Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Chatter / Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 06:26:50 PM »
<>

I swear, my con artist daddy was on the right track. I am in the wrong business. I really need to start a religion.

If you do, make sure the 'book' contains no errors. I recommend sitting in a cave for a few years...
62
Bump.

Almost 10,000 views. :)
63
Chatter / Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 06:17:29 PM »
You need something external to what is inside your own head to evaluate, dennis. That is what FF means. Of course you will evaluate the evidence by thinking about it, just like you decided which religion to follow by thinking about it. Except that you think that it is more likely that one guy died and then came back to life than any other possibility.

If a guy showed up at your door and said he had died a week ago and was buried in a tomb (no heartbeat, no brain activity, no breathing)  but woke up today fine as a fiddle, would you think that it was true? What if he had a bunch of friends who agreed with him?

You are willing to dismiss all alternate possibilities:  that he was not really dead and the doctors made a mistake, that he is crazy, that he is lying, that he paid the friends, that he is making stuff up for a reality show or a novel he is writing, and so on. You will just believe him. Because, well, you just do.

With the Jesus story it is not even the guy himself telling you this. It is reading an account written by someone who says he met the guy who died and came back. You are saying that you would buy that story?

I swear, my con artist daddy was on the right track. I am in the wrong business. I really need to start a religion.
64
Chatter / Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Yesterday at 06:14:33 PM »

I found this link which I really like, about calculating the probability that Jesus survived the crucifixion.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/2.html

Dennis, what do you think is the probability that Jesus survived the crucifixion and was not resurrected?

1. To me it comes across as pseudoscience. I haven't read the whole thing, but the probability calculations seems to give the appearance of mathematical robustness, when it really is still just speculation. But I respect him for doing it - a lot of thought went into it. There are of course a bunch of reasons why the Resurrection is more likely than not too - and I am sure you have read them.

2. What is the probability according to me?

In faith: Zero
In purely rational thought: <5% (without calculations - pure speculation based on the fact there are, as he states in the opening paragraph no way of knowing for sure.)

It is only approximate but it is not pseudoscience. The main point is that the probability that Jesus survived is greater than zero.

What I was asking is what do you think the probability is that Jesus survived?

Do you know that people did survive crucifixions by the Romans? Josephus personally witnessed several people taken down from a cross still alive. One survived for many years. I think Jesus survived for a few weeks, then died.

The ascension story is a fiction based on contemporary cosmology that spirits are light and rise to heaven which is through a door in the solid firmament above the Earth. Yahweh coming on the clouds to meet Jesus is the image of Yahweh as the storm god originally based on Baal who was also the rider on the clouds.
65
General Religious Discussion / Re: Who is the "Messiah" OCG & t
« Last post by Graybeard on Yesterday at 06:12:38 PM »
Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 43:10,11 - “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.”

Isaiah 44:6 - (God is the Redeemer)

Isaiah 44:24 - (God created the world by His self alone)

I am tired of so-called Christians trotting out Isaiah. The version you gave of Isaiah is a late addition - after Christ had been executed.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8237-isaiah-ascension-of#anchor5
Quote
Ch. vi.-xi.—Vision of Isaiah:

In the twentieth year of Hezekiah Isaiah has a vision, which he tells before the king and his assembly. Isaiah is taken by an angel through the seven heavens; in the seventh he beholds the departed righteous, among them Abel and Enoch, and finally God Himself. Then he sees the whole history of Jesus. In ch. xi. 41-43, an editorial addition, he is told that "on account of these visions and prophecies Sammael (Satan) sawed in sunder Isaiah the son of Amos, the prophet, by the hand of Manasseh."

Composition and Date.

The most important critical inquiries into the structure of this book are those of Dillmann and Charles. Dillmann's conclusions, accepted by many leading scholars, are as follows:
(1) The Martyrdom is contained in ch. ii. 1-iii. 12, v. 2-14.
(2) The Vision (Christian) is contained in ch. vi. 1-xi. 1, 23-40.
(3) They were united by a Christian redactor, who added ch. i. (except verses 3 and 4a) and xi. 42-43.
(4) Later additions are: ch. i. 3-4a; iii. 13-v. 1; v. 15-16; xi. 2-22, 41.


These results were somewhat modified by Charles, who gives the following analysis:
(1) The Martyrdom consists of: i. 1-2a, 6b-13a; ii. 1-iii. 12; v. 1b-14.
(2) Ch. iii. 13b-iv. 18 are to be counted as a separate work, added by the first editor of the entire work, probably before the "Greek Legend" and the Latin translation were written.
(3) The Vision comprises ch. vi. 1-xi. 40, ch. xi. 2-22 being thus an integral part of this section.
(4) Editorial additions are: ch. i. 2b-6a, 13b; ii. 9; iii. 13a; iv. 1a, 19-22; v. 1a, 15-16; xi. 41-43. With regard to ch. i. Dillmann's view seems preferable, while Charles's arguments concerning the Testament of Hezekiah are very convincing.

From internal evidence, as well as from quotations in writings of the second and following centuries, it is safe to conclude that the three parts of the book were written during the first century C. E.
66
Chatter / Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Last post by eh! on Yesterday at 06:09:55 PM »
the characters on your ignore list prolly are the ones that point out the stupidity of your arguments, you might be able ignore them but that does not make you any less stupid by making stupid claims.

if the premises are stupid (unsubstantiated) then the logic can be perfect but you still have a stupid argument with a stupid conclusion based on stupic premises....only a stupid person would believe it and a stupid (and deceitful) person would argue it.


sorry dennis you can not logic god into existence by starting with stupid premises, that's just stupid.
67
Chatter / Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 06:05:39 PM »
To be honest, I am not sure if we agree with each other or not. To say that there is more to reality than mere 'thinking' can produce, sounds awfully spiritual, I am not sure exactly what your position on these things are. Are you an atheist? (from your link in signature, I thought you were.)

The reason that thinking is not enough is that you need independently verifiable evidence.

1. HOW is that evidence collected/created - if not by thinking?
2. HOW is that evidence processed/understood - if not by thinking?

68
Religion In The News / Re: Starting a religion
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 06:04:26 PM »
^^^Yep. And Jesus was an American patriot hero NRA member who spoke English only, married a member of the opposite sex, voted Republican and sent his kids to private school.  :angel:
69
Reviews / Re: Rate the Last Film You Saw
« Last post by shnozzola on Yesterday at 06:04:10 PM »
Just saw Captain Phillips - good, 8 out of 10.  I thought the Somalian guys parts were well written (and well acted), not over the top.  Many would have made them evil demons.  It's a good example of the free will argument.  These guys are poor, not educated, testosterone and "gotta survive" driven, forced by their circumstances and up bringing into making wrong decisions with their lives, all adding up to what happened to them.  I can still understand them, while realizing what happens to people like that.   An act of kindness here, moral support there, better education, and they also get to die as old men.
70
Chatter / Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 06:01:28 PM »
dennis, you are using logic a bit incorrectly.  In the hopes of helping you out with it, I'm going to focus specifically on that in this post.  Here is a website which explains logic basics:  https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/659/

If a premise turns out to be false, then it generally falsifies the entire argument, and even when it doesn't explicitly do so, it prevents a firm conclusion from being drawn.

[/quote]

I explained eslewhere - and agree/understand all this.

My point exactly - as bolded above.

NOTE: I am using the world 'claim' in the simple (non-philosophical sense.)

So when a 'claim' is made (as Premise > 'all cats are black') Then the argument can easily be disputed.

So we can argue about the veracity of my claims about theism - but it is only meaningful if the claim is part of a logical argument that leads to the conclusion of God's existence (for instance)

Why don't I argue about 'flying spaghetti monsters'? Because the premise (the claim by that argument) is in the same category as 'all cats are black'.

I am not explaining this very well, but I am trying to say that when I argue (If God, then....) there are two parts to our discussion. You can fault me on the logic/structure or you can fault me on my premises (the content/claim/hypothesis) etc.

I have tried to show (e.g.) with my discussion with @PP, that the logic is 'reasonable'.

I am doing that to ask you guys (and gals) to stop saying it's STUPID.

You can argue that (the premise) is WRONG, but in my mind there is a difference between being stupid and being wrong.

If you keep calling people stupid, it is hard to have a conversation. (Hence some characters on my ignore list.)
It is FUN to have a conversation with someone you think is wrong.



Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10