I just love it

73Zeppelin

Red Stateler wrote:

When you come up with thousands of years of history with supporting archeological evidence and direct testimony of numerous witnesses, then we can talk. Until then, you can continue to ignore scientific evidence that does your ideology a disservice (thereby doing science a disservice).

Ah, see - this always comes up. So, religions are accepted based on elapsed time and archaeological evidence? Well, that't dangerous for you because if "religious correctness" is based on length of existence and archaeological evidence then the Egyptians and Greeks beat you (Christianity) out. In fact, alot of religions do - like Buddhism, for example.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

73Zeppelin

Red Stateler wrote:

and in the case of Jesus we have four

Ah yes, but 4 who cannot be identified and whose surviving texts are full of internal inconsistencies and falsehoods. What "evidence" there is for him wouldn't even be accepted in a court of law. And knowing the court system, well... heh.

Red Stateler wrote:

After all, it's more important to suspend use of logic when your dogma is at stake.

You hit it on the head there.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

73Zeppelin

Blah, blah blah. My beer god reigns supreme. Prove otherwise. And quotes aren't proof, they're quotes. So my Beer God says: "Beer God gives Allah life, then He makes him die, then He will gather him to the day of beersurrection wherein is no doubt, but most people do not know." See, I can play too.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Shog9 wrote:

Really? Having suffered through both "Titanic" and the quasi-documentary that followed it, i'm now convinced that Cameron can't tell a good story even when he's handed one. Unless he includes lots of flashbacks involving Jessica Alba as an unreformed Mary Magdalene...Grand visuals, $0.02 story. It's like, his trademark or something.

Still beats the bible. Well, maybe not the book of revelation. That's a good source for movies and music. But the rest? <marge-simpson-voice>Hrm</marge-simpson-voice>

Shog9 wrote:

If you're gonna cling to such "proof", then you should expect to get bitten...

Hey now.. nowhere did I claim I supported Cameron's claim. I'm pretty much indifferent about it this whole thing. I was making a weak reference to some posts in another thread. One thing is for sure though; with all this commotion going on, I will see the movie. ;) (Oh and Titanic wasn't all that bad. It had boats and chicks!)

Jorgen Sigvardsson

digital man wrote:

star trek

At least much which is in Star Trek is plausible. And very entertaining! :)

A A 0

The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:

So my Beer God says:

I wouldn't be surprised if after drinking your alcoholic beverage you'd start believing it created the heavens and the earth...

Finding Allah Surah AlHaaqa(The Reality) Surah Qaf Eid Alfitr

Jorgen Sigvardsson

But can your beer god slay the infidels? Only the bad ass gods can do that...

Jorgen Sigvardsson

That arabs possessed at least one literate dude 5-600 years BC? :)

Shog9 0

Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:

Hey now.. nowhere did I claim I supported Cameron's claim.

By "you" i meant "humanity". I've no idea what you, the person, believe. ;)

Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:

(Oh and Titanic wasn't all that bad. It had boats and chicks!)

It had that shrill Canadian singing. It had Kate Winslet, but offset that token bit of goodness by throwing her into an unbelievably sepia-toned love scene with pretty-boy DiCaprio. It had a spectacular ship sinking, and offset that by framing it as an old lady's flashback. It was nauseatingly sentimental.

----

It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.

--Raymond Chen on MSDN

David Wulff

Didn't you get the memo? Everyone who disagrees with Red is a leftist. :)

Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk

Marcus J Smith

Wasnt the OP's claim that it is religious people that want the proof for this? It goes both ways, an Athiest may want undeniable proof TO believe while a religious person may want undeniable proof to NOT believe. Either way someone is asking for proof. Also, what do we have other than some scrolls from a select group of people to back up religion where with the historical events we can cross reference those throughout different texts, accounts, archealogical findings, etc...? One of the great searches in Christianity is to find that absolute proof that anything other than stories were told.

CleaKO

"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)

Red Stateler

The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:

Ah yes, but 4 who cannot be identified and whose surviving texts are full of internal inconsistencies and falsehoods. What "evidence" there is for him wouldn't even be accepted in a court of law. And knowing the court system, well... heh.

Inconsistencies and falsehoods? Where? And what do you mean they can't be identified? Where's Plato? The "evidence" surrounding Caesar's murder at the hands of his friends is just as significant (actually less so since it only comes from one source...Plutarch. Did he exist? If so where?). Basically the atheist approach to Jesus discounts history in entirety and depends on shadowy conspiracy theories. If you want to suspend belief in the historical accounts of pretty much everything, be my guest. My religion doesn't need such madness to survive.

KaRl

Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:

Still beats the bible.

Cecile B. De Mille would disagree.

Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

Red Stateler

CleaKO wrote:

Wasnt the OP's claim that it is religious people that want the proof for this? It goes both ways, an Athiest may want undeniable proof TO believe while a religious person may want undeniable proof to NOT believe. Either way someone is asking for proof.

Not quite. Cameron made a supposedly scientific claim (so scientific that the official popular science/atheist TV station is airing the "documentary"). It therefore requires scientific support. Christians have no problem with science...only it's abuse. Atheists seem eager to abuse science for their own ends.

CleaKO wrote:

Also, what do we have other than some scrolls from a select group of people to back up religion where with the historical events we can cross reference those throughout different texts, accounts, archealogical findings, etc...? One of the great searches in Christianity is to find that absolute proof that anything other than stories were told.

What do we have of Plato or Socrates than a few works that survived Alexandria? Why is the burden of proof regarding Jesus so much higher than that of any other historical figure? Jesus was an intentionally humble figure and so there are no statues erected in his honor or extensive Roman judicial records. History is nothing but a set of stories handed down from generation to generation. Occasionally you can find slight traces of significant events. For example, go to Gettysburg and you might find and old musket shell. But what physical evidence do we have that Lincoln actually delivered the Gettysburg Address while there other than direct eyewitness? Do you therefore reject the notion that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address?

Marcus J Smith

That'd be interesting! :rolleyes:

CleaKO

"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)

Tim Craig

Red Stateler wrote:

the atheist who accepts all these things suddenly decides that Jesus never existed

I think most atheist accept someone named Jesus existed. We just don't believe his divinity.

Red Stateler wrote:

didn't perform miracles because there's simply not enough evidence.

Yeah, we have trouble with the miracles part. It's just not reasonable and is the result of Jesus's publicist trying to hype him into the big time. I don't believe David Copperfield really made that jet disappear either.

The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.

Christian Graus

Careless whisper came first. Awesome song, actually

Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

Tim Craig

Red Stateler wrote:

My religion doesn't need such madness to survive.

No, because Barnum was correct. One of you is born every minute. Actually, unfortunately much faster now.

The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.

Tim Craig

Red Stateler wrote:

a few works that survived Alexandria

And why did so little survive Alexandria? :rolleyes:

The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.

Christian Graus

Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:

I'm sure Cameron will produce much better fiction than the bible.

What's at issue here, is that the claim is ridiculous. I, for a variety of reasons, trust information about Jesus that was written by people who knew him. Cameron is claiming to prove those sources wrong, via the finding of a tomb, which he knows contains Jesus' body, how ? DNA testing ? A sign over the door ? It's ridiculous because the claim can only exist to attack the church, and to make money through controversy. There is no way his claim can be proven, and no reason to believe it, unless you're desperate for something to attack the church with. I've had long phone conversations with my mother where I have to keep reminding her that the Da Vinci Code does not claim to be a book of fact, it's found in the fiction section. She believes it all, because it suits her. People who dislike the Bible, will believe this in the absence of any possible proof, for the same reason. And, as I said to Stan the other day, good luck to them. I won't be protesting, I'll just shake my head in amusement at those who take it seriously.

Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )