Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

HUj8hg5CoSw

A funny video. Can a theist please explain why this is stupid?

Goin' out on a limb here. Because you'd have to actually go back in time to get proof that Jesus is imaginary. Besides, negatives cannot be proven positively in any way shape or form.

Right, OK...

Matthew 18:18-20

Its about solidifying the Infallibility of the Church...its a promise to the Apostles, not the faithful.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Right, OK...

Matthew 18:18-20

Its about solidifying the Infallibility of the Church...its a promise to the Apostles, not the faithful.

So, it is a matter of interpretation?

... For once, I have nothing to say.

Originally posted by Mandos
... For once, I have nothing to say.

A Miracle....

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, it is a matter of interpretation?

No, it isn't.

What he said was to the apostles about their status within his Church.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No, it isn't.

What he said was to the apostles about their status within his Church.

But aren't we all equal under god?

Nope. it depends on your denomination.........

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Nope. it depends on your denomination.........
And what are denomination, if they are not interpretations?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But aren't we all equal under god?

Your job does not change your equal status.

The pope is not superior to you, a bishop is not superior to you, a priest is not superior to you, a Catholic is not superior to you...noone is superior to you and you are superior to no one.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A Miracle....

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And what are denomination, if they are not interpretations? Same ol branches from the same ol tree..

Calling a Maple the same as an Oak and the Oak the same as a Spruce and the Spruce the same as a Willow and .................We are all trees if you except "only a difference."........If so, then we are all trees.

Ah, good old Shakya on the voice of reason. I can count on you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ah, good old Shakya on the voice of reason. I can count on you.

You mean...to make the arguments you can't possibly make?

Read Bible Comics

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You mean...to make the arguments you can't possibly make? Actually I was doing other stuff, and Shakya said what I'd pretty much say.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Actually I was doing other stuff, and Shakya said what I'd pretty much say.

Oh..so I was right then.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh..so I was right then.

Mark your calendar.

No. This video isn't a matter of fact, it's a matter of faith. Faith is what plays the largest part in rebutting this video. People who don't subscribe to christianity will see this video a think "DUH!?" People with faith will think this video fails to address the reality they cling to so desperately. The end result of this video is that nothing was exposed or resolved. Besides, 2000 years of human faith aren't going to be so easily dismissed by a 5 minute viedo on youtube. I applaud the logic used by the creators of the video, I just disdain the effect they assumed they would have on anone who watched it.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh..so I was right then. No... You said I can't make those arguments. Show me the evidence for that. You have none.

Originally posted by Devil King
No. This video isn't a matter of fact, it's a matter of faith. Faith is what plays the largest part in rebutting this video. People who don't subscribe to christianity will see this video a think "DUH!?" People with faith will think this video fails to address the reality they cling to so desperately. The end result of this video is that nothing was exposed or resolved. Besides, 2000 years of human faith aren't going to be so easily dismissed by a 5 minute viedo on youtube. I applaud the logic used by the creators of the video, I just disdain the effect they assumed they would have on anone who watched it. I'm asking for a theist to debunk it. I believe it can't be. Whether they'll accept it or not, I don't know.

Having watched it my reaction is that it requires an extremely shallow understanding of religion. Though perhaps that's intentional?

it should be no problem for a theist to dispute;

the bible is not literal

Originally posted by lord xyz


A funny video. Can a theist please explain why this is stupid?

Easy.
1. Saying you have faith is not having faith. There is a distinct line between the two.

2. In Matthew 18:18-20 he said that to the apostles because they already had alot of faith in him, they lived on the streets for him and relied on God to keep them fed, clothed and protected until the time comes when their faith was truly tested.

3. 2 People sitting together and asking god to appear for proof of his resurrection is an oxymoron. If they already had faith they would not need proof.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Easy.
1. Saying you have faith is not having faith. There is a distinct line between the two. But what if you really do have faith and just want to see Jesus, if you have faith, you'd expect him to appear, since that's what you believe.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
2. In Matthew 18:18-20 he said that to the apostles because they already had alot of faith in him, they lived on the streets for him and relied on God to keep them fed, clothed and protected until the time comes when their faith was truly tested. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Does not mention the apostles, seems like it's refering to anyone actually.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
3. 2 People sitting together and asking god to appear for proof of his resurrection is an oxymoron. If they already had faith they would not need proof. Faith in what? If they had faith he'd answer their prayer, they would pray and expect it to be answered.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But what if you really do have faith and just want to see Jesus, if you have faith, you'd expect him to appear, since that's what you believe.

18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Does not mention the apostles, seems like it's refering to anyone actually.

Faith in what? If they had faith he'd answer their prayer, they would pray and expect it to be answered.

1. If someone had faith(or any miracle-working faith) to see Jesus himself, they'd feel confident enough to live on the streets, to put all their trust and faith in Gods hands. This doesn't mean you should if you doubt though.

2. Where two or three are gathered, God is there, that is correct. This doesn't mean God will do miracles for those who aren't confident in him, or those who think he's a liar.
He's technically saying that whenever the apostles ask something he'll be there and he'll grant their request.

3. If you don't believe he was resurrected, then how can you believe anything else in the Bible? How can you believe faith will do such things?

Faith in God, Faith in the Bible, Faith that it would happen. If anyone today had enough Faith to see Jesus, we would most likely see them on the news as miracle-workers, because they'd also be able to do many great miracles (which we don't see nowadays).

Going into the topic of faith gets a tad bit complex, trust me, i've thought alot about it.

Most believers today wouldn't dare attempt miracles in he prescence of non-believers, why? because they don't believe God would do it and they think they would get laughed at and made a fool of, that's lack of miracle-working faith.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
1. If someone had faith(or any miracle-working faith) to see Jesus himself, they'd feel confident enough to live on the streets, to put all their trust and faith in Gods hands. This doesn't mean you should if you doubt though. Okay, I think the fact is that you know Jesus won't appear. You as in everyone. So, let me ask you a question, why doesn't Jesus appear?

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
2. Where two or three are gathered, God is there, that is correct. This doesn't mean God will do miracles for those who aren't confident in him, or those who think he's a liar. They are confident in him, they'd just like to see it, for reassurance, and to convert the non-believers etc.
Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
He's technically saying that whenever the apostles ask something he'll be there and he'll grant their request. Doesn't mention apostles.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
3. If you don't believe he was resurrected, then how can you believe anything else in the Bible? How can you believe faith will do such things? No, don't pray because you don't believe in the ressurection, pray because you believe he will appear like the Bible says.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Faith in God, Faith in the Bible, Faith that it would happen. If anyone today had enough Faith to see Jesus, we would most likely see them on the news as miracle-workers, because they'd also be able to do many great miracles (which we don't see nowadays). This doesn't make sense to me grammatically. Please rephrase it.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Going into the topic of faith gets a tad bit complex, trust me, i've thought alot about it. K.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Most believers today wouldn't dare attempt miracles in he prescence of non-believers, why? because they don't believe God would do it and they think they would get laughed at and made a fool of, that's lack of miracle-working faith. They don't do it because they think they'd get ridiculed? Damn. I guess their faith isn't that strong if they're willing to let infidels get to them.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ah, good old Shakya on the voice of reason. I can count on you. I said it first................

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I said it first................ I'm sorry. console

Originally posted by lord xyz
So, let me ask you a question, why doesn't Jesus appear?

Not typically my style, but he does:
http://steppingstones.to/light/enlightening/inspiration/001.html

Literal interpretation of any sort of mythology is a very limited way of thinking, especially when the person speaking explains just about everything via metaphor. That's the sort of thing that should clue you in.

Originally posted by lord xyz
They are confident in him, they'd just like to see it, for reassurance, and to convert the non-believers etc.

If they don't believe in the first place having confidence in him would be impossible.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Doesn't mention apostles.

Okay, first of all it's in Matthew so . . . duh.

Secondly Matthew 18 begins with "At that time the disciples came to Jesus" and then he speaks uninterrupted for a long period of time in which he could only be addressing the apostles/disciples (unless he like broke the 4th wall or something).

george carlin had it right. religion is the biggest scam. invisibe man watches you 24 7, list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do. If you do, you'll burn in hell, but he loves you. And he needs money. He's all knowing all powerful, doesn't pay taxes, but always needs a little more. Ha!

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm sorry. console Tanks. wuv

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not typically my style, but he does:
http://steppingstones.to/light/enlightening/inspiration/001.html

Literal interpretation of any sort of mythology is a very limited way of thinking, especially when the person speaking explains just about everything via metaphor. That's the sort of thing that should clue you in. Why does he not appear to everyone?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they don't believe in the first place having confidence in him would be impossible. They do believe, they believe he'll appear.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, first of all it's in Matthew so . . . duh.

Secondly Matthew 18 begins with "At that time the disciples came to Jesus" and then he speaks uninterrupted for a long period of time in which he could only be addressing the apostles/disciples (unless he like broke the 4th wall or something). Then that would apply to all of Matthew Luke Mark and John. Like the famous John 3:16 quote. Besides, I don't remember anywhere that says the disciples are to be treated dfifferently to everyone else, they're not gods or anything, they're just christians like the rest.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Why does he not appear to everyone?

*sigh* You didn't even click the link, did you?

Originally posted by lord xyz
They do believe, they believe he'll appear.

Not if they're atheists, which would be just about the only people that would take that video seriously.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then that would apply to all of Matthew Luke Mark and John. Like the famous John 3:16 quote. Besides, I don't remember anywhere that says the disciples are to be treated dfifferently to everyone else, they're not gods or anything, they're just christians like the rest.

Second part is much more important. We know for a fact that Jesus was speaking specifically to the disciples in Matthew 18. As for the disciples being special, those are the guys that walked around with the son of God while he was preaching . . . 12 people out of billions through out history. That qualifies as pretty special.



There's also a massively gaping hole in the video's logic. The only thing it could even hope to prove is that Jesus lacks the power to spontaneously appear when called.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only thing it could even hope to prove is that Jesus lacks the power to spontaneously appear when called.

or the desire...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, I think the fact is that you know Jesus won't appear. You as in everyone. So, let me ask you a question, why doesn't Jesus appear?

They are confident in him, they'd just like to see it, for reassurance, and to convert the non-believers etc.
Doesn't mention apostles.

No, don't pray because you don't believe in the ressurection, pray because you believe he will appear like the Bible says.

This doesn't make sense to me grammatically. Please rephrase it.

K.

They don't do it because they think they'd get ridiculed? Damn. I guess their faith isn't that strong if they're willing to let infidels get to them.

1. He doesn't appear because they do not have enough faith. If they did, they'd naturally feel very excited about the fact he would appear to them, just as excited asif he already had appeared.

2. If they were confident, it would happen.

3. They were the people with him at the time. Anyway, if you beleive what he says then it doesn't matter, you would get what you ask anyway if you believed.

4. I meant that if you could see Jesus, you'd also be able to walk on water, and do many other miracles. If you ask to see Jesus and you can't already move a mountain, he ain't gonna appear.

5. It's true, my own Dad's always telling me "God sometimes says no" as excuse for why miracles don't happen today, then I ask "Then why doesn't he tell me no audibly?", from there dad usually doesn't have an appropriate reply according to scripture. My own dad lacks enough faith in Gods word.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
1. He doesn't appear because they do not have enough faith. If they did, they'd naturally feel very excited about the fact he would appear to them, just as excited asif he already had appeared.

2. If they were confident, it would happen.

3. They were the people with him at the time. Anyway, if you beleive what he says then it doesn't matter, you would get what you ask anyway if you believed.

4. I meant that if you could see Jesus, you'd also be able to walk on water, and do many other miracles. If you ask to see Jesus and you can't already move a mountain, he ain't gonna appear.

5. It's true, my own Dad's always telling me "God sometimes says no" as excuse for why miracles don't happen today, then I ask "Then why doesn't he tell me no audibly?", from there dad usually doesn't have an appropriate reply according to scripture. My own dad lacks enough faith in Gods word.

here is the problem with your argument:

if God is unable to reveal himself to someone of no faith, then he is not omnipotent.

Why are you arguing that God works like a vending machine anyways? There is no reason to think that God would perform such trivial gestures in the first place, thus no reason to justify the lack of Jesus' appearance.

Originally posted by inimalist
here is the problem with your argument:

if God is unable to reveal himself to someone of no faith, then he is not omnipotent.

Why are you arguing that God works like a vending machine anyways? There is no reason to think that God would perform such trivial gestures in the first place, thus no reason to justify the lack of Jesus' appearance. That reminded me of this:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*sigh* You didn't even click the link, did you? No, sorry.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not if they're atheists, which would be just about the only people that would take that video seriously. It's directed at christians and intended for christians.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Second part is much more important. We know for a fact that Jesus was speaking specifically to the disciples in Matthew 18. As for the disciples being special, those are the guys that walked around with the son of God while he was preaching . . . 12 people out of billions through out history. That qualifies as pretty special. I'm asking for a Bible verse or some biblical evidence as to why disciples would have different rules.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's also a massively gaping hole in the video's logic. The only thing it could even hope to prove is that Jesus lacks the power to spontaneously appear when called. Then he is not omnipotent, and didn't keep his promise.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


unfortunately, that requires one to make predictions about the motivations and expected actions of a divine being which shows no pattern of behaviour to make such predictions about.

If you are asking my personal opinion, yes, the way God is described in most scripture is akin to an evil spirit which humans should resist at every instance, but like, thats my interpretation. Unless your definition of religion and God are literalist and not open to personal interpretations, its not really possible to make these types of logical arguments. The best you can do is say stuff like "If there is a benevolent God which X, Y and Z, then we might expect certain things to be observable in his followers/the organization of the world/etc." But that in itself is subject to what I described.

Maybe humans are just incapable of understanding evil?

Thats not much proof is it. the odd text out of context here and there and no basic knowledge of the bible.

and using churches pagan based beliefs as ammo.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, sorry.

Look at it. It's about how "seeing god" isn't literal.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's directed at christians and intended for christians.

And will be ignored by them.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then he is not omnipotent, and didn't keep his promise.

No, then he is not omnipotent or didn't keep his promise. Existence does not hinge on either one of those.

Originally posted by inimalist
here is the problem with your argument:

if God is unable to reveal himself to someone of no faith, then he is not omnipotent.

Why are you arguing that God works like a vending machine anyways? There is no reason to think that God would perform such trivial gestures in the first place, thus no reason to justify the lack of Jesus' appearance.

God doesn't work like a vending machine, so why do you seem to think he's unable to appear? If he appeared to those without full faith in him they would doubt it as being him, they might say "It was actually a demon pretending to be God" or "I'm seeing delusions".

But if this person has faith enough to see him they'd also be able to do miracles, which would prove that it really is God and that they are not going mad.
God himself said he answers those with enough faith, therefore through faith we know it's him who appeared to us.

He chooses not to appear to those without sufficient faith, that's it.

The next time you see a Christian come up to you and atleast attempts to perform a miracle through God (whether the miracle works or not) you know that person has more faith than most people.
Because you don't even see people attempt to perform a miracle through God infront of non-believers you know that people lack faith.

God did such "trivial gestures" in the days of Adam and Eve, so why not now? he walked and spoke with them.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
God doesn't work like a vending machine, so why do you seem to think he's unable to appear? If he appeared to those without full faith in him they would doubt it as being him, they might say "It was actually a demon pretending to be God" or "I'm seeing delusions".

But if this person has faith enough to see him they'd also be able to do miracles, which would prove that it really is God and that they are not going mad.
God himself said he answers those with enough faith, therefore through faith we know it's him who appeared to us.

He chooses not to appear to those without sufficient faith, that's it.

The next time you see a Christian come up to you and atleast attempts to perform a miracle through God (whether the miracle works or not) you know that person has more faith than most people.
Because you don't even see people attempt to perform a miracle through God infront of non-believers you know that people lack faith.

God did such "trivial gestures" in the days of Adam and Eve, so why not now? he walked and spoke with them.

In other words, you have to imagine Jesus being there, and then believe it.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
He chooses not to appear to those without sufficient faith, that's it.

Surely one of the over 6 million jews who died in the holocaust believed enough to not have their people incinerated?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In other words, you have to imagine Jesus being there, and then believe it.



lol, I was avoiding the psychology angle

Jesus appeared when I did it...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In other words, you have to imagine Jesus being there, and then believe it.

Imagination isn't faith.

You have to rely on Jesus being there, you have to be confident enough that he will appear to tell somebody else the exact date and time that he'll appear without feeling like a fool, It has to feel asif you're about to meet him.

It's a case of reliability, and most people don't rely on God for their needs, nevermind their desires.

Originally posted by inimalist
Surely one of the over 6 million jews who died in the holocaust believed enough to not have their people incinerated?

It seems not. Or maybe some of them did, who knows. Eventually even the apostles allowed themselves to be killed.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
It seems not. Or maybe some of them did, who knows. Eventually even the apostles allowed themselves to be killed.

lol, at least you are consistent

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Imagination isn't faith.

You have to rely on Jesus being there, you have to be confident enough that he will appear to tell somebody else the exact date and time that he'll appear without feeling like a fool, It has to feel asif you're about to meet him.

It's a case of reliability, and most people don't rely on God for their needs, nevermind their desires.



It seems not. Or maybe some of them did, who knows. Eventually even the apostles allowed themselves to be killed.

Sorry, I got it out of order. You have to believe first then use your imagination.

Will those feet in Modern Times...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Look at it. It's about how "seeing god" isn't literal. Yeah, I've seen it now. Isn't that like cheating? I mean it's like changing the definition of a word or editing wikipedia.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And will be ignored by them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, then he is not omnipotent or didn't keep his promise. Existence does not hinge on either one of those. Then he's an assh*le.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, I've seen it now. Isn't that like cheating? I mean it's like changing the definition of a word or editing wikipedia.

The intransitive verb for of "see" can mean "to understand" in English and American. Not to mention that Jesus spoke almost universally in metaphors and few religions are ever meant to be taken at literal face value.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then he's an assh*le.

Last time I checked real people could be assholes and nice people can fail to fulfill a promise. No matter how you slice it the people from "Godisimaginary.com" are not particularly . . . well rational, to use their word.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The intransitive verb for of "see" can mean "to understand" in English and American. Not to mention that Jesus spoke almost universally in metaphors and few religions are ever meant to be taken at literal face value.



Last time I checked real people could be assholes and nice people can fail to fulfill a promise. No matter how you slice it the people from "Godisimaginary.com" are not particularly . . . well rational, to use their word. Metaphors, of course.

They're saying there's no evidence and god can't be proven scientifically, so why believe?

I had come here to search for this, and it just fell into my lap.Originally posted by inimalist
Surely one of the over 6 million jews who died in the holocaust believed enough to not have their people incinerated?

Godwin's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Jbill's location sounds like a Dane Cook joke.

Originally posted by lord xyz
They're saying there's no evidence and god can't be proven scientifically, so why believe?

No they're really just being idiots. Any rational (fun word) person can see that.

I'll reduce it to a syllogism for you.

Premise 1: Jesus is here on Earth.
Premise 2: Appearing would be easy.
Premise 3: He's allowed to appear.
Premise 4: He said he will appear.

Observation: Jesus has not appeared.

Conclusion: Jesus is imaginary.

The conclusion is irrational and invalid because none of those things have anything at all to do with existance.



But let's do it in the style of Reason just to improve the dickish irony:

Premise 1: My roommate is here on Earth.
Premise 2: He can walk into this room.
Premise 3: He's allowed to walk into this room.
Premise 4: He left a note that he would be here.

Observation: My roommate is not in this room.

Conclusion: My roommate is imaginary.

Any sane, rational, thinking person can see why that conclusion in invalid and completely devoid of logic. The lesson here is that when arguing from the side of "reason" and "logic" don't say something that is inarguably irrational unless you want to be mocked for it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No they're really just being idiots. Any rational (fun word) person can see that.

I'll reduce it to a syllogism for you.

Premise 1: Jesus is here on Earth.
Premise 2: Appearing would be easy.
Premise 3: He's allowed to appear.
Premise 4: He said he will appear.

Observation: Jesus has not appeared.

Conclusion: Jesus is imaginary.

The conclusion is irrational and invalid because none of those things have anything at all to do with existance.



But let's do it in the style of Reason just to improve the dickish irony:

Premise 1: My roommate is here on Earth.
Premise 2: He can walk into this room.
Premise 3: He's allowed to walk into this room.
Premise 4: He left a note that he would be here.

Observation: My roommate is not in this room.

Conclusion: My roommate is imaginary.

Any sane, rational, thinking person can see why that conclusion in invalid and completely devoid of logic. The lesson here is that when arguing from the side of "reason" and "logic" don't say something that is inarguably irrational unless you want to be mocked for it.

Your roommate did not die 2000 years ago, but Jesus did. Now, if your roommate has been dead for a long time, then I would venture to say he is now imaginary.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your roommate did not die 2000 years ago, but Jesus did. Now, if your roommate has been dead for a long time, then I would venture to say he is now imaginary.

Red herring. Jesus's death is not brought up in their argument and the first premise is that he is here with us on Earth (which come to think of it contradicts the conclusion as well).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Red herring. Jesus's death is not brought up in their argument and the first premise is that he is here with us on Earth (which come to think of it contradicts the conclusion as well).

Only an idiot would think they are talking about a Mexican guy named Jesus.

It is clear who they are talking about, and everyone knows he died.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No they're really just being idiots. Any rational (fun word) person can see that.

I'll reduce it to a syllogism for you.

Premise 1: Jesus is here on Earth.
Premise 2: Appearing would be easy.
Premise 3: He's allowed to appear.
Premise 4: He said he will appear.

Observation: Jesus has not appeared.

Conclusion: Jesus is imaginary.

The conclusion is irrational and invalid because none of those things have anything at all to do with existance.



But let's do it in the style of Reason just to improve the dickish irony:

Premise 1: My roommate is here on Earth.
Premise 2: He can walk into this room.
Premise 3: He's allowed to walk into this room.
Premise 4: He left a note that he would be here.

Observation: My roommate is not in this room.

Conclusion: My roommate is imaginary.

Any sane, rational, thinking person can see why that conclusion in invalid and completely devoid of logic. The lesson here is that when arguing from the side of "reason" and "logic" don't say something that is inarguably irrational unless you want to be mocked for it. No, you're roomate's note is not absolute truth, but the Bible supposedly is. Your roomate is not omnipotent, but Jesus supposedly is.

you just compared Jesus to a normal human like everyone else, now if a normal human said the stuff Jesus said, he'd be a nut. You called Jesus a nut.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only an idiot would think they are talking about a Mexican guy named Jesus.

It is clear who they are talking about, and everyone knows he died.

I know who they're talking about. They didn't bring up his death as part of the argument so it's irrelevant to their logic, which is totally flawed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know who they're talking about. They didn't bring up his death as part of the argument so it's irrelevant to their logic, which is totally flawed.

You do not have to bring up things that are common and assumed by everyone.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, you're roomate's note is not absolute truth, but the Bible supposedly is.

Only from some, shallow view points.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Your roomate is not omnipotent, but Jesus supposedly is.

Ironically, scientists have recently discovered that beings other than omnipotent gods can walk into a room.

Originally posted by lord xyz
you just compared Jesus to a normal human like everyone else

Yes I did. Relatively ordinary people are quite capable of existing despite any rumors to the contrary.

Originally posted by lord xyz
now if a normal human said the stuff Jesus said, he'd be a nut.

Yup, but my roommate didn't say any of the stuff Jesus said. He just said he'd be in the room.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You called Jesus a nut.

Not at all. You've made a leap between to completely unrelated concepts, one of which you presented, not me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You do not have to bring up things that are common and assumed by everyone.

When making an argument in which every point you're using as support is detailed, yes you do. Plus they mention only three steps which they outline none of which include "Jesus is dead". Their argument is completely insane and no attempt to justify it can change that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When making an argument in which every point you're using as support is detailed, yes you do. Plus they mention only three steps which they outline none of which include "Jesus is dead". Their argument is completely insane and no attempt to justify it can change that.

That is silly. If you had to bring up every little thing, you would never get around to debating. You are trying to find a point to trash the entire argument, and this is all you can find?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is silly. If you had to bring up every little thing, you would never get around to debating. You are trying to find a point to trash the entire argument, and this is all you can find?

They made an argument, they actually presented the entirety of their reasoning for the argument. It did not include Jesus' death which makes it totally irrelevant to the argument that they made (better yet they make the assumption that he's alive at the very start of the argument). Validity and truth have nothing to do with one another. The argument they presented (and even summarized for me so nicely at the end) is illogical, invalid, and begins by assuming Jesus actually came back from the dead.

If you can look at their argument and say "That makes sense." you either delusional or an idiot. That's not an attack, that's plain and simple truth.

I think Syms argument is very good.

Anyway, Jesus clearly said that once he left this world he would return only at a certain time- thus he will answer your prayer to show himself, and that answer will be no.

Original videos argument:
1. Jesus wouldn't mind appearing, because he has done it before.
2. Jesus does whatever two or more Christians ask him to do.
3. Jesus does not always appear when asked to by Christians.
4. Thus, Jesus as defined in the Bible is imaginary.

Response to each point. (as indicated by number)
1. This point is a Hazy Generalisation. Doing something once does not mean you will do it again.
2. Straw Man, Jesus says he would do what was asked in his name. Asking Jesus to appear for confirmation of his existance is contrary to how Jesus works. "Blessed is he who has not seen yet belives.
3. Thus Jesus cannot be expected to answer every prayer, thus Jesus cannot be expected to appear.
4. Lack of Jesus appearing does not prove the Jesus of the Bible is imaginary.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They made an argument, they actually presented the entirety of their reasoning for the argument. It did not include Jesus' death which makes it totally irrelevant to the argument that they made (better yet they make the assumption that he's alive at the very start of the argument). Validity and truth have nothing to do with one another. The argument they presented (and even summarized for me so nicely at the end) is illogical, invalid, and begins by assuming Jesus actually came back from the dead.

If you can look at their argument and say "That makes sense." you either delusional or an idiot. That's not an attack, that's plain and simple truth.

You are make much about nothing. To say their argument is irrelevant because they did not say that Jesus is dead is like me saying that your argument is irrelevant because you never said my name, or indicated that you were talking to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are make much about nothing. To say their argument is irrelevant because they did not say that Jesus is dead is like me saying that your argument is irrelevant because you never said my name, or indicated that you were talking to me.

Their argument is invalid because it does not make logical sense in any way shape or form. Jesus being alive or dead doesn't have anything at all to do with their argument.

Here's the entire thing for you:
Premise 1: Jesus is here on Earth.
Premise 2: Appearing would be easy.
Premise 3: He's allowed to appear.
Premise 4: He said he will appear.

Observation: Jesus has not appeared.

Conclusion: Jesus is imaginary.

If you can read that and think it makes sense you're either extremely stupid or have no concept of logical validity (which is, among other things, that conclusion must be contained in the premises).

There's also this which you've been ignoring completely: the argument begins by assuming Jesus actually came back from the dead and is here with us on Earth. That one simple fact makes your entire attempt to justify them by saying that Jesus died meaningless. Their attempt at logic is a complete and utter failure, if you can't see that you aren't a rational being.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Their argument is invalid because it does not make logical sense in any way shape or form. Jesus being alive or dead doesn't have anything at all to do with their argument.

Here's the entire thing for you:
Premise 1: Jesus is here on Earth.
Premise 2: Appearing would be easy.
Premise 3: He's allowed to appear.
Premise 4: He said he will appear.

Observation: Jesus has not appeared.

Conclusion: Jesus is imaginary.

If you can read that and think it makes sense you're either extremely stupid or have no concept of logical validity (which is, among other things, that conclusion must be contained in the premises).

There's also this which you've been ignoring completely: the argument begins by assuming Jesus actually came back from the dead and is here with us on Earth. That one simple fact makes your entire attempt to justify them by saying that Jesus died meaningless. Their attempt at logic is a complete and utter failure, if you can't see that you aren't a rational being.

I was not talking about their argument; I was talking about your argument. They were be sarcastic. Do you not get the sarcasm? They were calling Christian simple minded. In other words, if you are stupid enough to believe in Christianity, then you are stupid enough to be convinced by this argument. I got it from the very beginning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was not talking about their argument; I was talking about your argument. They were be sarcastic. Do you not get the sarcasm? They were calling Christian simple minded. In other words, if you are stupid enough to believe in Christianity, then you are stupid enough to be convinced by this argument. I got it from the very beginning.

You invented an addition for their argument to justify it, how can you claim you weren't talking about their argument? You spent several posts doing what seemed to be an attempt to disprove the idea that the argument they presented is totally insane (which happens to answer the opening question of the thread "why is this stupid?". Also, you're going to need something more than a feeling to prove they're trying to be sarcastic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You invented an addition for their argument to justify it, how can you claim you weren't talking about their argument? You spent several posts doing what seemed to be an attempt to disprove the idea that the argument they presented is totally insane (which happens to answer the opening question of the thread "why is this stupid?". Also, you're going to need something more than a feeling to prove they're trying to be sarcastic.

Look it's obvious that the video was not made to seriously convert people away from Christianity. So, you have to ask yourself what was the true intent. I'm sorry that you didn't get it. I would bet there are a lot of Christians who would watch this video, and get offended.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


Look it's obvious that the video was not made to seriously convert people away from Christianity. So, you have to ask yourself what was the true intent. I'm sorry that you didn't get it. I would bet there are a lot of Christians who would watch this video, and get offended.

Well it does call them stupid...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well it does call them stupid...

Then why take it serious?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only from some, shallow view points. Are you calling christians shallow?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ironically, scientists have recently discovered that beings other than omnipotent gods can walk into a room. What the hell? You're roomate couldn't walk in the room if he was in Tokyo. Jesus could.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes I did. Relatively ordinary people are quite capable of existing despite any rumors to the contrary. I heard Jesus is God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yup, but my roommate didn't say any of the stuff Jesus said. He just said he'd be in the room.

Not at all. You've made a leap between to completely unrelated concepts, one of which you presented, not me. Ermm, what I was saying was that since you called Jesus a normal human like everyone else, you're calling him a nut because of all the stuff he said.

lord_xyz why don't you go back to your earldom?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, I got it out of order. You have to believe first then use your imagination.

Lol, Imagination has nothing to do with it!

The fact is: Believe and you receive.
Simply thinking the words "I believe" in your head does not mean you believe.

Example:
I always thought that i believed in creation, but whenever a documentary appeared on TV about evolution I all of a sudden started thinking "Wow, i wonder what humans will be like in a million more years!".
Which one do you think i truly believed? (PS. This is a true story)

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
lord_xyz why don't you go back to your earldom? Why don't you go back to the land of unfunny. You know, because that's from where you came.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Lol, Imagination has nothing to do with it!

The fact is: Believe and you receive.
Simply thinking the words "I believe" in your head does not mean you believe.

Example:
I always thought that i believed in creation, but whenever a documentary appeared on TV about evolution I all of a sudden started thinking "Wow, i wonder what humans will be like in a million more years!".
Which one do you think i truly believed? (PS. This is a true story) I think you believe evolution, but your mind can't cope with it, going against your faith and all.

Originally posted by lord xyz

I think you believe evolution, but your mind can't cope with it, going against your faith and all.

Well, it's not like that anymore, that was in the past. Now Genesis makes me a little bit excited of Gods power, but not as much as it should.

But my point overall: I thought I believed in creation, and I was wrong.

Which means that even people who think they believe, might not believe enough.

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Lol, Imagination has nothing to do with it!

The fact is: Believe and you receive.
Simply thinking the words "I believe" in your head does not mean you believe.

Example:
I always thought that i believed in creation, but whenever a documentary appeared on TV about evolution I all of a sudden started thinking "Wow, i wonder what humans will be like in a million more years!".
Which one do you think i truly believed? (PS. This is a true story)

I have no idea. How do you know that what you are feeling is not nothing more then the power of belief?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Are you calling christians shallow?

No, just people (atheist or theist) who think religion must be taken literally.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What the hell? You're roomate couldn't walk in the room if he was in Tokyo. Jesus could.

I never said either of them were in Tokyo.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I heard Jesus is God.

Existence is not conditional on being God. If it were sites with names like "Godisimaginary.com" wouldn't be around, or at the very least would deserve greater amounts of mockery.

Do you even have a passing familiarity with logic?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ermm, what I was saying was that since you called Jesus a normal human like everyone else, you're calling him a nut because of all the stuff he said.

Only if I think that he mean his statements as the literal truth, which I do not. After all Ummon didn't literally think God was a dry piece of dung and few people are stupid enough to think he did. Just because a lot of people are stupid enough to think that Jesus literally meant he would be with his followers whenever they gathered doesn't mean that he did mean that or that everybody is that stupid.

Existence is not conditional on sanity. Again, do you have any familiarity with logic? The argument is completely invalid no matter how much you want twist what they said to make it work.

What I find incredibly funny is that you're trying to defend something that has no logical truth to it.