• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Safe-Keeper said:
Aaaand we're back at page 1 :rolleyes: .

DOC, how did you manage to miss the posts that point out the martyrs of other religions? Does the fact that the suicide bombers of 9/11 chose to die for their faith mean that it's fundamentalist Islam's view of Abrahamic religion that's true?
Click to expand...

It tells me there is power and "some" truth to their religion since they were willing to die for it. But I don't believe they have the total truth. Just like I believe Mormons have some truth but they also have some falsities. I also believe many US Christians are not totally in tune with true Christianity.
 
DOC said:
It tells me there is power and "some" truth to their religion since they were willing to die for it.
Click to expand...

Was there some truth to Heaven's Gate, too?

A previous response on the matter:

DOC said:
Well the bible does say that there will be false prophets that will deceive many.
Click to expand...

Could you point out the items of truth in the Heaven's Gate doctrine?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Another post with no sources.
Click to expand...
No Source was needed for that post.

The fact that a set of equations can have multiple solutions is a rather low level mathematical concept.
 
So,

1.) Items # 1, 2, 8 and 9 are elements of good story telling.

DOC has attempted the clever, "No, it's not." argument. Unfortunately, there are simply too many examples in literature where such plot devices are used. As such, We can easily dissmiss these arguments.

2.) Item # 10 is currently being debated.

DOC has claimed that a willingness to die for a cause suggests that the cause has "elements of truth" within it. This suggests that Jim Jones cult, Heaven's Gate, Columbine massacare, 9/11, Solar Temple Suicides, would all have elements of "truth" in them. Further, it would suggest that all religions which have martyrs all have "elements of truth".


3.) Geisler's is a poor apologist.
Geisler's book as presented by DOC and by what is available online make it clear that he is not very good at making formal arguments. Further, it is clear that he either doesn't understand some basic elements of science (which are central to his argument), or he is willing to purposefully misslead readers to make a point.
 
DOC said:
FSM do you think anyone will ever die for you like they did for Jesus:
Click to expand...
I think the counter question is even more important.
Will the FSM ever ask anyone to kill for him?

Willingness to die for a cause demonstrates devotion to that cause. Devotion to a cause is not equivilent to the truth of that cause.

Demanding that someone kill in your "good" name demonstrates a sociopathic tendancy.
Do we have examples of god requesting such demands? Yes.
Do we have examples of FSM requesting such demands?
No.

Therefore, On the sociopathic diety scale. we can say
God is more likely to rank higher than FSM.
 
DOC said:
It tells me there is power and "some" truth to their religion since they were willing to die for it. But I don't believe they have the total truth. Just like I believe Mormons have some truth but they also have some falsities. I also believe many US Christians are not totally in tune with true Christianity.
Click to expand...

I know someone who said they would sacrifice their life to remove religion from the Earth.

Therefore atheism is true.
 
joobz said:
...
Do we have examples of god requesting such demands? Yes.
....
Click to expand...
.
To the au contraire, monsewer!
All we have are crazy people saying god sez to them that all those Amelekhites, Jews, Cathars.... ad infinitum must die.
Were there a single instance where big sky daddy his very own self made -any- demand, statement, request, then us atheists would really be up a crick.
 
I Ratant said:
.
To the au contraire, monsewer!
All we have are crazy people saying god sez to them that all those Amelekhites, Jews, Cathars.... ad infinitum must die.
Were there a single instance where big sky daddy his very own self made -any- demand, statement, request, then us atheists would really be up a crick.
Click to expand...

Well, of course. But, FSM states that we should judge gods by the material provided to us by thier worshipers.


When doing this, we can see that the christian god is kinda of a douche.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I know someone who said they would sacrifice their life to remove religion from the Earth.

Therefore atheism is true.
Click to expand...

The fact that 11 of the 12 apostles probably died for their beliefs so soon after Christ came is just one more piece of weight to be added to the scale of evidence. That fact in itself is does not justify a belief in Christianity over atheism. It is just one of many pieces of evidence. And as I've stated before both Christianity and atheism require faith -- that is unless you have definite proof there is no God. Does anyone here have definite proof there is no God?
 
joobz said:
...Geisler's is a poor apologist....
Click to expand...
This implies there are good ones out there. But I'm pretty sure you would believe all apologists are poor. If not name one you think is good.
 
joobz said:
So,
1.) Items # 1, 2, 8 and 9 are elements of good story telling.

DOC has attempted the clever, "No, it's not." argument. Unfortunately, there are simply too many examples in literature where such plot devices are used. As such, We can easily dissmiss these arguments.
Click to expand...

Actually, DOC just needs to provide some examples to falsify his opponents position. For example, a widely acclaimed good story with a flawless hero would prove his thesis that it is not necessary to have a flawed protagonist to have a good story.

I have suggested him to do that, but he seems to have missed my post.
 
DOC said:
The fact that 11 of the 12 apostles probably died for their beliefs so soon after Christ came is just one more piece of weight to be added to the scale of evidence.
Click to expand...

By the way, did you know that every piece of white paper "is just one of many pieces of evidence" that all ravens are black...
 
DOC said:
And as I've stated before both Christianity and atheism require faith -- that is unless you have definite proof there is no God. Does anyone here have definite proof there is no God?
Click to expand...

Yawn...why should we? You are the one claiming there is a god isn't it?

Do you have definite proof there is no Zoobob the Giant Celestial Troll? Come on DOC, give us your "proof".
 
soikins said:
Actually, DOC just needs to provide some examples to falsify his opponents position. For example, a widely acclaimed good story with a flawless hero would prove his thesis that it is not necessary to have a flawed protagonist to have a good story.

I have suggested him to do that, but he seems to have missed my post.
Click to expand...

Did you ever see any John Wayne war movies? Also there is a biographical movie about George Washington. I doubt that has any flaws of Washington? And I also doubt any Russian movies about Lenin and Stalin before the fall of Communism in Russia portrayed them with any flaws.
 
DOC said:
This implies there are good ones out there. But I'm pretty sure you would believe all apologists are poor. If not name one you think is good.
Click to expand...
Ouch, a thread derail. Nice selective answering DOC.
Why haven't you replied to Joobz's many other questions?

Hey, but that's completely true. There are no good apologists. They all rely on logical fallacies, philosophical juggling and fast talk to make their point. I've yet to read one that actually use logic and evidence to support their arguments. Would you care to recommend one?
 
DOC said:
Did you ever see any John Wayne war movies? Also there is a biographical movie about George Washington. I doubt that has any flaws of Washington? And I also doubt any Russian movies about Lenin and Stalin before the fall of Communism in Russia portrayed them with any flaws.
Click to expand...

You mean the multiple movies of George Washington showing him angry, easy to lose his temper and unsure of himself during crossing of the Delaware?

The Lenin movies? Not too good, since I don't think too many Russians are watching them nowadays.

The John Wayne movies? Depends...which movie are you talking about? Most of them were actually terrible.

Would you care to rephrase?
 
DOC said:
Did you ever see any John Wayne war movies? Also there is a biographical movie about George Washington. I doubt that has any flaws of Washington? And I also doubt any Russian movies about Lenin and Stalin before the fall of Communism in Russia portrayed them with any flaws.
Click to expand...

I must confess that, coming form an ex-soviet state, I have not seen any of John Wayne movies or the biographical movie about George Washington. Regarding those Lenin and Stalin movies I've seen (unfortunately I've seen my fair share of them in my childhood days. Surprisingly there are not a lot of those on Russian TV nowdays...), I wouldn't regard them to qualify as "a widely acclaimed good story" - they are neither good, nor widely acclaimed.
 
DOC said:
Did you ever see any John Wayne war movies? Also there is a biographical movie about George Washington. I doubt that has any flaws of Washington? And I also doubt any Russian movies about Lenin and Stalin before the fall of Communism in Russia portrayed them with any flaws.
Click to expand...
So for 2 of your examples you do not even know if they support your stance you only doubt that they don't contradict it. With your John Wayne example it would be nice if you mentioned which of the 171 movies IMDB lists him as appearing in you mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom