The Other Foot Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 3 hours ago, welshbairn said: Jesus disappears from biblical history between being a teenager and his early thirties. Is there any man present here today who would want the period between their teenage years and thirties featured in their biographies? Jesus was at the eccies, White Lightning, clubbing, minimum wage earning and masturbation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 19 hours ago, Boo Khaki said: This is why I really struggle to take seriously those who insist the Christian Bible is an accurate, dependable account of the life of Jesus Christ. Given the nature of the utterly fantastical claims, and the small matter of it being documented decades after the fact, it's a bit like me, born in the early 70's, putting down on paper a 'first hand' account of WWII, and claiming that the combatants were running around using lightsabres, blaster pistols, and "The Force" to best each other and shoot down enemy starships, then people the thick end of 2000 years from now citing that as perfectly credible. WWII is comparatively well documented and understood, yet contemporaneous accounts of it have been proven to be littered with inaccuracies, untruths, propaganda, and complete fabrications that have grown to become 'accepted fact'. There are still people alive who witnessed WWII, and even then their memories are prone to giving biased and inaccurate accounts of what they experienced. The Bible as a credible source text is patently ridiculous, as it's self-evident that even with modern recording techniques, and people alive with lived experience of it, you still can't trust any single source to give an accurate and unbiased account of events 70-80 years past. Why we're expected to accept that a text nearly 2000 years old can do that, especially when so many of the claims it makes and actions it describes are wildly extraordinary, is bewildering. It, like most things involving faith and religion, requires almost complete disregard for common sense and the suspension of basic logic and reason. Do you discard all accounts of a figure called William Wallace for the same reasons - and does roughly 99.9% of all accepted historical events prior to the modern era also get tossed in the bin as a result of this ludicrously high bar for material evidence? The 'accurate and dependable' label for the NT is a matter of faith for those who have that. The historical reality of a figure called Jesus who was a rather big deal in Judea 200 years ago can be reconstructed fairly reliably without suspending any rational construction of the universe at all. It's a more vivid and contemporaneous set of sources than we have for fucking Roman emperors hundreds of years later - we don't throw our arms up in a tantrum about what Aurelian was really doing on earth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 (edited) Considering that most of that post is expressing caution about the veracity of accounts of a major, world-wide event that occurred within living memory, I think it goes without saying what I think about accounts of the period between 200AD and the 1930's. And besides, I did not 'discard all accounts'. Seems to be a habit of yours, this claiming people have said specific things when they have actually said nothing of the sort. Makes me wonder if it's not a reading comprehension issue, and you are just so desperate for attention and confrontation that you are happy to make utter shite up to provoke it. Edited March 3, 2023 by Boo Khaki 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 Claims that assertions that has been made up, then, err, fabricating pop psychological nonsense for why people think you're full of shite. Looking forward to your Post-Modernist Thread though,l where you deconstruct nearly every event in recorded history based on there being just not good enough evidence for you to accept it. Thrilling and edgy content! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 17 hours ago, Boo Khaki said: It is not 'impossible to comprehend timelessness', it's just difficult for humans to conceive of any time period without a distinct beginning and end, because that's how our brains are accustomed to thinking about time. You are positing one particular interpretation of 'big bang', and it's one that is totally out of date. 'Big bang' does not necessitate creation of matter, nor does it correlate with the beginning of the 'existence of time', or space, or matter. Given what we know about the lifecycle of stars, and the properties of black holes, it seems entirely likely that the universe we inhabit is just the descendent of a potentially infinitesimal number of previous universes. This is also consistent with the fact that we know our universe is still expanding into 'nothingness'. There is absolutely nothing about 'prior to the big bang' that necessitates the existence of a creator, or suggests there was 'nothing' prior to 'our' big bang. The universe, and more up to date big bang hypothesis still function perfectly adequately without a creator. I find that last part interesting, in that the more we find out, the theme of not requiring a creator stays consistent and the hypothesis remains workable, yet conversely the concept of a creator being becomes more and more absurd because of its redundancy. It's the origin point of our universe, but there is no requirement for it to be the beginning of time, space, or matter if it's nothing more than the origin point of the latest universe. I'm pretty sure most physicians do indeed consider the Big Bang as having brought time into existence, which leaves my philosophical explanation in tact. Happy to listen to arguments to the contrary though. I disagree about the universe probably being descendent of a potentially infinitesimal number of previous universes. Any time I've looked up this theory, I've found it to be very unconvincing. Granted, It's not impossible though. I find the God hypothesis to be the best explanation. Timelessness is indeed impossible for humans to comprehend. Try conceptualising it in your own mind! Can you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 12 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: I'm pretty sure most physicians do indeed consider the Big Bang as having brought time into existence, which leaves my philosophical explanation in tact. My doctor doesn't even know how to cure piles, I'm certainly not going to take his opinion on the Big Bang with any confidence. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 34 minutes ago, welshbairn said: My doctor doesn't even know how to cure piles, I'm certainly not going to take his opinion on the Big Bang with any confidence. Maybe I should have had a coffee before that one physicists. Apologies to any physicians reading this - your opinions still matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted March 4, 2023 Author Share Posted March 4, 2023 46 minutes ago, welshbairn said: My doctor doesn't even know how to cure piles, I'm certainly not going to take his opinion on the Big Bang with any confidence. Keep a baby's dummy in the freezer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 16 hours ago, virginton said: Do you discard all accounts of a figure called William Wallace for the same reasons - and does roughly 99.9% of all accepted historical events prior to the modern era also get tossed in the bin as a result of this ludicrously high bar for material evidence? The 'accurate and dependable' label for the NT is a matter of faith for those who have that. The historical reality of a figure called Jesus who was a rather big deal in Judea 200 years ago can be reconstructed fairly reliably without suspending any rational construction of the universe at all. It's a more vivid and contemporaneous set of sources than we have for fucking Roman emperors hundreds of years later - we don't throw our arms up in a tantrum about what Aurelian was really doing on earth. What, did he come back already? Surprised more hasn't been made of this, tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 1 hour ago, coprolite said: Keep a baby's dummy in the freezer But don't give it to the baby after you've used it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 2 hours ago, coprolite said: Keep a baby's dummy in the freezer Run a little alcohol on it and give it to VT? Does that work? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted March 4, 2023 Author Share Posted March 4, 2023 1 minute ago, TxRover said: Run a little alcohol on it and give it to VT? Does that work? Not sure how welshbairn's bum grapes benefit from this arrangement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 38 minutes ago, coprolite said: Not sure how welshbairn's bum grapes benefit from this arrangement. Leave my Emma Freuds out of this please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted August 2, 2023 Share Posted August 2, 2023 A very interesting video about the fall of new atheism and the rise of new Christian thinkers in academia and popular culture. Well worth a watch. The Craig vs Hitchens debate on God’s existence was part of my journey to faith. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted August 2, 2023 Share Posted August 2, 2023 5 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: A very interesting video about the fall of new atheism and the rise of new Christian thinkers in academia and popular culture. Oxymoron thread for this pish. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted August 3, 2023 Share Posted August 3, 2023 On 04/03/2023 at 12:18, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Maybe I should have had a coffee before that one physicists. Apologies to any physicians reading this - your opinions still matter. The boys who work at Barrs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHF-23 Posted August 3, 2023 Share Posted August 3, 2023 12 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: A very interesting video about the fall of new atheism and the rise of new Christian thinkers in academia and popular culture. Well worth a watch. The Craig vs Hitchens debate on God’s existence was part of my journey to faith. As an atheist myself I'm delighted we don't have to put up with New Atheists anymore and anyone who shows anything more than passing interest in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris et al should be on a list. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 3, 2023 Share Posted August 3, 2023 14 hours ago, sugna said: Oxymoron thread for this pish. With that particular poster the oxy is not required. Or maybe it is… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 3, 2023 Share Posted August 3, 2023 7 hours ago, GHF-23 said: As an atheist myself I'm delighted we don't have to put up with New Atheists anymore and anyone who shows anything more than passing interest in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris et al should be on a list. I’m happy with new atheists, old atheists and middle aged atheists before any ‘age’ of god botherers. Only takes about five minutes of that video to realise the guy is taking shite. “Yeah, the statistics all say X but I’m observing Y” level of crackpottery. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 3, 2023 Author Share Posted August 3, 2023 There were New Atheists? seems a bit pointless. How can you redefine not believing in a god? Not quite as pointless as arguing about whether you can eat fish on Friday or have lady bishops, but pointless nonetheless. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.