Creationism

[peadar1987]

Pascal's Wager is ridiculous.

Yup, even if Christian God and No God were the only options to choose from, you can't pick what to sincerely believe (only to open your mind to arguments from both sides). If there was a God, he wouldn't be so easily tricked by someone pretending to love him on the off-chance that he existed.

 

[LTF]

To you guys who have stated on here that you have discussed with your own children your own beliefs I admire you, I had a horrific time in a Catholic school and I feel I was literally brainwashed. In infant school every morning began with prayers, followed by registration, then we had to learn our Catechism. I'm in my forties now but can still recite most of it, yes definitely brainwashing. Can you believe the language being used to under sevens, "the immaculate conception", "ascensions into heaven" I'm still God fearing (not loving) to this day, the good news is I don't believe in the devil.

 

[Erik]

This is the point I was making and you agree with me

If it is, you certainly didn't make your point clear enough. Then again, you claim there is evidence that supports his existence, which I disagree with. My point was that there are no contemporary eyewitness accounts and the accounts that do exist date from after his death, as well as being contradictory.

Why would anybody claim to be a guy named Jesus who wasn't Jesus?

Why do people lie about their jobs to get women? About their age to get into pubs?
And, if I 'agree with you', why did you then post the comments above and below that show quite the opposite?

As for the rest of your point, most, if not all scholars agree there was a person named Jesus. This is evidenced by the works of Josephus, Q, the primary source for the gospel texts. The many 'gospel' accounts that weren't included in the NT, the historical accuracies of the things they wrote about The connection with John the Baptist on and on and on. But this won't fly with you because you know better than 2000 years of scholarly works

How many times are you going to repeat Josephus, having already been told that the man was born after Jesus' death and was recounting hear-say?
And Q, the very existence of which is debatable? Is that the best evidence you can come up with?

You have a very high opinion of yourself

If you were as handsome and intelligent as me, you would do!

 

[Erik]

Yup, even if Christian God and No God were the only options to choose from, you can't pick what to sincerely believe (only to open your mind to arguments from both sides). If there was a God, he wouldn't be so easily tricked by someone pretending to love him on the off-chance that he existed.

Budspagetallahgod may be the way forward.

 

[Jip Jaap Stam]

Speaking of religion, did anybody watch that Louis Theroux program last night about Westboro Baptist Church? What a bunch of ****-ups! The rebel daughter was pretty fit though...

 

[Bhoyzilla]

Anyone here so ******ed as to think 'God' made the world as it is, in 6 days?

He probably made boobies first then gave them a world to jiggle in......It's what I would have done.

 

[simple simon]

What are those tags all about

 

[Otto Flayshow]

To go off on a slight tangent, did anyone watch the recent BBC series with this chick?:

You must log in or register to see images

I didn't think she presented her case too coherently but, frankly, who cares?

 

[The Raging Oxter]

To go off on a slight tangent, did anyone watch the recent BBC series with this chick?:

You must log in or register to see images

I didn't think she presented her case too coherently but, frankly, who cares?

 

[RebelBhoy]

you claim there is evidence that supports his existence, which I disagree with. My point was that there are no contemporary eyewitness accounts and the accounts that do exist date from after his death, as well as being contradictory.

a) Why would there be any contemporary accounts of Jesus?

People couldn't write. It was left to smart folk to do that. Who do the stories say that Jesus ministered to? The smart people, or the dumb people? So who would have written about him contemporaneously?......Thats right. Nobody. People wrote about him afterwards because he became quite the cause celebre. Even if there were contemporary notes made about Jesus, it would be unlikely they would have survived the Romans smashing the joint up in 70 AD.

2) Why are you ignoring the many many accounts written shortly after his death as evidence of his existence? This is the strongest evidence of his existence. Why would anyone write about him? Is it more or less likely that the basis of Christianity is around a real guy? That people might have said.....hang on a minute. I don't remember any of this. Josephus was a respected historian. Are you saying his sources are flawed? What about Tacitus? his history frame the politics of the time, in much the same way that the gospels do. Or that there are no contemporary writings about Jesus is evidence of him not existing. Despite it being highly unlikely that there would be any in the first place? ...make sense?.

if I 'agree with you', why did you then post the comments above and below that show quite the opposite?

Because you agreed that there was someone claiming to be Jesus. If they weren't why would they claim to be. Bearing in mind, this is the kid of a chippy from Nazareth. That ain't gonna score you much pussy in J-Town is it? You agree with me. I know you do. You know you do....just let it go.

 

[OssieJoe]

Wow this thread is moving so fast it is hard to keep up with.
I am a firm believer in God and Jesus, yet wont label myself a "Christian", for fear of what Christianity has come to.

The 6 day creation is common misconception, if you look within the original Hebrew the word Yom (which we translate day) is used much as in the same context you would use the old saying back in my fathers day

The evidence for Jesus existing, is on the same level as that of Julius Ceaser, it is not so much "Did Jesus exist", but rather "Do you believe in Jesus".
This was one of the major falls in "The God Delusion" (which I finished last month, and yet I somehow remained unconvinced despite the start telling me otherwise), he seemed to skip segments within his arguments, attacking religion on its weakest points, and completely disregarding some of its stronger points. For this argument Dawkins simply said (or roughly, please dont quote me it was a month ago) "Of course it is debatable weather Jesus ever existed at all", and simply moved on. This is untrue, and most likely why he did move on, and he knew there is no strong argument for this case. With this said is worth noting that Richard Dawkins did write some very true points, yet the fact most of these where known about within religion, to me, made the "God Delusion" unconvincing.

In terms of belief in creationism, it depends on your definition as to weather I am a "creationist". Yes I do believe God created the world, (and the world didn't simply form from nothing), yet I don’t believe he created each animal, rather when you look into the Bible you find humans are only unique because they are the chosen "race", of which God wants to redeem, yet this is not so much a theology thread so I wont get into that.

The "Why wont God simply show himself ?" argument is decades old, and is best explained by it simply being against free will, one of the most important aspects of life.

 

[jerseymackem]

Wow this thread is moving so fast it is hard to keep up with.
I am a firm believer in God and Jesus, yet wont label myself a "Christian", for fear of what Christianity has come to.

The 6 day creation is common misconception, if you look within the original Hebrew the word Yom (which we translate day) is used much as in the same context you would use the old saying back in my fathers day

The evidence for Jesus existing, is on the same level as that of Julius Ceaser, it is not so much "Did Jesus exist", but rather "Do you believe in Jesus".
This was one of the major falls in "The God Delusion" (which I finished last month, and yet I somehow remained unconvinced despite the start telling me otherwise), he seemed to skip segments within his arguments, attacking religion on its weakest points, and completely disregarding some of its stronger points. For this argument Dawkins simply said (or roughly, please dont quote me it was a month ago) "Of course it is debatable weather Jesus ever existed at all", and simply moved on. This is untrue, and most likely why he did move on, and he knew there is no strong argument for this case. With this said is worth noting that Richard Dawkins did write some very true points, yet the fact most of these where known about within religion, to me, made the "God Delusion" unconvincing.

In terms of belief in creationism, it depends on your definition as to weather I am a "creationist". Yes I do believe God created the world, (and the world didn't simply form from nothing), yet I don’t believe he created each animal, rather when you look into the Bible you find humans are only unique because they are the chosen "race", of which God wants to redeem, yet this is not so much a theology thread so I wont get into that.

The "Why wont God simply show himself ?" argument is decades old, and is best explained by it simply being against free will, one of the most important aspects of life.

 

[Vilsmeier-Haack Reaction]

Here is a guy who takes on the creationist "theories" and discreditation of science one by one in a clear and concise manner and proves it nonsense at the same time

You must log in or register to see media

this is part 1, there is something like 35 in the series. Enjoy!

 

[Otto Flayshow]

Wow this thread is moving so fast it is hard to keep up with.
I am a firm believer in God and Jesus, yet wont label myself a "Christian", for fear of what Christianity has come to.

The 6 day creation is common misconception, if you look within the original Hebrew the word Yom (which we translate day) is used much as in the same context you would use the old saying back in my fathers day

The evidence for Jesus existing, is on the same level as that of Julius Ceaser, it is not so much "Did Jesus exist", but rather "Do you believe in Jesus".
This was one of the major falls in "The God Delusion" (which I finished last month, and yet I somehow remained unconvinced despite the start telling me otherwise), he seemed to skip segments within his arguments, attacking religion on its weakest points, and completely disregarding some of its stronger points. For this argument Dawkins simply said (or roughly, please dont quote me it was a month ago) "Of course it is debatable weather Jesus ever existed at all", and simply moved on. This is untrue, and most likely why he did move on, and he knew there is no strong argument for this case. With this said is worth noting that Richard Dawkins did write some very true points, yet the fact most of these where known about within religion, to me, made the "God Delusion" unconvincing.

In terms of belief in creationism, it depends on your definition as to weather I am a "creationist". Yes I do believe God created the world, (and the world didn't simply form from nothing), yet I don’t believe he created each animal, rather when you look into the Bible you find humans are only unique because they are the chosen "race", of which God wants to redeem, yet this is not so much a theology thread so I wont get into that.

The "Why wont God simply show himself ?" argument is decades old, and is best explained by it simply being against free will, one of the most important aspects of life.

Authentic frontier gibberish.

 

[Vilsmeier-Haack Reaction]

got to side firmly on the agnostic side here. Alot of the christian rhetoric seems to concentrate in arguements like "what is credible evidence" and such or worse "the bible says so", but i dont believe in the bible, " but the bible says it is authentic", but i dont believe the authenticity of the bible, " the bible says blessed are those who see yet dont believe", gosh thats awful convenient, okay then well tell your god to show me something "but the bible says dont put the lord to the test", gosh thats awful convenient, what about the starving, they didnt intentionally starve themselves to put him to the test, "the bible says the lord works in mysterious ways" gosh thats awful convenient.

i actually believe Jesus did exist as a person but historical evidence seems to suggest that he was crucified but not executed (around 90% of crucifixions were not fatala nd were more deterrent punishments). He is believed to have fled to India and died there. His original followers (cathars) settled in southern France where the early cathiolic church (catholic is derived from catholica which means universal, a universal roman religion encompassing segments from various religious traditions the empire encompassed) wiped them out in the inquisitions

 

[OssieJoe]

Well I watched that video (please forgive me for not watching the other thirty five but I currently don’t poses the time). The creationists theory’s within that video certainly are laughable, even more then that, they are pure stupidity, but please don’t take the assumption that the theories here represent a general viewpoint of creationists. A pinch of salt is needed to go with these videos.

Instead if you want to pick apart creationists theories may I recommend trying it with the following scientists.

Francis Collins (the leader of the Human Genome project in which he lead a team of over 2000 scientists to map the human genome), Sir John Houghton, Dr John Polinghorne etc, (I cant be bothered to list them all)
In fact I did find it rather interesting that Dawking tried to dismiss the three British Scientists, Peacocke, Stannard and Polkinghorne, all who have a "faith", as well as trying to dismiss Mendell's faith (regarded the father of genetics), when all the evidence regarding Mendell's faith point to the fact he was very sincere (the reason for this is probably because allot of Dawkings work was built upon Mendells work).

 

[stopmeandslapme]

got to side firmly on the agnostic side here.

Side? That ain't a side, that's right on top of the fence with a bollock dangling in each court.

 

[OssieJoe]

Authentic frontier gibberish.

Please elaborate upon your statement.

got to side firmly on the agnostic side here. Alot of the christian rhetoric seems to concentrate in arguements like "what is credible evidence" and such or worse "the bible says so", but i dont believe in the bible, " but the bible says it is authentic", but i dont believe the authenticity of the bible, " the bible says blessed are those who see yet dont believe", gosh thats awful convenient, okay then well tell your god to show me something "but the bible says dont put the lord to the test", gosh thats awful convenient, what about the starving, they didnt intentionally starve themselves to put him to the test, "the bible says the lord works in mysterious ways" gosh thats awful convenient.

Credible evidence is evidence outside the bible (i.e other historical texts), of which I will list some other time, when I am not so laid down with work (which is due in tommorow).

 

[Vilsmeier-Haack Reaction]

Side? That ain't a side, that's right on top of the fence with a bollock dangling in each court.

no it isnt. its the side where you do not believe in god, the fence sitters are the ones who say they believe in god except the parts of the bible science has shown demonstrably false.

 

[jerseymackem]

no it isnt. its the side where you do not believe in god, the fence sitters are the ones who say they believe in god except the parts of the bible science has shown demonstrably false.

If you don't believe in a God, you're athiest, not agnostic