Regarding the Existence or Absence of God
- Thread starter rs7
- Start date
- Status
you're leaving out one key distinction.
you believe the man jesus is also god.
we believe if there was a man named jesus, he was just a human being.
just because you think he is god, doesn't mean we have to. our lack of proof is more towards the creation of the universe and such..not that the MAN never existed.
Very good, rs7. Now, why would the world over 2000 years chose to base time on a MAN. Just an ordinary man, like you and I. He didn't go to college. He was a carpenter born in Bethlehem in a manger. Never had any writings. Why in the world would all of the world recognized this death? Think before you answer.
>>this is such a weak argument.
first of all, as i and others have said, a man named jesus may have existed. maybe the calendar was started after him..who cares! it doesn't mean he created the freaking universe.
also, a lot of things are based off things in the past, it doesn't make it right though. i don't see us changing our calendar any time soon.<<
Weak argument? How's that? It is a fact that you ask for and I gave it to you. Why base our calendar on JESUS? It could have been changed at any time by the Romans--who for the most part didn't believe. Why not the fall of Rome? Or the rise for that matter? Or some other WORLDLY reference?
first of all, as i and others have said, a man named jesus may have existed. maybe the calendar was started after him..who cares! it doesn't mean he created the freaking universe.
also, a lot of things are based off things in the past, it doesn't make it right though. i don't see us changing our calendar any time soon.<<
Weak argument? How's that? It is a fact that you ask for and I gave it to you. Why base our calendar on JESUS? It could have been changed at any time by the Romans--who for the most part didn't believe. Why not the fall of Rome? Or the rise for that matter? Or some other WORLDLY reference?
>>Uniformity?<<
Now that's truly a weak argument.
Now that's truly a weak argument.
Thunderbolt. You want a more thorough explanation? I won't call it an argument, because there isn't one. This is just fact and can't be argued.
Let me say first that I do not deny that a man named Jesus Christ existed.
I am not saying that a man named Jesus Christ was NOT God! (not necessary to the discussion one way or the other).
I am saying that our use of the Calendar does not PROVE (or disprove) either of these possibilities.
The Romans? Are you kidding me? There was no ROME by the time the modern calendar became commonly used.
So many hundreds of years into the age of Christianity, a Christian calendar came into existence. Devised to commemorate the consecutive birth of their Saints in December. But to your amazement perhaps, not that of Jesus. Although it is believed this was an error either originally, or somewhat later in a flawed translation, and was in any event eventually corrected to designate Dec. 25 as the Day of Nativity.
There are STILL IN USE TODAY quite a number of other calendars. But for the simplicity of uniformity, other cultures have adapted to the (often dual) use of this calendar to facilitate exchange and other useful stuff.
Have you ever heard of the Chinese New Years? How about Rosh Hashanah? Let's see, the Japanese have one too. So do many others. Many based on religion. All on a culture. Do they prove anything to you?
Peace,
rs7gg,
rumour has it that you look like glen danzig.
surf
rumour has it that you look like glen danzig.
surf
Thunderbolt,
You are wrong and being misleading.
For the record:
Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged
Here is Webster's definition of atheism:
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity - compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true
disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief
Note that both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.
Your definition is incomplete and misleading, and I believe
you are doing that on purpose to support your very
weak position.
You clearly ignored my entire post and chose only ONE
of websters definitions. An atheist is not always
someone who asserts god does not exist.
Those are the facts, stop trying to deny them.
Once again, I will state that I am a weak atheist and
do not assert that god does not exist.
This leaves YOU with the responsibility of proving
that Jesus is in fact god, which up to this point
you have failed to do.
Continued in next post...
peace
axeman
You are wrong and being misleading.
For the record:
Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged
Here is Webster's definition of atheism:
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity - compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true
disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief
Note that both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.
Your definition is incomplete and misleading, and I believe
you are doing that on purpose to support your very
weak position.
You clearly ignored my entire post and chose only ONE
of websters definitions. An atheist is not always
someone who asserts god does not exist.
Those are the facts, stop trying to deny them.
Once again, I will state that I am a weak atheist and
do not assert that god does not exist.
This leaves YOU with the responsibility of proving
that Jesus is in fact god, which up to this point
you have failed to do.
Continued in next post...
peace
axeman
Thunderbolt,
The ritualistic use of a mythical figures birthday does
not make said mythical figure god. Sorry.
The pragmatic use of a calendar based on christ
in NO way supports the claim that christ is god.
Gimmie a break. If this is not obvious there is no
point in debating with you anymore since you
blatantly reject all reason.
Are you aware of Mithraism? Mithras was born in the
6th century BC, Persia/India.
Mithras was know as "The way", "the truth", "the light",
"the word", "the son of god", and "the good shepherd".
He was pictured carrying a lamb on his shoulders.
Sunday was sacred and known as "The Lords day"
centuries before Jesus.
On December 25th, there were magnificent celebrations
and "communion" was observed by the followers.
Any of this sound familiar???? Maybe our calendar is
really based on Mithra and therefore he is the true
god? Right? Is that how your logic works?
peace
axeman
The ritualistic use of a mythical figures birthday does
not make said mythical figure god. Sorry.
The pragmatic use of a calendar based on christ
in NO way supports the claim that christ is god.
Gimmie a break. If this is not obvious there is no
point in debating with you anymore since you
blatantly reject all reason.
Are you aware of Mithraism? Mithras was born in the
6th century BC, Persia/India.
Mithras was know as "The way", "the truth", "the light",
"the word", "the son of god", and "the good shepherd".
He was pictured carrying a lamb on his shoulders.
Sunday was sacred and known as "The Lords day"
centuries before Jesus.
On December 25th, there were magnificent celebrations
and "communion" was observed by the followers.
Any of this sound familiar???? Maybe our calendar is
really based on Mithra and therefore he is the true
god? Right? Is that how your logic works?
peace
axeman
- Status