Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

[VOLatile]

that isn't the standard definition of atheism though.

I'm not saying it is. In the end, it's all personal whether you're atheist, deist, or anywhere between.

 

[vader]

To me, a tree is proof God exists.

Based on my sinuses right now, I view trees as proof that God hates me.

 

[therealUT]

To me, a tree is proof God exists.

Can you prove a tree exists?

Hint: look to Descartes and Locke for the argument.

 

[rjd970]

but you seem to be arguing no higher power exists at all rather than the organized religion gods are bs.

I am carrying on two arguments right now. One is about a creator of some sort, one is about Judeo-Christianity in particular.

Wanna hop in this discussion about Christianity?

...and btw, yes. if I don't believe a creator is possible, then that rules out Christianity as well.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Could new discovery trump Dead Sea Scrolls? Scholars intrigued but cautious. - CSMonitor.com

Written on lead in Hebrew and Aramaic, the secretly coded books – or codices – were hidden for centuries in a remote Jordanian cave until a traveling Bedouin found them some five years ago, according to a statement released last week by British Egyptologist David Elkington. Depictions of crosses on the lead-bound leaves, coupled with metallurgical analysis, suggest to Mr. Elkington that these might be early Christian texts that pre-date even some letters in the New Testament.

 

[tigervol9802]

Greater than 0% and their arguments, if one sincerely starts from the premise that Jesus may or may not have existed, seem sound and logical to me.



I could write a fictional narrative and use historical places. Jerusalem and Rome existed, as did Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Galilea; Gospel writers would not have felt the need to stretch or falsify information for most of the story, just the parts that need be used to "fulfill prophecy".



Why did a handful suddenly care twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, and seventy years later?



...them not to believe in a myth concerning a figure who promises hope after a miserable existence, if they just suffer through (carry their cross) they will have eternal bliss in heaven...

So essentially you are saying is that you start with a premise and then view what supports your premise as reliable? That's how I read this.

 

[rjd970]

Could new discovery trump Dead Sea Scrolls? Scholars intrigued but cautious. - CSMonitor.com

My bet is if these things are legit and change the story that has been told for generations in any way, they will be discredited right off the bat as opposed to taken seriously.

 

[CSVol]

Can you prove a tree exists?

Hint: look to Descartes and Locke for the argument.

Well, one just crushed my uncle's truck in the WTN storms that hit this week. But then was the truck real? I had been inside while he drove. But am I real? Are time and space simply illusions to keep the conscious mind sane? Is everything that is, was and will ever be happening simultaneously? Is the soul the only thing immortal throughout time? I'm gonna do a bong hit and think about what your saying.

 

[VOLatile]

Could new discovery trump Dead Sea Scrolls? Scholars intrigued but cautious. - CSMonitor.com

Bible expansion pack!

Pre-order now and get a special Roman character and replica nail from the True Cross!

 

[IPorange]

Well, one just crushed my uncle's truck in the WTN storms that hit this week. But then was the truck real? I had been inside while he drove. But am I real? Are time and space simply illusions to keep the conscious mind sane? Is everything that is, was and will ever be happening simultaneously? Is the soul the only thing immortal throughout time? I'm gonna do a bong hit and think about what your saying.

So you just assume there's a soul? And a bong?

 

[CSVol]

So you just assume there's a soul? And a bong?

I can provide empirical proof that bongs exist.

 

[IPorange]

Regarding earlier "percentage" posts. I'm as atheistic as they come, but 0 % and 100 % are awfully rigid figures. No evidence does not equal not possibility. There's just no reason to entertain it much more than an infinite number of other possibilities, is all. Still wouldn't throw around 0 % or 100 % on anything.

 

[Tenacious D]

Thanks!

I actually agree with pretty much everything you said. I think it's good to question things, the only thing I 100% don't question is who I believe Jesus is.

For example one thing I struggle with is prayer- if God is in the past, present and future he already knows what will happen in my life. Is it predestined or does he just already know?

I guess I've come to the conclusion that prayer isn't intended to "change God's mind" but to change my heart to seek him in all situations.

For example I don't pray that God will heal me or change my circumstances if something bad happens but that I can grow closer to Him and seek His will versus "fixing" everything bad that happens to me.

I couldn't hope to answer this question were I given 1,000 years, C.S. Lewis' brain and RJD's critically keen intellect, at least with any certainty.

But perhaps your prayers have influence, perhaps even markedly so, but that God's will for your best ultimately prevails. Sometimes your prayers are in agreement with that purpose (you receive), but other times not (you do not receive).

Some theologians assert that the only true prayer is to learn to accept the will of God as he makes it known to you - and that such is not predicated upon either your discernment of its meaning or agreements with his method. C.S. Lewis said that the best prayer is simply to say, "May it be the real I who speaks. May it be the real Thou that I speak to."

Of course, and again, this is all pure speculation from an uneducated person who has committed every imaginable heresy known to mankind and who has never read the New Testament, so I am almost certainly wrong on this, and a great many other matters of faith.

 

[Tenacious D]

It's one of many explanations that are far more reasonable than that of an all powerful being.

And sure, given the reasoning for there being a God, it is enough to have zero doubt.

So, some things are more reasonable than others? That makes a great deal of sense to me, RJD.

But, it makes your earlier comments regarding the equal probability of all deities seem curious at best, and unreasonable, at worst.

How can these be reconciled?

 

[Tenacious D]

Is there any doubt in your mind that Zeus doesn't exist at all?

If no, take the reasons for that and apply as needed.

I have no idea, and more importantly, no means to effectively and empirically prove that Zeus does or does not exist - hence, my inability to be "100%" certain in either direction.

While I personally believe it to be highly unlikely, such still does not remove all doubt and possibility, as it seems to have done for you.

Thus, my curiousity and the posing of the question.

 

[Tenacious D]

My bet is if these things are legit and change the story that has been told for generations in any way, they will be discredited right off the bat as opposed to taken seriously.

Because you believe that, at its core - religion detests science.

Do I correctly detect that sentimenet in your statement, RJD?

 

[Tenacious D]

Regarding earlier "percentage" posts. I'm as atheistic as they come, but 0 % and 100 % are awfully rigid figures. No evidence does not equal not possibility. There's just no reason to entertain it much more than an infinite number of other possibilities, is all. Still wouldn't throw around 0 % or 100 % on anything.

Rex,
I find it unimaginable that anyone could disagree with this - nor certainly someone with the exceedingly elevated critical thinking skills of RJD.

But I could be wrong.

 

[therealUT]

Could new discovery trump Dead Sea Scrolls? Scholars intrigued but cautious. - CSMonitor.com

Way to leave the next paragraph out...

Others aren’t so sure. All evidence to date suggests Christians didn’t use the cross as a symbol until the 4th century, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. The use of codices also dates to a later period, he said, and metal analysis has yielded no precise dating in this case.

 

[therealUT]

So essentially you are saying is that you start with a premise and then view what supports your premise as reliable? That's how I read this.

Not at all. Have you ever taken a logic class? Logical arguments must start with accepted premises. I imagine that "Jesus may or may not have actually existed" is universally accepted.

If one starts with the premise that Jesus did exist, then logically argues that evidence, then, technically speaking, the argument is logical but not sound.

 

[tigervol9802]

Not at all. Have you ever taken a logic class? Logical arguments must start with accepted premises. I imagine that "Jesus may or may not have actually existed" is universally accepted.

If one starts with the premise that Jesus did exist, then logically argues that evidence, then, technically speaking, the argument is logical but not sound.

It's been a while.....thanks for making me realize how old I am.

Fair enough and agreed.

 

[IPorange]

Rex

You slut.

 

[rjd970]

I just refuse to parse my words with figures like "99.9% sure". If I am 99.9% sure, I am...as well as anybody else...claiming certainty. Entertaining that last tenth of a percent as a possibility is silly. I.E...entertaining even the possibility of Zeus, with his lightening bolts and God buddies he hangs out with, as being true is silly. I feel the same way about any God.

Whether they admit it or not, everybody is an atheist to some degree, some just take it all the way.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Way to leave the next paragraph out...

Ok... thats why I put the link

Others aren’t so sure. All evidence to date suggests Christians didn’t use the cross as a symbol until the 4th century, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. The use of codices also dates to a later period, he said, and metal analysis has yielded no precise dating in this case.

Well this is new evidence. Its obvious that its really old and the crosses inscribed on it are pretty hard to dispute.

 

[rjd970]

Because you believe that, at its core - religion detests science.

Do I correctly detect that sentimenet in your statement, RJD?

My sentiment is religion is cautious of science. History has shown that if scientific inquiry, theory, or evidence shows even the hint of being critical of long held theological beliefs, then the relationship turns sour quick and much effort is put into discrediting the new knowledge.

Hence, my comments on these new texts that have been discovered.

 

[therealUT]

Ok... thats why I put the link

“We have no fact about these that would indicate that they are Christian and date from this [mid-first century] period, except for some vague metallurgists who say they ‘could,’ ” Mr. Shanks says. “On the contrary, we have a number of things – the cross, the codex, [and other symbols] that counter this claim.”

New Testament scholar Craig Evans also hesitates to assume much about the early codices. They could be very significant, he said, if they really do trace to an early Jewish group that regarded Jesus as Messiah. That’s because most of what’s known about first-century communities comes either from Paul’s scriptural letters to Gentile churches, or from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which convey the traditional Jewish beliefs of first-century Essenes. Early Jewish Christians, as Evans calls those with Messianic beliefs, remain less well understood.

But “that’s a big if,” says Mr. Evans, a professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. At this point, little is known about the content, purpose, or date of the codices. He says he’s hopeful that they’ll shed fresh light on Christian origins, but he’s not confident they will.

“To make claims right now about these being really early – ‘middle of the first century,’ or ‘earliest Christian writings’ – that’s a bit reckless,” Evans says.

Several factors are keeping the codices cloaked in mystery, at least for now. The fact that they’re written in code means scholars will need to crack the code before deciphering what’s said on the lead pages. And getting access to the texts could be difficult.

They’re reportedly in the possession of an Israeli Bedouin who claims they’ve been in his family for more than 100 years. Elkington’s team disputes that story, alleging instead that the codices were illegally smuggled out of Jordan after their recent discovery in a cave.

The Kingdom of Jordan is reportedly working to recover the codices under a law that gives the state ownership of newly discovered antiquities. Meanwhile, Elkington has announced that a book and documentary film are in the works.

“There is likely to be considerable academic and political debate about the collection’s authenticity, meaning, and interpretation,” said a March 22 news release from David and Jennifer Elkington. “But now there is also a race against time to safeguard the collection’s future.”

RELATED: Are you smarter than an atheist? A religious quiz.

The fact that this entire article is filled with conflicting and dubious claims does not in any way deter you from trying to use it as some kind of proof that other, 2,000 year old, conflicting and dubious claims are true. Why am I not surprised.

Well this is new evidence. Its obvious that its really old and the crosses inscribed on it are pretty hard to dispute.

I saw no pictures of these crosses; that said, two intersecting hash marks on a palm leaf do not lead me to immediately believe that these are crosses with reference to Jesus and the Crucifixion. If there were a more intricate symbol of Christianity, say an actual Crucifix with a dove flying down toward the cross, I might pay attention.

+ <---cross