NationStates Jolt Archive

Pardon me, I'd just like to jump in here.

I believe the point of having faith at all is that it teaches us that some things we have to take on faith. If proof is provided to us by God, then the need for faith ceases and we cease to learn the wisdom of accepting some things on faith.
What things do you think we have to take on faith? Other than a god, I mean. I'd be very interested to know, because generally from what I've seen, said things tend to bootstrap themselves to a ridiculous degree and end up blocking people from asking questions at all. My "beliefs" say that if you can't ask questions, you aren't sapient enough for any kind of spirituality at all.

Except you have no evidence for that. It's really simple. You can cast doubt on what people claim is support for the existence of God, but that doesn't make God impossible. It can't.

Your claim has no logical basis.Yes it does. The simple fact, that the concept of the biblical god did not exist in earlier times, which contradicts the very contents of the only source that claims thus.

The entire concept is a tenet of faith. Do you now know what faith is? Yes, I have faith that Jesus was Messiah. I have faith that there is such a thing as Messiah. It's plain odd, that you would require that one tenet of faith fits with another tenet of faith when both ideas and the belief in them are acts of faith. It's like asking me to prove that I like chocolate.You liking chocolate has nothing to do with the chocolate. And if I wanted to know something about the chocolate, I'd search for its traces of existence, like historical records, archaeological findings, maybe other peoples "experiences" with it, but I wouldn't ask you for your preferences.

It doesn't have to be completely refuted. We have multiple sources or at least they are likely to be multiple sources. We have evidence of what was taught and followed fairly soon after the death of Christ. For historical accounts of an individual this is about as good as it gets.


But we don't though, name one, and please tell us how you have verifyied it's validity?

Heh really? I was thinking of this:

'Originally Posted by United Beleriand'

But we do not have knowledge of the teachings of Yeshua, we do not even have knowledge if he is Christ. All we have are the teachings of the churches, i.e. the community that formed around Yeshua and was carried on by his followers afterwards. What additional requirements groups make is of no relevance, the basic requirements are the same: to receive the sacraments and thus carry on the blessings given by Yeshua, who Christians believe to be Christ (hence the name).

'Originally Posted byJocabia'

False. We have many writings about what he taught. Our knowledge of the teachings of Christ is more extensive than our knowledge of the teachings of Socrates. Some of the writings are not associated with any church. Some are. The churches do not define what Christians believe.

And no, receiving the sacraments is not a requirement to be Christian. You don't even have to believe that Jesus was the savior in order to be Christian. Christian simply means follower of the teachings of Christ. No more. No less. No matter how badly you want to claim otherwise.

Which seems very much to me to be refuteing the question of the validity of the Bible being Jesus words. So what is contained in the Bible did it in fact come from Jesus?

No, actually, I was claiming that we have as much evidence as is required to make such a claim. We claim the teachings of Plato are those of Socrates. We claim that the teachings of the Gospels are those of Jesus. It's an equally valid claim.

However, the point was not that the teachings are valid. The point was that I claimed that Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Whether or not he is the Christ cannot be proven and whether or not it is the teachings of Christ cannot be proven either. However, we have as much evidence for the teachings of the man referred to as Christ by Christians being originated by that man as we do for the teachings of Socrates coming from Socrates. In fact, we have more. It's ludicrous to require more evidence for one than the other.

You inplied that we were discussing whether they are actually true, which we cannot know. History simply doesn't supply us with the amount of proof you guys want us to have for this one particular person but that isn't required for anyone else in history.

I believe the point of having faith at all is that it teaches us that some things we have to take on faith.
Doesn't this seem kinda circular to you?

"The point of faith is to teach us to be dependent upon faith." Well, okay. But the point of crack is to teach our bodies to be dependent upon crack. So?

If one does not have faith, then there are no things one needs to take on faith. Why have faith simply to create a need for faith?

I have yet to encounter anything I NEED to take on faith. I sometimes choose to take things on faith because it makes my life easier, but I've never yet come across a single area where I NEED to to do so. The only reason I would need to have faith in something would be if I decided that I needed to believe in something that required faith. Why should I do that?

But we don't though, name one, and please tell us how you have verifyied it's validity?

I'll tell you what. Prove that Socrates existed and we'll start there. Historical evidence is simply not as solid as you guys are requiring. If we required the level of proof you guys are asking for then we'd simply have no history.

Well, that's fucking convenient. It's also intellectually dishonest.

Hahah I like that one, although I would ask, this 'intelectual dishonesty' you speak of, don't we all do that, every day?

Doesn't this seem kinda circular to you?

"The point of faith is to teach us to be dependent upon faith." Well, okay. But the point of crack is to teach our bodies to be dependent upon crack. So?

If one does not have faith, then there are no things one needs to take on faith. Why have faith simply to create a need for faith?

I didn't say it creates a need. It accepts that we don't know lots of things. Pretty much all things, depending on how you define know. The very basis of everything you know is faith.

We build upon that by creating a line for our evidence, however, we have to at the very basis accept some things as basic assumptions that cannot be proven. For example, I accept that what I see as images are actually coming from external light rather than just halucinations. For all I know, if I concentrate hard enough, I can wake up and see the real world, but I'm not red in the face from trying and neither are you.

The very basis of everything you know is that you don't know. You don't have access to absolute truth and anything you claim as truth has an element of faith in it. I simply extend that particular view to my understanding of God.

*snip* ... but that isn't required for anyone else in history.oh yes, it is. especially when there is probably fanaticism involved in the creation of "sources".

Yes it does. The simple fact, that the concept of the biblical god did not exist in earlier times, which contradicts the very contents of the only source that claims thus.

Again, your argument requires that the concept of God be only a concept. If I encountered God in some fashion when no concept of God existed, would that somehow mean that I can't have encountered God. And if that encounter didn't create a widespread or lasting view of what I encountered does that suddenly negate my encounter or is perhaps that you simply wouldn't know with any certainty whether the encounter happened to me or not.

See, that's your problem. You are assuming a lack of evidence is evidence of lack which is a logical fallacy. The only way you can get to the place you're trying to go is to assume that God doesn't exist and so a faith would have had to develop in order for Abraham to have a concept of God, however, such a thing is easily rectified once you realize that your base assumption is logically invalid.


You liking chocolate has nothing to do with the chocolate. And if I wanted to know something about the chocolate, I'd search for its traces of existence, like historical records, archaeological findings, maybe other peoples "experiences" with it, but I wouldn't ask you for your preferences.

However, you'd still not know or have any evidence of whether or not I like chocolate and even if you found none of the things you were looking for you'd still have no evidence that chocolate does not exist. You can't prove non-existence. It's impossible.

The only way you could assume I couldn't like chocolate as is your claim is to assume that I could not have encountered Chocolate. You keep trying to make this about the concept of God, but if the concept of God is based on an actual entity, then that concept has to have always existed and humans discovered it, not invented it.

Pardon me, I'd just like to jump in here.

What things do you think we have to take on faith? Other than a god, I mean. I'd be very interested to know, because generally from what I've seen, said things tend to bootstrap themselves to a ridiculous degree and end up blocking people from asking questions at all. My "beliefs" say that if you can't ask questions, you aren't sapient enough for any kind of spirituality at all.


Man that is ludicrus you take all sorts on faith everyday.

Are you loved? Can you objectivly prove that you are? Can you take your partners word for it if he/she says 'I love you'? Can you objectivly show how the actions that one normaly associates with love are not false, or put on?

The answer is of course no. When you told 'I love you' there is no proof of this, you take it on faith.

Do you have proof that an airplane will not drop from the sky onto your head as soon as you leave the house? No of course not, but I bet you don't even question the chance of it happening. So you take on faith even them things that you do not conciosly think about.

Faith is integral to life.

oh yes, it is. especially when there is probably fanaticism involved in the creation of "sources".

Some of the sources display no fanaticism whatsoever. Many of our sources for history would necessarily show a bias. Plato would a great reason to make up Socrates as his mentor. Why not? It adds credibilty to his views as having come from a great and wise man as opposed to having to claim that he is the great and wise man. There's plenty of reason for incredulity in history. We encounter it all the time. However, there is no value to creating a burden of proof on history that it can't possibly meet.

I didn't say it creates a need. It accepts that we don't know lots of things.

You don't need faith for that. Indeed, faith runs specifically contrary to accepting that. Instead of accepting that you don't know something, and therefore will not have all the answers, you choose to "believe" in an answer of your own choosing.


Pretty much all things, depending on how you define know. The very basis of everything you know is faith.

Not really, unless you want to stretch the definition of "faith" so far that it becomes essentially meaningless.


We build upon that by creating a line for our evidence, however, we have to at the very basis accept some things as basic assumptions that cannot be proven. For example, I accept that what I see as images are actually coming from external light rather than just halucinations. For all I know, if I concentrate hard enough, I can wake up and see the real world, but I'm not red in the face from trying and neither are you.

Yeah, this is the same line of late-night dorm lounge philosophy that became particularly popular after the first Matrix movie came out. Meh.


The very basis of everything you know is that you don't know. You don't have access to absolute truth and anything you claim as truth has an element of faith in it.

I still don't see where one needs to have faith to understand this.


I simply extend that particular view to my understanding of God.
But you don't understand God at all. You don't have any information about God whatsoever, by your own reasoning. You "have faith" in God, but this is pure assumption and conjecture on your part. Well, technically on the part of other people, since you have selected your image of God from an already-existing catalogue of options created by other people who made most of the assumptions and conjectures in developing that image.

"Faith" is a necessary evil, in the sense that human knowledge is finite and we need to embrace a few fundamental assumptions if we want to do anything at all. We cannot prove materialism without using materialism, but if we don't assume materialism then we have no reason to eat or breath or think in the first place. So yes, we have to "have faith" in that regard.

However, I think there is a big different between that sort of "faith" and the kind of faith that is completely and totally 100% unnecessary. I have yet to be given any reason why any human being actually NEEDS to believe in the supernatural. There are plenty of reasons why people might WANT to do so, or why it might feel good for them to do so, but the same can be said of using drugs, or playing the tuba, or making origami hats.

No, actually, I was claiming that we have as much evidence as is required to make such a claim. We claim the teachings of Plato are those of Socrates. We claim that the teachings of the Gospels are those of Jesus. It's an equally valid claim.

However, the point was not that the teachings are valid. The point was that I claimed that Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Whether or not he is the Christ cannot be proven and whether or not it is the teachings of Christ cannot be proven either. However, we have as much evidence for the teachings of the man referred to as Christ by Christians being originated by that man as we do for the teachings of Socrates coming from Socrates. In fact, we have more. It's ludicrous to require more evidence for one than the other.

You inplied that we were discussing whether they are actually true, which we cannot know. History simply doesn't supply us with the amount of proof you guys want us to have for this one particular person but that isn't required for anyone else in history.

Nope I think you missed the whole point of my post.

You said:

'False. We have many writings about what he taught.'

This was in reaction to a statement saying that we have no proof that the Bible contains the actual words or teachings of Christ.

It seems that it is pretty clear cut that your statement above is trying to refute the previous claim.

So you keep saying no we do have evidance for the words and teachings of Christ, but have not yet mentioned where?

I'll tell you what. Prove that Socrates existed and we'll start there. Historical evidence is simply not as solid as you guys are requiring. If we required the level of proof you guys are asking for then we'd simply have no history.

I really don't care wether he did or not, this is about you producing proof for YOUR claim, that we have plenty of evidance for the words and teachings of Christ. After all I really have not made any counter claims.

Again, your argument requires that the concept of God be only a concept. That's not the point at all. The point is that if the biblical concept of god along with the biblical account of people's beliefs were accurate then there must be some record of it so the bible could contain this information at all. But unfortunately all there is is the Bible itself, as if it popped out of nowhere. It has no history. However, there is plenty of material contradicting the biblical account for the very time periods and places the biblical account deals with.

So on the one side we have accounts about people's belief out of every period of recorded history, back to circa 3000 BCE, informing us of the overall Mesopotamian pantheon with its local peculiarities.
On the other side we have one singular collection of texts from around 300 BCE and later informing us that all other sources are lying and that the Jew-ish perspective held at that time would actually be the one held by certain folks throughout ancient times.
Now, go figure.

You don't need faith for that. Indeed, faith runs specifically contrary to accepting that. Instead of accepting that you don't know something, and therefore will not have all the answers, you choose to "believe" in an answer of your own choosing.

And accept that it's a belief and in my case, not force or coerse anyone else to accept that same belief. Would that we all could have that level of respect for others.


Not really, unless you want to stretch the definition of "faith" so far that it becomes essentially meaningless.

Or one wants to accept that one don't actually know ANYTHING. This is in fact that basis of scientific discovery - that nothing is proven. The best we can ever hope for is a level of support.


Yeah, this is the same line of late-night dorm lounge philosophy that became particularly popular after the first Matrix movie came out. Meh.

Uh-huh. Except, to pretend as if that's not possible is to deny the very basis of anything logical. You cannot claim something is true just because we don't know it's false.

Meanwhile, now who is pretending to have answers they don't have and can't have. To reject the possibility of these things is to claim absolute truth and you don't have any more access to it than anyone else, honey.



I still don't see where one needs to have faith to understand this.

Fortunately, I'm not requiring you to. That's why it's my faith and not your. I would never be so pompous as to require you to believe exactly what I believe or to look down on you for not doing so. Again, would that everyone would display that level of respect.

At least in this statement you're being honest. You fail to see. And it's fine that you do, but it's ridiculous when you claim that no has ever explained a reason to you.



But you don't understand God at all. You don't have any information about God whatsoever, by your own reasoning. You "have faith" in God, but this is pure assumption and conjecture on your part. Well, technically on the part of other people, since you have selected your image of God from an already-existing catalogue of options created by other people who made most of the assumptions and conjectures in developing that image.

No, that's not what I said at all. There is no emperical evidence for God and thus God cannot be proven. That's not the same as saying there is nothing on which to base my understanding of God on. Beliefs do not require emperical evidence.



"Faith" is a necessary evil, in the sense that human knowledge is finite and we need to embrace a few fundamental assumptions if we want to do anything at all. We cannot prove materialism without using materialism, but if we don't assume materialism then we have no reason to eat or breath or think in the first place. So yes, we have to "have faith" in that regard.

There it is. Human knowledge is finite. We all speculate about things that extend past that knowledge, sometimes out of necessity and sometimes not and we all choose what to believe. It's all a choice and don't try to pretend you've not made any. You have and you like to look down on those that don't agree with you.



However, I think there is a big different between that sort of "faith" and the kind of faith that is completely and totally 100% unnecessary. I have yet to be given any reason why any human being actually NEEDS to believe in the supernatural. There are plenty of reasons why people might WANT to do so, or why it might feel good for them to do so, but the same can be said of using drugs, or playing the tuba, or making origami hats.

100% unnecessary? Prove it. You have yet to accept any reason. To say you've not been given is provably false. I've seen people give you reasons.

It's like those challenges from religious websites to prove the earth goes around the sun. Yours is no different. It's a dishonest challenge where you enter planning to toss all possible supports out on their ear as being invalid because you don't agree with them.

You have a philosophy and philosophy by definition requires you to believe things you cannot prove. You choose those things. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend you don't.

That's not the point at all. The point is that if the biblical concept of god along with the biblical account of people's beliefs were accurate then there must be some record of it so the bible could contain this information at all. But unfortunately all there is is the Bible itself, as if it popped out of nowhere. It has no history. However, there is plenty of material contradicting the biblical account for the very time periods and places the biblical account deals with.

Again, you are making an invalid assumption. Because you don't know from where it popped doesn't mean it popped out of nowhere. This is an argument from ignorance.

And you cannot contradict the individual accounts unless you can actually prove to me that the specific individual did not have the beliefs claimed in the Bible. You can't. It's not possible. You have no evidence and you're arguing that a lack of evidence proves it false, which is argument from ignorance. It won't suddenly stop being a fallacy simply because you keep restating it.


So on the one side we have accounts about people's belief out of every period of recorded history, back to circa 3000 BCE, informing us of the overall Mesopotamian pantheon with its local peculiarities.
On the other side we have one singular collection of texts from around 300 BCE and later informing us that all other sources are lying and that the Jew-ish perspective held at that time would actually be the one held by certain folks throughout ancient times.
Now, go figure.
And one could consider that suggestive, certainly. You don't though. You consider it proof that the biblical God is impossible. A conclusion that defies logic because it presumes that if a small sect existed of a particular belief that we would have evidence of it that was emperical. All reasonable evidence suggests this is an invalid assumption.

You presume that if we cannot prove a source for Judaic beliefs that extends back to the time of Abraham that there cannot be one. Again, this is an argument from ignorance.

Again, you are making an invalid assumption. Because you don't know from where it popped doesn't mean it popped out of nowhere. This is an argument from ignorance.Actually I know from where it popped, meaning how it was assembled. Nevertheless there are no sources to confirm anything of its contents. In fact that contents had never been stated anywhere else, while contradictory statements could be found everywhere.

And you cannot contradict the individual accounts unless you can actually prove to me that the specific individual did not have the beliefs claimed in the Bible. You can't. It's not possible. You have no evidence and you're arguing that a lack of evidence proves it false, which is argument from ignorance. It won't suddenly stop being a fallacy simply because you keep restating it.I am not only arguing that the lack of evidence proves it false, I specifically argue that the evidence contradicting it proves it false.

And one could consider that suggestive, certainly. You don't though. You consider it proof that the biblical God is impossible. A conclusion that defies logic because it presumes that if a small sect existed of a particular belief that we would have evidence of it that was emperical. All reasonable evidence suggests this is an invalid assumption.

You presume that if we cannot prove a source for Judaic beliefs that extends back to the time of Abraham that there cannot be one. Again, this is an argument from ignorance.There are no sources for Judaic beliefs in ancient times. Just that. Otherwise: show me.

At first I thought that was ridiculous, too but maybe it's not so ridiculous after all. This paragraph I f ound unsettling:


"Almost all moral education is indoctrination," Wolf said. "It's the reason we have public schools. We're preparing people for citizenship." He pointed out that the parents had the option of enrolling their children in private schools, or of lobbying the school board to have the curriculum changed.


There should be no "indoctrination" in public schools. This is exactly the argument often used by those who don't want to see prayer in schools. Also, while true that parents can enroll their kids in private school, that statement presupposes they can afford it, for one thing, and for another if that argument were used in the other direction, people would throw a fit. Lastly, lobbying the school board to change it seems to be exactly what they're doing now, but it doesn't change the fact that this curriculum was apparently introduced without notifying the parents. That is a bad thing, friends.

Wow. This takes the record for stupidest argument.

Nope I think you missed the whole point of my post.

You said:

'False. We have many writings about what he taught.'

This was in reaction to a statement saying that we have no proof that the Bible contains the actual words or teachings of Christ.

It seems that it is pretty clear cut that your statement above is trying to refute the previous claim.

So you keep saying no we do have evidance for the words and teachings of Christ, but have not yet mentioned where?

We have more evidence that the books containing his teachings are actually displaying the teachings of Jesus than we have of Socrates teachings. That's doesn't prove that are the teachings of Jesus or Socrates, but it is evidence and is a level that is generally considered acceptable when discussing history.

Man that is ludicrus you take all sorts on faith everyday.

Are you loved? Can you objectivly prove that you are? Can you take your partners word for it if he/she says 'I love you'? Can you objectivly show how the actions that one normaly associates with love are not false, or put on?

The answer is of course no. When you told 'I love you' there is no proof of this, you take it on faith.

Do you have proof that an airplane will not drop from the sky onto your head as soon as you leave the house? No of course not, but I bet you don't even question the chance of it happening. So you take on faith even them things that you do not conciosly think about.

Faith is integral to life.

Besides the fact that I never said otherwise, not thinking about something is different from believing something isn't going to happen. I make no predictions about whether an airplane will drop out of the sky and kill me when I leave my house, because I don't know. That doesn't mean I can't.

By saying that faith is integral to life, you discount the possibility that we might grow to the point where we can't physically question more than we've already answered. It's easier than you might think - although we can create a hell of a lot of questions out of nothing but our own convoluted minds, this is limited by the context that we're in. A beet farmer in 16th century France will never spontaneously wonder about the growth-propagation curve of Pseudomonas syringae.

Actually I know from where it popped, meaning how it was assembled. Nevertheless there are no sources to confirm anything of its contents. In fact that contents had never been stated anywhere else, while contradictory statements could be found everywhere.

I am not only arguing that the lack of evidence proves it false, I specifically argue that the evidence contradicting it proves it false.

There are no sources for Judaic beliefs in ancient times. Just that. Otherwise: show me.

You don't have evidence contradicting it. You can't. Your evidence speaks to generalities and the documents regard individuals. Your evidence can't speak to individuals no matter how much you'd like for it to be so.

You're saying that our evidence says that all of the major religions are X. However, your evidence doesn't speak to small sects. It can't. By their very nature a lack of evidence would be expected. This doesn't prove the existence of pockets of this belief true. It doesn't prove them false. It doesn't prove anything.

You have NO evidence that Abraham couldn't have believed in God. It's impossible for you to have that evidence. You are arguing from ignorance. Your 'evidence' is that a lack of evidence for a belief in the Biblical God means people didn't believe in the Biblical God, but it's still a lack of evidence. Non-existence cannot be proven. You are trying to prove non-existence.

You cannot prove this belief false. You haven't done so and you've not even given anything that would resemble a reasonable effort at doing so.

Here is the crux of it "There are no sources for Judaic beliefs in ancient times. Just that. Otherwise: show me" This is argument from ignorance. "You can't prove it true so it must be false." It's a classic case and you keep restating it a number of ways. The fact that I can't show you only proves that I can't prove it true. That's it. That's the last stop for the logic train. But instead you choose to get off the logic train, put on your "but I do want to accept it as possible" boots and just keep on trucking forward never looking back and how far you left logic behind.

You don't have evidence contradicting it. You can't. Your evidence speaks to generalities and the documents regard individuals. Your evidence can't speak to individuals no matter how much you'd like for it to be so.

You're saying that our evidence says that all of the major religions are X. However, your evidence doesn't speak to small sects. It can't. By their very nature a lack of evidence would be expected. This doesn't prove the existence of pockets of this belief true. It doesn't prove them false. It doesn't prove anything.

You have NO evidence that Abraham couldn't have believed in God. It's impossible for you to have that evidence. You are arguing from ignorance. Your 'evidence' is that a lack of evidence for a belief in the Biblical God means people didn't believe in the Biblical God, but it's still a lack of evidence. Non-existence cannot be proven. You are trying to prove non-existence.

You cannot prove this belief false. You haven't done so and you've not even given anything that would resemble a reasonable effort at doing so.

if it helps any, I totally get what you are saying......and you have a TG to that effect. *is not getting involved in this*

We have more evidence that the books containing his teachings are actually displaying the teachings of Jesus than we have of Socrates teachings. That's doesn't prove that are the teachings of Jesus or Socrates, but it is evidence and is a level that is generally considered acceptable when discussing history.I don't know about Socrates, but as far as I know, there's no reliable information that Jesus ever exsted. On the contrary, there's a distinct lack of evidence to suggest any such thing, outside sources with an obvious interest in portraying it as a non-fictional character.

It's hardly accurate to claim the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is generally considered enough to treat it as fact. From where I'm sitting, the opposite seems to be the generally accepted opinion.

Wow. This takes the record for stupidest argument.

Every argument involving morality in any form eventually ends up with one extreme side or the other trolling.

Here, we ended with someone claiming they can prove the biblical God impossible because if certain aspects of the Bible are false, the biblical God doesn't exist AND that if we don't know about the worship of the biblical God in certain time periods (meaning not using the Bible, but addressing the same concept of God) that such beliefs must not exist.

One is a case of a conclusion not actually being based on the assumption, which also happens to be unsupported. The second is a case of argument from ignorance.

It really comes down to extremists from both sides getting upset that not everyone believes what they do.

I don't care, just shut up.

I don't care, just shut up.

You know what they have on these forums. This magical thing called the "not click". See when you don't want to read something you simply don't click on it. Or if you start reading it you can employ the "stop reading" technique perfected by teenagers everywhere.

I'll teach it to you.

1. Take a breath. The world always seems to make more sense when you slow down and recognize your place in it.

2. Crack your knuckles. The last step takes a lot of effort so you need to brace yourself and get your hands loosened up.

3. Stop reading the post.

Tada! You've just learned the "stop reading" technique. This will help you to make me effectively "shut up" because you'll never hear what I say unless you want to.

Man, it'll be just like you're on a forum where you only have to read the posts you feel like reading. Wouldn't it be wonderful if this were such a forum?

You know what they have on these forums. This magical thing called the "not click". See when you don't want to read something you simply don't click on it. Or if you start reading it you can employ the "stop reading" technique perfected by teenagers everywhere.

I'll teach it to you.

1. Take a breath. The world always seems to make more sense when you slow down and recognize your place in it.

2. Crack your knuckles. The last step takes a lot of effort so you need to brace yourself and get your hands loosened up.

3. Stop reading the post.

Tada! You've just learned the "stop reading" technique. This will help you to make me effectively "shut up" because you'll never hear what I say unless you want to.

Man, it'll be just like you're on a forum where you only have to read the posts you feel like reading. Wouldn't it be wonderful if this were such a forum?
Another successful beating with the Subtlety Stick.

I don't know about Socrates, but as far as I know, there's no reliable information that Jesus ever exsted. On the contrary, there's a distinct lack of evidence to suggest any such thing, outside sources with an obvious interest in portraying it as a non-fictional character.

It's hardly accurate to claim the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is generally considered enough to treat it as fact. From where I'm sitting, the opposite seems to be the generally accepted opinion.

He's a historical figure. Socrates too. There is no palpable reason to believe the claims of the existence of Jesus are false. A noted and respected historian of a time period only a few generations after the life of Jesus found his existence credible.

We're not having this discussion about Socrates because for historical analysis, the burden of proof is less than you are requiring here. There isn't any large movement suggesting Socrates didn't exist, simply because there is no scholarly reason to make such a claim.

The same is true of Jesus. There is no scholarly reason to conclude he doesn't exist. The lack of evidence is consistent with the level of interest he generated at the time. The Bible makes it seem like it's significant because it's focused on him, but there were a large number of messiah figures running around during that point in history.

You can believe Jesus didn't exist. Feel free. However, you cannot conclude he didn't exist from the evidence. The evidence points to the opposite conclusion unless you just decide that you think it should be MORE evidence, more evidence than is required for us to accept the existence of Socrates.

You don't have evidence contradicting it. You can't. Your evidence speaks to generalities and the documents regard individuals. Your evidence can't speak to individuals no matter how much you'd like for it to be so.

You're saying that our evidence says that all of the major religions are X. However, your evidence doesn't speak to small sects. It can't. By their very nature a lack of evidence would be expected. This doesn't prove the existence of pockets of this belief true. It doesn't prove them false. It doesn't prove anything.

You have NO evidence that Abraham couldn't have believed in God. It's impossible for you to have that evidence. You are arguing from ignorance. Your 'evidence' is that a lack of evidence for a belief in the Biblical God means people didn't believe in the Biblical God, but it's still a lack of evidence. Non-existence cannot be proven. You are trying to prove non-existence.

You cannot prove this belief false. You haven't done so and you've not even given anything that would resemble a reasonable effort at doing so.

Here is the crux of it "There are no sources for Judaic beliefs in ancient times. Just that. Otherwise: show me" This is argument from ignorance. "You can't prove it true so it must be false." It's a classic case and you keep restating it a number of ways. The fact that I can't show you only proves that I can't prove it true. That's it. That's the last stop for the logic train. But instead you choose to get off the logic train, put on your "but I do want to accept it as possible" boots and just keep on trucking forward never looking back and how far you left logic behind.

Small sects? What the fuck are you talking about? The Bible speaks of religion enforced on the state level for the entire group dubbed Israelites. But that's just not true, for no time period that's covered by the biblical account. Israelites, let alone Hebrews in general, were never Jew-ish. And your fucking "non-existence cannot be proven" does not help you at all in your Abraham reference. There is no indication that Abraham believed anything else than his contemporaries, however, a text with no sources at hand 1200 years later claims thus out of the blue. And then there is also the issue about who actually assembled the Bible: folks whose credibility is pretty close to nil.

Small sects? What the fuck are you talking about? The Bible speaks of religion enforced on the state level for the entire group dubbed Israelites. But that's just not true, for no time period that's covered by the biblical account. Israelites, let alone Hebrews in general, were never Jew-ish. And your fucking "non-existence cannot be proven" does not help you at all in your Abraham reference. There is no indication that Abraham believed anything else than his contemporaries, however, a text with no sources at hand 1200 years later claims thus out of the blue. And then there is also the issue about who actually assembled the Bible: folks whose credibility is pretty close to nil.

Again, you keep saying "there is no evidence" and claiming this proves something false. It doesn't. It can't. It's a logical fallacy. What is hard about that for you?

BTW the fact that it's so hard to imagine a porn free children's story about same- sex couples really illustrates the need for them.

i could not agree more. better would be a t.v. show about non-stereotyped same-sex couple, with kids. but ratings would be a bother.

they see "married with children" and know its comedy; but if the parents were both men or women, it turns into some c.n.n. "documentary"

:confused: :headbang: :(

-Rafe

A noted and respected historian of a time period only a few generations after the life of Jesus found his existence credible.Who? And what was he saying about the person or the supposed teachings? And what was that historian's religion?

Douglas Adams had it right on about the existence of God.

Again, you keep saying "there is no evidence" and claiming this proves something false. It doesn't. It can't. It's a logical fallacy. What is hard about that for you?I'm not saying "there is no evidence". I say "there is evidence against".

Who? And what was he saying about the person or the supposed teachings? And what was that historian's religion?

Are you seriously trying to have an educated debate about Jesus' existence and you don't know what historian I'm talking about. Wow. Just wow.

I'm not saying "there is no evidence". I say "there is evidence against".

Your evidence against is a lack of evidence.

"There is no indication that Abraham believed anything else than his contemporaries, however, a text with no sources at hand 1200 years later claims thus out of the blue."

No indication is no evidence. Simple.

i could not agree more. better would be a t.v. show about non-stereotyped same-sex couple, with kids. but ratings would be a bother.

they see "married with children" and know its comedy; but if the parents were both men or women, it turns into some c.n.n. "documentary"

:confused: :headbang: :(

-Rafe

It is frustrating. People act like our hold on heterosexuality, for those of us who are, is so tenuous that any exposure and suddenly I can't keep my hands of my buddies.

Are you seriously trying to have an educated debate about Jesus' existence and you don't know what historian I'm talking about. Wow. Just wow.In other words, you have no clue who you refer to. And I never had any debate on Jesus' existence. Only on Jesus being Christ, divine, or whatever.

Your evidence against is a lack of evidence.No. The evidence is sources from the time period at issue.
And let's not forge that you have not yet even indicated at all that the Bible is accurate in this respect. You only take the assumption for real based on your personal feelings, which are not connected to any real world sources outside your mind.

In other words, you have no clue who you refer to. And I never had any debate on Jesus' existence. Only on Jesus being Christ, divine, or whatever.

Amusing. And sad. We talked about that historian in this very thread. If you don't know who we're talking about, then perhaps you should choose to move along before we end up in another debate where you rest your arguments on what you don't know.

Or you could just look back a couple of posts when we discussed him.

No. The evidence is sources from the time period at issue.
And let's not forge that you have not yet even indicated at all that the Bible is accurate in this respect. You only take the assumption for real based on your personal feelings, which are not connected to any real world sources outside your mind.

You keep stating that, but a lack of sources does not prove something false. I'm not claiming an absolute, that it must be true. You're claiming it MUST be false and if you make such a claim you must either prove it or admit you cannot.

The evidence does not speak to individuals. You've not proven that he did not worship the Biblical God. You've only got evidence that most people didn't. That doesn't speak to him at all.

We talked about any historian? I sure didn't.

No, WE did. "We" being several people in this thread. You obviously aren't qualified to have the discussion WE were having a few pages back.

We talked about any historian? I sure didn't.

No, WE did. "We" being several people in this thread. You obviously aren't qualified to have the discussion WE were having a few pages back.You mean Tacitus? He said nothing on Jesus' teachings, he apparently even did not know him by name, and only referred to his followers in a rather dismissive manner.

You mean Tacitus? He said nothing on Jesus' teachings, he apparently even did not know him by name, and only referred to his followers in a rather dismissive manner.

We're not talking about Jesus' teachings, my confused friend. I know this is hard to keep straight. I'll help you. When I say I'm giving evidence of the existence of Christ, then my evidence is coincidentally going to address *gasp* the existence of Christ. Tacitus said "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius". Yes he was referring to in it a dismissive manner. He had a reason to portray Christ as a myth if his research suggested that Christ was a myth, but instead, even in his dismissive style, he says that Christ existed and was martyred by Pontius Pilate. Kind of hurts the claims that the only evidence for Jesus' existence are people with an agenda served by his existence.

We're not talking about Jesus' teachings, my confused friend. I know this is hard to keep straight. I'll help you. When I say I'm giving evidence of the existence of Christ, then my evidence is coincidentally going to address *gasp* the existence of Christ.
You have not given any evidence for the existence of Christ. Nor does Tacitus. I'm pretty sure from his text that he had no clue what the word "Christos" means at all, or what significance it would have in a Jewish context. I'm pretty sure he mistook that for the name of the Christian movement's "founder".

You have not given any evidence for the existence of Christ. Nor does Tacitus. I'm pretty sure from his text that he had no clue what the word "Christos" means at all, or what significance it would have in a Jewish context. I'm pretty sure he mistook that for the name of the Christian movement's "founder".

Yes, he reference the founder, Jesus. The important point here is not that he called him Christ. That's your beef. It has no bearing on the fact that he refers the founder and subject of the faith being an actual person and being killed by Pilate. I know that when a historian refers to a historical figure and talks about the events of that figures life that you might not consider that to be evidence that the history is actually referring to the life of that figure, but it's not a rational conclusion.

I shall have to return to a seemingly very needy sender.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, he reference the founder, Jesus. The important point here is not that he called him Christ. That's your beef. It has no bearing on the fact that he refers the founder and subject of the faith being an actual person and being killed by Pilate. I know that when a historian refers to a historical figure and talks about the events of that figures life that you might not consider that to be evidence that the history is actually referring to the life of that figure, but it's not a rational conclusion.And? Does that in any way impact the probability of Jesus being Christ (=Messiah), let alone divine?
There probably exist sources that would confirm the existence of Shaul and Dud (David), but that doesn't mean that the biblical account on their deeds or beliefs or theological implications or even on their alleged interactions with the biblical "god" is any more true or accurate.

And? Does that in any way impact the probability of Jesus being Christ, let alone divine?

Focus is difficult for you. I didn't present him as evidence that Jesus was Christ or divine. Do you know what a strawman is?

I presented him as evidence of existence. That he doesn't speak to other uses has no value on his role as evidence of existence. In fact, the fact he doesn't actually makes him a more reliable source, since the issues you mention are matters of faith, not history.

I know this is difficult. Messiah is a concept of faith. Divinity is also a concept of faith. It's not complicated. You keep requiring proof of faith. It's silly.

You have not given any evidence for the existence of Christ. Nor does Tacitus. I'm pretty sure from his text that he had no clue what the word "Christos" means at all, or what significance it would have in a Jewish context. I'm pretty sure he mistook that for the name of the Christian movement's "founder".

If I remember correctly, Tacitus said "Chrestos" not "Christos." Being an educated Roman, he would have understood the Greek "christos" meaning "annointed." Other than that, he'd have been more familiar with Pilate than with Christ.

Focus is difficult for you. I didn't present him as evidence that Jesus was Christ or divine. Do you know what a strawman is?

I presented him as evidence of existence. That he doesn't speak to other uses has no value on his role as evidence of existence. In fact, the fact he doesn't actually makes him a more reliable source, since the issues you mention are matters of faith, not history.

I know this is difficult. Messiah is a concept of faith. Divinity is also a concept of faith. It's not complicated. You keep requiring proof of faith. It's silly.Messiah is a concept of faith. Divinity is also a concept of faith. Yes. But Jesus being any of both is not a concept of faith. Such a claim would indeed require some proof. You know, there must be something to base that assumption upon.

If I remember correctly, Tacitus said "Chrestos" not "Christos." Being an educated Roman, he would have understood the Greek "christos" meaning "annointed." Other than that, he'd have been more familiar with Pilate than with Christ.

His reference shows nothing more than as a respected historian of a time period of just a generation after Christ's death that he considered the death of Chrestos or Christos (the subject of the religion) at the hands of Pilate to be a matter of history.

At the time period, there were many references to Christians as Chrestians. Don't get too caught up in the spelling. He specifically records the subject of Christianity was put to death by Pilate.

Messiah is a concept of faith. Divinity is also a concept of faith. Yes. But Jesus being any of both is not a concept of faith. Such a claim would indeed require some proof. You know, there must be something to base that assumption upon.

So you have to prove that an individual meets the requirements for a concept that one can only hold true by faith? Really. Can you even see where you left logic behind from where you're standing?

Tell you what. Without proving that divinity exists, what proof would prove that Jesus was divine?

His reference shows nothing more than as a respected historian of a time period of just a generation after Christ's death that he considered the death of Chrestos or Christos (the subject of the religion) at the hands of Pilate to be a matter of history.

At the time period, there were many references to Christians as Chrestians. Don't get too caught up in the spelling. He specifically records the subject of Christianity was put to death by Pilate.

Yes, he does. His reference is purely historical, and in the context of the fire at Rome under Nero, too, I believe. The first Roman of whom we have record dealing with Christians on a religious basis is the younger Pliny during his term in Bithynia (I think it was there).

If I remember correctly, Tacitus said "Chrestos" not "Christos." Being an educated Roman, he would have understood the Greek "christos" meaning "annointed." Other than that, he'd have been more familiar with Pilate than with Christ.Wasn't Tacitus from some western province? I'm not sure if he would have known Greek, since that came out of fashion after the fall of Egypt. Nevertheless I don't he suppose what "anointed" would have meant in this specific context.

Wasn't Tacitus from some western province? I'm not sure if he would have known Greek, since that came out of fashion after the fall of Egypt. Nevertheless I don't he suppose what "anointed" would have meant in this specific context.

Yeah, either Spain, Narbonensis or maybe Northern Italy. We don't actually know. And I don't think educated Romans stopped learning Greek, certainly not in the 2nd century. Later maybe. I doubt the fall of Egypt - to Octavian, I assume you mean, after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra - had anything to do with it.

So you have to prove that an individual meets the requirements for a concept that one can only hold true by faith?If you hold true a concept of faith, you would surely know how to tell its manifestation in a human? If you don't, on what basis would you make the claim that an individual meets the requirements for that concept? After all, the particular issue of faith is not supposed to exist in a strange parallel universe, but in our observable world, right? So if you claim that Jesus is Christ, you must have indications for that.
You know, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was this and that, nevertheless I wouldn't give a wet fart for that.

Yeah, either Spain, Narbonensis or maybe Northern Italy. We don't actually know. And I don't think educated Romans stopped learning Greek, certainly not in the 2nd century. Later maybe. I doubt the fall of Egypt - to Octavian, I assume you mean, after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra - had anything to do with it.I thought Greek was only widespread in the eastern half of the empire. And after Egypt became a province Alexandria steadily decreased in importance as the cultural and intellectual center of the world, and Greek lost its chique. Tacitus lived ~100 years after that, right? And was Tacitus of any nobility?

I thought Greek was only widespread in the eastern half of the empire. And after Egypt became a province Alexandria steadily decreased in importance as the cultural and intellectual center of the world. Tacitus lived ~100 years after that, right? And was Tacitus of any nobility?

It was most widespread in the East, certainly, but there were extensive areas in southern Italy and Sicily where it was spoken, and even around Massilia (Marseilles) in southern France. His family was equestrian in origin and there's speculation that he was related to a Cornelius Tacitus who was a procurator in Belgica and Germania, but we simply don't know. In fact, there's a lot of speculation about his life and family, because we just don't know. But any man who pursued a career in the government as he did (he eventually held a consulate and became governor of Asia province, the highest civilian office in the Empire), and who was famous as an orator, would have known Greek and known it quite well.

As for Alexandria, it had declined somewhat under the last Ptolemies but became important again under the Empire and continued so for very many years. As Christianity grew, it became a major center, besides already being the home of a large Jewish colony.

I didn't mean to interrupt your discussion wuth Jocabia.

Man! I hate gay people. They are all big and "gay!" We should all kill gays. :sniper:

Amazing first post

Man! I hate gay people. They are all big and "gay!" We should all kill gays. :sniper:

Haven't seen someone set himself up to get warned on the first post in ages. And a gun smiley, too. How precious.

I fear somone is about to discover that NSG tends to be quite a liberal forum.

I fear somone is about to discover that NSG tends to be quite a liberal forum.

Liberals? Where?!?!? :eek:

Or that despite the occasional lapse, people are expected to act like adults here. Mostly. Sometimes.

Liberals? Where?!?!? :eek:


Don't worry. A special Anti-liberal force has been dispatched :) .


Or that despite the occasional lapse, people are expected to act like adults here. Mostly. Sometimes.

What? I thought NSG was a bastion of immaturity.

Is anyone even going to bother rebutting this troll post?

I didn't mean to interrupt your discussion wuth Jocabia.Jocabia only has his/her faith. That's not half as interesting as real history.
Of course you are right, I forgot that Massilia was once a Greek foundation.

Jocabia only has his/her faith. That's not half as interesting as real history.
Of course you are right, I forgot that Massilia was once a Greek foundation.

And Greek was spoken in some small Italian villages up to the 20th century, at least. Maybe still today, though probably mostly by old, old people.

And Greek was spoken in some small Italian villages up to the 20th century, at least. Maybe still today, though probably mostly by old, old people.In the Sicilies?

In the Sicilies?

The Kingdom of the Two, yep. We forget these days, with all the instant communication and trains and planes and automobiles, that many people were born, lived and died within a very small radius. It's not out of the question that Greek would hang on in those little villages for centuries. Sort of the way Latin hung on in the villages and mountains of Dacia until it became the Romanian language (gad, I love this stuff!).

Back to Tacitus, Ronald Syme has a book on him, which I haven't read. Syme's good but he doesn't translate foreign languages so you need to be up on things for when he quotes people who don't write in English.

If you hold true a concept of faith, you would surely know how to tell its manifestation in a human? If you don't, on what basis would you make the claim that an individual meets the requirements for that concept? After all, the particular issue of faith is not supposed to exist in a strange parallel universe, but in our observable world, right? So if you claim that Jesus is Christ, you must have indications for that.
You know, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was this and that, nevertheless I wouldn't give a wet fart for that.

The point is that I might hold that article to be true, but I couldn't offer any emperical evidence for such a thing. I'd have to start by demonstrating that divinity was true or one couldn't be divine in the first place. To suggest that I can start with an assumption that is less evidenced than my conclusion, is to, quite simply, to create the same logical error you did.

Meanwhile, the Christ does not necessarily refer to divinity. I told you what it refers to and how I believe he fits it. You rejected it. It's a matter of faith. It can't be emperically proven and quite frankly, given the rather clear logical errors most of your arguments rest on, I'm not sure I want to delve even further into a subject about which you clearly aren't willing to keep an open mind.

Jocabia only has his/her faith. That's not half as interesting as real history.
Of course you are right, I forgot that Massilia was once a Greek foundation.

Hilarious. Yes, I'm sorry I'm not good enough to claim I can emperically prove the biblical God doesn't exist. I tend to keep my claims in the realm of that which is possible.

All American gays & lesbians along with their open-minded brethren who don't freak at what other people like to do to each other in bed, and those who want universal health care coverage, respectable social welfare, and even *better* than "gun laws" a population that believes gun owners should be transported to a special island where they can take pot shots at one another, should band together and with one sane voice declare their national alliance with:

CANADA!

~Home of the reasonably-sized donut

All American gays & lesbians along with their open-minded brethren who don't freak at what other people like to do to each other in bed, and those who want universal health care coverage, respectable social welfare, and even *better* than "gun laws" a population that believes gun owners should be transported to a special island where they can take pot shots at one another, should band together and with one sane voice declare their national alliance with:

CANADA!

~Home of the reasonably-sized donut

Couldn't we go somewhere warmer? Please? Why couldn't the French and the Brits have colonized Mexico and let the Spanish have the Frozen North?

All American gays & lesbians along with their open-minded brethren who don't freak at what other people like to do to each other in bed, and those who want universal health care coverage, respectable social welfare, and even *better* than "gun laws" a population that believes gun owners should be transported to a special island where they can take pot shots at one another, should band together and with one sane voice declare their national alliance with:

CANADA!

~Home of the reasonably-sized donut

I don't care who's fucking who as long as it's consentual, but I like my guns and I aim to keep 'em. Anyone who wants to take me to your "special island" had better be ready to get shot.

The point is that I might hold that article to be true, but I couldn't offer any emperical evidence for such a thing. I'd have to start by demonstrating that divinity was true or one couldn't be divine in the first place. To suggest that I can start with an assumption that is less evidenced than my conclusion, is to, quite simply, to create the same logical error you did.

Meanwhile, the Christ does not necessarily refer to divinity. I told you what it refers to and how I believe he fits it. You rejected it. It's a matter of faith. It can't be emperically proven and quite frankly, given the rather clear logical errors most of your arguments rest on, I'm not sure I want to delve even further into a subject about which you clearly aren't willing to keep an open mind.You say my logic is flawed? You don't even understand half of what I'm saying.

How could you possibly hold anything true, if you cannot even name the indications that would point to the accuracy of your statement? You cannot just believe in Jesus being Messiah/Christ without being able to tell why you think that way and on what you base that assumption. You must have reasonable reasons. Otherwise there is no connexion to the real world and its history and your particular belief is baseless and ultimately pointless.
And specifically I would like to know why those who invented the concept of Messiah/Christ do not at all share your view.

I don't care who's fucking who as long as it's consentual, but I like my guns and I aim to keep 'em. Anyone who wants to take me to your "special island" had better be ready to get shot. This is pretty much the reason the second amendment will last forever.

Speaking of self-defence, did anyone hear about the minister who said you should (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PVG1CDZTOEJ4RQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/02/05/do0501.xml), if you hypothetically see a thug attacking an old lady, make "lots of noise" and "hoot your horn"? Would be hilarious if it wasn't the gubmint.

/hijack

Hilarious. Yes, I'm sorry I'm not good enough to claim I can emperically prove the biblical God doesn't exist. I tend to keep my claims in the realm of that which is possible.Do you even know how the biblical god came into existence at all? It's evolution? I suppose, you think, it has always been around because the Bible says so? Then why is there nothing to confirm that but everything to contradict that?

I worried about a society where other guys hit on me.

Yeah, you're definitely gay.

Do you even know how the biblical god came into existence at all? It's evolution? I suppose, you think, it has always been around because the Bible says so? Then why is there nothing to confirm that but everything to contradict that?

What lanugage are you speaking?

Do you even know how the biblical god came into existence at all? It's evolution? I suppose, you think, it has always been around because the Bible says so? Then why is there nothing to confirm that but everything to contradict that?

Amusing. Again, you can only ask the first question if you start with the assumption in hand that he doesn't exist. Because if he does, then you couldn't possibly analyze how He came into existence but instead how we became aware of his existence.

Again, you're the one arguing that everything in the Bible must be true or the biblical God doesn't exist. I'm not that illogical and I don't believe that. So I don't believe everything in the Bible (in its current form) is true and I think many things are missing.

And again, none of the "evidence" you presented contradicts anything. It only shows that we have no knowledge of it existing earlier. We don't know it didn't. You haven't presented evidence it didn't. You've drawn a fallacious conclusion based on a lack of evidence it existed earlier. Claiming that this lack is evidence is simply your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.

What lanugage are you speaking?Why?

Amusing. Again, you can only ask the first question if you start with the assumption in hand that he doesn't exist. Because if he does, then you couldn't possibly analyze how He came into existence but instead how we became aware of his existence.

Again, you're the one arguing that everything in the Bible must be true or the biblical God doesn't exist. I'm not that illogical and I don't believe that. So I don't believe everything in the Bible (in its current form) is true and I think many things are missing.

And again, none of the "evidence" you presented contradicts anything. It only shows that we have no knowledge of it existing earlier. We don't know it didn't. You haven't presented evidence it didn't. You've drawn a fallacious conclusion based on a lack of evidence it existed earlier. Claiming that this lack is evidence is simply your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.

So if I claimed that ancient Assyrians were in fact Protestants and you have no way of proving me wrong, I can indeed hold that to be true? You know, a small sect or individuals?


And as for "that everything in the Bible must be true or the biblical God doesn't exist" I reply to you: everything in the Bible must be confirmable by non-biblical sources to be reliable and to be held true.

You say my logic is flawed? You don't even understand half of what I'm saying.

I don't. Amusing. I understand that you claimed that the divinity of Christ must be proved, which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of faith.

I understand that you claimed that if the Bible is flawed then the biblical God doesn't exist. Unsupportable assertion where the antecedent doesn't follow the precedent, but hey, who need little things like a line of logic.

I know that you claimed that because evidence doesn't exist (and I've quoted you multiple times stating that) that it means something is false. An obvious fallacious claim that is counter to logic.

Golly, mister, please explain to me again how I don't understand how you've proven the biblical doesn't exist? Use little words and go slow, because I recognize when people violate logic and since I do it must mean I don't understand.


How could you possibly hold anything true, if you cannot even name the indications that would point to the accuracy of your statement?

Because I recognize when I'm relying on faith. You, however, don't. You think that your lack of evidence proves your BELIEF that the biblical God doesn't exist.


You cannot just believe in Jesus being Messiah/Christ without being able to tell why you think that way and on what you base that assumption.

I can't? Are you sure? See, the problem with faith is that even if I demonstrate such a thing you've got no reason to accept my reasons unless you're of the same faith. That's why it's not science.

You must have reasonable reasons. Otherwise there is no connexion to the real world and its history and your particular belief is baseless and ultimately pointless.

You realize this is a philosophical claim and is much a faith claim as Jesus as divine.

You realize that by your own claim you have to able to point that a belief is pointless if it can't be proven. I'll wait while you prove to me this assertion.


And specifically I would like to know why those who invented the concept of Messiah/Christ do not at all share your view.

Ha. Apparently, if I don't agree with certain people's faith, my faith is invalidated? What is the basis for this assertion?

And by "those who invented the concept" do you mean God? Because if it's actually true, then only one I need to agree with is God. If it's not true, then it doesn't matter who I agree with, does it?

So if I claimed that ancient Assyrians were in fact Protestants and you have no way of proving me wrong, I can indeed hold that to be true? You know, a small sect or individuals?

I certainly could. However, if I claimed that a particular group of Assyrians whose faith I could not actually find evidence for were of a particular faith, then I couldn't prove that it was true or false.

And again, you miss the point. I can't hold it to be false, you can't hold it to be true. That's the point. It's not logically supported absent proof. You're claiming that it's impossible and you're basing it on a claim that lacks ANY evidence and thus cannot be concluded to be true or false.

Now, they didn't claim that they called themselves by a particular name. However, if you were claiming that their beliefs were similar to protestants then I'd have to treat your claim as possible, not true. And if you were logical at all, you'd have to treat it as possible as well.

See, you don't seem to get that truth is not binary in logic. There is true, false and neither. When talking about a lack of evidence then neither is established. It's really very simple.

And as for "that everything in the Bible must be true or the biblical God doesn't exist" I reply to you: everything in the Bible must be confirmable by non-biblical sources to be reliable and to be held true.

And again, you deny the idea of faith. Faith does not require evidence.

And, again, quite simply you claimed it was FALSE. False is not the only alternative to holding something to be true. Not verifiable is another alternative. That means, it can't be established to be true or false.

Meanwhile, you're being dishonest. You plainly claimed that if a part of the Bible is disproven that it proves a biblical God is impossible.

Now, they didn't claim that they called themselves by a particular name. However, if you were claiming that their beliefs were similar to protestants then I'd have to treat your claim as possible, not true.What do you mean by "similar to protestants"? Protestantism is a pretty specific concept that requires a few preconditions that were simply unknown in Assyrian times. Assyrians could not possibly have been Protestants or even protestant-like. Just as Israelites, Hebrews or anybody else could not possibly have been Jew-ish, because neither monotheism in general nor the very specific concept of the biblical god was around in their times. They just did not adhere to teachings about Yhvh, simply because that god was invented much later. However that's what the bible claims in its attempt to create an alternative history. You see, the original Yah is not at all like Jews portray him in their distorted rendition, neither is the original El.

What do you mean by "similar to protestants"? Protestantism is a pretty specific concept that requires a few preconditions that were simply unknown in Assyrian times. Assyrians could not possibly have been Protestants or even protestant-like. Just as Israelites, Hebrews or anybody else could not possibly have been Jew-ish, because neither monotheism in general nor the very specific concept of the biblical god was around in their times. They just did not adhere to teachings about Yhvh, simply because that god was invented much later. However that's what the bible claims in its attempt to create an alternative history. You see, the original Yah is not at all like Jews portray him in their distorted rendition, neither is the original El.

See, here's the problem you choose specifics that are reactions to things that didn't exist them, like Catholicism. That's why I said similar. You were try to use the impossible as an example of how you don't need evidence to claim something false. Except you do.

Knowledge of a biblical God, if biblical God exists and sees fit to impart us with it, cannot ever be impossible. It simply can't logically be impossible. So the only way to claim knowledge of God at that time was not possible to claim God doesn't exist.

You again use the claim that because God was "invented much later" that they could not have knowledge of Him. Again, this rests on the assumption taht God is not real and is an invention. And, again, sadly, it's a circular argument that starts with claim in hand.

And again, you deny the idea of faith. Faith does not require evidence.Nevertheless it requires a connexion to the real world. And that connexion requires evidence to at least indicate the respective issue of faith having any probability at all.
You know, I've been discussing a lot with Rastafarians. They claim that Ras Tafari (Haile Selassie) is an incarnation of the biblical god. Then I didn't ask about the nature of such divinity but for the signs that would indicate such an assumption to be accurate in any way. I never got an answer.
Now I ask you what the signs are for Jesus being Christ. You can name none.
I ask you what the signs are for the biblical concept of god being true while the extra-biblical concepts of god(s) from the respective time period the bible allegedly describes. Again, you can name none.
But if I gave you a shovel and told you to dig anywhere in the Middle East, or if I sent to any museum in the world to study all the ancient texts available, you would find nothing to support the biblical account about beliefs in ancient times. You would still only have the narratives written down by Jewish "scholars" under Ptolemy Soter, and the subsequent translations and interpretations of these writings. Why would you believe these text over just every other available source? Merely because of personal preferences? Because of faith that defies all reason?

Nevertheless it requires a connexion to the real world. And that connexion requires evidence to at least indicate the respective issue of faith having any probability at all.

And the only connection to the real world is evidence that you'll accept?

I'm in a room alone with way for anyone but me to see me right now. I just ate two M & M's. I believe that I ate a red one and then a brown one. How would I prove that to you?

And the only connection to the real world is evidence that you'll accept?Just evidence would be sufficient. If it's evidence (i.e. independent of individual perspective, just the plain facts), I'll accept it. As would everybody else.

Just evidence would be sufficient. If it's evidence (i.e. independent of individual perspective, just the plain facts), I'll accept it. As would everybody else.

Again, you miss the giant fly in your soup. Individual perspective is a connection to the real world, it simply isn't emperical. Emperical evidence is required in science, not faith.

Again, how would I prove to you that I ate the red and then the brown M & M?

Couldn't we go somewhere warmer? Please? Why couldn't the French and the Brits have colonized Mexico and let the Spanish have the Frozen North?

Actually it's a common Yankee misconception that Canada is all the Great Frozen North and its peoples reside in igloos. Most of us live in pup tents.

We are a civilized bunch. Please note that we have Starbucks, MacDonalds, Walmart, and our favorite pastime is making up new "Why did George Bush cross the road?" punchlines.

While we do have the occasional national emergency due to ice storms that bring down the power from Quebec to Maine, the weather is mostly exactly like the weather in America. Just weather.

Spaniards did try to colonize the British Columbia Coast, by the way. But they all died of the venereal diseases which they gave our Native Indians. There's instant karma for you.

How the fuck did this thread turn into a religious debate?

Oh, right. I forgot the #1 rule of NSG: It's always, no matter what, eventually a religious debate.

How the fuck did this thread turn into a religious debate?

Oh, right. I forgot the #1 rule of NSG: It's always, no matter what, eventually a religious debate.

Yep. Eventually someone always shows up to troll about the evil atheists or the crazy Christians. Never fails.

Like this little bit of bile.

The fabricated blasphemous Jewish god? Well, he's not real and thus no authority to give laws to anybody. And if you are following the bible, you are following Jewish fanatics who were afraid of Jews failing to reproduce...

I don't care who's fucking who as long as it's consentual, but I like my guns and I aim to keep 'em. Anyone who wants to take me to your "special island" had better be ready to get shot.

Oh right I almost forgot! In Canada, gay marriage is now legal. Another good reason for all remaining sane people in The States to move north, en masse.

Let's make America itself that "Special Island".

Again, you miss the giant fly in your soup. Individual perspective is a connection to the real world, it simply isn't emperical. Emperical evidence is required in science, not faith.

Again, how would I prove to you that I ate the red and then the brown M & M?

Hey guys, get a room!

Actually, I knew a couple guys in the council in my town who were gay. One of them got Eagle Scout in fact. "Godless" is subjective. Some of the guys in my troop you would call that, but they'd disagree. My friend in another troop was actually an agnostic. But that's the bay area for you I guess.

Oh, and they don't let girls into scouts? I guess you've never heard of the Sea Scouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Scouts_%28Boy_Scouts_of_America%29) then.



Hmmm...

By Godless I meant the atheists. There is no problem with Boy Scouts being agnostic. It is a swell religion. I have no problems with agnostics. I think it is really one of the more enlightened religions.

By Godless I meant the atheists. There is no problem with Boy Scouts being agnostic. It is a swell religion. I have no problems with agnostics. I think it is really one of the more enlightened religions.

Agnosticism is a religion? I know many agnostics who will be offended by this assertation.

And for the love of God-Is-Dead....swell!!?? SWELL!???

I have been a scout for 12 years. The last years everybody knew I was gay.That was no problem, not to any fellow scout nor the parents of the children I looked after. I wasn't a scout in the U.S. though. I'm Belgian.

Though a vast majority of Belgian scouts is straight, there is a large number of gay scouts. Even the national director of the Belgian scouting federation is gay. And girls are as welcome as boys with us. We do not discriminate.

And even though the Belgian Scouting federation is a Catholic organisation (a relict from the past, when all Belgians were Catholic), I believe that a majority of its members are not Catholic or religious,like me. (Dear God, a gay atheist, I will burn for sure :eek: )

Finally, gays are free to join the U.K. scouts. And they invented scouting. Time to move on, U.S.

Bye now.


In America we view gaiety as something that ought to be kept in the closet and not held up as a good moral choice. Boy Scouts seek to be paragons of moral virtue. There are many horrible things that I have wanted to do but had to refrain from because of my Scout Oath.

That being said, I think that America can benefit a lot from adopting other countries' scouting parctices. A Swedish ex-girlfriend of mine told me about how Scouting there is open to boys and girls and there was a lot of screwing going on during the camping trips. I think that the Boy Scouts of America should do a lot of things with the Girl Scouts to help the kids get sex experience at an earlier age. However, a lot of parents here think that unmarried sex is evil even though they probably did it themselves. We do not have the best parental values over here.

Agnosticism is a religion? I know many agnostics who will be offended by this assertation.

And for the love of God-Is-Dead....swell!!?? SWELL!???

My understanding of the Agnostic faith is that your Agnostic believes that there is a God but does not know to much about him having never met him. That is a religion to me and is a pretty rational one. I think that I am an agnostic Jew who honors some Jewish traditions, but is hesitant to reach conclusions on the nature of God. Even in the Bible the idea that we should not make graven images of God and God's answer to Moses question of who he is with the answer "I will be who I shall be (often mistranslated as "I am Who I am")", strongly supports the idea that the bible itself is a grounds for agnostic belief within the structure of religious traditions.

No your friends should not be offended by their faith. It is a worthy one. It is a much more reasonable worldview than atheism or most other religions.

What is wrong with "swell"? I like it. It reminds me of the town crier announcing that the time is such and such and all is well being contracted to "alls swell."

My understanding of the Agnostic faith is that your Agnostic believes that there is a God but does not know to much about him having never met him.
Nope.

Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know whether or not God exists. There is no "agnostic religion," though it is quite possible to be agnostic and also belong to one religion or another.

And the only connection to the real world is evidence that you'll accept?

I'm in a room alone with way for anyone but me to see me right now. I just ate two M & M's. I believe that I ate a red one and then a brown one. How would I prove that to you?
The only reason for you to try to establish anything for anybody would be if you wanted them to know about it to whatever degree.

If you do, then you should be prepared to present evidence. If you don't, then why are you talking about it?

Apply this to your faith. Why do you feel the desire to talk with others about your faith?

Again, you miss the giant fly in your soup. Individual perspective is a connection to the real world, it simply isn't emperical. Emperical evidence is required in science, not faith.

Again, how would I prove to you that I ate the red and then the brown M & M?

A quick dental exam could tell, there is a strong possibility that there would be residual hull fragments in your mouth. Though they would dissolve fairly quickly so it would be important to verify quickly.

The only reason for you to try to establish anything for anybody would be if you wanted them to know about it to whatever degree.

If you do, then you should be prepared to present evidence. If you don't, then why are you talking about it?

Apply this to your faith. Why do you feel the desire to talk with others about your faith?

I wasn't talking about my faith. The post I responded to was one where someone claimed they had proven that the Biblical God is impossible. It didn't offend me. It's just a ludicrous claim that I'm not going to let slide in a debate. It has nothing to do with what I believe.

When I discuss my faith with others, in real life, it's usually because they've asked to discuss it. In such a discussion, most people recognize that you're debating philosophy and as such evidence isn't going to come in the form of compelling proof. We don't have access to absolute truth. We simply don't have that capability. When philosophically discussing absolute truth, how could one possibly prove they're right?

A quick dental exam could tell, there is a strong possibility that there would be residual hull fragments in your mouth. Though they would dissolve fairly quickly so it would be important to verify quickly.

It wouldn't tell which order I ate them in.

The point is that something can be true or false regardless of the lack of evidence. It COULD be true that I ate one and the other or it could be false, but there is no evidence for either stance. Our friend was claiming that unless one can prove that something is true that it's false. It's a logical fallacy.

Evidence is what we require to hold things true or false in science or logic, but we hold things true outside of science all the time without evidence. Or hold them false.

He complained that people shouldn't believe things without proving them first and I simply pointed out that he was doing exactly that.

I wasn't talking about my faith. The post I responded to was one where someone claimed they had proven that the Biblical God is impossible. It didn't offend me. It's just a ludicrous claim that I'm not going to let slide in a debate. It has nothing to do with what I believe.

The Biblical God, strictly speaking, IS logically impossible. Countless philosophers and theologists have demonstrated, time and again, how the God described in the Bible cannot logically exist. There are long, long lists of the logical inconsistencies and various impossibilities and self-contradictions of the Biblical God.

Now, there could very well be a God that has many things in common with what the Bible describes. It is entirely possible that some real thing inspired what human beings wrote down in the Bible. It's extremely likely that what is written in the Bible has been, at the very least, hugely corrupted by time and translation, so we don't even have much evidence that the original Bible described the same God as the one we identify as the "Biblical God" today. There are plenty of ways in which there could be a god of some kind that exhibits some or many of the characteristics attributed to God in the Bible. But the God described in the Bible, when you add it all up, is as impossible as anything can be said to be impossible in this universe of ours. :D


When I discuss my faith with others, in real life, it's usually because they've asked to discuss it. In such a discussion, most people recognize that you're debating philosophy and as such evidence isn't going to come in the form of compelling proof.

If two people are going to discuss anything, they must first establish SOME shared frame of reference. Without that, there is no point in trying to discuss anything.

Whether or not "proof" is possible, there must be some elements of "evidence" or supports for one thing or another. Without any grounds for making arguments, there is no point in discussing anything.


We don't have access to absolute truth. We simply don't have that capability. When philosophically discussing absolute truth, how could one possibly prove they're right?
Who's talking about "absolute truth"? Faith has buggerall to do with absolute truth. Faith is human emotion and human desire, nothing more and nothing less.

Conservatives:

http://photos31.flickr.com/38188161_0f34a673e8.jpg

Please remove from eye.

Nope.

Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know whether or not God exists. There is no "agnostic religion," though it is quite possible to be agnostic and also belong to one religion or another.

Interesting. I looked up agnostic in the dictionary. The definition is "One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists."

Then in the second definition of agnosticism, the definition is "A theological theory that does not deny God but denies the the possibility of knowing God."

It seems then that agnosticism is a religion because it calls for faith in the existence of God rather than proof of his existence. This sounds like a religion to me although more of a pure religion than the "man-made" garbage that is out there.

I still think that agnostics are people with faith and should be allowed in Boy Scouts. I am on the Board for my local Boy Scouts council so rest assured that the agnostic Boy Scouts in my area have at least one guy in their corner.

Conservatives:

http://photos31.flickr.com/38188161_0f34a673e8.jpg

Please remove from eye.

I do not get it.

Interesting. I looked up agnostic in the dictionary. The definition is "One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists."

Then in the second definition of agnosticism, the definition is "A theological theory that does not deny God but denies the the possibility of knowing God."

It seems then that agnosticism is a religion because it calls for faith in the existence of God rather than proof of his existence.

Nothing in either of your definitions calls for faith in the existence of God.


I still think that agnostics are people with faith and should be allowed in Boy Scouts.

As an agnostic, I can assure you that I am not a "person of faith." I do not, nor have I ever, believed in any God or gods.

Agnosticism does not in any way require faith in God, nor does agnosticism in any way suggest that it is better to have faith in God than to lack faith in God. Agnosticism is simply the belief that it is not possible to know God. Whether or not an individual chooses to believe without knowledge is an entirely different matter.

Of course, I'm also female, so you wouldn't let me in the Scouts anyway. :D


I am on the Board for my local Boy Scouts council so rest assured that the agnostic Boy Scouts in my area have at least one guy in their corner.
It may seem like I'm shooting myself (or other agnostics) in the foot, here, but I don't like the idea of anybody "supporting" a group's rights purely because they misunderstand what the group believes.

I think it's from Mark, I may be mistaken, but it's something about not worrying about the mote in somebody else's eye when you've got a beam stuck in yours.

I have no idea what book it's from, but yeah, it's basically that.

I do not get it.

I think it's from Mark, I may be mistaken, but it's something about not worrying about the mote in somebody else's eye when you've got a beam stuck in yours.

The Biblical God, strictly speaking, IS logically impossible. Countless philosophers and theologists have demonstrated, time and again, how the God described in the Bible cannot logically exist. There are long, long lists of the logical inconsistencies and various impossibilities and self-contradictions of the Biblical God.

Well, no. That could prove a lot of things, or suggest them, that the Bible hasn't been translated properly, that there has been some confusion in passing down what became the OT, that there is corruption in the keeping and offering of the Bible, that the Bible is wrong. However, none of these things prove that the biblical God is impossible. It's not possilbe to prove that the biblical God doesn't exist. You can prove events in the bible didn't literally happen. Still doesn't disprove the existence of the Biblical God. That's precisely why any theory containing the biblical God or any God for that matter is not a scientific theory.


Now, there could very well be a God that has many things in common with what the Bible describes. It is entirely possible that some real thing inspired what human beings wrote down in the Bible. It's extremely likely that what is written in the Bible has been, at the very least, hugely corrupted by time and translation, so we don't even have much evidence that the original Bible described the same God as the one we identify as the "Biblical God" today. There are plenty of ways in which there could be a god of some kind that exhibits some or many of the characteristics attributed to God in the Bible. But the God described in the Bible, when you add it all up, is as impossible as anything can be said to be impossible in this universe of ours. :D

That's a cop out. People that read the Bible get completely things out of it and completely different expectations of God. Claiming there is some universal idea of what God is, doesn't address that fact that it is absolutely possible that some of the writers of the Bible could very well have had access to God and described Him faithfully. Nothing you've offered even addresses this fact or His existence.

It's like saying that because I meet JFK and he tells me some BS story about what happened to him at some point and I write it down. I publish it. Later it's proven that the story never happened. Does that mean JFK doesn't exist? Nope. It means that the story is wrong. That's all. Whether the prophets, if they were prophets, got all of the details write, they subject of the faith may or may not exist and nothing you prove wrong about a book for which the content cannot be agreed upon will ever change that the subject of the faith may or may not exist.


If two people are going to discuss anything, they must first establish SOME shared frame of reference. Without that, there is no point in trying to discuss anything.

Sure. But expecting that frame of reference to be an emperical frame of reference is ludicrous when talking about absolute truth.


Whether or not "proof" is possible, there must be some elements of "evidence" or supports for one thing or another. Without any grounds for making arguments, there is no point in discussing anything.

Arguments can be purely theoretical. Arguments don't rely on emperical evidence. That is a scientific requirement, not a philosophical one, particularly when discussing absolute truth.



Who's talking about "absolute truth"? Faith has buggerall to do with absolute truth. Faith is human emotion and human desire, nothing more and nothing less.

It has everything to do with absolute truth. We are talking about the true nature of the universe in a very absolute way. We perceive things from particular perspectives and we cannot view them, at least in life, in an absolute way. However, when talking about the Christian God, you are very much discussing an absolute. The existence or nonexistence of the Christian God is not a matter of perspective, but of absolutes.

In the example you compared to the Matrix, the relative truth would be what we see and deal with in the world. Science deals with relative truth. Basically, truth based on the evidence available to us. The evidence could turn out to completely not exist, but we aren't trying to deal with absolutes but simply the truth as available to us through evidence. When discussing theological truths we are often talking about the "waking up" part of the Matrix example, being exposed to what is "real", not what appears to us to be real.

Again, in that example either there is a greater world to wake up to or there isn't and neither you or I can know that. We can discuss it's possiblity, even choose to believe it exists or doesn't, but any discussion of such and absolute simply CANNOT be evidenced in any "real" world way.

Interesting. I looked up agnostic in the dictionary. The definition is "One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists."

Then in the second definition of agnosticism, the definition is "A theological theory that does not deny God but denies the the possibility of knowing God."

It seems then that agnosticism is a religion because it calls for faith in the existence of God rather than proof of his existence. This sounds like a religion to me although more of a pure religion than the "man-made" garbage that is out there.

I still think that agnostics are people with faith and should be allowed in Boy Scouts. I am on the Board for my local Boy Scouts council so rest assured that the agnostic Boy Scouts in my area have at least one guy in their corner.


This is a little sad. You quote the dictionary and then ignore it. Agnostics may believe in God. They may not. They, however, believe the absolute truth of his existence is unknowable. They don't say he exists or that he doesn't. And they may have no belief at all as to what they think is true. To suggest they have faith or that faith is because they're agnostic is absurd.

"I don't know if God exists. I can't know if God exists. I don't care if God exists. That's my entire philosophy about God."

The above would describe a particular agnostic, but not a person of faith.

"I don't know if God exists. I can't know if God exists. I believe, however, that He does. That's my entire philosophy about God."

The above would describe a particular agnostic, and also a person of faith.

Thus, faiith is not a tenet of agnosticism. It's an independent variable.

I think it's from Mark, I may be mistaken, but it's something about not worrying about the mote in somebody else's eye when you've got a beam stuck in yours.

Matthew 7 -

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.


It's also in Luke 6.

My parents taught me anything and everything I was curious about, and more. But then, my parents are big nerds, and there are bookshelves in every single room of their house (including bathrooms). :)



Adopt me.

Interesting. I looked up agnostic in the dictionary. The definition is "One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists."Theists believes in divinity.
Polytheists believes in lots of it.
Atheists believe in none of it.
Agnostics believe it's impossible to demonstrate the validity of it.

None of those labels says anything about the particular beliefsystems, or reasons for maintaining them. A useful analogy is the word "round". It can describe any number of things with a set of common properties. For example, while a curve & a rubber ball are nothing at all alike, both are round. Likewise, while the beliefs of an atheist, a Muslim, a Christian & a pagan are nothing alike, all four might be agnostic about their beliefs.




It seems then that agnosticism is a religion because it calls for faith in the existence of God rather than proof of his existence. This sounds like a religion to me although more of a pure religion than the "man-made" garbage that is out there.It's not a religion for two reasons.

First of all, belief in divinity isn't required to be agnostic about it. For example: I'm an agnostic atheist. I know I cannot prove a negative, thus I can never conclude with 100% certainty that divinity doesn't exist. The same goes for dragons, elves, goblins & that thing some kids thinks lurks in closets. I do, however, have no evidence what so ever to suggest such critters exists, so until I do, I can only conclude that they're a product of human imagination.

Secondly, agnsticism isn't a beliefsystem. It desribes what you think is objectively knowable, not what you believe about it. To use a silly analogy; two people are agnostic about the origins of sodacans. One believes they're routinely dropped off by idiotic aliens in a futile attempt to bomb the planet to rubble. The other refuses to speculate on the subject, because he feels he's in no position to draw any sort of conclusions.I still think that agnostics are people with faith and should be allowed in Boy Scouts. I am on the Board for my local Boy Scouts council so rest assured that the agnostic Boy Scouts in my area have at least one guy in their corner.Being agnostic has as much to do with faith as having gum on your shoe. You're not in anyone's corner, you've put on your blindfold & walked out on to the freeway. But hey, at least you're probably feeling real tolerant & openminded, right?

At first I thought that was ridiculous, too but maybe it's not so ridiculous after all. This paragraph I f ound unsettling:



There should be no "indoctrination" in public schools. This is exactly the argument often used by those who don't want to see prayer in schools. Also, while true that parents can enroll their kids in private school, that statement presupposes they can afford it, for one thing, and for another if that argument were used in the other direction, people would throw a fit. Lastly, lobbying the school board to change it seems to be exactly what they're doing now, but it doesn't change the fact that this curriculum was apparently introduced without notifying the parents. That is a bad thing, friends.
Indoctrination is not inherently bad nor to be avoided. At school I was indoctrinated in the value of brushing my teeth, obeying the law and getting an education. I do not see the problem.
The argument used against prayer doesnt extend to private schools and isnt that 'there should be no indoctrination' but that there should be no religious indoctrination in government run schools where there is both a requirement for seperation between church and state.
As for the parents not being informed, I know of no school that informs parents of everything that will be learnt and every book that will be read. Such schools may very well exist, but it's hardly usual for schools to overtly inform parents of every material presented before it is introduced.

A Swedish ex-girlfriend of mine told me about how Scouting there is open to boys and girls and there was a lot of screwing going on during the camping trips. I think that the Boy Scouts of America should do a lot of things with the Girl Scouts to help the kids get sex experience at an earlier age.
Strange how things are done differently in different countries. In my country both boys and girls are welcome in scouts, however, Christian teen-camps seem to serve the task of giving youngsters their opportunity to get their pre-marital ends away (rather than scouts).:p

Girl scouts are stupid. They already have the Guides, do they not?. We continue to breed androgynous underpeople.

(yes, I am in that kind of mood)

Strange how things are done differently in different countries. In my country both boys and girls are welcome in scouts, however, Christian teen-camps seem to serve the task of giving youngsters their opportunity to get their pre-marital ends away (rather than scouts).:p

Christian...teen...camps? Dude, in America most christian youth groups are basically shreiking about abstinence and whatnot.

And how do we know the boy scouts aren't getting that needed sexual experience? :p

Christian...teen...camps? Dude, in America most christian youth groups are basically shreiking about abstinence and whatnot.

And about taking America back for Christ as God's soldiers, and praying to Il Douche...

And how do we know the boy scouts aren't getting that needed sexual experience? :p

From people other than their troop leaders. Of an opposite gender even.

And about taking America back for Christ as God's soldiers, and praying to Il Douche... The shower?

The shower?

Dear Leader, Dubya, Shrub, etc. "Il Douche" is just a play on "Il Duce" which is "The Leader" and Benny Mussolini's self-given title of course.

Christian...teen...camps? Dude, in America most christian youth groups are basically shreiking about abstinence and whatnot.
Of course and at teen-christian camps a lot of the day-time is spent discussing the value of everyone's choice to remain chaste until marriage. However, when night falls the tent hopping starts.

And how do we know the boy scouts aren't getting that needed sexual experience? :p
I dont know about the boys, but I know that if their getting their experiances, it's not with the girls - they tend to either go to seperate camps or to camps where it's easy to keep the two groups seperate at night-time. Christian-teen camps on the other hand usually involve tents and the teens put their tents where they like.

Dear Leader, Dubya, Shrub, etc. "Il Douche" is just a play on "Il Duce" which is "The Leader" and Benny Mussolini's self-given title of course.that's a joke you tell yourself? and you find it funny?

that's a joke you tell yourself? and you find it funny?

No, that's a joke he tells me. And that I find funnier than most of what you've posted in your short time here, UB.

No shit, Sherlock. Since when was he funny?

No shit, Sherlock.

Check the toilet, Watson.

No shit, Sherlock. Since when was he funny?

I prefer thinking of Bush as "Fearless Leader" anyway, out on an impossible quest full of wacky antics to kill Moose and Squirrel. I feel this is one of the best analogies I can come up with. I'll work on it though. :)

It seems then that agnosticism is a religion because it calls for faith in the existence of God rather than proof of his existence. This sounds like a religion to me although more of a pure religion than the "man-made" garbage that is out there.


Agnosticism does not call for faith in the existence of God. You can be Agnostic and believe that there is a God, or you can believe there is no God. Agnostics believe that there is no proof to tell whether or not he exists so they are not sure. (I do believe someone had referred to them as 'fence-sitters'..whether or not in THIS thread..I'm not sure)

Hence the terms :

Agnostic theists
Agnostic atheists

Agnosticism is a concept..not a religion in and of itself.

I hate to play the Necromancer....

Once again, I can't be bothered to read the whole thread (though look how far it got me last time; I had no idea the topic had been changed at that point).

You who try to disprove God's existance from what you call historical "facts", has the concept of verbal storytelling never occured to you? How do you know whether parents told their children, and they told their children? Only the most learned knew how to read and write, and if the Hebrews were in fact, as stated, a small group of people, there would be one, maybe two copies of their scriptures available at that time, and those were carried around by the religious leaders. Those copies could easily have been lost. The fact that there are no archeological evidence from before a certain time is not evidence that something does not and cannot exist.

I am a Greek Orthodox Christian. In my church there is an icon of Christ which sweats rose oil. I know, because I have stood right next to it, smelled the fragrance and watched the deacon wipe it off the icon's face. If I had ever asked for evidence, that would have certainly done it, though I have not for a second doubted my belief in God or Christ, though my belief in the bible has wavered a lot, and still does.

And as for the thing which I believe started this discussion, a certain passage from the Old Testament, I would like to point out that Christians are not Muslims. We do not believe, like they do, that our scriptures are infallible. The Muslims believe that their Koran is the word of God straight from his lips. Therefor you may not interpret it in any other way than what is plainly written, and what Muhammed himself said. The Christians, on the other hand, ought to know that the Bible was written by man. Most of it may well have been inspired by God, but I'll bet some bastard who really hated the Greeks once thought, "hey, their men sleep with each other. Let's make that illegal, and we'll never have to deal with the Greeks again!" Someone will always have their own agenda and think, "hang on, it won't be a very big deal if I just incorporate this here... No one will ever know. I'm sure God shares me views." Anyone who thinks he's right will ultimately believe that his diety agrees.

You cannot take everything on face value. It is important to interpret what you read, to ask questions and try to understand. There is no rule in the Orthodox Church, at least, against asking questions. What would we be if we didn't ask questions? That does not mean we cannot have faith.

To demonstrate... Where did this all come from? The computer you're sitting at right now, whatever is outside your window, the world we live in, Sol, Proxima Centauri, Sirius A and B, the Andromeda Galaxy. Where does it all come from? And you can say, "Big Bang". But that is just a theory, isn't it? We don't actually know, it's just the most widely accepted Thesis. We cannot possibly know, because none of us were there. And if the Big Bang theory is correct, then where did that come from? "The old universe imploded upon itself and created a new one, everyone knows that." No, we don't, we believe it. And how did that universe come about? You can't expect us to believe that this is an infinite, never-ending circle of implosion, explosion and creation? Now that, I say, is a leap of faith. Someone said that, not having faith, they don't need to take anything on faith alone, but you explain that to me, and tell me how believing in something like that is not having faith in something you neither know nor understand.

I'll prove to you that God exists the day you prove the concept of wormholes to me. Perhaps then we can pull an Event Horizon, travel faster than light, fold space and pass through the dimentions of heaven and hell, and then we'll know.

Agnosticism does not call for faith in the existence of God. You can be Agnostic and believe that there is a God, or you can believe there is no God.

Right.


Agnostics believe that there is no proof to tell whether or not he exists so they are not sure.

Wrong.

I am quite sure that I cannot know whether or not God exists. As a result, I choose not to believe in any particular image of God, since I have no way of verifying whether it remotely approaches the reality. There is no uncertainty in this position.

Many agnostics choose to believe in God, while fully admitting that they cannot know whether or not God exists. There is no uncertainty in their stance; they know they can't know God, but they choose to have faith in God.

The whole idea of agnostics as "fence-sitters" or "undecided" on the subject of God originates with people who don't understand what agnosticism actually is. It is possible to be agnostic and undecided or uncertain, but it is also perfectly possible to be clearly decided and quite solid in one's agnostic beliefs.


Agnosticism is a concept..not a religion in and of itself.
Right.

No, that's a joke he tells me. And that I find funnier than most of what you've posted in your short time here, UB.Well, I'm a no-nonsense guy. And I have been here for years, love.

Am I invisisble or something?

Am I invisisble or something?Can you see yourself in a mirror?

Sorry to interrupt your God discussion, but nobody on this thread that I've read spoke about the effect this could have on children with openly gay family members, and are exposed to homosexuality on a regular basis.

OMG IM A GENIUS!!!

"I know what's really goin' on, Stuart! It's the queers! They're in it with the aliens! They're building landing strips for gay martians! I swear to God! You know what, Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people, here in the trailer park..."

(Just a little humor... ah, how silly the Dead Milkmen are;) )