Anyone read this?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8007472.stm

The same could be said for North America as well, except most of them had the foresight to kick the Europeans out long before the South American did.

Maybe you could write that one - have you read this one though?

The same could be said for North America as well, except most of them had the foresight to kick the Europeans out long before the South American did.
Most North Americans seem to be descendants of europeans. Not so many native americans in positions of power as far as I can see.

Most North Americans seem to be descendants of europeans. Not so many native americans in positions of power as far as I can see.
Precisely. It made one hell of a difference, when it comes to having 'foresight'.

Nope. It's amazing that people will always flock to the same course of action as a result of a political ruse.

Nope. It's amazing that people will always flock to the same course of action as a result of a political ruse.
So you don't feel that the fact that the North Americans were, essentially, kicking out their own kind made it easier for them?

So you don't feel that the fact that the North Americans were, essentially, kicking out their own kind made it easier for them?

I was referring to the OP and the results of the book's 'endorsement'.

I was referring to the OP and the results of the book's 'endorsement'.
Ah, I thought that didn't seem like one of your usual comments. :)

Nope. It's amazing that people will always flock to the same course of action as a result of a political ruse.

Thats the role of a leader, I presume. I haven't rushed out to buy it. I am merely now aware of the books existence.What was the ruse ?Surely you don't jusge a book by its cover - or one politicians ruse/endorsement. Then again if it was a ruse to be used with Barack Obama it may be slightly interesting what it said.Which is why I asked if anyone has read it? How should I choose my reading?

Thats the role of a leader, I presume. I haven't rushed out to buy it. I am merely now aware of the books existence.What was the ruse ?

You don't think that presenting literature to the President of the US on the global political stage may have been a part of some political agenda? Perhaps I'm becoming too cynical.



Surely you don't jusge a book by its cover - or one politicians ruse/endorsement.


No but I am highly suspicious of political endorsements especially when the public seems to swallow them whole.


Then again if it was a ruse to be used with Barack Obama it may be slightly interesting what it said.

Yes and if I ever did get round to reading it, I would certainly be reading it in that context because of the endorsement.


Which is why I asked if anyone has read it? How should I choose my reading?

Entirely up to you. Personally I avoid advice from the political realm. Cynical me I guess.

Of course - I think he wants people to read it .Its a political book to some extent.Unless I avoid books from the political realm entirely - surely I wouldn't go for one with no politician endorsement.How do you know the public has swallowed it whole? They merely bought a book - they may think its complete nonsense. UNless the urse its just to get the sales figures up?I think you may be being too cynical. I would hope either Obama or Chavez or both have some proper thought behind them. So even a ruse from one to the other is intriging in some way.

Gee I dont know about sending the Europeans packing, there still seems to be a lot of non-natives near here...
The same could be said for North America as well, except most of them had the foresight to kick the Europeans out long before the South American did.

Gee I dont know about sending the Europeans packing, there still seems to be a lot of non-natives near here...
We sneak back in for the Timbits ;)

We sneak back in for the Timbits ;)

With a large double/double.

Don't mind us, we're speaking Canadian.

With a large double/double.

Don't mind us, we're speaking Canadian.
Oh God, I've gone native :eek:

Oh God, I've gone native :eek:
I thought you didn't believe in God?

I thought you didn't believe in God?
It's just a figure of speech.
I might just as easily said 'Oh Santa' or 'Oh tooth fairy'.

I also use the term 'Jesus' as an expression of surprise, from time to time.
As well as 'Christ on a bike' and 'To hell with whatever'. I don't believ in those either.

It's just a figure of speech.
I might just as easily said 'Oh Santa' or 'Oh tooth fairy'.

I also use the term 'Jesus' as an expression of surprise, from time to time.
As well as 'Christ on a bike' and 'To hell with whatever'. I don't believ in those either.
Ah, a bit like saying bloody Yanks then

Ah, a bit like saying bloody Yanks then
Only in the sense of 'not at all like it'.:confused:
That one is a prejudice. I can't have anything against something whose existence I don't believe in.
If the person meant that they don't believe Americans exist, then it would be comparable, but I don't get that impression.

It's just a figure of speech.
I might just as easily said 'Oh Santa' or 'Oh tooth fairy'.

I also use the term 'Jesus' as an expression of surprise, from time to time.
As well as 'Christ on a bike' and 'To hell with whatever'. I don't believ in those either.

I thought Jesus was now pretty well accepted as a historical figure?

I thought Jesus was now pretty well accepted as a historical figure?
It's well accepted that Jesus was a very common name and that saying that Jesus didn't exist is like saying that Steven didn't exist in 1975. There were plenty of them.

It's far from accepted that he had anything to do with one or more gods.

Only in the sense of 'not at all like it'.:confused:
That one is a prejudice. I can't have anything against something whose existence I don't believe in.
If the person meant that they don't believe Americans exist, then it would be comparable, but I don't get that impression.
Well I wouldn't want to be seen as playing the devils advocate here but Oh God is an exclamation in the same way as bloody Americans is

Well I wouldn't want to be seen as playing the devils advocate here but Oh God is an exclamation in the same way as bloody Americans is
I don't see it?
If I say 'Oh God', it's a general expression of surprise or frustration. Same as 'Bl**dy hell'.
If I say 'Bloody Americans' I'm moaning about Americans or somethings that something that Americans have done.

I don't see it?
If I say 'Oh God', it's a general expression of surprise or frustration. Same as 'Bl**dy hell'.
If I say 'Bloody Americans' I'm moaning about Americans or somethings that something that Americans have done.
Or something that you're surprised or frustrated with that the Americans have done:D

I thought Jesus was now pretty well accepted as a historical figure?Outside the bible there are virtually no references to him.

It's well accepted that Jesus was a very common name and that saying that Jesus didn't exist is like saying that Steven didn't exist in 1975. There were plenty of them.

It's far from accepted that he had anything to do with one or more gods.

Are you saying he didn't exist?

Are you saying he didn't exist?I won't presume to answer for Alc but IMHO there is no evidence outside of the bible that he did exist. This does not mean he didn't exist - the growth of Christianity so soon after his crucifiction is a good indicator that he did. There are several contradictions in the Bible about his family tree and in other details. There is a suggestion that a certain amount of spin was applied to the story to make it fit in with some old testament prophecies.

There are several contradictions in the Bible about his family tree and in other details. There is a suggestion that a certain amount of spin was applied to the story to make it fit in with some old testament prophecies.

Like claiming that his mother was a virgin, yeah right:rolleyes:

Are you saying he didn't exist?
I'm saying nobody knows for sure. The only real evidence (for want of a better word) is in the Bible and that contains so many self-contradictory statements, omissions and errors that it can be discounted.

He certainly isn't an established historical figure in the same way that someone like Napoleon, Hitler or Alexander the Great were.

I'm saying nobody knows for sure. The only real evidence (for want of a better word) is in the Bible and that contains so many self-contradictory statements, omissions and errors that it can be discounted.

He certainly isn't an established historical figure in the same way that someone like Napoleon, Hitler or Alexander the Great were.

But you don't beleive in him?

But you don't beleive in him?
'The' Jesus as a person, or one of many people sharing that name - existed or not, I have no idea.
Jesus as the son of God or whatever - no, I don't.

Why don't you beleive he was the son of God if you aren't too sure if he existed?

Why don't you beleive he was the son of God if you aren't too sure if he existed?
I am sure, based on everything I have ever seen, heard or read, that God does not exist. Since God does not exist, he cannot have had a son.

But you discount God cos there is no earthly evidence - presented with earthly evidence you dismiss it out of hand cos something you don't believe in can't have evidence?

But you discount God cos there is no earthly evidence - presented with earthly evidence you dismiss it out of hand cos something you don't believe in can't have evidence?
1) Yes I do discount God ($3.50 this week, down from $5.00) ;)
2) I have never seen any earthly evidence of God (for 'seen', read 'seen, heard, read, etc.'). Saying that someone is the son of God is not evidence that God exists, any more than me saying I'm the son of a werewolf makes werewolves exist.

1) Yes I do discount God ($3.50 this week, down from $5.00) ;)
2) I have never seen any earthly evidence of God (for 'seen', read 'seen, heard, read, etc.'). Saying that someone is the son of God is not evidence that God exists, any more than me saying I'm the son of a werewolf makes werewolves exist.

Then what is?

Then what is?
Are you genuinely expressing surprise that that 'proof' wasn't accepted?
Really?

I am assuming that B existed. Therefore, A must exist because it created B.

One has to be proven in isolation from the other for either to stand.
Either
1) Prove that God exists, in which case Jesus may have been his son. Even in this case, there is no evidence that thw two were related.
2) Prove that Jesus existed and had powers and abilities that can't be explained away by anything other than his having a supernatural origin. Again, this doesn;tprove that he was related to the big G.

Yes but what evidence would you regard as proof? Or even to hedge your bets?

Yes but what evidence would you regard as proof? Or even to hedge your bets?
This is like me asking you what you consider evidence of thye existence of a centaur, but for argument's sake:

God would need to appear in front of me and does a few things that couldn't possibly be done by any human being, even with the use of the most advanced technology imaginable. e.g. bring back someone of my choosing from the dead.

He would also need to provide easily understandable proof to me that the universe didn't come into existence at random. Since he can do anything, this one would be a doddle for him.

This is like me asking you what you consider evidence of thye existence of a centaur, but for argument's sake:

God would need to appear in front of me and does a few things that couldn't possibly be done by any human being, even with the use of the most advanced technology imaginable. e.g. bring back someone of my choosing from the dead.

He would also need to provide easily understandable proof to me that the universe didn't come into existence at random. Since he can do anything, this one would be a doddle for him.

And since he doesn't do as you demand - he can't exist?

Has this thread been hijacked by the one line inquisitor?

Brian

And since he doesn't do as you demand - he can't exist?
I'm not demanding anything.
You asked what I would consider proof, I answered.

Turn this around - pick something you believe to be so ludicrously far-fetched as to definitely be impossible (ghosts, goblins, trolls, unicorns, tooth fairy, whatever).
If you just said that there is nothing you wouldn't dismiss then your argument for the existence of God just became a whole lot weaker, as you've proven yourself to be gullible on a scale rarely seen.
If, on the other hand, you did think of something, what would you consider proof that they DO exist.
Now, since whatever you just said isn't happening, you feel safe in saying that they don't exist, correct?

That's how I feel about God.

And since he doesn't do as you demand - he can't exist?

It's impossible to hold a belief on anything else.

EDIT: base is a better word than hold

It's impossible to hold a belief on anything else.

EDIT: base is a better word than hold

But atheism isn't a belief is it?

I'm not demanding anything.
You asked what I would consider proof, I answered.

Turn this around - pick something you believe to be so ludicrously far-fetched as to definitely be impossible (ghosts, goblins, trolls, unicorns, tooth fairy, whatever).
If you just said that there is nothing you wouldn't dismiss then your argument for the existence of God just became a whole lot weaker, as you've proven yourself to be gullible on a scale rarely seen.
If, on the other hand, you did think of something, what would you consider proof that they DO exist.
Now, since whatever you just said isn't happening, you feel safe in saying that they don't exist, correct?

That's how I feel about God.

Of course you may not have enough knoweldge and be a bit shaky of your definitions to expect come up with what would be a valid proof, which you could accept?How likely is that?

But atheism isn't a belief is it?
Mike 375 has done that semantic argument to death.
Everything you or I 'know' is, strictly speaking, a belief.

It's really quite simple.

Belief in God is based on faith. Faith is not scientific or logical or reasonable. It is based on your feelings, generally ingrained into you at an early age.

If you have a discussion between a person who belives and one who does not, the non believer can probably make a very good case God does not exist based on science, logic and reason.

The believer will not change their position on God based on this evidence. In fact, they will probably believe even stronger. This is the problem with a faith based approach to live.

Note: this is not an attack on believers or non believers. This is somthing I've learned over the years.

Mike 375 has done that semantic argument to death.

I've noted for years that Mick just keeps going round in circles

I've noted for years that Mick just keeps going round in circles
It's strange, given that he's got so much space to move around in, while Britain is the size of a postage stamp, etc, etc. :D

It's strange, given that he's got so much space to move around in, while Britain is the size of a postage stamp, etc, etc. :D

Nah, he's trapped inside his own little sphere:D

Nah, he's trapped inside his own little sphere:D
I think you'll find it's a spheroid ;)

I think you'll find it's a spheroid ;)
yes he's certainly oid:D