The God Who Wasn't There

[Conchaga]

An interesting documentary about the 'validity' of Jesus Christ. Presnts some interesting facts and has some really neat interviews about the beginnings of the Christian religion. I really recommend watching it. The last 10 minutes or so are the director's personal crusade against the school that taught him the fear of God. However, the incredibly awkward moment he creates at the end is hysterical.

It's available on most torrent sites.

Anyone else seen it? Care to comment?

 

[Inquisitor Torquemada]

Pathetic atheist propaganda.

Even if we discard the deity of Jesus (my faith in Him is unshakable, but for the sake of argument...), ignorants like the maker of this spiteful propaganda have NOTHING on the great religion of Christianity, full of interesting philosophy, brilliant writings, and a proper code of conduct and honor to live by even if one believes in no god.

Amen.

 

[Grandtheftcow]

and a proper code of conduct and honor to live by even if one believes in no god.

Amen.

So you think the Old Testament laws provide a suitable moral guide?

You sick fuck.

 

[Joker]

Christians will cause our demise.

 

[Krieg1981]

Christians will cause our demise.

This.:bailey:

 

[FBI parte due]

So you think the Old Testament laws provide a suitable moral guide?

You sick fuck.

God already called backsies on the whole thing if you're Christian or Muslim, and the Jews have the Talmud to keep them from raping their brother's sister every third Saturday or whatever.

Argument invalid.

 

[wizer]

So far no evidence of God

If I cant see it smell it taste it feel it or hear it, then it aint there.

Same for Jesus and all the other characters from the joke book some call the Bible

 

[ToeRag]

bible ? tl;dr

 

[Donovan]

God already called backsies on the whole thing if you're Christian or Muslim, and the Jews have the Talmud to keep them from raping their brother's sister every third Saturday or whatever.

Argument invalid.

Actually it's not. Religious scholars will make it plain that the bible is the word of God. It is inviolate, as it comes from the source. Therefore, both old and new testament are the genuine article, straight from the one true bla bla bla.

If the New testament (or talmud, or Koran, etc) is meant to contradict, modify, or in any way alter the teachings set down in the old testament, then that is tantamount to saying that at least part of the teaching in the old testament is flawed and in need of "altering".

If that is the case, then it becomes true that the inviolate word of God is at least partly flawed and in need of repair.

If that is then true, then it must be concluded that ANY of the Bible can be considered suspect by the argument of Logic. We have proven here that SOME of the inviolate word of God is flawed and therefore all the Word of God must be considered possibly flawed, including the deification of Jesus and the entirety of the teachings in the New Testamant.

 

[FBI parte due]

"Religious scholars"?

 

[Ilyanna]

If I cant see it smell it taste it feel it or hear it, then it aint there.

Gravity: You can't see it, smell it, taste it, feel it or hear it. The only indirect 'proof' of its existence is the fact that scholars established a great theory why things fall down instead of floating around in the air, and nobody has found an exception to that rule yet.

So I take it that gravity doesn't exist for you?

 

[Robert "Monkey" Loggia]

On the contrary, gravity is something felt. We are just used to it. Go into an atmosphere with less gravity or more gravity, and you will feel something. Ergo, phbbbbbbbtttttttttt to your argument

 

[Donovan]

"Religious scholars"?

What part of this surprises you? There are many educated people who are also quite serious about their faith. The terms are not mutually exclusive. I find it's more effective to continue a debate if you're not mocking the opposing viewpoint.

 

[Donovan]

Gravity: You can't see it, smell it, taste it, feel it or hear it. The only indirect 'proof' of its existence is the fact that scholars established a great theory why things fall down instead of floating around in the air, and nobody has found an exception to that rule yet.

So I take it that gravity doesn't exist for you?

I find that if it is narcissistic and presumptuous to assume there is a single entity or pantheon of great and noble mystical beings whose ONLY job is to watch over everything we do, then it is equally presumptuous to assume we as a race are the very tip top of the evolutionary ladder both in dynamics and intelligence that the universe has ever managed to produce.

Since both hypotheses are equally preposterous, I must assume the true answer lies somewhere between the two extremes: that our amazing leaps of genetic and scientific mastery were assisted in some fashion, that we can't possibly know the details of that assistance, and that our current version of ancient historic events is at best a dimly remembered fairy tale written by children who feared the dark and what might be in it.

 

[Donovan]

Note to sausageman: if everyone stopped posting about stuff they know nothing about, the internet would completely disappear. You don't want that do you?

 

[Ilyanna]

On the contrary, gravity is something felt. We are just used to it. Go into an atmosphere with less gravity or more gravity, and you will feel something. Ergo, phbbbbbbbtttttttttt to your argument

Two points:
1. I was talking to wizer about *him* feeling gravity, not some astronauts or scientists. Since there are not too many people who actually get the chance to experience lower or higher gravity levels than high-handed
the one we are accustomed to, I took the liberty to assume he hasn't, either. The lack of experiencing a difference results in not feeling it at all. You may be influenced by it, but you do not consciously feel it. Thus, my argument stands.

2. You're right: you'd feel 'something'. Now we get to the really interesting question: Where did you get your 'knowledge' that it's gravity you are feeling? Who taught you about the source of this feeling, and what it exactly is?
Unless you are an autodidactic genius in physics, my guess is you've learned it from a third party, that is: fellow humans. Have you gone through the motions necessary to verify this knowledge? Did you study physics, went into space, and experimented to prove once and for all the universal validity of what they told you? No?

Well, then I guess it all boils down to you simply believing them.

Now, how is that different from believing some people who say that the reason why stuff falls down is because there is this God dude who has invented the universe and found it neat to organize it in the way you can see, feel, smell, and hear it?

Both kinds of knowledge are belief systems. You listen to the stories those people tell you, and you decide which story you find more likely, or explains the world better for you. Hey, you can even decide to change your belief system whenever you want to, ain't that great?

Why am I babbling about this? Because I find it incredibly high-handed and idiotic to see representatives from both belief systems mocking or trying to proselytize each other. Accepting and understanding that another person lives with a different belief system which is just as valid as any other would be one hell of a step to end a lot of really boring discussions and/or bloody wars, imo.
(aka: Believe what you want, but please don't shove it down my throat kthxbai)

 

[SuN]

"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.

I like a God who says this!!! <3

 

[FBI parte due]

What part of this surprises you? There are many educated people who are also quite serious about their faith. The terms are not mutually exclusive. I find it's more effective to continue a debate if you're not mocking the opposing viewpoint.

I wasn't saying that. I was saying that you're making generalizations about the world of religious scholarship that don't really apply to the majority of Christians, even.

One of the biggest points of contention in the Reformation was the issue that the Catholic Church was aggressively against any kind of biblical literalism, so pointing out flaws in a literal interpretation of the Bible as the unadulterated word of God doesn't really work with them (or a lot of other Christian sects).

 

[ToeRag]

"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.

I like a God who says this!!! <3

buddha said not to believe anything anyone told you, even the buddha,

in this cynical age i prefer that truth

although marvin gaye's "believe nothing you hear, half what you see" from "heard it through the grapevine" does equally well..

 

[SuN]

buddha said not to believe anything anyone told you, even the buddha,

in this cynical age i prefer that truth

although marvin gaye's "believe nothing you hear, half what you see" from "heard it through the grapevine" does equally well..

if u listined to this u would never benefit from anothers input...what kind of living is that?
This statement is not a truth, it is an expression of insecurity, disempowerment and lack of trust in oneself.
Dig for your own oil, find your own truth, know when to keep walking, know when to keep listening.