Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter

[Paul]

Sorry to intrude!

Feel free, and thanks for the link.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

You can repeat what you like for as long as you like, it won't change the fact that you made a statement that jesus did exist. If you want to amend that to say that you believe jesus existed, that's fine, just don't get indignant over use of your own words.

No I wouldn't change my use of words. I said what I said and I will stick by it.



If you had supplied the answers there would be no need for repeated questioning; the fact that you either cannot see or will not acknowledge that is part of the problem

I have already supplied the answers and am not spending my whole life repeating the same thing, if you want evidence go into a Church, read the Bible, What about all the Saints some of whom are actual people.


We were discussing Robin Hood and you claimed to be an ordinary person with no special interest in, or knowledge of, the subject.

I am still an ordinary person, since when did I claim that I had no knowledge of the subject or interest for that matter.


Careful, your halo is starting to slip.

I have a right to my opinion.


What on earth are you talking about? I merely showed how five of the definitions of wrong could be applied to religions, in the hope that you would see that your original question could have several meanings.

Ah yes but you implied those theories to myself otherwise you would not have mentioned them.


Are you reading the same thread?

I sincerely hope so


I might ask the same thing.

So ask me one question, then if Christ did and does not exist does that make every single Church goer wrong?

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Not to be sarcastic to anyone here, but someone on this forum posted this link a couple of days ago that may address this very question -

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

That may be what you are looking for, David, as for what some of the folks here see as evidence to the contrary regarding the story of Jesus. And it may help you to understand some of the skepticism regarding the entire subject.

Sorry to intrude!

So one link counts as evidence. What about the many links that I have in my system that say otherwise. One link does not prove anything. My belief still stands by the way and this forum is only making it stronger by the day. So I really should thank you.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

I cannot, nor do I seek to, prove the non-existence of a man called Jesus, in the same way that you cannot prove that a man called Horse did not exist. I, however, did not make a statement of fact about the existence of Jesus; do you see the difference in the two positions?

Well if you can't prove the non-existence of Jesus, then why should I prove to you that he does exist. If you can't prove any evidence then why should I?

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Far be it for me to interfere in this conversation, Paul, but you did say:

You can repeat what you like for as long as you like, it won't change the fact that you made a statement that jesus did exist. If you want to amend that to say that you believe jesus existed, that's fine, just don't get indignant over use of your own words.

My question to you Paul, is really, can YOU produce evidence that Jesus did NOT exist? And can you do so here? Please let's forgive clever words and the like. But can you produce proof here that Jesus did not exist? And, if so, could you please show us your evidence?

Over to you . . .


David (Farrant)

Thanks David, those are my thoughts exactly. If Paul can't give any evidence then why should he expect others to do the same thing. As I said in my previous statement, I really should thank this board because my beliefs are growing stronger by the day thanks to the ridiculous claims made by members here.

 

[Cuddles]

Well I think I'm going to have to bow out of this thread. While I don't agree with David and don't particularly like his evasive debating, at least it is possible to have a conversation with him. Unfortunately it is obvious that Catherine has no understanding of the concepts of science, evidence or burden of proof and has not understood a single word that anyone has said to her. There is really no point wasting time with someone so clearly incapable of rational discussion.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

And you brought up this entirely pointless scenario because?

Because Cuddles brought it up originally, I was merely addressing something that she said earlier.




That religious morality is working well I see.

Of course it is.


No we couldn't, we would have to say something defamatory which was heard by a third party first, and even then you would have to show that you had a reputation to damage.

Try telling that to certain people. If you said something defamatory which was heard then they have the right to sue especially if you had no evidence for what you said in the first place. But this really is going off topic.


You're not insecure but you found the need to mention it and disparage other groups.

I did not mention the fact that I was insecure, you implied that I was and I am not against any other religous groups.


They weren't my words and I emphasised the appropriate word in the quote so that it answered your previous question.


It's silly to call you on it, but not silly to say that you "would not go against {your} Church for anything or anyone. So what they say goes as far as {you are} concerned" is not?

Exactly, what my Church says or does I will firmly adhere to. What is the point in having rules and regulations and doctrines if you constantly break them.


Not if you think whatever someone else says goes and you would never oppose them just because they claim to represent your god.


If only there was some kind of formal convention, a logical fallacy perhaps, that could be used here, we could always involve Scotsmen, that would make it more interesting.


Atheists believe in lots of things, just not deities.


Except I said spiritists, didn't I.

Spiritists, Spiritualist, whatever, even Spiritists should and probably do believe in God.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Well I think I'm going to have to bow out of this thread. While I don't agree with David and don't particularly like his evasive debating, at least it is possible to have a conversation with him. Unfortunately it is obvious that Catherine has no understanding of the concepts of science, evidence or burden of proof and has not understood a single word that anyone has said to her. There is really no point wasting time with someone so clearly incapable of rational discussion.

Nice to see that Cuddles is backing down when the going gets tough, what is the saying? When the going gets tough the tough get going. Why should I have a concept of science when I'm not a scientist. Evidence is Evidence when it is put in front of you. I have quite clearly understood everything what has been put in front of me, I just quite clearly don't agree with what you are saying. And likewise, I'm not wasting my time with people who are so ignorant of religion and can't see why so many people do believe. What people are saying on this forum, is that if anyone has a belief in God then they are wrong. Thanks for the debate guys.

 

[Minarvia]

When I posted the link above I was not trying to attack Catherine, and I think maybe she thought that I was. I was just posting something to help understand why many people here are skeptical of even the existance of Jesus. I also was hoping for one of her links. I am interested in reading it, but I cannot if I don't know what it is.

 

[Paul]

No I wouldn't change my use of words. I said what I said and I will stick by it.

Fine, just don't complain we someone responds to what you actually said, not what you wanted to say.

I have already supplied the answers and am not spending my whole life repeating the same thing

You're spending more time avoiding questions than you would if you just did what you said you could do.

if you want evidence go into a Church, read the Bible,

Sigh!

What about all the Saints some of whom are actual people.

Really, I must have missed Saint Fictional of the made-up miracle.

I am still an ordinary person, since when did I claim that I had no knowledge of the subject or interest for that matter.

Why is it that, when the truth is pointed out to you, you feel a need to pointlessly argue the issue?

I have a right to my opinion.

You certainly do, but I always find it interesting that those professing religion loudest are often the quickest with the insults.

Ah yes but you implied those theories to myself otherwise you would not have mentioned them.

They're not theories, they are definitions, from a dictionary, which I tried to use to illustrate my point about knowing the context of a word you applied to history and religion.

So ask me one question,

OK, why?

then if Christ did and does not exist

So, you mean 'if christ is dead'?

does that make every single Church goer wrong?

If I were you, I'd find some definitions of logical fallacies before you make any more posts.

 

[Paul]

Well if you can't prove the non-existence of Jesus, then why should I prove to you that he does exist. If you can't prove any evidence then why should I?

Can you prove the non-existence of vampires, dragons, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, Mr Snuffleupagus or Spiderman.

 

[Paul]

Of course it is.

So you think that imposing your views on others, and limiting their expression of ideas is a moral action?

Exactly, what my Church says or does I will firmly adhere to. What is the point in having rules and regulations and doctrines if you constantly break them.

Blind obedience is not something to be proud of, even the military has exceptions for specific circumstances. A truly moral person would consider it their duty to do what they believed to be right, regardless of the dictates of others.

Spiritists, Spiritualist, whatever, even Spiritists should and probably do believe in God.

What do you mean should believe in god, are you trying to tell people what to think again?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I enjoyed (lurking) reading this thread when it was about Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter. I even follow the spin-off series about David Farrant. Now that this is no longer about Sean, but Catherine Fearnley, Jesus, and Robin Hood, I'm with Cuddles and, even though I wasn't active in the thread, I feel compelled to announce to the world that this thread's readership is now one less. It has become ridiculous (which is really something, as it started out with a vampire hunter) and it makes my brain hurt. I would suggest a thread: Catherine Fearnley - Christ and Robin Hood Believer but I think that would actually be counter-productive. Apologies to Paul, but I can only stand to watch someone bang their head for so long.

 

[Paul]

Apologies to Paul, but I can only stand to watch someone bang their head for so long.

Hehe, I'm not sure why I stay either, maybe in the deepest darkest recesses of my brain, hiding behind CTers can't really be that dumb, is the hope that one of these people might start thinking for themselves.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Fine, just don't complain we someone responds to what you actually said, not what you wanted to say.

Since when have I been complaining. Please provide evidence of my complaints. I've already answered your ridiculous questions anyway.




You're spending more time avoiding questions than you would if you just did what you said you could do.

No I'm not, I've got my beliefs and I'm sticking to them, just like you have your 'beliefs' and are sticking to them that is your perogative.


Sigh!


Really, I must have missed Saint Fictional of the made-up miracle.


Why is it that, when the truth is pointed out to you, you feel a need to pointlessly argue the issue?

The truth in your opinion not necessarily mine. Just because you believe that your version is the truth doesn't make it so.


You certainly do, but I always find it interesting that those professing religion loudest are often the quickest with the insults.

When have I insulted anyone, please provide evidence, I've answered my questions politely, If there is anyone who has been insulting it is yourself but that does not surprise me in the least because people who don't understand religion are always insulting.


They're not theories, they are definitions, from a dictionary, which I tried to use to illustrate my point about knowing the context of a word you applied to history and religion.


OK, why?

Ok why? I asked you a question simply because you are asking me and yet you cannot provide any evidence on this board to say otherwise.


So, you mean 'if christ is dead'?

Christ is not dead.


If I were you, I'd find some definitions of logical fallacies before you make any more posts.

And if I were you I'd find definitions of the word illogical. Because that is what you are being? Oh and again thanks for making my belief more stronger then before if it is possible

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Can you prove the non-existence of vampires, dragons, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, Mr Snuffleupagus or Spiderman.

Can you?

 

[CatherineFearnley]

So you think that imposing your views on others, and limiting their expression of ideas is a moral action?

Since when am I imposing my views on others as I have quite plainly said time and time again, it is upto the individual to believe in what they want to believe in. I can't put it much more simply then that.


Blind obedience is not something to be proud of, even the military has exceptions for specific circumstances. A truly moral person would consider it their duty to do what they believed to be right, regardless of the dictates of others.

Again it is not Blind obedience to proudly follow the rules of the Church that they belong to. Again you have to have set morals, to know how to behave with people, to know right from wrong. To set a better standard for yourself, to have guidance.


What do you mean should believe in god, are you trying to tell people what to think again?

What you mean just like you are telling me not to believe in God? It's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Big Les]

Can you prove the non-existence of vampires, dragons, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, Mr Snuffleupagus or Spiderman.

Are you trying to say that Spider-man isn't real? Then how come I don't have to avoid pumpkin bombs and liquid alien symbiotes on my way to work, hmm? Answer me that!

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Can you?

The onus is on you Catherine. What you are doing is called Argumentum ad ignorantium and shifting the burden of proof. From my own mighty website where you have been posting quite frequently these past few days:

Appealing to ignorance by stating if something cannot be disproved it must exist. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, in this case that god exists. This statement tries to shift the burden of proof to the opposing side of the argument.

 

[DavidFarrant]

For The Vampire

I do not, or will not, want to get involved in a discussion about the existence of God.

But is it not obvious to everybody that this is a matter of personal choice or belief and it can never be 'proved' (by means of material proof) one way or the other. You cannot 'prove' that God exists, but equally you can not 'prove' that God does not exist.

I think that to apply such an arguement to the existence of 'pink unicorns', fairies, Bat Man, Spider Man or the like (and yes! even 'vampires'!) is frankly quite ridiculous. Surely, you do not need material proof to 'disprove' these, all you need is intelligence! That alone tells you (or should tell you) that such things (the latter and others) do not exist.

To me personally (which I have said before) there must exist some Infinite Intelligence that put us all here - that gave us all the gist of Life in the first place. But Life (or that 'gift of Life') is surely not comparable to 'pink fairies' living on the dark side of the moon. The difference is Life is here. How do we know that? Because we are all living!

David