Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 03-17-2003, 12:08 PM

Wow. Second hand personal observations.

I guess the Gospels must be true then.

Criminy. It's the latest selectively applied standard of proof.

Virtually all those men believed in a soverign Creator who intervened in human affairs. They virtually all held Jesus himself in high esteem, which is all I ever claimed, and they all would have called Jesus-mythers Grade A nutballs.

Do you at least agree with that Biff?

Rad

Yellum Notnef · 03-17-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
They virtually all held Jesus himself in high esteem, which is all I ever claimed, and they all would have called Jesus-mythers Grade A nutballs.

I'm really getting sick of this bullshit with you superimposing your feelings about "Jesus-mythers" onto the founding fathers.

Did these guys study the history of Christianity or biblical archaeology? Were they even aware that Christianity sprung up among a multitude of other very similar mystery cults?

If the answer is no,then they would have no business calling anyone "Grade A nutballs".

And what if they (those who actually were Christians) DID have access to the kwowledge we have today? You might very well be out of a religion.
They probably would have still agreed that the character of Jesus was a decent role model,but I doubt these intelligent men would have continued to believe he was divine.
And some just might have concluded that Jesus was no more real than Dionysus,Mithra or Apollo.

Biff the unclean · 03-17-2003, 12:42 PM

It's the latest selectively applied standard of proof.
I forgot, you don't require proof. You get to claim what peoples religious beliefs are without checking what these people or the people who knew them said.

Virtually all those men believed in a soverign Creator who intervened in human affairs. They virtually all held Jesus himself in high esteem, which is all I ever claimed, and they all would have called Jesus-mythers Grade A nutballs.

Do you at least agree with that Biff?

You'll claim anything if you think it supports your fantasies won't you? You have little respect for facts. These "Father's of our nation" were Deists. A Deist pays a little lip service to a vague sort of God who created the world and then went away and has no interaction with mankind or the planet at all. They do not believe in a God who intervened in human affairs. They do not believe that if Jesus ever existed that he was a God. Diests believe that God ISN'T here, that he's nowhere to be found and his actions are nowhere to be seen.

And WTF does this have to do with Catholics changing Christianity and Prods being pre-Nicaean Xians?
Are you trying to divert attention from claims that you can't prove by making accusations that are based only in your imagination?

Fiach · 03-17-2003, 05:38 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Biff the unclean
It's the latest selectively applied standard of proof.
I forgot, you don't require proof. You get to claim what peoples religious beliefs are without checking what these people or the people who knew them said.

I think that this whole discussion is off target. We speak of proof and scientific method, critical analysis, evidence, and rational thinking. This works fine for geological events, chemical ionic bonding, evolution, and biological neurobehaviour. But God and Jesus as a would-be god are not testable. They are both hypothetical, a weak hypothesis at that. It is based on hearsay only. Therefore, Jesus is as credible as Mithra, Aten, and Apollonius. God (Trinitarian) is as credible as Dagda, Zeus, Jupiter, Wodin, Brahma, Gaea, and a thousand other historical invisible gods. All are equally based on hearsay, without evidence of any kind. One hearsay is as credible as another.

Virtually all those men believed in a soverign Creator who intervened in human affairs.

Virtually all pre-scientific cultures had an invisible Creator God, most of whom from Ireland to India were Anthropomorphic. It is not surprising.

They virtually all held Jesus himself in high esteem, which is all I ever claimed, and they all would have called Jesus-mythers Grade A nutballs.

Possibly, but Mithraists held Mithra in high esteem and viewed those who called Mithra a myth, were grade A nutballs. Muslims held Jesus in high esteem as a prophet but view his god myth as blasphemy, as do Jews.

Do you at least agree with that Biff?

Come on Biff, orate and emote. You have the stage.

You'll claim anything if you think it supports your fantasies won't you?

I like mainly fantasies by Charles De Lint, T. A. Barron, Piers Anthony, Ursula LeGuin, Tanith Lee, and I claim that I like them but that is only hearsay. I don't believe they are true events but fantasies like the New Testament but better written.

You have little respect for facts.

It is only facts that I really respect. Facts are principles proven by reproducible laboratory protocols, based on critical analysis, rational thinking, reproduced evidence from independent researchers/investigators. The absolute requirement of facts is solid and/or measurable evidence.

These "Father's of our nation" were Deists. A Deist pays a little lip service to a vague sort of God who created the world and then went away and has no interaction with mankind or the planet at all.

That is the hypothetical god that is not only beyond proving but immune to disproving. A Deistic God has no contradictions, but an Anthropomorphic God has properties and personality characteristics that can be evaluated for rational content or contradictions, and as such can be found highly improbable is not non-existent.

They do not believe in a God who intervened in human affairs. They do not believe that if Jesus ever existed that he was a God. Diests believe that God ISN'T here, that he's nowhere to be found and his actions are nowhere to be seen.

Right, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the rather silly three headed Triune Christian God who obsesses over human sexuality, need for worship, jealousy, blind rage tantrums, etc. that show more of the men who invented this God that they showed of themselves.

And WTF does this have to do with Catholics changing Christianity and Prods being pre-Nicaean Xians?

Catholics, Proddies, and Fundies preceded Nicaea but only as one of about 10 different Christianities. The others were all non-Trinitarian, and two didn't deify Jesus. One, Arianism was the largest Christian sect prior to Nicaea and believed Jesus was a created minor God.

Are you trying to divert attention from claims that you can't prove by making accusations that are based only in your imagination?

Theism is of necessity based on imagination and/or spontaneous brain activity in the circuits mediating religious experiences (see the Newsweek article on Religion and the Brain.

http://www.bio.utk.edu/Neils.nsf/b4f...5?OpenDocument

Fiach

Yellum Notnef · 03-17-2003, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
Tertullian took an almost identical trinity from Egypt still presented on the Wall Murals of the Holy of Holies at the Temple in Luxor, Egypt.

Sorry to bother you,but do you happen to have a link to photos of these murals? I've ran several web searches and I'm getting the impression that seeing them involves actually going to Egypt.

Thank you.

Yellum Notnef · 03-17-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Thankfully my "weird little friend" M. Scott Peck is taken seriously by approximately one million times as many people as yourself. I'm sure you keep bringing him up and insulting him because he is presents a dilemma. Just when you think Jesus is dead and buried, a widely read psychologist with extraordinary insight, who can be accused of no bias whatsoever, becomes a Christian after trying everything else.

You've never been so wrong.
I don't see Peck as any kind of dilema nor do I think he has "extraordinary insight". And he was biased towards religion and wishy washy spiritual god baloney BEFORE he became a Christian.

Quote:

Being an open-minded person, he attended seveal excorcisms and, at the risk of losing 5,000,000 readers and his publisher, declares demons are real.

He may not have lost his readers and publisher,but he certainly lost his mind. Demons? Excorcisms? You can't be serious.

Quote:

It must be heartbreaking.

No. It's ridiculous and your fondeness for tripe like Peck speaks volumes about you.

Fiach · 03-17-2003, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fenton Mulley
Sorry to bother you,but do you happen to have a link to photos of these murals? I've ran several web searches and I'm getting the impression that seeing them involves actually going to Egypt.

Thank you.

Sorry. I can't find any links either. It looks like the only way is to go there. But in the current chaos I would not go there.

Fiach

Radorth · 03-17-2003, 07:39 PM

Re: Ipitrich

Quote:

Radorth reveals his ignorance of history, because back then, one had to be a member of the Church of England in order to get some official position in that nation. Let's imagine that he went back in time in a time machine to visit these gentlemen. And he decided to get some official position in the British Government. Would he have been willing to subscribe to the Church's Thirty-Nine Articles in order to do so?

I wasn't arguing whether they were church members, but that they were followers of Christ- you know the mythical character only deluded people believe in. Hey, wait a minute. I thought anybody who say they are a Christian is one. Not in the case of such great men. Can't be. Hitler yes. Newton no. Newton, the closet skeptic, must have been stretched one the rack until he agreed to say:

We count the scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever...

Worshipping God and the lamb in the temple: for his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb, for his benefaction in redeeming us with his blood.

The Book of revelation exhibits to us the same peculiarities as Nature- The history of the fall of man, the introduction of moral and physical evil, the prediction of the messiah, the actual advent of our Saviour, His instructions, His miracles, His death, His resurrection and the subsequent propagation of his religion by the unlettered fishermen of Galilee, are each a stumbling block to the wisdom of the world...

Re: Fiach

Quote:

It is only facts that I really respect. Facts are principles proven by reproducible laboratory protocols, based on critical analysis, rational thinking, reproduced evidence from independent researchers/investigators. The absolute requirement of facts is solid and/or measurable evidence.

Nobody's arguing that. Tell it to those souls claiming to believe that, making up totally contradictory Jesus-myths, who wouldn't know a critical analysis or an honest historical method if they saw one. Thank God Durant and Wells are dead.

Quote:

But God and Jesus as a would-be god are not testable. They are both hypothetical, a weak hypothesis at that. It is based on hearsay only.Therefore, Jesus is as credible as Mithra, Aten, and Apollonius

Hearsay? You mean James, Peter John, Matthew and Mark are all just made up? And we should believe that because, er, why exactly? I forget. You guys don't have to prove any assumptions, no matter how credulous the conclusion. And if somebody like Kirby dares to question how the Gospels came out of some unprecedented Midrash Mania, he gets a spanking.

Guess he was a little too into critical analysis.

Rad

Fiach · 03-17-2003, 08:04 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But God and Jesus as a would-be god are not testable. They are both hypothetical, a weak hypothesis at that. It is based on hearsay only.Therefore, Jesus is as credible as Mithra, Aten, and Apollonius
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hearsay? You mean James, Peter John, Matthew and Mark are all just made up? And we should believe that because, er, why exactly? I forget. You guys don't have to prove any assumptions, no matter how credulous the conclusion. And if somebody like Kirby dares to question how the Gospels came out of some unprecedented Midrash Mania, he gets a spanking.

No, I don't think they made them up. The stories are two similar despite literal differences to have been made up independently. The most likely explanation is that they were oral stories passed down for many years and those 4 Greek fellows transcribed each in his own interviews. But they were to young, not born yet to have been actual eye witnesses. The stories when passed down orally do undergo some changes which is natural every time the story is retold. I am not saying that this disqualifies them as wrong, but it is not definitive enough to constitute scientific evidence. Hearsay is often accepted in the Royal Court to convict a felon or convince a jury of his innocense. The Gospels mean that the events COULD have happened but not beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt may free a murder suspect but it is not good enough for formulation of your worldview upon which you are betting your soul.

Fiach

lpetrich · 03-17-2003, 08:42 PM

Radorth:
I wasn't arguing whether they were church members, but that they were followers of Christ- you know the mythical character only deluded people believe in. ... (other such heavyhanded sarcasm snipped)

I remember how Radorth dismissed the Hindu deity Namagiri as a mythical character that only deluded people believed in -- deluded people like the great mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.

And I've snipped the Isaac Newton quote, because it is unreferenced.

Thank God Durant and Wells are dead.

Because they tell Radorth what he wants to hear?

03-17-2003, 08:04 PM	#209
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	Hearsay quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But God and Jesus as a would-be god are not testable. They are both hypothetical, a weak hypothesis at that. It is based on hearsay only.Therefore, Jesus is as credible as Mithra, Aten, and Apollonius -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hearsay? You mean James, Peter John, Matthew and Mark are all just made up? And we should believe that because, er, why exactly? I forget. You guys don't have to prove any assumptions, no matter how credulous the conclusion. And if somebody like Kirby dares to question how the Gospels came out of some unprecedented Midrash Mania, he gets a spanking. No, I don't think they made them up. The stories are two similar despite literal differences to have been made up independently. The most likely explanation is that they were oral stories passed down for many years and those 4 Greek fellows transcribed each in his own interviews. But they were to young, not born yet to have been actual eye witnesses. The stories when passed down orally do undergo some changes which is natural every time the story is retold. I am not saying that this disqualifies them as wrong, but it is not definitive enough to constitute scientific evidence. Hearsay is often accepted in the Royal Court to convict a felon or convince a jury of his innocense. The Gospels mean that the events COULD have happened but not beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt may free a murder suspect but it is not good enough for formulation of your worldview upon which you are betting your soul. Fiach

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2003, 12:08 PM	#201
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Wow. Second hand personal observations. I guess the Gospels must be true then. Criminy. It's the latest selectively applied standard of proof. Virtually all those men believed in a soverign Creator who intervened in human affairs. They virtually all held Jesus himself in high esteem, which is all I ever claimed, and they all would have called Jesus-mythers Grade A nutballs. Do you at least agree with that Biff? Rad

03-17-2003, 12:42 PM	#203
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	It's the latest selectively applied standard of proof. I forgot, you don't require proof. You get to claim what peoples religious beliefs are without checking what these people or the people who knew them said. Virtually all those men believed in a soverign Creator who intervened in human affairs. They virtually all held Jesus himself in high esteem, which is all I ever claimed, and they all would have called Jesus-mythers Grade A nutballs. Do you at least agree with that Biff? You'll claim anything if you think it supports your fantasies won't you? You have little respect for facts. These "Father's of our nation" were Deists. A Deist pays a little lip service to a vague sort of God who created the world and then went away and has no interaction with mankind or the planet at all. They do not believe in a God who intervened in human affairs. They do not believe that if Jesus ever existed that he was a God. Diests believe that God ISN'T here, that he's nowhere to be found and his actions are nowhere to be seen. And WTF does this have to do with Catholics changing Christianity and Prods being pre-Nicaean Xians? Are you trying to divert attention from claims that you can't prove by making accusations that are based only in your imagination?

03-17-2003, 05:38 PM	#204
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Biff the unclean It's the latest selectively applied standard of proof. I forgot, you don't require proof. You get to claim what peoples religious beliefs are without checking what these people or the people who knew them said. I think that this whole discussion is off target. We speak of proof and scientific method, critical analysis, evidence, and rational thinking. This works fine for geological events, chemical ionic bonding, evolution, and biological neurobehaviour. But God and Jesus as a would-be god are not testable. They are both hypothetical, a weak hypothesis at that. It is based on hearsay only. Therefore, Jesus is as credible as Mithra, Aten, and Apollonius. God (Trinitarian) is as credible as Dagda, Zeus, Jupiter, Wodin, Brahma, Gaea, and a thousand other historical invisible gods. All are equally based on hearsay, without evidence of any kind. One hearsay is as credible as another. Virtually all those men believed in a soverign Creator who intervened in human affairs. Virtually all pre-scientific cultures had an invisible Creator God, most of whom from Ireland to India were Anthropomorphic. It is not surprising. They virtually all held Jesus himself in high esteem, which is all I ever claimed, and they all would have called Jesus-mythers Grade A nutballs. Possibly, but Mithraists held Mithra in high esteem and viewed those who called Mithra a myth, were grade A nutballs. Muslims held Jesus in high esteem as a prophet but view his god myth as blasphemy, as do Jews. Do you at least agree with that Biff? Come on Biff, orate and emote. You have the stage. You'll claim anything if you think it supports your fantasies won't you? I like mainly fantasies by Charles De Lint, T. A. Barron, Piers Anthony, Ursula LeGuin, Tanith Lee, and I claim that I like them but that is only hearsay. I don't believe they are true events but fantasies like the New Testament but better written. You have little respect for facts. It is only facts that I really respect. Facts are principles proven by reproducible laboratory protocols, based on critical analysis, rational thinking, reproduced evidence from independent researchers/investigators. The absolute requirement of facts is solid and/or measurable evidence. These "Father's of our nation" were Deists. A Deist pays a little lip service to a vague sort of God who created the world and then went away and has no interaction with mankind or the planet at all. That is the hypothetical god that is not only beyond proving but immune to disproving. A Deistic God has no contradictions, but an Anthropomorphic God has properties and personality characteristics that can be evaluated for rational content or contradictions, and as such can be found highly improbable is not non-existent. They do not believe in a God who intervened in human affairs. They do not believe that if Jesus ever existed that he was a God. Diests believe that God ISN'T here, that he's nowhere to be found and his actions are nowhere to be seen. Right, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the rather silly three headed Triune Christian God who obsesses over human sexuality, need for worship, jealousy, blind rage tantrums, etc. that show more of the men who invented this God that they showed of themselves. And WTF does this have to do with Catholics changing Christianity and Prods being pre-Nicaean Xians? Catholics, Proddies, and Fundies preceded Nicaea but only as one of about 10 different Christianities. The others were all non-Trinitarian, and two didn't deify Jesus. One, Arianism was the largest Christian sect prior to Nicaea and believed Jesus was a created minor God. Are you trying to divert attention from claims that you can't prove by making accusations that are based only in your imagination? Theism is of necessity based on imagination and/or spontaneous brain activity in the circuits mediating religious experiences (see the Newsweek article on Religion and the Brain. http://www.bio.utk.edu/Neils.nsf/b4f...5?OpenDocument Fiach

03-17-2003, 08:42 PM	#210
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Radorth: I wasn't arguing whether they were church members, but that they were followers of Christ- you know the mythical character only deluded people believe in. ... (other such heavyhanded sarcasm snipped) I remember how Radorth dismissed the Hindu deity Namagiri as a mythical character that only deluded people believed in -- deluded people like the great mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan. And I've snipped the Isaac Newton quote, because it is unreferenced. Thank God Durant and Wells are dead. Because they tell Radorth what he wants to hear?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.