It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A simple explanation of why Buddhism is correct.

page: 17
14
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


I will make a new thread. I will repost the agreed upon rules of the debate in it so that we will not get side tracked. But it will only be between you and I. I will not respond to others. BTW, why not a moderated debate site (of your choice)?




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Just found out I cant make a new thread yet



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Because honestly, it doesn't matter if we do it here or there... You will go on citing various secular historians who mention Jesus a few times, and I will say there is no mention of resurrection. Then you'll cite later secular historians who have come to the conclusion a couple of the older secular historians made reference to Jesus being alive after the supposed time of the resurrection, and I will say it's purely speculation, although educated speculation, still speculation. That will go on a few turns and we'll both have said our piece, and at the very end, I'll say the resurrection and belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior is entirely faith based, because there is absolutely no proof, and I will be 100% correct, then you will say Jesus is Lord and Savior because of whatever reason that boils down to faith, and you will be 100% correct.

Like I said, it doesn't matter.

What does matter is that you believe in something, and obviously you've put a lot of thought into your conclusion, which is more than I can say about most of the believers I have spoken with about the subject.
edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Thank you for your reply. However, I wouldn't be too sure of the a-priori conclusions that you are making. I will thake what you said as a compliment - thank you. However, I do have one thing to say before I begin. (I just wrote a moderator to see if I can begin a new thread). Believing the wrong thing can be deadly. It is important that one be right in what one believes. I can believe all day that if I come from behind cover (I am in the military) in a gun fight and take a bullet in the brainpan it won't affect me. However, the truth is 7.62 round in the head is not conducive to longevity if you know what I mean. All the more important in matters of the soul.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I do agree that in the end it is a matter of faith. But it should be a reasonable faith, based upon evidence. I say faith because historical investigation, like criminal investigation, and even scientific investigation is based upon probability. Not absolute certainty.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


I was in the military as well. I spent a lot of time researching this stuff. I've had many discussions about this while living in close quarters with Christians. No debate will change my view on this matter.

Like I said, I'll concede Jesus existed and that he died on the cross, but I will not concede his resurrection. It was unnecessary. God could make every man, woman and child know he exists and loves them without stirring up controversy, war, killing, etc.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender
I do agree that in the end it is a matter of faith. But it should be a reasonable faith, based upon evidence. I say faith because historical investigation, like criminal investigation, and even scientific investigation is based upon probability. Not absolute certainty.


There is a 2/3 chance he was not resurrected.

Option 1: Jesus existed and he was resurrected.
Option 2: Jesus existed and was not resurrected.
Option 3: Jesus never existed.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender
 


I was in the military as well. I spent a lot of time researching this stuff. I've had many discussions about this while living in close quarters with Christians. No debate will change my view on this matter.

Like I said, I'll concede Jesus existed and that he died on the cross, but I will not concede his resurrection. It was unnecessary. God could make every man, woman and child know he exists and loves them without stirring up controversy, war, killing, etc.


I'm sure you did.
Again you are making a-priori conclusions before weighing the evidence. That is not a good way to come to conclusions no matter what field you are in (historically, criminal investigation, or even scientific investigation). Is that how Buddhism works?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender
 


I was in the military as well. I spent a lot of time researching this stuff. I've had many discussions about this while living in close quarters with Christians. No debate will change my view on this matter.

Like I said, I'll concede Jesus existed and that he died on the cross, but I will not concede his resurrection. It was unnecessary. God could make every man, woman and child know he exists and loves them without stirring up controversy, war, killing, etc.


I'm sure you did.
Again you are making a-priori conclusions before weighing the evidence. That is not a good way to come to conclusions no matter what field you are in (historically, criminal investigation, or even scientific investigation). Is that how Buddhism works?


I read the bible cover to cover while in those close quarters. I'd say that's weighing the evidence.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


That is quite a poor rejoinder. And any first year philosophy student could tear this apart. What should be done is weigh the evidence FIRST before coming to a conclusion.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


That is quite a poor rejoinder. And any first year philosophy student could tear this apart. What should be done is weigh the evidence FIRST before coming to a conclusion.


The bible is the only evidence there is. But, if you must know, I've read books by noted atheists, noted Christians, spoken with chaplains, do I need to go on?

And I was a first year Philosophy student. Too many rules to just ask, "why?"



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


That is all you did? But don't tip your hand already. We haven't begun our debate yet!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


That is quite a poor rejoinder. And any first year philosophy student could tear this apart. What should be done is weigh the evidence FIRST before coming to a conclusion.


The bible is the only evidence there is. But, if you must know, I've read books by noted atheists, noted Christians, spoken with chaplains, do I need to go on?

And I was a first year Philosophy student. Too many rules to just ask, "why?"


LOL. I know what you mean. Great! don't tip your hand just yet, i want to wait for the e v i d e n c e that you have in our debate.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender
I do agree that in the end it is a matter of faith. But it should be a reasonable faith, based upon evidence. I say faith because historical investigation, like criminal investigation, and even scientific investigation is based upon probability. Not absolute certainty.


I already won.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


Hey just putting my new thread on here. It is titled "The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable"
And I posted my opening statement.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


Heard that one before...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


Poor first post on your side. It was a waste of a post. I think it would be incumbent upon you to provide E V I D E N C E.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Sorry about that guys... The last topic was dependent origination. Please continue...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


All religions point to the truth. In fact everything is pointing to the truth because all delusion appears in truth.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
So, I've been reading up on dependent origin (like I said, I'm not a Buddhist), but from what I can gather, this only applies to the laws of the universe. We would have to assume God is subject to the laws of the universe in order to use this as a way to prove or disprove God.

If God created the laws of the universe, couldn't he change them at will?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join