Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs " including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 163 by H.sapiens]

Here , now will you deny this ?!!

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/founding-msf

After the revolt of May '68 burst onto their black and white TV screens, the French public soon saw other, more frightening images. For the first time, television broadcasted scenes of children dying from hunger in remote corners of the world.

In southern Nigeria, the province of Biafra had seceded. This minuscule territory was surrounded by the Nigerian army and the Biafran people were decimated by famine. The French Red Cross issued an appeal for volunteers.

Medics in Emergencies
For a number of years, Max Recamier and Pascal Greletty-Bosviel"volunteer doctors with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva"had been regularly intervening in armed conflicts.

"Contrary to popular belief, the Red Cross is not a medical organization at all," says Max Recamier. "Pascal and myself were the only two doctors they knew because of our previous mission in Yemen, so they asked us to find some doctors for the ICRC. The first one to volunteer was Bernard Kouchner, who was much younger than I was; he was just finishing his studies and hadn't even finished his thesis yet, but he volunteered to go over there."

A team of six set off on the ICRC mission to Biafra: two doctors"Max Recamier and Bernard Kouchner"as well as two clinicians and two nurses. Being thrown into such a bloody conflict was a real shock for these fledgling doctors, who found themselves having to provide war surgery in hospitals that were regularly targeted by the Nigerian armed forces.

The Red Cross recruited these guys ! They then formed the MSF . Do you ever cede h.sapiens ? The time would be now sir . Unless you are going to counterpoint what I just put in front of you that is . Do,you deny it happened this way ?

They were officially formed in 1971.

I don't see in this website (on multiple pages of it, great link) that MSF was FOUNDED by Christians. Was that not the intention of posting it? If not, what was your intention? Honest question.

How can your continuous assertions that Christians are the only humanitarian parties be supported after this glut of information you've received to the contrary?

You've moved goalposts around quite a bit as well, first claiming ONLY Christians are willing to brave the deepest jungles, to 'most' are Christian=based/oriented, and then back to ONLY Christians, and now to 'The Red Cross, who founded MSF was a Christian organization' (even though Clara Barton would not meet your stated criteria for a True Christian).

I think you must cede your claim made last night, if honorable debate is your modus operandi. If you find it necessary to 'believe' there are no secular humanists handing out meals between hails of bullets, go right ahead -- but you can still acknowledge where you were mistaken.

You haven't addressed my previous post to you either, though I understand you've had plenty of other participants to attend to. I'd appreciate your time to respond, anyway.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 171 by Hamsaka]

How can your continuous assertions that Christians are the only humanitarian parties be supported after this glut of information you've received to the contrary?

You've moved goalposts around quite a bit as well, first claiming ONLY Christians are willing to brave the deepest jungles, to 'most' are Christian=based/oriented, and then back to ONLY Christians, and now to 'The Red Cross, who founded MSF was a Christian organization' (even though Clara Barton would not meet your stated criteria for a True Christian).

You are creating your own argument . I did not state they are the only ones helping others . I stated that they are the main ones , there is no organization or other faith that matches their volunteer ship , no other .


Please show me where I stated "only Christians are the ones to brave the deepest jungles",,but please show me the other faith that is in poverty stricken Honduras , show me the other faith that is in the badlands of Afghanistan, Syria , Iraq , other than the indigenous peoples ,or organization, show me who the other faith is in the jungle villages , even UNICEF! has now partnered with FAITH BASED , for success. The same as USAID has ,. They know they can rely on their historical ties with these areas for easier access and success in their plans to help others. Basically the major secular players have tied their stars to faith based.

I think you must cede your claim made last night, if honorable debate is your modus operandi. If you find it necessary to 'believe' there are no secular humanists handing out meals between hails of bullets, go right ahead -- but you can still acknowledge where you were mistaken.

Who are they specifically? I am willing to bet they are tied in with Christians in one way or the other, so please name this group that are with the Christians in these troubled areas as far as volunteers go .

I will cede when I feel I am wrong . I have no issue with ceding .Please refresh my memory.

What post ? I usually catch all of yours.

How can your continuous assertions that Christians are the only humanitarian parties be supported after this glut of information you've received to the contrary?

Where is all that ? The best I have had is the MSF and they were recruited by A Christian organization. They do not even come close to the scale of the Christians volunteer ship . Nobody does . Period

Please name a troubled area where the Christians are not involved if they can get to that area without being arrested or killed , an impractical answer would be North Korea , unrealistic to think they could get in , or even last in the country.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 171 by Hamsaka]

How can your continuous assertions that Christians are the only humanitarian parties be supported after this glut of information you've received to the contrary?

You've moved goalposts around quite a bit as well, first claiming ONLY Christians are willing to brave the deepest jungles, to 'most' are Christian=based/oriented, and then back to ONLY Christians, and now to 'The Red Cross, who founded MSF was a Christian organization' (even though Clara Barton would not meet your stated criteria for a True Christian).

You are creating your own argument . I did not state they are the only ones helping others . I stated that they are the main ones , there is no organization or other faith that matches their volunteer ship , no other .


Please show me where I stated "only Christians are the ones to brave the deepest jungles",,but please show me the other faith that is in poverty stricken Honduras , show me the other faith that is in the badlands of Afghanistan, Syria , Iraq , other than the indigenous peoples ,or organization, show me who the other faith is in the jungle villages , even UNICEF! has now partnered with FAITH BASED , for success. The same as USAID has ,. They know they can rely on their historical ties with these areas for easier access and success in their plans to help others. Basically the major secular players have tied their stars to faith based.

This is from post 95, the one that started this 'tangent':

What religion do you think are the ones who go into the deepest darkest jungles are , to bring ones antibiotics , and needs to keep them healthy and a live .

How many atheists are traipsing through the jungle to do this ? Not many. There are many Christian aid groups in the ME, many have lost their lives . How many " atheist aid groups " are in the ME ? I'm guessing zero. These missionaries and aid groups most of the time can not even proselytize, without risking jail or death . They go right into the jaws of danger to help , knowing they can nit spread the word . You will find no other religion as prevalent as Christians as far as helping the needy.

The fortitude of Christianity saves millions of lives yearly. Using the word weak and Christianity, is surely an oxymoron.

They seem to have it locked up in the most dangerous parts of the world . Show me any other religion or secular group that even comes close to helping the world

.

About ten to twelve times in the past 7 pages, you have been shown evidence to contradict your above statement, one which you have yet to produce any substantive evidence for. I did go back through each of your posts, and noted that you do use words like 'practically' (all are Christians) and "I'm betting zero" are atheists -- ad nauseum. Regardless of the evidence shown to you, which you then make further unsupported (and easily refuted) claims about, with very little effort on your part to do the most basic fact checking. Even fellow theists are refuting your careless claims. And you'll go right to the mat repeating refuted claims. As another poster (I think KenRU) asked, "What is the point you are trying to make?"

If you do not have supportive evidence to support your claim, then there is no reason to consider it anything more than a biased personal opinion, propaganda that you've bought into, and unworthy of consideration.

I think you must cede your claim made last night, if honorable debate is your modus operandi. If you find it necessary to 'believe' there are no secular humanists handing out meals between hails of bullets, go right ahead -- but you can still acknowledge where you were mistaken.

Who are they specifically? I am willing to bet they are tied in with Christians in one way or the other, so please name this group that are with the Christians in these troubled areas as far as volunteers go .

I will cede when I feel I am wrong . I have no issue with ceding .Please refresh my memory.

What post ? I usually catch all of yours.

Page 15, I believe? Thanks for going back to catch it.

You have been given specific examples, and have been encouraged to do a simple internet search for yourself because there are too many secular and/or 'atheist' humanitarian organizations (not to mention what they do) to bog down a thread with. Instead, Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF and the like have been offered as 'specifics'.

Like Tam said, the importance you are putting on 'good' coming solely from Christians, or coming from originally Christian-inspired leaders is missing the point. Doesn't it please you to know that many more people are involved in humanitarian endeavors than just Christians? That means more people are being helped. If you need to believe it ALL charity and 'true' humanitarianism comes from Christians, that's your choice (and it is a choice made obvious in the last 7 pages -- a choice to ignore facts). But if you make a claim, it's best to have on hand the support for it.'

For instance, have you yet provided evidence that all humanitarian endeavors are Christian or Christian inspired? No. You've just repeated it over and over again, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

How can your continuous assertions that Christians are the only humanitarian parties be supported after this glut of information you've received to the contrary?

Where is all that ? The best I have had is the MSF and they were recruited by A Christian organization. They do not even come close to the scale of the Christians volunteer ship . Nobody does . Period

Please name a troubled area where the Christians are not involved if they can get to that area without being arrested or killed , an impractical answer would be North Korea , unrealistic to think they could get in , or even last in the country.

No no no -- you made the claim. You carry the burden of proof for having made this claim in the first place, and this is basic debate etiquette. It is not your 'opponents'' job to prove Christians not being involved. Your claims carry no significance or importance in debate such that you can merely make the claim and demand your opponents prove it wrong. You claim could be very powerful indeed if you COULD support it with evidence, which you have yet to do.

Currently, your claims mean diddly nothing, while the atheists AND fellow theists provide theological (Tam) and empirical (the seculars) evidence that refutes your claim, hands down. Don't you think it's about time, after seven pages, to show some statistics, or . . .? Not anecdotes or opinions.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 163 by H.sapiens]

Doctors without Borders did NOT grow from a "Christian" group, it grew out of the 1968 Paris student riots: "History" (make a donation as long as you're there). I've "been there" personally, with no Christians in sight (at least amongst the aid workers) so I am personally available to falsify Faithful One's claims.

I have shown you source of how and why they came about, you just choose not to accept it . The Red Cross was founded by Christians. The Red Cross is the reason behind doctors with borders motivations for cresting MSF . I have also stated " with the exception of doctors without borders, that are recruited by the Red Cross . I also stated they are independent of any religious or political agendas .

Again, I have to ask to you, what does the religion of MSF's founders have to do with MSF staff members TODAY? Do you think that that an atheist doctor joining up with MSF TODAY and going out to a disaster area will spare even one thought for the religion of MSF's founders? Is there some sort of requirement that he think about it, before he finds himself in a warzone giving medical care?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 161 by Faithful One]
Funnily enough, red cross is also an officially secular organisation, granted with Christian roots.

I also stated they are independent of any religious or political agendas.

There is a word for that - secular.

[Goat]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Mr. Z!!!

It could be that none of those questions are answered on here, because the evidence that is pointed to God, some give other credit to its origins. An example is creation. Creation points the evidence to God, but some give credit to (name your choice). God, does and is constantly working in my life, but some just say, "Hey, you would be the same person without Him." Knowing my life before Him, I know this is not true.

The following is an interesting article on Jesus. Most people did not read or write back then. The leaders of the Jewish church didn't much care for Jesus Why would they document something that threatened the church as they knew it?http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient ... an-sources.

I don't have time to look up more sources, but these questions really intrigue me. If Christianity was so far fetched, what accounts for historically billions of followers? Many people have claimed to have seen Heaven upon dying for a brief time, why are they similar experiences?

Now, what is the mechanism that points to 'creation' pointing to God. Can you show that is more than just assumptions based on the word people call existence, based on their presumptions?

Your link about 'evidence for Jesus from ancient non-Christian sources' is very very weak. It is evidence of Christians, not Jesus. And, when it comes to Josephus, there is a very high probability of alteration, which makes that unreliable as a source for Christianity and Jesus.

For example, nothing in Tacitus is not in the Gospels. We have no idea of his sources, but it is very likely his sources were Christian.

[PghPanther]

Many observations seem to indicate that nature is getting simpler and weaker and not as complex as it once was. I think that is directly against the idea of evolution as development of something. All true findings seem to tell about devolution, not about evolution.

Full stop. This paragraph by itself discredits your entire argument on evolution (not that the rest of it is flawless either). This is a misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution is adaptation to environment. getting smaller and weaker and dumber can very well be evolution (not that that, as a general trend, is reflected in the fossil record). If you are in an environment where the primary survival trait is consuming less calories, getting smaller and weaker and dumber would be a positive adaptation that increased your chance of survival.

Very well stated...........far too many theist think that evolution is a process of increasing complexity, strongest survive or the most selfish or aggressive so as a result morality counts for nothing for those who acknowledge evolution as true.

They are wrong.........as you stated it is the adaptability to the environmental pressures in which natural selection results in the survival of a given organism so that if a species needs social interaction to depend on their survival then cooperation care and trust would be the driving mechanism of their survival.....

and speaking in regards to complexity or lack there of......

.....there have been 5 major extinction events on this planet that due to extreme environment pressures which have favored those species you have explained while the most complex and dominant species died off due to their significant calorie requirements among other factors that were not met.

So few people theists or even atheists/agnostics really understand how the process of evolution works..........

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 173 by Hamsaka]

About ten to twelve times in the past 7 pages, you have been shown evidence to contradict your above statement, one which you have yet to produce any substantive evidence for.

You keep saying this , but I am not seeing it. We have MSF recruited by Red Cross , those who say this is not a Christian org , surely kid themselves . The symbol itself is Christian. We have USAID, whose success now is tantamount to partnering with faith based . We have UNICEF who is also now aligned with faith based .

Every one of the major players rely on Christian organizations for their success .

Ten to twelve times ? O.k , pick the best counter point from this " evidence " and show me .

Like Tam said, the importance you are putting on 'good' coming solely from Christians, or coming from originally Christian-inspired leaders is missing the point.

When did I say "soley" once again as you quote me as saying ' only " you create an argument I am not having . You failed to show where I stated "only", because I never did.FAIL again here . I would never say good comes soley from Christians. I am telling you their volunteer ship is unmatched , which is why the organizations you mention have to partner with them.
They rely on their historical connections in these areas to help also.

For instance, have you yet provided evidence that all humanitarian endeavors are Christian or Christian inspired? No. You've just repeated it over and over again, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Probably because I did not say this , so why would I try to back it up?

Currently, your claims mean diddly nothing, while the atheists AND fellow theists provide theological (Tam) and empirical (the seculars) evidence that refutes your claim, hands down. Don't you think it's about time, after seven pages, to show some statistics, or . . .? Not anecdotes or opinions.

Once again , you find the best counter point in these "seven pages ", of whom is at ground zero with these Christians. Show me one secular group that is not aligned with a Christian organization that are sitting by the people's sides and helping them in their time of need ,

The best one, if you say their are so many . UNICEF aligned with faith based for the historical ties the Christians have in these areas . USAID aligned with faith based, even admitting this partnering is tantamount to their success . Red Cross , founded by Christians , with the symbol of the "Mark of Cain". The Red Cross is ran by Christians in a secular fashion as to not discriminate.


Let's be real here , Christians volunteer ship is unmatched by any other organization , or faith. There are no others with the deep rooted ties in these tribal lands and these far out third world countries than the Christians have.

Now please show me this evidence of who else is in the trenches with these Christians, to the level that they are.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 174 by rikuoamero]


faithful one said

How many atheists are traipsing through the jungle to do this ? Not many

How does this imply "all" or "only " Christians ? This does not ! This states "not many ", which is a fair statement , nome have yet to show me the individuals who are there in the trenches with the Christians in these dangerous places. I still wait your example.

So you are misquoting me , twice now .

If you need to believe it ALL charity and 'true' humanitarianism comes from Christians, that's your choice (and it is a choice made obvious in the last 7 pages -- a choice to ignore facts). But if you make a claim, it's best to have on hand the support for it.'

Why would I defend a claim I never made ? Once again you are using the word "all" , just as you use "only ", I challenge you to show where I used either of these words, if you can not , then your point is baseless and adding words in to for your narrative .

That does not work with me .

No no no -- you made the claim. You carry the burden of proof for having made this claim in the first place, and this is basic debate etiquette. It is not your 'opponents'' job to prove Christians not being involved. Your claims carry no significance or importance in debate such that you can merely make the claim and demand your opponents prove it wrong. You claim could be very powerful indeed if you COULD support it with evidence, which you have yet to do.

You obviously can not meet the challenge. I need no proof that Christina's are in these areas helping , this is common knowledge , although I did use the stories of their dead bodies being returned from theses places as one example of their sacrifice.

I can provide a whole map of missions on basically every continent , in the badlands of these countries.

This is just form one sect alone , there are also Christians helping all over the ME , that had a chance to leave but stayed , thousands upon thousands.

http://www.umcmission.org/Explore-Our-Work/Mission-Map

From page 15

[/quote]This does not put them at ground zero where we are 100% sure that the Christians are there . So I will ask you , the same as others who had no answer , what group is by their side in these war torn cities hospitals in the middle of a civil war? What other group or religion is with them in the malaria filled jungles ? What other group or individual or religion are with them in the badlands of the ME ?

Are we not 100% sure they are in these areas of poverty and war torn areas. Like they have been for almost two centuries ? I believe we are . There also is a huge difference on giving humanitarian aide and actually helping hands on in the area. Ground zero , so even when you say secular organizations give humanitarian aide , that is not the point .

The original point is that proof of the miracles in the bible or God would moot the need for faith that either are real , thus taking away the positive residuals that come from this faith , thus sapping the source of strength that Christians rely on to give them the fortitude and strength to face death and disease and a chance of imprisonment daily .

Then one stated that 1213 inability, or admittance that he could not prove them to prove these miracles made the bible weak.

I have shown that the bible is a source of strength that creates some of the most giving , brave people on the planet, as the bible is the motivation for their servitude and self sacrifice that can not be matched by any other faith or organization on earth .

The main ones you do mention are all affiliated with FAITH BASED, for their success depends on it . Without faith , there would be no residuals of faith that help the ones who can not help themselves.

Christians dominate in this area , there is no doubt about it .

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 171 by Hamsaka]



This is the main beginning point , that you seem to not get. Where does this say "all", or "only ", or "solely" ?

Faithful one wrote ....

O.k , show me just one or two who are with the people in the ME , actually with the people in the towns , please show me this secular organization , that has no Christian ties to it. Doctors without borders was started by a Christian organization.

I am talking the ones who are on the trenches , not secular fund raising groups , be real. This is about strength and fortitude , not soliciting for donations. So please show me one secular aid group that is ground zero , in the deepest darkest jungles, or in towns in the ME actually helping .

I would be willing to bet most of the doctors in the MSF are Christian. My point is that it is mainly Christians you will find helping in the most dangerous parts of the world. I highly doubt there is an atheist in the bunch , of doctors without borders.

Note , that has "no Christian ties to it ", this is where you are not getting it , accusing me of saying "only Christians", when the challenge was to show one organization helping out with no Christian ties , not an organization that is not secular ,not just fund raising, that is at ground zero .


These are made clear here . Then you say I should cede a point that you created in your own mind ?

I think not Hamsaka.




[[