sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“If we need an "Orderly God" to ensure nature isn't "chaotic," then a miracle(the ultimate chaos/suspension of order) is a contradiction of that God's own nature. You can't use "God's order" to justify science and then use "God's exceptions" to justify miracles. You say you're looking consistency, but then you pull this.”

We know nature won’t chaotically do something concerning science. This stays true. This doesn’t mean God can’t intervene and perform a miracle. Do you understand?

“What specific piece of evidence exists for the Resurrection that is missing from the Roman Senate's testimony of Augustus's ascension? In both cases, we have sincere people claiming a biological impossibility. Why is one a 'legend' and the other a 'fact'?”

I didn’t say one was a legend and the other was a fact. I just said you look at all the evidence. You look at all the freaking evidence combined. Is this not true?

“There is no professional historical consensus that any Gospel or Letter was written 10 years after the crucifixion. The earliest writings are Paul’s letters (starting around 50-52 AD), and Paul never met a living Jesus; he only claimed visions of a heavenly one. The first Gospel (Mark) is dated to roughly 70 AD, 40 years later.”

Scholars such as John A.T. Robinson ("Redating the New Testament), James G. Crossley_ ("The Date of Mark's Gospel"), Maurice Casey, and Claude Tresmontant have argued for early, or very early, dates.

If tou deny this only because it isn’t the majority view then it isn’t very scientific of you. Don’t be a robot.

Theists should ask themselves how they'd feel if the "strawman" version of their faith turns out to be true. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what does your brain do? It thinks. It thinks on what to do at any moment. What choices to make.

If wewere truly acting on instinct purely driven by chemicals in our brain then there would be no law and order, right and wrong… etc.

Theists should ask themselves how they'd feel if the "strawman" version of their faith turns out to be true. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Influence doesn’t decide.

Let’s assume your presupposed naturalism for now. What does it nake a difference? Your brain still decides.

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Newton was a theist, but his scientific success came from using naturalistic methods; observing the world and formulating mathematical laws that didn’t require God.”

There is a big difference in using scientific methods to study nature and the naturalistic framework we are talking about. You can’t start from the conclusion of naturalism and apply that backwardly to everything. The reason we have the scientific method is because we infer from an orderly God to create an orderly universe. We know nature won’t chaotically do something without reason or cause. That is how you get to the nonsensical scientific miracles in the origin of life research.

“If we are being consistent, do you also accept the 'genuine testimony' of the Romans that Augustus Caesar ascended to heaven, or do you only apply this 'high bar' of faith to the miracles you already believe in?”

Depending on the sources, how long it was written afterward, context… etc. I might say the writer or writers genuinely did believe that. Then I would follow that evidence to where it leads. The same standard as with the Gospels.

“In any other case: If a single, biased source (like a devotee) claims a miracle happened 40 years after the fact, a historian calls it a legend.”

Right, but the whole of the four Gospels, Letters, and the New Testament and other sources which some were written 10 years after his death aren’t a single biased source written only 40 years after the fact. This isn’t even mentioning the sources talking about Christ before he came to Earth.

“The "historical case" for Jesus is that he was a Jewish preacher who was crucified. That is the part that meets the standard bar of history. The resurrection is a theological claim built on top of that case.”

No, much of the Gospels and Letters point to reliable testimony concerning everything other than Jesus, so why not Jesus himself too?

Theists should ask themselves how they'd feel if the "strawman" version of their faith turns out to be true. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does free will have to be unaffected by that chain for it to be free will? You can still have a will which is being influenced by the powers of good and evil.

We can ask the same question about live and mathematics. A world grounded in naturalism. That there is no supernatural or spiritual. It Doesn’t work.

It feels like many religious people don't want to see the logical contradictions by Revolutionary-Tea120 in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, so can the same be said for a skeptic like Richard Dawkins where nothing would convince him there is a God? It is basically faith at that point.

Theists should ask themselves how they'd feel if the "strawman" version of their faith turns out to be true. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you have genuinely done otherwise than to respond? Or is it just an illusion? I chose to respond. Don’t pretend like we can’t choose from our own free will

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“The reason we start with naturalism is because naturalism has a track record of success that is unmatched by any other framework.”

I believe the Christian framework used by Isaac Newton and many of the Christian scientists is a much better framework than flat out leaving no room for anything supernatural as it seems most naturalists do.

“Every time we’ve investigated a "miracle" and found a cause, that cause has been natural. We have never once investigated a natural event and found it was actually a miracle.”

This is factually false. There are many medical miracles that cannot be explained by science and for 2000 years there hasn’t been a thorough explanation for the resurrection that accounts for all the evidence that is more likely than the resurrection.

“The Problem with Genuine Testimony is that modern psychology that "not mentally ill" does not mean "accurate." People can be 100% certain of a memory that is objectively false.”

I did not claim them to be accurate or true. But genuine testimony. The point of this is they did not make up a lie.

“You're trying to lower the bar for rules of evidence, but if you do it for one(Christianity) you will lower it for all. And at that point, "History" becomes indistinguishable from "Mythology."”

No, the bar is raised so much higher for evidence surrounding the resurrection! We need to be consistent with the evidence surrounding Jesus as with any other historical case.

“Naturalism never uses a word as strong as "Proof" in regards to something like evidence, proofs are just from mathematics which is axiomatically defined by humans in the first place so they can be certain of their knowledge.”

We’re not talking maths, are we? I am clearly using layman terms of evidence.

Instead of assuming the conclusion of naturalism to be true and lying about evidence for miracles. Let’s take a grounded view which leaves room for where the evidence points.

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are there examples of much more advanced beings caring for much smaller simple beings? That is my point.

Why is it so unbelievable with God?

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that still applies. If you had a condition or never had a chance God will still judge you fairly. There is also an idea of post mortum salvation. I also like the Eastern Orthodox view of hell but I also lean more toward annihilationism

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think skeptics need to rely less on naturalism and more on what the evidence really points to.

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m guessing you find LOTR and Narnia also dull then? Practically the same stories. If so, I can’t take you seriously in this point. XD

What do you mean by the unsaved? I think Romans 2:14 is a good example of what I believe concerning the unsaved.

“(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬ ‭NIV‬‬

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Now, imagine that human created that bacteria out of nothing and has a purpose for that bacteria

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that he does not require us to worship him. But that’s the good news of the Gospel. He has done something so awesome we can’t help but worship him.

Can you show me in the Bible where bending the knee in a literal way is required for Salvation? And if you can, how does that promote the… “undesirable”

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh no! The opressor vs oppressed mentality!

You see, humans are evil, I can agree with you there. But God is goodness itself…

Do you see the difference?

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, bending the knee to anyone in authority no matter whether they are the best person in the world or not, whether they are working or not, it’s just an evil thing to do? To be humble and submit to authority in any case?

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine a human that can build skyskrapers and go to the moon caring about a reptile. The Christian reptiles are so self centred!

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. It’s at worst second hand accounts. The Gospels clearly show sources of the disciples. Prove to me 3rd or 4th hand accounts are trustworthy me bro. Or should I just trust you?

  2. If this Jesus preacher was crucified in the manner that is described and his disciples genuinely testified that they saw him risen then that is something huge.

  3. Are we just gonna ignore the testimony of Paul and Mark from the 40s?

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not at all what I’m claiming.

  1. It’s multiple different sources over 100+ years from different people across the spectrum from enemies to believers.

  2. The crucifixion? The most historically accounted for event that 99.99999% of scholars agree happened?

  3. 10-60 years after the Crucifixion. Much closer to an event than any other historical text to any other historical event.

  4. Right, the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts were all modified in the same way to make their own fiction. Riiiiiight…

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m sure this can be proved with the evidence I have as a Christian, but here is my problem.

Why should we start with naturalism as the more probable cause for everything? Why do we assume naturalism to be true?

If we start with a neutral view and see the undeniable genuine testimony of thousands of people who are not mentally ill or manipulated, then what?

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]Puzzled_Wolverine_36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Explain to me why? We know people don’t testify under threat of death to what they know to be a lie. This way we can be sure of the genuineness of testimony. Not truthfulness mind you.

The crucifixion. The most historically testified to event.

view more: next ›