Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
He may have read it, but believers often won't let themselves understand the facts that refute them. You have to have noticed that he keep repeating nonsensical refuted arguments. Strawman arguments, poor and inconsistent definitions of evidence. One logical fallacy after another is all that he has.
You will find claims of it, but "spiritual truth" is never properly defined and appears to vary immensely based upon one's beliefs. Your arguments could be a lot more convincing if you could properly define your terms. But the problem is that proper definitions will also refute ideas and believers do not want that.
If you keep experiencing no proof then why don't you give it a rest??????????? I can help, you will always arrive at the same conclusion, believer says he or she has a spiritual experience, you say prove it, they can't so, maybe get another hobby??????
Referring to a cracked version of the Bible does not help you. You really should learn how to properly define your terms if you want to debate properly. Your source appears to have conflated the concepts of belief and knowledge. Being very confident does not magically turn a belief into knowledge.
You said that the 500 is a rumor and I asked for the rest of the appearances……………..I would rather to have a complete response before addressing that point.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Truth?
Why don't you get another hobby???????? Why are you here????????? Let's psychoanalyze you! Or not, because that's stupid.
Or hey, let's just derail the whole thread because you don't like atheists and wish they'd go away. Snivel, snivel, whine, whine.I get to see points of view that are different from my own and try thinking through them. I get to engage in discussions and practice in logic and reason, you know, like exercising your mind and keeping it active kind of stuff. I argue with non-religious people as well. I find it enjoyable.
Sounds exactly the same as belief in something that doesn't exist.
I claim that events that are typically labeled as supernatural can occur, (like a resurrection)
Dying for the sins of others is an argument that makes no sense. When you start out your argument with poor reasoning do you seriously think that anything good will come from it?
So then why continue on IF you acknowledge that you will always get the same answer and make the same claims? This is a religious forum. Don't they say that doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is a form of insanity? You won already, no proof will be forth coming EVER!
Really? So resurrections occur regularly. Very interesting claim on your part.
No he didn’t answered the question ………. The fact that you are willing to defend your atheist friends even when they are being dishonest is very telling and evidence that “internet atheism” is pretty much like a religion with nothing but fanatic members in it
no, only once (is my claim)
I know that it is unlikely, but people do hope that if someone is corrected often enough that they will eventually learn from their errors.
Then you are claiming that they are extremely unlikely and in fact questionable. You are showing an inability to reason rationally when you use that argument. Your own argument shows you that resurrection is the least likely answer.
Ok then lets go back and debate semantics or any other irrelevant thing, you are obviously avoiding the hard conversations.
You already got one.
This entire passage is a claim of hearsay.
No, the is just an empty claim from an unreliable source. To even be able to start to make that claim the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that the UB is more than a book by a bunch of loons.
Based on ... ?
Then what are we talking about, exactly?
Other people provide different answers, arguments, points, etc.. People are funny that way.