• 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.

Why I am non-religious

Logicman said:
You should read it. The guy was a dedicated Christ-denier like you when he started his investigation of the evidence.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of any God.
Anyone who claims that they have some is either lying or delusional
 
soylentgreen said:
What evidence? What you really mean is he started to look at what others were saying and found a need himself for a god. You are assuming a lot to think i have not done my due diligence on this subject.
Click to expand...

Asking, "What evidence?" when you're doing everything you can to avoid the evidence does not help your credibility that you have done your due diligence. In fact, it's fairly typical of the dedicated, anti-Jesus pundits.
 
Logicman said:
So does the anti-Christianity horse manure in skeptics books.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that the book "The Case for Christ" is absoulutely horrendously written, poorly researched, and ignoring any counter arguments. It follows a very specific apologist formula.

1) Make a claim you were an atheist.
2) Rehash old argument, and exaggerate the evidence.
3) Cherry pick the data
4) Ignore all the facts and arguments that counter your own arguments.
5) Sell it to the faithful.
 
Logicman said:
Asking, "What evidence?" when you're doing everything you can to avoid the evidence does not help your credibility that you have done your due diligence. In fact, it's fairly typical of the dedicated, anti-Jesus pundits.
Click to expand...

You have not given any evidence so i will still ask for it. That you believe there is evidence is not evidence.
 
Ace300 said:
And yet, as far as I can tell, moral relativism is a fact of life.
Click to expand...

Moral subjectivity, yes. Moral relativism, no.
 
Logicman said:
Asking, "What evidence?" when you're doing everything you can to avoid the evidence does not help your credibility that you have done your due diligence. In fact, it's fairly typical of the dedicated, anti-Jesus pundits.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of any God
 
RAMOSS said:
That doesn't change the fact that the book "The Case for Christ" is absoulutely horrendously written, poorly researched....
Click to expand...

That's just more horse manure from the dedicated Christ-denier.
 
soylentgreen said:
You have not given any evidence so i will still ask for it. That you believe there is evidence is not evidence.
Click to expand...

Evidence for Christ is all over the net. Go for it. Or not, to your eternal peril.
 
Logicman said:
Asking, "What evidence?" when you're doing everything you can to avoid the evidence does not help your credibility that you have done your due diligence. In fact, it's fairly typical of the dedicated, anti-Jesus pundits.
Click to expand...

There is no credible evidence of Gawd's existence.

Sorry, pal.
 
Logicman said:
Evidence for Christ is all over the net. Go for it. Or not, to your eternal peril.
Click to expand...

And hundreds of other religions have their "evidence" and it's in direct contradiction to yours. You chose the one you liked best based on your subjective opinion, culture, and up-bringing. If you weren't born and raised in a christian country and community the chances you'd be christian are incredibly low.
 
TheGoverness said:
There is no credible evidence of Gawd's existence.

Sorry, pal.
Click to expand...

Forget credible there is no evidence for any Gods period.
What there are is claims, claims are not evidence.
People get confused because testimony in court is considered evidence but when dealing with the existence/non existence of something instead of the culpability or legal responsibility of an individual/organization, You need actual evidence not caims
 
Logicman said:
Evidence for Christ is all over the net. Go for it.
Click to expand...

No, there is no evidence at all on the net or in reality. And all you can offer is another example of how it is claimed to be there without actually showing it.

Or not, to your eternal peril.
Click to expand...
You do realise just how lame that threat is. It's like pointing a gun at me that has an orange tip on the end.
 
Logicman said:
That's just more horse manure from the dedicated Christ-denier.
Click to expand...

I am sure you reject it. Too bad you are either unwilling or unable to actually discuss it in a rational and scholarly way.
 
Quag said:
Forget credible there is no evidence for any Gods period.
What there are is claims, claims are not evidence.
People get confused because testimony in court is considered evidence but when dealing with the existence/non existence of something instead of the culpability or legal responsibility of an individual/organization, You need actual evidence not caims
Click to expand...

I would never want to convict someone based on eyewitness testimony alone. It is far too easy to be wrong or flat out lie about what one witnesses or even to claim to be an eyewitness. God storybooks are not even written by eyewitnesses but are based on stories that were handed down. Then some self-appointed authorities came along to decide which stories were valid and which ones weren't.
 
devildavid said:
I would never want to convict someone based on eyewitness testimony alone. It is far too easy to be wrong or flat out lie about what one witnesses or even to claim to be an eyewitness. God storybooks are not even written by eyewitnesses but are based on stories that were handed down. Then some self-appointed authorities came along to decide which stories were valid and which ones weren't.
Click to expand...

Point is that claims are NOT evidence of God. Something that certain people are either unable or unwilling to comprehend.
Now if you tell me you have a dog in your garage, I may or may not believe you. If 10 people tell me you have a dog in your garage it seems pretty likely that you do. Now change the dog to dragon and unless you can provide something other than the claim it is rather foolish to believe you, even if you have 10 people repeating your claim.
Same thing with the Bible, did certain people/places in the bible exist? Undoubtedly so. Was Jesus an actual person? I see no reason to debate the issue as the existence of a man is not an unusual event. Was Jesus divine? Well now you have just changed that dog to a dragon and need actual evidence not just claims.
 
devildavid said:
Moral relativism is a fact of life. Individuals can be morally subjective. Morality in general is relative.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing for moral subjectivity, where morality is set based on social or cultural norms, not on some objective claim of morality handed down from on high. Clearly. this is what happens in the world. Moral relativism would be the belief that there are no moral standards, that everyone gets to choose for themselves and nothing is right or wrong, therefore everyone gets to choose what moral path they follow. That is not how the world works.
 
Cephus said:
I'm arguing for moral subjectivity, where morality is set based on social or cultural norms, not on some objective claim of morality handed down from on high. Clearly. this is what happens in the world. Moral relativism would be the belief that there are no moral standards, that everyone gets to choose for themselves and nothing is right or wrong, therefore everyone gets to choose what moral path they follow. That is not how the world works.
Click to expand...

Moral subjectivism is that each person chooses their own subjective moral code. Moral relativism is that moral codes differ according to social or cultural norms. Moral relativism states that there is no universal objective moral code that can be applied to all times and cultures. Moral relativism does not state there are no moral codes, but that they vary relative to differing cultures.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And hundreds of other religions have their "evidence" and it's in direct contradiction to yours. You chose the one you liked best based on your subjective opinion, culture, and up-bringing. If you weren't born and raised in a christian country and community the chances you'd be christian are incredibly low.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

No other religion has the wealth of fulfilled prophecy that the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, has, at a rate far, far greater than chance.

Two, the Resurrection - Unlike pagan versions, it was a PHYSICAL RESURRECTION, and confirmed by REAL PEOPLE IN HISTORY, with a probable date of 32-33 AD. Try that with your pagan myths.
 
Last edited:
soylentgreen said:
No, there is no evidence at all on the net or in reality....
Click to expand...

You know, you really don't have any credibility with that kind of a statement.

First, it's highly doubtful that you've reviewed even 1% of all the evidences for Christ and God that there are on the net.

Second, you've admitted you're not interested in reading about the evidence (i.e. in 'The Case for Christ').

But I'll give you a chance to gain some credibility here. A question for you: How early in history do you say the earliest mention of the resurrection of Christ is (date)? And that date of yours based on what exactly?
 
Logicman said:
Nonsense.

No other religion has the wealth of fulfilled prophecy that the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, has, at a rate far, far greater than chance.

Two, the Resurrection - Unlike pagan versions, it was a PHYSICAL RESURRECTION, and confirmed by REAL PEOPLE IN HISTORY, with a probable date of 32-33 AD. Try that with your pagan myths.
Click to expand...

Prophecies from one storybook to another don't prove anything except that the authors of the second storybook were probably aware of the prophecies from the first one and crafted their stories to fit them.

There was no real Jesus so there couldn't be a physical resurrection. There is only a story of one handed down years after it allegedly occurred and not written down by any eyewitness.

Hey, I found this on the internet so it must be true!

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
 
Logicman said:
Nonsense.

No other religion has the wealth of fulfilled prophecy that the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, has, at a rate far, far greater than chance.

Two, the Resurrection - Unlike pagan versions, it was a PHYSICAL RESURRECTION, and confirmed by REAL PEOPLE IN HISTORY, with a probable date of 32-33 AD. Try that with your pagan myths.
Click to expand...

Resurrection is not proven just claimed, with no supernatural explanations available, there is no reason to consider it even as anything more than a myth
 
Logicman said:
You know, you really don't have any credibility with that kind of a statement.

First, it's highly doubtful that you've reviewed even 1% of all the evidences for Christ and God that there are on the net.Second, you've admitted you're not interested in reading about the evidence (i.e. in 'The Case for Christ').

But I'll give you a chance to gain some credibility here. A question for you: How early in history do you say the earliest mention of the resurrection of Christ is (date)? And that date of yours based on what exactly?
Click to expand...

1% of 0 is still 0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom