athesis

[rapture101]

Why dont you belive Jesus Christ died for our sins,And,The Missiah is coming back?


Can you guys please explain that??

[AlAyeti]

Like we are not exactly the same? I stand my position as do you. That you will sink into diatribe with violent overtones was to be expected. Like I assert, I am an empiricist and the proof is in the experience.

I use posts like yours as wall mounts to prove that I am not bigoted in my view of people that believe in nothingness.

Nothing cannot produce "Homo Sapiens" But somehow that is your obvious belief.

Nothing cannot produce anything scientifically, but a mind that finds its origin and foundation from nothing, has been shown to produce the most lethal form of Homo Sapien that, by empirical proof, the world knows all too well.

I am certainly here to ask questoins and answer questions. It is clear that you are not.

Jesus is a historical fact. The rest is debateable. Nothingness is neither.

[bernee51]

That you will sink into diatribe with violent overtones was to be expected. Like I assert, I am an empiricist and the proof is in the experience.

Diatribe? Violent overtones? WTF are you talking about?

I use posts like yours as wall mounts to prove that I am not bigoted in my view of people that believe in nothingness.

No comment.

Nothing cannot produce "Homo Sapiens" But somehow that is your obvious belief.

You know nothing about what is my 'obvious belief' You are airing only you own prejudices and preconceptions.

Nothing cannot produce anything scientifically, but a mind that finds its origin and foundation from nothing, has been shown to produce the most lethal form of Homo Sapien that, by empirical proof, the world knows all too well.

I hope you know what you are talking about - I certainly don't.

I am certainly here to ask questoins and answer questions. It is clear that you are not.

This is a claim that you have not demonstrated.

Jesus is a historical fact.

Really? Prove it? What 'empirical' evidence do YOU have of Jesus?

The rest is debateable.

Everything is debatable

Nothingness is neither.

Nothing is the only reality...the rest is maya

[AlAyeti]

Why is it 2005 on every computer in the world?

Why did Jews travel all over the Roman Empire to sue (legal challenges) Christians wherever they went?

Jesus, as "a" Messiah, taken seriously by people in the time of Tiberias is a historical fact. If you don't want to believe that, well, my experience and not prejudice will be proven again as to why.

Nothing is a reality to a psychotic state of mind. Not a person that can understand the environment around them.

The computer that you are frustratingly banging away at proves that complected things don't happen by nothing making them happen. I really believe that your posts are coming from someone somewhere and are not just random things falling on your keyboard in the shape of words that look like responses!

It's only logical to assert that.

After your next med dose you'll feel better.

But then again, I may not exist so don't worry about anything anyway. Maybe a ceiling somewhere is suffering from entropy and causing all of the little images on your screen to make you think we are debating?

I'm sorry. "React." I don't believe that atheism is a thoght process. Just responses to "internal" stimuli denying external evidence.

Again, "traitor" is an oxymoron. How can you betray what you do not believe. Like in an atheist a "moral" position.

Cogntive dissonance anyone?

[bernee51]

Why is it 2005 on every computer in the world?

Cultural convention. The Jews have a differnet dating system, as do the Muslims and the Hindus.

Why did Jews travel all over the Roman Empire to sue (legal challenges) Christians wherever they went?

I'm sure you have evidence of this.

Jesus, as "a" Messiah, taken seriously by people in the time of Tiberias is a historical fact. If you don't want to believe that, well, my experience and not prejudice will be proven again as to why.

Believed by people 2000 years ago is not 'empirical evidence'. You do know what is meant by 'empirical', don't you? You claim to be an empiricist - I have seen no evidence to date to support that claim.

Nothing is a reality to a psychotic state of mind.

The only true reality is that which does not change. What do you know of that does not change? That should be an easy question for you to answer.

Not a person that can understand the environment around them.

Au contraire..understanding the 'environment around them' is what leads ultimately to the only truth.

I really believe that your posts are coming from someone somewhere and are not just random things falling on your keyboard in the shape of words that look like responses!

It's only logical to assert that.

So?

After your next med dose you'll feel better.

No comment (that's two 'no comments'...I only allow three and then I will fight your pathetic attempts at ad hominems with some real doozies.)

But then again, I may not exist

{smiles to self...pity I gave him three chances}

I don't believe that atheism is a thoght process. Just responses to "internal" stimuli denying external evidence.

And religiousity is not a thought process..it is an attempt to translate the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune into something that gives meaning an legitamacy to those who need it. In that sense it does a good job...but it is not necessary for all.

Like in an atheist a "moral" position.

You are the only one here who is linking the two. I for one havenever claimed 'atheism' to be a moral position. It is simply a lack of belief in god(s)

Cogntive dissonance anyone?

You speak too highly of yourself. Cognition is not something you have shown any propensity for. To be 'dissonant' from something one must have the prior attrribute.

You have shown by your own words that you have no grasp of logical argument nor any willingness to be open to learning.

You claim to be an 'empiricist' - you have not given any indication that you know what the term means.

[otseng]

After your next med dose you'll feel better.

Per the rules:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

Please refrain from making any comments about other posters. Because an informal warning has been issued earlier, this warning will be a formal warning. I would suggest to re-review the rules and to follow in strict accordance with them.

[AlAyeti]

Warned?

OK.

I will accept my Lambship.

One question. "WTF" means what?

AA

[AlAyeti]

"You claim to be an 'empiricist' - you have not given any indication that you know what the term means."

Something cannot come from nothing.


em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

It is 2005 because of Jesus. Roman history is replete with arguments between people about the followers of Jesus. The New Testament is an accurate historical book and stands on its statements like any other book of antiquity. (We believe Socrates existed with far less evidence than Jesus.) If notes, carvings in stone or cross-references about soemone existing as the guide, than Jesus is no joke. If the Greek philosophers are right, which I believe they were, than the Logos and Jesus are one and the same.

All around me I see things that could not have happened by random chance or by nothingness acting as the cause for the environment around me.

Empirical.

[bernee51]

Something cannot come from nothing.

Who, perhaps other than you, is making such a claim?

em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Nice to see you are using the Dictionary.com definition.
Where exactly does the 'evidence' for Jesus fit in with the definition of empirical.

It is 2005 because of Jesus.

It is 2005 because of convention in the west...it denotes the christian era it does not celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Roman history is replete with arguments between people about the followers of Jesus.

The Romans were consumate historians, very proud of the extent and control of their empire. The same Roman history does not once mention Jesus by name. T

The New Testament is an accurate historical book and stands on its statements like any other book of antiquity.

Because you say so? Or do you have 'empirical evidence" to back up your opinion.

(We believe Socrates existed with far less evidence than Jesus.)

Straw Man - we are not debating Socrates. If you want to do so, start a thread in the Philosophy folder.

If notes, carvings in stone or cross-references about soemone existing as the guide, than Jesus is no joke.

And if they are not, he is.

All around me I see things that could not have happened by random chance or by nothingness acting as the cause for the environment around me.

Again your opinion and your belief. It is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable that what you believe is the only option.

[AlAyeti]

Bernee,

I have given good examples of the legitimate historicity of the Gospels and Acts.

I read everything I can.

Who else thinks something cannot come from nothing? Almost everybody on earth.

Sans Atheists.

"Look my son is the only one in step," said the parents of little Billy Johnson.

You need to reexamine your view of origins.

The Romans mention Chrestus and Christians. Many times. You deny the obvious. I don't think you need to to stay an Atheist. The Jews of the time period mention Jesus in the Talmud. Even going so far as to secure the notion of Mary as His mother. They are not polite about it.

The New Testament is historically accurate because it is. I didn't make that up. It led me to my "faith" in Christ how many historians believe it too. Move your mouse and click for verification.

I used Socretes in the same way you denegrate Jesus. Socrates is taught as fact in college after college with less evidence then Jesus of Nazereth. C'mon I didn't build a strawman I used an accurate comparison to answer your skepticism.

Carvings in stone is another fair fact.

I did not need to look up the definition of empirical. I use it accurately. I cut and pasted for your education not mine.

I seek to use my own powers of reasoning to decide my beliefs. I do not let others just tell me what to believe. I am a "freethinker" in absolute.

All around me is see order and design. Out my window, the window itself, under the microsope and in my mind talking somehow for some reason as I type what I want to say to you.

I can understand the tough decision to understand Jesus as God.

I cannot contemplate the reasoning behind something from nothing.

The design I see, in all that I see, it speaks (empirically) to a Designer.

I did the math too.

[bernee51]

Bernee,

I have given good examples of the legitimate historicity of the Gospels and Acts.

You have given none that I have read - not even the usual references to off-site apologist writings

Who else thinks something cannot come from nothing? Almost everybody on earth.

Who has stated (other than in you claims about others) that soemthing comes from nothing.

That said...where did your god come from?

You need to reexamine your view of origins.

I haven't stated my view on origins...are you a mind reader? How do you know I have to 'reexamine' it.

You make too many assumptions.

The Romans mention Chrestus and Christians. Many times.

One or two, and occasionally, and a long time after the fact. No one mentions Jesus by name especially contemporary Roman writers. The speak of christians...they have no first hab=nd knowledge.

You deny the obvious.

The pot and kettle syndrome again AlAyeti

The New Testament is historically accurate because it is.

Do you knwo what begging the question means?

Move your mouse and click for verification.

I have..it came up with zilch on the New Testament as a historical fact, even less so for Jeus.

Carvings in stone is another fair fact.

And which one do you refer to...surely not "James' ossuary?

I seek to use my own powers of reasoning to decide my beliefs.

I can only hope that the erudition you have shown with logic is not representative of you powers of reasoning.

All around me is see order and design.

Perhaps you aren't looking in the right way.

I can understand the tough decision to understand Jesus as God.

You can't even prove Jesus exists let alone any god.

I cannot contemplate the reasoning behind something from nothing.

You are still the only one who has mentioned "something from nothing". Where did your god come from?

The design I see, in all that I see, it speaks (empirically) to a Designer.

The is an unsupported assertion. One that has been extensively addressed in the C & E thread. If you have something new to say on the so-called theory of ID that would be the place to say it.