#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Who Blindly Follows Jesus More: Jc/QuestionMan or Srom
Jc
Side Score: 25
|
 |
Srom
Side Score: 46
|
|
"Who Blindly Follows Jesus More" no need to be blind about it . . . shoot, you got a ton of information http://dadmansabode.com/forum/ Side: Jc
|
3
points
1
point
But Harry Potter is sold as a fiction, and the Bible is sold as true. It's like the difference between a biography on Einstein and Green Eggs and Ham. One is sold as a non-fiction and the other is a fiction. If the non-fiction story says that Einstein used to dress up as a woman, we now have some evidence from an apparent "truthful" source, even though it could be wrong. That isn't the case with a fiction. We don't go into a fiction expecting truths. Side: Jc
Of course there is. There is more substantial evidence that Harry Potter was written as fiction, than the evidence alone. What people do not understand is that evidence itself needs substantiation in some way shape or form, reducing back until beliefs-properly-basic or primitive variables. Side: Jc
evidence itself needs substantiation in some way shape or form So, since there is no natural evidence backing up the Bible claims, it is silly to claim the Bible is a significant reason to believe something. Both books have dragons in them. Fiction and nonfiction should not play any part in the decision. Side: Srom
So, since there is no natural evidence backing up the Bible claims, it is silly to claim the Bible is a significant reason to believe something. Both books have dragons in them. Who here was making the claim that the Bible was substantial evidence? However, even if you want to go down that path, which I was not intending to go down, we can go down it. We have many evidences backing up the fact that the Bible was viable. You don't need naturalistic evidence; to say we need naturalistic evidence is ridiculous and a non-substantiated claim. It simply is a Moorean fact that naturalism is false. We have much historical evidence to suggest the Bible to be a sound piece of truth. Take Luke's Gospel and his account written of Acts. He has many historically verifiable truths in those books. We also have evidence for him as a very good researcher and educated man. So, we have much evidence to suggest that the Bible, or at least pieces of it, was in some way a substantial and viable piece of evidence. Now, if you want to go down the naturalistic avenue, then we can demonstrate how the natural world we see today verifies the Great Flood. Every piece of evidence we see for "evolution" and "long geologic time" can also support the Great Flood. If you don't want to believe that, then so be it. Furthermore, the Bible was intended as an historical document, written by people who believed it to be and claimed it to be true. Its utterly ridiculous to think that the Bible is not itself evidence. Moreover, the Bible is God's Word, and it is living and active. Side: Jc
Who here was making the claim that the Bible was substantial evidence? Neither me nor you. I said that you said it was ok to believe what the Bible says. However, even if you want to go down that path, which I was not intending to go down, we can go down it. We have many evidences backing up the fact that the Bible was viable. You don't need naturalistic evidence; to say we need naturalistic evidence is ridiculous and a non-substantiated claim. It simply is a Moorean fact that naturalism is false. We have much historical evidence to suggest the Bible to be a sound piece of truth. Take Luke's Gospel and his account written of Acts. He has many historically verifiable truths in those books. We also have evidence for him as a very good researcher and educated man. So, we have much evidence to suggest that the Bible, or at least pieces of it, was in some way a substantial and viable piece of evidence. I didn't say all claims in the Bible. I was referring to the claims in the Bible that have no backing. You know, the parts with the God you are trying to show exists. Now, if you want to go down the naturalistic avenue, then we can demonstrate how the natural world we see today verifies the Great Flood. Every piece of evidence we see for "evolution" and "long geologic time" can also support the Great Flood. If you don't want to believe that, then so be it. It does not verify the Great Flood. You can support the Great Flood, but verification implies proof. The evidence for evolution and long geologic time don't help because the Great Flood only happened so long ago. Furthermore, the Bible was intended as an historical document, written by people who believed it to be and claimed it to be true. Its utterly ridiculous to think that the Bible is not itself evidence. Moreover, the Bible is God's Word, and it is living and active. This can't be true. How can a historical text have predictions of the future? Plus, like I said, fiction or non fiction doesn't matter because people lie. It's utterly ridiculous to believe that I should consider the Bible evidence because you say that it is utterly ridiculous to say it is not. Moreover, you have no reason to believe the Bible has anything to do with God except that the Bible says it has to do with God. None of this shows I shouldn't believe in wizards. Harry Potter had schools, trains, humans, etc. I can see the things that Harry Potter has in it. Side: Srom
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I would be more convinced if you didn't respond at all as opposed to telling me I'm wrong. Not that it matters. You go on living your life and having your beliefs. In a perfect world I would want you to have stronger thought processes, but it won't do anything negative to my world that you don't. Just be Srom. And I'll just be Mucka. I think we will both get where we need to be. Side: Jc
1
point
|
