Prior to running off to hide from questions he was unwilling or incapable of answering (mostly because I think he was pretty uncomfortable with the answers he might have had to come up with), he did say I had been pretty convincing and were he looking to leave religion, he'd have to consider this stuff. I asked him exactly what he would be incapable of doing, with respect to the street people he works with, if he had no religion at all: he did reply "Nothing," but qualified it all with stuff I no longer have access too.... bummer.
Also unfortunately, and this is my error, because he blocked me, the rest of the conversation is no longer visible. I'm annoyed by that, as I'm quoting him without evidence here. Not fully kosher.
He continues to work as a street preacher - part of a group that is vocally anti-human with respect to LGBT people, and implicated in several legal proceedings in this city, as a result of his group entering City Hall in a manner City Hall found threatening, and which caused City Hall to be evacuated and locked down more than 30 times.
Also, I'm sorry to report, this guy has doubled down and become even more entrenched. His Facebook is (sorry, mean) laughable. His group has engaged in such stupid tactics including engaging one of their more stupid members, a bus driver, to refuse to drive a bus with ads from the LGBT community on the outside, as it somehow removed his freedom of religion (it does not in any way, and he didn't have any issues driving buses with ads for birth control, or bars that use blatantly sexual means to advertise)... so dumb.. and then that pawn tried to run for mayor. I think he had about 60 votes, all from his church pals. Idiotic.
Anyway, if you are a religious person, and you're interested in answering those questions below, I'd be super fascinated to have your answers.
__________________________________________________________________
- Hey ME, I replied to your comment on the 'march for Jesus' post. I hope we can have a chat as I have gone down many roads in my research, including the 'Jesus is copied from other Gods' theories, you may not be aware that even secular historians have debunked those theories and yet they still float around. Anyway I would love to chat with you on these subjects and more. I love skeptics. FYI I'm not a church going Christian, and we would probably agree on our opinions of that lot.
- Today
- 1. HOW do you know your god is the right god and the only real god, when there are more than 4000 suggested by humans.
1a. Please apply your answer to the question above to Shiva. 1b. Please tell me exactly what evidence you have for your god and how it CANNOT be used as evidence for any other god.
2. Please explain how your bible, which contains more than 400 contradictions and more than 1000 falsehoods, historical inaccuracies and completely impossible stories, is evidence.3. Please discuss the facts of DNA and specifically mDNA in that those decisively, absolutely prove Adam and Eve never existed and the fact science shows absolutely and conclusively there was NEVER a point in human history where there were only two humans.3a. Given DNA conclusively, absolutely proves the Adam/Eve story to be impossible, original sin is not real. As such, there is no reason for the later blood sacrifice. 3b. Given there is no original sin, explain why your "god" who is "perfect" and "all knowing" screwed up so badly it decided to kill everything and everyone.4. There is no evidence for "Mary." The "virgin" story is impossible for two reasons: IF she was inseminated by a "sprit" or "god" or "angel" and those "beings" are not human, they cannot have human genes or DNA: therefore, "Mary" could NOT have produced a male child; no human DNA/genes, no Y chromosome, no male.4b. If your "Mary" existed and had a male child, the father of that child was decidedly male; therefore not a god, unless you're going to invoke magic or you're going to give your "spirit" or "angel" human genes, which again falsifies your story.5. Given the many, many excellent schools of archaeology in the world, and particularly in the middle east, where there is very much a will to find evidence of various religions (specifically, christianity and islam), with respect to the story of the wandering jews, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever there were people in taht very small are of land, wandering about for 40 years: no bones of the animals they would have had to eat; no evidence of any settling - pots, cooking fires, animal bones; no evidence of members of their group dying- and there MUST have been deaths. WHY is there no evidence? Given the size of the area these people were alleged to have wandered, explain how they managed to avoid contact with other humans?6. Given there is utterly no evidence at all, and definitively so, how do you explain the population of the earth TWICE via incest, first via two people who cannot have existed and second via a family of very, very elderly people.6b. Given Noah was 600 years old and his wife and children were also very elderly, and given none of them had any experience ship building and given Noah was an uneducated farmer, explain these items:
- How did Noah build such a vessel?
- How did Noah know about kangaroos, iguanas, koalas, komodo dragons?
- How did he acquire these animals?
- How did he know how to feed them?
- How many animals above the estimated 14,000 (low estimate) did Noah ALSO have to load on that boat in order to feed the carnivores?
- How much food did he have to load to feed the animals generally?
- How did Noah get the Kangaroos back to where they came from, when there would have been no food for them along the way?
6c. How big is a cubit? There are two measurements in the bible; either your wooden boat was 2/3rds the size of the Titanic or it was 18 miles long.6d. Given two years ago, a team of experience ship-building engineers built a wooden boat of the approximate (smaller) size of said arc, but with all their skill and experience could not keep the boat afloat longer than a week, how exactly did your 600 year-old man and his ancient family keep their boat afloat whilst feeding all those animals, dealing with the daily tons of excrement and keeping the animals from killing each other.7. You have made a presumption here, being I am unschooled in the christian faith. That is your fatal error. I am a member of a family wherein there are pastors in this generation (five) and in EVERY ONE of the last ten generations. I grew up in an evangelical church and was a believer until I was 35, at which point I began asking questions about the many, many inconsistencies, errors and falsehoods presented by members of my faith group.I am VERY interested in your ANSWERS here.I am NOT interested in any comments to the effect I "hate god," am "rejecting god," am uneducated about christian theory.I am interested in answers specifically addressing these questions.Also, as you have mentioned the march for "christ," may I ask you to:
- point out specifically the verse in the bible that specifically says "one man, one woman," and please be specific too about where what you find decisively overturns the many, many other verses in the bible speaking to multiple marriage, force marriage, marriage by rape, marriage and concubines... SPECIFICALLY, where in your bible does your "god" say one man, one woman.
- Also, please will you point out the verses in the bible that SPECIFICALLY say slavery is wrong. Please quote chapter and verse where your god or your "jesus" specifically say - before, when we said where to get slaves and how to treat them, we're rescinding that now.
As I said, I am expecting SPECIFIC answers to these questions. Except for where I've asked for specific bible verses, you may NOT use the bible of evidence or proof of your premise: you must support your premise by extra-biblical sources. AIG does NOT count, as it is absolutely refuted and does not use extra-biblical resources.
You may not use William Lane Craig, as he is also endlessly refuted; you may certainly not quote Ken Ham, as he is demonstrably ridiculous; you may not use "The case for Christ" which is also definitively debunked and its author exposed as a plagiarist - as a journalist and since then.I await your evidence. If you have it, and it is viable, I will share it and you will win a Nobel prize. - Oh, and please do not insult me by saying "you won't accept any evidence I present."
If it is viable, substantiated evidence, absolutely I will accept it.
MR: Why so hostile? I have been polite and friendly towards you. {"Hostile" is a commonly-used slag by christians when they're on the spot (and other religious types, to be fair), and when they're confronted with questions they either can't answer, haven't thought about, or have thought about and don't like what they've discovered. In 99.9% of these exchanges, the christian will resort to diversions - you're hostile, you hate god, why are you so angry, you must have been hurt, etc. etc., rather than answering any question. This, of course, renders them false. Either their religion is true and there are concrete answers, or it isn't and they don't} - Anyway, I guess you are angry at us crazy Christians LOL.
(No, absolutely not. I just asked a series of questions. Unfortunate christians seem to interpret "defend your faith" as "you're angry at us.")Funny thing is I bet that we would agree on many of your dislikes of Christians, (I don't dislike christians; I dislike it when they do everything they can to avoid answering questions). I don't like most of them either. You probably steriotype (sic) us as all the same but there is a vast difference between the church crowd and my tiny crowd who go out and demonstrate the power of God. Nobody can prove God anymore (sic) than can prove life forming from non life without an external cause.....
ME: Please quote me directly where I say "I dislike christians."
Please identify what you see as "hostile."
So you state here "nobody can prove god." On what grounds do you believe in your unprovable being?
MR: Since contacting you before, I have decided not to engage in these conversations anymore. (Huge surprise. So much for "Anyway I would love to chat with you on these subjects and more.")
Don't you agree it's pointless? We just disagree. You see we will never agree because our foundations for viewing the world are so different. You (appear) to live by a 'fact' based, 'if you cant prove it, it does not exist' worldview (sic), and I live from a spiritual worldview. I suspect you are not willing to consider anything that exists outside of this physical dimension, so our conversation will be biased towards your ground rules which you have already outlined. The main reason I dont (sic) engage in these conversations anymore is because I have dedicated myself to helping others.
I currently (sic) spending all my spare time helping people who are deeply depressed and in bad addictions. There is such a need for these people as they are everywhere. I used to have the same problem for 30 years but I was instantly set free in a supernatural way, never to return to those addictions. I have seen others instantly set free as well. So as you can imagine, suffering for 30 years in ways I will spare you, to having and instant, supernatural experience that took all that away, gives me a lot of belief in those sorts of things. I am thumb typing this on my phone at work, so forgive any bad spelling. - ME: As you have already diverted this conversation away from my questions, I will take it you have no intention of attempting answers.
MR: See above, you are displaying hostility now (nope. Asking him to clarify his intentions, as he opened with "Anyway I would love to chat with you on these subjects and more.") - ME: Are you not confident in your beliefs enough to discuss them with respect to the questions I've asked you? Again, you're diverting. I invite you to take this opportunity to answer my questions above.
- MR: You get to set the ground rules for the grid we work within?
ME: As I noted above, Mark, I asked you not to insult me by suggesting nothing you can present will be acceptable, yet in your note above, you write, "I suspect you are not willing to consider anything that exists outside of this physical dimension, so our conversation will be biased towards your ground rules which you have already outlined."
Yes, evidence matters. On what grounds do you "believe" what you say you believe? - You're welcome to set the ground rules, as long as they don't include, "just believe it because if you don't, you're going to hell."How do you establish if anything exists outside the physical dimension?
- MR: You see, you are steriotyping me with churchians (sic, sic) (avoid avoid avoid....)
- ME: Please identify where I stereotyped you?I've asked you several questions and am looking forward to your answers. I have invited you to set the ground rules I have stated I will accept any viable evidence you present.How have you established if there is anything outside the physical dimension and what it is?
- MR: Listen, I'm at work right now, I cannot give this my full attention. I will try to speak to you this evening. I am thumb typing on my phone. I am not like the Christians you have met, I guarantee you 100%. I don't even really like that term as by it's very nature it steriotypes (sic) and pigion (sic) holes. Like if I keep referring to you as an athiest. (avoid, avoid, avoid, divert)
- ME: I am very interested to know your answers. These are fair questions put to you based on what you have written here.You are more than welcome to refer to me as atheist, humanist, secular, because those are true and apt.Well, Mark, so far, so good. #predictable
- MR: See above. I will try, but how can you prove that, I have no idea but to demonstrate it. Come with us next time we go to the streets to heal people. But even then, it can be easily dismissed as placebo, mind over matter etc.
- ME: Please Mark, will you start at the beginning and review the questions above. I am very interested in your answers to those questions.
- What is your evidence for "healing?" Are you suggesting people who are literally sick come away from your events cured?
How have you established they were sick in the first place?
What testing did you perform to establish if they were sick and with what?
What testing did you perform to establish they were no longer sick? - MR: I dont have events. I approach people on the street. I see people with injuries and ask to pray for them.
- ME: Can you tell me please: if you had been born in Iran, are you sure you would be christian?
- Is your family christian?
- Would you describe Canada as a predominantly judeo-christian culture?
- That was not my question: how do you establish they are ill?
- How do you establish they are no longer ill following whatever intervention?
- And you have evidence these injuries disappear?
- MR: My family are athiests. I was raised to believe in evolution.
- ME: I'm going to stop proposing questions now. I invite you to review all the questions here and to answer them. I am very interested in your answers and I will say this again: anything you propose that is verified and substantiated, I will absolutely accept. Any evidence or proof you have, anything you can substantiate, I will absolutely accept.
MR: The only evidence I have is the reaction I get. OK, I have to stop now. Got to work. Gonna get fired LOL. I will do my best later - ME: Just as a point of order, religion and evolution are two different subjects...
- MR: Disagree STRONGLY LOL
- ME: Please print this conversation and please, please respond to each question. I am very interested in your answers, your evidence and your substantiation.Regardless, they are two different subjects. There is overwhelming evidence for one and none for the other.
- MR: Although before I disagree, I need to know which evolution you refer to (Darwinian, macro et)
- ME: Let us deal with the set of questions I've asked you.
I am very, very interested in your answers, so please, I invite you to take this opportunity to address those questions.
