If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discovery)   Evidence of Jesus' existence found   (dsc.discovery.com) divider line 567
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

142 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Oct 2002 at 2:50 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



567 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-10-22 12:26:50 AM
My faith isn't based on Pascal's Wager...and I hope that's not the only reason people would believe in God. I was merely pointing out that within the system of Pascal's Wager, atheism isn't a logical choice. How one should apply that to real life is up to the individual.
 
2002-10-22 12:27:01 AM
BigAl

As a christian I say you are a dumass, calling the bible a fairy-tale book, while the jewish religion's holy book is the tora which includes the first 5 books of the bible.
 
2002-10-22 12:27:13 AM
Cleoric,

Actually, you can't really have a point since you have removed yourself from rational discussion, ace. Incidentally, rational discussion is the only kind worth having.

Bevets,

Pascal's Wager is not intended to prove the Truth of Christianity. It is concerned with ONLY one criteria to consider: 'If I am wrong, what have I lost?' Many have suggested that the Christian moral code caused Christians to miss out on some of lifes great pleasures. Pascal would disagree.

Well, let's say you agree with Pascal. You die. Surprise! Islam was right, have fun in hell. No matter how you twist what he said, Pascal still offers a false dilemma.
 
2002-10-22 12:28:34 AM
10-22-02 12:18:52 AM Bevets:

You do understand that by quoting scripture on end, you are STILL employing circular logic? The bible is correct because it say's so?

Please give us something that says it's so!
 
2002-10-22 12:29:46 AM
Strathcoma,

Bevets is well aware of this deficiency and freely admits it on his webpage.
 
2002-10-22 12:30:53 AM
I'm generally intersted in where people's spiritual journeys began in their lives. There has to come a point in your existence wherein making the choice to follow a certain path is the result of circumstance, be it situational or mystical. I'm curious to know where any of you who are willing to explain it began your quests.
 
2002-10-22 12:31:51 AM
This may be a fallacy but please give us something that says it isn't so!
 
2002-10-22 12:32:47 AM
Anagrammer,/b.
Since Bevets is quoting his favorite bible passages, I thought I'd do the same (click to read them):

If you are going to quote Bible texts ( or other texts for that matter ) at least quote them in context and don't just pick a few words here and there to prove your point.
 
2002-10-22 12:32:56 AM
On a side note, how come everyone flames christianity, but noone says a damn thing about any other religion?
 
2002-10-22 12:34:31 AM
Arrgh - HTML...failing. Bold text everywhere..... :)
 
2002-10-22 12:34:32 AM
Artemis:

I don't know if you were addressing me just now, but I don't have any answers. I can't say with any conviction that anything is or isn't so, metaphysically speaking. I simply don't have those credentials.
 
2002-10-22 12:35:55 AM
Bevets is well aware of this deficiency and freely admits it on his webpage.


So He's into blind obedience?

R.

 
2002-10-22 12:37:31 AM
NorthVenticle

I suggest you go to straightdope.com. Go to the message board. Search the Great Debates forum, or just browse. Very interesting stuff...I believe there is thread on that very topic...have fun :)
 
2002-10-22 12:37:53 AM
Artemis9867,

On a side note, how come everyone flames christianity, but noone says a damn thing about any other religion?

Probably has something to do with recruiting practices and the flat out belligerence of the average Christian.

Darth_shatner,

If you are going to quote Bible texts ( or other texts for that matter ) at least quote them in context and don't just pick a few words here and there to prove your point.

Because we all know quoting within the proper context is so important, right Bevets?

Strathcoma,

So He's into blind obedience?

In a word, yes.
 
2002-10-22 12:37:56 AM
I don't think anyone has the credentials to say what is right and what is wrong leftstomach.
 
2002-10-22 12:41:30 AM
Trom:

I appreciate the referral, thanks. I shall indeed check it out. What I find here though is a great number of very skilled conversationalists who all seem to be playing poker. Is it so difficult to imagine that this might be a place where even one (over heeeeere!!!) might want to know a bit about what lies beneath the rampant fires? Well, if you were me, I think you'd say no.
 
2002-10-22 12:44:03 AM
Artemis, would it be safe to say that God is an omnipotent being?
 
2002-10-22 12:44:13 AM
Well, sciencehit, that makes two of us. At least from a view of authority figures standpoint...
(nice one btw - I just had a brain fart and couldn't recall your namesake's contemporaries just now)
 
2002-10-22 12:45:16 AM
Yes, I believe god to be omnipotent.
 
2002-10-22 12:46:28 AM
Well than, could he create a stone so large that even he could not lift it? Because, if he can't lift it he is not omnipotent!
 
2002-10-22 12:47:24 AM
Artemis, do you believe in the existence of a real place that is Hell?
 
2002-10-22 12:47:35 AM
Voodoospork

"Probably has something to do with recruiting practices and the flat out belligerence of the average Christian."

Funny you should mention blligerence. As you portray yourself as hostile towards those who are opposed to you.

"Actually, you can't really have a point since you have removed yourself from rational discussion, ace. Incidentally, rational discussion is the only kind worth having."

Saying I am removed does not make it so. You are not God (haha)

I made it clear from the beginning that tangential coversation is my forte, and made no excuses. I do, however, believe that what I say has a valid place in this conversation, and I would appreciate it if you would allow some room here for more than your overinflated ego. Thanks!
 
2002-10-22 12:48:06 AM
Artemis9867,

I don't think anyone has the credentials to say what is right and what is wrong leftstomach.

Obviously you think someone does, or you wouldn't be a Christian.

Yes, I believe god to be omnipotent.


Define omnipotence for me please. Don't say "all-powerful" or "perfect in power." Tell me how it works, what mechanism would God use to make something happen?
 
2002-10-22 12:48:38 AM
Furthermore, if he can't create it, he is also not omnipotent. Meaning he is not the greatest conceivable being, so by definition he does not have to exist.
 
2002-10-22 12:48:46 AM
So He's into blind obedience?

In a word, yes.


COOL! I thought that went out in the middle ages!
 
2002-10-22 12:50:59 AM
Is God able and willing to stop evil?

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malvolent.
Is he willing, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he willing and able? Then we wouldn't have evil.
Is he unwilling and unable? Then there's no reason to call him god.
 
2002-10-22 12:51:10 AM
im waaay late on the scene, but curious as to those people that have said that it is 'assumed' that jesus existed and that the tag is wrong because there are known mentions on jesus in literature of the time ... cause i cant be bothered reading thru the farkING INFINITE number of comments can anyone give me any references to look up to actually show that this is the case? from my reading, there isnt any mention of jesus anywhere in the works of the time, which is pretty shabby for a apparent son of god ... in theory there should be heaps given who he apparently was, but in addition to the endless fallacies of the bible itself, people still insist on believing that a man called jesus existed, and was the son of god blah blah blah ... *sigh* ... cmon people, the human race is never gonna get anywhere if we keep holding ourselves back with shiat like this ...
 
2002-10-22 12:51:59 AM
Rex:

That's impolite and a very base attack on people's faith. It undermines those of us who are trying to have a real discussion. I'd like to know the answer to a more serious question if I may be permitted.
 
2002-10-22 12:52:05 AM
Cleoric,

Funny you should mention blligerence. As you portray yourself as hostile towards those who are opposed to you.

I apologize if I sound hostile, sometimes my frustration at the simplicity of this leaks through.

Saying I am removed does not make it so. You are not God (haha)

You have admitted that you cannot support your argument with logic. This removes you from rational conversation.
 
2002-10-22 12:53:46 AM
"Define omnipotence for me please. Don't say "all-powerful" or "perfect in power." Tell me how it works, what mechanism would God use to make something happen?"

I'd like to see an imperfect being comprehend something like this too. Oh, that's not going to happen. Some things you can't explain. Like how the universe was created. Where'd all the matter come from? Where'd the big bang come from? IT doesn't. No one knows.
 
2002-10-22 12:53:53 AM
you know pagainritual, thats just the sort of attitude that relaly gets me (and probaly some others) real annoyed. You give no respect for my beliefs, and yet, expect some for your own? You made a decision based on the infromation you had, i respect that, i made a decision base don the same information, but it was a different one, why can't you respect that? If i'm wrong here, and you do actually respect it, i may have read your post wrong, and i apologise many times over. So, sorry if i mesread you.
 
2002-10-22 12:55:33 AM
Pagan:

Bear in mind that in the days of Jesus, were any writings of this messianic figure to have surfaced outside of sacred texts, they probably wouldn't have survived the wrath of the Roman Empire. The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves were hidden far away for well over 1900 years.

This coming from a bloody agnostic! Sweet Suffering Somebody
 
2002-10-22 12:56:18 AM
NorthVentricle,

That's impolite and a very base attack on people's faith. It undermines those of us who are trying to have a real discussion. I'd like to know the answer to a more serious question if I may be permitted.

The style may be simplistic, but the question is valid. It proves that the concept of omnipotence has no cognitive value. You can really apply this to any of the attributes assigned to God. The implication is that if you don't understand an attribute, you cannot assign it. If we can't assign any attributes to God, we have no concept of God. Worshipping something that you have no concept of sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
 
2002-10-22 12:57:35 AM
"You have admitted that you cannot support your argument with logic. This removes you from rational conversation."

But that is not all I have contributed here. *shrug*

"I apologize if I sound hostile, sometimes my frustration at the simplicity of this leaks through."

I can understand that, but understand this: I feel the same way. And I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum. Just keep that in mind, you may not get so frustrated.
 
2002-10-22 12:58:26 AM
Voodoospork You ask someone what mechanism God would use...
This is your idea of 'rational conversation'?
 
2002-10-22 12:59:59 AM
Bevets:

Arguing with you is like trying to argue with a brick. Using the bible as your SOLE source of proof is getting old. You arn't making any sense by saying God exsits because the Bible says so. The Koran says Allah is the only one true God, so what makes it wrong? The Bible? Not according to the Koran. Therefore, it must be right. But, what about the Bhagavad Gita? It says that IT is the only holy text that is right. I could quote passages from either all day long, but it doesnt make it any more right, does it?
 
2002-10-22 01:00:09 AM
Cleoric,

I'd like to see an imperfect being comprehend something like this too. Oh, that's not going to happen. Some things you can't explain. Like how the universe was created. Where'd all the matter come from? Where'd the big bang come from? IT doesn't. No one knows.

See my above post for the first half. As for the second half, (sigh) explaining a current mystery with the unexplainable really is poor form. The sad part is that when these "unexplainable" phenomena are explained, people like you won't even remember to feel stupid over these arguments.
 
2002-10-22 01:01:08 AM
LogicsFist:

"Yes, but I am not trying to justify the Bible through logicical deduction."

Yet you expect evolutionists to justify their theories using standards that you will not follow. That seems a bit cowardiced. If you are willing to accept your beliefs based solely on faith then how can you possibly expect others to do any differently? If I say that I believe in evolution based only on faith then what argument do you have? Are you a hippocrate if you still discount evolution?

"As our understanding goes now, those forces that Darwinism ascribes to creating the diversity of life have not been shown to be the creative masterpieces that was proposed in the theory. Rather than defending the theory ad hoc, try and consider that it may actually be wrong...and work from there. You might just discover the real truth - by that religion, more science, or anything. Refusing to consider evidence to the contrary or a lack of evidence is not science."

While there are plenty of athiests who may accept evolution unquestioned, I have not met many scientists or learned people who share this view. The whole reason for science is to continue to question and learn. The fact is that most christians (or members of any other religion) are not willing or are unable to question their beliefs. You hide behind "faith".
 
2002-10-22 01:02:28 AM
Cheeseburger,

Voodoospork You ask someone what mechanism God would use...
This is your idea of 'rational conversation'?


I will spell this out one more time.
If you don't understand an attribute, you cannot assign that attribute. If you don't understand what omnipotence is, you cannot say God is omnipotent. Simple, no?
 
2002-10-22 01:05:43 AM
So the big bang, and it's associated evolution is unexplainable phenomena... Just like God. So really, when you say such things as you get frustrated over such a simple matter, you know you are in the same shoes as us. You have just as little to base your ideas on as we do?

Then saying I'll feel stupid over something... that's poor form. When you admit you have no substance.
 
2002-10-22 01:05:53 AM
Voodoospork:

The question itself may be valid, but the style in which it is asked is combattive. Not argumentative, but designed to put a person of faith on the defensive. I guess you could call me a spiritual democrat. Every side in my opinion has the duty to defend their viewpoint, with the benefit of not having to answer loaded questions. Reasonable questions, complex questions, certainly.

I thought of my own question in this manner, but with a far wider decisive bent. It goes like this:
(1) Is Hell a real place, not just a boogeyman story? (a little rhetoric, I apologise)
(2) Is God omni-present, that is, is He in all places at all times? (anyone who would purport the god of their faith to be all knowing and all powerful would have to be all being as well, "Q.E.D." to quote Douglas Adams)
(3) Does God exist in Hell?

I've had so many answers to this question you wouldn't believe it. The ones I truly weed out as worthy of my respect concede that yes, He would exist there. Punishment may be reserved for the wicked, so it goes, but none are ever truly forsaken.
 
2002-10-22 01:08:37 AM
Voodoospork No.

"The universe is big."

Please pick that statement apart.
 
2002-10-22 01:08:45 AM
Well the thing about Hell and God existing there NV, is the bit about Hell not existing. Well, if you base your christianity off of the Bible that is. There is no eternal suffering for sinners.
 
2002-10-22 01:09:29 AM
Ffenliv : what beliefs? what information? im not sure i follow. you sound like you are saying we have come to opposing 'decisions' based on the same information. again, what information? youve read the same books i have that have said that there is no mention of jesus anywhere, and yet come to the conclusion that he existed instead of mine that he didnt?

so effectively you are saying that you havent found anything mentioning jesus in the works of the time as well, but think that this means he existed??? im kinda lost.

i believe that its a bad idea to in believe anything. thats a paraphrase of someone whose name i cant remember, but its pretty much something i agree with. assumption is the mother of all farkups. there is another one im keen on. the best way to make a mistake is to have pre-set notions of what is going on. thats a re-wording i just made up that effectively says the same thing.

dont get me wrong, i respect your right to make a decision, but i fail to see how i should respect the decision itself. get as annoyed as you like, ill try to hide the fact that i dont care as much as possible.

at the same time, id like to distance myself from the morons that say 'well, if god is such and such, how does he work?' ... you cant ask someone to explain how something they believe in thru faith works, and then say that they must be wrong because they cant explain their god. thats just stupid. id prefer to point out that they are believing truths with nothing to back up that point of view to begin with. it tends to get people quite 'annoyed'.
 
2002-10-22 01:13:21 AM
Cheeseburger invites a good point.

You can't assign an attribute to infinity, yet it's all over our very scientific theories, etc.
 
2002-10-22 01:13:43 AM
An artist's rendering of Pascal's Wager:

 
2002-10-22 01:14:44 AM
Cleoric:

are you suggesting that common culture has warped the words of its most sacred text, and invented such devices as a scare-them-straight story?

How odd, that.

(sorry, my sarcasm filter is clogged...sometimes the crap gets through...no disrespect though)
 
2002-10-22 01:17:23 AM
Well, if'n you'd point me in the direction of a text that refers to Hell as a place where human souls are tortured for eternity, I'd be happy to take that into consideration.
 
2002-10-22 01:19:15 AM
I should clarify, Bible text (i hate no edit feature)
 
2002-10-22 01:19:16 AM
I will admit that I am not familiar with the text, but Dante's Inferno is often quoted as just such a piece. I do as always stand to be corrected, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 567 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report