Re: was jesus raised from the dead?

On Apr 30, 12:47 am, Joel Arandia <aran...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:41 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 29, 11:09 am, JoelArandia<aran...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 13, 10:41 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 13, 6:19 am, Bill254 <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> idiotised:

On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
was jesus raised from the dead?

Yes.

Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.

There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".

No proof ever offered ? Cow*** fact free ASSertion always fails.

You see, "neandertal man" *must* exist.

The "eye witnesses" published papers on their existance.

Bull***. You are a massive moron.

And you being the dumbass you are, took these papers
as *evidence*.

<Massive Lunatic Projection>

Our "papers" just sell more copies.

To morons, of which you have lots of.

That doesn't mean that you are right, just that the
morons are all on your side.

The company you keep, and all...

2,000 years and still, not one shred of objective evidence
for any mythical sky pixie.

Andre

I guess, I'll be controversial. In my life, I've decided that for some
things, I don't need evidence to believe. To believe is a choice, the
expression of free will.

I'll take your question seriously, which requires me to correct your
error; No, for many people, "belief" is not a switch that can be
turned on and off at will. If that were true, then Pascal's Wager
would be a reasonable philosophy, and it isn't.

It does not depend on other things.

Much of the time, it is. A person whose life value system is based
on reason and things that can be supported with reasonable and
objective evidence can no more do as you say than a lion can swim
out to sea with the dolphins.

One question one might ask is: How does believing this change you or
how you look at life? What value is this belief? And based on those
answers decide whether or not to believe.

That is, I would say, a tremendously self centered and narcissistic
point of view. It is not one that I am capable, thankfully, of making
myself join.

Also, a value system that works as you describe, to me, would
result in a value system where the answers to both of your questions
about it would be very, very negative.

For instance: Jim Jones. Al Qaeda. The Taliban. Jerry Falwell. Each
of those fits perfectly into your defined spectrum of people who
*chose* to embrace a value system that rejects objective fact testing.

Thus, I would add that we already have far too many morons of that
ilk to suggest making any more such goons.

Andre

Well, for every moron, you give examples for, I would give as
examples the other 90% of humanity who live perfectly fine with their
irrational beliefs. The vast majority of Muslims are not Al Qaeda or
Taliban. Not all Christians are Jim Jonesian or Falwellian.

Yet, the kinds of people you mention are also the source for all
sorts of mobs that rise at some of the biddings of the Jim Jones'.

And, I will point out that the Al Qaedas and Talibans have a LOT
of popular support, especially from the madrassa taught populations.

"Give me your kids before they are 5, and they are mine for life".
Sound familiar ?

The key difference is that science cannot be a tool to the mental
slavery of anyone. Religion can, and all too often, is.

And you will find many examples of scientists who believe in a
personal God.

A good rule of thumb with dealing with the views of scientists is
to understand that, once they leave their specific fields of
expertise, their views go back to being no better or worse than
anyone else's, especially when the topic is not a matter of fact
or objective reality.

It is perfectly possible to believe in Jesus and believe
that evolution is the best explanation for how life came to be as it
is now. Do you deny that?

No, I just deny that the first part of that equation is in any way
useful to the second part. Though it often is detrimental to the
second part.

Andre

.

Loading