0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?
When I present information to the contrary,
I believe, especially when a moderator who removes my comments joins in the insults.
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th centuryBy whomQuote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.That seems unlikely.Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?Even if it was; so what?The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
Quote from: duffyd on 09/05/2020 10:36:48Appeal! I asked for clarification. And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship? Quote from: duffyd on 09/05/2020 10:53:10Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"? I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate. "We are not here to argue the toss with you, (*I have not sought your input.) nor do we have to give definitive answers. You asked for clarification and that has been given. The ‘rules’ are sufficiently broad to give us the leeway to decide what is or is not acceptable usage." I did not ask you to comment let alone argue. I presented this to everyone seeking the input of anyone who can advise me so that I don't make comments that I am not allowed to make. "Just a couple of comments for further clarification then that’s it."I am still unclear. Thanks for your effort. Don't feel pressured to continue to present your views. I am not seeking nor anticipating clarification from you and do not seek anything from you. "You say “Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial?”. No, for the person who believes in a flat earth, they are just as passionate and committed to their ideas as you are. They just cannot provide credible evidence."I have tried to present evidence for my position. In return I'm a target and the rules are repeatedly violated along the wayThe rule says we are not to evangelize our petty theory. "Petty", "trivial", "inconsequential" along those lines is the way I interpret petty. I wanted/want to know if our "theory" or opinion is not petty, if it is something substantial, that we've researched, that we have examined and have decided that it is viable (not petty), are we "evangelizing" if we discuss it vs a trivial subject that is evangelized?"You say “I am not a part of any group. ........ I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate”. But you have identified yourself as part of a group (set) that believes in a particular god and a son of god called Jesus.""The problem when discussing religions is that it is very easy for the enthusiast to cross the line into evangelising. You may not like the term, but that’s what it is." cOthers identified me as such and have not ceased to insult me ever since then. That's why I am asking, "when am I crossing the line?" I don't want to violate the rules. "No one is questioning the truth of your spirituality or of your belief, but proof of belief is not proof of the existence of that which is believed in." cI disagree. The truth or the validity of what I think is a target by more than a few. In trying to back up why I think as I do, I face being banned and have had my comments removed. One person said Christ didn't die during his crucifixion. It was faked and his buddies played along because they wanted to increase their power to mistreat and murder people. No matter what I would say in response, I'd be mocked further and criticized for refusing to abide by the rules, unwilling to debate or told I'm evangelizing. The Nicean Council did not write the New Testament. I made that statement and others just like it and in reply I got nonsense. And, then I'm condemned for not really wanting to debate in good faith by more than a few.My comments are mocked, demeaned, degraded, twisted, and used as bait by more than a few. Calling me a liar, then expecting me to respond to comments like, "God didn't part the water. It was a troll named Gretchen" (I'm paraphrasing) and being attacked for not engaging in debate over that comment. I believe that falls outside the bounds of the letter and the spirit of the rules.
Appeal! I asked for clarification. And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship?
Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"? I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate.
But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
Quote from: duffyd on 09/05/2020 14:31:36When I present information to the contrary,You did not present information.You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period.I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.So that's a better candidate for "best proved".So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.That's not an insult, it's an observation.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 15:06:34Quote from: duffyd on 09/05/2020 14:31:36When I present information to the contrary,You did not present information.You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period.I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.So that's a better candidate for "best proved".So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.That's not an insult, it's an observation.I disagree.
If someone questions the accuracy of my position regarding my interaction with others, visit CHAT and the recently posted topics related to God
I actually believe it.
By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"
Quote from: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 14:25:43Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?I doubt it.When these threads began I had hopes that someone might come up with a credible way of showing whether God, or any god exists. Instead we have been given lists of people who believe and what they believe; but I never doubted that people believe in his existence, huge numbers of books and websites are proof of that belief.We have also been treated to some false reasoning.
Quote from: duffyd on 09/05/2020 16:05:44By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life" OK, show everybody where I said that.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
You did not present information.You made a statement
When you attempt to prove I'm wrong, don't misquote or misinterpret what I said.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 17:14:19Quote from: duffyd on 09/05/2020 16:05:44By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life" OK, show everybody where I said that.
For example, "You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief in resurrection was better proved than anything else from the period." No. I did not. I quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain ...
quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”