Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Questions I would like to pose to athiests
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462973 is a reply to message #442568] |
Mon, 27 February 2012 10:12   |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
i was simply saying that the phrase "survival of the fittest" doesn't seem to have come from the mouth or pen of Charles Darwin.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462996 is a reply to message #462924] |
Mon, 27 February 2012 13:56 |
eatcow
Messages: 22
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 27 February 2012 05:08 |
| eatcow wrote on Mon, 27 February 2012 03:29 |
Either the universe was created by chance or from a deity. The odds of chance for the universe can be compared to a million monkeys on typewriters and one of them by chance in a million years will have typed out Hamlet, only the odds for chance is even more staggering. The odds that life evolved as we see it today, is smaller then the inverse of the USA government's debt. So many things could have gone wrong, but here we are. The logical explanation placed by Christians and religions is a deity/deities created.
|
...which only aggravates the question rather than answers it. now, instead of having to explain the origins of a few blobs of hydrogen or whatever, you've got to explain the origins of a super-intelligent, incomprehensibly powerful being.
If a deity created the universe, then the deity created time. The creator is greater then the creation by principle of causality so the deity is outside of time. This gets us the deity must be infinite.
| Quote: |
One argument put forth for a deity is called the argument of design. Looking at how the universe was designed, that mankind evolved to the way it did. 1 trillionth of a degree difference, and the carbon molecule could have never formed.
|
i will admit that the "fine tuned universe" is the only semi-thought-provoking argument i've ever heard from the religious. it doesn't prove a word of their own assertions, of course, it simply shows that the origin of the universe is more complicated than we're capable of understanding right now... and certainly more complicated than the fools who wrote the bible and quran could ever dream of.
| Quote: |
The intricacies of evolution is so vast. Theory that it happened without a deity and that a survival of the fittest principle does not explain the altruistic love, abstract thinking, and our conscience.
|
that's easy... we (most of us, anyway) have figured out that we do better if we work together. we aren't the only species intelligent enough to notice this.
natural selection fails here as well since it does not explain conscience, or abstract thinking. Neither of which are necessary in terms of surviving yet exist.
| Quote: |
Our brain is perhaps the most complicated thing ever created. If the brain is the product of random chance, then this violates the principal of causality, (you cannot get more in the effect than the cause). If there is intelligence in us, man, the effect, then there must be intelligence in the cause. The universe built off random chance has no intelligence thus there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe, an intelligence behind our physical universe.
|
uh, random chance? you used the phrase "survival of the fittest" earlier, so i presume you have heard of the theory of evolution.
yes I have heard the theory. But your comments here does not address the argument made here.
| Quote: |
The first two paragraphs establish there exists a deity of some sort, atleast one deity.
|
they try to...
| Quote: |
The next thing to ponder is if there exists such a being(s), then God(s) must have made an appearance in history.
|
that doesn't follow. even if i accept that yes the universe was created by a god (which i don't), then it doesn't follow that this god has revealed itself to us. it might have gone away, it might have died or something, it might simply not give a shit about us or not have noticed us turning up billions of years after it started the universe up...
Since the deity is above time and is infinite, the deity cannot die. Does a gardener abandon his garden? Does a mother abandon her child?
| Quote: |
An argument for Jesus. Secular, Jewish, and Christian sources attest to such a man living with revolutionary teaching. This man Jesus cannot be simply a good teacher. He claimed he was the Son of God. Either this is true or false. If true, then he is more then a good teacher. If false, he is far worse for he got nearly 2 billion people to believe a package of lies.
|
false dichotomy. there are more than two options here. if he claimed to be the son of god, then he may have been lying, he may have been crazy, he may have been joking, he may have been honestly mistaken, he may have been correct (definitely the least plausible option so far), or he may not even have made the claim at all.
and even if he did say so, it's not necessarily his fault that 2 billion people believe it now.
He did claim to be the Son of God, the Bible reveals such along with Roman and Jewish authorities from that era. If he was crazy or joking this proves my point on how he cannot simply be a good teacher (either case, he several times claimed to be divine and the Son of God) for no good teacher would teach something drastically false.
| Quote: |
The Bible claims this man Jesus was crucified and died. Everyone from that time period agree (Christians, Jews, Romans, etc), history reveals such. Death by crucifixion is guaranteed, the Romans would break the legs of the people to ensure asphyxiation. The question is whether he rosed from the dead. This is the key, for if he truly did, then he is the Son of God and we should believe in what he taught.
|
whoah, what? you were doing fine until the last sentence. some guy did something you don't understand and therefore you know he was the "son of god"? you know what he was because you don't understand how he did X?
secondly, why does surviving death make someone a good and wise person?
You misread, there is a if in the sentence. I am not claiming at this point of my argument that he is and so your argument here falls apart. For the second part, you and I have already ruled out Jesus cannot be a good person, leaving the options of his divinity or him being an imposter. If he was an imposter then he would have stayed dead. What person do you know who can come back from the dead and not be divine?
| Quote: |
Jesus was buried in a cave with a massive stone weighing thousands of pounds barring the entrance. Roman soldiers guarded the entrance. Since Jesus died as an enemy of the state (crucifixion was the penalty for such people), the Roman soldiers guarded the tomb because if something happened, their lives were at stake so they were vigilant at their duty. History does not show they abandoned their posts yet the body of Jesus was missing. The 11 apostles (the main followers of Jesus, Judas had hung himself so 11 at this time) were not soldiers. They were scared shitless because history reveals they were hiding during this time from the time of the crucifixion to 3 days later (when Jesus was discovered missing from the tomb). It would be highly skeptical to presume these 11 men overpowered professional soldiers. It is also skeptical that they stole the body from the tomb while the guards were sleeping. Not a likely proposition remembering how massive the stone weighed, the psychological state of the 11, and the fact the Roman soldiers would have hunted them down and killed them.
Historically, there are more than a dozen secular sources noting Jesus' rising from the dead coming from the time period, not to mention the Jewish sources and hundreds of Christian sources. End result is the historical conclusion that Jesus lived, was crucified, died, was buried, but rose from the dead
|
where are you getting these supposed historical facts from?
Here is a list of some
Jewish sources:
Flavius Josephus
Mara bar Sarapion
The Talmud
Secular:
Suetonius
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian
Celsus
Galen
Christian:
Mark, Matthew, Luke, John (4 writers of the Gospel)
Paul
Ignatius of Antioch
Justin the Martyr
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Cyprian
Dionysius of Corinth
| Quote: |
The Jewish God is the same Christian God. Christianity of these times may seem like a pool of confusion. After all, there is over 33,000 different denominations in Christianity due to backbiting, doctrine issues, interpretation, etc.
|
and the garbled and contradictory nature of the bible (which is only to be expected)
Actually this has more to do with Catholic-Protestant theology versus the Bible. If you make a religion based off the complete works of Edgar Alan Poe and your main tenant of faith is that everyone is to take his poetry and decided what they believed, you will end up with the same result as you see within Christianity today. Protestant theology claims exactly this with the Bible. It is called sola scriptura. Christianity can be broken down like this. There is Catholicism and Protestantism. Every other Christian denomination stems from Protestantism except Eastern Orthodoxy which came from Catholicism. Protestants also broke away from the Catholic Church. For 1000 years there was only one Christian Church, Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy rejected the authority of the Pope in 1054 (the only major theological difference between the two). Christianity was not as broken as you see it today until the reformation, when the idea of sola scriptura was born.
| Quote: |
Truth itself cannot be divided. Each denomination has various amounts of truth, but only one can be 100% true. This does not mean to give up for the Christian God is a God of love and He always waiting for the lost to come home.
Let me know if you have questions
|
OK, then. Question: What happens if we don't "come home"?
|
It is not my place to judge. No Christian should judge you for anything. Whether or not you "come home" is entirely based on your free will.
I ran out of time, but I am going to post more later today
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463006 is a reply to message #462996] |
Mon, 27 February 2012 16:20 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| eatcow wrote on Mon, 27 February 2012 13:56 |
If a deity created the universe, then the deity created time. The creator is greater then the creation by principle of causality so the deity is outside of time. This gets us the deity must be infinite.
|
Sheer guesswork. You haven't even scratched the question of how this deity - a deity you've only inferred rather than demonstrated - came about. And, indeed, how could you?
| Quote: |
natural selection fails here as well since it does not explain conscience, or abstract thinking. Neither of which are necessary in terms of surviving yet exist.
|
try thinking about it for a second.
looking after your family, for example, gives your DNA a better chance of passing on. so it makes sense to look after your kids, right? quite a lot of species do this.
lots of animals work together - hunt in packs, stick together to better survive against predators.
with these two concepts, you have the very rudimentary concept of society.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Our brain is perhaps the most complicated thing ever created. If the brain is the product of random chance, then this violates the principal of causality, (you cannot get more in the effect than the cause). If there is intelligence in us, man, the effect, then there must be intelligence in the cause. The universe built off random chance has no intelligence thus there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe, an intelligence behind our physical universe.
|
uh, random chance? you used the phrase "survival of the fittest" earlier, so i presume you have heard of the theory of evolution.
yes I have heard the theory. But your comments here does not address the argument made here.
|
you said the brain can't be the product of "random chance". the theory of evolution does not say it was; it says it's the product of millions of years of evolution by natural selection.
| Quote: |
Since the deity is above time and is infinite, the deity cannot die. Does a gardener abandon his garden? Does a mother abandon her child?
|
you're saying here's something your deity cannot do? is he not all-powerful, then?
does a gardener abandon his garden? some of them would. does a mother abandon her child? no, and that's the point; she hopes the child will outlast her.
| Quote: |
He did claim to be the Son of God, the Bible reveals such along with Roman and Jewish authorities from that era.
|
be careful with that word "reveals".
a few scribblings from dubious authorship, written decades after jesus supposedly died and which get a lot of other stuff wrong, "reveal" anything? that's very generous of you.
| Quote: |
If he was crazy or joking this proves my point on how he cannot simply be a good teacher (either case, he several times claimed to be divine and the Son of God) for no good teacher would teach something drastically false.
|
i don't even grant him the prerequisite of being a good teacher, let alone that he made such a vast claim.
| Quote: |
You misread, there is a if in the sentence. I am not claiming at this point of my argument that he is and so your argument here falls apart.
|
no, it doesn't. putting an "if" in a stupid sentence doesn't make it any less stupid.
| Quote: |
For the second part, you and I have already ruled out Jesus cannot be a good person,
|
i didn't say he wasn't a good person, i said he wasn't a good teacher. because i think his moral teachings aren't very good. i didn't comment on whether he was an inherently good person; had you asked me that, i might have mentioned the bit where he threatens to murder children because of the crimes of their mother.
| Quote: |
leaving the options of his divinity or him being an imposter. If he was an imposter then he would have stayed dead. What person do you know who can come back from the dead and not be divine?
|
why are you asking me? i'm not the one who thinks anybody's come back from the dead (other than resuscitation etc). you still have this massive gap if your argument. my question was: so what if he did come back from the dead, why does that make his moral teachings any better?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
where are you getting these supposed historical facts from?
|
Here is a list of some
Jewish sources:
Flavius Josephus
Mara bar Sarapion
The Talmud
Secular:
Suetonius
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian
Celsus
Galen
Christian:
Mark, Matthew, Luke, John (4 writers of the Gospel)
Paul
Ignatius of Antioch
Justin the Martyr
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Cyprian
Dionysius of Corinth
|
you gave a very detailed account of one person's death and disposal. you're gonna have to do a bit better than just spit out a list of names here, i'm afraid.
| Quote: |
Actually this has more to do with Catholic-Protestant theology versus the Bible. If you make a religion based off the complete works of Edgar Alan Poe and your main tenant of faith is that everyone is to take his poetry and decided what they believed, you will end up with the same result as you see within Christianity today. Protestant theology claims exactly this with the Bible. It is called sola scriptura. Christianity can be broken down like this. There is Catholicism and Protestantism. Every other Christian denomination stems from Protestantism except Eastern Orthodoxy which came from Catholicism. Protestants also broke away from the Catholic Church. For 1000 years there was only one Christian Church, Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy rejected the authority of the Pope in 1054 (the only major theological difference between the two). Christianity was not as broken as you see it today until the reformation, when the idea of sola scriptura was born.
|
do you want to say that there is one particular denomination that's got it right?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
OK, then. Question: What happens if we don't "come home"?
|
It is not my place to judge. No Christian should judge you for anything. Whether or not you "come home" is entirely based on your free will.
|
firstly, i didn't ask you to "judge", i asked you a simple question of what you think will happen.
secondly, whether i become a christian or not is not (or at least, not just) a question of free will.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463032 is a reply to message #463006] |
Mon, 27 February 2012 20:21 |
eatcow
Messages: 22
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 27 February 2012 16:20 |
| eatcow wrote on Mon, 27 February 2012 13:56 |
If a deity created the universe, then the deity created time. The creator is greater then the creation by principle of causality so the deity is outside of time. This gets us the deity must be infinite.
|
Sheer guesswork. You haven't even scratched the question of how this deity - a deity you've only inferred rather than demonstrated - came about. And, indeed, how could you?
My point here is to show the existence, not to argue how such a being came into being. And this is precisely what my argument shows in its logical construction off of the principle of causality.
| Quote: |
natural selection fails here as well since it does not explain conscience, or abstract thinking. Neither of which are necessary in terms of surviving yet exist.
|
try thinking about it for a second.
looking after your family, for example, gives your DNA a better chance of passing on. so it makes sense to look after your kids, right? quite a lot of species do this.
lots of animals work together - hunt in packs, stick together to better survive against predators.
with these two concepts, you have the very rudimentary concept of society.
But this fails to address conscience and abstract thinking. By abstract thinking, for example, who would spend time contemplating that the natural numbers, the integers, and the rationals all have the same size of infinity whereas the infinity of the irrationals is the same size of the reals which is a bigger infinity then the natural numbers, the integers, and the rationals. Newton's laws, Rawl's theory and hyperbolic geometry do not matter when it comes to survival. Why is man the only creature on earth with such talents and conscience? Natural selection fails this.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Our brain is perhaps the most complicated thing ever created. If the brain is the product of random chance, then this violates the principal of causality, (you cannot get more in the effect than the cause). If there is intelligence in us, man, the effect, then there must be intelligence in the cause. The universe built off random chance has no intelligence thus there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe, an intelligence behind our physical universe.
|
uh, random chance? you used the phrase "survival of the fittest" earlier, so i presume you have heard of the theory of evolution.
yes I have heard the theory. But your comments here does not address the argument made here.
|
you said the brain can't be the product of "random chance". the theory of evolution does not say it was; it says it's the product of millions of years of evolution by natural selection.
which is all left to chance without a creator and his design.
| Quote: |
He did claim to be the Son of God, the Bible reveals such along with Roman and Jewish authorities from that era.
|
be careful with that word "reveals".
a few scribblings from dubious authorship, written decades after jesus supposedly died and which get a lot of other stuff wrong, "reveal" anything? that's very generous of you.
The earliest piece of literature from Plato we have was written 1300 years after he wrote it. For Herodotus, 1,400 years, and Euripedes 1,600 years. Yet no historian disputes the authenticity of these three writers. The earliest shred of Bible manuscript we have comes from the 2nd century, 100 years after the last book of the Bible was written as historians on all sides agree upon. We have over 5,300 bits and pieces, and whole compilations of the Bible in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, plus several more. Out of all these different manuscripts running around, the majority of the textual variants amongst all of them is a single letter or word. All these different pieces can be cross referenced with greater accuracy then these ancient authors yet people still doubt.
In the Bible, Jesus specifically states his claim as Son of God. The Jewish and Roman authorities did not necessary follow his teaching or anything, but do mention that Jesus did make this claim. That is as revealing as it gets.
| Quote: |
You misread, there is a if in the sentence. I am not claiming at this point of my argument that he is and so your argument here falls apart.
|
no, it doesn't. putting an "if" in a stupid sentence doesn't make it any less stupid.
Here is what I said "This man Jesus cannot be simply a good teacher. He claimed he was the Son of God. Either this is true or false. If true, then he is more then a good teacher. If false, he is far worse for he got nearly 2 billion people to believe a package of lies."
My question for you is what makes this stupid when it is logically consistent? Is it because you disagree with either of the outcomes?
| Quote: |
For the second part, you and I have already ruled out Jesus cannot be a good person,
|
i didn't say he wasn't a good person, i said he wasn't a good teacher. because i think his moral teachings aren't very good. i didn't comment on whether he was an inherently good person; had you asked me that, i might have mentioned the bit where he threatens to murder children because of the crimes of their mother.
If a person was a bad teacher who had everyone believe lies and falsely worship him, then he is also a bad person, probably worse.
A off subject, but where at does Jesus talk about murdering children for the crimes of their mother? Psalm 127 describes children as a blessing.
| Quote: |
leaving the options of his divinity or him being an imposter. If he was an imposter then he would have stayed dead. What person do you know who can come back from the dead and not be divine?
|
why are you asking me? i'm not the one who thinks anybody's come back from the dead (other than resuscitation etc). you still have this massive gap if your argument. my question was: so what if he did come back from the dead, why does that make his moral teachings any better?
Because it means Jesus is divine if he was able to raise from the dead and do the miracles he did.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
where are you getting these supposed historical facts from?
|
Here is a list of some
Jewish sources:
Flavius Josephus
Mara bar Sarapion
The Talmud
Secular:
Suetonius
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian
Celsus
Galen
Christian:
Mark, Matthew, Luke, John (4 writers of the Gospel)
Paul
Ignatius of Antioch
Justin the Martyr
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Cyprian
Dionysius of Corinth
|
you gave a very detailed account of one person's death and disposal. you're gonna have to do a bit better than just spit out a list of names here, i'm afraid.
What would you like me to say? Josephus lived in the 1st century and was a historian. Ignatius was a student of John. The 4 Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John in the first century. Lucian was a Greek satirist who lived in the 2nd century. Each is a primary source and lived in the 1st-3rd century. They all talk about Jesus being crucified, died, or resurrected and various combinations of the three.
| Quote: |
Actually this has more to do with Catholic-Protestant theology versus the Bible. If you make a religion based off the complete works of Edgar Alan Poe and your main tenant of faith is that everyone is to take his poetry and decided what they believed, you will end up with the same result as you see within Christianity today. Protestant theology claims exactly this with the Bible. It is called sola scriptura. Christianity can be broken down like this. There is Catholicism and Protestantism. Every other Christian denomination stems from Protestantism except Eastern Orthodoxy which came from Catholicism. Protestants also broke away from the Catholic Church. For 1000 years there was only one Christian Church, Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy rejected the authority of the Pope in 1054 (the only major theological difference between the two). Christianity was not as broken as you see it today until the reformation, when the idea of sola scriptura was born.
|
do you want to say that there is one particular denomination that's got it right?
You targeted the Bible as being full of inconsistencies and this is to propose that perhaps instead of the Bible, it is some of the people who "teach" what the Bible says since man is a fallible creature by nature. I would argue one Christian group has gotten it right.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
OK, then. Question: What happens if we don't "come home"?
|
It is not my place to judge. No Christian should judge you for anything. Whether or not you "come home" is entirely based on your free will.
|
firstly, i didn't ask you to "judge", i asked you a simple question of what you think will happen.
secondly, whether i become a christian or not is not (or at least, not just) a question of free will.
|
What I think will happen is irrelevant precisely because in order to determine what I think would happen would be equal to judging. What I mean by free will is that you have the choice, but its entirely yours. If I thought so and so is going to heaven for doing such and such or hell for such and such or etc, this is passing a judgment upon the individual.
Before I forget, I wanted to add this argument for the existence of God which originated with Thomas Aquinas. Again, this comes from Fundamentals of the Faith by Peter Kreeft. Paraphrasing.
It starts with the instinct of the mind that everything needs an explanation. Everything has a reason why it is. This is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This is something we never deny or we are left to conclude things just pop into existence for no reason at all(Pop Theory). Thus, we may never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.
The universe can be viewed as a massive interlocking chain of things that came into existence. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, my great-grandparents caused them... You and I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang to the expansion of the universe to the protein molecule going to our ancestors.
The question now is does the universe as a whole have a cause. A first cause, uncaused cause. If not, then there is a infinite regress of causes with no first link in our cosmic chain. If so, then there is a eternal, independent being with nothing above it, before it, supporting it and it would have to explain for itself as well as for everything else. For if the being needed something else for its explanation then it is not a first cause and the uncaused cause. This being would have to be God.
If there is no first cause, the uncaused cause, then the whole universe is unexplained and the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning is violated. Everything can be explained in the short run, but not the long run. The universe would be a massive chain of many links, each held up by the link before it, but the chain as a whole is held up by nothing. This would be like a railroad train moving without an engine. each box car is pulled by the one in front but there is no engine which pulls the first car which is impossible. If this is what the universe is like without a first cause then it is also impossible.
The next analogy is this: Suppose there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want the book and ask me if you can borrow it. I say no because my neighbor has it. The neighbor doesn't have and has to get it from his teacher. The teacher has to go get from someone else etc to infinity. End result, no one has this book. You will only get the book when someone has it to give to you to borrow. Existence is like the book. Existence is handed down a chain of causes. If there is no first cause, no eternal self sufficent being, then no being who has existence by their own nature can borrow it from someone else. Thus the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others and no one will get it. But we exist. Therefore there must be a first cause to existence, a God.
The book goes much further then I am going to, but here is the link if you are interested. I left off on page 31.
http://books.google.com/books?id=isu3dqRiqg0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pet er+Kreeft+fundamentals+of+the+faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HkpLT5yvLuWpiALFna H5Dw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Peter%20Kreeft%20fundamentals%20of%20th e%20faith&f=false
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463037 is a reply to message #463032] |
Mon, 27 February 2012 20:48 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| eatcow wrote on Mon, 27 February 2012 20:21 |
My point here is to show the existence, not to argue how such a being came into being. And this is precisely what my argument shows in its logical construction off of the principle of causality.
|
it isn't any better than just saying you don't know how the universe came into being, and it's less intellectually honest.
| Quote: |
But this fails to address conscience and abstract thinking.
|
when you say "conscience" you mean intellectually or morally? if you meant morally, then yes it does address it.
| Quote: |
By abstract thinking, for example, who would spend time contemplating that the natural numbers, the integers, and the rationals all have the same size of infinity whereas the infinity of the irrationals is the same size of the reals which is a bigger infinity then the natural numbers, the integers, and the rationals. Newton's laws, Rawl's theory and hyperbolic geometry do not matter when it comes to survival. Why is man the only creature on earth with such talents and conscience? Natural selection fails this.
|
...you have noticed that humans are the most intelligent species we're aware of?
question, when do you think we became this intelligent?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
you said the brain can't be the product of "random chance". the theory of evolution does not say it was; it says it's the product of millions of years of evolution by natural selection.
|
which is all left to chance without a creator and his design.
|
natural selection is pretty much the opposite of chance, sorry bud
| Quote: |
The earliest piece of literature from Plato we have was written 1300 years after he wrote it. For Herodotus, 1,400 years, and Euripedes 1,600 years. Yet no historian disputes the authenticity of these three writers.
|
and nobody says these men were perfectly good, or right about everything they said...
| Quote: |
The earliest shred of Bible manuscript we have comes from the 2nd century, 100 years after the last book of the Bible was written as historians on all sides agree upon. We have over 5,300 bits and pieces, and whole compilations of the Bible in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, plus several more. Out of all these different manuscripts running around, the majority of the textual variants amongst all of them is a single letter or word. All these different pieces can be cross referenced with greater accuracy then these ancient authors yet people still doubt.
|
Doesn't vindicate a single word of its content.
| Quote: |
In the Bible, Jesus specifically states his claim as Son of God. The Jewish and Roman authorities did not necessary follow his teaching or anything, but do mention that Jesus did make this claim. That is as revealing as it gets.
|
the book says he said so. that is all. the book says he said so.
| Quote: |
Here is what I said "This man Jesus cannot be simply a good teacher. He claimed he was the Son of God. Either this is true or false. If true, then he is more then a good teacher. If false, he is far worse for he got nearly 2 billion people to believe a package of lies."
My question for you is what makes this stupid when it is logically consistent? Is it because you disagree with either of the outcomes?
|
i've already answered this, go back a few posts.
| Quote: |
A off subject, but where at does Jesus talk about murdering children for the crimes of their mother? Psalm 127 describes children as a blessing.
|
It's in Revelation, he threatens to murder the children of Jezebel. She's a false prophet and an adulteress, apparently; he threatens to kill her children as punishment.
You can, if you like, say "children" actually means "followers", if you're in the business of claiming that the book means something other than what it says (i.e. theology), but it would still be the ravings of an awful man.
| Quote: |
Because it means Jesus is divine if he was able to raise from the dead and do the miracles he did.
|
really? magic powers = moral superiority? that's basically might is right.
| Quote: |
What would you like me to say?
|
i did ask you where you got that very specific account of one man's death and the disposal of his body.
| Quote: |
Josephus lived in the 1st century and was a historian. Ignatius was a student of John. The 4 Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John in the first century. Lucian was a Greek satirist who lived in the 2nd century. Each is a primary source and lived in the 1st-3rd century. They all talk about Jesus being crucified, died, or resurrected and various combinations of the three.
|
Still waiting.
| Quote: |
do you want to say that there is one particular denomination that's got it right?
You targeted the Bible as being full of inconsistencies and this is to propose that perhaps instead of the Bible, it is some of the people who "teach" what the Bible says since man is a fallible creature by nature. I would argue one Christian group has gotten it right.
|
Well, which one?
| Quote: |
What I think will happen is irrelevant precisely because in order to determine what I think would happen would be equal to judging. What I mean by free will is that you have the choice, but its entirely yours. If I thought so and so is going to heaven for doing such and such or hell for such and such or etc, this is passing a judgment upon the individual.
|
it sounds like you think there's such a thing as hell. If yes, give details. i.e. what is it, what goes on there, who's going there.
re: free will, whether i think something is true or not is not a question of free will. nor is whether or not i think a particular character - real or fictional - is a good guy.
| Quote: |
It starts with the instinct of the mind that everything needs an explanation. Everything has a reason why it is. This is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This is something we never deny or we are left to conclude things just pop into existence for no reason at all(Pop Theory). Thus, we may never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.
The universe can be viewed as a massive interlocking chain of things that came into existence. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, my great-grandparents caused them... You and I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang to the expansion of the universe to the protein molecule going to our ancestors.
The question now is does the universe as a whole have a cause. A first cause, uncaused cause. If not, then there is a infinite regress of causes with no first link in our cosmic chain. If so, then there is a eternal, independent being with nothing above it, before it, supporting it and it would have to explain for itself as well as for everything else. For if the being needed something else for its explanation then it is not a first cause and the uncaused cause. This being would have to be God.
If there is no first cause, the uncaused cause, then the whole universe is unexplained and the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning is violated. Everything can be explained in the short run, but not the long run. The universe would be a massive chain of many links, each held up by the link before it, but the chain as a whole is held up by nothing. This would be like a railroad train moving without an engine. each box car is pulled by the one in front but there is no engine which pulls the first car which is impossible. If this is what the universe is like without a first cause then it is also impossible.
The next analogy is this: Suppose there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want the book and ask me if you can borrow it. I say no because my neighbor has it. The neighbor doesn't have and has to get it from his teacher. The teacher has to go get from someone else etc to infinity. End result, no one has this book. You will only get the book when someone has it to give to you to borrow. Existence is like the book. Existence is handed down a chain of causes. If there is no first cause, no eternal self sufficent being, then no being who has existence by their own nature can borrow it from someone else. Thus the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others and no one will get it. But we exist. Therefore there must be a first cause to existence, a God.
The book goes much further then I am going to, but here is the link if you are interested. I left off on page 31.
|
someone actually got this drivel published? a child can see through this.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463039 is a reply to message #442568] |
Mon, 27 February 2012 21:43 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
Whether this stuff is true or not is a serious question. Especially if there's a hell. The stakes are quite high.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463051 is a reply to message #463037] |
Tue, 28 February 2012 00:11 |
eatcow
Messages: 22
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
You missed the point. If there is a God, that explains the universe's existence. That is not being less intellectually honest. The origin of such a being is a different subject.
The conscience is not intelligence or a moral. It is that little voice inside your head that nags at you when you do something wrong or tells you to do something that is right. This is beyond the scope of altruistic behavior.
Don't know about enough about evolution to dig into intelligence.
The point in bringing up Plato is not to say they were perfectly good or to follow their teaching or anything. It was the accuracy of their writings. You presented the idea of the Bible not being an accurate historical text, and I was showing you a very condensed reasoning why it is. I am not trying to say "everyone follow what the Bible says", just establishing historical accuracy.
You ridicule the Bible yet fail to answer the Jewish and Roman sources outside of the Bible that also discuss Jesus' claim to being the Son of God...
You nevered answered it. You only said it was stupid that Jesus could be the Son of God but failed to answer with logic as to why.
The history comes from those sources I mentioned, the Bible (as a historical document), and then some logical induction from The Biblical Basis for Tradition by John Salza.
I would argue Catholicism (based upon Christian history) but this is a different subject.
Hell is the depravity of all love. Every Christian will agree to that.
Might is right is not at all what I am arguing. I am arguing that Jesus' miracles and him rising from the dead is a major clue to his divinity. If Jesus wished to teach might is right, he could have snapped his fingers and defeated all his enemies if he was divine. If he wasn't, he could have raised an army just as easy due to the political instability of that time in Israel. There was already skirmishes breaking out between the Essenes and the Romans.
Back to our subject of how the universe was created. I have presented two arguments the idea of a God creating the universe but you have neglected to show any logical fallacies in them and instead attack the teachings of Jesus and the Bible and sent out several logical fallacies, specifically red herrings.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463067 is a reply to message #463051] |
Tue, 28 February 2012 06:58 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| eatcow wrote on Tue, 28 February 2012 00:11 |
You missed the point. If there is a God, that explains the universe's existence. That is not being less intellectually honest. The origin of such a being is a different subject.
|
and you don't have the faintest idea how to explain it. you think you've answered the question, you've only aggravated it.
| Quote: |
The conscience is not intelligence or a moral. It is that little voice inside your head that nags at you when you do something wrong or tells you to do something that is right. This is beyond the scope of altruistic behavior.
|
no, it's not a "little voice", unless you're schizophrenic or something. "a little voice" is just a poetic way of describing the emotions that restrain us from doing bad things.
| Quote: |
Don't know about enough about evolution to dig into intelligence.
|
you certainly don't know enough about evolution, you said it was all "random chance".
| Quote: |
The point in bringing up Plato is not to say they were perfectly good or to follow their teaching or anything. It was the accuracy of their writings. You presented the idea of the Bible not being an accurate historical text, and I was showing you a very condensed reasoning why it is. I am not trying to say "everyone follow what the Bible says", just establishing historical accuracy.
|
historical accuracy?
people living to like 800 years old? the world being created in 6 days? a zombie apocalypse? a deliberate flood covering the entire planet?
historical accuracy?
| Quote: |
You ridicule the Bible yet fail to answer the Jewish and Roman sources outside of the Bible that also discuss Jesus' claim to being the Son of God...
|
Because you haven't given one yet. I keep asking you to. I've asked you like four times and you haven't answered it yet. Where did you get the extremely specific account of Jesus' death and the disposal of his body? Don't just give a name, answer the question.
| Quote: |
You nevered answered it. You only said it was stupid that Jesus could be the Son of God but failed to answer with logic as to why.
|
sigh... i think you need to read what the person you're talking to is saying. go back and have another crack at it
| Quote: |
I would argue Catholicism (based upon Christian history) but this is a different subject.
|
Interesting. Do you think Vatican II was right or wrong? Specifically the dumping of the Catholic Church's official teaching that all Jews are guilty of murder.
It reversed centuries of its own dogma right there, in the 60's. What do you think about that? Was it right or wrong to teach - for centuries - that all Jews are murderers? Was it right or wrong to stop teaching that?
| Quote: |
Hell is the depravity of all love. Every Christian will agree to that.
|
Funny, cos I keep hearing - from people who call themselves Christians - that hell is a place of fiery torture.
| Quote: |
Might is right is not at all what I am arguing.
|
no, you're arguing that power = goodness, which is very similar. even the bible doesn't agree with you on that point. satan has some powers beyond what humans can do, you wouldn't say he was a good guy, would you? when aaron gets into a magic showdown with the egyptian priests, they can do miracles too... they're still on the bad side of things.
and jesus isn't the only guy to rise from the dead in the bible. lazarus, the daughter of jairus, the zombie apocalypse in one of the gospels (very hard to find another source that agrees that happened); here, the power comes from someone else, doesn't it?
| Quote: |
Back to our subject of how the universe was created. I have presented two arguments the idea of a God creating the universe but you have neglected to show any logical fallacies in them and instead attack the teachings of Jesus and the Bible and sent out several logical fallacies, specifically red herrings.
|
a little more honesty, eatcow, please.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463078 is a reply to message #463051] |
Tue, 28 February 2012 09:48 |
 |
Starbuzz
Messages: 2500
Registered: May 2007
Karma: 2
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| eatcow wrote on Tue, 28 February 2012 00:11 |
The conscience is not intelligence or a moral. It is that little voice inside your head that nags at you when you do something wrong or tells you to do something that is right. This is beyond the scope of altruistic behavior.
|
this is such an uneducated opinion. from another thread:
| cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 03 March 2007 15:57 |
| Ghostshaw wrote on Sat, 03 March 2007 13:10 |
Common sense is not part of the uman nature, its something you get taught by your mum and dad. If you don't get it, its called indcotrination and thats exactely what these girls have had. Their minds are so stuck in their believes that nothing will convince them otherwise.
-Ghost-
|
OMFG... SOMEONE GETS IT. HALLELUJAH!
Thank you, thank you, thank you, etc... these forums actually have some hope left in them.
As for the whole "you have a conscience" argument... it has so many flaws, it's not even funny. Everybody has their own set values. One's moral code is learned, you're not automatically born with it.
As Ghostshaw said, it's indoctrination. You're pretty much brainwashed into thinking the way you do. Your conscience doesn't automatically know right from wrong. It's a learned behavior. Just like a dog doesn't know that it shouldn't do its business on the carpet immediately. It has to be trained. The same thing goes with your moral code.
Honestly, it's quite a simple concept. I fail to see your logic in disagreeing.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463084 is a reply to message #462973] |
Tue, 28 February 2012 11:33 |
 |
Jerad2142
Messages: 3809
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 27 February 2012 10:12 |
i was simply saying that the phrase "survival of the fittest" doesn't seem to have come from the mouth or pen of Charles Darwin.
|
So I take it you do believe it is just random chance then?
And, what is the difference between natural selection/survival of the fittest or random chance?
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 27 February 2012 21:43 |
Whether this stuff is true or not is a serious question. Especially if there's a hell. The stakes are quite high.
|
The stakes are of no consequence as the people that believe this stuff have their reasons for believing it just like the ones that don't have their reasons for not believing it; and I highly doubt either party will be able to convince any members of the other to believe otherwise, especially in a forum setting.
Visit Jerad's deer sweat shop
[Updated on: Tue, 28 February 2012 11:42] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463094 is a reply to message #442568] |
Tue, 28 February 2012 13:35 |
eatcow
Messages: 22
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
There is a wall between our communications.
The origin of a being was actually explained in my second argument which you did nothing to show why it was wrong, just dismissed it as drivel. I already told you the sources. Evolution without some being designing it immediately implies the products of evolution must be by chance. Historical accuracy and interpretation of the Bible are two different subjects and you are confusing the two and meshing them as one. You refer to the flood. Ancient secular sources like the Epic of Gilgamesh also describe a catastrophic flood. Archaeological evidence also point to a major flood that covered the area described in the Bible where Noah resided which if you remember your history was the known world at that time.
Hell in terms of Christian theology, which I believe you to have inadequate knowledge of, is at its core, the absence of God. God is love and love is God. True love stems from God. Thus Hell is the absence of love since God is love. God is fiery love, Bible describes Him to fire. Therefore Hell is a fiery place of torture because the soul is deprived of the burning love of God.
More Christian theology. Lazarus was raised from the dead through the power of Jesus. The devil has his power because God permits him to have it. This does not mean God endorses the devil, instead it makes people who follow God true lovers of God. I believe you are referring to Zechariah with the zombie stuff. Those passages describe a disease, nothing about the undead so some of it depends on how you define zombie. Leprosy was major back then and had these kinds of symptoms described, not to mention others.
Catholic theology: The Catholic Church never stated as official dogma that all Jews were guilty of murder. If so, state which Church Council and what year. This idea stems from some Christians (unfortunately) who read the Bible and condemn the Jews for the murder of Jesus, deicide. These Christians sadly took out their anger on Jews. People point to the murder of the Jews in Germany during the Crusades as more examples of Catholic hate for the Jews but if you research deeper, you will find it was Catholic priests, monks, and bishops who stopped the senseless slaughter and some were slaughtered with the Jews. Look at WW2. The Pope and the Catholic Church saved thousands of Jewish lives by smuggling them out of Europe, hiding them in monasteries and churches. A Catholic priest gave up his life to save a Jew in a concentration camp because the nazis were sending the Jew to the gas chamber and the priest took his place. My point is Anti-Antisemitism was never a official Catholic policy and that the history of this subject is so muddled that it is hard for people find what truly happened in history.
Vatican 2 was needed.
This is my last post for at least a week. If your going to respond Spoony, then please show the fault(s) in my two arguments for the existence of a God since this is what pertained to our original subject of the creation of the universe. Spend time and actually read what it was I posted in my arguments.
Here is a link for Fundamentals of the Faith by Peter Kreeft you can read if so desired.
http://books.google.com/books?id=isu3dqRiqg0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pet er+Kreeft+fundamentals+of+the+faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HkpLT5yvLuWpiALFna H5Dw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Peter%20Kreeft%20fundamentals%20of%20th e%20faith&f=false
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463097 is a reply to message #463094] |
Tue, 28 February 2012 14:09 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| eatcow wrote on Tue, 28 February 2012 13:35 |
There is a wall between our communications.
|
that's exactly right, and it's that one of us is intellectually honest and the other is not.
| Quote: |
Evolution without some being designing it immediately implies the products of evolution must be by chance.
|
the only honest thing you've said so far was when you admitted that you don't know enough about evolution. it's ok, i get that. you don't need to prove it further by saying its products are down to chance.
| Quote: |
Historical accuracy and interpretation of the Bible are two different subjects and you are confusing the two and meshing them as one.
|
ah, you wanna do some "theology", you wanna pretend that what the bible says isn't what it means (cos that's what theology is when you look at it from the outside)
| Quote: |
You refer to the flood. Ancient secular sources like the Epic of Gilgamesh also describe a catastrophic flood. Archaeological evidence also point to a major flood that covered the area described in the Bible where Noah resided which if you remember your history was the known world at that time.
|
...so the biblical version of events was wrong. Not an "interpretation" - downright wrong.
| Quote: |
Hell in terms of Christian theology, which I believe you to have inadequate knowledge of, is at its core, the absence of God. God is love and love is God. True love stems from God. Thus Hell is the absence of love since God is love. God is fiery love, Bible describes Him to fire. Therefore Hell is a fiery place of torture because the soul is deprived of the burning love of God.
|
If this is what an adequate knowledge of theology makes you end up saying, I'm glad I'm not a theologian.
You're talking about a place where people are sent to burn as a punishment. Don't talk to me about "love". You obviously don't know the meaning of that word either.
| Quote: |
More Christian theology. Lazarus was raised from the dead through the power of Jesus.
|
...which debunks your earlier statement that Jesus's teachings must be valid if he rose from the dead. Even the Bible disagrees with you.
| Quote: |
The devil has his power because God permits him to have it. This does not mean God endorses the devil, instead it makes people who follow God true lovers of God.
|
again, debunks your earlier statement that if someone has supernatural powers, it must make them a good guy.
| Quote: |
I believe you are referring to Zechariah with the zombie stuff. Those passages describe a disease, nothing about the undead so some of it depends on how you define zombie. Leprosy was major back then and had these kinds of symptoms described, not to mention others.
|
no... i was referring to the zombie uprising described in one of the four gospels. i forget which one, it doesn't matter. when jesus is crucified all the graves open up and the saints rise from the dead and flood into the city. quite a lot of people rise from the dead in the bible, eh? btw, do you think that happened too?
| Quote: |
Catholic theology: The Catholic Church never stated as official dogma that all Jews were guilty of murder. If so, state which Church Council and what year.
|
did you actually know this about your church? that it was deliberately and systematically pumping out anti-semitism as a core teaching?
| Quote: |
This idea stems from some Christians (unfortunately) who read the Bible and condemn the Jews for the murder of Jesus, deicide. These Christians sadly took out their anger on Jews.
|
christian antisemitism is, indeed, rooted in the Bible.
| Quote: |
Look at WW2. The Pope and the Catholic Church saved thousands of Jewish lives by smuggling them out of Europe, hiding them in monasteries and churches.
|
maybe so, but only after the catholic church had collaborated with the Nazis in the first place. the church had been pumping anti-semitic propaganda into Europe since before Hitler was even born, let alone rose to power. the church instructed catholics to vote for hitler in exchange for catholic control of education, the church supported and collaborated with the Nuremberg laws, etc etc etc. about half of the SS were practicing and confessing catholics, and not one of them - not a single one - was thrown out of the church either for war crimes or for their part in the holocaust. and this was at a time when the church was very fond of excommunication - every communist, for example, was automatically expelled. lots of people were excommunicated for various dissenting theological writings. but war crimes and the holocaust? nah, go ahead.
| Quote: |
A Catholic priest gave up his life to save a Jew in a concentration camp because the nazis were sending the Jew to the gas chamber and the priest took his place.
|
one individual priest? you think that absolves the guilt of the church?
| Quote: |
This is my last post for at least a week. If your going to respond Spoony, then please show the fault(s) in my two arguments for the existence of a God since this is what pertained to our original subject of the creation of the universe. Spend time and actually read what it was I posted in my arguments.
|
i think you're the one who needs to read what you posted... it's a dishonest, glorified way of saying you don't know how the universe started so you know who must have done it. that's like saying you know who a masked man is because he's wearing a mask.
| Jerad Grey |
So I take it you do believe it is just random chance then?
|
...no?
| Quote: |
And, what is the difference between natural selection/survival of the fittest or random chance?
|
...seriously?
natural selection means those species that are able to adapt to their environment survive and propagate their DNA, while less successful species die out... this is not random chance, it's basically the opposite of chance.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Whether this stuff is true or not is a serious question. Especially if there's a hell. The stakes are quite high.
|
The stakes are of no consequence as the people that believe this stuff have their reasons for believing it just like the ones that don't have their reasons for not believing it; and I highly doubt either party will be able to convince any members of the other to believe otherwise, especially in a forum setting.
|
perhaps eatcow would like to examine his own posts about hell, and wonder how it is he ended up posting euphemisms and apologetics to explain away his god's torture chamber.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463804 is a reply to message #463097] |
Wed, 07 March 2012 05:57 |
eatcow
Messages: 22
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I gave you the historical sources (the list of names). Here is what they have to say:
Cornelius Tacitus:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas:
"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."
Flavius Josephus:
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
Mara Bar-Serapion:
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."
The Bible:
John 19:17-42, 20:1-29
Luke 23:26:56, 24:1-26
You can also find the same story in Mark and Matthew. Not going to look them up.
I can create a rather extensive list, but going to move on to your other remarks.
"you wanna pretend that what the bible says isn't what it means"
No, I do not wish to pretend for this would be inaccurate, illogical, and not truthful. However, what I was saying what you were confusing my argument for the Bible's historicity with people's interpretations. What the Bible says and what people think it says can be two different things, this is an interpretation issue. If you are only looking for developing the historical reliability of the Bible, instead of trying to argue theology, this is another task and the majority of historians today consider the Bible to be historically accurate.
You need to reread what the Bible says about the flood and what I posted, they augment nicely as one example for the Bible's historicity. The Bible as History by Werner Keller is a book that deals with the Bible in terms of archaeology and history purely. Only read a few sections in it.
My God's torture chambers, really...
Remember what I said earlier, man has the choice, the free undamped will, to choose hell. God does not wish it, but even some children disown their parents no matter how much the parents love their children.
Again, you misread my argument. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a sign of his divinity. This implies his teaching as Son of God is true. Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is also another argument for Jesus' divinity. There is no contradiction here as you are trying to imply. My bringing up of the devil and his power is to show you that I am not arguing that someone with magical powers imply they must be the good guy. However, what I do show is the origin of his power and explain as to why God permits the devil's mischievousness.
"that it was deliberately and systematically pumping out anti-semitism as a core teaching?"
As I said, state what year from what official council of the Catholic Church that proclaimed anti-antisemitism is ok, otherwise your statement here is derogatory and academically dishonest since you cannot provide historical evidence for it. If anti-antisemitism is rooted in the Bible, then please give us what passage.
WW2 history time: "one individual priest? you think that absolves the guilt of the church?"
The story of the priest was to show an example of Catholic persecution and that Catholicism is not the super anti Jewish organization as you like to hypothesize.
You will like this article, secular and they provide all the sources you've been craving. It talks about the origin of Nazism's Jewish hatred stemming from Martin Luther. Provides quotes from leading members of the Nazi party during the Nuremburg trials, and from Martin Luther. http://nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
The source listed below talks about Nazi's persecuting Catholics. Over 5,600 Catholic clergy were executed. This does not include laity either.
Craughwell, Thomas J., The Gentile Holocaust Catholic Culture, Accessed July 18, 2008
Finally, here is an article that instead of summarizing I am posting the link. It talks about the Catholic Church's role in hiding Jews during the war and the Pope's role.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/how-pius-xii-protected-jews
Here is a book if your interested that deal's with Hitler's attempts to kidnap/murder the Pope.
http://www.amazon.com/Special-Mission-Hitlers-Secret-Vatican/dp/0306814684
The Gospels do talk about the dead raising from the graves, but this does not mean zombie apocalypse, only accentuates your lack of Christian theological understanding. The city is a description of heaven, further supported in Revelations. The saints are the people who have not the stain of sin and dwell in heaven. When Jesus died, he opened up the gates of heaven. They were closed due to Adam and Eve's original sin. The Pharisees and Christianity teaches the bodily resurrection of those who go to heaven.
Coming back to the universe. My original argument for the existence of the universe was that God created the universe. The next obvious question is does God exist. I provided you with two logical constructions for the existence of God, one of which also satisfies the origin of God.
Here is what you did:
1) you failed to address my two arguments repeatedly
2) you attacked or used derogatory phraseology on what I believed multiple times
3) you dismissed arguments as drivel or stupid without further explanation
4) you sent several wild goose chases that deal with all sorts of subjects but not what the original academic pursuit was
5) out of all this you accuse me of being academically dishonest
I leave it at that.
I am not going to post any further based upon my list of five points. If you actually wish to discuss the existence of the universe and God, and not go to myriads of random subjects where you have little historical or theological knowledge, then I'll continue. Otherwise, adios.
My final quote: 1 Cor 13:4-13
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
There isn't a truer description of love then this and every Christian agrees with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #463839 is a reply to message #463804] |
Wed, 07 March 2012 09:29 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| eatcow wrote on Wed, 07 March 2012 05:57 |
I gave you the historical sources (the list of names). Here is what they have to say:
Cornelius Tacitus:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
|
Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) - i.e. didn't live at the same time as Jesus was supposed to have lived, so the best you can say is he was repeating what he'd heard, this at a time and place when most people couldn't read or write. And all he says is that "Christus...suffered the extreme punishment"; hardly an uncommon thing at the hands of the Roman Empire, and furthermore it doesn't even identify him as Jesus. Christ is a title, not a name. Doesn't attribute anything supernatural to "Christ" either.
| Quote: |
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas:
"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."
|
Gaius Tranquillus (ca. 69/75 – after 130) - again, born long after Jesus is supposed to have died. Have any accounts from an actual contemporary of his?
and what he says is even less helpful than tacitus. furthermore, he describes Christians as "a group of people of a new and maleficent superstition"; he didn't seem to find it very convincing himself.
| Quote: |
Flavius Josephus:
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
|
Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) - notice the recurring theme here? yet another source the best you can say of whom is that he is repeating what he'd heard.
and what is he repeating? this is the passage which most people think has been tampered with; maybe you're in the minority who thinks it hasn't? and the only unusual thing in the passage is that he had followers who considered him miraculous. given the time and place, i'm being generous when i call that unusual.
| Quote: |
Mara Bar-Serapion:
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."
|
...people don't even know when this was written, the earliest estimate i've seen is 73 AD. we're stuck with that recurring theme. i'll repeat the earlier question so you can't pretend you didn't see it: do you have any contemporary accounts?
as for what it says, he might just as well have said that if your society goes around executing people as wise as Socrates for not being the right religion, it's obvious got something seriously wrong with the way it's being run, and it'll probably end in tears. that would be more truthful than to say "god punished the society".
also, i'd be careful with this concept of "god punishes the jews for killing jesus".
| Quote: |
The Bible:
John 19:17-42, 20:1-29
Luke 23:26:56, 24:1-26
You can also find the same story in Mark and Matthew. Not going to look them up.
I can create a rather extensive list, but going to move on to your other remarks.
|
Then my question still has not been answered. Where did you get the historical evidence for very specifically detailed account of the disposal of Jesus' body? I've asked you like five times now, and all you've come up with is the odd passage from people who weren't alive at the time and were, at best, repeating what they'd heard.
| Quote: |
You need to reread what the Bible says about the flood and what I posted, they augment nicely as one example for the Bible's historicity. The Bible as History by Werner Keller is a book that deals with the Bible in terms of archaeology and history purely. Only read a few sections in it.
|
i've read the flood story, i'm not entirely sure you have. the story says the flood was created by a superbeing as a deliberate act of genocide, deliberately killing everything in the world besides a handful of humans and a few of each animal. this is plainly bullshit, and you should be glad it's bullshit because if it were true, it would be the single worst act of genocide ever.
| Quote: |
My God's torture chambers, really...
Remember what I said earlier, man has the choice, the free undamped will, to choose hell.
|
stop beating around the bush. two questions:
1. are people who are not the right religion going to be tortured for it
2. is that a good thing
| Quote: |
God does not wish it, but even some children disown their parents no matter how much the parents love their children.
|
what an awful analogy.
a child who "disowns" his parents actually knows who his parents are, presumably. the child acknowledges the parents' existence. what your analogy should say is "some children don't know who their parents are and therefore go through life as if they didn't have parents. the parents are understandably furious at this, because the parents love the child so much (so much so that the child doesn't know they exist), and so they send the child to a torture chamber as punishment."
| Quote: |
Again, you misread my argument. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a sign of his divinity. This implies his teaching as Son of God is true. Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is also another argument for Jesus' divinity. There is no contradiction here as you are trying to imply.
|
i think i hear the sound of a goalpost scraping along the ground.
boils down to two basic points.
1. if someone rises from the dead, that doesn't necessarily mean they're the one with the power.
2. power =/= goodness. that's basically another way of saying might is right.
| Quote: |
"that it was deliberately and systematically pumping out anti-semitism as a core teaching?"
As I said, state what year from what official council of the Catholic Church that proclaimed anti-antisemitism is ok, otherwise your statement here is derogatory and academically dishonest since you cannot provide historical evidence for it.
|
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/timeline.htm
| Quote: |
If anti-antisemitism is rooted in the Bible, then please give us what passage.
|
this isn't the first time you've used the word "anti-antisemitism". i think you mean "antisemitism". but to answer the question, it's mainly based on the bit in one of the four gospels where pilate says he washes his hands of the blood of jesus, and "the Jews" cry out that the blood is on them and their children.
a ludicrous statement, of course, but one that's led to an enormous amount of misery throughout the centuries.
| Quote: |
The story of the priest was to show an example of Catholic persecution and that Catholicism is not the super anti Jewish organization as you like to hypothesize.
You will like this article, secular and they provide all the sources you've been craving. It talks about the origin of Nazism's Jewish hatred stemming from Martin Luther. Provides quotes from leading members of the Nazi party during the Nuremburg trials, and from Martin Luther. http://nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
|
i already knew luther was a fanatical anti-semite as well; the catholic church was by no means the only christian organisation guilty of anti-semitism.
| Quote: |
The source listed below talks about Nazi's persecuting Catholics. Over 5,600 Catholic clergy were executed. This does not include laity either.
|
That's awful. Truly awful. But I can honestly say that, because unlike you I'm firmly against people being horribly punished for not being the right religion.
I'm aware of both of these things; it does not absolve the guilt of the Catholic Church.
| Quote: |
The Gospels do talk about the dead raising from the graves, but this does not mean zombie apocalypse, only accentuates your lack of Christian theological understanding. The city is a description of heaven, further supported in Revelations. The saints are the people who have not the stain of sin and dwell in heaven. When Jesus died, he opened up the gates of heaven. They were closed due to Adam and Eve's original sin. The Pharisees and Christianity teaches the bodily resurrection of those who go to heaven.
|
yet again, you're saying that what the bible means is not what it says. that is, after all, what "theology" basically is. and you have to do this, don't you, because what the bible actually says about this is a really ridiculous story that obviously didn't happen.
| Quote: |
Coming back to the universe. My original argument for the existence of the universe was that God created the universe. The next obvious question is does God exist. I provided you with two logical constructions for the existence of God, one of which also satisfies the origin of God.
Here is what you did:
1) you failed to address my two arguments repeatedly
|
that's an obvious lie, and one i've come to expect.
| Quote: |
2) you attacked or used derogatory phraseology on what I believed multiple times
|
this, on the other hand, is absolutely right.
| Quote: |
3) you dismissed arguments as drivel or stupid without further explanation
|
well, your arguments are drivel and they are stupid.
| Quote: |
4) you sent several wild goose chases that deal with all sorts of subjects but not what the original academic pursuit was
|
will you please try to be a bit more honest?
| Quote: |
5) out of all this you accuse me of being academically dishonest
|
fucking right i do.
| Quote: |
There isn't a truer description of love then this and every Christian agrees with it.
|
it certainly is different from your earlier definition of love, which was a euphemism for people being tortured for not being the right religion.
| Quote: |
If you actually wish to discuss the existence of the universe and God, and not go to myriads of random subjects where you have little historical or theological knowledge, then I'll continue. Otherwise, adios.
|
another one bites the dust. just remember on what footing you flee this argument.
- you haven't carried your point about the existence of any god, let alone a specific one.
- you haven't provided any contemporary accounts of jesus.
- you haven't given the slightest evidence for the very specifically detailed account of the disposal of jesus' body, and i asked you over and over again to do so. (is it so hard for you to be honest enough to admit you've got nothing?)
- you've defended the use of torture as a punishment for people who are not the right religion
if you're content to remain on such a terrible intellectual and moral position, then don't come back. if you'd rather redeem yourself, i'll still be here.
in either case, i encourage you to reflect on the fact that my opinion of your religion is lower than it was before you posted.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Wed, 07 March 2012 10:04] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #464002 is a reply to message #463996] |
Thu, 08 March 2012 14:17 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 08 March 2012 13:05 |
1. Depends what religion is right?
|
yes, that's right. several different religions both make the same claim. the pope says only catholics are going to be "saved" (by "saved" he means "not going to be tortured", kinda like the mafia saying "protection" when they mean "we won't break your legs") and non-catholics are going to hell with all the other infidels. many - not all - protestant churches say it's the other way around. islam says all non-muslims are going to hell.
this is one of my three major objections to the whole hell concept. i'll briefly list all three
1. a god who is in favour of torturing people as a punishment for what you think is obviously a complete asshole and does not deserve worship
2. i cannot choose what to think. i could pretend to be a christian or a muslim or whatever, but what i cannot do is flick a switch inside my brain and decide that i believe something. i've said this many times to christians and i've never gotten a single one of them to understand it; maybe my brain just works differently from everyone else's?
3. even if i did want to do this, several religions make contradictory claims (the problem you mention and i outlined above), so it becomes a question of which of these people - if any - are telling the truth. in other words, it becomes necessary for the religious to prove what they say, and they can't... and i would be a little less disdainful if, just once, they would be honest enough to admit they can't, instead of talking about why "faith" is somehow a good thing.
so there you go, i've repeatedly stated these three objections and never had a good answer to a single one of them; if anyone here thinks hell is real, i encourage them to have a crack at those objections.
| Quote: |
2. Does it make a difference, it isn't our choice if said god/gods are real.
|
let people answer the question: do they think people being tortured as a punishment for not being the right religion is a good thing.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Thu, 08 March 2012 14:19] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #464069 is a reply to message #464002] |
Fri, 09 March 2012 08:41 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3809
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 March 2012 14:17 |
| Quote: |
2. Does it make a difference, it isn't our choice if said god/gods are real.
|
let people answer the question: do they think people being tortured as a punishment for not being the right religion is a good thing.
|
I just meant that it doesn't make a difference, if there is a god he probably doesn't give a damn what we think and will do what he sees fit. If there isn't, it still doesn't matter what we think.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 March 2012 14:17 |
2. i cannot choose what to think. i could pretend to be a christian or a muslim or whatever, but what i cannot do is flick a switch inside my brain and decide that i believe something.
|
I think you choose to believe that you can't choose to believe stuff.
Trollface
Visit Jerad's deer sweat shop
[Updated on: Fri, 09 March 2012 08:50] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #464072 is a reply to message #464069] |
Fri, 09 March 2012 09:07 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 09 March 2012 08:41 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 March 2012 14:17 |
2. i cannot choose what to think. i could pretend to be a christian or a muslim or whatever, but what i cannot do is flick a switch inside my brain and decide that i believe something.
|
I think you choose to believe that you can't choose to believe stuff.
Trollface
|
i'm being completely sincere when i say that is the most intelligent response i've ever heard to that point.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #466145 is a reply to message #464072] |
Sun, 15 April 2012 09:21 |
eatcow
Messages: 22
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Spoony, you only reveal your ignorance of Christians. A source that gives a very detailed account of Jesus is the one you quoted in asking where is one. Another key thing your ignorant of, if you are of a different religion and did not come to Catholicism, this does not necessary mean your going to hell. If someone is wicked, most likely they are. If they are a good humble person, regardless of religion, it is possible to go to heaven. If the person comes to an intellectual understanding of God and chooses to reject Him, then they are going to hell. Spoony, I mean an understanding which your far from. If you actually want to argue with Christians, then you should actually know some basics of what they teach.
Academic dishonesty?
This is the only thing you can say because you have no other argument to offer. The only thing you have been able to demonstrate is hate. You read an argument, and dismiss it as stupid. That is not honesty. Any person in love and pursuit of truth would debate the various points. You disregard it simply because the implications you do not like and want to not agree with it. And you want to claim the opposite as being dishonest academically?
The best argument for God to you specifically is you yourself. You haven proven to be a miserable hateful individual without Him. Atheists can still love, the negation is not what I am implying. But for you, what good is a love that is so tainted by hatred and is miserable? What good is your miserableness when you know there is something better. If you were honest with yourself, then you would be honest with the world. Haters gonna hate until the day they break out of that shell and look back and wonder how could they be so depraved.
If a child did not know their parents, do you honestly think that the parents would just throw them into the fire and hypocritically call that love? If a child knew their parents, but disowned them. When the child came back seeking forgiveness, do you honestly think that the parents would throw him into the fire and hypocritically call that love also?
Here is my question for you in regards to your definition of theology: What part of Catholic teaching is contrary to the Bible? If you answer this, first be honest, second, actually understand what it is Catholicism teaches before attempting, thirdly, you must have Bible verses and Church Father quotes to back up your point.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #466151 is a reply to message #442568] |
Sun, 15 April 2012 10:16 |
Major-Payne
Messages: 561
Registered: March 2012
Location: Im actually MUDKIPS
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Religion is a hobby, end of story.
As long as people don't interfere with my freedom on "religious" grounds I don't care, except that wherever anyone goes you're limited by and confronted by (not confronted WITH, confronted BY) religion. By default that makes me anti-religion until basically me and everyone around me can live their lives as they see fit. Do whatever we want on any day (because one random day, which is one full earth rotation and 1/365th of a solar orbit, every, single one, none is special) without every store being closed because of some outdated religious principle.
In Mississipi they abolished the right to abortion. In this day and age. Now, I don't personally care because, as we say in Dutch, it's a "far away from my bed show", but to think that this might be a precedent for other states in the USA, and might thus influence other religious nuts in other countries to pressure for shit like this...
Or maybe it's also the fact that every local store has been bought up by Turks in my city and you need to go to a fucking big store all the way at the mall to get some PORK.
It could also be the fact that people like me (archaeologists) cant do their jobs, that we have to change reports and adapt our findings not to upset "christian beliefs" about the earth being made in like 4008BC or something.
This is why, whenever I get the chance I love to point out how pointless religion is. I may have even said it before in this thread ages ago, I dunno, but I'll just say it again for fun.
Religion is something you see starting to exist around the time humans became sedentary, at ANY rate. The moment you find humans making any kind of home, whether it's temporary or permanent, you will start finding depictions, figurines, "symbols" that don't seem functional. This is in direct relation to the amount of settling a certain group or unit of people does/do. Completely nomadic hunter-gatherers have shown no sign whatsoever of attributing any meaning to anything that is not functional.
As soon as humans become sedentary, social interactions change. People have to do things together, and organize, to maintain whatever they have, to survive. The more sedentary a group of people is (we cannot speak of "societies" at this point since there are no real established cultures at this time) the more this need arises, because they are far more dependant on each other. Religion is the one binding and unifying social element that keeps these groups together. Patterns start occurring that have simply NO functional sense, other than to gather people together for one common goal.
Now, this is at a development stage where humans have no real scientific knowledge of the world they live in. They live with sort of the same mentality as animals, they take whatever happens in life for what it is, and just keep on doing their thing. Slowly you can see society changing over time, where after a few thousand years after a great deal of humans have become fully sedentary, you can see a distinguishment between objects in the context of ownership. Seals and personal stamps.
People start identifying themselves with what they own, and this is when real cultures start to appear. Villages distinguish themselves in their style, and as different villages adapt themselves to different lifestyles and different environments, they view life from different perspectives, and form their mythology around those perspectives. Thus you get different cultures and religions associated with them, and it's all functional, everything is binding.
Now when Sargon formed the first ever empire in mankind, things start to change. This is around the time that writing starts to appear, and we see societies start using and experiencing religion not as a way to bind people, but as a sign of power, or as a way to exert control over people. Kings attribute themselves with godly symbols, and base their authority on their association with them.
In this way religion is still a functional element of human society, since it helps preserve the status quo, it's still a binding element, though a bit more of a forceful one.
Basically, ever since then, humanity has been finding out more and more about life, about how our bodies work, about how everything around us works, how physics influences every little bit of our lives. Basically, ever since Sargon, religion has been a tool of power, used by those who want to control, and lived by those who want to give meaning to their lives. The more people know about their lives however, the more control they have over it, and the less control the religious leaders will have. That is why so many scientists were persecuted by the Catholic church in the 15th/16th and 17th centuries, because they knew this. Whether they ACTUALLY believed in God is irrelevant, they knew that they would lose power if people knew more about what was actually going on.
For instance, take the bible. The bible you know today IS NOT the original scripture written down by the supposed jesus christ and his disciples. It's actually written down by the council of Nicaea that a conscious decision was made (in the 4th century that is) to omit and/or add certain parts to the bible to enunciate certain elements of christinaty. In those days there were two big philosophies, Aristotelian and Platonic. Aristoteles basically claimed that, everything that is, is as it is, is bound by natural rules, and that you should do your best to live within them, guided by virtues that are generally agreed upon to be... well, virtuous. Plato believed that everything in this world is modelled, or made after an ideal (on a higher plane), and that all you can do in life is live up to that ideal, in whatever you do. Both philosophies go MUCH deeper than that, but that's it in a nutshell.
In the councils that followed basically established christianity along a Platonic guideline, mostly set forth by Augustine on Hippo. This decision was pretty much finalized at the second council of Nicaea, where it was decreed that altars were required to contain relics, and that houses of worships required icons, preferably high. In almost any pre 18th century church, all the artwork requires you to look UP. This stems from Nicaea II.
Anyway, I love it when christians say: WELL THIS IS IN THE BIBLE or EXPLAIN IT TO ME WITH THE BIBLE, when conscious decisions were made by conscious human beings with certain interests to DECIDE FOR THEIR OWN what would and wouldn't be in the bible, what they wrote THEMSELVES (so not the disciples) and anyway, jesus christ was just a man, just a rebellious jew who had his own ideas and wrote them down, as did his followers. All perfectly normal, ordinary, human beings, just like everybody else.
This was all done in a time when scientific knowledge was NOT common. When people NEEDED guidance by nature. When people simply believed things on authority of others because they did not know better.
In this day and age, when all that we know about life, and living, and the way religion has evolved, we do not need it. The guiding principle of our lives is the realisation of the human potential, your own, and humankind as a whole. I personally believe that putting energy in a fictitious entity is a waste of valuable time and energy you could use to enrich and improve your own life and the lives of people around you.
I again personally do not mind what ANYBODY believes, it's your life, but when all this outdated and obsolete crap gets shoved into my and other people's lives then that wall of respect crumbles.
Modern day "religion" should be humanity's potential.
It's all part of the big illusion that we perpetuate on ourselves and in turn is perpetuated upon us. When we believe, we engage the illusion. When we stop believing we shatter the illusion and shatter ourselves in the process. Because we are, part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Nov 01 10:58:15 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01620 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
