earth could be covered in water.

There's absolutely no evidence for a global flood event. Present any evidence that suggests there was such an event here. Please move beyond the Bible said so.

 

[Gethelred]

Take what Roylyin says with a grain of salt.
Roylyin said there's no way the Earth could be covered in water.

Out of interest, can you demonstrate that there is enough water on earth to cover the entire continental landmass under its current configuration?

 

[Number37]

There's absolutely no evidence for a global flood event. Present any evidence that suggests there was such an event here. Please move beyond the Bible said so.

We've had 5 ice ages.

 

[tenderwarrior]

I am currently listening to this podcast, a pastor and a theologian discussing issues and topics within Christianity that they struggle with.

Worth a listen for Christians and maybe also for some of those questioning.

Google Podcasts is no longer available

podcasts.google.com

 

[Roylion]

We've had 5 ice ages.

Is that the best you have? What's that got to do with a global flood event?

In an iceage there is less water covering the planet.

There is NO evidence in support of a global flood event. Present any evidence that suggests there was such an event here.

 

[Number37]

Out of interest, can you demonstrate that there is enough water on earth to cover the entire continental landmass under its current configuration?

During Ice Ages sea levels drop more than 100m.
Do you think that would be enough to cover the landmass?