Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
No, you responded to the first sentence and ignored the rest of the post. Here, look.
So, "I will answer this in 10 days" means "as time permits" which means "never"? Please note, you never addressed the main question which had to do with differing accounts, not the term "myth".
There was a little bit of semantic quibbling about quotations, but never a definitive answer. Color me surprised.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Has the date and manner of death of simon the zealot been told ? or was that simon guy immortal and i need to go with my 2H highlander cleaver to him and have a short discussion ?
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,121
Doc this is a patently ridiculous thread. I would wager you have committed every sigma logical fallacy in this thread over the years you've been regurgitating apologetics. Most of the time you just ignore carefully considered questions, and when you do rise to answer something, you shoot yourself in the foot with your answer.
Why on earth do you bother? Do you really, truly, honestly believe that you are being logical? That you are engaging in intellectually honest debate? Because I'm finding it rather difficult to understand how someone can be so thoroughly and utterly wrong about so many things so consistently.
Why on earth do you bother? Do you really, truly, honestly believe that you are being logical? That you are engaging in intellectually honest debate? Because I'm finding it rather difficult to understand how someone can be so thoroughly and utterly wrong about so many things so consistently.
AdinDraco
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 664
To be fair, mine is showing 441 pages as well. There must be some way of altering the settings (posts per page or something).
AdinDraco
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 664
Also, get off the # of posts thing and the whole "you all talking about me" thing - I talk about homeopathy, Tom Cruise etc with my wife and others all the time.....you don't want to know what I'm saying about them and it doesn't lend them any form of credibility or relevance.
Also - for the love of your god - please, please get an understanding of the Appeal to Popularity and why it's a fallacy. If you allow that there is a god and it's either allah or Jehovah, then either way you slice it a billion people must be wrong.
Also - for the love of your god - please, please get an understanding of the Appeal to Popularity and why it's a fallacy. If you allow that there is a god and it's either allah or Jehovah, then either way you slice it a billion people must be wrong.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
What you should have studied was who wrote these tales, was there any basis for the tales, what purpose did the authors hope to achieve, could they just be an evolution of much earlier material and could such tales be taken seriously today and if not, why do you think they were nearly 2000 ago?.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Ok
8 posts / 3.5 (Average of 3 and 4) = 2.29 posts about DOC/page
441 pages *2.29 posts about DOC/page = 1008 posts about DOC.
As of your post, there were 17617 posts.
Meaning that 5.7%(1008/17617) of the posts in this thread are about DOC.
Interestingly, there has been 0 posts containing evidence* in support of the OP.
0 posts/17617 posts = 0% of the posts in this thread have contained any evidence* in support of the OP.
There has been 1 post that has provided evidence that this thread contains posts about DOC, or 5.7e-3% of the posts contain evidence demonstrating that people post about DOC.
*Of course, by evidence, I mean evidence that fits within the rules of logic and reason. This excludes arguments of incredulity, appeals to authority, appeals to numbers, and simple circular reasoning.
Last edited:
Oh, I know that; I use 50. I'm just pointing out to DOC that not only is the number of pages irrelevant (though it does make a change from him referencing his post count), it is completely arbitrary and unreliable as a measure.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
In context of his data, that's not true.
He counted 8 post about him in 3 or 4 pages (strange that he wouldn't know if he looked at 3 pages or 4 pages, but ok).
If we accept that the number of posts/page is constant (except for the most recent page), we can still use his reported value to determine the total number of posts about him.
I support this analysis as it represents one of the few instances where DOC has provided actual evidence of something.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Here's the context of that post:
DOC, are you now claiming to be Simon the Zealot?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
GrandMasterFox
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,391
Why don't you give the post where there was alleged semantic quibbling, you posted another one but left out the most important part, which is this:
Step 1 (Genesis 1: 1,2) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
It is important to recognizes the presence of the “spirit of God" at the “surface of the waters”. This frame of reference will be important in considering the remaining steps of Genesis. Science says” There was a beginning of time, space, and matter according to general relativity which was first proposed by Albert Einstein...
Step 2 (Genesis 1:3) And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Because the spirit of God was hovering over the “surface of the waters”, this reference indicates that light became visible from the vantage point of God – in other words, at the surface of the ocean. Science says : Light throughout the universe would have been available long before Earth developed . However, when considering the language of the Bible, science would agree to the point of Genesis 1:3 – that the next development step, from the vantage point of the surface of the earth, would be that dense gases would become translucent - allowing a small amount of light to reach the earth. This step is vital for photosynthesis, necessary for plant life.
Step 3 (Genesis 1:6) And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so."
Science says: the next step in development was that heated water would evaporate into clouds. This would set up the hydrological cycle, which is necessary for life.
Step 4 (Genesis 1:9-10) "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good."
Science says: The next phase of planetary development would be heavy seismic and volcanic activity, which would have caused creation of the continents and other land masses in a proportion of 30 percent land -– ideal for life.
Step 5 (Genesis 1:11) Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so."
Science says: Of all the life forms mentioned in the creation account of the Bible, vegetation would be the next step. Light, water, and the large amounts of carbon dioxide that were all present on the early earth would have set the stage for plant life.
Muncaster goes on to describe 5 more steps which I might bring in later as time permits. He then says on page 81
“the ten steps of creation in Genesis agree with the listing of the order of those same events as defined by science. The odds of randomly “guessing” this order would be about 1 chance in 4 million, similar to the odds of winning a state lottery with a single ticket.”
Last edited:
Well, since you asked, you study the beliefs of an influential atheist like Peter Singer whom a New Yorker magazine article said is the most influential philosopher alive. Warning -- the following might be troubling to some people:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105421
Last edited:
GrandMasterFox
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,391
I find it far more troubling to see a several year old thread being pointed out by DOC himself and see that the last post in that thread was:
And that was back in June...
So DOC pointed out to his own thread which he never bothered reading...
Why am I not surprised?
ddt
Mafia Penguin
You mean you've read those books as attentively as you read the Bible (i.e., very cursory)? And I can't say that "Christianity" makes more sense than, say, Nazism. What is "Christianity" to begin with? At least with Nazism we know what it means, and its (former) adherents had a shared vision: strong leader, conquer Europe, and kill all the Jews. I can't see that shared vision with Christians. Let's take the "thou shalt not kill". On the one hand, there are avowed pacifists, like the Quakers, who refuse conscription; on the other hand, there are those who think it really means "kill the infidels" (crusaders), or "kill the abortion doctors". So it doesn't make sense to me, for simply lacking a clear vision. That gets us back to a still unanswered question: which denomination do you mean when you say "Christianity", DOC?
(I hope I'm not Godwinning this thread now...)
- Status