Is Atheism Irrational?

[Tone]

If you are suggesting that the bible has as much evidence as what is written in stephen hawkings book then there is no point even debating anything. Which bit don't i understand out of interest?

What can josephus tell me that hawkings couldn't?

 

There is a difference, surely, between the accounts in the Bible or those of an historian, Josephus, and the writings of Stephen Hawking (a theoretical physicist and cosmologist). So you would expect them to be written from totally different perspective, thereby telling us different things.

[Andyregs]

There is a difference, surely, between the accounts in the Bible or those of an historian, Josephus, and the writings of Stephen Hawking (a theoretical physicist and cosmologist). So you would expect them to be written from totally different perspective, thereby telling us different things.

 

I don't know what josephus tells us, which is why i asked.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

You misunderstand. i didn't mean bull**** on that the link couldn't be seen (I can see that easily), though i can see why it sounded like that. i mean that it was bull**** in general.

 

Wrong on both counts then

 

That you saw my argument and thought, mmm I know an article blue letter bible that perfectly encapsulates word for word what i believe, so instead of saying it I will copy and paste it to save time.

 

Nope....I remembered reading about this on the site cos I go there quite often, read it and thought that just about says it all for me ..why rewrite what I consider to be just right? Never claiemd it as my own and reading it again it should be pretty obvious that they are not my words

 

 

As for dawkins, he even mentions the blameless animals being killed along with the humans.

 

Indeed he does..we all know that happened but again it wasn't indiscriminate

 

Lastly, wow, you've really trawled that one out.

 

Nope..no trawling involved..took a few seconds

 

Is this me too? http://www.yeearn.com/vip/home.php?mod=space&uid=4386

 

No idea if it's you and don't care..it was a joke culled from the Andyregs joke book (available from all good pound shops)

 

 

For the sake of everyone, put me on ignore and I'll do the same.

 

Don't speak for others. i will never put anyone on my ignore list as i reckon I can learn from everyone who posts on here..nothaving a closed mind and all that

[Tone]

I don't know what josephus tells us, which is why i asked.

 

Historical facts. As I say, check it out.

[Andyregs]

Historical facts. As I say, check it out.

 

Undisputed, accurate historical facts?

[Paul6754]

The rules within a theory are called laws. And newtons law of relativity has been trumped by einsteins THEORY of relativity. Which was introduced more than 50 years ago. And even if it hadn't, your use of the word theory was wrong.

 

A scientific theory is an accepted hypothesis, ie a hypothesis that has been supported by experimental observation. A scientific theory can be dis-proved if there is evidence it's wrong. A hypothesis is basically an idea with little/limited supporting evidence.

 

I've never heard of or seen scientific rules or laws defined in that way. A scientific law explains an observation or series of observations and as far as I'm aware the phrases scientific laws and scientific rules are interchangeable. Scientific laws/rules are the bedrock of science.

 

Even between scientific disciplines the meaning of all these words can vary slightly in practice so it really is playing with words.

 

Just to play with words, most people would know Newton's law of relativity as Newton's 3rd law of motion. I don't think it was "trumped" by Einstein's Theory of Relativity rather the latter was developed later (as you say), complemented and expanded it. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is still very relevant, taught and a valid law of physics.

[Andyregs]

A scientific theory is an accepted hypothesis, ie a hypothesis that has been supported by experimental observation. A scientific theory can be dis-proved if there is evidence it's wrong. A hypothesis is basically an idea with little/limited supporting evidence.

 

I've never heard of or seen scientific rules or laws defined in that way. A scientific law explains an observation or series of observations and as far as I'm aware the phrases scientific laws and scientific rules are interchangeable. Scientific laws/rules are the bedrock of science.

 

Even between scientific disciplines the meaning of all these words can vary slightly in practice so it really is playing with words.

 

Just to play with words, most people would know Newton's law of relativity as Newton's 3rd law of motion. I don't think it was "trumped" by Einstein's Theory of Relativity rather the latter was developed later (as you say), complemented and expanded it. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is still very relevant, taught and a valid law of physics.

 

Think my later post made more sense. In that laws are a description of what is seen, and theories are an explanation. They can stand alongside each other And one isn't necessarily better than another. It isn't as though proven theories then become laws necessarily. Or am I miles off? Though as i said, the everyday use of the word theory and sciemtifc theory are different.

When I say einsteins trumped it (maybe not the best word), isn't it able to explain certain observations which newtons can't.

My knowledge is limited to popular science books though.

[Jacko51]

Historical facts. As I say, check it out.

 

Doesn't Josephus simply report what is in the Gospels? Is his evidence for what he says about Jesus not just word of mouth? Would a historian accept that as fact?

[Tone]

Doesn't Josephus simply report what is in the Gospels? Is his evidence for what he says about Jesus not just word of mouth? Would a historian accept that as fact?

 

As so much time has gone by, how could we say? All I know is that I have been taught that he was a reputable Jewish-Roman historian.

[Andyregs]

I'd also be interested to know what tone thinks of the books that didn't make the bible. Seeing as it was man (who you could say have a certain agenda) who chose which books out of hundreds went into it. Are they just as important? And why a definitive book was never written as opposed to a collection of writings over thousands of years. Because without the bible their wouldn't be Christianity. Yet the bible is and what is chosen to be in it is 100% man made. And if it hey were guided by god, why the inconsistencies, contradictions and things now proven wrong which man wouldn't have know 2000 years ago. Can't remember what other books there were, but I'm sure there were some odd ones. Do these present as much evidence as the others or take away from how far we can trust the current bible as factual?

[Jacko51]

As so much time has gone by, how could we say? All I know is that I have been taught that he was a reputable Jewish-Roman historian.

 

Who was writing about 70 odd years after the events for which there was no written evidence other than the Gospels (which were written 30 odd years after the events) and Paul's writings which were not much sooner?

 

The problem with using the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and the New Testament as historical fact is that none of them are contemporary. All are based on word of mouth. I would certainly accept them as evidence of the actual existence of Jesus. I have serious problems in accepting them as evidence for the supernatural events claimed for his life and death. You only have to look at OVF to see how stuff gets distorted after a couple of weeks let alone 30 years!

 

I have no problem whatsoever with your beliefs, Tone. I just don't share them.

[Andyregs]

As so much time has gone by, how could we say?

 

But you said they were facts?

[Andyregs]

And what about Jesus being in the qu'ran? Does this show that both religions stem from the same stories, though as they can't both be true, take away from their standing as evidence. Or does it support your case, though bring an uneasy connection between two religions that see each other as being wrong? What makes one book more factual than the other?

[Tone]

Who was writing about 70 odd years after the events for which there was no written evidence other than the Gospels (which were written 30 odd years after the events) and Paul's writings which were not much sooner?

 

The problem with using the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and the New Testament as historical fact is that none of them are contemporary. All are based on word of mouth. I would certainly accept them as evidence of the actual existence of Jesus. I have serious problems in accepting them as evidence for the supernatural events claimed for his life and death. You only have to look at OVF to see how stuff gets distorted after a couple of weeks let alone 30 years!

 

I have no problem whatsoever with your beliefs, Tone. I just don't share them.

 

But you fail to give due recognition to the fact that the culture at that time relied very much, almost totally, on word of mouth. In today's world, most people don't even know who their politicians are (although they may know who appeared this week on Pop Idol or Big Brother). They don't retain what was in their own last text message. So back then, I would contend people had more discipline and accuracy when conveying events to the next generation.

 

I have already said this, but I refer again to 1 Corinthian 15. That says clearly that witnesses to events such as the resurrection were still alive and part of that community.

 

Just one example: the Gospels mention Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Tiberias where Jesus performed miracles. These cities eventually disappeared from history and their locations remained missing for centuries. They have since been rediscovered. I don't expect many here to believe that they disappeared because they rejected Jesus and He cursed them.

[Tone]

And what about Jesus being in the qu'ran? Does this show that both religions stem from the same stories, though as they can't both be true, take away from their standing as evidence. Or does it support your case, though bring an uneasy connection between two religions that see each other as being wrong? What makes one book more factual than the other?

 

'Ang on! You accept what the Koran says about Jesus even though it was written some 650 years later?