seeking the truth here
Offline
I grew up a christian and I loved science, I do believe in evolution, and truely enough. Evolution had undermined the book of genesis. I was told it was a lie by virtually everybody I know back then.
Then my journey began. I read the origin of species, then the 150 years of trying to refute it, an the 150 years of fossil evidences supporting it were found.
That has somewhat eroded my belief in christianity, until recently, I have watched the RR/WOTM debate, and then I heared that there were no references to Jesus in first century palestine as stated by kelly. I tried to look for this information in my local library, and occasionally google searching, so far, nothing. I like to see it for myself please.
I don't know if there is a real God,
I do question why if a perfect, all knowing God, who knows your every thoughts, I dont understand why we have to pray to God at all. Why the need for repetitive prayer chants, and songs of praise.
as a kid, i experimented on praying to god to appear to me in a specific visible form, at a specific place and a specific time of the day. I did that for 30, and no appearances. as a budding scientist then, i was left with the conclusion that god doesn't exist. of course I was scolded by my catholic teachers once I told them what i did.
Peace
- Login to post comments
You already know the truth.
Welcome to the forum.
I wish both atheists and theists would stop saying, "I believe in evolution". That is as absurd as saying, "I believe in gravity". These are not things you have to "believe" these are facts dispite what one believes.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I was going to say something very similar. Anything in science is not a belief system. One doesn't "believe in evolution" you either accept it or reject it.
In any event that is very nit-picky and I completely forgive people who make the mistake.
In reference to the OP and quetioning whether the Jesus of the bible really existed. You can't really provide evidence for a negative proposition. What we can do is look to see if there is any evidnce that Jesus was a real person roaming the middleeast some 2000 years ago. There are people here that obviously know a lot more on the subject that I do, but so far in my searching I haven't found anything.
To me no evidence for existance + nearly exact same story floating around the same part of the world at the same time for several other deitys = very low probability that Jesus was a real person.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Rook is our resident expert on Jesus Mythicism. Look HERE to find a compilation of his online work.
If you studied the history of evolution, then you'll learn a lot about Jesus mythicism by comparison. Remember how reticent Darwin was to explicitly state the full implications of natural selection for humans, particularly with regard to religion? He went to great lengths to delay and water down the publishing of Origin with regard specifically to the idea of humans being a special creation made separate and unique by God. After it was published, you are well aware of the vitriolic criticism it's gotten, and how long it took before even the scientific community could speak openly of "the human animal."
The thing is, before evolution was discovered, people had their own answer, and it was unquestioned. God had made man and everything that existed. End of story. No need for further elaboration. I'm afraid the same thing is true about the historicity of Jesus. There isn't a lot of money to be made selling books that tell a couple billion people that they're wrong about the most important thing in their lives, and that not only are they wrong, but the man they've based their whole religion on didn't even exist. It doesn't go over really big in academic circles either. Whether it's stubbornness or embarrassment or religious fervor, the fact is, most of the older generation of ancient scholars aren't willing to admit that they have started with the assumption that Jesus lived and then made the facts fit where they could. Of course that's bad science and bad history, but it's what has happened.
Consider that the Catholic church is worth billions of dollars. They're not going to do as well if it turns out their whole religion is a sham and everybody knows about it. You can imagine that they might try to discourage serious digging into the historicity of Jesus. When you stop and think about it, there's another huge factor in this. Many, if not most, ancient Hebrew Scholars, through most of history, have been Christians or Jews. Can you say "inherent bias"?
Here's the bottom line. There's no contemporary evidence for Jesus' existence. This is not a disputable fact, as far as I know. The dispute comes over how much weight to give to the gospels and other later references. If we are consistent, the only reasonable conclusion is that it's very unlikely that anyone resembling the figure in the Gospels lived in the way they describe. If Jesus wasn't Jesus, then... um...
Well, you get the idea.
Anyway, please don't take my word for it, and don't feel obliged to take Rook's word, either. All of his material is meticulously sourced, and if you have the time, I'd encourage you to read all of Rook's stuff, and anything you feel uncomfortable with, check the sources. Dig until you're satisfied with whatever conclusion you reach. Be a scientist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This is Enlightenment. This is the Truth you seek.
Welcome, eman-the-great. I hope you stick around to enjoy discussion here.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
It always makes me happy when I see someone is pulling themselves up through the mire of peer pressure and simplicity to enjoy the greater things in life. Welcome aboard!
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Welcome!
Nobody knows for certain, and that is why I love my quote from Marcus Aurelius.
By default, we are all atheists when we are born because it is ridiculous to come up with fairy tales for everything that we don't know. Children that are indoctrinated into Christianity become Christians. Children that are indoctrinated into Islam become Muslims. Children that are allowed to think for themselves almost inevitably become..............rational.
Authority is not the truth. Truth is the authority. Question the Catholic Church. Read the Bible and question it. Question even the Christian God. Does this make sense?
You must question because religion fears questioning. It shuns skeptics. It silences dissent. Thus, by its very nature, its validity is under suspect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I do know "I am god as you", without any doubt, None, Zero.
I believe that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I belive the earth and the sun revolve around each other... but the sun is much more massive.
Hey that is a nice quote, very well put.
lmao. It's not often I see DG smacked.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
How to set yourself up to be bazooka'd, step 1.....
LOL! I'm normally annoyed by trying to score points off of off the cuff generalizations, but I gotta admit, that was pretty funny.
When I was a very young kid, maybe 5, my dad taught me to play chess. He never... not once... ever... let me win. For the entirety of my childhood, I lost every game of chess I played with my dad. Admittedly, he was crazy good, but anyway, yeah... I never won.
Anyway, a couple of years before he died, we were sitting around with nothing to do, and it occurred to us that we hadn't played chess in years. I neglected to mention that I'd been playing quite a bit in the intervening years. We got a few moves past the opening, and he tried to sucker me with the potential capture of one of his big pieces. Of course, it was a trap, and it would have worked on me five years earlier, but this time, I caught it. I must've spent ten minutes studying the board before I made my next move, and it was a good one. Obviously perturbed and caught off guard, my dad played about ten more moves, at which point I had built a substantial advantage. He conceded and said, "Good game. Want to play again?"
The next five games were humiliating defeats for me. All I could do was say, "Damn dude. You are too damn good..."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Actually the earth and sun revole around their mutual center of gravity, but since this point is very close to the center of the Sun, inside it, The sun really doesn't revolve around the earth in any meaningful sense.
The earth revolves around the Sun, and the Sun wobbles a little due to the gravitaional pull of the earth and the other planets, would be a pretty accurate description.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Ouch...sorry, but that's dead wrong. In a system of orbit, like a moon orbiting around a planet, or a planet around a sun, or a binary system, there is something called the barycenter. This is a point where the two masses balance each other. If the two masses are quite close in magnitude (like in a binary system) then the barycenter will not be within either mass, and then the two bodies will orbit around a distinct foci. However, in a system like Earth-moon or Earth-Sun, the barycenter will be within the larger body. In this case, the barycenter is 450km from the sun's center of mass. This is well inside it. Thus the difference between the distance from the barycenter and Earth and the barycenter and the Sun's center of mass is negligible.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I never let my father win.
I didn't know you played chess. Do you have a FIDE rating?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
phooney,
umm, step 2 , I'm an alien and I don't know how I got here. 
I used to play chess. I haven't had the time or the desire in several years. Not only do I not have a FIDE rating, but I just discovered that there are no Hambys with a FIDE rating. Seems about accurate given what I know of my family tree. I wouldn't know where to start guessing at what my rating would be. I always considered myself to be a reasonably good amateur. I tended to win more than half the time when I busted in on chess club meetings and such.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
To obtain a rating you must play in a rated tournament against rated players. To start evaluating yourself to get a general idea of your rating, you should consider several basic questions. One is your tactical ability. How good are you at integration of tactical concepts and calculations in non-forced situations (that is, situations where your opponent's moves are not forced). For example, anyone who could compute a 5 or 6-move calculative sacrifice in a non-forced situation would probably have at least 1600.
The other thing to do is to sign up for an internet chess server. They usually let you play rated games. They usually match up pretty well. My online rating is 1770 but my FIDE one is 1850.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
lol
There is no step 2 it seems. Those who oppose DG make a housefly out of themselves. At least one can learn in the process though
Wow.
I've done it before, but on average, I'd say I could regularly compute a 4 or 5 move sacrifice. It's been so long since I played, I have no idea how well I would do now. Probably just because of a lack of very good opponents, I was able to win a lot of games without having to think that far ahead.
{Edit: on reflection, I think it's safer to say I could regularly compute 4 move sacrifices. I just can't think of many times I had to do 5.}
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You don't need to have an opponent to test your ability to compute. In fact, unless you practice your ability to employ tactical integration without playing against an opponent, you won't be able to enhance your tactical ability very much. Puzzle-solving ability usually serves as a good indicator. Here, try this puzzle:
Black to move and win (note that "win" could mean checkmate or the securing of a very large material advantage). This comes from a really good book:
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
This is frustrating without a chessboard.
Okay, Nxg3 looks interesting.
1. ....... Nxg3
2. Bxd5
White must take queen or get pwnd.
But now what?
3. ...... Ne2
4. Kh1
3. ...... Nh1
No.
3. ...... Nxf1
4. Kxf1 RxR
5. Ke2 RxB
Yuck!
1. ..... RxQ
No, that's stupid.
1. ..... Rh6
No.
1. ..... Rxg3
No, knight was better.
Eh....
On
1. ..... Nxg3
2. BxQ Nxf1
3. Bg2
Rxd1 seems to work. Even with
3. Kh1
But, on
3. Kxf1
I can't find a way to....
Arrrg
I'll look at it again later. Maybe when I have a chess board.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Correct. And Nxg3 is correct. Unforunately, you got the next part wrong. The key thing is that the knight needs to target f2, so he should move back to e4 with the discovered check.
The second rank and the g-file both have the potential to allow for a battery checkmate. In fact, black’s attack position is excellent. He needs only to find away to blast through what’s left of white’s defenses. The way to do this is with:
1…Nxg3
White has a number of options. Most of them are obviously disastrous. Clearly the following do not work:
2. fxg3 Qg2#
Or:
2. Rxd2 Ne2++
3. Kh1 Qg2#
Or:
2. Rfe1 Ne2++
3. Kf1 Qg2# or Rg1#
Or:
2. hxg3 Rxg3+
3. fxg3 Qg2#
In fact, white only has one option that does not lead to checkmate in 2 moves:
2. Bxd5 Ne4+
3. Kh1 Nxf2+
4. Rxf2 Rxd1+
5. Rf1 Rxf1#
The key point in the non-trivial line is that Bxd5 deflects the white bishop from his post guarding f1 which allows black to exploit the back-rank weakness. Secondly, the movement of Ne4 blocks the possibility that the white bishop could block the discovered check by the rook on the g file with 3. Bg2.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Drat, haha, I should have looked at it longer.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Atheism Books.
****This just in:
A humour missle was fired by the nation of Phooney at 07:08 hrs, on the morning of October 17th, 2008. This missle was intercepted in orbit before it could touch down. Witnesses describe a logical progression of disassembly of the missle while in flight, which resulted in it "just falling apart and vanishing into its constituent atoms." There were no casualties reported at this time, though the nation of Phooney has not commented. More news on this situation as it comes.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.