Atheists And The Moon
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(19-05-2013 11:53 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 11:46 AM)childeye Wrote:  I don't need to, it speaks for itself. Do the math, atheism is against any wishful thinking. That would mean atheism only believes in death as the absolute.

Death and Taxes. It's only the delusional that state there is more with no proof to back it up. As for not needing to make a case then why are you here?
I was born and here I am.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(19-05-2013 01:58 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 01:05 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I fail to even make the connection between there is no god, and control of the populace.

However the divine rights of kings was directly related to a belief in god/gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

Not to mention the laws enforce by those beliefs at the time to control and unite the populace. In time it was a failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Religion
There is populace control in secular government just like any other. You are conflating religion with God.

You attempted to divorce the two with no proof.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
19-05-2013, 04:54 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
Ok guys, you take him on from here.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 05:57 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
At some point you just have to walk away.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
19-05-2013, 06:01 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(19-05-2013 05:57 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  At some point you just have to walk away.

I don't want to repeat arguments. So I figure it would be interesting to see what the rest of the community comes up with.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
19-05-2013, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2013 12:55 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(19-05-2013 11:08 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(18-05-2013 01:38 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What Bucky said.

How 'bout a tag team debate? Bucky and me vs pleasey and childeye.

I'll fire a volley so see if they've any fighting spirit...

Eyewitness Accounts?
“It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of the apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, asserting that what they had written themselves was written according to these persons to whom they ascribed it.”

St. Faustus (c. 490 CE,). (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=O00z...n+that+the ).

Most Christians have been told that direct witnesses of Jesus’ life wrote the four Gospels. This is undoubtedly not true. I can save the reader who wants to know the truth about this a lot of time and frustration. The bottom line is: we don’t know for sure who wrote the Gospels, but the authors weren’t the companions of Jesus, and had never met him or anyone who had known him.

Even the conservative Catholic Encyclopedia states,
“It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.” They use the word “evangelist” to avoid “apostle” or “disciple.” They are effectively (and correctly) admitting that the titles of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are “not traceable” to Jesus’ apostles. If there was even the slightest bit of good evidence that any of the Gospel authors knew Jesus, or someone who knew Jesus, the Catholic Encyclopedia would make a big deal of it. They don’t because there isn’t. Yet in nearly every church around the world it’s implied these apostles were the authors.

One only needs to leaf through any of the Gospels to realize they weren’t written by eyewitnesses, or by anyone who interrogated eyewitnesses. There are no interviews of Jesus, or his disciples, or of any of the characters in the action. Nowhere do we read a phrase such as
“I, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John saw this or heard that” or
“I was present when” this or that happened, or
“I talked to …who told me… so I asked him...” Everything is written as pure narrative. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tMTNJzRpXs).

Most modern preachers aren’t inquisitive or honest enough about the source of the dogma they promote.
Dear Mr. Fulton, you have not presented anything here that we already don't know. The fact is the Gospel was spread by word of mouth to begin with. It doesn't matter who said it. The validity of the Gospel is in it's Spiritual nature. It is a Truth that testifies to what the self proclaimed godless would call wishful thinking. That is, a hope in an incorruptible existence.

Re "Dear Mr. Fulton,"
Doctor actually, but please call me Mark

Re "you have not presented anything here that we already don't know."
Good! I'm pleased you accept that the gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses or anyone who knew eyewitnesses. Please tell your friend PJ, because he doesn't yet understand this simple truth.

Re "The fact is the Gospel was spread by word of mouth to begin with."
You may be right or partly right. No one knows for sure. I happen to think the gospels were created denovo by intellectuals in the Flavian government as propaganda to undermine messianic Jews. They were trying to stop another war. Many historians such as
- Atwill, Joseph who wrote “Caesar’s Messsiah”
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g40Eck6gW7U , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlj5-iwKueQ )
- Cresswell, Peter who wrote “Jesus the Terrorist” O Books, Winchester, UK
- Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah”, and many others, agree with me. I suggest you do some research for yourself.

Re "It doesn't matter who said it. "
That's only your opinion. It ABSOLUTELY DOES MATTER. The world does care who wrote the bible. We want to know who, when, and why.

Re "The validity of the Gospel is in it's Spiritual nature. "
NO! BULLSHIT!
The gospels are propaganda used to control people's behaviour.
You may (somehow) get something "spiritual" out of them, but most of the world doesn't. You calling them "spiritual" doesn't make them so.

Re "It is a Truth "
NO!
The gospels aue undoubtedly, unequivocally not truthful. They are rife with impossibilities and contradictions.

Re "That is, a hope in an incorruptible existence."
You are reading your babble with rose coloured glasses. The gospels say nothing of the sort. The gospels are, in fact, corrupt; right at their very core - their authorship, because they are propaganda.

You sir, clearly know nothing of the real history of ancient times and you don't understand how and why the babble was put together.

You are full of patronizing platitudes about your babble and your god, yet you clearly have no facts to back up your opinions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
19-05-2013, 07:30 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2013 08:39 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(19-05-2013 01:41 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 12:50 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Okay....

I know that many atheists understand that being alive, is better than being dead. That with our lives we can change the world for the better, for the generations after us.

What's your point?

How do you prove god exists?

How do you prove an after life exists?
You already proved my point above. You cannot stay on the fence as you think you can. If Life is greater than death, then you already believe in the direction of God. The term "God" is applied to Life. Hence we see in scripture the God of Life. The Word of God (the power of the creation) is the Life and Light of man. The hope of eternal Life, not in this world of misery, but in a world without, is a good thing. I don't need to prove an afterlife to want to believe. Since neither you or I have been dead, neither of us can even say till we see. But what we believe makes a difference in our defining terms such as hope and faith, good, bad, right and wrong. It sets our reasoning in different directions if what I hope is not what you hope. There are implications both ways according to what we believe. You really believe the same as I. Therefore I only need honesty to know what is good and what is not, to be right about what I believe.

The universe comes from a singularity and time is part of the creation. That proposes a cause of this universe that is equivalent in concept to the existence of a different dimension outside of our time. Hence an afterlife at the end of time is completely plausible.

This is just waffle.

It means nothing to anyone other than (probably) the person who wrote it.

When people are unwell with a psychotic illness, they suffer from delusions ( bizzare thoughts with no basis in reality.) They become thought disordered such that their sentences make no sense. There's no point trying to have a rational conversation with them. This is bordering on the delusional.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
19-05-2013, 09:46 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(19-05-2013 12:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 11:53 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Death and Taxes. It's only the delusional that state there is more with no proof to back it up. As for not needing to make a case then why are you here?

He's a masochist for a god that only exists in his mind
Drinking Beverage

...or my imagination.

(17-05-2013 02:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  Who said they become real when you imagine them?

It seems that you did, or perhaps you'd care to clarify this:

(15-05-2013 09:33 PM)childeye Wrote:  These god(s) you imagine are those the so called theists assert which you claim there is not enough evidence tio support their existence for. You could not clsim there si not enough evidence without imagining them.

"That's not the proof I want."
"You'll have such proof as exists. You are the only one responsible for your own wants."
- Isaac Asimov, I, Robot
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
Quote:The gospels are not "documentary evidence", of any kind. They are faith scrolls/documents, written for proclamation during worship events, to remind Christians what they already believed. They are in no way "historical". The concept of "history" as "fact" and "accurate" did not exist in Hebrew culture at that time. Clearly there are parts of all of them that were invented, (such as the birth narratives), the genealogies, which have impossible to reconcile numbers of generations, and the trial, which is completely different, in each gospel. The death isn't even on the same day, or the same time. All the other mythological/allegorical events surrounding the resurrection, (the rising from the dead of all the other zombies), the torn curtain in the Holy of Holies in the temple, about which NOT ONE Jewish historian ever once said anything, and the earthquakes, (all the others of which were meticulously documented), were made up. THAT is not "documentary" anything. It's an attempt to create a narrative.

Okay. You've made a lot of points here. I hope we can have a clean slate and address them:

Quote:The gospels are not "documentary evidence", of any kind. They are faith scrolls/documents, written for proclamation during worship events, to remind Christians what they already believed.

That is interesting. I hadn't heard that before. From whence did these Christian beliefs originate that necessitated the writing of the gospels, do you think?

Quote:They are in no way "historical". The concept of "history" as "fact" and "accurate" did not exist in Hebrew culture at that time.

Also something that is unusual to me. I'd find that was correct, in say, 7th century Arabia. What do you think of this quotation in the light of what you just shared:

1 Chronicles 29: "29 Now the acts of King David, first and last, indeed they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, 30 with all his reign and his might, and the events that happened to him, to Israel, and to all the kingdoms of the lands."

In other words, how does the above line up with the concept you shared?

Quote:Clearly there are parts of all of them that were invented, (such as the birth narratives), the genealogies, which have impossible to reconcile numbers of generations, and the trial, which is completely different, in each gospel.

Other than the supernatural aspects of the incarnation and annunciation, what do you find specious about the birth narratives?

What is impossible to reconcile in the generations in Matthew and Luke? One cites 41 generations between Abraham and Jesus, one does 66 back to Adam.

What is the issue with different observers making different statements in their trial excerpts? Did you get the sense somehow that each gospel writer sought a complete and comprehensive word-by-word account for every incident in the ministry of Jesus? If so, doesn't that contradict your earlier statement about a lack of a sense of history?

Have you ever reviewed this statement of John:

John 21: "24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."

There's more I'd ask you about in your post but I think this is a good start. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: