I Am An Atheist (Page 5)
Drain_Bammage: Maybe (most likely,no doubt) jesus was just another david koresh,people still follow his teachings to *shrugs*
Heretix: For more than 200 years, the brothers and cousins of Jesus and their descendants, the so-called Desposyni, who led the Nazarean or Ebionite Sect, fought a hopeless battle against the Roman Church about the continuation of the Jewish-based theology that both directions sprang out of. Where the leaders of the Nazareans were true to what is known about the original teaching of Jesus, the Romans spiced up their faith with elements from pagan sources and the Desposyni also rightfully claimed that Rome had hijacked and deified their relative, who in their eyes had been nothing but a mortal man and as his next of kin, they should know what they were talking about.
ewarner1: Everybody who was open to the idea was eventually convinced Jesus was the son of God. His family certainly was, James and Jude became leaders in the early church and wrote two powerful books of the Bible. If you need evidence of his widespread acceptance of Jesus as Gods son, as the bible consistently said would happen, look at how far, how fast the church spread, even when facing incredible persucution. I saw a church in Turkey, founded by John the disciple, that was there 30 years after Christ was crucified.
CoIin: @ ewarner
You seem like a decent fellow and it's been fun chatting, but I really feel that I'm banging my head against a brick wall. It's funny how common sense goes out the window where religion is involved.
Re your last post. You might want to look into the authorship of the epistles you mentioned. You'll find that authorship is "disputed". You can read that as "those who have a vested interest in it being authentic consider it authentic". You might want to consider that Jesus's disciples/family were illiterate, never mind Greek scholars.
Spread of Christianity... It's estimated that the spread was about 40% per decade in the first few centuries. Speaking in terms of averages, if there were 100 followers at the time of Jesus's death, that means 40 converts were made in the next 10 years. Not really very fast at all when you think about it. In any case, if speed is the measure of veracity, you'd better embrace Islam, Mormonism, and countless others.
Finally, the "fulfillment" of prophesy. This is a total misunderstanding on the part of Christians, or else a refusal to understand. It's too lengthy to cover here. Try the "This might surprise some people" thread. I'd still like to know how a "prophesy" written in past tense which never uses the word Messiah can be a prophesy of a future Messiah.
I know this won't make any difference, so peace and love, friend. I'm outta here....
(Edited by CoIin)
quigley says (back on page 4):
“mao was actually a seventh day adventist in his younger days ...”
I read that with skepticism. It struck me as something that would be notable enough to be common knowledge. And so I Googled. I found NOTHING that even remotely suggested anything like that. (shrugs)
tropical: The word that comes to mind would be "substantiate". LOL
I think that there must be several hundred loose claims hiding within the corners of this forum alone...
tropical, I suggest that when you see one of those loose claims, Google it, and then either substantiate or refute it. Make a habit of it.
There's a sort of unwritten rule in forums like this. If one makes a claim of fact, and that claim is questioned with skepticism, the onus is on the person making the claim to substantiate it with references. Thus if quigley wants to stand by his claim that "mao was actually a seventh day adventist in his younger days ..." he should, as you say, substantiate it.
Learning new things through this process is really gratifying. It's also gratifying to provide a valuable correction where needed. It's most gratifying of all when you reveal that someone is obviously lying their ass off and repeatedly just making stuff up out of thin air to try to make their various arguments. (I'm NOT referring to quigley here.) For some reason, that happens in the Politics Forum quite a lot.
And it's gratifying to learn that something assumed to be a fact is actually not factual. I've had that happen to me before. If my "facts" aren't factual, I'd prefer learning that than not.
CoIin: I agree SITS. It's a good thing too. It's makes one very cautious before pressing that "SEND" key....
StuckInTheSixties: Surfing Forum topics turned me into a major Google user. Just like in this case, if something catches my attention, I Google it. I find all sorts of interesting stuff, and sometimes find gross errors and whatnot being posted.
Here's a good hint:
When someone posts some big, long copy-pasted passage, and it seems out-of-whack, copy the first sentence of it, and Google that. That's particularly good for ferreting out bullshit here in the Religion Forum, where religious nuts often post "scientific" information to support their religious views. Googling that first sentence of a big batch of that sort of "scientific" information usually leads to some sort of creationist website, or the equivalent. Same thing when a scientist is quoted to support a religious view, etc. Googling that scientist's name usually reveals all sorts of interesting stuff that shows them as anything other than an authoritive source of information.
Harlet: are we the only animals upon this animal kingdom, that is aware of it's own mortality? why has nature burden us with that awareness.just to be cruel.don't get me wrong, i can't wait to ditch the package,too be free of it,and i without a doubt have no desire too deliver my thought to some form of a theocracy.but believe we move on and into a different living reality.yup un huh sure do.
(Edited by Harlet)
ewarner1: Stuck in the sixties, are you saying that there are no valid creationist arguments? I see this viewpoint with climate change arguments as well, the idea that no "rational" person could disagree with a viewpoint, perhaps I misunderstand you.
The entire argument of creationism is unscientific, right from the get go.
The concept of science is that you BEGIN with observations, and work from there to develop the "scientific theories," the explanations for how things work.
The concept of creationism BEGINS with the idea of a creator, and works from there to make the observations to validate that idea.
The result is that creationists cherry pick the information, taking bits here and there that SEEM to support their hypothesis (it doesn't) and conveniently ignoring the overwhelming amount of information that refutes it.
Creationists don't practice science. They torture science, and contort it to shape their preformed agenda: to validate creationism.
Scientists also have an agenda: to figure out how stuff works, and to use the best currently available information as a means to do that. Scientists will abandon ideas that are proven wrong when errors are established and corrected, or when newer, better information sheds more light on a theory requiring it to be modified.
Creationism is cynically dishonest. It's religion wearing a lab coat and calling itself science, but the main purveyors of it KNOW it's religion, and it has been proven in a court of law that they know it's religion, and that they pretend it's science for the single purpose of sowing the seeds of confusion as a means of furthering their religious agenda. They're propagandists.
I've never seen a valid creationist argument. You got one?
CoIin: @ SITS "The concept of science is that you BEGIN with observations, and work from there to develop the "scientific theories,"
This model took a beating in the 20th century, and I think most scientists would now consider it the other way around (Einstein himself was quite vocal on this point). Most experiments are "theory laden" as they say.
Take the pharmaceutical industry for example. They don't just mix chemicals together, see what happens, and form a hypothesis. Any experiments they carry out are based on pre-existing theories.
StuckInTheSixties: Of course, scientific observations are made in the context of pre-existing theories.
You say "most scientists would now consider it the other way around." I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the other way around. I would think that "the other way around" my statement would be:
Are you saying that with science you begin with the explanation for how things work, and work from there to develop the "observations" (like they do with creationism)?
If that's what you mean, please explain.
CoIin: I'm saying that in this day and age, the role of obervation and experimentation in science tends to be for the purpose of testing/confirming/falsifying. And that which has not been hypothesized cannot be tested.
Think of relativity. The discovery of time dilation, for example, certainly didn't come about through observation.
Think of paticle colliders. Think of E=mc2 and nuclear bombs.
"Accidents" do still happen, of course. And doubtless there are some "chemistry set" types out there. This tends to be the minority these days though.
(If interested, check out "genetic empiricism" and "confirmational empiricism" )
(Edited by CoIin)
risen_sun86: Burden of proof?.. Hints the word.. faith.
If you don't have a faith, that's your decision.. no need to be dramatic about it, jeez
Drain_Bammage: I liken religious faith to sticking your head in the sand,is the ostrich a religious idol by any chance?
I wouldn't take Sits personal view on science too serious. It seems he's already openly (an rather shamelessly) said he gathers much of his information from Google..