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

[kmortis]

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...)

That ship sailed LONG ago.

 

[Mister Earl]

Reposting again for Doc's convenience.

Doc. Let's say I got a concrete bunker with a locked door. No windows, no way in or out other than that door. In that bunker is a table. Let's say I leave the table with nothing on it. Then I lock the door, and then I spend a few thousand years telling people that there's an apple on the table in the bunker. Let's say they all believe me without question. Now, I return to the bunker and open the door. Will I find an apple on the table?

 

[John Jones]

I've already studied the above and chose Christianity as the one making the most sense. And you can include Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, and Scientology with the ones you listed; I've studied them also.

Confucious say "Credibility not like boomerang. Not come back after thrown away"

 

[Hokulele]

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:

<repeated blather, snipped previously>

I snipped that blather because it did not address GB's question. You know, the one you still haven't answered?

 

[joobz]

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

You are correct. There were definitely some troubling discoveries made in that thread.

From the World Magazine article "Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer" Marvin Olasky

You find same-sex marriage to be as troubling as euthanasia? How despicable.

 

[joobz]

DOC,

Here is an article by the person you call "atheist Peter Singer" (as thought Atheist is a title). The same person who you state is "most influential philosopher alive according to New Yorker Magazine"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...p=1&adxnnlx=1294862526-r0yHcQO7a6IFj6Vzp9pg A

one interesting bit in it:

In an article I wrote more than three decades ago, at the time of a humanitarian emergency in what is now Bangladesh, I used the example of walking by a shallow pond and seeing a small child who has fallen in and appears to be in danger of drowning. Even though we did nothing to cause the child to fall into the pond, almost everyone agrees that if we can save the child at minimal inconvenience or trouble to ourselves, we ought to do so. Anything else would be callous, indecent and, in a word, wrong. The fact that in rescuing the child we may, for example, ruin a new pair of shoes is not a good reason for allowing the child to drown. Similarly if for the cost of a pair of shoes we can contribute to a health program in a developing country that stands a good chance of saving the life of a child, we ought to do so.

But I suggest reading it and letting me know if you disagree with his moral, secular conclusions regarding one's duty to give money to the poor.

 

[DOC]

Soo... if people are willing to die for a thing, wrote about the thing, it became the best selling book in the world about the thing, and thousands of years later billions of people knew about the thing, that's proof enough for you that that thing was real?

This question is too general. If you read my 2200 posts in this thread you will see evidence for my beliefs.

Doc. Let's say I got a concrete bunker with a locked door. No windows, no way in or out other than that door. In that bunker is a table. Let's say I leave the table with nothing on it. Then I lock the door, and then I spend a few thousand years telling people that there's an apple on the table in the bunker. Let's say they all believe me without question. Now, I return to the bunker and open the door. Will I find an apple on the table?

Most likely not.

 

[DOC]

I snipped that blather because it did not address GB's question. You know, the one you still haven't answered?

I did answer it if you don't like my answer so be it.

 

[Akhenaten]

This question is too general.

This answer is too childish to even be considered as 'vague'. Who do you think you're fooling with this drivel, DOC?

If you read my 2200 posts in this thread you will see evidence for my beliefs.

Your 2200 posts are an indictment of your beliefs. A liability. It's hilarious that you fail to see this.

Apart from that, there are 15,400 posts in this thread which deny that you have presented any such evidence. If an argumentum ad numerum is valid, then how is it that you're not conceding a humiliating defeat?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Apart from that, there are 15,400 posts in this thread which deny that you have presented any such evidence. If an argumentum ad numerum is valid, then how is it that youre not conceding a humiliating defeat?

Did you remember to subtract out 39 other posts?

 

[Akhenaten]

I snipped that blather because it did not address GB's question. You know, the one you still haven't answered?

I did answer it if you don't like my answer so be it.

Your glib "so be it" actually means that you concede the point raised by Hokulele. Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

By the way, your allergy to question marks seems to have become more serious. You now appear to be commatose as well as interrogatively challenged.

 

[Akhenaten]

Did you remember to subtract out 39 other posts?

I did. Step-by-step.

 

[Hokulele]

I did answer it if you don't like my answer so be it.

Do you know the difference between "respond" and "answer"?

 

[joobz]

This question is too general.

DOC, what additional information do you need to be able to answer the question?

 

[Akhenaten]

If you read my 2200 posts in this thread you will see evidence for my beliefs.

On reconsideration, this post more than any other that I can recall makes it clear why you are forever destined to fail with the pathetic attempt at apologetics represented by this thread.

Evidence for your beliefs is both meaningless and completely off-topic here.

You're supposed to be providing evidence for facts contained in the New Testament. What you believe (and that should be a matter of faith alone) is completely irrelevant.

Is this too vague for you to understand, DOC? I'll use smaller words and have another go if you're still having trouble with it.

 

[Mister Earl]

Most likely not.

So you do believe, then, that under certain circumstances, that the belief of a large number of people is sufficient enough for an apple to pop into existence onto the table? Specifically, you stated "Most likely" which indicates to me that you believe there are certain situations in which an apple might spontaneously appear.

 

[six7s]

If you read my 2200 posts in this thread you will see evidence for my beliefs

No

Your posts are merely evidence OF (not FOR) your woo

However, whilst it seems that you're content to believe in anything as long as it supports your delusions, this forum is aimed at promoting critical thinking...

So, DOC... let's (momentarily) forget your 2200 posts of inane waffle and focus on the topic...

You got any evidence FOR your woo?

 

[DOC]

DOC, what additional information do you need to be able to answer the question?

First of all I want to know why he is using the word proof in this thread. This thread is about evidence not proof. Currently there is no proof for Christianity but there is plenty of evidence. This is similar to abiogenesis (the life from non-life theory), there is some evidence but no proof.

ETA But the bible does say without faith it is impossible to please God, so it would seem God doesn't want us to have definite proof regarding religion.

 

[Elizabeth I]

First of all I want to know why he is using the word proof in this thread. This thread is about evidence not proof. Currently there is no proof for Christianity but there is plenty of evidence. This is similar to abiogenesis (the life from non-life theory), there is some evidence but no proof.

ETA But the bible does say without faith it is impossible to please God, so it would seem God doesn't want us to have definite proof regarding religion.

Using the Bible to support the Bible. Haven't you learned yet?

 

[Garrette]

First of all I want to know why he is using the word proof in this thread. This thread is about evidence not proof. Currently there is no proof for Christianity but there is plenty of evidence. This is similar to abiogenesis (the life from non-life theory), there is some evidence but no proof.

ETA But the bible does say without faith it is impossible to please God, so it would seem God doesn't want us to have definite proof regarding religion.

Not aimed at DOC as he either won't get it or will pretend he doesn't or will simply ignore it:

The whole "abiogenesis isn't proved schtick" is quite humorous. Abiogenesis is proven by the fact that there is life now, unless, of course, one assumes that there always has been life. In that case, there was no creator.

The real question isn't whether there was abiogenesis--even the bible describes a form of it--the question is how.