20 Apr 11
Originally posted by Agergat least penguin tried to find arguments against the actual references provided, i mean
But again you're missing the point - the point being that the structure of my rebuttal about magic horses matches the structure of your Christ prophecies. Your arguments are flawed, I and many others are showing you *how* they are flawed.
Indeed the only thing that counts as content in your view is stuff which supports your argument -go figure! 😵
dear Agers there are only sixteen to choose from.
20 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI had a look, and none of them came even close to fulfilling the criteria I have specified 3 times already. They are a bit insipid to be honest.
at least penguin tried to find arguments against the actual references provided, i mean
dear Agers there are only sixteen to choose from.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by Agergok then can you teach me about general or special relativity, your a boffin, you can explain it to me.
I had a look, and none of them came even close to fulfilling the criteria I have specified 3 times already. They are a bit insipid to be honest.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, it just proves your inability to read and understand my posts. I quite clearly said that it seems reasonable (to anyone not wishing to believe otherwise for religious reasons) that the authors of the New Testament or their sources engineered the apparent prophesies coming true.
this just proves the unreasonable nature of the claims, for how could Christ engineer
where he was born?
Nowhere did I suggest or imply that Christs engineered where he was born.
I am suggesting that the writers of the Gospels (or their sources) made up a story that included him being born in the appropriate place to match the prophesy they already knew. We have no other corroboration for his birth place.
... and what other Christians think and state is as per usual, completely and utterly irrelevant, you should have learned that by now.
It is relevant to my comment about my above conclusion being common sense and reasonable to anyone not duty bound to believe otherwise.
Your assertion that they knew of the prophesies and then engineered the fulfilment is based on what evidence for you seem by the force of your words to be quite certain, by the use of the terms obvious, therefore on what basis or what evidence is it obvious. do tell.
1. There is no other evidence for the various attributes /actions of Jesus.
2. The writers were aware of the prophesies.
3. The writers specifically included those accounts because they were aware of the prophesies.
4. The writers would be highly unlikely to have knowledge of the events in question.
Conclusion: Either they were told what to write by God, or they made it up. The latter seems a more reasonable explanation. The former is, in part, what you are trying to prove so can not really be taken as an assumption in your argument.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is becoming more and more apparent each day me illustrious friend, just how religious atheists really are.
1. unsubstantiated belief
2. uncorroborated belief
3. an ancient prophecy fulfilled hundreds of years after the event and manifest in the
man, Jesus Christ.
It is becoming more and more apparent each day me illustrious friend, just how
religious atheists really are, despite their protestations, they believe all sorts of things
without the slightest evidence, i think its awesome my self personally.
Could you elucidate that a little further for me.
an ancient prophecy fulfilled hundreds of years after the event and manifest in theman, Jesus Christ.
If someone girl walked up to you in the street and told you she was pregnant even though she was a virgin, you would think one of two things.
1. She's not pregnant.
2. She's lying, she is pregnant but has had sex.
If she then told you she had been impregnated by a 'Holy Spirit' you would probably call an ambulance and hope she got the care and medical supervision she needed.
Now just because this story is told in a 2,000 year old book i fail to see why any of the above reactions shouldn't be held.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadwho cares what you are suggesting, you have proffered more empty statements and
No, it just proves your inability to read and understand my posts. I quite clearly said that it seems reasonable (to anyone not wishing to believe otherwise for religious reasons) that the authors of the New Testament or their sources engineered the apparent prophesies coming true.
Nowhere did I suggest or imply that Christs engineered where he was born. ...[text shortened]... part, what you are trying to prove so can not really be taken as an assumption in your argument.
complete nothingness, penguin was the only one that even attempted to address the
specific prophecies you content your self with banalities non entities and gross
generalities, is there no champion among the atheists to take the Agers challenge? a
black day indeed!
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAh...I'm learning! whenever you say things like "you have proffered more empty statements and complete nothingness" that's actually code for
who cares what you are suggesting, you have proffered more empty statements and
complete nothingness, penguin was the only one that even attempted to address the
specific prophecies you content your self with banalities non entities and gross
generalities, is there no champion among the atheists to take the Agers challenge? a
black day indeed!
we've got you by the boll**ks ;]
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes, you are giving vent to religious belief in the form of believing things for which you have little or no evidence, for example, you state that miracles did not happen, a statement for which you have no evidence yet you believe it, that is not to say that all religious belief is unsubstantiated, just sometimes it difficult to prove. Yes but we are not dealing with some girl, we are dealing with a prophecy, told hundreds of years in advance, if someone stated that in a thousand years time New York would cease to exist and wrote it down and it was utterly vanquished and ceased to exist in a thousand years , what would i think? wow that was rather flukey or there was another element at work. If i was reasonable, probably the latter.
[b]It is becoming more and more apparent each day me illustrious friend, just how religious atheists really are.
Could you elucidate that a little further for me.
an ancient prophecy fulfilled hundreds of years after the event and manifest in theman, Jesus Christ.
If someone girl walked up to you in the street and told you she was pr ...[text shortened]... ld in a 2,000 year old book i fail to see why any of the above reactions shouldn't be held.[/b]
20 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerguntil you proffer anything in response you may interpret it as you like, pure
Ah...I'm learning! whenever you say things like "you have proffered more empty statements and complete nothingness" that's actually code for
we've got you by the boll**ks ;]
generalities, and what is more i know you dont know anything about the Bible,
therefore i can rest assured, hear that Agers that's the sound of a man relaxing . . . .
ahhhhh
20 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell the way this game works robbie is that you provide what you think are irrefutable prophecies then we atheists come along and shoot them down - if we can counter that such prophecies need not have occured in the manner you thought they did (i.e. we argue that the vastly more likely scenario is that they were written true) then we have succeeded on our parts.
until you proffer anything in response you may interpret it as you like, pure
generalities, and what is more i know you dont know anything about the Bible,
therefore i can rest assured, hear that Agers that's the sound of a man relaxing . . . .
ahhhhh
20 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieor example, you state that miracles did not happen, a statement for which you have no evidence yet you believe it,
yes, you are giving vent to religious belief in the form of believing things for which you have little or no evidence, for example, you state that miracles did not happen, a statement for which you have no evidence yet you believe it, that is not to say that all religious belief is unsubstantiated, just sometimes it difficult to prove. Yes but we ar ...[text shortened]... s rather flukey or there was another element at work. If i was reasonable, probably the latter.
I don't have evidence that there is an invisible monkey following me everywhere i go, that doesn't mean i believe it's the case?!
What bizarro logic you have?!
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by Agergumm there is one small detail missing dear Agers, you haven't made one attempt to
Well the way this game works robbie is that you provide what you think are irrefutable prophecies then we atheists come along and shoot them down - if we can counter that such prophecies need not have occured in the manner you thought they did (i.e. we argue that the vastly more likely scenario is that they were written true) then we have succeeded on our parts.
address even one of the prophecies, no one has except penguin has and even he
realised the weakness of his arguments. twithead didnt make reference to none, just
the usual banalities, engineered, blah blah blah for which he has no evidence, you
haven't made reference except to try to slither around and cry about this non existent
entity and that non existent entity, in fact i can pile up all your objections and i
wouldn't have enough to play tiddlywinks with!
20 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobwell ok, thats fine, but you still need to explain the fullfilment of prophecy in other
[b]or example, you state that miracles did not happen, a statement for which you have no evidence yet you believe it,
I don't have evidence that there is an invisible monkey following me everywhere i go, that doesn't mean i believe it's the case?!
What bizarro logic you have?![/b]
terms than, the writters new about it and engineered the story, a pretty lame excuse if
ever there was one, or the Agers special, Jesus wasn't really Jesus it could have been
anyone, errr no Agers, you had to be born of the tribe of Judah, of David's line, in
Bethlehem, of a virgin, grow up, go preaching, get crucified, be given sour wine and
not complain one bit about it, oh dear Agers smaggers, not very convincing argument
at all, is it. Can you do better dear Noobster?