There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[RitalinOhD]

Try watching the documentary.



Visa Versa



Try watching the documentary.



I need to prove such a well known principle? Really?

Exactly what I expected. A Cop-out.

 

[Serenity7855]

Exactly what I expected. A Cop-out.

You interpret this as a cop out? What can I say.

Have a nice day.

 

[RitalinOhD]

Oh, you are sorely mistaken. My feeling were not hurt. No, I have come to expect odious and abnoxious posts from posters such as yourself, who base their post on the person and not the topic. No, I am not hurt I just do not see why I should give my time and effort to confrontational bigots.

Finding one person and the things he says ridiculous does not make someone a bigot. You should learn the definition of words before using them. Especially when you lump all atheists together over and over with your petty insults. Hypocrisy is they name.

 

[RitalinOhD]

You interpret this as a cop out? What can I say.

Have a nice day.

Yes, I consider a refusal to prove your assertions a cop-out. Of course that has been the common theme of this entire thread.

 

[Serenity7855]

Finding one person and the things he says ridiculous does not make someone a bigot. You should learn the definition of words before using them. Especially when you lump all atheists together over and over with your petty insults. Hypocrisy is they name.

So, where have I lumped all atheists together, or is this another one of your baseless assertions?

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes, I consider a refusal to prove your assertions a cop-out. Of course that has been the common theme of this entire thread.

So why are you here?

 

[RitalinOhD]

So why are you here?

Because I choose to be? What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[RitalinOhD]

So, where have I lumped all atheists together, or is this another one of your baseless assertions?

"Void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists" - Post #1

"Sadly, you have been inaugurate in to the fraternity of the Atheists." - Post #25

"It is difficult to find volunteers who have not had their views tainted by Atheists, who are incapable of allowing Christians to choose the God of their choice without them trying to spread misery with lies," - post #168

"When the truth about God is being spoken the Atheists seem intent on derailing the thread with pernickety trivialities in or to stifle the truth being spoken." - post 199

Not only do you group them together, you create a strawman at every turn.

BTW, that was only through about the first 18 pages. I'm not vested enough to go through them all, although I'm sure there are more examples in the other 230+ pages.

 

[Serenity7855]

"Void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists" - Post #1

"Sadly, you have been inaugurate in to the fraternity of the Atheists." - Post #25

"It is difficult to find volunteers who have not had their views tainted by Atheists, who are incapable of allowing Christians to choose the God of their choice without them trying to spread misery with lies," - post #168

"When the truth about God is being spoken the Atheists seem intent on derailing the thread with pernickety trivialities in or to stifle the truth being spoken." - post 199

Not only do you group them together, you create a strawman at every turn.

BTW, that was only through about the first 18 pages. I'm not vested enough to go through them all, although I'm sure there are more examples in the other 230+ pages.

Shame you did not go a little further and find where I defined what I meant by atheists and began to call them militant atheists. You are again misrepresenting me. Even in the above post I do not say "all atheists" I said atheists, referring to the ones on here. You are getting desperate.

 

[Serenity7855]

Because I choose to be? What does that have to do with what I said?

Because you said "Of course that has been the common theme of this entire thread." suggesting that the whole thread is a series of refusals to prove my assertions. Why would you want to be a part of such a bogus thread?

 

[RitalinOhD]

Shame you did not go a little further and find where I defined what I meant by atheists and began to call them militant atheists. You are again misrepresenting me. Even in the above post I do not say "all atheists" I said atheists, referring to the ones on here. You are getting desperate.

Denial.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Well, I am totally bewildered and disconcerted. What do you want from me? What question do you want me to answer? You really need to be more specific. Once I am certain as to the details of these contradictions I can then refute them, and what I cannot refute, a quick Google will provide the refutation for me. So, please, if you intend posting anymore, can you show me the specific contradictions.

I have not yet covered all of the post-resurrection story contradictions. But you can start with Matthew having the disciples go to Galilee as predictable from Matthew's agenda as opposed to Luke having the disciples stay in Jerusalem as per Luke's agenda. Since Luke has the disciples see the resurrected Jesus for the first time (they think he is a ghost!) and immediately be led to Bethany where Jesus ascends to heaven, there is no way to reconcile the two.

 

[cottage]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

It is unfortunate (and unnecessary) that you begin your post by disparaging atheism with all those negative and insulting terms.

But anyway, as an atheist and a reasonable man, ‘impartial, without mindless bigotry, devoid of brain washing and open enough to learn’, please can I ask you to ‘satisfy my mind’ that it is more likely than not to be a God (and presume you mean the God of Christian theism)? I’m open to discussing any argument that you believe makes your case.

Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

May I ask you to identify the 'counterfeit arguments' so that I can appraise them myself?

 

[RitalinOhD]

It is unfortunate (and unnecessary) that you begin your post by disparaging atheism with all those negative and insulting terms.

But anyway, as an atheist and a reasonable man, ‘impartial, without mindless bigotry, devoid of brain washing and open enough to learn’, please can I ask you to ‘satisfy my mind’ that it is more likely than not to be a God (and presume you mean the God of Christian theism)? I’m open to discussing any argument that you believe makes your case.




May I ask you to identify the 'counterfeit arguments' so that I can appraise them myself?

Good luck.

 

[Serenity7855]

I have not yet covered all of the post-resurrection story contradictions. But you can start with Matthew having the disciples go to Galilee as predictable from Matthew's agenda as opposed to Luke having the disciples stay in Jerusalem as per Luke's agenda. Since Luke has the disciples see the resurrected Jesus for the first time (they think he is a ghost!) and immediately be led to Bethany where Jesus ascends to heaven, there is no way to reconcile the two.

The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at different times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere differences do not necessitate a contradiction. For there to be a bona fide contradiction, not only must one be referring to the same person, place, or thing in the same sense, but the same time period must be under consideration. If a person looks at a single door in the back of a building and says, “That door is shut,” but also says, “That door is open,” has he contradicted himself? Not necessarily. The door may have been shut at one moment, but then opened the next by a strong gust of wind. Time and chronology are important factors to consider when dealing with alleged errors in the Bible.

Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).

None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection.

Apologetics Press - To Galilee or Jerusalem?

 

[Serenity7855]

It is unfortunate (and unnecessary) that you begin your post by disparaging atheism with all those negative and insulting terms.

All I said about atheists in my OP was that they have brain washing techniques. That you have indicated that there are more then one disparaging term makes me apprehensive, as your statement is clearly untrue.

But anyway, as an atheist and a reasonable man, ‘impartial, without mindless bigotry, devoid of brain washing and open enough to learn’, please can I ask you to ‘satisfy my mind’ that it is more likely than not to be a God (and presume you mean the God of Christian theism)? I’m open to discussing any argument that you believe makes your case.

May I suggest that you take a cursory look at the thread where, I dare say, many of your questions will have been answered.

 

[cottage]

All I said about atheists in my OP was that they have brain washing techniques. That you have indicated that there are more then one disparaging term makes me apprehensive, as your statement is clearly untrue.

You imply that anyone who disbelieves in God, which by definition means atheists, is not impartial but is a bigot.

Are you saying atheists that use brainwashing techniques are impartial and without mindless bigotry?

May I suggest that you take a cursory look at the thread where, I dare say, many of your questions will have been answered.

I have and I cannot see a single example of the evidence that you say ‘proves God exists’. Why not give me your best argument?

 

[TheGunShoj]

You seem to be well, equipped with who and what I am. Do you know me?

I think I just had deja vu. Oh wait, this is the exact same thing I said to you when you were talking about my family and my time as a christian which you know nothing about. So apparently you do understand where I was coming from, why fight me so hard on it?

 

[Mycroft]

why fight me so hard on it?

'Cos he's a troll. A more pertinent question is: why do you continue to entertain his trollings?

 

[TheGunShoj]

'Cos he's a troll. A more pertinent question is: why do you continue to entertain his trollings?

Because I want to.