㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

[LOGICZOMBIE]

And that's the problem. As we said, a can of beans has no ability to identify any way whatsoever.

a cow has no ability to self-identify as a cow

but we still call it a cow

 

[Old Things]

And that's the problem. As we said, a can of beans has no ability to identify any way whatsoever.

a cow has no ability to self-identify as a cow

but we still call it a cow

A cow knows it it a cow because it hangs around other cows.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

A cow knows it it a cow because it hangs around other cows.

it seems unlikely that the cow understands what the word "cow" means

 

[Old Things]

A cow knows it it a cow because it hangs around other cows.

it seems unlikely that the cow understands what the word "cow" means

It doesn't need to. Whether the cow knows the English word is of no consequence here.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

It doesn't need to. Whether the cow knows the English word is of no consequence here.

ok, so by the same measure

a can of beans doesn't need to know what the word "ATHEIST" means

 

[Old Things]

It doesn't need to. Whether the cow knows the English word is of no consequence here.

ok, so by the same measure

a can of beans doesn't need to know what the word "ATHEIST" means

But a can of beans cannot even have the option to be a theist. So how can it be "Not-Theist" if it has no concept of "Theist"?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

But a can of beans cannot even have the option to be a theist. So how can it be "Not-Theist" if it has no concept of "Theist"?

NOT-A-THEIST

operates logically

in the same way

you are NOT-A-ZOROASTRIAN


you never "decided" to "reject" AHURA MAZDA

you were simply never CONVINCED of the manifest and magnificent majesty

of AHURA MAZDA


therefore, asking you "why" you "reject" AHURA MAZDA

is a ridiculous question


for the exact same reason asking an ATHEIST "why" they "reject" YHWH

is a ridiculous question


in order for you to WORSHIP AHURA MAZDA

you would need to be CONVINCED

 

[EndogenousRebel]

you seem to mean that atheism is the default setting, of which you have provided no proof.

it seems a little strange for you to expect me to prove that humans are not born automatically believing in a loving creator


i only need to convince you that SOME humans are NOT born automatically believing in a loving creator

I mean, the overall determiner of your beliefs is the synaptic firing and structure of the brain.

When you are an infant, you have the most neurons you'll ever have, which will be slowly and intermittently pruned throughout your development.

If you REALLY want to put the responsibility of agency in the hands of a infants and toddlers, you have to ask them or speculate what having a surplus of nuerons would make you believe.

Hell you could argue it's possible believe and not believe at the same time, this discussion is pointless.

Do you not see how self-identification without reasoning is flawed?

please explain

You don't see the issue if a police officer "identifies" the smell of alcohol or weed in your car?

You need a metric to base that identification on. A password or a key of sorts. You saying otherwise is absurd and you continuing to act like it's not just makes you look more ridiculous.

 

[Black Rose]

You can say that someone is a-sexual because they lack sexual drives.

You can say a baby is a-theistic because they lack conceptual reasoning skills.

But a baby is not an active disbelieving atheist in the same way.

Reasoning skills are what matters here.

To actively believe or disbelieve,

You are functioning above the level of a potato.

Atheists who do not need to justify disbelief can only be infants then.

Because active atheism requires you to not be ignorant of the question of theism.

Once a person understands that God is a concept, they must ignore the question and or fool themselves into thinking they have no position or opinion on it.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If you REALLY want to put the responsibility of agency in the hands of a infants and toddlers, you have to ask them or speculate what having a surplus of nuerons would make you believe.

do you honestly believe every human infant is properly described as a THEIST ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You don't see the issue if a police officer "identifies" the smell of alcohol or weed in your car?

You need a metric to base that identification on. A password or a key of sorts. You saying otherwise is absurd and you continuing to act like it's not just makes you look more ridiculous.

sure, what you are talking about makes perfect sense for POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION


but the current topic is ATHEISM which is a specifically NEGATIVE IDENTIFICATION

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You can say a baby is a-theistic because they lack conceptual reasoning skills.

exactly

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

and or fool themselves into thinking they have no position or opinion on it

do you worship AHURA MAZDA ?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You don't see the issue if a police officer "identifies" the smell of alcohol or weed in your car?

You need a metric to base that identification on. A password or a key of sorts. You saying otherwise is absurd and you continuing to act like it's not just makes you look more ridiculous.

sure, what you are talking about makes perfect sense for POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION


but the current topic is ATHEISM which is a specifically NEGATIVE IDENTIFICATION

Atheism is an assertion as much as theism is. Theism typically simply asserts more.

 

[Black Rose]

do you

You perfectly well know what the concept of God is so you'd be a fool to say you have no opinion on it.

 

[Old Things]

You can say that someone is a-sexual because they lack sexual drives.

You can say a baby is a-theistic because they lack conceptual reasoning skills.

But a baby is not an active disbelieving atheist in the same way.

Reasoning skills are what matters here.

To actively believe or disbelieve,

You are functioning above the level of a potato.

Atheists who do not need to justify disbelief can only be infants then.

Because active atheism requires you to not be ignorant of the question of theism.

Once a person understands that God is a concept, they must ignore the question and or fool themselves into thinking they have no position or opinion on it.

@LOGICZOMBIE does not care about being reasonable. He cares about his own view. He does not care about all the arguments that have been made that destroy his paradigm. He has a view and will not listen to reason. The most he will do is give you a point (whatever that means) for giving a good argument. He's not willing to reconsider his view.

 

[Old Things]

I mean, the overall determiner of your beliefs is the synaptic firing and structure of the brain.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You can say that someone is a-sexual because they lack sexual drives.

You can say a baby is a-theistic because they lack conceptual reasoning skills.

But a baby is not an active disbelieving atheist in the same way.

Reasoning skills are what matters here.

To actively believe or disbelieve,

You are functioning above the level of a potato.

Atheists who do not need to justify disbelief can only be infants then.

Because active atheism requires you to not be ignorant of the question of theism.

Once a person understands that God is a concept, they must ignore the question and or fool themselves into thinking they have no position or opinion on it.

@LOGICZOMBIE does not care about being reasonable. He cares about his own view. He does not care about all the arguments that have been made that destroy his paradigm. He has a view and will not listen to reason. The most he will do is give you a point (whatever that means) for giving a good argument. He's not willing to reconsider his view.

It really makes me wonder.

Chances are that someone such as the person you described (somewhat accurately I might add); is invested in their own argument being correct. But what investment do they really have in the issue?

When they have conversations like this elsewhere, will they change their argument, have they even internalized the counter ideas mentioned in a thread like this?

Is this something they think about so that they can put people who are less familiar with the subject "in their place"?

Or is it simply because the counter position exists that they hold theirs?

If you're like a teen or something, it can be chalked up to a "phase", but if you're someone who is mature enough, or at least has had enough time to reflect on these things for a while, and you live in the year 2024, why bother having a conversation about it if you aren't really taking external input?

A lot of people I suppose have been negatively impacted by religious institutions, so I can only assume that may be part of the case. It's just the worst when their name is @LOGICZOMBIE

 

[Old Things]

You can say that someone is a-sexual because they lack sexual drives.

You can say a baby is a-theistic because they lack conceptual reasoning skills.

But a baby is not an active disbelieving atheist in the same way.

Reasoning skills are what matters here.

To actively believe or disbelieve,

You are functioning above the level of a potato.

Atheists who do not need to justify disbelief can only be infants then.

Because active atheism requires you to not be ignorant of the question of theism.

Once a person understands that God is a concept, they must ignore the question and or fool themselves into thinking they have no position or opinion on it.

@LOGICZOMBIE does not care about being reasonable. He cares about his own view. He does not care about all the arguments that have been made that destroy his paradigm. He has a view and will not listen to reason. The most he will do is give you a point (whatever that means) for giving a good argument. He's not willing to reconsider his view.

It really makes me wonder.

Chances are that someone such as the person you described (somewhat accurately I might add); is invested in their own argument being correct. But what investment do they really have in the issue?

When they have conversations like this elsewhere, will they change their argument, have they even internalized the counter ideas mentioned in a thread like this?

Is this something they think about so that they can put people who are less familiar with the subject "in their place"?

Or is it simply because the counter position exists that they hold theirs?

If you're like a teen or something, it can be chalked up to a "phase", but if you're someone who is mature enough, or at least has had enough time to reflect on these things for a while, and you live in the year 2024, why bother having a conversation about it if you aren't really taking external input?

A lot of people I suppose have been negatively impacted by religious institutions, so I can only assume that may be part of the case. It's just the worst when their name is @LOGICZOMBIE

One of the first threads I started on this forum was on the minimal facts of the resurrection of Christ. As to date, no one has been able to come up with a naturalistic explanation of these six facts. The closest it got was that @Puffy said that you can't get to an actual physical resurrection from the facts. It could have been a spiritual, but not physical manifestation of Christ. That is what my perspective is based on. If no one is able to come up with a naturalistic explanation of these facts, then I am reasonable to conclude that the New Testament is recording things accurately and Christ actually rose from the dead. And if Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity is true. We can debate the details, but those are the facts, as they say.

 

[Black Rose]

If you're like a teen or something, it can be chalked up to a "phase", but if you're someone who is mature enough, or at least has had enough time to reflect on these things for a while, and you live in the year 2024, why bother having a conversation about it if you aren't really taking external input?

A lot of people I suppose have been negatively impacted by religious institutions, so I can only assume that may be part of the case. It's just the worst when their name is @LOGICZOMBIE

I always assumed a black 20-year-old ENTP because of the pirate dreadlocks.

You said you are 26 and I am 36 - I have seen many, many debates about religion.

They were the thing for most youtube people to watch 2008 to 2016

I was not part of video debates but only on forums I talked about it.

My autisms might have held me back or something else, I don't know, I think I am ENFP now, but I was never totally rational xNTx about deconstructing things.

I was always at a disadvantage when it came to defending any point of view where the volume of Te / Ti stuff made me quit multiple times. Ne/Ni ideas are not something those people just let slip by unless you can make them explicit.

Since you are INTJ the reason you can act so detached is what allows you not to go into any bias of mood abnormalities to become involved with a final position.

I would say that you can study things in the way you do, as a person who has emotional control. You don't have to deal with the hard problem of creativity block.

With my bipolar condition and being male my feelings get hurt all the time.

And that has always made me have great insecurities in my intellectual capacities.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You can say that someone is a-sexual because they lack sexual drives.

You can say a baby is a-theistic because they lack conceptual reasoning skills.

But a baby is not an active disbelieving atheist in the same way.

Reasoning skills are what matters here.

To actively believe or disbelieve,

You are functioning above the level of a potato.

Atheists who do not need to justify disbelief can only be infants then.

Because active atheism requires you to not be ignorant of the question of theism.

Once a person understands that God is a concept, they must ignore the question and or fool themselves into thinking they have no position or opinion on it.

@LOGICZOMBIE does not care about being reasonable. He cares about his own view. He does not care about all the arguments that have been made that destroy his paradigm. He has a view and will not listen to reason. The most he will do is give you a point (whatever that means) for giving a good argument. He's not willing to reconsider his view.

It really makes me wonder.

Chances are that someone such as the person you described (somewhat accurately I might add); is invested in their own argument being correct. But what investment do they really have in the issue?

When they have conversations like this elsewhere, will they change their argument, have they even internalized the counter ideas mentioned in a thread like this?

Is this something they think about so that they can put people who are less familiar with the subject "in their place"?

Or is it simply because the counter position exists that they hold theirs?

If you're like a teen or something, it can be chalked up to a "phase", but if you're someone who is mature enough, or at least has had enough time to reflect on these things for a while, and you live in the year 2024, why bother having a conversation about it if you aren't really taking external input?

A lot of people I suppose have been negatively impacted by religious institutions, so I can only assume that may be part of the case. It's just the worst when their name is @LOGICZOMBIE

One of the first threads I started on this forum was on the minimal facts of the resurrection of Christ. As to date, no one has been able to come up with a naturalistic explanation of these six facts. The closest it got was that @Puffy said that you can't get to an actual physical resurrection from the facts. It could have been a spiritual, but not physical manifestation of Christ. That is what my perspective is based on. If no one is able to come up with a naturalistic explanation of these facts, then I am reasonable to conclude that the New Testament is recording things accurately and Christ actually rose from the dead. And if Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity is true. We can debate the details, but those are the facts, as they say.

I can see Dwayne The Rock Johnson smackdown Stone Cold Steve Austin on WWE Raw, but did it really happen?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

They were the thing for most youtube people to watch 2008 to 2016

I would say I was an early adopter of YouTube, compared to what it is today obviously. I saw technology filter into the classrooms midway through the "rise?" of Web 2.0 where now "everyone" is on the internet on their phones

I would say Trump in 2016 kicked off Web 3.0 with crypto exploding and all that, and all these tech companies trying to consolidate power.

I would say that you can study things in the way you do, as a person who has emotional control. You don't have to deal with the hard problem of creativity block.

With my bipolar condition and being male my feelings get hurt all the time.

And that has always made me have great insecurities in my intellectual capacities.

The imagination can be a cruel thing and is about as hard as it is to control any intelligent person. People have to shepherd their imagination, less it pulls them around like a dog that is bigger than its owner.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Atheism is an assertion as much as theism is. Theism typically simply asserts more.

the ONLY "assertion" is simply, NOT-A-THEIST

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You perfectly well know what the concept of God is so you'd be a fool to say you have no opinion on it.

i'm talking specifically about AHURA MAZDA

you know perfectly well what the concept of AHURA MAZDA is so you'd be a fool to say you have no opinion on it

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

@LOGICZOMBIE does not care about being reasonable. He cares about his own view. He does not care about all the arguments that have been made that destroy his paradigm. He has a view and will not listen to reason. The most he will do is give you a point (whatever that means) for giving a good argument. He's not willing to reconsider his view.

there is only one "point" here

ATHEISM = NOT-A-THEIST


this view is supported by the common dictionary definition

which includes "lack of belief in a god or gods"


it is easily contrasted with the definition of THEISM


this view is supported by many conversations with actual ATHEISTS


this view is also supported by common language usage

by comparing a-theism with the terms a-political and a-moral and a-gnostic




what view would you personally like me to "reconsider" ?




you seem to subscribe to the idea that ATHEISM = ANTI-THEISM


and although some ATHEISTS are ANTI-THEISTS

not all ATHEISTS are ANTI-THEISTS

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I mean, the overall determiner of your beliefs is the synaptic firing and structure of the brain.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Chances are that someone such as the person you described (somewhat accurately I might add); is invested in their own argument being correct. But what investment do they really have in the issue?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If no one is able to come up with a naturalistic explanation of these facts

words written in an old book are not automatically "facts"

any more than the story of noah's ark is a "fact"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

And that has always made me have great insecurities in my intellectual capacities.

you do quite well, i'd even say far above average

you don't have to know every single thing about a topic

especially when the topic is "a personal belief"

you just have to be able to identify the scope

 

[Old Things]

@LOGICZOMBIE does not care about being reasonable. He cares about his own view. He does not care about all the arguments that have been made that destroy his paradigm. He has a view and will not listen to reason. The most he will do is give you a point (whatever that means) for giving a good argument. He's not willing to reconsider his view.

there is only one "point" here

ATHEISM = NOT-A-THEIST


this view is supported by the common dictionary definition

which includes "lack of belief in a god or gods"


it is easily contrasted with the definition of THEISM


this view is supported by many conversations with actual ATHEISTS


this view is also supported by common language usage

by comparing a-theism with the terms a-political and a-moral and a-gnostic




what view would you personally like me to "reconsider" ?




you seem to subscribe to the idea that ATHEISM = ANTI-THEISM


and although some ATHEISTS are ANTI-THEISTS

not all ATHEISTS are ANTI-THEISTS

You want to lump deists into your definition. That is problematic because deists DO believe in God. So why do you want to call them atheists? What benefit do we get from that?

If no one is able to come up with a naturalistic explanation of these facts

words written in an old book are not automatically "facts"

any more than the story of noah's ark is a "fact"

Well, it's a good thing that is not what these facts are based on then. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. These six facts are accepted across the board. The way they are done is to take the criteria that skeptics and agnostics and atheists use to come up with six facts that demand an explanation. I can link you to the thread if you want but at this point, you do not understand the argument at all.

 

[Old Things]

I can see Dwayne The Rock Johnson smackdown Stone Cold Steve Austin on WWE Raw, but did it really happen?

What do you mean? Do you deny the facts? Do you have an alternate explanation? Or do you just think any naturalistic explanation is automatically better than any supernatural one?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You want to lump deists into your definition. That is problematic because deists DO believe in God. So why do you want to call them atheists? What benefit do we get from that?

DEISTS are also NOT-A-THEIST


and i merely point this out to illustrate

that DEISM is functionally indistinguishable from ATHEISM



it is funny that when i've watched formal debates between CHRISTIANS and ATHEISTS


the CHRISTIANS never argue in FAVOR of CHRISTIANITY itself


instead, they try and make logical arguments supporting DEISM

and simultaneously attack their straw-man version of ATHEISM (namely ANTI-THEISM)

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Well, it's a good thing that is not what these facts are based on then. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. These six facts are accepted across the board. The way they are done is to take the criteria that skeptics and agnostics and atheists use to come up with six facts that demand an explanation. I can link you to the thread if you want but at this point, you do not understand the argument at all.

present your argument

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What do you mean? Do you deny the facts? Do you have an alternate explanation? Or do you just think any naturalistic explanation is automatically better than any supernatural one?

i think they might be suggesting that WWE is about as "factual" as a broadway musical

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Well, it's a good thing that is not what these facts are based on then. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. These six facts are accepted across the board. The way they are done is to take the criteria that skeptics and agnostics and atheists use to come up with six facts that demand an explanation. I can link you to the thread if you want but at this point, you do not understand the argument at all.

1. Jesus Christ was a historical figure.
2. He was born in Bethlehem.
3. He was a Jewish preacher.
4. He was baptized by John the Baptist.
5. He was crucified under Roman governor Pontius Pilate.
6. followers believe he was resurrected.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Well, it's a good thing that is not what these facts are based on then. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. These six facts are accepted across the board. The way they are done is to take the criteria that skeptics and agnostics and atheists use to come up with six facts that demand an explanation. I can link you to the thread if you want but at this point, you do not understand the argument at all.

1. Joseph Smith was born on December 23, 1805, in, Vermont.
2. He founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day (LDS Church in 18303.
3. Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates.
4. He led the early Latter-day Saints to establish settlements in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois.
5. Smith was a controversial figure and faced significant opposition and legal challenges.
6. He was killed by a mob in Carthage, Illinois, on June 27, 1844.

 

[Old Things]

Well, it's a good thing that is not what these facts are based on then. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. These six facts are accepted across the board. The way they are done is to take the criteria that skeptics and agnostics and atheists use to come up with six facts that demand an explanation. I can link you to the thread if you want but at this point, you do not understand the argument at all.

present your argument

https://www.intpforum.com/threads/evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ.29113/

Well, it's a good thing that is not what these facts are based on then. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. These six facts are accepted across the board. The way they are done is to take the criteria that skeptics and agnostics and atheists use to come up with six facts that demand an explanation. I can link you to the thread if you want but at this point, you do not understand the argument at all.

1. Joseph Smith was born on December 23, 1805, in, Vermont.
2. He founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day (LDS Church in 18303.
3. Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates.
4. He led the early Latter-day Saints to establish settlements in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois.
5. Smith was a controversial figure and faced significant opposition and legal challenges.
6. He was killed by a mob in Carthage, Illinois, on June 27, 1844.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, lol.

 

[Old Things]

I mean, the overall determiner of your beliefs is the synaptic firing and structure of the brain.

Two atheists talking about Christianity. What could go wrong?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Well, it's a good thing that is not what these facts are based on then. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. These six facts are accepted across the board. The way they are done is to take the criteria that skeptics and agnostics and atheists use to come up with six facts that demand an explanation. I can link you to the thread if you want but at this point, you do not understand the argument at all.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
- ok
2. His disciples had experiences that they believe were of the risen Jesus.
- ok
3. The resurrection is the event that turned the religious world upside down.
- ok
4. The resurrection was proclaimed very early.
- ok
5. The conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, who had an experience of the risen Jesus.
- ok
6. The conversion of Paul, who had an experience of the risen Jesus.
- ok


if we grant you these six statements

what conclusion do you draw from this ?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If you REALLY want to put the responsibility of agency in the hands of a infants and toddlers, you have to ask them or speculate what having a surplus of nuerons would make you believe.

do you honestly believe every human infant is properly described as a THEIST ?

You seem to imply it's absurd to do so, yet you want its "opposite" that babies are atheist's to be true.

If we are talking about hypotheticals, then it is a hypothetical. If an infant could talk to us we can assume X things about what they tell us. But in order to know, we have to be able to get a response from the infant. Yet we can't.

We are presenting hypotheticals that show the flaws in your argument. It doesn't mean our own position is right, but you acting like the hypothetical implicitly proves you right/wrong, instead of showing how you may be wrong, which it clear does to anyone interpreting openly, this just goes to showing how obstinate you are being to alternative perspectives. Because we're going in circles and anytime we ask you a question you answer with another question.

You are not creating common ground, you are actively running from it. You might as well be running around with your pants on fire as far as I am concerned. Is that an ad-hominem?

I can see Dwayne The Rock Johnson smackdown Stone Cold Steve Austin on WWE Raw, but did it really happen?

What do you mean? Do you deny the facts? Do you have an alternate explanation? Or do you just think any naturalistic explanation is automatically better than any supernatural one?

At some point where you are looking at records that are thousands of years old, you have to accept that the people of that age were very different from today.

The resurrection of Christ might hold a coded message that only people of that day, in a very specific geography, would understand for example.

You are saying that we should interpret it literally, but even if we did, we can speculate many things before we get to supernatural assumptions.

I guess, to answer you question: Yes I do.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

this just goes to showing how obstinate you are being to alternative perspectives.

i've been clear from the start

NO profession of faith is required to qualify as NOT-A-THEIST

a profession of faith IS REQUIRED to qualify as a THEIST

archeologists agree that most pre-agrarian tribal groups subscribed to some form of local ANIMISM

so it would seem that some argument could be made that humans automatically subscribe to some form of ANIMISM

and yet

ANIMISM is not THEISM


still NOT-A-THEIST

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You are not creating common ground, you are actively running from it.

what "common ground" are you proposing ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If an infant could talk to us we can assume X things about what they tell us.

an infant responding with a detailed account of THEOLOGY seems unlikely

 

[Old Things]

Well, it's a good thing that is not what these facts are based on then. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. These six facts are accepted across the board. The way they are done is to take the criteria that skeptics and agnostics and atheists use to come up with six facts that demand an explanation. I can link you to the thread if you want but at this point, you do not understand the argument at all.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
- ok
2. His disciples had experiences that they believe were of the risen Jesus.
- ok
3. The resurrection is the event that turned the religious world upside down.
- ok
4. The resurrection was proclaimed very early.
- ok
5. The conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, who had an experience of the risen Jesus.
- ok
6. The conversion of Paul, who had an experience of the risen Jesus.
- ok


if we grant you these six statements

what conclusion do you draw from this ?

That Christ literally rose from the dead, thereby showing Theism is true.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That Christ literally rose from the dead, thereby showing Theism is true.

a man rising from the dead

has nothing to do with the claim

that an all knowing all powerful creator of all things

cares about you and me personally

 

[Old Things]

At some point where you are looking at records that are thousands of years old, you have to accept that the people of that age were very different from today.

That in no way changes the facts.

The resurrection of Christ might hold a coded message that only people of that day, in a very specific geography, would understand for example.

Anything is POSSIBLE. It's possible you are talking to an elephant talking through an interpreter. It's never about what is possible but what is probable.

You are saying that we should interpret it literally, but even if we did, we can speculate many things before we get to supernatural assumptions.

I'm saying that atheists agree with these facts and have for the most part given up on providing naturalistic explanations anymore.

 

[Old Things]

That Christ literally rose from the dead, thereby showing Theism is true.

a man rising from the dead

has nothing to do with the claim

that an all knowing all powerful creator of all things

cares about you and me personally

The man who claimed to be God and said he died for our sins rose from the dead.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You are not creating common ground, you are actively running from it.

what "common ground" are you proposing ?

There have been plenty of chances to agree on things, you just are so evasive, that there has been no mutual agreement on things that people can build off of.

It's a skill to communicate, and it is entirely different from being able to make an argument.

You might have the best argument in the world, but if you can't communicate it, then it's all for not.

At some point where you are looking at records that are thousands of years old, you have to accept that the people of that age were very different from today.

That in no way changes the facts.

The resurrection of Christ might hold a coded message that only people of that day, in a very specific geography, would understand for example.

Anything is POSSIBLE. It's possible you are talking to an elephant talking through an interpreter. It's never about what is possible but what is probable.

You are saying that we should interpret it literally, but even if we did, we can speculate many things before we get to supernatural assumptions.

I'm saying that atheists agree with these facts and have for the most part given up on providing naturalistic explanations anymore.

 

[Old Things]

You are not creating common ground, you are actively running from it.

what "common ground" are you proposing ?

There have been plenty of chances to agree on things, you just are so evasive, that there has been no mutual agreement on things that people can build off of.

It's a skill to communicate, and it is entirely different from being able to make an argument.

You might have the best argument in the world, but if you can't communicate it, then it's all for not.

At some point where you are looking at records that are thousands of years old, you have to accept that the people of that age were very different from today.

That in no way changes the facts.

The resurrection of Christ might hold a coded message that only people of that day, in a very specific geography, would understand for example.

Anything is POSSIBLE. It's possible you are talking to an elephant talking through an interpreter. It's never about what is possible but what is probable.

You are saying that we should interpret it literally, but even if we did, we can speculate many things before we get to supernatural assumptions.

I'm saying that atheists agree with these facts and have for the most part given up on providing naturalistic explanations anymore.

Everyone knows that this kind of wrestling is fiction. So IDK what your point is.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You are not creating common ground, you are actively running from it.

what "common ground" are you proposing ?

There have been plenty of chances to agree on things, you just are so evasive, that there has been no mutual agreement on things that people can build off of.

It's a skill to communicate, and it is entirely different from being able to make an argument.

You might have the best argument in the world, but if you can't communicate it, then it's all for not.

At some point where you are looking at records that are thousands of years old, you have to accept that the people of that age were very different from today.

That in no way changes the facts.

The resurrection of Christ might hold a coded message that only people of that day, in a very specific geography, would understand for example.

Anything is POSSIBLE. It's possible you are talking to an elephant talking through an interpreter. It's never about what is possible but what is probable.

You are saying that we should interpret it literally, but even if we did, we can speculate many things before we get to supernatural assumptions.

I'm saying that atheists agree with these facts and have for the most part given up on providing naturalistic explanations anymore.

Everyone knows that this kind of wrestling is fiction. So IDK what your point is.

I agree it's pretty ubiquitous. However most people I know don't take everything in the Bible literally. So I wouldn't even know where to start there.

To me it's just (ancient) literature. Like, it's very impactful that Harry Potter went from living under his uncle's staircase to being the chosen one, but in like 10,000 years I wouldn't want people to confuse it for reality, despite whatever reality it may contain from JK Rowlings personal experience?