1 2 3 4
Stupidity for Jesus
WOW. Are you serious?
"He didn't like me putting his own words back to him, so he just left and didn't speak to me for the rest of the day."
Was his palm on his face at the time? I bet it was.
6/18/2009 10:00:18 PM
The Skeptic Wept
No doubt he knew from your (lame) argument where it was going and decided not to waste his time.
BTW, we have physical and corroborating evidence for Columbus. What have you got?
6/18/2009 10:01:13 PM
Maybe you could own a dictionary instead and learn how to spell atheist correctly, just sayin'.
6/18/2009 10:06:03 PM
One few thousand years old book full with internal inconsistencies and miracles VS hundreds of different documents, each one of them undisputable, telling the same consistent and plausible story.
Hell, I know which one to believe. DO you?
6/18/2009 10:06:39 PM
Pwnd for sure. Hope I never get into a debate with Trance.
*quivers with fear at the thought*
6/18/2009 10:09:44 PM
Here's the fundamental thing- you can find *evidence* that Christopher Colombus existed. Evidence that you can cross reference, and stacks up against multiple sources.
Hypothetically, he could be some gigantic historical hoax- but that would only be credible if one could demonstrate that all the current evidence was unreliable; especially if accompanied by evidence of motivation for perpetuating such a hoax, or evidence that was incompatible with, or suggested the non-existence of Christopher Columbus.
That is, of course, incredibly unlikely to happen- and that's the key difference with your beliefs; in my understanding, ignoring evidence or the absence thereof relating to matters of spirituality is a virtue in most religions. Wonder why?
In my view, that sort of belief would not be appropriate in any circumstances- rejecting any argument or evidence to the contrary out of hand and despising those who disagree. I'd have no difficulty rejecting the concept that Christopher Columbus once lived if a credible account was given dismissing the evidence to that effect; though as I say, it's so improbable that I would rarely need to worry about that possibility.
A person who rationally contemplates the world lives in a constant state of enquiry and updates his knowledge regularly. You, on the other hand, regard that as a fundamental weakness of rationality and enquiry, which is an attitude that baffles and disturbs non-fundies of all creeds and colours including your own.
6/18/2009 10:12:01 PM
That was either a really stupid atheist, one so smart that he couldn't deal with your dumbass argument, or you're just pulling a story out of your likely wide ass.
We know Columbus existed because we have physical proof he did. The same cannot be said for the great flood, Moses, or even the protagonist of your clusterfuck of a story, Jesus.
6/18/2009 10:19:43 PM
Yesterday I slept through the entire day. Since I didn't actually see anything for the entire day, I guess there's no way to know for sure if yesterday even happened or not. After all, I'm just going by what everyone else says...
(*sarcasm off*) Seriously. Use some common sense.
6/18/2009 10:29:05 PM
You all missed the best line of the thread:
The proof of God and the Bible are based on irrefutable circumstantial evidence. - Mark777
6/18/2009 10:29:33 PM
Yeah the reason he didn't speak to you the rest of the day is because you're a freakin' idiot, not because you pwnd him. It's kind of like a saying that I once read in an article in a newspaper once that stated that you, a wise person, shouldn't keep engaging in an argument/debate with a fool because eventually people on the outside looking in will begin to be unable to distinguish the two.
There are historical accounts of Christopher Columbus's deeds as they were happening at the time the events were taking place. As for Jesus, the accounts of the deeds he did were not written down until decades after Jesus's death and resurection. The Bible was finally cannonized centuries after that.
What job do you have by the way?
Where do you work at? Seriously.
6/18/2009 10:30:12 PM
History books are checked for accuracy; the Bible is not. Next.
6/18/2009 10:37:56 PM
Evidence of Christopher Columbus exists.
6/18/2009 10:50:08 PM
He wasn't going to enter a battle of wits with you because you are unarmed and it wouldn't be fair
6/18/2009 10:52:46 PM
As someone who is "athier" than that "athiest" co-worker, I'm sure glad I wasn't on the receiving end of that frightening display of logic.
6/18/2009 10:54:53 PM
Phew, I'm sure glad I'm not an 'athiest'.
6/18/2009 11:12:25 PM
If the historical story about Columbus is true, then there must be physical evidence, like a whole bunch of Caucasians in the New world.
If the Biblical story about Jesus is true, then there must be physical evidence, like a solid roof to the sky ('Firmament'as in 'firm')with water above it.
See the difference?
6/18/2009 11:24:47 PM
So if this person was Athiest, who do you know who was merely "athy" and "athier" than you?
6/18/2009 11:31:12 PM
Sounds like a load of bullshit to me.
6/18/2009 11:31:44 PM
You have A book, singula-aw, fuck it! You won't listen.
6/18/2009 11:35:55 PM
Yeah, you "owned" him, alright. It's just too bad that your argument doesn't make any sense. The difference between the bible and history books is that there are external sources that you can check history against to cross-reference. The bible cannot be cross-referenced... kind of like a book of made-up crap; I think that's called FICTION.
6/18/2009 11:37:01 PM
<<I just totally owned an Athiest Co-Worker.>>
<<Ok first of all, I know it's not right to be prideful...>>
Why? No, seriously, why is it "sinful" to take pride in one's accomplishments? I've never understood this.
<<...but he was so arrogant about his dis-belief in God, and that anybody who did believe was 'mentally unstable' and needed to be 'kept away from "decent folks"'>>
Depends on the level of belief. If you're a rational person who just happens to hold onto "god", but doesn't make a big fucking deal about it, fine. No problem.
If, like Trance, you're a raving fundamentalist loon, you are mentally unstable, and you ought to be locked away for safety reasons.
<<We got into a discussion in the break room, and the subject came up to God, and he knows I am a Christian.>>
The subject of god didn't just "come up," you probably brought it up to him, just like you always do, pushing your Lord and Slaver on everyone else. There is no way your co-worker could not have known you're a Jesus Junkie.
<<He said 'How can you believe in something you have never seen before... you don't even know that God exists. You think he does, based on what some stupid book (the Bible) says, but you can never know for sure.>>
He's right. You DON'T know. You believe based on a moldy old tome that has been disproven time and again.
<<So I used his own logic against him. I said 'And by that token, you can't prove Christopher Columbus existed, because you've never seen him.>>
Good god, you're an idiot. CC is well-documented by his contemporaries. Your "god" is not. Neither is Jesus, for that matter.
<<He just rolled his eyes and said 'Anybody with a brain cell... even you can't tell me he didn't exist. Everybody knows he left Spain and discovered the New World.>>
Because it was very well documented at the time, again, unlike your "god" or your "Jesus".
<<I just smiled and said 'But you don't know for sure. You're just going by what the history books have said unless you see it for yourself, there is no way you can prove it. Those were your exact words' .>>
ASSHATTERY FOR CHRIST!
<<He didn't like me putting his own words back to him...>>
No. He didn't like your stupidity, and had obviously had more than enough of your god-bothering.
<<...so he just left and didn't speak to me for the rest of the day.>>
Out of sheer disgust.
6/18/2009 11:38:06 PM
OK, there's plenty wrong with this, but I thought I'd focus on one part:
"Ok first of all, I know it's not right to be prideful"
Doesn't it strike anyone else that making that statement is itself prideful and/or arrogant? Clearly the purpose of saying this is to make a conspicuous display of this alleged moral precept, in the hope of receiving praise from others.
This is one of the things that I get so tired of, and it is particularly common with the RR people: making statements that are clearly designed purely to illicit praise and adulation from others. "Look how moral I am!" - in reality such statements are morally empty, and do nothing to improve human life in the slightest.
6/19/2009 12:23:41 AM
Christopher Columbus was a verifiable living person. There is a world of difference between a book of ancient fairy tales and a history book.
And I would have given you my back too. I don't argue with the stupid.
6/19/2009 12:45:58 AM
Well actually having a tomb in Seville Cathedral as well as maps and hand written notes by columbus already proves he has existed.
6/19/2009 1:18:30 AM
Yeah, that's not because you "owned" him.
That's because you're a moron.
And the reason why you're a moron is that, unlike for Jesus, where the 4 accounts that talk about him are, oddly enough (no, not really), all from the same group of people, for columbus we have:
1) The fact that colonies were extablished and that the US was founded on the lands he helped discover.
2) Various independent reliable accounts that talk about him without making claims that no sane man would accept for ANY character in history.
3) about 600 years of history where his existence is accepted without delay or doubt. Unlike christ's existence and divine claims whose independent verification never came and whose cult got accepthed after some 100 years or so
6/19/2009 1:19:15 AM
1 2 3 4