Deson

QFE!

__________________

Weatherman

Even Einstein believed, expressing it as a matter of the 'energy that constitutes the soul' has to go somewhere upon a person's passing. Whether you believe it as an ascent (or descent) to an Afterlife, or whether it is spiritual energy that rejoins the natural world (such as in many Amerind traditions) either way, I will admit I am far more inclined to believe Albert than any 'atheist scholar'.

Not to say I am a 'believer' - 'hopeful agnostic' might be the best way to put it - but I am of the firm belief that the social crap can take a backseat to what's most important - guaranteeing what's in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and getting the goddamn government out of my wallet, off my back, and out of my face.

The GOP better learn how to raise the Big Tent in a big fucking hurry, if it doesn't want Christie and McDonnell to be abnormal blips in a sea of socialist sodomy that bleeds the American public from their posteriors.

icKx

"Hurrrr Durrrr Hay u guys u can't prove a negative!"

What's sad is you probably find that inane argument convincing.

You're really better off just saying that religion is a matter of faith and leaving it at that. This pseudo logic crap reeks of someone who is embarrassed by their beliefs.

You're going to rant against people who can't handle the "real world" and then claim to be a Christian? Please. Get the fuck out of here. You really make the case that all Christians are superstitious little bitches who can't handle the real world without the safety net of a magic sky-daddy.

__________________

Gori

You are sadly, pathetically funny. Aquinas was not just "a christian," and if you are so foolhardy as to believe one has to be "religious," or in your case "a christian" to be a good moral person, then you are sadly mistaken. Whiny little bitch....thanks for the laugh.

Heidi

Sig worthy tbh

__________________

Pouncer

Fuck God, if he exists may he strike me dead right now.







I'm still here, cunts.

__________________
Second greatest kitteh evar

Deson

George Carlin....

__________________

Wans

Not sure why you're so keen on getting me to repeat myself. I argued that for most historical events we have a range of evidence, and evidence types. For the Bible - let's focus on the NT, as most of the OT doesn't really try to be more than a collection of tribal half-memories and folk tales - the overwhelming "evidence" are the testimonies of those who claimed Christ's (existence and) divinity. Most (I'm being generous) of these people weren't contemporaries of his, on the whole, and wrote a fair while later. Their accounts are internally and historically contradictory, meaning that some of them (at least) are incorrect (at least) some of the time (at least).

Back to Lane Fox, on the differing references to events regarding the timing of the "Roman Census" (in itself a nonsense):

Before you launch another attack on RLF, I once again challenge you to produce equivalently persuasive, peer-reviewed experts to back up YOUR views. Did you form those views because of your thirst for knowledge or understanding, your research, or from...let me quote the comedian Glenn Wool: "I'm not a Christian...well, I was born a Christian...well, I was born and told about one religion - so I "picked" it..."

Of course, I could be persuaded that a person called Yeshua bar Yusef lived and preached around that time, and was the basis for the Christian faith; it wouldn't affect my position on his divinity. The lack of evidence of such, though, affects the credibility of yours.

Not sure why you use the word "trust" so much in this and other threads, I think a psychologist would have a field-day with it Cicero's accounts are persuasive because they tie up with the avalanche of other evidence we have of the period: grave stelae, coinage, column carvings, the writings of Horace, Suetonuis, Plutarch, and Caesar himself. Would you like me to print a list of the primary and secondary source material from, say, Anthony Everitt's biography of Cicero? You could then reciprocate with a similar list about Jesus' life, shorn of internal biblical references.

As I've already shown, no-one actually believes that the authors of the gospels were the apostles named Mark, Luke and John. Not even bibical scholars. Which leaves Matthew, but his gospel seems to be heavily reliant on Mark's, which must leave a question mark over whether it's a genuine eye-witness account. Why would he need to "crib" his account from someone who wasn't there, if he was?

Jews didn't crucify the Jesus in your story. Romans did. Congratulations on repeating history's filthiest smear. And you accuse me of talking garbage....

I can't find a reference to where Paul met these "people jews", please supply one.

There are many tales about people claiming to have seen famous, historical or familiar people after they've died, commonly referred to as "ghost stories". Do you believe all of them? Do you worship them? If not, why not?

No no no. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observable evidence, including the fossil record, and our scientific knowledge of genes and genetic mutation and change (ask any pedigree dog breeder). It has withstood all attempts to disprove it to date. If there was evidence it was incorrect, all rational people would adjust their views accordingly.

Creation is a STORY. It might be one you believe, but to call it a theory is ridiculous (and in fact blasphemous under your own terms of reference). Care to explain what more evidence (on top of geology, archaeology, genetics, palaeontology, etc) could be brought in, outside of the overwhelming evidence we already have, that would convince you Adam and Eve is completely untrue?

I had thought that I might have made some headway with explaining the scientific method. Clearly I haven't, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Fascinating. What part of Asia is God from, then?

Wans

Actually I can answer my own question regarding Paul, Galatians 1:11-24. He claims he'd not met anyone who knew Christ until three years into his proselytising, when he met Peter, and James the brother of Jesus. I was wrong, he did claim to have met disciples, and so I withdraw my comment. See how easy that is?

By the way, are you seriously arguing that gravity isn't a theory? I'm talking here about gravity as a force. You seem confused, knowing that things fall to the ground doesn't make our understanding of gravity a "fact". You might want to read some Einstein: I'm talking about the theory of gravity as a force that bends space/time as a result of mass.

Hoss

First off, this is your own bias claiming these people weren't contemporaries of Jesus. But even if we just go with what you have admitted, that Paul's letters were legit, he was a contemporary and he wrote most of the NT. So how was most of it written 'a fair while later'? What is a fair while anyway?

You conveniently ignored what I said about things written within 200 years of an event in ancient times being deemed generally trustworthy enough for scholars. If you agree with that, then you need to stop this silly line of argument. If not then how soon does it have to be written? Sorry they didn't think to turn on their video cameras for you so you could have a record of events as they were happening. Even if they had, I'm sure God would have erased the tapes so that today we'd need to exercise faith.

We all agree that the books and letters were written years after Jesus's death, so why is it such a catching point for you that in 40 years time, some memories became a little fuzzy. Like OMG in one story the rooster crowed 10 minutes earlier than in the other story THAT PROVES ALL RELIGION IS FALSE!!!!!1111!one!!1 Do you realize how silly you look with arguments like that?

The Bible. It was peer reviewed and is likely the most read and reviewed document in the history of the world. You give great credence because 3 of lane fox's classmates read his work and said, "Gee thats good stuff, now read mine". But centuries of review by billions of people means nothing.

Next time try a funny comedian. Or at least one people have heard of. I hear canada has some funny ones.

When you go out searching for a specific answer, you usually find it.

I don't get it. Explain.

Now lets be clear about this, if Mark verbally passed the story to someone else and THEY wrote it down, sure you could technically say he wasn't the author. But it was still Mark's story. Its almost a distinction without a difference.

But you missed the point of what I was saying. You had claimed Paul wrote a gospel, and he did not.

That's just fucking silly. They were both there seeing it all. On one hand if the gospels disagree you go "AHA proof it was all made up". But then when they do agree you go "AHA proof that they were copied!"

Clearly my edits got messed up, so I'm not sure if you're kidding with me here. The jews were the ones who tried Jesus and found him guilty and sent him to the romans (Pilate I think) to be put to death.

And Saul, before his conversion, actually persecuted Christians and appeared before the same group that tried Jesus to put the Christians on trial. I thought you were aware of that since when you first mentioned him you wrote Paul (Saul). Whenever I see his name like that, I'm always reminded of that past.

Only Elvis

This is the same thing I asked you isn't it? But to prove that I don't think my question was unfair, I'll answer instead of being an asshole. Lets start with the missing link. If evolution really happened to the grand scale that would be required for it to explain the origin of the species, where are the missing links? Where are the birds being born to reptiles? Where are the human babies being born to something that's not human?

Keep in mind that I do believe evolution happened, I just don't believe it happened on the scale that would be required for your pet theory to be plausible.

Truth be told, you are deliberately obfuscating the point.

Well ya see, as the story goes, he actually created this whole planet. Asia included. And populated it with people who were 'in his image'. Now, it doesn't take a professional philosopher to recognize that must have meant Not just whites, not just middle easterners, but also Asians and Africans. Somehow or another we're all in his image.

Gravity is a law. You are using the fact that there are theories about how gravity works that include the word gravity to cloud the definition of a scientific theory.

__________________
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Geek Code Version 3.12:
GE$/GCS d-(--) S+:++ a? C++(+++)>$ U P+ L E? W+(--) N(+)
o? K? w+(---) !O M-- V PS--/+++ PE(++) Y+ PGP-- t+@ 5+++
X- R++/+++ tv++ b++@ DI++++ D+(++) G+ e++ h r*(--) y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------