Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
lol and I`m sure the forums will never be the same again... twit
I can see however, that you could stretch some definitions of a single god to actually fit. An all knowing, all pervasive god could be synonomous with the rules of nature and the sum of all the variables within it. A view of a god that sees all of time sort of fits with this if you accept the god is *everything* over *all of time*. Yeah I can believe in that sort of god, even if, on balance, he doesn`t really give a sh*t about me or anyone else. Kind of fits with my observations of this gods behaviour....
Read that. Neat science. You shouldn`t use the word direct however when it was actually gamma rays (from two seperate interactions) that indicated the neutrino`s existance.
I`m likely to be dead by then, so I just hope it doesn`t happen earlier.
Yeah, I`m culturally biased against torturing people to death and stuff like that. Shame on me.
I`m not arguing that Islam is inherently more brutal and oppressive than Christianity, just that it is at this time.
Culturally biased to a Western viewpoint?
Well good luck to you Angi, because statistically, we`re all going to be Muslim by about 2050.
True only if you are talking about implicit aethiesm, but not true about people who have chosen this path.
Thinking about logic, existance, morality is not easy. Oh I know! lets invent a god to take care of it all!
Did you really intend to claim that lying about the existence of evidence is the same as the lack of evidence?
You have a point in the first sentence, but not in the second. Christianity is a major defence against global domination by Islam, but the issue isn`t really one of partying. It`s that as oppressive theocracies go, Islam is currently much worse than Christianity.
Regarding celebratory holidays, Christians owe various earlier religions for all of the "Christian" ones. So let`s hear for for Mithraism and Sol Invictus and for a mixture of other European and British pre-Christian religions.
Now were getting into more meaningful territory - how legitimate a concept is infinity. Nope my finite cells can`t get with it, got lost at Aleph 1. Transfinite what?
Rather amusing, given that I have made several posts stating that there is evidence that Jesus existed (although his name couldn`t have been Jesus, obviously), providing that evidence and defending it in argument with a poster who said it was invalid.
You`re not scoring well so far.
Yes, before the web existed.
Unlike you, I don`t confuse a tiny minority of people who would like something vaguely approaching fairly correct English in at least the most basic form with some sort of omnipresent police force.
But hey, at least you didn`t call them Nazis.
No. The picture is fake and no-one is arguing about the validity of the message.
There ARE NO theological debates on IAB, ever! IAB never discusses, argues or in any way debates any form of religion or religious belief, and if you choose to believe that it does, that`s entirely up to you and we accept your unprovable beliefs as just as perfectly valid as the beliefs of the rest of us.
I wish I could assume you were acting like a retard as a joke.
Also, this picture is just ridiculous.
I like how people`s humanness is reduced to mere labels like we`re all in highschool again.
About the existence of Christ: It IS in fact debated whether he existed or not. The historical evidence is vague (but not non-existent) and saying that he just exists PERIOD is just not true. There are signs pointing to him having existed, and signs pointing to him not having existed. The reason this debate is irrelevant to most atheists, however, is because it doesn`t really matter whether he existed or not.
Wrong. Neutrinos were directly experimentally detected in the Nobel-Prize-winning Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment in 1956.
Perfect answer right there!
Thats correct. We can equate the probability of the existence of god to be equal to or less than that of the flying spaghetti monster, as the spaghetti monster is specifically said to plant evidence. Anyway, we can equate the probability of the existence of god to any claim that is undisprovable. If I said that I personally created the universe by farting it into existence, or that if I kill 50 people my imaginary friend will make my computer run twice as fast, that would be just as likley as the christian god, or the muslim god or whatever else anyone can come up with.
What this means for the religious is that if they believe in a god then they must also consider every provable and undisprovable claim that could ever be made. And since we are all finite creatures, the consideration of any is therefore a waste of time.
Not exactly. It`s more accurate to say that the limit of 1/x as x approaches zero is infinity. 1 divided by exactly 0 is undefined. Why? Because saying it is defined is equivalent to saying the equation 0x=0 has only one solution, when in fact it has infinitely many.
He created the mountains and the trees and the migits, and he put the dinosaur bones in the ground and praise be to the stripper factory and beercano raaaaaaaamen.
There was also the argument on the existence of the man himself. I do admit, however, that I thought you to be the one to be arguing for that point. For that, I was wrong, and I apologize.
>A bogeyman of your own creation. There are a few>people who object to the worst abuses of the>language, but that`s not the same thing at all.
You haven`t been on the internet for long, have you? :)
>Which also applies to the flying spaghetti>monster, undetectable magic flying pixies that>carry aeroplanes, etc.
Or neutrinos, for that matter. I mean, there`s no direct evidence for the existence of a neutrino. All evidence to date is based on the neutrino`s supposed interactions. So, by that logic, a neutrino`s existence is infinitely improbable.
Like aetheism and agnosticism, I don`t think those two are mutually exclusive...
Maths is the one intangible thing I have faith in. Maybe jesus divided the fish by zero when he fed the five thousand?
he`s an idiot, not a mathematician. just because in your subject you make certain assumptions and definitions doesn`t mean that its always like that.
Fun facts:1/0 infinity0/1 zero0/0 arbitrary constant **for example if you have zero resistance and zero voltage you get 0/0 (I=V/R) which means the current is constant but unknown. With conservation of energy and momentum you can show that the current is a constant in this example but there are not enough parameters to determine the constant (need initial value)
Oh sh*t, he`s dividing by zero!
Pithy, but I`m fairly confident that had already happened before Christianity existed. For example, Romans exchanged gifts during the festival of Saturnalia and the feast of Sol Invictus (17-25 of December). Although traditional gifts were of small monetary value, it became customary to give gifts of silver if you were rich enough.
That depends on which definitions of `agnostic` and `atheist` you use. I`d describe myself as an agnostic atheist - the two aren`t actually mutually exclusive. Basically - I don`t know and I don`t believe.
The claim was that there was no evidence he existed. The argument since then has been about whether or not there is any evidence.
[quote] just as petty as the pedantic grammar police that run amok on these websites.[/quote]
A bogeyman of your own creation. There are a few people who object to the worst abuses of the language, but that`s not the same thing at all.
[quote]Just keep in mind this: lack of proof of existence does not mean proof of non-existence.[/quote]
Which also applies to the flying spaghetti monster, undetectable magic flying pixies that carry aeroplanes, etc.
The only record of that is in the Christian bible. Which, to belabour the obvious, is not a secular source. The Romans certainly held censuses, but (a) there`s no record of one at that time and place (b) they didn`t require people to spend weeks walking to a census and (c) there`s no record of Jesus on any extant Roman census.
[quote]Herod had already heard of him when the huge travelling party of nobles, kings and scholars came all the way from China or thereabouts to see him - not something they do for an unknown kid.[/quote]
And your source for that is?
It`s the Christian bible again, isn`t it?
It probably isn`t even in there, though I can`t be sure off the top of my head.
Nah, you can. Don`t be turned off by the flames.
Lack of physical evidence of existence means that that existence is improbable. I could easily make up 1/0 unsupported contradictory claims.
Contradiction with highly supported scientific law demonstrates extreme improbability (ie raising dead)
There is no proof / disproof.
Also just because something isn`t proven/disproven doesn`t give it a 50% probability of existing. Think of the flying spaghetti monster.
Most atheists will admit that god can`t be proven false. They just believe the probability of his exsistance is too insignificant to consider.
No, but the Romans had a very efficient system of government and held regular censuses (that`s why his mom and dad were in Bethlehem remember), and Herod had already heard of him when the huge travelling party of nobles, kings and scholars came all the way from China or thereabouts to see him - not something they do for an unknown kid.
1. A mental case believing himself the Son of God.2. Lying3. Telling the truth[/quote]
4. Never existed.5. Is a combination of several people to create a legend, perhaps like King Arthur.6. Was misquoted by people fighting to control the religion after his death.7. Never claimed to be literally the son of god in any physical sense, simply in the spiritual sense of God the Father (of everything and everyone).
The most famous Christian prayer ever, which has probably been spoken by almost every Christian for a very long time, starts with the statement that the person saying the prayer is a son or daughter of the Christian god. Billions of people have made that statement.
None of them confirm the existence of Jesus.
Mentioned the existence of Christians near the end of the first century. Wasn`t even born until 55.
[quote]2. Lucian of Samosata[/quote]
Mentioned the existence of Christians in the middle of the second century. Wasn`t even born until 120.
Referred to the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 49, so he wasn`t referring to Jesus. He wrote it in ~120.
[quote]4. Pliny the Younger[/quote]
Confirmed the existence of Christians in 112.
Some Christians a couple of hundred years later claimed that someone said that Thallus wrote something about Jesus. We know nothing about Thallus` writings.
Much the same as for Thallus
[quote]7. Mara Bar-Serapion[/quote]
He mentioned various people from various times in a letter written long afterwards and containing historical errors. No actual mention of Jesus, anyway.
Same way as his mum was impregnated by God himself. Call me a skeptic who`s going to hell, but as a *NORMAL PERSON WHO CAN SEE THROUGH BILLSH*T*, I think it more likely that Mary had a roll in the hay with the stable-boy.
You say blasphemer, I say bit of a slut which sparked a whole religion. It`s easily done.
Life of Brian by the Monty Python crew, 20 years ago. If you haven`t seen it, educate yourself.
Picking a fight with the whole Atheist comment was kind of un-cool in IAB`s part, but i guess all the flame wars are intended to keep this site interesting?
I just come for the jokes that are actually funny.
1. Cornelius Tacitus (Roman historian who was considered the `greatest historian` of ancient Rome. Lived through reigns of over half a dozen emperors. Acclaimed works are The Annals and The Histories.)2. Lucian of Samosata3. Suetonius4. Pliny the Younger5. Thallus6. Phlegon7. Mara Bar-Serapion
Jesus was a person who lived on this earth and who`s life and death have been recorded. It is up to you to decide if he was...
1. A mental case believing himself the Son of God.2. Lying3. Telling the truth
He could not just be a great man if he was either 1 or 2.
It`s good indirect evidence - someone must have preached the radical reforms that caused the split.
[quote]There is no documents, no historical evidence AT ALL. and the jews and romans were very good at keeping records.. why wouldnt they keep record of someone that important?[/quote]
He wasn`t important at the time. The Romans didn`t much care what religious beliefs barbarians (i.e. anyone not Roman) had. There was quite a lot of religious freedom in the Roman republic and empire. Why would they record a minor disturbance in a province, stemming from barbarians disagreeing over details of a small-scale religion?
[quote]He never existed, get over it and stop whining about your silly religions.[/quote]
I`m an atheist.
That is not true. There are no contempory secular records of him at all. Why would there be? He wasn`t important at the time.
That is the question that has plagued the entire internet since it first poked its tendrils through the surface of the slime mold in which it was cultivated.
The answer, of course, is that all conversations will eventually devolve to the lowest common denominator, which in this case is religious "debate".
Actually, this is the one thing Atheists believe which pi**es me off the most, because its plain stupid. The debate is not and never has been about whether Jesus Christ existed, he did, period. His existence is documented not just in Christian circles but in thousands of completely secular sources too, in just about every record of any government or scholar from that time. There is no doubt whatsoever that he existed. The only thing open to debate is whether he was, or was not, the Son of God.
There is, indirectly:
We know for a fact that a little under 2000 years ago there was a proposed reform of Judaism radical enough to split the religion into those who supported the reforms and those who didn`t. Someone must have started that by preaching the modified Judaism. The modified Judaism became a new offshoot religion - Christianity.
We know for a fact that within a few decades after that, followers of the new religion believed that it was started by a single person who they called "the anointed one". The Greek word for that title stuck - Christos (transliterated into our alphabet, obviously).
A time of giving was always part of it. Christmas was essential the Christian takeover of Saturnalia and that was a time of giving.
There have been many religious festivals at that time of year, but Saturnalia was the one targetted by Christianity because it was the main one in the Roman empire and Christianity was trying to take over the Roman empire (which it succeeded in doing).
I do think that a secular festival should be given a different name, though. Just call it the midwinter festival or something. Exactly the same thing, with all the customs, but ditch the Christian name.
How many of you Christians submitted something for the halloween contest, or voted in the polls? How many of you are still chowing down on your Halloween candy?
Yeah. That`s what I thought.
Dammit, fix the bloody character length bug!
I`ve seen a good argument for late August and for early September.
Here, for example, is a theological argument for Jesus being born on the 15th of Tishri (they would, of course, have used the Jewish calendar). What date that is in the Gregorian calendar depends on what year Jesus was born in (the Jewish calendar is lunar and doesn`t match up with the Gregorian calendar, which is solar).
I think the author is too eager to fit Jesus` birthday with the start of Tabernacle. It`s apt, but it relies on assumptions about the exact day of two conceptions and the exact length of one pregnancy.
It also starts off with an apt by Deuteronomy, which puts most of the foundation of Christianity in di
I like how somtimes we can talk about religion all cool like without starting a flame war
Anyways, how would we accoyunt for the so called New Testement? The writtings of a crazed man? 100% made up stories?
Also, I don`t like how Christmas is becoming a solely Christian holiday1) Chistmas has nothing to do with God2) The Constitution claims that all religions are welcome, Christians and nonChristians alike3) Over time Christmas lost its original `meaning` and vecame a time of gioving, why should we regress now?
Precisely. It would disrupt the efficient running of the province, which would benefit no-one. It would also annoy the locals, who were prone to revolt anyway. If a governer ordered something so detrimental to the empire, they`d have to answer to the emperor.
[quote]And if it was Joseph`s home town, why would he need an inn? We are told it was a big family, with cousins and all.[/quote]
Good point. One of his relatives would surely have put them up, especially with Mary about to give birth.
[quote]I suspect it`s all a myth. [/quote]
So do I. Made up decades, maybe even centuries, later to make Jesus seem more mystical.
Maybe they wanted to big him up to something fairly close to Mithra, as Mithraism was the religion Christianity was trying to usurp.
"NO ONE CAN CELEBRATE THIS BUT ME!" Yea... your sort of attitude went out of fashion a century ago.
I can`t imagine what your complaint is, as both of those holidays have completely lost their meaning to materialism anyway, not to mention them not being originally christian.
To a previous comment you made... Kwanzaa has nothing to do with atheism.
And if it was Joseph`s home town, why would he need an inn? We are told it was a big family, with cousins and all.
I suspect it`s all a myth.
Heehee, Christ was born 4 to 7 years Before Christ. Humans are funny.
Based on a lot of evidence and research, the general consensus is that He was born on 20th of May, between 7 and 4 BC.
True, but neither are Christian religious holidays. Christmas is basically Christianity stealing another religion`s holy day and renaming it, like a car thief respraying a stolen car. With Easter, Christianity didn`t even bother with that. It`s a fertility festival for Oestre (pronounced `Easter`), hence the eggs (symbol of female fertility, as Oestre was female) and rabbits (another fertility symbol)
So by your own argument, Christians shouldn`t be allowed to celebrate Christmas or Easter because they`re not Christian holy days.
You`re right about the holy days, neither of which have anything at all to do with Christianity. They didn`t even change the name of Easter (the main holy day for Oestre, same pronunciation)!
But the only records of Jesus` birth are in the Christian bible and they make January unlikely too.
Just after harvest could work - the sheep would still be in the fields at night, it would be an appropriate time for a census to cause the least disruption to the empire and it fits the accounts of the birth of John, the conception of Jesus and a pregnancy of average length.
But no-one really knows.
I`m sure he wasn`t dieing to get his hands nailed to that cross.