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.
You do not get to define what my thread and post are about just because you may not understand it. Claiming it is the opposite of what it states reveals a complete lack of comprehension of the science behind it (or a reading deficit).
What you refuse to understand is that we do 'get' the science behind it but simply do not agree with your unprovable conclusion about all those little bits and pieces ( forgive the totally unscientific description)coalescing into a universal consciousness
What you refuse to understand is that we do 'get' the science behind it but simply do not agree with your unprovable conclusion about all those little bits and pieces ( forgive the totally unscientific description)coalescing into a universal consciousness
I've always (as long as i got the idea of mystics beliefs) seen 'intelligence' as the difference between 'consciousness and unconscious natural processes. Animal 'consciousness' is obviously a train of evidence of the evolution of an emergent mental capacity that becomes in humans intelligence and which is often what they mean by consciousness. Especially what it is fielded as some sort of Gap for god argument.
The evolutionary chain on 'consciousness' as with Life can be traced back to bio -physical action and reaction and bio -chemical action and reaction to atomic (or chemical, as some like to call it) action and reaction. So there is an evidential link, for sure. But intelligence (aka 'consciousness') is really not feasibly in the discussion once one has got below wombats in the evolutionary chain, and we are in the area of instincts and chemical reactions and natural physical law. And to talk of all this being 'conscious' is merely the stuff of Faith - claims.
Oh for Pete's sake, even the myths about George Washington and the stupid cherry tree. tossing coins etc. were embellishments. Are they reasons to consider George Washington is not real????? Such absurd illogic is driven by an almost pathological defense of magical thinking, traditions, and superstitions.
Your logic is absurd. Just because people have stories embellished about them does not mean that every person who was later embellished actually existed. Just think fan fiction.
The real reason people question the existence of Jesus is that the evidence is good enough to do this, while the evidence for his existence relies on texts by a later group of people who were known to write their own fan fiction. 2nd century AD and later Christians.
This thread has got wide -ranging in topic, hasn't it? No, I'm not going to preach my pet Theory. I'm just going to observe that you made (irascibility aside) a valid point. Unlike Arach, who is just cheeky, denialist and irritating as usual.
I disagree. Just because George Washington (and it is almost always George Washington) was embellished, that does not mean Jesus actually existed. His existence as a man could be an embellishment of the angel or divine being revealed in the Old Testament.
What you refuse to understand is that we do 'get' the science behind it but simply do not agree with your unprovable conclusion about all those little bits and pieces ( forgive the totally unscientific description)coalescing into a universal consciousness
I disagree. He knows we understand the science. This is simply the old game of pretending we do not understand.
I disagree. Just because George Washington (and it is almost always George Washington) was embellished, that does not mean Jesus actually existed. His existence as a man could be an embellishment of the angel or divine being revealed in the Old Testament.
I agree, but that wasn't the point. The George Washington -and it might as well be Alexander the great or Elisabeth 1st - are accepted because there is just so much supporting evidence. Even personal documentation and contemporary accounts. There are debated areas, anecdotes (or legends) that might not be true, but those are incidentals to the validation of the person.
This where the Probability and weight of evidence thing comes in, which the Faithful never seem to get. It would be possible to insist that all the evidence for Washington, Elisabeth or Alexander has been faked. This may seen ludicrous, but it is effectively what is going on with Flat -earthism.
With Jesus it is a bit more like the Shakespeare is Bacon argument. At one time quote popular, but less so these days. It accepts that there was a Shakespeare who was an Elisabethan actor, but we wasn't the playwright.
The accepted belief is that Shakespeare DID write the Plays and Jesus DID say and do what is in the Gospels.
We can rule out any suggestion that there was no Shakespeare at all. That requires falsification of evidence that is as unbelievable as falsifying Washington's existence, not just what he did. Jesus is more open to being
pretty much invented. Or a similar theory - a different Jesus (or several) whose stories were cobbled together. It's even possible to argue that the Christ -figure was invented after the Jewish war out of a crucified Jew (there were thousands) preaching a creed that undermined Judaism (there was one rather whacky theory that proposed a deal between the Romans and Paul to destroy Judaism).
I think the probability leans towards Paul and thus the disciples, and thus their messianic beliefs and thus probably a messiah who evidently went the way of the others, all being true rather than all invention. But my point was that all 'history' can be open to debate, but some is more reliable (at least in basics) than others.
Your logic is absurd. Just because people have stories embellished about them does not mean that every person who was later embellished actually existed. Just think fan fiction.
The real reason people question the existence of Jesus is that the evidence is good enough to do this, while the evidence for his existence relies on texts by a later group of people who were known to write their own fan fiction. 2nd century AD and later Christians.
The idea that such early writings were fiction during a time when writing was such a rare and difficult task is preposterous. Writing was a serious business reserved for serious things.
I agree, but that wasn't the point. The George Washington -and it might as well be Alexander the great or Elisabeth 1st - are accepted because there is just so much supporting evidence. Even personal documentation and contemporary accounts. There are debated areas, anecdotes (or legends) that might not be true, but those are incidentals to the validation of the person.
This where the Probability and weight of evidence thing comes in, which the Faithful never seem to get. It would be possible to insist that all the evidence for Washington, Elisabeth or Alexander has been faked. This may seen ludicrous, but it is effectively what is going on with Flat -earthism.
With Jesus it is a bit more like the Shakespeare is Bacon argument. At one time quote popular, but less so these days. It accepts that there was a Shakespeare who was an Elisabethan actor, but we wasn't the playwright.
The accepted belief is that Shakespeare DID write the Plays and Jesus DID say and do what is in the Gospels.
We can rule out any suggestion that there was no Shakespeare at all. That requires falsification of evidence that is as unbelievable as falsifying Washington's existence, not just what he did. Jesus is more open to being
pretty much invented. Or a similar theory - a different Jesus (or several) whose stories were cobbled together. It's even possible to argue that the Christ -figure was invented after the Jewish war out of a crucified Jew (there were thousands) preaching a creed that undermined Judaism (there was one rather whacky theory that proposed a deal between the Romans and Paul to destroy Judaism).
I think the probability leans towards Paul and thus the disciples, and thus their messianic beliefs and thus probably a messiah who evidently went the way of the others, all being true rather than all invention. But my point was that all 'history' can be open to debate, but some is more reliable (at least in basics) than others.
the point MPD consistently makes is it is "superstitious magical thinking primitive" if it is not verified by modern science. or verified by reliable historical records. ergo both his own "visit from Jesus" and the "myth invented 2,000 years ago" are both "primitive superstitious magical thinking"
I don't care what his speculative science and mythical religious beliefs are. my point is simply that the logic he uses and the words he uses are inconsistent resulting in flawed logic. it's a double standard. all I am doing is pointing that out.
The idea that such early writings were fiction during a time when writing was such a rare and difficult task is preposterous. Writing was a serious business reserved for serious things.
Ancient Chinese writing evolved during the Shang Dynasty 1600-1046 BCE which is about 3,400 years ago. I recall you saying earlier in the thread that ancient people were ignorant primitives. Now you are saying writing is a serious business reserved for serious things?
See this is what I mean by how utterly inconsistent you are in your flawed logic.
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.
No, I'm not going to preach my pet Theory. I'm just going to observe that you made (irascibility aside) a valid point. Unlike Arach, who is just cheeky, denialist and irritating as usual.
