Originally posted by Splinemodel
Since you haven't even attempted to provide any sort of theories -- even crackpot theories -- I have nothing to go by other than a claim that you can crash the AI server. But before I go further, I will mention that, like me, you began your retort with a disclaimer. It's the sort of thing I have to do these days because it's still chic to play the "bigot card" as a viable means of debate.
well, put it another way, if you get stopped by the police for speeding
and you get out the car, throw your arms around and start yelling "I didn't rob the store"...well I wan't calling you a bigot, and neither was anyone else.
I'm not sure why you are so defensive, though. If I touched a nerve I apologize, since I know I wasn't descriptive enough: by "Listen" I meant "Cool down and consider..." If I wanted to be authoritative I might have used "See, ..."
See, i was just ribbin you anyway!
I'm glad that you notice that history is written by the victorious. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing -- merely Darwinian.
Listen, the true account of history is not dependant upon who was the fittest, strongest or most vocal in persuading others that their account is true.
Now, no-one is debating that Christians came out the winners after the fall of Romanity, what is up for discussion though is whether their account of what happened for the next 1000 years is what they claim it to be.
You seem to recognise that Rome was in decline, which for a large part had nothing to do with Christianity, at least until Constantine took power.
Yet ask the average Christian how Rome fell, and they'll tell you wonderful stories about how Paul was thrown in prison for his teaching, how Nero set light to thousands of them, how they were thrown to the lions for sport, etc etc, yet they kept their faith, nerve and virtue and overcome a ruthless culture and destroyed it, bringing a ray of light to an evil pagan world.
No doubt, you can imagine that I think that this account is a pile of steaming.
Here is the account, as I see it. Needless to say, this is overly simplified to make it consise and not take down the server.
Paul never existed anyway. The life, and letters of Paul, come from one called Apollonius. I'm sure as you've studied this topic enough to debate it with some honesty, that you will know all about Apollonius and Paul. If not, consider what is written at this link.http://www.geocities.com/nephilimnot...of_tyanna.html
Personally, I believe that Apollonius was Paul, but I have also read evidence to the contrary, so I can't claim to know this 100%. Also be aware, that upon further study of Apollonius, you will find that many things attributed to him, clearly lie in the realm of miracles and mythology, So as often happens, a real history is overlaid with glorification and wonders. I could even found the case that the entire life of Apollonius is fiction, based on someone earlier, who this is I havn't yet found out.
But the point, is that to have a serious debate, you have to have read and understand *all* the evidence, regardless of wether you believe it or not.
No doubt, you believe quite literally, as most Christians do that Paul was Paul and the account is the literal truth. Sadly, you can only arrive at that point, if you refuse to do the homework, and speak from a position of ignorance and arrogance.
As it is with Nero. Nero was a tyrant, but the Christians were not even on his radar.
Yes, a few Christians might have been thrown to the lions, but so were vastly more non-Christians.
Christians claim they were persecuted for their beliefs. That doesn't hold with the fact that documents exist that show the Emperors and govenors discussing how to deal with this minor supersticious cult, and deciding to be tolerant of them, which is something Rome endorced throught the empire regardless of belief, because it made their occupations much easier. Infact, upon conquering, many of the beliefs and teachings of other religions filtered back into the native Roman religion.
Yes, some Christians were executed, but they were executed not for their beliefs, but because their actions clearly put them in the frame for criminal activities - if you look you can find that some were executed, because they held such a morbid perverse view of life, practically asking for themselves to be made martyrs, that Rome just fulfilled their wishes, solely because they found such contempt for life to be distasteful.
Now you might not believe a word of that, but evidence for such exists - regardless of whose evidence is right or wrong, the honest thing to do if you want an honest debate, is to study all of it.
Let me suggest, that the Christian version exists, not as an account of true history, but as a parable of the challenges you will face when becoming a Christian - and a way to give you hope and courage when you face people....like me.
But there have been enough battles that it's not statistically likely that Judeo-Christian-influenced western culture is a loser masquerading as a winner.
Its the winner masquerading as the truth. No one doubt Christianity emerged victorius, just their account of how it came to be.
I suppose that when a big winner fades away, you get a dark age.
Christianity was the big winner though, so why did we get a dark age when they won?
It is less ancillary, though, to question your position that my hypothesis (which is of course hypothetical) is "extremely inaccurate," or that I am merely "lazy" and am defending a faith made of swiss cheese. First off, if I were lazy, I wouldn't be arguing with you, and secondly, you have no knowledge of my faith (or lack thereof) and hence are not prepared to make a mockery of anything.
well, you gave away so many clues - and ignoring the Christian aspects of this discussion, you dropped a couple of complete clangers that give away your understanding of the topic/
If you had definitive evidence there is no god, I would first ask you how I could build a device that turns a square wave into a sinusoid with peak-to-peak gain, since you would certainly have had discovered these things on your way to discovering all the secrets of the universe. The bonus would be that I know I can't comprehend the secrets of the universe, but I could certainly make a killing with that device.
do you want to go for it analog or digital.?
Sugestion, put the square wave through a very narrow Band Pass filter and wire the output back to the input to create resonance. Flatten the rejected frequencies (energy) from the BPF with a bridge rectifier to provide power for the transistor. Assuming you dont tap the output of the sinewave, you should have created a sinewave with a higher peak to peak, but lower overall energy than the incoming square.
Ofcourse, I could be talking out my crack
Getting back to the strict topic, I can accept that history has been grisly. I don't see why that's relevant. Would it have been other-than-grisly should religion have not existed? Probably not.
You're giving me the impression that you only refer to a valid religion as 'Christianity', and all other forms of worship or philosophy just dont exist, or are just athiest.
There are plenty of things to fight over that have no religious context. You also try to derail me by hinting that appauling deeds have been commited in the name of the God and the Church. I happen to be aware of such events, and I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Again, there's no evidence that similar events would not have happened if religion did not exist. Since time didn't pass the way you indicate you would have prefered, trying to show that history would have been better without religion is no less difficult than proving that there is no god.
its just insanity what you're saying. Various religions took us from cave dwellers to highly advanced, functioning democracies - like the greeks. Because of the Gods, not despite them. What Im stressing, is that the Church after it formed went about the process of intentionally destroying all the progress humans had made over thousands of years, because it misunderstood (not likely but hey!) just exactly the meaning of what it had inherited. The people in the early church were psychotics, madmen.
I've stressed that this period lasted 1000 years, of which during this time, virtually nothing notable came out of the western world under christianity's rule. The only things Christianity did well was making torture devices. I've said this changed in the renaissance, when people rejected this cruel barbarism, and started to rebuild the knowledge they'd lost.
Renaissance means rebirth. Humanity had died under Christendom, and was reborn only when rejecting the fundamentalism. Of course, under this era, the church reluctantly began to change aswell, so you find examples of Christianity benefitting society and helping to shape it - As you claim.
Again, that is simply that I disagree that history would have been better without religion.
Again, Christianity is not the only valid religion, and given the evidence of how utterly devastating the first 1000 years of Christian rule was, its almost bordering on insanity to suggest that it would have been no better, or worse during this period if Christianity didn't exist.
What if the Romans had not embraced Christianity at all? Everything would have played out very differently from then on.
What if a form of Greek philosophy and religion had reformed. What if the library of Alexandria had not been torched by the Pope?
To make one final example, the theme that it's hazardous to assume how other, dissimilar people think is common in many works of western literature, not the least of which is Paradise Lost. I mention this because it's an example of philosophically relevant work, heavily influenced by both Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman thinking: in other words, it's very western. Despite being very dull, it does present some positive concepts that would not likely have existed without religion.
The best thing you could do, is just spend a few months looking at greek culture and religion, and wonder where all this beauty and spirituality, knowledge and wisdom went.
Now for argumentally unrelated and perhaps ill-advised part:
Faith is not new to me, nor is it emotional. I believe in God because the universe is too great (infinite, actually) for me to assume that there is no god. I believe in the Christian interpretation because it's the only one I'm aware of that offers ascension and vast knowledge as a reward for nothing more than simple, self-recognition of one's own insignificance. Buddhism is interesting too, but it's inferior because it is confined to the human conciousness.
Well, there you go, I couldn't care less if you believe in God. Great! well done! Say 'hello' from me, the sinner over in the corner!.
However, why does belief in God, numb one to finding out the truth about what really happened? Surely a genuine belief in God requires you to seek out truth, however nasty it could turn out to be.
and yours is definitely thrasymacan in delivery.
thanks!:devil well whatever dude.
I've been around long enough to know that both you and Segovius have a lot of quality knowledge in the areas of religion, but I have been extremely underwhelmed by your philosophical deliveries and capacities for rational analysis.
I'd probably only want to give that sort of credit to Seg.
See, the problem is, firstly, i dont research this stuff (anymore) specifically to argue about it with you or others, sometimes it just crops up in discussion and thus I make my little contribution!
secondly, Its very easy, when you have a very narrow viewpoint (not saying you in particular) - lets suppose it is "Believe in Jesus and you will be saved - screw everything else - it comes from Satan" - easy to have a clear, consise, rational, philosophically pleasing debate, because there is nothing to consider.
Now, considering I don't make notes, draw diagrams, catalogue/index my materials for easy reference, i dont practise talking points, there isn't a website I know of that has a list of cute answers to give to people who don't agree with me (like the hundreds there are for Christianity) I've even deleted all my bookmarks (thousands of them!) recently, and decided to start afresh...well, what Im saying is that everything I type comes straight from memory. I dont even plan my next sentance, and English wasn't a favourite subject of mine at school. Im holding thousands of memories of evidence, many contradictory POV's and try to evaluate it all to give a fair and honest opinion of what I think the truth is, even if you think Im biased. Well of course I am, im biased to finding out the truth, If you or anyone else can provide a better explanation that explains more of this mystery, i'd be biased to accept that.
If it comes out garbled and spidery, im sorry, its just the way it has to be.
As far as I can tell, you made this thread so that you could masturbate each other over it, and for no other purpose.
well, seeing as I find that extremely funny, i'll promise to you, that the next time that naughty Segovius derails my thread about Cosmology with God, I'll spank his little bottom.
BTW, you might also contemplate, if you think were in bed together, that most of the opinions about divinity Segovius and myself hold are further apart than any other two posters on this board - You try telling him why God isn't the highest principle