|
Post by KTJ on Dec 23, 2016 9:21:57 GMT 10
Atheism? What is that?
Is that a label theists slap on people who refuse to believe bullshit god delusions which cannot be seen, or heard, or touched, or smelled, or tasted, or measured, or mathematically calculated in a scientific sense?
'cause I don't blindly believe bullshit god delusions, yet I don't regard myself an athiest. What I am is a rational person who refuses to believe unproven bullshit.
No need for some bullshit label such as athiest.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 23, 2016 9:27:42 GMT 10
Another troll who badly needs to get a life
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 24, 2016 4:50:07 GMT 10
I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.--H.G. Wells
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 24, 2016 6:40:56 GMT 10
I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.--H.G. Wells Interesting quote! Need to think about that one. Over 600 years the Jesus movement grew from an obscure offshoot of Judaism to a persecuted minority within a pagan empire to taking over that empire to define the Mediterranean world until its dominance of the Mediterranean littoral was shattered forever by a new movement, Islam, that swept the Jesus movement out of two thirds of the Mediterranean littoral and confined it to the northern Mediterranean coastline which became "Christendom" and ultimately "Europe". So should H.G. Wells' quote apply more to Mohammed than to Jesus? It's a close run thing but I'd have to give it to Jesus and here's why: if there had been no Jesus there would have been no Mohammed. No Christianity, no Islam since Islam grew as a reaction to Christianity. One of the basic tenets of both Islam and Judaism is that God is one, not "three". Both Jews and Muslims regard the Christian notion of the Trinity as the most egregious blasphemy. But if Jesus made Mohammed possible shouldn't that logic make us look at Moses as the most seminal historical figure? Because if Jesus made Mohammed possible didn't Moses make Jesus inevitable?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 24, 2016 11:40:14 GMT 10
Troll Two
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 14, 2017 23:22:34 GMT 10
An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_JesusI am unconcerned by what the fringe-atheo historians think. The majority of educated mainstream historians believe in the historical Jesus. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 15, 2017 11:29:52 GMT 10
I'd amend that sentence to read: The majority of educated mainstream historians accept the evidence concerning the historical Jesus
I'm making a grammatical point but it goes way beyond grammar. If by "educated mainstream historians" you're referring to modern scholars engaged in serious academic research and exegetical analysis of ancient texts it's not a matter of "belief" but of widespread consensus based on the available objective data.
Having said that, I'm not so sure that the existence can be "proved" of an individual Jew named Joshua Bar Joseph - or however his name would have been rendered in the Aramaic of the day - who practised a ministry in the Roman province of Judea during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, and whose teaching caused him to fall foul of the local authorities so they executed him by crucifixion which event proved to be a type of apotheosis leading to a dissident sect within Judaism and ultimately becoming separate from Judaism by spreading through the non-Jewish populations of the Hellenistic eastern half of the Roman Empire. What is certain is that such a movement arose and over the next 3 centuries came to dominate the Mediterranean world.
The fact that we can't "prove" that Jesus actually existed doesn't invalidate Christanity anymore than a lack of proof regarding the existence of Moses invalidates Judaism, or problems proving the existence of Mohammed invalidates Islam. By the same token if you were to demand of the Dalai Lana that he "prove" the existence of the Buddha he'd probably think you had missed the point entirely and were dealing - or failing to deal - with karma issues. In all likelihood he'd teach you some meditation techniques involving the lotus position.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 15, 2017 11:38:18 GMT 10
Not at all. Your point being?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 15, 2017 12:14:23 GMT 10
A little along the lines of: A whole civilization believed in a god called Set. This group of people lived mainly in the lower Nile area of Northern Africa. The evidence that these people believed in Set is very strong. Does that mean Set was real? By the same token explorations undertaken by Australian expeditions into the highlands of Papua New Guinea during the 1930s made First Contact with a large number of Stone Age communities at a Neolithic stage of development who'd never encountered the outside world before. Film footage exists of these encounters which is housed at the National Film and Sound Archives in Canberra. Less than 10 years later the modern world came crashing into these people's lives in the most hideous way when the PNG highlands became a battleground between invading Japanese and Australians. The indigenous Papuans witnessed scenes they could not have imagined 10 years previously. For example they regularly witnessed one of the whitefella strangers talking into a box and a giant metal "bird" would arrive and land in a clearing hacked out of the bush by the whitefellas. It would then disgorge food and a whole lot of other "stuff" and fly off again after first swallowing into its insides sick and wounded whitefellas. They mythologised this strange phenomenon and a new religion was born: the cargo cult. Apparently it still exists in PNG. It seems that the invading Japanese inflicted war crimes and atrocities on these people who, it has to be remembered, had lived in total isolation from and ignorance of the outside world less than 10 years previously. Consequently it was not difficult for them to support the Australian "diggers" (Occam "digger" is WW1 & WW2 Aussie slang for Australian soldier). We've all seen pictures of wounded "diggers" carried by the Papuan "fuzzy wuzzies". So grateful were the diggers to the fuzzy-wuzzies that they called them "angels". And so the "fuzzy wuzzy angels" entered into ANZAC folklore. What would the wounded digger in the famous pic have said to the fuzzy wuzzy angels supporting him: "jeez yer a deluded idiot! Fancy believing in a cargo cult ya dickhead!" I suspect it was a sincere "thanks mate!" To rabbit on about "proof" shows the extent to which you miss the deeper point.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 15, 2017 12:18:48 GMT 10
The point being, an "entire" civilization can believe in something, and the evidence that they believed that something can be shown ... yet the validity of the belief itself cannot be proven. You can apply that to every religious belief ever believed. So?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 15, 2017 12:30:04 GMT 10
"Most" cases? But yes monotheistic religions tend to be pretty exclusive about their particular deity. Kinda goes with the territory. Actually numerically monotheistic religions have been in the minority. It's just that they've tended to dominate the last couple of millennia.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 18, 2017 5:07:25 GMT 10
The point being, an "entire" civilization can believe in something, and the evidence that they believed that something can be shown ... yet the validity of the belief itself cannot be proven. You can apply that to every religious belief ever believed. Or non religious ones, as well
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 18, 2017 5:17:27 GMT 10
So ... every "god" ever invented (and there have been so, so many) ... has a support base. Each support base claims their "god" is real, and in most cases the only "real" god. A rational person would conclude that not all of them can be "real", hence the more likely conclusion is that every one of them is not real. It's simple really. No, obviously a rational person would conclude that they all can't be real since their teachings conflict, but it doesn't follow to make the conclusion that they are therefore false. That's an irrational leap without substance.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 18, 2017 7:38:39 GMT 10
So ... every "god" ever invented (and there have been so, so many) ... has a support base. Each support base claims their "god" is real, and in most cases the only "real" god. A rational person would conclude that not all of them can be "real", hence the more likely conclusion is that every one of them is not real. It's simple really. No, obviously a rational person would conclude that they all can't be real since their teachings conflict, but it doesn't follow to make the conclusion that they are therefore false. That's an irrational leap without substance. Therefore, it is rational to presume that ALL gods are false (ie....delusions inside human beings' heads) until such time as ABSOLUTE PROOF is provided for the existance of whichever of those gods is the REAL god. Fair enough?
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 18, 2017 12:17:58 GMT 10
Well....it appears as though Sporky entered the group several hours ago, “shot his bolt” into this thread, then buggered off again!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 18, 2017 14:02:57 GMT 10
No, obviously a rational person would conclude that they all can't be real since their teachings conflict, but it doesn't follow to make the conclusion that they are therefore false. That's an irrational leap without substance. Therefore, it is rational to presume that ALL gods are false (ie....delusions inside human beings' heads) until such time as ABSOLUTE PROOF is provided for the existance of whichever of those gods is the REAL god. Fair enough? No it means no such thing and, no, you're so irrational Troll Two that it's bizarre verging on the comical that you should presume to pronounce on what constitutes rational. Gentle reader, try the following as an example of what Troll Two means by "rational". Oh, a warning: you might have to shield your children from seeing it: Well....it appears as though Sporky entered the group several hours ago, “shot his bolt” into this thread, then buggered off again! Notice the crude scatalogical imagery employed by Troll Two, gentle reader. Donald Trump couldn't have put it better as ... how did the esteemed Garrison Keillor express it in the excellent article that Troll One accidentally posted on another thread (I'm sure he didn't mean to post an excellent article but, hey, accidents happen!) ... the Boy President heads for Washington to be sworn into office, pumping his fist, mooning the media, giving the stinky finger to whomever irks him, doing his end-zone dance ...Read more: newstalkback1.proboards.com/thread/5891/errrrr-abandoning-fraud-religion#ixzz4W5AAD7PUYa gotta love the way the Americans say "whomever" - they can be more conservative and pedantic about correct grammar than we are when they want to be. But there you go! But notice the parallels? "moons the media" (or the gentle reader in Troll Two's case), "giving the sticky finger ..." It's Troll Two! The Donald Trump of the board!
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 18, 2017 14:14:33 GMT 10
So, Troll Zero, are you gullible enough to blindly believe stuff without any proof of its existance?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 18, 2017 14:40:14 GMT 10
You're doing your "Trump" thing again: pretending that it's all about something else. I've answered that question fully, honestly, eloquently and thoughtfully to people like Fat and Occam. Not by PM but openly and publicly on this and other forums. I have no intention of following you down that rabbit hole because it's not an honest question asked in good faith and arising out of genuine curiosity. This is not about me or my agnosticism. It's about you and your crude, rude and crass boofheadedness which is a straight lift from the Trump playbook.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 18, 2017 14:46:21 GMT 10
Good to see that you answer to Troll Zero.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 18, 2017 14:49:07 GMT 10
Keep this up and you may as well change your name to Donald Trump (pipsqueak). You're still posting from his playbook.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 18, 2017 14:51:52 GMT 10
And you claim I'm obsessed with Donald Trump, Troll Zero? Take a good, hard look at yourself in the mirror....
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 18, 2017 15:03:21 GMT 10
Dear oh dear ... there are times, gentle reader, when the insight strikes you that feeding a troll gets you nowhere and you just have to walk away. This is such a time ...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 22, 2017 3:11:10 GMT 10
Well played, pim. Good form indeed. ]
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 22, 2017 10:18:17 GMT 10
Are you sticking around this time?
Or are you merely shooting your bolt into a thread again, then departing, as you recently did?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 22, 2017 18:22:52 GMT 10
Are you sticking around this time? Or are you merely shooting your bolt into a thread again, then departing, as you recently did? Going all scatological on us again? Time for a scatological limerick. This one's for you Troll Two ... A limerick should always be witty And dirty and filthy and gritty. A good one has wit, And some sex or some shit; And a clean one is sure to be shitty
|
|