Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[S.T. Ranger]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

So the fact that Matthew and Luke were written years after does make the accounts incredible?

No. The accounts might be credible. They might not be credible. Without evidence to confirm one way or the other, we don't know.

So at the very least it has to be acknowledged that there is evidence, and while it may not be validated to satisfaction of some, it is evidence nevertheless. There is a distinction between evidence and conclusive proof.

Grounds for belief.

God bless.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

So at the very least it has to be acknowledged that there is evidence, and while it may not be validated to satisfaction of some, it is evidence nevertheless. There is a distinction between evidence and conclusive proof.

Grounds for belief.

How are Matthew and Luke grounds for belief that the virgin birth doctrine was taught in 30 CE? You're talking about claims in anonymous documents written decades later.

The question now is whether Paul distinguishes Christ as "made of a woman" meaning that He did not come forth from man and woman, as most of us do.

And since we can't answer that question, I'm not sure how Galatians 4:4 could be viewed as anything but ambiguous on the topic.

[S.T. Ranger]

So at the very least it has to be acknowledged that there is evidence, and while it may not be validated to satisfaction of some, it is evidence nevertheless. There is a distinction between evidence and conclusive proof.

Grounds for belief.

How are Matthew and Luke grounds for belief that the virgin birth doctrine was taught in 30 CE? You're talking about claims in anonymous documents written decades later.

The question now is whether Paul distinguishes Christ as "made of a woman" meaning that He did not come forth from man and woman, as most of us do.

And since we can't answer that question, I'm not sure how Galatians 4:4 could be viewed as anything but ambiguous on the topic.

For you it seems no question can be answered, so there is littlle point in discussing it.

Each individual will for himself decide if evidence is grounds for belief or not.

What is more interesting is when people expend great effort to undermine what another man concludes is grounds for belief. This indicates to me that this person has not for himself dismissed the evidence as grounds for unbelief, and is still in the process of doing so.

God bless.

[Goat]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

So the fact that Matthew and Luke were written years after does make the accounts incredible?

No. The accounts might be credible. They might not be credible. Without evidence to confirm one way or the other, we don't know.

When some of their story makes claims that in our experience are impossible, that makes them much less credible. The bar of evidence needed for extraordinary claims is raised.

[JohnPaul]

Goat wrote:

When some of their story makes claims that in our experience are impossible, that makes them much less credible. The bar of evidence needed for extraordinary claims is raised.

Even if the claims were not extraordinary, any "evidence" presented here is second-hand hearsay at best, and would not even be allowed in court.

[S.T. Ranger]

So at the very least it has to be acknowledged that there is evidence, and while it may not be validated to satisfaction of some, it is evidence nevertheless. There is a distinction between evidence and conclusive proof.

Grounds for belief.

How are Matthew and Luke grounds for belief that the virgin birth doctrine was taught in 30 CE? You're talking about claims in anonymous documents written decades later.

The question now is whether Paul distinguishes Christ as "made of a woman" meaning that He did not come forth from man and woman, as most of us do.

And since we can't answer that question, I'm not sure how Galatians 4:4 could be viewed as anything but ambiguous on the topic.

Doh! Already responded to that one, lol.

God bless.

[S.T. Ranger]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

So the fact that Matthew and Luke were written years after does make the accounts incredible?

No. The accounts might be credible. They might not be credible. Without evidence to confirm one way or the other, we don't know.

When some of their story makes claims that in our experience are impossible, that makes them much less credible. The bar of evidence needed for extraordinary claims is raised.

And if there is anything which lends credibility then the bar gets raised again.

Not so long ago the thought of a child being born outside of a woman's body would have been laughed at.

How would their doubts have matched up to yours, Goat?

God bless.

[S.T. Ranger]

Goat wrote:

When some of their story makes claims that in our experience are impossible, that makes them much less credible. The bar of evidence needed for extraordinary claims is raised.

Even if the claims were not extraordinary, any "evidence" presented here is second-hand hearsay at best, and would not even be allowed in court.

This is true.

Of course, so would faith be rejected as evidence, whereas we are told that it is in scripture. Does it mean anything to anyone except they that be of faith? No. Does it change the fact that there are so many that have faith? No.

Blessed are they that believe but have not seen.

God bless.

[JohnPaul]

Goat wrote:

When some of their story makes claims that in our experience are impossible, that makes them much less credible. The bar of evidence needed for extraordinary claims is raised.

Even if the claims were not extraordinary, any "evidence" presented here is second-hand hearsay at best, and would not even be allowed in court.

This is true.

Of course, so would faith be rejected as evidence, whereas we are told that it is in scripture. Does it mean anything to anyone except they that be of faith? No. Does it change the fact that there are so many that have faith? No.

Blessed are they that believe but have not seen.

God bless.

Argument from popularity? OK, let's throw quotes around.

"The masses of people are cattle who must be driven."

"God must have loved the common man because he made so many of them. God must have hated the common man because he made him so common."

[East of Eden]

Goat wrote:

When some of their story makes claims that in our experience are impossible, that makes them much less credible. The bar of evidence needed for extraordinary claims is raised.

Even if the claims were not extraordinary, any "evidence" presented here is second-hand hearsay at best, and would not even be allowed in court.

Not true, some of the Gospels accounts were eyewitness ones, and here is someone who was recently convicted by hearsay evidence:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/justice/i ... on-verdict