Well, after breaking 2000 comments on the previous thread, I think it’s time to move to a new one. Feel free to continue the conversation here.
Also, I want to make a note about future posts. The tone on this blog for the last month or so has been decidedly different than what it used to be. While that’s definitely made things interesting, I’d like to move back to a tone more in line with the way things used to be. So going forward, I want the comments on all new posts to remain civil. We can all make our points, and I expect to see a wide range of opinions. But I don’t want to get into name-calling and bashing when we can’t all agree on particular issues. Let’s try to stay focused on the points and not get side-tracked with personal stuff. Let’s also keep each comment substantive so we don’t rack up so many comments in such a short period of time that it’s hard for everyone to keep track.
If you don’t feel like you can participate within those guidelines, then feel free to continue posting within this thread (and any future “Kathy” threads, if they’re needed), because I won’t be enforcing any guidelines here. But if you want to comment on any other posts, you’ll need to abide by the rules I just laid out. Otherwise, your comment will be subject to deletion, and after a warning, you might find yourself banned from at least that thread, if not the entire blog.
If there are any questions, let me know.
Thanks
Finding Truth 
Arch,
“You STILL haven’t answered my simple question.. you just continue to ignore it, why is that Arch?” – because it’s an absurd question, or as Ratamacu0) put it so aptly, “Which turd is the shiniest.”
The honest answer, is None of the Above.”
See, everyone reading!? Arch is no different than William.. deliberate ignorance through and through…
That’s NOT what I’m asking Arch.
They ALL have EVIDENCE… which has the MOST…
kindergarteners can comprehend this stuff.. what is wrong with you liberals??? seriously..
LikeLike
“William, please take the time to understand my points instead of twisting them to fit your narrative. This is dishonest.” – kathy
sorry, not meaning to do this – maybe you’re not clearly stating your points? But If I’m not understanding your points, our back and forth is an opportunity to clarify or correct my misunderstanding
“Yes William! That COULD also be evidence against the truth of Christianity! But it’s very weak evidence because it’s the EASY way out.. the complete OPPOSITE of those who don’t recant. Which makes their testimony ….. ready?… WEIGH MORE.. it makes their testimony COMPELLING evidence… someone recanting because they are afraid to die… NOT COMPELLLING evidence.. it’s the EXPECTED reaction for humans. It’s borderline “evidence”. That you refuse to acknowledge these FUNDAMENTAL differences reveals your lack of objectivity, William. And I believe you are a good representation of all the atheists here on this blog.” – kathy
kathy, you’re just not making sense. What someone is willing to die for has no bearing on the truth, but only that person’s conviction for what they’re dying for.
you acknowledge that there are many other martyrs outside of christianity, but you say that they’re martyrdom isnt as compelling in one post, and then state is evidence in another…
If christianity martyrdom is superior, please explain how?
If martyrdom is evidence for all religions, then the issue is moot, since you only think one religion is true.
It’s like saying “that religion has believers, so that’s good evidence for it being true, because who would want to believe a lie?” people sincerely believe all sorts of erroneous things.
is this the extent of your factual and clear evidence for the truth of christianity? martyrs – something every other religion has?
LikeLike
“They ALL have EVIDENCE… which has the MOST…”
evidence for what? I had thought you were asking which had the most evdience for being truly divine, then you just now told that was not what you were asking for….
most evidence for what then?
LikeLike
“You tried to claim that martyrdom evidence was the same for all religions..” – since all martyrdom is due to delusion, I’d have to mark that as true.
LikeLike
Really, whether the martyrdom is due to delusion or not is irrelevant.
The really important point is that martyrdom only shows level of belief, not level of truth or accuracy. But this has been said many times — I doubt it will make a difference now.
LikeLike
“They ALL have EVIDENCE… which has the MOST…” that’s the beginning of your errors, Kathy – no, they don’t.
Christianity has no evidence for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph or Moses, and, yet your Yeshua is alleged to have spoken of them as though they existed. The Gospels, that tell of Yeshua’s alleged life and death, were all written by anonymous authors, 40 to 70 years afterward – evidence-wise, your Bible is a book of blank pages.
LikeLike
William, she’s asking which is the shiniest turd —
LikeLike
“Really, whether the martyrdom is due to delusion or not is irrelevant.”
This is wrong.. it’s incredibly relevant. There is no more relevant aspect to martyrdom. If it were irrelevant, rational educated people wouldn’t do it, it’d be for nothing.. (according to you).
“The really important point is that martyrdom only shows level of belief, not level of truth or accuracy. But this has been said many times — I doubt it will make a difference now.”
Yes, it’s an important part of martyrdom.. it shows the person’s level of belief. But it’s by far not the “only” important part.. the person themselves is an even more important part of the act.. again, their level of education, their standing, their character and their saneness all determine how powerful the testimonial evidence is. For these people, it is also COMPELLING evidence for the Truth of what they are dying for.
LikeLike
religions claim to be from the divine, so if she’s not asking which has the most credentials for being truly divine, then I really don’t understand her question.
“true” in what sense, if not divine?
LikeLike
Kathy, you continue to repeat the same question over and over and over again (the most recent time you “shouted” it): “WHICH RELIGION DO YOU BELIEVE HAS THE BEST EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT’S “TRUTH”??
And over and over and over again, the people on this blog have answered you. It has simply not been the answer you want. You want everyone to answer that it’s Christianity. But for many of us, the evidence presented by you (and Mike) for Christianity (and all that entails) simply doesn’t hold up. Besides the fact that most of us examined and discounted all this “evidence” long before joining any discussions on Nate’s blog.
As Arch and others have said, the bible is nothing but a collection of stories. You have chosen to believe they are from a divine source. Most of us disagree. It’s as simple as that.
LikeLike
kathy, regarding martyrdom, you’re being ridiculous.
how many martyrs did you know personally, anyways that you could make an educated comment regarding their sanity or education?
the apostle paul claimed he was sincere in thinking that killing chrsitians was what god wanted… was he right? was paul insane or under-educated – or do you think he was just wrong despite his sincerity or education?
there are plenty on sane and educated people who dont believe in religion – so they must be right?
come on, you must see this is ludicrous.
how could a martyr factually know any better than anyone one else that his cause is the right one? they all have faith and strong devotion, but how does that equal “accurate?” Does god speak from heaven when a martyr dies so that you know that was a good martyr?
This isnt a difficult concept and I really dint understand why we go round and round with it…
ask mike what he thinks about your martyrs. I bet he sidesteps you if he answers at all…
LikeLike
No, it’s actually not. We don’t have good historical evidence showing that anyone who personally Jesus became a martyr. Maybe some did. But the vast majority of Christian martyrs are people who never knew Jesus. So for them, it doesn’t matter how smart they were, how educated, etc — their martyrdom can only show their level of sincerity, not their level of accuracy. Since they had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus, they were in no better position to testify to the truth of his existence or claims than any of us are. That’s simply a fact.
Look, evidence from martyrs only shows that people truly believed in Christianity. No one denies that. If you want to talk about whether or not Christianity is actually true, then we need to look to other forms of evidence that can demonstrate why parts of the Christian narrative are true — not just that people believed it.
LikeLike
Kathy,
Which comic book hero has the most evidence to support its truth? Batman, Captain America, Superman, Spider-man, Green Lantern, Incredible Hulk, Wolverine or Wonder Woman?
Which fairy tale character has the most evidence to support its truth? Cinderella, Goldilocks, Hansel & Gretel, Little Mermaid, Rapunzel, Rumpelstiltskin, Snow White or Thumbelina?
Which cartoon character has the most evidence to support its truth? Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, Eric Cartman, Fred Flintstone, Homer Simpson, Mickey Mouse, Pluto, Porky Pig, Scooby Doo, SpongeBob SquarePants, Woody Woodpecker or Yogi Bear?
LikeLike
” Maybe some did. But the vast majority of Christian martyrs are people who never knew Jesus. So for them, it doesn’t matter how smart they were, how educated, etc — their martyrdom can only show their level of sincerity, not their level of accuracy. Since they had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus, they were in no better position to testify to the truth of his existence or claims than any of us are. That’s simply a fact.”
First, the disciple’s martyrdom or any Christian martyrdom wasn’t to testify to Jesus’ existence but to testify to His Deity.
2nd, again, when a smart educated person of good character martyrs themselves if makes a difference. It can very well be compelling evidence for what they are dying for. As much as you need to take away the powerful testimony of martyrdom for Christianity, it can’t be done. Sane rational objective people see how powerful it is.. and again, these people wouldn’t do it if it didn’t produce compelling evidence.
Bottom line.. it’s evidence for their beliefs.. but based on the person, it can also be evidence of the Truth of what they are dying for. Don’t get confused about the difference between evidence and proof.. as all the atheists here continue to do.. there is no claim that it’s proof.. the claim is that it IS compelling evidence. There’s no argument that can change that fact.
LikeLike
“Bottom line.. it’s evidence for their beliefs.. but based on the person, it can also be evidence of the Truth of what they are dying for.” – kathy
then that is also the case for every other religion – thereby making this moot.
Kathy, if you arent going to share how christian martyrdom is better than any other type, then i still a martyr as a martyr.
If you’re saying that all other religions are bogus, then you’re saying that their martyrdom isnt very compelling.
so if it’s not compelling (and we;re not talking about people who think they’re elves) it is also not compelling for your religion.
you may as well say having believers is compelling evidence… fine but when they all have said compelling evidence, it is not unique and why we say moot.
is this the apex of your evidence? martyrs?
LikeLike
“Don’t get confused about the difference between evidence and proof.” – kathy
you shouldnt be confused about evidence between one’s belief in something and that things actuality.
LikeLike
The most compelling evidence for this resurrection would be seeing this resurrected man in the flesh—the very thing no Christian apologist will ever produce. And the reason why they can’t do so was already freely admitted by TB himself:
“In ancient days you were considered dead when you were lifeless. People got buried who were not modern clinically dead all the time.”
IOW, Jesus was never clinically dead to begin with, so his resurrection was merely an illusion.
LikeLike
But Ron, doncha’ know? Jesus is up in “heaven,” sitting at the right hand of God. I mean, gosh, do you expect him to leave his “father” just to show us unbelievers that he really exists? How unrealistic of you!
LikeLike
“And the reason why they can’t do so was already freely admitted by TB himself:
“In ancient days you were considered dead when you were lifeless. People got buried who were not modern clinically dead all the time.”
IOW, Jesus was never clinically dead to begin with, so his resurrection was merely an illusion.”
The sheer wonder of your lying ways is breathtaking in its stupidity. Though your comrades will probably never admit it they know perfectly well I never made any such claims in any words – other or otherwise.
Take a bow. between you and Arch ‘s claim a mountain is not where a mountain is you have cemented for all time exactly why theists say rightfully athiest have a high amount of bare faced liars among them.
LikeLike
“For these people, it is also COMPELLING evidence for the Truth of what they are dying for.” – for THOSE people, possibly, for anyone else, just an indication of how incredibly gullible they were.
LikeLike
Ir would be “compelling evidence,” Kathy, only to the degree to which those people believed, and feared burning in hell if they didn’t give their lives, nothing more. You would see that yourself if you were the kind of person who critically examined their own beliefs, but you’re not.
LikeLike
“Yes, it’s an important part of martyrdom.. it shows the person’s level of belief. But it’s by far not the “only” important part.. the person themselves is an even more important part of the act.. again, their level of education, their standing, their character and their saneness all determine how powerful the testimonial evidence is” Kathy
Kathy — theres actually another point to that that in fact refutes Nate’s barf. Most Skeptic’s and atheist affirm that Paul pretty much invented Christianity. the problem with this claim as you know is that Paul’s epistles are addressed to churches. So now we have a problem. it might be true that people will die for what they believe in but it is EXCEEDINGLY difficult for them to die for things they know not to be true.
Nate Claims that they didn’t know jesus personally is actually not the point. At any point Paul (or whoevr they claim) wrote his epistles to churches he would have some explaining to do either because there was in fact no such churches, their history was not as he claimed or their teachings were totally different than what he claimed. the evidence would have been readily available that his story was not true.
Thats where I believe your Martyr argument has real legs.
LikeLike
“…it might be true that people will die for what they believe in but it is EXCEEDINGLY difficult for them to die for things they know not to be true.” – Nate didn’t say this and neither did anyone else. I can accept that they believed what they died for, or at least believed in eternal punishment if they didn’t forfeit their lives, but believing doesn’t make it true.
LikeLike
“and another good question is, if mike (TBlackman) wants to discuss the prophecies, then whys isn’t he?” William
and so he goes back on ignore because yet again he proves he only offers silliness. I have presented five prophecies and have asked for a response but this dishonest soul is now trying to pretend that I have not addressed it just as he tried to pretend using a mentally handicapped little girl was no big deal.
the only with any remote claim to being half way honest is Ruth when she is not corrupted by your bad company :). That includes Nate who has not seen a pretzel thought he would not like to emulate. Provided its anti God of course.
LikeLike
“Nate didn’t say this and neither did anyone else.”
I said nate said they didn’t know Jesus personally. I said nothing else about what he said. Try and keep up. Hows the ,mountain relocation program going? Permits in yet?
LikeLike