Eternal hell.

Originally posted by Penguin
We have told you many times that the Great Unicorn is not a rhinoceros.

Are rhinoceros invisible? No.
Are rhinoceros pink? Or blue? No.
Are rhinoceros magical? No.

And the point astoundingly still eludes you!

Penguin.

What do you think you are accomplishing ?

Is it that by imitating obsession this proves belief in the New Testament is an obsession ?

Originally posted by sonship
What do you think you are accomplishing ?

Is it that by imitating obsession this proves belief in the New Testament is an obsession ?

No.

The point (and this is likewise the point of the FSM, may he bury you in spicy meatballs)
is that the arguments used by people for the existence of the god of the bible, and every
other god or gods in any other religion, can also be used to argue just as well for the FSM
or The Great Unicorn.

Or anything else we care to make up.

If you shoot down the arguments for the FSM or The Great Unicorn then you shoot down
the arguments for your god too.

And if you don't shoot down the arguments then you have to accept that the arguments you
use lead equally to being able to believe in ANYTHING.


Basically it shows that your arguments are useless as they can be used to justify belief in
absolutely anything.

As that includes an infinite number of beliefs that can't be true this demonstrates that the
arguments being used are useless for determining truth.


Now it's unlikely that any of you are going to accept that, particularly right away.
Although it's entirely possible that some of you might see it later.

But it does demonstrate nicely how vacuous your arguments are for anyone sitting on the
fence as it were.


I mean seriously, think about it.

Do you have any argument or 'evidence' for a deity that can't also be applied to the FSM?

I think you will find that if you try it we will be more than up to the task of reformulating any and
all arguments for the existence of the god of the bible as arguments for the existence of the FSM.

(note: for clarity, if you cite the bible as evidence we get to cite/or invent a holy book of our own
as our rebuttal. As of course your holy book applies to your god and not the FSM... Which of
course can be said of the holy book of any other religion and their god.)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Didn't work for me but got the wife to recite it while ...

😀

😏

That's another marketing angle. "Flush your Viagra down the toilet and follow The Unicorn" on bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. with a big white horn in the background. Eat your heart out, W.W.J.D. bracelet-makers!

No.

The point (and this is likewise the point of the FSM, may he bury you in spicy meatballs)

Amusing perhaps but no realistic parallel to a history based Christian Gospel

is that the arguments used by people for the existence of the god of the bible, and every other god or gods in any other religion, can also be used to argue just as well for the FSM or The Great Unicorn.

I requested testimonies and received none, only more sarcastic lampooning.

The Gospel of Christ is based in history. Your FSM is just a flight headed fancy tailor made for ridicule.

Or anything else we care to make up.

No. Just because you have a fertile imagination doesn't mean you can come up with a parallel to history bases Jesus of Nazareth with the equally history based existence of the backround Jewish culture that goes along with the NT documents.

Your FMS fancy is just trivialization run wild.
Jesus of Nazareth is based in history.
At least there is serious historical matters to debate.

Your Unicorn and your FMS is lampooning trivialization based on nothing.
Again. I provided testimonials. When I asked for some about your Unicorn I got supposedly "clever" evasion.

If you shoot down the arguments for the FSM or The Great Unicorn then you shoot down the arguments for your god too.

No comparison. This reflects despair and escape from reason on your part.

Its a kind of "If you can't beat them, join them." But the comparison is not equal. Some weeks ago a provided a long list of New Testament persons who have been verified as historical people outside of the New Testament.

Don't bother trying to fabricate a lampoon to prove you can do the same thing. And I don't "shoot down" arguments about Unicorns because I know you don't take the matter seriously yourself.

There's really nothing there to discuss except your potential to get a few laughs for being "clever."

And if you don't shoot down the arguments then you have to accept that the arguments you use lead equally to being able to believe in ANYTHING.

A serious argument about my faith would be coming up with a plausible alternative to the spread of the Christian faith amidst the first century Jewish culture. And that to the harsh opposition of torture, death, persecution.

Why did these Jews suddenly change their day of gathering, drop the sacrifices, be willing to die, collectively testify that they knew Jesus ? What happened to them and why so suddenly ?

This is history and not crap you can dream up on the fly comic book style just to show off.

Basically it shows that your arguments are useless as they can be used to justify belief in absolutely anything.

That is a vastly unrealistic generalization. Some arguments are good, some are better, some are not too good. This depends upon what is being disputed.

Paul wrote First Corinthians telling them that 500 people who were mostly still alive had been eyewitnesses to a resurrected Jesus Christ. A place for you to dispute that Jesus rose would be to recover one of these 500 alledged witnesses saying that Paul was mad or lying.

And if you couldn't come up with that you might argue WHY an intelligent and extensively educated man like Paul would dare to suggest something like that knowing that he could be easily refuted.

Or you might consider HOW these 500 people all had the same experience.

Or you could argue why Paul would even believe such a thing if it were false. You could point to evidence elsewhere in his writings to prove that his mind was unstable.

Lampooning is the lazy way. And if that's all you guys have then serious skepticism has really gone down hill. We Christians will then have to go back to the past a few years to find some better arguments against our faith. That is back further when skeptics were more serious.

As that includes an infinite number of beliefs that can't be true this demonstrates that the arguments being used are useless for determining truth.

There are realistic reasons why a Christian may feel he is on the right track if not absolute proof with mathematical precision is not had.

And now I have dignified your nonsense long enough.
Maybe I'll check again for a more serious counterpoint meriting a serious reply.

Originally posted by sonship

No.

The point (and this is likewise the point of the FSM, may he bury you in spicy meatballs)

Amusing perhaps but no realistic parallel to a history based Christian Gospel

[quote]
is that the arguments used by people for the existence of the god of the bible, and every other god or gods in any other religion, can also be used to ...[text shortened]... be I'll check again for a more serious counterpoint meriting a serious reply.

There are plenty of other 'historical' religions.

Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha) existed
Zoroaster existed
Akhenaten existed
Mohamed existed

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_founders_of_religious_traditions for more.

If Pastafarianism takes off (unlikely I know but...) then it will also have been based on a real person. If, in 2000 years, Pastafarians point out that their religion is based on historical facts because Bobby Henderson and the Kansas school board really existed, they would have as much justification as you have now.

The fact that a religion is founded by a real person or references real people in its stories has no bearing on whether the magical aspects of that religion are true. It is the unfalsifiable aspects of your religion that we are ridiculing.

To understand why and how religions spread, try Google:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=reasons+why+religions+spread&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&redir_esc=&ei=zS7fUdOJBubC0QXTmoDYAg

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
There are plenty of other 'historical' religions.

Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha) existed
Zoroaster existed
Akhenaten existed
Mohamed existed

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_founders_of_religious_traditions for more.

If Pastafarianism takes off (unlikely I know but...) then it will also have been based on a real person. If, in 2000 yea ...[text shortened]... +religions+spread&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&redir_esc=&ei=zS7fUdOJBubC0QXTmoDYAg

--- Penguin.

Christianity is the religion with a Savior God.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
No.

The point (and this is likewise the point of the FSM, may he bury you in spicy meatballs)
is that the arguments used by people for the existence of the god of the bible, and every
other god or gods in any other religion, can also be used to argue just as well for the FSM
or The Great Unicorn.

Or anything else we care to make up.

If you ...[text shortened]... M... Which of
course can be said of the holy book of any other religion and their god.)

What other religion has a savior God and a Shroud of Turin to prove it?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
What other religion has a savior God and a Shroud of Turin to prove it?

The Instructor

Every religion has at least two unique aspects to it. They all have sacred relics.

Pastafarianism has a noodly appendaged deity and a graph showing irrefutably that global warming is caused by the decline in pirates to prove it. What other religion has such a laid-back God?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Every religion has at least two unique aspects to it. They all have sacred relics.

Pastafarianism has a noodly appendaged deity and a graph showing irrefutably that global warming is caused by the decline in pirates to prove it. What other religion has such a laid-back God?

--- Penguin.

I had a hope for a serious argument to refute. But I will have to wait for another poster. 😏

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I had a hope for a serious argument to refute. But I will have to wait for another poster. 😏

The Instructor

Sorry to disappoint but if you had made a serious point, maybe I would have taken you seriously.

As I said, all religions have unique aspects. Those two aspects of Christianity you proposed are not evidence of its truth.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Sorry to disappoint but if you had made a serious point, maybe I would have taken you seriously.

As I said, all religions have unique aspects. Those two aspects of Christianity you proposed are not evidence of its truth.

--- Penguin.

The existence of a savior God and a Shroud of Turin to prove it was a serious point to me.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The existence of a savior God and a Shroud of Turin to prove it was a serious point to me.

The Instructor

I think you have to demonstrate why the idea of a saviour god should be considered evidence for the existence of such an entity.

Many religions and ancient cultures have the idea of a blood-sacrifice to appease an angry god. The story of the crucifixion is just an extension of this. It proves nothing more than that the Christian religion is a development of an earlier (Jewish) one which also had blood sacrifice.

The shroud is a piece of cloth with a stain in the shape of a man. Its true provenance is uncertain to say the least.

As I said, all religions have unique aspects to them. Such uniqueness has no bearing on the truth of those religions.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I think you have to demonstrate why the idea of a saviour god should be considered evidence for the existence of such an entity.

Many religions and ancient cultures have the idea of a blood-sacrifice to appease an angry god. The story of the crucifixion is just an extension of this. It proves nothing more than that the Christian religion is a development ...[text shortened]... aspects to them. Such uniqueness has no bearing on the truth of those religions.

--- Penguin.

You think so? Why?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You think so? Why?

The Instructor

Because, as I said, all religions can claim some unique feature. Having a unique feature is not in itself evidence of truth or all religions would be true. Therefore, there must be something about your particular religion, apart from its uniqueness, that makes it more likely to be true.

That is why.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Therefore, there must be something about your particular religion, apart from its uniqueness, that makes it more likely to be true.

Its actually quite simple. If we present a religion with a saviour god and a shroud, would RJ convert? Of course not, and he knows it.
Its a funny thing that what theists think should be convincing to atheists, would not convince themselves.