So that's it for the election.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Prove it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know where you think you read this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. There are a dozen sources that reference Jesus during his lifetime and the immediate aftermath, including non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus both discussed Jesus extensively. We're as sure Jesus existed as we are sure about essentially anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It's also, again, extremely condescending to say that people believe in religion "because their parents told them to or they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives." You're less intelligent, less rational, and less fulfilled than a great number of people that believe in religion. That's not an insult, it's a fact -- and it goes for everyone else on here, too, so don't worry about it. There are verifiable geniuses, including scientific geniuses, that believe in the existence of a god. It's not because they haven't considered the notion that, hey, maybe there isn't one. It's not because their mom and dad told them to and they can't shake it after 50+ years. It's not because they can't handle the idea of a life without a god. You talk about remarkably intelligent adults like you're their all-knowing parent. Respect viewpoints other than your own.

Why do they believe, then? Because it is a logical belief. Because it is entirely rational to believe in the existence of a creator. The only life humans have ever been able to prove exists has come from other life. We've even created new life ourselves. Since all existing evidence has shown that life comes from other life, it is entirely rational to believe that there was a proto life form that birthed all the others. The image of that life form differs greatly, but that doesn't mark illogic. Many scientists believe life began on Earth with organic monomers condensing into polymers. There is no evidence for this, but they believe it -- because it had to start somewhere. What's the difference between believing in an infinitely simple organic polymer jump starting the evolution of life on Earth and an infinitely complex life form birthing the building blocks of life in the universe? Why is one more likely than the other? Because one adheres more easily to our 150 year old theory of evolution? The arrogance of humans is astounding to me sometimes. We've been kicking around this theory for a few generations in the midst of a 13+ billion year old universe and we think we've got a handle on it now. Yup, must've been ooze. Done and done. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain telling you that if we're assuming the spontaneous formation of complex polymers constituting life, then we may as well assume the spontaneous existence of any form of life. Neither has a basis in known science. We've tried to create organic polymers from monomers by replicating the early period of the Earth -- doesn't work.

Anyway, religion and god are very different. Believing that Mary was a virgin is much closer to bordering on the irrational. That's not to say it's not possible, because it is. But the canon of organized religion is often "irrational" without granting the initial conceit that a god exists in the image of that religion. Believing in a god, or a creator of some type, is very different and entirely rational. But if you're granting the rationality of a god, then you should be willing to grant the rationality of a few of the more common images of god. You don't need to grant that he was an interstellar conqueror named Xenu, but the image of a personal god is rational enough. If there were a personal god, it would be conceivable that he would try to impact mankind -- possibly via a messenger. Etc, etc. You can keep going down this road forever. But the genesis of it all is a belief in a creator -- which is objectively rational, even if it may ultimately be untrue.

Josephus wrote well after the supposed life and death of Jesus Christ and Tacitus wrote more than a generation later. Moreover, possibilities for introducing later artifacts into both texts such as interpolation are widely disputed even among Christian Bible scholars! Your proof is just as weak as trying to cite the Bible itself. Please, bring up the shroud, I beg you!

I presented my opinion on why people follow religions, and I prefaced it by saying "it seems." There is nothing fallacious in my statements. Yours, however, are defensive and full of supposition. You attempt to reinforce those beliefs by proclaiming that bigger, smarter, faster people also have those beliefs, which is an example of both false authority and ad populum. It doesn't mean shit if you can find an example of a Nobel-winning scientist who goes to church. There are any number of reasons to espouse belief besides actually believing in Dyēus ph2ter the sky god.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If atheists come in a lot of varieties it includes "cults" with dogma.

Real atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You start corrupting the term when you invoke belief that their are no gods since you can not prove a negative. At this point we have not been able to prove 100% the origin of the universe.

You were also incorrect about the existence of jesus and buddha. Buddha was a real hindu who started his own teachings on hinduism. He is revered but not a god.

The other forms of "atheism" are generally not true atheism.

Look it up. Search for historicity on any of those religious figures. They completely fall apart. No artifacts, no birth records, nothing.

In sharp contrast, we know exactly where Santa Claus was born, where he lived, where he died, where he died, where he was buried, where he was moved to, and where his mortal remains are now. I'm going to visit Santa's grave some day.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No not, trolling. How is the constituion being eviscerated?

You're very smart. How can you say it's not, especially since 9/11? It's a given that the US has been moving toward fascism for a long time, and that the constitution and individual rights have been bled to death. Maybe not an evisceration, but surely a hemorrhage.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're very smart. How can you say it's not, especially since 9/11? It's a given that the US has been moving toward fascism for a long time, and that the constitution and individual rights have been bled to death. Maybe not an evisceration, but surely a hemorrhage.

The constitution has been ammended many times before?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

How is a wiki page about someones' .... belief structure..... proof?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look it up. Search for historicity on any of those religious figures. They completely fall apart. No artifacts, no birth records, nothing.

In sharp contrast, we know exactly where Santa Claus was born, where he lived, where he died, where he died, where he was buried, where he was moved to, and where his mortal remains are now. I'm going to visit Santa's grave some day.

Do you claim no one named Siddharta Buddha or Jesus Christ existed in those times? There is no need to prove buddha's existence he isnt a transcendent deity.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The constitution has been ammended many times before?

Who needs amendments when you have executive agreements and international treaties?

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you claim no one named Siddharta Buddha or Jesus Christ existed in those times? There is no need to prove buddha's existence he isnt a transcendent deity.

No, I'm not trying to prove a negative. I'm saying there is no tangible evidence that either of them ever existed. Siddhartha was supposedly a prince, too, yet nothing--no inscriptions, no contemporary statues, no records. Muhammad has the same situation, despite being contemporary to Santa!

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who needs amendments when you have executive agreements and international treaties?

Oooo give some examples !


@ Alawen, there are no records for the vast majority of people who existed. If he was a prince who knows, that is the story, but jesus walked on water too so meh.

The point is moot esp since it has nothing to do with Mitt Romney wearing special underwear to protect him from the lake of fire.