Jesus Tomb

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood Based on video shot inside the house during the raid and phone calls with members at the same time, we can say that at least the adults knew if they stayed, they were going to die. Of course not, because he wasn't. But then, neither does the average Christian have any definitive proof that the god they worship is real, either. Koresh's followers believed he was divine, just like those who worship Jesus believe he's divine. All in all, there's as much reason to believe that Koresh is connected to god somehow as there is to believe that Jesus is/was. Which is to say, no reason at all.

Also remember that the atheist has no definitive PROOF that evolution is possible. If you really want to request proof, I will do the same for you. Since you want us to prove our side. I want you to prove your side. Oh, wait, science has no proof, only evidence. Oops, almost forgot.:rolleyes:

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Again, the Sanhedrin did not have the power to execute someone, and rome had no interest in theology. Jesus' army would have been a threat to the romans, first and foremost. The Sanhedrin had little in the way of a military, it would be the romans targeted by an army. I didn't say all scholars dispute the timing of the Gospels, I said some, not true doesn't apply to my statement.

But they did have an interest in keeping Jerusalem under control. When the Sanhedrin threatened to deseat Pilate, it would have meant revolt if he didn't do what they said.

Secondly, Jesus had no army, he had twelve followers who were fishermen and tax collectors. Plus with quotes such as "give unto Caeser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God," he would not have been much of a threat to the Roman empire. That would be like saying that the Quakers were a threat to the British. It is absurd.

Quote by: dthmstr254 Also remember that the atheist has no definitive PROOF that evolution is possible.

Actually, atheists do have "PROOF" that evolution is not only only possible but is also a fact. Evolution happens at the level of the individual. Individuals adapt to their environment. As they adapt changes take place in the individual. If the changes help the individual survive, he, she, or it has a better chance of reproducing and passing on his, her, or its genes.

You are evolving. Here's how. When you contract a new disease--say measles, chicken pox, polio, AIDS, etc.--your body reacts to it. If it's successful in dealing with the disease (which comes from the environment), your genes have a better chance of being passed on to other generations.

How we deal with diseases is a perfect example, and a proof, of the fact of evolution.

Regards
S.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric No, a designer is what you (or someone else) invented to fit the facts. Evolution is the conclusion we draw from the facts. I've read through your posts looking for something to rebut, but really there's nothing. You've been woefully unable to present any direct evidence of Jesus or dispell the very obvious fact the gospels were fabricated circa 70 ce and beyond.

Draw from observations of no known processes.

Answer these questions:

Have they done a test to show how an amino acid could create a living organism with the right spark of electricity(which hasn't happened to my knowledge anyways) or other natural process?

Have they studied bone structures in depth enough to say 100% without a doubt that certain animals evolved from others and that they couldn't simply just have a bone structure in common?

Unless you have tested the HOW instead of the WHAT, you have only invented theories to fit the facts. Evolution is simply the decision you reach based on your PRESUPPOSITION that God does not exist.

You have been woefully unable to pay attention to the 50 thousand copies of his biographies. You have yet to provide DIRECT evidence of any person's actual existence, other than documentary evidence. The biograqphies of Mohammed aren't nearly as debated as the Bible, yet the closest we can date them to is outside of one hundred years after Mohhamed died. It is called you want more than we have to give simply based on your naturalistic presuppositions.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: sdbest Actually, atheists do have "PROOF" that evolution is not only only possible but is also a fact. Evolution happens at the level of the individual. Individuals adapt to their environment. As they adapt changes take place in the individual. If the changes help the individual survive, he, she, or it has a better chance of reproducing and passing on his, her, or its genes. You are evolving. Here's how. When you contract a new disease--say measles, chicken pox, polio, AIDS, etc.--your body reacts to it. If it's successful in dealing with the disease (which comes from the environment), your genes have a better chance of being passed on to other generations. How we deal with diseases is a perfect example, and a proof, of the fact of evolution. Regards S.

It is called a DEFENSE MECHANISM. Every organism does this. However, it has been shown that children are only immune to what their mother is immune to until weaned if breastfed. It is only evidence for something, not proof. It is not solely proof for evolution. That, and it doesn't explain how a single celled organism can become a multicellular organism.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: dthmstr Have they done a test to show how an amino acid could create a living organism with the right spark of electricity(which hasn't happened to my knowledge anyways) or other natural process?

Those tests have been done and they cannot replicate the process. The answer remains unknown, but it was established that it was either a completely random process with other factors we cannot identify or requires technical understanding beyond our own.

The biggest obstacle to the experiment is the fact that they cannot recreate conditions that were isolated to a microscopic level on a primordially chaotic planet that occurred so long ago that we cannot predict any of the factors with any degree of accuracy.

I think you might be trying to use the idea of a creator to explain something that is scientifically reasonable, and the argument you are presenting is now wildly off-topic.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. The 13th Century oooohh. Thirteen hundred years after the fact. No ancient historian mentions Nazareth until the 4th century.

Dude, I only said what one archaeologist has and you automatically ASSUME that nobody has anything from earlier. I didn't even tell you everything he had. He even has copies of the Pentateuch (first five books) that, thanks to them being preserved within more durable items, are dated to within a few years of Moses, and a cuneiform tablet that dates back to Ur when Abraham was there. Also, you mustn't forget the fact that the Nazarene statement has no evidence of tampering. There is archaeological evidence that, whatever the documents say, Nazereth was there before Jesus's time. Cities don't just get up and leave for a single person's life. Again, why do we not see documented evidence of this argument until recent years? Why would the Pharisees not have refuted it by saying that Nazereth doesn't even exist? Again the puzzle that the arguments are not consistent with what would have been used if Jesus never existed.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Those tests have been done and they cannot replicate the process. The answer remains unknown, but it was established that it was either a completely random process with other factors we cannot identify or requires technical understanding beyond our own. The biggest obstacle to the experiment is the fact that they cannot recreate conditions that were isolated to a microscopic level on a primordially chaotic planet that occurred so long ago that we cannot predict any of the factors with any degree of accuracy. I think you might be trying to use the idea of a creator to explain something that is scientifically reasonable, and the argument you are presenting is now wildly off-topic.

Exactly, so, no proof, only invented theories to fit what they THINK happened.

Now, I only used the argument here as a parallell to something else I was talking about, and only meant to use it as such. shall we get back on topic?

[rez]

good job and derailing the topic dthmstr. You make a claim about Egyptian history, and then are asked to cite it and then completely avoid the request.

At this point, I could careless about your disagreeance with science. You obviously do not know how to carry on an honest conversation, no matter what is discussed.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Zhavric You forgot the most important point: 3) David Koresh & his followers existed and are well documented. Neither Jesus nor his followers ever existed as described in the gospels.

Assumption.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Zhavric No, a designer is what you (or someone else) invented to fit the facts. Evolution is the conclusion we draw from the facts. I've read through your posts looking for something to rebut, but really there's nothing. You've been woefully unable to present any direct evidence of Jesus or dispell the very obvious fact the gospels were fabricated circa 70 ce and beyond.

If you want to word it that way, evolution is something invented to fit the facts. In fact, all scientific theories are. Your diction belies your true lack of objectivity.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire If you want to word it that way, evolution is something invented to fit the facts. In fact, all scientific theories are. Your diction belies your true lack of objectivity.

evolution was invented to fit what facts? The Theory of Evolution was a result from the investigation of nature. The idea of a intelligent designer was invented as a way to explain where natural phenomenon came from. It was religions way to combine religion and science together to help get a new breed of followers.

The designer story is no different from the Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Native American, and Chinese explanation of creation. All the stories lead to a dead end and are worthless..

It is just too bad we are off topic now.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rez evolution was invented to fit what facts? The Theory of Evolution was a result from the investigation of nature. The idea of a intelligent designer was invented as a way to explain where natural phenomenon came from. It was religions way to combine religion and science together to help get a new breed of followers. The designer story is no different from the Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Native American, and Chinese explanation of creation. All the stories lead to a dead end and are worthless.. It is just too bad we are off topic now.

Evolution is just as much an invention as most other theories or beliefs. But I was making the point more based on Z's tone and diction than I was on the actual issue. At any rate, any scientific theory is some idea of how something works invented by people based on their observations. If you don't believe me, look at the scientific theories of the past. Many of them seem no different from overt fictions, but given what people knew, they fit. They seem laughable to us now, but with the facts they had then, it was the best explanation they could come up with. Things like this can seem to some entirely logical and yet can be entirely incorrect. Some day, scientific minds will look at what you believe to be scientifically solid and laugh at you for believing it.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire At any rate, any scientific theory is some idea of how something works invented by people based on their observations.

Yes, observation of how nature works.

Many of them seem no different from overt fictions, but given what people knew, they fit. They seem laughable to us now, but with the facts they had then, it was the best explanation they could come up with.

They are only laughable to people who think magic is real. The explanations of the past helped pave the way for new and better explanations. Good explanations make way for new discoveries - this is what dictates which explanation is good which are bad. Supernatural explanations never lead anybody to new discoveries, which is why they are bad.

Some day, scientific minds will look at what you believe to be scientifically solid and laugh at you for believing it.

You just don't get it. A good explanation leads to new knowledge and new discoveries. The only explanations that people laugh at are the ones provided by theists.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: dthmstr254 But they did have an interest in keeping Jerusalem under control. When the Sanhedrin threatened to deseat Pilate, it would have meant revolt if he didn't do what they said. Secondly, Jesus had no army, he had twelve followers who were fishermen and tax collectors. Plus with quotes such as "give unto Caeser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God," he would not have been much of a threat to the Roman empire. That would be like saying that the Quakers were a threat to the British. It is absurd.

Because the Romans cared what Jesus said. From the description in the bible, thousands showed up to hail him as messiah, a term that implies establishing a political kingdom, a clear threat to the romans. The Romans had evan more of an interest in keeping Jerusalem peaceful. The Sanhedrin owed their positions to pilate, Caiaphus was given the high priesthood by the Romans, as was every man of his position. They got where they were by alienating the Jews and appealing to the romans. The first thing that a mob would attack, besides the romans, was the sanhedrin.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Because the Romans cared what Jesus said. From the description in the bible, thousands showed up to hail him as messiah, a term that implies establishing a political kingdom, a clear threat to the romans. The Romans had evan more of an interest in keeping Jerusalem peaceful. The Sanhedrin owed their positions to pilate, Caiaphus was given the high priesthood by the Romans, as was every man of his position. They got where they were by alienating the Jews and appealing to the romans. The first thing that a mob would attack, besides the romans, was the sanhedrin.

However, Pilate also owed his position to his boss, who would judge his performance by how well he maintained the city. If the people seemed ready to revolt, Pilate could lose his seat, and since the Sanhedrin (along with an angry mob) threatened to tell his boss that they were going to take the city if he didn't do as they wanted. Since the mob was rallied BY the Sanhedrin, they would not attack them.

Secondly, as the Romans also knew, the Messiah, though IMPLYING a kingdom, was more preaching and teaching, with no record of any kind. I will explain more after I go to dinner. cya

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rez good job and derailing the topic dthmstr. You make a claim about Egyptian history, and then are asked to cite it and then completely avoid the request. At this point, I could careless about your disagreeance with science. You obviously do not know how to carry on an honest conversation, no matter what is discussed.

Ok, not all things happen instantly, even though this is the microwave instant society. Give me some time to talk to my source to get a source which you can peruse. You can't exactly peruse a person through the internet.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric Ah. Yes, I will agree that most Christians have a memetically motivated tendency to selectively apply skepticism. It is remarkable how emotional arguments can hijack the reason & logic of intelligent individuals to the point of rejecting evidence in favor of propaganda.

There is an emotion in automatically denying the possibility of a supernatural event. Sometimes scientists are not ready to apply that same skepticism to, say, evolution itself. If you want us to use skepticism on our beliefs, use it on your own first. We offer an answer to the hows of life, not just the whats. Until you answer the questions of how it works, you aren't going to please Christians. A what without a how is like a roof without walls. Give the hows, and then present your case.

[Jack]

Until you answer the questions of how it works, you aren't going to please Christians. A what without a how is like a roof without walls. Give the hows, and then present your case.

It sounds to me like you're asking science to determine the purpose or meaning behind the processes they discover. Science doesn't address motives, meanings or purposes. That would be philosophy.

Think of a car wreck. There's a guy there who is taking notes, describing in detail the actual crash. He can determine how fast the cars were going, who braked, who hit who; all the dry, factual evidence that the crash scene reveals. That's science. The investigator isn't concerned with motivations for the wreck, why the people may have been speeding, lost control or in any other way contributed to the crash. Anything other than the material facts of the accident scene don't concern him.

If you want us to use skepticism on our beliefs, use it on your own first.

Skepticism drives science. It's not appreciated in most religious circles I've ever been involved with.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: dthmstr254 However, Pilate also owed his position to his boss, who would judge his performance by how well he maintained the city. If the people seemed ready to revolt, Pilate could lose his seat, and since the Sanhedrin (along with an angry mob) threatened to tell his boss that they were going to take the city if he didn't do as they wanted. Since the mob was rallied BY the Sanhedrin, they would not attack them. Secondly, as the Romans also knew, the Messiah, though IMPLYING a kingdom, was more preaching and teaching, with no record of any kind. I will explain more after I go to dinner. cya

Why would the Romans have had much of a understanding of silly theological terms in the little, insignificant religion they suddenly found themselves rulers of? All of Jerusalem had come out to support Jesus earlier, most of them probably thinking of him as a liberator. The romans didn't care about a record, it was absolutely imperative that pilate crush any rebellion on the spot, for the same reason, job performance. It wouldn't look good if he had to go crying back to rome for more troops. The people were very unlikely to revolt around the sanhedrin, and all subsequent revolts left the sanhedrin out, if not completely destroying them, they were led by men claiming to be the messiah, as Jesus seemed to be. A relatively small mob was little threat to Pilate, he most likely lived in or near the main roman citadel in jerusalem, and he was an experienced commander and had experienced troops, he would have destroyed anything besides a general uprising, something that the sanhedrin had no way of starting, as most jews despised them.