Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins in shock ‘archaeological evidence’ claim over Messiah

[rietrot]

The success of the American Televangelists is evidence that there's no shortage of dumb people, who all "study" the Word.

I agree. There's also no shortage of intelligent people.

 

[daveza]

When I grew up it was though shalt not kill.

That didn't suit the agenda so it became murder instead of kill.

Amazing how the interpretation of a single word can change so much.

 

[noxibox]

When I grew up it was though shalt not kill.

That didn't suit the agenda so it became murder instead of kill.

Amazing how the interpretation of a single word can change so much.

Greed is supposed to be bad too. But Christians seem to conveniently forget that when ruthlessly pursuing wealth.

I thought scripture taught that nobody is or was blameless, ever?

That's a Christian interpretation, that everyone is essentially born evil and the concept of original sin. Similarly they have a totally different concept of hell and the consequences of not following their god's rules to Judaism. One reason for these differences could be that Christianity is ultimately a proselytising religion. That is a possible explanation for the choice of interpretation. That means it won't work if you tell people that one way or another they'll eventually end up in heaven, which is effectively what Jews believe.

I'm okay with some forms of slavery. It will really solve our unemployment issues. As long as it is consentsual.

It isn't employment and so will not solve an unemployment problem.

Infanticide, I geuss you are a pro abortion hypocrite. Only having a problem with it when it suits you.

Well at least everyone can be hypocrites together, because those opposed to abortion are generally quite happy to kill the already born.

There's no sexism in traditional gender roles and having the man as the head of the household.

There is sexism in forcing people into roles and preventing them doing something else.

And then the same hypocrites call Christians crazy(always Christians for some reason never Jews or Muslims, food for thought)

Only in the minds of Christians who think everyone is out to get them. Which they seemed to think even when they controlled everything. But you're wrong. Those who think religions are crazy don't restrict themselves to Christianity. Some people just have more exposure to Christianity and first hand experience of Christians' desire to force their religion on everyone when given the chance.

the moment the anti-Christian movement succeeds in converting the world is when they will also probably be so blind that they will be irredeemable.

Why anti-Christian? You're making the unfounded assumption that Christians aren't one of the irredeemable failures.

But it does stand up to scrutiny. You know it is the most studied literature in the world and only a handful of people on the Internet have their own made up problems with it.

The Bible has not stood up to scrutiny. But even if it had proven to match actual historical events there'd still be no proof whatsoever for the supernatural claims. When it comes to the New Testament we have four gospels, three of which were probably all based on a single source, rather than being three separate accounts, and all four of which were written long after Jesus died and in all likelihood by people who never met the man. But there again even if it had all been written by people who were around him when he was alive that wouldn't tell us anything. We know that fanatics will make all manner of extravagant claims about their charismatic leader.

 

[noxibox]

Quite clever that "Word" - it predicted that its content wouldn't easily stand up to scrutiny, so it tries to condition its adherents to the inevitable challenges.

It is actually quite clever. The way we were taught was that people doubting the veracity of the Bible was proof that it was true. They also taught us that the Bible was internally consistent and that this was further proof that it was true. That was pretty convincing when I was 6. Later I realised that it being internally consistent didn't mean anything. But it isn't really internally consistent anyway. We were also taught that all the events in the Bible really happened and had been verified. And that every prophecy had happened as predicted. Neither of which were true.

 

[copacetic]

Changed mass to to space, technical error.

But other than pointing and laughing is there any actual critisism worth responding to other than "stupidhead stupidhead"?

The only point I'd make, in relation to Christian young earth creationism, is that I'd imagine a given young earth creationist views the evidence through the lens of their belief (which we all do, to one extent or another). I would also assume that a YEC holds the same view of belief systems that are mutually exclusive to their own as I do of theirs. Once we've reached this point, and realise it's faith driving the assessment of evidence, then it is difficult to have an objective discussion about it, in my experience.

 

[rambo919]

They all false gods to someone so who wins?

No one?

 

[rambo919]

The only point I'd make, in relation to Christian young earth creationism, is that I'd imagine a given young earth creationist views the evidence through the lens of their belief (which we all do, to one extent or another). I would also assume that a YEC holds the same view of belief systems that are mutually exclusive to their own as I do of theirs. Once we've reached this point, and realise it's faith driving the assessment of evidence, then it is difficult to have an objective discussion about it, in my experience.

It's always difficult, actual thinking is supposed to be. My problem is I see no point in conversing with people that only end up trolling as soon as they cant win an argument the way they want to.

I have in the past kept a open mind to opposing views and under own power rejected them as unsound. I have even in the past held those opposing views until I saw they were either faulty or utter frauds. I was a happy little brainwashed twit at one time and then I woke the f-k up, I can't say being awake is a happy experience but going back to sleep is impossible.

I know I am disagreeing with what is essentially a pantheon of modern gods, that I am poking the eye of other religions. It's their choice to engage me on a childish level and it's my choice to dismiss them and their obviously empty barbs.

 

[TysonRoux]

Only in the minds of Christians who think everyone is out to get them. Which they seemed to think even when they controlled everything. But you're wrong. Those who think religions are crazy don't restrict themselves to Christianity. Some people just have more exposure to Christianity and first hand experience of Christians' desire to force their religion on everyone when given the chance.

Its the mindset of the more people doing it, is more confirmation that its the right thing to do.

 

[rambo919]

Only in the minds of Christians who think everyone is out to get them. Which they seemed to think even when they controlled everything. But you're wrong. Those who think religions are crazy don't restrict themselves to Christianity. Some people just have more exposure to Christianity and first hand experience of Christians' desire to force their religion on everyone when given the chance.

It's more difficult to not see than see. Most of the actual attacks on the "Christian God" are attacks on JEWISH books.
I think the first time I really noticed this was when trying to watch the incoherent drivel that is Zeitgeist, the idiot kept attacking the "Christian Bible" with references to the Old Testament..... The flood, the cleansing of the corrupt cities.... ALL in the Old Testament but always the attacks are on the "Christian God".

This reflects a certain irrational bias towards Christianity specifically, all of progresivism is against Christianity instead of for somethings specific even to the point of allying with Islam which is a MUCH more violent religion than either Christianity or Judaism. The only rational conclusion is the actual current goal of progresivism is the end of Christianity at all costs.

That is not to say that as soon as Christianity seems beaten they won't turn on the Jews as well.

Why anti-Christian? You're making the unfounded assumption that Christians aren't one of the irredeemable failures.

Depends on what you mean by Christianity, all organized versions of Christianity have failed because it eventually became about politics and ego. The fundamental core itself remains untarnished because it is incompatible with the world.... which is kind of the point of the religion itself, to transcend the world while in the world. Christianity was NEVER actually meant to be organized, it was meant to be peer to peer so to speak with no absolute leaders. The moment you have an absolute mortal leader is the moment someone begins to worship him which is idolatry.

 

[rambo919]

When I grew up it was though shalt not kill.

That didn't suit the agenda so it became murder instead of kill.

Amazing how the interpretation of a single word can change so much.

Nothing about agenda, it is logically inconsistent within the same book nevemind the rest. It's either an obvious mistranslation or the translaters did not see it as an actual problem and moved on.

 

[copacetic]

It's always difficult, actual thinking is supposed to be. My problem is I see no point in conversing with people that only end up trolling as soon as they cant win an argument the way they want to.

I understand this, but there are people willing to talk about these things peacefully. With respect to winning the argument, that was part of my point - It's not really possible to 'win' a discussion that ultimately revolves around faith (and from the perspective of each party, I understand both fundamentally believe the other to be driven by faith first, evidence second and the latter profoundly coloured by the former).

I have in the past kept a open mind to opposing views and under own power rejected them as unsound. I have even in the past held those opposing views until I saw they were either faulty or utter frauds. I was a happy little brainwashed twit at one time and then I woke the f-k up, I can't say being awake is a happy experience but going back to sleep is impossible.

I understand this, and in many ways feel the same. For what it is worth, and in case it was not obvious, I am a non-believer (specifically, I lack belief in a lot of things, not to be confused with professing an active disbelief in the existence of a particular version of reality). But as you are clearly aware, per your comment below, you acknowledge that essentially we all feel a similar way in a general sense, although the details obviously differ enormously from person to person and culture to culture. I do sometimes wish I believed in something as comforting as surviving death, etc, but I simply cannot see any reason to think it's possible.

I know I am disagreeing with what is essentially a pantheon of modern gods, that I am poking the eye of other religions. It's their choice to engage me on a childish level and it's my choice to dismiss them and their obviously empty barbs.

At the end of the day, the best case scenario is that out of every religious and/or philosophical belief system that have mutually exclusive claims regarding reality, either one is right, or none are/we simply cannot know. I'm in the we cannot know camp for the most part, although I do tend to reject claims for which the evidence is clearly insufficient, while making an effort to be as objective as possible. Ultimately, the only difference between me and an extremely devout religious person is that we have exactly the same views on religions, aside from one religion, theirs, which 90% of the time happens to coincide with their history, geography and culture, which to me, is quite telling.

 

[Splinter]

Very basic logic.
Do you really want me to quote Bible verses.

Please. I'm not what you would call an avid reader of the bible.

 

[Splinter]

Most of that scrutiny is disengenous or hubristic though, generally falling back to childish mockery when it fails.

What, you mean after you ignore logic and common sense, and then resort to name calling yourselves?

 

[rambo919]

What, you mean after you ignore logic and common sense, and then resort to name calling yourselves?

Nope, if I call someone a troll..... I actually think he's a troll.

 

[Splinter]

But it does stand up to scrutiny. You know it is the most studied literature in the world and only a handful of people on the Internet have their own made up problems with it.

How does it stand up to exactly what scrutiny? By theologians?

 

[Splinter]

Nope, if I call someone a troll..... I actually think he's a troll.

But it's not like you are biased or anything...

 

[Splinter]

I sometimes wonder if people get so righteous about the people so corrupted that they had to be wiped out to spare the rest of creation because they suspect they too are corrupted to that point.

What you conveniently overlook is that these "righteous people" do not believe that your god "wiped out"the rest of the world to "spare the rest of creation".

Quick question - the American Indians in North America and the Inca's in South America - do you believe they were "wiped out" in this biblical flood?

 

[rambo919]

I understand this, but there are people willing to talk about these things peacefully. With respect to winning the argument, that was part of my point - It's not really possible to 'win' a discussion that ultimately revolves around faith (and from the perspective of each party, I understand both fundamentally believe the other to be driven by faith first, evidence second and the latter profoundly coloured by the former).

I start with a certain level of respect for everyone, but once I realise someone is not worth engaging with I just don't. Don't cast pearls to swine as the verse goes.

I understand this, and in many ways feel the same. For what it is worth, and in case it was not obvious, I am a non-believer (specifically, I lack belief in a lot of things, not to be confused with professing an active disbelief in the existence of a particular version of reality). But as you are clearly aware, per your comment below, you acknowledge that essentially we all feel a similar way in a general sense, although the details obviously differ enormously from person to person and culture to culture. I do sometimes wish I believed in something as comforting as surviving death, etc, but I simply cannot see any reason to think it's possible.

The thing there is in this thread specifically I have actually made an effort to only argue from a position of logic and science to the best of my ability. I have actually used my brain instead of just spouting prescribed dogma.... which is easy since I know of no actual current church in the country that has not been corrupted and have always had to do my own thinking. Whether one believes in a global flood is a completely compartmentalized issue from why it happened. Whether someone else believes in something like life after death is their business, I sometimes give a few pointers but that's it, I have never seen that as my role for whatever it matters.

At the end of the day, the best case scenario is that out of every religious and/or philosophical belief system that have mutually exclusive claims regarding reality, either one is right, or none are/we simply cannot know. I'm in the we cannot know camp for the most part, although I do tend to reject claims for which the evidence is clearly insufficient, while making an effort to be as objective as possible. Ultimately, the only difference between me and an extremely devout religious person is that we have exactly the same views on religions, aside from one religion, theirs, which 90% of the time happens to coincide with their history, geography and culture, which to me, is quite telling.

As the saying goes "you cannot argue someone into heaven", the arguments are a necessary component yes but it is quite impossible to explain the immaterial by material means.

90% is rather overstating it, especially considering past waves of conversion. If that current dogma was true then almost no one would ever convert unless force was used and almost all of christian converts are caused by non-violent means as well as usually being violently persecuted like currently in china though not as harshly as the muslims. Yes there are exceptions like the initial russian conversion.... but then again everything russia does seems to be with force.

I do also remember a story of a cardinal attempting to argue a rabbi into cathlochism... eventually he just gave up and had him killed.... anyone that thinks the catholic church is christian needs to have his head read.

 

[TysonRoux]

Nope, if I call someone a troll..... I actually think he's a troll.

Many think like that, but it doesn't mean they're right.

 

[rambo919]

But it's not like you are biased or anything...

Nope I don't use it as a petty insult, I use it as a statement of fact based observation of past behavior.

What you conveniently overlook is that these "righteous people" do not believe that your god "wiped out"the rest of the world to "spare the rest of creation".

Quick question - the American Indians in North America and the Inca's in South America - do you believe they were "wiped out" in this biblical flood?

They did not exist before the flood, the are likely descendants of Shem.... also they too have a flood story.