 |
Duration: 04:48 minutes Upload Time: 2008-01-06 22:45:06 User: JohnLArmstrong :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: http://www.godvsthebible.com/ If someone believed that Hercules existed as a historical figure, they would be expected to provide evidence. Why should Jesus be treated different from Hercules? |
|
Comments | |
| Handsome815 ::: Favorites 2008-01-18 18:26:04 You seem angry and snotty. __________________________________________________ | |
| Maximara ::: Favorites 2008-01-17 10:42:52 Torn apart? Hardly especially when the moderators post what has to be the most idiotic comment regarding Eisenhower I have ever seen. You know they have no case when the delve into nonsense like THAT. __________________________________________________ | |
| Maximara ::: Favorites 2008-01-17 08:16:15 The comment about Eisenhower the posters of "Is Josephus' account of Jesus a forgery?" is the most idiotic thing I have read. There are MANY *contemporary* accounts of Eisenhower existing: West Point, Army records, correspondence about him, and never mind all the personal paper he left behind. Are these people even on THIS planet?! __________________________________________________ | |
| lostn65 ::: Favorites 2008-01-13 20:14:11 Kabane you seem like a reasoned person, but somehow reject reason in that one small area called Christianity. I don't know why you make that exception when you reject things like creationism. I think deep down, you haven't been honest with yourself on what you actually believe. You need to stop lying to yourself and admit that the whole story is absurd. __________________________________________________ | |
| Mansonfan9999 ::: Favorites 2008-01-11 20:07:38 Unfortunately, these crazy ideas of theists are just that, crazy. You see, they are committed to faith because it is told to them that faith is the most important aspect of their lives. You and I understand that faith is crap, but they hold it in high regard. The only way to succesfully argue with someone that far gone, is to use an equally stupid argument, like another religion. __________________________________________________ | |
| opinionhead444 ::: Favorites 2008-01-11 19:53:28 As I said before, I agree with that assertion. I just trying to think like they do. I am just wondering where they get off thinking that the skeptic bears the burden of proof. This idea has been bugging me for days now. Is there any place in introductory logic debate that would explain these rules to the ignorant like myself. __________________________________________________ | |
| Mansonfan9999 ::: Favorites 2008-01-11 19:14:17 No, the person with a lack of faith is never responsible for proving the non-existence of a god. As an atheist, I don't have a "case," believers do because they make a claim that there is a god. And so they need to prove it if they wish to consider themselves reasonable. __________________________________________________ | |
| JohnLArmstrong ::: Favorites 2008-01-11 18:29:41 QUOTE: "he used the Tacitus argument to fulfill his burden." A second century quote that briefly describes Christus which is full of problems that indicates it might be yet another Christian forgery? This is what he offers to prove the existence of a miracle-working, highly popular and controversial godman? This is the part where I fall to my knees and beg forgiveness for ever having doubted the revealed word, right? __________________________________________________ | |
| JohnLArmstrong ::: Favorites 2008-01-11 18:28:58 QUOTE: "You both have the burden" No. We don't. I made that point clear from the get-go. I'm the skeptic. He's the believer. He solely bears the burden of proof. My job is only to shoot down what he offers. __________________________________________________ | |
| beyondDMC4 ::: Favorites 2008-01-11 15:21:02 well im going to give you 4 stars its not exactly theamazingatheist but then again its not venomfangx lol:) __________________________________________________ | |
| Kabane52 ::: Favorites 2008-01-09 20:40:48 Lawl at the Tacitus comment. You both have the burden, and he used the Tacitus argument to fulfill his burden. __________________________________________________ | |
| JohnLArmstrong ::: Favorites 2008-01-09 20:25:43 QUOTE: "If you view the debate, Mr. Armstrong was just torn apart" Feel free to see it as you like. Holding is much more petulant than vicious. If you don't think he already looks like a fool, my response will take care of that (if the moderators post it). __________________________________________________ | |
| JohnLArmstrong ::: Favorites 2008-01-09 20:24:13 Except that Holding refuses to take the burden. In his first round, he offered no evidence except for the questionable Tacitus passage. He's behaving like the burden is on me and ad hominems will suffice. __________________________________________________ | |
| Urethanerush ::: Favorites 2008-01-09 15:21:36 thats to jeebusnationdotcom btw __________________________________________________ | |
| Urethanerush ::: Favorites 2008-01-09 15:20:19 Yeah technically its a fallacy called a 'stolen concept' It's like using the scientific method to disprove science, PatCondel's latest video uses it quite funnily. So you end up showing logical inconsistencies and consequences to make them have to agree to absurd statements, so for them it becomes a choice between christianity and a hard place... unfortunately some take it to heart and enter the white house... __________________________________________________ | |
