• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Lies Jesus Told

phattonez said:
Nonsense. Before microscopes would a theory of life that posited the existence of cells have been false?

Your position is illogical.
Click to expand...

If you appeal to logic then, the best you have with this approach is that God does not exist until an instrument (analogous to the microscope) that reveals God's existence is invented first. I would agree with this position, and so would the rest of the world.
 
Paralogic said:
I do.

All your claims are false until you can prove they are true. You can't prove that your claim of your god is true, therefore it's false. All god claims are false, by definition.
Click to expand...

This is an example of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. Just because something cannot be proven true does NOT mean it is false.
 
Here's the 2006 link discussing a significant study of the efficacy of prayer: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

From the article:
"One conclusion from this is that the role of awareness of prayer should be studied further," said Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist at Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City and a co-author of the study.

Other experts said the study underscored the question of whether prayer was an appropriate subject for scientific study.

"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."
 
Paralogic said:
EdwinWillers said:
Science is altogether inadequate to the task of proving or disproving the existence of God; ergo to conclude, let alone "define" Jesus as anything other than human is illogical, and that by science's own standards of rigor.
Click to expand...
You are provably wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, ok - prove God doesn't exist; or... prove He does; take your pick. If I'm "provably wrong" as you claim - prove it.

Paralogic said:
Science is capable of rejecting any unsubstantiated claims.
Click to expand...
So what? A kindergartner is "capable of rejecting any unsubstantiated claims." We all are; and we do all the time. What's so special about science that it can too?

Paralogic said:
Science does not have to prove any random claim that cannot be substantiated. It's up to the claimants of the claim to prove their claim. No religious claims have ever and will ever be substantiated.
Click to expand...
MY claim, to which you responded as you did above, is that "science is altogether inadequate to the task of proving or disproving the existence of God." YOUR claim, in your response to that, is that I'm "provably wrong." Ergo, by your own standards, it's up to you (not me) to prove your claim - a claim which frankly, seems far more "random" than mine. So I say again - prove it.

Paralogic said:
Therefore all religious claims are false by definition.
Click to expand...
Non-sequitur; appeal to ignorance - both fallacies of logic. Just because science doesn't understand something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. And just because science can't actually SEE something doesn't mean it doesn't exist either; in fact, science puts its faith in a number of things it can't actually see. Your "definition" seems just a convenient dodge, pure contrarianism, nothing more.
 
phattonez said:
Nonsense. Before microscopes would a theory of life that posited the existence of cells have been false? Was a heliocentric model of the universe false until it could be proved?

Your position is illogical.
Click to expand...
QFT. I propose we add another logical fallacy to the current list:

"credo scientia" - the appeal to what people know as proof of what they don't.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Well that is why its called fantasy, since its not natural.
Click to expand...

No it's called fantasy because it's a fantasy, it's made up.

Science doesn't prove that the supernatural doesn't happen, it explains what the natural does.
 
RGacky3 said:
No it's called fantasy because it's a fantasy, it's made up.

Science doesn't prove that the supernatural doesn't happen, it explains what the natural does.
Click to expand...

How do you know the difference between fantasy (things made up) and things that are real? Do you use science? Perhaps some reasoning and logic?

Rationally you dont through your hands up and declare something possible just because science doesnt apply to things made up by desperate humans who want to make excuses for their claims. Either something exists or it doesnt. Trying to claim that something exists but you cannot ever show evidence any of it, is fantasy. If you have to leave a possibility for everyone's fantasies then things are going to get very intellectually crowded and ridiculous. Eventually when you realize that such philosophy leads to a contradictive universe where something is possible while not being possible then what?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
How do you know the difference between fantasy (things made up) and things that are real? Do you use science? Perhaps some reasoning and logic?

Rationally you dont through your hands up and declare something possible just because science doesnt apply to things made up by desperate humans who want to make excuses for their claims. Either something exists or it doesnt. Trying to claim that something exists but you cannot ever show evidence any of it, is fantasy. If you have to leave a possibility for everyone's fantasies then things are going to get very intellectually crowded and ridiculous. Eventually when you realize that such philosophy leads to a contradictive universe where something is possible while not being possible then what?
Click to expand...

There is evidence for my belief ... you just refuse to accept it. There is evidence for the ressurection, you don't accept it, you can't deal with the evidence itself, you just tell "Magic" and then shut your ears and eyes.
 
RGacky3 said:
There is evidence for my belief ... you just refuse to accept it. There is evidence for the ressurection, you don't accept it, you can't deal with the evidence itself, you just tell "Magic" and then shut your ears and eyes.
Click to expand...

Then there is no need for your god to test your faith. Your explanation may make use of things that might be considered magic, but your testimony is just your opinion and theres no magic in that. It is interesting that you cut to the chase and mentioned that your arguments involve what may be perceived in nature to be magic. Rationally why should I believe your explanation then if it cannot be explained without giant leaps of faith? At least science attempts to find out the ins and outs of the unexplained instead of requiring us all to just take someones word at face value. So you had a personal experience of some sort, what evidence is there that you were not hallucinating?
 
DDD said:
If you appeal to logic then, the best you have with this approach is that God does not exist until an instrument (analogous to the microscope) that reveals God's existence is invented first. I would agree with this position, and so would the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Except for the 2 billion Catholic and however many more Muslims, Jews, and other Christians. Yeah, everyone except for them.
 
phattonez said:
Except for the 2 billion Catholic and however many more Muslims, Jews, and other Christians. Yeah, everyone except for them.
Click to expand...

So these 2 billion Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and other Christians are the instrument you are saying then?

We were speaking of an instrument analogous to the microscope but that reveals God instead. That was the best you could get with your earlier statement that "prior to microscope people did not see microbes" hinting that they existed nevertheless.

Which is true. The same though should apply to God after your analogy. Where is the instrument that revels God? What has that instrument to do with "2 billion Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and other Christians" that you mention?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Then there is no need for your god to test your faith. Your explanation may make use of things that might be considered magic, but your testimony is just your opinion and theres no magic in that. It is interesting that you cut to the chase and mentioned that your arguments involve what may be perceived in nature to be magic. Rationally why should I believe your explanation then if it cannot be explained without giant leaps of faith? At least science attempts to find out the ins and outs of the unexplained instead of requiring us all to just take someones word at face value. So you had a personal experience of some sort, what evidence is there that you were not hallucinating?
Click to expand...

Well if you can find another explination for the evidence around the ressurection then by all means .... the faith that God can act in the world takes a whole lot less faith than the faith that there is NOTHING but nature.
 
RGacky3 said:
Well if you can find another explination for the evidence around the ressurection then by all means .... the faith that God can act in the world takes a whole lot less faith than the faith that there is NOTHING but nature.
Click to expand...

Ah yes the parroted fall back counter, 'you have faith too!'. Thanx for the strawman but Im not interested in rehashing that lame claim.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Ah yes the parroted fall back counter, 'you have faith too!'. Thanx for the strawman but Im not interested in rehashing that lame claim.
Click to expand...

Strawman? You're the one that tried to exegite Revelation, and then immedietly went on to strawman about the definition of "fiction."
 
grip said:
You're doing a lot of name calling of Jesus for things he supposedly said but they weren't written by him. They were written by followers of the followers, so you don't even know if he said all those things or how accurate they are?
Click to expand...


That's so ironic. When it's point out that resurrection of Jesus was "written by followers of the followers, so you don't even know if he [did] all those things or how accurate they are?" I'm told when I question this event that there were multiple witnesses and that they wrote everything down and therefore it must be true. So I'm genuinely curious, which is it? Are the witnesses to be trusted or not?
 
Mr Fact said:
Here are the quotes from Jesus that prove that he lied about prayer:


1) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 )

2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)


I want the sky to turn green with purple polka dots for a week. Did you hear that God? If it doesn't happen then Jesus lied about prayer.

3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20)

4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25)

5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)


Knock! Knock! Who's there? God. God who? The same God who is punishing all humanity because Eve ate an apple.


6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14)



7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)


Well Jesus I read in the hidden Gospel of Mark how found you were of little Greek boys. Did you get into one of them? I think you did?


8) It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)


Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz? In Jesus name of course.

9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)


I want a beer.

10) The Lord replied, "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you! (Luke 17:6)

There must be millions of Christers with very little faith. There is no good reason to uproot a perfectly good mulberry tree and toss it in the ocean but I do have a lot of weeds in my lawn so could some of you Christers ask God in Jesus' name to weed my lawn and toss the weeds in a pile?


Jesus repeats this lie and add to it in Matthew 12:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.


I guess that old liar and scoundrel Jesus didn't think that anybody would be taking notes and writing this stuff down.


It gets worse! Jesus sometimes would claim to be God and God claims to know everything BUT apparently he forgot that a mustard seed is not the smallest of all seed but being the liar that he was, he said it was. “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches,” (Matt. 13:31)


There will be Christers that will lie and say that Jesus was only talking about local seeds but clearly he meant all seeds because that is what he said and wouldn't God be precise especially if he knew this **** was going to get written down and presented as his "Word"?

God Is Hate
Click to expand...

What the hell does this have to do with philosophy? Garbage like this belongs in the religion forum.
 
RGacky3 said:
Strawman? You're the one that tried to exegite Revelation, and then immedietly went on to strawman about the definition of "fiction."
Click to expand...

My argument has been that the bible is fiction from before you even felt it necessary to respond to my post.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
My argument has been that the bible is fiction from before you even felt it necessary to respond to my post.
Click to expand...

I was responding to your poor attempt to exegite Revelation.
 
RGacky3 said:
I was responding to your poor attempt to exegite Revelation.
Click to expand...



Perhaps you meant this? Exegete | Define Exegete at Dictionary.com

My criticisms of Revelations is for the purpose of my argument that the bible is merely a fictional book. You got stuck on that small part of my argument as if it was my entire argument. I still assert that the text of the bible is embellished in fantasy. And you still need to have faith to believe any of the bible. No faith no god.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Perhaps you meant this? Exegete | Define Exegete at Dictionary.com

My criticisms of Revelations is for the purpose of my argument that the bible is merely a fictional book. You got stuck on that small part of my argument as if it was my entire argument. I still assert that the text of the bible is embellished in fantasy. And you still need to have faith to believe any of the bible. No faith no god.
Click to expand...

You we're saying that God kills innocent people according to the bible .... don't try move the goal posts.
 
RGacky3 said:
You we're saying that God kills innocent people according to the bible .... don't try move the goal posts.
Click to expand...
You are the one stuck on that goal post. You are stuck there because you wont address my actual claims. If you feel that you won that small point in my claims then go for it, puff up your feathers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom