Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

[ConnorGiles]

and we just got through and proved the book (Bible) was retransscribed to a level of integrity that if done today without a computer and word processor would be hard to match. Out of 800 dead sea scrolls there were 200 of which contained religious books of the past and these match word for word (-17 words) what is kept (where-ever they keep them) for prosperity. I guess you do not believe these are credible either?

For starts, Not too hard to match. All it takes is some ink and a parchment and a person to tell you what to write. Credible evidence needs evidence, again I will stress if I employed 100s of people back in those days to write the whole book of narnia (If it existed back then) in ink and parchment word for word then by your logic it is a credible historic evidence.

Is this guy not credible? I mean the discoverer. You trust Steven Hawkins---yes when he tells you the THEORY of evolution, relativity, etc. and the physics it brought with it. p.s. a THEORY is not proven either and is just one step above a Hypothesis.

Well who is the psychic now? How do you know I trust him?

A lot of the things Stephen Hawkins has explained has been shown and backed with some sort of physical evidence, Your religion relies on a book and scraps of perceived evidence via Jesus on a pancake I have no problem with your religion but since your proclaiming evidence rather then a theory then I would like to see credible evidence to back it up.

Yet, here you go and discredit a piece that was found, published and to my knowledge was not discredited by anyone other that those that say the same as you do.

It is sad!

Blade

With only a morsel of googling, I found that many people have discredited this book

You won't find what you're not looking for.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Evidence of Absence: What is this mumbo-jumbo piece of crapola. What does it even mean ........You would make a good politician my friend.

Thanks, I guess? Although having no intentions on being a politician.

"I'm not saying "A" Jesus never lived. I'm sure he did. But the Jesus to which you refer. Highly doubtful. ".............If you read the book yuo will discover that it is this Jesus that went through the same obstacles as the Jesus in the Bible did and that this Jesus did indeed have a multitude of followers. In fact, he is the most celebrated man in the history of mankind.

I can quite safely say that this book will only reinforce what "apparently" happened. I bet this Jesus fellow thinks the joke went too far Darn April fools!

Keep in mind before these previous post, Jesus did not exist in your eyes and probably still does not.

I was giving an example of Modes Tollus. As I have said, I believe someone named Jesus probably existed. But surely don't believe he was the son of a deity.

Come-on put 2 and 2 together. you do it all the time in the scientific ring.

I have given you article after article and for one reason or another it has not been good enough. It reminds me of a sci-fi thriller where a computer (far advanced to ours) would not accept anything from the outside that might suggest that it had made even the tiniest mistake, finally had to turn the damn thing off before it killed everybody. As with you and the other DEFOUT Atheist, no article nor anybody regardless of their knowledge, learned capabilites nor the statute among their piers, etc. is going to be good enough for you to have even the tiniest doubt concerning your Idealology concerning religion and the Christian faith. I say Christian because the two others were written well after 300 AD and conveniently included copies of the original five books, only rewritten to the advantage of their religion. A topic for later post.

Your "articles" haven't been the essence of reliability when it comes to bias Blade. To make a good argument you need to consider both sides of the fence rather then just your own. Your "Articles" show that you have a swayed opinion.

 

[Libre]

Blade

If you read the book yuo will discover that it is this Jesus that went through the same obstacles as the Jesus in the Bible did and that this Jesus did indeed have a multitude of followers. In fact, he is the most celebrated man in the history of mankind.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. He may be celebrated, but it's the claims that Jesus was something MORE than a man that cause people who don't believe in super-beings or magic to raise objections.

In fact, the claims that Jesus was a deity are at the root of the disagreement. He may have claimed to be (or maybe not) but certainly many others claimed that he was, and that he performed miracles and otherwise displayed powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. The problem here is, if he DID exist at all (and I don't deny it), there is no proof that he did have these capabilities and there is no proof that he performed these miracles - there are only accounts of people who knew people who knew people who supposedly saw ... something. Total here say - (as well as, perhaps, heresy). But by any objective measure, if Jesus Christ walked the earth at all, he looked remarkably the same as any other man who has ever existed. Are we to take the written accounts of Hercules, Thor, Odysseus, and Spiderman as fact? Not I, for one. Yes, many of us are "faithless". We're the ones that don't believe everything we hear and read, or in fact, anything at all, if it doesn't at least pass the test of reason.

 

[Galaxiom]

He created everything the first day including the Sun, Moon stars and everything else in the universe and beyond. In Genesis 14 through 16 he was not creating that which had already been created. "Let it be" does not mean created.

Wrong again Blade.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty,

The sea and land were not even separated from each other until the third day.(Genesis 1:9)

Let and Creation are clearly on the same day.
For example on the fifth day:

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it,

 

[Galaxiom]

Genesis 1:1,2 states......".In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2)And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

We can use your version of Genesis 1:2 if you prefer.

"Without form and void". Does that sound like everything had already been created?

 

[Galaxiom]

THe theory of Relativity is the same,,,,,,,,no without fact it is an opinion.

No. Relativity is backed up by vast numbers of observations. Moreover it predicted what had yet to be observed. The accuracy of such predictions are what elevates a hypothesis to a theory.

Therefore the creation by God should at least be a theory and not a false hood.

No. God is a hypothesis. Moreover it is a failed hypothesis because it does not accurately describe that which is observed. Matching what is observed is the first requirement on the road to becoming a theory so the God hypothesis falls at the first hurdle.

Science, through the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics accurately describes the Universe from immediately after the first pixel of pure formless energy appears about 13.8 billon years ago.

Currently the only place left for creation is prior to that first pixel at a time of 10^-43 seconds after the beginning when the Universe was 10^-35 metres across.

The notion of personal hands-on detailed creation of each aspect of reality by a deity is dead. Indeed even the church finally acknowledged Evolution. It only took them 150 years. It was 400 years before they accepted heliocentricity.

 

[Hagridore]

I can't answer this poll because none of the options fit my view of the Divine. Of course, as a Panentheist/Pagan/Wiccan/New Thought/Reiki Master/Labyrinthian/Unitarian Universalist, it's a bit difficult to make a statement that DOES meet my view.

I like the words that I first heard from Unitarian Universalist minister and then-UUA President John Buehrens many years ago, "If you tell me about the God you don't believe in, I'll probably be able to honestly tell you I don't believe in that God either."

 

[Bladerunner]

For starts, Not too hard to match. All it takes is some ink and a parchment and a person to tell you what to write. Credible evidence needs evidence, again I will stress if I employed 100s of people back in those days to write the whole book of narnia (If it existed back then) in ink and parchment word for word then by your logic it is a credible historic evidence.

Well who is the psychic now? How do you know I trust him?

A lot of the things Stephen Hawkins has explained has been shown and backed with some sort of physical evidence, Your religion relies on a book and scraps of perceived evidence via Jesus on a pancake I have no problem with your religion but since your proclaiming evidence rather then a theory then I would like to see credible evidence to back it up.

With only a morsel of googling, I found that many people have discredited this book

You won't find what you're not looking for.

care to drop a link for that. will save me some time EH!

Is physical evidence Facts? then it would be a Law then not a Theory. The Bible Has God's word in it. Is it not physical evidence... Oh, you don't agree with it so it cannot be used. It is all there in front of you and yet you make a choice not to see it.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

For starts, Not too hard to match. All it takes is some ink and a parchment and a person to tell you what to write. Credible evidence needs evidence, again I will stress if I employed 100s of people back in those days to write the whole book of narnia (If it existed back then) in ink and parchment word for word then by your logic it is a credible historic evidence.

.

Hundreds,,,,back then there were not hundreds of people that were literate. Most of the time it was a scribe (single) that was charged with the job of copying word for word the bible or other manuscripts. They did a good job. The link I gave you about
the witness was just that. I have not researched it and had only come upon it when I link it to the post. However, is not the researcher credible. Evidently not---al least in you minds eye.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

I have no problem with your religion but since your proclaiming evidence rather then a theory then I would like to see credible evidence to back it up.

theory definition. In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

I believe the Bible at the very least fits this description, don't you?

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, I don't think anyone is disputing that. He may be celebrated, but it's the claims that Jesus was something MORE than a man that cause people who don't believe in super-beings or magic to raise objections.

In fact, the claims that Jesus was a deity are at the root of the disagreement. He may have claimed to be (or maybe not) but certainly many others claimed that he was, and that he performed miracles and otherwise displayed powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. The problem here is, if he DID exist at all (and I don't deny it), there is no proof that he did have these capabilities and there is no proof that he performed these miracles - there are only accounts of people who knew people who knew people who supposedly saw ... something. Total here say - (as well as, perhaps, heresy). But by any objective measure, if Jesus Christ walked the earth at all, he looked remarkably the same as any other man who has ever existed. Are we to take the written accounts of Hercules, Thor, Odysseus, and Spiderman as fact? Not I, for one. Yes, many of us are "faithless". We're the ones that don't believe everything we hear and read, or in fact, anything at all, if it doesn't at least pass the test of reason.

Libre, I don't really know how to respond? The last two pages have been about those that did not even believe Jesus existed and if he did he was not the one in the Bible.?????????????????????????????//

more later.
Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

However, is not the researcher credible.

The researcher may well be credible but they found an old document in the Vatican archives. That document has no provenance. Fake religious artifacts abound.

If the paper was carbon dated and it came up with a date in the first century it would help but the owners of antiquarian religious artifacts lost their enthusiasm for such investigation after the "Shroud of Turin" was conclusively shown to be a fake.

 

[Galaxiom]

theory definition. In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

I believe the Bible at the very least fits this description, don't you?

No. As I have already shown, the Bible is not consistent with observations of the real world.

 

[Bladerunner]

Wrong again Blade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty,
The sea and land were not even separated from each other until the third day.(Genesis 1:9)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.(2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I am not sure where you were going here except that I stated he created the Heaven and the Earth. When I said he created everything, I was referring to our conversation about the sun, moon and stars specifically LIGHT. He then is subsequent days went about creating all forms of life on Earth including Man and Woman.

The sea and land were not even separated from each other until the third day.(Genesis 1:9)

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.(10) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Let and Creation are clearly on the same day.
For example on the fifth day:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 1:20
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it,

Using your version, explains itself and does not need help. God decided that there would be living creatures in the waters and on the land and in verse 21 He CREATED them.

My (KJV) version is: Genesis 1: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 121) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

We can use your version of Genesis 1:2 if you prefer.

"Without form and void". Does that sound like everything had already been created?

OK, it was what I thought. see the previous post I made. Maybe that will clear it up. Not trying to trip you up here, just trying to be on the same page.


Blade\

 

[Bladerunner]

Science, through the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics accurately describes the Universe from immediately after the first pixel of pure formless energy appears about 13.8 billon years ago.

Currently the only place left for creation is prior to that first pixel at a time of 10^-43 seconds after the beginning when the Universe was 10^-35 metres across.

The notion of personal hands-on detailed creation of each aspect of reality by a deity is dead. Indeed even the church finally acknowledged Evolution. It only took them 150 years. It was 400 years before they accepted heliocentricity.

WIll look into the HYpothesis and THeory definition of yours.

Until then, Genesis does not give a time period other than day. It is evident that it is not our day nor was it the Greek day nor was it the Roman day, etc..

He created the heaven: is that not the universe and then he created the earth in that order. According to science it is in the same order. Why would he have not had time to modify and create all things on earth (in due time that is). Rem man did not come along until the sixth day.

Blade




darwinism (evolution) is false and has been shown to be false. Whether the church accepted darwonism (evolution) does not really matter. I can give you thousands of examples (facts) where evolution is not present.

 

[Libre]

Libre, I don't really know how to respond? The last two pages have been about those that did not even believe Jesus existed and if he did he was not the one in the Bible.?????????????????????????????//

more later.
Blade

I can't speak for anyone except myself - but - if the discussion is about whether a man known as Jesus Christ ever existed, that's one conversation. Maybe some dispute it - that's their prerogative I suppose. That discussion is on the same order as a discussion about whether a guy named William Shakespeare wrote the plays that are credited to him - which some people also dispute. A similar debate could be held about whether Mozart was poisoned or if he died of natural causes - probably consumption. These are conversations about some points of history, whether the books and accounts are accurate. It has some importance to some, as an academic quandary, but little beyond. Settling these questions would mean very little, in the scope of things - to the Big Picture.

Then there is another discussion - whether a man named Jesus Christ is actually the son of God, creator of the universe, and if so was he immaculately conceived, and later resurrected from the dead. Did this deity ascend to heaven, where he rules the universe jointly with his Dad and some other dude known as the "Holy Ghost" (I'm Jewish and understand little about all this, I admit). Now then, if THIS is the discussion, it's an entirely different conversation than the other one about history. This discussion, unlike the other, totally redefines the existence of every human, no, every organism on the face of the earth, where we came from, where we are going, and in short, impacts the world and its creatures in such a way as to be absolutely profound. It doesn't merely impact the Big Picture, it IS the Big Picture.

How these two conversations can be interwoven, confused, or interchanged, is beyond my comprehension.

To the first question, I say maybe, but so what? I could get interested, in an offhand way, as an intellectual diversion.

As to the second conjecture, that Christ worked miracles and is the actual son of the actual Creator of the universe, I can only say, it's sheer fantasy.

And that's my take on the subject.

 

[Bladerunner]

I can't speak for anyone except myself - but - if the discussion is about whether a man known as Jesus Christ ever existed, that's one conversation. Maybe some dispute it - that's their prerogative I suppose. That discussion is on the same order as a discussion about whether a guy named William Shakespeare wrote the plays that are credited to him - which some people also dispute. A similar debate could be held about whether Mozart was poisoned or if he died of natural causes - probably consumption. These are conversations about some points of history, whether the books and accounts are accurate. It has some importance to some, as an academic quandary, but little beyond. Settling these questions would mean very little, in the scope of things - to the Big Picture.

Then there is another discussion - whether a man named Jesus Christ is actually the son of God, creator of the universe, and if so was he immaculately conceived, and later resurrected from the dead. Did this deity ascend to heaven, where he rules the universe jointly with his Dad and some other dude known as the "Holy Ghost" (I'm Jewish and understand little about all this, I admit). Now then, if THIS is the discussion, it's an entirely different conversation than the other one about history. This discussion, unlike the other, totally redefines the existence of every human, no, every organism on the face of the earth, where we came from, where we are going, and in short, impacts the world and its creatures in such a way as to be absolutely profound. It doesn't merely impact the Big Picture, it IS the Big Picture.

How these two conversations can be interwoven, confused, or interchanged, is beyond my comprehension.

To the first question, I say maybe, but so what? I could get interested, in an offhand way, as an intellectual diversion.

As to the second conjecture, that Christ worked miracles and is the actual son of the actual Creator of the universe, I can only say, it's sheer fantasy.

And that's my take on the subject.

Well, while these two discussions are the different they are the same. As far as the history of Jesus, whether the books and accounts are accurate do matter and have a big impact on the big picture. We have a disagreement of whether he actually lived or not and if so does history coincide with the Bible (another history book that has been designated as being false). I have found out here, in most all cases, If the history book does backup the Bible, like the Bible, it becomes immediately false.

Your second paragraph actually means nothing if the man named Jesus did not exist. Even though there are a few historical writings (non-Biblical), written by non-believers, that show Jesus did perform miracles is of no use with the mindset of this thread. The Atheist here do not want to know nor do they want to hear any info that just might punch holes in their atheism. My Mistake........... The following is two of those historical accounts........


*Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome and great foe of Christianity, describes Jesus as one having done nothing in his lifetime worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal lame and blind people and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany. 7. McDowell, Josh 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict' Here's Life 1979 p.125

*from the Babylonian Talmud 43a. Babylonian Talmud (late first or second century AD) Babylonian Sanhedrin43a-b “On the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshu and the herald went before him for forty days saying [Yeshu] is going forth to be stoned in that he hate practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel Here Jesus is accused of sorcery, in obvious parallel with the charge leveled in Matthew 12:22-23. The writer of the Talmud does not agree that Jesus worked bona fide miracles, but he reports that he did things which, to the enemy of Jesus could only be written off as sorcery. Also, in Babylonian Sanhedrin107b it is claimed that Jesus practiced magic. In tHul2:22-23 it is reported that healings were done in the name of Jesus. So we have indirect confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus and of his working of public miracles-only charging that the miracles were worked by Satan, not God. (p.s. the indirect confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus was another part that is not here.)

Lets just close this thread down, since it is a repeat of itself.......there is no use to continue.

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

care to drop a link for that. will save me some time EH!

Is physical evidence Facts? then it would be a Law then not a Theory. The Bible Has God's word in it. Is it not physical evidence... Oh, you don't agree with it so it cannot be used. It is all there in front of you and yet you make a choice not to see it.

Blade

Google isn't too tricky - try the book in google and look at a few reviews.

I think Galaxiom cleared this one up for you, just some posts back.

I'll quote it for you - to save time EH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladerunner
THe theory of Relativity is the same,,,,,,,,no without fact it is an opinion.

No. Relativity is backed up by vast numbers of observations. Moreover it predicted what had yet to be observed. The accuracy of such predictions are what elevates a hypothesis to a theory.

Quote:
Therefore the creation by God should at least be a theory and not a false hood.

No. God is a hypothesis. Moreover it is a failed hypothesis because it does not accurately describe that which is observed. Matching what is observed is the first requirement on the road to becoming a theory so the God hypothesis falls at the first hurdle.

Science, through the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics accurately describes the Universe from immediately after the first pixel of pure formless energy appears about 13.8 billon years ago.

Currently the only place left for creation is prior to that first pixel at a time of 10^-43 seconds after the beginning when the Universe was 10^-35 metres across.

The notion of personal hands-on detailed creation of each aspect of reality by a deity is dead. Indeed even the church finally acknowledged Evolution. It only took them 150 years. It was 400 years before they accepted heliocentricity.

 

[ConnorGiles]

theory definition. In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

I believe the Bible at the very least fits this description, don't you?

Blade

Actually I withdraw my statement on religion being a theory.

It more fits a Hypothesis.

"Definition of hypothesis in English:
noun (plural hypotheses hʌɪˈpɒθɪsiːz)

1A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:"