Atheist nightmare come true. Archeological evidence of Jesus.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Quote from Scataphagos:
Jesus may have been a "real person"... but was he actually the "Son of God"?
Were stories about him factual or embellished?
Hard for us science-educated folks to accept anything about religion. However I recall Chemisty 100... the prof once made a statement something like, "... It's all so fantastic, the only explanation is Divine Creation". I went, "WTF?"
Dr. Fred Dewey. As fine a science teacher as there ever was... in spite of his belief in Creationism.
Dr. Dewey had it right...
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will takeâalthough of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at allâbut we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
No not really....
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
The common view is that given a fuller understanding of the physical and biological conditions and processes involved, the emergence of life should be seen to be quite likely, or at least not very surprising.
If Jesus's existence becomes without a doubt, then people might demand a public trial into the circumstances of his murder. So it is likely that it is not the atheists who initiated the saying, but rather those who are afraid of the consequences of the existence of Jesus.
Would it be difficult to find out who was involved in his murder?
ah,childlike faith. the gullible are so easily duped:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/425/
Needless to say, this bogus âfindâ is linked to a heavily-marketed book, The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity, by James D. Tabor. But given that he has been so thoroughly disgraced by expert analysis on this (and yet gives the book an absurdly confident title like that), I can only assume he has tenure, as otherwise he would cease to be employed by now. This is really beyond the pale.
Itâs even more discrediting that Tabor still stands by the âJesus Tomb Wingnut Teamâ interpretation of an inscription in the other Talpiot tomb as âMariameneâ (as supposedly a variant of Mariamne, supposedly a distinctive spelling of Mary Magdalene), when it is unmistakably Mariamê kai Mara, âMiriam and Mara,â one very common Jewish name, the other unconnected to Jesus. An earlier epigrapher confused a single letter as nu (N) which is actually kappa [K], the one being an upside down version of the other (a common mistake even for an expert to make who might be getting tired trudging through hundreds of inscriptions). This is so glaringly obvious there can be no reasonable dispute in the matter. Yet he keeps on claiming it says Mariamene. Lately he has been willing to allow that it âmightâ say Mariame kai Maraâ¦after I pointed this out. But why didnât he notice it before? The many statistical analyses run for the names in the tomb are also horribly fallacious (the conjunction of names there given the actual population in the tomb is simply not improbable enough to ensure this tomb has any connection with Jesus), but he canât be expected to understand that (heâs not a mathematician and hasnât studied statistics or statistical logic). But surely he can read Greek properly. He seems more inclined to stick to the guns of a bizarre theory than actually admit itâs too bizarre to be credible. That was not the âlost tomb of Jesusâ ; and neither is this ânewâ find connected to Christianity.
The lesson to learn here is never to trust the media, much less the rumor mill, when claims of an amazing new find like this crop up. Wait for the evidence to actually be presented, for many independent experts to actually analyze it. Then see what survives. Usually, nothing.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/425/
Needless to say, this bogus âfindâ is linked to a heavily-marketed book, The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity, by James D. Tabor. But given that he has been so thoroughly disgraced by expert analysis on this (and yet gives the book an absurdly confident title like that), I can only assume he has tenure, as otherwise he would cease to be employed by now. This is really beyond the pale.
Itâs even more discrediting that Tabor still stands by the âJesus Tomb Wingnut Teamâ interpretation of an inscription in the other Talpiot tomb as âMariameneâ (as supposedly a variant of Mariamne, supposedly a distinctive spelling of Mary Magdalene), when it is unmistakably Mariamê kai Mara, âMiriam and Mara,â one very common Jewish name, the other unconnected to Jesus. An earlier epigrapher confused a single letter as nu (N) which is actually kappa [K], the one being an upside down version of the other (a common mistake even for an expert to make who might be getting tired trudging through hundreds of inscriptions). This is so glaringly obvious there can be no reasonable dispute in the matter. Yet he keeps on claiming it says Mariamene. Lately he has been willing to allow that it âmightâ say Mariame kai Maraâ¦after I pointed this out. But why didnât he notice it before? The many statistical analyses run for the names in the tomb are also horribly fallacious (the conjunction of names there given the actual population in the tomb is simply not improbable enough to ensure this tomb has any connection with Jesus), but he canât be expected to understand that (heâs not a mathematician and hasnât studied statistics or statistical logic). But surely he can read Greek properly. He seems more inclined to stick to the guns of a bizarre theory than actually admit itâs too bizarre to be credible. That was not the âlost tomb of Jesusâ ; and neither is this ânewâ find connected to Christianity.
The lesson to learn here is never to trust the media, much less the rumor mill, when claims of an amazing new find like this crop up. Wait for the evidence to actually be presented, for many independent experts to actually analyze it. Then see what survives. Usually, nothing.
And how did those physical & biological conditions come into being? Where did those conditions get their properties? You just accept that they have those properties for no reason whatsoever.