Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has served us well, this myth of Christ...........Pope Leo X
Now you are just spreading anti-Catholic propoganda. And you claim that most of your family are Catholic -- nice work, Sanspeur.
“The statement falsely attributed to Pope Leo X, ‘It has served us well, this myth of Christ,’ was alleged long ago by an apostate English Carmelite, John Bale, in his 16th-century satire, The Pageant of the Popes,” Father Echert said. “There is no basis for this attribution and rarely, if ever, is any context for the statement provided. Never has any legitimate papal text been cited to substantiate this allegation.”
Nor can Craig disprove Hitchens' claim and neither can you so your point...is pointless.
Well Rafius...my point is nothing of the sort ("pointless"). It is actually quite "on point."
If you go back and read what I said in context (it was a response to a false allegation about Craig) you will realise this is the case.
I'm too tired now to do this myself and am headed off to sleep....I'll be back in the next few days to straighten this out, if you haven't gone back and done so yourself.
Of course you and other Catholics deny what Pope Leo X said....What else can you do?
So, what if it could be proven that Jesus never existed? What if there was evidence that every word of the New Testament – the cornerstone of Christianity – is based on myth and metaphor?
Based on Tom Harpur’s national bestseller, The Pagan Christ examines these very questions. During his research, Harpur discovered that the New Testament is wholly based on Egyptian mythology, that Jesus Christ never lived, and that – indeed – the text was always meant to be read allegorically. It was the founders of the Church who duped the world into taking a literal approach to the scriptures. And, according to Harpur, this was their fatal error – and the very reason Christianity is struggling today.
he makes the wholly rational claim that if Jesus Christ's death and resurrection is, as Christians believe, historical fact, than this WOULD indeed disprove Hitchens's claim that this life is all there is.
Well, actually, no, it wouldn't. Jesus Christ was (claimed) son of God. Indeed, God himself. God cannot die; we can. God is immortal and so is Jesus. Just because Jesus rose from the dead, doesn't mean that anyone else is going to.
That one -off resurrection is no guarantee that there's anything after death for you, me anyone else.
However, the real point is that, if a shipful of Vulcans landed in Times square that would prove that the Star trek series is actually true.
Big IF. Of course, I agree there is no comparison. Star Trek is actually a lot more believable than the resurrection. At the least the plots hang together. Have a nice night.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-19-2010 at 03:30 PM..
I'm well aware that there are former Christians who have left Christianity for atheism and agnosticism. As such, I am surprised that you don't realise the inverse is also true.
I wasn't going to do this but I guess I will take the time to compile a list of blogs written by former atheists and agnostics who have converted to Catholicism.
This way you can see that such people do exist. And even if you aren't interested in taking that fact on board, there may be other readers here who will find the stories to be of interest.
I never said I didn't realize that the inverse is also true; I am very certain that many people who have in their respective pasts professed atheism could vey well have found religion of any sort. I would also be very interested in their reasoning, not that I am a candidate for conversion. Every person I talk to who that professes to have "found jesus" or "found religion" I find very intersting. After long discussions with such folks my atheism is reinforced.
Knowledge is power. I'll never be one to shun information or turn a deaf ear to anyone's point of view or reasoning.
Last edited by axemanjoe; 08-19-2010 at 04:21 PM..
Well Rafius...my point is nothing of the sort ("pointless"). It is actually quite "on point."
If you go back and read what I said in context (it was a response to a false allegation about Craig) you will realise this is the case.
What I read is your claim that Craig chewed up and spat out Hitchins and that his (Craig's) argument is "rational". It isn't rational because his whole argument is based on the unverifiable premise that Jesus existed and that his death and resurrection is historical fact when it isn't. It is absolutely meaningless to say that 'if' it were historical fact then Hitchens would be proven wrong because that can work the other way too. You can't deal in 'if' in order to prove facts. I mean, 'if' I had breasts it would prove that I was a woman...but I haven't.
AREQUIPA, your claims are totally conclusory. You claim you have won all these arguments (you were "able to trash it", you "use sound logic").
In whose estimation?
Your own?
Sanspeur's?
Hitchens's?
I was able to trash it because, once I'd pointed up the weak points they were not refuted, but just ignored and the best the proposer could do was go back to the beginning and explain it again. And the logical fallacies were clear to anyone who knows them.
It's clear that your conversion story proves nothing about God, Jesus or Christianity. You could not deny that, That is something that cannot be denied by any rational person. You then claimed that you had some other point in posting it. Very well, but the point I made is a sound one. I hardly need you Sans or anyone else to agree with me on that. It should be obvious even to you.
Thus a theist argument trashed because of logical fallacies is trashed. That is clear even if the theist denies it or ignores it. It isn't a matter of your opinion or even mine. Logically two and two make four, no matter whether you agree or not.
I might also ask: Whose opinion is it that Craig trashed Hitchens, Yours? Sans? Mine? A bunch of theists who would have acclaimed him the winner even if he'd been in a coma? The implication is that it can be seen who has made points that have not been refuted. Of course, partisans can always go into denial.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-19-2010 at 03:39 PM..
Rifleman says those who leave Atheism for Christianity are "statistically outnumbered" by those who leave Christianity for Atheism. Because Rifleman used that term and he is a scientist, I presumed that he has statistics to back up his claim.
Ahhh, the untutored making assumptions about statistics again. "Statistically" simply means the use of "stats" as necessary to determine probabilities, majorities, simple counts; you name or count it. It doesn't necessarily mean there's a full blown numerically significant study to support everything, but even if there were, in my experience here, the devout evangelicals simply turn away when we do provide such irrefutable information. After all, "irrefutable" means exactly what it means, and why would they want to deal with that?
As to the relentless attacks on men of science, I suggest you do a quick skim-read of, oh lets say, evofreaks, Campbell34, .... oh hell; I forget the names of at least 4 or 5 others who can't leave the word "scientist" alone without tacking on a nasty adjective to it.
DS, I started out here in 2008 by politely presenting several cases of scientific studies, including one on sedimentary varves I had designed and conducted with my team of research techs, certainly not done in the interests of proving or disproving God or Creationism. Rather, it was a simple, straightforward study aimed at categorizing the hydrology of a dangerously "flashy" watershed that was perched above some proposed mining ground work. The mine owners were interested in preventing mass deaths or catastrophes, so there was simply a need for accuracy, truth and predictability.
Of course, we happened to prove, undeniably, that the sediments in the stream's downstream lake sedimentary repository had been laid down for AT LEAST 30 - 40k years. Ohh-oh, huh? Meantime, in Lake Baikal, they have counted, to date and still ongoing, 250,000 years. Sorta blows a MEGO-hole in the ol' 6037.6 yrs since absolute Creation, wouldn't you say? Or are all us scientists just lying again? Did T-Rexs really co-exist with Fred Flintstone? Did that badly-done Delk hoax (admitted, BTW...) footprint really prove to your satisfaction that some guy with a really misshapen foot stepped into a dino mudprint a mere few hundred years ago? Wehhhlll... if you say so, but we have good evidence to the contrary on all those fables and urban myths.... and you can't come up with a live modern T-Rex either. Sooo... what's with that? Score: Scientific Inquiry: 10++; Creationism: Zero--.
I presented a clear summary of my work in a series of posts back in 2008. You'd think I was the anti-Christ with the hate-filled rhetoric that I had to deflect! You'd think I had pi$$ed on the Holy Grail, or spat on the cross! I heard from several of the more notable anti-truth & science Christians here (NIKK comes to mind; check him out too...) who had OBVIOUSLY refused to even read my efforts, but who nonetheless rather impolitely attacked not only my work, which they categorically spat on, but also that of any and every scientist who had presented any work that contradicted the holy Creationism theme.
Essentially, I have run into that now-predictable perspective from altogether too many Christians, so forgive me my growing reactions and assumptions. We all come to our own conclusions and assumptions; you certainly have by your own words above. When such attacks are the norm, and so adamantly made, and are so aggressive and combative and hostile, how can we, the targets, not become defensive?
So please do forgive me; I've pretty much had it with such formalized and predictable ignorance and lack of respect for my education, my work, the work of my colleagues, and for their well-documented, reproducible and peer-reviewed work. Apparently if it contradicts the greater Christian myth, it's automatically "bad to the bone", and as with your defensive response above, most Christians won't even read the links we do provide.
Yet, when it suits your argument, you stridently demand links from us, and also happily provide us with links you want us to read. What's with that "Dichotomy of Ignorance"?
Sorry, but thet dog don' hunt heah no moh.
I'm tired. And I'm also tired of arguing with the intransigent. Nighty-night!
Ahhh, the untutored making assumptions about statistics again. "Statistically" simply means the use of "stats" as necessary to determine probabilities, majorities, simple counts; you name or count it. It doesn't necessarily mean there's a full blown numerically significant study to support everything, but even if there were, in my experience here, the devout evangelicals simply turn away when we do provide such irrefutable information. After all, "irrefutable" means exactly what it means, and why would they want to deal with that?
As to the relentless attacks on men of science, I suggest you do a quick skim-read of, oh lets say, evofreaks, Campbell34, .... oh hell; I forget the names of at least 4 or 5 others who can't leave the word "scientist" alone without tacking on a nasty adjective to it.
DS, I started out here in 2008 by politely presenting several cases of scientific studies, including one on sedimentary varves I had designed and conducted with my team of research techs, certainly not done in the interests of proving or disproving God or Creationism. Rather, it was a simple, straightforward study aimed at categorizing the hydrology of a dangerously "flashy" watershed that was perched above some proposed mining ground work. The mine owners were interested in preventing mass deaths or catastrophes, so there was simply a need for accuracy, truth and predictability.
Of course, we happened to prove, undeniably, that the sediments in the stream's downstream lake sedimentary repository had been laid down for AT LEAST 30 - 40k years. Ohh-oh, huh? Meantime, in Lake Baikal, they have counted, to date and still ongoing, 250,000 years. Sorta blows a MEGO-hole in the ol' 6037.6 yrs since absolute Creation, wouldn't you say? Or are all us scientists just lying again? Did T-Rexs really co-exist with Fred Flintstone? Did that badly-done Delk hoax (admitted, BTW...) footprint really prove to your satisfaction that some guy with a really misshapen foot stepped into a dino mudprint a mere few hundred years ago? Wehhhlll... if you say so, but we have good evidence to the contrary on all those fables and urban myths.... and you can't come up with a live modern T-Rex either. Sooo... what's with that? Score: Scientific Inquiry: 10++; Creationism: Zero--.
I presented a clear summary of my work in a series of posts back in 2008. You'd think I was the anti-Christ with the hate-filled rhetoric that I had to deflect! You'd think I had pi$$ed on the Holy Grail, or spat on the cross! I heard from several of the more notable anti-truth & science Christians here (NIKK comes to mind; check him out too...) who had OBVIOUSLY refused to even read my efforts, but who nonetheless rather impolitely attacked not only my work, which they categorically spat on, but also that of any and every scientist who had presented any work that contradicted the holy Creationism theme.
Essentially, I have run into that now-predictable perspective from altogether too many Christians, so forgive me my growing reactions and assumptions. We all come to our own conclusions and assumptions; you certainly have by your own words above. When such attacks are the norm, and so adamantly made, and are so aggressive and combative and hostile, how can we, the targets, not become defensive?
So please do forgive me; I've pretty much had it with such formalized and predictable ignorance and lack of respect for my education, my work, the work of my colleagues, and for their well-documented, reproducible and peer-reviewed work. Apparently if it contradicts the greater Christian myth, it's automatically "bad to the bone", and as with your defensive response above, most Christians won't even read the links we do provide.
Yet, when it suits your argument, you stridently demand links from us, and also happily provide us with links you want us to read. What's with that "Dichotomy of Ignorance"?
Sorry, but thet dog don' hunt heah no moh.
I'm tired. And I'm also tired of arguing with the intransigent. Nighty-night!
So what "stats" are you using? Your own personal experience? I can use my own to come to the opposite conclusion.
You seem to draw all kinds of inferences about people's motives based on your emotions and not on facts. You also seem to think (or at least are pretending that you think) that nearly all Christians are un-intelligent and uneducated which is simply not the case.
Maybe the individuals on this site who you claim disrespect you and your work are reacting to your condescending attitude toward them, which is on display once again in your response to my good faith question above. It seems to me that this has very little to do with religion and a lot more to do with your tendency to take offence where none is intended.
Some of these individuals you talk about may even have been winding you up deliberately.
In the world at large, Atheists don't "have the corner" on maths and sciences. It would benefit you greatly to get out more and meet some Christians who are accomplished in the sciences. Like I said on my other post, perhaps your character traits have alienated you from Christians who are scientists, which would explain why you spend a lot of time at City-Data spinning your wheels by talking down to Christians here instead of engaging with your "intellectual equals."
Last edited by DreamingSpires; 08-19-2010 at 09:46 PM..
Reason: grammar
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
