Why does God hide himself?

[jtp56]

I have presented arguments on another thread on this site using citations from books by guys on your side.  How they claim the fossil record demonstrates catastrophic events gave us the fossil record, such as a Noahic Deluge (a term used by your guys since it happens to correspond to the Biblical account of history).

All of which were then not only subsequently pointed out to be wrong ( a case which you ignored). The use of such arguments in and of themselves showed that you have no knowledge of the subjects that you are talking about.

Similiar to when you tried to use Einsteins model of the beginning universe (which you confused with something else) in your previous talk with me. As soon as I pointed out all of your flaws, you went onto another tangent and quickly ended up abandoning the thread. Only to spew more of your ignorant bile elsewhere on the forum and run away when you were shown to be wrong again.

As Kinhell himself has pointed out in the other thread.

Aren't you the dropkick who loudly claimed, with all the unmerited confidence, arrogance and rudeness we see here, that a "drop" is not a scientific unit of measurement, only to be instantly  proven totally wrong?

Seeing as you were too limited in integrity to admit your error or to correct your claim in the the face of incontrovertible evidence, and too cowardly to even address the matter at all, can you explain why anyone should be bothered to give you the slightest amount of credibility for anything you say whatsoever?

Is making-shit-up a learned skill, or were you just blessed by your god with an overabundance of the talent?

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate a single iota of scientific knowledge. Actually I'll settle for a sign that indicates a capacity for thought. Given your well-documented history of running away like a little girl, I have a feeling it won't be forthcoming anytime soon.

But there is always hope, isn't there?

 

Help me find those responses,  Hanke or whatever was the dissenting argument I presume?

[jtp56]

Sorry moderators, gotta jump to the quick here:

Alzeal said: "I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate a single iota of scientific knowledge. Actually I'll settle for a sign that indicates a capacity for thought. Given your well-documented history of running away like a little girl, I have a feeling it won't be forthcoming anytime soon."

Where in this response is a scientific argument to my arguments?  I could easily respond to Alzeal: "I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate a single iota of scientific knowledge. Actually I'll settle for a sign that indicates a capacity for thought. Given your well-documented history of running away like a little girl, I have a feeling it won't be forthcoming anytime soon."

And where would that get us Alzeal? 

Come on, I've argued from the Goelogical Science perspective, quoting your atheist guy about the evidence for catastrophic events, which the Bible names one.  So if it wasn't the Biblical Flood, which catastrophic events does you side prove?  And from what account does it prove it?  How is the evidence different?

We can get into BBT,. evolution, and lightyears, etc. later.

[Alzael]

Where are you coming from?  "I don't understand science?"  Are you kidding me?   

You guys do not know what science is!!!  To you, science is by poll. What ever "most" scientists believe is fact!  Read history man!!  At the turn of the last century, what was the commonly held position of the beginning?  What was it in 1945? 

"Scientists have detected molecules from outer space in ancient clay sediments, providing crucial support for the idea that an enormous object slammed into the Earth and snuffed out the last of the dinosaurs about 66 million years ago."

HmmmMMMMMmmmm,  Derek Ager argument???

Look at your precious Wiki about Ager.

"Scientists tell us it is almost a certainty that life forms elsewhere in the universe have evolved in the same way as those on Earth. However, it is also almost certain that none of those other life forms look like us, for instance. Why not?"

Evidence for this is what?????????????????????????????????????

"Scientists conclude it is simply not plausible that the same devastating environmental conditions, resulting from chance events on Earth, also occurred during the same stages of evolution elsewhere."

Wow!!!!!!  Plausibility is Proof!!!!  I give, hmmmmmmm scientists....it must be true.

The Bible hasn't changed.  It's History, which any discussion of beginnings is either History or Philosophy.

And with this one post (really more of a directionless psychotic rant), you completely prove my point. You thoroughly show your utter lack of ability to engage in a conversation of this type. Which is why you have been reduced to Dancing Monkey status.

As for the bible not changing......you're joking right? Even you can't be that stupid.

[jtp56]

Where are you coming from?  "I don't understand science?"  Are you kidding me?   

You guys do not know what science is!!!  To you, science is by poll. What ever "most" scientists believe is fact!  Read history man!!  At the turn of the last century, what was the commonly held position of the beginning?  What was it in 1945? 

"Scientists have detected molecules from outer space in ancient clay sediments, providing crucial support for the idea that an enormous object slammed into the Earth and snuffed out the last of the dinosaurs about 66 million years ago."

HmmmMMMMMmmmm,  Derek Ager argument???

Look at your precious Wiki about Ager.

"Scientists tell us it is almost a certainty that life forms elsewhere in the universe have evolved in the same way as those on Earth. However, it is also almost certain that none of those other life forms look like us, for instance. Why not?"

Evidence for this is what?????????????????????????????????????

"Scientists conclude it is simply not plausible that the same devastating environmental conditions, resulting from chance events on Earth, also occurred during the same stages of evolution elsewhere."

Wow!!!!!!  Plausibility is Proof!!!!  I give, hmmmmmmm scientists....it must be true.

The Bible hasn't changed.  It's History, which any discussion of beginnings is either History or Philosophy.

And with this one post (really more of a directionless psychotic rant), you completely prove my point. You thoroughly show your utter lack of ability to engage in a conversation of this type. Which is why you have been reduced to Dancing Monkey status.

As for the bible not changing......you're joking right? Even you can't be that stupid.

And please tell me, how has the Bible changed?

And my directionless psychotic rant was actually quotes of beliefs by your side.

[Alzael]

Where in this response is a scientific argument to my arguments?  I could easily respond to Alzeal: "I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate a single iota of scientific knowledge. Actually I'll settle for a sign that indicates a capacity for thought. Given your well-documented history of running away like a little girl, I have a feeling it won't be forthcoming anytime soon."

There was no scientific argument in that case because none was needed. I was asking you to demonstrate that you know anything about science as you claim. I was not making an argument, I was asking you for proof to support your claim.

But that's ok, continue with your cowardly dodges.

And where would that get us Alzeal? 

Well it might get you at least some small modicum of respect. It might show that you have anything to say that is worth giving serious consideration to. It may show that you aren't completely defective. It might help us come to the truth. It might enable us to have a meaningful discussion for a change.

Just off the top of my head I can think of those things it would get us. But the way you're going now is considerably more amusing so I'm cool either way.

Come on, I've argued from the Goelogical Science perspective, quoting your atheist guy about the evidence for catastrophic events, which the Bible names one.  So if it wasn't the Biblical Flood, which catastrophic events does you side prove?  And from what account does it prove it?  How is the evidence different?

We can get into BBT,. evolution, and lightyears, etc. later.

You've argued poorly, you mean. And been shown to be wrong again and again. You also still refuse to provide evidence, like just now. You could have provided something to show that you have intelligence. Instead you made a bunch of claims about how you were intelligent with nothing to support them.

You're still thoroughly pitiful.

[jtp56]

How has the Bible changed?

My rant you need to research, you're a scientist right?  You do research and know science don't you?

Derek Ager upset the scientific community around 1961 claiming the scientific community was unmoving and dogmatic in that the scientific community only believed in a geologic record that showed a steady uniform progression.  [Sorry Alzael, I'm really paraphrasing here, but I went into more detail in another post.]  Ager observed, based on fossil evidence, that it was catastrophic events that really caused the fossil record we have.

And I thought only Christians were unmoving and dogmatic. 

All I am asking is what catastrophic events is Ager (scientist and atheist) talking about?  Thats it!! 

Anyone here? What events is he talking about?  By the way, many if not most of your scientists hold this view regarding the fossil record.

If were going to argue science, we need to type slowly.

 

[Historicity]

HmmmMMMMMmmmm,  Derek Ager argument???

Look at your precious Wiki about Ager.

"Scientists tell us it is almost a certainty that life forms elsewhere in the universe have evolved in the same way as those on Earth. However, it is also almost certain that none of those other life forms look like us, for instance. Why not?"

Derek Ager didn't write that and it's not in Wikipedia.

http://settledscience.com/potpourri-science/160-aliens-space

You lied.

[12 Monkeys]

How has the Bible changed?

My rant you need to research, you're a scientist right?  You do research and know science don't you?

Derek Ager upset the scientific community around 1961 claiming the scientific community was unmoving and dogmatic in that the scientific community only believed in a geologic record that showed a steady uniform progression.  [Sorry Alzael, I'm really paraphrasing here, but I went into more detail in another post.]  Ager observed, based on fossil evidence, that it was catastrophic events that really caused the fossil record we have.

And I thought only Christians were unmoving and dogmatic. 

All I am asking is what catastrophic events is Ager (scientist and atheist) talking about?  Thats it!! 

Anyone here? What events is he talking about?  By the way, many if not most of your scientists hold this view regarding the fossil record.

If were going to argue science, we need to type slowly.

Do you think the bible has not had stuff added and edited out over the centuries? has the church changed its views on women and slavery over those centuries? If they have "evolved" with the times,why? Women are now (in free countries) to have free thought and wage slaves are what is allowed over actual ownership(of slaves)

 Why if the OT and NT are the rule and word of God himself has the religous standard dropped from God's original intentions? why no slaves and silent women,shopping on Sundays,unruly teens,other religions,divorce among the myriad of things the followers have either given up or abandoned totally? OT and NT rules and outlines are far from the way the modern world is today.why have you pussy Christians given up what God GAVE you as a RIGHT in the OT and NT?

 Why is this world FAR from the world your God promised? More importantly WHY have you abandoned the WORD of God along with the rights and privleges he GAVE you?

[C]

Derek Ager didn't write that and it's not in Wikipedia.

http://settledscience.com/potpourri-science/160-aliens-space

You lied.

O W N E D

But in my opinion, JTP was misled rather than deliberately lying. Derek Ager has been a "source" of proof for creationists for quite some time now even though none of his research backs up their claims. In the words of Ager himself:

"For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell.  Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable.  This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.

On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis.  That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')."

BOOM, baby.

[velkyn]

Derek Ager upset the scientific community around 1961 claiming the scientific community was unmoving and dogmatic in that the scientific community only believed in a geologic record that showed a steady uniform progression.  [Sorry Alzael, I'm really paraphrasing here, but I went into more detail in another post.]  Ager observed, based on fossil evidence, that it was catastrophic events that really caused the fossil record we have.

Jtp, it’s so unfortunate that Christians find that they must lie to keep their delusions about their god and myths.  Indeed, what does it say about Christians, whose god supposedly hates lies and liars, that they constantly lie and are constantly found out?  Do you really believe in your god when you do this?  It seems not, not if you actually think your god punishes people for being liars.

Here’s what Derek Ager has said about the geological record and how uniformitarianism and catastrophes work together. 
 

Derek Ager has noted that “geologists do not deny uniformitarianism in its true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of the processes that are seen going on at the present day, so long as we remember that the periodic catastrophe is one of those processes. Those periodic catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than we have hitherto assumed.”[30]

It’s from the wiki article about uniforitanrianism and is a direct quote from Mr. Ager’s own writings, as the footnote indicates. Not the lies of some creationist.  Mr. Ager is stating that uniformitarianism is that the same processes happening now happened before and can be used to understand how geological processes work.  There were floods before and will be again. 

Science changes with evidence.  Initially it was thought that there were things like the breaching of glacial lakes that could flood huge areas very quickly, because we simply hadn’t found or researched them.  But when we did, tah-dah, we found that the earth is much more interesting.  We also thought the continents were static but that was found to be untrue too. The events that Ager is talking about are many.  We have catastrophic floods, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_slide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Earthquake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_fall  Many more than that but there’s your start.  But we have NO global floods like the bible claims happened, with the “highest mountains” being covered with water.  No evidence of this at all and thus your bible is *wrong*. 

It’s also so sad that you must keep repeating your ignorance and your lies about “many if not most of your(sic) scientists”.  Some fossils are indeed caused by catastrophes, mud slides, volcanic eruptions, and gee, floods.  However, not all of them are formed that way.  Not by a long shot. Again your willful ignorance shows you are not interested at all in any actual truth but only in keeping your myths intact so you can continue feeling superior and incidentally, continue being a hypocrite.

[whatchamean?]

Eh? It's like we have a continual stream of naive, just-hatched-from-the-egg Christians, that come here. They don't read even the most basic criticisms of Bible historicity, but they turn up in these threads and expect us to deal all the information to them.

If you look at the way NT prophecy is fulfilled, you can see clearly that Matthew, or the last redactor of Matthew is the one responsible for contorting most of the OT prophecies to fit Jesus' life. The reason the disciples, (if they existed), did not know about OT prophecy, would be that the prophecies weren't known until "Matthew" decided what they were. Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, until "Matthew" decided he was. The last redaction of Matthew could have been done after 150AD, because Justin Martyr's "Memoirs of the Apostles" seem to contain a different version of it. Don't read the Christian apologia on this issue; go and read Justin Martyrs First Apology to look at the quotes yourself.

I was referring to the prophecy of Messiahs virgin birth, not what was common knowledge..

If your case is so strong, whatchamean, then why do the Bishop Spongs of the world go around not believing in a literal God.

Certainly not for the same reasons the Alan Sandages of the world do.

If you want to find out about the way liars work, then why don't you go and meet a few con artists, yourself?

I've already been directed to wiki. That was enough for me.

Just go and do some basic reading on the subject. You should not have to come here and say : You know something C. I'm glad I came to this website because the conversations I've had with members made me realize something[/i.

Actually, it made me realize how often atheists argue against their arguments without knowing it. 

[whatchamean?]

so, you didn't really care about these, or what?

Besides that, a lot of the events the Bible describes never even happened.

Name one.

nephilim.
the egyptian bondage.
the 10 plagues.
Exodus.
the flood.
jericho never had walls.
the sun did not stop over head.
jerusalem did not have an earth quake and an eclipse on the same day in the first century.

That's without cracking a book.

Prove one.

[violatedsmurf80]

I was referring to the prophecy of Messiahs virgin birth, not what was common knowledge..

Did you know that Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30, or what about, Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. Romulus is born of a vestal virgin, which was a priestess of the hearth GoD Vesta sworn to celibacy. Horus born of a virgin, and Isis was the only begotten son of the GoD Osiris. So when you speck of virgin birth and messiah there were others that occurred many years before Jesus did. How could the parallels between these other myths not be real but Christianity is real? The fact that Christians killed people who refused to believe in GoD during all points of history, points to the fact that the only reason it did survive was because people feared death and choose to convert to Christianity. 

Actually, it made me realize how often atheists argue against their arguments without knowing it

How many time do Christians argue that the "bible" is the only one true bible without knowing about the others before it, or use the passages in the bible to back up there claims,  kinda the same thing.

[whatchamean?]

How many time do Christians argue that the "bible" is the only one true bible without knowing about the others before it....

Quite often since Bill Maar got debunked for his idiotic comparisons between Jesus and Zoroaster.

[C]

Prove one.

?

We don't believe in this shit.

You do. You prove it. We're saying they didn't happen, unless you're asking us to prove them all wrong?

Then okay:

nephilim.

Giants. You're talking about giants who were given birth to after angels, or "hybrid angels", of which there is absolutely no evidence of all in the first place somehow mated with human females. Really?

the egyptian bondage.

Jews were never slaves in Egypt. There is absolutely no evidence outside of the Bible that claim Jews were whipped and forced to work.

the 10 plagues.

Turning water to blood? Striking down a large portion of the Egyptian youth in the entire country of Egypt? Darkness in Egypt for 3 days? This sounds like a fairy tal- oh wait it is.

Exodus.

Again, there is no historical evidence other than claims made by bible fanatics that points to Jews being enslaved in Egypt. There is no evidence of an entire horde of people walking around in the desert aimlessly for 40 freaking years. There is no evidence of the drowning of an entire Egyptian army nor a crossing of the Red Sea.

the flood.

... I'm beginning to suspect you're just being incredibly lazy and fucking stupid. "Prove it". If I have to explain why a global deluge is impossible considering that it supposedly occurred merely thousands of years ago and did not disturb the geological layers and would have raised the levels of nitrogen and oxygen to toxic levels and had eight people build an impossible 400 feet long boat made out of wood with no metal support whatsoever to house two of every god damn species and adequately feed them all, you should just give up right now.

jericho never had walls.

Excavations headed by archaeologists, historians and others, notably Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950's and historian Neil Asher Silberman all concluded that there were NEVER walls around Jericho. Never mind the fact that Jericho didn't even exist at the time of the supposed attacks carried out by Israelites blowing on trumpets made out of donkey bladder.

the sun did not stop over head.

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

No evidence at all. You'd think other people around the world at that time would notice an entire day of sunlight gone or being constantly held in time. They didn't notice because this never happened and never will.

jerusalem did not have an earth quake and an eclipse on the same day in the first century.

Never. When describing the death of Jesus the authors just put in some shit they felt like was dramatic like the earth "quaking" and darkness coming over Jerusalem.

Actually, it made me realize how often atheists argue against their arguments without knowing it

Backed into a corner now, huh? 

Quite often since Bill Maar got debunked for his idiotic comparisons between Jesus and Zoroaster.

Bill Maher*, and please, tell us how the existing similarities between your Christ figure and these other religious figures before him have been "debunked"?

[whatchamean?]

Incorrect, for several reasons. You have to demonstrate that movements, in fact, do die out when there is no evidence to support them, and they clearly don't, because most of what humans believe is crap, unsupported by evidence. Bogus chain emails circulate around the globe, years after their successful form has been evolved, purely because the premise is appealing.

Yes you're right about this, but since the early Christians were too busy being executed to send chain mail, we can rule out your appealing argument.

All the story can be verified as rubbish, using Google. Islam hasn't died out, even though they supposedly have the Bible to look at, to fault their belief. They choose instead, to believe that the Bible is corrupted Hebrew rubbish.

It's actually corrupted Muslim rubbish, since the Quran contains Mohammeds skewed version of the Torah. Point is, Mohammed wasn't being persecuted for something he knew wasn't true, as you suppose the disciples were.

 

Early Christianity was propped up by Judaism, and the first Christians appeared to be "Ebionites", or Essenses, who believed that Jesus was more human, and had re-stated Jewish law in terms that the Pharisiac [Hillel] was moving towards: Love thy neighbour. "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets...". They expected the world to end, shortly.

While the Essenes disliked the way the Temple was run (as Jesus did), they chose to leave Jerusalem altogether. Jesus taught His followers to evangelize the world, not run off to the desert and wait for "the end."

In the synoptic gospels, we can see how the story was slowly developing; being copied from one Matthew-like book to another. After about 40 years, there was no official history to compare it to, or memory, so once the story had moved beyond that which could actually be verified, they could insert anything they liked, as long as they could wipe out the dissenters. You can see how radical the gospel of John is, compared to the synoptic. This is direct evidence that John made something up, and got away with it. Paul got away with his insanity, too, even though he admitted not having met Jesus.

AH, 40 years in the ancient world is like a news flash today. I guess it's easy for you to believe that people back then simply forgot what was going on. The teachings of the synoptics, John and Paul all agree.

This process of addition to a religion can go on, as long as people can get away with forging documents, and clobbering opposing factions; until there is good documentary evidence from one authority, that states what the entire canon and codex is. The Jews will not accept Jesus, but Christians outnumber them. Religion is by number and strength, not evidence.

So your conclusion would then be that the Jews who far outnumbered the Jews of the 1st century who believed in Jesus forged the new converts documents?

So, back to your original premise:  "it makes no sense to assume". Axiomatically, people do not rise from the dead, so it makes no sense at all to assume that there is a proper chain of evidence back to the event. Indeed, how would the apostles ever have produced evidence of Jesus' resurrection, if he just vanished? Did they have a camera? These claims have always had to be without evidence.

Not for the originators and that's the difference. If the Apostles knew what they were saying wasn't true, they would never have allowed themselves to be persecuted by their own people. And, in case you haven't heard, evidence without testimony is pretty meaningless.

[C]

Yes you're right about this, but since the early Christians were too busy being executed to send chain mail, we can rule out your appealing argument.

Right, but the movement didn't die out with those early Christians being impaled did it? We can rule out your flawed reasoning.

It's actually corrupted Muslim rubbish, since the Quran contains Mohammeds skewed version of the Torah. Point is, Mohammed wasn't being persecuted for something he knew wasn't true, as you suppose the disciples were.

Baseless claims.

While the Essenes disliked the way the Temple was run (as Jesus did), they chose to leave Jerusalem altogether. Jesus taught His followers to evangelize the world, not run off to the desert and wait for "the end."

The Essenes were not just concentrated in Jerusalem alone, they were spread throughout the region. Also, the Essenes did not go around "evangelizing the world", they just did their own thing such as being as peaceful as they can in those times including not swearing and only keeping weapons to defend themselves.

AH, 40 years in the ancient world is like a news flash today. I guess it's easy for you to believe that people back then simply forgot what was going on. The teachings of the synoptics, John and Paul all agree.

If they were stupid enough to think that the world was flat and that an entire ocean of water floated above the atmosphere then yes amid trying to survive when your life expectations didn't exactly go up to 60 they did forget or just didn't care.

So your conclusion would then be that the Jews who far outnumbered the Jews of the 1st century who believed in Jesus forged the new converts documents?

How did you arrive to this conclusion simply from this:

Religion is by number and strength, not evidence

?

Not for the originators and that's the difference. If the Apostles knew what they were saying wasn't true, they would never have allowed themselves to be persecuted by their own people. And, in case you haven't heard, evidence without testimony is pretty meaningless.

Do we really have to go over this again? Evidence without testimony is NOT meaningless. Testimony without evidence, however, is.

[whatchamean?]

We don't believe in this shit.

You do. You prove it. We're saying they didn't happen, unless you're asking us to prove them all wrong?

Then okay:

nephilim.

Giants. You're talking about giants who were given birth to after angels, or "hybrid angels", of which there is absolutely no evidence of all in the first place somehow mated with human females. Really?

the egyptian bondage.

Jews were never slaves in Egypt. There is absolutely no evidence outside of the Bible that claim Jews were whipped and forced to work.

the 10 plagues.

Turning water to blood? Striking down a large portion of the Egyptian youth in the entire country of Egypt? Darkness in Egypt for 3 days? This sounds like a fairy tal- oh wait it is.

Exodus.

Again, there is no historical evidence other than claims made by bible fanatics that points to Jews being enslaved in Egypt. There is no evidence of an entire horde of people walking around in the desert aimlessly for 40 freaking years. There is no evidence of the drowning of an entire Egyptian army nor a crossing of the Red Sea.

the flood.

... I'm beginning to suspect you're just being incredibly lazy and fucking stupid. "Prove it". If I have to explain why a global deluge is impossible considering that it supposedly occurred merely thousands of years ago and did not disturb the geological layers and would have raised the levels of nitrogen and oxygen to toxic levels and had eight people build an impossible 400 feet long boat made out of wood with no metal support whatsoever to house two of every god damn species and adequately feed them all, you should just give up right now.

jericho never had walls.

Excavations headed by archaeologists, historians and others, notably Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950's and historian Neil Asher Silberman all concluded that there were NEVER walls around Jericho. Never mind the fact that Jericho didn't even exist at the time of the supposed attacks carried out by Israelites blowing on trumpets made out of donkey bladder.

the sun did not stop over head.

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

No evidence at all. You'd think other people around the world at that time would notice an entire day of sunlight gone or being constantly held in time. They didn't notice because this never happened and never will.

jerusalem did not have an earth quake and an eclipse on the same day in the first century.

Never. When describing the death of Jesus the authors just put in some shit they felt like was dramatic like the earth "quaking" and darkness coming over Jerusalem.

Actually, it made me realize how often atheists argue against their arguments without knowing it

Backed into a corner now, huh? 

Not at all. You know very well that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Prove it.

Bill Maher*, and please, tell us how the existing similarities between your Christ figure and these other religious figures before him have been "debunked"?

Wow, you still believe that misinformation? You really should visit more people and more often.

[C]

At this point in time, I see that you have no genuine interest in actually engaging in a legitimate discussion or debate and are only concerned with keeping your religious faith and "validated" opinions intact. Which is fine, you can live in delusion for all I care. I'm only willing to give the same amount of effort into my responses as you do into your posts, which amounts to barely anything really.

So, regarding your response: "Not at all. You know very well that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Prove it."

LOL. You've resorted to arguing from ignorance now? Whatever, fuck you too is all I can say. Also, you did not even address the actual points I made such as:

Excavations headed by archaeologists, historians and others, notably Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950's and historian Neil Asher Silberman all concluded that there were NEVER walls around Jericho. Never mind the fact that Jericho didn't even exist at the time of the supposed attacks carried out by Israelites blowing on trumpets made out of donkey bladder.

and

There is no evidence of an entire horde of people walking around in the desert aimlessly for 40 freaking years. There is no evidence of the drowning of an entire Egyptian army nor a crossing of the Red Sea.

and

There is absolutely no evidence outside of the Bible that claim Jews were whipped and forced to work.

You're not even providing any evidence on your part and expect me to believe that your revolting god exists. Again, fuck you.

Wow, you still believe that misinformation? You really should visit more people and more often.

What does this mean? Who should I visit? And to what purposes should I visit the unspecified people? How is this related to you not even giving proof that the similarities between these religious figures are fake?

Also I really doubt that you've even stepped outside into the real world and met others from different cultures and regions.

Been to a Buddhist monastery? Traveled to Bhutan? Experienced the various foods of Asia? Talked with people from different countries in the world that you never heard of?

Seen violent deaths occur? Ever held starving children? Ever seen the results of a genocide up close? Ever seen people struggle in their lives to the point that they take nothing for granted and survive on piss and tree bark?

No?

Fuck you then.

[ungod]

And please tell me, how has the Bible changed?

WHICH Bible you be talkin about?

Here's a partial list - https://sites.google.com/site/listofbibles/home/the-list

 

[screwtape]

so, you didn't really care about these, or what?

Besides that, a lot of the events the Bible describes never even happened.

Name one.

nephilim.
the egyptian bondage.
the 10 plagues.
Exodus.
the flood.
jericho never had walls.
the sun did not stop over head.
jerusalem did not have an earth quake and an eclipse on the same day in the first century.

That's without cracking a book.

Prove one.

Prove one what?  Prove something did not happen?  Are you serious?

You asked that someone name things in the bible that never happened. I  gave a list.  It is now your job to show that any of that crap happened.  If you meant that you would just keep asking stupid questions and making more demands of me each turn, then I think you should have specified that up front.  Had I known this would be a game "shift the goal posts", I would not have bothered to play. Or, I would have played differently.

I will retract one item from the list, because I was wrong.  Jericho had walls.  But at the time that it was supposedly conquored by some jew tooting a horn, it was empty and the walls were not manned.

[Anfauglir]

Besides that, a lot of the events the Bible describes never even happened.

Name one.

nephilim.
the egyptian bondage.
the 10 plagues.
Exodus.
the flood.
jericho never had walls.
the sun did not stop over head.
jerusalem did not have an earth quake and an eclipse on the same day in the first century.
[/quote]

Just a quick point about the flood....after the alleged flood, there were 8 people left in he world, Noah and his family.  Immediately, they began begatting.....

...and in just 367 years after the flood, we not only have multiple kingdoms scattered about, but we also have Egypt and its Pharoah, a great ruler who had "sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels."

Now funny thing - I find it veeeery difficult to believe that less than 400 years after the destruction of every living things, that we can have a (relatively) advanced and stable civilisation all nicely set up with their own gods and goddesses, agriculture, class system, social structure.....and at the top of it all sits the Pharoah.....who, let's remember, is only 9 or 10 generations seperated from Noah. 

What a remarkable thing!  That you can go in such a short time from 8 people to great civilisations - and where the ruler of one of those descendants, the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of the man that god himself commanded to save humanity.....would be worshipping other gods and have no idea who this "god" person actually was.

(Side note: remember that this is a time when (Christians assure us) oral tradition was paramount and everyone passed on stories and lineages by rote).

Sorry, but none of it passes the sniff test for me.

[whatchamean?]

Whatcha:
Ah OK. I finally see what you're saying; every piece of physical evidence has to be verified by someone as being what it purports to be. Which is true.

Actually Gnu, an atheist friend taught me that evidence without testimony is basically useless and I'm glad she did. So the question really is, "How reliable are the witnesses?"

Yet, in my hypothetical example, you still chose the physical evidence (suitably verified) rather than the eye-witness testimony, presumably because it would be regarded by the jury as more reliable.

As long as the witness was honest, I have no problem with it.

In the case of the Resurrection, you only have the less reliable eye-witness testimony.

People that spend a presumed 3+years studying an individual aren't less reliable.

[whatchamean?]

It only has the appearance of being eternal to me, who is going to die soon. It had no appearance before I was alive, and will have none after I die.

Uh...no Add. It doesn't have the appearance of being eternal because you're going to be worm food pretty soon. It has the appearance of being eternal because science can't explain why it appears to have always been here and isn't going anywhere.....exactly what the Bible says about God.

[whatchamean?]

actually, it's been supposedly "fulfilled" since Christians have been claiming this nonsense and Jews have been saying "Hey, this guy doesnt' fit the prophesies".   So, again, the desperate hope of the Christian for the "end times" again shows itself to be so much myth and hate.

Since the advent of Jesus, we know the fulfillment is ongoing until the end:

"Jesus, grilled by the Pharisees on when the kingdom of God would come, answered, "The kingdom of God doesn't come by counting the days on the calendar. Nor when someone says, 'Look here!' or, 'There it is!' And why? Because God's kingdom is already among you." Lk.17:20-21 

It's rather sad that such hypocrites as yourself want to call anyone who doesn't agree with you "foolish".  IF the wisdom of the world is so foolish, why do you use it constantly as long as it makes you comfortable in this modern world?

Your "wisdom" proclaims that our most ancient ancestor began as a lifeless stew, which left the pond after growing legs and became a truck driver from Wisconson. I'm not the one using this idea.
[/quote]

[C]

Your "wisdom" proclaims that our most ancient ancestor began as a lifeless stew, which left the pond after growing legs and became a truck driver from Wisconson. I'm not the one using this idea.

. . . Okay, you know what, whatever.

[velkyn]

Since the advent of Jesus, we know the fulfillment is ongoing until the end:
"Jesus, grilled by the Pharisees on when the kingdom of God would come, answered, "The kingdom of God doesn't come by counting the days on the calendar. Nor when someone says, 'Look here!' or, 'There it is!' And why? Because God's kingdom is already among you." Lk.17:20-21 

Yep, just like I said.  And therefore isn’t anything special.  Humans always attack each other’s ideas.  So, the claims of how this is some “magical” fulfillment leading to some nonsensical “end times” cannot be demonstrated.  Unless of course, you want to claim that it’s going to take thousands and thousands of years for the prophecies to come true.  The problem there is just how long is JC going to make you wait?  One time I came up with a calculation based on various Christian claims for fun.  Since JC says he’ll be back  within the generation of those watching him speak,  we’ll go with a 40 year time window to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Then we can claim that since a thousand years is only considered a “day” by God, we can have 14600 days.  Times that by a thousand and we have at least 14 million 600 thousand years until your “savior” will be coming back.  So, ready to wait that long, watcha?   We have a “prophecy” based no nothing more than trying to make human events and actions “magical” for no good reason.  With this reasoning, that ridicule “validates” a religion, the Heaven’s Gate cult is better than yours.

It's rather sad that such hypocrites as yourself want to call anyone who doesn't agree with you "foolish".  IF the wisdom of the world is so foolish, why do you use it constantly as long as it makes you comfortable in this modern world?

Your "wisdom" proclaims that our most ancient ancestor began as a lifeless stew, which left the pond after growing legs and became a truck driver from Wisconson. I'm not the one using this idea.
[/quote]
No, the evidence supports this.  Evidence, my dear, that is gained from the science you use as a hypocrite everyday.  If you don’t like science and its “wisdom” why are you using it? And again, we can see that you are pathetically ignorant on anything about evolutionary theory or abiogenesis.  This repeated attacking of things you simply don’t understand at all is amusing, but as worthless as me trying to tell a diesel mechanic how to fix an engine.  You bray about how wrong things are and aren’t even attacking the correct subject, relying on your willful ignorance and the lies of creationists.  It’s an amazingly stupid tactic. And yep, I’m calling you stupid as I would call myself if I thought I could attack something I didn’t understand at all.   

[changeling]

How did Moses(?) wrestle with god if he couldn't see him. If it was a tie before God cheated, then Moses was definitely stronger than god if he beat him in a wrestling match when god was invisible!

Moses never wrestled with God.
Jacob wrestled a man that was supposed to be God, and he saw him face to face.

[Brakeman]

Moses never wrestled with God.
Jacob wrestled a man that was supposed to be God, and he saw him face to face.

Moses and Jacob are the "bi-une" Both two people and yet one. Jacob is Moses' son/grandson/cousin twice removed but they prophesied as one.  Therefore anything that Jacob did, Moses did. It was Moses inside of Jacob that did it, because they are the same. So I am still correct and your biblical criticism of me has been completely pawned.

Wow, the early christian authors had it easy, even when faced with an obvious mistake, they could make up rationalizations to put into their dogma to counter it. It's so easy!