Most Christians accept evolution

[kallend 1,679]

But the Iliad and Odyssey are every bit as credible as "evidence" as is the Bible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But the Iliad and Odyssey are every bit as credible as "evidence" as is the Bible.

If you've read my posts, you know that's a non-starter with me. I don't claim there is anything usable as evidence for those that are truly faithful, just for those that need to shore up a weak belief with self delusion. I'm apathetic agnostic - don't know, don't care.

As for Homer - I love those stories - much more exciting

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[deltron80 0]

Quote

I'm not real big on religious belief that emphasizes fear. That said, I know people who were helped by their belief in some religion or another -- it helped them to find an inner calm and community that they had been unable to find until that time.

They'd tried looking in other ways, and that one worked for them. Sometimes only for awhile, sometimes for longer.

I fail to see why denying an entire box of tools, in a system so complex (human psyche), is a good thing. Relying on only that box is also bad; just think about the kids (like you) who rebelled.

Wendy P.

Religion is not a 'tool' it is an intellectual cage. If anyone is using it as a tool it is those in power using it to control you.

You consistently defend religious beliefs that harm society. They do not help anyone. If someone thinks it helped them they are delusional.

People that sit on the fence between the two sides and make apologies for religious extremists might as well be extremists themselves.

By supporting this tripe in any way you are just validating and lending moral support to a morally and philosophically bankrupt system of thought control and I refuse to agree with any of that. The truth will always win in the end.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

religious extremists might as well be extremists themselves.

What do you call an extremist?


Muslim terrorists and abortion clinic bombers?
Just any organized church with buildings and corrupt leadership?
Missionaries that knock on your door?
Your neighbor that goes to church every Sunday and prays at every meal?
Your neighbor that churches every Sunday but that's about it, doesn't even talk about it really outside of church?
The one friend that prays a little bit only when she's scared a bit?

just want to know where you draw the line

I'm not a fan of fanatics, but I'd only go with your anger with the first group (but you find them in non-religious organizations too). The 2nd is pretty much like any political group, corrupt company, the global warming leadership, etc etc etc (power attracts the corrupt - religion is only one face of that coin). The 3rd are annoying, but not people I mind too much (there are pretty much the counterpart to how you are really).

The rest (even the 3rd though I'd prefer they become 'quietly religious') are the ones I consider don't deserve the vitriol or intolerance. I guess I'm 'apologizing' for them? Even if I don't share their beliefs, I don't think they have anything to apologize for (except for disturbing my dinner/movie), so that's a confusing accusation.



Would you be pissed off at your wife if a placebo cured her of a life threatening illness?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,471]

>Where are the contemporary accounts of Jesus?

Your fervent belief in the non-existence of Jesus rivals any religious belief I've seen. And if it works for you - great.

[billvon 2,471]

>Religion is not a 'tool' it is an intellectual cage.

I think anyone who has read any Carroll, Aquinas, Copernicus, Kepler, Planck, Einstein, Mendel, Farady, Boyle, Newton or Descartes might disagree. (Indeed, try writing any scientific paper without using their names.)

>You consistently defend religious beliefs that harm society. They do not help anyone.

I know several people they have helped directly.

>People that sit on the fence between the two sides and make apologies for religious
>extremists might as well be extremists themselves.

I see you prefer Orwell to Carroll . . .

>By supporting this tripe in any way you are just validating and lending moral support
>to a morally and philosophically bankrupt system of thought control and I refuse to
>agree with any of that. The truth will always win in the end.

Well, religion's been going strong for a long time. Maybe after another 25,000 years you'll have your wish?

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

>Religion is not a 'tool' it is an intellectual cage.

I think anyone who has read any Carroll...

Alice in Wonderland is an excellent description of religion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

Quote

religious extremists might as well be extremists themselves.

What do you call an extremist?


Muslim terrorists and abortion clinic bombers?
Just any organized church with buildings and corrupt leadership?
Missionaries that knock on your door?
Your neighbor that goes to church every Sunday and prays at every meal?
Your neighbor that churches every Sunday but that's about it, doesn't even talk about it really outside of church?
The one friend that prays a little bit only when she's scared a bit?

just want to know where you draw the line

I'm not a fan of fanatics, but I'd only go with your anger with the first group (but you find them in non-religious organizations too). The 2nd is pretty much like any political group, corrupt company, the global warming leadership, etc etc etc (power attracts the corrupt - religion is only one face of that coin). The 3rd are annoying, but not people I mind too much (there are pretty much the counterpart to how you are really).

The rest (even the 3rd though I'd prefer they become 'quietly religious') are the ones I consider don't deserve the vitriol or intolerance. I guess I'm 'apologizing' for them? Even if I don't share their beliefs, I don't think they have anything to apologize for (except for disturbing my dinner/movie), so that's a confusing accusation.



Would you be pissed off at your wife if a placebo cured her of a life threatening illness?

Yes, in the hierarchy of extremists I would obviously put Muslim & Christian terrorists first, followed closely by those who judge others and try to get laws changed to infringe others' rights (people who hate gays, atheists, etc), then people who try to spread the religion and steal 10% or more of their followers' income, then those supporting it all bringing up the rear. Just a few examples for you.

The placebo effect is a scientific response that happens in real life. Not sure how it's relevant to our discussion of violent cults.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

>Where are the contemporary accounts of Jesus?

Your fervent belief in the non-existence of Jesus rivals any religious belief I've seen. And if it works for you - great.

I don't know or care if Jesus actually existed. I'm just responding to your claims that he does.

[maadmax 0]

if religious types could just say what they mean without getting all formal and flowery, they'd likely not turn people off so quickly

Aw man, that response is just bullshit! Is that the best you can do? Judging from your other posts I assumed that you were capable of more intellectually inspired concepts.

There, how was that? Plain enough?

...

[winsor 189]

Quote

if religious types could just say what they mean without getting all formal and flowery, they'd likely not turn people off so quickly

Aw man, that response is just bullshit! Is that the best you can do? Judging from your other posts I assumed that you were capable of more intellectually inspired concepts.

There, how was that? Plain enough?

...

I think the point was that being sanctimonious and patronizing is repellent. You have simply demonstrated that being intentionally obnoxious is equally repellent.

Religion is like genitalia. It is fine to have either, and what you do with either in private with consenting adults is not a problem.

Exposure in public is an exercise in bad taste at the very best, and forcing either on the unwilling is criminal.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Not sure how it's relevant to our discussion of violent cults.

If you are only worried about violent cults, then I'm on your side.

But this is just a general religion discussion - when the topic comes up I normally think of the everyday guy that has a belief and quietly lives a decent life. Apparently your default mode is guys that fly airplanes into buildings.

I suspect my default is more representative than yours, but maybe not where you live.

Unless you're just super sensitive and get offended if someone says "bless you" when you sneeze...

"BLESS YOU? BLESS YOU?!!! Look you asshole, I don't need you pushing your myth down my throat and you creating freakin' laws to make people say 'bless you' after a sneeze. I'm just fine with 'guesundheit' THANK YOU VERY MUCH - Just keep your damn fantasies to yourself or I'll hit you in the shin with a small bat"

though I would like to have a law to change the spelling to "ga zune hite" - that would nice


you crack me up, Del. I don't know a single "born again" that's as religious as you are. Jakee and I are actually having a good discussion here, at least. Common ground with different reaction, but the common is easy enough to work from.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Religion is like genitalia. It is fine to have either,

not to be confused with having both

which would be confusing, and distracting

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think the point was that being sanctimonious and patronizing is repellent. You have simply demonstrated that being intentionally obnoxious is equally repellent

actually, it's less "sanctimonious and patronizing" than just the reversion to the stock speech. I take it as seriously as I would someone using "thee" and "thou" in their speech and just shut down since it's less like listening to someone's personal viewpoint and more just having to listen to something pre-recorded. It's really not pretty or convincing, and it comes across as brainwash, not thoughtful sharing.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

Pliny the Younger, writing about 100AD, Tacitus, 116AD, Mara, 73AD

These three are mentioning Christianity well after Christianity was established. Nothing in what you quoted says anything directly about any person named Jesus. It couldn't be considered credible evidence of the Biblical Jesus, just that Christianity exists.

Flavius Josephus, 93AD

Here is a video that goes over the Josephus mentioning of Jesus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0

Again Josephus was not alive during the time of Jesus.

Here is a good article going over the Josephus mentioning of Jesus. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/1stC_Hist.htm


If Jesus really did all the things the Bible says he did then why so little mention of Jesus by Josephus? He must not been that important at the time.

Bottom line the Josephus writings are the only thing you have and it is suspect. So yes I was wrong in saying there was no mention of Jesus outside of the Bible, but it's very suspect and was not written during his life.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

But the Iliad and Odyssey are every bit as credible as "evidence" as is the Bible.

If you've read my posts, you know that's a non-starter with me. I don't claim there is anything usable as evidence for those that are truly faithful, just for those that need to shore up a weak belief with self delusion. I'm apathetic agnostic - don't know, don't care.

As for Homer - I love those stories - much more exciting

You bring up a good question as to why bother to dispute those who claim they have evidence of God.

Well if Christianity wasn't such a big influence in the lives of everyone in the US then I could agree with you. But it is and often it's not a good thing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But it is and often it's not a good thing.

and it often is a good thing


I'd rather use my energy trying to knock down large organized and corrupt political groups. I think it's more productive than trying to knock out an individual's personal coping methods.


and I'm changing my mind - You can't knock down someone's faith, but discussing respectfully that claims of 'proof' - seems fair game since proof is impossible and they are wasting their time with that tactic.

But it might backfire as many might just agree and decide they don't need proof and come out even stronger in what would be real belief.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,471]

>Nothing in what you quoted says anything directly about any person named Jesus.

Right. They talk about Christ. (I assume you know what his full name was.)

>If Jesus really did all the things the Bible says he did then why so little mention
>of Jesus by Josephus? He must not been that important at the time.

He almost certainly wasn't. To most people of the time he was a petty criminal, executed under accepted Roman law. If this had happened today he would have been an illegal immigrant shot by cops. Nothing notable.

And just to be clear I don't think the Bible (or Josephus's writings) are all that accurate on the subject. They started as oral traditions (since back then most people couldn't write, and had no means to do so) and weren't written down for decades. In that time a lot of the details were blurred/distorted/morphed into what people _wanted_ to remember about Jesus.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>If this had happened today he would have been an illegal immigrant shot by cops.

actually, he'd have been shot by 'gun blast'

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>Nothing in what you quoted says anything directly about any person named Jesus.

Right. They talk about Christ. (I assume you know what his full name was.)

>If Jesus really did all the things the Bible says he did then why so little mention
>of Jesus by Josephus? He must not been that important at the time.

He almost certainly wasn't. To most people of the time he was a petty criminal, executed under accepted Roman law. If this had happened today he would have been an illegal immigrant shot by cops. Nothing notable.

And just to be clear I don't think the Bible (or Josephus's writings) are all that accurate on the subject. They started as oral traditions (since back then most people couldn't write, and had no means to do so) and weren't written down for decades. In that time a lot of the details were blurred/distorted/morphed into what people _wanted_ to remember about Jesus.

Yes they talked about Christ, but that's no different then you and I talking about Christ.

To the Jews who were around him or lived near him he would have been very important. The Romans didn't mention him. If he were as influential as claimed then why no mention of him?

[beowulf 1]

BTW, this talk of Jesus existing is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a deity exists.

A man named Jesus probably did exist, but there is very little evidence of his existence. What evidence there is does not prove any deity exists.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

Quote

Not sure how it's relevant to our discussion of violent cults.

If you are only worried about violent cults, then I'm on your side.

But this is just a general religion discussion - when the topic comes up I normally think of the everyday guy that has a belief and quietly lives a decent life. Apparently your default mode is guys that fly airplanes into buildings.

I suspect my default is more representative than yours, but maybe not where you live.

Unless you're just super sensitive and get offended if someone says "bless you" when you sneeze...

"BLESS YOU? BLESS YOU?!!! Look you asshole, I don't need you pushing your myth down my throat and you creating freakin' laws to make people say 'bless you' after a sneeze. I'm just fine with 'guesundheit' THANK YOU VERY MUCH - Just keep your damn fantasies to yourself or I'll hit you in the shin with a small bat"

though I would like to have a law to change the spelling to "ga zune hite" - that would nice


you crack me up, Del. I don't know a single "born again" that's as religious as you are. Jakee and I are actually having a good discussion here, at least. Common ground with different reaction, but the common is easy enough to work from.

Christianity and Islam are both extremely violent intolerant cults. Read the Bible or the Koran if you don't believe me.

I don't get angry at people for saying 'bless you' or 'oh my god.' Those are just figures of speech. I use them all the time myself.

I'm not 'religious' or anything of the sort. I'm just rejecting beliefs you and others are espousing. That's not a belief in anything other than objective reality.

There could be a supernatural dimension. I have no idea. I don't claim to know unlike you all.

[billvon 2,471]

>BTW, this talk of Jesus existing is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a deity exists.

Uh, OK. You brought it up to "show my bias." I agree that it's not conclusive proof of a deity, and that he likely did exist.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I don't claim to know unlike you all.

The proper terminology is I don't claim to know unlike y'all.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>BTW, this talk of Jesus existing is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a deity exists.

Uh, OK. You brought it up to "show my bias." I agree that it's not conclusive proof of a deity, and that he likely did exist.

Yes, it did show your bias. Your strawman example redirected the orginal argument to whether or not Jesus existed.