Christianity Changes View

[Free]

The meaning of life is simple, to help your species survive. It is a evolutionary benefit, and evolution IS scientifically backed up.

That is not the meaning of life. Who cares if the species survives after we die if that is all there is to it.

I believe in washington because NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE SIGNED DOCUMENTS FROM THE MAN, but we have his tomb, his house, his quotes, his paintings, we have multiple historical documents. This is more than enough evidence.

Please look at what you wrote and compare that with the Christian's arguments for the existence of Christ and the truth that is written about him. This is a typical double standard employed by those who either deny the existence of Jesus or the truthfulness of the Bible. Washington is a historical figure so we look at what history has to say about who he is and what he did. The same can be said of Jesus. The difference is, there is likely a body in George Washington's tomb.

That there are "signed documents" does nothing to add to the credibility of Washington's existence as anyone could have made such a signature to make people think there was such a person as George Washington.

Jesus only has the bible, and two documents. Hardly extraordinary evidence.

In that one Bible, which is a collection of books, we have four direct accounts of his time here on earth, including what he said and did. The NT was written by those who were either disciples, eyewitnesses or closely associated to such persons.

I never said it was the only way to truth, but the scientific method is THE BEST way to truth.

What makes it the best?

 

[wayseer]

I reject the ressurection of Christ simply because I see no compelling evidence to say that it did happen.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

As for the person who says nothing can't make something. Just because science can't explain it yet, doesn't give you the right, or any reasonable idea to posit a being.

I hope you see the blatant contradiction in your thesis.

 

[Free]

I reject the ressurection of Christ simply because I see no compelling evidence to say that it did happen.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

As for the person who says nothing can't make something. Just because science can't explain it yet, doesn't give you the right, or any reasonable idea to posit a being.

I hope you see the blatant contradiction in your thesis.

Not sure how I missed that one.

 

[Atothetheist]

Not sure how I missed that one.

I have an idea, but can you elabroate on my contridiction. I am assuming it deals with th scientfic claim at the bottom?

 

[Atothetheist]

That is not the meaning of life. Who cares if the species survives after we die if that is all there is to it.


Please look at what you wrote and compare that with the Christian's arguments for the existence of Christ and the truth that is written about him. This is a typical double standard employed by those who either deny the existence of Jesus or the truthfulness of the Bible. Washington is a historical figure so we look at what history has to say about who he is and what he did. The same can be said of Jesus. The difference is, there is likely a body in George Washington's tomb.

That there are "signed documents" does nothing to add to the credibility of Washington's existence as anyone could have made such a signature to make people think there was such a person as George Washington.


In that one Bible, which is a collection of books, we have four direct accounts of his time here on earth, including what he said and did. The NT was written by those who were either disciples, eyewitnesses or closely associated to such persons.


What makes it the best?

I care, because evolution gave us the tools to care. I care about my brothers and sisters in humanity, not because some divine authority gave me that right, but because it is innate and ingrained in us through evolution.
Society may have a bit of responsiblity as well.

What do you mean about the "truths" of Jesus, please care to elaborate.

In a historical evidence signed documents hold some weight. I assume you at least know somethings about how to prove things historically... If ya don't, Wiki it.

The first Gospel was written at least 40 years after the supposed event transpired. I highly doubt they were eyewitnesses, of course I could be wrong. Feel free give me evidence that they were eyewitness accounts. ( Don't rely on the Bible, that's circular reasoning.)

Because it has literally revolutionized history. It starts with an question ( most likely from an observation), then a hypothesis, then expierement to test the hypothesis, then collecting Data, If the hypoth is true then comclusion, if the hypoth is false, then try again.

This is my opinion, cam you show me a better one?

 

[Grazer]

I'm not sure how we get morality from evolution. I agree with this take on it:

[video=youtube;0zI_RNE5smw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zI_RNE5smw[/video]

Feel free give me evidence that they were eyewitness accounts ( Don't rely on the Bible, that's circular reasoning.) So you want us to find evidence outside the Bible to prove that the gospels are eye-witness accounts? I don't think anything like that exists for any historical document in existence. The evidence that they are eye-witness accounts is always found within the document itself.

Think I've put this before but I feel its relevant.

https://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

 

[Atothetheist]

I'm not sure how we get morality from evolution. I agree with this take on it:

[video=youtube;0zI_RNE5smw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zI_RNE5smw[/video]

Feel free give me evidence that they were eyewitness accounts ( Don't rely on the Bible, that's circular reasoning.) So you want us to find evidence outside the Bible to prove that the gospels are eye-witness accounts? I don't think anything like that exists for any historical document in existence. The evidence that they are eye-witness accounts is always found within the document itself.

Think I've put this before but I feel its relevant.

https://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

I don't want to get into science, because that is for the science thread, but generally evolution favora good traits and behaviors, and so devolping morality would be a big plus in leting the species survive ( I.E Do Not Kill, ETC.)

By don't rely on the bible, I mean don't say

"They wrote it, they must have seen something, because it is in the bible." I want a more logically consistant, I would prefer if you refrained from essiantly saying...

"Because they wrote it, it must be true."

 

[Grazer]

I don't want to get into science, because that is for the science thread, but generally evolution favora good traits and behaviors, and so devolping morality would be a big plus in leting the species survive ( I.E Do Not Kill, ETC.)

By don't rely on the bible, I mean don't say

"They wrote it, they must have seen something, because it is in the bible." I want a more logically consistant, I would prefer if you refrained from essiantly saying...

"Because they wrote it, it must be true."

I'll see if I can find the thread in the science section because I don't see how you get morality from genetics and evolution.

As for your last bit, I see where you're coming from and agree with you.

 

[Brightmorningstar]

Atothetheist,

Jesus never once claimed Divnity.

Depends what you mean by divinity. Claiming before Abraham was born 'I Am' is one example. That He said He would sit at the right hand of the Father,
John 10:30
I and the Father are one.â€

Why dont you try the 30mph speed limit doesn't say 30mph ;-)

 

[Atothetheist]

Atothetheist,
Depends what you mean by divinity. Claiming before Abraham was born 'I Am' is one example. That He said He would sit at the right hand of the Father,
John 10:30
I and the Father are one.â€

Why dont you try the 30mph speed limit doesn't say 30mph ;-)

I have been wrong before, I am only human. Thanks for pointing that out.