Support NeoGAF

[Link648099]

Those are a lot of words, but filled with fallacies, it doesn't begin to move my healthily skeptical heart.

Hate to ask it, but are you just one of those people where no amount of evidence will ever be good enough? What would move your "healthily skeptical heart" in your own words?

but filled with fallacies

I am curious about that statement, but I dont want to get into it, as in, a back and forth pissing contest and what not. But I am curious as to how you so offhandedly reject what I wrote as simply "filled with fallacies." I'm not one to take a stranger's word, I need examples here. You know, put some effort into it, like I did, please.

 

[whytemyke]

Here's the thing, ultimately, that people fail to understand with religion. It is very akin to government in that it is such a powerful societal force that it can be used either for amazing good or horrible evil. Religion can spur people on to do amazing things but it can also tear them apart at the seams. As I said, much akin to government.

Also, I feel that it is a necessary evil in society today. There's a whole lot of stupid people out there who really wouldn't respect things like law and the 'golden rule' were it not for some mortal threat from some ethereal entity. So you need religion in various forms to support social order, as bad as that sounds.

My personal beliefs? The scientific side of me says that it could all just be a hoax, and as someone with a minor in religion, this is a fairly solid belief. Moses could have been drunk on Mt. Sinai, made up the entire idea of creationism, and came back down and collected on a bet while everyone else was singing his praises. I think it's wrong for people to dismiss Mormonism because they believe its foundation is so obviously a hoax but to accept something as antiquated as judaism. At the same time, the scientific side of me also says that just because there is no proof for, there is also no proof against. They are two sides to the same coin. So, when people ask me, I tell them simply that I do not know. Sure, Jesus did certainly exist, the Pharisees certainly pissed off the Romans, Paul was certainly crucified upside down, Mohammed did certainly get fucked by Jewish traders in his lifetime as he certainly did exist. But as to the divinity of it all? I don't think anyone here knows for certain. So, I say, I do not know, for this is not a bad thing at all. I think it is far worse to presuppose that you do know the nature of our universe without actually knowing. I think such actions are unwise, and condemning people for choosing to believe one or the other (for both sides are based on faith-- a blind jump, that one or the other do not exist, as there really isn't proof to one or the other).

I do not look at those who believe as stupid, for it takes a certain amount of mental capacity to fully understand why they believe and to still choose to believe that. It takes a certain amount of mental strength to put faith into something based solely on ones gut feeling, a pure unabashed courage. We applaud people in our culture who do this on Wall Street-- they make their fortunes based on a gut instinct they had. So why should we condemn those as stupid those who do the same with their spiritual life? Quite preposterous, if one is to think on it honestly. Likewise, I do not think it's fair for those who do believe to judge the others for not believing.

Myself? I continue to ride the fence. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I try to lead a good life, and help my community continue to improve itself, regardless of religion. I figure that way, if there is nothing else here but us people, I can still have a decent legacy and won't be remembered as someone who brought pain to life. Yet if there is a God, and I have to come face to face with God someday, he can't look down on me, for I did indeed attempt to shepard his 'flock' as part of my lifes goal. I'd hate to think of an omnipotent being as half as petty and haggard as any human Bible depicts Him to be, and denying that I'm a good person simply because I didn't know whether He existed or not.

But what do I know? I still like Ben Affleck movies.

 

[DaMan121]

Just out of curiosity, by your criteria above (no source material, no followers) how can we even know anyone of prominence existed outside of our immediate context?

George Washington? Martin Luthor? Thomas Aquinas? Muhhammed? Tacitus? Julius Ceaser? Alexander the Great? Plato?

Indeed, and this is why history is a science.

Literature: Right off the bat, any supernatural claims are flatly rejected, and concidered as myth / imbelishements. That is, only the supernatural parts ofcourse. The next test would be ranking the events in some kind of importance/ impact ranking, from say a war with thousands dead, a natural disaster, to something insignificant and mundane. The ammount of coroborating evidence required would then depend on the significance of the event. However the key is multiple, independant, coroborating (to a degree - thats why eye witness testimony is not soley relied upon in court) reports of that event. So if a text says, there were say 500 witnesses to an event, (even worse is when that information is second hand), then fails to provide names, dates, etc, it shouldnt be regarded as ahem gospel. So the more amazing the event, the more evidence is required.

In the case of the historicity of a particular person, again, verifiable, independant, and consistent eveidence is required. Just go through a few of them:

Washington? Yep - but the cherre tree? Um no sorry.
Ceaser? Plenty of independant and corobarating evidence, heck we have his face on coins dated to the time he lived in.
Plato? Who knows - maybe - the actual name of the person is not important but his work.

How far shall we go? The claims of Christianity should be subjected to the same tests for authenticity as any other ancient person or document. To do otherwise is simply stacking the deck in your favor, and being quite unreasonable!

I agree. Lets look at it briefly, a creation story that defies logic, and everything we know about how the universe works, a global flood that kills everyone in the world (cept a few huge civilizations not only survived it but didnt notice the rain), miracles, a typical and popular ressurection story (virgin birth) of the time is used for its main character - the sun stops, the dead saints rise and terrorize Jerusalem - you would think someone would notice (maybe a Day of the Dead style newspaper headline?) all in a story that have no authors, no dates, copying errors, and lacks consistency (try the "Easter Challenge" or how did Judas die?).

Jesus 'could' have existed, sure, but whoever he was is compltely dwarfed by the biblical authors agenda.

Hate to ask it, but are you just one of those people where no amount of evidence will ever be good enough? What would move your "healthily skeptical heart" in your own words?

Why are you skeptical of Islam, Mormonism, Ganesh?

 

[pwn3d]

Just an FYI from the article:
Quote:
It is our purpose in this essay to examine some common objections to the practical historicity of this event; that is, not issues having to do with archaelogy, for example, but whether such a mass movement of people is possible at all within the context of what is claimed in the Bible. [JPH note: My one response to a critic, Brett Palmer, who addressed this essay -- Brent will handle the rest below -- is that it is a shameful polemical tactic to complain that this essay does not go off subject and out of expertise as he obnoxiously thinks it should to address the archaeological issues. However, if he does want to play that game, we do have a "Scythian challenge" below, which he ignored, and links atop our Exodus page that he can play with. Palmer claims now that nothing we have "deals specifically with the archaeological data"; he apparently needs glasses to see the link to Miller's site we offer, and also vainly tries to deny his polemical effort with the excuse of "curiosity" to know more about what is plainly said to not be our subject of interest.)

And the term "practical historicity" has no meaning unless the author is willing to take into account all the data. It's been a while since the I've read the artilce but from what I remember the author postulates some population growth rates and extrapolates from there to get the 3 million figure. The critical article sites facts from academic scholars which show that Holding's assumptions are wrong.

Now I'm going to deconstruct the links you posted.

From the first link:

So, on the Exodus page, here are the links to the pages referring to the archaeological data:
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sci..._the_Exodus.asp

First,

Biblical Archaeology is often divided into two camps: The "minimalists" tend to downplay the historical accuracy of the Bible, while the "maximalists," who are in the majority and are by and large not religious, tend to suggest that archaeological evidence supports the basic historicity of the Bible text.

What the article doesn't mention is that both camps believe the Exodus is largely mythical. For example, William Dever, an well-known archaeologist at Arizona State who leans towards the maximalist camp, states in his book "Who were the Early Isrealites and Where did they Come From?" that the accounts in Exodus and Numbers aren't accurate history "because as we have seen their accounts of escape from Egypt, of wandering in the wilderness, and of massive conquests in Transjordan are overwhelmingly contradicated by the archaeological evidence." (pg. 227). The main difference between the minimalists and maximalists is in what they think about the development of ancient Isreal during the period after any exodus would have occurred.

Admittedly, however, there is a shortage of Egyptian documentation of the Exodus period. Why?

...

This idea has significant ramifications for archeology and the Exodus. The last thing the ancient Egyptians wanted to record is the embarrassment of being completely destroyed by the God of a puny slave nation. Would the Egyptians ever want to preserve details of the destruction of fields, flocks, and first borns -- plus the death of Pharaoh and the entire Egyptian army at the Red Sea?

The article then argues that the fact that the Egyptians didn't mention the doesn't mean it didn't happen. The problem with this argument is that when the Egyptians did fib about stuff, we found out about it - how? With archaeology. Scholars estimate that the Egyptian population around the time of the Exodus was about 5 million; if half of the population of Egypt just got up and left, why was no evidence of this left behind?

This thin archeological record means that any conclusions are based on speculation and projection. Archeology can only prove the existence of artifacts unearthed, not disprove that which hasn't been found. Lack of evidence... is no evidence of lack.

This is a common tactic used by apologists. It is wrong. Lack of evidence in places we would expect to find evidence is itself evidence. First, the archaeological record in many of the places associated with the Exodus (the article never singles these out!) have been well excavated. For example, Kadesh-Barnea has been excavated to virgin soil so archaeologists know when it was inhabited. Numbers 13, 14 and 20 state that the Isrealites stayed in Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years. However, at the time that the Exodus is believed to have happened, which is the 13th century BC, there is no evidence of habitation (see for instance Dever, pg 19-20).

 

[Link648099]

Indeed, and this is why history is a science.

Wrong, history is not a science. Go ask Napolean to reenact the battle of Waterloo in a laboratory please, so it's historicity can be tested and retested, just to make sure. If you think history is a science, then you dont know what science is. Try to use the scientific method on anything that cannot be tested repeatedly, like history.

Literature: Right off the bat, any supernatural claims are flatly rejected, and concidered as myth / imbelishements. That is, only the supernatural parts ofcourse.

Stacking the deck, are we? No wonder you came to the conclusions that you have, you began with them in the first place! You are begging the question, assumming what you are trying to prove, not letting this or that bit of evidence speak for itself! Now, why should this antisupernaturalism be maintained anyways? Hume tried that method 250 years ago, and wasnt exactly succesful. What evidence do you have against miracles? I'd like to hear it. Please explain your rejection of miracles in a manner that is not circular, and is not based off of mere assumptions, such as the non-existence of God. If you reject miracles without a fair hearing, then of course there will never be any "evidence" of them, because you assumme they are false from the get go by virtue of them being miraculaous!

Either way, go here http://www.tektonics.org/TK-M.html and scroll down to "Miracles."

The next test would be ranking the events in some kind of importance/ impact ranking, from say a war with thousands dead, a natural disaster, to something insignificant and mundane. The ammount of coroborating evidence required would then depend on the significance of the event. However the key is multiple, independant, coroborating (to a degree - thats why eye witness testimony is not soley relied upon in court) reports of that event. So if a text says, there were say 500 witnesses to an event, (even worse is when that information is second hand), then fails to provide names, dates, etc, it shouldnt be regarded as ahem gospel. So the more amazing the event, the more evidence is required.

Nothing original, stated and answered a while ago. Read this: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html and get back to me.

In the case of the historicity of a particular person, again, verifiable, independant, and consistent eveidence is required. Just go through a few of them:

Washington? Yep - but the cherre tree? Um no sorry.

Now wait just a minute here, what is this evidence you claim? Should I just take your word? Prove to me Washington wasnt just a made up figurehead to increase moral amongst the American troops after facing the British. Have you seen Washington, personally? Do you actually know anyone who has? Have you heard him speak? What if all those paintings and writings of him are part of the agenda or conspiracy?

Ceaser? Plenty of independant and corobarating evidence, heck we have his face on coins dated to the time he lived in.

Oh do we now? So a coin proves a man lived? So what of all the coins and relics of the Roman gods, they all existed too, then, right? What is this plenty of evidence you speak of? How do we know they all just arent lying? What better way to unite an empire then to create a ficticious "Uber General/Emperor" etc? I bring up the agenda again.

I agree. Lets look at it briefly, a creation story that defies logic, and everything we know about how the universe works, a global flood that kills everyone in the world (cept a few huge civilizations not only survived it but didnt notice the rain)

Apprently someone hasnt done their Biblical interpretation homework! (Hint, its not me *wink wink*) Sorry DaMan, you dont know what you are talking about. Reread all my posts so far on this thread, I touch on the importance of being able to identify the type of literature and style of writing that you are reading BEFORE you attempt (and not a very good attempt either...seems you are just repeating what you think is the text's meaning) to interpret an ancient text...written in another language...from another continent...within the context of another culture...to another people...etc etc.

DaMan, you are out of your league here.

miracles, a typical and popular ressurection story (virgin birth) of the time is used for its main character

This tired old arguement again? *sigh* Read here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html and here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

the sun stops, the dead saints rise and terrorize Jerusalem - you would think someone would notice (maybe a Day of the Dead style newspaper headline?)

Read my links above, please

all in a story that have no authors, no dates, copying errors, and lacks consistency (try the "Easter Challenge" or how did Judas die?).

People of GAF, this is a perfect example of the kind of "skeptic" Holding was referring to in this link here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html

Alright DaMan, all these can easily be answered and are really no good in your "case" against the Biblical record! I know you want links as examples, because you are oh so after the truth here, so I'll provide em for ya!

Gospel authors and dates:
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

Copying errors:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

Contradictions:
Dude, just read the whole site, pick your verse and go after it already!
http://www.tektonics.org/index.html

But specifically..
Easter "Challenge":
Now this page was written by a well respected New Testament scholar. http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html

Go here and scroll down to "Jesus" and have some fun! http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html

And finally, the very old thing about Judas (cant you guys come up with anything new?)
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

Jesus 'could' have existed, sure, but whoever he was is compltely dwarfed by the biblical authors agenda.

Yes, of course, the agenda. Must not forget that one! After all, you are a reliable source of information! Do tell me about this agenda, if you will, please. Yes, this ought to be a good one..and please do not forget to provide evidence! But, just for fun, here you go, read this one: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

Why are you skeptical of Islam, Mormonism, Ganesh?

Go here http://www.tektonics.org/TK-I.html and scroll down to "Islam" for a good summary.

Go here http://www.tektonics.org/TK-M.html and scroll down to "Mormonism."

And Ganesh? Broadly stated (and no, I will not attempt to provide examples, I have no desire to wade through all that which is Eastern traditions and religions) the philosophy behind much of those religions are inherently contradictory to begin with, so built off of a shaky foundation from the start.

Plus hey, if reincarnation is true, then it doesnt matter what religion we follow, as long as we are good people, we'll come back at least as the same species!

Yes, I have no life

 

[pwn3d]

and http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sci...le_-_Part_2.asp

This link didn't work for me.

And here is the main page it is all found on: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-EXOD.html

It's pretty funny that the first recommended book is David Rohl's. The second, Hoffmeier's, represents the most conservative end of the spectrum. I haven't read the book myself, but my understanding is that he argues "an exodus" could have happened and doesn't present positive evidence for one. Given the data, it is highly unlikely that an exodus occured exactly as described in the Bible; however, an exodus like event is probably not historically implausible.

 

[Link648099]

pwn3d:

Thats ok, I wasn't arguing with you anyways, just posting the links so GAF could read them. Holding's website is good, I think, for making quick replies in threads like these As with everyone, he's got his strengths and weaknesses. But would I ever use him for a term paper or anything? I highly doubt it!

On a similiar note though, have you read On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K.A. Kitchen?

Well, from cover to cover I havnt either, but I did spend about two hours leafing and reading through it. Pretty solid read, but I dont have research or experience yet to contrast it with to the degree I would be happy with.


Sidenote: Alright GAF, you all have fun with my replies, I've written enough and am finished in this thread. I now somewhat remember why I try not to get into these discussions anymore

 

[pwn3d]

Thats ok, I wasn't arguing with you anyways, just posting the links so GAF could read them themselves in context.

Not a problem, it's good to look at everything in context.

On a similiar note though, have you read On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K.A. Kitchen?

Well, from cover to cover I havnt either, but I did spend about two hours leafing and reading through it. Pretty solid read, but I dont have research or experience yet to contrast it with to the degree I would be happy with.

I haven't, but I do know of it and I'm interested in looking at it sometime when I've got some time to read through it. I only read this stuff as a hobby, not as an actual career academic so unfortunately my time is somewhat limited.

 

[Link648099]

I haven't, but I do know of it and I'm interested in looking at it sometime when I've got some time to read through it. I only read this stuff as a hobby, not as an actual career academic so unfortunately my time is somewhat limited.

(I edited my text, fyi)

Yeah, me too actually. Although I've been more into the theology portion of it all, but I go through phases every now and then. I have long distant plans to delve into the nitty gritty historical details and what not.

Someday....

*Looks off into the setting sun*

 

[Monk]

I'm just wondering how you ended up believing whatever it is you believe. It just seems to me that something extraordinary has to happen to enable you to swallow whatever doctrines and teachings these religions shove at you.

I guess I just can't see how anyone who is intelligent or a rational thinker, can read the bible/koran/whatever and then simply accept it as truth. There must have been a moment of conversion, or some event that convinced them. An analogy would be that I believe in UFOs only because I've seen one with my own eyes. But to someone else who's never seen one, it would be hard for them to believe in them no matter what anyone tells them.

I've heard various religious figures speak, and most claim to have seen or heard God... I guess that's why they ended up being such fervent believers. So is this a common thing? Have most of you religious types experienced some sort of "divine" event that "converted" you?

So hard to explain, but it may not just be something that happened to you, but it could also happen to someone else. I have heard tapes of exorcism, and those things arent fakes because they come from people i know, my one in particular went from catholic to non catholic christian because in one of his exorcisms the evil spirit apparently came from a Mary statue and entered her body as she was praying to her. My brother has had some supernatural things happen to him. Also my dad's stories of god has a plan for his life and desires.

It's hard for me to not accept that God doesnt exist after all the things that happened in my life and after hearing him in a church camp as i was praying to him. You know, it is the kind of thing that you just cannot deny despite your hardest to.

... hope that sort of helps :/

 

[DEO3]

What's interesting to me is how someone can have faith in modern religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity), all the while dismissing ancient religions as simply mythology. For example, Hercules was the son of God was he not? And yet his story is nothing more than an innocent make believe bed-time tale that you tell you kids when you tuck them in at night. But that other son of God, Jesus, is mankind's Lord savior! Someone who's tale is worth killing for, someone who's tale is worth dying for!

It's only a matter of time before people start dismissing our modern religions as we have our ancient ones... it's only a matter of time before we see:

With Warrior Princess Xena guest appearing.

 

[Monk]

It's because we had no scientific documentation on hercules, but we have that for Jesus(it is recorded in roman history).

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

 

[Lardbutt]

It's hard for me to not accept that God doesnt exist after all the things that happened in my life and after hearing him in a church camp as i was praying to him.

Interesting, that's the kind of experience I was hoping to hear about. So can you describe exactly what the experience was like? What did you "hear"? How were you sure without a doubt that it was a divine voice?

 

[whytemyke]

It's only a matter of time before people start dismissing our modern religions as we have our ancient ones... it's only a matter of time before we see:

To be fair, Judaism is older that most of these 'ancient' religions you're talking about, and the other two western modern ones are merely derivatives of that. you'll notice that the folk tales and parables (adam and eve, cain and able, noah's ark, etc) are all probably a lot older than these other stores, like Hercules, Hera, Heracles or Hermione.

The winners tell the tales, people. Without attatching itself to Rome early on, right after the Romans laid waste to the Second Temple in Jerusalem, Christianity would probably not have been much more than a blip on the radar, akin to Calvinism or Mormonism.

 

[DEO3]

It's because we had no scientific documentation on hercules, but we have that for Jesus(it is recorded in roman history).

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

I fail to see the scientific documentation.

 

[Rlan]

Quick OTish Question: I can recall the stories of Jesus dying and then rising 3 days later, but I've completely forgotten what happened AFTER he rose. Did he just monologue a little, then rise to Heaven, or did something else occur?

 

[Monk]

Interesting, that's the kind of experience I was hoping to hear about. So can you describe exactly what the experience was like? What did you "hear"? How were you sure without a doubt that it was a divine voice?

No it wasnt a divine voice, it was a calm black-american talk but with authority and compassion. Hard to explain really, but when you hear it it's so unexpected and unlike anything you have heard before. He was just talking to me, assuring me that my life will get better etc.

And Jesus is seriously relaxed makes little jokes etc. Imagine a kid, full of life, completely innocent and happy, that is like his personality.

 

[Jeffahn]

I like...

...

 

[DaMan121]

Wrong, history is not a science. Go ask Napolean to reenact the battle of Waterloo in a laboratory please, so it's historicity can be tested and retested, just to make sure. If you think history is a science, then you dont know what science is. Try to use the scientific method on anything that cannot be tested repeatedly, like history.

Are you serious? History encompases lots of fields from archeology, geology to social sciences and linguistics. A hypothesis is formed, and is either refined or thrown out when new evidence comes in. You dont have to repeat history to form a valid hypothesis thats fits the available evidence best - just like you cant 're-evolve' humans from their ancestors in a lab.

Stacking the deck, are we? No wonder you came to the conclusions that you have, you began with them in the first place! You are begging the question, assumming what you are trying to prove, not letting this or that bit of evidence speak for itself! Now, why should this antisupernaturalism be maintained anyways? Hume tried that method 250 years ago, and wasnt exactly succesful. What evidence do you have against miracles? I'd like to hear it. Please explain your rejection of miracles in a manner that is not circular, and is not based off of mere assumptions, such as the non-existence of God. If you reject miracles without a fair hearing, then of course the

Scuse me? Its the same deck you are using every day of your life. How many times have you tried to walk through a wall, expecting a different result? Why type at your keyboard expecting results on the monitor? Naturalism - its plain and simple.
Science has been pushing your gods / magic / fairy fluff notions further and further into the darkness. Supernatural (I guess it sounds more sophisticated than magic), is simply an archaic relic from caveman not knowing what they had done to make their god so angry, god of the gaps stupidity.

othing original, stated and answered a while ago. Read this: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html and get back to me.

These are not answers - as you know, its called apologetics. So the sun did not stop (another stupid relic from the earth-centric universe thought of that day) did it?

This tired old arguement again? *sigh* Read here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html and here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
<snip>

The poor infallible peice of literature - the word of god, yet it needs constant changing and interpretation by a bunch of 'scholars'. No wonder there are over 30 thousand different denominations. If you are comftable with that type of mental gymnastics - fine., dont expect us to buy it.

Go here http://www.tektonics.org/TK-I.html and scroll down to "Islam" for a good summary.

Go here http://www.tektonics.org/TK-M.html and scroll down to "Mormonism."

Ofcourse... "Believe OUR absurd story - pay no attention to their similarly stupid story". You do realise that if you were born in the middle east, you would be screaming about how Chrisitans are deluded into believing in a false prophet right?

Plus hey, if reincarnation is true, then it doesnt matter what religion we follow, as long as we are good people, we'll come back at least as the same species!

And you end it with Pascal's Wager - wow, so much apologetics, so little time ah?

 

[TheJesusFactor]

Hi, I like to show everyone these links because it might change the way you see Christians.

The first link are common misconceptions that people have about Christians.

http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/critics/misconceptions.html

The second link is another Christian site that offers many evidence to God and the Bible through scientific studies. Questions about the Great Flood, discrepencies between the Bible 6000 year old Earth vs. science 5 million year old earth can be answered here.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp


These sites won't convince anyone into becoming a Christian, but maybe you will understand where we are coming from.

I like to know what you guys think about the site.

 

[Jeffahn]

Hi, I like to show everyone these links because it might change the way you see Christians.

The first link are common misconceptions that people have about Christians.

http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/critics/misconceptions.html

The second link is another Christian site that offers many evidence to God and the Bible through scientific studies. Questions about the Great Flood, discrepencies between the Bible 6000 year old Earth vs. science 5 million year old earth can be answered here.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp


These sites won't convince anyone into becoming a Christian, but maybe you will understand where we are coming from.

I like to know what you guys think about the site.

Your first link is mostly just the usual Xtian mumbo jumbo; utterly lacking in both substance and evidence and designed primarily to appeal to those who already believe the fairy tale.

AIG is widely known as almost completely dishonest, and certainly unscientific, with ragrd to origins and the related sciences.

...

 

[Raxel]

.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

dear christians,

santa for grown-ups.

please rebutt.

 

[Boogie]

dear christians,

santa for grown-ups.

please rebutt.

dear catfish,

no.

you're welcome.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

dear catfish,

no.

you're welcome.

dear boogie,

that's not a rebuttal.

best regards
catfish

 

[DDayton]

dear christians,

santa for grown-ups.

please rebutt.

Dear Catfish,

"Santa" is a perversion of "Saint Nicholaus", a real life Christian bishop who was well known for his kindness to the poor and down trodden. If you are trying to say that Christ was a real life person known for His kindness to the poor and down trodden, I suppose we're off to a better start than I imagined.

Please respond.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Ugh religion is sooo boring.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Dear Catfish,

"Santa" is a perversion of "Saint Nicholaus", a real life Christian bishop who was well known for his kindness to the poor and down trodden. If you are trying to say that Christ was a real life person known for His kindness to the poor and down trodden, I suppose we're off to a better start than I imagined.

Please respond.

what I should have probably said was 'santa claus/easter bunny/tooth fairy/other make believe character from non western society' for grown ups.

Don't get me wrong I have eleven years of forced religion right down my throat and into my gut, now, ever since I have been on my world travels (start nz-australia-america-germany-netherlands and soon london) without even having to see eastern cultures (having said that there is no shortage of indians in NZ and I was good friends with 2 hindus and questioned them extensively as well as sportingly sparring with countless hari-karishnas on the street (forgive incorrect spelling I beg you)) it's blatantly obvious to me that trying to pigeon hole anyone into 'believe this or everybody burns in hell' which it seems to me that most religions do, is more of an insult to god than flat out not believing in him, if in fact he does exist.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Link's link is waaaaay too defensive and adversarial for me to take seriously. My recently-converted friend sounds jusy like this when he talks religion. It makes faith into some sort of political debate, and I don't think that's true to the spirit of, um, spirituality, or the truth.

My own beliefs are self-contradictory and somewhat confusing to me. I was raised Catholic until I was about 10, and a believer for quite a while after that-- but lost my faith as I grew in my inquiry into the world. And yet, I don't think you can truly stop believing something-- you can only replace it. That old belief is still there. That's why I call myself Christian on on hand, and an athiest on the other. Even still, I hate the term "atheist" because that's not what I believe, but rather, a lable about something I happen to not believe in. I have all sorts of beliefs that could be called spiritual-- they don't involve a personified deity, however. People who self-define absolutely as "atheist" are a lot like the author of Link's website-- taking an adversarial stance, that is contrary to the spirit of truth.

Here's the weird part: if you ask me what I think the true nature of the universe is, I'd say there is no God. But I know what it feels like to think there is, and I am lying if I said that didn't have a profound effect on who I am. And as to the question, what does the universe care what I think about its nature? My opinion on the question really doesn't matter, unless there is a God and he punishes those who dont believe. And I have never believed in *that* god, even when I was young.


I hope you enjoyed reading that, and I hope it prokoked some new thoughts.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

All i have to say is that link is completely insane.

you all have fun with my replies, I've written enough and am finished in this thread

I sincerely doubt that, even if we ignore the post you made shortly after you said it.