“squuuze me”

Since: Feb 09

Florida, USA

#542674 Jun 2, 2013
Hmmmm ....!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542675 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I asked you to "go ahead and prove me wrong by telling us what kind of evidence would convince you that you were wrong if you were." You didn't do that. Can I assume that you agree that there is no such thing as what you call complete evidence in this matter?

Faith is immune to evidence and reasoned argument.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Faith is not immune to evidence. Evidence is what substantiates faith. If the disciples had not seen a risen Jesus there would be no reason for their faith
If the disciples saw an indisputably dead man revivified, their belief would not be faith based. If you believe the report of these ancient anonymous sources, that's faith.
The Thinking Man wrote:
.. and there would be no way that Christianity would have ever survived let alone grown into the major spiritual movement that exists today.
Christianity is not a spiritual movement. And what made it what it is today was the force of the brutal armies of imperialist nations such as the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, and English Empire.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542676 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
What kind of evidence are we looking for? Beyond Reasonable Doubt as in a criminal case? Preponderance of Evidence (more probable than not) as in a civil case? Is 100% empirical evidence the only worthy evidence? If yes, is it because this gives the atheist a mental escape route to define what is and isn't worthy to be called evidence?:) Is circumstantial evidence worth considering?
I assume that you are speaking of evidence for you god's existence. It could arrange the galaxies like light on a theater marquis so that from the perspective of earth, they spell out "I am Jesus." Or return to earth and perform indisputably supernatural feats in the name of Jesus.
The Thinking Man wrote:
What is our basis for denying the credibility of circumstantial evidence? That it's not conclusive enough?
Once again,are you talking about your god? All you have to support that claim is uncorroborated testimony.

Furthermore, it can easily be demonstrated that there is no omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god watching over man. If there is a god, it's not yours.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542677 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
See, the problem isn't the evidence itself, but how we value the evidence, and how our own high expectations can skew that evidence. Humankind was given empirical evidence on a Sunday morning 2,000 years ago. The fact that we weren't there to see it is of little importance. What matters is whether or not we choose to believe those who told their story.
It's not evidence to me. It's hearsay of the worst kind. We know nothing about the characters or agendas of the men who made those claims.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Are we so arrogant that we dismiss accounts of others because they wrote in a different language, in a different time period, in a different culture? I think so.
No. We reject those claims because they are extraordinary, and not backed by evidence.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Atheism is the pinnacle of human arrogance and ignorance.
What is ignorant to me is believing that story without evidence. And what is arrogant to me is expecting me to believe it, too.

Atheism is the only reasonable position.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#542678 Jun 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>There is no way to have the testimony stricken and you know it. Credibility is an issue for the jury and there is no way to prove someone didn't remember something new later. Regardless if my case is over your statement is blowing smoke. Although I can't say I'm surprised.
Even if the testimony isn't stricken, you have gotten the jury's attention, and you proceed to cross-examine the witness.

It would not be difficult to impeach the witness's credibility: You ask whether he told the police (or investigators, or whomever) x took place. You point out that the statement was made not long after the incident, while his memory was fresh. You then point out that now, a long time later, he suddenly "remembers" something different. Later, you remind the jury of the prior inconsistent statement while the witness's memory was fresh, point out that we remember things far more clearly close to the event, and you "suggest" possible reasons for the changed version.

Of course, in closing argument you stress that proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

One caveat: It doesn't help to have a client whose demeanor leads the jury to dislike him. From what I have seen here, this could have been a significant problem for you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542679 Jun 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
There is no way to have the testimony stricken and you know it. Credibility is an issue for the jury and there is no way to prove someone didn't remember something new later. Regardless if my case is over your statement is blowing smoke. Although I can't say I'm surprised.
You were guilty, were you not?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542680 Jun 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
That is not to suggest I feel I am in a position to try to apply man's morality to God
Then you are in no position to call your god good.

I do apply my moral standards to the god character in your bible and find it to be morally flawed in the extreme.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#542681 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
Faith is not immune to evidence. Evidence is what substantiates faith.
Faith is nothing with evidence.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The Thinking Man wrote:
If the disciples had not seen a risen Jesus there would be no reason for their faith, and there would be no way that Christianity would have ever survived let alone grown into the major spiritual movement that exists today. The faith of the disciples was shattered when Christ died on the cross, and restored upon the resurrection appearances 3 days later.
If that were true, other historical documents would have existed and the rest of the scripture would not have been destroyed.
Other things that are written in the bible such as a worldwide flood, the age of the Earth, the shape of the Earth, the mechanics of our solar system, and so on, have been wrong, horribly wrong at that.
The bible, so full of contradictions and fallacies cannot be taken as any form of proof/evidence/historical document.

As for its ability to last so long, we can see, through the use of history, that it lasted because many people saw it as a means to control a population.
The Thinking Man wrote:
It's easy for us in our modern Western world to dismiss this central event in world history, because as a general rule, nobody rises from the dead. Many people scoffed at it then too. That's entirely understandable.
It's dismissed because other than the bible, there is no mention of any Jesus, any Moses, or any of the things they did or any other people in the bible that have been described.
The same could be said about the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. The only difference is that she would have many fanfictions and other texts written about her characters, which would mean infinitely more "proof" than the bible if that were how people measured the facts.
The Thinking Man wrote:
My question about evidence is this:
What kind of evidence are we looking for?
Beyond Reasonable Doubt as in a criminal case?
Preponderance of Evidence (more probable than not) as in a civil case?
Is 100% empirical evidence the only worthy evidence? If yes, is it because this gives the atheist a mental escape route to define what is and isn't worthy to be called evidence?:)
Is circumstantial evidence worth considering?
ANY evidence for each and every event described in the bible as supposedly "real."
You and your ilk constantly claim people are stupid for not believing your stories, yet you fail, every time, to present a single shred of evidence.
There is much more evidence AGAINST its stories such as what I've explained above.
The Thinking Man wrote:
What is our basis for denying the credibility of circumstantial evidence? That it's not conclusive enough?
The basis for credibility would be that it has to be peer reviewed and studied by someone without a bias.
You have none of that.
The Thinking Man wrote:
See, the problem isn't the evidence itself, but how we value the evidence, and how our own high expectations can skew that evidence.
No, the problem is that there is no evidence for your claims.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Humankind was given empirical evidence on a Sunday morning 2,000 years ago. The fact that we weren't there to see it is of little importance. What matters is whether or not we choose to believe those who told their story. Are we so arrogant that we dismiss accounts of others because they wrote in a different language, in a different time period, in a different culture?
Again, why is there not a single other mention of this by other sources?
Why is the bible so wrong all the time (see above for examples) if it's true?
Since the "event" is only captured in one single book, how can you say it wasn't just a story?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#542682 Jun 2, 2013
Ran out of space for this last comment:
The Thinking Man wrote:
I think so. Atheism is the pinnacle of human arrogance and ignorance.
On the contrary, the bible has no evidence for it and directly contradicts pure facts.
Complete belief in it is ignorance at its finest.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542683 Jun 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the testimony isn't stricken, you have gotten the jury's attention, and you proceed to cross-examine the witness.
It would not be difficult to impeach the witness's credibility: You ask whether he told the police (or investigators, or whomever) x took place. You point out that the statement was made not long after the incident, while his memory was fresh. You then point out that now, a long time later, he suddenly "remembers" something different. Later, you remind the jury of the prior inconsistent statement while the witness's memory was fresh, point out that we remember things far more clearly close to the event, and you "suggest" possible reasons for the changed version. Of course, in closing argument you stress that proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

One caveat: It doesn't help to have a client whose demeanor leads the jury to dislike him. From what I have seen here, this could have been a significant problem for you.
It's sort of a reverse jury nullification to find that the prosecution has not made its case, but convicting the defendant anyway because you dislike him so much that you want him in prison.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#542685 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sort of a reverse jury nullification to find that the prosecution has not made its case, but convicting the defendant anyway because you dislike him so much that you want him in prison.
The defendant's demeanor has an impact on the jury (this is why it's important that the defendant not be cuffed, or dressed in prison garb). Many factors come into play during the deliberations, and there is now way to avoid emotional responses to the defendant, witnesses, and the attorneys too.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#542686 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is not immune to evidence. Evidence is what substantiates faith.
If the disciples had not seen a risen Jesus there would be no reason for their faith, and there would be no way that Christianity would have ever survived let alone grown into the major spiritual movement that exists today. The faith of the disciples was shattered when Christ died on the cross, and restored upon the resurrection appearances 3 days later.
It's easy for us in our modern Western world to dismiss this central event in world history, because as a general rule, nobody rises from the dead. Many people scoffed at it then too. That's entirely understandable.
My question about evidence is this:
What kind of evidence are we looking for?
Beyond Reasonable Doubt as in a criminal case?
Preponderance of Evidence (more probable than not) as in a civil case?
Is 100% empirical evidence the only worthy evidence? If yes, is it because this gives the atheist a mental escape route to define what is and isn't worthy to be called evidence?:)
Is circumstantial evidence worth considering?
What is our basis for denying the credibility of circumstantial evidence? That it's not conclusive enough?
See, the problem isn't the evidence itself, but how we value the evidence, and how our own high expectations can skew that evidence.
Humankind was given empirical evidence on a Sunday morning 2,000 years ago. The fact that we weren't there to see it is of little importance. What matters is whether or not we choose to believe those who told their story. Are we so arrogant that we dismiss accounts of others because they wrote in a different language, in a different time period, in a different culture?
I think so. Atheism is the pinnacle of human arrogance and ignorance.
The whole point of faith is that it's what you have without evidence. If you truly had the evidence you claim you have then you have no need of faith.

Even your own bible says you need faith - not evidence.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

Hebrews 11:1

What does this tell us? It tells us that faith is evidence of something that isn't evidence. In other words - it's a cop out.

Anyway, let's move on a little...

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Hebrews 11:6

What's this one telling us? It's telling us that you can't *know* that the bible god exists. You just have to believe it.

==========

If you're trying to demonstrate that something exists in our world then what type of evidence is there other than empirical evidence?

You say what matters is whether we choose to believe what the bible says. Well, I don't. Why? Because my standards for evidence are far higher than yours.

No doubt you also believe that those executed for witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, were real witches performing real acts of magic.

You also talk about arrogance.

What can possibly be more arrogant than believing the entire universe was created for you and what's more, your god *died* for you?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542687 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If you choose not to answer my question, I will assume that it is because the answer is embarrassing to you. I claimed that no evidence would be considered complete to you, and asked you to correct me if I were wrong by telling me what evidence could possibly satisfy you, i.e., be considered complete. You never presented any. It is reasonable for me to assume that I was right.
<quoted text>
Your fundamental belief is based on nothing but the desire to believe.
Nevertheless, none of that is relevant. I didn't ask you about existing evidence. I asked you what evidence would be good enough for you to call complete in principle, fairly certain that there was none.
<quoted text>
I don't think you did. You said, "As to your hypothetical situation. I could die and conclusive evidence would be before me. Even then though, I would question what was before me. Because it would be a possibility that I was hallucinating."
You not only didn't specify what you meant by conclusive evidence, you indicated that it wouldn't be conclusive for you.
You needn't respond again if it isn't a specific example of evidence that would convince a faith based thinker like you that you are wrong about your god, assuming that you were. Barring that, I consider the matter settled.
First point. I did provide what I would accept. I did however not conclude in my statement that If after examinining the evidence before me and it was concluded that what was before me was real, I would accept it. I believe there are many things that I think will be proven wrong and I will accept it. When I am seperated perminantly from this body, what is, will be. As to unguestionable evidence, I have yet to see any in regards to there not being a spiritual realm and a God. On the contrary, I have seen unquestionable evidence that there is. I have seen money multiply in front of me several times in front of witness. And when I questioned it being God, or real it multiplied again. I have heard from the spiritual realm in an audible voice and again with witness. I could go through a long list of experiences that are unquestionable to me. I know that it is questionable to you because you weren't there. And it is logical to question it. So I understand your doubt. But I on the other hand do not doubt it, I was there as were other people to witness it. And nothing anyone can say can change that. So what I believe is not just based ony desire to beleive but rather on experience.
Evidence can be complete in principle without being complete in fact. New evidence might be discovered that changes what was considered complete in principle to incomplete.
While a person that looks at all evidence before them might conclude that some evidence is not good enough for them to conclude that there is a God and might conclude that there is not. They might also conclude that there is no after life. But, after they die, faced with they still exist and are standing before God. This evidence would prove they were wrong, conclusively.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#542688 Jun 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The defendant's demeanor has an impact on the jury (this is why it's important that the defendant not be cuffed, or dressed in prison garb). Many factors come into play during the deliberations, and there is now way to avoid emotional responses to the defendant, witnesses, and the attorneys too.
Last year I spent an enjoyable seven weeks on a jury. It was something I'd always wanted to do and it was a brutal murder trial.

There were a number of accused in the dock and they were all smartly turned out with shirts and ties.

We found them guilty and court reconvened a few weeks later for sentencing.

Seeing them in the dock again, I couldn't help notice that this time they hadn't scrubbed up so well.

I loved the whole experience and watching the QCs do their stuff was entertaining.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542689 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I bore you? LOL. You called me a liar last week, and boring this week.
<quoted text>
Speaking of boring, what makes you think that I or any other evidence based thinker would care about any of that or find it interesting? Here's my answer: there is no trinity, and I don't compare myself to Jesus except when somebody asks me to.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
No, you don't bore me. Same old arguments bore me. And when presented, they bore me. You have provide some things that I find very interesting.
I don't recall calling you a liar. So I can't respond to that honestly. Please refresh my memory. I only remember calling one person on this thread a liar, possibly two. I am not sure if I told that person what I was thinking directly or if I chose to skip it.
I love to watch Dr Who, Star trek (all of them), and other such shows that present far fetched ideas in a not so far fetched way. They cause me to think outside of the box. While I don't believe any of it. I do, for the fun of it, enjoy thinking on those ideas. So based on my enjoyment of thinking on things, even though I don't believe them, I thought it to be something you might find interesting to think on. My mistake, I was wrong. You have provided complete evidence that you are not able to think outside of your box. I am sorry, I will try to not let it happen again :)
Again I must say I am sorry for when I said we compare ourselves to Jesus, I assumed you would know that I was speaking about those of us who believe (we). Again, my mistake. And again I will try to be more specific when commenting with you.
The question was not do you believe there is a trinity. The question was, for those of us who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, why is it concluded that these are the only aspects of the God in which we (those who believe) believe. But it was a wasted question for you have established that you do not think outside of your box.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542690 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You must be a Protestant.
No, I am none of the above.
Mark

Hedel, Netherlands

#542691 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
Faith is not immune to evidence. Evidence is what substantiates faith.
If the disciples had not seen a risen Jesus there would be no reason for their faith, and there would be no way that Christianity would have ever survived let alone grown into the major spiritual movement that exists today.
Let us analyse this. You claim only a real event, people personally witness, can cause believe. But you yourself believe it without having witnessed it!

Many early Christians were converted by Paul. Did Paul witness the rise of Jesus from the dead? No he never met Jesus in his life, only in a dream. But for the people he converted this was enough.

People do not need an actual event to believe. There are many stories firmly and widely believed by people that later turn out to be make-belief. Hearsay is enough. Factual evidence can easily be forged, something Christians did on a large scale. For instance there are enough splinters of the cross of Jesus to make ten crosses. And even if the cross of Jesus was preserved it would have been very difficult to prove later this was the real cross.

Then there is an even more principle reason why Jesus could not have risen out the dead. Death is by its very definition something you can not rise from. If some rises again it is pseudo death, or semi death, a coma, but not death.

And can you proof that Jesus was not in a coma instead. Even if the rest of the story is true, we still have a problem. Were the disciples of Jesus trained physicians and did they have the advanced equipment to check Jesus was dead?

It this event would happen today, would we assume the guy rose out of death? So why would we assume it would be different two thousand years ago?

On the other hand we have more that 50 similar Myths of Sun Gods rising from the death, down to even to 1700 BC. So what is more likely, That this is the 51ste similar Myth story, or this time it happened for real?

Why do we find these stories in many Sun cults? Because every year days get shorter in winter until it reaches its lowest point and stays there for three days. Than it was said: God had died. Then after three days he started to rise again.

That is why we use the word "rise" in the first place: Sunrise. Jesus is even painted as a SunGod in old paintings. And he has the same qualities as other Sungods. His crown of thorns is actually crown of light rays. Jesus is called: The "Light". He is born at the date the Sun is reborn, 25 of December. These Sungods were born out of virgin, etc.

So can you tell me why Jesus is different, why is Jesus more real than Mytras the SunGod who also walked the land with 12 disciples, was born out of virgin, died and was reborn after three days, and also had a last supper with his disciples before he went to heaven again. Why was Jesus last supper more real?

The Mytras cult was hugely popular before the emperors created the bible and made Christianity the official State ideology.

Why do believe Christianity is more real, more trustworthy. And would you find people trustworthy that destroy all the writings of others, kill all the critics and forbid the discussion of the subject and are caught in many lies. Does this ring to you as honest people that have nothing to hide and speak truth?

And if they write in the text itself the belief is foolishness, does that add to its believability?

If do not educate a person in Christianity, will he eve believe in these ideas? Will he says from his experience: This is the way it must have been?

Is a religion that bases herself on reality so others can verify the teachings not much more real than a religion that bases itself on literal belief of stories that refute reality as we know it?

Those are serious questions. You can believe things in spite of anything. But is it more than personal but shared belief? Is the belief in Jesus fundamentally different than that in the wonder man Hercules, who also rose to heaven?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542692 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You're amazing. Did you not just commended him for finally breaking away from the topic of homosexuality by discussing homosexuality?
Thank you. But no, I did not just commend him for finally breaking away from the topic of homosexuality by discussing homosexuality. I commended him on saying something, which I am curious as to what exactly it was he said, that caused those who had been talking about it so much to stop talking about it. He did not break away from the topic. Rather he went directly at the topic with information that no one wanted to discuss, not even to refute him at that time. He didn't proved statistics or supporting evidence. He didn't even break down what the letters stand for. I am not sure exactly what he said because I don't know what the letters stand for. I supose I could google it, and I will if no one addresses them. But, I thought it easier to just ask. He presented ideas of cause and affect without anything to support them and no one questioned it. So I did.
I am honoured that you think I am amazing, but seriously I am not. I'm pretty much a low life. I say that not because thinking that way is what is required of me by some book. I say that based on self evaluation based on what I hold to be true and right.
Have a great day IANS.
The Thinking Man

New York, NY

#542693 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not evidence to me. It's hearsay of the worst kind. We know nothing about the characters or agendas of the men who made those claims.
All of history is hearsay if you're using chronological proximity as your basis for not accepting the available evidence. Historicity isn't determined "beyond reasonable doubt" as is a criminal court case. Historicity is determined by several factors. Bias of the writers is considered, but character doesn't always cancel out the historical evidence for a crime. Suppose we didn't have the Zapruder film from the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. Suppose all we had were the terrified accounts from hysterical women and a few close aides of the late president. Suppose we also had one account from a compulsive liar who was suffering from a hangover. Does that mean that JFK was never assassinated?

As for agendas, what agenda would be served in a highly strung Jewish culture under Roman occupation by admitting that women were the first witnesses to a resurrected messiah?

<quoted text>
It aint necessarily so wrote:
No. We reject those claims because they are extraordinary, and not backed by evidence.
Yes they are extraordinary claims. No disputing that. But the evidence we do have is cumulative, and no alternate explanation adequately addresses the known events of that turning point in human history better than the conclusion that there was a resurrection. If you have a better explanation I'd be glad to read it.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#542694 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
All of history is hearsay if you're using chronological proximity as your basis for not accepting the available evidence. Historicity isn't determined "beyond reasonable doubt" as is a criminal court case. Historicity is determined by several factors. Bias of the writers is considered, but character doesn't always cancel out the historical evidence for a crime. Suppose we didn't have the Zapruder film from the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. Suppose all we had were the terrified accounts from hysterical women and a few close aides of the late president. Suppose we also had one account from a compulsive liar who was suffering from a hangover. Does that mean that JFK was never assassinated?
No but the evidence is still better than that which you base your world view of magic on.
The Thinking Man wrote:
As for agendas, what agenda would be served in a highly strung Jewish culture under Roman occupation by admitting that women were the first witnesses to a resurrected messiah?
The Gospel of Peter says that the first witnesses were Peter, the Jewish Elders, a Roman centurion and his men (about eighty soldiers).

All of them saw Jesus emerge from his tomb followed by a talking cross. They then witnessed Jesus grow to a height of several thousand feet.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Yes they are extraordinary claims. No disputing that. But the evidence we do have is cumulative, and no alternate explanation adequately addresses the known events of that turning point in human history better than the conclusion that there was a resurrection. If you have a better explanation I'd be glad to read it.
As turning points in human history go, it doesn't measure up to these, which, co-incidentally, are free of magic and superstition:

1. Approximately 70,000 years ago, Homo Sapiens migrated out of Africa.

2. About 11,000 years ago humans learned to farm.

3. Around 35 CE, Saul fell over and banged his head.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min June VanDerMark 548,726
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min It aint necessari... 750,779
Ebola Vaccine 14 min andet1987 1
The Lake of Fire 21 min yon 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 24 min Dr_Zorderz 261,686
BOSCH Tarabya SERVIS 299.15.34 Bosch TARABYA S... 29 min hangrup 1
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min Adam 230,021
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 4 hr top 1,071

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE