crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

i think you are right:

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against
christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of
thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which
follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]

you quote Dawkins... for philosophy. I quote him on the science. .

he says... physicists state the universe appears designed.
That is scientific fact... The reason for the design... that is speculation and philosophy. Watch the video... learn.

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/mlD-CJPGt1A?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/mlD-CJPGt1A?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:



If you know some noted scholars who challenge the writing in antiquities present. Otherwise Jesus is a historical figure because he is referenced in an historical account with in a few years of death.

Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. But there is a fourth option: legend. (Bart Ehrman American New Testament scholar)

 

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. But there is a fourth option: legend. (Bart Ehrman American New Testament scholar)

Atheist troll book - if you lose on the historicity argument... change the argument.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

Atheist troll book - if you lose on the historicity argument... change the argument.

i will throw you a bone. i will concede that there was probably a man named jesus in roman times who may have got himself into trouble with the romans and was killed.
the christian religion was then manufactured around this man exactly like islam was manufactured around Muhammad and the morman religion was manufactured around smith.

still the fact is that there is not one piece of first hand evidence outside the bible for the jesus character.

 

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

i will throw you a bone. i will concede that there was probably a man named jesus in roman times who may have got himself into trouble with the romans and was killed.
the christian religion was then manufactured around this man exactly like islam was manufactured around Muhammad and the morman religion was manufactured around smith.

still the fact is that there is not one piece of first hand evidence outside the bible for the jesus character.

fair enough.
I would note... there would not be a whole lot of first hand reference opportunities for anybody from that period. All the "books" we have from that period apparently would fit on a small bookshelf.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from stu:
There is no evidence to establish Jesus's authenticity - anywhere - period.

Would this not depend on the standards of evidence used? Take a hypothetical, I can say there is no evidence anywhere period that life evolved from non-life so evolution is a myth just like scripture. It's all a myth, if you use the same standards of evidence.

That is just that one example. The bigger picture is that neither one is 101% conclusive solid explanation for the big questions like why are we here and where did we come from. That's ok with me, I can accept that both are possible and objectively investigate. Who knows what I will find right?

I know one thing, I have the potential to find something sooner and quicker than one who is biased towards ignoring evidence simply because it correlates or is similar to something that "just is impossible". That does not sound very scientific.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from stu:
You mean it's a reasonable conversation to have that Santa, God, Peter Pan and Mother Goose ARE possibilities after all?

This is what I mean about failing tests of logic. This is like those games used to teach children "which one of these does not fit"? Did you forget the tooth fairy in your list?

 

[traderwann]

Quote from RCG Trader:
You are trying to combat an emotional response with logic.

Perhaps I'm wrong here but it seems like you have given yourself away, not a Freudian slip but similarly one can read into your words. There are two logical arguments presented, and you perceive or interpret one of them as being emotional. Why are they not both emotional, they both come from humans right? You are showing much more than your bias. Why isn't the response above pure emotion and zero logic? See it apparently comes down to, whatever you agree with is logical and what you don't agree with is emotional! Further, this is almost saying that "emotions are bad", and that any response that appeals to a high EQ isn't worth considering. If you push that approach to it's limit you get anti-social personalities, the question is where do you draw the line. YOU have drawn a line by your words, and that's what I mean about giving things away. I could be wrong, none of this is exact to start and based on a few sentences? Ha! If I'm even close I'm a genius!

As for your other comments, they are all just assumptions and projections. Then you take these projected assumptions and use that to develop a worldview and call that reasonable? It's all based on whatever you want, it's all YOUR assumptions. With taht attitude, you can make anything up and never be wrong. Hellllooooo ... retardation much?! Failing logic and reason. Always! Sorry to be so blunt, that is not very Christian of me to be so rude. Oh well, I'll be more sorry when you change and star being less assumptive and demeaning with your attitude, than the little bit sorry I am now.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from Free Thinker:
i think you are right:
"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]

Do you believe and accept in the concept of social darwinism and eugenics? I assume so but want to check.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from jem:
Otherwise Jesus is a historical figure because he is referenced in an historical account with in a few years of death.

This is the problem athiests will have in deny the possibility that scripture might be true. Many other commonly accepted historical texts are based on more copies of copies than scripture, and are written by people further removed in time from the incident. The standards applies have to be hypocritical.