Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, how much of what we have about Jesus do you accept? He existed, taught a message of love, had disciples, was crucified. You'd evidently stop at Christ being God, and as such the resurrection.

Yes.

Kurieuo wrote:What about healings, do you believe he may have had such a gift, however such might have been had?

No

Kurieuo wrote:Are you aware to the extra-biblical sources that speak of Christ being a miracle worker, sorcerer?

No.

K

You make it seem like it is hard to believe God in human flesh can raise the dead,walk on water,etc but it is'nt.It is easy to believe and easier to believe than alot of other things people believe.

Perhaps easy for you to believe, but not for me.

K

two second-hand accounts from secular sources (Historians Josephus and Tacitus)

Just wanted to add that there are much more than two secular sources (usually of negative picture) for Jesus living and being crucified, and the darkness that followed among other things..

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Anyone who doubts the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus or of His death, burial, and post-mortem appearances to His disciples should read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte.

People that make silly historical claims like Jesus never existed, should really learn a bit about how history actually works.
But they don't because they are more interested in discrediting a given religion ( or all of them) than actual facts and truths.

Exactly. Hence kenny's now famous quote: "Anything but God".

Anything but God.
Humm…. Care to list the context of which I said those words? You wouldn’t want to give the impression I was saying something that you know I was not; would you?

Ken

I didn't missquote you. If you think context is required then state your case.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Anyone who doubts the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus or of His death, burial, and post-mortem appearances to His disciples should read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte.

People that make silly historical claims like Jesus never existed, should really learn a bit about how history actually works.
But they don't because they are more interested in discrediting a given religion ( or all of them) than actual facts and truths.

Exactly. Hence kenny's now famous quote: "Anything but God".

Anything but God.
Humm…. Care to list the context of which I said those words? You wouldn’t want to give the impression I was saying something that you know I was not; would you?

Ken

I didn't missquote you. If you think context is required then state your case.

I never said anything about misquote, I said context. I don't remember saying those words (doesn't mean I didn't say them, I just don't remember) But obviously you do so if you could list the context or the conversation I was having when I said that, I can comment on why I said it; and I can assure it was not because I have no interest in the truth.

Ken

Hortator wrote: This is why I have put forward that atheism is closer to a personality trait than anything else. People who show identify as atheist show traits (prone to arguments, marry at the lowest rate among any group of people, consider generosity and other virtues to be unimportant, etc.) that are more common among their cleave than others, to the point one can describe them as "atheistic" traits.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... moral.html

I noticed the link you provided compared the ethical behavior of atheists and agnostics to Evangelicals not just regular Christians. Why didn’t they use a fair comparison, and just use those who identify as Christians? If Christians make up approx. 1/3 of the world’s population, obviously not all of them identify as Evangelicals. So why not use a fair comparison? They could have use evangelicals vs Secular Humanists, because not all Atheists are humanists either.
I didn’t read the entire link, but just looking at that survey listed, IMO the entire link is suspect

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Hortator wrote: This is why I have put forward that atheism is closer to a personality trait than anything else. People who show identify as atheist show traits (prone to arguments, marry at the lowest rate among any group of people, consider generosity and other virtues to be unimportant, etc.) that are more common among their cleave than others, to the point one can describe them as "atheistic" traits.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... moral.html

I noticed the link you provided compared the ethical behavior of atheists and agnostics to Evangelicals not just regular Christians. Why didn’t they use a fair comparison, and just use those who identify as Christians? If Christians make up approx. 1/3 of the world’s population, obviously not all of them identify as Evangelicals. So why not use a fair comparison? They could have use evangelicals vs Secular Humanists, because not all Atheists are humanists either.
I didn’t read the entire link, but just looking at that survey listed, IMO the entire link is suspect

Ken

Good point Kenny. I don't consider myself an "evangelical" Christian, and I'm probably almost as much of a heathen as you are. "Regular" Christians, are less Christian than evangelicals.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: People that make silly historical claims like Jesus never existed, should really learn a bit about how history actually works.
But they don't because they are more interested in discrediting a given religion ( or all of them) than actual facts and truths.

Exactly. Hence kenny's now famous quote: "Anything but God".

Anything but God.
Humm…. Care to list the context of which I said those words? You wouldn’t want to give the impression I was saying something that you know I was not; would you?

Ken

I didn't missquote you. If you think context is required then state your case.

I never said anything about misquote, I said context. I don't remember saying those words (doesn't mean I didn't say them, I just don't remember) But obviously you do so if you could list the context or the conversation I was having when I said that, I can comment on why I said it; and I can assure it was not because I have no interest in the truth.

Ken

On June 15 the following exchange took place between you and K regarding evolution:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote: I agree! It doesn't for the Pope, and it doesn't for most Christians I know.

Ken

And yet, Evolution forms a logically necessary part of the Atheist's belief system.

No; Evolution and God aren't the only choices one can make ya know.

Don't be silly Kenny. If not Evolution, what can an Atheist possibly believe regarding where the rich diversity of life on Earth came from? God?

Anything BUT God. That leaves it pretty wide open!

The gist of the conversation was that if an atheist (and I presume you are one since you don't believe in God) is to look for an alternative to evolution to account for the diversity of life on earth, according to you, this alternative can be and I quote, yet again: "Anything BUT God".

Pretty clear context to me.

Kenny is agnostic

Mallz wrote:Kenny is agnostic

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

Mallz wrote:Kenny is agnostic

And that's exactly why he is perfectly tolerable to me. Agnostics and atheists are like bunny rabbits vs. grizzly bears. Audie however is like a jackrabbit with long claws: pet with caution.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Exactly. Hence kenny's now famous quote: "Anything but God".

Anything but God.
Humm…. Care to list the context of which I said those words? You wouldn’t want to give the impression I was saying something that you know I was not; would you?

Ken

I didn't missquote you. If you think context is required then state your case.

I never said anything about misquote, I said context. I don't remember saying those words (doesn't mean I didn't say them, I just don't remember) But obviously you do so if you could list the context or the conversation I was having when I said that, I can comment on why I said it; and I can assure it was not because I have no interest in the truth.

Ken

On June 15 the following exchange took place between you and K regarding evolution:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: And yet, Evolution forms a logically necessary part of the Atheist's belief system.

No; Evolution and God aren't the only choices one can make ya know.

Don't be silly Kenny. If not Evolution, what can an Atheist possibly believe regarding where the rich diversity of life on Earth came from? God?

Anything BUT God. That leaves it pretty wide open!

The gist of the conversation was that if an atheist (and I presume you are one since you don't believe in God) is to look for an alternative to evolution to account for the diversity of life on earth, according to you, this alternative can be and I quote, yet again: "Anything BUT God".

Pretty clear context to me.

So that response was to a hypothetical huh? In the context of that hypothetical, do you agree with what I said?

Ken

Mallz wrote:Kenny is agnostic

Atheism ( and Theism) is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know.

Ken

Hortator wrote:

Mallz wrote:Kenny is agnostic

And that's exactly why he is perfectly tolerable to me. Agnostics and atheists are like bunny rabbits vs. grizzly bears. Audie however is like a jackrabbit with long claws: pet with caution.

I treat you the way I treat everybody else. Just because you may have met some Atheists who are jerks doesn't mean they all are.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:The gist of the conversation was that if an atheist (and I presume you are one since you don't believe in God) is to look for an alternative to evolution to account for the diversity of life on earth, according to you, this alternative can be and I quote, yet again: "Anything BUT God".

Pretty clear context to me.

So that response was to a hypothetical huh?

Hypothetical or not, the answer is symptomatic of the atheist worldview (confirmed by countless conversations I've had over the years), and it is that they will consider any possibility but God, including the utterly nonsensical something from nothing.

Kenny wrote:In the context of that hypothetical, do you agree with what I said?

Of course I agree, in my experience that's exactly how atheists think. And frankly, in all the interactions we've had between the two of us over the years, I have no reason to believe you think otherwise.

Kenny wrote:

Hortator wrote:

Mallz wrote:Kenny is agnostic

And that's exactly why he is perfectly tolerable to me. Agnostics and atheists are like bunny rabbits vs. grizzly bears. Audie however is like a jackrabbit with long claws: pet with caution.

I treat you the way I treat everybody else. Just because you may have met some Atheists who are jerks doesn't mean they all are.

Ken

I personally find the "not all like that" argument so repetitive I've created an acronym for it: N.A.L.T.

NALT doesn't apply here because the definitions of agnosticism and atheism comes down to good humor and temperament. While both agnostics and atheists fall under the umbrella of unbelievers, the unbelievers you don't want to talk to are the atheists, and the ones who look like Mr. Rodgers by comparison are agnostics.

It's not a matter of NALT, it's a matter of definitions: a rude agnostic is an oxymoron just like a cordial atheist is a contradiction in terms.