Regarding the Existence or Absence of God II

Originally posted by MrDinky
With all due respect rs7, I think you're making 2+2=5 in regards to thunderbolt. So he has strong beliefs, so what? As long as he's not strapping a bomb to himself and blowing up a nearby bus he ought to be able to believe what he wants.

Interesting news article today about the guy who never existed:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html

:cool:
More...


it has 'Made in Korea' engraved on the other side


Why do you play down Tunderbolt's proclamations as only strong beliefs. Is there to be no debate on these strong beliefs with which he and others attempt to dominate morality ? They are an unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with Jesus Inc. They are not just beliefs they are obsessions. He has stated that his ‘belief’ is THE truth , not only that, but that it is the one and only truth. Who knows how far away from “strapping a bomb to himself and blowing up a nearby bus “ that is ?
Continual and persistent demands in the face of any kind of objective rationality is not something to call truth or to encourage.

A Jesus from a virgin birth existed? Or a different type. One with blue eyes? or one with black.

Jesus was not the son of god and didn’t perform miracles.

The only miracles that have ever performed are Smokey Robinson's

There is no eyewitness testimony, archeological evidence nor anything else other than the fictional bible to suggest he may have existed. Someone who presumably was so important would have left a video or DVD at least.

Just how far can this non existent Jesus stray away from objective analysis ?

You would certainly expect to find a mention of Jesus by Flavius Josephus who wrote a history of the Jews, the nearest thing to the historical newspaper (or DVD of the time). In it he remarks and makes reference to everyone he knew about . His ancient writings and studies are accepted by scholars - believers and non believers alike. He wrote extensively on the Jewish rebellion .
He never mentions and wrote nothing at all about Jesus who would have died about 40 years earlier.
In Josephus' time the followers of such a 'god on earth' would have been the concentration of attention.
This complete absence of anything to do with Jesus or his followers was noticed by early christian clerics and they added a description of Jesus into Josephus' manuscripts. Modern day scholars - both believers and non believers - accept the additions as forgery.

Ever since, the religious forgers and deceivers have been adding bits here and there to ensure that the masses will believe. The very need for these religious fraudsters to have to commit such deceitful pretenses speaks volumes about the necessity to be skeptical at least about any religious writings or artifacts. Religion was and always is designed and perpetrated for the appetite of the gullible like Thunderbolt.
 
Originally posted by stu




He (Thunderbolt) has stated that his ‘belief’ is THE truth , not only that, but that it is the one and only truth. Who knows how far away from “strapping a bomb to himself and blowing up a nearby bus “ that is ?
Continual and persistent demands in the face of any kind of objective rationality is not something to call truth or to encourage.
More...

Exactly my point. Thanks Stu. Thunderbolt has clearly said that even Christians that did not prescribe to his particular brand of Christianity were all wrong in their beliefs. That only his exact name brand of "faith" could hold water. Very dangerous in my opinion. Scary actually.

Peace,
Rs7
 
Originally posted by MrDinky


You're way off the mark here. It's his consistent insistence that he was the son of God that got him killed by his own people.

:cool:
More...

Really? Like I said, I am by no means a biblical scholar. But I did believe that there were not biblical references to Jesus actually making the claim. If I am wrong about this, I apologize for speaking out of a misinformed position.

Now saying something like "forgive them father"...that obviously can be taken either that he was speaking as THE son of God literally or, it could be taken to mean that he was one of God's children. Big difference it would seem to me. But did he actually clearly state that he was the direct son of God? If so, then obviously my impression was wrong, and I have no problem admitting to my mistake. Hard to argue facts anyway when the "facts" are by definition fables, myths, and parables. But still...


Peace,
rs7
 
Originally posted by marketsurfer
i agree, stu. religion of any kind should not be taught in public schools. however, i still revert to my basic premise that evolution is a theory and should be taught as such.

best,

surf:)
More...

marketsurfer,

Science should not be a threat to religion. Science is not a faith.

Religion attempts to ridicule objective science because it feels threatened by it. Religion will argue against science with non logical often irrelevant statements.

Scientist's try to debunk each other until they can find an answer that makes sense and is objectively determinable.

Teach science (including evolution) as science. Science fact is there to be learned, questioned, tested, prodded and poked by each generation.
Just like math, geography, history. They are all "theoretical" in the eyes of an irrational religious protagonist.

Religion doesn't like that kind of scrutiny. It is a fraud. It should not be institutionalised.

Teach religion in the same way as the arts are taught. Something which may move the feelings of those so inclined towards it.
But as a formal acceptance within society as a truth and furthermore - the only truth - is a lie and a deception. In the 21st century it's way past time to get children away from such dangerous, inconsistent, misleading and confusing proclamations.

best to you :)
 
You (stu), daniel_m, axeman, etc... have very strong beliefs that there is no God. That's fine. However, I would say the continued insistence, and remarks to anyone who believes otherwise to be even stronger in tone than the ones tbolt posts. Some of these comments I've read sound more like anger than debate. What's to say it's not you that's mentally capable of hurting someone?

And the easy dismissal of "it says Made in Korea" just shows the "Jesus never existed" crowd has never done their homework. There is plenty of evidence, including non-christian sources. I've noticed this quick dismissal happening a lot in the discussion on these threads.

Finally, I have no problem with science either. However, some of the claims made in these so-called science textbooks are not science. They're fairy tales. Would you like examples?

:cool:

P.S. rs7, don't think I was singling you out purposely. I admire the attempt to bring everyone together as well as the even-handedness of your posts. Unfortunately, in many areas including religion (but not exclusively as some insinuate), the best people can do is agree to disagree.
 
MrDinky,

I do not make my point in stronger terms than thunderbolt.
I have a point of view which I put forward as being rational and logical.

This is a debate. A rebuttal of what some put forward as the only truth.

That made in Korea gag is harmless and at the same time it sums up another silly artifact scam.

There is not plenty of evidence as you put it, scholars can't find it so how come you or I be should able to, unless you class unsubstantiated nonsense like this ossuary as evidence. There have been dozens of these things brought up every so often. Their track record is abysmal

All the time I have entered the debate I have tried not to make quick dismissals. I have shown direct contradictions of biblical statements and cited the severe lack of evidence, NOT the proof of MY evidence. I am not trying to prove anything.

The "so-called science textbooks are not science. They're fairy tales. Would you like examples?"
More...

You make my point for me. Fairy tales are not science. Scientific text books which are shown to be fairy tales are NOT Scientific. Scientist constantly question and test. That's the point of science. To objectively determine what is true.

Am I capable of mentally hurting someone?. Come on. There is no need to come the Holier Than Thou with me. If debating the other side of zealous religious belief is mentally hurtful then BITE ME.
 
I agree that religion has to do with personal beliefs faith and convition... But one has to respect people that do not believe and people that do not belive have also to respect people that believe ...

Many people talk about religion versus science. Though it is true that under christianity scientists were burned and killed and it was also forbidden to read books from the greeks and the latin. It was the complete opposite scenario that appeared with Islam..
Scientists were encouraged and Jihad (which does not mean holy war as many westeners think but effort such as science....) was a wqy to always improve oneself and to become better in all the fields... http://www.xmission.com:8000/~dderhak/index/moors.htm

"During the end of the first millennium, Cordova was the intellectual well from which European humanity came to drink. Students from France and England traveled there to sit at the feet of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars, to learn philosophy, science and medicine (Digest, 1973, p. 622). In the great library of Cordova alone, there were some 600,000 manuscripts (Burke, 1978, p. 122). "

" This rich and sophisticated society took a tolerant view towards other faiths. Tolerance was unheard of in the rest of Europe. But in Moorish Spain, "thousands of Jews and Christians lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim overlords." (Burke, 1985, p. 38) The society had a literary rather than religious base. Economically their prosperity was unparalleled for centuries. The aristocracy promoted private land ownership and encouraged Jews in banking. There was little or no Muslim prostelyting. Instead, non-believers simply paid an extra tax! "

So the prism from which people see history is completely different. For europeans religion was the darkest period of their history and it is only when they emancipated from it that they started to develop.

For muslim it was the opposite. many people believe that they declined the day they forgot about the greatness of their religion... Moreover, today's practice has nothing to do with real Islam...

Here I am not asserting one religion is better than another, or one people is better than another. Just trying to explain through history the current patterns of thinking in the modern world.
 
traderfut2000,

I think historical religion is the best kind of religion and that's where it belongs....in history.... in the past.

The continuing affirmation that some insist you NEED religion to have morality or to be correct or right , is outdated and deceitful.
 
Just giving my opinion.

Now, one has to respect people whether they are believer or non believer ... It's a free society. But the other point I want to make is that history has different prisms.

Ask an american and a cuban, an algerian and a french, a palestinian and an israeli a chinese and a japanese. They will certainly have a different vision of the world and of history.

This is why I said that through the european prism religion is a bad think but through other prisms it is a good thing..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top