• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

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...

Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Well damn.

Do you really need a list of atheists who have committed mass killings throughout history? Including recent history? You can start with the Communists with over 100 millions deaths, plus the ruination of many more lives.

-- The point -->

And here's your head.

Killing in the name of atheism explicitly is very rare. Killing in the name of religion? Not rare. The communist regimes of Mao and Stalin killed for political reasons, not religious ones. They may have happened to have been atheists (although, I'd argue they thought of themselves as gods), they did not kill to promote atheism. Meanwhile, you have things like the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, September 11th, ISIS, etc. literally killing in the name of religion. 'You don't believe as I do therefore you must die.'
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Well damn.



-- The point -->

And here's your head.

Killing in the name of atheism explicitly is very rare. Killing in the name of religion? Not rare. The communist regimes of Mao and Stalin killed for political reasons, not religious ones. They may have happened to have been atheists (although, I'd argue they thought of themselves as gods), they did not kill to promote atheism. Meanwhile, you have things like the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, September 11th, ISIS, etc. literally killing in the name of religion. 'You don't believe as I do therefore you must die.'

Many people often claim Religion breeds war. Even though studies like the one conducted and put into the "Encyclopedia of Wars", a study of the past 10,000 years from 8000bc to today, found that only 7% of wars and conflicts are religiously motivated. 3% labeled Christian. So the fact that 93% of wars have no religious affiliation escapes people. Now granted if your religion says to kill people like in Islam that's one thing, and a reason why to separate and look at religions and why there not the same. As the Christian religion, with Jesus is absolutely non violent, so those who use violence are not following Jesus.
But what about Atheist atrocities?

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.
Richard Dawkins has attempted to engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion..."
Although Communism is one of the most well-known cases of atheism's ties to mass murder, the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, inspired by the works of Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rousseau, managed to commit similar persecutions and exterminations of religious people and promote secularism and militant atheism. Official numbers indicate that 300,000 Frenchmen died during Robespierre's Reign of Terror, 297,000 of which were of middle-class or low-class. Of the amount murdered via the guillotine, only 8% had been of the aristocratic class, with over 30% being from the peasant class.
So here's a start of all the people killed by atheistic regimes. And There are a plethora of places where you can verify these numbers, if you are so-minded.
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
So to say atheism breeds good things or will be like Star Trek in the future under atheism fails to learn from history. To say atheism doesn't breed war....
72278dfad22ee07b901a397984e1b81a.jpg
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Well damn.



-- The point -->

And here's your head.

Killing in the name of atheism explicitly is very rare. Killing in the name of religion? Not rare. The communist regimes of Mao and Stalin killed for political reasons, not religious ones. They may have happened to have been atheists (although, I'd argue they thought of themselves as gods), they did not kill to promote atheism. Meanwhile, you have things like the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, September 11th, ISIS, etc. literally killing in the name of religion. 'You don't believe as I do therefore you must die.'


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

Many people often claim Religion breeds war. Even though studies like the one conducted and put into the "Encyclopedia of Wars", a study of the past 10,000 years from 8000bc to today, found that only 7% of wars and conflicts are religiously motivated. 3% labeled Christian. So the fact that 93% of wars have no religious affiliation escapes people. Now granted if your religion says to kill people like in Islam that's one thing, and a reason why to separate and look at religions and why there not the same. As the Christian religion, with Jesus is absolutely non violent, so those who use violence are not following Jesus.

Please link your source for these claims and cite them ?

But what about Atheist atrocities?

How many conflicts have been initiated under the banner of promoting atheism ?
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Please link your source for these claims and cite them ?



How many conflicts have been initiated under the banner of promoting atheism ?

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature,2 which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.
ab48bde395e65cbfef02b263c455330c.jpg

d876665d77c037f3cde0505717142105.jpg

That means that all faiths combined – minus Islam – have caused less than 4% of all of humanity’s wars and violent conflicts. Further, they played no motivating role in the major wars that have resulted in the most loss of life.

Kind of puts a serious dent into Harris’ argument, doesn’t it?

The truth is, non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for nearly all of humankind’s wars. Lives lost during religious conflict pales in comparison to those experienced during the regimes who wanted nothing to do with the idea of God – something showcased in R. J. Rummel’s work Lethal Politics and Death by Government:

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
Pol Pot - 2,397,0003
Rummel says: “Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.”4

The historical evidence is quite clear: Religion is not the #1 cause of war.

If religion can’t be blamed for most wars and violence, then what is the primary cause? The same thing that triggers all crime, cruelty, loss of life, and other such things. Jesus provides the answer very clearly: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man” (Mark 7:21–23).

James (naturally) agrees with Christ when he says: “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel” (James 4:1–2).

In the end, the evidence shows that the atheists are quite wrong about the wars they claim to so desperately despise. Sin is the #1 cause of war and violence, not religion, and certainly not Christianity.

My post a few above this examines in more detail the role of communist regimes and the like are necessarily linked to the atheist worldview and belief, or lack thereof
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature,2 which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.
ab48bde395e65cbfef02b263c455330c.jpg

d876665d77c037f3cde0505717142105.jpg

That means that all faiths combined – minus Islam – have caused less than 4% of all of humanity’s wars and violent conflicts. Further, they played no motivating role in the major wars that have resulted in the most loss of life.

Kind of puts a serious dent into Harris’ argument, doesn’t it?

The truth is, non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for nearly all of humankind’s wars. Lives lost during religious conflict pales in comparison to those experienced during the regimes who wanted nothing to do with the idea of God – something showcased in R. J. Rummel’s work Lethal Politics and Death by Government:

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
Pol Pot - 2,397,0003
Rummel says: “Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.”4

The historical evidence is quite clear: Religion is not the #1 cause of war.

If religion can’t be blamed for most wars and violence, then what is the primary cause? The same thing that triggers all crime, cruelty, loss of life, and other such things. Jesus provides the answer very clearly: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man” (Mark 7:21–23).

James (naturally) agrees with Christ when he says: “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel” (James 4:1–2).

In the end, the evidence shows that the atheists are quite wrong about the wars they claim to so desperately despise. Sin is the #1 cause of war and violence, not religion, and certainly not Christianity.

My post a few above this examines in more detail the role of communist regimes and the like are necessarily linked to the atheist worldview and belief, or lack thereof

Non-religious doesnt equate atheism. To assert such a thing would be straight up lying.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Of course non religious doesn't mean these wars were atheist in nature. The first part was to show religion doesn't cause most wars as some people suggest like you see on the news or what have you. The second part, the post a few above clarifies that communism has strong ties to atheism. In fact I'll repost those arguements here...
It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.
Richard Dawkins has attempted to engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion..."
Although Communism is one of the most well-known cases of atheism's ties to mass murder, the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, inspired by the works of Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rousseau, managed to commit similar persecutions and exterminations of religious people and promote secularism and militant atheism. Official numbers indicate that 300,000 Frenchmen died during Robespierre's Reign of Terror, 297,000 of which were of middle-class or low-class. Of the amount murdered via the guillotine, only 8% had been of the aristocratic class, with over 30% being from the peasant class.
So here's a start of all the people killed by atheistic regimes. And There are a plethora of places where you can verify these numbers, if you are so-minded.
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
So to say atheism breeds good things or will be like Star Trek in the future under atheism fails to learn from history.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

My post a few above this examines in more detail the role of communist regimes and the like are necessarily linked to the atheist worldview and belief, or lack thereof

I thought so. Your study is grossly distorted by the fact that the 20th century saw the first major wars of mass industrialisation where death was dispensed far more efficiently and with vastly superior weaponry than in earlier centuries. Obviously the number of lives lost in such wars disproportionately reflect this historically. These wars too were not conducted under the banner of spreading or indoctrnating atheism whereas religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness. Faith is the great cop out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of ,even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. Atheism is not.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time. Atheism is not. I often wonder how much sooner things like the industrial revolution might have happened were it not for religion retarding our progress towards it with its fear and superstition
 
Last edited:
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

And here's your head. Killing in the name of atheism explicitly is very rare. Killing in the name of religion? Not rare. The communist regimes of Mao and Stalin killed for political reasons, not religious ones. They may have happened to have been atheists (although, I'd argue they thought of themselves as gods), they did not kill to promote atheism. Meanwhile, you have things like the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, September 11th, ISIS, etc. literally killing in the name of religion. 'You don't believe as I do therefore you must die.'
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
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

I thought so. Your study is grossly distorted by the fact that the 20th century saw the first major wars of mass industrialisation where death was dispensed far more efficiently and with vastly superior weaponry than in earlier centuries. Obviously the number of lives lost in such wars disproportionately reflect this historically. These wars too were not conducted under the banner of spreading or indoctrnating atheism whereas religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness. Faith is the great cop out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of ,even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. Atheism is not.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time. Atheism is not. I often wonder how much sooner things like the industrial revolution might have happened were it not for religion retarding our progress towards it with its fear and superstition
Is it your understanding that people didn't have faith in Communism? Or Nazism, Fascism or Obama for that matter.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

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

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...
3d980308cf60b5b31e4300c110f732e8.jpg

114daf85358cf3e0a3fa5108a5018265.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

What is credible and what is not can only be determined by the believer

No it can be determined by reason and logic, belief is not required

Was Communism really credible? Many people thought so and some think so today.

Communism was a flawed political hypothesis theres a great difference between that and religious superstition

"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything", and that appears to be true today.

Not so. You believe in what is credible and can be proven within reasonable doubt. Religion falls short on both counts

If man is going to believe in something isn't it more worthwhile to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ,

Believing in mythological figures who's alleged musings were recorded by men centuries after his death is not something I would particularly choose to peg my life on. Just because I'm not religious does not automatically mean I'm not a good person and don't live by sound values.

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.

This is where I take issue with religious people. They believe they are somehow morally superior because of their medieval supernatural belief system. I have big problems with such misguided pontificating self righteousness
 
Last edited:
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Wow! Stunning....If this is reviewed, and verified, what, and how do you see this effecting Christianity? Especially considering the open attack it is under today?
Interesting stuff but I don't see that it could or should make any difference.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

No it can be determined by reason and logic, belief is not required
There are facts and there are beliefs with 'faith' somewhere in-between. In facts are also frequently in doubt.
Communism was a flawed political hypothesis theres a great difference between that and religious superstition
Communism required belief because there never was evidence that it would work, only theory. Yet despite this lack of evidence, which still exists today, there are many who believe that Communism, and other forms of government control, are a good thing. A lack of evidence has never prevented people from having beliefs and we only need look at the abundant conspiracy theories to understand that.
Not so. You believe in what is credible and can be proven within reasonable doubt. Religion falls short on both counts
In fact many have had religious experiences which are usually inexplicable, or had some real experience with the spiritual world. Often our senses tell us things that which not understood by our minds, which we believe to be rational. There should always be room for doubt in any theory, be it for or against the existence of God, good or evil, or anything that is beyond scientific reach. Most recently we saw people believing in Barrack Obama, and with nothing to support their beliefs. It happens all the time.
Believing in mythological figures who's alleged musings were recorded by men centuries after his death is not something I would particularly choose to peg my life on. Just because I'm not religious does not automatically mean I'm not a good person and don't live by sound values.
Of course it doesn't. But you are quite a different person after having been raised in a Christian influenced country then you would be if you were raised in North Korea, Kenya, or Ethiopia.
This is where I take issue with religious people. They believe they are somehow morally superior because of their medieval supernatural belief system. I have big problems with such misguided pontificating self righteousness
Some are like that with or without religion. People can feel more superior than their neighbor for any number of things, religion among them.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

There are facts and there are beliefs with 'faith' somewhere in-between. In facts are also frequently in doubt.

No there are facts and there is faith there is nothing in between. Facts can be established even when they are wrong. Religious mysticism cannot

Communism required belief because there never was evidence that it would work, only theory. Yet despite this lack of evidence, which still exists today, there are many who believe that Communism, and other forms of government control, are a good thing. A lack of evidence has never prevented people from having beliefs and we only need look at the abundant conspiracy theories to understand that.

I've already addressed this

In fact many have had religious experiences which are usually inexplicable, or had some real experience with the spiritual world.

Many have vivid imaginations and will see what they want to see. That is a part of the human condition. See 9/11 truthers for details

Often our senses tell us things that which not understood by our minds, which we believe to be rational. There should always be room for doubt in any theory, be it for or against the existence of God, good or evil, or anything that is beyond scientific reach.

All religious belief is beyond scientific reach. It has no basis in reason or logic therefore I dismiss it out of hand
 
Last edited:
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Many people often claim Religion breeds war. Even though studies like the one conducted and put into the "Encyclopedia of Wars", a study of the past 10,000 years from 8000bc to today, found that only 7% of wars and conflicts are religiously motivated. 3% labeled Christian. So the fact that 93% of wars have no religious affiliation escapes people. Now granted if your religion says to kill people like in Islam that's one thing, and a reason why to separate and look at religions and why there not the same. As the Christian religion, with Jesus is absolutely non violent, so those who use violence are not following Jesus.
But what about Atheist atrocities?

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.
Richard Dawkins has attempted to engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion..."
Although Communism is one of the most well-known cases of atheism's ties to mass murder, the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, inspired by the works of Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rousseau, managed to commit similar persecutions and exterminations of religious people and promote secularism and militant atheism. Official numbers indicate that 300,000 Frenchmen died during Robespierre's Reign of Terror, 297,000 of which were of middle-class or low-class. Of the amount murdered via the guillotine, only 8% had been of the aristocratic class, with over 30% being from the peasant class.
So here's a start of all the people killed by atheistic regimes. And There are a plethora of places where you can verify these numbers, if you are so-minded.
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
So to say atheism breeds good things or will be like Star Trek in the future under atheism fails to learn from history. To say atheism doesn't breed war....
72278dfad22ee07b901a397984e1b81a.jpg

It's not religion per say, it's xenophobia. Islam is xenophobic. Christianity is xenophobic. Communism is xenophobic. Atheism isn't.

How do you know they're xenophobic? If someone in theses belief system has a disagreement, its' a problem. They have a heritical belief and must be dealt with, lest that belief spread to others. In other words, the dangerous belief systems are the ones that can't accept differences. They're the ones that focus on purity of belief and heresies.

Ever hear of a heretical atheist?
 
Back
Top Bottom