The evidence continues to pile up - how will atheists continue to deny it?

[ding]

It shouldn’t surprise anyone when archaeologists discover evidence that confirms the NT.

Actually, it would surprise everyone since not a single archaeologist has done so, yet. Give a single report of a "discovery" that doesn't include the word "may", "maybe", "perhaps", or some variation thereof.

It seems you want to see a signed affidavit with witnesses before you will accept anything as fact except of course whatever silly shit you believe in then it's all good no matter how illogical it is. Such as you demanding objective evidence for God who exists outside of space and time.

 

[badger2]

#119's problem is the substitution of faith for knowledge, so #119 attempts to mystify the old texts that "had to be written that way."Stupidity such as this cannot be countered by education, or even laws. Stupidity must turn on itself, do violence t itself, which of course, is the last thing it will do. Not claiming enough rights for itself (the right to contradict oneself), Stupidity continues its knuckledraggings. Not taking the bait, Einstein, Esoterica began during the Neolithic at places such as Jericho.(Hodder, The Domestication of Europe)

 

[Czernobog]

It shouldn’t surprise anyone when archaeologists discover evidence that confirms the NT.

Actually, it would surprise everyone since not a single archaeologist has done so, yet. Give a single report of a "discovery" that doesn't include the word "may", "maybe", "perhaps", or some variation thereof.

It seems you want to see a signed affidavit with witnesses before you will accept anything as fact except of course whatever silly shit you believe in then it's all good no matter how illogical it is. Such as you demanding objective evidence for God who exists outside of space and time.

I don't know about you, but I live in a concrete universe of certainty. When one lets go of a ball, it either drops, or it doesn't. We know that Lincoln grew up, and lived in Illinois. We know this because we found the house he grew up in. Not the house he might have grown up in. Not the house he may have, possibly, maybe, could have grown up in. the house he actually grew. Up. In. That's how we know actual history. Because we discover things, and places. We don't speculate about what a place might have been, we explore, and investigate, until we know.

But, you religitards all know that we will never actually find any concrete evidence to confirm the accuracy of your fairy tales, and fables, because, well, they're fairy tales, and fables. So, you have to make due with could be, and maybe, and might, and possibly, and pretend that that actually proves a damned thing.

 

[badger2]

Dipshit #121: You are a coward for doing an ostrich imitation about what we have given publicly to this thread about god's problem with time. You continue on as if people did not see your cowardice, and you do not objectively address the post that we have written in front of the people. Other psychopaths on this thread then invoke the "esoterica" of biblical texts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is a simple fact that any rational person would include in their speculations when trying to discover the truth about stories

In other words, your interpretations. You know, the ones you just said you weren't making or offering...in between hissy fits, that is...

This is another little con you are fond of: Acting like your own opinions are actually external facts to which you are deferring. Anyone not born yesterday can see that you are merely deferring to your own authority...which you have exactly none of...

 

[undertherqadar]

It's getting harder and harder for atheists to keep their primitive views as archeology, science, and technology converge to prove the Bible was accurate...

Whoa, Bethsaida! Archaeologists May Have Found Peter’s Home Town | The Stream

Science is primitive now? but talking snakes and the earth standing still and stars falling to the earth is sane and rational?

please stop embarrassing yourself

 

[P@triot]

Science is primitive now?

The left seems to think so. You people have completely rejected science and biology and have declared that mentally ill, sexually deviant predators can think themselves into a new gender. So long as a man thinks he is a woman - poof! He magically becomes one!

 

[ding]

Dipshit #121: You are a coward for doing an ostrich imitation about what we have given publicly to this thread about god's problem with time. You continue on as if people did not see your cowardice, and you do not objectively address the post that we have written in front of the people. Other psychopaths on this thread then invoke the "esoterica" of biblical texts.

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

 

[ding]

I don't know about you, but I live in a concrete universe of certainty. When one lets go of a ball, it either drops, or it doesn't.

And you think you live in a concrete universe of certainty?

We know that Lincoln grew up, and lived in Illinois. We know this because we found the house he grew up in. Not the house he might have grown up in. Not the house he may have, possibly, maybe, could have grown up in. the house he actually grew. Up. In. That's how we know actual history. Because we discover things, and places. We don't speculate about what a place might have been, we explore, and investigate, until we know.

The farther one is from the event it is expected that less information or knowledge about that event will be available. Your problems is the standard you compare it to. You always err on the side of your bias. That's why you demand things you know are physically impossible and then pretend like you won something.

But, you religitards all know that we will never actually find any concrete evidence to confirm the accuracy of your fairy tales, and fables, because, well, they're fairy tales, and fables. So, you have to make due with could be, and maybe, and might, and possibly, and pretend that that actually proves a damned thing.

Wrong. We have everything which was created to study and learn from. It's called objective evidence and it leads me to believing that I don't have enough faith not to believe in a creator.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't know about you, but I live in a concrete universe of certainty. When one lets go of a ball, it either drops, or it doesn't.

And you think you live in a concrete universe of certainty?

It was actually sarcasm. However, in the realm of scientific researcbh that is rather the standard. Either you know something, or you don't. Wiggle words like, "perhaps", "maybe", "might", "could be" means that you don't.

We know that Lincoln grew up, and lived in Illinois. We know this because we found the house he grew up in. Not the house he might have grown up in. Not the house he may have, possibly, maybe, could have grown up in. the house he actually grew. Up. In. That's how we know actual history. Because we discover things, and places. We don't speculate about what a place might have been, we explore, and investigate, until we know.

The farther one is from the event the less information he will naturally have available. Your problems is the standard you compare it to. You always err on the side of your bias. That's why you demand things you know are physically impossible and then pretend like you won something.

Then don't claim to have done something that is, in your own words, physically impossible! Just admit that you can't prove the validity of your fairy tales, and fables.

But, you religitards all know that we will never actually find any concrete evidence to confirm the accuracy of your fairy tales, and fables, because, well, they're fairy tales, and fables. So, you have to make due with could be, and maybe, and might, and possibly, and pretend that that actually proves a damned thing.

Wrong. We have everything which was created to study and learn from. It's called objective evidence and it leads me to believing that I don't have enough faith not to believe in a creator.

You mean that causal universe that makes a supernatural God an impossibility? Is that the "creation" that you're talking about?

 

[hobelim]

It is a simple fact that any rational person would include in their speculations when trying to discover the truth about stories written in figurative language

In other words, your interpretations. You know, the ones you just said you weren't making or offering...in between hissy fits, that is...

This is another little con you are fond of: Acting like your own opinions are actually external facts to which you are deferring. Anyone not born yesterday can see that you are merely deferring to your own authority...which you have exactly none of...

No. Historical facts are not a matter of interpretation. The destruction of Judea by the Romans is a fact. The gospels were written by people who witnessed this is a fact. There was no such thing as freedom of expression when these stories were written is a fact.

Lets see what you have stated so far..

Knowledge of figurative language is a belief in magical bullshit

No one can know with any degree of certainty what the authors of a fairy tale were teaching children.

Every interpretation however irrational or ridiculous is as equally valid as any other.

There is no way to know what the truth is because there is no truth.

Historical facts are really just my opinion that have no bearing on anything written..

Me pointing out that a talking serpent represents a human archetype is some sort of deceptive con..lol...



Awesome dude. Brilliant! You really got me there.. I am very impressed with the level of your intelligence.

really, I am...

 

[ding]

And you think you live in a concrete universe of certainty?

It was actually sarcasm. However, in the realm of scientific researcbh that is rather the standard. Either you know something, or you don't. Wiggle words like, "perhaps", "maybe", "might", "could be" means that you don't.

In the context of what we were discussing, it seemed entirely plausible to me that they discovered Peter's church. He did exist in reality. We have accounts of his church. The observations being made fit that account.

The farther one is from the event it is expected that less information or knowledge about that event will be available. Your problems is the standard you compare it to. You always err on the side of your bias. That's why you demand things you know are physically impossible and then pretend like you won something.

Then don't claim to have done something that is, in your own words, physically impossible! Just admit that you can't prove the validity of your fairy tales, and fables.

It is only impossible to study and examine what is outside of space and time. Which is what you are trying to do. It is possible to study what has happened within space and time. Which is what I am doing and you are fighting against.

In the context of what we were discussing, it seemed entirely plausible to me that they discovered Peter's church. He did exist in reality. We have accounts of his church. The observations being made fit that account.

Wrong. We have everything which was created to study and learn from. It's called objective evidence and it leads me to believing that I don't have enough faith not to believe in a creator.

You mean that causal universe that makes a supernatural God an impossibility? Is that the "creation" that you're talking about?

How does a causal universe make a supernatural being that exists outside of time and space an impossibility?

I suspect you have been scouring militant atheist websites for your latest argument that you don't understand and can't explain even if you did.

So go ahead, please explain to me how a causal universe makes a supernatural being that exists outside of time and space an impossibility?

 

[RWNJ]

Odin was the son of Bor and Bestla, children of Niflheim and Muspelheim.

Answer the second question.

The frost from Niflheim and the fire from Muspelheim coming together of course. That's the big bang ************.

Where did the sources come from?

From the chaos swirling in the Ginnugagap. Boom son. Only religion with a name for whatever was before the big bang.

And where did the swirling chaos come from?

No matter what excuses they come up with, atheists cannot get around the fact that there MUST be a primal cause for everything, which must, itself, be eternal...without beginning or end. That would have to be God. Nothing else meets the requirements.

 

[RWNJ]

Odin was the son of Bor and Bestla, children of Niflheim and Muspelheim.

Answer the second question.

The frost from Niflheim and the fire from Muspelheim coming together of course. That's the big bang ************.

Where did the sources come from?

From the chaos swirling in the Ginnugagap. Boom son. Only religion with a name for whatever was before the big bang.

And where did the swirling chaos come from?

2. Why did you go to such great length in each religion to hide after revealing yourself. Same MO in all 1000 religions.

3. Why were you willing to do public "miracles" like locusts, frogs, lice, sticks into snakes, etc. thousands of years ago but not since people became more enlightened?

Those two questions are essentially the same - and they have been answered. What would happen if God appeared in the sky tomorrow and performed miracles for both of you? You would, of course, cower in fear. And then you would worship.

But God doesn't want to be worshipped out of fear. He wants to be worshipped out of love. Just presenting Himself alone would confirm His unlimited power - which would cause unlimited fear. Shit - just look at what muslims do out of fear. Can you imagine what they would do if He appeared?

Second - it's a test of faith. It requires no faith to comply once you have seen.

John 20:29
"Blessed are those who believe without seeing me."

There were those who witnessed the miracles of Christ and still rejected Him. Showing Himself today wouldn't change a thing. Even the Devil belives in God.

 

[sealybobo]

Answer the second question.

The frost from Niflheim and the fire from Muspelheim coming together of course. That's the big bang ************.

Where did the sources come from?

From the chaos swirling in the Ginnugagap. Boom son. Only religion with a name for whatever was before the big bang.

And where did the swirling chaos come from?

2. Why did you go to such great length in each religion to hide after revealing yourself. Same MO in all 1000 religions.

3. Why were you willing to do public "miracles" like locusts, frogs, lice, sticks into snakes, etc. thousands of years ago but not since people became more enlightened?

Those two questions are essentially the same - and they have been answered. What would happen if God appeared in the sky tomorrow and performed miracles for both of you? You would, of course, cower in fear. And then you would worship.

But God doesn't want to be worshipped out of fear. He wants to be worshipped out of love. Just presenting Himself alone would confirm His unlimited power - which would cause unlimited fear. Shit - just look at what muslims do out of fear. Can you imagine what they would do if He appeared?

Second - it's a test of faith. It requires no faith to comply once you have seen.

John 20:29
"Blessed are those who believe without seeing me."

There were those who witnessed the miracles of Christ and still rejected Him. Showing Himself today wouldn't change a thing. Even the Devil belives in God.

I don't believe in the devil fool.

Are you sure there were witnesses? Who? No one who witnessed Jesus' miracles sat down and penned what they saw. Do you know what that means? You are going by hearsay. A ******* court of law wouldn't accept your evidence why should we?

 

[Czernobog]

And you think you live in a concrete universe of certainty?

It was actually sarcasm. However, in the realm of scientific researcbh that is rather the standard. Either you know something, or you don't. Wiggle words like, "perhaps", "maybe", "might", "could be" means that you don't.

In the context of what we were discussing, it seemed entirely plausible to me that they discovered Peter's church. He did exist in reality. We have accounts of his church. The observations being made fit that account.

The farther one is from the event it is expected that less information or knowledge about that event will be available. Your problems is the standard you compare it to. You always err on the side of your bias. That's why you demand things you know are physically impossible and then pretend like you won something.

Then don't claim to have done something that is, in your own words, physically impossible! Just admit that you can't prove the validity of your fairy tales, and fables.

It is only impossible to study and examine what is outside of space and time. Which is what you are trying to do. It is possible to study what has happened within space and time. Which is what I am doing and you are fighting a. gainst.

In the context of what we were discussing, it seemed entirely plausible to me that they discovered Peter's church. He did exist in reality. We have accounts of his church. The observations being made fit that account.

You keep using that word "plausible". Perhaps you should look it up. It means possible. Which means that, since there is no actual evidence of the existence of Peter, or anyone else in the Bible outside of the Bible, that it is equally plausible that it wasn't "Peter's Church" at all. But you guys instantly latch onto "plausible" as if it is definitive. It's called confirmation bias.

Wrong. We have everything which was created to study and learn from. It's called objective evidence and it leads me to believing that I don't have enough faith not to believe in a creator.

You mean that causal universe that makes a supernatural God an impossibility? Is that the "creation" that you're talking about?

How does a causal universe make a supernatural being that exists outside of time and space an impossibility?

I suspect you have been scouring militant atheist websites for your latest argument that you don't understand and can't explain even if you did.

So go ahead, please explain to me how a causal universe makes a supernatural being that exists outside of time and space an impossibility?

Sure. For a causal universe to exist, it is dependent on all events being causal - all events must be part of a causal chain stretching back to the big bang. Any events that do not do this, are, by definition, a-causal. If an a-causal event exists, then the universe is, by definition, a-causal. A system cannot be both causal, and a-causal, simultaneously.

Hence it is not possible for a supernatural God - outside of time, and space, by. Your. Own. Words - to cause an event to occur within the time and space of a causal universe. It would cause that causal universe to break, and become a-causal.

Now the typical response to this is to point out that I am "underestimating" the power of your Omnipotent God. However, you'll notice that I have not said a single word about the nature of God. I have only described the nature, and fragility of a causal universe. Even an omnipotent God is restrained by the limits of the possible. Even an omnipotent God cannot make a squared circle, or create a rock he cannot lift, or...introduce an a-causal event into a causal universe.

Thus it is not possible for a Supernatural God - even an omnipotent one - to cause an a-causal event to occur within a causal universe:

 

[hobelim]

The frost from Niflheim and the fire from Muspelheim coming together of course. That's the big bang ************.

Where did the sources come from?

From the chaos swirling in the Ginnugagap. Boom son. Only religion with a name for whatever was before the big bang.

And where did the swirling chaos come from?

2. Why did you go to such great length in each religion to hide after revealing yourself. Same MO in all 1000 religions.

3. Why were you willing to do public "miracles" like locusts, frogs, lice, sticks into snakes, etc. thousands of years ago but not since people became more enlightened?

Those two questions are essentially the same - and they have been answered. What would happen if God appeared in the sky tomorrow and performed miracles for both of you? You would, of course, cower in fear. And then you would worship.

But God doesn't want to be worshipped out of fear. He wants to be worshipped out of love. Just presenting Himself alone would confirm His unlimited power - which would cause unlimited fear. Shit - just look at what muslims do out of fear. Can you imagine what they would do if He appeared?

Second - it's a test of faith. It requires no faith to comply once you have seen.

John 20:29
"Blessed are those who believe without seeing me."

There were those who witnessed the miracles of Christ and still rejected Him. Showing Himself today wouldn't change a thing. Even the Devil belives in God.

I don't believe in the devil fool.

Are you sure there were witnesses? Who? No one who witnessed Jesus' miracles sat down and penned what they saw. Do you know what that means? You are going by hearsay. A ******* court of law wouldn't accept your evidence why should we?

If there were no witnesses to something unusual there would be no story to argue about.

That being said the remaining question is the subject of the miracles. Knowing that the setting is Roman occupied Judea why is it so hard for you to understand that a figurative language was developed in the vernacular of the local people so they would be able to openly talk over the heads of the enemy without suffering any retribution for promoting resistance sedition or inciting rebellion?

Don't the people of any counter culture already do that?

Is it really that difficult for you to make the leap of intelligence required to understand such complicated metaphors like turning water into wine, healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, cleansing lepers, giving sight to the blind, opening the ears of the deaf, etc., not to mention talking serpents, fiery angels, malevolent demons and that terrifying leviathan?


Wouldn't the Romans have looked around, laughed, and dismissed it all as the harmless superstitions of a strange and silly people speaking nonsense about the evils of pig meat?


If anyone graduated high school and continues to profess a belief that those things literally happened you could cite all of the scientific evidence in the world and you wouldn't accomplish anything except frustrating yourself.

 

[BreezeWood]

No matter what excuses they come up with, atheists cannot get around the fact that there MUST be a primal cause for everything, which must, itself, be eternal...without beginning or end. That would have to be God. Nothing else meets the requirements.

Nothing else meets the requirements ...


what makes you believe there is a limit to what can be eternal.

 

[Likkmee]

The article doesn't provide much evidence at all to come to any direct conclusion on anything.

"We found the remnants of a bathhouse and a church. There's only ONE thing it could possibly be."

? A Catholic pizza parlor ?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Me pointing out that a talking serpent represents a human archetype is some sort of deceptive con..lol...

No idiot, I was referring to your overall paradigm of magical bullshit. Duh. Although that is definitely one off your favorite charlatan's tactics... Cherry picking....