And now...

[This_person]

where do you get that idea?

if they thought he was the son of god why didn't they follow him?

Well, some did

As for the rabbis (the part you highlighted), I think they doubted and thought He was a scam artist who was using Scripture to further His own personal ambitions. However, it can be demonstrated that they thought He was using them well, or He wouldn't have been singled out for punishment.

I'll bet a lot of them changed their thoughts on Him when His tomb went empty, and people saw Him walking, talking, and being around again after dying, though.

 

[tommyjones]

Can you admit that much of what we "know" today could also be false, as I admit to you that the very foundations of my religion could, possibly, be false? And, in doing so, can you therefore acknowledge that much of the argument for science, today, is based upon faith, not actual knowledge? And, therefore, acknowledge that being a science-based atheist is just as much a faith based situation as being religious?

not really. most of science is based on observation. while our theories may change, the science itsself is based on observations not faith. Because the tools used to do the observation change it is obvious that new things will be learned as technology allows and that these may contradict previous thories. it doens't mean that they are based in faith in anyway.

BTW, the types of matter you discussed are really only a small step away from elements. the theroy at the time was that everything was compossed of varying ratios of these 4 types of matter and that the one that was most prvalent gave the object most of its properties. we have just expanded on the idea

science doens't have a problem with saying "i dont know" but this is what 'might' have happened.

religion says, just have faith that this is what happened, it doen't matter that logically it doens't make any sense, please just refer to step one......

science says, here is our best theory, and its the one we are going with until a more logical and observable answer is found.

 

[tommyjones]

Well, some did

As for the rabbis (the part you highlighted), I think they doubted and thought He was a scam artist who was using Scripture to further His own personal ambitions. However, it can be demonstrated that they thought He was using them well, or He wouldn't have been singled out for punishment.

I'll bet a lot of them (WOULD HAVE) changed their thoughts on Him (IF) His tomb went empty, and (IF) people saw Him walking, talking, and being around again after dying, though.

note the changes above.......

I think this is a more accurate statement. that if they had seen that they would have been more swayed, but the fact remains that most of his contemporaires, just like koresh, didn't believe he was anything other than a man.

 

[This_person]

not really. most of science is based on observation. while our theories may change, the science itsself is based on observations not faith. Because the tools used to do the observation change it is obvious that new things will be learned as technology allows and that these may contradict previous thories. it doens't mean that they are based in faith in anyway.

BTW, the types of matter you discussed are really only a small step away from elements. the theroy at the time was that everything was compossed of varying ratios of these 4 types of matter and that the one that was most prvalent gave the object most of its properties. we have just expanded on the idea

science doens't have a problem with saying "i dont know" but this is what 'might' have happened.

religion says, just have faith that this is what happened, it doen't matter that logically it doens't make any sense, please just refer to step one......

science says, here is our best theory, and its the one we are going with until a more logical and observable answer is found.

If you're right about religion, than I misunderstand, because I question continually. So do the constant religious scholars who debate every nuance of every word, the people who go over the Dead Sea scrolls, etc., etc. Most everyone I know who is religious questions, evaluates, and examines on a continual basis, so we all don't understand religion as well as you do.

If you think that's true about science, tell someone the theory of evolution regarding mankind is a theory, and see what kind of reaction you get. Or, about the speed of light changing over the years (or not). Or how old a particular rock is. Or whether every species we are certain is millions of years extinct is really extinct (coelacanth). Or what killed the dinosaurs. I find that arguing theory with people who put all of their faith in science gives the same type of response as arguing religion with Italion Scallion - there is no other possible answer to these people. Maybe there's the rare science-based person who understands the basic concepts that science uses today may be as wrong as the flat earth people, and who can admit they're taking on faith that the "answers" are right. Most science based people I talk to don't recognize mistakes of the past as mistakes. They can't see that it was the pioneer - the outcast, the rebel - who advanced scientific ideas. They see an orderly transition from one knowledge base to another with little or no strife - all well accepted. It's like talking to an Algore about the global warming myth .

 

[This_person]

note the changes above.......

I think this is a more accurate statement. that if they had seen that they would have been more swayed, but the fact remains that most of his contemporaires, just like koresh, didn't believe he was anything other than a man.

Well, there were no cameras then to track His rise, so it was all stories, then, too. Unless you personally saw it, it was just a story someone told you.

A lot of people have claimed to be Jesus since then. We have no religions to those people. This particular religion, differently than so many others, has survived the test of time. People still believe it thousands of years later, when the skeptical and cynical of us has shown us the potential flaws of it.

What does that say to you?

I'm not saying that you should believe (I'd never tell someone what to believe or not believe) because others do. I'm just asking why you think this particular religion gained such a foothold, and holds it.

 

[tommyjones]

Well, there were no cameras then to track His rise, so it was all stories, then, too. Unless you personally saw it, it was just a story someone told you.

A lot of people have claimed to be Jesus since then. We have no religions to those people. This particular religion, differently than so many others, has survived the test of time. People still believe it thousands of years later, when the skeptical and cynical of us has shown us the potential flaws of it.

What does that say to you?

I'm not saying that you should believe (I'd never tell someone what to believe or not believe) because others do. I'm just asking why you think this particular religion gained such a foothold, and holds it.

what about the religion that says jesus was a prophet and not a man, there is a huge religion based on that........

how about mormon, lots of followers???


jehovah's witnesses???

 

[This_person]

what about the religion that says jesus was a prophet and not a man, there is a huge religion based on that........

how about mormon, lots of followers???


jehovah's witnesses???

Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses?

In the big picture, how are they different? Do they not believe Jesus died, rose again, and has an "other than human" origin?

Either way, what do the billions of Christians and the two thousand years mean to you? That was the question. No one disputes there are differences of opinions.

 

[tommyjones]

Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses?

In the big picture, how are they different? Do they not believe Jesus died, rose again, and has an "other than human" origin?

Either way, what do the billions of Christians and the two thousand years mean to you? That was the question. No one disputes there are differences of opinions.

and my first point in that post, what about Islam?
what about the established religion that DIDN"T and still do not believe that jesus was anything other than a man?


as far as mormon goes, Smith believed he had indirect contact with god, and there is now a religion based on what he said, that was my point there.

Most non-mormons scoff at the idea. And most of the people at the time sure didn't follow him. yet here we are about a hundred years later with a HUGE religion based on his words......

 

[This_person]

and my first point in that post, what about Islam?
what about the established religion that DIDN"T and still do not believe that jesus was anything other than a man?


as far as mormon goes, Smith believed he had indirect contact with god, and there is now a religion based on what he said, that was my point there.

Most non-mormons scoff at the idea. And most of the people at the time sure didn't follow him. yet here we are about a hundred years later with a HUGE religion based on his words......

And, when you scoff at Jesus's story, as reported through Mormonism, all of the facets of Christianity, Jehovah's Witness, etc. - when you know that billions of people throughout two thousand years have all accepted the basic tenants of this story, even with all of the ridicule and scorn, what does that tell you (I keep asking, you keep changing the subject)?

 

[tommyjones]

And, when you scoff at Jesus's story, as reported through Mormonism, all of the facets of Christianity, Jehovah's Witness, etc. - when you know that billions of people throughout two thousand years have all accepted the basic tenants of this story, even with all of the ridicule and scorn, what does that tell you (I keep asking, you keep changing the subject)?

it tells me nothing more than the billions who have followed islam, which has a very different take on the person known as jesus.

or the millions that are taoist, or the millions of Bhuddist etc.


and i have answered your questions againa and again. it means nothing.

you have to remember that to the people of his day, jesus was considered a man. A handful of people are responsible for the perception of his diety and the second hand stories of his supernatural exploits. the vast majority or his contemporaries considered him to be more of a koresh than a god. that includes after his supposed rising from the dead.

 

[This_person]

it tells me nothing more than the billions who have followed islam, which has a very different take on the person known as jesus.

or the millions that are taoist, or the millions of Bhuddist etc.


and i have answered your questions againa and again. it means nothing.

you have to remember that to the people of his day, jesus was considered a man. A handful of people are responsible for the perception of his diety and the second hand stories of his supernatural exploits. the vast majority or his contemporaries considered him to be more of a koresh than a god. that includes after his supposed rising from the dead.

Maybe he needed a better publicist than Paul?

Either way, we'll see what the future has to say about Koresh. I didn't get that you were trying to answer that there are other religions, too, so the billions that follow Christianity are meaningless in comparison.

But, it seems we've come to an impasse in our discussion. I can admit that there are potential flaws in religion, while you see no flaw in scientific reasonins, until the scientists find it, then it was just a "clarification" to the previous information. I can admit that not knowing, but taking a stand is faith, you cannot see that science does not know, therefore you see no need for faith in what is told to you. You demonstrate a deep, strong, need for me to reject my faith and see Jesus as just a man, and Christianity as a myth, a fairy tale with no more foundation than Santa Claus or some spaghetti thing. I only ask you to be open to more than one (current) theory, and have no need for you to believe my way. Nor do I ridicule your way.

I'm not sure what your goal here is. You antagonize people of faith by ridiculing what they believe in, but what do you hope to gain by it? Faith, by definition, cannot be proven to you. Like an alcoholic who can't drink alone (for fear they may be considered an alcoholic), you seem to have some need to remove people's faith from them, for people to be like you. Why do you do that?

 

[tommyjones]

Maybe he needed a better publicist than Paul?

Either way, we'll see what the future has to say about Koresh. I didn't get that you were trying to answer that there are other religions, too, so the billions that follow Christianity are meaningless in comparison.

But, it seems we've come to an impasse in our discussion. I can admit that there are potential flaws in religion, while you see no flaw in scientific reasonins, until the scientists find it, then it was just a "clarification" to the previous information. I can admit that not knowing, but taking a stand is faith, you cannot see that science does not know, therefore you see no need for faith in what is told to you. You demonstrate a deep, strong, need for me to reject my faith and see Jesus as just a man, and Christianity as a myth, a fairy tale with no more foundation than Santa Claus or some spaghetti thing. I only ask you to be open to more than one (current) theory, and have no need for you to believe my way. Nor do I ridicule your way.

I'm not sure what your goal here is. You antagonize people of faith by ridiculing what they believe in, but what do you hope to gain by it? Faith, by definition, cannot be proven to you. Like an alcoholic who can't drink alone (for fear they may be considered an alcoholic), you seem to have some need to remove people's faith from them, for people to be like you. Why do you do that?

i have no need for you to reject anything.

you seem intent on saying that science and religion are on equal ground and that science is taken on faith. i think you are wrong.

science is not infalliable, but it doesn't need or claim to be.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, so there is no need to take on faith what science cant answer.
the answer is 'unknown" and thats an acceptable answer.

 

[This_person]

i have no need for you to reject anything.

you seem intent on saying that science and religion are on equal ground and that science is taken on faith. i think you are wrong.

science is not infalliable, but it doesn't need or claim to be.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, so there is no need to take on faith what science cant answer.
the answer is 'unknown" and thats an acceptable answer.

Which puts science and religion on equal ground Neither proves itself to be the answer in full, just in part. Both want you to just accept that you have all you need to know for now, while seeking more information. Both have equal proof of much of it's important claims.

Science takes faith, because to believe B, you have to accept that A exists, and A leads to B. Now, on to C.......

Religion takes faith, because you have to accept A, and you can see how A led to B, and now onto C......

 

[tommyjones]

Which puts science and religion on equal ground Neither proves itself to be the answer in full, just in part. Both want you to just accept that you have all you need to know for now, while seeking more information. Both have equal proof of much of it's important claims.

Science takes faith, because to believe B, you have to accept that A exists, and A leads to B. Now, on to C.......

Religion takes faith, because you have to accept A, and you can see how A led to B, and now onto C......

this is just idiotic, faith, as you are describing it is not part of science.


Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence


that is the faith of religion

science does not rely on this type of faith, this type of faith is however the cornerstone of religion.


Science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.

 

[This_person]

this is just idiotic, faith, as you are describing it is not part of science.


Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence


that is the faith of religion

science does not rely on this type of faith, this type of faith is however the cornerstone of religion.


Science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.

I never said faith was a part of the science. Faith is a part of the belief system of those who follow science.

For example, do you know, with proof, that man evolved from apes, or even that there is a common ancestor among the two? NO, you take it on faith that science will one day prove that theory. The science doesn't state is as fact, and as such does not require faith. The follower of science takes it on faith that science will prove its claims one day, and spouts the theory as fact.

I hope I'm making myself more clear, and you can follow me.

 

[tommyjones]

I never said faith was a part of the science. Faith is a part of the belief system of those who follow science.

For example, do you know, with proof, that man evolved from apes, or even that there is a common ancestor among the two? NO, you take it on faith that science will one day prove that theory. The science doesn't state is as fact, and as such does not require faith. The follower of science takes it on faith that science will prove its claims one day, and spouts the theory as fact.

I hope I'm making myself more clear, and you can follow me.

you obviously do not understand the scientific method.
there is no faith in the scientific method, there is also no expectation that your theory will be proven out by future work.
if a theory is later proven to be a fact, then it is changed to being called a fact. If it isn't it is considered a disproven theory.
no faith involved.

 

[This_person]

you obviously do not understand the scientific method.
there is no faith in the scientific method, there is also no expectation that your theory will be proven out by future work.
if a theory is later proven to be a fact, then it is changed to being called a fact. If it isn't it is considered a disproven theory.
no faith involved.

So when I say to you you do not know that evolution occured, your answer should be "why, you're right", correct?

 

[tommyjones]

So when I say to you you do not know that evolution occured, your answer should be "why, you're right", correct?

Thats right
i have never said that i KNOW evolution has occured. I will say that i find the theory of evolution to be satisfying logically, and the best hypothosis we have to date.

 

[This_person]

Thats right
i have never said that i KNOW evolution has occured. I will say that i find the theory of evolution to be satisfying logically, and the best hypothosis we have to date.

So, certainly - as an unproven theory - no more accurate (not "satisfying logically to tommyjones", but accurate) than Intelligent Design.

 

[tommyjones]

So, certainly - as an unproven theory - no more accurate (not "satisfying logically to tommyjones", but accurate) than Intelligent Design.

actually intelligent design throws faith into the mix. so no intelligent design is not as accurate a sceintific theory. When you incorporate as a major tennet of a theory something that cannot be proven or observed than it is no longer a scientific theory.
Saying God designed everything to evolve the way it has is a religious theory, not a scientific one.