Religimyth...

[crowTrobot 2]

Well, then it's on us to make a thread that makes you think.

somebody could try teaching me why buddhist karma isn't effectively a metaphysical concept again. i still don't get it

[crowTrobot 2]

I gave up coming in here because it's the same round-n-round, all the time, about "prove this" and "prove that" and not everybody (to be polite) recognizing that not all scholarship is equal. Dwight D. Moody Bible Institute does not equal Oxford. It's largely pointless to have a debate in which the two sides have absolutely no historical context for the historical document they are discussing and cannot even agree on the definition of basic terms like "reality," "truth," and "proof," much less "evidence" and "scholarship."

it's hard when the arguments of one "side" here are BASED on keeping those definitions as vague as they can possibly get away with.

[brvheart 1,751]

Regarding prohesies: 1 - You have an evidentiary problem when both the prophesy and the fulfillment of the prophesy come from the same source.

They don't come from the same source.ps. I find it totally hilarious that RT has ended up pissing off everyone by his total lack of sense, and yet he still thinks it's everyone else who doesn't 'get it'.

[vbnautilus 48]

They don't come from the same source.

Do you mean a] they don't both come from the bible or b] they both come from the bible but different parts of the bible were written by different people or c] something else?

if (a)  {	reply("What other sources are you talking about?");} else if (b) {	x = rand(1);	if (x > 0.5) {		reply("I thought the Bible all came from God.  Isn't he the source of all of it?");	 } else {		reply("It's basically the same source.  It's like if the only corroboration of a prophesy made by Kim Jong Il's was a report by one of his henchmen.  That would not be sufficient evidence that he was clairvoyant.");	 }} else {     wait 10;   return empty;}

[brvheart 1,751]

Do you mean a] they don't both come from the bible or b] they both come from the bible but different parts of the bible were written by different people or c] something else?

"the Bible" didn't exist when the books were written by different people at different times.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

Mindfulness sure is a word. I am a strong Buddhist, but I'm interested in Christianity and science as well. I have a shelf of books on each. I am particularly interested in the early history of Christianity -- the five hundred years or so in which the religion went from a dozen Jews following a young revolutionary around to becoming the official faith of the collapsing Roman Empire. That period, along with the Reformation, tells us a great deal about how we ended up where we are today.For instance, there were large and influential Christian groups within a century of Jesus who believed that the God of the Old Testament was evil and Jesus came to save us from him. There were groups who believed he was fully divine and only appeared to die and groups who believed he was fully human and only possessed for thirty years with the holy spirit, which left him as he was dying. There were groups who believed that to follow a faith rooted in Judaism they had to keep kosher and follow Jewish laws themselves (they were a particularly powerful group and Paul is most vitriolic about them; they required a good bit of suppression from early church authorities).There were dozens more books considered "holy scripture" than the 27 that became what we call the New Testament. Some bibles from the first three centuries do not contain the Old Testament at all, some contain only the first five books, some contain nothing by Paul, some contain additional books like the gospels of Thomas, Mary, and Philip or 2 Clement. Some books were actively suppressed, some lasted for a few centuries before being discarcded. There were hundreds of forgeries floating around -- letter claiming to be from one apostle or another that were not written by him. Several of those forgeries wound up in the bible we have today. The consensus of all except hardcore literalist conservatives is that Peter didn't write 2 Peter, Matthew didn't write Matthew, John didn't write John, and that Paul is certain to have written only seven of the thirteen letters in his name. [The literalists have no evidence on their side arguing that those authorial attributions are correct -- they simply have the ideological position that if it's in the bible it has to be true. They believe --incorrectly -- that all attributions made in the first three or four hundred years must be accurate because they were closer to the source, and I'd like to see them explain the "evil god/good god" idea based on the logic that people close in time to the events couldn't have gotten them wrong.]I gave up coming in here because it's the same round-n-round, all the time, about "prove this" and "prove that" and not everybody (to be polite) recognizing that not all scholarship is equal. Dwight D. Moody Bible Institute does not equal Oxford. It's largely pointless to have a debate in which the two sides have absolutely no historical context for the historical document they are discussing and cannot even agree on the definition of basic terms like "reality," "truth," and "proof," much less "evidence" and "scholarship."

Right..but do you know the definition of agnosticism? Nice post, btw.

[Royal_Tour 0]

They don't come from the same source.ps. I find it totally hilarious that RT has ended up pissing off everyone by his total lack of sense, and yet he still thinks it's everyone else who doesn't 'get it'.

This post has no effect as you clearly don't even understand the roots of your own beliefs. thank you/

[Balloon guy 158]

BG. obviously you don't believe in the scientific aspect of Dawkins and his citing there is no evidence for an ultimate creator but it's not like he is inciting people to lead immoral lives. He does address morality in the God Delusion. I would think most people however appaled by the fact he claimsthere is no evidence of a God, as long as he isn't attempting to incite immorality probably don't havethat much of an issue with him. Do you think he incites immorality?Do you think that an athiest can live a moral life? I personally think that I have a better appreciation oflife, the planet, other people by being an athiest. Is that so unrealistic to you? Perhaps we all to often critizice you and other christians for all for the faults of religon but I would be interested in seeing what your faultswith athiests are?

Randy I can point to a lot of people who are Christians who's lives are not half as moral as some atheist I know. Nor do I think atheist want immorality or sinful behavior to become rampart. I have never said that I think atheism = immorality, only that a person who is not a Christian<the same person when he becomes a Christian.You are mixing up my thread about the evolution of morality which was a topic brought up by crow a few times that I didn't buy so I started a new thread to better address it. I did a terrible job of keeping it on track, it got off track and it slowly degraded from the points I wanted to make but didn't into what that thread is. Just because I don't hold that morality can come about from darwinian evolution doesn't mean that atheist aren't born with the internal sense of morality that God gives us all.As far as the faults of atheism, so far in our history we only have a few examples of government founded with atheist principles, all communist countries. I am not saying that atheist = communist, but so far that is the only examples we have. If I get stuck having the inquisition and crusades on my side, than it's only fair you guys get those historical boondoggles on yours.Other than that atheism is a small movement with the most vocal proponents like Dawkins etc being extremely arrogant with their downright false versions of history and reality regarding Christianity. A good example is crow here who has over 4,000 posts over 4 years in a religion section of a poker forum telling any and all that Christianity is a fable. I mean at what point does his obsession turn from having a point to being a militant nutcase? If I spent an equal amount of time in an atheist section of a cat lover's forum wouldn't I be dismissed as a nutcase religious fanatic?

[Balloon guy 158]

Regarding prohesies: 1 - You have an evidentiary problem when both the prophesy and the fulfillment of the prophesy come from the same source. 2- The prophesy has to be very specific for its fulfillment to mean anything. Horoscopes are fulfilled every day, because the language is general enough that it will fit lots of people. "You will face a big challenge today." Did the Bible predict "this specific event will happen at this date"? And if so, where? I have yet to see any credible evidence of a prediction that was not susceptible to either #1 or #2.

#1. The Bible is just the grouping together of 64 books to make it clear which writings were canonical and which were not. So if I use one book of the Bible to defend another, it is like using one author from a 5 hundred year time date to confirm a different one.#2. There are many clear specific prophecies in the Bible, we had a thread it degraded into the most nitpicking ridiculousness, I am not motivated to start again. I hardly think google wouldn't give you all any answers you seek to find enough prophecies to fill your month with searching.

We all know having a Ph.D. doesn't mean anything. After all, there are several Christians who have achieved the same degree.

Like A. E. Wilder-Smith? or Walter Martin...I know, them PhD's are like happy face stars, they just give them away.

If only all scientific education were replaced by biblical study! Then we could all experience the pleasures of polio and have this conversation on good old ink and paper. (parchment?)

Well we would have a more moral society...

Uh, no? Try again?

This here is not going to achieve what you are hoping it will achieve

[speedz99 145]

As far as the faults of atheism, so far in our history we only have a few examples of government founded with atheist principles, all communist countries. I am not saying that atheist = communist, but so far that is the only examples we have. If I get stuck having the inquisition and crusades on my side, than it's only fair you guys get those historical boondoggles on yours.

What I find the most interesting is looking at countries that are just areligious. Not primarily atheist, christian, muslim, etc...just having a majority of people with no interest whatsoever in religion (which I suppose is atheism, but whatever). These modern countries tend to do very, very well for themselves in pretty much every measurable way compared to nations with a culture strongly based in religion.

[Royal_Tour 0]

What I find the most interesting is looking at countries that are just areligious. Not primarily atheist, christian, muslim, etc...just having a majority of people with no interest whatsoever in religion (which I suppose is atheism, but whatever). These modern countries tend to do very, very well for themselves in pretty much every measurable way compared to nations with a culture strongly based in religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheismThe problem is that many people associate atheism, agnosticism, or just "not being religious" as the same thing. and there for you get high percentages of people who say they arent religious, but low percentage of atheists. However I do agree, looking at that map of north america, you see Mexico as highly religious, yet Japan is the complete opposite.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not true. Homer didn't exist. Socrates probably didn't either, and was a construction of Plato. (Actually, Socrates is probably a good foil for Jesus. They were both poor guys who went around talking to people. Some thought they were brilliant, some were annoyed by them, and in the end, they were both put to death.)

Except of course that Socrates never made any claims of being God, and then rose form the grave and promised triumph over death.Speaking of Homer, didn't he write the Iiliad? Of course our earliest copy is from over 1,000 years after it was written but we except it's date without condition because it says it was written then. And the argument tha he didn't exist is more because of a lack of corroborating evidence than the belief that he could not have existed.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheismThe problem is that many people associate atheism, agnosticism, or just "not being religious" as the same thing. and there for you get high percentages of people who say they arent religious, but low percentage of atheists.

Norway has a state sponsored religion where the pastors are paid through tax dollars, so I never count the ways europe does things because they are so messed up. and we are so much better than them as a whole.

However I do agree, looking at that map of north america, you see Mexico as highly religious, yet Japan is the complete opposite.

Of course we bombed all the true believers in Japan back in the 40s, so we kind of skewed that gene pool.

[Royal_Tour 0]

#1. The Bible is just the grouping together of 64 books to make it clear which writings were canonical and which were not. So if I use one book of the Bible to defend another, it is like using one author from a 5 hundred year time date to confirm a different one.

well thats a side step if i've ever seen one.He is stating how the prophecies you mentioned were written during the OT. and the account of them coming true was writting during the NT The problem is. The OT was written before christ, and the NT was written 100 years after his death. (if he existed)so you see. The people who wrote the NT did so much much later than the OT.

[Balloon guy 158]

What I find the most interesting is looking at countries that are just areligious. Not primarily atheist, christian, muslim, etc...just having a majority of people with no interest whatsoever in religion (which I suppose is atheism, but whatever). These modern countries tend to do very, very well for themselves in pretty much every measurable way compared to nations with a culture strongly based in religion.

If the country was largely religious, and used that belief system to reach it's apex, and has now degraded into a more neutral outlook on things society, do you get to claim credit for it's current status? Or do you look at atheism as a parasite feeding on the carcass of lazy Christians?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Of course we bombed all the true believers in Japan back in the 40s, so we kind of skewed that gene pool.comical, but I of course was referring to technological advancements, ways of life. etc...when comparing the two.

[vbnautilus 48]

Other than that atheism is a small movement with the most vocal proponents like Dawkins etc being extremely arrogant with their downright false versions of history and reality regarding Christianity. A good example is crow here who has over 4,000 posts over 4 years in a religion section of a poker forum telling any and all that Christianity is a fable. I mean at what point does his obsession turn from having a point to being a militant nutcase? If I spent an equal amount of time in an atheist section of a cat lover's forum wouldn't I be dismissed as a nutcase religious fanatic?

Yeah but religious belief might be the biggest threat to our existence right now. We already lost two buildings and our economy to it this decade. It's an issue worth getting crazy about. I can't decide which would be worse - cat lover or nutcase religious fanatic.

[Balloon guy 158]

well thats a side step if i've ever seen one.He is stating how the prophecies you mentioned were written during the OT. and the account of them coming true was writting during the NT The problem is. The OT was written before christ, and the NT was written 100 years after his death. (if he existed)so you see. The people who wrote the NT did so much much later than the OT.

Yea... I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you but I will try.If someone wrote something down, and someone else 5 hundred years later wrote something down that confirmed a prophecy in the first guy's book...and THEN someone else put a binder on BOTH those books, does that make both books the same book?

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah but religious belief might be the biggest threat to our existence right now. We already lost two buildings and our economy to it this decade. It's an issue worth getting crazy about. I can't decide which would be worse - cat lover or nutcase religious fanatic.

If you don't say cat lovers than we are through.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Yea... I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you but I will try.If someone wrote something down, and someone else 5 hundred years later wrote something down that confirmed a prophecy in the first guy's book...and THEN someone else put a binder on BOTH those books, does that make both books the same book?

He's saying that the 500 years later guy only wrote what he did because he read the first guy.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yay! I love this statement so much, I quoted it (and attributed it to FCP) in my book.As for the actual debate here, sigh. I'm reminded why I gave up coming in here.I'm not a scientist. I am a historian. Believers and non-believers alike would be well served by knowing the history of exactly how the collection of writings we now know as the bible came about. Two good places to start are the companion books Lost Christianites and Lost Scriptures by Bart D. Ehrman. Or Karen Armstrong's The Bible, another history.

Wait... you love that quote so much that you used it in your book, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED? That there is a prophecy that they can't deny!

[Balloon guy 158]

He's saying that the 500 years later guy only wrote what he did because he read the first guy.

Then he must make the case that the historical evidence of the prophecy is failed as well?For instance the city of Tyre

And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her...and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water...And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD (Ezekiel 26:4,12,14).

followed by Alexander the Great's conquest of Tyre

Alexander the Great ordered his engineers to use the debris of the abandoned mainland city to build a causeway and once within reach of the city walls,

So which is it, did the writer write the second book because of what he read? Or did Alexander throw every bit of the ancient city of Tyre into the sea in order to fool me into giving 10% of my paycheck to the church?

[Balloon guy 158]

I mean, we're beating a dead horse here, but this is kinda what is frustrating about your recent posts. Seems to me what is needed is exactly to overstate obvious points. For example, obviously some guy didn't come back to life after being physically dead for three days. But we are going through the exercise of being as precise as possible about describing why not, since for some reason this isn't obvious to some people. Anyways, let's get back to telling BG how silly he is for living his life according to the rules of some ancient nomads.

It would help if you could poke holes in the value of following those rules...

[Balloon guy 158]

Oops, I missed the memo. Sorry.

You wouldn't be good at it SB, you aren't good at being arrogant

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Speaking of Homer, didn't he write the Iiliad? Of course our earliest copy is from over 1,000 years after it was written but we except it's date without condition because it says it was written then. And the argument tha he didn't exist is more because of a lack of corroborating evidence than the belief that he could not have existed.

Homer was most likely a symbolic name that people used, and that which we call the Iiliad (as well as the many other books that comprised the greater work, of which we only have the Odyssey) came from Greek oral tradition and was only written down much later. Basically, people memorized (and improvised) huge amounts of story, which was then passed down generation to generation before it was actually penned.So, in that sense, it's probably not too different from the Hebrew tradition before they became all methodical and anal about writing things down in the same way over and over again (how boring).