Thread: God

Joe, BMJ, don't flame or incite flaming please....and I can't wait for this thread to die . But it has a real conversation going so...

I know you don't talk like that to mods or anyone BMJ...ok, I'm going to actually have to read this thread arn't I? ugggggg .

>>Kermi: But it has a real conversation going<<

Ever seen the Monty Python sketch about 'Is this the room for an argument?' with Palin and Cleese?

>>BMJ: I'm not flaming... this topic is bland, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, and simple!<<

Couldn't agree more. (loved the graphic, BTW. )

>>BMJ: I've tried to ignore it, but it keeps coming up, I read through it, and I don't see "conversation"; I see two or three bigots griping at each other!<<

Well observed, succintly stated.

>>Methodman: but interrupting a thread<<

Are you attacking the Dancing Banana God? (now there's a label that's bound to get abused...)

>>I haven't contributed to this thread at all but I quite like to read what Clyde writes, I think he (assuming Clyde is a he) is a pretty intelligent person.<<

Nor have I in any real sense but most of the rhetoric being bandied around is dull, shallow, narrow and unimaginative. The real irony is, as usual, the intensely evangelical way that the 'Acolytes of the God of Science' assert their assumed rectitude in a fashion indentical to that used by religious prophets throughout history. All they need is the beards and the wild, staring eyes and you wouldn't be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, to steal a biblical allusion - or the pigs from the men, to borrow an Orwellian one.

>>Nor have I in any real sense but most of the rhetoric being bandied around is dull, shallow, narrow and unimaginative. The real irony is, as usual, the intensely evangelical way that the 'Acolytes of the God of Science' assert their assumed rectitude in a fashion indentical to that used by religious prophets throughout history. All they need is the beards and the wild, staring eyes and you wouldn't be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, to steal a biblical allusion - or the pigs from the men, to borrow an Orwellian one.<<

Bravo Mr Fitlike, bravo! An inspired right royal kick up the backside of these amateur philosophers!

"Going by that Idea anything writen down must be considered false."

No sensaku, going by the idea we evaluate evidence based on MERIT.

"Your forgeting one key important fact, and that is unlike Greek myths, Budda, ect, the Good News was being preached only a couple of Weeks after he was Crucified, Just 15 minutes from where he was crucifed. The earlist writings were only 25 years from the event and Paul says that recived infomation from 35 AD."

Most if not all of the writings were from 50 years on:

"Matthew - By St. Matthew 70 - 90 CE.

Mark - By St. Mark 70 - 90 CE.

Luke - Possibly by St. Luke 70 - 90 CE.

John - By either St. John, John the Elder, or an unknown author 70 - 90 CE.

Acts - Possibly by St. Luke 70 - 90 CE.

Romans - St. Paul 58 CE.

1 Corinthians - St. Paul 54 CE.

2 Corinthians - St. Paul 55 CE.

Galatians - St. Paul 54 CE.

Ephesians - Possibly by St. Paul 60 CE; if not, 60 - 92 CE.

Philippians - St. Paul 61 - 65 CE.

Colossians - St. Paul 55 - 63 CE.

1 Thessalonians - St. Paul 50 CE.

2 Thessalonians - Possibly St. Paul 50 CE.

1 Timothy / 2 Timothy / Titus - Unknown author from the late 1st century CE (were originally attributed to St. Paul).

Philemon - St. Paul 56 - 65 CE.

Hebrews - Unknown author 60 - 90 CE (originally attributed to St. Paul)

James - Unknown author 70 - 132 CE.

1 Peter - Possibly St. Peter 64 - 65 CE; or an unknown author 96 CE.

2 Peter - Unknown author around 150 CE.

1 John / 2 John / 3 John - Either St. John, John the Elder, or an unknown author 90 - 110 CE.

Jude - 70 - 100 CE.

Revelation - Either John Mark, John the Elder, or an unknown John 81 - 96 CE

Thats quite a length of time, 50 years of chinese wispers can do remarkeable things.

"There were actul people who could refute the facts at that time, and no one did, for centires."

As in people didnt think Jesus was resurrected? Well since almost all of it was written 50 years after the event then anyone who had actually been there was in all likelyhood dead...... what a coincidence.

Anyhow your claim is absurd: No-one denied the ressurection of Jesus at the time then? Not even the Jews? The Romans? Hrrrrrm?

When you say "no one did", what exactly do you mean? Are you still looking for "disproof"? Is that what this is going toboil down to AGAIN. Well let me answer it before it comes:

Its true no-one disproved the ressurection..... no-one disproved my invisible kangaroo either, that is NOT proof. We build a picture of reality based on POSITIVE evidence NOT lack of negative evidence.

Ok and now you seem to lose the plot entirely:

Me:

HELLO! how many times do I have tell you that LACK OF DISPROOF IS NOT PROOF, YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN INVISIBLE KANGAROO, THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE!!!!!!

You:

Going by that logic you can't send any one to Jail no one not a single person

Now can you not see that what you have just said makes no sense whatsoever?

I am saying that LACK of disproof IE. saying that there is no evidence against something is NOT proof of its existance.

Jut like in my long running kangaroo example, just because we can't disprove him, that does mean we have proved he exists.

We send people to jail because the prosecution is able to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that they are the guilty part. NOT because the defense has been unable to disprove their guilt.

Please tell me you understand that your reply make no sense.

Ok, as my last post did not prove the resuraction,

We have 3 possiblites to work from
1. That the disiples stole the body and then lied about everything

2. That the grave was robed but the Disiples did not know, but still belived that they saw Jesus.

3. The resuraction of Jesus actuly happend

4: Jesus was placed in an unmarked grave.

5: Jesus was placed in a mass grave.

etc. etc.

"Case Point 1: Deaths of the Disiples
-It is historicaly known all but John died cruel deaths for there belives"

Im sorry that is not enought: It is pretty easy for me to type "it is historically known that the moon is made of cheese", you have to do a little more than that, you have to provide us with historical evidence, how exactly is it "historically known"? (no the bible does not count as historical evidence)

And as for this:

"-John himself was boiled in Oil, but survived."

Thats just amusing.

"This in itself should rule out 1."

No..... it should not. What prevented the disciples lying and then getting killed horribly?

"-Archogical evidence does dont conter the The New Testement"

What? ..... been through this, lack of disproof is not proof.

"Outside Historical Refences do not conter the Writings of the New Test"

See previous point.

"Eye witness to the events that could refute arguments such as Miricles, and the Resuraction would have made it imposible for the Disiples to lie"

What? Is this some kind of joke argument put in for laughs?

"It it is imposible for the Disiples to have hullicnated"

Why?

"This clarely kills 1, and starts on 2."

It does nothing of the sought.

"-The tomb was well known
-It was guared by 16 romain soiders
There was a 1.5 ton stone blocking the entrence
-The tomb is historicaly proven that on Sunday there was no body in it.
-The empire's seal is on the tomb"

Where are you getting this information from, I want an UNBIASED, NON_RELIGIOUS historical account of the events that occured, IE. i want REAL history by REAL historians, supported by REAL evidence, not a Christian version of events.

"The deciples, or a grave rober would of had to some how dispache of the Soiders without injuring them. "

Maybe the soldiers were the grave robbers.

"Also it still never explains why the Disiples belive they saw Jesus.
Hallucination has been ruled out, so the only logical belif is that they saw Jesus"

Ruled out how? Logical....... you of all people should be banned from using that word! Maybe the desciples didn't believe they saw Jesus, maybe the disciples lied, maybe i havent seen any evidence supporting anything you've said.

"The proof lies on your shoulders to disprove me. I've given my proof, it's your turn"

Your proof? your PROOF!? I havent seen any proof, I've seen lots of "this has been disproved", "this is known", along with some truly blinkered thinking

This thread is pointless - as pointless as chewing gum to solve algebra equations.

Now let us pray...

http://www.alcofielen.com/pics/forum...argod_stop.jpg

"I've tried to ignore it, but it keeps coming up, I read through it, and I don't see "conversation"; I see two or three bigots griping at each other!"

My apologies, my advice would be to simply not click on the thread.

"Nor have I in any real sense but most of the rhetoric being bandied around is dull, shallow, narrow and unimaginative."

It is fairly easy to make generalisations without demonstrating your point.

"The real irony is, as usual, the intensely evangelical way that the 'Acolytes of the God of Science' assert their assumed rectitude in a fashion indentical to that used by religious prophets throughout history."

Very nice, "accolytes of the God of science", very clever. But you see science WORKS, planes built according to scientific principles FLY. "Planes built according to tribal or mythological specifications like the dummy planes of the cargo cults in jungle clearings or the beeswax wings of Icarius do not" (Dawkins). Your argument is little more than a dressed up version of the academic relatavism that plagues middle-class "educated" circles. Once more in the words of Richard Dawkins:

Suppose there is a tribe...who believe that the moon is an old calabash tossed into the sky, hanging just out of reachabove the treetops. Do you really claim that our scientific truth- that the moon is about a quarter of amillion miles away and a quarter the diameter of the Earth- is no more true than the tribe's calabash?

Its all very well to say that I am as confident about science as religious extremists are about religion, that does NOT however make the two equivalent. Two people can have equally strong opinions and one can be closer to the truth than the other.

Science is based on logic, evidence and reason, and it works.

"All they need is the beards and the wild, staring eyes and you wouldn't be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, to steal a biblical allusion - or the pigs from the men, to borrow an Orwellian one."

Again powerfull imagery, but the argument behind it is weak.

hahahaha! Still immune to irony I see.

Great pic, Mithrandir!

>>Science is based on logic, evidence and reason, and it works.<<

The Nuclear Bomb...

Logic: kill 'em all before they kill us.
Evidence: it works because we tested it on our on soldiers.
Reason: to kill people we don't like.