ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

BigDaddy,

The arguments you use are dogma whether you realize it or not. You are not demonstrating proof, just parroting what you've been told or have read (in sources that are themselves not proof). Quantum Mechanic's post summed it up nicely: what you take as "proof" is a story with eyewitnesses. What they thought they saw is what's been taken as "fact" for 2000+ years, nevermind any political agendas the authors of said book had in determining what to write. Jesus is a documented historical figure. We know this not because the Bible tells us so, but because Roman records confirm that someone by that name existed when and where the bible said he did. But those same records make no mention of the fantastical claims attributed to that individual. In a modern court of law what the Bible claims is called "hearsay" evidence, which isn't admissible in and of itself. The moment you go from saying Jesus existed to saying he had divine powers you step out of the realm of fact and into the realm of ... belief. Newsflash: otherwise sane people also believe in voodoo, astrology, palm-reading, etc. but that doesn't make them any more right in their beliefs than those who've accepted a certain 2000-year old story as unvarnished truth.

Question: if God is omnipotent and omniscient and infallible, why is it that the God of the New Testament is about love while the God of the Old testament is about fear and wrath? Why would an almighty all-knowing infallible being need to change tactics? Shouldn't said being have known in advance that His tactics weren't going to work on His imperfect creation and employed the supposedly better tactics from the beginning?

"Atheism is a fool's bet"? Hardly. Religious belief is. Same logic that people use when asked why they play the lottery: "If you don't play you can't win". If you don't play you won't lose is the real truth, which lottery promoters want you to ignore so that they can continue to profit from people's wishful thinking and gullibility. In the case of government-run lotteries, it's a tax on the stupid. As someone said earlier in this thread, religion is about maintaining power over people. It's also a psychological crutch for those that need one. Crutches come in all types. Some are more pernicious than others. Whether faith is less dangerous to one's health than alcohol depends on where you live in this Gods-forsaken world.

You're using similar logic to defend your position as what caused countless women to be killed a few hundred years ago: tie the alleged witch up Houdini-style and throw her in the lake. If she drowns she's innocent. If she doesn't she's wicked. Alas for the poor lass, she's f***ed either way. Might as well toss a coin and say "heads I win, tails you lose". You're saying "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, damned, or worse". That's not proof. I'm still waiting for some.

Oh, and accusing Quantum of "fearing or misunderstanding ..." is a cheap shot. Pointing out the flaws in your "thesis" isn't an act of fear or ignorance, but your reaction sure is. Seeking the truth, to use your words, requires that one search for proof. The printed word, or someone's sermon, isn't proof. I assure you that our lack of belief isn't due to a lack of will in our efforts. The prosecution (believers) have failed to make their case due to lack of evidence.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:
BigDaddy,

The arguments you use are dogma whether you realize it or not. You are not demonstrating proof, just parroting what you've been told or have read (in sources that are themselves not proof). Quantum Mechanic's post summed it up nicely: what you take as "proof" is a story with eyewitnesses. What they thought they saw is what's been taken as "fact" for 2000+ years, nevermind any political agendas the authors of said book had in determining what to write. Jesus is a documented historical figure. We know this not because the Bible tells us so, but because Roman records confirm that someone by that name existed when and where the bible said he did. But those same records make no mention of the fantastical claims attributed to that individual. In a modern court of law what the Bible claims is called "hearsay" evidence, which isn't admissible in and of itself. The moment you go from saying Jesus existed to saying he had divine powers you step out of the realm of fact and into the realm of ... belief. Newsflash: otherwise sane people also believe in voodoo, astrology, palm-reading, etc. but that doesn't make them any more right in their beliefs than those who've accepted a certain 2000-year old story as unvarnished truth.

Look, I realize there is a "step" after the known arguement, and I am more familiar than you know with the way this works. TYPICALLY, similar historic accounts with more than 1 source are considered to be likely true. Because of the miraculous nature of this story it is only WIDELY accepted.

Knowing this, I was leading you in a direction to see if you even cared why he was executed. If you did and actually looked into the issue you may have been surprised at the unlikelyhood of these things transpiring. Especially if you just start with the primary reason for the execution as given in the bible which parallels the undenied facts. He was executed for "civil disobedience" basically. This gives no reason not to believe the historic account, and leads to a "slippery slope" if you even accept that there is some truth in the Gospels.

Arryn said:
Question: if God is omnipotent and omniscient and infallible, why is it that the God of the New Testament is about love while the God of the Old testament is about fear and wrath? Why would an almighty all-knowing infallible being need to change tactics? Shouldn't said being have known in advance that His tactics weren't going to work on His imperfect creation and employed the supposedly better tactics from the beginning?

Jesus is a different aspect of God. He is about the love of God for imperfect man.
God is about Power, Purity, etc (which decidedly human have difficulty understanding - true power -true purity).
Jesus was used to help us do what was impossible without him, that is pleasing God.

Arryn said:
"Atheism is a fool's bet"? Hardly. Religious belief is. Same logic that people use when asked why they play the lottery: "If you don't play you can't win". If you don't play you won't lose is the real truth, which lottery promoters want you to ignore so that they can continue to profit from people's wishful thinking and gullibility. In the case of government-run lotteries, it's a tax on the stupid. As someone said earlier in this thread, religion is about maintaining power over people. It's also a psychological crutch for those that need one. Crutches come in all types. Some are more pernicious than others. Whether faith is less dangerous to one's health than alcohol depends on where you live in this Gods-forsaken world.

Actually, its been proven that religious people benefit from their faith by being less likely to die. Besides, I'll use religion as a "crutch," because it does not weaken me, it makes me stronger. I am stronger in my conviction. More likely to take calculated risks. Etc.

Arryn said:
You're using similar logic to defend your position as what caused countless women to be killed a few hundred years ago: tie the alleged witch up Houdini-style and throw her in the lake. If she drowns she's innocent. If she doesn't she's wicked. Alas for the poor lass, she's f***ed either way. Might as well toss a coin and say "heads I win, tails you lose". You're saying "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, damned, or worse". That's not proof. I'm still waiting for some.

I'm not sure I know which comment you're talking about.

Arryn said:
Oh, and accusing Quantum of "fearing or misunderstanding ..." is a cheap shot. Pointing out the flaws in your "thesis" isn't an act of fear or ignorance, but your reaction sure is. Seeking the truth, to use your words, requires that one search for proof. The printed word, or someone's sermon, isn't proof. I assure you that our lack of belief isn't due to a lack of will in our efforts. The prosecution (believers) have failed to make their case due to lack of evidence.

He said, "It is only when you say that everything he is supposed to have said and done is the absolute truth that things start seem a little rickety."

Which intends that an omnipotent being can't do whatever it likes. Therefore, if that was the "heart" of his arguement, a misunderstanding was made about what is possible. Or possibly a "fear" of admitting that something that powerful AND kind might exist. I honestly meant no cheap shot.

[BigDaddy]

Uh, here you go. Worldwide, these are people who claim the positions of:

Christians 32.71% (of which Roman Catholics 17.28%, Protestants 5.61%, Orthodox 3.49%, Anglicans 1.31%), Muslims 19.67%, Hindus 13.28%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.38%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 13.05%, non-religious 12.43%, atheists 2.41% (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/xx.html

[Scott Hebert]

BigDaddy said:
Uh, here you go. Worldwide, these are people who claim the positions of:

Christians 32.71% (of which Roman Catholics 17.28%, Protestants 5.61%, Orthodox 3.49%, Anglicans 1.31%), Muslims 19.67%, Hindus 13.28%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.38%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 13.05%, non-religious 12.43%, atheists 2.41% (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/xx.html

With these numbers (and only using the Christian, Muslim, and Jews), 52% of the world believes in a God. (I ignore Hindus, Buddhists, and others because the argument can be made that they do not believe in God, as such.)

Therefore, I reiterate. Would those who believe atheism is the default state of belief for mankind please give your own evidence and/or arguments as to why that should be so. I have data here showing that 52% of human being believe, not just that God could exist, but that believe in a single God as the creator of the Universe.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:

He said, "It is only when you say that everything he is supposed to have said and done is the absolute truth that things start seem a little rickety."

Which intends that an omnipotent being can't do whatever it likes. Therefore, if that was the "heart" of his arguement, a misunderstanding was made about what is possible. Or possibly a "fear" of admitting that something that powerful AND kind might exist. I honestly meant no cheap shot.

There is a huge difference between if an omniscient being could do something, and having evidence that they did take a particular action.

[Scott Hebert]

quantum_mechani said:

There is a huge difference between if an omniscient being could do something, and having evidence that they did take a particular action.

Um, did you mean 'omnipotent' there?

And I will also put the question to you. What would you consider evidence?

[Zen]

Just a quick interjection.

Don't ask hard questions if you don't want hard answers. It would also be advisable if you are particularly passionate about this particular subject, you put on your thick skin and don't get offended for wading into this discussion. This is not targeted at anyone just a friendly reminder.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:

Um, did you mean 'omnipotent' there?

And I will also put the question to you. What would you consider evidence?

Yes, I did mean omnipotent. The difference between my acceptance of Julius Caesar, and my skepticism of a guy named jesus performing miracles is that one requires no change to the detected laws of physics. So, I am much more willing to believe accounts of Julius's existence. If the bible were filled only with an account of what jesus ate for breakfast everyday, I would have little cause to doubt it.

Since so many things do fit in with physic's model of the universes, and the only thing going against it is few thousand year old accounts, I'm inclined to side with the former. Note that this has nothing to do with the existence of a god, merely one particular group of peoples opinions as to what a god's attributes should be.

[Scott Hebert]

Arryn said:
BigDaddy,

The arguments you use are dogma whether you realize it or not. You are not demonstrating proof, just parroting what you've been told or have read (in sources that are themselves not proof).

All right. Let's try this. Can you give me PROOF that Julius Caesar ever existed? All you have are stories about him, and maybe a tomb where somebody (who you claim was Julius Caesar) was buried. If you rely on the stories, then you're just 'parroting' things.

And what is wrong with dogma? All because I believe what the Catholic Church believes, and has believed for milennia, does not mean that I accept it blindly, or without investigation. To assume I do is an insult to my intelligence.

Question: if God is omnipotent and omniscient and infallible, why is it that the God of the New Testament is about love while the God of the Old testament is about fear and wrath? Why would an almighty all-knowing infallible being need to change tactics? Shouldn't said being have known in advance that His tactics weren't going to work on His imperfect creation and employed the supposedly better tactics from the beginning?

Why do you smack a child's hand instead of explaining to him the rather involved idea of personal property? Just like in matters of the intellect, you have to learn to walk before you can learn to run, in moral matters.

Besides, the idea that God was a 'hard-***' in the Old Testament and suddenly became 'meek and mild' in the New Testament is a fallacy.

When God gave the commandment 'an eye for an eye', it was a command of mercy, not necessarily justice. Yes, it was (and is) fair. Yes, it was (and is) just. However, the common practice at the time was not. If you took out my eye, I would kill you. If you killed me, my family would kill you and your entire family in retaliation. When you start to think about the commandments from such a perspective, you will realize that the Biblical accounts show a gradual teaching of moral law, which Christ fulfills.

That's not proof. I'm still waiting for some.

Are you aware of Aquinas's arguments regarding the existence of God?

Seeking the truth, to use your words, requires that one search for proof. The printed word, or someone's sermon, isn't proof. I assure you that our lack of belief isn't due to a lack of will in our efforts. The prosecution (believers) have failed to make their case due to lack of evidence.

May I ask what you do consider proof, if printed words and personal testimony isn't enough? If you're holding out for a personal vision of God, I'm afraid you're not likely to receive one. People have in the past (and still do, in the present), but they are only a handful.

If you want us to give evidence, please let us know what you would consider evidence.

Also, please be advised that I will ask you to prove various things by the same standards that you give to me regarding God, to ensure that the standards you set are fair.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
All right. Let's try this. Can you give me PROOF that Julius Caesar ever existed? All you have are stories about him, and maybe a tomb where somebody (who you claim was Julius Caesar) was buried. If you rely on the stories, then you're just 'parroting' things.

Im not basing my entire life off Caesars existence. I could care less if he actually existed. You, however, seem to think its the most important thing in the world that god exists.