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!
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
I would lay odds that you haven't got a History degree
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 1979Just 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??
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.
I thought you were interested in answering the questions properly
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
Scam. Ok. More than your evidence is required. In fact I want 500 eyewitnesses
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??
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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? 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?