serp777, Your flawed logic is because other subjects have a history, they all must be wrong. Islam and Christianity have both very different histories and entirely different scriptures. Christianity grew through conversion of Jews, God fearers and slaves while Islam grew through military conquest
Everyone has a history, not just religions. The cosmos has a history and we study it to discover what happened. Name calling is a logical fallacy that you seem to be good at.
No two perspectives are the same. So what? People in Christs time could tell the truth.
We are separated from god because of our freely chosen sin. Life means to be with God abd death means to be separate from God. God did something about it by coming to us and paying for our sin so we can be restored to fellowship with Him. Sin is a Human issue and so was the solution. God incarnated himself as a man.
If you want to believe in pink unicorns, go ahead.
Everyone, including Atheists have a burden of proof when they make a claim. I never disputed this.
"Your flawed logic is because other subjects have a history, they all must be wrong."
Many aspects of history are probably wrong, but not all are wrong. Those who win wars, or those who have political superiority generally write the history that favors them. History is inherently not able to be trusted, especially for supernatural claims like the resurrection. It's like you're saying that all of history should be accepted and trusted. If you accept those historical claims, then why don't you accept Ramses of Eygpt's resurrection or the beliefs or the Nordic Myths? There have been thousands of unverifiable claims in history that contradict each other, and you're saying that Christianity is somehow above all the other ones.There's no basis besides meaningless scripture quotes.
You seem to be great at the historian's fallacy as well as many others.
Athiests don't make claims about the supernatural ROFL, except that they will not believe anything until there is evidence. They simply don't accept things without reasonable evidence. It's like saying abstinence is a sex position. They don't make claims that Santa cause doesn't exist or Leprechauns does not exist.
Again, you're amazing at
Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. i deny your claim that there is evidence for Christianity, nor did I ever say I was an athiest. All reasonable athiests are agnostics, even Richard Dawkins, since they don't accept that they know what the ultimate truth is.
"People in Christs time could tell the truth. "
Iron age peasants who didn't know the Earth orbited the sun are now reliable sources and know truth? So all those Eygptians who thought the Pharoah was a God now know truth as well then? People are superstitious, easily influenced, and crazy.
You say different perspectives, except that those different perspectives contradict each other, showing that your historical arguments are inherently unverifiable as well as unjustifiable. Iron age Jews do not have more truth than ancient Egyptians or the Ancient Nords, and it would be a fallacy to suggest otherwise.
"We are separated from god because of our freely chosen sin."
Assumption. I did not choose any sin. Who is we? Does that include the neanderthals that are now incorporated into our genome? Does that include ancient humans before Jesus? Why does some guy who heard voices in his head know what sin is? Are you saying schizophrenia did not exist back in ancient times? That would be ridiculous. Iron age peasants used to think that slavery and genocide were not sins. They decide what sin is depending on their mood and political circumstances. I
"Sin is a Human issue and so was the solution."
Sin is an issue of God too. He made humans sin by designing them to sin, and to question if God actually exists. He allows sin to exist since he has ultimate power. He knows humans were going to sin when he created them, since he can see the past present and future. He designed the universe to allow sin. God clearly needs sin in Christianity.
"If you want to believe in pink unicorns, go ahead."
I didn't say i believed in them, only that it's as reasonable to believe in pink unicrons as it is too believe in your "historical evidence".
I like how you say Islam is only a different perspective . It must be a wrong perspective since you weren't born into the Muslim faith. If you had been born in Iran, you'd be a muslim.
Edited by serp777, 07 June 2014 - 12:53 AM.
This topic is locked
