Are you an atheist?

[Bladerunner]

Blah blah blah. Presumed is the key word. There is no provenience for the document. It just mysteriously appears in the Vatican.

Fakes abound. The Shroud of Turin, The Tomb of Jesus' brother, etc etc etc.

You ended the wording to early. "Presumed to be the FIRST eyewitness" There could be more and we have not found them yet. The same with all the quirks and electrons, etc.out there running around. We have yet to find them all but we make theories that and in todays world, these theories become a hard fact?????????? SO would you in scientific worlds call this a good theory....Yes....NO



Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Anyway, if you had read Genesis 1:12 you would know that all plants were created on the third day. The day before the Sun, Moon and stars were created.

Funny how atheists know more of the Bible than most of the religious.

Genesis 1:1,2 states......".In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2)And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

This included everything in the Universe plus he was here on earth doing the creating personally.

Genesis 1:4,5 states........ "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness (5)and God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

So there was light from which the grasses, herbs and fruit trees flourished and reseeded themselves on the third day.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

My entire point there was that absence of evidence can be used to prove that something doesn't exist. It's how we know there are no unicorns (despite what the bible says), fire-breathing dragons, or purple hairy lightning bolts - there is no evidence of any of them ever having existed.

The only problem here is that evidence, the Bible is discarded as nothing when it has been around for thousand of years 'in almost perfect to the letter' from the oldest manuscripts we have to the newest.

I believe I heard arguements in the scientific realm that more or less said 'just because we cannot see it, does not mean it is not there' (translated to "absence of evidence")

One other point, there are a lot of other places than the Catholic Church that own or have in their possession old manuscripts like the dead sea scrolls, etc. Some of you are letting your hatred for the Catholic Church cloud your judgements about the Bible much like a teen a boys judgement is clouded by his brain between his legs.


Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

I would only have to scroll back a few pages maybe not even that.

You are guilty of the quote I mentioned, Evidence is Evidence. Evidence is needed to prove fact.

You proclaim facts without evidence which disproves your fact as an opinion.

THe theory of Relativity is the same,,,,,,,,no without fact it is an opinion.

Therefore the creation by God should at least be a theory and not a false hood. If you do that, of course you Atheist agenda goes away/

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Until proven otherwise,

That's how Evidence of Absence and Propositional Logic works.

Then everything we scientifically theorize about the Universe is false.

Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

.So there was light from which the grasses, herbs and fruit trees flourished and reseeded themselves on the third day.

So the Bible there was light without the Sun or stars and you expect it to be taken as a credible authority?

I repeat what I said earlier about the inability of the faithful to think critically.

 

[Bladerunner]

So the Bible there was light without the Sun or stars and you expect it to be taken as a credible authority?

I repeat what I said earlier about the inability of the faithful to think critically.

He created everything the first day including the Sun, Moon stars and everything else in the universe and beyond. In Genesis 14 through 16 he was not creating that which had already been created. "Let it be" does not mean created.

It only repeated what he had done. Pay attention to the 'and' word before every verse. This means that it was one thought process. He created the Heavens and the Earth..............and.....and...and......etc. etc.

That is the key.. Genesis 1: 1,2 "the first day". Are we now on the same page my friend?

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

one other point I need to make.


1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Why was the earth in darkness????????????Look to Job 38:4-9
"When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band"

therefore he let the light in through the clouds. Now you might ask why I did this? Job was written around 600BC or about 600 years after God gave Moses the first five books of the Bible. These books (the Tora) were put together and written around 400BC.

What I am trying to say that the Bible has many authors living far after the events happened yet they describe the initial events to the letter. Who would have thought about putting to pen the above verse that would clarify something that happened thousands of years before and only spoke of 600 hundreds of years prior to it writing unless it came from someone who knew what HE had done and was still around to tell someone.!!!!

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

and we just got through and proved the book (Bible) was retransscribed to a level of integrity that if done today without a computer and word processor would be hard to match. Out of 800 dead sea scrolls there were 200 of which contained religious books of the past and these match word for word (-17 words) what is kept (where-ever they keep them) for prosperity. I guess you do not believe these are credible either?

For starts, Not too hard to match. All it takes is some ink and a parchment and a person to tell you what to write. Credible evidence needs evidence, again I will stress if I employed 100s of people back in those days to write the whole book of narnia (If it existed back then) in ink and parchment word for word then by your logic it is a credible historic evidence.

Is this guy not credible? I mean the discoverer. You trust Steven Hawkins---yes when he tells you the THEORY of evolution, relativity, etc. and the physics it brought with it. p.s. a THEORY is not proven either and is just one step above a Hypothesis.

Well who is the psychic now? How do you know I trust him?

A lot of the things Stephen Hawkins has explained has been shown and backed with some sort of physical evidence, Your religion relies on a book and scraps of perceived evidence via Jesus on a pancake I have no problem with your religion but since your proclaiming evidence rather then a theory then I would like to see credible evidence to back it up.

Yet, here you go and discredit a piece that was found, published and to my knowledge was not discredited by anyone other that those that say the same as you do.

It is sad!

Blade

With only a morsel of googling, I found that many people have discredited this book

You won't find what you're not looking for.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Evidence of Absence: What is this mumbo-jumbo piece of crapola. What does it even mean ........You would make a good politician my friend.

Thanks, I guess? Although having no intentions on being a politician.

"I'm not saying "A" Jesus never lived. I'm sure he did. But the Jesus to which you refer. Highly doubtful. ".............If you read the book yuo will discover that it is this Jesus that went through the same obstacles as the Jesus in the Bible did and that this Jesus did indeed have a multitude of followers. In fact, he is the most celebrated man in the history of mankind.

I can quite safely say that this book will only reinforce what "apparently" happened. I bet this Jesus fellow thinks the joke went too far Darn April fools!

Keep in mind before these previous post, Jesus did not exist in your eyes and probably still does not.

I was giving an example of Modes Tollus. As I have said, I believe someone named Jesus probably existed. But surely don't believe he was the son of a deity.

Come-on put 2 and 2 together. you do it all the time in the scientific ring.

I have given you article after article and for one reason or another it has not been good enough. It reminds me of a sci-fi thriller where a computer (far advanced to ours) would not accept anything from the outside that might suggest that it had made even the tiniest mistake, finally had to turn the damn thing off before it killed everybody. As with you and the other DEFOUT Atheist, no article nor anybody regardless of their knowledge, learned capabilites nor the statute among their piers, etc. is going to be good enough for you to have even the tiniest doubt concerning your Idealology concerning religion and the Christian faith. I say Christian because the two others were written well after 300 AD and conveniently included copies of the original five books, only rewritten to the advantage of their religion. A topic for later post.

Your "articles" haven't been the essence of reliability when it comes to bias Blade. To make a good argument you need to consider both sides of the fence rather then just your own. Your "Articles" show that you have a swayed opinion.

 

[Libre]

Blade

If you read the book yuo will discover that it is this Jesus that went through the same obstacles as the Jesus in the Bible did and that this Jesus did indeed have a multitude of followers. In fact, he is the most celebrated man in the history of mankind.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. He may be celebrated, but it's the claims that Jesus was something MORE than a man that cause people who don't believe in super-beings or magic to raise objections.

In fact, the claims that Jesus was a deity are at the root of the disagreement. He may have claimed to be (or maybe not) but certainly many others claimed that he was, and that he performed miracles and otherwise displayed powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. The problem here is, if he DID exist at all (and I don't deny it), there is no proof that he did have these capabilities and there is no proof that he performed these miracles - there are only accounts of people who knew people who knew people who supposedly saw ... something. Total here say - (as well as, perhaps, heresy). But by any objective measure, if Jesus Christ walked the earth at all, he looked remarkably the same as any other man who has ever existed. Are we to take the written accounts of Hercules, Thor, Odysseus, and Spiderman as fact? Not I, for one. Yes, many of us are "faithless". We're the ones that don't believe everything we hear and read, or in fact, anything at all, if it doesn't at least pass the test of reason.

 

[Galaxiom]

He created everything the first day including the Sun, Moon stars and everything else in the universe and beyond. In Genesis 14 through 16 he was not creating that which had already been created. "Let it be" does not mean created.

Wrong again Blade.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty,

The sea and land were not even separated from each other until the third day.(Genesis 1:9)

Let and Creation are clearly on the same day.
For example on the fifth day:

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it,

 

[Galaxiom]

Genesis 1:1,2 states......".In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2)And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

We can use your version of Genesis 1:2 if you prefer.

"Without form and void". Does that sound like everything had already been created?

 

[Galaxiom]

THe theory of Relativity is the same,,,,,,,,no without fact it is an opinion.

No. Relativity is backed up by vast numbers of observations. Moreover it predicted what had yet to be observed. The accuracy of such predictions are what elevates a hypothesis to a theory.

Therefore the creation by God should at least be a theory and not a false hood.

No. God is a hypothesis. Moreover it is a failed hypothesis because it does not accurately describe that which is observed. Matching what is observed is the first requirement on the road to becoming a theory so the God hypothesis falls at the first hurdle.

Science, through the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics accurately describes the Universe from immediately after the first pixel of pure formless energy appears about 13.8 billon years ago.

Currently the only place left for creation is prior to that first pixel at a time of 10^-43 seconds after the beginning when the Universe was 10^-35 metres across.

The notion of personal hands-on detailed creation of each aspect of reality by a deity is dead. Indeed even the church finally acknowledged Evolution. It only took them 150 years. It was 400 years before they accepted heliocentricity.

 

[Hagridore]

I can't answer this poll because none of the options fit my view of the Divine. Of course, as a Panentheist/Pagan/Wiccan/New Thought/Reiki Master/Labyrinthian/Unitarian Universalist, it's a bit difficult to make a statement that DOES meet my view.

I like the words that I first heard from Unitarian Universalist minister and then-UUA President John Buehrens many years ago, "If you tell me about the God you don't believe in, I'll probably be able to honestly tell you I don't believe in that God either."

 

[Bladerunner]

For starts, Not too hard to match. All it takes is some ink and a parchment and a person to tell you what to write. Credible evidence needs evidence, again I will stress if I employed 100s of people back in those days to write the whole book of narnia (If it existed back then) in ink and parchment word for word then by your logic it is a credible historic evidence.

Well who is the psychic now? How do you know I trust him?

A lot of the things Stephen Hawkins has explained has been shown and backed with some sort of physical evidence, Your religion relies on a book and scraps of perceived evidence via Jesus on a pancake I have no problem with your religion but since your proclaiming evidence rather then a theory then I would like to see credible evidence to back it up.

With only a morsel of googling, I found that many people have discredited this book

You won't find what you're not looking for.

care to drop a link for that. will save me some time EH!

Is physical evidence Facts? then it would be a Law then not a Theory. The Bible Has God's word in it. Is it not physical evidence... Oh, you don't agree with it so it cannot be used. It is all there in front of you and yet you make a choice not to see it.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

For starts, Not too hard to match. All it takes is some ink and a parchment and a person to tell you what to write. Credible evidence needs evidence, again I will stress if I employed 100s of people back in those days to write the whole book of narnia (If it existed back then) in ink and parchment word for word then by your logic it is a credible historic evidence.

.

Hundreds,,,,back then there were not hundreds of people that were literate. Most of the time it was a scribe (single) that was charged with the job of copying word for word the bible or other manuscripts. They did a good job. The link I gave you about
the witness was just that. I have not researched it and had only come upon it when I link it to the post. However, is not the researcher credible. Evidently not---al least in you minds eye.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

I have no problem with your religion but since your proclaiming evidence rather then a theory then I would like to see credible evidence to back it up.

theory definition. In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

I believe the Bible at the very least fits this description, don't you?

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, I don't think anyone is disputing that. He may be celebrated, but it's the claims that Jesus was something MORE than a man that cause people who don't believe in super-beings or magic to raise objections.

In fact, the claims that Jesus was a deity are at the root of the disagreement. He may have claimed to be (or maybe not) but certainly many others claimed that he was, and that he performed miracles and otherwise displayed powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. The problem here is, if he DID exist at all (and I don't deny it), there is no proof that he did have these capabilities and there is no proof that he performed these miracles - there are only accounts of people who knew people who knew people who supposedly saw ... something. Total here say - (as well as, perhaps, heresy). But by any objective measure, if Jesus Christ walked the earth at all, he looked remarkably the same as any other man who has ever existed. Are we to take the written accounts of Hercules, Thor, Odysseus, and Spiderman as fact? Not I, for one. Yes, many of us are "faithless". We're the ones that don't believe everything we hear and read, or in fact, anything at all, if it doesn't at least pass the test of reason.

Libre, I don't really know how to respond? The last two pages have been about those that did not even believe Jesus existed and if he did he was not the one in the Bible.?????????????????????????????//

more later.
Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

However, is not the researcher credible.

The researcher may well be credible but they found an old document in the Vatican archives. That document has no provenance. Fake religious artifacts abound.

If the paper was carbon dated and it came up with a date in the first century it would help but the owners of antiquarian religious artifacts lost their enthusiasm for such investigation after the "Shroud of Turin" was conclusively shown to be a fake.