So since Beachmaster brought it up and I already asked this question, yet apparently no one could, can anyone provide me with anywhere to look for archaeological or historical evidence of Jesus WHILE he was alive? Without of course referring me to the scriptures, cause that doesn't count. And if you can't does anyone know why there is no evidence?
The Theist Hatred Of Atheists
- Thread starter Kade
- Start date
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
Consider This, Macon, GA
Do you know what I found interesting about that verse, Macon, GA? It seems to parallel with this one:
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth. It hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, "Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us?" Thy pomp is brought down to the grave and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, "I will ascend into heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will be like the Most High." Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee and consider thee, saying, "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof, that opened not the house of his prisoners?" (Isaiah 14:9-17)
Then compare that with this passage:
Why do ye not understand My speech? Even because ye cannot hear My word. Ye are of your father the devil [Lucifer], and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not. (John 8:43-45)
Kind of interesting, don't you think? Like father, like son, perhaps?
Do you know what I found interesting about that verse, Macon, GA? It seems to parallel with this one:
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth. It hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, "Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us?" Thy pomp is brought down to the grave and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, "I will ascend into heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will be like the Most High." Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee and consider thee, saying, "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof, that opened not the house of his prisoners?" (Isaiah 14:9-17)
Then compare that with this passage:
Why do ye not understand My speech? Even because ye cannot hear My word. Ye are of your father the devil [Lucifer], and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not. (John 8:43-45)
Kind of interesting, don't you think? Like father, like son, perhaps?
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
sophocles07
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,226
Why does this person continue to respond to me after she has ignored me (preventing me from replying directly)?
Would you say that math does not exist because there are conceptual equations representing the material operations?
Logic is only conceptual insofar as we are making it conceptual. That is, if we were to never talk about it again and destroy the philosophical texts that describe it, it would still exist, but it would not be a concept.
Would you also say that language is not comparable to legs/organs/etc. because it is “conceptual”? (It is monolithically agreed that language is comparable to organs or other bodily functions, by the way, if you look into it.)
Again, language is not a concept unless we philosophize it. Most animals have their own way of communicating; this does not pre-suppose that that ability is conceptual, nor does it mean that it has anything to do with rationality or logic in the sense that humans understand these things. Humans, though, have a faculty for language much more developed that animals (obviously) in the sense that we have the capability to express abstract thought, imagine things, reason complexly, etc. Because you can’t “buy” language at a store doesn’t have anything to do with its existence in comparison with organs. One could, if desired, destroy part of the brain carefully causing the inability of the person to speak, express anything, communicate. That’s a material, brain function. It’s not immaterial unless you get very conceptual about it—which can be done about anything.
I think we’re thinking about logic and rationality in different ways. I think of logic as “there,” but only apparent when described. Greeks before Plato and Aristotle used logic, for example, they just didn’t go into depth in descriptions of it.
I meant no one with any semblance of a capacity for science, mind you.
I do believe these things exist (obviously), but I don’t know why you jump to include the word “supernatural” as these things occur naturally in the world.
Yes, it is an evolved trait.
You don’t have to be obliged, it’s a natural thing.
I understand you believe this. You should know that by now.
Nor do I believe that logic was ever ‘floating around in space.’ But I believe it could develop in the human brain. I don’t find it necessary to say that it existed from all time, but that it developed as a result of the need to communicate, cooperate (or exploit, either way you see it), and survive. New things occur all the time, new metamorphoses of matter, energy, etc. I don’t know why you need a preconditioned realm for intelligibility.
The point is that these things in combination, functioning a certain way allows for all of these things. Whether or not electricity can write a novel is not really relevant. Obviously it can’t. Humans are special in that they have managed to be provided with faculties which allow for almost anything in terms of imagination, production of art-works, rational ability to compose constitutions, and so on. I mean, look at it this way: are you unable to walk because one cell of a muscle cannot walk of itself?
beachmaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 707
I think she means that "God did it, not you". But you and I know that you (and myself too, regretfully) brought people into the faith. Fortunately, I've been able to redeem myself somewhat, as I'm sure you have. Back when I was searching for answers to bible quandaries, I was with an online group of believers who occasionally met up in person (we all met at a big passover event once in Tennessee and lot's of questions were brought up at that time). We collectively, over the span of many months, studied and analyzed, sought evidences for and against things found in the bible. I was sort of the vanguard as I became increasingly convinced that I had duped myself all of these years, and when I finally arrived at a conclusion about the bible, I helped many others find their way out as well. Most of us at first longed for the days of ignorant bliss, but it was too late. It's like a kid who finds out Santa isn't real. Once that happens, there is no turning back. I was sad for a while. My invisible helper was no longer there. Yes, I would be mad at them (Yahweh and Yeshua/Jesus) and would say things as I looked up into the sky like "Why have you let me down so?" as tears would pour down my cheek.... then I would just have to laugh at myself and say "Who are you talking to?" and realize the absurdity of being mad at something you no longer even believed exists. It was emotionally difficult but I worked my way out of it, as did most of the others. I did talk with one of them a few weeks back, and he still sort of wished that he had taken the blue pill, but he acknowledged it was too late for that.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Dirt Roads Scholar
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 18
brass tacks
Atheism is not the absence of faith. It merely transfers the worship of an external deity to the religious worship of one's self. It's presuppositions, regardless of of the equivocations of its novitiates and priests, remains by far and away the most lethal religious philosophy the planet has ever suffered. It can exist in any more than minuscule numbers only where Christian precepts have provided a safe host for the parasite, or where reason has departed.
The Jesus of the Bible certainly seems to have left an unequaled and massive footprint all over history for a non-existent, or at best marginal personage.
'Pay no attention to those silly myths! Why, we just appeared here, for no reason, and are now busy contemplating our magnificent selves with many large words, high admiration, and vivid imagination.'
"There comes an hour in the afternoon when the child is tired of
`pretending'; when he is weary of being a robber or a Red Indian. It is
then that he torments the cat. There comes a time in the routine of an
ordered civilization when the man is tired of playing at mythology and
pretending that a tree is a maiden or that the moon made love to a man.
The effect of this staleness is the same everywhere; it is seen in all
drug-taking and dram-drinking and every form of the tendency to increase
the dose. Men seek stranger sins or more startling obscenities as
stimulants to their jaded sense. They seek after mad oriental religions
for the same reason. They try to stab their nerves to life, as if it were
with the knives of the priests of Baal. They are walking in their sleep
and try to wake themselves up with nightmares." G.K. Chesterton
The perennial adolescents who compose in feces and are adored by their
peers when they proclaim it "art", also tend (along with their peers) to
be enamored of murderous Eastern religions or even more lethal Western godlessness, all the while disdaining the love of Christ. DRS
ps - sophistry07... put a sock in it.
Atheism is not the absence of faith. It merely transfers the worship of an external deity to the religious worship of one's self. It's presuppositions, regardless of of the equivocations of its novitiates and priests, remains by far and away the most lethal religious philosophy the planet has ever suffered. It can exist in any more than minuscule numbers only where Christian precepts have provided a safe host for the parasite, or where reason has departed.
The Jesus of the Bible certainly seems to have left an unequaled and massive footprint all over history for a non-existent, or at best marginal personage.
'Pay no attention to those silly myths! Why, we just appeared here, for no reason, and are now busy contemplating our magnificent selves with many large words, high admiration, and vivid imagination.'
"There comes an hour in the afternoon when the child is tired of
`pretending'; when he is weary of being a robber or a Red Indian. It is
then that he torments the cat. There comes a time in the routine of an
ordered civilization when the man is tired of playing at mythology and
pretending that a tree is a maiden or that the moon made love to a man.
The effect of this staleness is the same everywhere; it is seen in all
drug-taking and dram-drinking and every form of the tendency to increase
the dose. Men seek stranger sins or more startling obscenities as
stimulants to their jaded sense. They seek after mad oriental religions
for the same reason. They try to stab their nerves to life, as if it were
with the knives of the priests of Baal. They are walking in their sleep
and try to wake themselves up with nightmares." G.K. Chesterton
The perennial adolescents who compose in feces and are adored by their
peers when they proclaim it "art", also tend (along with their peers) to
be enamored of murderous Eastern religions or even more lethal Western godlessness, all the while disdaining the love of Christ. DRS
ps - sophistry07... put a sock in it.
beachmaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 707
Hey being Old Testament and all, that sounds like a Jesus prophecy! Jesus was the Morning Star after all. Supposedly came from (fell from?) heaven, later supposedly ascended to heaven (he claimed to be of the Father, from heaven and would return to heaven... his followers followed up on that with myth that he ascended later), said he would be enthroned in heaven at the right hand of God, claimed to be like the most high, was the "light of the world" (Lucifer means light, or enlighted), died and went to hell to pay the price for sin (supposedly).
Just amazing!
Last edited:
beachmaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 707
I'm not an atheist, but I am the closest thing to a god that I know. And after all, I AM.
Works for me!
I shall now bow down... to Me!
sophocles07
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,226
So did “Zeus” for thousand-plus years. This is a prime example of the sophistry of argument an extremist Christian uses. "Damn, that idea influenced a lot of shit, the contents of the idea MUST be true." Nice one, BRAIN.
If I had to choose, I’d go for “faith in self” over “faith in ‘God’”; but, seeing I am not an atheist, I don’t know why you’re coming in on page 51 to repeat a view we already know the Christians here espouse.
Is this all you can come up with?
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
What the Nature of Logic and Language Are
No. I would say math exists because it is a conceptual system of quantitative analysis and data which is useful, though limited, in understanding certain aspects of nature, statistical and probability formulations in social sciences, financial theory and application, etc. But math, itself, is not a material entity (It doesn't have a physical body or anatomy, in the biological/empirical sense.).
Logic is not conceptual just because "we make it conceptual." It exists that way on its own by its created nature. By the way, I just want to bring to your attention how you've contradicted yourself here on the existence of logic. You've said before that logic would still exist even if we never talked about it or wrote about it, but then later on you state that logic is "only apparent when described." Which is it?
I disagree with you when you say that Aristotle didn't go in-depth about logic. He was considered the creator of what's known as modal logic (syllogisms with modalities). He wrote extensively on the subject and dealt heavily with its forms. Read more about that here.
Yes, I would say that language is not comparable to legs and organs because of the same reasons why logic isn't comparable to them--they are two different types of entities. Once again, language and logic aren't physical in and of themselves because they are invisible (or abstract) in reality. Legs and organs, on the other hand, are physical and they can be empirically experienced by our five senses in nature. Metaphysically, the two are different, but they are still meaningful and knowable in nature and human understanding.
I agree with you that destroying parts of the brain can have an effect on speech and communications in humans. I would say this is because the body and soul of man are inexorably, yet uniquely connected to one another. Language, which originates and operates in the soul, can be affected by certain things that are done to the brain, which functions in the body, but this does not mean that brain and language are equal as the same types of entities, as I've repeatedly mentioned.
Simply put, what I mean by things being "supernatural" is that they exist outside of the material, natural realm in some sort of metaphysical sense (non-tangible). You can substitute the word "immaterial" there, if you like.
Though I disagree with you that logic is an "evolved trait," I must ask if you believe that the laws of logic are universal in all living creatures or are they just conventional in nature.
No, but using logic and the ability to walk are still two separate things. You can't compare a human or animal's ability to walk with their ability to both use logical reasoning through deduction in induction; this is simply comparing apples to oranges.
No. I would say math exists because it is a conceptual system of quantitative analysis and data which is useful, though limited, in understanding certain aspects of nature, statistical and probability formulations in social sciences, financial theory and application, etc. But math, itself, is not a material entity (It doesn't have a physical body or anatomy, in the biological/empirical sense.).
Logic is not conceptual just because "we make it conceptual." It exists that way on its own by its created nature. By the way, I just want to bring to your attention how you've contradicted yourself here on the existence of logic. You've said before that logic would still exist even if we never talked about it or wrote about it, but then later on you state that logic is "only apparent when described." Which is it?
I disagree with you when you say that Aristotle didn't go in-depth about logic. He was considered the creator of what's known as modal logic (syllogisms with modalities). He wrote extensively on the subject and dealt heavily with its forms. Read more about that here.
Yes, I would say that language is not comparable to legs and organs because of the same reasons why logic isn't comparable to them--they are two different types of entities. Once again, language and logic aren't physical in and of themselves because they are invisible (or abstract) in reality. Legs and organs, on the other hand, are physical and they can be empirically experienced by our five senses in nature. Metaphysically, the two are different, but they are still meaningful and knowable in nature and human understanding.
I agree with you that destroying parts of the brain can have an effect on speech and communications in humans. I would say this is because the body and soul of man are inexorably, yet uniquely connected to one another. Language, which originates and operates in the soul, can be affected by certain things that are done to the brain, which functions in the body, but this does not mean that brain and language are equal as the same types of entities, as I've repeatedly mentioned.
Simply put, what I mean by things being "supernatural" is that they exist outside of the material, natural realm in some sort of metaphysical sense (non-tangible). You can substitute the word "immaterial" there, if you like.
Though I disagree with you that logic is an "evolved trait," I must ask if you believe that the laws of logic are universal in all living creatures or are they just conventional in nature.
No, but using logic and the ability to walk are still two separate things. You can't compare a human or animal's ability to walk with their ability to both use logical reasoning through deduction in induction; this is simply comparing apples to oranges.
beachmaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 707
Are we done here yet?
Best post of the thread, and you don't even have to go past the first page.
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
External Hypocrisy Under the Cloak of Egalitarianism
While it may be true that we have strayed very far away from the original subject of this thread (I bear a huge portion of blame for that, I freely admit.), the main point is that different philosophical and political ideas have been exchanged and evaluated, you know, because, as Ron Paul supporters, we believe in the freedom to express, debate, and disagree with each other's opinions in a civil manner.
If any division, stirring up, or riling up of animosity has occurred, then it has been provoked by those who have chosen to express on this forum thread that they don't believe or like it when others engage in civil debate and discussion on controversial topics. But then they themselves become guilty of what they profess to have an issue with, namely, disagreement with someone else's views and the willingness to share it on this forum thread.
While it may be true that we have strayed very far away from the original subject of this thread (I bear a huge portion of blame for that, I freely admit.), the main point is that different philosophical and political ideas have been exchanged and evaluated, you know, because, as Ron Paul supporters, we believe in the freedom to express, debate, and disagree with each other's opinions in a civil manner.
If any division, stirring up, or riling up of animosity has occurred, then it has been provoked by those who have chosen to express on this forum thread that they don't believe or like it when others engage in civil debate and discussion on controversial topics. But then they themselves become guilty of what they profess to have an issue with, namely, disagreement with someone else's views and the willingness to share it on this forum thread.
WilliamC
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,682
Unfortunately you have repeatedly shown that, if you had power, you would not be willing to allow others the freedom to express or even keep opinions that differ from your own.
Originally posted by WilliamC
Do you still seek to destroy my ideas and see my point of view of the world become extinct?
I consider you to be a dangerous person Theocrat, because you are intolerant of those whose religious beliefs differ from your own precisely in the same way that extremist muslims are. They too wish to see non-muslims destroyed and become extinct.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Are you willing to swear that you would never use violence, coercion, or fraud to get peaceful others to agree with your beliefs?
If you had any power to impose your will on others, would you be willing to let agnostics, atheists, and those who don't accept your beliefs about god live in peace?
Or do you still wish for my agnostic/atheistic opinions to be destroyed and for people who believe as I do that god most likely doesn't even exist to become extinct?
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
You're Mistaken About Me Once Again, WilliamC
No, I believe that people are within their own intellectual rights to hold to their beliefs, including the ones that differ from my own, but I still believe they're wrong if their ideas do not agree with the word of God. I think it's more profitable to discuss and debate opposing views than to just pull out a gun and shoot somebody when they disagree with me. By the way, that would be murder if I were to do so. But do not expect me to accept the authority of or simply agree with fools who won't use the common sense that God gave them, especially when ideas have consequences within a society and souls are at stake in eternity. What you believe determines how you behave. If you believe men are animals, then men will act like animals, for example, and that has serious ramifications in a society's moral code, justice system, orientation of law and science, respect for property rights, and the list goes on and on. That's one of the philosophies that I take issue with, and I find great pleasure in showing the fallacies of it.
Comparing my wanting to destroy your beliefs (not your body) with Islam is naive, at best, and repulsive, at worst. I don't know which one of my threads you're referring to where I said I wanted to strap some bombs to myself and blow up anybody who disagrees with me, but you need to just quit with your hasty generalizations, WilliamC. I've explained to you over and over again that I do not wish to murder you or any non-theist, but you're still not hearing me.
By the way, your intolerance of my being intolerant of other's differing beliefs is noted.
You are, but ignorance can be fixed. Stupidity lasts forever. By the way, I don't think you're stupid, WilliamC, and you've done a lot for the Ron Paul campaign, so I know you possess great intelligence and wisdom in some things.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No, I believe that people are within their own intellectual rights to hold to their beliefs, including the ones that differ from my own, but I still believe they're wrong if their ideas do not agree with the word of God. I think it's more profitable to discuss and debate opposing views than to just pull out a gun and shoot somebody when they disagree with me. By the way, that would be murder if I were to do so. But do not expect me to accept the authority of or simply agree with fools who won't use the common sense that God gave them, especially when ideas have consequences within a society and souls are at stake in eternity. What you believe determines how you behave. If you believe men are animals, then men will act like animals, for example, and that has serious ramifications in a society's moral code, justice system, orientation of law and science, respect for property rights, and the list goes on and on. That's one of the philosophies that I take issue with, and I find great pleasure in showing the fallacies of it.
Comparing my wanting to destroy your beliefs (not your body) with Islam is naive, at best, and repulsive, at worst. I don't know which one of my threads you're referring to where I said I wanted to strap some bombs to myself and blow up anybody who disagrees with me, but you need to just quit with your hasty generalizations, WilliamC. I've explained to you over and over again that I do not wish to murder you or any non-theist, but you're still not hearing me.
By the way, your intolerance of my being intolerant of other's differing beliefs is noted.
You are, but ignorance can be fixed. Stupidity lasts forever. By the way, I don't think you're stupid, WilliamC, and you've done a lot for the Ron Paul campaign, so I know you possess great intelligence and wisdom in some things.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Last edited:
sophocles07
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,226
So it exists? That’s what I’m saying in regards to logic, what you just said, but applied to logic (in its proper applications, obviously).
I mean that we become aware of it only when it is isolated through abstraction. Similar to math. We instinctively use math (a baby can use math but he doesn’t know the concept), but if we allow cognition to go into philosophy, it becomes apparent (i.e., through philosophical description).
No, I mean philosophers (as far as I know) before these two did not go in-depth about logic. I know that Plato and Aristotle did.
Do you see how there is no real way I can argue against this as your argument starts off with the pre-assumption of something that has no material or logical basis?
It seems like you’re just making something metaphysical without any real reason to do so.
Do you mean “do plants and other animals think abstractly” or do you mean “does nature operate ‘logically’”?
They’re both fruits. Which is what I’m doing: analogy by way of how something functions; a lightbulb without a socket and electricity will not shine, put together they will. Any mechanism can be used as an analogy; the human anatomy is best though, because it keeps it within the body.
Also, have you read my questions about how things like art, ideas would be handled in a hypothetical theocratic nation? Would art which implicitly or explicitly involved morality that is contrary to the Christian God’s Law be allowed to be published, distributed, etc.? I’m wondering exactly how a theocratic government could actually exist and operate without destroying most of the freedoms of mind that people enjoy under the republican ideals of Jefferson and Adams. And what about classic authors, like Theognis or Aeschylus, whose works are pagan?
Last edited:
Riggggght....
I am willing to wager $10,000 that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sun Worshipers, Pastafarians, etc. have commited MANY more henious and lethal acts then Atheists. Hell, I'll wager that religion in the last 40 years has done more harm to the world then atheism in all of history, and that is saving you from the crusades, inquisitions, etc. .
Look up the statics of Atheists in prision for violent crimes. Then look up religious numbers. Whyi s this? I think its because these people no longer really fear death, because they can just go "HEY! God, like, forgive me! I just commited manslaughter, but hey, you love me, so its all good!", where as (most) atheists value life, as we know its a one time deal.
If you look at...eh...75% of wars in history, you will notice the rich justified alot of them by religion. If you look at, say, 70+% of genocides, its been of religious causes. Now, can you honestly tell me that Atheists can hold a candle to the attrocities of religion apon human lives?
And trust me, you dont want me to get into the scientific and economic screw-overs the religion have done to mankind.
Now, would you be kind enough to retract your insult? Thank you.
Edit: Dont forget to look up the religious cults that lead to mass killings while you are trying to find something to use against me, and please, find something good, I like to have debates that force you to think.
A rope leash
Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 221
The commies killed a few religious people...
...believe me, I know!
...believe me, I know!
...believe me, I know!
But that is a political position, not a religious position, therefor, that is a bit moot. Ethier they were killing because they were communists opossing a different faction, or they were atheists killing a dif. faction... the atheism might of helped fuel the fire of hate, but it was the communism that pushed them over.
Similar threads
