90 replies to this topic

[vbnautilus]

One resurrection in a cave: pretty easy to hide. Multiple dead people walking around a city is going to produce tons of evidence. Are you telling me hordes of corpses arose and walked around the city and not a single photograph captured this?. CHECK MATE!<fist pumps><high fives imaginary Dawkins><victory dance>

[Spademan]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 10:14 AM, said:

I actually never troll. That was an assertion made falsely by dutch in the bracket thread.What I do is respond in kind.

Wow.

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 10:14 AM, said:

If you go to the beginning, Randy made unabashed accusations with no scholarly peer-reviewed work. Brv and I responded in kind.

The OP pointed out disparate claims in the bible and quoted the passages. You and brv didn't "respond in kind", you said, "nuh uh".Wow.

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 10:14 AM, said:

You did this by your propaganda debate definitions. Which really did not apply, since the post you were applying these too was never meant to be an exhaustive response, or a dodge for lack of evidence.

So, the very rules of language and logic are "propaganda debate definitions."Wow.

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 10:14 AM, said:

I am comfortable in my faith, I do not fear questions, but I also do not enjoy reading post by people, like you, who mock and degenerate God for the sole reason of being shocking. Shock and Awe ( George Bush term ) works better when capturing a town then capturing an honest debate.

Yes, that's why we "mock" your superstitions. Pure "shock and awe". Wow.

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 10:14 AM, said:

Therefore I do not waste my time being honestly challenging

True.Wow.

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 10:14 AM, said:

I have a dream of finding an atheist web site and trolling it like you guys troll this section by constantly pointing out how they are going to hell etc. But I am not arrogant enough I guess.

Go into the comments of any post on Myers Blog and give it a shot. Absolute hilarity will ensue for the rest of us.Absolute, wow-inducing, hilarity. "A new chew toy!" Especially wow on the citation you used. He, despite admitting that "It is also acknowledging that we do not have to have all of the answers to our logical questions before we can accept the Bible as Scripture for the Church. The issue is not a matter of believing or not believing the Bible; it is a matter of believing, and then seeking to understand as best we can that which we believe ("faith seeking understanding"), states categorically that "we need honestly to concede at the beginning that there is no final answer to this "problem." This is after redefining "problem" as "questions and possible explanations about the literary relationships between the first three New Testament Gospels". They may be "unnerving" "issues" and "questions"... but not "problems", he says.And, this is the best part, his summary begins:What is clear from this brief survey of the Synoptic tradition is that there is no certain picture of how the Gospels were formed in terms of sources. There is no single theory of documents or sources that definitively demonstrates how all the similarities and differences in the Synoptic tradition can be explained.His summary begins by refuting both of your major claims. ROFLBoth that the sources are uncertain, and that there is nothing that can demonstrate how the similarities and differences can be explained. Just.... wow.You thinking that this, even self-admittedly biased and "first we take the bible to be true", source that is in direct opposition to your claims is support for your claims is staggering.Religious thinking has fucked your mind. p.s. Seriously though, go to PZ myers blog. The comment section of each post is almost exclusively atheist. Go ahead and "troll" there in return. Please.

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 12:35 PM, said:

One resurrection in a cave: pretty easy to hide. Multiple dead people walking around a city is going to produce tons of evidence. Are you telling me hordes of corpses arose and walked around the city and not a single photograph captured this?. CHECK MATE!<fist pumps><high fives imaginary Dawkins><victory dance>

Surprisingly....liked this postI will keep you off the ignore section for now. But mainly because I already answered the poll and can't change my answer.

[brvheart]

VB, it's a common Christian belief. I've never been anywhere that has shied away from it, and that's kind-of why I didn't even get Randy's post or why you liked it.The thing with Christians is, we think that Jesus was God, so it was an important thing to have the sky darken and the curtain rip (probably the single most important thing that happened that day), or the dead rising. It was all signs from God that they probably shouldn't have killed the guy that they were waiting for.

[Roll the Bones]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 2:08 PM, said:

Ok, I see, so lots of dead bodies came back to life, HOWEVER -- this is apparently important -- they did not feed on the brains of living humans. I think the passage does not make clear the speed of decay of the reanimated corpses or what their subsequent diet consisted of, but if bible scholars agree that the bodies were intact and that they weren't hungry, who am I to argue? Incidentally, if they were not shot, what did become of this army of undead holy men? I think it must be within the power of your omnipotent god to create an army of zomb-- excuse me, reanimated non-decaying corpses-- if he so chooses; I was just wondering if this was a common christian belief or if it was one of those passages that got explained away somehow. On one level I suppose if you believe in one resurrection it's not that much of a stretch to believe in a bunch more, but this just seems to take it to another level.

You don't understand. That part is not the literal word of the bible. The other part of that chapter IS the literal word of God. In fact the resurection story is the entire foundation of the New Testament and everything else about Christianity falls apart if in fact THE MOST IMPORTANT PART wasn't the true literal word of the bible. If Jesus didn't die for our sins then what the hell good is Christianity? It would simply be a bad story. Every single foundation of the church is based on this single unadulterated fact. Well, depending on which version of facts you want to believe in the bible because they can't seem to get that straight, like who, what, when, where and how it happened but that's beside the point because it is FACT that Jesus died for our sins based soley on these passages of the bible. Just ignore the zombie stuff because that is not meant to be taken literally! Just take the parts that are facts because you can't understand what God was thinking when he wrote the other stuff. Got it?

[Balloon guy]

Spademan, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 1:36 PM, said:

Wow.

I know.

Quote

The OP pointed out disparate claims in the bible and quoted the passages. You and brv didn't "respond in kind", you said, "nuh uh".Wow.

Nuh uh

Quote

So, the very rules of language and logic are "propaganda debate definitions."Wow.

Yes, the rules of language are subject to the definitions found in PBD when used in certain manners

Quote

Yes, that's why we "mock" your superstitions. Pure "shock and awe". Wow.

No, you mock because of arrogance, based on badly formed world view ( I know you love the world view phrase )

Quote

True.Wow.

I guess that's true then.

Quote

Go into the comments of any post on Myers Blog and give it a shot. Absolute hilarity will ensue for the rest of us.Absolute, wow-inducing, hilarity. "A new chew toy!"

That's my goal, to taunt people. Oh wait, that's not my goal.

Quote

Especially wow on the citation you used. He, despite admitting that "It is also acknowledging that we do not have to have all of the answers to our logical questions before we can accept the Bible as Scripture for the Church. The issue is not a matter of believing or not believing the Bible; it is a matter of believing, and then seeking to understand as best we can that which we believe ("faith seeking understanding"), states categorically that "we need honestly to concede at the beginning that there is no final answer to this "problem." This is after redefining "problem" as "questions and possible explanations about the literary relationships between the first three New Testament Gospels". They may be "unnerving" "issues" and "questions"... but not "problems", he says.And, this is the best part, his summary begins:What is clear from this brief survey of the Synoptic tradition is that there is no certain picture of how the Gospels were formed in terms of sources. There is no single theory of documents or sources that definitively demonstrates how all the similarities and differences in the Synoptic tradition can be explained.His summary begins by refuting both of your major claims. ROFLBoth that the sources are uncertain, and that there is nothing that can demonstrate how the similarities and differences can be explained. Just.... wow.You thinking that this, even self-admittedly biased and "first we take the bible to be true", source that is in direct opposition to your claims is support for your claims is staggering.Religious thinking has fd your mind.

I guess CRI no longer believes that the Gospels are true. You proved it.

Quote

p.s. Seriously though, go to PZ myers blog. The comment section of each post is almost exclusively atheist. Go ahead and "troll" there in return. Please.

I might just do that. I will pick a screen name that you will never guess, and it will happen at a time you do not suspect, so that you cannot be biased to my posts.Or might I? Probably not, for reasons of not caring enough

[Balloon guy]

Roll the Bones, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 2:35 PM, said:

You don't understand. That part is not the literal word of the bible. The other part of that chapter IS the literal word of God. In fact the resurection story is the entire foundation of the New Testament and everything else about Christianity falls apart if in fact THE MOST IMPORTANT PART wasn't the true literal word of the bible. If Jesus didn't die for our sins then what the hell good is Christianity? It would simply be a bad story. Every single foundation of the church is based on this single unadulterated fact. Well, depending on which version of facts you want to believe in the bible because they can't seem to get that straight, like who, what, when, where and how it happened but that's beside the point because it is FACT that Jesus died for our sins based soley on these passages of the bible. Just ignore the zombie stuff because that is not meant to be taken literally! Just take the parts that are facts because you can't understand what God was thinking when he wrote the other stuff. Got it?

If it isn't true it would still be a collection of very good stories.But it is true, CRI my pastor told me so.

[Spademan]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 2:36 PM, said:

I might just do that. I will pick a screen name that you will never guess, and it will happen at a time you do not suspect, so that you cannot be biased to my posts.Or might I? Probably not, for reasons of not caring enough

No no, I wouldn't even argue against you there. I wouldn't need to. When it comes to religious discussion there are like 100 Spademan's there.I'd just watch and enjoy.They enjoy trolls/irrational thinkers over there. Their policy is the opposite of most online "communities". They feed the troll/believer till it runs out of steam and dies.Make it a screen name I'd know, so I can see how long you can hold out and applaud you if/when you legitimately tilt someone.I actually think you'd like it. Especially try your idea's on evolution over there. It's a biologists blog (probably the most popular "new atheist" on the web), and many of the regular's in the comment sections are biologists and other working scientists. Pick a recent post railing against some religious bullshit and get started!Oh, they also hate Republicans.

[Balloon guy]

Spademan, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 2:55 PM, said:

No no, I wouldn't even argue against you there. I wouldn't need to. When it comes to religious discussion there are like 100 Spademan's there.I'd just watch and enjoy.They enjoy trolls/irrational thinkers over there. Their policy is the opposite of most online "communities". They feed the troll/believer till it runs out of steam and dies.Make it a screen name I'd know, so I can see how long you can hold out and applaud you if/when you legitimately tilt someone.I actually think you'd like it. Especially try your idea's on evolution over there. It's a biologists blog (probably the most popular "new atheist" on the web), and many of the regular's in the comment sections are biologists and other working scientists. Pick a recent post railing against some religious bullshit and get started!Oh, they also hate Republicans.

you know how to get a guy

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 2:33 PM, said:

VB, it's a common Christian belief. I've never been anywhere that has shied away from it, and that's kind-of why I didn't even get Randy's post or why you liked it.The thing with Christians is, we think that Jesus was God, so it was an important thing to have the sky darken and the curtain rip (probably the single most important thing that happened that day), or the dead rising. It was all signs from God that they probably shouldn't have killed the guy that they were waiting for.

Just as a sanity check, you do understand why we would be a little... taken aback... by people believing that hordes of dead humans sprung to life, all based on the eyewitness testimony of a single individual who lived two thousand years ago?Was this mentioned somewhere else in a historical record or even in another biblical account, or is it just Matthew's word?

[Balloon guy]

Lat thing I can do is hold my own against a biologist.All I would be doing is quoting AE Wilder Smith and then not understanding their response.But maybe ..if I get the strength, I will head over there.You are young and strong and full of piss and vinegar, I am old and tired and would rather have banter my butt kicked with vb and Randy.

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 2:59 PM, said:

Just as a sanity check, you do understand why we would be a little... taken aback... by people believing that hordes of dead humans sprung to life, all based on the eyewitness testimony of a single individual who lived two thousand years ago?Was this mentioned somewhere else in a historical record or even in another biblical account, or is it just Matthew's word?

I know you hate this, but to say that God's Son rose from the grave is one thing, but a bunch of other people rose from the grave also is too much, has a bit of a logical problem to it.I mean, if He's got the remote control for death's elevator in His hand, why is it so hard to believe that He clicked it a couple more times?The feeding of the 5,000 isn't a problem when you acknowledge that God isn't doing it to prove Himself, He was doing it to feed the hungry people. Our not placing a lot of emphasis on this event doesn't weaken or strengthen its truthfulness.Lazarus was raised from the dead months before this event, is his rising from the dead true based on the written secular history? or the event itself?The 'hordes' of people rising from the dead did not influence the message, or the significance to what Christ's sacrifice means, so it is an ancillary event.

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 3:08 PM, said:

I know you hate this, but to say that God's Son rose from the grave is one thing..but a bunch of other people rose from the grave also is too much has a bit of a logical problem to it.

Hey don't get me wrong, they are both ridiculous. There's no new logical problem here, it's definitely the same one you always had. It's just that the more bizarre the story gets, the more it starts to sound like a reductio ad absurdum:1. If the bible is true, then X is true. 2. X is so absurd that everyone agrees it is false. 3. Therefore, the bible is not true. When we are talking about X = "jesus was resurrected", if we are dealing with fresh minds then the argument holds just fine. However, we are so jaded to this story that it loses some effect. When you refresh X with "a horde of zombies came to life" the argument springs back to life with new vigor.

[brvheart]

vb: I wouldn't think it was any harder for you to believe, than anything else in the Bible you think is crazy. It's not like this is 'especially crazy' or something. Noah's ark is probably harder to believe.

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 3:38 PM, said:

vb: I wouldn't think it was any harder for you to believe, than anything else in the Bible you think is crazy. It's not like this is 'especially crazy' or something. Noah's ark is probably harder to believe.

Yes, in general you are right. But I do think this is especially crazy. Noah's ark is more crazy in its details than in its main thrust... e.g. there's certainly no way every species on earth got on board a single boat, but yeah its conceivable that some guy built a big boat and put some animals on it to ride out a storm at some point. In other words, people build boats all the time, but there is not a single verifiable case in the entire history of human knowledge in which a living creature was dead and buried and then came back to life weeks or months later¹.¹Note than Encino Man was not dead, he was merely in suspended animation in a block of ice.

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 3:20 PM, said:

Hey don't get me wrong, they are both ridiculous. There's no new logical problem here, it's definitely the same one you always had. It's just that the more bizarre the story gets, the more it starts to sound like a reductio ad absurdum:1. If the bible is true, then X is true. 2. X is so absurd that everyone agrees it is false. 3. Therefore, the bible is not true. When we are talking about X = "jesus was resurrected", if we are dealing with fresh minds then the argument holds just fine. However, we are so jaded to this story that it loses some effect. When you refresh X with "a horde of zombies came to life" the argument springs back to life with new vigor.

This was the back waters of the Roman Empire, if they had an alien space ship land it very likely that we would never know because of their remoteness.The Jews were the only ones really keeping track of things, and they hated the Christians. So to argue that you don't find enough corroborating evidence is based on poorly thought out reasons.And it gets back to; miracles are all hard to believe, because they are rare.I would not believe anyone who told me they witnessed a miracle unless they were deep in my inner circle of trust.Deep

[JubilantLankyLad]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 2:49 PM, said:

Yes, in general you are right. But I do think this is especially crazy. Noah's ark is more crazy in its details than in its main thrust... e.g. there's certainly no way every species on earth got on board a single boat, but yeah its conceivable that some guy built a big boat and put some animals on it to ride out a storm at some point. In other words, people build boats all the time, but there is not a single verifiable case in the entire history of human knowledge in which a living creature was dead and buried and then came back to life weeks or months later¹.¹Note than Encino Man was not dead, he was merely in suspended animation in a block of ice.

People get buried alive all the time. Or they did, anyways. Rarely do they wait weeks or months to wake up and and start wandering about, but days doesn't seem impossible (from a cave, not an airtight coffin).

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 3:50 PM, said:

I would not believe anyone who told me they witnessed a miracle unless they were deep in my inner circle of trust.

For instance, if they were an ancient tax collector whom you never met.

[vbnautilus]

JubilantLankyLad, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 3:58 PM, said:

People get buried alive all the time. Or they did, anyways. Rarely do they wait weeks or months to wake up and and start wandering about, but days doesn't seem impossible (from a cave, not an airtight coffin).

These guys weren't "buried alive", they were dead: "The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life."( anyways, how many holy people could have been accidentally buried alive within the last few days? then they all simultaneously came to? this is not getting more plausible... )

[brvheart]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 6:01 PM, said:

These guys weren't "buried alive", they were dead: "The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life."( anyways, how many holy people could have been accidentally buried alive within the last few days? then they all simultaneously came to? this is not getting more plausible... )

I mean.... you understand that God was involved here, correct? It's not like anyone thinks that they just 'came to'.