Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

[RlCO 0]

Magic man did it.

[NJS 3969]

NJS I also find it funny that someone can be labelled "fuck-witted moron" just for having a belief that is irrational if you acept a large amount of scientific discovery as truth. I'm hoping it's not a serious opinion, because I think it takes things slightly too far considering all they've done is have an alternative belief... hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with

it.

 

You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children.

 

(not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

[adios 717]

Where's Renton btw?

[Lazarus 0]

Where's Renton btw?

 

RIP

[TheInspiration 1]

NJS I also find it funny that someone can be labelled "fuck-witted moron" just for having a belief that is irrational if you acept a large amount of scientific discovery as truth. I'm hoping it's not a serious opinion, because I think it takes things slightly too far considering all they've done is have an alternative belief... hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with

it.

 

You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children.

 

(not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

Thank you for that.

 

The thing is, they don't know they are lying to children - it's simply their belief. If they wanted to deliberately mislead the children then that would be appalling but in this case they seem to want to do the right thing for their children.

[Tom 13830]

Where's Renton btw?

 

RIP

 

RIP

[Jimbo 133]

NJS I also find it funny that someone can be labelled "fuck-witted moron" just for having a belief that is irrational if you acept a large amount of scientific discovery as truth. I'm hoping it's not a serious opinion, because I think it takes things slightly too far considering all they've done is have an alternative belief... hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with

it.

 

You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children.

 

(not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

Thank you for that.

 

The thing is, they don't know they are lying to children - it's simply their belief. If they wanted to deliberately mislead the children then that would be appalling but in this case they seem to want to do the right thing for their children.

 

You are having a fucking laugh, the bible is a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect.

 

The bible is a laughable fiction that so called intelligent people seem to cherry-pick their opinion from despite the clear evidence of fact and science often that readily disproves.

[TheInspiration 1]

NJS I also find it funny that someone can be labelled "fuck-witted moron" just for having a belief that is irrational if you acept a large amount of scientific discovery as truth. I'm hoping it's not a serious opinion, because I think it takes things slightly too far considering all they've done is have an alternative belief... hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with

it.

 

You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children.

 

(not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

Thank you for that.

 

The thing is, they don't know they are lying to children - it's simply their belief. If they wanted to deliberately mislead the children then that would be appalling but in this case they seem to want to do the right thing for their children.

 

You are having a fucking laugh, the bible is a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect.

 

The bible is a laughable fiction that so called intelligent people seem to cherry-pick their opinion from despite the clear evidence of fact and science often that readily disproves.

I haven't been posting around this place much recently and I don't really fit in anyway, but I randomly came here and saw this thread. Now this post I'm afraid I can't take seriously just like you can't take the Bible seriously.

 

Firstly, I made any claims about the world being created in six days - do you have an irrational need to explain your beliefs in an irrelevant case in such a childish and abusive manner? You might want to re-read my little post and hopefully it'll make you feel a tad foolish. Or have you got the wrong reply? That would make sense to me.

 

Secondly, I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions here, but do you actually know ANYTHING about the Bible? Have you ever studied theology even lightly? Anyone rational knows better to say it's "a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect." There is shedloads of evidence about the Bible and Jesus - either you don't know about this, or you reject it because the evidence is not right in front of your eyes and it's just a little too farfetched for you. Would I be right in assuming the latter? If you want I could give you a nice set of internet sites which would prove your post false quite quickly, but if you're uninterested so be it.

 

That's without doubt one of the most ill-informed posts I've read here and I'm not surprised it comes from one of the most childish and abusive members here. Seriously, what is your problem? I'd only ever been decent to you until recently, so I don't see why you can't either? At least argue in a slightly nicer manner, seeing as this should be "discussing"... I would never get away with writing like you have done - if I did people would never hear the last of it and I'd have a legacy as the deluded religious freak. Consider yourself lucky you'll probably get away with it.

Edited October 5, 2007 by TheInspiration

[Jimbo 133]

NJS I also find it funny that someone can be labelled "fuck-witted moron" just for having a belief that is irrational if you acept a large amount of scientific discovery as truth. I'm hoping it's not a serious opinion, because I think it takes things slightly too far considering all they've done is have an alternative belief... hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with

it.

 

You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children.

 

(not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

Thank you for that.

 

The thing is, they don't know they are lying to children - it's simply their belief. If they wanted to deliberately mislead the children then that would be appalling but in this case they seem to want to do the right thing for their children.

 

You are having a fucking laugh, the bible is a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect.

 

The bible is a laughable fiction that so called intelligent people seem to cherry-pick their opinion from despite the clear evidence of fact and science often that readily disproves.

I haven't been posting around this place much recently and I don't really fit in anyway, but I randomly came here and saw this thread. Now this post I'm afraid I can't take seriously just like you can't take the Bible seriously.

 

Firstly, I made any claims about the world being created in six days - do you have an irrational need to explain your beliefs in an irrelevant case in such a childish and abusive manner? You might want to re-read my little post and hopefully it'll make you feel a tad foolish. Or have you got the wrong reply? That would make sense to me.

 

Secondly, I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions here, but do you actually know ANYTHING about the Bible? Have you ever studied theology even lightly? Anyone rational knows better to say it's "a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect." There is shedloads of evidence about the Bible and Jesus - either you don't know about this, or you reject it because the evidence is not right in front of your eyes and it's just a little too farfetched for you. Would I be right in assuming the latter? If you want I could give you a nice set of internet sites which would prove your post false quite quickly, but I doubt you're too interest.

 

That's without doubt one of the most ill-informed posts I've read here and I'm not surprised it comes from one of the most childish and abusive members here. Seriously, what is your problem? I'd only ever been decent to you until recently, so I don't see why you can't either? At least argue in a slightly nicer manner, seeing as this should be "discussing"... I would never get away with writing like you have done - if I did people would never hear the last of it and I'd have a legacy as the deluded religious freak. Consider yourself lucky you'll probably get away with it.

 

 

Got a bite though didn't it !

[TheInspiration 1]

NJS I also find it funny that someone can be labelled "fuck-witted moron" just for having a belief that is irrational if you acept a large amount of scientific discovery as truth. I'm hoping it's not a serious opinion, because I think it takes things slightly too far considering all they've done is have an alternative belief... hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with

it.

 

You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children.

 

(not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

Thank you for that.

 

The thing is, they don't know they are lying to children - it's simply their belief. If they wanted to deliberately mislead the children then that would be appalling but in this case they seem to want to do the right thing for their children.

 

You are having a fucking laugh, the bible is a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect.

 

The bible is a laughable fiction that so called intelligent people seem to cherry-pick their opinion from despite the clear evidence of fact and science often that readily disproves.

I haven't been posting around this place much recently and I don't really fit in anyway, but I randomly came here and saw this thread. Now this post I'm afraid I can't take seriously just like you can't take the Bible seriously.

 

Firstly, I made any claims about the world being created in six days - do you have an irrational need to explain your beliefs in an irrelevant case in such a childish and abusive manner? You might want to re-read my little post and hopefully it'll make you feel a tad foolish. Or have you got the wrong reply? That would make sense to me.

 

Secondly, I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions here, but do you actually know ANYTHING about the Bible? Have you ever studied theology even lightly? Anyone rational knows better to say it's "a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect." There is shedloads of evidence about the Bible and Jesus - either you don't know about this, or you reject it because the evidence is not right in front of your eyes and it's just a little too farfetched for you. Would I be right in assuming the latter? If you want I could give you a nice set of internet sites which would prove your post false quite quickly, but I doubt you're too interest.

 

That's without doubt one of the most ill-informed posts I've read here and I'm not surprised it comes from one of the most childish and abusive members here. Seriously, what is your problem? I'd only ever been decent to you until recently, so I don't see why you can't either? At least argue in a slightly nicer manner, seeing as this should be "discussing"... I would never get away with writing like you have done - if I did people would never hear the last of it and I'd have a legacy as the deluded religious freak. Consider yourself lucky you'll probably get away with it.

 

 

Got a bite though didn't it !

It did indeed, but the most worrying thing about your post is you actually meant it seriously.

[Lazarus 0]

There is shedloads of evidence about the Bible and Jesus

 

Just out of interest - what evidence is there that jesus was even alive? i was always led to believe that there were no records of him during roman times.

[Scottish Mag 3]

Where's Renton btw?

 

Probably lying in a gutter somewhere with a half bottle...

[NJS 3969]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever for anything mentioned in the entire bible.

 

The history is questionable in the extreme, the science is laughable, the morality in both the old and new testament is contemptible.

 

Yes I have read about who wrote the bible, when, how and why. The more you do so, the more you recognise that basing a life on it as a whole and not using your inherent morality to cherry pick it would lead to people being irrational, jealous, bigoted, arrogant and murderous - oh hang on....

 

TI I don't agree that parents, especially in the US, are simply passing on their own beliefs to their kids. A lot of them realise that YEC is a lie but their political agenda of being anti-science requires them to propagate the lies. This is a lot more unforgivable than just believing in a supernatural Sky daddy in my view.

[TheInspiration 1]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever for anything mentioned in the entire bible.

 

The history is questionable in the extreme, the science is laughable, the morality in both the old and new testament is contemptible.

 

Yes I have read about who wrote the bible, when, how and why. The more you do so, the more you recognise that basing a life on it as a whole and not using your inherent morality to cherry pick it would lead to people being irrational, jealous, bigoted, arrogant and murderous - oh hang on....

 

TI I don't agree that parents, especially in the US, are simply passing on their own beliefs to their kids. A lot of them realise that YEC is a lie but their political agenda of being anti-science requires them to propagate the lies. This is a lot more unforgivable than just believing in a supernatural Sky daddy in my view.

There's no "physical evidence whatsoever" because it's not right in front of your eyes to see - if you didn't find it so absurd, would you be forced to accept the evidence?

 

Plenty of writings support the Bible, from both Christian and non-Christian sources. This includes eye-witness testimony from the Gospels.

24,000 manuscripts support the New Testament, and showing it hasn't been edited as is a common belief. Compare this to less than 20 for the writings of Plato et al.

There are plenty of paintings and inscriptions.

Archaelogical remains, such as the empty tomb have thrown up a lot of problems - even the most sceptical scholars in those days didn't deny Jesus' existence and that he died.

Then we have inferential evidence, such as the transformed disciples, and how quite quickly Jesus made a pretty big religion to be fair.

 

Now, are they not the sort of methods people uncover any historical events?

[NJS 3969]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever for anything mentioned in the entire bible.

 

The history is questionable in the extreme, the science is laughable, the morality in both the old and new testament is contemptible.

 

Yes I have read about who wrote the bible, when, how and why. The more you do so, the more you recognise that basing a life on it as a whole and not using your inherent morality to cherry pick it would lead to people being irrational, jealous, bigoted, arrogant and murderous - oh hang on....

 

TI I don't agree that parents, especially in the US, are simply passing on their own beliefs to their kids. A lot of them realise that YEC is a lie but their political agenda of being anti-science requires them to propagate the lies. This is a lot more unforgivable than just believing in a supernatural Sky daddy in my view.

There's no "physical evidence whatsoever" because it's not right in front of your eyes to see - if you didn't find it so absurd, would you be forced to accept the evidence?

 

Plenty of writings support the Bible, from both Christian and non-Christian sources. This includes eye-witness testimony from the Gospels.

24,000 manuscripts support the New Testament, and showing it hasn't been edited as is a common belief. Compare this to less than 20 for the writings of Plato et al.

There are plenty of paintings and inscriptions.

Archaelogical remains, such as the empty tomb have thrown up a lot of problems - even the most sceptical scholars in those days didn't deny Jesus' existence and that he died.

Then we have inferential evidence, such as the transformed disciples, and how quite quickly Jesus made a pretty big religion to be fair.

 

Now, are they not the sort of methods people uncover any historical events?

 

Paintings and inscriptions from hundreds of years later?

 

A convenient cave which proves it all?

 

Manuscripts written later which support a new movement?

 

The so called "eye witness" gospels were written at the very earliest 60 years after the supposed events. Its also indisputable that the four gospels were the work of an editorial committee which added and left bits out for political reasons.

 

I've said before I think the bloke did exist - the existence of the religion is evidence for that but that of course says nothing about what he is supposed to have said and done which is taken as "gospel" - supernatural events aside.

 

 

You seem to rise at Jimbo's use of "fairy tales" - can I ask what you think of the following?:

 

The human race being descended from 2 people wished into existence.

 

A world created in 6 days.

 

A worldwide flood.

 

A man being swallowed by a giant fish and living.

 

10 plagues being visited on a country.

 

A woman being turned into a pillar of salt.

 

All of the "miracles" of christ including the resurrection.

 

The graveyards of Jerusalem opening up and the dead walking on JC's death.

 

If these stories were intended to be metaphorical to teach morality (twisted in most cases) then the use of phrase "fairy tales" isn't that far off. If they were intended to be taken as fact (which I believe) then I think its fair to poke the obvious holes in them and condemn the book in that context.

 

BTW that last one about the "zombies" provides an illustration about the way theists minds work. In Hitchens book he recounts how he asked someone whether they believed specifically in that event. The reply was that "Historically" he could not believe it but as a Christian he did believe it - try and tell me thats the work of a rational mind.

[Jimbo 133]

NJS I also find it funny that someone can be labelled "fuck-witted moron" just for having a belief that is irrational if you acept a large amount of scientific discovery as truth. I'm hoping it's not a serious opinion, because I think it takes things slightly too far considering all they've done is have an alternative belief... hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with

it.

 

You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children.

 

(not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

Thank you for that.

 

The thing is, they don't know they are lying to children - it's simply their belief. If they wanted to deliberately mislead the children then that would be appalling but in this case they seem to want to do the right thing for their children.

 

You are having a fucking laugh, the bible is a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect.

 

The bible is a laughable fiction that so called intelligent people seem to cherry-pick their opinion from despite the clear evidence of fact and science often that readily disproves.

I haven't been posting around this place much recently and I don't really fit in anyway, but I randomly came here and saw this thread. Now this post I'm afraid I can't take seriously just like you can't take the Bible seriously.

 

Firstly, I made any claims about the world being created in six days - do you have an irrational need to explain your beliefs in an irrelevant case in such a childish and abusive manner? You might want to re-read my little post and hopefully it'll make you feel a tad foolish. Or have you got the wrong reply? That would make sense to me.

 

Secondly, I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions here, but do you actually know ANYTHING about the Bible? Have you ever studied theology even lightly? Anyone rational knows better to say it's "a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect." There is shedloads of evidence about the Bible and Jesus - either you don't know about this, or you reject it because the evidence is not right in front of your eyes and it's just a little too farfetched for you. Would I be right in assuming the latter? If you want I could give you a nice set of internet sites which would prove your post false quite quickly, but I doubt you're too interest.

 

That's without doubt one of the most ill-informed posts I've read here and I'm not surprised it comes from one of the most childish and abusive members here. Seriously, what is your problem? I'd only ever been decent to you until recently, so I don't see why you can't either? At least argue in a slightly nicer manner, seeing as this should be "discussing"... I would never get away with writing like you have done - if I did people would never hear the last of it and I'd have a legacy as the deluded religious freak. Consider yourself lucky you'll probably get away with it.

 

 

Got a bite though didn't it !

It did indeed, but the most worrying thing about your post is you actually meant it seriously.

 

 

Fuck me, thats a classic pot calling the kettle black.

[TheInspiration 1]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever for anything mentioned in the entire bible.

 

The history is questionable in the extreme, the science is laughable, the morality in both the old and new testament is contemptible.

 

Yes I have read about who wrote the bible, when, how and why. The more you do so, the more you recognise that basing a life on it as a whole and not using your inherent morality to cherry pick it would lead to people being irrational, jealous, bigoted, arrogant and murderous - oh hang on....

 

TI I don't agree that parents, especially in the US, are simply passing on their own beliefs to their kids. A lot of them realise that YEC is a lie but their political agenda of being anti-science requires them to propagate the lies. This is a lot more unforgivable than just believing in a supernatural Sky daddy in my view.

There's no "physical evidence whatsoever" because it's not right in front of your eyes to see - if you didn't find it so absurd, would you be forced to accept the evidence?

 

Plenty of writings support the Bible, from both Christian and non-Christian sources. This includes eye-witness testimony from the Gospels.

24,000 manuscripts support the New Testament, and showing it hasn't been edited as is a common belief. Compare this to less than 20 for the writings of Plato et al.

There are plenty of paintings and inscriptions.

Archaelogical remains, such as the empty tomb have thrown up a lot of problems - even the most sceptical scholars in those days didn't deny Jesus' existence and that he died.

Then we have inferential evidence, such as the transformed disciples, and how quite quickly Jesus made a pretty big religion to be fair.

 

Now, are they not the sort of methods people uncover any historical events?

 

Paintings and inscriptions from hundreds of years later?

 

A convenient cave which proves it all?

 

Manuscripts written later which support a new movement?

 

The so called "eye witness" gospels were written at the very earliest 60 years after the supposed events. Its also indisputable that the four gospels were the work of an editorial committee which added and left bits out for political reasons.

 

I've said before I think the bloke did exist - the existence of the religion is evidence for that but that of course says nothing about what he is supposed to have said and done which is taken as "gospel" - supernatural events aside.

 

 

You seem to rise at Jimbo's use of "fairy tales" - can I ask what you think of the following?:

 

The human race being descended from 2 people wished into existence.

 

A world created in 6 days.

 

A worldwide flood.

 

A man being swallowed by a giant fish and living.

 

10 plagues being visited on a country.

 

A woman being turned into a pillar of salt.

 

All of the "miracles" of christ including the resurrection.

 

The graveyards of Jerusalem opening up and the dead walking on JC's death.

 

If these stories were intended to be metaphorical to teach morality (twisted in most cases) then the use of phrase "fairy tales" isn't that far off. If they were intended to be taken as fact (which I believe) then I think its fair to poke the obvious holes in them and condemn the book in that context.

 

BTW that last one about the "zombies" provides an illustration about the way theists minds work. In Hitchens book he recounts how he asked someone whether they believed specifically in that event. The reply was that "Historically" he could not believe it but as a Christian he did believe it - try and tell me thats the work of a rational mind.

And is there anry great evidence about the Gospels, paintings etc being years later? Some of the New Testament was written within maybe twenty years after Jesus died, and it's widely believed that most if not all was written within 100 years of his death. Also how is it "indisputable" work was edited? The rather large amount of manuscripts argues otherwise...

 

Like I've previously said, I've no clue about those stories. What I seemed to rise at was the fact Jimbo is such an abusive arguer who made a completely irrelevant argument. That doesn't seem to bother you or anyone else though, because as far as you're concerned he is right. Isn't it all fairytales anyway, including the stuff about Jesus which is clearly meant to appear as the truth? Anyway, I'm not so sure what problems I tend to stir up here anyway - it's just me against a bunch of older people and when someone who is in his thirties if correct, like Jimbo, starts insulting me for no reason as he has done previously it's understandable I get a bit annoyed.

Edited October 6, 2007 by TheInspiration

[TheInspiration 1]

NJS I also find it funny that someone can be labelled "fuck-witted moron" just for having a belief that is irrational if you acept a large amount of scientific discovery as truth. I'm hoping it's not a serious opinion, because I think it takes things slightly too far considering all they've done is have an alternative belief... hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with

it.

 

You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children.

 

(not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

Thank you for that.

 

The thing is, they don't know they are lying to children - it's simply their belief. If they wanted to deliberately mislead the children then that would be appalling but in this case they seem to want to do the right thing for their children.

 

You are having a fucking laugh, the bible is a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect.

 

The bible is a laughable fiction that so called intelligent people seem to cherry-pick their opinion from despite the clear evidence of fact and science often that readily disproves.

I haven't been posting around this place much recently and I don't really fit in anyway, but I randomly came here and saw this thread. Now this post I'm afraid I can't take seriously just like you can't take the Bible seriously.

 

Firstly, I made any claims about the world being created in six days - do you have an irrational need to explain your beliefs in an irrelevant case in such a childish and abusive manner? You might want to re-read my little post and hopefully it'll make you feel a tad foolish. Or have you got the wrong reply? That would make sense to me.

 

Secondly, I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions here, but do you actually know ANYTHING about the Bible? Have you ever studied theology even lightly? Anyone rational knows better to say it's "a series of fairy stories written by men, edited by men, compiled by men but attributed to be the word of god, yet clear and present evidence which clearly proves to be incorrect." There is shedloads of evidence about the Bible and Jesus - either you don't know about this, or you reject it because the evidence is not right in front of your eyes and it's just a little too farfetched for you. Would I be right in assuming the latter? If you want I could give you a nice set of internet sites which would prove your post false quite quickly, but I doubt you're too interest.

 

That's without doubt one of the most ill-informed posts I've read here and I'm not surprised it comes from one of the most childish and abusive members here. Seriously, what is your problem? I'd only ever been decent to you until recently, so I don't see why you can't either? At least argue in a slightly nicer manner, seeing as this should be "discussing"... I would never get away with writing like you have done - if I did people would never hear the last of it and I'd have a legacy as the deluded religious freak. Consider yourself lucky you'll probably get away with it.

 

 

Got a bite though didn't it !

It did indeed, but the most worrying thing about your post is you actually meant it seriously.

 

 

Fuck me, thats a classic pot calling the kettle black.

Not a great argument you've made there - something to do with you me being a "patronising prick" in another thread? Also, if you having a laugh at your post getting a "bite" you might as well look at the anger and childish aggressive "arguing" you do all the time.

[Jimbo 133]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever for anything mentioned in the entire bible.

 

The history is questionable in the extreme, the science is laughable, the morality in both the old and new testament is contemptible.

 

Yes I have read about who wrote the bible, when, how and why. The more you do so, the more you recognise that basing a life on it as a whole and not using your inherent morality to cherry pick it would lead to people being irrational, jealous, bigoted, arrogant and murderous - oh hang on....

 

TI I don't agree that parents, especially in the US, are simply passing on their own beliefs to their kids. A lot of them realise that YEC is a lie but their political agenda of being anti-science requires them to propagate the lies. This is a lot more unforgivable than just believing in a supernatural Sky daddy in my view.

There's no "physical evidence whatsoever" because it's not right in front of your eyes to see - if you didn't find it so absurd, would you be forced to accept the evidence?

 

Plenty of writings support the Bible, from both Christian and non-Christian sources. This includes eye-witness testimony from the Gospels.

24,000 manuscripts support the New Testament, and showing it hasn't been edited as is a common belief. Compare this to less than 20 for the writings of Plato et al.

There are plenty of paintings and inscriptions.

Archaelogical remains, such as the empty tomb have thrown up a lot of problems - even the most sceptical scholars in those days didn't deny Jesus' existence and that he died.

Then we have inferential evidence, such as the transformed disciples, and how quite quickly Jesus made a pretty big religion to be fair.

 

Now, are they not the sort of methods people uncover any historical events?

 

Paintings and inscriptions from hundreds of years later?

 

A convenient cave which proves it all?

 

Manuscripts written later which support a new movement?

 

The so called "eye witness" gospels were written at the very earliest 60 years after the supposed events. Its also indisputable that the four gospels were the work of an editorial committee which added and left bits out for political reasons.

 

I've said before I think the bloke did exist - the existence of the religion is evidence for that but that of course says nothing about what he is supposed to have said and done which is taken as "gospel" - supernatural events aside.

 

 

You seem to rise at Jimbo's use of "fairy tales" - can I ask what you think of the following?:

 

The human race being descended from 2 people wished into existence.

 

A world created in 6 days.

 

A worldwide flood.

 

A man being swallowed by a giant fish and living.

 

10 plagues being visited on a country.

 

A woman being turned into a pillar of salt.

 

All of the "miracles" of christ including the resurrection.

 

The graveyards of Jerusalem opening up and the dead walking on JC's death.

 

If these stories were intended to be metaphorical to teach morality (twisted in most cases) then the use of phrase "fairy tales" isn't that far off. If they were intended to be taken as fact (which I believe) then I think its fair to poke the obvious holes in them and condemn the book in that context.

 

BTW that last one about the "zombies" provides an illustration about the way theists minds work. In Hitchens book he recounts how he asked someone whether they believed specifically in that event. The reply was that "Historically" he could not believe it but as a Christian he did believe it - try and tell me thats the work of a rational mind.

And is there anry great evidence about the Gospels, paintings etc being years later? Some of the New Testament was written within maybe twenty years after Jesus died, and it's widely believed that most if not all was written within 100 years of his death. Also how is it "indisputable" work was edited? The rather large amount of manuscripts argues otherwise...

 

Like I've previously said, I've no clue about those stories. What I seemed to rise at was the fact Jimbo is such an abusive arguer who made a completely irrelevant argument. That doesn't seem to bother you or anyone else though, because as far as you're concerned he is right. Isn't it all fairytales anyway, including the stuff about Jesus which is clearly meant to appear as the truth? Anyway, I'm not so sure what problems I tend to stir up here anyway - it's just me against a bunch of older people and when someone who is in his thirties if correct, like Jimbo, starts insulting me for no reason as he has done previously it's understandable I get a bit annoyed.

 

Forgive me

[NJS 3969]

Forgive me

 

Don't quote the great man at him - you'll only confuse him

[NJS 3969]

Like I've previously said, I've no clue about those stories. What I seemed to rise at was the fact Jimbo is such an abusive arguer who made a completely irrelevant argument. That doesn't seem to bother you or anyone else though, because as far as you're concerned he is right. Isn't it all fairytales anyway, including the stuff about Jesus which is clearly meant to appear as the truth? Anyway, I'm not so sure what problems I tend to stir up here anyway - it's just me against a bunch of older people and when someone who is in his thirties if correct, like Jimbo, starts insulting me for no reason as he has done previously it's understandable I get a bit annoyed.

 

The problem is, as Jimbo was stating and as I keep pointing out, the whole basis of christianity is that book. I think the book in question is easy to poke large holes in with pretty simple questions which always seem to end with believers saying "I've no clue about these stories" or "they are all metaphorical apart from the ones I like" or "nobody takes it literally".

 

If you want to follow the example of Buddhism and base your beliefs on the teachings of someone who spoke good sense without invoking the divine then fine. If you want to extend that to teaching kids lies as scientific facts then I think I have a right to object.

[TheInspiration 1]

I only got annoyed because I get unnecessarily insulted here and I'm not the sort of person who wants to start swearing back at them. As anyone who knows me will say, I'm a very nice guy and am not the kind to go round provoking, so why spend time going round provoking someone of my age who doesn't mean to cause offence?

Edited October 6, 2007 by TheInspiration

[Jimbo 133]

I only got annoyed because I get unnecessarily insulted here and I'm not the sort of person who wants to start swearing back at them. As anyone who knows me will say, I'm a very nice guy and am not the kind to go round provoking, so why spend time going round provoking someone of my age who doesn't mean to cause offence?

 

I'm lovely too really, I only pretend to be a bastard.

[The Fish 8973]

and you do a damn fine job at it too Jimbo Lad.

[Jimbo 133]

and you do a damn fine job at it too Jimbo Lad.

 

Cheers dude, I feel validated.