Do any of these things have anything to do with the religious/spiritual tenets of the Christian religion? No? Then who cares?
You’re confusing faith based on empirical evidence and observed phenomena with faith based on supernatural events. In the latter case (which includes any religious belief), the faith is indeed blind.
No, obviously what he is (accurately) asserting is that the faith you are defending is wholly of the first kind; you are “falling off the ladder” with no evidence that anyone is there, or can be there. An act of pure blind faith.
Then it’s based on nothing at all…
because daffy appeared to Voyager and told him.
The Gospel of Mark says that the apostles were not aware of who Jesus was. Demands for precise one-to-one analogous correlations are just special pleading anyway.
Most of the people are fictional. yes. The fact that it has real historical places means nothing. So does the Illiad. There is no historical evidence to corrorate any of the supernatural claims of the Bible and much which refutes the historical claims. The core historical claims of Christianity are corroborated by nothing, and don’t even have any primary testimony (nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who ever knew Jesus).
None of those things would have any per se bearing on whether or not I believed the text. I would not believe claims of magic if they were written yesterday by my dad.
I can go into excuciating detail if you want. Do you really want to hear it? It will require a separate thread. If you really want to go into it, I’ll go into it, but don’t ask if you don’t want the answer.
Atheist has nothing to do with it, but, as it happens, I actually am somewhat educated on this subject. I’m not asserting anything because I am an atheist. If you want to go into it, I’ll go into it with facts.
I can tell from your posts that you don’t
Both scenarios are equally credible, and both scenarios have exactly the same evidence that the core claims of Christianity do.
You are aware that religious beliefs would fall into the first category, are you not? They lack any basis at all.
Not to junior mod or anything and I realize that this has started a bit of a derail (not entirely your fault) - if you are interested in defending your position, here is a thread where you can do so.
Did the person who said they would catch you write it down it in a book 2000 years ago? Then, yeah, it’s the same thing.
This part of your post would be an almost a perfect parallel to the Gospels if Voyager had never posted in this thread and your username was ‘anonymous’… 
None of the kings of Israel? None of the prophets? None of the apostles? Nothing? Are most of the people and places in the Bible completely fictional?
[/QUOTE]
There’s plenty of people and places in Daffy Duck cartoons that we have independent confirmation of, too. Thanks for reaffirming my Duckist faith.
Proof that Daffy in His divinity can transcend time and space. (Of course, that’s also how we on earth in the 21st century can have knowledge of His doings on Planet X in the 24-1/2th century.)
Albequerque, Timbuktu, Pismo Beach, and Walla Walla are documented factual places. Dick Cheney corroborated the survivability of shotgun blasts to the face. Just providing historical archeological record that supports Daffy’s divinity…
Although, to be fair, the beak of the lawyer that Cheney shot did not spin around his head.
Because they keep knocking on my door, shoving pamphlets in my face, yelling about how I’m evil if I don’t follow their orders, pushing for laws that favor their beliefs only, blocking abortion clinics and are basically just being big cry-babies whenever they don’t get their collective way. Heaven help the poor, down-trodden Christians, an atheist talked back once.
I tried debating Christians in college but, as the OP implies, it truly is beating your head against a brick wall. For what? In one such debate, a Christian pointed out to me that if I truly believed what I was saying I wouldn’t need to convince others. So true and so ironic. If only she and all the other Christians could hear her words.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that most Christians probably care about the prophets and apostles.
It seems to be that the atheist’s way of winning an argument is redefine terms and then claim that because something doesn’t fit that definition, then it must not be so. Blind faith is defined as belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination. The difference between faith and blind faith has nothing-- little, actually-- to do ‘empirical evidence’ or ‘observed phenomenon’, but rather why one believes what they do and if there’s a given reason to believe that. You might not agree with what and why someone believes what they do, but this doesn’t turn faith into blind faith.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, obviously what he is (accurately) asserting is that the faith you are defending is wholly of the first kind; you are “falling off the ladder” with no evidence that anyone is there, or can be there. An act of pure blind faith.
[/quote]
False. Next question.
[QUOTE=Who_me?]
Then it’s based on nothing at all…
[/quote]
If something isn’t based on blind faith, then it’s based on nothing at all? That is an overall highly ridiculous statement.
(I wonder what would happen if I said that if you don’t believe if God, then you believe in nothing?)
there is no such thing as nothing. nothing does not exist. It cannot be described without referring to something. It is only the absence of a thing. When you speak of nothing you speak of no thing. your statement has no foundation. the yrkthrps are more relevant.
Prophets never actually predicted anything and the apostles didn’t write anything in the bible.
There is no evidence for the bible being anything more than a group of ancient writings. It has no supernatural insight or magic to it. Why do you think the Bible is magic and the Quran isn’t? They’re both equally without evidence for supernatural power. Yet you choose one and dismiss the other. You are advocating nonsense.
What is the evidence. Back up your bullshit or run away.
I assume that Der believes in reality and science. In looking to nature for explanations. You believe in looking to bronze-age nonsense for answers.
They can only be clearly viewed through the use of certain translation stones, preferably at the bottom of a hat. And they are obviously of such great value, that not just anybody can be allowed to view them.
But they have been partially translated… er… redrawn for the viewing of common people. Unfortunately, Martin Harris took all this work away and “lost” it. And then, before work could begin again, an angel came and took those animation cels away.
Too bad.
No, true. There’s no evidence at all that the religion you are defending is true, there’s no evidence it can be true. All the evidence is against it. It is, again, just as silly as believing in Santa Claus.
I’d ask what’s the difference between saying that and saying “If you don’t believe in Tezcatlipoca, you believe in nothing”. Or Zeus, or Santa Claus, or Sauron. There’s nothing profound about believing in your particular imaginary sky thug.
Me too. And know what bugs me? The War against Daffyists. When you go into a store in the mall to buy a present for Daffy’s Birthday (which we put under a big carrot in our living rooms) do the clerks wish you Happy Daffyday? No!
I rest my case.
ETA: I meant Duckmas, of course.
He’d have to do hundreds of posts under my name to really match it.
Hmm, if they were using SDMB rules back then, there would be no Bible. It seems the Bible was written by sockpuppets.