Are you an atheist?

[ConnorGiles]

I have and your mind refuses to see it.

Blade

Nothing you have said comes close to a Fact or Evidence.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Yes, there has been quite a few people sticking their necks out and getting it chopped off. lol.......(Reminds me of a chicken when you are ringing it neck). The Bible gives events that are going to happen before the first seal is opened. One of those happened for sure in 1954. The Israelites went back home. HOME?????? to the land that given them by GOD thousands of years before. The Bible as in Genesis does not give any time parameters as to when this will happen. However, after the first seal is opened, there will be a seven year period of 'pure Hell' on earth. After which there will be a war. Again it does not state how long the war will go on. In the end, Jesus will cast and chain Satan and his demons into the bottomless bit. Those who still do not believe will have died by this time, since the Bible states a 1000 years of peace across the earth with Jesus as ruler. After the 1000 years. The earth and seas will give up her dead and judgement day will commence. Again No time parameters here either. Those that pass the test will be raised into heaven and those that do not will be cast back to a firey Earth. Oh, Satan will be released from the bottomless pit at this time. He will therefore at this time become the non-believers God.

A little bit different than that of the Myians...don't you think?

Blade

Your religion played it safe not using time parameters. That's the only difference.

I like it warm ! Did you ever read the commandments of the church of satan?

They are near enough the same as your own.

 

[Bladerunner]

Nothing you have said comes close to a Fact or Evidence.

in a typical atheist mind? I agree.

 

[ConnorGiles]

in a typical atheist mind? I agree.

I tend to see both sides of the fence, But I find it hard to argue the divide when your side is much more closed minded then my side. You cannot argue with someone who has enough blind faith to worship someone through the teachings of a book.

I am going to become a magician and write a book.

1. My magic will have been witnessed by many.
2. It was unexplainable
3. Proclaim my father was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Lets hope in 2000 years time I started a religion.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Nothing you have said comes close to a Fact or Evidence.

To wit:

In science, a "fact" is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

***

The speed of light in a vacuum being 299,792,458 m/s is a fact - it has been tested and re-tested and the value nailed down.

The force of gravity at 0 sea level on Earth being appx 9/8 m/s^2 is a fact, again confirmed through experimentation and careful measurement.

A legend about a spaking, burning bush passed down from pre-literate tribesmen and eventually written down, then copied by hand over and over again and translated from one language to another to another is just that: a legend, not a fact.

A story about a man claiming to be the son of God and describing dozens of miracles, but written a hundred years after the fact, in another part of the world, and then translated from Greek to Latin to English is also a legend, rather than a fact. There is no proof of these claims, no is there a single measurement or experiment or even contemporary writing corroborating this.

I also note with interest that all other accounts of Pilate indicate he antagonized the Jews mercilessly. Based on the actual records and history of his assignment to Judea, it would have been highly out of character for him to balk at having a single wandering troublemaker executed the way the Gospels claim he did.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I tend to see both sides of the fence, But I find it hard to argue the divide when your side is much more closed minded then my side. You cannot argue with someone who has enough blind faith to worship someone through the teachings of a book.

I am going to become a magician and write a book.

1. My magic will have been witnessed by many.
2. It was unexplainable
3. Proclaim my father was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Lets hope in 2000 years time I started a religion.

So basically you're going to be L Ron Hubbard.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I also note with interest that all other accounts of Pilate indicate he antagonized the Jews mercilessly. Based on the actual records and history of his assignment to Judea, it would have been highly out of character for him to balk at having a single wandering troublemaker executed the way the Gospels claim he did.

The actual records?

Which sources are you using here? I was under the impression Pilate was recorded only in the same way Jesus was - ie later - and largely in the same sources?

So you cherry pick which non contemporary source trumps the other. Or indeed you cherry pick the same sources to believe bits and bobs of them, and use that to fit your beliefs?!?

 

[Frothingslosh]

The actual records?

Which sources are you using here? I was under the impression Pilate was recorded only in the same way Jesus was - ie later - and largely in the same sources?

So you cherry pick which non contemporary source trumps the other. Or indeed you cherry pick the same sources to believe bits and bobs of them, and use that to fit your beliefs?!?

Pontius Pilate is referred to in records that were created at the time he actually lived, as the Romans were very thorough record-keepers. He is referred to in both Roman and Judaean documentation of the time, as were his activities, including being called to account for antagonizing the local Jewish population over and over again, leading to the possibility of revolt.

In contrast, there is not a single item or factum mentioning Jezus of Nazarath or a man calling himself the Son of God until a century after he was supposed to have lived.

So yes, official documents written at the time the person they discuss was alive and a great official in the Roman Empire really DO trump unsourced documents of unknown provenance that were written a century after their subject died. It's that whole pesky 'verification' thing that gives so many theists so much trouble.

Edit: I really hate using wikipedia for something like THIS, but their summation is to the point:

The sources for Pilate's life are an inscription known as the Pilate Stone, which confirms his historicity and establishes his title as prefect; a brief mention by Tacitus; Philo of Alexandria; Josephus; the four canonical gospels; the Gospel of Nicodemus; the Gospel of Marcion; and other apocryphal works. Based on these sources, it appears that Pilate was an equestrian of the Pontii family, and succeeded Valerius Gratus as prefect of Judaea in AD 26. Once in his post he offended the religious sensibilities of his subjects, leading to harsh criticism from Philo, and many decades later, Josephus. According to Josephus c. AD 93,[6] Pilate was ordered back to Rome after harshly suppressing a Samaritan uprising, arriving just after the death of Tiberius which occurred on 16 March in AD 37. He was replaced by Marcellus.

There's not a WHOLE lot about him, but enough to know he was real and give an idea of how he acted. The main problems with using Josephus, admittedly, are 1) HIS sources have been lost or destroyed, and 2) He has been known to be incomplete or biased at times. He was still probably the most thorough Roman historian.

Even if you toss out everything but the Pilate Stone, that alone confirms he actually lived and was prefect of Judea around 30 AD. That's more evidence than there ever was of a wandering preacher named Yeshua being the literal Son of God and resurrecting himself 3 days after being executed.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Pontius Pilate is referred to in records that were created at the time he actually lived, as the Romans were very thorough record-keepers. He is referred to in both Roman and Judaean documentation of the time, as were his activities, including being called to account for antagonizing the local Jewish population over and over again, leading to the possibility of revolt.

In contrast, there is not a single item or factum mentioning Jezus of Nazarath or a man calling himself the Son of God until a century after he was supposed to have lived.

So yes, official documents written at the time the person they discuss was alive and a great official in the Roman Empire really DO trump unsourced documents of unknown provenance that were written a century after their subject died. It's that whole pesky 'verification' thing that gives so many theists so much trouble.

Edit: I really hate using wikipedia for something like THIS, but their summation is to the point:



There's not a WHOLE lot about him, but enough to know he was real and give an idea of how he acted.

Can you send me a link to any contemporary source - wiki has all non contemporary. Except one stone found in the sixties?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate

 

[Frothingslosh]

Can you send me a link to any contemporary source - wiki has all non contemporary. Except one stone found in the sixties?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate

You just provided yourself one.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

The main problems with using Josephus, admittedly, are 1) HIS sources have been lost or destroyed, and 2) He has been known to be incomplete or biased at times. He was still probably the most thorough Roman historian.

So you'll happily use Josephus to credit pilate existing and how he acted - but not how he acted with Jesus.

You cant make this up - or maybe you can?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

You just provided yourself one.

That only tells us he existed. I was after your facts of how he acted? The actual facts as you called them.
The actual facts of pilate detailing his character, that you used to argue against the death of jesus story?

 

[Frothingslosh]

So you'll happily use Josephus to credit pilate existing and how he acted - but not how he acted with Jesus.

You cant make this up - or maybe you can?

Or perhaps you should learn to read. I simply said that the accounts of his actions do not mesh the crucifixion story. Even had I been in error and there was no actual evidence of his existance whatsoever, that would still be true: the historians note that he showed nothing but contempt for Jews, while Christians sainted him.

Not that I expect you to understand that, seeing as ever since I started posting here two years ago, you have, for some reason, made it your life's goal to contest every single thing I ever say. Something tells me that were I to stop replying to you, your life would lose all meaning.

But yes, I absolutely will trust the word of scholars (note the plural) who confine themselves to facts as they know them over religious fanatics who make up supernatural fables and justify them with 'God told me so'. I also find more accuracy in the works of Euclid than I do Homer. Strange, that.

Edit: I will grant you this much. I did think that Tacitus lived right around 0 BCE, not 50 to 100 years later. So I guess I should thank you for making me look that up and learn otherwise. Still doesn't change the point I was making one whit, however.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Or perhaps you should learn to read. I simply said that the accounts of his actions do not mesh the crucifixion story. Even had I been in error and there was no actual evidence of his existance whatsoever, that would still be true: the historians note that he showed nothing but contempt for Jews, while Christians sainted him.

Not that I expect you to understand that, seeing as ever since I started posting here two years ago, you have, for some reason, made it your life's goal to contest every single thing I ever say. Something tells me that were I to stop replying to you, your life would lose all meaning.

You said the actual facts - as well you know. Don't pretend I didn't read it properly. - then used the "facts" to dismiss "religious stories".

When I challenge your views on facts and history - you call foul and get personal but a gang up on Blade is fine by you, your dubious histories necessarily trumping his.

My life goal is you - again - where's the evidence of that - even of my actions on this forum, what in 2 threads?



Really?

 

[Frothingslosh]

You said the actual facts - as well you know. Don't pretend I didn't read it properly. - then used the "facts" to dismiss "religious stories".

When I challenge your views on facts and history - you call foul and get personal but a gang up on Blade is fine by you, your dubious histories necessarily trumping his.

My life goal is you - again - where's the evidence of that - even of my actions on this forum, what in 2 threads?



Really?

You've a history of doing this with me, actually, in these discussion threads. Ofttimes you've posted contrary things for no other reason I could find than to do your damndest to prove me wrong at all costs. I've yet to see that behavior from you against anyone else.

When Blade continues to argue that the Bible is fact and that scientests are religious fanatics who worship science and are too closed-minded to accept facts, did you honestly expect people to just let him slide? I can't even see his posts and was rolling my eyes just at the things that are showing in the quotes.

Honestly, had it been anyone BUT you calling me on the records thing, I could accept it was done out of a desire to set the record straight. (Also, as mentioned above, I thought Tacitus WAS contemporary!) You, however, seem to make a career out of trying to prove my every post wrong during your posting spurts, which is why I have little patience with you. I never see you actually trying to contribute, just trying to tear people down.

If you had actually wanted to contribute, you would simply have posted data of your own proving me wrong (as Galaxiom has done before), rather than attacking me right out of the gate:

So you cherry pick which non contemporary source trumps the other. Or indeed you cherry pick the same sources to believe bits and bobs of them, and use that to fit your beliefs?!?

The fact that you launched directly into the personal attack indicated an axe to grind for some reason, much like how Blade and I have so much difficulty being civil when talking directly to one another.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Oh my , Another Rivalry!

Calm down boys.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Oh my , Another Rivalry!

Calm down boys.

Nah, if I start getting really annoyed, I'm just ignoring him. I don't need that shit right now.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Probably best mate - Hope all is okay.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I don't need that shit right now.

I thought you did, which is why I caught you with your pants down?

I understand now though - its what you do when you talk?


Bothering to check what facts you were relying on, when I first questioned them, would have allowed you to admit your mistake earlier, and not led to any of this nastyiness.

You control that my friend.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I wasn't the one who started with the personal attacks right off - that was all you. You set the tone, not me. Had you simply pointed out that the only contemporary source was the stone, and NOT Tacitus, and done so without immediately launching into a personal attack, you'd have gotten something along "Oh, crap, really?"

And my point still stands. You were quibbling over something that honestly wasn't relevent to the point at hand.

I also note that even now, you can't lay off the personal attacks.