Pentecost celebrations (3 Viewers)

[TheRoyalScam]

We accept the history books as fact even though they were written significantly after the events, we have very few copies and they date significantly after they were written.

When it comes to the gospels in the New Testament they were written very soon after the events, we have thousands of copies of very early manuscripts dated not long after they were initially written.

This means we can trust the information they contain So because it's written on manuscript, or in a 'history' book you're arguing that it must be a fact??

Put simply Paraphrased from the Alpha course you mean!

I wrote a contemporaneous account of my holiday last year in a travel book: 'My Trip To Donegal with my Fire-breathing Dragon'. Your argument is that because I wrote it down and it's been published that it must be true!

I would lay odds that you haven't got a History degree

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

We accept the history books as fact even though they were written significantly after the events, we have very few copies and they date significantly after they were written.

Put simply

Try making that simplistic argument with a Historian, you'll get laughed at big time.

I would lay odds that you haven't got a History degree

Or a f*****ing clue!

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

That's wasn't paraphrased that was my explanation of the critique. Your history books are exactly critiqued in that way. The alpha course is written by a lawyer and scam I was interested by your opinion on it. I copied the life of Jesus part as I was interested in your opinion.

Why so aggressive in the discussion?

I didn't say we accept all History books I said we judge whether we accept texts based on 3 seprate variables. How long after the event the record is written, how old is the first record of it and how many copies we have.

Your history lecturers would be very content with that jack and scam. Ask them. Just cause it doesn't suit your hypothesis doesn't make out I 'haven't got a fickin clue' as you so maturely point out jack

So scam thoughts??

 

[TheRoyalScam]

That's wasn't paraphrased that was my explanation of the critique. Your history books are exactly critiqued in that way. The alpha course is written by a lawyer (so what?) and scam I was interested by your opinion on it. I copied the life of Jesus part as I was interested in your opinion. I think that you already know my opinion. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there probably was someone called Jesus, however he most probably wasn't the 'Son of God' or 'son of god'.

Why so aggressive in the discussion? I'm trying to be reasonable, not aggressive! I simply cannot accept your view that 'because it's written on various manuscripts/books it must be true'.

I didn't say we accept all History books Yes you did, and I quote: 'We accept the history books as fact even though they were written significantly after the events, we have very few copies and they date significantly after they were written.

I said we judge whether we accept texts based on 3 seprate variables. How long after the event the record is written, how old is the first record of it and how many copies we have. 'My Trip To Donegal with my Fire-breathing Dragon' was written contemporaneously, and is less than a year old. It has been published in three continents and translated into six languages. I've sold over 400,000 copies. By your argument, that makes it a very very truthful account indeed

Your history lecturers would be very content with that jack and scam. I doubt this very much. Ask them. Difficult - I'm 56 and graduated in 1979 Just cause it doesn't suit your hypothesis doesn't make out I 'haven't got a fickin clue' as you so maturely point out jack I'll let Jack answer this bit.

So scam thoughts??

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The dragon stuff isn't true. History books are or are not accepted on that context.

Writing on my phone so not as clear as I want. All history books are not accepted as fact but when those variables are used it can give you assistance as to which you trust and which you don't

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Unless you or anyone else can disprove it, my 'dragon stuff' is true. I'm disappointed that nobody has really challenged it. It's as true as your 'Son of God' story.

'History books are or are not accepted on that context.' What 'context' exactly?

Although you appear to have changed your stance somewhat, I agree in principle with your final sentence.

Unfortunately Scam's Taxi and shopping service means I have to go off-line.

I would like anybody to try to disprove my 'dragon stuff', and will answer questions/arguments/scientific theories about it later

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Ok there is no historical evidence that your dragon exists. He has not been seen, cannot be felt or experienced. There are no physical signs of him having existed, he has no followers who have written about his existence and there is no evidence of anyone's lives being touched of changed due to knowledge of him or in the way they live their lives.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Ok there is no historical evidence that your dragon exists. There is - I've written about it. He has not been seen I've already told you it's an invisible dragon, cannot be felt or experienced It lives in my garage so I certainly have experienced it, and Houch wants to visit when he's over from the IOW. There are no physical signs of him having existed It's quite an elusive dragon, however the fire-breathing tends to give it away sometimes, he has no followers who have written about his existence Haven't you read my posts? and there is no evidence of anyone's lives being touched of changed due to knowledge of him or in the way they live their lives Well my life has changed - I don't park in my garage anymore.

My dragon is as believable to me as your god is to you. However he is a kindly dragon - he doesn't threaten me with an eternity in hell if I don't believe in him, neither does he promise me with eternal salvation in heaven if I do believe in him. As far as I know he has never impregnated a virgin to produce a 'Son of Dragon' in our image, and has no intention of seeking 'followers'.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I thought you were interested in answering the questions properly

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I thought you were interested in answering the questions properly

I feel insulted. First of all you call my fire-breathing dragon facts 'dragon stuff'. Now you accuse me of not answering the questions properly. How are my answers not 'proper'?

 

[Houchens Head]

Just one question Pete: Were Mary & Joseph married? I ask this simply because, your bible says they were making their way to register in a census. If they were married, surely they would have consummated the marriage? If they weren't, then why did he just accept what she told him - that she was carrying the son of god? Was he a bit backward / naive / stupid? If my missus suddenly became pregnant like that, I would kick her out, even if she said she was expecting the "second coming"! It is physically and naturally IMPOSSIBLE to conceive a child without impregnation from a male sperm, whether by sex or IVF treatment. Please disprove!

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Do you really want me to answer? They weren't married but betrothed. Of course it's impossible and he walked away but was told in a dream it was ok. That's how I read it

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Scam. Ok. More than your evidence is required. In fact I want 500 eyewitnesses

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Do you really want me to answer? They weren't married but betrothed. Of course it's impossible and he walked away but was told in a dream it was ok. That's how I read it

Are you saying the virgin birth is/was 'impossible'??

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Scam. Ok. More than your evidence is required. In fact I want 500 eyewitnesses

I've told you it's an invisible dragon so 500 eyewitnesses seems very illogical to me.

I've told you it exists, yet you don't appear to believe me.

Anyway it's not down to me to prove its existence or provide evidence - it's up to you to disprove its existence. I don't think you can.

Imagine you're in my garage - surely you can think of a test to prove/disprove my fire-breathing dragon's existence?

 

[Jack Griffin]

That's wasn't paraphrased that was my explanation of the critique. Your history books are exactly critiqued in that way. The alpha course is written by a lawyer and scam I was interested by your opinion on it. I copied the life of Jesus part as I was interested in your opinion.

Why so aggressive in the discussion?

I didn't say we accept all History books I said we judge whether we accept texts based on 3 seprate variables. How long after the event the record is written, how old is the first record of it and how many copies we have.

Your history lecturers would be very content with that jack and scam. Ask them. Just cause it doesn't suit your hypothesis doesn't make out I 'haven't got a fickin clue' as you so maturely point out jack

So scam thoughts??

What history lecturers are those, I did my higher education in technical subjects mate, but I'm well read because I like to find things out for myself rather than relying on what I'm told or limited sources.

I was however friends with a reasonably noted historian (now alas no longer with us) who I learned a lot about historians and their professional jealousies from.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I've told you it's an invisible dragon so 500 eyewitnesses seems very illogical to me.

I've told you it exists, yet you don't appear to believe me.

Anyway it's not down to me to prove its existence or provide evidence - it's up to you to disprove its existence. I don't think you can.

Imagine you're in my garage - surely you can think of a test to prove/disprove my fire-breathing dragon's existence?

Help me I can only think of using my senses and you seem to find that funny or naive.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Help me I can only think of using my senses and you seem to find that funny or naive.

You've only used one sense - sight.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I used seen, felt it experienced. And yes I think In biblical times it would have been deemed impossible for a virgin birth. I know now you could argue ivf etc and also some species don't have male and female.

 

[Covstu]

Don't really believe in it myself but my mum is religious (not devout) and if that gets her through the day then all power to her and everyone in the same belief. There are that many variations of the 'truth' and the fact there is so many religions out there with their version of the 'truth' then not really buying the whole mysterious force who created the universe. There are amazing things in this world and beyond but shit just generally happens.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I used seen, felt it experienced. And yes I think In biblical times it would have been deemed impossible for a virgin birth. I know now you could argue ivf etc and also some species don't have male and female.

Is this directed at me? Or me and Houch? Did your god/God impregnate Mary or not? Can you disprove the existence of my fire-breathing dragon? I can assure you that I don't find anything 'funny or naive' - you are a genuine and honest poster on here, and there is no animosity on my part whatsoever.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Don't really believe in it myself but my mum is religious (not devout) and if that gets her through the day then all power to her and everyone in the same belief. There are that many variations of the 'truth' and the fact there is so many religions out there with their version of the 'truth' then not really buying the whole mysterious force who created the universe. There are amazing things in this world and beyond but shit just generally happens.

Of course the logical argument to the 'mysterious force who created the universe' as you very eloquently put it is 'What created the mysterious force?'

There are many many variations of religions, however there are only two 'gods' (or 'Gods') left for people to believe in.

(I'm not counting Zeus, Thor, Neptune or any 'ancient gods' here.)

I'm also not counting the Mormon version of the 'Christian God'.

I'm also not counting philosophies (Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and many others).

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Is this directed at me? Or me and Houch? Did your god/God impregnate Mary or not? Can you disprove the existence of my fire-breathing dragon? I can assure you that I don't find anything 'funny or naive' - you are a genuine and honest poster on here, and there is no animosity on my part whatsoever.

I believe god did impregnate Mary. I don't feel strongly about it, I did believe god could do what he wants but now I'm not so sure(bad liberal that I am) but I am still working that out.

Your dragon. Unless he can be seen, smelt, touched, tasted etc etc or unless he has been by many many others who can testify it then he is a figment of your imagination

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I believe god did impregnate Mary. I don't feel strongly about it, I did believe god could do what he wants but now I'm not so sure(bad liberal that I am) but I am still working that out.

Your dragon. Unless he can be seen, smelt, touched, tasted etc etc or unless he has been by many many others who can testify it then he is a figment of your imagination

Your god. Unless he can be seen, smelt, touched, tasted etc etc or unless he has been by many many others who can testify it then he is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Houchens Head]

Pete, you sound like a lovely bloke to know, but I'd give up the converting thing if I were you. It just ain't gonna work. I think a large proportion of people are of the same mind as me. God simply doesn't exist. He's a figment of an ancient world's imagination and that imagination had got out of control until the modern civilization managed to disprove the theory. Every "miracle" that your jesus supposed to have performed has been disproved by many modern illusionists. If jesus actually existed, then I believe he was a very gifted magician and illusionist who managed to fool the simple people of his day. Remember, those people believed anything - that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, you could tell the future via the planets, toads cured warts and "witches" were burnt at the stake.

 

[Houchens Head]

I think I might have seen a Unicorn once. It was walking along a beach looking at a mermaid (a common sight in these parts).

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Your god. Unless he can be seen, smelt, touched, tasted etc etc or unless he has been by many many others who can testify it then he is a figment of your imagination.

I agree absolutely. I suppose I would add if his teachings and life are not seen in mine and many others which is why one of the most full proofs of gods lack of existence is the shit done in his name.

But still I will trust in my creator

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Ah houchen the gift of enlightenment and one that I think is being found wanting.

Honestly not trying to convert. Think maybe but not convert and that includes me thinking too.

Bloody boring talking and debating with people who see things the way you do Isn't it? How does one grow then?

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I agree absolutely. I suppose I would add if his teachings and life are not seen in mine and many others which is why one of the most full proofs of gods lack of existence is the shit done in his name.

But still I will trust in my creator

Ah scam the gift of enlightenment and one that I think is being found wanting.

Honestly not trying to convert. Think maybe but not convert and that includes me thinking too.

Bloody boring talking and debating with people who see things the way you do Isn't it? How does one grow then?

I think using your mobile/tap-a-talk/predictive text is letting you down. You come across as a genuine and utterly honest guy, and I've always appreciated your posts on here.

To summarize, you are honest enough to say that your god is a 'figment of your imagination', however you believe it/he is the ultimate 'creator' and you trust in it/him. (You 'have faith'.)

You state that there is 'shit done in his name' - war, murder, paedophilia, misogyny, homophobia, and countless other crimes against humanity.

'Ah scam the gift of enlightenment and one that I think is being found wanting.' I can't quite understand your argument here. Are you saying that by not believing in your god then people are missing the 'gift of enlightenment'?

I agree that you aren't trying to convert or be in any way evangelistic (unlike the Alpha programme and countless others). I will admit to providing a link to the BHA site because I want people to see if they are humanists - whether this is 'conversion' or not is open to debate - they either are or they're not

You have responded to my philosophical 'fire-breathing dragon' questions in the spirit of your phrase '...and that includes me thinking too.' (Not sure if I'm correct in my assumption here.)

I hope that in your penultimate sentence you're promoting debating with people who see things differently to you, which you've obviously been doing with me.

I'm a humanist. To answer your final question: I believe we 'grow' by questioning, debating, thinking and analysing.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Pete, you sound like a lovely bloke to know, but I'd give up the converting thing if I were you. It just ain't gonna work. I think a large proportion of people are of the same mind as me. God simply doesn't exist. He's a figment of an ancient world's imagination and that imagination had got out of control until the modern civilization managed to disprove the theory. Every "miracle" that your jesus supposed to have performed has been disproved by many modern illusionists. If jesus actually existed, then I believe he was a very gifted magician and illusionist who managed to fool the simple people of his day. Remember, those people believed anything - that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, you could tell the future via the planets, toads cured warts and "witches" were burnt at the stake.

There is so much truth in this post

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Could also be my poor English scam.

I am saying the enlightenment in 19th century Western Europe was the time when society decided that all questions could be answered logically and rationally and we are still in this post enlightenment era and I think this presumption has been found wanting. There are some things we cannot explain, may not always be the case.

I don't think I accepted my god is a figment of my imagination but ultimately faith is the step that is required. I absolutely accept that the crap done in gods name is awful and terribly bad 'pr'.

And yes I absolutely love talking to others who have different perspectives. Thanks scam

Absolutely agree with your final phrase. No other way to grow

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Perhaps a good time to close this thread my friend.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Can I end it with god bless and see you at the Ricoh

 

[limoncello]

I'm a humanist. To answer your final question: I believe we 'grow' by questioning, debating, thinking and analysing.

Why do humanists put such faith in Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Why do you feel the need to identify yourselves as belonging to an organisation? Why can't you just be normal atheists? I may be wrong but you lot just seem to have replaced having faith in one group with having faith in another, both of which lack scientific credence.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Why do humanists put such faith in Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I don't know, and I'm not sure that they do - what's your opinion on this? Why do you feel the need to identify yourselves as belonging to an organisation? I can't speak for all humanists, however it's the easiest way for me to describe my own philosophy. Why can't you just be normal atheists? What is a 'normal' atheist, in your opinion? Yes I'm an atheist, however I also believe in the general positive philosophies of Humanism. I may be wrong but you lot just seem to have replaced having faith in one group with having faith in another, both of which lack scientific credence. I'm sure the eminent scientists who are humanists would be more able to argue this point with you than I could. Personally I don't regard Humanism as a 'faith', more a philosophy.