Mosque at Ground Zero revival

[Pain]

The short answer is simply because the world was once more or less dominated by Christians. The dating method that arose stuck.

 

[Prozac]

There are historical records for Jesus. That's pretty much confirmed.

No historical record? Then why do be use Before Christ and After Death?

Just because we just a specific event for dating purposes, doesn't give it historical value.

 

[Pain]

There are historical records for Jesus. That's pretty much confirmed.

Provide them, please.

 

[Deathshot]

The short answer is simply because the world was once more or less dominated by Christians. The dating method that arose stuck.

I guess that maybe true but, how can you be for sure that he was or wasn't there is the true question. The only way anyone could know is if they were there. The reason I have my belief is it gives me hope and ease at heart. I have all respect for you for what you chose as your religion if Atheism is a religion. I guess its the belief of nothing.

 

[Prozac]

Provide them, please.

Just google it, there have been loads of non religious investigations.

 

[Synth]

Atheism is the religion to STOP religion.

baby steps, yo...

 

[Pain]

there have been loads of non religious investigations.

Then you should have no problem providing one.

 

[Prozac]

Then you should have no problem providing one.

I would not indeed, however I have no intention of doing so. Because I don't need to proof myself, I'm perfectly comfortable with you not believing it.

 

[Avenger]

I'm with Pain on this one. Lots of people have TOLD me about these sources. No one has ever provided them.

 

[Synth]

I like to think I'm Jesus, you're Jesus, that guy over there is Jesus, that kid to his right is Jesus... and that crazy goth kid over there is Jesus, too.

The B.I.B.L.E. (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth) is just a book of analogies and anagrams.

You don't need facts to be changed by the positive aspects some religions endure.

 

[Zeonix]

I'm still kind of lost on the whole of why we assume there is a creator in the first place. It implies infinite regress, and that doesn't tell me ANYTHING. This is basically the best counter towards the existence of any supreme being. If it exists, what made it? And so on.

I personally think that the universe has always been around, especially considering that time only started existing after the Big Bang's expansion of space. Hell, for all we know, the Big Crunch just resets everything, and we experience the same thing all over again (well, not us, but the next "us").

You actually touched on why asking "who created the supreme deity?" is nonsensical. You're thinking in terms of a progression of time, which we're not sure even applied before our Universe came to be or will continue to exist in some form after it ceases to exist. The best answer to who created said being or when is simple: Nothing, and never. It simply is.

@ Pain: We don't know that there won't be a big crunch. You're stating something as fact despite it being the topic of much deliberation by people far more intelligent than either of us. Currently, we're not sure if the Universe will expand forever at an ever increasing rate, or eventually begin to slow down, stop altogether, and then rubber band its way back to the epicenter of the big bang. Should the latter be the case, it would seem probable to me that the creation and destruction of our Universe in particular is a regular occurrence, and part of a cycle.

@ Prozac: You speak as if our Universe is all that there is, which is no longer the dominating mindset. We are barely able to see the consequences of our own actions 50 years from now. How would we know that something that occurs today wasn't the consequence of something put into motion 100,000+ years ago? We wouldn't. If such a being exists, it would, much like the Universe, be completely outside of our realm of understanding and our ability to comprehend. The more we learn, the more we realize how little we actually know.

@Deathshot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

@ Prozac again: There is no evidence outside of holy texts that proves Jesus existed, especially not in the way described by the Bible as he seems to be nothing more than an amalgamation of a series of Gods preceding him throughout time, most notably Osiris. Though he could have existed as nothing more than a teacher, and then had godhood thrown upon him to make his teachings easier to swallow for people.

 

[Pain]

I would not indeed, however I have no intention of doing so. Because I don't need to proof myself, I'm perfectly comfortable with you not believing it.

When you state something as factually confirmed and that the evidence is plentiful, belief is really not part of the equation. You probably tried to find proof and realized you couldn't (because there isn't any) and now you're trying to save face. There's nothing wrong with admitting fault.

@ Pain: We don't know that there won't be a big crunch. You're stating something as fact despite it being the topic of much deliberation by people far more intelligent than either of us. Currently, we're not sure if the Universe will expand forever at an ever increasing rate, or eventually begin to slow down, stop altogether, and then rubber band its way back to the epicenter of the big bang. Should the latter be the case, it would seem probable to me that the creation and destruction of our Universe in particular is a regular occurrence, and part of a cycle.

Little late to the party Mrs. Puggles. We've covered this already.

 

[Prozac]

When you state something as factually confirmed and that the evidence is plentiful, belief is really not part of the equation. You probably tried to find proof and realized you couldn't (because there isn't any) and now you're trying to save face. There's nothing wrong with admitting fault.

Now now Pain, is your view on your fellow human beings so distorted that when someone doesn't care to disproof or proof something you believe, you immediately call bull****?
Your pathetic attempts at bating me won't work, I stand with my previous post.

I would not indeed, however I have no intention of doing so. Because I don't need to proof myself, I'm perfectly comfortable with you not believing it.

Also note that when people don't care to defend their views, it tends to mean they are pretty sure about them, unlike others who try to confine others into believe based purely on their own insecurity on the matter.

 

[Zeonix]

Now now Pain, is your view on your fellow human beings so distorted that when someone doesn't care to disproof or proof something you believe, you immediately call bull****?

Also note that when people don't care to defend their views, it tends to mean they are pretty sure about them, unlike others who try to confine others into believe based purely on their own insecurity on the matter.

It also sometimes means they can't prove their views to be accurate.

Not that this is necessarily that kind of situation.




















































































































It kinda is, though.

A little bit.

 

[Pain]

Now now Pain, is your view on your fellow human beings so distorted that when someone doesn't care to disproof or proof something you believe, you immediately call bull****?
Your pathetic attempts at bating me won't work, I stand with my previous post.

If you told me you painted your toenails a lovely shade of purple, I would probably take your word for it and not ask you for proof.
When you say, "There are historical records for Jesus. That's pretty much confirmed," sorry, that's a pretty big claim to make so I'm afraid your word isn't good enough. Apparently the evidence is plentiful and I'm a fool for not knowing, but mysteriously when asked to provide some, you utterly fail to provide a single source. I find this odd.

Also, what am I baiting you into? If you did provide the proof it would shut me up right away. You haven't done that, so that tells me you're full of **** but won't admit it.

Also note that when people don't care to defend their views, it tends to mean they are pretty sure about them, unlike others who try to confine others into believe based purely on their own insecurity on the matter.

People who don't care to defend their views tend to not be able to defend their views. Maybe you can provide some examples where people don't support factual claims with... facts? Or do you not care to defend that statement either?

 

[Prozac]

Oké, fine. I'll get the answers that you crave.
Next time though, don't be so anal about it.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html
This basically shows jesus lived and died. They track him down through his history while debugging most of his so called miracles.
Didn't change the fact that he existed though.

Now before you throw some random links back at me, refuting what I posted. Please do make sure you check them. As in, they actually invested time in researching this. And they aren't just some angry atheists blogging on the web.

Apparently the evidence is plentiful and I'm a fool for not knowing, but mysteriously when asked to provide some, you utterly fail to provide a single source. I find this odd.

Get off your high horse already, stop thinking that just because someone doesn't care about what you think, it means you're right. It's obnoxious.
Really, it is.

 

[Zeonix]

I read this carefully:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/03/jesus_tomb_lost.html

"Experts begin to revise their claims":

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/04/jesus_tomb_debu.html

 

[Prozac]

Oké, that's news to me that the actual research team came back from their original claim.
This is however not the only source. I do remember viewing a good youtube video which summed up a few strong points. I believe he quoted sources outside of the bible. along with a few other stuff.
Give me a few minutes to find it.

[edit]
Heh, that was easier to find then I thought.
[video=youtube;Ct28heTUKvM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct28heTUKvM[/video]

Usually I don't like posting youtube videos for this. However his sources as far as I can tell are correct.

 

[Pain]

Get off your high horse already, stop thinking that just because someone doesn't care about what you think, it means you're right. It's obnoxious.
Really, it is.

You want to talk about obnoxious? Saying "I don't care if you believe me," when you're making a factual claim. It's akin to a christian saying, "I'll pray for you." It's a non-verbal "I'm right, **** you," and it's unbelievably condescending.

So you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little heated about people living in fantasy lands where the only facts that matter are the ones they keep to themselves.

Scrutiny is how you learn things. Maybe you'd be fine in a world where everyone said, "I don't care what you think, I'm right, lalala~" but I'm not. I like peer review, I like things to be supported by evidence, because I like to live in a place called the real world.

By the way, I should warn you that there are several forgeries often touted as proof for Jesus' existence. Check before you try to use one of those.

 

[Prozac]

You want to talk about obnoxious? Saying "I don't care if you believe me," when you're making a factual claim. It's akin to a christian saying, "I'll pray for you." It's a non-verbal "I'm right, **** you," and it's unbelievably condescending.

So you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little heated about people living in fantasy lands where the only facts that matter are the ones they keep to themselves.

Scrutiny is how you learn things. Maybe you'd be fine in a world where everyone said, "I don't care what you think, I'm right, lalala~" but I'm not. I like peer review, I like things to be supported by evidence, because I like to live in a place called the real world.

By the way, I should warn you that there are several forgeries often touted as proof for Jesus' existence. Check before you try to use one of those.

So all of this is based on you, misinterpreting me, for trying to be an *******. While in fact I really just did not care.
Reading back though, I do agree how it can seem how you described it. I'll give you that.
Anyway, unlike something mathematical, this isn't a clear cut situation. You have several point of views. Believing one point of view will lead you to not believing he actually existed. Another to the opposite. Though I did come off a bit strong with the way I worded it. I do still believe that Jesus walked this earth. Not as the son of god, but more as a woodworker who had a few lose wires up in his head.