To Hell With Charlie Kirk

[gmark77]

Illogical.
The apostles and witnesses were still alive when during Paul's ministry. If Paul was lying and fabricating, why didn't the other apostles and witnesses confront him?

Hate to break it to you but they DID. The Jerusalem Church disagreed quite strongly with Paul. They fought it out.

Here's a question for you: why would the man who never saw Jesus in the flesh have more say in how the religion formed than the people who walked with Christ in the flesh in real life?

 

[Cypress]

Which goes back to something explained to both atheists and theists before: the only logical position is agnosticism.

True.
I'm also okay with the type of pantheism or dieism some physicists subscribe to, because the organization and fine tuning of the universe seems to suggest some kind of purposeful organizing principle.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hate to break it to you but they DID. The Jerusalem Church disagreed quite strongly with Paul. They fought it out.

Here's a question for you: why would the man who never saw Jesus in the flesh have more say in how the religion formed than the people who walked with Christ in the flesh in real life?

Poor Perry. He's so desperate for @Cypress 's attention.

 

[gmark77]

True.
I'm also okay with the type of pantheism or dieism some physicists subscribe to, because the organization and fine tuning of the universe seems to suggest some kind of purposeful organizing principle.

You might have a more nuanced understanding of the topic if you understood all of atheism. But like most people who only graze on topics you have missed a lot and your form your views based on incomplete understanding.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

True.
I'm also okay with the type of pantheism or dieism some physicists subscribe to, because the organization and fine tuning of the universe seems to suggest some kind of purposeful organizing principle.

I'm a panentheist, but it's a belief and I know it's a belief.

Militant atheists always hide behind the lie that they only disbelieve, but it's clear they believe there is no god, that they can create life, have no clue how the universe or life began, but they believe it wasn't a god or other supernatural force. Weird!

 

[Cypress]

I'm not so sure. Ardent theists and militant atheists are pretty certain in their beliefs.

But if you challenge them to take their belief system to it's logical conclusion, they end up in all kinds of illogical pretzel-twisting. Like stating they don't know how the universe originated, but then saying they are 100 percent certain it was because inanimate physical material reasons.

Those deep contradictions are disguising an agnostic core

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You might have a more nuanced understanding of the topic if you understood all of atheism. But like most people who only graze on topics you have missed a lot and your form your views based on incomplete understanding.

Poor Perry. So desperate for attention he's begging for it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

But if you challenge them to take their belief system to it's logical conclusion, they end up in all kinds of illogical pretzel-twisting. Like stating they don't know how the universe originated, but then saying they are 100 percent certain it was because inanimate physical material reasons.

Those deep contradictions are disguising an agnostic core

Exactly. That's why I find militant atheists as illogical as a Bible-thumping Jesus Freak.

 

[domer76]

Not a lie, domer76, as your posts on this thread and elsewhere prove. You think you can create life. You have no clue about the origin of the Universe but you "know" it wasn't supernatural* force. You have no clue how life began from inanimate matter but you "know" it wasn't a supernatural force.

I'm not a MAGAt. It's easy to spot them because they resort to name-calling and labeling others liars as an emotional rather than a logical response. They are sad and hateful people.


*https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

Do you know what the fuck “atheist” means, Jethro? Obviously not, since you want to toss in a bunch of irrelevant characteristics.

Yep, I helped create a couple lives. You see, before me, they had no lives. No existence. Then along comes my little swimmers and BAM! LIFE!

Pretty fucking straight forward. Did your mommy and daddy not have that talk with you?

If you’re not a MAGAT, you’re sharing something in common. Twisting words into lies. You should stop that.

 

[Cypress]

I'm a panentheist, but it's a belief and I know it's a belief.

Militant atheists always hide behind the lie that they only disbelieve, but it's clear they believe there is no god, that they can create life, have no clue how the universe or life began, but they believe it wasn't a god or other supernatural force. Weird!

I think there is more then enough circumstantial evidence to support being a pantheist or dieist.

It's illogical to think the creation and mathematical organization of the universe, and it's system of universal natural laws sprung into existence because of random inanimate physical causes.

The more logical and evidence-based belief is that a lawful universe requires some kind of law-giver or purposeful organizing principle.

 

[domer76]

No one has to tell me. These miracles are the basic tenets of the atheist belief system.

On the other hand, if you want to claim you simply don't know how the universe began, don't know how the universe was finely tuned, don't know where the physical laws come from and why they exist, and don't know how life comes from non-life, then you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic.

Someone sure as shit fed you a bunch of garbage. Try this. Google “atheist” to get an idea of what the word actually means instead of throwing in a bunch of superfluous bullshit.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

You fucking liar. Shouldn't you at least try to have some ethics and set an example in your sewer? The JPP leftists did not celebrate Kirk's death. If any of you point back to this time to try to excuse your future evil behavior, we will remember that it never happened the way you'll try to describe it.

like you remembered the reality of russiagate?

 

[Cypress]

Exactly. That's why I find militant atheists as illogical as a Bible-thumping Jesus Freak.

Agreed.

 

[domer76]

I think there is more then enough circumstantial evidence to support being a pantheist or dieist.

It's illogical to think the creation and mathematical organization of the universe, and it's system of universal natural laws sprung into existence because of random inanimate physical causes.

The more logical and evidence-based belief is that a lawful universe requires some kind of law-giver or purposeful organizing principle.

And that “purposeful lawgiver” is going to let you live forever in eternal happiness if you say you believe in him or have you suffer eternal torture if not.

PRICELESS!

 

[Cypress]

Someone sure as shit fed you a bunch of garbage. Try this. Google “atheist” to get an idea of what the word actually means instead of throwing in a bunch of superfluous bullshit.

I'm not buying that it's just a "lack of belief. That's not a truth claim. It's just a psychological state of mind, that the New Atheists invented in the early 2000s to shield themselves from having to explain/defend the logical consequences of atheism.

Atheism as traditionally understood is a truth claim about the origin and nature of the universe. It's a belief system.

Otherwise, lack of belief is just agnosticism.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Do you know what the fuck “atheist” means, Jethro? Obviously not, since you want to toss in a bunch of irrelevant characteristics.

Yep, I helped create a couple lives. You see, before me, they had no lives. No existence. Then along comes my little swimmers and BAM! LIFE!

Pretty fucking straight forward. Did your mommy and daddy not have that talk with you?

If you’re not a MAGAT, you’re sharing something in common. Twisting words into lies. You should stop that.

Yes, I do. Sorry to upset you so much, domer76. Your irrational hatred of Christianity is a curiosity to me, but discussing it only seems to anger you. Sad.

Nice backpedal. Before you created life and now you only helped. Got it.

MAGAts, like you, are emotional hot messes. Yes, like you, they lie a lot. The fact you think impregnating a woman is the same as creating life on a barren planet is odd, but expected from someone who is more emotional than logical.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm not buying that it's just a "lack of belief. That's not a truth claim. It's just a psychological state of mind, that the New Atheists invented in the early 2000s to shield themselves from having to explain/defend the logical consequences of atheism.

Atheism as traditionally understood is a truth claim about the origin and nature of the universe. It's a belief system.

Otherwise, lack of belief is just agnosticism.

He's getting pretty upset. Sad.

 

[gmark77]

I think there is more then enough circumstantial evidence to support being a pantheist or dieist.

You are amazingly credulous.

The more logical and evidence-based belief is that a lawful universe requires some kind of law-giver or purposeful organizing principle.

So you are not really an agnostic.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You are amazingly credulous.

So you are not really an agnostic.

Poor, poor Perry. Always wanting @Cypress to shower his love on you but always going away still lovelorn. Sad.

 

[domer76]

Illogical.
The apostles and witnesses were still alive when during Paul's ministry. If Paul was lying and fabricating, why didn't the other apostles and witnesses confront him?

Paul actually challenged people to talk to the witnesses if they wanted to corroborate what he said.

I don't think you have the proof to definitively say the authors attached to the gospels are fake.

There is substantial evidence that the apostles or companions of the apostles wrote the gospel account's.

That's almost as good as it gets for ancient history. Otherwise, if you consistently applied your standards of hyper-skepticism you would have to write off everything Herodotus wrote.

John Smith was a known petty criminal and some of his earliest witnesses and companions abandoned him.

That hurts his credibility.

Jesus seemed to have had the highest moral caliber, and after the crucifixion we have no record of any apostle recanting him.

That helps the credibility of Jesus.

I didn’t say Paul lied. He actually said almost nothing about Jesus himself.

Paul may well have spoken to a “witness” or two. It doesn’t prove any of the 4 DIFFERENT resurrection narratives.

So, did those who Paul challenged actually talk to the “witnesses”? Tell me who did and what was said.

Once again, let’s work on your distortion of my words. I never said the gospels were fake. I said nobody knows who wrote them. No scholar believes they were actually written by the names ascribed to them a century later.

Jesus may well have been credible. That has nothing to do with the people who wrote about him. He never claimed to be the Son of God, part of a Trinity or divine in any way. That was shit made up by his followers to try to explain how the fuck their Messiah got killed. Messiah’s aren’t supposed to get killed.

“Oh fuck! He got himself killed! What do we do now?”
“Wait! I have an idea! He can still be the Messiah if he returned from the dead!”
“Yeah! THAT’S the ticket!

Then, after that concoction caused theological problems, everything else went down hill from there. Each “fix” to the problem created another one. And then you have Christian dogma.