Page 42 of 60 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 591

Thread: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has virtually unequivocal evidence[W:577]

  1. #411
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,994

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Is it your understanding that people didn't have faith in Communism? Or Nazism, Fascism or Obama for that matter.
    So you do not understand the difference between political and religious ideology then ? Political beliefs are based on a credible hypothesis religious beliefs are of course the opposite

  2. #412
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Posts
    555

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post
    So you do not understand the difference between political and religious ideology then ? Political beliefs are based on a credible hypothesis religious beliefs are of course the opposite
    Religious beliefs as far as Christianity goes does rely on faith, though evidence is clearly seen. The fine tuning of physics to a ridiculous degree, the universe coming from basically nothing, the moral argument, etc...


    The point is this--how can you as a strict materialist really trust your own mind? I mean, if everything in the universe is matter and energy, then that means your physical brain is bound by the laws of physics. Think about this. In a purely materialistic worldview where the human brain is nothing more than the summation of chemicals and brain wiring, how do you justify having both free will and rationality?

    You see, it’s a brain problem.

    How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of neurons, which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

    If your brain is hardwired and constrained by the physical laws, then it cannot act outside of those laws or outside the limits of the hardwiring. It is, in essence, caged in by the limits of physical properties and cannot break free of them.

    This would mean that whatever stimulus you receive, such as being asked a question, will result in a specific response that must be in accordance with whatever arrangement your brain’s nuero-chemical wiring requires.

    Let me illustrate. If you could be exactly reproduced in an identical environment and your other ‘you’ was asked a question, it, just like you, would produce the exact same response. If this scenario were played over and over again, you’d always respond the exact same way. You’d have no choice but to do so. Why? Because, in strict materialism, you are nothing more than the arrangement of chemicals and wiring in your brain which will automatically produce a specific result when faced with specific stimulus. So then, how are you free? And, how can you trust your logical conclusions since they too are merely the result of the changes of chemical states in your physical brain? How do you know you aren’t believing lies about reality, and how would you know you’re not being illogical in your conclusions? After all, it could be your brain wiring that makes you “think” you’re believing truth and also being logical.

    Now, if you say that my reasoning is flawed, then my response is that you are forced to reply that way because of the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain.

    Or perhaps you “believe” you have free will. Maybe you “think” you’re logical. But then again, perhaps you are forced to believe and think that way due to the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain. I have to ask. How do you know that the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain doesn’t just produce a set of processes that force you to think and feel a certain way so that, according to evolutionary theory, your genetics can be passed down to other generations? In this evolutionary, materialistic process, deception could be a reality provided it results in genetic descendants. This way, your atheism is nothing more than a set of chemical states in your brain which forces you into certain beliefs and behaviors so that genes are carried on throughout the centuries.
    And of course, if no free will, then why condemn someone's actions for murder? They had no choice but to do it in a purely materialistic universe...

  3. #413
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,994

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by JFish123 View Post
    Religious beliefs as far as Christianity goes does rely on faith, though evidence is clearly seen.
    That 'evidence' only exists in the minds of the wilfully gullible. It really boils down to whether you use reason or superstition as the bedrock for your life

    The point is this--how can you as a strict materialist really trust your own mind?
    By the simple application of logic and its affirmation in the real world

  4. #414
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    28,911

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Non-religious doesnt equate atheism. To assert such a thing would be straight up lying.
    Look who you're talking about, yet another religious troll.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #415
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post
    So you do not understand the difference between political and religious ideology then ? Political beliefs are based on a credible hypothesis religious beliefs are of course the opposite
    What is credible and what is not can only be determined by the believer. Was Communism really credible? Many people thought so and some think so today.

    "The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything", and that appears to be true today. If man is going to believe in something isn't it more worthwhile to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, to "Do unto unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

    We can see that those who are not religious tended to follow political charlatans, those who would inevitably betray their followers and forget their promises. Whether we are practicing Christians or not (and I am not) we should still appreciate living under the Christian influence rather than some of the alternatives.

  6. #416
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Lol !

    What ?
    Well do ya? If so, spit it out.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #417
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by JFish123 View Post
    Religious beliefs as far as Christianity goes does rely on faith, though evidence is clearly seen. The fine tuning of physics to a ridiculous degree, the universe coming from basically nothing, the moral argument, etc...

    The point is this--how can you as a strict materialist really trust your own mind? I mean, if everything in the universe is matter and energy, then that means your physical brain is bound by the laws of physics. Think about this. In a purely materialistic worldview where the human brain is nothing more than the summation of chemicals and brain wiring, how do you justify having both free will and rationality?

    You see, it’s a brain problem.

    How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of neurons, which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

    If your brain is hardwired and constrained by the physical laws, then it cannot act outside of those laws or outside the limits of the hardwiring. It is, in essence, caged in by the limits of physical properties and cannot break free of them.

    This would mean that whatever stimulus you receive, such as being asked a question, will result in a specific response that must be in accordance with whatever arrangement your brain’s nuero-chemical wiring requires.

    Let me illustrate. If you could be exactly reproduced in an identical environment and your other ‘you’ was asked a question, it, just like you, would produce the exact same response. If this scenario were played over and over again, you’d always respond the exact same way. You’d have no choice but to do so. Why? Because, in strict materialism, you are nothing more than the arrangement of chemicals and wiring in your brain which will automatically produce a specific result when faced with specific stimulus. So then, how are you free? And, how can you trust your logical conclusions since they too are merely the result of the changes of chemical states in your physical brain? How do you know you aren’t believing lies about reality, and how would you know you’re not being illogical in your conclusions? After all, it could be your brain wiring that makes you “think” you’re believing truth and also being logical.

    Now, if you say that my reasoning is flawed, then my response is that you are forced to reply that way because of the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain.

    Or perhaps you “believe” you have free will. Maybe you “think” you’re logical. But then again, perhaps you are forced to believe and think that way due to the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain. I have to ask. How do you know that the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain doesn’t just produce a set of processes that force you to think and feel a certain way so that, according to evolutionary theory, your genetics can be passed down to other generations? In this evolutionary, materialistic process, deception could be a reality provided it results in genetic descendants. This way, your atheism is nothing more than a set of chemical states in your brain which forces you into certain beliefs and behaviors so that genes are carried on throughout the centuries.
    And of course, if no free will, then why condemn someone's actions for murder? They had no choice but to do it in a purely materialistic universe...
    In fact experiments have been carried out a great many times which scientifically support your post.

  8. #418
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    07-18-17 @ 11:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by JFish123 View Post
    Matthew 10:34–36 describes Jesus telling the disciples that He came not to bring peace to the world, but a sword. Jesus’ sword was never a literal one. In fact, when Peter took up a sword to defend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him and told him to put away his sword, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Why then, did Jesus say, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” What kind of sword did Jesus come to bring?

    In Matthew 10:34–36, Jesus said He had come at this time not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword, a weapon which divides and severs. As a result of His visit to the earth, some children would be set against parents and a man’s enemies might be those within his own household. This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated by their family members. This may be part of the cost of discipleship, for love of family should not be greater than love for the Lord. A true disciple must take up his cross and follow Jesus (Matthew 16:24). He must be willing to face not only family hatred, but also death, like a criminal carrying his cross to his own execution. True followers of Christ must be willing to give up, even to the point of “hating” all that is in our lives, even our own families, if we are to be worthy of Him (Matthew 10:37–39). In so doing, we find our lives in return for having given them up to Jesus Christ.
    A simple look at the context gives the answer. It's interesting how son atheists cut and paste verses they no nothing about to get the u gotcha question. So, Next Question?
    LOL. I know what it means and I know the context of which it is in. You said it yourself, he did not bring peace, but rather to divide and severe. Well that's very peaceful, isn't it? To divide people? You know what I'd call that? An instigator. Who follows Christ and is hated by their family members? Really? Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    In fact among the first thing the Communists did when gaining power was abolish or discourage the Church. You've seen many posters state what a country with no moral guidance may do and Communists (supported by leftists in all the democracies) were certainly the worst offenders of the last century, though they had competition from others. Those countries with a strong Christian influence certainly did less harm, and more good, than any other religious, or non-religious, group. Atheism and communism - Conservapedia
    Why would someone who views his or herself as a god want to destroy something where people worship a different god? Hmm. Quite the quandary. Moral guidance ≠ religion. Try that one again. Christian countries did less harm? Well, a fair number of the 'most Christian countries' are African nations who are constantly fighting. So let's ignore them for your sake (not mine). Who else do you we have? Well, of the top 10, I think there's something like 3% of Christians in the World in China. Another top 10 (maybe top 5?) is Russia. You have Mexico (of course) (probably top 3). And then the good ol' USA. Not a strong case there, bud.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  9. #419
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by JFish123 View Post
    Depends on the religion and what it teaches. Islams founder Muhammad is more like ISIS, where Jesus teaches to Love, Go the extra mile for others, turn the other cheek etc...
    Pity those that claim to be his followers, don't do any of that.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #420
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    Why would someone who views his or herself as a god want to destroy something where people worship a different god? Hmm. Quite the quandary.
    Actually it's not. The Communist party wanted the people to believe in Communism, that that is where their faith should reside. Communists believed, and with some justification, that only one sincere belief was possible and that others should be controlled or avoided.


    Moral guidance ≠ religion. Try that one again. Christian countries did less harm? Well, a fair number of the 'most Christian countries' are African nations who are constantly fighting. So let's ignore them for your sake (not mine). Who else do you we have? Well, of the top 10, I think there's something like 3% of Christians in the World in China. Another top 10 (maybe top 5?) is Russia. You have Mexico (of course) (probably top 3). And then the good ol' USA. Not a strong case there, bud.
    Not a serious response, bud.

Page 42 of 60 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •