The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

18384868889108

Comments

  • Posts: 15,235
    Oh boy @Risico007 ! I can't say I read them all but I read some of it and that's beside the point in any case. And there is a gap between the alleged events and the texts. For the gospels it's about 50 years at the earliest. That is not small gap. And they contradict each other and subsequent texts. Even if there was a copy written the year after the events it would still prove nothing, only that the writer wanted you to believe the story.

    There's enough to safely say Julius Caesar and Alexander existed. But for even such widely documented historical figures there are things that were fabricated or that you can be seriously skeptical about. Caesar may never have been epileptic for instance. As for King Arthur do you think he existed and that the legend that has his name is actually historical?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Then please explain to me what really happened why does Christianity exist I would love to hear your “true” version of the history

    We will never know for sure what if anything happened. Jesus' existence itself is not a certainty. I will say it again for the record: I'm not a mythicist. I do think that it's very likely that there was a rabbi Jesus who was a Jewish preacher around that time and became the leader of a marginal cult like there were many at the times, a cult that later developed into Christianity. Now what if anything this "original" Jesus believed in comparison to his posthumous followers and what survived in Christianity from his teachings is anyone's guest.

    How Christianity grew and eventually thrived is a complex subject but I can give you a few reasons, none of them of a supernatural nature: like Islam it's based on conversion and proselytism, unlike Judaism, it is thus not limited to a single ethnic or cultural group and could appeal to pretty much every subject of the Roman Empire from all social classes, its promises of eternal bliss for all who worshipped was far more palatable than the Greco-roman vision of afterlife, etc.

    This is assuming there is a gap of 4-500 years between the events and the religion correct?

    It would depend when you think the Christian religion was fully formed. Don't tell me from the moment of resurrection. The First Council of Nicea was in 325 so that is far less than 500 years. But then again Christianity evolved and changed a lot since then. And had changed a lot since its infancy. That is the thing: it was, and has been, a work in progress, it didn't start already set up.

    Evolved and changed is rather loaded a viewpoint... the issue here is no the fundamentals of Christianity were indeed set up right after the resurrection of Jesus.. I am assuming you read the epistle of Clement right?
    Or the Didache?
    Or the book of Acts?
    Or Paul’s letters?

    Nope none of those sound familiar I take it... again there is NO GAP BETWEEN THE EVENT AND THE SPREAD OF THE RELIGION
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ok do one guy got bored and created a religion that is the “current theory”

    Lud Wiz anyone want to go through and add their own things to this theory?

    Also was it one person or multiple

    And when did this person or people invent it?

    Picture the scene:

    Imagine we live in a world without the internet, phones, photography, video, where barely anyone can read or write, where science is in it's infancy and mystical explanations rule for anything that cannot be explained.

    A preacher who proclaimed to be the voice of God is hounded by the authorities and killed.

    His followers who 'believe' in him fervently then recount the events although they are a bit sketchy on the details and cannot agree on much except that he was the messiah.

    Several decades afterwards someone who never met any of the eye witnesses cobbles all these accounts together in a book and hey presto the guy is declared as the son of God.

    Sadly we'll never know if David Koresh or Jim Jones' followers would have written such a book that 2000 years down the line would be regarded as 100% truth by some people as they all got torched by the FBI/binged on Kool Aid. But the only difference between them and the disciples is that the disciples had to undergo none of the modern scrutiny that such outlandish claims would be subjected to today and that the population at large was far more ready to believe and accept such tales than even the backwaters of America are today.

    You cannot prove that the disciples weren't just gullible members of a cult who were held in thrall by a plausible and powerful speaker and did actually believe what he told them and doing your usual trick of saying that unless we can fill in some of the gaps in a story that is 2000 years old then it automatically means Christ must have been the son of God is feeble and something you keep trying in the absence of having anything of actual substance in your locker.

    Interesting analogy when your the one ignoring facts and grasping at straws

    Another article for bed time reading

    http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/

    Read it and you should see why your cult theory falls apart again the disciples weren’t believers in the modern sense of the word they saw the risen Christ it was a fact for them and one that caused all their death’s

    Oh and as for King Arthur prove to me Julius Caesar existed or Alexander The Great....
    So if I get the thrust of your argument you claim the apostles died believing in Jesus because ‘it was a fact for them’? Therefore this proves that it must all be true otherwise they wouldn’t have allowed themselves to die?

    So why don’t you believe in Islam then? Plenty of people blowing themselves up every day because it is ‘a fact for them’.

    Actually instead of flailing around with your ‘historical’ proofs just you believing in God should be enough to convert us as ‘it is a fact’ for you.

    That should be all we need, but thankfully most of mankind don’t set the proof threshold quite as low as you otherwise the world would be in a real state. Even Tony Blair had to rustle up a sexed up dossier; it wasn’t enough to invade Iraq just because ‘it was a fact’ for him
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 4,617
    I think its pretty clear, reading through the whole thread (and wider society) that there is no evidence. Just none. Whether we need another thread or to extend this one but I think there there is a much more interesting debate/discussion to be had regarding why many humans believe this guff when there is no evidence. This applies to other stuff like ghosts, tea leaves etc etc

    Holding a mirror up to our own weaknesses as a species is very hard but its a sign of self awarness, strength and intelect. (as with individuals). If we can gain a better undertanding of this and help to deal with it, it provides great opportunities to rid ourselves of the fairy tales and make much better progress in almost all walks of life.

    One of the things we can do is look to countries where atheists is expanding rapidly and work out why this is and can these lessons be applied to other areas of the World that are bogged down in their own fairy tales and blowing themselves up in a competition re whose fairy tale is the best
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,272
    "Proof" has become a loose word here. To clarify,

    - how something feels to you, no matter how strong the feelings;
    - what other people say, no matter how convincing they may or may not sound;

    never counts as proof.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,585
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "Proof" has become a loose word here. To clarify,

    - how something feels to you, no matter how strong the feelings;
    - what other people say, no matter how convincing they may or may not sound;

    never counts as proof.

    But is religion that much different to anything else we believe in?
    We may believe our country is the finest on earth, but that doesn't mean it is.

    Why should we believe in invisible lines that separate one country from another? They don't really exist, but we believe in them all the same.

    A catholic believes in the son of God, a Muslim will believe something different (I seriously don't know or care what) but why should they need to prove the existence of their God to satisfy a non believer?

    They say a gun isn't deadly. It's the person pulling the trigger who is dangerous. Well, surely then God isn't dangerous, it's the guy who straps a bomb to his vest in God's name who is dangerous.

    If all religion ended tomorrow, the nut job who screamed 'Allah be praised' as he killed a bunch of kids would come up with a new reason to kill those kids. He wouldn't change.
    He doesn't really need belief in his God to be mentally unstable.





    .
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 4,617
    Yes, thats why there are so many suicide bombers in Norway. Rock stadiums, cafes, pavements, there really is no place to hide from these mentally unstable young atheists,

    And I wont post a link but there are some horrible videos on Youtube of atheists stoning woman to death.



  • Posts: 15,235
    Even without taking an example as far as Islamists (because they are crazy with their 72 virgins, right?), Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions or organ implants should be enough evidence to any Christian that a sincerely held belief that one is ready to die for is not automatically true. Well any Christian except JWs. If you do consider them Christian. Of course someone dishonest can dismiss them as not true Christians and do special pleading: crazy beliefs are not true, the right beliefs are.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,585
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, thats why there are so many suicide bombers in Norway. Rock stadiums, cafes, pavements, there really is no place to hide from these mentally unstable young atheists,

    So, do you think a no religion society will catapult these nutjobs into a life of peace and brotherhood of man?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited May 2018 Posts: 24,272
    @NicNac

    You are correct, sir. The religious don't need proof. That's not my point either. My point is that @Risico007 claims he has "proof" that God is real and that Jesus walked after dying. My post was merely meant to demonstrate that he "feels" like God exists and he believes what others say regarding a resurrected Jesus, but that neither counts a proof.

    I hope this clarifies things. :)
  • Posts: 4,617
    Redefining a religion to fit in with secular convention is a common ploy.
    Heard so often "these suicide bombers are not true Muslims" etc etc.
  • Posts: 9,860
    Do people read my posts or just 3 words and run with it?

    The reason I ask is Darth Dimi saidif he saw god it would be eyewitness testimony and considered evidence.... but the 11 disciples who did see th risen lord are viewed as nut jobs because atheist love being hypocritics?
  • Posts: 15,235
    NicNac wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, thats why there are so many suicide bombers in Norway. Rock stadiums, cafes, pavements, there really is no place to hide from these mentally unstable young atheists,

    So, do you think a no religion society will catapult these nutjobs into a life of peace and brotherhood of man?

    Actually the Islamists and suicide bombers are not mentally ill. Or at least no more than someone who believes in transubstantiation or... the Virgin birth. A non religious society would not solve every issue we have as a species nor would it protect us from madmen and criminals of all sorts. It would however eliminate one point of irrationality that triggers and feed violence, exploitation, oppression and ignorance. I don't believe in utopias. I do think one can strive to create the best possible society.

    Also when you mention the "belief" in frontiers, you are confusing the definition: the delimitation of a country exist through consent and consensus. They are man made realities. To compare countries to God is a huge false equivalence.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited May 2018 Posts: 7,585
    Ludovico wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, thats why there are so many suicide bombers in Norway. Rock stadiums, cafes, pavements, there really is no place to hide from these mentally unstable young atheists,

    So, do you think a no religion society will catapult these nutjobs into a life of peace and brotherhood of man?

    Actually the Islamists and suicide bombers are not mentally ill. Or at least no more than someone who believes in transubstantiation or... the Virgin birth. A non religious society would not solve every issue we have as a species nor would it protect us from madmen and criminals of all sorts. It would however eliminate one point of irrationality that triggers and feed violence, exploitation, oppression and ignorance. I don't believe in utopias. I do think one can strive to create the best possible society.

    Also when you mention the "belief" in frontiers, you are confusing the definition: the delimitation of a country exist through consent and consensus. They are man made realities. To compare countries to God is a huge false equivalence.

    Yes I do keep reading your claims of false equivalence Ludo. It can't be the answer to everything.

    Borders are man made, but they aren't realities. You can't see the borders anymore than you can see God.
    Both are creations of man.

    I used the term 'nutjobs' because I've seen it used enough times to describe people who kill indiscriminately. I simply can't see that a world without Gods will improve our situation. America will still have school massacres, Muslims (as are) in some parts of the world will still find reasons to decapitate women who have been raped, politicians will still find reasons to fight wars, both legal and illegal.
    And I don't think it would 'eliminate one point of irrationality that triggers and feed violence', because those who trigger that violence would find something else to commit the crime in the name of.
  • Posts: 15,235
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Do people read my posts or just 3 words and run with it?

    The reason I ask is Darth Dimi saidif he saw god it would be eyewitness testimony and considered evidence.... but the 11 disciples who did see th risen lord are viewed as nut jobs because atheist love being hypocritics?

    Actually no it would not be considered evidence. Personal experience never is by itself. @DarthDimi could see God appearing in his back garden and none of us would be justified to believe it is true. I might think he's sincere (or drunk) but our belief would not be justified. Heck I would meet God personally and would not expect anyone to believe in God (or the god I personally met) based on my testimony alone.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,585
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @NicNac

    You are correct, sir. The religious don't need proof. That's not my point either. My point is that @Risico007 claims he has "proof" that God is real and that Jesus walked after dying. My post was merely meant to demonstrate that he "feels" like God exists and he believes what others say regarding a resurrected Jesus, but that neither counts a proof.

    I hope this clarifies things. :)

    Indeed it does.
  • Posts: 9,860
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Do people read my posts or just 3 words and run with it?

    The reason I ask is Darth Dimi saidif he saw god it would be eyewitness testimony and considered evidence.... but the 11 disciples who did see th risen lord are viewed as nut jobs because atheist love being hypocritics?

    Actually no it would not be considered evidence. Personal experience never is by itself. @DarthDimi could see God appearing in his back garden and none of us would be justified to believe it is true. I might think he's sincere (or drunk) but our belief would not be justified. Heck I would meet God personally and would not expect anyone to believe in God (or the god I personally met) based on my testimony alone.

    So then if eyewitnes testimony and of course observable evidence is garbage then how can we be honestly sure of anything after all the twin towers could still be standing world war 2 could of been “invented”


    I could go on but if we are ignoring eyewitness testimony then a fundamental element of science and history is basically thrown out the window

    Darth I plead with you get your atheist brethren in line as we have now crossed the threshold where observable evidence and eyewitness are pointless
  • Posts: 15,235
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, thats why there are so many suicide bombers in Norway. Rock stadiums, cafes, pavements, there really is no place to hide from these mentally unstable young atheists,

    So, do you think a no religion society will catapult these nutjobs into a life of peace and brotherhood of man?

    Actually the Islamists and suicide bombers are not mentally ill. Or at least no more than someone who believes in transubstantiation or... the Virgin birth. A non religious society would not solve every issue we have as a species nor would it protect us from madmen and criminals of all sorts. It would however eliminate one point of irrationality that triggers and feed violence, exploitation, oppression and ignorance. I don't believe in utopias. I do think one can strive to create the best possible society.

    Also when you mention the "belief" in frontiers, you are confusing the definition: the delimitation of a country exist through consent and consensus. They are man made realities. To compare countries to God is a huge false equivalence.

    Yes I do keep reading your claims of false equivalence Ludo. It can't be the answer to everything.

    Borders are man made, but they aren't realities. You can't see the borders anymore than you can see God.
    Both are creations of man.

    I used the term 'nutjobs' because I've seen it used enough times to describe people who kill indiscriminately. I simply can't see that a world without Gods will improve our situation. America will still have school massacres, Muslims (as are) in some parts of the world will still find reasons to decapitate women who have been raped, politicians will still find reasons to fight wars, both legal and illegal.
    And I don't think it would 'eliminate one point of irrationality that triggers and feed violence', because those who trigger that violence would find something else to commit the crime in the name of.

    In that instance you did a false equivalence: frontiers have no physical existence beyond consensus but they "exist" for all purposes. The theist's claim is that their God or gods exist not merely as concepts but as realities or even transcending reality irrespective of man.

    As for eliminating religion I think it would be good in and of itself (although I understand that is pretty utopic). If we find a cure to cancer, other diseases will exist but that doesn't mean we should give up on it.
  • Posts: 9,860


    It would be too hard to show the large amount of studies that prove religion specifically Christianity actually is better for humanity but this video does the work for me
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,585
    Ludovico wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, thats why there are so many suicide bombers in Norway. Rock stadiums, cafes, pavements, there really is no place to hide from these mentally unstable young atheists,

    So, do you think a no religion society will catapult these nutjobs into a life of peace and brotherhood of man?

    Actually the Islamists and suicide bombers are not mentally ill. Or at least no more than someone who believes in transubstantiation or... the Virgin birth. A non religious society would not solve every issue we have as a species nor would it protect us from madmen and criminals of all sorts. It would however eliminate one point of irrationality that triggers and feed violence, exploitation, oppression and ignorance. I don't believe in utopias. I do think one can strive to create the best possible society.

    Also when you mention the "belief" in frontiers, you are confusing the definition: the delimitation of a country exist through consent and consensus. They are man made realities. To compare countries to God is a huge false equivalence.

    Yes I do keep reading your claims of false equivalence Ludo. It can't be the answer to everything.

    Borders are man made, but they aren't realities. You can't see the borders anymore than you can see God.
    Both are creations of man.

    I used the term 'nutjobs' because I've seen it used enough times to describe people who kill indiscriminately. I simply can't see that a world without Gods will improve our situation. America will still have school massacres, Muslims (as are) in some parts of the world will still find reasons to decapitate women who have been raped, politicians will still find reasons to fight wars, both legal and illegal.
    And I don't think it would 'eliminate one point of irrationality that triggers and feed violence', because those who trigger that violence would find something else to commit the crime in the name of.

    In that instance you did a false equivalence: frontiers have no physical existence beyond consensus but they "exist" for all purposes. The theist's claim is that their God or gods exist not merely as concepts but as realities or even transcending reality irrespective of man.

    As for eliminating religion I think it would be good in and of itself (although I understand that is pretty utopic). If we find a cure to cancer, other diseases will exist but that doesn't mean we should give up on it.

    The problem with religion and its place in the 21st century is that, illogical as it all seems, it works for a lot of people. I don't just mean that it offers comfort to people, but it offers the only means of escape for some people, it gives a lot of elderly people somewhere to go, people to meet, things to do.

    Assuming atheists (of which I am one btw) could rid the world of religion, what happens to those who need it? What do you intend to do for them?
  • Posts: 9,860
    Oh that’s obvious kill them all this way over population is gone too
  • Posts: 15,235
    Saint @Risico007 , pray for us. Eye witness testimonies by themselves are insufficient. When it comes to the Bible you don't even have that. You have claims of eye witnesses. You have unverified stories of eye witness testimonies. That's pretty thin. 9/11 had a vast amount of evidence. If your hypothetical God was to manifest himself in such way I would no longer be an atheist. Whether or not I'd find him worthy of respect is an entirely different matter. Now if God was revealing himself to me privately, I would not expect anyone to believe me and would try to gather evidence to back up my experience.

    @NicNac Name me one positive thing that religion can do that cannot be achieved by secular means. Who needs religion and only religion to be happy? I don't think it can be eliminated from the world but IF it did through education and by having everyone becoming atheist... then who would still need religion? And by the way there's elderly who are atheists.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,585
    @Ludovico . Well, when the church arranges fetes, and garden parties, coffee mornings and of course services on Sunday morning, they are doing so for the community. No one is forced to attend, but usually the turn out is good.

    Whether these things can be achieved by secular means is not for me to decide. So far I can't see anyone doing anything to try and replace these small, comforting gatherings prior to the revolution.

    Elderly non believers are welcome to stay at home.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Now if God was revealing himself to me privately, I would not expect anyone to believe me and would try to gather evidence to back up my experience.
    I am intrigued by that prospect.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Now if God was revealing himself to me privately, I would not expect anyone to believe me and would try to gather evidence to back up my experience.
    I am intrigued by that prospect.

    Hmm, is god a pervert? Or is @Ludovico a willing participant?
  • Posts: 15,235
    NicNac wrote: »
    @Ludovico . Well, when the church arranges fetes, and garden parties, coffee mornings and of course services on Sunday morning, they are doing so for the community. No one is forced to attend, but usually the turn out is good.

    Whether these things can be achieved by secular means is not for me to decide. So far I can't see anyone doing anything to try and replace these small, comforting gatherings prior to the revolution.

    Elderly non believers are welcome to stay at home.

    So... an atheist cannot serve cakes, coffee, tea, organize parties and so on? Or at least you are not sure we can. Why not? Or you mean only on Sundays?

    Don't take it the wrong way but that is laughable. It takes faith to bake cupcakes now? Or explain to me what you meant with your post.
  • Posts: 15,235
    royale65 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Now if God was revealing himself to me privately, I would not expect anyone to believe me and would try to gather evidence to back up my experience.
    I am intrigued by that prospect.

    Hmm, is god a pervert? Or is @Ludovico a willing participant?

    Well allegedly he showed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush...
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Ludovico wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Now if God was revealing himself to me privately, I would not expect anyone to believe me and would try to gather evidence to back up my experience.
    I am intrigued by that prospect.

    Hmm, is god a pervert? Or is @Ludovico a willing participant?

    Well allegedly he showed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush...

    Shame that #MeToo didn't exist back in the day.

  • Posts: 9,860
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Saint @Risico007 , pray for us. Eye witness testimonies by themselves are insufficient. When it comes to the Bible you don't even have that. You have claims of eye witnesses. You have unverified stories of eye witness testimonies. That's pretty thin. 9/11 had a vast amount of evidence. If your hypothetical God was to manifest himself in such way I would no longer be an atheist. Whether or not I'd find him worthy of respect is an entirely different matter. Now if God was revealing himself to me privately, I would not expect anyone to believe me and would try to gather evidence to back up my experience.

    @NicNac Name me one positive thing that religion can do that cannot be achieved by secular means. Who needs religion and only religion to be happy? I don't think it can be eliminated from the world but IF it did through education and by having everyone becoming atheist... then who would still need religion? And by the way there's elderly who are atheists.

    What would be evidence for you
  • Posts: 15,235
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Saint @Risico007 , pray for us. Eye witness testimonies by themselves are insufficient. When it comes to the Bible you don't even have that. You have claims of eye witnesses. You have unverified stories of eye witness testimonies. That's pretty thin. 9/11 had a vast amount of evidence. If your hypothetical God was to manifest himself in such way I would no longer be an atheist. Whether or not I'd find him worthy of respect is an entirely different matter. Now if God was revealing himself to me privately, I would not expect anyone to believe me and would try to gather evidence to back up my experience.

    @NicNac Name me one positive thing that religion can do that cannot be achieved by secular means. Who needs religion and only religion to be happy? I don't think it can be eliminated from the world but IF it did through education and by having everyone becoming atheist... then who would still need religion? And by the way there's elderly who are atheists.

    What would be evidence for you

    Well God showing up in the sky for everyone to see surrounded by angels and saints would be a good start. I'd say that would be pretty compelling even. Maybe give a press conference while he's here.
  • Posts: 9,860
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Saint @Risico007 , pray for us. Eye witness testimonies by themselves are insufficient. When it comes to the Bible you don't even have that. You have claims of eye witnesses. You have unverified stories of eye witness testimonies. That's pretty thin. 9/11 had a vast amount of evidence. If your hypothetical God was to manifest himself in such way I would no longer be an atheist. Whether or not I'd find him worthy of respect is an entirely different matter. Now if God was revealing himself to me privately, I would not expect anyone to believe me and would try to gather evidence to back up my experience.

    @NicNac Name me one positive thing that religion can do that cannot be achieved by secular means. Who needs religion and only religion to be happy? I don't think it can be eliminated from the world but IF it did through education and by having everyone becoming atheist... then who would still need religion? And by the way there's elderly who are atheists.

    What would be evidence for you

    Well God showing up in the sky for everyone to see surrounded by angels and saints would be a good start. I'd say that would be pretty compelling even. Maybe give a press conference while he's here.

    God did come down from heaven 1st century AD not my fault you weren’t there
This discussion has been closed.