Zone1 Christianity built on gullibility.

[sealybobo]

Were you there? Prove it then. Even if you were there why should we take your word over Paul’s or anyone else? Do you have a written document that says it didn’t happen?

Here are all the responses to anything you have to say my friend.

Why there is no god

Responses to common theist arguments

whynogod.wordpress.com

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

 

[Cougarbear]

Here are all the responses to anything you have to say my friend.

Why there is no god

Responses to common theist arguments

whynogod.wordpress.com

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

I’m not interested in you not believing in God. That’s your problem. It has nothing to do with the written document of those who were there. Now, show us documents of people that were there that there was no resurrection or any of the other miracles Jesus Christ performed.

 

[sealybobo]

I’m not interested in you not believing in God. That’s your problem. It has nothing to do with the written document of those who were there. Now, show us documents of people that were there that there was no resurrection or any of the other miracles Jesus Christ performed.

I'm just pointing out

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

 

[Cougarbear]

I'm just pointing out

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The Bible says God made the universe and the earth. Does the universe and earth exist? Yes. Case closed.

 

[sealybobo]

The Bible says God made the universe and the earth. Does the universe and earth exist? Yes. Case closed.

Oh the bible says it? LOL.

What does the Old Testament say? How about the Koran? How about the Book of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? What about the Jehova book? What does it say?

Who cares?

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

 

[sealybobo]

And which version of the bible? Which sect? Baptists, Orthodox, Lutherans, Protestants, Catholics, Which one is doing it right?

 

[Cougarbear]

Oh the bible says it? LOL.

What does the Old Testament say? How about the Koran? How about the Book of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? What about the Jehova book? What does it say?

Who cares?

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

All you have are theories that every year change with new information. There is nothing settled with any of your including the Big Fizzle. Yet, with God, the universe was created and organized to bring to past the immortality and eternal life of mankind. The true doctrinal books are accurate and correct. The universe me exists.

 

[marvin martian]

The core of Christianity is built on two ”miracles”

A young virgin miraculously gives birth
Christs body mysteriously disappears

They must be miracles, there is no other logical explanation

Young girls have never gotten pregnant before with no explanation of how it happened

There is no way someone could have stolen Christs body, it must have been resurrected

^^^Look everyone, the guy who believes men get pregnant and vaccinated people don't get covid wants to talk about gullibility!

LOL!

 

[JohnDB]

Look,
There's a LOT of people who are desperate for the Bible to not be true.

Truly desperate....

Because if the Bible is true (which it is) then they are faced with a whole life failure.
And getting anyone to admit that they are wrong on a conclusion or a minor detail is almost impossible....a whole life failure admitting they have lived their entire life wrong with all the wrong goals and still want those things....well....it would require a miracle.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Judaism is built on “miracles” as well.

That God told Abraham to circumcise their baby males.
That Moses parted the sea, and Israelites walked past walls of water.
The God came and dwelt in the tabernacle and later Solomon’s temple.

Then many Jewish prophets has prophecies about the coming messiah.
They are the ones that told us he would be born from a virgin. That he would be rejected. That he would bring a New Covenant. That he would be “cut down” before the destruction of the second temple.

There were hundreds of witnesses to resurrected Jesus. Included a Jewish Pharisee that was persecuting Christians, name Saul.

Seems weird you would get hung up on those particular miracles, when the rest of the Jewish faith is based on miracles.

Christianity is built off ancient Judaism. So if you hate it, blame them.
Are you an anti-Semite?

They hate Christianity because the darkness hate the Light.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

And which version of the bible? Which sect? Baptists, Orthodox, Lutherans, Protestants, Catholics, Which one is doing it right?

That's for you to decide. Be like the "Nobel Bereans"

 

[theHawk]

Where did you get that he hates Jews? So, illogical for a Jew to behave this way.

He does not like Christians. Yes it is illogical for “Jews” to behave this way. But these modern day Jews have nothing in common with ancient Jews from 2000 years ago. They don’t follow Mosaic Law, and make up whatever rules they want, in other words idolatry.

 

[Cougarbear]

He does not like Christians. Yes it is illogical for “Jews” to behave this way. But these modern day Jews have nothing in common with ancient Jews from 2000 years ago. They don’t follow Mosaic Law, and make up whatever rules they want, in other words idolatry.

Pretty much with all religions. There are Orthodox, Conservatives, reforms in all. I would not say any are idolatry just because they don’t fit exactly Mosaic 2,000 years ago. Do you know any Jews today that practice animal sacrifice?

 

[BreezeWood]

Now, show us documents of people that were there that there was no resurrection or any of the other miracles Jesus Christ performed.

show us an etched statue in marble of the person they claimed came back to life - a wall of floor mosaic, their likeness in ceramic or even clay pottery - a t-shirt ... those who were there left nothing of the great event for posterity ... not a single likeness anywhere to be found.

- what you claim never happened.

 

[Cougarbear]

show us an etched statue in marble of the person they claimed came back to life - a wall of floor mosaic, their likeness in ceramic or even clay pottery - a t-shirt ... those who were there left nothing of the great event for posterity ... not a single likeness anywhere to be found.

- what you claim never happened.

Don’t need to. We have the written word of those who observed.

 

[sealybobo]

All you have are theories that every year change with new information. There is nothing settled with any of your including the Big Fizzle. Yet, with God, the universe was created and organized to bring to past the immortality and eternal life of mankind. The true doctrinal books are accurate and correct. The universe me exists.

Hey, I support your belief in God. Even though I think "God" is made up, because him visiting anyone or caring about you is such a primitive superstitious thought, and any religion out there is a con, I fully and completely support your right to believe in and talk to God. Hell, even I do it. Literally, yesterday I talked to God. Because no one is a true atheist. At best you can be an agnostic atheist. To be a full on atheist you'd have to be certain there is no God and how can one be that? They can't.

But as far as the Christianity story? Let's just say this. I'm so certain it's bullshit, I bet my eternal soul on it.

But yes, I thank God all the time. Especially when I hear a country song that reminds me how short life is. Don't blink.

 

[Cougarbear]

Hey, I support your belief in God. Even though I think "God" is made up, because him visiting anyone or caring about you is such a primitive superstitious thought, and any religion out there is a con, I fully and completely support your right to believe in and talk to God. Hell, even I do it. Literally, yesterday I talked to God. Because no one is a true atheist. At best you can be an agnostic atheist. To be a full on atheist you'd have to be certain there is no God and how can one be that? They can't.

But as far as the Christianity story? Let's just say this. I'm so certain it's bullshit, I bet my eternal soul on it.

But yes, I thank God all the time. Especially when I hear a country song that reminds me how short life is. Don't blink.

It's interesting how some doubt there non-belief in God and Jesus Christ yet others don't doubt their belief in God and Jesus Christ. Why do you think this is?

I also understand that there are religions that teach idolatry which are based on superstitions. In fact, for me, most Christian sects teach magical nonsense that isn't necessary like the brand of the Trinity that says God is one personage that can become one of the three at any time. It's called the 3 - in - 1 theory. I believe that "God" is a title and that there are three distinct personages that make up a Godhead. The Father is a separate and distinct glorified man. So is the Son. The Holy Ghost has not received a physical earthly type body and thus has not been resurrected to a glorified man personage.

 

[BreezeWood]

Don’t need to. We have the written word of those who observed.

- no you don't ... and certainly nothing left by jesus in regards to your phony, c-religion.

 

[Votto]

- no you don't ... and certainly nothing left by jesus in regards to your phony, c-religion.

I will take my religion of salvation over your religion of mutilating the genitals of children any day.

Thanks for playing

 

[Cougarbear]

- no you don't ... and certainly nothing left by jesus in regards to your phony, c-religion.

Again, do you have a written word, photos, emails, videos anything to disprove the written word of God? Nope. So, you are the phony.