p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Their astronomy is not very good. First off, because Orion and Sirius are fixed stars, there is no change in how they align. Second, I checked the claims with my astronomy software and the alignment is not very precise. A line drawn through the belt of Orion misses Sirius by a couple of degrees. Enough so that it is visibly bad to the naked eye.

You really would think that people who depend on watching the sky to know basic things like when to plant and if she really does like you would take better care with their observations. Also, the line through the belt does not quite hit the rising sun dead on.

Also, the Southern cross coordinates don't line up that way. Orion will peak roughly 60 degrees above the Horizon in Jerusalem around midnight. The Souther Cross will peak at 30 degrees above the horizon over 6 hours later. The the informal astronomical tern for that is “in the soup” meaning that it is not really visible around sun rise and only just barely at all a couple of hours before.

The thing is that while you can pick any three things in the sky and make a triangle of them, it just cannot be a nice right triangle done that way.

 thanks guys.

The astronomy part seemed in the "too good to be true" category.

 Yes, this is yet another example of the lengths atheists will go to "disprove religion", it is not the first video of its kind rife with lies.  Interesting you would point out the obvious fallacy of this video yet turn immediately to Mithras, of which virtually NOTHING factual is known about its origins, although scholarly opinion is slowly turning to it being from the first/second century. If this proves to be right, then it will be from the time of Christ...might want to spend some more time reading before throwing out BS to the masses, if that matters to you.

There  is some similiarity between the iconography of Isis/Horus and the familiar Virgin/Jesus imagery that exists upon the stained glass windows of many churches. (I used to have some of these images saved, but have lost them, if I can find the links I will post them).

Outside of that and the fact that some people speculate about the name Set evolving into the modern day Satan, (Set was the Egyptian version of the devil, i.e. he was a god of destruction, darkness, etc.) any similiarity to Egypt and the Jesus myth end.

In the old Egyptian legend, Set murdered Osiris, the husband of Isis. Isis searched the world until she found the mutilated body of Osiris, pieced him back together, created a phallus made of gold, brought him back to life and gave birth to Horus through the sexual union of her resurrected husband.

Some people have been known to point out that an angel visits Mary in the bible and the spiritual circumstances of the Isis/Osiris union as possible similiarities, but that is not unique to ancient legend so much.

For instance, in one of the legends of Merlin, he was supposedly born out of a union of mortal woman and a dream-like man that visited her in the night.

In the Greek legend of Perseus, he was born out of the union of god and woman. Same with Theseus.

While, none of the above legends coincide with virgin births, 12 followers, crucifixicions, or three wise men, I think you can see the patterns.

The idea of someone born with supernatural powers from a god/mortal relationship is certainly not a new concept and is certainly not peculiar to Christianity.

Christianity : The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was also his own father can make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master.So, he can remove an evil force that has been present since the beginning of humanity because a rib woman was asked by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

I'd have to go to GREAT lengths to demonstrate that story is bullshit wouldn't I ?

^^^

^^^

 Huh, then you'd think it would be gone by now.  I guess it only disproves itself to 'smart' people.

Proud Canadian

 Did, but only the entertainment value.  No delusion that I can set the deluded straight

Your point is ?

 Nice pat answer although I was expecting "because so many people are scared of death" - lol

I have to heartily disagree, from a personal perspective only though.  I am not emotional, am actually somewhat uncomfortable with the crying and hugging that goes on in most of the churchy groups.  I have done nothing but question since I was converted some 12 years ago in my late 30's, read most of the popular atheist drivel (and remain astounded that people even talk about the 'Four Horsemen'), attended a well respected graduate seminary on and off, and consider the evidence presented 'open mindedly' (as opposed to nearly every atheist I meet).  as for peer pressure, not a chance, I grew up un-churched in a very worldly environment, did not 'hit the bottom' or anything of the like.  

I would actually suggest that your points above apply more strictly to the average atheist than religious person, especially as the world becomes more secular everyday.  You are simply bowing the pressures you are inundated with on a daily basis without actually considering the effect they are having on the development of your thought processes.  

Since your attitude is not representative of the majority of believers, by your own admission, you are not in the majority of believers. your personal account in no way contradicts my response. Certainly most people, most of the time , are driven by emotions. Pure reason does not provide a 'reason' for wanting to continue living. It is emotional rewards, urges and desires that do. That is a rational assessment. Such unusual and in some ways more extreme positions are often observed in later life converts to a belief, so your attitude is not that surprising. 

When you consciously decided to convert, rather than imbibing your faith with your mother's milk, there often remains unresolved conflict incompletely buried in your memory and subconscious. You seem to be displaying the symptoms.

BTW, 'fear of death' is in fact a significant component of the fears that Religion claims to answer.

My points cannot apply to the average atheist, since atheism does not provide any pat answers to the problems of life and death.

Is rejection of the illogical, non-answer to 'where did we come from' referred to as 'God' what you mean by 'close-minded'?

Your assessment of me "You are simply bowing the pressures you are inundated with on a daily basis without actually considering the effect they are having on the development of your thought processes. " could not be further from th truth in my case. If you are, as you seem to be, applying that as appicable to atheists generally, you are utterly and demonstrably wrong. You would only need to actually follow a number of atheist podcasts with an open mind to realize that, there is much disagreement about almost everything, apart form the non-existence of God, among atheists. 

I have been following with great interest the insights into the processes of our own minds being achieved by research in neuro-science, psychology, social science, in recent years. While the introspection I have always been prone to is further encouraged by listening to such accounts, and it can really help in everyday life, allowing to catch faulty 'first impressions' before they get embedded as my memories of something, I almost have to force myself to 'switch my conscious brain off occasionally', and relax, allow the sub-conscious to get stuff sorted.

Part of your gross misunderstanding of, and hostility to, non-religious ideas may come from reading too much of the 'popular atheist' publications, rather than going more deeply into the writings of sceptical and rational thinkers, and related science. Hitchens can be problematic, he is more eloquent than deep, Dawkins can get a little simplistic away from his scientific training in biology, but Harris and especially Dennett are very worth-while to read, especially Dennett on wider issues.

The Bible is far more deserving of the label 'drivel' here. 

To characterise any of the works of the 'Four Horsemen' as "drivel" reveals a pathologically hostile attitude to any questioning of your position, hinting at an underlying insecurity in its foundation. (Bit of pop-psych there   ) . The fact that the term "Four Horseman" came from those reacting against their publications, should have you directing your astonishment at your fellow believers.

So, do you actually have any defense of your beliefs, apart from childishly throwing our reasons for dismissing religious belief back at us - "and so are you! Nyah, Nya!".

"Certainly most people, most of the time , are driven by emotions. Pure reason does not provide a 'reason' for wanting to continue living. It is emotional rewards, urges and desires that do. That is a rational assessment."

Out of my area of expertise, I will bow to yours. I would have simply left off at urges.

"Such unusual and in some ways more extreme positions are often observed in later life converts to a belief, so your attitude is not that surprising."

Agreed, but I wonder why that is? What would the "Rational Response" for it be???

"When you consciously decided to convert, rather than imbibing your faith with your mother's milk, there often remains unresolved conflict incompletely buried in your memory and subconscious. You seem to be displaying the symptoms."

LOL, not sure what 'symptoms' I am displaying but your psychoanalysis is off the mark I think.

"BTW, 'fear of death' is in fact a significant component of the fears that Religion claims to answer."

Yep, I understand that, just no concern for me and seems to be the 'popular' atheist response.

"My points cannot apply to the average atheist, since atheism does not provide any pat answers to the problems of life and death."

Of course it does, "shit happens" is clearly an answer. To say there is no answer is clearly an answer, it simply may not be a cuddly-huggy one like religion offers.

"Is rejection of the illogical, non-answer to 'where did we come from' referred to as 'God' what you mean by 'close-minded'?"

Almost, the "close mindedness" I refer to is that lack of ability, or interest in entertaining that there simply may be things you/we do not or cannot understand.

"Your assessment of me "You are simply bowing the pressures you are inundated with on a daily basis without actually considering the effect they are having on the development of your thought processes. " could not be further from th truth in my case. If you are, as you seem to be, applying that as appicable to atheists generally, you are utterly and demonstrably wrong. You would only need to actually follow a number of atheist podcasts with an open mind to realize that, there is much disagreement about almost everything, apart form the non-existence of God, among atheists."

You may want to consider a little further back on the cultural influence issue, an "atheist podcast" will simply show me more who have been influenced by the factors the rest of us have. Hobbesian philosophy has had a deeper and more far reaching influence than we are ready to accept.

"Part of your gross misunderstanding of, and hostility to, non-religious ideas may come from reading too much of the 'popular atheist' publications, rather than going more deeply into the writings of sceptical and rational thinkers, and related science. Hitchens can be problematic, he is more eloquent than deep, Dawkins can get a little simplistic away from his scientific training in biology, but Harris and especially Dennett are very worth-while to read, especially Dennett on wider issues."

I honestly have no hostility towards any of them (or you for that matter), it just amazes me that people can refer to Sam Harris as "worthwhile reading". I have read all 4 of them and find them all significantly inadequate at the point of their arguments, I agree with your assessments of them outside of the worthwhile part

"The Bible is far more deserving of the label 'drivel' here."

Can't agree of course.

To characterise any of the works of the 'Four Horsemen' as "drivel" reveals a pathologically hostile attitude to any questioning of your position, hinting at an underlying insecurity in its foundation. (Bit of pop-psych there ) .

Lol, nope to use your phrase from above you "couldn't be further from the truth." I love actual questioning of my position, I think it is important for me to question it diligently and factually. As C.S.Lewis wrote, "it is either the most important thing in the world or it means absolutely nothing." If it means nothing I want to stop wasting my time...haven't been able to yet.

"The fact that the term "Four Horseman" came from those reacting against their publications, should have you directing your astonishment at your fellow believers."
Huh, heard Dawkins use it one night when i was listening to him and was sure he used it in a way that made me think they coined it themselves. Oh well, again i will bow to your superior knowledge in that field.

"So, do you actually have any defense of your beliefs, apart from childishly throwing our reasons for dismissing religious belief back at us - "and so are you! Nyah, Nya!"."

Huh? I thought that was the accepted reasoning on this site? I have yet to see any contrary evidence provided other than "we are right because we say we are." If you are suggesting that the burden of proof lies with the believer I'm not sure that I would agree but I might be tempted to jump in. What I usually find is that these arguments always end up with "I have faith because I have faith" and the Atheist equivalent "I don't believe because I don't like what the bible says or that guy who 'hates fags' believe." I think it is far to complicated a subject to have a sincere debate in a public forum (hold that finger! lol).
The only 'proof" I have to offer is that I find the biblical text makes sense when considered in its entirety and in the context of history. And believe me, the people who knew me pre-40 are only slightly more surprised at my position today than I am
I regularly tell people that I would not have entered the church that I did if I knew I was going to come out a believer.

In the future, please consider using the quote function when responding.

It makes it easier to sort through your drivel.

You can go to the forums page, click on the general conversation link, and it is the third post down.

Makes sense. That is your proof. That is hard to test as a theory. It is just a gut feeling. Atheist like evidence, something that can be tested over and over and it comes out the same. This is why science has done so much for humanity. 

I would like to hear more about your conversion to theism. There is a forum called "Kill Them With Kindness". If you post there we play nice. I have posted my de-conversion elsewhere and I cannot imagine going back to theism again. I find it fascinating that you appear to have made a dramatic change so that those that know you are in disbelief. You might have mentioned it above. Were you a bona fide atheist before? 

Do you belong to a specific church or can is any Christian church acceptable to you? Would you say you are a fundamentalist? What happens to non-believers after death?

What do you make of why Christianity is so splintered? Is that because people go off their gut feelings about what is right?

Old & Tired in your 40s? too young to start that now.

Thanks Ex

I would have to say it is much more than a 'gut feeling', I had an actual, bona fid conversion experience. Hence it was real, tangible evidence for me but very hard for anyone else to relate to.  I expect similar to many scientific theories that have 'real' proof, the actual proof wouldn't make sense to many of us.  I have 'gut feelings' on a regular basis, my conversion was not one.  I remain mildly uncomfortable discussing my conversion although it is a highlight of my life, I am well aware that it makes me sound like a (as a close friend puts it) 'wing nut fundamentalist'  I cautiously say that I had a Damascus Road experience.  I entered the doors of a church because of my children, my daughter had become a Christian and went to the church, my boy started to turn bad, so I mentioned that he might want to consider going to church with her. His immediate (and appropriate) response was "why, you don't". So we all started attending the following Sunday. At that point I was still convinced it was the right thing because the kids should be exposed to both sides of the coin to be able to make a 'rational' decision about it. A new pastor had started at the church, he and I have since become close friends, he started preaching a series called "why follow Christ?". I thought o.k., I'll pay attention and refute everything this chump has to say.  Every week he would preach, I would go home and figure out why he was wrong, the next week - rinse and repeat - then one Sunday, the scales fell off my eyes and it was clear I was a fool and was wrong. Just as simple...and complicated as that. 

I'm not terribly concerned about the 'playing nice bit', I think it is not 'rational' to bash someone you are theoretically interested in having debate with but I have been a construction worker a lot longer than a Christian, I'm pretty sure I'll be o.k.

I'm not sure I would have been considered a 'bona fide' atheist or not, I railed against all things related to Jesus, the church and God in general. I thought it was simply stupid and for weak people to use to hide behind because they could not handle the real world.  A close friend growing up was a professing Christian and I have since apologized for torturing (verbally) him so badly when we were young. I held many of the same opinions I see on this forum, and held them strongly, he was unprepared. Looking back i would suggest that i was as I see most of the world today, blissfully unaware of reality, although I thought I had a firm grasp on it.

As for denominational affiliation, I have some but it is secondary. There are specific items that are not debatable others are, I guess I would be labelled as a fundamentalist but more liberal than most would see fundamentalists as. (If that makes sense)

What happens to non-believers after death? Well theres a leading question!! lol  In all honesty I do not know, I do not believe scripture is clear on the point either but I also do not think it is worth all the yelling and hand wringing.  If I am correct about God, He is perfectly fair and we will understand His judgments at some point. I'm o.k. with finding out what happens to them after I die, I just don't want to be one of them.

Christianity is so splintered because there are people involved.  It is the nature of society, I don't believe there is any organization that has ever existed that is not splintered and fractured in some manner.  There are many reasons for it, but I suspect the main one is the same for the bashing, insults and fractures you see here on this forum - ego.

Nah, the Old&Tired is a poke at Atheists, the arguments I see from them are usually just that, old & tired  I'm soon to be 50 and ride a Yamaha R1 (poke again at the old fat guy with the HarleySportster avatar - lol), last thing you would want to be on my R1 is old & tired !!

Thks for the 'Rational' chat

First the world is becoming more and more secular in one post and now you mention that religion is not even close in another.

Quite alot of religious leaders have spoken about the vanishing numbers in their pews and the decline of church membership.

Of course, quite alot of people in today's world try to dodge the bullet by using that "I am spiritual but not religious" meme that has seem to have caught on so well.

However, the churches are in decline. Now of course, unless something really drastic happens, there will be no way that religion will totally vanish anytime soon or within the next few hundred years. They'll probably do the same thing that the churches have been doing for thousands of years. They will simply tweak a few things around, change their stances a little bit and try to continually tell the same old lie that there faith has always been the right way and never changed.

The early christians, the christians of the dark ages, the 19th century and of today are radically different. Religion also has to conform to evolution and change. Otherwise, it would have long been extinct. Which is too bad that it is not.