logo Sign In

MOVED THREAD — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: theredbaron
Originally posted by: zombie84
Its also ironic that the very arguments that the Pope offered--namely that Muhammad offered no new or unique message--are the very same criticisms that were levelled at Christians by the pagans in the early second and third centuries CE; Christianity was seen as a synthesis of all the pagan Mystery Cults, a sort of "best of collection" that borrowed things from everything from Jove to Mithra to Osiris, and in fact that there is even an amusing early church father exchange between a preacher from the Jove cult where the church father defends the animosity developing between the two competing sects by explaining "we propound nothing different from those you esteem Sons of Jove." Pretty much all the sayings attributed to religious figures were not actually spoken by that person, if we are even to believe that said person actually existed--most of the sayings attributed to Buddha and Confuscious have been realised to be generic wisdom sayings that were existing in the culture long before attached to those figures, and in the Jesus Seminars, conducted in the late 1990's, New Testament scholars came to the shocking realisation that nearly every quote attributed to Jesus in the Bible--the beatitudes, the turn-the-other-cheek, the sermon on the mount--were not authentic but merely wisdom sayings that were "in the air" and were later attached to the figure of Christ. Saying any religion is unique is completely ignorant because anyone who actually has researched into history and science inevitably comes to the conclusion that its all bullshit. But then i wouldn't expect such feats of knowledge from Popes and Imams--best thing to do is probably let them kill each other; only problem is that they fight by proxy through their innocent followers.


Zombie, I think you're an alright kind of fella, but here you are pretty much forcing atheism down our throats. You're practically talking down to all non-atheists without any real evidence to back up your claims. If all religions are unequivocally bullshit and it can be proven conclusively, then how is it that we are even discussing religion in this very thread? I'm not saying that the burden of proof lies with the atheists when it comes to the existence of God, but if you claim that all religion is bullshit, then the burden of proof lies with you, and that requires more than just generalities and hearsay.



I was backing my conclusions with specific examples that can be verified through research so how is that generalities and heresays?

As to "all religion is BS", yeah that is kind of general, but i think most people can agree to it in some capacity, whether you believe in it or not (i.e. the bureaucracy, the dogma, the corrupted authority, the contradictory creeds, etc.).

In any case the burden of proof lies with followers to prove that their religion isn't bullshit. And historically speaking, such a thing is impossible based on all the facts that we know.
Author
Time
Post link
Actually, I was thinking of writing something to the same effect, but decided against it. You seem quite confident that there is no chance of a God existing and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. I am of the belief that there is no way to 100% prove the existence or non existence of a God. Also it is quite clear that you know absolutly nothing about religion or the idea of god (beyond what your high-school science teacher conditioned you to believe), as you said that there is no such thing as a unique religion, now that is one phrase that I can with all confidence says is total and complete bullshit. Also it is a bunch of bunk that you say the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of us theists, it would be impossible for any of us to try to convice you of the existence of a god if you have such a close mind as to sneer at the very idea of religion(s). Also, you claim that you have presented proof that atheism is the way to go, yet I have read all your posts and see nothing. Any of the "evidence" you have posted doesn't stand up to anything.

Don't get me wrong and take me as completely closed minded, I actually would love to have it proven to me that there is no god. This would mean the end of life is simply the end of life, that there is nothing to follow and no consequence for our actions in this life. In some ways this sounds kind of nice. If it could be proved that there was no god, then all questions of theology would be easily answered. However I do not believe this is possible.

It seems one major misconception people have about god, is that science proves the impossiblilty of a god, however that has not one ounce of truth to it at all. Science can just as well prove the existence of a creator as it can disprove the existence of such a creator. Which still leaves us to ponder the age old questions, is there a god? Only a fool decides the answer is no without really thinking about it and studying it on his own (which means not just believing it because our parents, teachers, or other influentual people in our lives thought this way). In the same way I think it can be foolish to believe in god for these same reasons.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Actually, I was thinking of writing something to the same effect, but decided against it. You seem quite confident that there is no chance of a God existing and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. I am of the belief that there is no way to 100% prove the existence or non existence of a God.

This then leaves us with the belief that there must not be one. You must believe in a negative until a positive is proven. There is no way of proving that an invisible, undetectable leprachan named Fred secretly controls the universe--and who are we to say its impossible? But there is no way of proving or disproving it either way. Therefore we must accept that, until it is proven positive, we must assume the negative. This is called burden of proof. Its why religious wackos like the scientologists are considered idiots.

Also it is quite clear that you know absolutly nothing about religion or the idea of god (beyond what your high-school science teacher conditioned you to believe), as you said that there is no such thing as a unique religion, now that is one phrase that I can with all confidence says is total and complete bullshit.

Considering i was raised christian, was baptised, confirmed and attented 15 years of Catholic school, as well as studying university science as well as general world religion, i would say that statement is quite an unfounded assumption. Quite the opposite--my deep immersement and study into these very subjects has led me to my conclusions.
As for "no unique religion"--that statement must be taken with the proper context. Obviously Hinduism and Christianity are quite different and obviously every religion is distinct and unique. But i meant it in the context that the Pope was using--that Islam offers nothing new or original. Because the same is true to a large degree of Christianity, and in the earliest Roman periods of its founding this was a giant roadblock and scandal--of course they overcame this by simply killing those who disagreed. But what i mean is that every religion has the same wisdom sayings and the same basic "sacred king" drama--Muhammad/Moses, Jesus/Joshua/Krishna/Buddha/Osiris. Entire books have been written over the fact that Jesus is a basic copy of Buddha, and that this same basic archetypal story is tracable to even earlier times. Its based on Astrology, where the sun represents God and the savior figure is his earlthy embodiment in the form of a human son, with the twelve underlings/disciples representing the zodaical signs and the dying/rising representing the procession of the equinoxes. Its the most ancient form of religion known to man, believed to have been developed during the neolithic period when humans made the transition from hunter-gatherers (which gives us the even more ancient myths, ie genesis) to farmers, hence the dependance on the sun and the seasonal harvest. The Egyptians and Aztecs have probably the most obvious example of this notion--in fact, early christian New World settlers were horrified to discover that the Aztecs had their own "jesus" in the form of Quetzalcoatl, only theirs was thousands of years older!

Also it is a bunch of bunk that you say the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of us theists, it would be impossible for any of us to try to convice you of the existence of a god if you have such a close mind as to sneer at the very idea of religion(s). Also, you claim that you have presented proof that atheism is the way to go, yet I have read all your posts and see nothing. Any of the "evidence" you have posted doesn't stand up to anything.


The only hard evidence i have presented is verifiable historic fact. I'm not close minded or ignorant, I'm rational and fact based. I'm completely open to the possibility of someone proving that a god exists, I'm just very unconfident of such a feat being possible based on the sheer onslaught of evidence in favor of the negative. I'm also not trying to convince anyone. I'm just presenting facts. Strange how religious people are so apprehensive of facts.

Science can just as well prove the existence of a creator as it can disprove the existence of such a creator.


That depends on your definition of god, an often overlooked aspect. Is god supernatural? Does he submit to natural law? Or is he "above" such things, being more of a traditional "magical" type deity? If he is the latter then it would indeed be impossible to prove such a thing--god would be supernatural, as in not part of the natural universe, in which case science no longer applies. If god exists in the natural universe then he would be provable but also not omipotent since he would be regulated by the same laws of physics that we are and hence not fit many peoples defintion of god.

Only a fool decides the answer is no without really thinking about it and studying it on his own (which means not just believing it because our parents, teachers, or other influentual people in our lives thought this way). In the same way I think it can be foolish to believe in god for these same reasons.


Some of us have thought about it long and hard, researched many history and science books, looked at facts, debated possibilities and arrived at the conclusion through histrorical and scientific analaysis and rational thought that such a concept of a supernatural deity is impossible. Because the fact is that based on our current understanding of the world, god does not clearly exist and not only that the universe functions in such a way that he is not necessary to explain its existance. Furthermore, historic facts reveals that every religion to be a man-made creation, although much of this is not widely known since it is considered taboo. Now, this does not rule out the possibility of some sort of god, a being not belonging to any earthly religion (though perhaps assuming traits of some), but that nevertheless still exists but has not been detected and proved by us yet. However, there is no reason to believe such a thing because the proof in favor of this simply does not exist. The burden of proof lies with the believers to show that such a thing is clearly possible, and the more wild a theory the more strong the proof must be. Its why most believe that sasquatch and fortune tellers and alien abductions to be fabrications as well, because there simply isnt hard evidence in favor of such amazing things. There also exists the possibility that in my basement is an invisible, undetectable pink elephant that science may one day be able to prove--but until science proves such a thing exists in my basement i am not going to believe in such an incredible concept. Why should god be exempt from any of these basic rationality theories which we use everyday in our lives? It seems to me that people are more lenient towards such things because they have had such concepts ingrained in them since birth and because there is a very immediate emotional need to have such a possibility. I would love to believe in such wondrous things, just as i would love to believe in human levitation and such, but i simply must face reality that such conepts are, at our present knowledge--and which i am fairly confident in will stand the test of time simply because they are of such basic logic arguments-- will remain unproved and therefore disproved.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: C3PX
Actually, I was thinking of writing something to the same effect, but decided against it. You seem quite confident that there is no chance of a God existing and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. I am of the belief that there is no way to 100% prove the existence or non existence of a God.

This then leaves us with the belief that there must not be one. You must believe in a negative until a positive is proven. There is no way of proving that an invisible, undetectable leprachan named Fred secretly controls the universe--and who are we to say its impossible? But there is no way of proving or disproving it either way. Therefore we must accept that, until it is proven positive, we must assume the negative. This is called burden of proof. Its why religious wackos like the scientologists are considered idiots.

Also it is quite clear that you know absolutly nothing about religion or the idea of god (beyond what your high-school science teacher conditioned you to believe), as you said that there is no such thing as a unique religion, now that is one phrase that I can with all confidence says is total and complete bullshit.

Considering i was raised christian, was baptised, confirmed and attented 15 years of Catholic school, as well as studying university science as well as general world religion, i would say that statement is quite an unfounded assumption. Quite the opposite--my deep immersement and study into these very subjects has led me to my conclusions.
As for "no unique religion"--that statement must be taken with the proper context. Obviously Hinduism and Christianity are quite different and obviously every religion is distinct and unique. But i meant it in the context that the Pope was using--that Islam offers nothing new or original. Because the same is true to a large degree of Christianity, and in the earliest Roman periods of its founding this was a giant roadblock and scandal--of course they overcame this by simply killing those who disagreed. But what i mean is that every religion has the same wisdom sayings and the same basic "sacred king" drama--Muhammad/Moses, Jesus/Joshua/Krishna/Buddha/Osiris. Entire books have been written over the fact that Jesus is a basic copy of Buddha, and that this same basic archetypal story is tracable to even earlier times. Its based on Astrology, where the sun represents God and the savior figure is his earlthy embodiment in the form of a human son, with the twelve underlings/disciples representing the zodaical signs and the dying/rising representing the procession of the equinoxes. Its the most ancient form of religion known to man, believed to have been developed during the neolithic period when humans made the transition from hunter-gatherers (which gives us the even more ancient myths, ie genesis) to farmers, hence the dependance on the sun and the seasonal harvest. The Egyptians and Aztecs have probably the most obvious example of this notion--in fact, early christian New World settlers were horrified to discover that the Aztecs had their own "jesus" in the form of Quetzalcoatl, only theirs was thousands of years older!

Also it is a bunch of bunk that you say the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of us theists, it would be impossible for any of us to try to convice you of the existence of a god if you have such a close mind as to sneer at the very idea of religion(s). Also, you claim that you have presented proof that atheism is the way to go, yet I have read all your posts and see nothing. Any of the "evidence" you have posted doesn't stand up to anything.


The only hard evidence i have presented is verifiable historic fact. I'm not close minded or ignorant, I'm rational and fact based. I'm completely open to the possibility of someone proving that a god exists, I'm just very unconfident of such a feat being possible based on the sheer onslaught of evidence in favor of the negative. I'm also not trying to convince anyone. I'm just presenting facts. Strange how religious people are so apprehensive of facts.

Science can just as well prove the existence of a creator as it can disprove the existence of such a creator.


That depends on your definition of god, an often overlooked aspect. Is god supernatural? Does he submit to natural law? Or is he "above" such things, being more of a traditional "magical" type deity? If he is the latter then it would indeed be impossible to prove such a thing--god would be supernatural, as in not part of the natural universe, in which case science no longer applies. If god exists in the natural universe then he would be provable but also not omipotent since he would be regulated by the same laws of physics that we are and hence not fit many peoples defintion of god.

Only a fool decides the answer is no without really thinking about it and studying it on his own (which means not just believing it because our parents, teachers, or other influentual people in our lives thought this way). In the same way I think it can be foolish to believe in god for these same reasons.


Some of us have thought about it long and hard, researched many history and science books, looked at facts, debated possibilities and arrived at the conclusion through histrorical and scientific analaysis and rational thought that such a concept of a supernatural deity is impossible. Because the fact is that based on our current understanding of the world, god does not clearly exist and not only that the universe functions in such a way that he is not necessary to explain its existance. Furthermore, historic facts reveals that every religion to be a man-made creation, although much of this is not widely known since it is considered taboo. Now, this does not rule out the possibility of some sort of god, a being not belonging to any earthly religion (though perhaps assuming traits of some), but that nevertheless still exists but has not been detected and proved by us yet. However, there is no reason to believe such a thing because the proof in favor of this simply does not exist. The burden of proof lies with the believers to show that such a thing is clearly possible, and the more wild a theory the more strong the proof must be. Its why most believe that sasquatch and fortune tellers and alien abductions to be fabrications as well, because there simply isnt hard evidence in favor of such amazing things. There also exists the possibility that in my basement is an invisible, undetectable pink elephant that science may one day be able to prove--but until science proves such a thing exists in my basement i am not going to believe in such an incredible concept. Why should god be exempt from any of these basic rationality theories which we use everyday in our lives? It seems to me that people are more lenient towards such things because they have had such concepts ingrained in them since birth and because there is a very immediate emotional need to have such a possibility. I would love to believe in such wondrous things, just as i would love to believe in human levitation and such, but i simply must face reality that such conepts are, at our present knowledge--and which i am fairly confident in will stand the test of time simply because they are of such basic logic arguments-- will remain unproved and therefore disproved.


I didn't say that the burden of proof lies with you and other atheists to disprove God's existence, I said that the burden of proof lies with you to prove that all religions are bullshit. There is a difference. And you really haven't produced any hard evidence. It is hearsay, because all you've mentioned is basically 'a bunch of guys at some conference sometime all of a sudden realised that religion was bullshit'. That is really all you've said - no names, no sources, no quotes, no comparison of texts to suggest how they may have unanimously come to this conclusion. The definition of that, my friend, is hearsay.

Obviously, the burden of proof lies with us (Christians, agnostics, deists, etc.) when it comes to the existence of God, but that was never what I was trying to do. I was looking specifically at your claim that "all religion is bullshit". I do not believe that universality between religions and religious concepts diminish their authenticity in any way. More often than not, it bolsters these teachings and ideas as universal truths.

At the end of the day, we're all placing our faith in something. I believe in God, for example, but if I backtrack far enough, I am still forced to ask the question: where did God come from? If I don't believe in God, however, I still have to ask: where did matter come from? And that's regardless of whether you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory. To some people, pantheists, in particular, God and matter could very well be the same thing: before the universe came into being, there was invisible, eternal matter lying dormant. The difference between Creationism and the Big Bang is that one came together by force of Will and the other didn't. Both parties still have to get past that concept of eternity and pre-existence: the something-from-nothing problem.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
My belief is you can't change their opinions why try? But you can teach them that discrimination against Homosexuals is wrong. I remember a commercial a few years ago say how gay people having kids was wrong, now that I think about it now I find it very biggotted and hurtfull. I wish I could save people from this hatred.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: theredbaron

I didn't say that the burden of proof lies with you and other atheists to disprove God's existence, I said that the burden of proof lies with you to prove that all religions are bullshit. There is a difference. And you really haven't produced any hard evidence. It is hearsay, because all you've mentioned is basically 'a bunch of guys at some conference sometime all of a sudden realised that religion was bullshit'. That is really all you've said - no names, no sources, no quotes, no comparison of texts to suggest how they may have unanimously come to this conclusion. The definition of that, my friend, is hearsay.

Well, with regards to the Jesus Seminar you can verify and research that yourself since i have included a reputable, verifiable and highly reliable source that is well known to serious scholars of the New Testament.

As for "all religion is BS"--the human origins of every religion are clear and well known by scholars. Everyone on the planet accepts that the Greek religions and the Nordic religions and the Egyptian religions and the Roman religions, for example, are all bullshit--simply because they are seen as "unbelievable" and "impossible" "myths" of ancient lore that were made up to explain natural phenomena not understood by primitive man. But what is the difference between these and the more "modern" religions like Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism? Not much. Only the social entrenchment, much like how a Roman living in AD 50 would have accepted the cult of Jupiter as a valid establishment in the same way that an American accepts the cult of Christ as a valid establishment.
The supposedly unique thing that seperates modern religions from "primitive" "false" ones like the Roman or Greek ones is the illusion of a historical basis. Firstly this is not unique--in attempts to rectify ones religion as the "true" one, many have fabricated evidence and claimed historical places as a means of grounding their myths in reality. Heracles' and Mithras birthplace was claimed to be found by the Greeks and Persians, and all sorts of similarly wild means have been used ad nauseum by various cults and sects of religions. But the fact is that every supposed historical reference to a deity of modern religions has been uncovered to be a forgery. In the case of Jesus there are a handful of early first century references that have been upheld by some but that have been proven through historical research to be false. Not one single actual reference remains. The most recent one was the "James brother of Jesus" bone box that was discovered to be a fraud.
But getting back to my initial point about people dismissing Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian and other ancient myths as "myths" but then inexplicitly accepting the exact same things in modern "religion"--if Roman and Egyptian mythology is accepted as "false", for instance, then the lineage of modern religions in origin to these "false" myths would therefore render them false as well. Because when you actual study it that is what happens--one religions flows into and borrows from the next. In fact, there is a term invented just for this occurance--syncretism. Ideas and beliefs don't just pop up overnight, the way they would had some revolutionary deity come down to earth from heaven and astounded the world--the develop slowly and naturally as part of the socio-political system of their birth. In the case of Christianity, it was mainly borne from the Platonic "Son of Man" cults that were overtaking the middle east and parts of Rome in the first century in response to the chaos uprooting the world at the time. These eventually gave rise to Paul and his Messianic Son of Man, whom was later called the Christ, which then melded with the savior passions of the Mystery Cults that Rome was infused with. These types of beliefs were not unique or new--they were the prominent philosophies of the region. This confounded early scholars who began with the assumption that Christ was a real person--they discovered that certain Christ cults were springing up randomly in different regions with wildly different belief systems. It was because those followers were simply adopting the philosophy of the Platonic Christ cults on their own, and this was a common occurance to simply adopt religious belief in those times because polytheism allowed multiple gods to co-exist together. It wasn't until the second and third centuries that these beliefs became organized together after an ananymous author combined them and committed them to paper in the form of a document called the Gospel of Mark, which then was copied and transformed by various other authors and which formed the Christian Church; there were so many different local variations on the Christ myth that a council was created to select which ones were to be considered part of the canononical mythology (the Council of Nicaea) after the Church gained the authority fo Rome due to Emperor Constantine's conversion. The critics of Christianity were then silenced by death--because everyone from the Mystery Cults knew that Christianity was just another Mystery Cult, but Christians who by that point were being born over a hundred years after the supposed death of their savior, began believing that their myth was historical because the Gospel of Mark document placed the Son of Man/Sacred King passion in an earthly setting. This is why most forged historical records stem from this period.

Islam of course is an offshoot of Christianity in the same way that Christianity is an offshoot of the Platonic Christ cult and Mystery Cults. Buddhism and Hinduism are even more ancient and basically come from the same source that ancient Egyptian mythology did--in fact, many still debate as to whether Hinduism fed into Egyptian myth or Egyptian myth fed into Hinduism. Likely it was a back and forth process. But if the myths of Osiris and Horus and Ra are considered "false" and "mythical"--wouldn't that make Hinduism and Buddhism the same. What do we have that disproves the glorious Osiris or ominipotent all seeing eye of Ra as false deities? None, really, if you are looking for some kind of objective proof, some type of "confessional" by an Egyptian priest; but a search for such a document would be futile because that isn't even the nature with which mythology is created.

I do not believe that universality between religions and religious concepts diminish their authenticity in any way. More often than not, it bolsters these teachings and ideas as universal truths.


Universiality between philosophy, yes--most humans have a basic underlying philosophy and way of life that is similar, and many disconnected civilizations arrive at similar conclusions. Hell, the Ten Commandments is identical to the Code of Hammurabi, a secular code of conduct from many thousands of years prior that had such universal tenates as "thous shalt not kill", etc.

At the end of the day, we're all placing our faith in something.


Bingo. Religion is about faith. Most religions ask of their followers not to question or look for proof of god but simply to accept that he exists. People nowadays are at the intelligence level to break away from mythology as a literal explanation for natural phenomena but cant quite break the fundamental emotional need and social taboo of declaring atheism--this is what has led to a bizarre rash of religious-minded folks who attempt to use science to their end. Its referred to as pseudo-science because it takes scientific principles and twists them into complete misrepresentations that give the layman simple answers to complex questions. Why learn about the big bang, or about the historical and social underpinings about ancient rome when it is easier to just say a magical being is responsible for everything. Its interesting to watch this crossroads where people have enormous scientific and rational understanding but can't quite let go of supernatural or magical belief. Ancient Greeks believed that even their thoughts and emotions were given to them by the gods--if they fell in love it was cupid inspiring them to feel such way, or if they got an idea it was muse giving them it. Now we understanding pheromones and the biochemical makeup of the brain and know that it is not due to magical intervention of supposed deities. But such a believer in things could make an argument: what proof do we have that it isn't Cupid or some muse making us feel such things? Just as modern man who can't quite grasp the concept of, say, a Big Bang or mythological sycretism, will ask similar questions.

The Big Bang is our best understanding of the universe. What occured before the Big Bang? Well, technically time did not exist so there was no "before". Now the man who cannot let go of the supernatural belief will try to meld the two concepts, stating that god existed before hand in the eternal realm and started the big band. But why is such a belief necessary? The universe functions in a self contained way that does not require any supernatural intervention, only further scientific study to arrive at more specific theories.

Furthermore, there is also now a rash of people who share the same uncomfortableness with atheism who have tried to amalgomate their beliefs by refusing to answer the question of "does god exist?" Because the truth is that we don't know. And so now you have people who call themselves agnostics who say "i dont know if god exists." But these people are just atheists without the conviction to declare themselves as such. The real Gnostics were an esoteric sect, of which Christianity owes much of its philosophy to--the word meant "to know." Thomas Huxley coined the modern philosophical meaning of it, meaning basically "to not know." In other words, a lack of belief: atheism. If you do not know if god exists, then you do not believe that he DOES exist, and you are an atheist. You can be an agostic theist: "i believe knowledge of god is impossible to know but I BELIEVE ANYWAY," and agnostic atheists, which is almost exclusively what modern "agonstics" are: "I believe knowledge of god is impossible, therefor i cannot proclaim belief." Because that is the only rational conclusion you can draw--god has not been proven. Therefore, until it is done, one cannot say that you positively believe in god, or at least a specific god. If you do believe, it must be on faith. This question also leads to the inevitable conclusion that would be painfully obvious if it were any other subject: perhaps the lack of proof indicates that the very question asked was futile. Why ask "does god exist" if there is no reason to? The answer is that its human nature. Humans ask this question without valid reason because they WANT to believe, which is where faith comes from: faith in the impossible and absurd, in the face of complete lack of proof. Only a fundamental emotional human need for some kind of comfort could produce a blind conviction to an impossible and unlikely concept such as this.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: theredbaron

I didn't say that the burden of proof lies with you and other atheists to disprove God's existence, I said that the burden of proof lies with you to prove that all religions are bullshit. There is a difference. And you really haven't produced any hard evidence. It is hearsay, because all you've mentioned is basically 'a bunch of guys at some conference sometime all of a sudden realised that religion was bullshit'. That is really all you've said - no names, no sources, no quotes, no comparison of texts to suggest how they may have unanimously come to this conclusion. The definition of that, my friend, is hearsay.

Well, with regards to the Jesus Seminar you can verify and research that yourself since i have included a reputable, verifiable and highly reliable source that is well known to serious scholars of the New Testament.

As for "all religion is BS"--the human origins of every religion are clear and well known by scholars. Everyone on the planet accepts that the Greek religions and the Nordic religions and the Egyptian religions and the Roman religions, for example, are all bullshit--simply because they are seen as "unbelievable" and "impossible" "myths" of ancient lore that were made up to explain natural phenomena not understood by primitive man. But what is the difference between these and the more "modern" religions like Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism? Not much. Only the social entrenchment, much like how a Roman living in AD 50 would have accepted the cult of Jupiter as a valid establishment in the same way that an American accepts the cult of Christ as a valid establishment.
The supposedly unique thing that seperates modern religions from "primitive" "false" ones like the Roman or Greek ones is the illusion of a historical basis. Firstly this is not unique--in attempts to rectify ones religion as the "true" one, many have fabricated evidence and claimed historical places as a means of grounding their myths in reality. Heracles' and Mithras birthplace was claimed to be found by the Greeks and Persians, and all sorts of similarly wild means have been used ad nauseum by various cults and sects of religions. But the fact is that every supposed historical reference to a deity of modern religions has been uncovered to be a forgery. In the case of Jesus there are a handful of early first century references that have been upheld by some but that have been proven through historical research to be false. Not one single actual reference remains. The most recent one was the "James brother of Jesus" bone box that was discovered to be a fraud.
But getting back to my initial point about people dismissing Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian and other ancient myths as "myths" but then inexplicitly accepting the exact same things in modern "religion"--if Roman and Egyptian mythology is accepted as "false", for instance, then the lineage of modern religions in origin to these "false" myths would therefore render them false as well. Because when you actual study it that is what happens--one religions flows into and borrows from the next. In fact, there is a term invented just for this occurance--syncretism. Ideas and beliefs don't just pop up overnight, the way they would had some revolutionary deity come down to earth from heaven and astounded the world--the develop slowly and naturally as part of the socio-political system of their birth. In the case of Christianity, it was mainly borne from the Platonic "Son of Man" cults that were overtaking the middle east and parts of Rome in the first century in response to the chaos uprooting the world at the time. These eventually gave rise to Paul and his Messianic Son of Man, whom was later called the Christ, which then melded with the savior passions of the Mystery Cults that Rome was infused with. These types of beliefs were not unique or new--they were the prominent philosophies of the region. This confounded early scholars who began with the assumption that Christ was a real person--they discovered that certain Christ cults were springing up randomly in different regions with wildly different belief systems. It was because those followers were simply adopting the philosophy of the Platonic Christ cults on their own, and this was a common occurance to simply adopt religious belief in those times because polytheism allowed multiple gods to co-exist together. It wasn't until the second and third centuries that these beliefs became organized together after an ananymous author combined them and committed them to paper in the form of a document called the Gospel of Mark, which then was copied and transformed by various other authors and which formed the Christian Church; there were so many different local variations on the Christ myth that a council was created to select which ones were to be considered part of the canononical mythology (the Council of Nicaea) after the Church gained the authority fo Rome due to Emperor Constantine's conversion. The critics of Christianity were then silenced by death--because everyone from the Mystery Cults knew that Christianity was just another Mystery Cult, but Christians who by that point were being born over a hundred years after the supposed death of their savior, began believing that their myth was historical because the Gospel of Mark document placed the Son of Man/Sacred King passion in an earthly setting. This is why most forged historical records stem from this period.

Islam of course is an offshoot of Christianity in the same way that Christianity is an offshoot of the Platonic Christ cult and Mystery Cults. Buddhism and Hinduism are even more ancient and basically come from the same source that ancient Egyptian mythology did--in fact, many still debate as to whether Hinduism fed into Egyptian myth or Egyptian myth fed into Hinduism. Likely it was a back and forth process. But if the myths of Osiris and Horus and Ra are considered "false" and "mythical"--wouldn't that make Hinduism and Buddhism the same. What do we have that disproves the glorious Osiris or ominipotent all seeing eye of Ra as false deities? None, really, if you are looking for some kind of objective proof, some type of "confessional" by an Egyptian priest; but a search for such a document would be futile because that isn't even the nature with which mythology is created.

I do not believe that universality between religions and religious concepts diminish their authenticity in any way. More often than not, it bolsters these teachings and ideas as universal truths.


Universiality between philosophy, yes--most humans have a basic underlying philosophy and way of life that is similar, and many disconnected civilizations arrive at similar conclusions. Hell, the Ten Commandments is identical to the Code of Hammurabi, a secular code of conduct from many thousands of years prior that had such universal tenates as "thous shalt not kill", etc.

At the end of the day, we're all placing our faith in something.


Bingo. Religion is about faith. Most religions ask of their followers not to question or look for proof of god but simply to accept that he exists. People nowadays are at the intelligence level to break away from mythology as a literal explanation for natural phenomena but cant quite break the fundamental emotional need and social taboo of declaring atheism--this is what has led to a bizarre rash of religious-minded folks who attempt to use science to their end. Its referred to as pseudo-science because it takes scientific principles and twists them into complete misrepresentations that give the layman simple answers to complex questions. Why learn about the big bang, or about the historical and social underpinings about ancient rome when it is easier to just say a magical being is responsible for everything. Its interesting to watch this crossroads where people have enormous scientific and rational understanding but can't quite let go of supernatural or magical belief. Ancient Greeks believed that even their thoughts and emotions were given to them by the gods--if they fell in love it was cupid inspiring them to feel such way, or if they got an idea it was muse giving them it. Now we understanding pheromones and the biochemical makeup of the brain and know that it is not due to magical intervention of supposed deities. But such a believer in things could make an argument: what proof do we have that it isn't Cupid or some muse making us feel such things? Just as modern man who can't quite grasp the concept of, say, a Big Bang or mythological sycretism, will ask similar questions.

The Big Bang is our best understanding of the universe. What occured before the Big Bang? Well, technically time did not exist so there was no "before". Now the man who cannot let go of the supernatural belief will try to meld the two concepts, stating that god existed before hand in the eternal realm and started the big band. But why is such a belief necessary? The universe functions in a self contained way that does not require any supernatural intervention, only further scientific study to arrive at more specific theories.

Furthermore, there is also now a rash of people who share the same uncomfortableness with atheism who have tried to amalgomate their beliefs by refusing to answer the question of "does god exist?" Because the truth is that we don't know. And so now you have people who call themselves agnostics who say "i dont know if god exists." But these people are just atheists without the conviction to declare themselves as such. The real Gnostics were an esoteric sect, of which Christianity owes much of its philosophy to--the word meant "to know." Thomas Huxley coined the modern philosophical meaning of it, meaning basically "to not know." In other words, a lack of belief: atheism. If you do not know if god exists, then you do not believe that he DOES exist, and you are an atheist. You can be an agostic theist: "i believe knowledge of god is impossible to know but I BELIEVE ANYWAY," and agnostic atheists, which is almost exclusively what modern "agonstics" are: "I believe knowledge of god is impossible, therefor i cannot proclaim belief." Because that is the only rational conclusion you can draw--god has not been proven. Therefore, until it is done, one cannot say that you positively believe in god, or at least a specific god. If you do believe, it must be on faith. This question also leads to the inevitable conclusion that would be painfully obvious if it were any other subject: perhaps the lack of proof indicates that the very question asked was futile. Why ask "does god exist" if there is no reason to? The answer is that its human nature. Humans ask this question without valid reason because they WANT to believe, which is where faith comes from: faith in the impossible and absurd, in the face of complete lack of proof. Only a fundamental emotional human need for some kind of comfort could produce a blind conviction to an impossible and unlikely concept such as this.



FINALLY! Now you've engaged with the question and produced some talking points! I will endeavour to address your comments in the future when I have time. There is much to talk about.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
It takes more faith to be an aetheist than it does to believe in God...
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
If there was no God, then religion would be simple. I would believe what I want, you believe what you want and no one would care... well, as long as it was a peaceful religion anyway.

Where does the hatred of the "idea of God" come from? It is nothing new, and so many are so adamant in their stance that I wonder, why? If having such a personal belief makes someone ignorant or stupid... why does that offend so many? Why get so defensive if there really is no God? Why be so hateful, and hurtful to what others believe if it effects you in no way, shape, or form? Hmmm....

So, some believe "In the beginning God..."

Others believe... In the beginning, nothing! Then nothing became something and here we are billions or years later... (somehow this one ended up in the schools)

Through the reality of Gods inevitability, man has really messed things up. Religion is merely mans attempt to reach God (even to the point of manipulating God to be who He is not.) The simplicity of God's intentions seem to be completely lost in the pride and hatred of mankind. Even the outreach of God through Christ has been manipulated to mere politics, and hypocrisy. Christianity is not supposed to be a religion, but a relationship with Christ... man and religion has made it seem otherwise.

Though God has not changed from mans attempt to manipulate who He really is, devastating perceptions blind those in need of Him. A Perfect God has been made unappealing by religion. I guess that would make me want to not believe in God too... if I did not already know the Truth.

Galatians 2: 20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Coov
If there was no God, then religion would be simple.


And how would you be sure there is no God?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
The lack of God would mean the lack of an opposition. A world without demons, without an acknowledgment of sin, and without an established guideline of morality. We would be our own gods and could live as we wanted without fear of consequence, and we would be in control... man, I am so glad that is not the case.

Galatians 2: 20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Coov
The lack of God would mean the lack of an opposition. A world without demons, without an acknowledgment of sin, and without an established guideline of morality. We would be our own gods and could live as we wanted without fear of consequence, and we would be in control... man, I am so glad that is not the case.

So to what extend do you think God controls us?

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
That is a good question. Because of free will God will only control in us what we let Him.

Galatians 2: 20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Author
Time
Post link
Coov: I never thought of it like that before. I mean I know He controlls us but there is also our free will

Sean/Nanner: I agree with you Nanner, Gay should not have children, jsut think of all the teasing as they got older, and all the stress. I mean gays can go have there thing just don't flaunt it in my face. But they should not be allowed to adopt kids.
Author
Time
Post link
One problem with Christianity today (and since it began) is that so many people take the things they like about it and ignore the things that they don't like. I am not saying all Christians do this, but I think this is where Sean is coming from saying how hurtful and hateful Christians are towards homosexuals. Now it is no secret the Bible calls homosexuality un-natural and an abomination. However, the central message of the whole New Testament can be summed up in one word: "Love". The whole of the New Testament is all about loving one another, love your enemies, it doesn't exclude anybody from this. The whole turn the other cheek, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, all of it is about loving your neighbor.

Now lets take a look at how the world today sees Christians. Not a pretty picture. We are all seen as bigots (though after reading some of zombie's posts, I don't think the atheists are ones to be using the word "bigot" for somebody else), and self rightous. This is unfortunate. Zombie seemed the think that every religion that ever existed was merely for self gain of those developing it. Christianity at its very base is not a selfish religion, anything but. Unfortunately selfish people have done selfish things in the name of Christ. Look at Jesus, and look at the apostle Paul, what great things did Christianity bring to them? Jesus was crucified, and Paul probably lived the rest of his days out in prison. These are the two men who would have had the most to gain from this religion had they had that intention in mind.

As Sean mentioned about how hateful Christians are towards gay people, the Bible never says to hate them, it does condemn them as sexually immoral, right along with protitutes and adulters. Why should Christians be accepting of their friend who is screwing some other guys wife and then condemn the homosexual to his face, telling him that God hate him because he is gay. This isn't what Christianity is suppose to be about. The Bible also condemns judgment of others, so where does this leave the guy who is going around telling gay people they are going to burn in hell? In fact, I bet I can find more verses condeming judging others than I could find condeming homosexuality. It may be hard for some people to accept, but God loves everyone, this includes homosexuals.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Great post, C3PX.

So many are quick to stereotype Christianity into the negative they see on TV or portrayed in Hollywood. A lot of cases show that the "hatred" that some Christians portray deems a hatred for Christianity as well. As hypocritical as we may be seen as, that is every bit of hypocritical.

For some reason Christians are stereotyped as supposed to be perfect. If you are not perfect, then obviously you are not a good Christian. If we had the ability to be perfect, then we would have no need for Christ in our lives. Salvation through our faith in Christ seals us with the Holy Spirit. God actually takes up residence inside the believer to guide him to righteousness. This guidance helps nudge us in the right direction, not take over. The more we step aside, the more God can take over. Our failures are inevitable... but that is what grace is for.

The ideal attitude of a Christian is to allow Christ to be seen in their lives. Not in a prideful spotlight, but in a humble realization that anything good that I am capable of is because of God's help. A good Christian will know that he needs Christ every step of every day, and knows to turn to Christ when he does fail. That is a far cry from what is portrayed out there... even to the point to where we seem to be comparable to a radical Islam. Thanks, Rosie! *sigh*

Galatians 2: 20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Author
Time
Post link
We all have our choice with how we live our own life. I chose a victorious, joyful life through Christ. Christ does not force Himself on anyone, nor came to earth to condemn it so who are we as Christians to do so. (John 3: 17) He died as a way to pay our wage of sin which is death. (Romans 6: 23) I see no other alternative but to in turn give my life to Him. To some that may seem a slaves life... but I assure you, the Joy that I have found in Christ is unexplainable and so very real. I have never been more free.

Our choices are ours, but so are the consequences.

Galatians 2: 20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Coov
I see no other alternative but to in turn give my life to Him. To some that may seem a slaves life... but I assure you, the Joy that I have found in Christ is unexplainable and so very real. I have never been more free.


So true Coov.




"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Coov
If there was no God, then religion would be simple.

That's like saying "if a human being wrote Star Wars then the story would be simple" or "if a human being wrote Hamlet then the story would be simple." Those two examples and religion are simple in a lot of ways but filled with complex subtlies and intricate weaving of themes and concepts. "If human beings created government then politics would be simple." Yeah, sure.

Where does the hatred of the "idea of God" come from? It is nothing new, and so many are so adamant in their stance that I wonder, why?

Historically, actual hatred comes from believers of other religions, not because they don't believe in god but because they don't believe in the right god.

If having such a personal belief makes someone ignorant or stupid... why does that offend so many?


I don't know if "offense" is quite the right word but it is frustrating in the same way those who believe in a flat earth is frustrating. Ignorance to such basic factual knowledge is bad for the progress of society.

So, some believe "In the beginning God..."

Others believe... In the beginning, nothing! Then nothing became something and here we are billions or years later... (somehow this one ended up in the schools)


That is such a simplistic and inaccurate description of the scientific principle of the big bang that you have provided a prime example of the manipulation of religion to provide an easy and "logical" answer. Because you can't really even sum up such complex scientific principles in a mere sentence.

Through the reality of Gods inevitability, man has really messed things up. Religion is merely mans attempt to reach God (even to the point of manipulating God to be who He is not.)


But how do you know what God is or isn't? It seems to me that would you really mean is "what god should be" or "what my ideal version of a god ought to be."


And no one has still even addressed all of my previous points. Religious people tend to ignore history and science and instead simply preach emotional "you must feel Him in you" type of nonesense. I guess it is hard to argue with facts though so you might as well pretend they don't exist.

Author
Time
Post link
I used the think the way you do for the bulk of my life. I have since opened my eyes to the Truth and Majesty of Christ. I don't need to defend God to prove the reality of Him, but you do need to be aware that there is a huge difference from "religion" and what God truly expects from us.

I find it interesting how adamant you seem to be about trying to prove man made religion as wrong, but have so much faith yourself in scientific theory that you call it factual. Having faith in something does not create a reality. I do not fear being wrong because actually opening my eyes has made God even more tangible that I would have ever imagined.

If trying to prove you are right is what you need, I guess that is what this thread is for... just don't expect a debate out of me. I am secure enough in what I believe to know I do not have to defend it. I just hope my posts open some eyes as to what man has made religion, and in contrast the relationship that Christ wants through His children. Amen.

Galatians 2: 20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Author
Time
Post link
Why do atheists care about relegion: video.

Coov, you speak of "the reality of God's inevitability".
Why do you think God is inevitable?

Also you say "if I did not already know the Truth".
How do you know the truth? (Or, why do you think you know the truth?)

And, "I have since opened my eyes to the Truth and Majesty of Christ".
How do you open your eyes? What do you experience?

According to one of your messages you weren't religious all (most of) your life. What changed this?

Personally, I don't believe in (any) God. I don't think there's "life" after death.
By the way, I'm not trying to attack you in any way. I'm just trying to understand.
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Zombie, you know the really interesting thing here, you are the one calling theists idiots. Almost every post you wrote in this thread has mentioned how wrong religion is and how ignorant it is to believe in a god, and at the same time you say religious people are the ones spreading hate. You have also spent a fair deal of words talking non sense about pink elephants and little men named Fred. Somebody here said it takes as much faith not to believe in a god as it does to believe in a god. We have faith in God, but you have faith in science. There are a lot of things science cannot explain, and there are many theories in science that change over time. Science is all study done by man. All those text books are written by people, they are based off study, observation, and research, and they are mostly quite accurate. But science is so full of theories. Everything about the existence of the earth and how it came into being, it is all just theory. You say there is no such thing as a god until it is proven otherwise, and since there is no way to prove there is a god then he doesn't exist. Just as the pink elephant in your basement doesn't exist until it is proven otherwise, which I think is a pretty lame analogy but I think you were trying to make a point that belief in a god is just as lame. If you keep bumping into some unseen object while in your basement doing laundry, perhaps there might be a reason to believe in Pinky (do you mind if I call your elephant Pinky?), but as it is it is just an assumption based on nothing. I think the existence of the earth is enough evidence to give the hint that there could possibly be an intelligent being who created the universe. Everything in the universe fits so perfectly together. It seems very unlikely for this to have come by mere chance. You see religion as a reason to hate and a reason to explain thing we don't understand. But even with science, what you would call truth and facts, get a room full of 50 scientists, even fifty prominent ones who have contributed to texts books and journals, and let's get them to agree on the origin of the universe.

You said,
"Ignorance to such basic factual knowledge is bad for the progress of society."

Close mindedness is also ignorance. My grandfather believed that scientist made up dinosaurs to prove the theory of evolution. That is ignorance. I agree a lot of religious people today (and in the past like my grandfather) stick their fingers in their ears and yell when you give them scientific fact that they feel threatens there faith. But the fact is there are a lot of very well educated theists who find no conflict between God and science. I have several friends who are scientists, and many of them are theists. They have no problem believing in science and God at the same time. It is not true that the two are incompatible. You will find that if you read the Bible you will be hard pressed to find scientific inaccuracies or historical inaccuracies. If your idea that belief in God is sheer ignorance, then no educated person would be a theist. We would have all the upper-class educated people being atheists, and all the trailer park, low class, uneducated people dumbly believing in God. This however, is not the case at all. I happen to think close mindedness is bad for the progress of society. Anyway, I am not really wishing to make a fight, it is just annoying how you openly insult people who believe in God. You believe what you will, I have plenty of atheist friends and I wouldn't hold it against you. But you really shouldn't belittle people just because they believe differently than you. It is good to see things from more than one point of view, and it can be a great insight to have friends with an extremely different world view than yourself. It helps you understand the world better. Also, don't worry, progress of society won't be impeded by religious people. It has not been and it won't be. Also I am willing to bet that religious people have made as many contributions to society over the history of the world as atheists have been. I would love to see an example of them holding back the progression of society today.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape