You knew it was coming...

[Bioture]

Who the heck was it that Burr shot? Wrote that post kinda late and that name seems associated with something important... Anyway, I'm not threatened by what you're saying here, because it is the same thing I would have said some time ago. The question is - are you threatened by another person's convictions enough to try to prove them otherwise using your logic?

The argument about "scientifically" proving the existence of a historical figure comes from how to actually use the scientific formula to test hypothesis, etc etc I'm sure you've all had high school science courses where this happened.

check this:
http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/pdfs/carpenter3.pdf

I really encourage athiests/agnostics to read that book, I read it when I was starting out, and it addressed a lot of common athiest questions directly.

And I'm not talking about a couple thousand years later - I'm saying that the Romans/Jews could have stopped the christian movement after Jesus died by reproducing his body. What could possibly drive the disciples (and a bunch of other people) to preach His word and die martyrs - if it was just a hoax?

** towards others:

I'm actually against following religion or putting "blind faith" into religion and not God. I've often had to make the distinction between spirituality and religion, and how it is entirely possible to be spiritual without conforming to a specific religion. Atheism relies heavily on attacking religion because it is easier to find faults in the apperance and guidelines of spirituality than the actual spiritual experience itself. After all, if we try to argue the existence of God, neither side will be able to assert thier views fully without falling short of the goal. That is to say Sarien would never be able to convince me that THERE IS NO GOD. There isn't enough scientifical proof/logic in the world to make me believe otherwise - because I have experienced His love first hand, and that is something I couldn't begin to explain from an athiest's perspective (believe me. I have tried).

** Keeping the thread on topic:

Ties of religion with the recent presidential election sickens me. Bush should be considered the anti-christ because he willingly traded lives for lives, instead of turning the other cheek. I'm shocked that there are more christians that support Bush than not, saying that he will "bring us closer to God." If that is true, bush might do it quite literally. By having more of us die in a war. Nothing like facing God after you killed a few people. The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush used his religious beliefs to determine his actions when it comes to gay marriage, abortion, etc. Which is wrong - bush isn't in the position to assert his beliefs on the sanctity of marriage, even though it is wrong - not everyone shares that belief. Besides, the constitution is there to GIVE people rights, not to take them away.

God help us all with 4 more years of his bullshit.

[Escalate]

Are there a lot of bad people in Christianity? Yes. Are there a lot of people weird things in the religion? Sure. But there's bad people in anything, and weird ideas and things everywhere else. It's up to interpretation. The idea is to find out what the truth is for you and accept it.

-Epi

Epinephrine-

you make some good points. id like to talk about a few of them though. first, i think that in just about every decision making process that a reasonable person takes part in, they weigh the believability of the assertion against the evidence that supports it. if you tell me that george washington was our first president, and he wasnt, you could fool me pretty easily, because it seems very possible that this is true, there is nothing on its face that gives it the sense of impossibility, all of the recent historical record backs it up, etc. now if you tell me that thousands of years ago there was a man named jesus who was the son of some supernatural entity called "god", who walked on water and came back to life after being put to death...well i would think that since this assertion goes against everything that i have sensed and dealt with in the natural world, i would need some extremely convincing evidence that the boat load of supernatural occurences that were going on in the bible were actually true. now what is this evidence? the bible is a book which was admittedly written by the hand of man, altered countless times throughout history, and that contradicts itself in so many places, that id have a hard time believing it was directed by god even if i met god himself and he handed me a copy. the bible would be shoddy evidence even if it was supporting a fairly believable assertion.

as far as the beginnings of christianity and the followers that it attracted being evidence of the truth....islam is now the fastest growing religion in the world, and is amassing a huge worldwide following. does that mean that islam is now the truth? as you know, throughout history there have been hundreds if not thousands of religions which were widely followed. all of these religions were either A: True, or B: fabricated by man. so to suggest that it is unlikely that christianity could be fabricated by man, simply because it happened to be the most successful in our day and age, doesnt make much sense.

on your point about the "intolerance" of certain atheists:
i agree with you, it is just as common to find a self-righteous atheist these days as it is to find a self-righteous christian, atleast here in san fran it is. however, i hear this point made often, and the people who are making it always fail to consider a very central difference between the two types of people. the atheists that ive had contact with can be very annoying and can appear to want to push their views on you as much as any bible thumping christian. they can be very intolerant of other people's ideas and beliefs as related to religion in a purely intellectual sense... however, these atheists are tolerant of people's CHOICES IN LIFE. you will never hear one of them talking about supporting a ballot measure that forces an atheist moral code upon other people in society. that is the difference. many christians actively work to force others in our society to act in ways that they feel are right, instead of realizing that different people may not want to live as they do and tolerating this fact. i think that this form of real and physical intolerance, in which lives are changed, is vastly worse than intolerance in the form you are discussing concerning atheists which is basically just academic. i know that i myself often come across as intolerant to some hard-core christians, and i just cant help it. like many atheists, their attempts to force other people to act as they do through the ballot box angers me to the extreme, i guess that i am intolerant of intolerance.

[Epinephrine]

Esc,

I agree with you completely on the tolerance thing. You're absolutely correct.

As for the Jesus thing, my point isn't that Jesus is the son of god. My point is that perhaps there really was someone named Jesus who did a lot of the things that are in the bible. Whatever was later recorded was both exaggerated and misinterpreted.

I added the examples of Jesus as a space alien, or as an advanced robot from the future just as fun examples. But more seriously I added the example of him going into a coma then waking up. As for the body, who knows, maybe he walked away and died in the desert and was eaten by wild animals so nothing remained, who really knows?

My point is that, there is a strong reason to believe that such a person actually existed. Whether that said person IS literally the son of god is not what I'm advocating.

As for Islam, I think there's plenty of historical record that there actually was someone named Mohammed that existed and he took over a bunch of people with his armies. Whether he truely was sent by god or was just some guy is again the pivotal point.

I have no idea whether these people are the representatives of god that their followers suggest. As a person not of these faiths I can pretty much say that they weren't representatives of god. But I can concede that perhaps historically, they DID exist in some form, which is a good way to explain how these religions got started in the first place and how the very first people who believed in them found it so great that they had to spread the word.

-Epi

[Escalate]

Esc,

I agree with you completely on the tolerance thing. You're absolutely correct.

As for the Jesus thing, my point isn't that Jesus is the son of god. My point is that perhaps there really was someone named Jesus who did a lot of the things that are in the bible. Whatever was later recorded was both exaggerated and misinterpreted.

I added the examples of Jesus as a space alien, or as an advanced robot from the future just as fun examples. But more seriously I added the example of him going into a coma then waking up. As for the body, who knows, maybe he walked away and died in the desert and was eaten by wild animals so nothing remained, who really knows?

My point is that, there is a strong reason to believe that such a person actually existed. Whether that said person IS literally the son of god is not what I'm advocating.

As for Islam, I think there's plenty of historical record that there actually was someone named Mohammed that existed and he took over a bunch of people with his armies. Whether he truely was sent by god or was just some guy is again the pivotal point.

I have no idea whether these people are the representatives of god that their followers suggest. As a person not of these faiths I can pretty much say that they weren't representatives of god. But I can concede that perhaps historically, they DID exist in some form, which is a good way to explain how these religions got started in the first place and how the very first people who believed in them found it so great that they had to spread the word.

-Epi

ahh ok i misunderstood you. yes i am in agreeance and id say that it is more than possible but even probable that jesus existed.

[Sarien]

You are wrong. Moses coming down telling people what happened isn't heresay. It's a first hand account. In a court of law, it would be readily admissible as evidence.

Epi, no disrespect but man, look at your definition for hearsay.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Moses saying he went up on the mountain and talked to god, that's a first hand account. Reporting what God said, passing along the commandments with no other verification other than Moses saying "Yep That is what God told me" walks right into that first definition. Whether or not that specific instance is admissable in court according to the second definition, I don't know, and I admit that. I'm not a lawyer. That doesn't stop it from being hearsay on the face of things.

People seeing Jesus resurected and then writing it down isn't heresay. They were THERE.

I would agree with you utterly, this is a first hand account. People there, and saw Jesus jump up and dance, that'd be a first hand account. Problem being, wasn't the relavent chunk of the bible written about a hundred years after Jesus was supposedly dead? If so, that hundred years gap kinda makes first hand reports kind of hard to come by, doesn't it?

How do I know the world actually existed before I was born? Maybe it was created for me and me alone. Nothing existed before me. Everyone who is 'alive' is lying to me as part of this 'world' created FOR ME ONLY. All the 'evidence' has been made up to convince me, but it's not working. I'm the only one that's right.

Please stop being a nihlist. It never solves anything. -_-

This is an assertion. It is your own belief. You believe you will cease to exist, but can you prove it more than just 'I'm right, you're wrong?". By saying such a statement, you are no better than those who spread religious dogma.

Is it an assertion and my personal belief? Absolutely. Have I tried to prove it or even say bluntly that I'm right and that anybody else wrong? No. I've been saying all along the reason religions fail the test for me, and why. At the same time I've also been telling Bio that if it makes him happy, more power to him. Am I no better? Come on. I haven't tried to force any other person to believe it, I don't tout it as the only explanation, and I don't even say that it is absolutely 100% certain fact. Just as you said, merely my personal assertion and belief.

Bio:
Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel.
No, I'm not threatened by your convictions, man. Pay attention please, and for the fourth time. If what you believe makes you happy, I'm glad for you. If it works for you, it is absolutely not my place to try to force that from you, and I haven't been trying in the least. Simply debating with you, as to my stance and my take on varied topics.

Maybe a couple excerpts from Age of Reason will clear a couple things up. I should state that these are things I do believe in very very strongly.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.


I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.


No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.


It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

The full text of Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine, can be found here amongst other places:
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...son/part1.html

[froedrick]

Let's all agree that religion is an easy answer to a hard question.

good game.

Froedrick Is out 17 wins, 8 million losses

[Gemfire]

I'm sticking to the theory that religion is only a way to control the masses. It's easy to control a bunch of religious zealot if you know how to push the right buttons.