Raf

Your post did not add to the conversation because there is not a person on this thread who is unaware of what the Bible teaches concerning resurrection. Including me.

If i said Jack climbed a beanstalk, and then cited "Mickey and the Beanstalk" for your consideration, it would not add to the conversation. Citing scripture as proof of scripture is circular reasoning. Citing it as if we are unaware of it is condescending and patronizing.

This literally adds nothing to our conversation.

Kinga Forrester is the lady villain on the new MST3K, with Patton Oswalt.

Felicia Day

Bullinger believed in a flat earth. Do you think his proof was qualitative or quantitative? Just curious.

I know who it is but I don't know her name. Is it cheating if I go on netflix, catch a cheesy old movie, and then give you the name after the opening credits?

"AND FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE (ACC 2 THE BIBLE) MANY BELIEVED HAVING SEEN THE RISEN CHRIST (MEN ON ROAD TO EMAUS YADA YADA..)" There is a difference between evidence and a claim. The Bible is not evidence. It is a claim. Who were the two men on the road to Emmaus? We're never told. Why not? How is ANYONE supposed to check out their story decades after it took place when we're not even graced with the names of these two people? This is not history. It's a myth. "AND MANY BELIEVED HAVING SEEN THE 'WITNESS OF THE RESURRECTION -- ALSO CALLED THE TOKEN PROOF WHICH ARE THE MANIFESTATIONS OF HS" You have not once in your life manifested holy spirit. Not a single time. You can SAY that you have, but that is not evidence. It is a claim. And since you've been so deLIGHTful on this thread, allow me to return the courtesy: You faked it. You're kidding yourself into believing some magic force is flowing through you when all that is happening is you're babbling, you're spouting platitudes off the top of your head, and you're convincing yourself miracles are taking place when nothing of the kind is taking place. "- AND ONE OF THOSE IS HEALING/ JEEEEZUS!! GIVE ME A BREAK MAN!" You haven't healed anyone, ever, and you've never seen a miraculous healing. Not once. Why should I believe you have? Because you SAY you have? So what? That's not proof of anything other than your gullibility. "DO U BELIEVE IN "DON'T DO TO OTHERS WHAT U DO NOT WANT THEM TO DO 2 U???" ( A MORAL CREDO ACCEPTED BY MOST RELIGIONS WORLD WIDE???) IF SO---////JUST THINK--- WHAT IF U JOINED THIS FORUM AND SOMEONE CRAWLED UP YOUR PROVERBIAL PUTUTIE??" Don't post stupid things and no one will treat the things you say as stupid. " THE OTHER OPTION IS MORAL ANARCHY AND LIVING IN KUBRICK MOVIE---" No, the other option is, be able to back up what you say, shut up, or just don't be surprised when people call your bluff.

Maybe find a better argument for your position.

Speaking as a moderator: YOU are being rude and it will not be tolerated. If you came here to see what people are saying about Steve, go to the thread about Steve. Speaking as myself: How DARE you invoke Steve's memory to justify your poorly argued position? Lame.

It's neither qualitative evidence nor quantitative. It's a non sequitur. It's like saying "If there's no such thing as Bigfoot, how do you explain bears?" Um. Bears don't prove Bigfoot. But at least bears exist. We have no evidence outside this empty claim that these instant healings happened. If that is good enough for Kata, that's very nice. But I see no reason to take it seriously.

Is he with the KYPD? I mean, NYPD?

Your claims of instant healings right before your eyes would be a tad bit more credible if you were to, say, empty a hospital. Or even a room. Nonetheless, even taking your empty claim at face value, it doesn't prove the resurrection of Jesus.

The whole purpose of the show gave us a five year arc. That it could go on past that time is truly a credit to the writers. But to be honest, I would have lost interest if Flash hadn't come along. It's really been a Flashverse more than an Arrowverse, when you think about it. Arrow is the only series that tried to stay grounded in "reality," such as it was. Not complaining. Just... saying.

Correct

Monroe Cole Jimmy McGinty. You know "Jimmy" Doyle by his more famous nickname.

If you remember what the last countdowns were about (it's been more than 13 years, so I'm guessing most people are like, wha?), please don't spoil it. Our countdown starts at 41

This falls into the category of "been discussed ad nauseum." Many people have tried. No linguist who has ever studied SIT has actually identified a language produced. A number have concluded "this sounds like it might be..." but no follow up was ever done to nail it down. Important to note: they did not "study" it. They listened to a sample and expressed their initial thoughts. So "never" is accurate, but it doesn't quite go far enough for us doubters. That said (as I mentioned in another thread), you really have a serious burden of proof issue here that has to be addressed: Do I have to prove what you're producing is not a language, or do YOU have to prove it is? Technically, the answer is neither. You can be speaking in tongues and I have a trained linguist who carefully takes notes, studies your output for a year, can't find a language and, in the end, reaches the conclusion that he/she cannot say with any certainty that a language was produced. That's the problem on my side: I can NEVER prove to YOUR satisfaction that what YOU are producing is NOT a language. BUT!!!!!!!!! You can prove to my satisfaction that it is. Fine, we can't identify yours? We have 100,000 other people who have been through PFAL as of 1988. Surely ONE of them can produce an identifiable language in front of an objective linguist. Any takers? No? It only takes ONE PERSON producing ONE LANGUAGE to demonstrate that there is something supernatural taking place. ONE. Nope. Not one. No one's ever done it. In THAT sense, "never" is absolutely accurate.

"Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts." This is going to sound nitpicky, but you need to be more precise. Atheism is NOT the belief that God does not exist. It is the absence of the belief that he does. What's the difference? It has to do with where the burden of proof lies. In debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the positive assertion. If you make an assertion, it is on you to prove that assertion is true. Atheists tend to argue that we are not making an assertion. Rather, we are denying yours. Atheism can only be disproved by proving the existence of God. One can never prove atheism is correct, but you can prove atheism is incorrect in a heartbeat by proving the existence of God. This is similar to our earlier debate and discussion about speaking in tongues. Remember how I was asked to prove everyone was faking it, and I admitted I couldn't? I shouldn't have to prove everyone is faking it, because I am not the one making a claim. I am rejecting a claim. If you want to prove me wrong, you have to prove you're producing a language. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in Bigfoot, Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster. No one demands such proof of them. No one says they have a belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No one suggests it's their job to prove their case. They're not making a case. They're rejecting some other schmoe's case. As for the founding fathers, it gets a little complicated. I think if you looked carefully at some of the significant ones, you would find beliefs that would be roundly criticized by modern Christians. Jefferson produced a Bible that stripped the life of Jesus of all miracles and claims of divinity (by which I am including references to being the "son of God"). Christians love citing his references to God, but they fail to recognize that his God and theirs have very little in common. In the Declaration of Independence, for example, Jefferson refers to man's "creator" and to "nature's God." "Nature's God" is not a Christian concept. The Bible never refers to Yahweh as "Nature's God." It is a deist idea. More accurately, it is the concept of "God" that transcends any one religion. The point of "nature's god" in deism is to take the concept of God out of the hands of members of a particular sect. George Washington was a lukewarm Christian at best. John Adams signed a treaty that specifically noted the USA was not founded on the Christian religion. Madison, Monroe, Franklin... These founders understood the significance of religion and spoke admiringly of faith, but they were not Christians by today's church definitions. They'd get chased out of the congregations of Falwell, Graham and others. Other founders were undoubtedly Christian by any reasonable definition of the word, and no one should be permitted to deny that.

John Travolta Hairspray Christopher Walken

Do atheists truly maintain that the 6.5 billion people today, and the nearly 100 billion people throughout the history of our species are completely wrong in their belief in a deity? I actually did answer this one on Quora, though I will answer it here differently. The fact that multiple people believe in a deity is not impressive unless all those people believe in the same deity, in my opinion. That fact that South American natives (Incas, Aztecs and Mayans) all had gods does not signify that their belief validates the existence of Yahweh, Allah or any of the Greek, Roman or Eastern gods. Now, if the Incas worshiped a God named "Llejova" whose only begotten son was executed on the other side of the earth for the sins of mankind, they might be onto something. That might actually be impressive. But the truth is, independent societies have never, ever managed to concoct the same gods with the same name and the same rules and restrictions along with the same philosophies for what happens in the afterlife and what criteria man must meet in order to be eternally rewarded. So? So, that shows that not only do atheists believe all these people throughout history have been wrong, but so does literally everyone else. Christians believe all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists are completely wrong in rejecting their central story. Jews believe the Christians and Muslims are wrong. And don't get me started on the various sects within Christianity that think all the other sects within Christianity have been wrong about Christianity! Numbers do not confirm truth.