I agree with Glice, atheism also has its idiots.

i don't need to be saved by jesus, and i don't need to be saved by empirical science either... just another religon anyway...

here is the miracle of empirical science...

Observation: Every spring the Nile River floods, leaving behind nutrient-rich mud that makes agriculture possible. However, along with the muddy soil, large numbers of frogs appear that weren’t there before.
Conclusion: Obviously the muddy soil gave rise to the frogs.


Observation: Farmers stored grain in barns with thatched roofs. As a roof aged, it was not uncommon for it to start leaking. This could lead to spoiled or moldy grain, and of course there were lots of mice around.
Conclusion: Obviously the mice came from the moldy grain.






...look at them... they're like freakin cult members...

for fucks sakes man, you get a big red F- on the scientific method. that's EXACTLY the kind of shit explanation experimental science did away with, along with false notions like the cosmic ether, flogiston, "humors", phrenology, parthenogenetic humans, the static universe in which kant theorized the stars balanced out gravity, and other innumerable foolish ideas with no basis in reality.

please toss your derrida books in the trash heap where they belong and read francis bacon, galileo, newton, lavoisier. sure they seem primitive to our eyes but their legacy KICKS FUCKING ASS, they toppled the theocracy that kept humanity in shackles for milennia.

anybody but anybody can come up with some cockamamie causal relation between 2 contiguous phenomena-- that's the origin of associative magic. but contrary to fantastic explanations, science can cut through the bullshit & expose false hypotheses. that's it power.

science is fucking glorious, and it is that way because no truth of science i ever final-- only silly positivists and people who elevate science to religion and sf fanbois think that science actually replaces superstition-- it can eradicate it, yes, not assume its place.

anyway, contrary to stereotypes, there are plenty of hot scientists. my first girlfriend is now a biologist and she is/was a total babe, not only because of her she looked like botticelli's venus, but because she was smart and well read and that is so very sexy. also there was this lab in my school that actively recruited the best looking women in the university and you'd go there and be in awe... but i digress. it is also a well known fact that scientists are the only people who read poetry outside of MFA programs.

plenty of fucked up homely insano chicks in the "critical theory" camp though-- admit it. you've gone to school with them, so have i.

as for ghouls-- eat your gayatri spivak




EYESORE

oh yeah, and these fools arent exactly male models either
http://www.freeuniversityla.org/D&G.gif

but i digress. the point is-- you got F- in science man :p

---

ha ha now you were probably joking, but eh!

at least they look happy.

Most of the best thinkers (including Socrates, Jesus, Kierkegaard, Darwin and Einstein - all of which were theists) throughout history have had major justifiable issues with organized religion, I'll give you guys that, but most of the posts in this thread (save those by racehorse and Glice) come off as the weary bleating of so many malnourished sheep.

It's rather tragicomical, because you guys think you're so right. Oh well, to quote Mark Arm, "confusion reigns, confusion is king."

Quote:

Originally Posted by swa(y) there is absolutely ZERO proof that Jesus ever even existed. there are plenty of great thinkers/historians from that era that never even mention him.

The Bible has been translated many times, but it is a historic document. And it's your prerogative to discount the Bible as biased if you choose, since there are many instances where it is historically not entirely accurate.

There is, however, additional historical proof. Quotes follow...

Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted.

Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ.

Nice try at a sidetrack, swa(y).

Funny how atheists think they know more than Socrates, Jesus, Kierkegaard, Darwin or Einstein. I mean that's a laugh riot. In short, atheists are pretentious, profoundly disagreeable and generally miserable sorts.

Now, I know what you are thinking. You're thinking that aren't preachers pretentious? Yes, they are. Anyone that claims to have absolute knowledge of the afterlife, for instance, is pretentious.

Hmm, that must be one of the major reasons why Socrates, Jesus, Kierkegaard, Darwin and Einstein all believed in God but had issues with organized religion.

Let's explore some questions and answers:

Is the I-Ching an actual oracle?
No, it is a book of wisdom compiled over centuries by Taoist and Confucian thinkers. It is a book of self-discovery. It surpasses status as merely a great work of compiled literature to have the status of a great book of wisdom.

Is the Bible flawless?
No, it is a book of wisdom that also serves as a historical document of the Hebrew people. It has been translated and retranslated many, many times. It surpasses status as merely a great work of compiled literature to have the status of a great book of wisdom. As a side note, there are key differences between Old and New Testament religious philosophy.

Is evolution true?
Absolutely, it provides the underpinnings for every scientific discipline from Anthropology to Zoology. It is no theory and provides a scientific basis in which to describe the origins and evolution of life on this planet.

Is relativity true?
Absolutely, it accurately predicts the physical interactions of matter throughout the entire universe. It is no theory. In 2003, it was proven in an experiment partially conducted right here in Charlottesville that the speed of light and the speed of gravity are exactly the same.

science is the search for what works.

religion is th search for validation.

fuck religions. fuck their lies, their horrors, their societal control, fuck the sheep too, and especially FUCK THE SHEPHERDS

??

Rocky Marciano was real, Rocky Balboa is a composite character. I doubt any intelligent person will have any problem distinguishing between the two at any point in our future.

yeah sure. think about king arthur, or sherlock holmes even. people go around believing they were every bit as real as the President, if he is "real" at all.
jesus is not a name. it is a title, meaning saviour.
the man in the bible they CALL Jesus is named Emmanuel.
Emmanuel means "son of god"

it is all bullshit.

I can understand doubts. And Jesus certainly did, not only in his some of his reported dying words, but his whole doctrine demonstrates how much he empathizes with the mind of the doubter.

Moreover, I'm of the Socratic opinion that anyone who in truth actually believes in God must doubt God first, because philosophy begins with doubt.

At any rate, one more time.

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ.

CHRIST is also a Title, not a name , nor a surname.

Jesus Christ is an honorrific.

Yeah, but that doesn't automatically mean he never existed. I understood your argument the first time, Rob. It's just that it's not much of an argument. It's more like a personal theory you employ when you feel the need arises.

Many, many historical persons who are chronicled in ancient histories are known by several names and/or titles. Aside from a myriad of other cultural factors, it is a phenomenon that naturally arises during translations from one language to another.

again,

To throw away all theological concerns out of an adolescent grudge against/fear of organization religion is about as intelligent as throwing out all secular philosophy out of an adolescent grudge against/fear of "Godless" Humanism.

Unfortunately I've had friends one both sides of the ignorance coin in this aspect.


Conclusion: In the game of us versus them, I will always think for myself first.

I never claimed that a historical person named Emmanuel, a rabbi from 2000 years ago, did not exist.

I stated that claims of his DIVINITY have been created, the bible has been re-written, and whole segments of Emmanuel's life have been forged, to appear in line with the supposed prophecies in the old testament about a Messiah.

the rocky marciano.rocky balboa thing is erroneous.

think about it more like mahtatma Ghandi, a great human if there ever was one, but imagine 3oo years from now, a group of people following the Mahatma's teachings, would almost certainly have to create many details about Ghandi's life to fit their worship of him. slowly over time, humans begin to worship the MAN instead of the man's IDEALS.

It would be pretentious of me to claim otherwise myself. That's why I never have. I can't substatiate everything in the Bible, and never have claimed that I did. I suppose we can thank swa(y) for his monkeywrench that inhibited a clear communication of ideas.

So again, just to be clear to anyone reading:

The I-Ching or Book of Changes is a book of wisdom compiled over centuries by Taoist and Confucian thinkers. It is a book of self-discovery. It surpasses status as merely a great work of compiled literature to have the status of a great book of wisdom.

The Bible is not flawless, it is a book of wisdom that also serves as a historical document of the Hebrew people. It has been translated and retranslated many, many times. It surpasses status as merely a great work of compiled literature to have the status of a great book of wisdom. As a side note, there are key differences between Old and New Testament religious philosophy.

Evolution is absolutely true; it provides the underpinnings for every scientific discipline from Anthropology to Zoology. It is no theory and provides a scientific basis in which to describe the origins and evolution of life on this planet.

Relativity is absolutely true; it accurately predicts the physical interactions of matter throughout the entire universe. It is no theory. In 2003, it was proven in an experiment partially conducted right here in Charlottesville that the speed of light and the speed of gravity are exactly the same.

and theological concerns can very wel be "thrown out" if one does not believe ina soul or a creator. in this case theological arguments are purely MOOT!

Imagine trying to argue any theology with a being from a planet orbiting the star betelgeuse. it would be ridiculous and pointless and futile. Now, try arguing scientific facts, such as the laws of gravitation, optics, harmonics, entropy, etc etc. if a common language could be found that would be a fruitful and engaging discourse.

The common language is Einstein's relativity. It is the truest description of ourselves and our universe that humans have ever recorded.

Relativity has been around more than a century now and, in general, people still have no clue as to the enormous ramifications of this truth.

It's a tragedy, but it's no surprise.

Jesus espoused a revolution in consciousness over two thousand years ago that still hasn't taken place.

Rob, you're funny with your, quite frankly, stereotypical "rage against the machine." As a revolutionary thinker, you don't hold even the slightest candle to Jesus. It's absolutely silly to think you are more "extreme" or "correct" than Jesus. And it shows a great deal of willful ignorance about who Jesus was and what he teaches on your part.

That's terribly naive to say. God and the soul aren't the only matters of spirituality and spirituality isn't dependent on them.

jesus espoused a wholesale abandonment of organized religion.
he was killed for this.


The Bible (Biblia) means a "collection of books." This collection of books was put together as we now know it, around 1000 years after Jesus was said to have lived. There are over 80 MILLION American citizens who believe that their common english translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of old translations of Hebrew and Gnostic texts are an unimpeachable and incontrovertible word for word statement of FACT.

these people make me sick.

how?

how does spirituality exist without animus, or a soul or some sort of supernatural "state of existance?"

spirituality without belief in a soul or a god or gods is not spirituality. it is pure superstition, which is stupid as fuck too.

you dont need to post pictures of Scientists to explain reasoning. Look at Pavlovs Dog. If you train a dog to expect food when a bell is rung it will salivate; this is basic reasoning. When you then ring a bell and present no food the dog will still salivate, expecting food, but only up to a point. Soon it learns again that the bell no longer precludes the food, and it treats the bell as just another sound.

This is what science is; you learn on the basis of how often something occurs. If one instance precludes another enough you will take that as a fact. It all depends where you set your own personal threshold. Religious people have learned to set their threshold extremely high. Unattainable even, because nothing is 100%. But science says that if 95 times out of 100 it happens then it is predictive. Religion just asks that you believe in the unnatainable, for its own reasons.

to give them MONEY

there is only one true god and that is Mammon.

they know this.

That's a bit too confident for me. The marriage of Relavity and Quantum Theory is still out of grasp and until a unified theory comes along I wouldn't call any modern physics theory absolutely true.

I believe I remember this posting this research in the Science thread:
http://www.science-spirit.org/archiv...php?new_id=305

I'm not trying to undermine Relativity, it's the best thing we have going, but I wouldn't say it is beyond being doubtable.

Oh, this same old gobbledegook yet again.

The "marriage" you write of will never happen, pbradley. Subatomic particles are too small and move too quickly for us ever to be able to get a handle on them. So the problem isn't in Einstein, it is merely beyond human capability to prove relativity correct in high energy particle physics. I really cannot understand the abject ignorance on this matter.

We have seen a transformation in our modern world as a direct result of relativity. The best scientists have been trying to work out HEP since the forties, and have come up with little. There will never be a TOE (theory of Everything), there will never be a GUT (Grand Unification Theory). On a side note, humans will never be successfully cloned.

"It is the duty of humans to understand that there are some things we will never understand, and that this is not a concession, but a category, an expression of the ontological definition of the relationship between a cognitive spirit and eternal truth."
- Soren Kierkegaard

Quantum Electrodynamics is predictive becuase relativity doesn't break down in QED. Relativity is 100% predictive, and perfectly and elegantly correct.

I've said about as much before, but atari loves him some Einstein.

good luck and gawdspeed.

edit: told ya!

It appears that you have a confused notion of the body/mind relationship. The mind and soul in most philosophy are one in the same. In existentialism, there is a concept called "transcendence" (I would like to expand on an existential defense of spirituality, but that's too large for here).

You may not believe in the soul (I'm not convinced of it's existence either) but surely you believe that the mind exists. The mind desires spirituality. The mind not in body but of body requires spirituality, as well. Have you never gone to a requiem and not felt the weight?

any "weight" felt is symptomatic of the human brain, the single most complex thing on our planet. we feel things. we see things, we experience transcendence, IN OUR HEADS. I do not believe that the "mind" exists as a separate wholesale entity from the physical brain. people with brain lesions and brain trauma lose just as much of their "mind' as they do their "brain"

It's ironic to me that you appeal to the fact that man will not know all yet claim that we already know all that we are capable of knowing. I agree with the former, but I disagree with the later. I really don't see how this is suppose to back your position.

Modest, subjective spirituality is still spirituality. In fact I would claim all spirituality is subjective while religion is taken objectively. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing.

All Kierkegaard states is that it is our duty to understand that some things cannot and will never be proven. It isn't Kierkegaard's position that nothing can ever be proven...far from it.

To prove God with 100% certainty eliminates the meaning of existence itself. Einstein pretty much did prove God (and Pascal to an extent before him), but then there's this Quantum Mechanics thing.

Look at how the world has changed since relativity.

It can never happen, but just imagine what would occur if a Grand Unification Theory did come along that was 100% correct. I know what would occur: the rapid extinction of humans.

I mean, Jeez, we can't even handle the truth of relativity.

Please stop quoting me. I'm getting away from the computer for a bit.

You tote your reading comprehension skills but I wonder some times. I said "will not know all" in that "all" being a unified theory. If you can not prove some things, then you can't prove all things. I wasn't claiming that all things in total are unknowable. That's absurd.

Sorry, quoted before you edited your last post.

First of all, your unconscious/subconscious already does know everything.

But, just like the fact that there will never be a Theory of Everything, our conscious minds can never know this information. It is impossible. If it were, it would make life meaningless anyway. One communicates with God in dreams, and to an extent, in silent meditation. Dreams work out all the stimuli we are unable to process with our conscious minds. In dreams, our minds are repairing themselves.

We are beings living our lives in a dimension we call time. In eternity, there is no time. This is why one cannot ask the question "who created God?" and expect any answer. God is not of time, God is eternity. We are humans who live in time but who briefly glimpse eternity and the immeasurable knowledge of the unconscious when we dream or, to an extent, when we meditate silently.

The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy elegantly states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but merely changes from one form into another. That sums up eternity right there and also accounts for the changes we observe in the dimension we call time.

I'm calling doubt to your claim that Relativity is undoubtable, nothing more. I'm not disagreeing with your claim that the conscious mind is limited and I don't know why you think I am. But I'm willing to rest this if you have something else you need to do.

what everyone who is out to prove or disprove a deity or a soul forgets is that the whole basis of all religions is that they are dependent upon BELIEF. this "belief" is the acceptance that something/someone exists without any proof whatsoever, and with no proof ever forthcoming.
that is FAITH/BELIEF
Due to this it is impossible to refute religion or spirituality. That makes it the most succesful con game ever pulled on humanity

humans as we know it are less than 200 thousand years old. That is not enough time to totally eradicate the purely animalistic aspects of our brains. religion and spirituality are a byproduct of our immensely capable and self-aware minds trying to grasp "feelings/emotions" that make us think there is something greater than ourselves. there is not. it is all just human words and concepts used to describe emotions and fears left over from our million years as savannah dwelling primates.

again, Belief and Scientific fact are on the same continuum of information. It depends on how potent you need the information to be for you to call it true and believe it, and whether you believe the information to be cumulative OR to what extent that one piece of information (which is what religion depends on) overrides all other information

Gee, Rob, I'm reading your posts, but it seems you insist on not considering mine. Any idiot can debate religion. I'm not an idiot, so I'm not wasting my time. As one can infer, my only concern is to attempt to have an intelligent discussion concerning the existence of God. And again, I'm getting up from the computer, so please stop quoting me.

You really do think we're so far beyond them, don't you. I debate with atari about man's incapacity to have a full understanding of reality and yet you posit that we already do. Bizarre. I'm tired of non-sequitor pseudo-discussion for now.

Aw, now I see I've been the dummy in the crossfire.