The Brainwashing of Theists - Exihibit 1 - Abraham & the Crazy Guy

[bilby]

I'd say Jesus was real and he validates to me the existence of the God of the bible.

Why?

And how??

 

[Elixir]

I'd say Jesus was real and he validates to me the existence of the God of the bible.

Why?

And how??

Right? Is there a god ticket that gets validated like in a parking garage?
How do you know if your "existence of the god of the bible" is invalid? You wake up in hell one morning?
Were you in hell before you got the validation stamp on your god card?
Theists are pitiful when they make a show of clinging to fantasies.

 

[Learner]

I'd say Jesus was real and he validates to me the existence of the God of the bible.

Why?

The answer is to why is already there in red?

 

[Learner]

I'd say Jesus was real and he validates to me the existence of the God of the bible.

Why?

And how??

Because the answer to how is already there in red?

You're both welcome.

 

[bilby]

I'd say that the existence of the God if the Bible is a question about reality that is entirely and completely independent of the question of whether Jesus is real.

As would a lot of believers; Both Jews and Muslims manage to satisfy themselves that the God of the Bible is valid, despite rejecting Jesus as a real messiah.

It strikes me that none of the Abrahamic religions is actually able to validate shit. They just say they have, and use peer pressure to bully doubters into going along with their nonsense.

Neither Jesus nor Mohammed validate any God.

 

[Swammerdami]

It didn't happen. It's a story. It's 2025. We don't have to give it much thought anymore. Some people still talk about it, so what. Who cares. Some people don't know that Sauron had a boss. His name was Melkor, then Morgoth. Why don't we talk about that instead?

What's there to say? Morgoth was banished from Arda (the world) at the end of the War of Wrath. He is chained and cast into the Void, an empty, timeless space, where he remains until the prophesied Dagor Dagorath. During Dagor Dagorath, he will rise again and be destroyed. I just hope we needn't wait until Dagor Dagorath to rid the world of Sauron's Orange Disciple.

 

[Learner]

I'd say Jesus was real and he validates to me the existence of the God of the bible.

Why?

And how??

Right? Is there a god ticket that gets validated like in a parking garage?

How did you read into the bible? Does that you mentioned above conflict with your conventional view of the bible? (ask a silly question get a silly.....um you know the score)

How do you know if your "existence of the god of the bible" is invalid? You wake up in hell one morning? Were you in hell before you got the validation stamp on your god card?

Intriguing concept.

I would have thought that If you woke up in hell then that would make the God of the bible valid i.e. make God real.

Theists are pitiful when they make a show of clinging to fantasies.

Your atheist opinion on Theists noted.

 

[James Brown]

I still don't see how a controversial historical figure being a real person is supposed to 'validate' the existence of a God. No, scratch that... 'the God of the bible.'

So when asked if the authors in the Bible were correct about their understandings of God, one person says, "Yes, because Jesus." And no other explanation is given.

We might as well ask, does Robert Pyle validate the existence of Robin Hood? Does Robin Hood validate the existence of King John? Does King John validate the existence of King Arthur? Does King Arthur validate the Germanic mythical warriors
 Hengist and Horsa?

 

[Learner]

I'd say that the existence of the God if the Bible is a question about reality that is entirely and completely independent of the question of whether Jesus is real.

Ah, but there is some important significance when we are talking about Jesus being real. Of course its going to be down to who's paradigm we are going by. Mine in context to Jesus being real, to state-the-obvious, is that he is the Son of God etc..& etc .

As would a lot of believers; Both Jews and Muslims manage to satisfy themselves that the God of the Bible is valid, despite rejecting Jesus as a real messiah.

Yes I agree.. they have this thing about God being illustrated in 'plural'! terms and in their understanding...God doesn't have the ability to be human. I mean from the get go the line... 'Let us create man in our image', is plural and not a later addition.

It strikes me that none of the Abrahamic religions is actually able to validate shit. They just say they have, and use peer pressure to bully doubters into going along with their nonsense.

Archeologists use the bible to find and discover ancient places that exist, so your statement isn't true. (The miracles, and witnesses stuff you'll disagree with).

Neither Jesus nor Mohammed validate any God.

Jesus preached and taught about God, who was specifically condemned and crucified for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin , therefore....

 

[bilby]

Archeologists use the bible to find and discover ancient places that exist,

No, they don't. Whoever told you that was lying. Or more likely, was parroting a lie that they accepted without question because it supported their beliefs.

so your statement isn't true.

Right back at you.

 

[pood]

I'd say Jesus was real and he validates to me the existence of the God of the bible.

Why?

And how??

Because the answer to how is already there in red?

You're both welcome.

And what validates to you the idea that Jesus was both real and divine, did miracles, and rose from the dead?

 

[bilby]

Jesus preached and taught about God, who was specifically condemned and crucified for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin , therefore...

...his "teachings" were as absolutely valueless as those of every other religious "teacher" in history, many of whom contradict each other (and all of whom contradict observed reality), and no sensible person would rely on them in any way.

Winston Smith fought against Ingsoc, and was tortured by the Ministry of Truth, therefore (using your exact reasoning) Big Brother was a real individual person.

IF Winston Smith and the society he lived in were real, and IF they were exactly as described in the book, then that claim would still be false; Big Brother was not, according to the story, an actual person.

When your reasoning can be applied to a fictional setting, and can reach a conclusion that is not only false, but is false within the narrative being described, your "reasoning" is utter shit, and should be immediately abandoned as it leads you further from undertanding.

Your entire way of thinking about things is antithetical to, and denies the possibility of, your ever living up to your username.

I am astonished that you are even able to function is society with such a poor grasp on how to determine fact from fiction. Don't you end up the victim of scammers? Do you send money to people you have only spoken to via email? Do you donate to your church? Do you pay strangers to fix your roof?

 

[James Brown]

There are pictures of the Empire State Building in Spider-Man comic books.

The Empire State Building was discovered by me after a brief search.

Ergo . . .

 

[Learner]

Jesus preached and taught about God, who was specifically condemned and crucified for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin , therefore...

...his "teachings" were as absolutely valueless as those of every other religious "teacher" in history, many of whom contradict each other (and all of whom contradict observed reality), and no sensible person would rely on them in any way.

I don't think debating what 'Jesus teaches ' as described in the NT, is an area you should keep making flawed arguments against. I say this simply by your statement quoted above...that highlights the obviousness of ignorance of what those teachings are about. (i.e. love your enemies, love your neighbour, feed the poor and hungry. heal the sick, and so on).

Winston Smith fought against Ingsoc, and was tortured by the Ministry of Truth, therefore (using your exact reasoning) Big Brother was a real individual person.

Your reasoning itself has my curiosity..

So you "reasoned" that Jesus 'portrayed as a real person' is identically portrayed as Big Brother/Ministry of Truth? Its certainly not my "exact reasoning". The two are not the same.

IF Winston Smith and the society he lived in were real, and IF they were exactly as described in the book, then that claim would still be false; Big Brother was not, according to the story, an actual person.

..and so, to clarify and make clear your mode of reasoning...

... Are you claiming Jesus was not an actual person?

When your reasoning can be applied to a fictional setting, and can reach a conclusion that is not only false, but is false within the narrative being described, your "reasoning" is utter shit, and should be immediately abandoned as it leads you further from undertanding.

All I see is an emotional opinion, which is fine, but it don't make it true though, just because you say so.

Understanding? Oh dear. You didn't seem to understand the teachings of Jesus, and yet your only argument was merely the display of your opinionated disapproval of Christian theology (and those who argue for it).

Your entire way of thinking about things is antithetical to, and denies the possibility of, your ever living up to your username.

I got the gist of your feelings as you can see in the previous response, just above this one.

I am astonished that you are even able to function is society with such a poor grasp on how to determine fact from fiction. Don't you end up the victim of scammers? Do you send money to people you have only spoken to via email? Do you donate to your church? Do you pay strangers to fix your roof?

You should be more astonished that one who "doesn't seem to live up to his name" can actually respond back to your posts.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Every adherent to every supernatural-based religion that ever was, could make these statements, with a substitution of proper nouns. They'd have the same evidentiary value as Christian claims.

 

[bilby]

You should be more astonished that one who "doesn't seem to live up to his name" can actually respond back to your posts.

I would be if you had. But you haven't actually responded other than to make appeals to emotion, repeat your unsupported claims, and (ironically) accuse me of making appeals to emotion.

As usual, your "response" contains nothing against which to argue; You used a lot of words to say nothing that wasn't so vague and woolly as to be incomprehensible.

As ideologyhunter points out, your
"argument" is just a generic set of woo, with "Jesus" inserted in the "insert nsme here" slots.