I just love it
-
Regardless, the left-wing circle jerk that is the Soapbox will guarantee me plenty of ones for my dissent.
-
when religious people start waving their hands and shout "you have no proof!" I'm sure Cameron will produce much better fiction than the bible. From an entertainment point of view of course. :)
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm sure Cameron will produce much better fiction than the bible. From an entertainment point of view of course.
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.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
when religious people start waving their hands and shout "you have no proof!"
We've spent hundreds of years trading sketchy "artifacts", ranging from the merely improbable to the down-right morbid. If you're gonna cling to such "proof", then you should expect to get bitten...
----
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
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Not at all, that's the religious position! Just add faith, no assembly required!
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).
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!
-
CleaKO wrote:
Wow, you forced me to lookup a word. I would say that there is a huge difference here, it is one thing to believe that someone existed, that they did certain things, that they died a certain way, but there arent religions based on all of those things. Religion is the deciding factor here.
Religion is only the deciding factor because it's at odds with an atheist's belief. Eyewitness accounts are universally accepted when it comes to history. We know Marie Antoinette was beheaded because there were eyewitness accounts. We know Julius Caesar was assassinated thanks to Plutarch. We know of Socrates because of Plato. And yet, for obvious reasons, the atheist who accepts all these things suddenly decides that Jesus never existed and didn't perform miracles because there's simply not enough evidence. Never mind that in the case of Caesar and Socrates we have only one recording witness each and in the case of Jesus we have four. After all, it's more important to suspend use of logic when your dogma is at stake.
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!
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
my religious claim is that the Great God of Beer and Wine has displaced both Allah and the Christian God.
Al-Jathiya:22-26 And Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth and that every soul may be rewarded for what it has earned and they shall not be wronged. Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilah (god), and Allah has made him err having knowledge and has set a seal upon his ear and his heart and put a covering upon his eye. Who can then guide him after Allah? Will you not then be mindful? And they say: There is nothing but our life in this world; we live and die and nothing destroys us but time, and they have no knowledge of that; they only conjecture. And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them their only argument is that they say: Bring our fathers (back) if you are truthful. Say: Allah gives you life, then He makes you die, then He will gather you to the day of resurrection wherein is no doubt, but most people do not know.Finding Allah Surah AlHaaqa(The Reality) Surah Qaf Eid Alfitr
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!
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm sure Cameron will produce much better fiction than the bible. From an entertainment point of view of course.
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.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
when religious people start waving their hands and shout "you have no proof!"
We've spent hundreds of years trading sketchy "artifacts", ranging from the merely improbable to the down-right morbid. If you're gonna cling to such "proof", then you should expect to get bitten...
----
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
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!)
-
digital man wrote:
star trek
At least much which is in Star Trek is plausible. And very entertaining! :)
-
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!
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
-
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!
But can your beer god slay the infidels? Only the bad ass gods can do that...
-
What does quoting the Koran prove?
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)That arabs possessed at least one literate dude 5-600 years BC? :)
-
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!)
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
-
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 -
CleaKO wrote:
Wow, you forced me to lookup a word. I would say that there is a huge difference here, it is one thing to believe that someone existed, that they did certain things, that they died a certain way, but there arent religions based on all of those things. Religion is the deciding factor here.
Religion is only the deciding factor because it's at odds with an atheist's belief. Eyewitness accounts are universally accepted when it comes to history. We know Marie Antoinette was beheaded because there were eyewitness accounts. We know Julius Caesar was assassinated thanks to Plutarch. We know of Socrates because of Plato. And yet, for obvious reasons, the atheist who accepts all these things suddenly decides that Jesus never existed and didn't perform miracles because there's simply not enough evidence. Never mind that in the case of Caesar and Socrates we have only one recording witness each and in the case of Jesus we have four. After all, it's more important to suspend use of logic when your dogma is at stake.
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 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!
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.
-
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!)
-
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)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?
-
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
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) -
CleaKO wrote:
Wow, you forced me to lookup a word. I would say that there is a huge difference here, it is one thing to believe that someone existed, that they did certain things, that they died a certain way, but there arent religions based on all of those things. Religion is the deciding factor here.
Religion is only the deciding factor because it's at odds with an atheist's belief. Eyewitness accounts are universally accepted when it comes to history. We know Marie Antoinette was beheaded because there were eyewitness accounts. We know Julius Caesar was assassinated thanks to Plutarch. We know of Socrates because of Plato. And yet, for obvious reasons, the atheist who accepts all these things suddenly decides that Jesus never existed and didn't perform miracles because there's simply not enough evidence. Never mind that in the case of Caesar and Socrates we have only one recording witness each and in the case of Jesus we have four. After all, it's more important to suspend use of logic when your dogma is at stake.
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.
-
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 )
-
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.
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.