And for the above, I think Hack deserves this:



Nice deconstruction there. In fact I think I'll save that one to my own hard drive for further use.

Uhm... what's this bullshit about objective reality supposed to demonstrate? Whether or not we can say an objective reality exists is unimportant. Science works. It produces results we can all benefit from. Theology doesn't. Unless, of course, you want to say that sitting around randomly thanking some "holy ghost" inside your mind constitutes a benefit. And I'm sure you do.

Additionally, anyone claiming the existence of god is under the burden of proof here. What is worth noting is that Theology has yet to produce any positive fucking results, at all, over a course of atleast 7000 years of human history.
The only "results" yielded by mass religious belief has been a general descent into paranoid superstitions, witchburnings and genocide perpetrated by fascist, theocratic regimes either in direct control by or allied with and supported by the churches. Everywhere you go in the world, the more religious and litteralist the population is, the more backwards, intolerant and stupidly ignorant and superstitious they become. It never fails.

Oh please tell us, by the way, how "sin" causes mutations to happen through "entropy". Fucking lol.

Rumraket wrote:

Oh please tell us, by the way, how "sin" causes mutations to happen through "entropy". Fucking lol.

Well, the operation of the second law of thermodynamics came into place with the fall. Before that, entropy wasn't tending to increase, and the bodies of Adam and Eve would not have decayed. However, as part of the punishment for sin, the second law was introduced as described in the bible, where it uses the analogy of man "having to till the soil". This is an analogy for the more general inevitability of decay as expressed in the inexorable increase of entropy.

Haha... brilliant !

twistor59 wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Oh please tell us, by the way, how "sin" causes mutations to happen through "entropy". Fucking lol.

Well, the operation of the second law of thermodynamics came into place with the fall. Before that, entropy wasn't tending to increase, and the bodies of Adam and Eve would not have decayed. However, as part of the punishment for sin, the second law was introduced as described in the bible, where it uses the analogy of man "having to till the soil". This is an analogy for the more general inevitability of decay as expressed in the inexorable increase of entropy.

This is the wonderful thing about supernaturalism. People can just make up whatever shit they want to weave their favorite myth into observable reality. No problem!

Actually, one thing I cannot help wondering about when presented with the usual "sin causes disease" arse gravy is this:

If we cure or even prevent these "sin" induced conditions, does that mean there is less "sin" in the world or merely that it has lost its power over us?

Indeed, it seems relatively easy to render God impotent and negate the effects of his never ending punishments for fruit larceny (as well as other infractions that seem to stem from this event). Many of these diseases that might once have been blamed on God's displeasure can be prevented by simple measures such as improved hygene. Readily available drugs, vaccines and other treatments take care of a multitude of others. It seems like we are winning new victories over God and his arbitrary punishments all the time. This even applies in areas not directly related to public health. For example, when God gets sufficiently pissed at our tolerance for gay people to send an earthquake or two, the effects can at least be reduced by building structures designed to withstand them.

How long I wonder, till "God's wrath" becomes as dangerous as a two year old having a tantrum...

hackenslash wrote:As for your preposterous sojourn into solipsistic nonsense, I defer to Samuel Johnson:

Peotry.

Sanford's Genomic Entropy looks like making an appearance, again, but before it does, I can safely tell you that particular canard fails to recognize the involvement of something called selection, and it is also refuted by the fact that we are not progressively turning into drooling anencephalics, or the fact that bacteria,despite having significantly smaller genomes, have not gone into extinction, which is the only conclusion that could be expected if the genomic entropy and genome decay on the account of two people eating a bloody apple coaxed by a talking snake to do so were true.

Reality says that canard is a canard, Reality wins.

using the bible as evidence for you own claims is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Please give us extrabiblical evidence.

edit, sorry, I didn't see that this was already 14 pages long. that was in response to what was on the first page. How do you delete posts?

Regarding the Prophet Muhammed's Flying Horse

For those of who you have read the entire thread, you may remember someone asking me about Muhammed having ridden on a flying horse. The question was something to the effect of: "Why do you believe that Jesus was who He said He was and reject the fanciful notion that Muhammed rode on a real flying horse?"

My response:

I will begin by quoting the passage in question from the "Hadith", which are a collection of sayings from the prophet Muhammed and not the Quran proper.

Haidth, Book #54, Hadith #429 wrote:Narated By Malik bin Sasaa: The Prophet said, "While I was at the House in a state midway between sleep and wakefulness, (an angel recognized me) as the man lying between two men. A golden tray full of wisdom and belief was brought to me and my body was cut open from the throat to the lower part of the abdomen and then my abdomen was washed with Zam-zam water and (my heart was) filled with wisdom and belief. Al-buraq, a white animal, smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me and I set out with Gabriel.

Firstly, to my knowledge this is the only mentioning of such an event in all of Islam's writings. Therefore, I can immediately discriminate based upon a lack of supporting evidence. Jesus' resurrection is recorded in all four gospels and several of the epistles of the New Testament. Furthermore, His crucifixion is even better attested by several secular historians. This instance of a flying horse is attested nowhere else.

Secondly, many Islamic scholars call this occurence a dream, and for good reason. Muhammed himself says that he was, "in a state midway between sleep and wakefulness". Furthermore, before he rides on this buraq (which may not be a horse at all since he reports that it was smaller than a mule) an angel cuts him wide open from his throat to his abdomen in order to fill his "heart" with wisdom and belief.

EDIT: Lastly, this passage does not explicitly say that Muhammed "flew" anywhere, it merely states that he and Gabriel, "set out", the flying part is assumed because they end up traveling to heaven.

So, again, this is not compatible with the resurrection of Jesus.

Cheers,
Cody

why are you comparing "crucifixion", a plausible event with "riding a flying horse"?

Shouldn't you compare resurrection with flying horse? Even then, you gotta take into account all the other more plausible explanations for resurrection, like the Elvis phenomenon (aka, OMG I SAW ELVIS/JESUS... ELVUS) or other hypotheses floating around in the scholarly circles.

Heresay is hearsay. Even if it can be proved to be of ancient origin. I have more "faith" in the ancient Roman laundry lists and party invitations they some times dig up in the vicinity of Hadrian's Wall.

Or perhaps Pliny's account of the destruction of Pompeii and comparing it with known facts of Volcanic eruptions. Using modern knowledge of Vulcanology that he couldn't have known about to cross check what he wrote.

In other words, the only reason Psalm23 has, at bottom, to discriminate between the two (resurrection and the flying horse) is a blind assertion to the effect "my mythology is the right one". He plainly doesn't understand that the reason we reject both is because both mythologies erect unsupported assertions with respect to the purported phenomena in question.

Eh Psalm, would you mind countering the Vedas? You do seem to give antiquated texts a lot of gravity and these babies are literally older than Moses..

MacIver wrote:

Psalm23 wrote:Everyone must examine the evidence and come to their own conclusions on these matters. This is very different from saying, "there is no evidence at all."

But there isn't any evidence for his existence. The fact that C,S Lewis never talked about it isn't any proof to the contrary. Why do the Epistles of Paul, written before the Gospels don't talk about Jesus as if he was a recently deceased human, but instead a mythical figure whose stories took place in a mythical realm? At least Muhammed is a documented historical figure, even if he was a paedophilic warlord.

And more importantly, there is a bucket load of evidence that the resurrection, along with every other 'documented' event in his life never happened.

Krishna - lived a thousand years before Christ supposedly did. He was a carpenter. He was born of a virgin. He was baptised in a river.

Mithra - lived around 600BC. Born on the 25th December. He preformed miracles. He was resurrected on the third day. His other names included; the Lamb, the Light, the True Way and the Saviour.

Horus - as described in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, written in 1280BC. He was born of a virgin. He was baptised in a river by a man known as Anup the Baptiser, who was beheaded (just like John the Baptist). Horus was tempted when he 'disappeared' into the desert. He healed the sick. Cured the blind. Cast out demons. And yes, Horus walked on water. He raised a man called Asar from the dead, Asar translates into Lazerus. And he had 12 disciples.

And guess what?! Horus was crucified!! And yes! Three days later two women found him resurrected!

I find the above examples quite undeniable proof that Christianity is just a mish-mash of much older Mediterranean faiths. If religion could be copyrighted, Christians would be in court for major copyright infringement.

But to get back on topic;

Psalm23 wrote:Well, you've answered my question. Your belief (as atheists) that God doesn't exist isn't based upon the notion that He can't exist but rather is derived from a perceived lack of evidence for His existence altogether. Yes?

In other words, you have no problem whatsoever with the idea of an eternal and infinite force or cause, known as God which always has been and always will be [EDIT: yet still find Him unnecessary and unattested]?

Cheers,
Cody

Don't try and make broad assumptions or put words in peoples mouths. It's very unbecoming.

I can't speak for others here but I'd say they'd all have a problem with the idea of the Abrahamic 'god' being seen as an 'an eternal and infinite force or cause'. Because the Abrahamic 'god' (and pretty much every other 'god' created by humans) relies on the supernatural.

There can be no such thing as the supernatural. If this universe's big bang had an intelligence at its ignition then that intelligence would be constrained by what ever physical laws existed in the universe it evolved in. It would be natural, not supernatural.

But I think it's much more likely that the big bang was caused by the collision of two other branes of existence.

Re Krishna.
AS has slipped badly and I had pointed it out to her. In her typical fashion she got angry.

He was a carpenter.NO
He was born of a virgin. NO
He was baptised in a river. Daily bath in a river or anywhere is baptism?