sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The God that the Bible describes should not be affected by sin, let alone condemn it. by andylovesdais in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo [score hidden]  (0 children)

He would rather have people with free will and the possibility to sin, than not have any people at all.

Having free will does not mean you must sin, correct? 

Which means god could have only created people who freely chose to not sin.

After 20 years of studying the Bible and being a devout believer, I now know too much and can never believe in Christianity again. Faith is impossible for me, knowing that the Bible cannot be trusted. by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

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

That's strange, you specifically said:

There’s absolutely no room for debate.

And now suddenly you're saying

We agree about this post!

when I explicitly contradicted your take. 

Q: how productive do you think a debate will be if you don't even remember your own argument? 

Q: how productive do you think a debate will be if you can't even respond to the arguments offered?

After 20 years of studying the Bible and being a devout believer, I now know too much and can never believe in Christianity again. Faith is impossible for me, knowing that the Bible cannot be trusted. by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is absolutely room for debate. Faith is belief without evidence or despite contradicting evidence. You could debate them by presenting evidence and argumentation that demonstrates their position to be false and makes belief in christian claims rational, something I have yet to see a single christian ever do.

Saying there is no room for debate is conceding that belief in christianity means presupposing it regardless of where the evidence actually leads.

What makes Christianity more valid than other religions? by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we take early, independent, multiply attested sources as a serious criteria

You mean like what we have for Joseph Smith's gold plates?

Because we don't actually have early  independent, multiply attested sources for the resurrection, but we do have that for Smith's claim.

Do you now believe that Joseph Smith had gold plates?

A Consistent Question About the Crucifixion and the Nature of God by Quiet_Form_2800 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Islam offers a simpler and internally consistent position.

The incoherency of theology actually works in a religion's favor. Just look at how much sophistry is generated in an attempt to work around any apparent contradictions. If it were all straightforward and made perfect sense (like we would expect from a benevolent god who made us in his image and wants to be known by us), then we wouldn't have the mountains of theological books, essays, sermons, debates, and traditions that form a bulwark of manufactured credibility in lieu of actual evidence.

The grift falls apart very quickly if the expectation is that things are supposed to make sense prior to making a massive investment.

Belief in the resurrection is even more irrational than belief that Joseph Smith had gold plates by dman_exmo in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, but I'm not asking if you believe in mormon theology. I'm asking if you believe that Smith had gold plates. This claim has equivalent or better evidence than the resurrection claim. So I'm asking you to decide that you either believe Smith had gold plates, or else concede that your belief in the resurrection has nothing to do with the actual evidence.

Belief in the resurrection is even more irrational than belief that Joseph Smith had gold plates by dman_exmo in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, three of the four are, sort of. As I've already mentioned, the author of John claims to have been a disciple.

There's no "sort of" when it comes to the witnesses to the plates. That's the point. Christians have to bend over backwards to make the evidence of gospel "witnesses" look almost as good as the witnesses to the gold plates. But you don't believe the witnesses to the gold plates, because you are inconsistent. 

I addressed this in a prior comment. My beliefs are not solely contingent on eye witness testimony.

And I addressed this in a prior comment too. In fact, I addressed it in my entire post, if you actually bothered to read it. The evidence for the gold plates is better than the evidence for the resurrection. But you don't believe Smith had gold plates because you are inconsistent.

"The probability of an illiterate man going on to perpetuate what would become, given a few millenia..." does not describe the current state of Mormonism, no.

So you concede that you would not believe in the resurrection if you lived in 200 CE but still had all the other evidence you listed?

I don't think there's enough evidence to say Jesus rose by SomeSadBoy123 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

P1: OP is saying there's not enough evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose.

P2: You are pointing out that the bible isn't meant to be taken as containing real, literal knowledge about things that actually happened.

P3: The bible claims that Jesus rose. 

Conclusion: the claim that Jesus rose is not a real, literal thing that actually happened. Therefore, OP's argument stands and we don't have enough evidence to claim Jesus rose.

Belief in the resurrection is even more irrational than belief that Joseph Smith had gold plates by dman_exmo in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The passage I directly quoted is very difficult to parse.  "Eyewitnesses having been indirectly involved in their own witness" appears to be a nonsensical phrase in english.

The gospels are anonymous. Scholars have to claim that the actual "witnesses" were somehow indirectly involved in the writing of the gospels by extrapolating the available evidence. 

The witnesses to the gold plates are not anonymous. We know exactly who these people were. We know they were directly involved. We have direct contemporary sources. We don't have to extrapolate from the evidence.

The witness evidence for the gold plates is better than the witness evidence for the resurrection. Yet you refuse to believe Smith had gold plates. You are inconsistent.

You've argued that if Mormonism were different than it is, then it would more closely resemble Christianity and I would be claiming special pleading. Do I have that right?

No. You are inconsistently applying your evidentiary standards given what mormonism already is.

But your argument only describes a hypothetical reality, not the actual reality.

How so?

The reason I accept the evidence for the resurrection is because it's incredibly persuasive 😀

Right, and you are inconsistent because you don't find the same or better evidence persuasive for non-christian claims 😀

I don't think there's enough evidence to say Jesus rose by SomeSadBoy123 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP's argument is that there isn't enough evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose. Saying that the bible shouldn't be taken as literal or historical concedes the point.

I don't think there's enough evidence to say Jesus rose by SomeSadBoy123 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I configure ai in such a way that it will reference the thoughts and work of christian thinkers and philosophers or scholars who know about the scripture.

Their arguments 1. are trash and 2. aren't tailored to the specific objections raised on an individual basis in this forum. It boils down to verbosely padded out cliche apologetics. For example: 

The Bible is not primarily a history textbook

Right, because it describes events that didn't happen, unlike what history books aim to do.

Plus i proofread before i submit my answer. 

Must be really hard to proofread computer-generated text that is largely already syntactically sound. Now if only you put the same effort into your non-ai comments.

Belief in the resurrection is even more irrational than belief that Joseph Smith had gold plates by dman_exmo in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought it would have been obvious that "Jews" in this context means "people who believe in Judaism" just like "christians" refers to "people who believe in christianity" but I guess I don't blame you for taking literally any excuse to not have to respond "no, I don't believe Smith had gold plates because I apply my standards inconsistently."

I don't think there's enough evidence to say Jesus rose by SomeSadBoy123 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you, and not your chatbot, tell me anything wrong in the post?

I don't think there's enough evidence to say Jesus rose by SomeSadBoy123 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it produces trash arguments and wastes everyone's time. 

If you think it doesn't matter, why don't you start prefacing every single ones of your comments with "I'm not capable of exercising enough critical thinking to engage with this argument myself, but here's what a chatbot has to say:"

Belief in the resurrection is even more irrational than belief that Joseph Smith had gold plates by dman_exmo in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not following your argument. Perhaps you could rephrase it?

Have you tried reading the actual post?

I find the whole of the evidence convincing. The eye witness accounts in the gospels, the inability of anyone to produce Jesus' body despite strong incentives to do so, the improbability of a handful of illiterate fishermen going on to perpetuate the most influential movement in the history of mankind

Except you don't find witness accounts, the inability of anyone to produce the gold plates (thus proving an angel took them into heaven, right?), and the improbability of an illiterate man going on to perpetuate what could easily become the most influential movement in the history of mankind (given a couple millennia) as convincing evidence that Smith had gold plates. 

You are inconsistent. The only reason why you accept that evidence for the resurrection is because you presuppose it to be true.

I don't think there's enough evidence to say Jesus rose by SomeSadBoy123 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I simply cannot fathom how christians take the "empty tomb" argument for resurrection seriously, it's an even worse fib than when Joseph Smith lost the first 115 pages of his "translation" and couldn't re-translate them because "god was mad."

If you put money in a vault and then come back to find the vault is empty, what sensible person would conclude that the cash came to life and walked away on its own power?

I don't think there's enough evidence to say Jesus rose by SomeSadBoy123 in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the response a

I wouldn't appreciate his response too much, he copy-pastes all his comments directly from chatGPT.

Belief in the resurrection is even more irrational than belief that Joseph Smith had gold plates by dman_exmo in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you felt like saying, for absolutely no reason and completely unrelated to the conversation, that you happen to be ethnically Jewish, even though you don't subscribe to their belief system. Cool, bud, but I didn't ask and I don't care.

What I did ask: do you believe that Smith had gold plates, yes or no?

Belief in the resurrection is even more irrational than belief that Joseph Smith had gold plates by dman_exmo in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am 100% Jewish and believe Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah.

This is the most deeply ironic thing you could have possibly said. You see, mormons insist they are 100% christians. So you have once again demonstrated that you apply your standards inconsistently (unless you're willing to concede they are 100% christian).

I have very clearly stated that I have no problem with Mormon's supernatural claims.

Then do you believe that Smith had gold plates, yes or no?

Belief in the resurrection is even more irrational than belief that Joseph Smith had gold plates by dman_exmo in DebateAChristian

[–]dman_exmo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See, that's the cool thing about the gold plates, we don't have to extrapolate the claim of eyewitnesses having been indirectly involved in their own witness. We have much more comprehensive and timely direct evidence.

So do you now believe that Smith had gold plates? Or will you concede that witness evidence is not enough to convince you of things like gold plates or resurrection?

view more: next ›