Richard dawkins

AcidHell2 said:
It's a typo, are you really saying you can't work it out or know what catholic doctrine is.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying I'm just a country boy and I take what you guys write on face value :D

Well, there are Catholic schools, so there must be Catholic schooling? I know of, have read of, or have a rough idea of what that might entail (horse hair vests, arthritic knees with all that kneeling (Kneemonia ?), paedophilia all those sorts of things). But to be honest I’ve never heard of Catholic Doctoring.

Thanx for putting me straight on that one!
 
Belly said:
No, I'm saying I'm just a country boy and I take what you guys write on face value :D

Well, there are Catholic schools, so there must be Catholic schooling? I know of, have read of, or have a rough idea of what that might entail (horse hair vests, arthritic knees with all that kneeling (Kneemonia ?), paedophilia all those sorts of things). But to be honest I’ve never heard of Catholic Doctoring.

Thanx for putting me straight on that one!
Click to expand...

FFS it was a typo. Don't be a dick about it. Acidhell2's typing isn't always brilliant, for whatever reason, but his posts are generally interesting and ontopic, so it's worth overlooking.

Your post above, on the other hand, is full of stereotypes. Brilliant.
 
naffa said:
Deuteronomy 22:5, actually.

So basically, you're saying that you don't have to believe everything that's written in the Bible, and treat it as the word of God?
Click to expand...

Deutoronomy? Close enough.

Please tell me why I am compelled to accept every word in the Bible at face value without any contextual analysis.
 
Oral tradition also doesn't imply a big time gap here. The canonical Gospels are recorded in late first century Christian sources as being in use while living eyewitnesses of Jesus remained. They became accepted as authoritative because of their links to, or approval by those eyewitnesses. There is no generation gap. You can just go straight from the New Testament to the writings of the 'apostolic fathers'. They knew each other.
 
Uriel said:
Oral tradition also doesn't imply a big time gap here. The canonical Gospels are recorded in late first century Christian sources as being in use while living eyewitnesses of Jesus remained. They became accepted as authoritative because of their links to, or approval by those eyewitnesses. There is no generation gap. You can just go straight from the New Testament to the writings of the 'apostolic fathers'. They knew each other.
Click to expand...

I think the earliest of the gospels was written down in about AD70, so about 35 years after Jesus' death. You'd definitely expect some people who met Jesus to still be around at the time.

Paul's letters would actually have been the first bits of the NT to be written.

There would, however, have been many years, hundreds and probably thousands, in which the books of the Torah were passed down as oral tradition.
 
Roubini said:
The fact that no one has EVER been able to demonstrate resurrection in the entire recorded history of science, despite serious efforts on the part of tens of thousands of people, and the collective desire of billions.
Click to expand...

So you don't think smacking someone full of adrenaline when they are in asystole or cardioverting them when they are in VF is some sort of resurrection. It depends on the definition of "dead" of which we many and of those many quite a few are scientifically reversible. So you are wrong. People meeting brain-dead criteria turn around, people with non beating hearts walk out a few weeks later, people with no ability to breathe walk out a few weeks later (in fact we cause this through the administration of drugs to block synaptic communication if we want to ventilate them by machine).
 
Roubini said:
The fact that no one has EVER been able to demonstrate resurrection in the entire recorded history of science, despite serious efforts on the part of tens of thousands of people, and the collective desire of billions.
Click to expand...

Surely the entire point of the resurrection of Jesus is that it's supernatural. If we could do it ourselves, why would we be impressed that Jesus managed it?

In other news, Jesus was able to walk on the sea of Galilee because it was frozen and he had ice skates.
 
Tefal said:
3 days stone cold dead, with a hole stabbed through their heart.

Anyone come back from that?
Click to expand...

Maybe if they were the son of God, and thus not entirely bound by the laws of science...

See, this is why it's absurd to try to discuss religion in terms of science, and vice versa. If you have faith that a God exists and has "superpowers" then it is trivial to say that he can walk on water, or be resurrected, or resurrect others, or whatever. If you look at it from a purely scientific point of view, then you will never accept that it could have happened, because you are bound by the scientific understanding of things.

The questions is simply one of whether you have faith in things happening outside the constraints of the laws of science, etc.
 
Tefal said:
3 days stone cold dead, with a hole stabbed through their heart.

Anyone come back from that?
Click to expand...

Jesus ... allegedly :D

It is inconsequential really though is it not as either the chap was the son of god or he was not. If he was then would be quite easy to do such clever stuff and if he was not then it does not matter how we dress it up as a scientific "wow" it would not promote him to becoming a diety.

Like I said in that post back - if you are willing to accept the a priori belief that there is existence outside of your consciousness then believing in god, Jesus or whatever is nothing ...

Plus I am pretty sure that someone could have wound towards the heart area and come out of a coma after three days. Like I say it's how you define dead. Which of course was my point that being another believer in science is misrepresenting facts and truth to make a point when those facts themselves are wrong.
 
maustin said:
Plus I am pretty sure that someone could have wound towards the heart area and come out of a coma after three days. Like I say it's how you define dead. Which of course was my point that being another believer in science is misrepresenting facts and truth to make a point when those facts themselves are wrong.
Click to expand...

The point of the heart thing is that he was stabbed and a mixture of blood and water came out. I don't know the biology behind it, but that apparently means you are properly dead - something to do with a sac of water around your heart or something, I don't know.
 
maustin said:
Plus I am pretty sure that someone could have wound towards the heart area and come out of a coma after three days. Like I say it's how you define dead. Which of course was my point that being another believer in science is misrepresenting facts and truth to make a point when those facts themselves are wrong.
Click to expand...

No one is coming back from a great big spear hole in the heart + their brain having been starved of oxygen + glucose for 3 days :p

Remember the Romans had the whole "making sure crucified people are really" dead down to an art :p
 
defence for what?
He is an idiot when he talks outside of his field of expertise and uses his credentials to further his own faith.


As I've already said it's pointless picking faults in a single denomination, that proves nothing. Also the stereotypes are that stereotypes and shows nothing against the religion, only against the people involved.
 
vonhelmet said:
I think the earliest of the gospels was written down in about AD70, so about 35 years after Jesus' death. You'd definitely expect some people who met Jesus to still be around at the time.

Paul's letters would actually have been the first bits of the NT to be written.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the academic consensus, yeah. However, recently a number of historians (mainstream secular I should add) have been pushing for an earlier date for Mark. They're talking early 40s or maybe even late 30s.
 
vonhelmet said:
The point of the heart thing is that he was stabbed and a mixture of blood and water came out. I don't know the biology behind it, but that apparently means you are properly dead - something to do with a sac of water around your heart or something, I don't know.
Click to expand...

That is assuming the pericardial sac was ruptured and it was not a chest wound resulting in fluid coming from say the peritoneal sac lower down or whatever.

Tefal said:
No one is coming back from a great big spear hole in the heart + their brain having been starved of oxygen + glucose for 3 days :p

Remember the Romans had the whole "making sure crucified people are really" dead down to an art :p
Click to expand...

And where does it say that the big guy was starved of oxygen or glucose - assumptions made by yourself.

But of course I agree it was unlikely to survive such an insult but my point was that a poster (who advocated science as truth and religion as having no evidence base) provided something as a fact when it was quite clearly long. If people want to argue that religion is wrong using scientific evidence then a) they should be certain their evidence is true b) realise how limited by their paradigm they are and stop wasting their time attempting to answer questions outside of its remit.

I guess my overall point is that the people that often rail against religion using science as a justification have very little knowledge of science themselves - this consistently comes across in threads about this subject - the misuse and misunderstanding of evolution for one is quite shocking. Dawkins does however and therefore should realise the error of his ways. People laugh at religious people who don't really understand theology picking holes here and there with arguments equally ill defined or thought out.
 
It seems this thread is winding down. Well, I hope we've all had fun and that no one has changed their views - I know I haven't.

Same time next month?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom