1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Blind faith

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by bakes0310, 9 Apr 2007.

  1. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: 3 May 2003

    Posts: 6,077

    The Qur'an refers to Jesus as the Messiah and Muslim's believe in him being a messenger of God and of also being the saviour when "the End of the World in neigh!!!!!!"
     
  2. Joe42

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Jan 2005

    Posts: 4,171

    Location: Northants

    Read his books. Seriously.
    Its taken him a lifetime to set out all the reasons why religion is wrong. I'm not about to try and do that in 5 minutes.

    Why am i wrong? Don't just state that i am wrong, show me why, or its meaningless.
    Heres the definition of faith:
    Atheism is the belief that the world was not created by a supreme being, because there is hardly any evidence that suggests that it was and because there is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that it wasn't. There's no faith involved.

    I have no faith in anything, because faith is a ridiculous thing. Why would anyone believe in anything which has no evidence to support it?

    You seem to have this idea that anyone who doesn't believe that the world was created by a big man in the sky in 7 days is an idiot... i find that rather amusing. :p

    Jesus did not rise from the dead, because its impossible.
    The evidence that suggests he did is one rather badly written 2000 year old book. The evidence that suggests that he didn't is the billions of people who haven't been able to rise from the dead since, and the 2000 years of science since that has begun to understand how the world actually works.
    There's a time and a place for fairy tales, and that was 2000 years ago when we simply weren't clever enough to understand to any extent at all how the world works. It was a good explanation then, but its been a little out of date for about a 1000 years or so.

    Either the world was created by a supreme being or it wasn't. If there's no evidence that it was, then it wasn't.
     
  3. Homeslice

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 219

    You can only say its impossible to the limits of our knowledge though. If Jesus was indeed the son of God, then it would not have impossible at all.


    Is there actual physical proof that it wasn't?
     
  4. Joe42

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Jan 2005

    Posts: 4,171

    Location: Northants

    Indeed. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point. Your evidence is one 2000 year old book. My evidence is everything else.

    Think of it in terms of probability. The probability that he rose from the dead is extremely small, the probability that he didn't is simply huge. Therefore, why believe that he did?

    Lots, but you'll have to read some of Dawkin's books for that.
     
    Last edited: 10 Apr 2007
  5. Homeslice

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 219

    One 2000 year old book and the accounts of many witnesses. More witnesses and factual documentation / evidence surround the resurrection than the Battle of Hastings and the sinking of the titanic, yet we believe these happened and take them for granted.

    Your evidence is a world where human knowledge has a higher understanding with endless possibilities but no one has ever actually prooved the big bang theory, so the 'everything else' argument is a nullified as the God argument.

    Stop editing your post ;) I'm downloading 24 and cant refresh that quickly! lol :p

    Dawkins book highlights his arguments and focuses on areas of his research. Like I said earlier, the resurrection of Christ is a fundamental area of the christian faith. Dakwins makes no mention of the resurrection or the details leading upto it or the details after it. Why would this be when there was such a falable argument against it? Surely for Dawkins this would be the nail in the coffin (so to speak) ;)
     
    Last edited: 10 Apr 2007
  6. Joe42

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Jan 2005

    Posts: 4,171

    Location: Northants

    That's because they don't go against 2000 years of scientific understanding, experimentation, logic and reasoning.
    there's also a damn sight more evidence that the titanic sank than that god exists. There's a ship called titanic on the bottom of the ocean for a start...
    Either the world was created by a supreme being or it wasn't.
    You don't have to believe in the big bang theory or indeed anything else to be able to say there isn't enough evidence that god exists, so he doesn't.
    You don't have to disprove one to prove another.

    The big bang theory is full of holes, as is the theory of evolution, but they make a damn sight more sense than religion ever will, because they are both founded on proof, logic, science and reasoning rather than 'blind faith'.
     
  7. Van_Dammesque

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 4 May 2004

    Posts: 2,208

    Location: NE England

    But wasn't the bible actually written many decades after this? Were these witnesses interviewed? Did everyone of them check to see if Jesus had actually died first?
    The sinking of a ship and a war are not miracuolous are they though and can be believed as they are easily conceivable.
     
  8. Joe42

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Jan 2005

    Posts: 4,171

    Location: Northants

    Sorry, i have a nasty habit of adding bits to my posts sometimes.

    From what i've read of Dawkins books, he spends most of his time pointing out why evolution etc is right, rather than why religion is wrong.
    I must admit i haven't read much of his books, because he's preaching to the converted with me.
    I find them very boring because he has to spend chapters and chapters pointing out the same thing in every possible way and covering every possible thing so that you religious nuts can't poke holes in his arguments. ;)
    He does a damn good job of it too.

    I really do recommend reading them if you haven't already. If nothing else, you'll understand what others believe better.
     
  9. Homeslice

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 219

    Jesus was, if you can get this far, crucified. No-one in history has survived crucifixtion, fact.

    The writers of the New Testament were written at the time or shortly after the events. These same writers and 'people' of the day had the old testament (although it obviously wasnt called that then). Theres a very good short clip on the net covering a large area of this topic. I'm, not asking that you watch it, I'm just suggesting its a good area to start and covers most of what we are discussing here. I can't find it atm but I'll check. If you get time, take a look, IIRC its about 10 mins long.

    The titanic sank less than 100 years ago. Whilst we are good now at documenting history, in 1900 years time what is to say that such an event (although nothing amazing)* will not be classed as ludricous that such a thing as a 'ship' even existed.

    You can't just say God doesn't exist. Its quite easily feasable that a higher power (which would have to be a God of some sort unless it itself had a creator) 'created' the world in some form or another.

    * I do not mean this in a disrespectful way
     
  10. iCraig

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 21 Apr 2004

    Posts: 13,314

    Location: Wolverhampton

    I've found there's two types of atheists.

    The first lot who don't believe in God themselves but respect those who do, because even though there is a lot of evidence to support atheism, it's not fact, and is not definately correct.

    The second lot don't believe in God aswell, but they insist they're right. They insist that atheism is correct despite only having evidence supporting their idea rather than actually prooving it.

    There's a thin line between them but they're very different fundamentally.
     
  11. Joe42

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Jan 2005

    Posts: 4,171

    Location: Northants

    You can never prove that god exists, or that he doesn't.
    But its perfectly fair to say 'i am more likely to be right, because i have more convincing evidence for my argument than you have for yours'.
     
  12. Scrutinize

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 4 Apr 2003

    Posts: 7,704

    Would anyone like to challenge this? or come up with a scientific suggestion for the outcome btw?

    I am just interested as no one has yet, so are you guys accepting that this is as it is?
     
  13. sniffy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 12 Dec 2003

    Posts: 8,141

    Location: East Sussex

    Care to present the evidence to prove he's wrong?

    I've been reading through the old testament recently. I certainly don't consider that proof. New testament? I won't consider that evidence of the existance of god. A man called Jesus yes, but the son of god? Highly debatable.

    What a grim book the old testament is. Anyone took time to read it?

    [email protected]: There's no doubt a scientific explanation for what happend. I doubt we'll find such specialists on a hardware forum though :)

    I believe a supreme being started the big-bang (I find it hard to comprehend such mass arised from *NOTHING*), I just don't think it's the being talked about in any religious text.
     
    Last edited: 10 Apr 2007
  14. Stag

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2003

    Posts: 4,211

    Location: The road to erudition

    Let me translate your slant in a different light.

    You need to widen your reading material my friend, and i'll go one further than you and say you can't believe in anything completely. ;)
     
  15. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    I find it interesting that you assert that the resurection is the crux of xianity and that it is an event backed up by evidence. The fact that you infer that evidence is needed to begat faith isn't very xian to begin with but skipping that, would you like to provide links to any of this evidence? And by links I don't mean a videa of someone else asserting that there is evidence for the events in question.

    Some minor points for you to consider:
    • There is no contempory evidence for JC existance
    • There is no contempory evidence for the resurrection
    • The earliest documents refering to JC are Pauls letters, written 15 odd years later
    • The synoptic gospels were written post first Jewish War AD66-70
    • None of the gospels were written by eye witnesses
    • The NT was written over the period 55 -200ADish and what to include was still being finalised 1500 years later
    So in comparing the evidence of 33AD ie none with those of 1912 where eyewitnesses, artifacts, plans, film photographs and the pièce de résistance a big sodding wreck all exist; is fundamentally stupid
     
  16. Scrutinize

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 4 Apr 2003

    Posts: 7,704

    I think you may be surprised at the level of intellect and knowledge base of the members of this forum.
     
  17. jezsoup

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,024

    Location: Bradford

    Funny you should sya that, allt he medical experts and such who had anthing to do with him never came up with a scientific reason other than, all the intital examinationn of his 13-14 years of life before he was healed were all wrong!
     
  18. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Simplest explanations would be fraud, deceit, error. However its impossible to refute an anecdotal story without a lot more info.
     
  19. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 29 Mar 2003

    Posts: 52,740

    Location: Stoke on Trent

    Of course

    Of course he deserved it and its documented.
    He went into the temple and turned the tables over.
    He flouted the religious doctrine of the Jewish people and preached at the base of the temples and made it clear that women, children and lepers were all welcome which the elders were totally against.
    The last straw came when he said that he was God.
    The bloke set himself up to be crucified, he knew it was going to happen, had a last party and probably told Judas to go tell the authorities where he was.
    Meanwhile his plan was hatched that on his death his body would be removed and Mary would say she had seen him. (or he didn't actually die on the wood, he left town and had a family with Mary)
    Wham bam new religion.

    If I went over to Iran and started preaching outside their Mosques with my new religion that went against all their doctrines then yes I would deserve to die.
     
  20. jezsoup

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,024

    Location: Bradford

    If I could provide you more info other than other people who were first hand whitnesses (about 300 or so) I would do. But as it stands, the doctors had concluded this lad had no motor neurones in his legs, and hadnt walk all his life. He got up and walked.

    If you want to find out more about healings and that read pretty much any book about Smith Wigglesworth!