This is a continuation of the theist/Atheist debate thread. The old one got, well HUGE, so we continue it here for convenience. If you’ve got the time, spend it here!
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O'Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
JustinW:
To the contrary, I will ONLY make arguments here based on science. I have never said nor hinted at what you suggest of ?throwing up [my] hands and saying, ?I dunno, must have been God.?? I have, instead, tried to point out the evidence for intelligent design based on reliable, repeatable scientific facts.
patty:
As I recall, your gripe is with your father?s newfound Christianity?a doctrine based on the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed God. I asked you if you?d found sufficient evidence that DISPROVED he ever existed; my point being that there is ample evidence (both secular and Biblical) that overwhelmingly supports his existence. Again, do the research on Christian Apologetics web sites that provide the historical data that support this claim. Don?t assume that since it?s in the Bible, it?s automatically myth.
ionfield:
I must agree with escher; let?s stick to what we know, what?s repeatable, and what?s objectively true. We know we?re in a real, physical universe in which time flows in one direction. Even Stephen Hawking concedes that the available scientific evidence of the early universe heavily indicates that there was a distinct beginning of time (and for that matter, matter).
To speculate what conditions were pre-big-bang will logically get you nowhere without SOME physical evidence (of which, by definition, there is none).
So, to categorically rule out the existence of a Creator purely on the basis of your being anti-religious, or because, in your opinion ,?God Creator being reality has a probability of zero,? is anti-intellectual in light of the tremendous available scientific evidence that supports a Creator.
patty:
Mormons believe that if they?ve lived a righteous life here on Earth, then after they die they, in essence, become gods of their own planets?just as God and Jesus are of Earth. If this sounds absurd it?s because it is. Again, research Joseph Smith, his criminal history and his tremendous talent for deception. Mormonism IS NOT CHRISTIANITY, it?s as pagan as it gets.
Escher,
What I was attempting to do is point out that there are alternatives to where our known universe came from other than a theological origin or that we just don?t have a clue. We do have a clue. Cosmologists are actively working on pre-big bang theories.
One such scenario is string theory, which is a quantum theory of gravity. It suggests that time did not have a beginning and it will not have an end, and that our universe is just one of many universes in the multiverse.
Another theory is the ekpyroptic scenario with branes in a higher-dimension space that collide, converting their kinetic energy into matter and radiation, which is the big bang.
This is serious science that I expect will one day answer the ?what came before the big bang? question. Although, the answer may not be very parsimonious, it should be answered, none the less.
jcc,
You stated: ??let?s stick to what we know, what?s repeatable, and what?s objectively true.? And, ?To speculate what conditions were pre-big-bang will logically get you nowhere without SOME physical evidence (of which, by definition, there is none).? Also, ??to categorically rule out the existence of a Creator purely on the basis of your being anti-religious, or because, in your opinion ,?God Creator being reality has a probability of zero,? is anti-intellectual in light of the tremendous available scientific evidence that supports a Creator.?
Are you making these statements with a straight face?
Where is your evidence to support your god being ?objectively true?? Where is your physical evidence to support the existence of your god? And where is all of the ?tremendous available scientific evidence that supports a Creator??
jcc,
Call me lazy, but what “ample evidence” is there that God/Jesus actually exist? Can you give a brief rundown?
jcc,
Intelligent Design is just another God superstition and a lack of understanding of evolution. See http://www.csicop.org/creationwatch/actualism.html
onfield:
Again, let’s stick to what’s indicated by physical evidence. These so-called ?string? theories cannot properly be called a theories since they utterly lack ANY supporting evidence. If those expounding these concepts were to strictly adhere to the rigors of the scientific method, then they would be referred to as hypotheses at best and musings at worst.
As to where’s ?my? evidence to support ?my God? being objectively true? Argue what you will, but the fact remains that for the ONLY observable universe within which we live, for life to be possible (on Earth, let alone elsewhere in the universe) several characteristics MUST take on specific values. In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of ?fine tuning? seems incontrovertible (i.e. they COULD NOT have happened randomly):
1 Strong nuclear force constant
2 Weak nuclear force constant
3 Gravitational force constant
4 Electromagnetic force constant
5 Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6 Ratio of proton to electron mass
7 Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8 Expansion rate of the universe
9 Mass density of the universe
10 Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
11 Space energy density of the universe
12 Entropy level of the universe
13 Velocity of light
14 Age of the universe
15 Uniformity of radiation
16 Homogeneity of the universe
17 Average distance between galaxies
18 Average distance between stars
19 Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
20 Fine structure constant
21 Decay rate of protons
22 Ground state energy level for helium-4
23 Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
24 Decay rate for beryllium-8
25 Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
26 Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
27 Polarity of the water molecule
28 Epoch for hypernova eruptions
29 Number and type of hypernova eruptions
30 Epoch for supernova eruptions
31 Number and types of supernova eruptions
32 Epoch for white dwarf binaries
33 Density of white dwarf binaries
34 Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
35 Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
36 Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
37 Mass of the neutrino
38 Decay rates of exotic mass particles
39 Magnitude of big bang ripples
40 Size of the relativistic dilation factor
41 Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
ionfield, I take this stuff very seriously and therefore don’t kid around. This is amazing stuff and should be looked at as objectively as possible.
jminnis:
Can you show me incontrovertible proof for Darwinian evolution at both the micro and macro level? If evolution is without doubt, then there must be ample evidence for it in the fossil record (i.e. MULTIPLE instances of truly transitional forms?not ?punctuated equilibrium?) and among LIVING species today. But all we’ve seen are variations on a theme (i.e. All the different breeds of dogs)?the natural variance within a single species. You’d think that if it were true, we’d have seen it actually happen before our eyes by now.
And, if evolution is the answer to the mystery of life, then why aren’t new life forms spontaneously appearing everyday? — And why can’t biologists reproduce this phenomena in the lab?
jcc,
For a good introduction to evolution, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
jminnis:
As a requirement for my degree in Geology, I’ve had 15 hours of paleontology, micropaleontology and historical geology.
You still didn’t answer my question, why aren’t new life forms spontaneously appearing everyday?
This thread is getting ridiculously huge, but I’ll drop in a quick question for jcc’s argument.
“You still didn’t answer my question, why aren’t new life forms spontaneously appearing everyday?”
Well, think of evolution as a nice big tree. Common ancestors = trunk. Later species = smaller branches. The tree grows like any normal tree… some branches flourish and split into more branches, others wither into dead ends.
Do you expect to see big branches at the growing tips? Or little ones?
Little ones, right? Afterall, a branch isn’t an obvious split until you give it some time. And your ‘everyday see a new life form’ requirement doesn’t seem to give enough time for a new species to be distinguished from an old one.
Also:
“If evolution is without doubt, then there must be ample evidence for it in the fossil record (i.e. MULTIPLE instances of truly transitional forms?not ?punctuated equilibrium?)”
Because we run into the problem of classification. . For example, when a fossil is found, humans have a tendency to either lump it into one category or another. We see the same tendency in the difference between teenagers and adults? upon crossing the single second before the 18?th birthday, the teenager becomes a full adult.
Imagine how ridiculous it sounds if we ask why no intermediate forms exist between the teenager and adult states?
Similarly, fossils with minor changes in physiology caused by gradual accumulation of change (for example, a skull showing both traits of homo erectus and homo sapiens) are classified into one category or another, resulting in an observed ?lack of intermediate forms?.
jcc
I’m not aware of any life spontaneously appearing ? ever. In the beginning, complex molecules spontaneously combined and eventually began replicating. From there, over eons, what we call life evolved. The fact that you do not know this makes me question how closely you paid attention in class.
If you mean why don’t new species spontaneously appear today, they do! Again, go to talkorgins.org It’s a great Web site for this stuff……
jminnis:
It seems I’m not the one who’s not paying close attention here. If conditions were favorable 3.5 billion years ago for the scenario of “complex molecules spontaneously combining and eventually… replicating,” then why isn’t this observable today?
And, “new species spontaneously appearing today?” Oh really? What are they?
LeFire:
Apparently you missed the point of my question. For example, given the relative abundance, and recent appearance of the wolly mammoth species in the fossil record from the Quarternary, why doesn’t a clear morphological transition of this species exist in the fossil record that can be traced to the modern elephant? All that exists are distinct species of each with no transitional forms.
And, no offense, but your teenager/adult comparison is a poor analogy of the topic at hand. I’m trying illustrate the lack of evidence of species transitions, not the ontology of an individual.
No offence taken, jcc.
I thought I addressed the distinct versus transitional species question in the last paragraph? (ie. “Similiarly, fossils…”) Granted, you may not feel that the teenager/adult comparison is valid. However, I think that the classification-into-existing-classes problem still stands. We may not be seeing transitional species simply because we are classifiying many new finds in old classes.
Besides, I would like to raise the issue of the rarity of fossils. From what limited knowledge I have in geology, I am of the impression that in order for a fossil to form, the creature in question must die in certain ground conditions. Therefore, it might be so that such ground conditions only happen to be there for a particular species at a particular time, thus “catching” only certain species and leaving out transitional ones.
I place a high value on natural-science knowledge, and do not question your schooling. However, I wonder if you have taken these factors (classification and ground condition problems) into consideration.
LeFire:
The current (or at least at the time I graduated) consensus for ideal fossil formation was that the specimen had to be rapidly buried at the time of death, buried in a reducing environment to discourage decay and buried sufficiently deep to start the induration process (i.e. turning sediment into rock). For terrestrial animals, the best fossils are from beach or river deposits, for marine animals, they’re from areas of intense sedimentation like river deltas or near-shore environments close to areas of high rates of erosion.
But this is precisely the point. Have you ever heard of the ?Cambrian explosion?? It was a period during the lower Cambrian period when every major phyla in the the animal and plant kingdoms appeared in the fossil record. It was a period of intense mountain building so there was a lot of sedimentation going on and therefore a lot of fossils being created. Now, since all these new species were appearing in an amazingly short period of time, (i.e. Life was ?evolving? at an extraordinary pace) you’d think that all strata of the lower Cambrian would be filled with transitional forms. But they’re not. They contain only the final forms of the species. And that’s my point. You’d think that the earlier fossil record (a time when life was diversifying at such an accelerated pace) that Darwin’s theory would be a slam dunk by the record. But it’s quite the contrary.
jcc
As I say, go to talkorigins.org to get your answers. All your evolution arguments have been answered. Evolution is a settled matter. It is not a matter of belief but is scientific fact. Arguing evolution at this late date is like arguing whether the Earth circles the sun. It is settled.
jminnis:
To your mind, it obviously is. But in the future, you might not make any posts claiming that it’s only the ?religious? who have closed minds.
Sorry, jcc, I guess I am closed minded where foolishness in concern. I’m not alone. I have good company. Here is an excerpt from talkorigins.org:
Scientific Standing of Evolution and its Critics
The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case. Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. For example, all the details of patterns of relationships are not fully worked out. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called “scientific” creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the “too improbable to evolve by chance” argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking (“I don’t want to be related to an ape”), appeals to personal incredulity (“I don’t see how this could have evolved”), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin’s comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish’s “bullfrog proteins”).
Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is “preaching to the choir.”
The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one — the appeal to fair play. “Shouldn’t we present both sides of the argument?,” they ask. The answer is no — the fair thing to do is exclude scientific creationism from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. There is voluminous evidence for it. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories. Until scientific creationists formulate a scientific theory, and submit it for testing, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas. Evolution has earned a place in the science curriculum. Creationism has not.
Science is based on an open and honest look at the data. Much of creationism is built on dishonest debating techniques and special pleading for a case the data does not support. Science belongs in science classes. Evolution is science. Creationism is not. It’s that simple.
The creationist attack on public school education means that school children are denied the possibility of learning about the most powerful and elegant theory in biology. Politicians are willing to allow the scientifically ignorant, but politically strong, to wreck the educational system in exchange for votes. People interested in evolution, and science education in general, need to closely watch school board elections. Creationist “stealth” candidates have been elected in several regions. Thankfully, many have been voted out once their views became apparent.
The majority of Americans are religious, but only a minority are religious nuts. The version of religion the far right wants to impose on America is as repulsive to most mainstream Christians as it is to members of other religions, atheists and agnostics. Most informed religious people see no reason for biological facts and theories to interfere with their religious beliefs.
jminnis:
Since you’re so keen on visiting web sites to buttress your opinions and to prove that yours is the open mind here, you’ll obviously find this site a worthwhile use of your time: http://www.discovery.org/
Jcc,
You have perked my interest in the pre-Cambrian period and the lack of fossils with your reply. I do not have reliable knowledge about that time period and the geological finds within in, thus I shall yield the field to you for that issue, as it will be intellectually dishonest for me to try to counter it at my current level of personal knowledge.
Please do note, of course, that more informed members of my (atheist) stance or certain websites might still want to contest that particular issue.
LeFire:
As a note, the Cambrian explosion occurred in the lower Cambrian period, not the Precambrian. The sudden appearance of all the new multi-cellular organisms in the fossil record serves as the stratigraphic demarcation between the Precambrian and the Cambrian.
And by all means, please do as much research on this as you can.
jcc,
I have a very simple question. If the complexity of the universe requires there to be a “designer”, why wouldn’t the “designer” need a designer? He/she/it would be MUCH more complex than our universe. Why is it that nature needs a designer but God does not? God would be even more inconceivably complex. How could he/she/it exist without a designer. The need for there to be a designer for God seems incontrovertible to me…
Also, you can nitpick evolution all you like, but I do not see you suggesting an alternative SCIENTIFIC theory. Please provide a theory that better explains the evidence at hand, and I am all ears. I don’t think scientists have ever claimed to know EVERYTHING about the universe, that would be omniscience. No self-respecting scientist would ever make that claim.
In addition, you referred to God as “omnipotent” earlier in your posts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, omnipotence is self-contradictory. It is a logical impossibility. If you claim to be a logical being, you cannot possibly hold the belief that something is omnipotent. Can God create a universe so large that even he can’t move it?
Your constant circumlocution and bandying about of scientific jargon do not hide the fact that your arguments are still BASED ON FAITH. You have every right to believe what you want to believe. Just don’t expect those of us on this site to think that your beliefs are based on REASON.
Funkapotamus:
My answer to your question ?why wouldn’t the “designer” need a designer?? earlier in this blog was apparently unsatisfactory for many atheist bloggers, but since you asked, I’ll take another stab at it….
If the universe was designed and created (i.e. Something brought into existence from nothing), then logically, from our perspective within it, the designer must be omnipotent (how else could EVERYTHING in it be made by one entity?). So, to ask, ?who designed the designer? is to ask what omnipotent being created an omnipotent being? Whatever could, would, by definition, be God. So it’s counterproductive to try to proceed back up that logical ladder. We can’t possibly grasp this concept unless we exist in the same realm as the omnipotent. It’s impossible for us to determine what existed before the creation of the universe, therefore it’s unreasonable for us to place our finite, anthropomorphic restrictions on an entity whose existence, by definition, transcends our realm. I called it a tautology, but the atheists howled. If you can find a flaw in the logic, please let me know, and on the other hand, if you have a better explanation, please be forthcoming. But until then, given my limited knowledge, I’m forced to be content with the answer that God must be ?uncreated.?
When Einstein was developing his theories on relativity, he initially couldn’t get the equations to balance so he introduced a ?fudge factor? and kept it there until science found a real value for it. Likewise, in algebra the square root of -1 is an ?imaginary? number, but a number nonetheless because without it we couldn’t have designed all the electronics in the computer I’m writing this on. I believe the same is true for the problem of evolution. As a Geologist, I’m enormously interested in what ?natural? mechanism is responsible for the spontaneous generation of new species. But, like all other knowable aspects of the universe, if it’s meant for us to find it, we will, but in God’s time (i.e. When we as a culture are mature enough to handle it).
I will be the first to admit that the arguments I make here ARE based on faith?which is based on facts. There is nothing unreasonable about what I’ve said here.
To participate in a reasoned, logical and polite discussion about the nature of God, we must all start at a mutually agreed upon presupposition. And until we do that, we’ll never make any headway in this debate.
If god is defined as “all that is currently unknown to us” then I would god still exits but is dying.
Think of all the things that used to be attributed to god before we figured them out via scientific reasoning. Fire, storms, thunder, the stars, the planets etc.
We humans did not evolve from apes, however not that long ago in geologic time we looked like apes and had no more language than the apes have now.
This is my first post. I consider myself to be a practical realist at least thats what in put in the what religion are you box on applications
How can so many supposed well educated people such as doctors, lawyers and others with advanced educations still believe in gods?
Of all people that I would think immune to brainwashing and accepting ideas from others without question, these would seem to be the last to be swayed.
The problem is, notyourdaddy, is that many of these people aren’t privy to any knowledge of astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. Ask any lawyer how the higher elements on the periodic table came about – betcha he doesn’t know (they were cooked in stars that later went supernova). Ask him how our solar system formed (collapsing clouds of gas and dust) and the result will likely be the same. Of course, these are just basic questions, and you’d be surprised just how many people there are who don’t know these things. A little knowledge such as these facts is essential in the first steps in throwing mythology out the window in favor of discovery, logic and reason that is the hallmark of physical science. Unbelievably, an intro course covering these topics is not required in high school.
I do believe, however, if you sat these well-educated people down and explained these facts a light may go on. With evangelical christians, there is no hope (la-la-la I can’t hear you).
Tim: afraid I just have to take your bait in re: your post on 7/18. You’ll note that I am a ‘reluctant’ Atheist. Honestly, I wish U were right. Beginning of 2005, I had a lukewarm belief in the bible (lapsed Catholic, agnostic, that sort of thing). Dear friend tried to convert. Sent me McDowell’s ETDAV. This was the pivotal moment. I reread the book twice, something was wrong (the logic he used, which I have seen U use elsewhere). I stumbled on his Tower of Babel timeline, & his misuse of 3 authors in trying to prove monogenesis. I wrote a particularly scathing review of this on Amazon. Now, let’s play.
1st off, the citation from Josephus (1 threader very aptly pointed out that he was in no way an eyewitness, but he was a pretty good historian) is recognized as an interpolation. Origen & other church fathers (prior to Eusebius) knew of the book, but NEVER mentioned the infamous paragraph(s). Also, Eusebius was famous for stating that deceit & fraud were okay for the advancement of the church, & the paragraph(s) were cited in the 4th century.
Your reference to Tacitus is completely wrong. Tacitus referred to a ‘Chrestus’ (Greek for ‘Honored One’, usually reserved for freed Roman slaves), & that Chrestus was inciting riots in ROME. Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan was simply an attestation to the existence of CHRISTIANS, not Christ.
The Talmud you refer to were actually 2: the Palistinean and Babylonian (written in the 4th and 6th centuries), and they refer to a Yesu ben Strada (100 BCE) and a Joshua in 100 CE. Lucian was retelling a story, not an attestation. Honestly, citing McDowell? His book touches on the Gnostic gospels, dismisses them on the basis that they R 2nd century, or older, & then turns around & cites sources that are 2nd century or older (& some that cite other ‘lost works’).
Here is how I came to my conclusion. Rather than learning a # of scientific theories to disprove the document, I approached it (as closely as I could) w/some degree of objectivity. The other criterion I used was to investigate BOTH sides of the argument: skeptic & apologist. I researched JUST THE NT: nothing else. I read none of Paul (I don’t have a high opinion of him), or the OT. It was only AFTER this, that I stumbled on Paine’s Age of Reason (though Voltaire’s writings played a small part). If you are open to the discourse of ideas, then I have a bibliography for you (and PHARQUAR as well): The AR (of course), SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES (Ingersoll), & of course, my favorite frenchman, Voltaire. Almost all of these documents are free on the Internet.
Allow me to part w/a few quotes from the Great Agnostic:
“God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn a large majority of the human race” – Ingersoll
For PHARQUAR, who asked early on about morals: “‘Thou shalt not kill’ is as old as life itself. & for this reason a large majority of people in all countries have objected to being murdered.” – IBID
One more: “Man in his ignorance supposed that all phenomena were produced by some intelligent powers w/direct reference to him.” -IBID
& one from me, though nowhere near as funny or pithy as Mr. Ingersoll: ‘It sounds pretty enough: I have heard (and read) testimonials about/from people who claim to have a ?personal? relationship w/God. In my humble opinion, it is more likely that these folk have come to terms w/their subconscious (id), and have an ongoing internal dialogue w/it. However, since naming this (supposedly) external individual ?Bob? or ?George? or ?Melissa? would indicate a disassociative personality disorder, labeling it ?God? makes it more acceptable, and less prone to psychiatric review.’
& that’s my 2 cents worth.
It’s been a week: is anyone out there? Have the Xtians bailed out already? Just curious
.
reluctant,
I think everyone has moved to newer threads. Maybe you want to copy and paste your post to one of the more active threads; whichever seems most relevant.
cheers!
Thanks escher (D’oh!).
proofed profit from nhl betting
You may find it interesting to check out some helpful info on buy a game called jackpot rummy
project management
…
this is very good
good related article
Solar System Read A Mat
The renewable include wind, solar, biomass, tides, ocean thermal energy The dynamic pressure of the wind dominates over the magnetic p…
science fiction fantasy magazines