• 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.
Lucian said:
Metropolis does exist. There's a Superman statue, a Superman museum, etc. So there is evidence that the DC Comics writers told the truth.
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey said:
Perhaps you would care to step in where Doc has failed and present us with this evidence for the veracity of the NT and of God's existence?
Click to expand...

On the same level: There are plenty of Jesus statues, Jesus and God churches, etc. So there is evidence that the NT writers told the truth.
 
DOC said:
The Holocaust1 would be one. Many people2 in Germany believed killing Jews was in the best interest of their country. If you, like I, believe3 the Holocaust was wrong why should your opinion matter more4 than then those Germans in power at the time.
Click to expand...

(Emphasis and reference numbers added.)

1. The Holocaust is not an absolute moral law, for starters.

2. This qualifier is why this idea is not absolute.

3. This statement of belief is why this is an opinion, not a fact, a distinction you seem to have trouble with.

4. It doesn't. Neither of our opinions matter. The only thing that did matter was that there were more people in the world who thought it was a bad idea AND were willing to fight for their belief than there were people who thought it was a good idea AND were willing to fight for their belief. This is precisely why morality is ALWAYS subjective.

You say that killing people is always bad. Is it wrong if you kill someone who is trying to kill you or your children? Is capitol punishment wrong? Is executing dangerous maniacs like a Hitler wrong? Is religious murder wrong? Think the Christian Inquisition or Crusades, or the Islamic Jihads or beheading of Muslims who have "sinned" against the Koran.

If your morality is absolute, the answer to all of the above is yes, they are all wrong. So you'd have to stand there and let some maniac murder your children. And you'd have to condemn your own religion for its past actions in the Crusades and the Inquisition.

The world is not black and white. Neither is morality. You excused a lot of the evils in the Bible as being a product of its times (like the slavery being a form of welfare). That alone is proof that morality is subjective. If your own holy book, your source of morality, sanctions an immoral act, you have no leg to stand on in this argument.
 
Simon39759 said:
Absurd, the real Metropolis of fiction (hurm) is on the East Coast, probably in the State of New York.
Don't make me burn you at the stakes now, arguing about Gospels is all fun and jokes, but Comics are SERIOUS BUSINESS.
Click to expand...

I see you are a believer in the inerrancy of the Comics. I would remind you, however, that DC Comics declared Metropolis, IL the "Hometown of Superman" in 1972. I don't care if the great comics scholar Sir Stan Lee did declare Jerry Siegel one of the greatest historians who ever lived: there are discrepancies in your holy works.
 
Please, DOC, for the love of your God, take an introductory course in logic.

Please


It might help you understand why all the "evidence" you have trotted out so far is not actually evidence, and why your arguments are invalid.

You've used almost every logical fallacy I can name in this thread alone.

Every post of yours in which you try to provide evidence, fails due to these fallacies.

The fact is that you do not see this, do not understand this, and disregard our explanations of it.

You plainly have no understanding of logic. This is why you do not understand our objections to what you say.

So please, take a course in introductory logic and critical thinking. It will help you.


Because, to date, you have not provided one iota of what was promised in the thread title.

All you've done is provided irrelevancies, nonsense, and off-topic blather which you pretend is related to the topic.
 
X said:
The fact is that you do not see this, do not understand this, and disregard our explanations of it.
Click to expand...
I sincerely wonder why DOC disregards such explanations...

My hunch is that its part and parcel of maintaining the delusion - like all theists, he knows that his belief system is based on exceedingly fragile nonsense and his faith rests on nothing more than smoke 'n' mirrors style bollocks
 
Lucian said:
I see you are a believer in the inerrancy of the Comics. I would remind you, however, that DC Comics declared Metropolis, IL the "Hometown of Superman" in 1972. I don't care if the great comics scholar Sir Stan Lee did declare Jerry Siegel one of the greatest historians who ever lived: there are discrepancies in your holy works.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, comics are inherent.
I know that some comic readers might disagree with me on this, but that just prove that they are mistaken and not true believers (cf. third quote).

Now, some skeptics may think at first that the two statements, Metropolis IL being the 'Hometown of Superman' and Metropolis being in New York states as being mutually exclusive.
But, any true comic apologetist will tell you that no. It is clear that Metropolis Il is the hometown of earth two Superman. While the real earth one Superman, and corresponding hometown, are from New York state.
This is just your anti-multiverse bias showing.
 
Hello all. Posting from a sunny island in south east Asia. I leave for a few weeks and we end up with Superman talk. Can we get back to more serious topic like Spiderman? So has DOC produced anything new or relevant to the OP yet? Ah back to my cabana.
 
paximperium said:
Hello all. Posting from a sunny island in south east Asia. I leave for a few weeks and we end up with Superman talk. Can we get back to more serious topic like Spiderman? So has DOC produced anything new or relevant to the OP yet? Ah back to my cabana.
Click to expand...

No. Why do you think we're talking about Superman? We're just shooting the breeze waiting for the greatest historical coup in...well...history.

Have fun on your sunny island.
 
Actually, while done in a humorous attempt, I did an effort to mimic several of Doc's arguments in my Superman apologetic, in the hope that seeing it in a silly context will help him understand how unconvincing they are.
 
DOC said:
Were talking about the "Moral Argument" which is topical to giving evidence for God; and showing increased evidence for God is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth. And if something is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth it can be considered some evidence to be put on the scale for the NT writers telling the truth.
Click to expand...

I'm amused by how many posters have debunked this false logic.
Showing increased evidence for God by way of the 'Moral Argument' in itself is false logic, since you haven't actually shown to anyone's satisfaction that the moral argument is anything but 'utter' nonsense.
The burden of proof is you to show the moral argument is valid-your example of the killing of the 'innocent' has been effectively debunked by the repeated quotations from the bible showing the slaughter of the innocent at God's command.

The dietary laws (hint- bacon) have been also given as an example of the relativity of morality.

You've given no example of any instance which illustrates a claim to the existence of an absolute morality. Until you can do so, your argument falls apart.

The bolded bit is yet another logical fallacy, DOC, because the existence of God doesn't in any way mean or can be construed to mean the NT writers were telling the truth. Or were more likely to have done so.

Come on, DOC. Tryig to find evidence the NT writers told the truth in logic simply doesn't work. Even a pakeha can falsify the first part of your argument, it's that bad.

That said, why do you keep bringing up swamp scum?
Have you some recipes you'd like to share with us or what?
 
paximperium said:
Hello all. Posting from a sunny island in south east Asia. I leave for a few weeks and we end up with Superman talk. Can we get back to more serious topic like Spiderman? So has DOC produced anything new or relevant to the OP yet? Ah back to my cabana.
Click to expand...

If there are no photos it didn't happen.:)
 
six7s said:
I sincerely wonder why DOC disregards such explanations...

My hunch is that its part and parcel of maintaining the delusion - like all theists, he knows that his belief system is based on exceedingly fragile nonsense and his faith rests on nothing more than smoke 'n' mirrors style bollocks
Click to expand...
I think it is a shame that you feel the need to write fallacious things like the above, in particular 'like all theists'. It is gratuitous and this kind of posting style has the opposite effect to what you intended on theists like me, who also might be reading this thread. You see, in my Xtian circles I am one of those trying to show that the Bible, for instance, did not drop out the sky perfectly formed. The more reasonable you are with me, the easier it is for me to agree that I don't have an answer to something and that there is a problem there. But when you assert things like the above, you begin to argue fallaciously yourself. Your quote yesterday from Bertrand Russell; although it definitely has a ring of truth it is perhaps an appeal to authority and applies to not only believers. Unfortunately, the desire for theists to be wrong is so strong in some that some atheists leap at anything, without properly checking it, or even thinking that it might be just preliminary, e.g., all the Mithras influence on Xtianity.

I have no time for the sophistry attempted by DOC and many good arguments have been put forward by the posters here in contrast to DOC. Because of these good and logical points, you don't need to smear. I understand the frustration on this thread and elsewhere.
 
DOC said:
I meant it shows that almost everyone believes in absolute morality. So that means almost everyone believes something is right or wrong regardless of how many people believe so.

So where did these absolute moral laws that almost everyone believes in come from? I contend moral laws must come from a lawgiver, they don't come from swamp scum. And since these absolute moral laws are outside the human experience they must have been made by someone outside of humanity {aka God}. That is unless you believe non living material like swamp scum can make absolute moral laws.
Click to expand...

Morality comes from knowing right from wrong in a part of the brain which evolved over many thousands of years. Namely: consciousness. Why would you believe that only a god's existence assures morality. You must have very little faith in what man is capable of. Man has the capability to save or destroy the planet without any help from anyone.
 
Mr Clingford said:
I think it is a shame that you feel the need to write fallacious things like the above, in particular 'like all theists'. It is gratuitous and this kind of posting style has the opposite effect to what you intended on theists like me, who also might be reading this thread. You see, in my Xtian circles I am one of those trying to show that the Bible, for instance, did not drop out the sky perfectly formed. The more reasonable you are with me, the easier it is for me to agree that I don't have an answer to something and that there is a problem there. But when you assert things like the above, you begin to argue fallaciously yourself. Your quote yesterday from Bertrand Russell; although it definitely has a ring of truth it is perhaps an appeal to authority and applies to not only believers. Unfortunately, the desire for theists to be wrong is so strong in some that some atheists leap at anything, without properly checking it, or even thinking that it might be just preliminary, e.g., all the Mithras influence on Xtianity.

I have no time for the sophistry attempted by DOC and many good arguments have been put forward by the posters here in contrast to DOC. Because of these good and logical points, you don't need to smear. I understand the frustration on this thread and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Care to provide evidence of any deity?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Care to provide evidence of any deity?
Click to expand...
I only have experiences for which you would have to take me at my word, so no, I can't. If you knew me, then you might think that I am not prone to bull flights of fancy and wonder what I am talking about, but as you don't know me and this is a text-based medium, and the chances on the web of convincing someone from scratch to change their position either way is near nil, then there is no point in me trying to prove something like there is a god. I think it is a fruitless task.
 
Mr Clingford said:
I only have experiences for which you would have to take me at my word, so no, I can't. If you knew me, then you might think that I am not prone to bull flights of fancy and wonder what I am talking about, but as you don't know me and this is a text-based medium, and the chances on the web of convincing someone from scratch to change their position either way is near nil, then there is no point in me trying to prove something like there is a god. I think it is a fruitless task.
Click to expand...

Personal anecdotes, in person or over the net, do not sufficiently provide evidence of the existence of a deity.
 
Mr Clingford said:
Well, of course they don't and that's what I wrote above, so we agree.
Click to expand...


It's annoying when that happens, isn't it?

Do you have any views, apart from Nazareth, which we've already touched on, about the historical accuracy of the NT?

I hope you know that I'm sincere in asking, and I'm certainly not asking for solid evidence, but I respect your opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom