Is anyone here NOT a Jesus Mythicist?

heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Is anyone here NOT a Jesus Mythicist?

I asume that not all of you hold to the Mythicist position.  The history of the Christian Church is well charted out, and the text is the strongest in all of antiquity.  We at least have to say that the scriptures we have are as close as you are going to get to any original documents in antiquity. For those of you who have left the Church, my question is, Why?  What really caused you to decide it was all a lie?  And have you studied the history of it?  From hearing about some of your backgrounds, I get the idea that many of you had fundy parents and you decided it was bullcrap.  I don't think it's a good representation of the real Jesus and real Church we see in the scriptures, so I understand that line of exit.Do you still believe in spirituality?  Let's discuss.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: I asume

heyeverybody wrote:
I asume that not all of you hold to the Mythicist position.

Actually, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether a historical Jesus existed or not.  Regardless, he was not the son of god and did not rise from the dead.

heyeverybody wrote:
The history of the Christian Church is well charted out, and the text is the strongest in all of antiquity. We at least have to say that the scriptures we have are as close as you are going to get to any original documents in antiquity.

If I had the original texts of the Illiad and Odyssey, I still wouldn't believe in cyclopses.  A fairy tale is a fairy tale when it's first told.  Changes don't add or subtract from the fact it was untrue to begin with.

heyeverybody wrote:
For those of you who have left the Church, my question is, Why? What really caused you to decide it was all a lie?
 Because it's patently ridiculous. You have to either be raised to believe it or be really, really gullible.  Also, it turns its adherents into assholes.  
heyeverybody wrote:
And have you studied the history of it?
 Yup.  I went to a fairly liberal Christian college where I learned the history of scripture and it didn't gel at all with the idea that they were true.  I know two people who went to seminary and both ended up rejecting Christianity once they learned a few things about where the bible came from.  Now it's been twenty years since I've studied the bible.  I spent the first twenty up to my eyeballs in the useless text.  I've mostly been trying to free up room in my brain by letting the lies fade away and educating myself. If you want to debate the bible, Rook Hawkins is your man.  Head over to his part of the forum.  Honestly, I'm rather sick of the bible.  It is a disgusting book.  
heyeverybody wrote:
From hearing about some of your backgrounds, I get the idea that many of you had fundy parents and you decided it was bullcrap. I don't think it's a good representation of the real Jesus and real Church we see in the scriptures, so I understand that line of exit.
 Um, you do go to Liberty Seminary, right?  Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?  If not, why not? As for the "real" Jesus and the "real" church, they do not exist.  I tried several different flavors.  The fact of the matter is, the whole idea is just really ridiculous.  Once you start to realize that, your faith falls apart pretty quickly, no matter how thoroughly you were indoctrinated.  The thing is, you have to actually be willing to change your mind.  I've changed my mind about some really big issues and I'll continue to change my mind as good, solid evidence comes in. 
heyeverybody wrote:
Do you still believe in spirituality? Let's discuss.

Define "spirtuality."   

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: For

heyeverybody wrote:
For those of you who have left the Church, my question is, Why?

I have a better question.

How can you believe that two naked simpletons got tempted by a snake to eat a piece of forbidden fruit and as a result, god had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to satisfy rules he had made and could have changed in numerous other ways? How can you believe that a man walked on water, turned water into wine, lived a perfect life and came back to life three days after he sacrificed himself to himself to satisfy rules he had made and could have changed in numerous other ways?

How can you dismiss how unbelievable the bible is?

How can you dismiss the hundreds and hundreds of contradictions?

Comedy Jesus puts it well:

 

How can you even consider worshipping the god described in the old testament?

I think Dawkins put it best:

 

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Actually, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether a historical Jesus existed or not.  Regardless, he was not the son of god and did not rise from the dead.

For me if the Jesus of the NT is the historical Jesus, all of our scientific debates go out the window, because we have a figure that is bigger than theories.  You don't believe in the ressurrection, because it goes against your understanding of natural science.  But the problem is, there is no explanation in history of what happened to Jesus' body.  I'm pretty sure that's why we have the mythicist position, (so we can get rid of Jesus.)
Quote:
If I had the original texts of the Illiad and Odyssey, I still wouldn't believe in cyclopses.  A fairy tale is a fairy tale when it's first told.  Changes don't add or subtract from the fact it was untrue to begin with.

The NT doesn't read like a fairy tale.  It doesn't read like myth.  It reads like a story that really did happen.  The martyrdom of Polycarp reads like embelishment.  The martyrdom of Jesus doesn't.  There is too much embarrassment for the disciples.  If you're starting a new tradition, shouldn't you make yourself look good.  Another thing is why did they need to make a new religion?  
Quote:
Because it's patently ridiculous. You have to either be raised to believe it or be really, really gullible.  Also, it turns its adherents into assholes.

I'll admit I've struggled over whether it all is true or not.  I certainly don't want to worship ignorantly.  I have always found the words to ring true with my Spirit.  I have no answer for existence outside of God, and i have no answer for Jesus outside of him being truth. 
Quote:
Yup.  I went to a fairly liberal Christian college where I  learned the history of scripture and it didn't gel at all with the idea that they were true.  I know two people who went to seminary and both ended up rejecting Christianity once they learned a few things about where the bible came from.  Now it's been twenty years since I've studied the bible.  I spent the first twenty up to my eyeballs in the useless text.  I've mostly been trying to free up room in my brain by letting the lies fade away and educating myself. If you want to debate the bible, Rook Hawkins is your man.  Head over to his part of the forum.  Honestly, I'm rather sick of the bible.  It is a disgusting book.
 
I really want to hear from the rest of you, not just Rook.  i wanted to know how many people are mythicists.  i already know he is. 
Quote:
Um, you do go to Liberty Seminary, right?  Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?  If not, why not? As for the "real" Jesus and the "real" church, they do not exist.  I tried several different flavors.  The fact of the matter is, the whole idea is just really ridiculous.  Once you start to realize that, your faith falls apart pretty quickly, no matter how thoroughly you were indoctrinated.  The thing is, you have to actually be willing to change your mind.  I've changed my mind about some really big issues and I'll continue to change my mind as good, solid evidence comes in.

i dont think you would call me a fundie if you met me.  i dont think you need to vote republican, i dont think you need to vote at all.  I dont agree with everything Jerry Fallwell ever did, but because im a Christian i have to forgive him for that.i believe man sinned by bringing glory to himself (You will be like God), i believe Jesus Christ is the Creator God, and that he emptied himself to take man's punishment for sin.  any other way would give man glory, it just really doesnt make sense for us to save ourselves, when the whole problem was us trying to save ourselves in the first place.I dont think much makes sense in this world.  We are related to the apes doesnt make sense, considering the evidence.  ...intelligence without design for one.
Quote:
Define "spirtuality."
 
meaning in the universe, afterlife, that which cannot be measured or defined by science, your thoughts about God and what if he really did exist..


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote:For

heyeverybody wrote:

For me if the Jesus of the NT is the historical Jesus, all of our scientific debates go out the window, because we have a figure that is bigger than theories.  You don't believe in the ressurrection, because it goes against your understanding of natural science.  But the problem is, there is no explanation in history of what happened to Jesus' body.  I'm pretty sure that's why we have the mythicist position, (so we can get rid of Jesus.)


It was eaten up by worms and bugs like every other body from that time. There might be a few bones scattered around but how are we to know they belonged to Jesus?

heyeverybody wrote:

The NT doesn't read like a fairy tale.  It doesn't read like myth.  It reads like a story that really did happen.  The martyrdom of Polycarp reads like embelishment. The martyrdom of Jesus doesn't.

Your right, the bible doesn't even make a particularly good fairytale. Of all the great fairytales why did people pick this one to be their religion? I hate when people are stupid.
heyeverybody wrote:

  There is too much embarrassment for the disciples.  If you're starting a new tradition, shouldn't you make yourself look good. 

So because the bible embarrassas the disciples it must be true? I don't even think that is worthy of comment.
Alright I will comment. Greek mythology makes humans and gods look like fools at times, therefore it must be true. I demand that you bow before Apollo. 


heyeverybody wrote:
Another thing is why did they need to make a new religion?

They didn't need to but they did anyway for power. Nothing creates more political power than religion. Why do you think the Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest entities in the world?
heyeverybody wrote:

I'll admit I've struggled over whether it all is true or not.  I certainly don't want to worship ignorantly.  I have always found the words to ring true with my Spirit.  I have no answer for existence outside of God, and i have no answer for Jesus outside of him being truth.

Keep struggling, one day you will find your head above water and you will no longer be drowning in faith.


heyeverybody wrote:

I really want to hear from the rest of you, not just Rook.  i wanted to know how many people are mythicists.  i already know he is.

I guess I am a mythicist by your definition because I do not believe Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, turned water into wine, walked on water or was even a very good carpenter. Although I'm not really going to argue whether or not the myth is loosely based on a real person because I don't care.
heyeverybody wrote:

i dont think you would call me a fundie if you met me.  i dont think you need to vote republican, i dont think you need to vote at all.  I dont agree with everything Jerry Fallwell ever did, but because im a Christian i have to forgive him for that.


You don't have to vote Republican to be a fundie. I've voted Republican a time or two because some Republicans can do math.

Forgiving Fallwell might be enough to qualify you though...

heyeverybody wrote:

i believe man sinned by bringing glory to himself (You will be like God), i believe Jesus Christ is the Creator God, and that he emptied himself to take man's punishment for sin.  any other way would give man glory, it just really doesnt make sense for us to save ourselves, when the whole problem was us trying to save ourselves in the first place.

So I can continue my heathen ways and I am still ok? Maybe you aren't a fundy because most of them tell me I'm going to hell. Believe me, I will never "save" myself so don't have any fear there.

heyeverybody wrote:
I dont think much makes sense in this world.  We are related to the apes doesnt make sense, considering the evidence.  ...intelligence without design for one.

I've seen people closely related to apes. I've never seen, heard or sensed sky daddy.


heyeverybody wrote:

meaning in the universe, afterlife, that which cannot be measured or defined by science, your thoughts about God and what if he really did exist..

Just because everything cannot be measured or defined by science now does not mean that it will not be measured or defined in the future.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
This is going to go well.

This is going to go well.


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
mag, not much here usually

mag, not much here usually does.
beyond, i dont know what to say to that post.  very rational?  you completely dismiss the evidence for Christ with the statement, 'i dont care.'  dont you understand there would have been a historical explanation for the missing body?  the Church would never have gotten off the ground.  as for the disciples starting their own religion for power...yeh that went well.  they were called "atheists" and murdered.  their followers were mostly poor people and slaves.  I doubt you'll care to answer this question as you have shown, but Paul was already a religious leader.  Why does he need to convert if it's just for power?  For a rational person, you didnt make an attempt there. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: mag,

heyeverybody wrote:
mag, not much here usually does.
beyond, i dont know what to say to that post.  very rational?  you completely dismiss the evidence for Christ with the statement, 'i dont care.'  dont you understand there would have been a historical explanation for the missing body?  the Church would never have gotten off the ground.  as for the disciples starting their own religion for power...yeh that went well.  they were called "atheists" and murdered.  their followers were mostly poor people and slaves.  I doubt you'll care to answer this question as you have shown, but Paul was already a religious leader.  Why does he need to convert if it's just for power?  For a rational person, you didnt make an attempt there. 

There are a thousand ways to dispose of a body, especially back then. Hell, we can't even find the bodies of many murder victims today with all of our technology, why does there have to be an explanation about the body of Jesus? We can certainly create a million plausible theories about what happened to it but won't be able to prove any of them. People back then were told he came back to life as an explanation and apparently enough believed it but that doesn't mean that is what happened. People also believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth which they knew was the center of the universe. Of all the possible explanations of what happened to the body I believe it coming back to life and walking away to be the least likely. Jesus not existing at all is a bit more likely or his body being consumed by some critter or moved by his disciples.

As for Paul, all I can do is speculate about his motivations and that is making the assumption that what we know about him is all true which is a pretty bold assumption. Just because someone held insane beliefs a few thousand years ago does not mean I should accept those beliefs today. Your argument that Paul didn't have personal gain in the religion and therefore it must be true is bogus. The same argument could be made for any religion that has martyrs which is quite a few. Maybe Paul thought there would be personal gain, maybe he used drugs and really believed what he said, maybe he was insane, who knows, and quite frankly I don't care. The only question I really care to consider from that time is whether Jesus was actually ressurected which I do not believe because the only evidence that he was is that people believed he was and wrote it in a book.

The bottom line is that the fact that many people have believed in God in the past and there was a book written that tells a story is not evidence that God does in fact exist and Jesus was in fact ressurected. Seriously, what evidence do you have other than a book that all but the most serious fundies don't accept 100%.    

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
The premise seems to be

The premise seems to be that Christianity would have never spread if there wasn't proof of a resurrection. The gospels are widely acknowledged as being authored decades after the death of this supposed preacher. People demand no evidence now, why should we suppose they were more skeptical then? Why couldn't the resurrection, the eyewitness accounts, be an invention of the gospel writers, never having actually taken place?


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I've noticed that

I've noticed that attempting to debate here with theists, and especially with Christians, is futile. Wouldn't we expect the same arguments to be put forth by the followers of x religion? That is, 'My holy book says it happened so it must have happened because otherwise no one would have believed it and my holy book wouldn't have been written.'. This is really frustrating. Substitute Christianity for... Zoroastrianism and the effect is just the same. I fail to see what evidence I am supposed to see in the existence of a book of fairy tales, whether the Christian fairly tales or the Hindu fair tales, or any other fairy tales. Simply because something extraordinary is written in an ancient text and large numbers of people believe that the extraordinary thing happened doesn't make it true or I should expect everyone to believe in the tales of the Greek pantheon and the pagan pantheon. I believe we can here cue, 'But my religion is different for x reasons.' argument, which is no less fallacious.

As to the OP, there is about as much reason to believe that Jesus existed at all as... well, I'll stop there because there isn't any significant reason to believe that Jesus existed and if there were it wouldn't lend credence to Christianity being the one true religion because there is absolutely no evidence, and even evidence to the contrary, of what the bible claims. I will consider belief in an historical Jesus when I consider belief in an historical Buddha and Zoroaster.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody

heyeverybody wrote:

beyond, i dont know what to say to that post. very rational? you completely dismiss the evidence for Christ with the statement, 'i dont care.' dont you understand there would have been a historical explanation for the missing body?
  Question: Do you care whether or not Muhammed ascended into heaven on a winged horse? Don't you understand that his followers all saw him do it? 
heyeverybody wrote:
the Church would never have gotten off the ground.
If Muhammed didn't ascend into heaven, Islam would never have gotten off the ground. 
heyeverybody wrote:
as for the disciples starting their own religion for power...yeh that went well. they were called "atheists" and murdered. their followers were mostly poor people and slaves. I doubt you'll care to answer this question as you have shown, but Paul was already a religious leader. Why does he need to convert if it's just for power? For a rational person, you didnt make an attempt there.

Those Muslims who flew into the World Trade Center wouldn't have done it if Islam weren't true. How can you dismiss such devotion? It proves there's something to Islam. For a rational person, you didn't even make an attempt there.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


gregfl
Posts: 168
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote:Let's

heyeverybody wrote:
Let's discuss

Okie Dokey

 

Heyeverybody wrote:

I asume that not all of you hold to the Mythicist position.

Surely you are correct that we all don't hold the same opinion.  I myself lean strongly towards the mythicist theory but also realize that Jesus certainly could have been a real person and the stories about his supernatural affiliations/powers been fabricated. In fact, we have modern day examples of just that in people like Rev Sun Moon and Joseph Smith, among others.  So it really isn't an either or proposition; that either Jesus never existed or he was the supernatural son of god, born of a virgin and possessed magical powers.

 

Heyeverybody wrote:

 The history of the Christian Church is well charted out, and the text is the strongest in all of antiquity.

The strongest what?  Speaking of the new testament  What you have is a hodgepodge of contradictory books that clearly reflect 2000+ year old societal  values and scientific knowledge that were written over a 300 or so year period that also claim to be written during an earlier period of time. This isn't 'strong' in my estimation but rather an indictment of the bible's lack of historicity.

Heyeverybody wrote:

We at least have to say that the scriptures we have are as close as you are going to get to any original documents in antiquity.

Assuming for a moment this is true,  An original copy of a piece of fiction is still a piece of fiction, no?

Heyeverybody wrote:

For those of you who have left the Church, my question is, Why?


Lack of belief
 
Heyeverybody wrote:

What really caused you to decide it was all a lie?
 

Lack of compelling evidence of a supernatural realm. either the claims or true or not.  I have yet to see any evidence, after years of searching, that compel me to adopt these ancient myths.
Heyeverybody wrote:

 And have you studied the history of it? 

Some of us have more than others.  Some of us are waiting patiently for someone like you to show us the error of our ways.  Since the issue is the lack of compelling evidence, it probably would just be easier if you posted the evidence for your supernatural god that you feel is compelling, and let me/us tell you why your evidence either is convincing or why we still don't believe in your god/gods/spirits/demons  et al. That would cut us right to the heart of the matter, don't you think?


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
gregfl wrote:

gregfl wrote:

Surely you are correct that we all don't hold the same opinion.  I myself lean strongly towards the mythicist theory but also realize that Jesus certainly could have been a real person and the stories about his supernatural affiliations/powers been fabricated. In fact, we have modern day examples of just that in people like Rev Sun Moon and Joseph Smith, among others.  So it really isn't an either or proposition; that either Jesus never existed or he was the supernatural son of god, born of a virgin and possessed magical powers.

I was just reminded of the cargo cults as pointed out in Hitchens' God is Not Great. If that doesn't make some Christians wonder about the reality of the Jesus they read of in their bible... well, I have a hard time thinking of what would.

 edit: I pasted the wrong section of text.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: I asume

heyeverybody wrote:
I asume that not all of you hold to the Mythicist position. The history of the Christian Church is well charted out, and the text is the strongest in all of antiquity. We at least have to say that the scriptures we have are as close as you are going to get to any original documents in antiquity.For those of you who have left the Church, my question is, Why? What really caused you to decide it was all a lie? And have you studied the history of it? From hearing about some of your backgrounds, I get the idea that many of you had fundy parents and you decided it was bullcrap. I don't think it's a good representation of the real Jesus and real Church we see in the scriptures, so I understand that line of exit.Do you still believe in spirituality? Let's discuss.

From a long ago thread, I posted the following verse:

Matthew 27:51-53 

 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Please re-read verse 52-53 over & over. Now, does that sound like myth or reality to you? Think really long & hard about that one.

OK, right. Now, how about this one:

Let's start at the beginning; the book of Genesis--a book written by "the elders" of a middle eastern meandering group of sheep herders several thousand years ago.

In it they state that their god, Yahweh, created all that is in 6 days**and then** rested on the seventh.

I would like for you to read that above sentence over & over.

But you--you wanna state that none of this is ficiton.

You're entitled to you opinion--um...I guess... 

 Cheers! Tongue out

 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: The premise

magilum wrote:

The premise seems to be that Christianity would have never spread if there wasn't proof of a resurrection. The gospels are widely acknowledged as being authored decades after the death of this supposed preacher. People demand no evidence now, why should we suppose they were more skeptical then? Why couldn't the resurrection, the eyewitness accounts, be an invention of the gospel writers, never having actually taken place?


You raise a good question.  Obviously, you would do better to read Gary Habermas or F.F. Bruce or any other accredited scholar.  Habermas is supposedly the leading authority on the resurrection.  If there's a question about it, he's probably heard it.  But I think anyone can find a few objections.  First, the conversion of Paul is pretty compelling.  He would have been extremely intolerant of Christianity with evidence.  Without any evidencd for the resurrection, his conversion would have been utterly inconceivable.  Secondly, the Judaizers are compelling evidence of Christ's resurrection.  Again, the Judaizers did not deny Christ, only his sufficiency to save.  They held that Christian converts should still keep the law.  Had Christ not risen, I believe they would have said something like, "Not only should you keep the whole law, but Jesus is still dead in the grave!"  Remember, the NT documents were originally intended as messages to an audience.  If there were no historical continuity in them, they would have read like utter foolishness.  The conversion of Paul and existence of Judaizers is evidence that there was no answer amongst the most skeptical Jews of the day.
I believe all of the Gospels were finished before AD 70.  That puts them within the lifetimes of enough eye witnesses to satisfy any skeptic.  Lack of any mention of the destruction of the temple in AD 70 should lead us to conclude the Synoptics were written earlier.  We also have the Neronian persecution in AD 64.  This dates the Pauline Epistles and likely the Synoptics before AD 64.  We also have Pliny to attest that the Church was well established by AD 79.  I'm sure there are better proofs for an early date, these are just a few off the top of my head.  You would have to date them very late to say they were "invention of the writers."
Editorial devices attest to authorship.  Matthew calls the tax collector "Matthew," where others call him by his birth name, Levi.  Mark ends abruptly and is obviously finished by another person.  Luke seems to be an improvement upon Mark.  It does not contain anything that draws a distinctively different picture of Jesus than Matthew and Luke.  John often refers to the other disciples by name, but never himself, likely out of piety.  They are also written in distinctively different styles.  Matthew has Jewish readers in mind; Mark is very movement oriented; Luke is undoubtedly written to Gentiles; and John is in its on class completely.  Like I've already said,I dont know enough about this stuff, but even I can see problems in a lot of the things you have said.
If any of this doesn't make sense, let me know. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
[quote[

Quote:

We are related to the apes doesnt make sense, considering the evidence. ...intelligence without design for one.

If you want to debate evolution, start a new thread and we'll see how long it takes me...

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

We are related to the apes doesnt make sense, considering the evidence. ...intelligence without design for one.

If you want to debate evolution, start a new thread and we'll see how long it takes me...


Now why would I want to do that?  I majored in history and am now in divinity school.  I will just ask you one yes or no question if you are willing to answer.  Can you prove evolution?  
Also, my roommate who has a degree in Nuclear Engineering from Penn State wants me to ask you to explain the Cambrian Explosion.  Don't do it here, just send a link to a topic where you've already addressed it.  Thanks.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Prove evolution? Easy, from

Prove evolution? Easy, from the point of view of my field.

 

“Appears Designed Is A Contradiction in Terms”: The Fundamentals of Biological Evolution

Now, before you read those, may I ask you a question.

Do you know the three principles of evolution? Just three words is all I need.

If no, it indicates you have no idea what evolution is, and didn't even learn it in high school, hence have no right to comment on it. Regarding the Cambrian, I would suggest your friend study the topic of Homeobox Sets, but if you want me to give away a free tertiary course in molecular biology... 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I've

Thomathy wrote:
I've noticed that attempting to debate here with theists, and especially with Christians, is futile. Wouldn't we expect the same arguments to be put forth by the followers of x religion?

Are there people of other religions around?

Thanks!


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deluded, All I needed was a

deluded,All I needed was a yes or no.  I would ask why the scientific community is so split over this, but I'm afraid you will say that I don't understand evolution.  To answer your question, no I didn't know what the Three Principles were off the top of my head.  I looked them up though, and yes, I already understood those things.  They don't disprove intelligent design though.  They only prove genetic variance.  Maybe I should have asked if you could disprove Intelligent Design.  Or maybe our definition of "prove" is just different. 
Like I said earlier though, our scientific debates go out the window if the historical Jesus really did miracles and was raised from the dead, because he is a man that is bigger than theories of evolution and such.  That's why I started this thread, because I believe Jesus Mythicism is just a way to ignore Jesus.


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I've

Thomathy wrote:

I've noticed that attempting to debate here with theists, and especially with Christians, is futile. Wouldn't we expect the same arguments to be put forth by the followers of x religion? That is, 'My holy book says it happened so it must have happened because otherwise no one would have believed it and my holy book wouldn't have been written.'. This is really frustrating. Substitute Christianity for... Zoroastrianism and the effect is just the same. I fail to see what evidence I am supposed to see in the existence of a book of fairy tales, whether the Christian fairly tales or the Hindu fair tales, or any other fairy tales. Simply because something extraordinary is written in an ancient text and large numbers of people believe that the extraordinary thing happened doesn't make it true or I should expect everyone to believe in the tales of the Greek pantheon and the pagan pantheon. I believe we can here cue, 'But my religion is different for x reasons.' argument, which is no less fallacious.

As to the OP, there is about as much reason to believe that Jesus existed at all as... well, I'll stop there because there isn't any significant reason to believe that Jesus existed and if there were it wouldn't lend credence to Christianity being the one true religion because there is absolutely no evidence, and even evidence to the contrary, of what the bible claims. I will consider belief in an historical Jesus when I consider belief in an historical Buddha and Zoroaster.


You raise a good point that we cannot prove which is the one true God; however, we can study the historical developments of "x religion" to help us filter them out.  But if you don't care to do that, then I guess your opinion is all you will have to rely on.  And I agree with the other guy, what other religions do you see represented on here?  Apologies if I'm wrong about that.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
gregfl wrote: Lack of

gregfl wrote:
Lack of compelling evidence of a supernatural realm. either the claims or true or not. I have yet to see any evidence, after years of searching, that compel me to adopt these ancient myths.

How could we have evidence of a supernatural realm?  Our senses are limited to the natural... 


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: gregfl

nedbrek wrote:

gregfl wrote:
Lack of compelling evidence of a supernatural realm. either the claims or true or not. I have yet to see any evidence, after years of searching, that compel me to adopt these ancient myths.

How could we have evidence of a supernatural realm? Our senses are limited to the natural...

  If you cannot have evidence, then how can it interact with the natural?

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: That's

heyeverybody wrote:
That's why I started this thread, because I believe Jesus Mythicism is just a way to ignore Jesus.

Are you saying that you think atheists are just atheists because of the Jesus Mythicist position?  We're non-believers of every other God too, you know. I'll admit there were some comments by pastors and youth ministers over the years that caused me to raise an eyebrow here or there.  However, in all honesty, I think it really was taking Chemistry and Physics in college that caused me to realize it was all a bunch of BS.  I didn't even hear about the Jesus Mythicist position until I had lacked belief for about 8 years.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: If you cannot

Magus wrote:
If you cannot have evidence, then how can it interact with the natural?

I wasn't asking for evidence. The usual explanation for supernatural events in the Bible is occasions where God suspended natural laws for some time to make some point.

The usual Christian explanantion is that only the early church had miracles in order to have it firmly established. Once the church was established, the miracles ended. Convient, but that is how it is documented (even from times when miracles were more widely accepted), - and the church is established, against enormous odds.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: All I needed was a

Quote:

All I needed was a yes or no.

I already told you yes, now are you going to read them or not? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: Thomathy

nedbrek wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
I've noticed that attempting to debate here with theists, and especially with Christians, is futile. Wouldn't we expect the same arguments to be put forth by the followers of x religion?

Are there people of other religions around?

Thanks!

I blieve there are deists on these forums, though strictly the aren't necessarily of any religion. 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody

heyeverybody wrote:
deluded,All I needed was a yes or no. I would ask why the scientific community is so split over this, but I'm afraid you will say that I don't understand evolution. To answer your question, no I didn't know what the Three Principles were off the top of my head. I looked them up though, and yes, I already understood those things. They don't disprove intelligent design though. They only prove genetic variance. Maybe I should have asked if you could disprove Intelligent Design. Or maybe our definition of "prove" is just different.
Like I said earlier though, our scientific debates go out the window if the historical Jesus really did miracles and was raised from the dead, because he is a man that is bigger than theories of evolution and such. That's why I started this thread, because I believe Jesus Mythicism is just a way to ignore Jesus.

 

 

Disprove ID?

 

Read this topic.

 

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody

heyeverybody wrote:
Thomathy wrote:

I've noticed that attempting to debate here with theists, and especially with Christians, is futile. Wouldn't we expect the same arguments to be put forth by the followers of x religion? That is, 'My holy book says it happened so it must have happened because otherwise no one would have believed it and my holy book wouldn't have been written.'. This is really frustrating. Substitute Christianity for... Zoroastrianism and the effect is just the same. I fail to see what evidence I am supposed to see in the existence of a book of fairy tales, whether the Christian fairly tales or the Hindu fair tales, or any other fairy tales. Simply because something extraordinary is written in an ancient text and large numbers of people believe that the extraordinary thing happened doesn't make it true or I should expect everyone to believe in the tales of the Greek pantheon and the pagan pantheon. I believe we can here cue, 'But my religion is different for x reasons.' argument, which is no less fallacious.

As to the OP, there is about as much reason to believe that Jesus existed at all as... well, I'll stop there because there isn't any significant reason to believe that Jesus existed and if there were it wouldn't lend credence to Christianity being the one true religion because there is absolutely no evidence, and even evidence to the contrary, of what the bible claims. I will consider belief in an historical Jesus when I consider belief in an historical Buddha and Zoroaster.


You raise a good point that we cannot prove which is the one true God; however, we can study the historical developments of "x religion" to help us filter them out. But if you don't care to do that, then I guess your opinion is all you will have to rely on. And I agree with the other guy, what other religions do you see represented on here? Apologies if I'm wrong about that.

 

You can't 'filter' them out.  This is ridiculous.  There is no basis to believe in any god from any religion.  On this basis you're going to propose that Christianity is necessary the one true religion and that Jesus Christ is god's sun because the bible says so.  Please, don't do that.  If what you were going to do would be to suggest that we take everything we know about any god(s) from any religion and reduce those to a set of characteristics that are mutually agreed upon in each religion, then that's not a way to figure out the 'real' god either.  A fairy tale is a fairy tale and the sum of all the fairy tales does not result in a super fairy tale more believable and likely to exist.  Nice try.  You might want to read some of deludedgod's essays and some other stuff on the forum before you go trying to convince us here that god is a coherent concept in the first place.  It's patently not.  Neither are the supernatural or the immaterial.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: You can't

Thomathy wrote:

You can't 'filter' them out. This is ridiculous. There is no basis to believe in any god from any religion. On this basis you're going to propose that Christianity is necessary the one true religion and that Jesus Christ is god's sun because the bible says so. Please, don't do that.

Why not? We agree that other religions are irrational. We ask you don't hold their irrationality against us. Let us stand or fall on our own irrationality Smiling

Thomathy wrote:
If what you were going to do would be to suggest that we take everything we know about any god(s) from any religion and reduce those to a set of characteristics that are mutually agreed upon in each religion, then that's not a way to figure out the 'real' god either.

Sure, not necessarily because they're fairy tales, but because they are (mostly) incompatible. Only one can be correct. Or none.



Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: Thomathy

nedbrek wrote:
Thomathy wrote:

You can't 'filter' them out. This is ridiculous. There is no basis to believe in any god from any religion. On this basis you're going to propose that Christianity is necessary the one true religion and that Jesus Christ is god's sun because the bible says so. Please, don't do that.

Why not? We agree that other religions are irrational. We ask you don't hold their irrationality against us. Let us stand or fall on our own irrationality Smiling

Your irrationality has been decided upon.  Appologetics are not rational.

nedbrek wrote:
 

Thomathy wrote:
If what you were going to do would be to suggest that we take everything we know about any god(s) from any religion and reduce those to a set of characteristics that are mutually agreed upon in each religion, then that's not a way to figure out the 'real' god either.

Sure, not necessarily because they're fairy tales, but because they are (mostly) incompatible. Only one can be correct. Or none.


I barely believe that I'm actually reading this.  It is because they're fairly tales.  You can either put up or shut up.  You can start showing us all proof that the Christian god really exists and all the other crap that goes along with it as well.  Let's see the evidence. I'm really interested, because you'd be the first person ever to give any evidence at all.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

All I needed was a yes or no.

I already told you yes, now are you going to read them or not?

My guess is "no." Eye-wink

I have trouble understanding your writings. A degree in biology would be most helpful.

The three principles of evolution...hmmm. I know that evolution is descent with modification acted upon by natural selection. What are the three principles? Change, time and natural selection? If I get it right, do I get a prize?

BTW, even I can prove humans' closest relatives are the apes. Chimps and bonobos are the most closely related, then gorillas, then orangutans. This can be done either through looking at genetic similarities or by looking at insertions of junk DNA and which insertions are shared by which animals. I'm sure there are a ton of ways to prove it. These are just two.

By the way, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Jesus mythicist position.  I suggest the OP start a new thread in the appropriate forum if he wants to go down that road...and good luck.

 BTW, there is no debate among real scientists as to whether or not evolution is true.  They debate the details, yes, but not the fact of evolution.  Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution knows nothing about it.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The three

Quote:

The three principles of evolution...hmmm. I know that evolution is descent with modification acted upon by natural selection. What are the three principles? Change, time and natural selection? If I get it right, do I get a prize?

Time is just a substrate. In order, they are replication, variation and selection. Life replicates, within the pool of replicated organisms there will be variation, and these variations will either be advantegous or disatvantegeous for surviving thence reproducing, and will then propogate or decline respectively, which is selection. Simple.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

The three principles of evolution...hmmm. I know that evolution is descent with modification acted upon by natural selection. What are the three principles? Change, time and natural selection? If I get it right, do I get a prize?

Time is just a substrate. In order, they are replication, variation and selection. Life replicates, within the pool of replicated organisms there will be variation, and these variations will either be advantegous or disatvantegeous for surviving thence reproducing, and will then propogate or decline respectively, which is selection. Simple.

Very cool.  Thanks for the info. Smiling

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Thom, I did not mean to

Thom,I did not mean to assert that you can know which is the one true God simply by studying them.  I meant that you can certainly weed many of them out by studying the historical developments of their religions.  Many religions started as philosophies and developed into full blown religions usually where the founder is deified.  We can obviously count those gods void.  Many religions started out as a mere means to explaining the universe around us.  Their gods were created out of necessity.  It is clear that those are only gods and not Gods.  So you see that some gods can be disprove simply by studying their history.  Other religions don't fall as easilly.  
Most of the arguments I read on this site against the Hebrew/Christian God are falacious.  Josh McDowell, the Christian apologist, said he was never fair to Christianity until he realized the Hebrew God was "passionate about his relationship with us."  He said it was then that he decided he was going to let the evidence do the speaking, whichever way it fell.  Basically he admitted to being irrational before.  He wasn't fair with the evidence, as based on most of what I read here, I don't see a whole lot of it going around here either.
Want proof for God?  Religion.  Humans are suicidally religious.  Is religion the mere evolutionary difference between humans and the other creatures?   If so, this website is a rather aberrant irony.  If not, then we must conclude that our infatuation with God has something to do with a purposeful creator.  
Romans says that God made the knowledge of himself evident within man; but since man did not honor God, he became futlie in speculations and his heart was darkened.  My favorite verse is 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became [irrational]" (NASB).  Romans 1:18-3:20 explains the condition of man more accurately than anything I've read on this website.  Which gives me plenty of reason to believe.


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Thom,I did not mean to

Oops, double-post. <----edit.


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Iruka, I cheated, the Three

Iruka,I cheated, the Three Principles are Natural selection, Genetic drift, and Gene flow.  I don't believe these hold sufficient ground for us to claim a common ancestor outside of Adam Eye-wink.  A single strand of DNA is far too complex to imagine it evolving in any abstract time frame.  And you win the bet.  No I didn't read them, and I'd probably be in the same boat as you trying to read them, a Biology degree indeed would help!  BTW, I told my roommate that DELUDED "Can PROVE evolution and explain the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION."  His response was a rather animated, "No, he cannot.  Followed by much of the rabble that flys over most of our heads."  He said he wants to get on here and talk about it, but his one fear is that he wont sound young earth at all.  He thinks that somehow will discredit him here as a Christian, but the other roommate always replies, "It could have happened  rapidly(...as rapidly as needs be)."


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: Thom, I

heyeverybody wrote:
Thom, I did not mean to assert that you can know which is the one true God simply by studying them.  I meant that you can certainly weed many of them out by studying the historical developments of their religions.  Many religions started as philosophies and developed into full blown religions usually where the founder is deified.  We can obviously count those gods void.  Many religions started out as a mere means to explaining the universe around us.  Their gods were created out of necessity.  It is clear that those are only gods and not Gods.  So you see that some gods can be disprove simply by studying their history.  Other religions don't fall as easilly.  
Most of the arguments I read on this site against the Hebrew/Christian God are falacious.  Josh McDowell, the Christian apologist, said he was never fair to Christianity until he realized the Hebrew God was "passionate about his relationship with us."  He said it was then that he decided he was going to let the evidence do the speaking, whichever way it fell.  Basically he admitted to being irrational before.  He wasn't fair with the evidence, as based on most of what I read here, I don't see a whole lot of it going around here either.
Want proof for God?  Religion.  Humans are suicidally religious.  Is religion the mere evolutionary difference between humans and the other creatures?   If so, this website is a rather aberrant irony.  If not, then we must conclude that our infatuation with God has something to do with a purposeful creator.  
Romans says that God made the knowledge of himself evident within man; but since man did not honor God, he became futlie in speculations and his heart was darkened.  My favorite verse is 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became [irrational]" (NASB).  Romans 1:18-3:20 explains the condition of man more accurately than anything I've read on this website.  Which gives me plenty of reason to believe.

Are you seriously saying that because many people believe in a god and are willing to die for that belief there is a god?

I think I am physically ill.

Belief does not constitute evidence. Lots of people believe lots of things that are demonstrably false. Including, but not limited to, all those other gods you admit do not exist. Many of them even died.  

Several people have asked you to provide evidence but you just make the claim that most arguments against the Christian God on this site are fallacious. Exactly what fallacy?

Give us some evidence if you expect us to take us seriously. Just because you believe in a sky daddy does not make it so. I used to believe there were intelligent theists but I am open minded enough to take the evidence and re-evaluate my belief. So far that belief is looking more and more irrational.

So do you have any proof of God other than a lot of people believing in it?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

The three principles of evolution...hmmm. I know that evolution is descent with modification acted upon by natural selection. What are the three principles? Change, time and natural selection? If I get it right, do I get a prize?

Time is just a substrate. In order, they are replication, variation and selection. Life replicates, within the pool of replicated organisms there will be variation, and these variations will either be advantegous or disatvantegeous for surviving thence reproducing, and will then propogate or decline respectively, which is selection. Simple.


So how do hard-bodied animals just suddenly burst on the scene?  And why don't we see rapid advantageous variation like we did back in the day?


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: Thom, I

heyeverybody wrote:
Thom,I did not mean to assert that you can know which is the one true God simply by studying them. I meant that you can certainly weed many of them out by studying the historical developments of their religions. Many religions started as philosophies and developed into full blown religions usually where the founder is deified. We can obviously count those gods void. Many religions started out as a mere means to explaining the universe around us. Their gods were created out of necessity. It is clear that those are only gods and not Gods. So you see that some gods can be disprove simply by studying their history. Other religions don't fall as easilly.
Most of the arguments I read on this site against the Hebrew/Christian God are falacious. Josh McDowell, the Christian apologist, said he was never fair to Christianity until he realized the Hebrew God was "passionate about his relationship with us." He said it was then that he decided he was going to let the evidence do the speaking, whichever way it fell. Basically he admitted to being irrational before. He wasn't fair with the evidence, as based on most of what I read here, I don't see a whole lot of it going around here either.
Want proof for God? Religion. Humans are suicidally religious. Is religion the mere evolutionary difference between humans and the other creatures? If so, this website is a rather aberrant irony. If not, then we must conclude that our infatuation with God has something to do with a purposeful creator.
Romans says that God made the knowledge of himself evident within man; but since man did not honor God, he became futlie in speculations and his heart was darkened. My favorite verse is 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became [irrational]" (NASB). Romans 1:18-3:20 explains the condition of man more accurately than anything I've read on this website. Which gives me plenty of reason to believe.

It's Thomathy and I'm not responding any further to you. 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

So how do hard-bodied animals just suddenly burst on the scene? And why don't we see rapid advantageous variation like we did back in the day?

"Hard bodied animals" are simply multicellular Eukaryota, to understand multicellular Eukaryota, you must understand the origin of Homeobox sets, which are genetic switches 180 base pairs long on average which control the positioning and arraying of cells in multicellular Eukaryotic organisms, for the assemblage of bodied organisms. I spent most of the time from after my PhD thesis to my post-doc years studying the actions and mechanisms of Hox genes. The modular nature of them is indicated in the homologous relationship that exists between them. I suggest you verse yourself in the basics of the inverse proportionality nature of phylogenic differentiation, diversity and physiological/genetic complexity, and the modular mechanisms associated with multicellular Eukaryota resulting.

It is clear to me that neither of you actually understand homeodomains, or developmental biology, the biological laws governing the GRNP associated with multicellular Eukaryota. Whilst we used to think that the evolution of multicellular Eukaryota was essentially an expanded version of prokaryotic incremental evolution by means of the alteration of modular domains via incremental mutation mechanisms, we now know this is not the case, because of the inverse relationship between diversity and morphological complexity, thence, it is the modular alteration of Hox genes to produce modular structures whose homologous relationships are distinct across all of multiceullar Eukaryotic life, such is called convergent evolution, and the nature of homeodomains allows for rapid divergence and arisal of multicellular Eukaryota, of course, the Cambrian does not pertain specifically to the arisal of Eukaryotic multicellular organisms, since plants had already long since been in place, but rather to animals on a large scale, the rapid arisal of which is ultimately attributed to the rapid order changes by the arisal of specific Hox genes asociated with the morphological structure of animals, which of course, has modularity tracing back to before the explosion itself, anyway. The nature of Hox genes lends itself to rapid order phenotypical change as opposed to incremental selection processes, because they underlie the mechanisms . Of course, they are not the only mechanisms associated with the development of multicellular Eukaryota, we must also consider packaging, such as histone octamers, the ration of hetero/euchromatin and thence Position variegation, and methylation, genetic switches, oscillations, regulatory node pathways, etc. But the Hox genes are the most critical mechanisms for the development of any multiceullar Eukaryota because they are homeodomains and alterations in their modularity produces large scale biological structures, since multicellular Eukaryota are totally modular, and since the mitotic mechanisms are already in place, Hox genes are the mechanisms arraying the pattern by which eukaryotic cells are arranged in multicellular organisms.

This, in effect, is how we explain the arisal of large scale biological structures.

For example, on my desk I have the 29 September 2006 issue of Science, examining the following article:

Genomic Evolution of Hox Clusters: The Expression of Morphological Functions in Metazoans[1]

In which the researchers derived orthologous relationships from the developmental along the long axis in utero of Deuterosomes, Ecdysozoans, Lophotrochozoans, and primordial bilaterial organisms from a common ancestor by their Hox genes, and comparing them to the oldest ancestral organism in possession of all the aformentioned Hox families, the Drosophila, whose embryonic development is known better than any organism except maybe the C elegans. The researchers took a confocal image of the septuple part embryonic development arrayed by the homologous relationship with the other classes by the time/divergence formula, where the relationships were derived in the following ways:

Deformed mutant stain

Sex combinations reduced stain

Antennapedia stain

Ultrabithorax stain

Abdominal-A and B stains

From this, the researchers constructed a cladogram,

From this, the reseraches constructed a developmental plant of Drosophila by the miR HOX control systems (derived mostly from the Abd-A and B stains, the Ubx stain, to construct a genetic cladogram and development plan of the diverged line, so the researchers were able to determine the precise evolutionary events shaping the Hox genes leading to the modern Drosophila. [2]

This same technique was applied in the next article, where researchers managed to recreate very precisely the mechanism by which the heart evolved from Cindieria, to Nematodes, Cephelolchordates, Fish, and Amniotes, by examining the expression of gene networks governing the cardiovascular sytem (NK2, MEF2, FATA, the Tbx HOX, and Hand, the genes controlling the contractile proteins which determine the fate of musculature cells in cardiological structures, and the orthologous relationship between the genes in each of the associated diverged families, and the common ancestor to which each of the proteins can be traced[3]

In this way, the researchers built a development plan and cladogram of an impressive array of organisms and structures using the same underlying techniques, which are very effective and make extremely accurate predictions. Nothing of what you describe is present in any of the evolutionary biology articles I have ever read, since genes are studied before the gross anatomy of the organisms usually anyway, not vice versa.

 Now, the Hox Switch hypothesis was just a hypothesis untl quite recently, and although my studies into it made me believe it was a likely solution, I was not validated until several months ago, by a group of evolutionary biologists in Croata.

A team of scientists led by young Croatian evolutionary geneticist Tomislav Domazet-Loso from Ruder Boskovic Institute (RBI) in Zagreb, Croatia, developed a novel methodological approach in evolutionary studies. Using the method they named ‘genomic phylostratigraphy,’ its authors shed new and unexpected light on some of the long standing macroevolutionary issues, which have been puzzling evolutionary biologists since Darwin.

The only direct method of research in evolutionary history involves analysing the fossil remains of once living organisms, excavated in various localities throughout of the world.

However, that approach often cannot provide the full evolutionary pathway of some species, as it requires uncovering of many fossils from various stages of its evolutionary history. As the fossil record is imperfect, the evolution research fundamentally hinges on luck factor in discovering the adequate palaeontological sites. However, the RBI team proposed a novel and interesting approach to bypass this obstacle. Namely, they suggested that the genome of every extant species carries the ‘snapshots’ of evolutionary epochs that species went trough. What’s even more important, they also developed the method which enables evolution researchers to readily convert those individual ‘snapshots’ into the full-length ‘evolutionary movie’ of a species.

Applying their new methodology on the fruit fly genomic data they tackled some of the most intriguing evolutionary puzzles — some of which distressed even Darwin himself. First, they demonstrated that parts of the living organism exposed to the environment — so called ‘ectoderm’ — are more prone to evolutionary changes. Further, they explained the evolutionary origin of the ‘germ layers,’ the primary tissue forms that form during the first days after the conception of a new animal, and from which subsequently all other tissues are developed. Finally, they discovered the potential genetic trigger for the ‘Cambrian explosion,’ a major global evolutionary event on the planet, when some 540 million years ago almost all animal forms known today suddenly ‘appeared.’

The first public lecture on these findings was given by Dr Domazet-Loso on 4 September at 5. ISABS Conference in Forensic Genetics and Molecular Anthropology, held in Split, Croatia. The groundbreaking paper fully presenting the theory of genomic phylostratigraphy will appear in the November issue of ‘Trends in genetics,’ the most established monthly journal in Genetics.

 

[1]D. Lemons and W. McGinnis, Genomic Evolution of Hox Genes Clusters,

[2] B Alberts, Molecular Biology of the Cell, Fourth Edition, pp 454-460

[3] E.N Olsen, Gene Regulatory Networks in the Evolution and Development of the Heart

 

Its also clear that you really don't understand speciative mechanisms, and seem to wed to the delusion known as phyletic gradualist incrementalism, which no one in the evolutionary biology community takes sertiously and which was already refuted by Stephan Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins after him.

Now, go read the links or go away.

Is your friend actually versed in molecular biology?

Again, you would know all this had you clicked on the links, but since you clearly cannot be fucked to read them...

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Are

Beyond Saving wrote:
Are you seriously saying that because many people believe in a god and are willing to die for that belief there is a god?

I had to read that twice before I realized you were commenting on something I actually said.  No, I am not claiming that someone who is willing to die for religion proves truth.  Willingness to die only proves devotion to something.  Replace the word 'SUICIDALLY' with 'WRECKLESSLY' (No, I'm not saying someone who will wreck his car for Jesus proves Jesus' historicity).  My point was that humans are the only religious creatures on earth.  Now if religion was born out of necessity for societal development, it makes sense to conclude that other creatures would be religious too.  I will give it to you that man has conquered the land, but what about the seas?  Shouln't there be another religious creature out there or is it by our own invention?  You see the desire to know God is unique to man.  If it is coincidence then you should shut this website down.  If however it is by God's design, well, you should shut this website down.  There are plenty of other proofs along these same lines; my favorite is man's love affair with redemption.  You guys do know that human beings are the only ones out there debating...well anything. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A single strand of

Quote:

A single strand of DNA is far too complex to imagine it evolving in any abstract time frame.

This has nothing to do with the topic of hand, which is not the origin of life. Come to think of it, you clearly know nothing about that whatsoever either. I very much doubt you could tell me the atomic structure of DNA, or the compounds which make it up, what class of molecule it is, how it works, replicates, recombines, transcribes or anything at all. You've committed the Hoyle fallacy so common to those who know nothing about chemical evolution (which, again, is not under discussion. If you don't know what that is, look it up. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My point was that

Quote:

My point was that humans are the only religious creatures on earth.  Now if religion was born out of necessity for societal development, it makes sense to conclude that other creatures would be religious too.

Truly, creationism is a malaise on the brain. Religion, by definition, revolves around a set of doctrines, canons, laws, rituals and traditions usually linchpin anchored to a concept of a deity. Now, in order for an organism to contemplate the necessary abstractions that it can form such associations and have sophisticated enough mental machinery that it may form a religion requires...sentience. There is only one sentient creature on Earth, us. Why is that? Because we have 200% larger cerebral cortex than our closest relative...why is that? Well, ironically, it is back to the same topic. Its because of the Hox genes governing neurogenesis and oligodendrogensis. Of course, this is far too simple to explain human sentience, but the genetic mechanisms governing human neurogenesis is more complex than its closest relative. The catalogue of evolutionary advantage to religion is huge. Evolutionary psychology catalogues the evolutionary advantage of psychological mechanisms whilst neurotheology details the brain chemistry mechanisms associated with religion. So, one more thing I can chalk up to your ignorance: Neuroscience.

Oh, and by the way, using what I just suggested above as an implication that this website should be shut down is a naturalistic fallacy. If you do not know what that is, please look it up. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Sometimes i feel sorry for

Sometimes i feel sorry for the poor creationists.


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Deluded, 1. My roommate has

Deluded,1. My roommate has not even looked at this site yet.2. If the links read anything like your post, I don't think I would retain a single thing.3. You have told me all about how everything works and nothing about how it is sustained.  You do know that creationism requires laws as well, no?
Like I said before, you're obviously more knowledgible about science than I.  I'm not going to claim to understand this stuff, but I don't think you've given a compelling argument that disproves intelligent design.  I could just as well contribute all the things you've said to the designer, and I'm not sure if you would have a rebutle.  
Question (and I really want this to be civil): Do you see any possibility for intelligent design in all that you've said?  And why do you think half the scientific community hold to ID?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

If the links read anything like your post, I don't think I would retain a single thing.

Precisely. You don't know anything about evolutionary biology, so then, what makes you think you have the right to comment on it.

Quote:

You have told me all about how everything works and nothing about how it is sustained. You do know that creationism requires laws as well, no?

What a pathetic attempt to pretend to appear to feign a response to a post that you did not read.

Quote:

but I don't think you've given a compelling argument that disproves intelligent design.

"Intelligent Design" makes specific claims that life did not evolve over the last 3.8 billion years or come from a common bacterial or proto-biological ancestor. These claims are factually false, as I have established, because it is easily established that life did arise from a common proto-biological ancestry 3.8 billion years ago. ID makes specific contradistinctive claims which directly stand in opposition to this. These claims are false, please read the links.

Quote:

I could just as well contribute all the things you've said to the designer, and I'm not sure if you would have a rebutle.

Again, what a pathetic attempt to appear to pretend to respond. The issue under debate here is whether evolution is true, not whether God exists. Intelligent Design makes contradistinctive claims to common descent and evolution, which are in direct contradiction to what I posted. Clearly you do not even know your own position, to say nothing of mine.

Quote:

Do you see any possibility for intelligent design in all that you've said?

"ID" makes specific claims such as that life did not arise from a common ancestor, and did not arise by evolution. These are factually false, and I have shown so. What you are asking is whether I think the concept of God can stand alongside the evolution of life. The answer to that is that it is an irrelevant entity, which, as a scientist, I am frankly not interested in. It has no relevance.

Quote:

And why do you think half the scientific community hold to ID?

One thing that aggravates me more than idiots who run their mouth off about things regarding which they know nothing is idiots who make up statistics. I hate to burst your bubble here, but in reality, and being affiliated with many of these societies, I happen to know that virtually every scientific body and organization in existence rejects Intelligent Design. In the United States there are 76 major scientific institutions (depending on how one classes it) which serve a further several thousand institutions under umbrellas, all of which explicitly reject Intelligent Design and accept Evolutionary Theory. All of these institutions have at least approximately half a million members, and the largest ones, such as the AAAS, have 10 million, further including important bodies such as the American Chemical Society, the American Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and international organizations such as CERN. This is joined by thousands of international institutions accross Europe and Asia, often whose membership exceeds those of American institutions. All in all this constitutes significantly close to 100 million scientists and engineers, give or take. Consider a stark example called "Project Steve" in which all scientists by name of "Steve" in the United States in a handful of scientific institutions signed on a support for evolution. This arose as a response to a creationist petition to get signatures from ALL scientists who accepted their propositions. Thus far, that petition barely got 500 signatures, whilst the petition where only scientists named "Steve" could sign has 841 signatures, and furthermore contains many more eminent and distinguished scientists than does the creationist petition including the Nobel Prize Winner Steve Weinberg. The original brainchild of the Steve petition came from the National Center for Science Education, probably the single most prominent scientific center in the world, whose current head, Bruce Alberts, is a man I respect more than anyone else I care to name, it consists of the most eminent scientists in the United States who advise government bodies.

This is contrasted by Intelligent Design, which has a handful of organizations mainly in Britain, Australia and the UK. The ICR has barely excess of 500 members. Do the Math.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

heyeverybody wrote:

If the links read anything like your post, I don't think I would retain a single thing.

Precisely. You don't know anything about evolutionary biology, so then, what makes you think you have the right to comment on it.

deludedgod, I have to admit I get a naughty sort of thrill when you do this to creationists.

I consider myself intelligent and knowledgeable about a great many things, but I do not have even a bachelor's degree in biology, so the writings of a working molecular biologist are going to go right over my head...and over the heads of creationists.

That's the point.

Now, if heyeverybody will admit to himself that deludedgod may know just a teensy bit more than he does Laughing out loud :D Laughing out loud, perhaps he would be interested in books on evolution for the lay person?

Richard Dawkins is very good. I wish I could afford to buy all his books. A more recent entry I thoroughly enjoyed was The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. It uses DNA evidence to explain evolution and put to rest silly creationist claims. It was written for lay people.

After reading a few good books on evolution no honest person could question that it happened and is happening even as I type this. It is happening so slowly we can't see it (except maybe under a microscope), but it is happening.

The OP speaks of "controversy," but there is no controversy among real scientists over the fact of evolution. The only argument is in the details.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy

Thomathy wrote:
heyeverybody wrote:
Thom,I did not mean to assert that you can know which is the one true God simply by studying them. I meant that you can certainly weed many of them out by studying the historical developments of their religions. Many religions started as philosophies and developed into full blown religions usually where the founder is deified. We can obviously count those gods void. Many religions started out as a mere means to explaining the universe around us. Their gods were created out of necessity. It is clear that those are only gods and not Gods. So you see that some gods can be disprove simply by studying their history. Other religions don't fall as easilly.
Most of the arguments I read on this site against the Hebrew/Christian God are falacious. Josh McDowell, the Christian apologist, said he was never fair to Christianity until he realized the Hebrew God was "passionate about his relationship with us." He said it was then that he decided he was going to let the evidence do the speaking, whichever way it fell. Basically he admitted to being irrational before. He wasn't fair with the evidence, as based on most of what I read here, I don't see a whole lot of it going around here either.
Want proof for God? Religion. Humans are suicidally religious. Is religion the mere evolutionary difference between humans and the other creatures? If so, this website is a rather aberrant irony. If not, then we must conclude that our infatuation with God has something to do with a purposeful creator.
Romans says that God made the knowledge of himself evident within man; but since man did not honor God, he became futlie in speculations and his heart was darkened. My favorite verse is 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became [irrational]" (NASB). Romans 1:18-3:20 explains the condition of man more accurately than anything I've read on this website. Which gives me plenty of reason to believe.

It's Thomathy and I'm not responding any further to you.

I don't blame you.

Quick!  Someone who is well-versed in logic count the fallacies. I'm still learning. I think heyeverybody might be a good person to practice on since he is so very, very deluded. Sad

That first paragraph is just batshit crazy.  How about this: special pleading?  He's using special pleading for certain religions without actually explaining why they are more reasonable.

The second paragraph is mostly an appeal to popularity with some appeal to emotion thrown in.

How did I do?  What did I miss?

To the OP: Sorry, but you really aren't even trying to be reasonable. Sad 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   yeah, again, sorry I

   yeah, again, sorry I haven't figured out that quote button....  

deludedgod,  "Truly, creationism is a malaise on the brain. Religion, by definition, revolves around a set of doctrines, canons, laws, rituals and traditions usually linchpin anchored to a concept of a deity. Now, in order for an organism to contemplate the necessary abstractions that it can form such associations and have sophisticated enough mental machinery that it may form a religion requires...sentience.

There is only one sentient creature on Earth, us. Why is that? Because we have 200% larger cerebral cortex than our closest relative...why is that?

Well, ironically, it is back to the same topic. Its because of the Hox genes governing neurogenesis and oligodendrogensis. Of course, this is far too simple to explain human sentience, but the genetic mechanisms governing human neurogenesis is more complex than its closest relative.

The catalogue of evolutionary advantage to religion is huge. Evolutionary psychology catalogues the evolutionary advantage of psychological mechanisms whilst neurotheology details the brain chemistry mechanisms associated with religion.

So, one more thing I can chalk up to your ignorance: Neuroscience."

"yesyeah", .... I just say we are god ! .... and have a beer, I worship the god of fun !


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I consider myself

Quote:

I consider myself intelligent and knowledgeable about a great many things, but I do not have even a bachelor's degree in biology, so the writings of a working molecular biologist are going to go right over my head...and over the heads of creationists.

Well, you know...the devil is in the technical language. Once I realized that I was being too technical, I drafted a piece which was not, this one:

 For all intents and purpose, I give away scientific knowledge for free, so any questions pertaining to technicalities and concepts can be directed to me. I offered him to read it...

Quote:

 Richard Dawkins is very good. I wish I could afford to buy all his books. A more recent entry I thoroughly enjoyed was The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. It uses DNA evidence to explain evolution and put to rest silly creationist claims. It was written for lay people.

Even though I disagree with his model of group-selection, there is also the late, great Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages. Daniel Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea, the best book on evolution written by a non-biologist, The Origin of Species is very good, albeit lacking in modern understanding, and Huxley's book, the name of which I don't remember.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism