And now it’s time for one of those posts that’s going to incite lots of responses. This should be fun. I understand that there are exceptions to the rules (that there are nonreligious people who oppose abortion, for example), but I really think I’m right here.South Dakota has outlawed abortion, in an attempt to overturn Roe V Wade at the national level. They may succeed. If they do, the pro-choice population will have no alternative but to try for a Constitutional Amendment.The problem I have with this whole thing is that most people have lost site of the real issue, the separation of church and state. The abortion issue is not about abortion, but rather about religious people forcing other people to obey the religious way of life. Gay rights, death with dignity, school prayer — all the same thing. Those who oppose all these issues are predominantly (exceptions noted) the same people, the same organizations, the same money. Most of the debates are not about the specific issues, but rather just cloaks around religious discussions.Their strength comes from our missing the point! When we fight these issues on an individual level, we are divided and therefore conquered! We should NOT be voting on abortion or gay rights — we should be voting ONLY on the issue of separation of church and state. When those in office agree that one religion should not rule the masses (like Iraq and Iran), these issues will go away by default.Our country is in imminent danger. We need to be united and vocal, and GOAL ORIENTED! Keep religion out of government and we keep freedom alive.
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
Ra
Heh, and you’d better get busy on a plan to pay those 50 years worth of metaphorical back-taxes!
Also watch out for the cold case squad to come interview you about that accident. You could have key hypothetical information. Need an alibi? Call me!
jcc:
Hmmm, maybe I have a better cushion.
The grass on your side seems…a little dry for my taste.
Well then, it remains one of life’s little mysteries, at least for your side of the fence.
I’d like to have a little insight into the folks that wrote all this up.
‘Extraordinary claims’, & all that.
I like to think I defy labels.
Well, I’d defer to a police report, as opposed to anecdotal hearsay.
If 1 fella says, “It was a fender-bender”, another says “1 of the drivers was thrown thru the windshield”, & yet another says, “It was 1 car that veered out of control & only hit a fire hydrant”, well, you get my drift.
I think we’ve beaten this particular simile to a pulp.
Thanks, couldn’t have said that better myself.
Turnabout’s fair play, after all.
& here again is where we part ways.
While some minutiae is irrelevant (where did the witnesses go to the bathroom, what they had for dinner, etc), there ARE other details/minutiae that are contingent on the eyewitnesses’ perception.
Such as:
A. Lack of sleep
B. Medication
C. History of pathological lying/embellishment (goes to character)
D. Age
E. Criminal record (goes to character)
F. Mental stability
I could probably dredge up a few more.
I can also point out that despite eyewitnesses & Dick Cheney’s indirect references the day/week after, most people believe that Flight 93 was brought down by the passengers.
Or that Lizzie Borden was found innocent by a jury of her peers, but to this day, everyone believes she murdered her parents.
Or that an entire bible was found intact at the WTC, when in actuality, it was 1 singed page.
Snopes.com has quite a plethora of such instances.
In short, I deal in facts, not romantic fiction. These things are somewhat dry, to be truthful: perhaps not as stimulating for the right hemisphere. If I want fiction, I’ll write it myself, or read it under its proper label.
Which is what I consider the bible to be: romantic fiction.
karen:
Luckily, it’s a speculatory govt. I owe them to, ergo, I can hypothetically cheat on them.
To quote Schultz: “I saw..nut-zing!” (hogan’s heroes)
Hehehehe.
karen:
So, as a mother, the (as you say) near-unconditional love you have for your kids is simply a ?perception,? is open to interpretation (by you?), but most of all, that ?perception? is extremely error-prone? This sounds dramatically like you?re uncertain?even skeptical, that your love for your kids is actually real.
Reluctant
Not that i am aware of anyway
Sorry for misquoting you. It is possible then.
As i recall, none that acknowledged any resurrection whatsoever before judgement. Moreover the gospel claims the law can’t save. The jews had specialized in obeying the law. Now suddenly a bunch of their own countrymen claimed the efforts were in vain..
No, they are based on the gospels.
Prove that it couldn’t have happened. Burden falls to the one making the absolute claim.
Does not compute, my english isn’t good enough. Sorry…
By all means. Your position must be loosely based since you are able to change stance so quickly.
Alright. We have had quite a discussion here.
To summarize: Scrolling back i see you have presented different theories that could explain the birth of the gospels in a “natural” way.
Technically, you could be right. But you have no evidence whatsoever that points to the fact that the gospels have come into existence in one of the “alternative” ways that you’ve mentioned.
Therefore i cannot arrive to any other conclusion than that the position you hold is based on pure speculation.
jcc
My interpretation of my love for my children is clear to me. They may have a different perception of that same love. And vice versa. It is an emotional feeling, as real as a perception can be.
Other relationships are even trickier and IMO open to more error.
My love for my husband, and his for me, for example. And then my love for Hairless, RA, HZ, Natasha, you, others.
Love is not always interpreted as meant, or desired. Much gets lost in translation.
reluctantatheist:
Whoa. Let?s see, on your side of the fence existence is: completely naturalistic (but somehow order came from chaos); non-reason somehow produced reason; unconsciousness somehow produced consciousness?and that consciousness is ultimately only the manifestation of chemical reactions and thereby logically negates any concept of ?free will;? human life is purely existential and of no intrinsic value; the morality of murder is ephemeral and relativistic, (fortunately, it?s currently ?in vogue? as being ?wrong?); love is just an ?abstract musing;? humankind is the measure of all things in the universe?yet it is something that simply ?evolved??quite ?by accident? (as Carl Sagan was so fond of saying); and when you die, you die. And on my side of the fence existence is: by design; consciousness arose from consciousness; free will is real; human life is of infinite value and full of meaning?because it?s not an ?accident? of evolution; morality is not popularly decided; love is real and tangible?we can love because we were first loved by the one who created us; humankind is not the ultimate authority in the universe because we didn?t create it; and if we choose to, we can have eternal and abundant life?and my side seems a ?little dry??
Goose:
Well, I regard the gospels as speculation. I’m sure someone, somewhere, has explained certain items you had questions about, yes?
Just to make sure we’re on the same page here: yes, it’s possible JC existed, yes it’s possible he was crucified. That’s it.
??? Before judgment DAY, or prior to JC? Lazarus, a chapter in Ezekiel, to name a couple.
Also, there is a little evidence that the Jews believed in an afterlife, if that’s your reference.
Incorrect again. ‘Came to change the law, not to break it’. Which Jews, exactly? The Hellenistic Jews? The Essenes? The Samaritans? Pharisees, Saducees?
See above.
Nice try, no cigar. YOU’RE the 1 making an absolute claim. I have scientific evidence dating back to before science, that refutes reanimation.
‘Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile’ is the aphorism.
To which I reply, “Everyone looks up to the mighty oak, but when the tornado has passed, the willow still stands.”
Sorry I’m not the absolutist you require.
Since I’m not a politician, I am allowed to bend slightly.
Flexibility isn’t the sign of weakness you seem to think.
I don’t need any ‘evidence’ to poke holes in fiction.
Likewise, you have no evidence whatsoever outside of idle speculation that the gospels report events that are historically true.
At least I’m honest about it.
Likewise, I can’t arrive at any other conclusion than that you have a penchant for fairy tales.
It’s a pretty story, I’ll grant you that. Filled w/sturm und drang, high drama, tears, a hint of historicity, even innuendoes about a backstage romance.
I’ve seen more believable episodes of TNG, truth be told.
jcc:
Well, let’s take contrasting sides, then:
Your side is completely supernatural, all things blossomed into being from ex nihilo, nature’s got nothing to do w/any person, rampant egotism, introversion, compassion that becomes carnage, rules that don’t work, magical thinking, codependancy, scapegoating on a universal level, spiritual deformity (original sin), eternal damnation on a global scale, blaming the child for the father’s mistake, Peter Pan syndrome, immortality based on a boolean choice, a playbook that makes little sense & doesn’t work, logical fallacies, Chicken Little Syndrome, divine micro-management, last-minute absolution, hereafterian illogic: gee, did I miss anything?
My side:
Everything just is.
I take that back. Your side isn’t dry at all.
Your garden is in need of weeding, trimming, & pruning. It’s out of control.
jcc
Please explain to me how love is “real and tangible”.
jcc:
Oh, & 1 more thing:
No such thing as chaos, BTW. Everything has order. Structure. Independant of any outside source.
Unless you can give me an ‘absolute’ definition of chaos, that is.
reluctantatheist:
Hoo boy. Okay, take this:
Yes?it?s called the Big Bang
Didn?t say that?sure predilections exist?but so does free will.
Again, consequences of free will
Who?s rules? Those legislated by humans or the spiritual rules woven into our existence that we can?t ?break? but break ourselves on?
Again, consequences of free will
Only if the child refuses to modify the behavior modeled by the father?dang! it?s free will?again!
Huh?
Correction?the choice of destination of that immortal existence is a boolean choice.
You mean with incomprehensible and confusing ?plays? like: ?abstinence works every time it?s tried??
Such as?
Yeah, like Ted Danson saying a dozen or so years ago that ?we only have 10 years left to save the oceans??
Logically consistent with omnipotence.
Logically consistent with the Atonement.
I?m unfamiliar with this?Google returns, ?Did you mean hereafter ian.???
My side: ?everything just is? is non-sequitur for thinking beings.
No argument here, especially since it?s been left in the charge of people who have turned their backs on God and have chosen ?rampant egotism, introversion, [and] compassion[s] that become carnage.?
Is it really? You mean we haven?t already annihilated ourselves because, as a species, we?re trustworthy not to?
Wow. So, the second law of thermodynamics has now been revoked? Are you saying that chaos can now be modeled?
karen:
It?s real and tangible in that I would reflexively sacrifice myself to save the life (or lives) of my children. Only love can account for such a behavior?and it is not an anomalous event. It is extant and is repeatable throughout the species.
jcc
People also sacrifce their lives for complete strangers, and even odd causes.
jcc:
No proof matter didn’t exist prior to the event?
Form follows function.
Free will doesn’t exist. Not on religious terms.
Sorry, original sin.
If you can’t see the goofy cruelty of that statement, I’m not going to waste my time on it.
Simple. According to your own dogma, we will eternally be children of sorts – never superceding the parent, as witnessed in the structure of nature.
Tomato, toh-MA-Toe.
LMAO! Last ‘abstinence now’ (religiously based on xtianity, no less!) had an 88 percent failure rate.
The ones theists use to such a huge extent. You’re pretty good at not using them (on the average).
No, like that written madness named Revelation.
No, logically consistent w/Alpha wolf high priests who want to keep the reins of power.
No, logically consistent w/folks who want to have their cake & eat it too.
Nope. Just coined it.
Nope. Application of Occam’s razor. I’m a minimalist.
Well seeing as there is no god (I can say that w/about 99% certainty), I find that entire paragraph null & void.
Tsk, tsk. I was talking about religion, not humanity. Though sometimes I wonder. About annihilation, that is.
Oh, please.
Give me a real world example of ‘chaos’, then.
Which definition, then:
1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.
3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe.
4. Mathematics. A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
5. Obsolete. An abyss; a chasm.
I was assuming you were using #3. Apologies if off.
Last time I checked, entropy & chaos aren’t synonyms.
But what do I know? I’m just a materialist, after all.
reluctantatheist
Okay, I have time for one more response then I have to go to dinner?
Are you asking that rhetorically? Even Hawking can?t provide any such.
I don?t see how you arrived at that. But the key word there is ?religious.? I?m not religious.
Brought on by free will.
Fine. I can?t, so no point in wasting any more time there.
Wow, so we have the potential to be equals of God?
What about every time it?s tried don?t you understand?
Who demands scientific explanations for everything. Even things that can?t be reproduced.
Wow, that?s a pretty high degree of certainty for someone who minimizes absolutes.
Sorry, outta time. Gotta go.
Like Thomas, I don’t believe. But if Jesus will let me stick my finger into his holes, then maybe I would
Damn this site! Can’t edit your posts, can’t preview your posts!
Any way, let me try this again.
Really? Then on what day was Jesus crucified? The synoptic gospels tell us He was crucified on the day after the Passover Feast was eaten ? after all, Jesus himself ate the Passover meal at night, and then the next morning was handed over to Pilate. On the other hand, the gospel of John says that Jesus was crucified on the day before the Passover Feast was eaten. Two different days: both can?t be true.
Nope, sorry.
The Gospel of Matthew (27:32) tells us that Jesus didn?t bear his own cross, but rather that ?a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.?
The Gospel of Mark (15:21) tells us this too: ?A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.?
And what did those two criminals do? It depends on which gospel you read! Matthew and Mark have both criminals mocking Jesus, but Luke has only one doing that and the other criminal doing exactly the opposite.
I have read 3 books and watched 4 video lecture series by Bart D. Ehrmanm, and I would not say he thinks that Jesus is a legend. He does believe – and has the goods to back it up – that a lot of ‘legends’ were being created and told about Jesus.
No, actually, the claim of miracles tied to Jesus give LESS weight to the Jesus story than to Big Foot.
I am not willing to die for the belief that 2 + 2 = 4!!!!
And as many have already pointed out, a willingness to die does not show that person?s position to be correct. After all, the 9/11 hijackers were willing to die for their beliefs: so will you now convert to Islam?
The ?Weekly World News? ? the grocery store newspaper that lists stories such as ?Titanic Survivors Found Onboard!? ? gets people, places, and so forth correct. Does that make it?s stories true?
In fact, you SHOULD believe in the stories in it because, like the Bible, the ?Weekly World News? confirms its own validity, stating on its front page: ?The World?s Only Reliable Newspaper?
You also seem to not know that the gospels have historically invalid ?Facts?, such as Luke?s mistake in 2:1-2 where he gets the date of Quirinius? rule wrong.
These were written way after the ?fact?, and are merely retelling what other people were saying. Those sources only show that other people thought that Jesus lived.
So the fairy tales say.
So the fairy tales say.
1) As already pointed out, being willing to die for a belief does not make it true. Or will you switch to Islam since the 9/11 hijackers were willing to die for their belief in the their God?
2) The Bible does not say that the disciples died for their belief. IIRC, it mentions only 1 (or maybe 2). For example, can you show us in the Bible where it says that Peter died for his belief in Jesus?
Ask the early Christians! They were making up stories about Jesus and his disciples left and right. You might want to check out “Lost Christianities”, by Bart D. Ehrmann.
And there was a reward for creating incredible stories: he with the more impressive ‘teacher’ won more converts. After all, Christianity and its leader – Jesus – were in direct competition with beliefs and groups.
That is just one example of what early Christianity was competing with for followers.
jcc
How is does that show tangibility? Can I touch it? Measure it?
I would sacrifice my life for your children too. I don’t even know them. Frankly, it would be my expectation that any decent adult would sacrifice him/herself for a child if the situation arose.
I am at a loss as to how that shows that love is real rather than perceived.
jcc:
Then we don’t know anything conclusively now, do we?
Coulda fooled me.
How is anything called free will? It’s just a concept.
Yeah, that pesky creature that xtians love to tout & spout, but not practice.
Seeing as there isn’t 1, highly unlikely.
How about no verifiable results? Howzabout you provide studies proving that particular claim, big guy? Sounds like an absolute to me.
Key phrase here: can’t be reproduced.
Hey, I gave myself a 1% margin. You gotta problem w/that?
Key phrase here: can’t be reproduced.
Gimmee something more than the disjointed ramblings of some iron age stoners, who were illiterate, no less. Gimmee someone other than Matthew (bumbling incompetent), Luke (terrible historian), an account that varies from the stone rolled aside, & 1 youth, then 2 youths, then an angel descending from heaven like some video game superhero.
Or the fit JC thru in a heavily guarded (by Romans, no less) market. Or a Davidic lineage (no agreement between the 2!) that’s invalidated by the virgin birth, seeing as Levirate law never recognized kingship via the woman.
& all that’s from memory.
Don’t make me get out my notes.
You won’t like it.
HZ:
Actually….”‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’”
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/alekp023.html
Correction:
Earlier in this thread, I stated 19 known discrepancies. I failed, however, to mention that these discrepancies are just for the ‘concordant’ crucifixion story.
There are far more discrepancies in the Synoptics & John than 19.
Goose:
Here’s some alternate stories for ya:
http://www_.tombofjesus.com/BookReviews.htm#2
Subtract the _: the blog won’t let me paste, or post it w/o the _. Why, I do not know.
Goose:
Well, they don’t claim to be. And as long as the gospels are the only evidence i can’t be accused of speculating.
The Jews didn’t believe in resurrection before judgement day. And some parties didn’t believe in any resurrection at all.
The notion of salvation by grace through faith was offensive to the religious Jews, since Judaism is based on the law.
It was offensive that the Messiah, who fulfilled the law, came in the form of the suffering Lord.
Moreover he was born in a stable, by a woman nonetheless.
Something extraordinary had to happen for a bunch of Jews to start proclaiming this on their home turf.
Que? I say i believe he rose from the dead, you say he didn’t. You make the absolute claim, i assume you then have prrof to back it up.
I’d like to see that.
Got it. So i take it you mean that you have “loosened up” on certain points and that i read too much into it?
Well i don’t require you to be an absolutist. But you don’t seem to have any idea about who Jesus was but you are certain he wasn’t Christ. This is a self-contradictory (or smth like that:)) position. If you have no idea about who he was then he could just as well have been the Christ.
“Idle speculation that the gospels report the truth”?!?! What kind of a statement is that?!?!
Well, they meet the criteria for historic documentation. I don’t have to “speculate” in order to accept them, i just assume they are true as long as there is no contradictory evidence around. The contradictions withing the gospels i can live with, after all, considering humans wrote them there are bound to be some. And they don’t affect any major points.
well, then you’ve concluded wrong.
Also very inconvenient and controversial. Who’d make it up?
DNAunion
got any evidence that points in this direction or is this just speculation?
DNAunion
Thats great! Then ask Him to reveal himself to you then!!:)
Reluctant
But our side can at least answer questions about why human life is valued and why morals exist.
Goose:
I call bullshit on that 1.
It’s all about empathy.
Only evidence? What crap. The gospels don’t even QUALIFY under the concept of ‘evidence’.
You qualified it properly, at least.
True.
Hey, I find the whole concept repugnant, offensive. & I’m not Jewish.
Oh, fer cryin’ out loud. Was it a manger, or a stable? YACA = Yet Another Contradictory Account.
Yeah, all 13 of them. Appeal to wonder, more speculation. -YAWN-
What utter bullshit. YOU’RE the 1 making extraordinary claims. Stop trying to turn the tables: ain’t gonna work.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! What a stupid retort.
You’ve got zero scientific proof that anyone can be resurrected from the dead. I’m not gonna do your homework for you. I’ve done too much already.
No, you have sufficiently demonstrated that you’ve got nothing to back your play. Zilch. Zip. De nada.
Let me translate: “Well, since you can’t give me an alternate story, you may as well admit it could be true.”
Sucker born every minute.
“Since you can’t prove someone else besides me owns the Brooklyn Bridge, wanna buy it off of me?”
It’s a little invention they just came up w/: they’re called FACTS.
Well, you’ve been provided sufficient data that punches huge gaping holes in your ‘accounts’, large enough to drive a Mack truck thru. Enough supplementary & deductive logic to convince a rational mind that these ‘accounts’ are so much folderol.
Couldn’t put it by me.
Ah, Tertullian’s argument: “It’s absurd, so it must be true.”
Hate to do this, but I’m going to have to hand it to you, in the words of the Simpsons’ ‘Comic book guy’: “Worst apologist ever“.
Well, you’ve convinced me. Thanks.
Jesus never existed.
We’re done.
Sayonara.
Reluctant
Ok, then our side can explain why empathy exists. The naturalistic view can’t.
For historical purposes, they are reliable. As such they should be subject to the same treatment as other antique texts, ie. assumed to be true unless otherwise proven. How
do you treat for example Ceasars Gallic wars, Tacitus writings etc.? Not with much scrutiny i presume. The gospels should be subject to the same treatment as these. Moreover, we can be way more sure that the gospels say what the authors originally intended that what other antique texts do.
Does it disprove Jesus divinity?
No, just being objective.
For the 10th time, i am not making any claims. I am saying what i believe.
You on the other hand seen positive that the resurrection couldn’t happen. I therefore presume you have proof.
Thats why i continually use the word “believe”.
Please, just one more thing: proof that the resurrection couldn’t have happened.
Hey you are the one saying you have no idea who Jesus was (but now i think you don’t think he even existed.). Anyway, if you have no idea then he could just as well have been the Christ.
If you are saing he could’ve been anything but the Christ you are making an absolute statement which demands proof to be valid.
You mean data that contradict the gospels? So far i’ve seen zero.
If you mean the contradictions within the gospels, then i say you are demanding too much of antique writings. Besides, concluding that the resurrection couldn’t happen because the women by the grave reportedly said different things is quite a stretch.
Scrutinize other antique writings (which you have accepted as fact)the same way and then you can be objective.
Worst apologist ever? Maybe so hehe.
But i have reasons for believing as i do.
So now you think Jesus didn’t even exist?So you are saying that Christianity isn’t even based around a person? Total fabrication all the way?
Reluctant
Let’s stop this nagging. We are not going to come to any conclusions either way.
Though i suspect you will want to respond to my last post but then i suggest we stop this.
This isn’t what i should be doing as a Christian anyway, irritating you that is. My conscience is getting to me.
Apologies if i have been a pain.
Goose:
Fine. Let’s call it quits, we’re at an impasse of sorts. One last thing:
Our side can indeed explain why empathy exists. Why morals exist.
Evolution. Studies have indeed been done on this.
Our side can pretty much provide an answer to most of the questions you pose. It ain’t purty, but that’s the way life is sometimes.
Nobody’s behind it all.
You may find that bleak & empty.
I find it exhilarating, & filled w/potential & imagination.
You are welcome to your little box, your ancient tomes of antiquated rules.
I prefer a world w/o walls.
Likewise, if I’ve been irksome (or irked).
We’ll most likely never see eye to eye.
So it goes.
Peace.
Reluctant
Studies on evolution of morals and empathy? I’d like to see that.
You know its statements like these that make me disbelieve evolution. It ain’t purty… by saying you taht assume that we expect the aspects of life to be purty (i am guessing that means “pretty”).
Why do we consider things as pretty? Why do we expect life to be pretty? There is no point to this given evolution is right. If evolution is right it just is. No beautiful nor ugly, it just is.
I believe so. Unless the universe brought itself into existence.
Rules have nothing to do with it. The bible just happen to give me answers which match what i see.
Is it about what we prefer, or that which is true?
Anyway, it feels like we are hijacking a thread here…
Focus Dailies 90 Pack Contact Lenses
To get the best deal on Focus Dailies 90 pack Focus Dailies 90 pack Buy Focus Dailies 90 pack at Discounted Contact Lenses Online Product…
It’s not about religion it’s about the value of human life and at what time a persons future means anything. Often an argument is made that abortion should be allowed because of rape but only 1% of abortions are rape making it a void reason. If someone is born due to rape are they worth anything less than if they were not. I think placing religion on the matter is a way to escape the facts thay a human life begins at the begining and anything else is arbutrary. Abortion comes from two forms of shame either you can expierence public shame for a while from family and friends or private shame for eternity for taking your childs life.
goosehenry:
Beautiful and ugly are both value claims, as such it’s really people who imbue things with beauty or ugliness. Beauty isn’t a physical property of things, it’s a statement that qualifies the feelings that certain things evoke in people. As such, anything can be as beautiful or as ugly as people see them as being. I for one consider many species of tropical flies to be breathtakingly beautiful, lots of people would say “eww” and swat them.
you might check out “The Science of Good and Evil” by Michael Shermer. thats just the first one I can think of off the top of my head, there are many such books out there. (sorry I can’t treat you to an easy click-n-go link)
now to your earlier post:
do you treat the trials of hercules as a historical narrative? how about all the various exploits of zeus? what about the various tales of hindu deities in the upanishads and the bhagavad gita? the upanishads in particular are written in the same historical tone as much of the bible, they accurately portray much of indian history and include actual historical personalities.
moral: just because it is written doesn’t make it so
I can’t speak for reluctant or the others here, but here’s my take on it:
I beleive that christianity is based not on a historical individual, but on a historical personality compiled from various mystery cults of the time, some abrahamic and some “pagan”. there’s a great article about it at atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html
as well as:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
wiskey rebel:
I agree: it’s about the value of human life and when that value begins to overshadow the mothers right to choose whether or not the carry to term.
BUT: religious groups bring religion into it to justify the veiw that the mother NEVER has the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not. Some, like catholics, beleive that women don’t even really have the right to choose when they’ll become pregnant.
The secular veiw is not that an unborn life is worth nothing, it’s that the value of that life has to be weighed against the liberty of the mother. efforts to determine significant milestones and mitigating circumstances (such as when a fetus can feel pain and when the pregnancy could cause physical or psychological damage to the mother) have been repeatedly hampered by the involvment of religious lobbyists who are commited to justifying their preconceived conclusions rather than making actual progress.
furthermore, religious groups tend to take an abolitionist view of abortion, whereas secular groups tend to take a preventative view.
imagine two scenarios:
1: abortion is outlawed, X amount of money is spent policing the policy. Y number of abortions are still perfomed illegaly, but they are largely performed by unqualified providers with little chance of after-abortion care in the case of complications.
2: abortion is not outlawed, X amount of money is spent on combating unwanted pregnancies through education and availability of birth control. Because very few accidental pregnancies occur, only Y abortions are performed, many of which are due to rape, incest, or possibility of harm to the mother if the pregnancy is carried to term. These abortions are carried out by trained physicians and after-abortion care is available.
in each case, X dollars are spent, and Y abortions occur. however, in case 2, few women are likely to die or be harmed in the process of having an abortion.
I would hazard to guess that everyone here at nogodblog wants as few abortions as possible to happen. however, I feel that scenario 1 (generally supported by religion dominionists) is a simplisic, knee-jerk reaction that would work about as well as the prohibition against alcohol. those of us who are secularists generally feel that scenario 2 is preferable.
thats awfully simplistic. most people who choose to have abortions do so not because they are neccesarily ashamed, but because they are unable or unwilling to care for the child. Adoption is an option, but many people are unable to find someone to adopt the child, and state-run facilites are already overcrowded, underfunded, and under-frequented.
Ummm…guys?
This is a dead thread, & goose has vanished from the blogosphere mos. ago.
Just so ya know.
oh, I just gotta take this, almost missed it:
goosehenry:
this is probobly the most faulty argument that theists use to justify their beleif in god
essentially: “if there’s no god, where did the universe come from smarty-pants?”
due to our human limitations, we are forced to presume that something has existed FOREVER. It is not inherantly more beleivable that god has existed forever and created the universe than it is that “the universe” in one form or another has always existed.
for the time being, we just have to choose something and say that it’s always been there. those of us here who are atheists have looked at the way the universe is currently and concluded that it doesn’t really make sense to beleive that some sort of “god” existed before it. those of you here who are religious have trouble with seeing the universe as it is currently and concluding that it has existed in one form or another for all eternity, and so you invent an entity to imbue the universe with a starting point.
KA:
yeah I know, I just… I just couldn’t let it sit there like that. I called out for a reply.
Just adding to the very good points by Flying Weasel.
The god idea really doesn’t help explain the universe because, it doesn’t explain where the god idea came from. It is far more reasonable to know that the universe was formed by natural causes than to believe that the god idea just happened. Knowing that the universe formed naturally, then allowing evolution over billions of years to account for the changes, is far more likely than having a god idea that created its self, then created life from nothing.
Christians want to believe that super magical intelligence suddenly appearing from nothing is possible.
What will it be like in 2057 for those born in 2007?
The Scientific Thought prediction is! ?Some stated as follows?
.
What will the world be like in 50 short years in 2057
New York City will be at least one foot or more underwater. All the beaches along the US coasts will be gone, as well as all the coasts of all other Nations of the Globe…
Miami Beach Florida will be no more, nor will most of the rest of State of Florida…
The polar caps are melting at a more rapid rate than first believed.
OSU Science Professor and Scientist Lonnie Thompson has been studying the polar caps for more than 30 odd years, and has measured them yearly also photographed them, The ocean water is raising at the rate of One to One and One half inches or more per year.
“(You may guess the fifty year outcome yourself)”.
Without the intervention of a superhuman Power from among the Celestials, there will be much less dry land on the globe to inhabit, and much more water covering the surface of the globe.
The Globe is incapable of ffeding more that Seven-Billion humans with perfect food growing weather every year, which it does not even as now.
PS. This is all science, and not a threat of a so-called Religion of any kind!
?No without the intervention of a strong hand from somewhere, there is not much of a future for life as we know it on earth. ?Animal or human life at all?
If like we might think, their is no God, then soon there will be no human Atheist or otherwise…
So-It=-Goes!
Enjoy Today thats all we have.
“Only Now”..
“We have all the time in the world”.
Yours truly
Sumner Morrill Koch
2007
World
Feb 12,2007 10:23 AM
Indian Scientist Warns Major Natural Disaster In South East Asia
MUMBAI, Jan 25 (Bernama) — Increased seismic activities have been recorded in the past one month in the Java-Sumatra-Andaman region of South East Asia, indicating possibility of a major disaster in the near future, a senior scientist at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) said.
Though volcanic activities in the region had subsided after the devastating earthquake-triggered tsunami of December 2004, Senior Professor of Earth Sciences Department D.Chandrasekharam said more than 52 earthquakes with varying magnitude have been recorded in the last month.
Quoting Chandrasekharam, the Press Trust of India (PTI) reported Wednesday that this appears to be natural cyclic process but there is a possibility of it triggering a major disaster.
“Since December 25, 2006 till Thursday morning, the entire Java-Sumatra-Andaman island subduction zone experienced more than 51 earthquakes varying in magnitude from 4.2 to 7.5 on the Richter scale,” the noted expert said.
These include two major earthquakes – 7.1 magnitude in Taiwan on December 26 and 7.5 in Molucca sea. Also 4.9 and 6.1 magnitude earthquakes were recorded in Nicobar Islands.
Majority of these events are associated with “thrust fault”, an underground phenomenon that had caused the 2004 tsunami killing nearly 2.5 million people across several countries, including India, he said.
“This only shows how active this region is seismically. Are we prepared with our tsunami warning system to alert people well in advance about any impending natural disaster?” Chandrasekharam asked.
He said perhaps a mock trial should be carried out by India to test any tsunami warning system that it is installing.
The recent earthquakes should ring an alarm bell. Tsunami warning systems should alert coastal population within 10 minutes of occurrence of any major disaster, he said.
Referring to the earthquake of 8.1 magnitude that hit the Kuril islands on Jan 13, he said: “The Pacific tsunami system gave warning within nine minutes of the occurrence of this earthquake and lifted the warning within 20 minutes.”
Similar thing happened with regard to 7.1 magnitude earthquake in Taiwan on December 26 last year.
Tsunami warning was given within 11 minutes of the earthquake and the one-meter wave triggered by it was monitored till it reached one of the Philippine islands south of Taiwan, Chandrasekharam added.
– BERNAMA
Remember all we have is today
“Only Now”
?All the Effort and Self Achievement of Humanity is Temporary and Meaningless?
All the labours and toils, and temporary attainments of mankind end up in despair, dissatisfaction, and emptiness.
This is how the un-known God would have it, because He, who is man’s ?un-known? almighty Creator is also, and must be, everyone?s only, and well being ultimate known Saviour??
2007
My A-theist Friends,
Sooner or later a human being begins to think!
Sooner or later after all the wing-dings, gigs, and parties are over.
The human, discovers that all the fleeting, crazy pleasures he had, were but a drop in the boundless desert of boredom and emptiness that lie within humanity.
“We have all the time in the world”
And So-It-goes!
2007
World Food
Shortages
GLOBAL FOOD SUPPLY NEAR THE BREAKING POINT
Stephen Leahy
BROOKLIN, Canada, January 24, 2007 (IPS) – The world is now eating more food than farmers grow, pushing global grain stocks to their lowest level in 30 years.
Rising population, water shortages, climate change, and the growing costs of fossil fuel-based fertilisers point to a calamitous shortfall in the world’s grain supplies in the near future, according to Canada’s National Farmers Union (NFU).
Thirty years ago, the oceans were teeming with fish, but today more people rely on farmers to produce their food than ever before, says Stewart Wells, NFU’s president.
In five of the last six years, global population ate significantly more grains than farmers produced.
And with the world’s farmers unable to increase food production, policymakers must address the “massive challenges to the ability of humanity to continue to feed its growing numbers”, Wells said in a statement.
There isn’t much land left on the planet that can be converted into new food-producing areas, notes Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington-based non-governmental organisation. And what is left is of generally poor quality or likely to turn into dust bowls if heavily exploited, Brown told IPS.
Unlike the Green Revolution in the 1960s, when improved strains of wheat, rice, maize and other cereals dramatically boosted global food production, there are no technological magic bullets waiting in the wings.
“Biotechnology has made little difference so far,” he said.
Even if the long-promised biotech advances in drought, cold, and disease-resistance come about in the next decade, they will boost yields little more than five percent globally, Brown said.
“There’s not nearly enough discussion about how people will be fed 20 years from now,” he said.
Hunger is already a stark and painful reality for more than 850 million people, including 300 million children. How can the number of hungry not explode when one, two and possibly three billion more people are added to the global population?
The global food system needs fixing and fast, says Darrin Qualman, NFU’s research director.
“Many Canadian and U.S. farmers are going out of business because crop prices are at their lowest in nearly 100 years,” Qualman said in an interview. “Farmers are told overproduction is to blame for the low prices they’ve been forced to accept in recent years.”
However, most North American agribusiness corporations posted record profits in 2004. With only five major companies controlling the global grain market, there is a massive imbalance of power, he said.
“The food production system is designed to generate profits, not produce food or nutrition for people,” Qualman told IPS.
He says there are enormous amounts of food stored in central Canada’s farming heartland, but thousands of people there, including some farm families, are forced to rely on food banks.
“It’s a system that’s perfectly happy to leave hundreds of millions of people unfed,” he said.
Inequity and poverty are at the heart of the hunger problem, according to experts, including the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
Economic inequity is becoming more widespread, with hunger and malnutrition a chronic problem for the poor in both the South and the North, says Brown.
And the present situation is likely to worsen with climate change.
An estimated 184 million people in Africa alone could die from floods, famine, drought and conflict resulting from climate change before the end of the century, according to a new report by Christian Aid, a British-based charity.
Millions more in other parts of the world will also perish, and recent gains in reducing poverty could be thrown into reverse in coming decades, said the report, “Climate of Poverty: Facts, Fears and Hopes”.
“This is a grave crisis for global society and we need global solutions,” said Andrew Pendleton, climate and development analyst at Christian Aid.
In the “Hope” section of the report, the group envisions poor regions using renewable energy to power a new, and clean, era of prosperity.
Another vision is already making a difference in villages in 10 African countries. With some money to buy better seeds, fertiliser, a share in a protected water source, and a bed net to fend off malarial mosquitoes, hundreds of thousands of villagers in the Millennium Villages project are now able to grow enough food and sell the surplus.
Developed by Jeffrey Sachs and others at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the U.N. Millennium Project, each project is led by local community members using proven, practical, low-cost technologies.
Making a substantial difference in Africa’s food security and poverty issues means development assistance to spread the project to the more than 100,000 villages in Africa, organisers have said.
That kind of frontal assault on poverty, along with population stabilisation and sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change, top Brown’s list of what needs to be done immediately.
Shifting from a global food production system to local food for local people would go a long way towards addressing inequity, Qualman believes.
“The 100-mile diet, where people obtain their food from within a 100-mile radius of their homes, makes good sense for most of the world,” he said.
The whole fabric of the food production system needs to change, or hunger and malnutrition will only get much worse.
“North America’s industrial-style agricultural system is a really bad idea and maybe the worst on the planet,” Qualman concluded. (FIN/2006)
If this is today,
What will tomorrow be like?
We have “Only Now”
2/3 of the world doesn’t believe in GOD , i hear the same questions over and over from athiest . GOD is not real .
how you know ?
have you looked for GOD?
you guys say i can’t prove that theres a GOD but you can’t prove to me there isn’t after everything i’ve seen and felt . theres no way you can’t tell me theres no GOD no way its impossible for me not to believe. Its sad how you guys talk you want 100% proof
but i go by Faith.
Also you guys say the bible slips in alot of ways how??
even of your athiest why not go by the bible ?? but than againg you will believe if you do.
GOD took a man name Ricardo Cid to heaven. I saw his video and its amazing what GOD told him its amazing the only part i would like to say to you guys is the part when Ricardo said ” GOD no one will believe me ” GOD said ” yes they’ll believe you but only my people will”
and its true i believe him but if you hear his story it will have you thinking but than againg your heart is a stone because you guys will not believe no matter what .
Abortion is wrong but those babys that are being aborted are in heaven .
Hoe do you know that ?!
God took these 7 young people to Heaven and some of them saw the baby they have aborted they grow in heaven they don’t die and thats it they go to Heaven .
What do you call speaking in Tongues?
I mean GOD takes alot of people to Heaven and hell to come back and tell us that Heaven and hell is real !
People screaming in hell saying ” GOD i believe now , please save me “
but its too late you have your chance now and choose not to believe .
All of this killings , parents killing childrens , children killing parents all of this the book of life talks about all these are happening theworld is destroying themselve
gays , bis , athiest , forniocators , sinners , all of these people that live in the world are destroying themselves . How come the world is getting so bad now , whats going on >>???????
No one knows they think is probably something scientific thats going on with the killing and rape and suicide right???
no,the end is near so repent from your sins or you will go to hell
but like i say i know your heart and its made of stone and it will not believe.
i copuld on and on but theres so much i could say and here i stop . GOD loves you .