Jump to content

Cougar

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    255

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Cougar

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Cougar - Let's agree to disagree on these issues.

    And, for the record, IMHO believing in an unprovable supernatural deity will always require more faith, or as I sometimes cynically call it, "kidding oneself", than belief in the laws of logic & probability.

    Just consider the sheer complexity of a baby's birth. Literally trillions of cells must first be created from two original cells, then combine in an exact formation in order for a human to exist. There are billions of opportunities for error. Yet 99% of the time, the baby is born with two eyes, ten fingers, ten toes, one heart, etc. and everything is "hooked up" correctly. This has happened billions of times and yet we accept it as normal when it is nothing short of a miracle. I don't see how that is possible unless someone had designed it that way.

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    I believe nobody here believes in the ancient Roman or Greek gods. Well, Vergilius wrote about Juno and many other gods in his Aeneis, which was some kind of "Bible" for the Romans. All Romans believed that Juno wrecked most of Aeneas' fleet, but I doubt people do now. So what makes this different then some stories in the Bible?

    Maybe you could say that the Aeneis is proved to be completely wrong. But Homer's Illias is proven to be very historically accurate, although there are also many devine actions in it. Many experts believe the Illias is based on stories told among Greeks about the great Trojan wars and that Homer wrote them down. So you could also speak of real eye-witnesses here, although I doubt we believe anything of the golden apple or other supernatural stories.

    The Bible has been corroborated by several secular sources, not necessarily with as much detail, but the fact that Jesus performed inexplicable act were reported. To be fair, I don't know whether or not there are any writings that support the Illias and the divine interventions. Here are some secular historians who have confirmed some portions of the New Testament.

    Thallus (a Samaritan historian, ca. 52 AD)

    Letter of Mara-Serapion (written to his son, ca. 73 AD)

    Pliny The Younger (Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, ca. 112 AD)

    Seutonius (Court official and analyst under Hadrian, 120 AD)

    The Talmud (Two books dealing with Jewish law, written between 100 AD and 500 AD)

    Flavius Josephus (a Jewish general turned Roman historian, born 37 AD)

    None of these sources believed that Jesus was the Son of God, but they still acknowledged his existence.

    It's also interesting that the rise of Christianity caused many problems for the Jews. They were losing people to the Christian faith. They would have loved to stop the spread of Christianity and it would have been easy to do if the Apostles were making up stories about Jesus. The Apostles were saying that Jesus performed miracles, he turned water to wine, he made the lame walk, he made the blind see and he even rose from the grave. If none of this had been true, the Jews would have denied this outright, but they didn't. Instead they claimed that it wasn't God, but Satan that had given Jesus these abilities. Too many people had seen the miracles to deny that they had ever happened.

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    But what I think Jeru meant is for example changing water in wine, walking on water, splitting up an ocean, etc. (the devine actions). Personally I don't believe this, I rather think this is used to "spice up" the story to make it more popular among people.

    This is what I was talking about when I said Jesus' enemies didn't deny the miracles he performed. Ancient Jewish writings and Roman historians both reported that Jesus performed acts that were inexplicable, so it's not just "spice" that Christians added.

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    It might interest you to know that the Bible is the most historically accurate document we have today. It has been validated on many occasions by many people (not just Christians). If you are basing this on the belief that God is not omniscient and omnipresent then of course the Bible is going to seem far-fetched.

    Please don't consider this as an attack, but what are you basing this on, Cougar?

    The more historians and archeoligists (sp?) uncover about history, the more the Bible is validated (regarding historical accuracy). I will be able to point out some specific examples when I get back home tonight.

    Similarly, I could write a book today saying, "I went to my friend's house and drew him a picture today. A new shopping mall has just opened last week. Dancing purple elephants whizzed along the horizon this morning.", and it would be historically accurate except for the last sentence. If all the books written today were less accurate, then my book would effectively be the most historically accurate document written on October 5th, 2003 - And yet, it would be impossible to verify the part about the dancing purple elephants, since there's no evidence to back it up.

    Yes, you could do this, however there would be many people who would discredit your book because they were there. These people would be able say that the "dancing purple elephants" were not real. The oldest parts of the New Testament were written as early as 7 years after the death of Jesus. Many of Jesus' followers were still alive and would have been able to denounce the writings if they had not been accurate. Not even the Pharises (sp?), who hated the teachings of Jesus, denied the miracles of Jesus Christ.

    The "luxury" about agnosticsm and atheism is that it doesn't require any faith at all; No shaky foundations to build your life and make your decisions upon. It's pure, fool-proof logic and intellect and it will not fail those who use it, a life of validity and assurance that life is governed by a grand system of constant rules and natural occurences, not a dwelling-place where theoretical, inpercieveable deities are at work, conciously yet inexplicably intervening in the course of our lives.

    You cannot disprove God, so you must have faith that He doesn't exist. You must have faith that all this happened by chance. I don't see how anyone can consider the extreme complexity of the universe and believe that it created itself. In my opinion, that belief takes more faith than believing in an all-powerful God.

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    I wasn't trying to convince anyone to believe what I do. I was simply attempting (perhaps unsuccessfully) to defend my beliefs with some discussion. I didn't intend to start a debate, I respect other people's beliefs even though I do not agree with them.

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    I believe that one cannot know whether a metaphysical superior being exists, but one has no indication that this being does.

    This is not true, I know there is a God. It cannot be proven that He exists but it also cannot be proven that He doesn't exist. I my case I have seen enough evidence to believe that He does, but either view takes some faith.

    The chances that this being would fulfill all the Judeo-Christian descriptions - omniscience, omnipotence, etc. - are especially slim.

    I'm not sure what you're basing this on, if God where human then I would agree with you. However, God is not human, He's God. Why wouldn't He be able to accomplish all those things?

    The chances that the Biblical story is true from A to Z, including the higher power's intervention in human affairs and all, is so astronomically slim it's negligible.

    It might interest you to know that the Bible is the most historically accurate document we have today. It has been validated on many occasions by many people (not just Christians). If you are basing this on the belief that God is not omniscient and omnipresent then of course the Bible is going to seem far-fetched.

  22. Is Your Son A Computer Hacker ?

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted

    lol, this can't be a serious article. Where did you find it?

    If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well.

    Uh oh, I'm using an AMD processor... How could I be a hacker all this time and not even realize it? :)

    I also like how they refer to Quake, a 7-year-old game, as "an online virtual reality used by hackers".

×
×
  • Create New...