Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Lion IRC
I like the way that the only part of my last 2 posts you have bothered to respond to is the fact that I didnt bother trolling back through the posts to find posts that you ignored before, & you continue to totally ignore the other information I have provided in my posts. So I ask you again, please provide some EVIDENCE from any source, that the gospel writers:
1. Were actually the people who's names have been attributed to the gospels. Show me where they have found early manuscripts that have the authors names on them?
2. That the gospel writers were actually witnesses to the events that they describe in the gospels. Show me where the author has claimed that they are an eye witness in any of the manuscripts?
The evidence I have asked of you is of a very low standard. Yet you have resorted to name-calling, calling me disingenuous & dishonest, rather than attempt to provide the evidence that would prove me wrong!
If you cannot provide any evidence for your claims, what is the point of your being here? Most of us on this forum use evidence as the basis of our beliefs. Most of us do not operate on 'blind faith'. If you want to debate people who use blind faith, there are plenty of christian forums around. You can debate committed christians there, & you might even win some of your debates, because most of them require absolutely NO evidence at all, which you seem to have in abundance!
If you continue to obfuscate & fail to provide any evidence for your claims, then that will show that it is yourself who is the one who is 'disingenuous & dishonest'!
Well well, we can add the word continually to the list of words Lion wants to redefine.
Continually
Adverb
Without interruption; constantly.
Do temples negate the possibility of sleep and sustenance then? Your desperation grows ever more hilarious, and now I am extremely dubious that you can't see how ludicrously biased your semantics are.
Hey, you're the one arguing for a literal reading of the text.
It literally does NOT state how long they remained there continually praising God.
Show me a text which reads like this;
...and they praised God continually for 40 days from that moment onwards, and then the Lord came back and told them to stop.
You can't have it both ways. You can't selectively assert a literal meaning of just one word then special plead your way out of the fact that the verse doesn't explicitly state when they left the temple.
Now that is fucking hilarious, so only you can do this you mean?
Exodus 33:20 New International Version (NIV)
20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
Which is unequivocally contradicted here:
Exodus 33:11
English Standard Version
11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
Genesis 32:30
English Standard Version
30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel,7 saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
Oh the irony....
Lion IRC "How come the Roman soldiers didn't faithfully report all of Jesus' miracles"
It's a puzzler alright, assuming of course one is desperate to believe the superstitious guff about miracles in the first place. Otherwise an answer is pretty obvious, fits all the evidence, doesn't outrage reason or deny scientific fact, and doesn't need to have Occam turning in his grave.
It's not exactly "daddy vs chips" IMHO..
..while riding unicorns to fight dragons...for all you know,,,fnarr
Unevidenced fantasies can be fun, but weaving them into reality is pretty silly. You could try another argument from ignorance fallacy, and demand I prove your unevidenced fantasy didn't happen.
You already pointed one out in another thread, where the text claimed Moses saw god face to face, and then two other texts specifically stated this could not happen. Typically you simply waved this away by deciding arbitraily that face to face meant face to face when it suited your bias, but did not mean face to face when it didn't. There is no arguing with that level of self deceit I'm afraid.
I also point out the errors in Genesis, but I imagine similarly dishonest semantics will be your response. However it is axiomatic that any biblical claim humans were created in an instant and in their current form is errant nonsense, whether you accept it or not has no relevance to this fact. So your claim can only be viewed as vapid rhetoric, by any objective reader.
Edit: (My apologies for double posting this, I though that my 1st reply hadnt been posted because it did not appear on my screen).
@ Lion IRC
I like the way that the only part of my last 2 posts you have bothered to respond to is the fact that I didnt bother trolling back through the posts to find posts that you ignored before, & you continue to totally ignore the other information I have provided in my posts. So I ask you again, please provide some EVIDENCE from any source, that the gospel writers:
1. Were actually the people who's names have been attributed to the gospels. Show me where they have found early manuscripts that have the authors names on them?
2. That the gospel writers were actually witnesses to the events that they describe in the gospels. Show me where the author has claimed that they are an eye witness in any of the manuscripts?
The evidence I have asked of you is of a very low standard. Yet you have resorted to name-calling, calling me disingenuous & dishonest, rather than attempt to provide the evidence that would prove me wrong!
If you cannot provide any evidence for your claims, what is the point of your being here? Most of us on this forum use evidence as the basis of our beliefs. Most of us do not operate on 'blind faith'. If you want to debate people who use blind faith, there are plenty of christian forums around. You can debate committed christians there, & you might even win some of your debates, because most of them require absolutely NO evidence at all, which you seem to have in abundance!
If you continue to obfuscate & fail to provide any evidence for your claims, then that will show that it is yourself who is the one who is 'disingenuous & dishonest'!
@ilovechloe
OK
1. Saint Luke is the name which oral history has as the person partly or entirely responsible for collating the historical accounts in the book of Acts and the book of Luke. Early manuscripts actually DO include the term "according to Luke". But in any case, nobody back then was wondering ...who wrote this book? This is a real person, who self-identifies as a physician - probably educated in Alexandria. And when you can demonstrate to me that it was highly unusual for the writer of an ancient document NOT to sign their name and insist on public authorship credit, then you can start demanding that I account for why the Gospel writers didn't do this.
2. Your belated accusation that none of the Gospel accounts were from eye witnesses and that neither were any of the Gospel writers eye witnesses to any of the events they present as historical, does not compel me to provide proof to the contrary. You say none of the Gospels are eye witness accounts, but I don't see any insurmountable obstacles which would prevent that from being the case. And how do I benefit from arguing as to them being actual eye witnesses to events which you aren't going to believe happened anyway?
In any case my contention remains that, because you yourself hold to the view that the identity of Gospel sources is completely unknown, you then are in no position to then issue declarations about whether those unknown people were eye witnesses.
@ Lion IRC
1. The earliest manuscript that uses the term 'according to luke' is papyrus P-75, which is dated to around A.D. 180. Do you know of any manuscripts earlier than this that uses the phrase "according to luke?"
If earlier manuscripts do NOT contain this phrase, then it's a good bet that this was added at a later time by a scribe when copying the gospel. Whether the 'gospel of luke' was written by somebody called luke is of no consequence at all, because the author himself states at the very beginning of the gospel that he is NOT an eyewitness!
2. You wrote: "Your belated accusation that none of the Gospel accounts were from eyewitnesses and that neither were any of the Gospel writers eyewitnesses to any of the events they present as historical, does not compel me to provide proof to the contrary."
Actually, I never made the claim that the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses, or that they weren't accounts from eyewitnesses. YOU are the one who made the claim that they ARE eye witness accounts, & I have asked you to provide evidence that this is the case. I am not surprised that you feel you are not compelled to provide any proof to the contrary, because you obviously do NOT have any! Just because you dont see any insurmountable obstacles why they couldn't be eyewitnesses, does not mean that they were!
If you DID have any evidence, you could have provided it by now, & I would concede that you have won the point & we could move onto something else, instead of my wasting my time having to continuously ask you for evidence which you cannot provide.
And don't tell me what I would believe or would not believe. If you provide some actual verifiable evidence, I would not have any choice to believe it if it checks out.
If you have no evidence, then just admit that you have no evidence, & that nobody can be certain that the gospels are eye witness accounts. It is extremely dishonest to claim that they ARE eyewitness accounts, when there is absolutely NO evidence that this is actually the case.
! ILC
Well, bravo!. And Chloe looks a lovely person.
I thought I would update my pic so it is the right way up. Dont know why, but this one is on its side as well. They dont start out that way before I upload!
My is sideways too :(. Can’t figure it out. Still use the calculator for the math problems...
Pages