Debating the Truth of the Resurrection.

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Debating the Truth of the Resurrection.

Post #1

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

I will go first.

The resurrection might only approach the "best explanation" if it stands without any natural explanation to challenge it. And that simply is not the case.

The four Gospels represent the ONLY information on the life Jesus that anyone supposes has any connection to valid history. And a good deal of what is contained in the NT strains credulity. In fact, it is flatly unbelievable. Here is a short version of events that closely follows the accepted story, but which does not require any recourse to any supernatural occurrences. I am not claiming that this is what actually occurred, simply that it explains the events naturally without recourse to supernatural claims.

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

The day after the crucifixion chief priests went out to Joseph's tomb, and finding it covered with a large stone, and owing to the nature of the day (the Sabbath and Passover) did not open and search it, but instead secured what was an already empty tomb! Why was the tomb already empty? Because Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, got legal possession of the body from the Roman governor.

Matthew 27:
[57]When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Joseph never intended that his brand new family crypt should be the final resting place for Jesus, but only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body. Because the day was late and his tomb was "nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus had been crucified. The next day when the priests secured Joseph's tomb, the body of Jesus was already being relocated to its actual intended final resting place by his disciples.

And so exactly what the priests feared the disciples intended to do is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Joseph's tomb proved to be empty. Six weeks later the disciples returned to Jerusalem and began to circulate the rumor that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Something only they witnessed, according to them.

So when the priests took possession of Joseph's new tomb on the next day, they did not open and inspect it for the body of Jesus, because it was a high holy day. Instead they placed seals on the tomb to insure that whatever its condition was that condition would remain until they could return and inspect the tomb. The tomb proved to be empty the next morning. Clearly the body of Jesus WAS ALREADY GONE! The conclusion that Christians declare to be the only explanation for the empty tomb is in fact the least likely explanation.


So where would the final resting place of Jesus likely have been? The Gospels do not say, but we can make an educated guess. It was a strong custom among the Jews to bury their dead with family members. Any family of any substance had a personal family crypt where family members were interred together. Rich folks like Joseph could afford hand cut family crypts to be constructed. Folks of lesser means tended to use natural caves and caverns, usually with the family named carved at the entrance. If Joseph the rich man truly wanted to honor Jesus, he would have had the body transported home to be buried with is own family, not inter him with Joseph's family. Home to his family in Galilee, about 65 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. About a three day journey on foot. All down hill.

Matthew 28:
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

The remaining apostles all journeyed to Galilee after the crucifixion! The home of the family of Jesus.

The only thing I am assuming is that Joseph of Arimathea never intended to use his personal family crypt as the final resting place for Jesus, only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body, and had the body shipped home to be buried by Jesus' own family members. All of which fits easily into the story at hand.

Why was Joseph's tomb empty on sunday morning? BECAUSE THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF AN EMPTY TOMB ON SATURDAY. The body had already been moved by the disciples of Jesus WHO ALREADY HAD LEGAL POSSESSION OF IT.

This is in fact THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION! The conclusion that the body came back to life and left the tomb under its own power, ultimately flying off up into the clouds, is the LEAST LIKELY CONCLUSION. In fact this conclusion has no likelihood at all.

So, is this they way things actually played out? There is no way to know just how much of the story is valid. This particular accounting makes perfect sense however. It DOES NOT lead to supposing that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away I am afraid.

Post #52
viewtopic.php?p=902413#902413

Now at long last, please answer the question.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Debating the Truth of the Resurrection.

Post #11

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

[Replying to post 10 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Too much to respond to. I'm done.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Re: Debating the Truth of the Resurrection.

Post #12

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: [Replying to post 10 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Too much to respond to. I'm done.

Well this IS a head to head debate after all. So I made every effort to reply to your points thoroughly. There was no restriction established on how much time you are allowed to take before replying, or even on your picking and choosing which portions you prefer to reply to. Although an occasional notice that you are in the process of replying would be appreciated. But abandoning the debate so early on DOES rather look as though you are dropping the ball for the other believers. Because I certainly provided you with more than enough material to challenge your claims and assertions. Quitting now COULD be considered a recognition that you are not really prepared to make a detailed defence of what it is you suppose you believe. Or, at the very least, that you simply have realized that your beliefs are too difficult to defend in detail.

The tatted old man at the end of my last post is not really a picture of me, by the way. I was simply attempting to leave on a light note.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #13

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Well this IS a head to head debate after all.
I had that part figured out already.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: So I made every effort to reply to your points thoroughly.
And I did the same. But the more detailed your points get, the more mines get...which will just create longer and longer posts, and I aint feeling that.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: There was no restriction established on how much time you are allowed to take before replying
True, but still...an undesirable trend was beginning to start, which I kind of predicted.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: , or even on your picking and choosing which portions you prefer to reply to.
I am not a fan of picking and choosing (personally). I like all of my points to be addressed and I like to do the same...however, if I decide to not address one of your points, it may appear (perception) that I am avoiding the point because I am unable to adequately address it...and I need not give that perception.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Although an occasional notice that you are in the process of replying would be appreciated. But abandoning the debate so early on DOES rather look as though you are dropping the ball for the other believers.
Then what does suggesting the debate be held in an audio/video format make me look like?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Because I certainly provided you with more than enough material to challenge your claims and assertions.
You did? LOL.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Quitting now COULD be considered a recognition that you are not really prepared to make a detailed defence of what it is you suppose you believe. Or, at the very least, that you simply have realized that your beliefs are too difficult to defend in detail.
LOL.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: The tatted old man at the end of my last post is not really a picture of me, by the way. I was simply attempting to leave on a light note.
SMH.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #14

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to post 13 by For_The_Kingdom]


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
So I made every effort to reply to your points thoroughly.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: And I did the same. But the more detailed your points get, the more mines get...which will just create longer and longer posts, and I aint feeling that.

If you are going to offer to do a head to head debate, then you should be prepared to put in the effort to defend your position. Because quitting is little more than an acknowledgement of defeat. Will God understand why you were unable to defend Him, I wonder?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
There was no restriction established on how much time you are allowed to take before replying
For_The_Kingdom wrote: True, but still...an undesirable trend was beginning to start, which I kind of predicted.
That would be the undesirable trend of continuously being faced with detailed evidence which you continuously realized that you could not overcome. I predicted that very outcome myself, which is why I had no reservation in accepting your offer for a head to head debate.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
, or even on your picking and choosing which portions you prefer to reply to.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: I am not a fan of picking and choosing (personally). I like all of my points to be addressed and I like to do the same...however, if I decide to not address one of your points, it may appear (perception) that I am avoiding the point because I am unable to adequately address it...and I need not give that perception.
You have clearly lost your stomach for attempting to to defend your Christian beliefs, that is obvious. I expected that would occur. I am simply surprised that it occurred so early on. But in the end, quitting early saves you a lot of time and effort. Because you inevitably would have had to admit defeat and walked away at some point anyway. This is the inevitable outcome in the ongoing debate between believers and non believers. Make believe simply cannot be realistically sustained for long.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Although an occasional notice that you are in the process of replying would be appreciated. But abandoning the debate so early on DOES rather look as though you are dropping the ball for the other believers.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Then what does suggesting the debate be held in an audio/video format make me look like?
Now you understand why I refused any other format but this one. My long and thorough response, and your refusal to address it, are now part of the official record of DC&R and will remain a part of the official record for anyone to view, as long as the forum exists. I went to a lot of trouble writing that two part response. Since you refuse to address it, my only satisfaction now comes from knowing that it will stand unchallenged indefinitely. Which is why I refused the audio/video format challenge.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Because I certainly provided you with more than enough material to challenge your claims and assertions.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: You did? LOL.
Could it be that you were not expecting a sophisticated and detailed rebuttal of your religious beliefs when you offered and agreed to a head to head debate on the resurrection? Because for many Christian believers, the certainty that their beliefs are beyond challenge is a part of their religious indoctrination. But we have put that notion to bed once and for all right here, haven't we!

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The tatted old man at the end of my last post is not really a picture of me, by the way. I was simply attempting to leave on a light note.

For_The_Kingdom wrote: SMH.
I'm actually much uglier.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #15

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: If you are going to offer to do a head to head debate, then you should be prepared to put in the effort to defend your position.
Sure, and "putting effort to defend my position" does not entail me responding to a potentially 3+ page post full of long, drawn out paragraphs.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Because quitting is little more than an acknowledgement of defeat. Will God understand why you were unable to defend Him, I wonder?
I told you why I am forfeiting...and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with your arguments or my inability to defend the Resurrection.

Hell, that were the case, you wouldn't have me challenging you/anyone to audio/video debates on these very issues.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: That would be the undesirable trend of continuously being faced with detailed evidence which you continuously realized that you could not overcome.
Bro, do you seriously believe that your arguments were that good?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I predicted that very outcome myself, which is why I had no reservation in accepting your offer for a head to head debate.
Remember, I am the one who offered the head to head video/audio debate with you..and remember, you were the one who declined it.

And that offer stands...and because that offer stands, that should tell you that I have no reservation in offering you the head to head debate.

If the debate is going to be that lengthy, I would prefer it be in at least audio format.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: You have clearly lost your stomach for attempting to to defend your Christian beliefs, that is obvious.
Yet, I am still presenting an audio/video challenge. Makes no sense.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I expected that would occur. I am simply surprised that it occurred so early on. But in the end, quitting early saves you a lot of time and effort. Because you inevitably would have had to admit defeat and walked away at some point anyway. This is the inevitable outcome in the ongoing debate between believers and non believers. Make believe simply cannot be realistically sustained for long.
Audio/Video challenge. Accept it.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Now you understand why I refused any other format but this one. My long and thorough response, and your refusal to address it, are now part of the official record of DC&R and will remain a part of the official record for anyone to view, as long as the forum exists.
Disingenuous. Your long and thorough posts were matched by my long and through responses, which reflects the official record of DC&R.

My only issue is, I am not going to respond to long, 3+ page posts. Not happening. And on the "official" note, the audio/video format would have also been part of the DC&R, because it would have been posted to the forum.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I went to a lot of trouble writing that two part response.
Yeah, and that two would have turned into three...three to four...and four to five..and so on and so forth.

Aint nobody got time for that.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Since you refuse to address it, my only satisfaction now comes from knowing that it will stand unchallenged indefinitely. Which is why I refused the audio/video format challenge.
And that is why I initially refused to continue our forum discussions (which lead to the debate).
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Could it be that you were not expecting a sophisticated and detailed rebuttal of your religious beliefs when you offered and agreed to a head to head debate on the resurrection?
Again, my forfeit has nothing to do with your rebuttals. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #16

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to post 15 by For_The_Kingdom]


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
If you are going to offer to do a head to head debate, then you should be prepared to put in the effort to defend your position.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Sure, and "putting effort to defend my position" does not entail me responding to a potentially 3+ page post full of long, drawn out paragraphs.
I made my response detailed for a reason. Yes, it was my intention to overwhelm you with facts that destroy your assertions/assumptions. How much detail you choose to put into your response, or are able to put into your response, is entirely up to you.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Because quitting is little more than an acknowledgement of defeat. Will God understand why you were unable to defend Him, I wonder?
For_The_kingdom wrote: I told you why I am forfeiting...and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with your arguments or my inability to defend the Resurrection.
That's not the way it looks though, is it? It looks like an excuse to cover the fact that the argument against your beliefs is stronger than you suspected, and you find you are unable to defend your position. This in fact is exactly what I expected to occur when I agreed to undertake this debate with you. Because I am perfectly aware that the argument against your beliefs is stronger than you suspect, and you will find you are unable to defend your position. I didn't expect you to quit so early on, however.

My long response is still there, and you are still free to respond to it if you can. We will inevitably reach this point anyway, however. Ultimately you are attempting to defend an indefensible position and the longer you try, the more obvious that will become.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Hell, that were the case, you wouldn't have me challenging you/anyone to audio/video debates on these very issues.
Which you should now reasonably be less inclined to do in the future.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
That would be the undesirable trend of continuously being faced with detailed evidence which you continuously realized that you could not overcome.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Bro, do you seriously believe that your arguments were that good?
My arguments are conclusive and ultimately unbeatable. I have been honing them for years. You only got the barest tip of the iceberg before you called it quits.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I predicted that very outcome myself, which is why I had no reservation in accepting your offer for a head to head debate.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Remember, I am the one who offered the head to head video/audio debate with you..and remember, you were the one who declined it.
We would have ended up in exactly the same place, but I would not have had the textual evidence to establish that you ran and hid.
For_The_kingdom wrote: And that offer stands...and because that offer stands, that should tell you that I have no reservation in offering you the head to head debate.

If the debate is going to be that lengthy, I would prefer it be in at least audio format.

I am currently involved in a face to face debate with the pastor of my friend's church. With interested witnesses. That is as much face to face fun as I need right now. He has been frustrated, but at least he hasn't quit.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
You have clearly lost your stomach for attempting to to defend your Christian beliefs, that is obvious.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Yet, I am still presenting an audio/video challenge. Makes no sense.
DC&R is a TEXT debate format. I enjoy this site for that reason. Text debates give both side a chance to consider what it is they want to say, and then to say exactly what they mean. Challenging you with material that you undoubtedly will have to do research on to reply to is rather like doing homework however. Which I suspect is what you are loathe to do. But if you are not willing to put in the time, then you were always going to get crushed in this sort of a debate anyway.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Audio/Video challenge. Accept it.
You chose to cut and run. I've already won.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Now you understand why I refused any other format but this one. My long and thorough response, and your refusal to address it, are now part of the official record of DC&R and will remain a part of the official record for anyone to view, as long as the forum exists.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Disingenuous. Your long and thorough posts were matched by my long and through responses, which reflects the official record of DC&R.

My only issue is, I am not going to respond to long, 3+ page posts. Not happening. And on the "official" note, the audio/video format would have also been part of the DC&R, because it would have been posted to the forum.
You made one reasonably long response, post #8, and I commend you for the effort. Apparently that was the best you had, because when I responded to it in detail you suddenly lost interest. We are all left with the impression that you are refusing to reply because you find yourself overwhelmed and intimidated by the detailed sophistication of my argument. "It's too much work" is a pretty lame excuse. You were the one who suggested this debate in the first place.

And yes, my intention is and always was to overwhelm you with arguments that work to counter yours. That's how these debates work. Unless of course you simply expected me to roll over in the face of your simplistic doctrine.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I went to a lot of trouble writing that two part response.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Yeah, and that two would have turned into three...three to four...and four to five..and so on and so forth.

Aint nobody got time for that.
Did you even read my response?

Clearly I have time for it. But time is not the point. Because I am suggesting that you are free to take all the time you want. Just do me the courtesy of dropping me a line occasionally and letting me know that a response is forthcoming. Professing a belief in make believe and then refusing to defend your beliefs in detail simply appears to be weak and poorly reasoned.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Could it be that you were not expecting a sophisticated and detailed rebuttal of your religious beliefs when you offered and agreed to a head to head debate on the resurrection?
For_The_kingdom wrote: Again, my forfeit has nothing to do with your rebuttals. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Refusing to respond because you have discovered that rebutting my rebuttals is very difficult, is exactly what your quitting the debate appears to be, however.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #17

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I made my response detailed for a reason. Yes, it was my intention to overwhelm you with facts that destroy your assertions/assumptions. How much detail you choose to put into your response, or are able to put into your response, is entirely up to you.
Facts? What facts? All I saw was speculation and baseless assertions.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: That's not the way it looks though, is it? It looks like an excuse to cover the fact that the argument against your beliefs is stronger than you suspected, and you find you are unable to defend your position.
Well, that is the way it looks to you. You haven't stumped me one bit with anything that you've said..and quite frankly, your arguments don't impress me at all. That is why I can forfeit the debate and still remain confident that the arguments for the Resurrection is as strong now as it was before the debate started.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: This in fact is exactly what I expected to occur when I agreed to undertake this debate with you. Because I am perfectly aware that the argument against your beliefs is stronger than you suspect, and you will find you are unable to defend your position. I didn't expect you to quit so early on, however.
I wasn't going to quit, until I saw a two-page response coming from you. The same kind of thing happened in the sub-forums. Again, those two pages would have turned into three, and three to forth..and so on.

That would have undoubtedly happened, so I literally quit while I was ahead.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: My long response is still there, and you are still free to respond to it if you can.
Sorry Charlie. Join me on an audio/video platform and bring your smoke there. Until then..
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: We will inevitably reach this point anyway, however. Ultimately you are attempting to defend an indefensible position and the longer you try, the more obvious that will become.
Bring it there.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Which you should now reasonably be less inclined to do in the future.
Why?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
My arguments are conclusive and ultimately unbeatable. I have been honing them for years.
LOL.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
We would have ended up in exactly the same place, but I would not have had the textual evidence to establish that you ran and hid.
Disingenuous. You know full well that the audio/video (A/V) joint would be placed on this forum. I am the one who came up with the bright idea for a A/V dialogues to be uploaded on here...and I certainly offered it for our debate as well.

So who is trying to run and hide? Not me.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I am currently involved in a face to face debate with the pastor of my friend's church. With interested witnesses. That is as much face to face fun as I need right now.
Well, when you finished getting owned by him, holla at me.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: He has been frustrated, but at least he hasn't quit.
Good for him.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: DC&R is a TEXT debate format. I enjoy this site for that reason. Text debates give both side a chance to consider what it is they want to say, and then to say exactly what they mean.
I can consider what it is I want to say, and say exactly what I mean on an A/V format. It ain't rocket science. Unless you can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Challenging you with material that you undoubtedly will have to do research on to reply to is rather like doing homework however. Which I suspect is what you are loathe to do. But if you are not willing to put in the time, then you were always going to get crushed in this sort of a debate anyway.
Mannn please.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: You made one reasonably long response, post #8, and I commend you for the effort.
Yeah, and responding to your two-page post would have made my next post even longer. See what I mean?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Apparently that was the best you had, because when I responded to it in detail you suddenly lost interest.
I lose interest with long posts, in general.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: We are all left with the impression that you are refusing to reply because you find yourself overwhelmed and intimidated by the detailed sophistication of my argument. "It's too much work" is a pretty lame excuse. You were the one who suggested this debate in the first place.
I suggested an A/V format. I only agreed to the text debate to suit your fancy.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: And yes, my intention is and always was to overwhelm you with arguments that work to counter yours. That's how these debates work. Unless of course you simply expected me to roll over in the face of your simplistic doctrine.
Overwhelm me in A/V.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I went to a lot of trouble writing that two part response.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Did you even read my response?
Nope.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Clearly I have time for it.
Right, clearly you do. And clearly I don't.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: But time is not the point.
It is for me.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Because I am suggesting that you are free to take all the time you want. Just do me the courtesy of dropping me a line occasionally and letting me know that a response is forthcoming. Professing a belief in make believe and then refusing to defend your beliefs in detail simply appears to be weak and poorly reasoned.
A/V.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Refusing to respond because you have discovered that rebutting my rebuttals is very difficult, is exactly what your quitting the debate appears to be, however.
A/V. Instead of informing me of your opinion of why I quit, use that same energy to have this debate with me on an A/V platform. We can have a moderator and/or whatever...and it will be posted on this great forum for all to see and hear.

Now, if that doesn't do it for you, then I can't help you.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #18

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to post 17 by For_The_Kingdom]


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I made my response detailed for a reason. Yes, it was my intention to overwhelm you with facts that destroy your assertions/assumptions. How much detail you choose to put into your response, or are able to put into your response, that is entirely up to you.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Facts? What facts? All I saw was speculation and baseless assertions.
You had your chance to establish that my "speculation and baseless assertions" were without foundation. You chose to walk away. Throwing brickbats after the fact is pretty hollow. But my last response to you is still up there. You still have time to respond and establish that it is nothing more than "speculation and baseless assertions." It's up to you.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
That's not the way it looks though, is it? It looks like an excuse to cover the fact that the argument against your beliefs is stronger than you suspected, and you find you are unable to defend your position.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Well, that is the way it looks to you. You haven't stumped me one bit with anything that you've said..and quite frankly, your arguments don't impress me at all. That is why I can forfeit the debate and still remain confident that the arguments for the Resurrection is as strong now as it was before the debate started.
As long as you choose not to respond, this is little more than false bravado. I will agree however, that leaving the debate now saves you from watching your beliefs being ripped to shreds in detail.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This in fact is exactly what I expected to occur when I agreed to undertake this debate with you. Because I am perfectly aware that the argument against your beliefs is stronger than you suspect, and you will find you are unable to defend your position. I didn't expect you to quit so early on, however.
For_The_kingdom wrote: I wasn't going to quit, until I saw a two-page response coming from you. The same kind of thing happened in the sub-forums. Again, those two pages would have turned into three, and three to forth..and so on.

That would have undoubtedly happened, so I literally quit while I was ahead.
I already agreed that this is true. You were going to run an hide eventually. That was always inevitable. You simply did it before you had any real time invested in the debate. Losing now or losing later is still losing.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Which you should now reasonably be less inclined to do in the future.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Why?
Because continuously getting thumped makes both you and your claims look ridiculous.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
My arguments are conclusive and ultimately unbeatable. I have been honing them for years.
For_The_kingdom wrote: LOL.
LOL & SMH are not replacements for actual facts and reason.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Refusing to respond because you have discovered that rebutting my rebuttals is very difficult, is exactly what your quitting the debate appears to be, however.
For_The_kingdom wrote: A/V. Instead of informing me of your opinion of why I quit, use that same energy to have this debate with me on an A/V platform. We can have a moderator and/or whatever...and it will be posted on this great forum for all to see and hear.

Now, if that doesn't do it for you, then I can't help you.
I have already beaten you. Unless you are willing to address my last post, you remain yesterday's rubble.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #19

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: You had your chance to establish that my "speculation and baseless assertions" were without foundation. You chose to walk away. Throwing brickbats after the fact is pretty hollow.
If I recall, on more than one occasion, during the debate I responded to your quotes with "speculation/baseless assertion". So my accusation to you in this regard isn't brand new.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: But my last response to you is still up there. You still have time to respond and establish that it is nothing more than "speculation and baseless assertions." It's up to you.
My challenge to an A/V debate with you is also "still up there". It's up to you.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: As long as you choose not to respond, this is little more than false bravado. I will agree however, that leaving the debate now saves you from watching your beliefs being ripped to shreds in detail.
LOL.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I already agreed that this is true. You were going to run an hide eventually. That was always inevitable. You simply did it before you had any real time invested in the debate. Losing now or losing later is still losing.
Me..run from you? SMH.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Because continuously getting thumped makes both you and your claims look ridiculous.
You give your arguments wayyy more credit than they deserve.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: LOL & SMH are not replacements for actual facts and reason.
They are, however, true expressions of the way I feel at the time.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I have already beaten you. Unless you are willing to address my last post, you remain yesterday's rubble.
I'll be that.

And oh, one of your comrades stated..
I find it amusing that your opponent has all kinds of time and energy to explain how he doesn't like the text format of a text format debate site, but not enough time and energy to simply engage in the actual debate.

That's quite telling.
Yeah but then again, my time and energy explaining how I don't like the text format isn't 2+ pages long, either, is it?

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #20

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to post 19 by For_The_Kingdom]


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
You had your chance to establish that my "speculation and baseless assertions" were without foundation. You chose to walk away. Throwing brickbats after the fact is pretty hollow.
For_The_kingdom wrote: If I recall, on more than one occasion, during the debate I responded to your quotes with "speculation/baseless assertion". So my accusation to you in this regard isn't brand new.
You consider that life arising from nonliving matter to be "speculation and baseless assertions." But that happens to simply be standard biology. When I pointed out that the Jewish priests took possession of Joseph's closed tomb on Saturday but never inspected it, you consider any other conclusion but that the corpse of Jesus must have came back to life and vacated the tomb on it's own to be "speculation and baseless assertions." It's clear however that the obvious conclusion is that the tomb was already empty when the priests took possession of it. It's also clear that what you consider to be "speculation and baseless assertions" also happens to be what corresponds to the obvious natural conclusion. You assert that any conclusion but the conclusion that corresponds to your make believe to be "without foundation." So it was always clear that when provided with detailed examples of natural explanations that undermine your make believe, you would eventually choose to run and hide. I just didn't expect it quite so early.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But my last response to you is still up there. You still have time to respond and establish that it is nothing more than "speculation and baseless assertions." It's up to you.
For_The_kingdom wrote: My challenge to an A/V debate with you is also "still up there". It's up to you.
Why would I choose a text debate site to become involved with an A/V debate? Besides, I have already exposed your inability to defend your make believe nonsense.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
As long as you choose not to respond, this is little more than false bravado. I will agree however, that leaving the debate now saves you from watching your beliefs being ripped to shreds in detail.

For_The_kingdom wrote: LOL.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I already agreed that this is true. You were going to run an hide eventually. That was always inevitable. You simply did it before you had any real time invested in the debate. Losing now or losing later is still losing.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Me..run from you? SMH.
LOL and SMH do not represent cogent arguments. You dropped the ball and stopped debating. You are currently dancing and dogging. But you are not debating.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Because continuously getting thumped makes both you and your claims look ridiculous.
For_The_kingdom wrote: You give your arguments wayyy more credit than they deserve.
In that case my arguments should be ridiculously easy to overcome. Surely there are books written by Christian apologists that can help you out with this?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
LOL & SMH are not replacements for actual facts and reason.
For_The_kingdom wrote: They are, however, true expressions of the way I feel at the time.
You are disdainful of anything that contradicts your lifetime of Christian indoctrination, this is clear. But when push comes to shove, disdain is not the same thing as actually having the necessary goods required to support your make believe, is it!


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I have already beaten you. Unless you are willing to address my last post, you remain yesterday's rubble.
For_The_kingdom wrote: I'll be that.

And oh, one of your comrades stated.

Quote:
I find it amusing that your opponent has all kinds of time and energy to explain how he doesn't like the text format of a text format debate site, but not enough time and energy to simply engage in the actual debate.

That's quite telling.

Yeah but then again, my time and energy explaining how I don't like the text format isn't 2+ pages long, either, is it?
You choose to come to the DC&R forum, not vice-versa. You can't really expect the forum to conform to you.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

Post Reply