On Atheism vs. Christianity

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Shira,
You mentioned the Arab, who I presume would be Islamic, didn't believe Jesus to be the messiah.

"In Islam, Isa (Jesus) is also called the Messiah (Masih), but like in Judaism he is not considered to be the literal physical Son of God"

I'm not conversant with Islam but had this notion that they did consider him the Messiah. I looked and tried to garner an understanding of what that would have meant to their faith, if anything. The best I can determine is that the Messiah is for the Jew but not Islam. I think Islam considers the Messiah to be 'King of the Jews' or like that and a major prophet.

Regarding the rhetorical(s), I pretty much saw what you were attempting to do. You'll notice, I'm sure, that our friend has pretty much sated his quest for historical truth to support faith. Paul Harvey always had a 'The rest of the story' but some turned off the radio before that.
I'd love to discuss 'The DaVinci Code' in the context of the life of Jesus instead of mailing copies to the Taliban That discussion would outrage with out merit, I think. In those days it would be normal for a 30 yr old to have been married and etc. Actually, I'd think folks would have thought him abnormal otherwise. So abnormal that he'd have been hard pressed to then claim to be the Messiah. But, that is another story.

Well you are wrong about Jesus being the Messiah in Judaism or Islam. He is seen as a prophet of the real Messiah in Islam and as pretty much nothing more than another human in Judaism.

The quote I gave at the top portion of my post is from Wikipedia. I went on to indicate I thought they considered him the Messiah. But after checking a bit I learned that although, - and this is another quote - " ... Numerous titles are given to Jesus in the Qur'an, such as al-Masi? ("the messiah; the anointed one" i.e. by means of blessings), although it does not correspond with the meaning accrued in Christian belief ... " They call him by that name or could call him that, the meaning is different, apparently.
I think the only folks waiting for THE Messiah are the Jews. Christians found him whilst others have a view that sort of ascribes the functionality of the Messiah to God himself (Allah etc.). I think that Islam is amongst that crew. Except, Jesus is an end game player and comes down to battle someone and then Allah comes.

Bloody Hell, I'm now off reading the Qur'an. I don't care what they believe actually. So I'm a hush up from now on. I thought it noteworthy that they (Islam) do or can refer to him as Messiah but don't mean Messiah as we do...

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

If I had faith, I would lose it by reading a single post by Nemesis 1.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
If I had faith, I would lose it by reading a single post by Nemesis 1.

Well... At times when you are faced with a perplexing usage of letters, words and sentences you might consider that this enigma to be a work having undergone cyphering. What I'd suggest, and only suggest in order to provide for the eventual possibility of your adopting of faith based thinking, that you adopt the little known Templar reverse compiler where you take the totality of the letters and duplicate that (each letter of the message is added again to the end of the original message). Eliminate all punctuation. Now, take each third letter and add its value (1 - 26) to the one adjacent (both left and right) so if you had a 'G' as a third letter you'd add 7 to the adjacent letters making an 'I' become a 'P'. If you have to wrap around you where a 'Z' might become an 'A' or so on you divide by two first and round up. When you've completed this task and are assured your math and effort is accurate you eliminate every other letter resulting in the original number of letters contained in the original. You are almost done. You now take the last letter and place it to the right of the first and in that fashion continue until you have moved all of the last half of the adjusted original to a new locale. Now simply find words using the New Oxford Dictionary as a guide and eliminate the rest. Place the found words in an order that makes sense. Insert what ever punctuation that seems reasonable, and there it is.. A cogent thought.
I'd put a here but after all that effort above I'd rather put a look... hehehehe

 

[WHAMPOM]

Religion, where you can blame "God" for telling you to rob, rape and murder your fellow human beings.

 

[LunarRay]

I wonder how we can have a bit of cloth some 14 feet long and I guess 3 or so across that has on it what I'd call a representation of a human male that science has yet to determine the cause of that representation appearing on the cloth.
I'm not suggesting (at the moment) who that might be depicted on the cloth nor do I argue with the dating process using the carbon 14 half life scenario even though we've found independent tests reveal that the area cut to perform the tests contained materials 'added' at some time after the original 'burial' cloth was made.
I simply wonder (at the moment) why today's science cannot determine what the cause was nor duplicate it using 1300 technology or even more recent capabilities.

BTW, I understand they (whoever they are) have repaired sections of the shroud and in so doing preserved the charred sections removed. These charred bits can be used to retest using carbon 14 analysis because the charred area will not be affected by the attempts to preserve the shroud in recent years...

IF they do 'prove' or date the shroud to around the time of Christ using bits that don't have subsequent material interwoven into the original then the bit about getting the representation on the shroud becomes relevant to who may have done so.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I wonder how we can have a bit of cloth some 14 feet long and I guess 3 or so across that has on it what I'd call a representation of a human male that science has yet to determine the cause of that representation appearing on the cloth.
I'm not suggesting (at the moment) who that might be depicted on the cloth nor do I argue with the dating process using the carbon 14 half life scenario even though we've found independent tests reveal that the area cut to perform the tests contained materials 'added' at some time after the original 'burial' cloth was made.
I simply wonder (at the moment) why today's science cannot determine what the cause was nor duplicate it using 1300 technology or even more recent capabilities.

BTW, I understand they (whoever they are) have repaired sections of the shroud and in so doing preserved the charred sections removed. These charred bits can be used to retest using carbon 14 analysis because the charred area will not be affected by the attempts to preserve the shroud in recent years...

IF they do 'prove' or date the shroud to around the time of Christ using bits that don't have subsequent material interwoven into the original then the bit about getting the representation on the shroud becomes relevant to who may have done so.

Worst case (for believers): The shroud is re-dated using samples taken from the image area, and the shroud is (again) determined to be from the Middle Ages.

Reaction: So what? ANY result will be discredited. And even if it were known beyond doubt that the Shroud of Turin were NOT Christ's burial shroud, then (again), so what? The absence of an actual shroud is irrelevant to Christ's significance to believers.


Best case: The shroud is re-dated using samples taken from the image area, and its date is found to closely approximate the time of Christ.

Reaction: So what? The existence of a 2000-year-old burial shroud doesn't verify Christ's divinity. It's just a burial shroud. Almost everyone accepts that there was an actual Jesus, and that he was crucified. The presence or absence of physical evidence to his crucifixion and burial doesn't change that consensus.


In other words, the shroud is irrelevant. The fact that science cannot DEFINITIVELY state how the image was created means nothing. For one thing, scientists don't have unlimited access to the cloth. For another, even given a fully viable image-creation mechanism, there's no way to confirm that THAT mechanism was the actual one.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I wonder how we can have a bit of cloth some 14 feet long and I guess 3 or so across that has on it what I'd call a representation of a human male that science has yet to determine the cause of that representation appearing on the cloth.
I'm not suggesting (at the moment) who that might be depicted on the cloth nor do I argue with the dating process using the carbon 14 half life scenario even though we've found independent tests reveal that the area cut to perform the tests contained materials 'added' at some time after the original 'burial' cloth was made.
I simply wonder (at the moment) why today's science cannot determine what the cause was nor duplicate it using 1300 technology or even more recent capabilities.

BTW, I understand they (whoever they are) have repaired sections of the shroud and in so doing preserved the charred sections removed. These charred bits can be used to retest using carbon 14 analysis because the charred area will not be affected by the attempts to preserve the shroud in recent years...

IF they do 'prove' or date the shroud to around the time of Christ using bits that don't have subsequent material interwoven into the original then the bit about getting the representation on the shroud becomes relevant to who may have done so.

Worst case (for believers): The shroud is re-dated using samples taken from the image area, and the shroud is (again) determined to be from the Middle Ages.


Reaction: So what? ANY result will be discredited. And even if it were known beyond doubt that the Shroud of Turin were NOT Christ's burial shroud, then (again), so what? The absence of a actual shroud is irrelevant to Christ's significance to believers.


Best case: The shroud is re-dated using samples taken from the image area, and its date is found to closely approximate the time of Christ.

Reaction: So what? The existence of a 2000-year-old burial shroud doesn't verify Christ's divinity. It's just a burial shroud. Almost everyone accepts that there was an actual Jesus, and that he was crucified. The presence or absence of physical evidence to his crucifixion and burial doesn't change that consensus.


In other words, the shroud is irrelevant. The fact that science cannot DEFINITIVELY state how the image was created means nothing. For one thing, scientists don't have unlimited access to the cloth. For another, even given a fully viable, image-creation mechanism, there's no way to confirm that THAT mechanism was the actual one.

Hehehehehe There are many theories on how the image got to the shroud but none so far have been able to duplicate it and IF they could duplicate it then it is reasonable to conclude that that is how it occurred or at the very least a peer review might gain concensus to accept as fact the process. Sorta like all the other scientific stuff.

Well, let's see... your last statement is logical all right but something or someone using some process did what appears on the shroud. What might that be?

I don't know many or any for that matter who question the reality of what they see on the shroud. I think Science accepts that depicted is a human who underwent the trauma associated with a crucification technique and scourging.

The Shroud exists and bits of it exist and I think soon they will retest in the areas of the burns - for the obvious reasons. Science can't use just any part of the Shroud now because the technique to preserve the Shroud introduces additional carbon 14 atoms onto the material making the date appear a more recent vintage. They have to use the already carbonized areas which are immune to added atoms. OR some other technique.

My initial thought was that the image is significant for a couple of reasons. IF the shroud is actually from 1200 ~ 1400, Science has yet to figure out how it came to be using technology of that time or significantly more recent technology. To me that is incomprehensible. And IF the shroud is from Christ's alleged time on earth then the issue gets more focused on Proof of Christ and the Resurrection. This possibly might tend to adjust the mind set of the folks who need to have a tangible and scientific link to a God.

I then though about the brains involved, the variety of video and photographic evidence they had at their disposal back in the '70s and '80s and later and the obvious did not appear to occur to them.
Why did they select for the Carbon 14 test the only site that had evidence (various photographic techniques) of something amiss or at least way different than the rest of the shroud? Rodgers, I think his name was, worked hard to debunk the notion of the shroud being of Christ but then when faced with his own subsequent (2005) studies agreed the new analysis invalidated the dating technique. How could these folks let that happen. OR why would they let that happen. The folks wanting it to be from an earlier date should have been on top of it all and the debunker being scientists also wanted true proof. They were not careful with perhaps the most important and only bit of possible proof we'll ever see.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly?

no, as a matter of fact, you do not have it spelled correctly

As a more substantive commentary, it makes sense that this thread mostly turned from "Atheism vs Christianity" into "Athiesm vs. Theism" as there can be no rational defense of the tenets or belief system of Christianity or any other religion.

Further, since athiests do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence, they live their lives as if he doesn't exist. The problem is that theists, who believe in a god for which there is no evidence, do not simply live life as if god existed. If they did so, I imagine there wouldn't be a whole lot of conflict between the two groups. But theists generally are not satisfied simply believing in god's existence and going about their business; instead they tend to gravitate towards organized religion, and compound their belief in a deity whose existence is questionable with belief in a whole shitload of crazy for which not only is there no evidence, but which contradicts modern science and common sense.

Actually, people gather together b/c they are supposed to according to the scriptures. I don't know how it is for all religions, but Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians are supposed to gather together.

There is conflict between the 2 groups usually b/c of moral and political reasons. Also, there is a conflict due to both groups not wanting the others to disseminate false information , i.e. the other group's beliefs.

That you believe that there is no rational defense for Christianity or other religions is your own opinion, and far from factual.

Doesn't sound like you read my post. My central point was that if most theists were not also members of organized religion, there would be essentially no conflict with athiests. But theists take their belief in god and run with it, generally also believing a host of other myths propagated by organized religion. You believe there is a god that started the universe billions of years ago, whatever, fine. You also believe a few thousand years ago that the same god made man, took his rib and made women, then kicked them out of paradise because they ate a fruit a talking snake gave them, and you now want to teach this to children in public school as "history"? Then we have a problem.

Theism vs atheism is not cause for there to be any political or moral conflict between the groups. Whether the universe was brought into existence billions of years ago by some sort of deity has nothing to do with homosexuality, abortion or murder. Religion claims that it does, but simple theism has no rational relation to such topics.

And sorry, it is a fact that noah's ark could not have held 2 animals of every species, seeing as how there are billions of species, each species would probably be inbred into extinction if it only had one male and female in existence, noah couldn't have then dispersed the animals to all the appropriate continents, etc, etc. Shall we get into the 10 plagues, or raising the dead, or santa clause? These are myths and superstitions that religious theists believe when they have no reason to, and which reason argues against. Belief in a creator of the universe doesn't necessitate believing in religious propaganda. And don't start with the "you can't disprove any of those things" bs. One can't disprove leprechauns either, that's not an argument that logically leads to their existence or gives one any reason to believe in them.

Yes, I misunderstood your central point of the post.

If people believe that a god created the universe, they usually also believe that the same god is somewhat personal in nature due to their own social nature and the nature of the world that they inhabit. If people were robotic and did not communicate other than to just keep the machine running, so to speak, people would not look for a social/personal god b/c it would not fit with the design.

As far as Noah's Ark, I don't think any answers I would provide for you would satisfy you as I always assumed there was divine intervention working through out the instance and many other instances recorded in the Bible. You didn't ask how the animals got to the ark either, as this would have been next to impossible considering the technology of the time, but the text reads that God brought the animals. If I accept that God brought the animals, then what point is there to ask me how they were dispersed or successfully repopulated? However, it does seem that there was enough room in the ark to accommodate the different types of animals (genus is the proper organizational term I think...?)

I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to "prove" the existence of God or "prove" any religious beliefs. It is not possible to imperically prove just about all religious beliefs (if not all). That does not mean that one can not use reason to come to certain beliefs, and that is more the point. I suppose a better way of putting it for my own beliefs is this: a world without a god leaves too many questions unanswered than does a world with a god; I find that Christianity answers the questions satisfactorily and fits real life like a glove.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

A creator in no way solves the problem of a first cause, as it merely begs the question of what created him. Since a creator doesn't solve the 'first cause' problem, I don't see why 'secular reason' would lead you to that belief based upon your argument.

The first cause would have to apply to an infinite subject who then created a finite subject, the finite subject being the universe. We already beat this to death though.

edit: Atreus beat me to it

Right, and what I'm saying is that you are simply creating 'logical requirements' based upon completely unproven assumptions, and then creating arbitrary states of being to fulfill these requirements you have invented.

There's nothing logical about it in any way, shape, or form.

I agree partially. I agree that the assumptions are unproven. But that does not invalidate them at all. The "states of being" are only part of the original assumption and are a requirement of the particular assumption. How else could you have a first cause in this case?

 

[WHAMPOM]

??????BOING!!!!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
My initial thought was that the image is significant for a couple of reasons. IF the shroud is actually from 1200 ~ 1400, Science has yet to figure out how it came to be using technology of that time or significantly more recent technology. To me that is incomprehensible. And IF the shroud is from Christ's alleged time on earth then the issue gets more focused on Proof of Christ and the Resurrection. This possibly might tend to adjust the mind set of the folks who need to have a tangible and scientific link to a God.

I don't see why not knowing how the image was created means anything. Given the non-access to the shroud, what are contemporary scientists supposed to be working with to figure it out?

There are lots of mysteries that haven't or can't be solved. For example, we don't know who Shakespeare was, and that was only a few hundred years ago.

One almost impossible analytical hurdle for scientists to overcome is time: How can you demonstrate a method to produce the image when the image has been "aging" for at least 800 years under a variety of unknown environmental conditions? The best scientists would be capable of would be to create a new image on a pristine material, and then use some age-acceleration technique to see the effect. Naturally, a new image isn't going to match the original.

Besides, as I wrote in my previous post, what's the point? We all know Christ actually existed and was crucified. Let's suppose the shroud is 2000 years old and we can somehow prove Christ was actually draped in it. So? How do you get from there to divinity? And if the shroud is NOT from Christ's time, what does THAT prove? Exactly nothing.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly?

no, as a matter of fact, you do not have it spelled correctly

As a more substantive commentary, it makes sense that this thread mostly turned from "Atheism vs Christianity" into "Athiesm vs. Theism" as there can be no rational defense of the tenets or belief system of Christianity or any other religion.

Further, since athiests do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence, they live their lives as if he doesn't exist. The problem is that theists, who believe in a god for which there is no evidence, do not simply live life as if god existed. If they did so, I imagine there wouldn't be a whole lot of conflict between the two groups. But theists generally are not satisfied simply believing in god's existence and going about their business; instead they tend to gravitate towards organized religion, and compound their belief in a deity whose existence is questionable with belief in a whole shitload of crazy for which not only is there no evidence, but which contradicts modern science and common sense.

Actually, people gather together b/c they are supposed to according to the scriptures. I don't know how it is for all religions, but Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians are supposed to gather together.

There is conflict between the 2 groups usually b/c of moral and political reasons. Also, there is a conflict due to both groups not wanting the others to disseminate false information , i.e. the other group's beliefs.

That you believe that there is no rational defense for Christianity or other religions is your own opinion, and far from factual.

Doesn't sound like you read my post. My central point was that if most theists were not also members of organized religion, there would be essentially no conflict with athiests. But theists take their belief in god and run with it, generally also believing a host of other myths propagated by organized religion. You believe there is a god that started the universe billions of years ago, whatever, fine. You also believe a few thousand years ago that the same god made man, took his rib and made women, then kicked them out of paradise because they ate a fruit a talking snake gave them, and you now want to teach this to children in public school as "history"? Then we have a problem.

Theism vs atheism is not cause for there to be any political or moral conflict between the groups. Whether the universe was brought into existence billions of years ago by some sort of deity has nothing to do with homosexuality, abortion or murder. Religion claims that it does, but simple theism has no rational relation to such topics.

And sorry, it is a fact that noah's ark could not have held 2 animals of every species, seeing as how there are billions of species, each species would probably be inbred into extinction if it only had one male and female in existence, noah couldn't have then dispersed the animals to all the appropriate continents, etc, etc. Shall we get into the 10 plagues, or raising the dead, or santa clause? These are myths and superstitions that religious theists believe when they have no reason to, and which reason argues against. Belief in a creator of the universe doesn't necessitate believing in religious propaganda. And don't start with the "you can't disprove any of those things" bs. One can't disprove leprechauns either, that's not an argument that logically leads to their existence or gives one any reason to believe in them.

Yes, I misunderstood your central point of the post.

If people believe that a god created the universe, they usually also believe that the same god is somewhat personal in nature due to their own social nature and the nature of the world that they inhabit. If people were robotic and did not communicate other than to just keep the machine running, so to speak, people would not look for a social/personal god b/c it would not fit with the design.

As far as Noah's Ark, I don't think any answers I would provide for you would satisfy you as I always assumed there was divine intervention working through out the instance and many other instances recorded in the Bible. You didn't ask how the animals got to the ark either, as this would have been next to impossible considering the technology of the time, but the text reads that God brought the animals. If I accept that God brought the animals, then what point is there to ask me how they were dispersed or successfully repopulated? However, it does seem that there was enough room in the ark to accommodate the different types of animals (genus is the proper organizational term I think...?)

I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to "prove" the existence of God or "prove" any religious beliefs. It is not possible to imperically prove just about all religious beliefs (if not all). That does not mean that one can not use reason to come to certain beliefs, and that is more the point. I suppose a better way of putting it for my own beliefs is this: a world without a god leaves too many questions unanswered than does a world with a god; I find that Christianity answers the questions satisfactorily and fits real life like a glove.

Einstein explicitly rejected the notion of a personal god though he did not consider himself an atheist.

If you want to believe that's jesus on the piece of toast, more power to you. I'm going to go with random chance.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

A creator in no way solves the problem of a first cause, as it merely begs the question of what created him. Since a creator doesn't solve the 'first cause' problem, I don't see why 'secular reason' would lead you to that belief based upon your argument.

The first cause would have to apply to an infinite subject who then created a finite subject, the finite subject being the universe. We already beat this to death though.

edit: Atreus beat me to it

Right, and what I'm saying is that you are simply creating 'logical requirements' based upon completely unproven assumptions, and then creating arbitrary states of being to fulfill these requirements you have invented.

There's nothing logical about it in any way, shape, or form.

I agree partially. I agree that the assumptions are unproven. But that does not invalidate them at all. The "states of being" are only part of the original assumption and are a requirement of the particular assumption. How else could you have a first cause in this case?

Again, the only thing you are doing is putting God in the middle to complicate things even further because if the Universe has to have had a first cause, so would God.

So who created god? Always existed, well that suits the BB theory that since timespace wasn't created until the universe existed there was not time and so it always existed.

And no, the universe didn't have to have a first cause, think of it as non-existance that came into existance, you can do that, you already have, but remove the extra complicating factor of god and you'll find that the complexity is by far regressing, now apply occams razor to it and understand that the only thing you are saying since there is no proof for a "no-beginning" you are interjecting something else that had no beginning to explain how something had a beginning.

That isn't very logical at all, is it?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly?

no, as a matter of fact, you do not have it spelled correctly

As a more substantive commentary, it makes sense that this thread mostly turned from "Atheism vs Christianity" into "Athiesm vs. Theism" as there can be no rational defense of the tenets or belief system of Christianity or any other religion.

Further, since athiests do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence, they live their lives as if he doesn't exist. The problem is that theists, who believe in a god for which there is no evidence, do not simply live life as if god existed. If they did so, I imagine there wouldn't be a whole lot of conflict between the two groups. But theists generally are not satisfied simply believing in god's existence and going about their business; instead they tend to gravitate towards organized religion, and compound their belief in a deity whose existence is questionable with belief in a whole shitload of crazy for which not only is there no evidence, but which contradicts modern science and common sense.

Actually, people gather together b/c they are supposed to according to the scriptures. I don't know how it is for all religions, but Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians are supposed to gather together.

There is conflict between the 2 groups usually b/c of moral and political reasons. Also, there is a conflict due to both groups not wanting the others to disseminate false information , i.e. the other group's beliefs.

That you believe that there is no rational defense for Christianity or other religions is your own opinion, and far from factual.

Doesn't sound like you read my post. My central point was that if most theists were not also members of organized religion, there would be essentially no conflict with athiests. But theists take their belief in god and run with it, generally also believing a host of other myths propagated by organized religion. You believe there is a god that started the universe billions of years ago, whatever, fine. You also believe a few thousand years ago that the same god made man, took his rib and made women, then kicked them out of paradise because they ate a fruit a talking snake gave them, and you now want to teach this to children in public school as "history"? Then we have a problem.

Theism vs atheism is not cause for there to be any political or moral conflict between the groups. Whether the universe was brought into existence billions of years ago by some sort of deity has nothing to do with homosexuality, abortion or murder. Religion claims that it does, but simple theism has no rational relation to such topics.

And sorry, it is a fact that noah's ark could not have held 2 animals of every species, seeing as how there are billions of species, each species would probably be inbred into extinction if it only had one male and female in existence, noah couldn't have then dispersed the animals to all the appropriate continents, etc, etc. Shall we get into the 10 plagues, or raising the dead, or santa clause? These are myths and superstitions that religious theists believe when they have no reason to, and which reason argues against. Belief in a creator of the universe doesn't necessitate believing in religious propaganda. And don't start with the "you can't disprove any of those things" bs. One can't disprove leprechauns either, that's not an argument that logically leads to their existence or gives one any reason to believe in them.

Yes, I misunderstood your central point of the post.

If people believe that a god created the universe, they usually also believe that the same god is somewhat personal in nature due to their own social nature and the nature of the world that they inhabit. If people were robotic and did not communicate other than to just keep the machine running, so to speak, people would not look for a social/personal god b/c it would not fit with the design.

As far as Noah's Ark, I don't think any answers I would provide for you would satisfy you as I always assumed there was divine intervention working through out the instance and many other instances recorded in the Bible. You didn't ask how the animals got to the ark either, as this would have been next to impossible considering the technology of the time, but the text reads that God brought the animals. If I accept that God brought the animals, then what point is there to ask me how they were dispersed or successfully repopulated? However, it does seem that there was enough room in the ark to accommodate the different types of animals (genus is the proper organizational term I think...?)

I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to "prove" the existence of God or "prove" any religious beliefs. It is not possible to imperically prove just about all religious beliefs (if not all). That does not mean that one can not use reason to come to certain beliefs, and that is more the point. I suppose a better way of putting it for my own beliefs is this: a world without a god leaves too many questions unanswered than does a world with a god; I find that Christianity answers the questions satisfactorily and fits real life like a glove.

Einstein explicitly rejected the notion of a personal god though he did not consider himself an atheist.

If you want to believe that's jesus on the piece of toast, more power to you. I'm going to go with random chance.

Well it's not entirely random, it is directed following the available patterns that chemicals and physics can make and in our day and time, it gets more complicated because it also includes what our biological bodies can live with.

That said, anyone who literally believes in the Noahs ark story needs to be locked up, that is insanity.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: jonks
If you want to believe that's jesus on the piece of toast, more power to you. I'm going to go with random chance.

Well it's not entirely random, it is directed following the available patterns that chemicals and physics can make and in our day and time, it gets more complicated because it also includes what our biological bodies can live with.

That said, anyone who literally believes in the Noahs ark story needs to be locked up, that is insanity.

I think I wasn't clear, heh.

I meant this toast: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_W4XE...ic/s400/jesustoast.jpg

and not the eucharist.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: LunarRay
My initial thought was that the image is significant for a couple of reasons. IF the shroud is actually from 1200 ~ 1400, Science has yet to figure out how it came to be using technology of that time or significantly more recent technology. To me that is incomprehensible. And IF the shroud is from Christ's alleged time on earth then the issue gets more focused on Proof of Christ and the Resurrection. This possibly might tend to adjust the mind set of the folks who need to have a tangible and scientific link to a God.

I don't see why not knowing how the image was created means anything. Given the non-access to the shroud, what are contemporary scientists supposed to be working with to figure it out?

Ok.. how about taking a some regular cloth and give it to all the interested parties and let them explore the mystery. Someone should be able to duplicate the image process.

There are lots of mysteries that haven't or can't be solved. For example, we don't know who Shakespeare was, and that was only a few hundred years ago.

It is not to do with image of who at this point but, rather, how did it get there. We know how Shakespeare's Sonnets got on the manuscript and by reading them we know Shakespeare or at least what might be relevant to us. There is nothing extra ordinary about him other than his creative genius. IF an image of him (assume it matched other more artful images of him painted in oils or water, etc.) was found on a shroud and we couldn't determine how it got there and it had similar properties to the Turin one I'd suggest we dig him up and be sure he was still dead and if so how did he die. I'd call Michael Baden and Cryil Wecht personally.


One almost impossible analytical hurdle for scientists to overcome is time: How can you demonstrate a method to produce the image when the image has been "aging" for at least 800 years under a variety of unknown environmental conditions? The best scientists would be capable of would be to create a new image on a pristine material, and then use some age-acceleration technique to see the effect. Naturally, a new image isn't going to match the original.

The process of the Shroud image has other interesting aspects as well. I'm sure you've read the all about the 3D resolution and all the other nifty things they found which obviated some methods of duplication. Start there. Find a way to simply make what it does happen in the lab and use 1300 technology or any technology. When you eliminate the impossible what you are left with is the possible no matter how unlikely. Remember, back in 1300AD they couldn't have had a notion that in 2009 Photographic techniques would reveal what it does and thought they'd use a method that would produce those results at a later date. The closest they have come is that it is some sort of energy 'burn'. Not of the blood which is there also but the image.


Besides, as I wrote in my previous post, what's the point? We all know Christ actually existed and was crucified. Let's suppose the shroud is 2000 years old and we can somehow prove Christ was actually draped in it. So? How do you get from there to divinity? And if the shroud is NOT from Christ's time, what does THAT prove? Exactly nothing.
IF you stipulate to the image being of Christ and that he was draped in it after he died his image on there might have been caused by his resurrection and that event fits the scriptures and makes him at least way different than the rest of us. Finding proof today of the nature of the image's creation is the hurdle that has to be met in any case. Dating the shroud to 30AD is nice. That it has an image of a dead guy who was crucified and scourged is nice add them together and we have two nice bits but so what is right. Prove the method of the image being on the shroud as something like an energy surge or some such event likely when a dead guy becomes alive after three days in a cave etc... It becomes a bit more than nice.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
My initial thought was that the image is significant for a couple of reasons. IF the shroud is actually from 1200 ~ 1400, Science has yet to figure out how it came to be using technology of that time or significantly more recent technology. To me that is incomprehensible.

so, choices are:

1) science can't explain it, or

2) science can't explain it so it must be that the creator of the entire universe came down in human form, performed miracles, died for our sins, rose back to heaven and continues to watch us massacre each other in increasingly new and interesting ways for the past 2000 years.

Hm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: jonks
If you want to believe that's jesus on the piece of toast, more power to you. I'm going to go with random chance.

Well it's not entirely random, it is directed following the available patterns that chemicals and physics can make and in our day and time, it gets more complicated because it also includes what our biological bodies can live with.

That said, anyone who literally believes in the Noahs ark story needs to be locked up, that is insanity.

I think I wasn't clear, heh.

I meant this toast: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_W4XE...ic/s400/jesustoast.jpg

and not the eucharist.

My fault, i read that you were going with random chance in regards to the original topic of evolution.

Sorry about that.

But yeah, that toast is random chance and i think the believers are nuts if they think jesus invaded a toaster, i mean, the guy is sitting on his fathers right side while being his father and his father being his son so... well, i guess they were nuts to begin with.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why not ask all of ATOT to jerk off into a dark sock and the one who gets the most jesus like image gets "jesus is coming" under his name.

People would flock to this forum just to see his avatar of the event....

Perhaps the pope could visit and confirm the authenticity?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
My initial thought was that the image is significant for a couple of reasons. IF the shroud is actually from 1200 ~ 1400, Science has yet to figure out how it came to be using technology of that time or significantly more recent technology. To me that is incomprehensible.

so, choices are:

1) science can't explain it, or

2) science can't explain it so it must be that the creator of the entire universe came down in human form, performed miracles, died for our sins, rose back to heaven and continues to watch us massacre each other in increasingly new and interesting ways for the past 2000 years.

Hm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

There are other choices, however, your #2 above is about what I'd expect. IF the quotes of what he said are true he indicated his kingdom is not of this world. He also is quoted as saying we must love our neighbor just like the other most important commandment about loving God. Some of us humans claim God and do exactly what he said not to do... Time for another Ark... or IF the Rapture is true and is to occur I'll not see to many others flitting about in the clouds with us.
I think the atheist is a better fit in heaven than many folks who believe in God. At least they don't justify all the crap with "The will of God". End of day... maybe they are right. But for God having created us we'd not be here doing all this stuff to each other.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Why not ask all of ATOT to jerk off into a dark sock and the one who gets the most jesus like image gets "jesus is coming" under his name.

People would flock to this forum just to see his avatar of the event....

Perhaps the pope could visit and confirm the authenticity?

Wigan has a much better football team than Sheffield, so there.

We have the shroud.
It has an image on it.
There is a Nobel prize given for Chemistry.
Avatar versus Nobel Prize.
Hmmm

The Pope is biased. Science should not be. If he, the Pope, hears voices and no one is there it is a Divine Intervention. If a Scientist hears voices he is deemed nutty. I trust honest Science.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Why not ask all of ATOT to jerk off into a dark sock and the one who gets the most jesus like image gets "jesus is coming" under his name.

People would flock to this forum just to see his avatar of the event....

Perhaps the pope could visit and confirm the authenticity?

Wigan has a much better football team than Sheffield, so there.

We have the shroud.
It has an image on it.
There is a Nobel prize given for Chemistry.
Avatar versus Nobel Prize.
Hmmm

The Pope is biased. Science should not be. I trust honest Science.

Arsenal BOOM BOOM BOOM!

I'm not originally from Sheffield, see.

Science can't, per definition, be biased. If it is it will be obvious and every attempt to falsify evidence has resulted in progress, that is the process of scientific research.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Again, the only thing you are doing is putting God in the middle to complicate things even further because if the Universe has to have had a first cause, so would God.

So who created god? Always existed, well that suits the BB theory that since timespace wasn't created until the universe existed there was not time and so it always existed.

And no, the universe didn't have to have a first cause, think of it as non-existance that came into existance, you can do that, you already have, but remove the extra complicating factor of god and you'll find that the complexity is by far regressing, now apply occams razor to it and understand that the only thing you are saying since there is no proof for a "no-beginning" you are interjecting something else that had no beginning to explain how something had a beginning.

That isn't very logical at all, is it?

No, the purpose of putting God in there is to create a first cause that does not need a first cause itself. First cause only applies to things in this universe, and a god would not be a part of this universe. To me it seems more simple to have something outside of the universe that is infinite create the finite. To believe that from non-existence something came into existence seems far more complicated. That's just me though.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
My initial thought was that the image is significant for a couple of reasons. IF the shroud is actually from 1200 ~ 1400, Science has yet to figure out how it came to be using technology of that time or significantly more recent technology. To me that is incomprehensible.

so, choices are:

1) science can't explain it, or

2) science can't explain it so it must be that the creator of the entire universe came down in human form, performed miracles, died for our sins, rose back to heaven and continues to watch us massacre each other in increasingly new and interesting ways for the past 2000 years.

Hm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

I don't think the choices have anything to do with science not being able to explain it. It has more to do with making sense of every aspect of life than it has to do with the explanations of science. Science is an aspect of life too, btw.

P.S. I don't know anyone who believes that Jesus puts his image on toast and potato chips... although I guess it looks all the same to onlookers.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Prove the method of the image being on the shroud as something like an energy surge or some such event likely when a dead guy becomes alive after three days in a cave etc... It becomes a bit more than nice. [/b]

let's suppose A clever scientist comes up with a technique - using only circa 1300 materials and methods - that produces an image on cloth. What do you suppose the reaction would be? Let me make an educated guess.

First reaction:
We don't believe the cloth is from 1300. We have our own experts that say your carbon dating is flawed. We think the shroud is from 30AD. So your technique using 1300-AD methods and materials is invalid. You must create an image using 30AD methods and materials.

(Scientist goes off and produces an image-on-cloth using circa-2000 methods and materials.)

2nd reaction:
We've examined the image you produced, and it has some properties different from those on the shroud. Yes, we understand that your technique is handicapped by the fact that it's impossible to "age" your work product 2000 years, but unless you can PROVE that the ONLY differences are due to the aging issue, we reject your technique.

(Scientist somehow proves the differences are solely due to the aging issue OR a method of rapidly aging cloth images by 2000 years is developed, and the artificially aged image closely matches the shroud image.)

3rd reaction:
Although you've created an image using AD-2000 technology, and we agree that it matches all of the important properties of the shroud, you cannot PROVE that your technique was the actual one used. It's still possible that an energy surge during resurrection was the cause. And unless you can PROVE to us that such an energy-surge did NOT cause the image, we are not persuaded by your efforts.


And so on.

As I wrote earlier, why waste any effort on this at all? People who want to believe in the divine Christ will continue to believe, regardless of the results of science. People who don't want to believe will continue to NOT believe whether a scientific method is or is not found.