Raf

It's neither qualitative evidence nor quantitative. It's a non sequitur. It's like saying "If there's no such thing as Bigfoot, how do you explain bears?" Um. Bears don't prove Bigfoot. But at least bears exist. We have no evidence outside this empty claim that these instant healings happened. If that is good enough for Kata, that's very nice. But I see no reason to take it seriously.

Is he with the KYPD? I mean, NYPD?

Your claims of instant healings right before your eyes would be a tad bit more credible if you were to, say, empty a hospital. Or even a room. Nonetheless, even taking your empty claim at face value, it doesn't prove the resurrection of Jesus.

The whole purpose of the show gave us a five year arc. That it could go on past that time is truly a credit to the writers. But to be honest, I would have lost interest if Flash hadn't come along. It's really been a Flashverse more than an Arrowverse, when you think about it. Arrow is the only series that tried to stay grounded in "reality," such as it was. Not complaining. Just... saying.

Correct

Monroe Cole Jimmy McGinty. You know "Jimmy" Doyle by his more famous nickname.

If you remember what the last countdowns were about (it's been more than 13 years, so I'm guessing most people are like, wha?), please don't spoil it. Our countdown starts at 41

This falls into the category of "been discussed ad nauseum." Many people have tried. No linguist who has ever studied SIT has actually identified a language produced. A number have concluded "this sounds like it might be..." but no follow up was ever done to nail it down. Important to note: they did not "study" it. They listened to a sample and expressed their initial thoughts. So "never" is accurate, but it doesn't quite go far enough for us doubters. That said (as I mentioned in another thread), you really have a serious burden of proof issue here that has to be addressed: Do I have to prove what you're producing is not a language, or do YOU have to prove it is? Technically, the answer is neither. You can be speaking in tongues and I have a trained linguist who carefully takes notes, studies your output for a year, can't find a language and, in the end, reaches the conclusion that he/she cannot say with any certainty that a language was produced. That's the problem on my side: I can NEVER prove to YOUR satisfaction that what YOU are producing is NOT a language. BUT!!!!!!!!! You can prove to my satisfaction that it is. Fine, we can't identify yours? We have 100,000 other people who have been through PFAL as of 1988. Surely ONE of them can produce an identifiable language in front of an objective linguist. Any takers? No? It only takes ONE PERSON producing ONE LANGUAGE to demonstrate that there is something supernatural taking place. ONE. Nope. Not one. No one's ever done it. In THAT sense, "never" is absolutely accurate.

"Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts." This is going to sound nitpicky, but you need to be more precise. Atheism is NOT the belief that God does not exist. It is the absence of the belief that he does. What's the difference? It has to do with where the burden of proof lies. In debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the positive assertion. If you make an assertion, it is on you to prove that assertion is true. Atheists tend to argue that we are not making an assertion. Rather, we are denying yours. Atheism can only be disproved by proving the existence of God. One can never prove atheism is correct, but you can prove atheism is incorrect in a heartbeat by proving the existence of God. This is similar to our earlier debate and discussion about speaking in tongues. Remember how I was asked to prove everyone was faking it, and I admitted I couldn't? I shouldn't have to prove everyone is faking it, because I am not the one making a claim. I am rejecting a claim. If you want to prove me wrong, you have to prove you're producing a language. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in Bigfoot, Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster. No one demands such proof of them. No one says they have a belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No one suggests it's their job to prove their case. They're not making a case. They're rejecting some other schmoe's case. As for the founding fathers, it gets a little complicated. I think if you looked carefully at some of the significant ones, you would find beliefs that would be roundly criticized by modern Christians. Jefferson produced a Bible that stripped the life of Jesus of all miracles and claims of divinity (by which I am including references to being the "son of God"). Christians love citing his references to God, but they fail to recognize that his God and theirs have very little in common. In the Declaration of Independence, for example, Jefferson refers to man's "creator" and to "nature's God." "Nature's God" is not a Christian concept. The Bible never refers to Yahweh as "Nature's God." It is a deist idea. More accurately, it is the concept of "God" that transcends any one religion. The point of "nature's god" in deism is to take the concept of God out of the hands of members of a particular sect. George Washington was a lukewarm Christian at best. John Adams signed a treaty that specifically noted the USA was not founded on the Christian religion. Madison, Monroe, Franklin... These founders understood the significance of religion and spoke admiringly of faith, but they were not Christians by today's church definitions. They'd get chased out of the congregations of Falwell, Graham and others. Other founders were undoubtedly Christian by any reasonable definition of the word, and no one should be permitted to deny that.

John Travolta Hairspray Christopher Walken

Do atheists truly maintain that the 6.5 billion people today, and the nearly 100 billion people throughout the history of our species are completely wrong in their belief in a deity? I actually did answer this one on Quora, though I will answer it here differently. The fact that multiple people believe in a deity is not impressive unless all those people believe in the same deity, in my opinion. That fact that South American natives (Incas, Aztecs and Mayans) all had gods does not signify that their belief validates the existence of Yahweh, Allah or any of the Greek, Roman or Eastern gods. Now, if the Incas worshiped a God named "Llejova" whose only begotten son was executed on the other side of the earth for the sins of mankind, they might be onto something. That might actually be impressive. But the truth is, independent societies have never, ever managed to concoct the same gods with the same name and the same rules and restrictions along with the same philosophies for what happens in the afterlife and what criteria man must meet in order to be eternally rewarded. So? So, that shows that not only do atheists believe all these people throughout history have been wrong, but so does literally everyone else. Christians believe all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists are completely wrong in rejecting their central story. Jews believe the Christians and Muslims are wrong. And don't get me started on the various sects within Christianity that think all the other sects within Christianity have been wrong about Christianity! Numbers do not confirm truth.

If you click on the link, you'll see that most of the answers presume he meant the same thing I presumed he meant. Thus, I did him a favor by answering the question without the commas as well. Most people did not extend that courtesy. [Note: I actually did not answer on Quora because I found multiple adequate replies]

As a matter of grammar, you are mistaken. With a comma, you're saying everyone in the group has that characteristic. Take out the part that's offset by commas and you have not changed the substance of your statement. Without the commas, you're referring to a subset of the larger group. Take out the modifier and the sentence is saying something else entirely.

So I'm going into "Quora" and lifting questions so that this conversation can continue even though folks here are either reluctant or unwilling to ask certain questions. I'm cherry picking, obviously, but I do invite you to find and/or ask your own questions. How do atheists, who claim that Jesus never existed, explain the fact that hundreds of people have witnessed his resurrection and all the Apostles died for him? There's a real problem with the comma here. With the comma, the question implies atheists claim Jesus never existed. That's not true. Atheists, as a condition of atheism, could not care less whether Jesus actually existed as a historical figure. Most atheists, as far as I am aware, take it for granted that there was a historical Jesus but that he was not what the Bible claims him to be. Similarly, most Christians believe Mohammed existed but is not what the Q'uran claims him to be. This isn't rocket science. There are some atheists who hold that Jesus never actually existed, even as a historical person whose biography was exaggerated by later followers. Their case is stronger than you would think, but not as strong, I believe, as the case for an itinerant preacher whose execution gave way to legends that got WAY out of hand. Let's look at the second part of the question: "hundreds of people witnessed the resurrection." That's simply not true. Not by a longshot. It's a CLAIM, but the truth, even Biblically, is that the number was not that high. Paul makes a reference to hundreds of people seeing Jesus at once, but he does so decades after it happened and, conveniently, provides not one scrap of evidence about who those people are or how they could be contacted to verify the claim. This is not at all dissimilar to certain people who go on Twitter to declare "a lot of people are saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim." Um... Look, either name thenm or shut up. Paul didn't name them. He named a few people, but hundreds? Not even close. More significantly, the last part of the question states all the apostles died for Jesus. Not only is this untrue Biblically, it's a "legend" in every sense of the word. Biblically, you can make the case that James (son of Zebedee) was martyred. The Bible does not say why, other than that he was a follower of Jesus. Was he given a choice to renounce the resurrection and live? Book doesn't say. And that's crucial! If you were to tell me to renounce my father's name or die, I might renounce his name -- even though I know it to be true! The thought that a man in a position to know for a FACT whether the resurrection was a hoax chose to die rather than renounce the hoax would be quite convincing indeed. However, there is no Biblical or historical evidence that this ever happened. Ever. Not once. Not even James (who dies in Acts 12. Read it). The Bible does not record the death of Peter, and history's account is lacking in significant detail. Executed by Nero in 65 AD on an upside-down cross. Ok. That doesn't prove he was a witness to the resurrection. It actually does not established that Peter's execution actually happened. In fact, it does not establish that Jesus existed AT ALL. At most, if true, it establishes Peter existed, which is not in dispute. The Bible loses track of most of the apostles -- only John is believed to live late into life (unusually late for the time, but not impossibly). There is not one scintilla of evidence, Biblical or extrabiblical, that anyone was given the choice of renouncing the resurrection or suffering execution. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find reliable evidence that there even WERE 12 apostles who served with Jesus during an earthly ministry. Paul's reference to "the twelve" makes no such implication. Generally speaking, a claim does not need to be refuted until and unless SOME evidence is presented that it is in fact true. Anyone can claim anything. But if you've got no evidence to back it up, it's not on me to refute your claim. It's on you to prove it. To answer the question posed, there is no established "fact" for us to explain. Now, if you eliminate the first two commas from the question, you change it a little. Now the question is not directed at all atheists, but at a subset of atheists who believe Jesus never existed. Atheists who believe he did exist are, presumably, exempt from the question. But that makes no sense because the question applies to them even MORE if they think he did exist. Nonethless, the reply is the same: There is no evidence that the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds or that the apostles "died for him." Two apostles at most. Maybe three, if you include Paul.

God loves you. He needs you. He's relying on you to do his will and spread his word. He will never leave you. He will never forsake you. He is good. Always. He is love. He will back up his word. Don't be afraid. Do not doubt. He is stronger than those who would stand against him He is your Lord and Father. He will always love you with a deep and everlasting love. It is NOT HARD at all to rattle off an interpretation or prophecy, especially after you spend a few hours in a class telling you what it should and should not sound like! What? No "muck and mire"? Check! And suddenly No One utters those words ever. WOW! You made it up.

We did not discuss interpretation and prophecy as extensively, but the answer there is extraordinarily simple. In those so-called "manifestations," we relied on our own languages, so we can't just say "wow, how did I do that?" We did it very simply. "Extemporaneous speech" is when we are able to relate something that is unrehearsed. If you have a general idea what you are going to say but NOT a general idea of each word you are going to employ when you are going to say it, then you have engaged i extemporaneous speech. "Interpretation" and "prophecy" are, quite simply, examples of extemporaneous speech. You know ahead of time that you will speak words of edification, exhortation and comfort. You don't need to think it out ahead of time (you've likely heard dozens upon dozens of examples before you tried). You just need a general idea. Go. There is absolutely, positively nothing supernatural about this. "But I never made it up!" SURE you never made it up. "But how could I have known....?" You didn't. You made an educated guess based on available information which is, not surprisingly, quite extensive.

Agreed on all points.

gotta guess: When A Stranger Calls

Kate Capshaw Indiana Jones and the First Cash Grab We Want to Think Was Better than it Actually Was. Jonathan Ke Qan

Did not mean to imply otherwise. It should also be noted that I was a believer when I came to this conclusion, so abandoning Christianity is absolutely not necessary to reach the same conclusion I reached.

I'm just going to fall back on "we discussed this ad nauseum" and leave it at that. Feel free to DM me, WordWolf (for a believer who agreed with me) or Chockfull (for a believer who disagreed with me) if you'd like a recap. That goes for anyone reading.