Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Imhotep wrote:

<quoted text>
So sorry but you're an idiot
Did you hear that
You're an idiot
Do you know why
We could use you to build a blueprint for an idiot
Did you eat too many paint chips as a child
Have enough oxygen at birth
Or just spend
too much time in church
Lol
Whew - I sense a disturbance in the force
On a intelligence scale of 10 - I give you a 2
because I've never seen a 1

Doubling down on ad hominem ad nauseum?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahah.......

ezdzit wrote:

<quoted text>Doubling down on ad hominem ad nauseum?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahah.......

Did you fall off your rocker, or were you already on the ground?

Lacez wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you fall off your rocker, or were you already on the ground?

I'd say he's more nervous than a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

;)

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
So why do you constantly ignore your God-given power of reasoning?(shrug)

I thank you for appreciating my posts so much!!

What do you think about the Boston bombers being Muslim? It seems when terrorism happens it so often is a Muslim doing it. Thoughts?

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>I thank you for appreciating my posts so much!!

I was surprised they were white.

Givemeliberty wrote:

What do you think about the Boston bombers being Muslim? It seems when terrorism happens it so often is a Muslim doing it. Thoughts?
<quoted text>

You should know of Pat but if you don't you'll enjoy him

http://www.patcondell.net/

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
What?

Read the buybull, you should know what you beleive.

:)

Imhotep wrote:

<quoted text>You should know of Pat but if you don't you'll enjoy him

http://www.patcondell.net/

Jumper The Wise wrote:

I was surprised they were white.

I WASN'T surprised they were religious, worshiping that stupid Abrahamic God.

Religion is an evil, vile thing.

imhetop wrote:

I beg to differ you should be inspired with this

Why do I say this

01. Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.

02. So, since the Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.

What a delicious irony! Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus.

After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.

I should mention this also

03. Meeting for the first time in March 1985, the Jesus Seminar has periodically brought together dozens of university scholars and gospel specialists representing every shade of Christian thought, plus a few Jews and atheists.

In their initial study, the scholars collected more than 1500 versions of approximately 500 Jesus parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories written during the first 300 years of Christianity.

After 6 years of debate and reflection the consensus was that 82% of the words attributed to Jesus were fake.

04. In phase two, between 1991 and 1996, the Jesus Seminar considered 387 versions of 176 'Jesus events'. Their conclusion: 84% of the activities attributed to Jesus were bogus.

05. In contrast, Caesar's words and deeds are fully documented by multiple witnesses.

Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his commentaries. He wrote not for posterity but to have an immediate impact on the power players in Rome as he schemed to advance his own career.

The elapsed time between the wars and Caesar's own writing was a matter of months or at most a few years.

06. In contrast, the elapsed time between the gospel reports and the supposed events that they describe is at least 40 years for 'Mark' and 60-70 years for the other three Gospels.

Ans.

That was a very interesting angle which you have mentioned.

Jesus date of birth and his day of birth (25 December) were "fixed" by the Church, not based on any eye witness account or any historical report.

So I will not be surprised if actual date of birth of Jesus be 4 BC. BC and AC are dates that are "used" in common sense.

As regards the authenticity of words spoken by Jesus and Caesar, I can only say that both have to be scrutinized without any bias.

If you can prove that words of Caesar were "faithfully and verbatim" recorded by his scribes and those records are physically available with us, or being preserved in their original condition, I have no problem accepting it.

But I doubt, if any old document has been preserved with so much care, as we see for religious scriptures.

But any inscription on tomb walls or engraved on stone shall stay safe and sound for many centuries.

But what we say is that there is difference between Caesars and Prophets of God. Words of Caesars have no lasting values, where as words and uttering of Prophets of God have a permanent value.

Christians record of Jesus' words has been patchy, but we cannot say that all his teachings have vanished from the face of earth.

Fortunately there is another Book, Quran which preserves his many words and provides basic information on his birth and his mission.

We can use that as a tool to separate grain from the hash, so to say, from existing Gospels.

Allah Knows Best.

PS:

Once again I thank you for a very interesting post.

Jumper The Wise wrote:

I was surprised they were white.

I wasn't. The 7/7 bombers were even more 'home grown'. Arguably, they are partly the result of western society as well as Islamic fundamentalism.

'Western culture' is difficult because with freedoms come responsibilities.'Westerners'( like Australians and Taiwanese)have to think for ourselves. Not everyone can do that, especially when their own family rejects them and calls them 'losers'. Many people long for community and to feel 'part of something'-(not everyone and may be not most, but many people do). Keeping 'oneself to oneself' is commonly seen as positive and individualism is prized in 'Western culture'. That can be lonely, perhaps especially if one has experience of a culture where belonging and relationships are all-important.

Their upbringing also involved having to move from their own country due to violence and having a childhood in a number of very different environments.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
That was a very interesting angle which you have mentioned.
As regards the authenticity of words spoken by Jesus and Caesar, I can only say that both have to be scrutinized without any bias.
If you
We can use that as a tool to separate grain from the hash, so to say, from existing Gospels.
Allah Knows Best.
PS:
Once again I thank you for a very interesting post.

Let's cut to the chase Shall we?

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity.
In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified.

For example, the Egyptians certainly recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood. Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus, there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom.

For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.

Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.

It would spoil the story!!

There is no historical proof for this Muhammad either. Most likely he was an Arab general who after his death was deified.

Givemeliberty wrote:

There is no historical proof for this Muhammad either. Most likely he was an Arab general who after his death was deified.

Yes indeed - all of the desert religions are fabrications

Imhotep wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's cut to the chase Shall we?
Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.
Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)
When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.
In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):....

.....'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!
Caesar by comparison is easily verified.
For example, the Egyptians certainly recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood. Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus, there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom.
For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.
Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.
It would spoil the story!!

LOL You keep posting the same ol same ol ignorant anti-theist garbage from the same ol same ol ignorant anti-theist websites.

Garbage in, garbage out, bubba.....

ezdzit wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL You keep posting the same ol same ol ignorant anti-theist garbage from the same ol same ol ignorant anti-theist websites.
Garbage in, garbage out, bubba.....

So no proof of god then. Just checking.

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
So no proof of god then. Just checking.

Yeah, decades ago. Whitehead's "Theory of Actual Occasion" is the mathematical proof of a First Cause, which most people choose to call by culturally esoteric names such as Allah, Yahwah, Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Great Spirit, Cosmic Consciousness, the Force, God, etc.

His lame version of the ontological argument? Been refuted convincingly repeatedly.

Sorry but it's rathe pathetic

ezdzit wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, decades ago. Whitehead's "Theory of Actual Occasion" is the mathematical proof of a First Cause, which most people choose to call by culturally esoteric names such as Allah, Yahwah, Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Great Spirit, Cosmic Consciousness, the Force, God, etc.

"There are deep similarities between Whitehead's idea of the process by which nature unfolds and the ideas of quantum theory. Whitehead says that the world is made of actual 'occasions', each of which arises from potentialities created by prior actual occasions. These actual occasions are 'happenings' modeled on experiential events, each of which comes into being and then perishes, only to be replaced by a successor. It is these experience-like 'happenings' that are the basic realities of nature, according to Whitehead, not the persisting physical particles that Newtonian physics took to be the basic entities.

Similarly, Heisenberg says that what is really happening in a quantum process is the emergence of an 'actual' from potentialities created by prior actualities. In the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory the actual things to which the theory refer[s] are increments in 'our knowledge'. These increments are experiential events. The particles of classical physics lose their fundamental status: they dissolve into diffuse clouds of possibilities. At each stage of the unfolding of nature the complete cloud of possibilities acts like the potentiality for the occurrence of a next increment in knowledge..."

--Henry P. Stapp, author of "Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics", Silver Anniversary International Whitehead Conference, Claremont, CA, August 4-9, 1998.