May 21st. Still here. - Page 9

So the point is that you now understand that historical proof and scientific proof aren't the same so rather than address that, you'll repeat yourself and act rude and dismissive.

Understood and noted as unpersuasive.

"God", because it doesn't have ANY of those items.

trumptman, you said:


But we don't. You were talking shit, and now you've decided to argue that historical proof and scientific proof makes a difference trying to settle something.

Proof is proof. That is my point. Facts are facts, and myth is myth.

Are you arguing from stupidity or intellectual dishonesty?

I am arguing on the internet with a Christian, Rapture-believing fundamentalist who believes that there's as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for the existence of Julius Caesar, at which point I have to stop because I'm wasting my time.

Let's start with a small one.You are saying the Jewish people never built a Temple and declared that God inhabited that Temple. There was never in a room in that Temple and the room wasn't a place specifically declare the place into which you would walk and encounter God.

Is this what you are saying because historical fact says you are wrong.

Of course they built that crap... and they still do ... but no-one has ever shown evidence that "God" actually showed up in that room.

There are also many other religions around the world that build temples to DIFFERENT gods... obviously (per Biblical teaching) they can't ALL be right ... they must all (except the christians, of course) be building temples to gods that don't exist.
...but... If that's the case, then a thinking person would have to admit that there's a possibility that the christian's god ALSO does NOT exist???


I could go out in my yard right now and build a building with a "special room" where I could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will talk to you within that room.... In that case, of COURSE I built the "temple" (or even thousands of them built by like-minded folks all over the world) ... no argument there ... but the existence of those "temples" is NOT proof that the FSM actually exists.

Hell... I could get millions of people all over the world to erect trees (either real or plastic) in their living rooms at each winter solstice with the understanding that Santa Clause will magically appear that night and leave them wonderful gifts. This could go on for hundreds of years, all over the globe. BUT THE EXISTENCE OF THAT PRACTICE IS NOT PROOF THAT SANTA CLAUSE IS REAL, VIRGINIA!

Just one question. Do you deny the existence of Jesus of Nazereth?

While Jesus might easily have existed, as a human... his claims of deity are preposterous at best, based on the lack of supporting evidence.

Was he possibly crucified by the romans... maybe even at the behest of the jewish leadership?... entirely possible... not much different than politics today.
Did he "rise from the dead" 3 days later?... No... it would have been a much bigger deal... it would have been mentioned all over the place in writings of the time... not limited to the writings of a couple of his close friends... only to be "discovered" long after their deaths.

Sorry, but Jesus as a person... entirely possible.
Jesus as a deity... No. There's just nothing to support that claim.

KingOfSomewhereHot, are you really suggesting that all writing concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ was done by a "couple of his close friends", and that such writings are only contained in what is commonly referred to today as "The Holy Bible"?

The point is to understand what is being discussed and move it from a falsifiable experiement to historical evidence. In such an area the number of pieces that actually verify a person, book or anything else is surprisingly small but the same skepticism isn't applied. Someone like yourself wouldn't walk up to someone and declare they should treat Julius Caesar like the Flying Spagetti Monster.

There clearly is plenty of historic evidence for people in the Bible and many of their actions. The evidence is no less sketchy than any other person or place in that similar period. The point is when you get down to it, there are people with their viewpoints about how places were run, how people acted and their motivations for what happened. They may be right or wrong because it's just an informed guess based on small snippets of information. It is a different type of proof and a different standard to meet. It isn't dropping a feather and a steel ball in a vacuum chamber.

Can you think all these millions of people, their actions and what they have attested to over centuries are just deranged idiots who make shit up? Of course you can think that. Can someone speculate that Lincoln or Napoleon was gay? Sure they can. We can't travel back in time and we can't travel into the future. It is all speculation to some degree.

What isn't in this area is indisputable fact and thus if you don't agree with the speculation in one instance you are an ignorant turd and someone else is an enlightened overlord who gets to deny you participation.

Falsifiably define the works of Shakespeare.

So... you are acknowledging that the concept of "divinity" falls into the same category as works of fiction? ... Finally!... You're starting to get it !

Was not interested in whether you thought he was the son of G-d or not. Just if you thought he lived. Wanted to know how far your historical bias went as far as what is real and what is not. That's all.

I wasn't aware that claiming Shakespeare wrote many works was a fiction.

I wish I could just stridently declare things and then fall back to cartoonish thinking with pretty pictures.

Life must be so simple for some.

Really sorry Nvidia. I've been engrossed in a project at work and haven't had time to post.

We should be about done by Friday. I'll put a post together in the next couple of days.

No worries. When you have time.


You highlight two important things which have actually shaped my current spiritual path, most easily explained as Gnosis.

I grew up in a city where Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Confucianism, Taoism, "Pure" Buddhism, Hinduism and more can all be found within a few square miles. Things have changed since then as it moves towards being a Muslim nation. Still, my memories from my childhood were quite clear. Also, in my family, to this day, dad is a Hindu and mum is a Christian. Some aunts and uncles on my mum's side were Confucianists, and get this, some family on my dad's side actually follow a Hindu sect/cult which one of my other Hindu aunts complained was deviant.

So the first thing is, obviously, people believe in one or many Gods. Are these the same Gods, are some real, some not? After some time I realise I've always moved towards monotheism, since, how can there be more than one supreme etc. being? Do they favour Muslims or Christians? Do they argue among themselves, and as such are humans are mere playthings to them? Didn't jive with me. To me, clearly, it's one same Divine. Whatever, however, whomever, whenever one chooses to interact with it is well, the stuff of debates raging for millennia. But to me, it's just one same "entity".

The second thing is, proof. Gnosis is based on the idea of "to know". That is, no one told you, maybe they hinted to you or tried to teach you, but you have "to know" within you. If you don't believe it, then you don't. If or when you believe it, then you do. Some say this is a cop out because one does not apply standards of Science and logical thought to the issue. But what I feel of the nature of spirituality is to not try and argue with Science. Faith is different. Some have tried to reconcile the two but I don't think it is possible at this stage. The beauty of Gnosis is summed up actually by Morpheus in the Matrix. "Not everyone believes what you believe, Morpheus", to which Morpheus replies, "My beliefs do not require them to".