How Many T-Men Believe in God?

ZEB · July 3, 2007, 7:44pm

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Zeb, you neither know who the real authors of the Bible were nor what really happened to the individuals who were supposedly Jesus’ apostles. You are just taking for granted that what is stated in the Bible about these characters is correct. In the process you are just proving how unbelievable Christianity really is. [/quote]

You might want to acquaint yourself with the book that you are trying to debate.

There are a couple of accounts of the death of Jesus disciples in the Bible. However, the majority of the information that I posted did not come from the Bible as it is not there.

The fact is these people were historical figures and there was much written about some of them.

I don’t know of anyone who actually denies the existence of someone like Paul for example.

He was a man who lived, just like someone like Plato lived. You can call Paul a liar, a nut, or accept his word for what he heard and saw. But denying that he lived is ludicrous!

Do I have to post the various historical web sites? I’ve never heard of using footnotes on a message board, but it could be done in this case.

I think that some atheists take this whole “God does not exist” thing to a ridiculous level. If you want to assume that God does not exist that is your choice.

But to say that Jesus Christ did not exist. And then to actually have the audacity to say that Paul (and the others) did not exist.

Forgive me but that’s just foolish.

Adamsson · July 3, 2007, 8:03pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not.

How many men died because they swore beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did in fact see it?

None?

Oh okay.

“they believed it, therefore it has to be true” is still not a valid argument. Thousand of norse vikings did the same for Thor, thousands of muslims did and do the same for Allah, that effectively removes every impact your faulty logica could have had.

Now go preach to the choir, we prefer logic, not “faith is correct because my faith says so”

Your logic if very illogical.

According to your rules of logic not one person would ever be proven guilty in a court of law. According to you we can’t take anyone’s word for anything. Testimony of another individual in your land of logic is not admissible.

You’re not very logical.

[/quote]

Wrong… But the fact is that if I sit myself down in a courtroom and tell the jury that I did not kill the victim, but God, and I get 2-3 Christian Identity freaks to testify for me… that won’t make me a free man.

Your analogy sucks and you have yet to prove gods existance in any way.

Adamsson · July 3, 2007, 8:05pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
new2training wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not.

How many men died because they swore beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did in fact see it?

None?

Oh okay.

Throughout history, many people have died for many different faiths and beliefs.

Yes they have. And why did they die?

They died because they believed what they saw and heard and would not recant even under the penalty of a tortuous death.

Did they die because they were liars? Did they twist the truth in order to meet an untimely death?

Nope.

Now that would not be logical.

[/quote]

Again you seem to confuse “I believe this so hard that i would die for it” with “this is true”.

Those aren’t synonymous… ok?

Secondly, if all the monotheist and polytheist religions (since they all have supporters that suffer and die) are true… does that not pose kind of a… coherence problem?

new2training · July 3, 2007, 8:22pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But others read these threads and that is my audience.

[/quote]

Fair enough. I enjoy the debate. For what it is worth I think you do an admirable job presenting your case.

My only point, which I think you acknowledge, is that you will lose the debate as long as empiracle evidence is the ruler by which your argument is measured.

Peace

Lorisco · July 3, 2007, 8:32pm

[quote]orion wrote:
My point is, if you combine everything I wrote, that people tend to believe weird stuff, because of the way their brain is wired.

What they believe in, originally, is more or less a product of chance, what they will believe after millenia of cultural competition is yet another thing.

It all starts somewhere and then an evolutionary selection kicks in.

Your ability to enjoy certain ideas spiritually is probably no different than the ability to enjoy music or plant particles that mimic endorphines, but we build quite elaborated ideas and structures around it, because we are a culture building species and probably can`t help it.

Maybe if people say that a symphony is divine they unconsciously refer to the music as audio candy/porn, which is what religion could be on an idea level.
[/quote]

I agree with you. But I also believe that these “traits” fit much better in a supreme being model than evolution. It does seem that functional in terms of survival of the fittest.

new2training · July 3, 2007, 8:38pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Did they die because they were liars? Did they twist the truth in order to meet an untimely death?

Nope.

Now that would not be logical.
[/quote]

People are very illogical at times.

Also, Spiritual/Religious causes have always attracted megalomaniacs and delusional followers.

David Koresh and his followers come to mind.

Osama Bin Laden and the 911 terrorists come to mind.

You cannot argue that just because someone dies for their beliefs, that means their beliefs were right or justified.

They don’t have to be liars, just delusional or wrong.

Lorisco · July 3, 2007, 8:39pm

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Your blind devotion to a system you don’t really understand is encouraging. At least it demonstrates that you can and do live by faith, even if that faith is in the intellect of others.

There is a number of ways to look at the evidence, but since you mentioned evolution, I will start there.

Evolution is a process that is part of a system that current cannot be explained. In other terms, evolution is a theory (not actually proven, but has not be disproved, so that is good enough for modern science) developed to explain the origins of man inside of an ecosystem that cannot be explained. Meaning that evolution tells us how the pieces might have gone together, but not where the puzzle board and pieces came from and how they stayed orderly for billions of years.

I personally think evolution is a good theory, but the fact that it totally ignores the orderly system in place that allows it to be feasible is its downfall.

So the biggest evidence for a higher power is in fact evolution.

There is currently no rational explanation for such an orderly and systematic system to exist that would allow evolution to occur. As such, any explanation outside of what we can validate must be given equal validity. Which means, the possibility that a higher power set this system in place that allows evolution is just as feasible as two big pieces of matter (never mind where it came from as asking that question will get you kicked out of science class) banging together and landing in the exact spot required for human life ï¿½?? and staying that way for billions for years. Both cannot be disproved and both take a large leap of faith.

You are wrong
You know obviously nothing about evolution
You are wrong.

"There is currently no rational explanation for such an orderly and systematic system to exist that would allow evolution to occur. "

you mean:

“with my EXTREMELY LIMITED knowledge, I MYSELF cannot UNDERSTAND the system i talk about”

[/quote]

Wow dude, that was a great rebuttal! You must have been a terror on your high school debate team.

But I guess you have proven my point. Your faith in science is based on you belief in who is telling you the information, not that you actually know the information or clearly understand it’s limitations.

So congratulation, you’ve got religion!

Adamsson · July 3, 2007, 8:56pm

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Your blind devotion to a system you don’t really understand is encouraging. At least it demonstrates that you can and do live by faith, even if that faith is in the intellect of others.

There is a number of ways to look at the evidence, but since you mentioned evolution, I will start there.

Evolution is a process that is part of a system that current cannot be explained. In other terms, evolution is a theory (not actually proven, but has not be disproved, so that is good enough for modern science) developed to explain the origins of man inside of an ecosystem that cannot be explained. Meaning that evolution tells us how the pieces might have gone together, but not where the puzzle board and pieces came from and how they stayed orderly for billions of years.

I personally think evolution is a good theory, but the fact that it totally ignores the orderly system in place that allows it to be feasible is its downfall.

So the biggest evidence for a higher power is in fact evolution.

There is currently no rational explanation for such an orderly and systematic system to exist that would allow evolution to occur. As such, any explanation outside of what we can validate must be given equal validity. Which means, the possibility that a higher power set this system in place that allows evolution is just as feasible as two big pieces of matter (never mind where it came from as asking that question will get you kicked out of science class) banging together and landing in the exact spot required for human life ï¿½?? and staying that way for billions for years. Both cannot be disproved and both take a large leap of faith.

You are wrong
You know obviously nothing about evolution
You are wrong.

"There is currently no rational explanation for such an orderly and systematic system to exist that would allow evolution to occur. "

you mean:

“with my EXTREMELY LIMITED knowledge, I MYSELF cannot UNDERSTAND the system i talk about”

Wow dude, that was a great rebuttal! You must have been a terror on your high school debate team.

But I guess you have proven my point. Your faith in science is based on you belief in who is telling you the information, not that you actually know the information or clearly understand it’s limitations.

So congratulation, you’ve got religion!

[/quote]

“Evolution is a process that is part of a system that current cannot be explained. In other terms, evolution is a theory (not actually proven, but has not be disproved, so that is good enough for modern science)”

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Gould:

“Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.”

You ARE wrong, I don’t know how to say that more eloquently to be honest. You show a very limited knowledge about science in general and evolution spesific. You don’t even seem to grasp the difference between “fact” and “theory” and how those words are used differently in daily speak and in science. You have yet to show to any facts or any serious arguments, you just make bold claims, that are wrong, without any reasoning behind them or documentation of any kind.

You might try to make smug comments and act all cool, but you know nothing about me, nothing about my level of knowledge when it comes to evolutionary theory and you seem to me as a completely uneducated fool that makes bold claims which he is unable to back up.

If you think you can argue Gould’s points, Harris’ points or Dawkin’s points (“Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.”)
… go ahead. But making bold claims without any form of reasoning or any form of backing up… and THEN trying to act like a little brat… Please… grow up.

ZEB · July 3, 2007, 9:06pm

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not.

How many men died because they swore beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did in fact see it?

None?

Oh okay.

“they believed it, therefore it has to be true” is still not a valid argument. Thousand of norse vikings did the same for Thor, thousands of muslims did and do the same for Allah, that effectively removes every impact your faulty logica could have had.

Now go preach to the choir, we prefer logic, not “faith is correct because my faith says so”

Your logic if very illogical.

According to your rules of logic not one person would ever be proven guilty in a court of law. According to you we can’t take anyone’s word for anything. Testimony of another individual in your land of logic is not admissible.

You’re not very logical.

Wrong… But the fact is that if I sit myself down in a courtroom and tell the jury that I did not kill the victim, but God, and I get 2-3 Christian Identity freaks to testify for me… that won’t make me a free man.[/quote]

Funny stuff. But two or three eye witnesses testifying that you did in fact kill the victim could get you a life long jail sentence, or maybe the chair in some states.

That’s how powerful eye witness testimony is. And that’s how much our legal system respects it.

And do you know why?

Because it’s logical!

ZEB · July 3, 2007, 9:11pm

[quote]new2training wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Did they die because they were liars? Did they twist the truth in order to meet an untimely death?

Nope.

Now that would not be logical.

People are very illogical at times.

Also, Spiritual/Religious causes have always attracted megalomaniacs and delusional followers.

David Koresh and his followers come to mind.

Osama Bin Laden and the 911 terrorists come to mind.

You cannot argue that just because someone dies for their beliefs, that means their beliefs were right or justified.

They don’t have to be liars, just delusional or wrong.[/quote]

That might be a good argument if the character of the leader of the organization is dealing in various nefarious activities.

You can know the leader by knowing who is following that person and vice versa.

In the case of Jesus Christ all he did was good.

He taught, preached and healed many.

His followers were also blessed to be able to heal many.

They went to their deaths because they would not abandon what was (and is) the truth.

They would not lie. Not even to save their lives.

Now how is it those “cult” members and their leaders died?

Okay.

Adamsson · July 3, 2007, 9:17pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
new2training wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Did they die because they were liars? Did they twist the truth in order to meet an untimely death?

Nope.

Now that would not be logical.

People are very illogical at times.

Also, Spiritual/Religious causes have always attracted megalomaniacs and delusional followers.

David Koresh and his followers come to mind.

Osama Bin Laden and the 911 terrorists come to mind.

You cannot argue that just because someone dies for their beliefs, that means their beliefs were right or justified.

They don’t have to be liars, just delusional or wrong.

That might be a good argument if the character of the leader of the organization is dealing in various nefarious activities.

You can know the leader by knowing who is following that person and vice versa.

In the case of Jesus Christ all he did was good.

He taught, preached and healed many.

His followers were also blessed to be able to heal many.

They went to their deaths because they would not abandon what was (and is) the truth.

They would not lie. Not even to save their lives.

Now how is it those “cult” members and their leaders died?

Okay.
[/quote]

Again “they believed it to be the truth and died for it” is NOT the same as “it is true”… Ok? Many people around the world hurt themselves and become martyrs for Islam, I don’t see you telling us about how Islam is true… or…?

That line of reasoning is just faulty. You should just drop it before you get humiliated even more. The “I have faith”-arguments works well among other christian identity peeps i guess, but not here.

new2training · July 3, 2007, 9:42pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You can know the leader by knowing who is following that person and vice versa.

[/quote]

That is a very dangerous line of reasoning for you to follow.

I personally would not want Jesus to be judged by many of his “followers.”

Many revolting deeds have been done in his name.

orion · July 3, 2007, 10:09pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Funny stuff. But two or three eye witnesses testifying that you did in fact kill the victim could get you a life long jail sentence, or maybe the chair in some states.

That’s how powerful eye witness testimony is. And that’s how much our legal system respects it.

And do you know why?

Because it’s logical!

[/quote]

And do you know what one of the least reliable of all evidence categtories is:

Eye witnesses!

People allmost never have seen what they thought to have sees, often remember what they ought to have seen and what appears to be so logical is probably the most important reason why so many innocent people are in jail.

Eye witness testimony is powerful in convincing other people, it sucks for determining truth.

http://www.maryconnell.com/eyewitness.htm

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/archive/index.php/t-280484.html

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/FACULTY/gwells/homepage.htm

ZEB · July 3, 2007, 11:15pm

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

Many people around the world hurt themselves and become martyrs for Islam, I don’t see you telling us about how Islam is true…[/quote]

I covered that in another post. One of the main differences between the radicals that you speak of and Jesus and his followers were pure motives.

Islamic radicals blow themselves up, killing as many innocent people as possible along the way.

Rev Jim Jones followers drink spiked kool-aide committing suicide.

David Koresh kills his followers (or did the government do it?)

Jesus is crucified and his followers also die horrible deaths for simply telling the truth.

I’m sorry if you cannot see a difference between the two.

However, making a claim that any action taken by some or all followers of any religion, or cult which may lead to their death, being equivalent to what Christ and his disciples went through is pure nonsense.

Oh, and it’s not logical either.

ZEB · July 3, 2007, 11:17pm

[quote]new2training wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You can know the leader by knowing who is following that person and vice versa.

That is a very dangerous line of reasoning for you to follow.

I personally would not want Jesus to be judged by many of his “followers.”

Many revolting deeds have been done in his name. [/quote]

No, no I was referring strictly to his immediate disciples.

SouthernBrew · July 3, 2007, 11:56pm

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?

Many of the greatest philosophers have judged it to be a rational and mature question…

Many of them also considered the pursuit of making gold a rational matter. You are the third guy trying the “appeal to authority” fallacy here. The fact that a greek philosopher thought that the earth was flat, doesen’t validate flat earth society today.

[/quote]

That is simply not true…

That fallacy is only true when the “authority” is not in fact an expert…

However in his case, renowned Philosophers DO have a sufficient level of “expertise” in this particular subject matter, and there is a wide consensus to support the claim…

Lorisco · July 4, 2007, 12:06am

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
“Evolution is a process that is part of a system that current cannot be explained. In other terms, evolution is a theory (not actually proven, but has not be disproved, so that is good enough for modern science)”

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Gould:

“Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.”

You ARE wrong, I don’t know how to say that more eloquently to be honest. You show a very limited knowledge about science in general and evolution spesific. You don’t even seem to grasp the difference between “fact” and “theory” and how those words are used differently in daily speak and in science. You have yet to show to any facts or any serious arguments, you just make bold claims, that are wrong, without any reasoning behind them or documentation of any kind.

You might try to make smug comments and act all cool, but you know nothing about me, nothing about my level of knowledge when it comes to evolutionary theory and you seem to me as a completely uneducated fool that makes bold claims which he is unable to back up.

If you think you can argue Gould’s points, Harris’ points or Dawkin’s points (“Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.”)
… go ahead. But making bold claims without any form of reasoning or any form of backing up… and THEN trying to act like a little brat… Please… grow up. [/quote]

You seem to be taking this way too serious and way to personal. I’m in no way judging you. It’s just that you don’t seem to be getting my point. The fact that you quote Gould, Harris, or Darwin as “proof” that evolution is a fact is my point. My point being that if you are not a PhD educated and experienced researcher you really don’t know/understand why Gould, Harris, or Darwin say evolution is fact. You just take it at face value because you value the wisdom and knowledge of these scientists.

So since you don’t really know specifics of evolution to that level, what has been actually tested, what has been disproved, and how closely these scientists have adhered to the scientific model of inquiry, you are going on nothing more or less than faith. That is my point.

We, Gould, Harris, and Darwin could debate all day in regards to why there are no verified intermediate species (which there should be thousands according the evolutionary theory) between apes and man and how they can call it a fact with this very big missing piece. But that is just how many scientific disciples work. If it cannot be disproved, then it is accepted as fact. Fortunately, medical science requires a lot more positive evidence.

But I’m getting off track. My point again is that whether you have faith in God or faith in scientists, it’s pretty much the same. It’s still faith.

So don’t get all bent out of shape about it. It just supports the idea that man must believe in something or someone or some system greater than himself to help reconcile or explain what he cannot explain himself.

Adamsson · July 4, 2007, 3:31am

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
“Evolution is a process that is part of a system that current cannot be explained. In other terms, evolution is a theory (not actually proven, but has not be disproved, so that is good enough for modern science)”