Started By
Message
re: Does anyone actually believe this
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:12 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:12 pm to Roger Klarvin
Oh I've seen them. I used to frequent rationalwiki and they turned me on to him. I loved his work on the banana. shite was nice.
1
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:12 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If you've never seen Ray Comfort's videos, you should check them out. Holy shite its good stuff.
Thunderfoot gave him a good thrashing but that was hilarious.
"The Banana, Atheists worst nightmare..."
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:24 pm to KSGamecock
I made a thread about the banana a while back. That was the craziest shite I'd ever seen. I remember Kirk looking like he was contemplating his entire life while listening to that old man talk about that banana. 
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:00 am to wilkesboothjohn
quote:
So im a scout master in my local troop and I was doing this thing called philmont which is where you go hiking in the New Mexican mountains. One day we were hiking back down a mountain and one kid says to another, "Dude how old do you think these rocks are?"
This kid answers, "Probably a good few billion years old."
And then this other kid in my crew says, "the earth is only 4000 years old."
Everyone starts laughing because its stupid and then the smartest kid in our group goes "There is no way the earth can be 4000 years old because carbon dating dates stuff back billions of years ago"
And then the other kid goes "no carbon dating is false"
I was quite taken aback by the stupidity of these remarks and so I looked into it more. I learned that this dude in the mid-1900s used the bible to date the earth back 4000 years ago on like a tuesday at 9 oclock in the morning.
This is bullshite
I just have to ask if anyone on here believes this?
These people are rare, but they do exist. Very few of them, I would imagine, would ever post on an internet message board. YEC's (Young Earth Creationists) are basically what the media portrays all Christians to be.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 8:35 am to kingbob
Unfortunately, some people really do believe the earth is 6000yrs old or whatever. The bible really has no footing in this debate. How can a fictional book written thousands of yrs ago be held as fact in this day and age?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 11:11 am to dawgsjw
quote:
Unfortunately, some people really do believe the earth is 6000yrs old or whatever. The bible really has no footing in this debate. How can a fictional book written thousands of yrs ago be held as fact in this day and age?
I heard one guy say that as long as the authors proclaim to be the authors then it must be true, and similarly if the authors claim that it's 6,000 years old -- WELL. They must not be lying or mistaken.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 11:20 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I'm a firm believer that a bunch of Bronze Age herders knew far more about the universe than we could ever know and that we should live our lives according to their dictates.
I only hope that Humans in 6000 years show as much deference to me as we show to the biblical Hebrews.
I only hope that Humans in 6000 years show as much deference to me as we show to the biblical Hebrews.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 11:30 am to JustinBieberFan
quote:
Did Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato exist?
Here's the difference: it doesn't matter to anybody's religion if those guys existed.
So what if Socrates didn't exist? What he supposedly said and did - even if fictional - would still have meaning. The Socratic method doesn't rely on Socrates actually having existed in that it holds up to scrutiny on its own.
You can't say the same for Jesus and Christianity.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 11:33 am to Stacked
quote:
Jesus was mentioned in the Works of Josephus, a historian of the time. Whether you believe Jesus is God or not is up to you, but he very much was here and was recorded by non-christians alike as being so.
Even though Josephus was born after Jesus died...
Even then, I'm totally willing to concede that there was a real person who the stories of Jesus are based off of, and that he did have followers who created the earliest forms of Christianity. I think it's a bit foolhardy to think that there wasn't such a person, but I don't think it's unfair to say "well, but this person definitely didn't perform any miracles, nor was he born of a virgin, nor was he divine."
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:29 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
"Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[3][4]"
----------------------------------------------
Agreed. And the reason he was mentioned was not because he was alive and active, but because of the talk concerning him and the birth of the new religon (Christanity) that was begining to grow. Historians notice that sort of thing.
----------------------------------------------
Agreed. And the reason he was mentioned was not because he was alive and active, but because of the talk concerning him and the birth of the new religon (Christanity) that was begining to grow. Historians notice that sort of thing.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:31 pm to Bamaal
quote:
Agreed. And the reason he was mentioned was not because he was alive and active, but because of the talk concerning him and the birth of the new religon (Christanity) that was beginning to grow. Historians notice that sort of thing.
And this is the point I was trying to make the whole time. He didn't personally talk to anyone, and if people actually did a little research he seems to have lifted a lot of out Luke. There are some things that are virtually the same.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:32 pm to wilkesboothjohn
i agree with the estimate, but would multiply it 10 billion times.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:33 pm to DCRebel
quote:
Here's the difference: it doesn't matter to anybody's religion if those guys existed.
Another difference is: Aside from Socrates, there is no reason to make them up.
Even if they were characters, there would be no reason to conjure these dialogues up and have an entire people just pretend as if they're real. Socrates had real enemies, both contemporary and after his death.
There are tons of reasons to make up Jesus from immediate benefits of the Messiah who everyone was waiting for (especially with the Roman presence) and for local kings.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:37 pm to DCRebel
quote:
Even then, I'm totally willing to concede that there was a real person who the stories of Jesus are based off of, and that he did have followers who created the earliest forms of Christianity.
And let me add: There may have well been an apocalyptic preacher claiming to be the Messiah at that time.
I have no doubt that there were probably quite a few. But if half of the documentation about him is superfluous, untrue and/or interpolated: How on Earth can we call this the same man as the one in the Bible?
He has no physical description, no one said anything in contemporary times, the Jews didn't even mention him until much later and it was in a terrible light to try and smother Christianity and the Romans have no records of his death (yet they have records of Pilate being the Prefect at that time).
Literally no contemporary evidence and the references are all anonymous and after his death. Did they suddenly learn how to write 30 years after he died, or was this folklore passed on as truth? (This has happened before in history.)
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:46 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
You're asking for everyone at the time of Christ to get on the same page and tell the same story when you can't even get the people on this message board to say the same story of Sandy Hook, and that was televised.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:48 pm to Stacked
quote:
You're asking for everyone at the time of Christ to get on the same page and tell the same story when you can't even get the people on this message board to say the same story of Sandy Hook, and that was televised.
The vast majority of people don't think it's a conspiracy, and the people who believe are regarded as lunatics.
Have you noticed how Josephus seems like a pretty poor reference yet?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:55 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
you still think that you can condescend me into thinking what I believe, and more importantly, why I believe it is something I clearly shouldn't because you linked internet links that says I shouldn't. That's not how discussions are had or won, there are internet links for every belief because there are people from every belief making them. I get it, you think Jesus didn't exist. I think you're wrong. But that's where it ends with me. I don't have anything inside me driving me to want to try to prove you wrong. In return, I don't care that much when folks like yourself feel a need to try to prove me wrong. It just doesn't bug me. Like I said, I spent too many years arguing this stuff and realized that what's most important is that you know what you believe, why you believe it and that you're happy with it.Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:03 pm to Stacked
quote:
why I believe it is something I clearly shouldn't because you linked internet links that says I shouldn't.
It's rather bizarre that you trust Early Christians with tons of motive over a thousand years ago more than you do contemporary scholarship.
Que sera, sera.
You're clearly not interested in intellectual honesty.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:14 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
You're right, contemporary scholars, theologians, and historians have no place in my academic life or how I base my beliefs. You've cracked the code. Bottle it up and sell it, sir. 
You know what always makes me laugh about folks like you. In no other profession does the professional base his nonsuccess on the person across from him. A baseball batter when struck out doesn't say "that pitcher didn't throw it to the plate well enough for me to hit it." A public speaker stumbling through a presentation doesn't say to the audience who didn't receive the message "you fools just can't see the information right in front of your face."
If you're upset that someone's mind didn't change after you've talked to them, maybe they really are close minded. Maybe they're as stupid as you believe they are. Or maybe you didn't explain it well enough to change anyone's mind.
You know what always makes me laugh about folks like you. In no other profession does the professional base his nonsuccess on the person across from him. A baseball batter when struck out doesn't say "that pitcher didn't throw it to the plate well enough for me to hit it." A public speaker stumbling through a presentation doesn't say to the audience who didn't receive the message "you fools just can't see the information right in front of your face."
If you're upset that someone's mind didn't change after you've talked to them, maybe they really are close minded. Maybe they're as stupid as you believe they are. Or maybe you didn't explain it well enough to change anyone's mind.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 3:27 pm to Stacked
quote:
You're right, contemporary scholars, theologians, and historians have no place in my academic life or how I base my beliefs. You've cracked the code. Bottle it up and sell it, sir.
You haven't exactly posited any evidence. Meanwhile, I've been giving you links, books, expert opinions and my own ad nauseam. And actually a book by Richard Carrier was just approved and peer reviewed (also receiving citations). It's a pretty big step.
quote:
You know what always makes me laugh about folks like you.
Psychological projection alert.
quote:
In no other profession does the professional base his nonsuccess on the person across from him. A baseball batter when struck out doesn't say "that pitcher didn't throw it to the plate well enough for me to hit it." A public speaker stumbling through a presentation doesn't say to the audience who didn't receive the message "you fools just can't see the information right in front of your face."
This is white noise as well, it holds no water in our crossing of swords.
quote:
you're upset that someone's mind didn't change after you've talked to them, maybe they really are close minded. Maybe they're as stupid as you believe they are. Or maybe you didn't explain it well enough to change anyone's mind.
What on Earth would constitute as evidence to the contrary as listing Josephus being a poor reference?
If you don't believe the majority of scholars who concede that his work has been tampered with, the majority of posters (excuse me, every poster except you) and even the website dedicated to his namesake -- you cannot be convinced.
In the stead of that, I have been receptive to anything you can provide otherwise. You've asked me for evidence, and at every corner I've given it to you with silly, irrelevant responses in return.
Please, if you have a way you can be convinced that Josephus' work was either partially manipulated (general scholarship) or completely fabricated -- I'm all ears.
Again, you don't want intellectual honesty, you just don't want to be wrong.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:29 pm
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News