The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Sparko]

Exactly. There are bodies on earth and bodies that are in heaven - 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. Paul does not say spiritual bodies will walk around the earth and be touched. No, Paul's conception of the Risen Jesus has him in heaven at the moment of his resurrection. This is why you're unable to find a passage where Paul gives any evidence of Jesus being experienced in a way that was not spiritual.

why are you, an agnostic, so obsessed with this view of yours? You refuse to accept what actual believers say on the topic, and instead insist on your nonsensical view and you are not even a believer. Why? Do you think if you can convince Christians of your spiritual resurrection idea that they will stop believing? Or perhaps you used to belong to a cult who believed in a spiritual resurrection and now are stuck on the idea even though you no longer believe?

It's really weird. An agnostic arguing like a cultist.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

why are you, an agnostic, so obsessed with this view of yours? You refuse to accept what actual believers say on the topic, and instead insist on your nonsensical view and you are not even a believer. Why? Do you think if you can convince Christians of your spiritual resurrection idea that they will stop believing? Or perhaps you used to belong to a cult who believed in a spiritual resurrection and now are stuck on the idea even though you no longer believe?

It's really weird. An agnostic arguing like a cultist.

The thread is entitled arguments for atheism and Christianity and the argument debunks the orthodox view Christianity. My own personal beliefs are irrelevant. Why don't you mind your own business instead of making this personal?

[One Bad Pig]

The thread is entitled arguments for atheism and Christianity and the argument debunks the orthodox view Christianity. My own personal beliefs are irrelevant. Why don't you mind your own business instead of making this personal?

Why are your own personal beliefs irrelevant? Why are you being so defensive about this?

[Tassman]

The thread is entitled arguments for atheism and Christianity and the argument debunks the orthodox view Christianity. My own personal beliefs are irrelevant. Why don't you mind your own business instead of making this personal?

Sparko always makes it personal. Ad hominems are his modus operandi.

[One Bad Pig]

Sparko always makes it personal. Ad hominems are his modus operandi.

Awesome ad hominem argument you're making here.

[Sparko]

The thread is entitled arguments for atheism and Christianity and the argument debunks the orthodox view Christianity. My own personal beliefs are irrelevant. Why don't you mind your own business instead of making this personal?

because I was commenting on your obsession, not just in this thread. In every thread you post in, it is the same thing, the same arguments, the same topic. You are a one trick pony. It is all you ever talk about. And it isn't working. You are not convincing anyone of your theory. Everyone has said you are wrong. You have been soundly refuted. Yet you persist.

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

[Sparko]

Sparko always makes it personal. Ad hominems are his modus operandi.

No, only when the other person shows that they are nothing but a troll or a close-minded ignoramus that is not really worth wasting my time taking seriously. Like you.

[Tassman]

because I was commenting on your obsession, not just in this thread. In every thread you post in, it is the same thing, the same arguments, the same topic. You are a one trick pony. It is all you ever talk about. And it isn't working. You are not convincing anyone of your theory. Everyone has said you are wrong. You have been soundly refuted. Yet you persist.

is no argument at all.

[One Bad Pig]

If you discount every other encounter, yes. The bias in that position is blindingly obvious.

Your Trumpian-style argument, namely is no argument at all.

Of course it's not an argument. It's an observation. Please learn to tell the difference.

[The Pixie]

... You have been soundly refuted. ...

Can you point me to some of the posts where this happened? Having read through the last few pages of this thread, all I see is Christians asserting he is wrong, but very little in the way of evidence to support that.

[JimL]

No, only when the other person shows that they are nothing but a troll or a close-minded ignoramus that doesn't agree with my point of view is not really worth wasting my time taking seriously. Like you.

Fify

[One Bad Pig]

Fify

On that score, you have no room to talk. Heck, you can't even seem to figure out that not all Trump supporters blindly support his every move! That would ruin the narrative in your head.

[JimL]

On that score, you have no room to talk. Heck, you can't even seem to figure out that not all Trump supporters blindly support his every move! That would ruin the narrative in your head.

Well, I suppose the eyes of some of them are opening.

[37818]

Exactly. There are bodies on earth and bodies that are in heaven - 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. Paul does not say spiritual bodies will walk around the earth and be touched. No, Paul's conception of the Risen Jesus has him in heaven at the moment of his resurrection. This is why you're unable to find a passage where Paul gives any evidence of Jesus being experienced in a way that was not spiritual.

Paul does not say those who are resurrected bodily do not walk on earth either. But they will be on earth. First, for the 1000 year rule (Revelation 20:4-6). And after the judgment there will be a new heaven and earth. And only the resurrected saints/believers will be on earth.

[Tassman]

If you discount every other encounter, yes. The bias in that position is blindingly obvious.

I'm glad you agree. The discussion is about the earliest literature not the decades later embellished accounts contained in the gospels and other late literature.