Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Both of your statements are compelling and they do make sense, but I simply do not agree with your conclusion. What we know is that miracles are possible because the natural order is not immutable.

We certainly DO NOT know that "the natural order is not immutable." In fact all scientific investigation has indicated that matter/energy interacts with itself along rather rigidly defined lines. Defining and predicting just what these lines are, we refer to as the laws of physics. The laws of physics ARE CONSIDERED IMMUTABLE, according to all observation and experimentation. At least until or unless it can be established unequivocally that these natural laws can be overcome under very specific conditions. Currently we have no such examples. Beyond the laws of physics is the realm of things that we imagine COULD be true. This is known as make believe. Again, being human and therefore fallible it is not out of the question that today's make believe COULD prove to be tomorrow's reality. Implicitly believing in make believe is a child's game however.

What we know is that while miracles are highly improbable when taken at face value, the probability of their occurrence can be increased when you take background knowledge and circumstancial evidence into account.

We don't know anything about miracles AT ALL. Not a single event in all of human history which can be examined and for which it can be unequivocally established that the known laws of physics were overcome has ever occurred. To this point all we have are insupportable claims, which are, let's face it, the common currency of make believe. Until such time as we have EVEN ONE such unequivocal occurrence, miracles will remain the stuff of make believe.

The resurrection is a miracle, and this fact alone makes it highly improbable to have occured.

A flying reanimated corpse would indeed violate all known laws of physics.

But, when you take other factors into account it makes belief in it justified. The background knowledge of this event is that God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus did not spontaenously resurrect of his own accord, rather a purposeful deity intentionally raised Jesus from the dead. This reduces the improbability of the resurrection. Additionally, the circumstancial evidence I listed in a previous post also reduces the improbability of the resurrection.

If you begin with the unquestioned assumption that magic, which is to say, the ability to overcome the laws of physics at will, exists, and then you further assume that Santa Claus possesses such abilities, then flying reindeer and all of the other attributes of the story of Santa become perfectly plausible as well. All you have done however in to engage in make believe, and then declared the make believe to be true. Again, this is a fine child's game, but it gets us nowhere in the search for actual knowledge. The universe will give up it's secrets if we are patient and observe carefully. Making things up as we go along is completely counter productive.

No one recorded it, you're right. So what? While no one recorded it was certainly preached throughout Palestine at the time it occured and, subsequently, the entirety of the Roman Empire.

And a missing corpse and empty grave are VASTLY more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living, then a result of actions taken by the corpse, aren't they! According to Matthew 27:64 the chief Jewish priests suspected that the followers of Jesus intended to move the body of Jesus and then spread the story that he had arisen from the dead. And in fact both of these things occurred, just as predicted, although no one seemed to have been much impressed by the story at the time. Is it so unthinkable that Christianity could have originated as nothing more then a lie and a hoax and then grown into a religion with billions of devoted followers? If so explain Islam. Or Mormonism. Explain how people can be so gullible, because I can't. I can see that people are perfectly willing to believe in nonsense if they find it sufficiently emotionally appealing however, and that IS discouraging I must admit. But then I have always been interested in finding out what is true, and how the universe REALLY works. The emotional need that make believe seems to fill in others has never attracted me.

[no evidence no belief]

If I present a claim for which there is overwhelming evidence against, but for which the circumstantial evidence for is stronger than for the resurrection, will you believe that claim?

If so, I have a teleportation to a spaceship to sell you. It comes with complementary rat poison and vodka.

What's the evidence against the idea that there's a spaceship waiting for us in the afterlife?

The fact that Heaven's gate members killed themselves to get one that was trailing behind the comet Hale Bop. They wouldn't have killed themselves for a lie, now would they?

I was curios about the evidence against that claim. Against the resurrection we have the observed regularity of the natural laws, but do we have evidence against this kind of an afterlife fantasy?

I think that just like there is overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence against the resurrection, which may not be 100% conclusive but is about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% conclusive, there also is similarly overwhelming evidence against an afterlife.

There is overwhelming positive evidence that mental activity is contingent upon a functioning brain.

The evidence for this is about as strong as software being contingent on hardware. Ever tried running Microsoft Word without a computer?

Does this answer your question? If not, I can get into the specifics of the mechanical difficulties of running a mind without a brain, or of running Grand Theft Auto without a Playstation.

[WinePusher]

Don't worry Boosh, with the volume of activity I've had on this thread, I've began to spot patterns to the ways theists debate.

Winepusher is on the exact same path Goose was.

He walked into the thread like he owned it, had several exchanges with me, got his clocks cleaned out, diverted to debating with other people on my thread and completely ignored me. His next step will be to create separate threads that discuss the exact same topic in the hope that I will not follow him there too, and eventually he'll just go away.

I've seen it before. It's the theist equivalent to admitting defeat.

Goose and I are far better debaters than you could ever hope to be, and for you to suggest otherwise is hilarious. Btw, I asked you earlier if you were notachance, a user who had been previously banned. You ignored my question, so I'd like to pose it again. Here are some similiarities in what you write and what notachance wrote:

The obnoxious way both of you repeat one single word:

So you wouldn't be telling me about your friend who can predict superbowl winners. You'd be telling me about the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather of your friend, who was able to predict superbowl winners. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=17123

That means that the anonymous 330AD scribe who wrote your Bible would have been the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson of somebody alive at the same time as Jesus. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=2340

That means that the person who wrote the words you read today in your Bible was the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson of somebody who would have lived at the same time as Jesus. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

The way you both title your threads:

Let's cut to the chase: Why should I be a Christian? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#408844

Let's cut to the chase: Do you have any evidence? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

The way both you refer to other users as dude:

Hey dude, check out my thread specifically on this topic: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=130

Dude, are you joking? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=2350

The way you both refer to Jerusalem 27 as a zombie invasion

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

of others must have been aware of the zombie invasion that followed (Matthew 27:51-53 http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... n&start=20

I'll be happy to post more proof if anyone requests it. So what happened no evidence no belief, or should I call you notachance? You actually went and bought a whole new computer just to be able to participate on this forum? WOW

[dianaiad]

Don't worry Boosh, with the volume of activity I've had on this thread, I've began to spot patterns to the ways theists debate.

Winepusher is on the exact same path Goose was.

He walked into the thread like he owned it, had several exchanges with me, got his clocks cleaned out, diverted to debating with other people on my thread and completely ignored me. His next step will be to create separate threads that discuss the exact same topic in the hope that I will not follow him there too, and eventually he'll just go away.

I've seen it before. It's the theist equivalent to admitting defeat.

Goose and I are far better debaters than you could ever hope to be, and for you to suggest otherwise is hilarious. Btw, I asked you earlier if you were notachance, a user who had been previously banned. You ignored my question, so I'd like to pose it again. Here are some similiarities in what you write and what notachance wrote:

The obnoxious way both of you repeat one single word:

So you wouldn't be telling me about your friend who can predict superbowl winners. You'd be telling me about the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather of your friend, who was able to predict superbowl winners. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=17123

That means that the anonymous 330AD scribe who wrote your Bible would have been the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson of somebody alive at the same time as Jesus. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=2340

That means that the person who wrote the words you read today in your Bible was the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson of somebody who would have lived at the same time as Jesus. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

The way you both title your threads:

Let's cut to the chase: Why should I be a Christian? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#408844

Let's cut to the chase: Do you have any evidence? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

The way both you refer to other users as dude:

Hey dude, check out my thread specifically on this topic: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=130

Dude, are you joking? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=2350

The way you both refer to Jerusalem 27 as a zombie invasion

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

of others must have been aware of the zombie invasion that followed (Matthew 27:51-53 http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ght=zombie invasion&start=20

I'll be happy to post more proof if anyone requests it. So what happened no evidence no belief, or should I call you notachance? You actually went and bought a whole new computer just to be able to participate on this forum? WOW

Moderator Warning


Personal attacks of this sort neither further courteous debate nor expand the topic. Please address the topic, not the poster. Please do not allow the actions and words of a poster to cause you to be equally discourteous.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[no evidence no belief]

Don't worry Boosh, with the volume of activity I've had on this thread, I've began to spot patterns to the ways theists debate.

Winepusher is on the exact same path Goose was.

He walked into the thread like he owned it, had several exchanges with me, got his clocks cleaned out, diverted to debating with other people on my thread and completely ignored me. His next step will be to create separate threads that discuss the exact same topic in the hope that I will not follow him there too, and eventually he'll just go away.

I've seen it before. It's the theist equivalent to admitting defeat.

Goose and I are far better debaters than you could ever hope to be, and for you to suggest otherwise is hilarious.

There is no doubt in my mind that both you and Goose are by far better debaters than I am. You are nuanced, eloquent and persuasive.

I freely admit that I am informal, abrasive and repetitive.

What I have going for me is that my arguments, however un-suavely presented, are based on empirical facts and logical rigor.

Debating skill is only necessary when trying to persuade people of an unconvincing argument. On the contrary, when the facts are so overwhelmingly strong, a poor debater can get the upper hand, because the facts do all the work for him.

You're like one of the greatest knife fighters in the world. I'm just some average guy with basic training in the use of a machine gun. You're bringing a knife to a gun fight, buddy.

On a larger scale, I feel that most evangelical preachers, and apologists such as William Lane Craig, are much much better debaters than Harris, Dawkins and the rest. One of the most persuasive speakers of all time in my opinion is Kent Hovind. The guy could sell salt water to fishermen.

What the atheists have going is that facts are on their side.

You guys believe in flying corpses and talking donkeys. We don't really need to do anything other than point that out to win the argument. You believe in flying corpses. Automatic win for me.

Btw, I asked you earlier if you were notachance, a user who had been previously banned. You ignored my question, so I'd like to pose it again. Here are some similiarities in what you write and what notachance wrote:

The obnoxious way both of you repeat one single word:

So you wouldn't be telling me about your friend who can predict superbowl winners. You'd be telling me about the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather of your friend, who was able to predict superbowl winners. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=17123

That means that the anonymous 330AD scribe who wrote your Bible would have been the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson of somebody alive at the same time as Jesus. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=2340

That means that the person who wrote the words you read today in your Bible was the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson of somebody who would have lived at the same time as Jesus. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

The way you both title your threads:

Let's cut to the chase: Why should I be a Christian? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#408844

Let's cut to the chase: Do you have any evidence? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

The way both you refer to other users as dude:

Hey dude, check out my thread specifically on this topic: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=130

Dude, are you joking? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=2350

The way you both refer to Jerusalem 27 as a zombie invasion

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

of others must have been aware of the zombie invasion that followed (Matthew 27:51-53 http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... n&start=20

I'll be happy to post more proof if anyone requests it. So what happened no evidence no belief, or should I call you notachance? You actually went and bought a whole new computer just to be able to participate on this forum? WOW

It's astounding that you would go to such lengths to avoid responding to substantiative points. How many posts did you have to go through, to find all those quotes?

It must truly be of vital importance to you not to have to respond to my arguments.

To answer your question, I am not notachance. If you suspect rule violations (as I am sure it is to join with a new username after being banned), please report it to an admin. Don't pollute my thread with your allegations. Your options as far as this thread go are either to respond to the question being asked and to debate within the confines of the subject matter, or to go away.

[dianaiad]

Winepusher, would you care to address no evidence no belief's points in post 2397? There are some serious objections there that I think really undermine your position.

No, I have no interest in debating users who are hopelessly misinformed about the facts. But, I will probably take time out of my week to address more capable/knowledgable/serious debaters like scourge99 (if he chooses to reply) and Tired of the Nonsense's post.

Don't worry Boosh, with the volume of activity I've had on this thread, I've began to spot patterns to the ways theists debate.

Winepusher is on the exact same path Goose was.

He walked into the thread like he owned it, had several exchanges with me, got his clocks cleaned out, diverted to debating with other people on my thread and completely ignored me. His next step will be to create separate threads that discuss the exact same topic in the hope that I will not follow him there too, and eventually he'll just go away.

I've seen it before. It's the theist equivalent to admitting defeat.

Moderator Warning


This is little but a personal attack, and is discourteous and uncivil. It does not advance the topic or the debate.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[WinePusher]

To answer your question, I am not notachance. If you suspect rule violations (as I am sure it is to join with a new username after being banned), please report it to an admin. Don't pollute my thread with your allegations. Your options as far as this thread go are either to respond to the question being asked and to debate within the confines of the subject matter, or to go away.

Like I said, I'll respond to the more serious/knowledgable/capable debaters on this site like scourge99 and Tired of Nonsense. I don't find your posts to be worthy of any response, and from what I've read many other users feel the same way. But, if you're not notachance then how come everything you write resembles his posts? Do you deny the blatant similiarites I posted? The proof is pretty overwhelming and anyone here is free to read your posts and compare them with notachance's posts. And thanks for the advice, I will be taking this up with the administrators

[no evidence no belief]

Winepusher, would you care to address no evidence no belief's points in post 2397? There are some serious objections there that I think really undermine your position.

No, I have no interest in debating users who are hopelessly misinformed about the facts. But, I will probably take time out of my week to address more capable/knowledgable/serious debaters like scourge99 (if he chooses to reply) and Tired of the Nonsense's post.

Don't worry Boosh, with the volume of activity I've had on this thread, I've began to spot patterns to the ways theists debate.

Winepusher is on the exact same path Goose was.

He walked into the thread like he owned it, had several exchanges with me, got his clocks cleaned out, diverted to debating with other people on my thread and completely ignored me. His next step will be to create separate threads that discuss the exact same topic in the hope that I will not follow him there too, and eventually he'll just go away.

I've seen it before. It's the theist equivalent to admitting defeat.

Moderator Warning


This is little but a personal attack, and is discourteous and uncivil. It does not advance the topic or the debate.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Hey Diana! Congrats on becoming an administrator.

Hey, you had said at some point that there was a thought process that you'd gone through that led you to the realization that the gap between science and belief in Biblical supernatural tales can be bridged. You mentioned that you accomplished this by, thinking, studying and praying.

Could you tell us what this method of bridging the gap between science and Biblical supernatural - that you arrived to through prayer, study and thought - is?

Thanks

p.s. I am not responding to the moderator warning, I'm just asking you a question as a fellow debater.

[no evidence no belief]

Like I said, I'll respond to the more serious/knowledgable/capable debaters on this site like scourge99 and Tired of Nonsense.

Suit yourself. We're all basically asking you the same questions.

Just for kicks: Is there anybody here, theist or atheist, that believes that on any substantial exchange between me and WP about an actual issue related to the debating of religion and belief in the supernatural, WP had the upper hand? If so, which one?

[WinePusher]

Like I said, I'll respond to the more serious/knowledgable/capable debaters on this site like scourge99 and Tired of Nonsense.

Suit yourself. We're all basically asking you the same questions.

The difference being that they're articulate, argumentative, serious, smart and make persuasive arguments. There's no doubt that you occasionally did make some serious, worthwile points but unforunately it was often cluttered in with other nonsense about maggots and spiderman and rodulph the red nose reindeer. Plus, I don't really want to waste my time debating a member who was banned under a different name, and like I said, the evidence seems to be overwhemling. Do you deny the blatant similiarities between your posts and notachance's posts? I could post more if you want.

Just for kicks: Is there anybody here, theist or atheist, that believes that on any substantial exchange between me and WP about an actual issue related to the debating of religion and belief in the supernatural, WP had the upper hand? If so, which one?

Considering everybody else particiating in this thread is a nonbeliever it's unlikely that they agree with me. But then again, this has also been a predominately atheist forum since the beginning so that's no surprise. Besides, this entire thread has been laughable. There's been very little serious discussion and most of the 200+ pages of debate in this thread and most of the substance has come from theists like Goose, olavisjo, etc.

If you want to see a long thread with a high quality debate, I suggest you read The Faith of Atheism, Evidence for the Christian Bible, A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood, Biblical Contradictions, etc. This thread pales in comparison