Has Christianity finally been debunked?

[kamikazi89]

Originally Posted by Waves

Im talking about the purpose of video games, which is to put yourself into the role of an individual and act out that role. Essentially life is the same thing. You create the reality of a character you inhabit in a video game like you create your reality in real life. yes, there are limitations, but you knowingly choose those limitations by choosing to play the game, so they arent really limitations unless you choose to see them that way. im not stretching that into the idea that we choose to manifest here, im simply drawing a comparison.

humans generate power, how do you think we can do things like pedal a bike and push heavy objects with our muscles? and what does that have to do with creating your reality through the choices you make?

that it doesn't happen in a vacuum, and is dependent upon on factors that are not in your control

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

People need to be reminded what the extent of your mentality is:

1) It's illogical and invalid to ask whether Jesus ever exhibited any knowledge besides what the Christians say he did.

2) It's equally illogical and invalid to ask whether Jesus ever exhibited any knowledge of the natural world that other people of his time didn't know despite the fact that he was supposedly one in the same with the being who created the natural world.

The only thing I have to say to that is I hope that both you and verklingen really believe that. In fact, I sincerely hope that you and verklingen never stop believing that!

Yeah... I think that's pretty much about all that there needs to be said on that matter.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Waves]

Originally Posted by kamikazi89

that it doesn't happen in a vacuum, and is dependent upon on factors that are not in your control

neither of those factors negate the idea of creating one's reality

[kamikazi89]

the bicycle=pre existing condition or custom order

[citizen abuse]

Originally Posted by JcP

never said this as you are implying. You implied that all of christianity was hearsay based on the article. Therefore, with your parameters, it is illogical and invalid to suggest Jesus did or did not, since you said it was hearsay.
In other words, you set the rules, and then you lost the game, or in this case, debate.
If everything we know about jesus is hearsay, then so is what we read he did or did not exhibit regarding what he did.
If you'd like to change your original argument and suggest there are things we know about Jesus that is NOT hearsay, then please do so.



Once again, based on your own parameters for what we know about Jesus. Please see response to "point" #1.



Not sure why you think this has to do with belief. If what we know about Jesus is hearsay, then there is no factual proof Jesus ever existed.
If there is no factual proof Jesus ever existed, then using the "non-factual hearsay" to try and disprove Jesus is retarded.
Jesus didn't display knowledge of the natural world? Says who? Are you now choosing to look at the Bible as a reliable historical document to make this claim?

Pick your poison, citizen.


Indeed.

You're misinterpreting the "hearsay" part, and maybe deliberately so. The point is the hearsay would be more believable if it included things that one would reasonably expect to observe in an individual who was supposed to be what the Christians say he was. Jesus was supposed to be one in the same with the being who created the universe and all life. A rationally minded person would expect that such an individual would know something that ordinary humans didn't. To disagree would be tantamount to saying that ordinary humans would also have the knowledge to create the universe and all life.

[spicoli]

because you would expect Him to have done something, and He didn't, to our knowledge, does not mean He was not who He said He was. perhaps because of the primitive means for science at the time? people would not have understood what the hell He was talking about. yes, they could've recorded what He said about it. but because it alledgedly didn't happen doesn't make the question itsself a catalyst for debunking an entire faith and belief system.
He gave the people something they could see with their own eyes. it was proof enough for those who saw, imo.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

You're misinterpreting the "hearsay" part, and maybe deliberately so. The point is the hearsay would be more believable if it included things that one would reasonably expect to observe in an individual who was supposed to be what the Christians say he was.

That you would reasonably expect, you mean.

Great! So you admit that you (and the article) have no disproved christianity, merely pointed out your personal belief that it does not meet your personal criteria of what is believable or not.

That's all I was after.

[citizen abuse]

Originally Posted by ziplock

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me demonstrate for everyone just how intelligent you, spicoli, verklingen, and JcP are. Throughout this debate all of you have been implying and/or arguing that there's nothing logical or valid about the essay this thread is based on nor anything that I've said in support of it. Well, let's demonstrate to the world just how intelligent you 4 are.

One of the questions asked in the essay is why didn't Jesus tell his followers about the huge land masses on the other side of the planet and the thousands of people who inhabited them. What you, spicoli, verklingen, and JcP apparently don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize is that that one fact alone in and of itself constitutes a knockout blow to any notion that Jesus was who the Christians say he was. And proof of that lies in the fact that there was an entire offshoot of Christiany started just to address that fact.

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion recognized that fatal crack in Christiany's foundation. That's why he cooked up the book of Mormon. Now I doubt that any of you 4 are aware that the book of Mormon states that after Jesus rose from the dead he came to the Americas to do his thing here. So one of the key points that was made in the essay has even been acknowledged by millions of Christians as a fatal crack in the foundation.

Pretty hard to argue that an idea or fact is illogical or invalid when the very people who that fact or idea was directed against acknowledge its logic and validity, huh?

Duh?

Duhhhh????!!!!

DUUUUHHHH????!!!!

[citizen abuse]

Originally Posted by JcP

That you would reasonably expect, you mean.

Great! So you admit that you (and the article) have no disproved christianity, merely pointed out your personal belief that it does not meet your personal criteria of what is believable or not.

That's all I was after.

People need to be reminded from time to time what the extent of your mentality is:

1) It's illogical and invalid to ask whether Jesus ever exhibited any knowledge besides what the Christians say he did.

2) It's equally illogical and invalid to ask whether Jesus ever exhibited any knowledge of the natural world that other people of his time didn't know despite the fact that he was supposedly one in the same with the being who created the natural world.

I would also like to refer you to the post I just made in response to ziplock's last post; it pertains to you, spicoli and verklingen as well!

[verklingen]

why are you continually using the thoughts/opinions/mentalities of the belief you're trying to debunk to back up your claims? why do you only accept those thoughts, opinions, and mentalities as they serve your own belief, when they are exactly what you are trying to debunk? these thoughts, opinions, and mentalities support your own argument as much as they support the argument you are "debunking;" how do you not therefor recognize that crumbling their argument crumbles your own?

what it comes down to is a simple fact that you have ignored the entire length of this thread: there is no possible way to debunk a belief, just as there is no possible way to prove a belief. beliefs are based on opinion, and you can no more debunk or prove them than you can debunk someone's preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream or demand that he prove this preference to you. what you've done here is insisted for some guys who actually prefer strawberry vanilla swirl ice cream to prove why others have a preference for chocolate. are you starting to see why your efforts have been futile?

also. . . why is every post of yours a copy/paste? can't you articulate your view in different ways? you're pretty terrible at this "debate" stuff.

[spicoli]

dude, joseph smith claimed he found some golden plates in a hat and burried them and can't remember where. don't bring him into this argument, please.

he has done nothing to enhance Christianity, regardless of whatever flaw you seem to think is apparent.

you can ask the question, 'why didn't Jesus tell the people the world was round?'
it still remains just that. a question. it does not in any way debunk an entire belief system, all it does is ponder why he didn't share some information. you are making asumptions that cannot be substantiated. perhaps it may add to your wonderment about God, Jesus, and the like. but it does not prove anything.

[spicoli]

i might also add, citizen abuse, that some of our greatest scientific minds come from a belief in God and Jesus.
are they delusional, also? are they unintelligent? is their mentality sub-par?
unfortunately, your arguments against the belief in Christianity hold no water. you have resorted to personal attacks on intelligence because your little essay is useless.

[JcP]

This is going to be my last reply to you citizen, as you seem more interested in being confrontational than understanding what all these apparently stupid people are trying to get you to understand.

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

Let me demonstrate for everyone just how intelligent you, spicoli, verklingen, and JcP are. Throughout this debate all of you have been implying and/or arguing that there's nothing logical or valid about the essay this thread is based on nor anything that I've said in support of it. Well, let's demonstrate to the world just how intelligent you 4 are.

nothing? I don't recall suggesting there was nothing logical or valid about the essay.

I have suggested that neither this article or what you've said prove through the use of logic that christianity is successfully debunked.

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

One of the questions asked in the essay is why didn't Jesus tell his followers about the huge land masses on the other side of the planet and the thousands of people who inhabited them. What you, spicoli, verklingen, and JcP apparently don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize is that that one fact alone in and of itself constitutes a knockout blow to any notion that Jesus was who the Christians say he was. And proof of that lies in the fact that there was an entire offshoot of Christiany started just to address that fact.

You are trying to suggest that because Jesus didn't do something you personally expected him to do, this disproves his divinity.

"Because Jesus didn't mention the potato, he's clearly not the son of God" is an equally valid claim.

I mean, this is a completely open-ended argument. If Jesus did mention the Americas, you'd be here arguing something else... "since Jesus didn't mention there was ice on mars, he's clearly not the son of God." "since Jesus didn't mention that there would be an atomic bomb, he's clearly not the son of God." "Since Jesus didn't mention that there would be a protestant movement ib the christian faith, he's clearly not the son of God."

You are choosing the line in the sand...then saying Jesus doesn't get to the line...which you knew when you drew the line in the sand.

You are creating the standards for which to judge whether Jesus is or is not what some christians claim, and then using your own standards to suggest that since Jesus doesn't fulfill your requirements that he's been debunked.

He has quite clearly been debunked as far as you are concerned. You seem to be confusing personal belief with some sort of truth.

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion recognized that fatal crack in Christiany's foundation. That's why he cooked up the book of Mormon. Now I doubt that any of you 4 are aware that the book of Mormon states that after Jesus rose from the dead he came to the Americas to do his thing here. So one of the key points that was made in the essay has even been acknowledged by millions of Christians as a fatal crack in the foundation.

Yea, I'm quite aware of what the mormon church believes. Once again, however, you are setting up the rules and then claiming Jesus fails your test...and then going off the rails and suggesting that because he doesn't meet your standards he has been debunked to anyone with a brain.

The existance of the mormon church shows how there's a fatal crack in the foundation?

Unless you are a mormon, why are you using the words of a religion made by someone who "cooked up the book" to support your claim that Jesus wasn't divine?

Does the existance of Atheism mean Jesus wasn't divine, or does it mean that some people think he wasn't divine?

BELIEF.

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

Pretty hard to argue that an idea or fact is illogical or invalid when the very people who that fact or idea was directed against acknowledge its logic and validity, huh?

please. Your argument is almost incoherant. I'm not sure what your problem is, but this isn't even an interesting discussion. You seem absolutely incapable of understanding how the ways in which you think Jesus has been debunked requires belief in the completely erroneous ways this article and you are choosing to judge whether he was or was not who people think he was..

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

Duh?

Duhhhh????!!!!

DUUUUHHHH????!!!!

Believe me...right back at you.

[citizen abuse]

Because my last post was made before I had a chance to edit out the spelling errors, and because that post referenced certain individuals, it's only fair to those individuals that I repost that post here with those spelling errors corrected just in case those errors might have caused anyone to misinterpret what I was trying to say. It may or may not change anything that has been posted since, but it's still the only fair thing to do:

"Let me demonstrate for everyone just how intelligent you [ziplock], spicoli, verklingen, and JcP are. Throughout this debate all of you have been implying and/or arguing that there's nothing logical or valid about the essay this thread is based on nor anything that I've said in support of it. Well, let's demonstrate to the world just how intelligent you 4 are.

One of the questions asked in the essay is why didn't Jesus tell his followers about the huge land masses on the other side of the planet and the thousands of people who inhabited them. What you [ziplock], spicoli, verklingen, and JcP apparently don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize is that that one fact alone in and of itself constitutes a knockout blow to any notion that Jesus was who the Christians say he was. And proof of that lies in the fact that there was an entire offshoot of Christiany started just to address that fact.

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion recognized that fatal crack in Christiany's foundation. That's why he cooked up the book of Mormon. Now I doubt that any of you 4 are aware that the book of Mormon states that after Jesus rose from the dead he came to the Americas to do his thing here. So one of the key points that was made in the essay has even been acknowledged by millions of Christians as a fatal crack in the foundation.

Pretty hard to argue that an idea or fact is illogical or invalid when the very people who that fact or idea was directed against acknowledge its logic and validity, huh?

Duh?

Duhhhh????!!!!

DUUUUHHHH????!!!!"

[Man in Black]

I would stick my nose in here and give my two cents but it's the metaphorical equivalent of banging my head against a brick wall.