I just love it
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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 )
-
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.
Tim Craig wrote:
I think most atheist accept someone named Jesus existed. We just don't believe his divinity.
Actually that depends. Some atheists (as Teacup) flat out believe He didn't exist because admitting it comes precariously close to adopting Christianity. Jews also believe Jesus existed but don't believe in His divinity. Believing that Jesus didn't exist at all is just a manifestation of atheist dogma whereby reason is (once again) thrown out the window.
Tim Craig wrote:
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.
And that's simply a matter of faith. However, seeing as His miracles were well-documented, it's a greater leap of faith to believe that there is no God (something not documented) than to believe Jesus performed miracles. Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
-
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.
Tim Craig wrote:
And why did so little survive Alexandria?
Because it never actually existed? :rolleyes:
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I think most atheist accept someone named Jesus existed. We just don't believe his divinity.
Actually that depends. Some atheists (as Teacup) flat out believe He didn't exist because admitting it comes precariously close to adopting Christianity. Jews also believe Jesus existed but don't believe in His divinity. Believing that Jesus didn't exist at all is just a manifestation of atheist dogma whereby reason is (once again) thrown out the window.
Tim Craig wrote:
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.
And that's simply a matter of faith. However, seeing as His miracles were well-documented, it's a greater leap of faith to believe that there is no God (something not documented) than to believe Jesus performed miracles. Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
Red Stateler wrote:
And that's simply a matter of faith. However, seeing as His miracles were well-documented, it's a greater leap of faith to believe that there is no God (something not documented) than to believe Jesus performed miracles. Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
Well documented? That would be like 5 people writing Harry Potty spinoffs but all the characters had the same name. In 2000 years people might worship Harry!
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) -
digital man wrote:
star trek
At least much which is in Star Trek is plausible. And very entertaining! :)
-
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:
Jessica Alba as an unreformed Mary Magdalene...
Now THAT, I would go and see.
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 )
-
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 )
My snide post was a trigger happy response to all kinds of crap being said in a thread further down. I was bored at work. :) But there's a grain of sincerity in my post. What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"? Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
At least much which is in Star Trek is plausible.
Don't we have those little flippy phones now? :laugh:
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
They do! That, touch screens and swoosch doors! Warp drive is just around the corner...
-
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 )
Christian Graus wrote:
She believes it all, because it suits her.
And you keep thumping the bible because it somehow suits you in spite of the inconsistencies and contradictions. So what's your point?
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
And that's simply a matter of faith. However, seeing as His miracles were well-documented, it's a greater leap of faith to believe that there is no God (something not documented) than to believe Jesus performed miracles. Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
Well documented? That would be like 5 people writing Harry Potty spinoffs but all the characters had the same name. In 2000 years people might worship Harry!
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:
Well documented? That would be like 5 people writing Harry Potty spinoffs but all the characters had the same name. In 2000 years people might worship Harry!
They would probably be the same people as modern-day atheists. You never addressed my question. Did Socrates exist? Did Plato? Did Marie Antoinette? Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg? All of history is a tale and Christ's story is just as valid as any of the above (actually more so given the number of eye witnesses). In fact, atheism probably takes a greater leap of faith than Christianity because you're required to completely discount vast swaths of history in favor of the scientific method (which has no bearing on this topic) in order to support your religious belief. Are you willing to put into question the entire history of western civilization? That's pretty wacko.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Jessica Alba as an unreformed Mary Magdalene...
Now THAT, I would go and see.
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 )
Pfft, I'll take Monica Bellucci as Mary *any* day of the week over Jessica. I mean, don't get me wrong, Jessica is nice, but she's just a little battery powered Vespa compared to the Harley Davidson of Babeitude that is Monica Bellucci.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
Tim Craig wrote:
And why did so little survive Alexandria?
Because it never actually existed? :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
Because it never actually existed?
Because a bunch of fanatical christians wanted to get the dark ages off to a roaring start. Handed out a sainthood for that little escapade, didn't you?
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
CleaKO wrote:
Well documented? That would be like 5 people writing Harry Potty spinoffs but all the characters had the same name. In 2000 years people might worship Harry!
They would probably be the same people as modern-day atheists. You never addressed my question. Did Socrates exist? Did Plato? Did Marie Antoinette? Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg? All of history is a tale and Christ's story is just as valid as any of the above (actually more so given the number of eye witnesses). In fact, atheism probably takes a greater leap of faith than Christianity because you're required to completely discount vast swaths of history in favor of the scientific method (which has no bearing on this topic) in order to support your religious belief. Are you willing to put into question the entire history of western civilization? That's pretty wacko.
Red Stateler wrote:
They would probably be the same people as modern-day atheists. You never addressed my question. Did Socrates exist? Did Plato? Did Marie Antoinette? Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg? All of history is a tale and Christ's story is just as valid as any of the above (actually more so given the number of eye witnesses). In fact, atheism probably takes a greater leap of faith than Christianity because you're required to completely discount vast swaths of history in favor of the scientific method (which has no bearing on this topic) in order to support your religious belief. Are you willing to put into question the entire history of western civilization? That's pretty wacko.
Wacky packs, wacky packs, lalalalalalala!!!!! Anyway, yes those people existed and those people did what they did. The issue here is different. What we have from the Bible are stories written by people. Those people in some cases knew each other or knew of each other. Therefore they could communicate their stories with each other in order to have a somewhat same version. There may be evidence that a man named Jesus existed that exicted the people and was crucified. Does that mean that God exists or that he performed miracles? No.
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 wrote:
I think most atheist accept someone named Jesus existed. We just don't believe his divinity.
Actually that depends. Some atheists (as Teacup) flat out believe He didn't exist because admitting it comes precariously close to adopting Christianity. Jews also believe Jesus existed but don't believe in His divinity. Believing that Jesus didn't exist at all is just a manifestation of atheist dogma whereby reason is (once again) thrown out the window.
Tim Craig wrote:
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.
And that's simply a matter of faith. However, seeing as His miracles were well-documented, it's a greater leap of faith to believe that there is no God (something not documented) than to believe Jesus performed miracles. Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
Red Stateler wrote:
seeing as His miracles were well-documented,
And David Copperfield's trick with the jet is very well documented. I saw it on TV.
Red Stateler wrote:
Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
And, of course, there's nothing silly about christian beliefs.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
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 )
-
Red Stateler wrote:
They would probably be the same people as modern-day atheists. You never addressed my question. Did Socrates exist? Did Plato? Did Marie Antoinette? Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg? All of history is a tale and Christ's story is just as valid as any of the above (actually more so given the number of eye witnesses). In fact, atheism probably takes a greater leap of faith than Christianity because you're required to completely discount vast swaths of history in favor of the scientific method (which has no bearing on this topic) in order to support your religious belief. Are you willing to put into question the entire history of western civilization? That's pretty wacko.
Wacky packs, wacky packs, lalalalalalala!!!!! Anyway, yes those people existed and those people did what they did. The issue here is different. What we have from the Bible are stories written by people. Those people in some cases knew each other or knew of each other. Therefore they could communicate their stories with each other in order to have a somewhat same version. There may be evidence that a man named Jesus existed that exicted the people and was crucified. Does that mean that God exists or that he performed miracles? No.
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:
Wacky packs, wacky packs, lalalalalalala!!!!! Anyway, yes those people existed and those people did what they did. The issue here is different. What we have from the Bible are stories written by people. Those people in some cases knew each other or knew of each other. Therefore they could communicate their stories with each other in order to have a somewhat same version. There may be evidence that a man named Jesus existed that exicted the people and was crucified. Does that mean that God exists or that he performed miracles? No.
See? I dispute one excuse and you come up with another. Your atheistic beliefs religious in nature. However, to your latest excuse, the Apostles obviously all knew eachother. However, after Jesus' death they spread out geographically. Peter, for example, went to and died in Rome. Interestingly their stories are not identical. They are first person accounts rather than the retelling of an identical tale (each has its own details but they are all consistent with one another). That's rare as historical accounts go. But you're welcome to discount all of history in order to make your dogma fit. I have no interest in converting you.