It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists

[ADigitalArtist]

Yeah, like 11 poor men overcame an entire elite Roman guard, pushed the stone away and removed the body. That's more fantastic than the resurrection itself considering the guards actually returned from the sepulchre and reported the body missing.

That explanation doesn't work. I've investigated it in great detail. The only plausible explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. Any other explanation makes no sense. Them's the facts, bro.

I have no evidence that his body was even under guard, just the story in which is used as evidence for itself, which Is not evidence for anyone who rejects circular arguments. I've investigated it in great detail, and the only contemporaneous accounts that exist have suspicious authenticity or were merely reporting on what Christians believe, not what actually happened first hand. There really is no reason to believe Jesus was anything like the bible account.

 

[Reggie Miller]

No I even referenced the verse before my comment. Read your Bible regarding Pilate washing his hands of the whole event. If Rome wanted to execute Jesus they wouldn't turn to the mob of a subjugated client kingdom that held no authority in Rome nor it's laws.

I disagree. Pilate executed Jesus for fear that someone might speak into the ears of Caesar that Pilate was content to let a traitor breathe. Caesar wouldn't have taken kindly to that at all so Pilate did what he did.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I have no evidence that his body was even under guard, just the story in which is used as evidence for itself, which Is not evidence for anyone who rejects circular arguments. I've investigated it in great detail, and the only contemporaneous accounts that exist have suspicious authenticity or were merely reporting on what Christians believe, not what actually happened first hand. There really is no reason to believe Jesus was anything like the bible account.

Suit yourself. You're wrong, though. Sounds to me like you didn't dig too deeply into it because you may have been eager to dismiss the Biblical account.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Suit yourself. You're wrong, though. Sounds to me like you didn't dig too deeply into it because you may have been eager to dismiss the Biblical account.

Sounds to me like you didn't dig deeply enough because you were eager to accept the account despite its obvious lack of support.

 

[Shad]

I disagree. Pilate executed Jesus for fear that someone might speak into the ears of Caesar that Pilate was content to let a traitor breathe. Caesar wouldn't have taken kindly to that at all so Pilate did what he did.

Speculation, nothing more. You are reading motives into the account not present as if you are a mind reader. You aren't. Besides if he feared Caesar reaction based on the view that he is not following Roman law he would have used Roman law rather than the mob of non-Romans for a judgement.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Sounds to me like you didn't dig deeply enough because you were eager to accept the account despite its obvious lack of support.

Jesus supported it. That's enough for me. I have dug deeply into the history of that time, though. It seems most authors I've read agree on most of the NT accounts of what happened. I'd bet you didn't know that, though, and probably don't care.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Speculation, nothing more. You are reading motives into the account not present as if you are a mind reader. You aren't. Besides if he feared Caesar reaction based on the view that he is not following Roman law he would have used Roman law rather than the mob of non-Romans for a judgement.

Actually, I'm not speculating at all. I have dug deep into the history of that time and most authors I've read feel exactly the same way I do about it. Did you also know that Pilate wasn't exactly Caesar's favorite person at that time? Probably you didn't.

You are the one who is speculating.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Jesus supported it. That's enough for me. I have dug deeply into the history of that time, though. It seems most authors I've read agree on most of the NT accounts of what happened. I'd bet you didn't know that, though, and probably don't care.

You mean the writers who could verywell have fabricated the account of Jesus' ministries agreed with it. And by 'most authors' you mean the Christian apologists you surround yourself by, not most authors full stop. Because I could link to you pages of authors suspicious of the gospel accounts validity if you'd like. It's easy to believe in something when you want to believe it. But the gospels are certainly not agreed upon to be a true account of what happened.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You mean the writers who could verywell have fabricated the account of Jesus' ministries agreed with it. And by 'most authors' you mean the Christian apologists you surround yourself by, not most authors full stop. Because I could link to you pages of authors suspicious of the gospel accounts validity if you'd like. It's easy to believe in something when you want to believe it. But the gospels are certainly not agreed upon to be a true account of what happened.

Are there any writers that you do give an ounce of credit to that happen to be Christians or at least sympathetic to Christians? You don't, do you. Instead you're reading writers that are writing what you want to read, just like everybody else out there.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Are there any writers that you do give an ounce of credit to that happen to be Christians or at least sympathetic to Christians? You don't, do you. Instead you're reading writers that are writing what you want to read, just like everybody else out there.

As opposed to you, whom I'm pretty sure has never read a non-Christian source on bible scholarship. I've at least read them, read Jewish scholarship, even some Muslim scholarship, as well as non-Christian sources.

As for Christians in general, yes, there's quite a few Christian authors I like and enjoy (Sanderson among them, who is one of my favorite fantasy writers.) But no, I think Christian apologetics is a load of hooey.

 

[1robin]

If you are going to use something to support your argument it is helpful if you site the reputable source you got it from, such as where you specifically got the 10^500th power from. I found one for you, aren't I nice?

I thought I said I was no longer debating you but I cannot remember for certain. I am going to assume I stopped debating you about homosexuality but for some reason I did not give up on you in this thread yet. So I will respond to you in this thread for the moment.

from: String theory - Wikipedia

"To construct models of particle physics based on string theory, physicists typically begin by specifying a shape for the extra dimensions of spacetime. Each of these different shapes corresponds to a different possible universe, or "vacuum state", with a different collection of particles and forces. String theory as it is currently understood has an enormous number of vacuum states, typically estimated to be around 10^500, and these might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena that might be observed at low energies."

I gave you evidence and the greatest possible source for that evidence concerning our pathetic debate in the homosexuality thread. You disregarded or mangled it up so bad in that thread I was not going to bother to do so in this thread until you asked and I saw that you would actually acknowledge evidence when I provide it. Regardless I have no idea what you are talking about here. You claim I did not source my claims (even they were mere estimates) then you post the source your self which seems to provide that my generalization was true anyway.

Now where are you getting the number that only a million universes could exist that support life?

A million was simply a place holder to illustrate that while no one could possibly know how many possible universes could exist within the tiny (in comparison) set of life permitting universes that make up a subset of the unimaginably large group of all possible universes.

BTW your completely full of it to claim I do not source my data. Now that I remembered our debate I also remember giving you Steve Hawking as one of my sources. I will do so again to both show you your wrong (but you will just ignore the proof your wrong like you always do) and to show how few universes could potentially support life. Let's concentrate on just one of the values fine tuned to unimaginable exactness.

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, they universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Stephen Hawking
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME
Stephen W. Hawking

one part in a hundred thousand million million
one part in a hundred thousand million million
one part in a hundred thousand million million
one part in a hundred thousand million million
one part in a hundred thousand million million

Exactly how narrow does an arbitrary value have to be, which if it was a miniscule fraction either faster or slower than this, life of any kind would be prohibited half to be before you admit to the obvious fact it was fine tuned?

Also, the different versions of string theory and M theory are not proven theories, why should I take the probabilities sited by an unproven theory seriously? Do you take arguments sited by the theories of evolution and abiogenesis seriously without good reason?

I know all about string theory, however it is the best theory that the best scientists have yet to cough up concerning possible universe. It makes no difference what so ever how close string theory is or whether there are 1 million or 100 billion possible universe that can potentially allow life to exist. They are a mere drop compared to the ocean of possible universe hostile to life.

You have one last chance to discuss this issue meaningfully, competently, civilly, and respectfully. If you fail to do so I will simply toy with your terminal ignorance about anything and everything relevant to this issue until it gets boring.

 

[ChristineES]

And neither a Christian nor an atheist can understand how it is to be abducted by aliens unless they have experienced it first hand.

Oh, and you can perfectly well be a Christian atheist. Christian atheism - Wikipedia

Actually, no, in my view, you can't be an atheist and a Christian since Jesus' said the most important Law was to Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength (might). And I stand by what I said, that no person can truly understand another person.

 

[ChristineES]

So what do you think an Atheist who used to be a deeply faithful Christian understands? Are you going to off-handedly dismiss anything this person has to say about their personal journey from a religious mindset to an atheist one? Are you going to instantly dismiss this persons valid points and arguments because their current beliefs do not mirror your own?

How about a Christian who used to be an atheist? Would you dismiss something a Christian said about atheists when he/she used to be an atheist? I don't dismiss anyone's "valid" points, I always try and hear what a person is saying even if I don't agree.

 

[Reggie Miller]

As opposed to you, whom I'm pretty sure has never read a non-Christian source on bible scholarship. I've at least read them, read Jewish scholarship, even some Muslim scholarship, as well as non-Christian sources.

As for Christians in general, yes, there's quite a few Christian authors I like and enjoy (Sanderson among them, who is one of my favorite fantasy writers.) But no, I think Christian apologetics is a load of hooey.

And I supposed that along with that you also think that any theory that involves creation by a god of some sort is also hooey. Am I correct in that assumption?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And I supposed that along with that you also think that any theory that involves creation by a god of some sort is also hooey. Am I correct in that assumption?

If I thought a creation by some sort of God or gods were true I wouldn't be an atheist.

 

[SkepticX]

You mean the writers who could verywell have fabricated the account of Jesus' ministries agreed with it. And by 'most authors' you mean the Christian apologists you surround yourself by, not most authors full stop. Because I could link to you pages of authors suspicious of the gospel accounts validity if you'd like. It's easy to believe in something when you want to believe it. But the gospels are certainly not agreed upon to be a true account of what happened.

It does often seem that just a little applied empathy would divest a lot of apologists from a lot of their apologetics, doesn't it.

The habit of trying a given argument from an opposing angle is such a simple and powerful critical thinking tool, one that should give them a sense of how well their stuff is likely to be received and why. But then in many cases the investment is long past far too heavy to allow such a simple and functional test without severe trauma.

 

[Reggie Miller]

If I thought a creation by some sort of God or gods were true I wouldn't be an atheist.

Okay, but that's not what I asked you. Do you think creation theory has any possible validity at all or is it just hooey?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Okay, but that's not what I asked you. Do you think creation theory has any possible validity at all or is it just hooey?

Depends on the creation story. Some are more compelling than others, though I don't think any of them are sensible enough for me to accept.
The Genesis account though? Yea . I think it's total hooey.

 

[JustWondering]

Regardless I have no idea what you are talking about here. You claim I did not source my claims (even they were mere estimates) then you post the source your self which seems to provide that my generalization was true anyway.

You did not provide a source for where 10^500 came from. If you want to use numbers to make your case then you need to provide something to show your numbers are legit. If I said that 10^499 of universes out of 10^500 universes can support life you would want me to back it up, right? Else I'm just pulling random numbers out of my ***.

 

[JustWondering]

Sorry I'm replying in chunks here but I tried replying before to your whole post but it kept putting quotes in by itself. So I have to rewrite my replies and I don't want it messing up and wasting my time again. Anyway...

A million was simply a place holder to illustrate that while no one could possibly know how many possible universes could exist within the tiny (in comparison) set of life permitting universes that make up a subset of the unimaginably large group of all possible universes.

First, a multiverse would greatly increase the chances of life producing universes correct?

Secondly, we don't know what kind of alien life could exist in an alien universe. Therefore it is impossible for us to assign possibilities for how many different types of universes could produce life.