Either there is a God, or there isn't.

[Rad Chris]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth isnt a closed system, its powered by the Sun.

 

[diablodelmar]

Well it sure looks to me as if it does! take a look at your hair in the morning!

 

[Rad Chris]

If only you knew how true that was

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I'm only arguing this to get the thread off Creationism; neither are really proper to discuss here.

Certainly for Josephus (the source closest to the action so to speak) the passage that deals with Christ's existance is generally thought to be a forgery added later.

It is generally agreed that Josephus wrote something about Jesus, and the 'forgeries' clouded the issue.

The problem is that Josephus was an observant Jew (not a Christian) and would certainly not have called Jesus "the messiah" nor would he have likely believed that he rose from the dead.

Argument from incredulity - this is like diablodelmar talking about "atheist science" because they "would certainly not" attack christianity otherwise. I don't see that you have grounds for talking about what Josephus would and would not say.

If you're interested you could take a look at these sites (they cover Tacitus and Pliny too plus others)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sources.html

Monkey see, monkey do, monkey throw link!
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html
From your link: "When one makes a wager to believe, then one becomes morally responsible for the propagation of suffering that Christianity have been bringing and will continue to bring upon the world."
Sounds like Kent Hovind's long-lost twin brother preaching about the evils of the opposite worldview and guilt by association.

Either way, none of the covers the Gospels. Now let's hope that the thread gets back on course. This should at least disrupt the random creationist mumblings.

*pushes thread back on topic*

 

[The Last Conformist]

I believe both poll options are belief in something that hasn't been proven either

This belief of yours is factually wrong, and I find your repeating it in every thread on the subject in supreme disregard for any objections offensive.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: ComradeDavo, diablodelmar, warned. Public discussion of moderator actions is not allowed. Period. Take it up via PM.

RadChris, diablodelmar, Spartan117, warned. Please keep it to the topic at hand. Whether or not evolution is correct is immaterial to the existence of god.

If you want a Creation vs Evolution topic, take it to another thread. The next time I see it pop up, the thread gets closed for good.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Erik Mesoy]

In an attempt to get back on topic

There is no other way out (strangely enough). Both possibilities are frightening. If there is a God then we'd better find out who he is and what he wants!

If there isn't a God, then we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH with nobody to care about us.

Which side do you take?

I believe there is a God, because whichever way you believe, it is by purely faith. There is no imperical evidence to support the (non)existence of a God. Frankly, I would rather believe that we were created by a loving God who has a purpose for us than to believe we came from a rock and are getting better progressivly. In effect, evolution teaches us that we are Gods. We are slowly becoming more and more like perfect Gods through a slow process.

What is your take? If you don't believe in a God (Atheist) then tell me, in some relative detail, what (or who, more specifically) defines right from wrong? The government?

No personal attacks please.

As said before, I'm a Christian, but I'd like to point out that I consider your view of evolution a strawman and I request that you remove it from the first post. Right now it'll not only cause evo/cre debates, but also debates over whether it's valid. That only holds the thread up.

 

[bathsheba666]

If there isn't a God, then we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH with nobody to care about us.

Why ignore the Sun's and Galaxy's contributions? And what about dear old mum and dad?

If you don't believe in a God (Atheist) then tell me, in some relative detail, what (or who, more specifically) defines right from wrong?

Plenty of offers here, it seems.

No personal attacks please.

Spoilsport.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Are you trying to quote me? Please don't.

To quote you? No, I certainly wasn't "trying to quote you." I was responding to A'AbarachAmadan.

Now I am trying to quote and respond to you. Let's see if I'll succeed ... Whether you like it or not.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Lord Emsworth: Would you kindly cease to put everything you write in italics? It's annoying to read.

 

[MrCynical]

I'm not certain there is no God, but similarly I'm also certain that God cannot be as he is described in most religions. Christianity would have us believe that a God of supreme moral excellence created the universe, but surely the fact the universe contains evil is evidence that this is not true? Any arguments that it's a result of humanity's sin is drivel, since humanity was apparently made in God's own image, and if they were evil and sinned, then that evil and sin originated from God. Since God knows all that is, was and ever could be, he did this deliberately as well.

I long ago came to the conclusion that the God of Christianity is either considerably different from the description in the Bible, or is of truly appalling moral calibre. I have no desire to believe the latter, and would find the absence of any God more comforting than the presence of a God such as described in the Old Testament. The godless universe itself will not decide to inflict harm on anyone out of pure spite.

Your poll lacks any option for me. I'm essentially an agnostic, and have a very different view of what constitutes a God than you. I'm not an atheist, I merely have found enough evidence to convince me the God of the Old Testament does not exist. I lack evidence either for or against the existence of a God beyond that, and thus cannot make a decision either way. The presence of a benevolent God might seem more comforting, but just because something would be nice does not make it true. I would find no comfort in believing in a benevolent being that I had no evidence for, since I place logic as paramount. More to the point I cannot reconcile belief in a benevolent being with the existence of evil in the universe unless that being is incapable of affecting the universe.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Argument from incredulity - this is like diablodelmar talking about "atheist science" because they "would certainly not" attack christianity otherwise. I don't see that you have grounds for talking about what Josephus would and would not say.

That Josephus wouldn't have called Jesus "the Messiah" (and meant it) is actually pretty widely agreed upon. On the page that you linked to there also is a section on the Testimoniun Flavianum from which I quoted the following paragraph giving a bit more insight as to why this makes the Testimonium suspect.

It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

Either the passage received a few glosses, or the passage was inserted here in entirety. Those who favor partial authenticity usually bracket the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousan other wonderful things concerning him."​

Link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Of course the whole page is worth a look for anyone who is interested in more in depth pros-and-cons Josephus' references.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What is your take? If you don't believe in a God (Atheist) then tell me, in some relative detail, what (or who, more specifically) defines right from wrong? The government?

No personal attacks please.

Right and Wrong are determined by people. Every society has formulated its own code of conduct. Just look around the world and you'll see that people believe that different things are right and wrong. You will also observe that these things change over time. It is no longer morally acceptable to own slaves, for example. These rules of conduct come about spontaneously in order to get a civilization to function properly (whatever way that is for that society). The reason that change in a moral code occurs is because social conditions change. Slavery became illegal (and thereby functionally immoral) because it was comparatively economically unviable, when compared to investment in the machinery of the industrial age.

Religion is not the source of morality. It is not even claimed as the source in every society. I doubt that Buddhism factors much into the moral compass of the Japanese, for example. Dogmatic religions, such as Christianity, like to hijack morality and claim it as their own, when in reality, the traditions and customs of a society determine it. Even if you believe that religion is the source of morality, you would have to explain why there are so many different religions with their own versions of right and wrong.

 

[Hotpoint]

I'm only arguing this to get the thread off Creationism; neither are really proper to discuss here.
It is generally agreed that Josephus wrote something about Jesus, and the 'forgeries' clouded the issue.

There is a big difference between his mentioning Jesus in passing and using Josephus as a supporter of the Christian view of the man.

Argument from incredulity - this is like diablodelmar talking about "atheist science" because they "would certainly not" attack christianity otherwise. I don't see that you have grounds for talking about what Josephus would and would not say.

False comparison. The opinionated view that there exists "Athiest Science" ,which is in some way rendered invalid by the beliefs or otherwise of its proponents, is not the same as the logical deduction that a commited Jew (we know quite a lot about Josephus beliefs from his own writings, including his autobiography) who was not a Christian is unlikely to regard Jesus as the Messiah.

Argument from reason not incredulity.

Monkey see, monkey do, monkey throw link!
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

For the record I do believe in a Historical Jesus. It's the supernatural element that is unsupported by the contemporary source material.

From your link: "When one makes a wager to believe, then one becomes morally responsible for the propagation of suffering that Christianity have been bringing and will continue to bring upon the world."

Don't conflate the message (regarding Josephus) with the bias of the messenger. The fact is that the passage really is suspect and the disagreement is really one of how much it was falsified rather than whether it was falsified.

Either way, none of the covers the Gospels. Now let's hope that the thread gets back on course. This should at least disrupt the random creationist mumblings.

Which Gospels? Even if you only wish to include the four canon ones (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) they were written well after the accepted death of Jesus and it's not like they are inerrant. They don't even agree fully with each other.

Anyhow I fear that by continuing this Christian orientated argument we're not really doing the thread justice. There are a great many more Gods than the Abrahamic one and they're just as worthy of inclusion.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Anyhow I fear that by continuing this Christian orientated argument we're not really doing the thread justice. There are a great many more Gods than the Abrahamic one and they're just as worthy of inclusion.

Maybe diablodelmar should tells us how he justifies his disbelief in Arioch ...

 

[diablodelmar]

Maybe diablodelmar should tells us how he justifies his disbelief in Arioch ...

Have we even ever discussed Arioch before?

 

[The Last Conformist]

No, but you claim to be a Christian, which, unless you subscribe to some rather bizarre heresy, implies you don't believe in Arioch.

 

[diablodelmar]

By the way everybody, could somebody tell me (in support of Jesus non-existence):

a)Why Josephus Tacitus and Pliny all mention Jesus Christ? This has already been brought up.
b) Why it is that every archeaologist who set out to go to the Middle East to disprove the existence of Jesus Christ has become a christian?

 

[North King]

I can't vote in the poll, as I sincerely maintain there is no reason for me to believe that there is, and there is no reason for me to believe that there isn't a God. Taking a firm stance on it is silly.

 

[diablodelmar]

No, but you claim to be a Christian, which, unless you subscribe to some rather bizarre heresy, implies you don't believe in Arioch.

No, I believe that Arioch existed. Please sir, don't jump to conclusions when
a) You know less about me than anyone
b) you haven't even heard me so much as hint to the fact that some dude called Arioch didn't exist.
and c) You think you know something that you in reality only have a vague idea of.