Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[Hellsmk2]

What would you call it? It is certainly more than you have produced to counter it.

I would call it stupidity. Once again, there's no point countering stupidity.

 

[jamesaltria]

I can't believe this thread is still going... zzzzz

 

[Castiel]

I'm sure Jason believes the evidence he has posted is un-refutable. That's an odd request.

All you got to do is disprove the resurrection then I'm happy.

Disproving the Resurrection in isolation is a pointless exercise as it would require far to many assumptions to be pre-agreed to make a fair and presentable case. If you present your proofs for the resurrection I am willing to dispute them, if I am able. Be aware that I would expect evidence to be backed up with independent and unbiased sources, you can use the historical-critical method of assessing scripture if you wish, you can present scripture as a basis for your presentation, although it should be supported both linguistically and from more than one source. Be aware that I will not necessarily use scripture to retort, neither would I be have to disprove the resurrection independently, I would only have to make a clear case why the evidence you provide is either insubstantial or can be presented logically in another way as to show that the premise is flawed.

 

[crinkleshoes]

None of this is evidence. Full stop.

Thousands witnessed Prince Isildur slay Sauron.

Reading this thread is hilarious

Thousands? Millions! Proof!

Depends how you define atheism. Given your description of atheism as a lack of belief in a god then atheism isn't even a position or view at all. It is a description of psychological state at best. My grans dog must be an atheist given that definition also despite never considering the question.

Why don't you just pick up a dictionary, perhaps that might be simpler than making yourself look so foolish.

Atheism is not a lack of belief... it's a belief that there IS NO god.

Agnosticism is closer to what you describe.

Your family dog is none of the above, it likely has no belief system, so there is no ism to assign to it.

I swear you're doing this on purpose now just to wind people up... I find it hard to believe someone is quite so stupid and yet still able to use a computer... although it has become rather easy, I suppose.

It does follow that morality couldn't come about that way. Your sense of morality and morality itself are two different things.

If objective morality did actually exist - what would be the point? If no-one could define it, it would be inherently useless!

In the real world, it is subjective - no matter what spin you put on it.

So your latest idea of morality is really a free for all. It gets worse.

You keep going to this redundant extreme, you really seem to have no grasp of the concepts being talked about.

Why are you so obsessed with homos? There are many theories on moral epistemology and how we come to understand what is moral. Go google it.

Are you not the one who believes their acts to be morally wrong? Pathetic...

I didn't get a single answer to the problems of your self defeating view.

Lol... you are the one who ignores comments and spews unrelated crap.

 

[ringo747]

I would call it stupidity. Once again, there's no point countering stupidity.

Why do you ever bother contributing? You don't provide any evidence to support your own view, nor do your provide any evidence to counter the opposing view.

Yet you seem to be certain that it is all stupidity.

 

[wannabedamned]

Why do you ever bother contributing? You don't provide any evidence to support your own view, nor do your provide any evidence to counter the opposing view.

Yet you seem to be certain that it is all stupidity.

What have you contributed for the last few pages other than going..

PROVE IT PROVE IT! THATS NOT PROVING IT!

While trying to sound smart?

 

[crinkleshoes]

Hi hurf, what sort of evidence would you be expecting? I would suggest that what Jason2 posted is classes as supporting evidence.

Have you any evidence that would counter what Jason2 posted?

Rumour, chinese whispers, camp fire stories, conjecture, fairytale mysticism and delusions now count as evidence... interesting.

None of that is evidence, as an example.

"Oh women were not trusted back then, but a woman saw it" is not evidence, its just an attempt at justifying a story and attempting to make it seem like there are reasons to believe it, when really, it is all just nonsense, just like you would say it was nonsense if I told you I was the son of God, even if I told you "ah but I told a woman in Afghanistan and she believed me and women are second class citizens in Afghanistan, thus that proves I am the son of God!"

It really doesn't does it now, come on, your more intelligent than that.

You just happen believe it about some one else, which is just as ridiculous.

There's nothing to debate or discuss about that meaningless waffle. It is not evidence. Single-celled life forms are face-palming themselves right now.

^^

 

[wannabedamned]

I showed Jason2 another resurrection that has been shown to happen in history, The egyptian god Osirus. his response that it was mythology was very funny.

He essentially said, yeah jesus can come back to life. but no one else, thats mythology!

 

[Jason2]

Castiel, will you please make your beliefs known? I'm not debating someone who just stands in the middle.

It's impossible to debate with the atheists on here. People like hurf really do come across as just plain dumb.

 

[crinkleshoes]

I'm sure Jason believes the evidence he has posted is un-refutable. That's an odd request.

All you got to do is disprove the resurrection then I'm happy.

That's not how any body of proof has ever worked... the person who posits the crackpot theory is the one who has to prove its truth.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel, will you please make your beliefs known? I'm not debating someone who just stands in the middle.

It's impossible to debate with the atheists on here. People like hurf really do come across as just plain dumb.

You first Jason2.....I think you will find that I asked you on more than one occasion and you have intentionally ignored me.

In any case, my position on religion (and Abrahamic religions, particularly Christianity and Islam) is well known on these forums.

 

[crinkleshoes]

I'm sure Jason believes the evidence he has posted is un-refutable. That's an odd request.

All you got to do is disprove the resurrection then I'm happy.

Who has refuted it where?



What would you call it? It is certainly more than you have produced to counter it.

I discovered the real Narnia... disprove it

 

[crinkleshoes]

Why do you ever bother contributing? You don't provide any evidence to support your own view, nor do your provide any evidence to counter the opposing view.

Yet you seem to be certain that it is all stupidity.

Why do you ever bother contributing? You don't provide any evidence to support your own view, nor do your provide any evidence to counter the opposing view.

Yet you seem to be certain that it is all stupidity.

 

[Jason2]

I showed Jason2 another resurrection that has been shown to happen in history, The egyptian god Osirus. his response that it was mythology was very funny.

He essentially said, yeah jesus can come back to life. but no one else, thats mythology!

As one scholar said:

"The pieces of his body were recovered and rejoined, and the god was rejuvenated. However, he did not return to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld, where he became the powerful lord of the dead. In no sense can Osiris be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern...In no sense can the dramatic myth of his death and reanimation be harmonized to the pattern of dying and rising gods."

He was essentially dead. He never returned among the living, as did Jesus. Jesus had mastery over death, Osiris didn't.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Castiel, will you please make your beliefs known? I'm not debating someone who just stands in the middle.

It's impossible to debate with the atheists on here. People like hurf really do come across as just plain dumb.

Theists are the ones who ask non-theists to disprove a story book... that should be a dictionary definition of stupidity

 

[ringo747]

Why don't you just pick up a dictionary, perhaps that might be simpler than making yourself look so foolish.

The reason I don't need to pick up a dictionary is because in this thread we have witnessed atheism being described as a lack of belief in God!

Atheism is not a lack of belief... it's a belief that there IS NO god.

What evidence would support your view?

I swear you're doing this on purpose now just to wind people up... I find it hard to believe someone is quite so stupid and yet still able to use a computer... although it has become rather easy, I suppose.

I'm stupid? Why? Because we have differing opinions? Shall we compare CVs to see if your claim turns out to be true?

If objective morality did actually exist - what would be the point? If no-one could define it, it would be inherently useless!

Er, I have unfortunately had to define objective morality about 20 times in this thread and still people can't see to understand it.

In the real world, it is subjective - no matter what spin you put on it.

Ok, whatever. Pity that the vast majority of philosophers disagree with you. Prominent atheists included.

You keep going to this redundant extreme, you really seem to have no grasp of the concepts being talked about.

Ok, whatever. If you don't see the pitfalls of moral relativism then I suppose ignorance is bliss.

What have you contributed for the last few pages other than going..

PROVE IT PROVE IT! THATS NOT PROVING IT!

While trying to sound smart?

I don't recall using that particular phrase often if at all.

Rumour, chinese whispers, camp fire stories, conjecture, fairytale mysticism and delusions now count as evidence... interesting.

I'm genuinely interested on what basis you have concluded that the resurrection is any of the above. I'm not saying it is historical fact, just asking about your reasoning.

That's not how any body of proof has ever worked... the person who posits the crackpot theory is the one who has to prove its truth.

Crackpot theory? You seem very sure. Again, on what basis have you reached that conclusion? Is it because the writings about the account aren't close enough to the event? Is it the theory that Jesus didn't even exist? What direction you coming from?

 

[RDM]

Depends how you define atheism. Given your description of atheism as a lack of belief in a god then atheism isn't even a position or view at all. It is a description of psychological state at best. My grans dog must be an atheist given that definition also despite never considering the question.

You seem to be defining atheism as a specific worldview, it isn't, it is the answer to a single question. (I have no real desire to go into the whole atheist/agnostic semantic debate again so please lets not).

Atheism has no view on evolution, it has no view on the worth of man, it has no view on morality. The only thing atheism does have is a view on the existence of God. So when you ascribe anything else to atheism you are making a mistake.

It does follow that morality couldn't come about that way. Your sense of morality and morality itself are two different things.

No it doesn't. Our morality could be an evolved trait. Evolution is neutral on the number of limbs we have, yet we still have limbs.

So your latest idea of morality is really a free for all. It gets worse.

No worse than yours which seems to be "What other people tell me."

Why are you so obsessed with homos?

I am using it as an example of why you have no real idea where your morality comes from or even what it is. You think homosexuality is wrong because your religion tells you so. That is about as much thought as you can manage.

There are many theories on moral epistemology and how we come to understand what is moral. Go google it.

There are lots of theories on objective reality coming from a source other than god. Go google it.

I didn't get a single answer to the problems of your self defeating view.

My view isn't at all self defeating, you just need it to be or it puts your faith in doubt.

 

[wannabedamned]

As one scholar said:

"The pieces of his body were recovered and rejoined, and the god was rejuvenated. However, he did not return to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld, where he became the powerful lord of the dead. In no sense can Osiris be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern...In no sense can the dramatic myth of his death and reanimation be harmonized to the pattern of dying and rising gods."

He was essentially dead. He never returned among the living, as did Jesus. Jesus had mastery over death, Osiris didn't.

Jesus went to heaven when he resurrected.(which makes you wonder, can living people go to heaven then?) Osiris went to the underworld.

Jesus didnt have a mastery over death, God resurrected him.

 

[Naffa]

Even if he did, so did many other Holy men. Matthew 27:52-53 tells us that, 'The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.'

 

[Jason2]

Jesus went to heaven when he resurrected.(which makes you wonder, can living people go to heaven then?) Osiris went to the underworld.

Jesus didnt have a mastery over death, God resurrected him.

But you were saying that the resurrection was taken from Osiris, yet there really isn't a resurrection, at least not in the terms that we are speaking about.

Er, yes he did. He conquered death and then ascended to heaven. Death had no power over him. If that's not mastery then I don't know what is.