[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's impossible to explain faith, Kaz. And LT knows it, the absolute b*st*rd...

You are. LT. You know you are.

The closest things to an explanation I've ever heard is the story of the blind child flying a kite. He can't see the kite... but he can feel it pulling on the string.

Brilliant response, very thought provoking and well said n all your posts on this issue.
Very informed and reasoned too.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

isnt that just you protecting yourself from the reality that there is nothing and your life and our lives has no meaning?

Have you not had a piss in the river today you seem very grumpy

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Brilliant response, very thought provoking and well said n all your posts on this issue.
Very informed and reasoned too.

joey you are applauding livia for calling me a bastard?

that is very christian of you

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Have you not had a piss in the river today you seem very grumpy

That's another thing LT,who do you think you are , polluting Gods waterways

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

joey you are applauding livia for calling me a bastard?

that is very christian of you

This is a great thread LT , thank the Lord for that

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

This is a great thread LT , thank the Lord for that

Bless you, sister Kaz

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Bless you, sister Kaz

Bless you my child

Spoiler:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Bless you my child

Spoiler:

ah finally, a place to store my communion wafer

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Bless you, sister Kaz

You and LT are too funny.
Sorry about my post earlier Kaz. I read it wrong like Kirk said.
My fault. sorry.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

ah finally, a place to store my communion wafer

sacrilege.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

You and LT are too funny.
Sorry about my post earlier Kaz. I read it wrong like Kirk said.
My fault. sorry.

No worries Johnny

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

William of Ockham (1285-1349) points out that, where one is presented with two hypotheses that are otherwise equally well-supported by the available evidence, you should always pick the simplest hypothesis. In particular, we shouldn’t gratuitously introduce any superfluous entities. This principle, known as Ockham’s razor, is very sensible. Take, for example, these two hypotheses:

A: There are invisible, intangible and immaterial fairies at the bottom of the garden, in addition to the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on.

B: There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, just the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on.

Everything I have observed fits both hypotheses equally well. After all, if the fairies at the bottom of my garden are invisible, intangible and immaterial, then I shouldn’t expect to observe any evidence of their presence, should I? Does the fact that the available evidence fits both hypothesis equally well mean that I suspend judgement on whether or not there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?

Of course not. The rational thing to believe is that there are no fairies. For that’s the simplest hypothesis. Why introduce the unnecessary fairies?

Similarly, if the available evidence were equally to fit both atheism and theism, then atheism would be the rational position to adopt. For the atheistic hypothesis is simpler: it sticks with just the natural world we see around us and dispenses with the additional, supernatural being.


https://humanism.org.uk/about/humani...ng-with-faith/

My kids had fairies at the bottom of the gaden, they never actually managed to get a glimpse of them but they knew their names and they also knew that those fairies would tell me if they told me lies.
Worked a treat, nothing like a bit of magic in childhood.
Sometimes it is just enough to believe..without absolute evidence

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

joey you are applauding livia for calling me a bastard?

that is very christian of you

You know I love you... even though you are a b*st*rd.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

And 'people of faith' are lambasted as naive and gullible.

First of all Johnny - Nowhere in the Judeo- Christian Bible does it claim that Christ was born on the 25th of December. That date was seized upon by the newly Christian Emperor Constantine to celebrate 'The Mass of Christ' (Christmas) because the Winter Solstice and the ancient pagan Roman midwinter festivals called 'Saturnalia' took place on this date, so it would help the previously pagan subjects of the Roman Empire to more easily 'acclimatise' to their new religion.

Secondly, this fact does make a nonsense of any claims that 'Christmas' is nothing to do with Jesus. There is a gulf of difference in claiming that Jesus was BORN on the 25th of December - which no Christian does - and in merely celebrating his MASS on that day for the ancient reasons given above.

If Christmas was nothing to do with Jesus (a ludicrous claim given the name 'Christ Mass') and ALL to do with pre-existing Pagan festivals which were originally held on that date (some erroneously by the way - more of which below) then WHY aren't all you atheists sending each other 'Merry 'Dies Natalis Solis Invicti' cards, exchanging 'Saturnalia Gifts' and wishing each other 'Happy Mithrasmas'?

Unfortunately for the author(s) of the linked article you provided Johnny, and those who 'believe' in its truths - Nowhere is there any historical corroboration that the totally mythical entity Mithra was born on the 25th of December either. There is only problematical and highly contested conjecture.

So it is nothing but 'Skeptic Fallacy' for anyone to claim that Christians hijacked the 25th of December as Christ's 'Birthday' because they were copying Mithraism - Christians do not claim that birthdate for Christ, they only celebrate his mass on it, and apart from the fact that Mithras is a total myth, there is no historical proof anywhere to corrobarate any claims that 'Mithras' was 'born' on that date either.

In addition; how can Christ be an invention copied from Mithras when the Roman cult of Mithras was not popularized until the 1st to 4th Century AD -- AFTER the death of Christ and over a thousand years or so AFTER the Old Testament prophecies of Christ's birth and the circumstances surrounding it?

And this is not the only fallacy about Mithra in your linked article and elsewhere Johnny:

MITHRA

“Mithras was born of a virgin” — According to historians, Mithras was born from a rock, and not even of a person at all, much less a 'virgin'.

“Mithras's 'Birth' was attended to by Shepherds” — This claim is based solely on the stone relief below which shows humans holding what do appear to be shepherd's crooks :



Which not only nails the Mithras 'Virgin Birth' as a clear lie, but is also fascinating seeing as how Mithras was supposed to be 'born' BEFORE the creation of HUMANKIND.

“Mithra had 12 disciples.” — Solely based on another carving below which shows Mithras surrounded by 12 signs of the Zodiac:



What kind of idiotic leap of faith does it take to turn 12 signs of the zodiac into 12 living breathing human disciples? To illustrate how desperate the anti-Christian lobby are, one researcher - Franz Cumont - even suggested that the zodiac signs in the relief were actually 'disciples' 'dressed up as zodiac signs'.

“Mithras was crucified. Dead for three days. And then resurrected.” — More lies by anti-Christian bullshotters, because in Mithraism, Mithras never dies. After concluding his earthly mission he 'returns to the skies in a chariot', and in Mithraism there is no historical mention of crucifixion, burial or resurrection in any artwork or text.

So without death - How can there be resurrection Johnny?

“...there is “no death of Mithras” - Rihard L Gordon: 'Image and Value in the Graeco-Roman World: Studies in Mithraism and Religious Art'.

“We don’t know anything about the death of Mithras…We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no references to a supposed death and resurrection.” - Dr. Edwin Yamauchi.

"Mithras as a real person did not exist" - Franz Cumont.

There is a lot more on Mithras which I look forward to debating with you Johnny, plus the rest of the fallacies in your linked article, and your other points concerning 'Noah's Ark' etc - but only in a serious civil manner, otherwise it is just futile.

For now, I must leave it here - I am supposed to be working hard on finishng a kitchen refit, which I HAVE managed to do the majority of DESPITE 'idling away' hours of my time on here.

Hi Kirk,
Point 1: I said very early on in here that Athiests can't hate anykind of god because they cannot hate something they do not believe existed in the first place. So your Athiest argument is redundant. How could i hate something that to me does not exist?

Point 2: There have been thousands of gods and many gods came before this god. What makes this god so special that he out trumps all the other gods who got here long before he did?

POINT 3: I asked a question earlier which no one wants too answer so i will ask it again. Hopefully you can shed some light on this for me. Thanks.
Q: How did Noah fit 8.7million ( x2 remember ) so that is 17.4 million animals into a 500 foot wooden boat.

Point 4: You are quick to call out all the other gods that were around at that time as false,fallices,fake or whatever but yet many of those gods were on this planet long before your god of choice was. Wouldn't it be logical to root for the first true god rather than cherry pick a late commer to the religious table?

I will have to disagree with you on the christmas mass thing. Why were christians fighting against it for centuries? They then changed their minds. lol They defo hijacked christmas Kirk and many christians still do claim it as their own and as his actual birth date. I'm not saying you do but many christans still believe this.

You asked...So without death - How can there be resurrection Johnny?
You first have to prove to me that resurrection is real Kirk.
But if i have to answer without proof from you that it is real then i will say.....
It's very simple...Just look around you, everything dies eventually,there is no resurrection you die and that is it.

Final question...If the Bible is the word of god then why so many rewrites?

[arista]

"It's very simple...Just look around you, everything dies eventually,there is no resurrection you die and that is it."


Bang On Right Johnny

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by arista

"It's very simple...Just look around you, everything dies eventually,there is no resurrection you die and that is it."


Bang On Right Johnny

Hi Arista.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

It's very simple...Just look around you, everything dies eventually,there is no resurrection you die and that is it.

You can't prove there is no resurrection any more than someone could present evidence of God. So... back to square one.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by Livia

You can't prove there is no resurrection any more than someone could present evidence of God. So... back to square one.

And that proof falls down to christians themselves. I'm all ears, tell/show me the proof?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Livia

You can't prove there is no resurrection any more than someone could present evidence of God. So... back to square one.

but you can look at the evidence of what is around us, look at entropy in the universe, half-life in physics and conclude that the most likely outcome is that it does not exist

as i said earlier, the least unusual and most explainable outcome tends to be the right



like say Kirk seeing a ghost

either kirk is right and all of science as we know it today is wrong

or

kirk saw a shadow and was mistaken

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

but you can look at the evidence of what is around us, look at entropy in the universe, half-life in physics and conclude that the most likely outcome is that it does not exist

as i said earlier, the least unusual and most explainable outcome tends to be the right



like say Kirk seeing a ghost

either kirk is right and all of science as we know it today is wrong

or

kirk saw a shadow and was mistaken

Because science can't prove something right now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Science can't prove love is real, but if you've had it and you've given it, you know, despite the scientific uncertainty, that it exists.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Livia

Because science can't prove something right now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Science can't prove love is real, but if you've had it and you've given it, you know, despite the scientific uncertainty, that it exists.

love isnt anything, its a blanket term that encapsulates many emotions and meanings.

if you strip it down to human love then you can find perfectly logical Darwinian reasons for it and essentially it boils down to gene preservation and transfer

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

How is that anything to do with God,OH but I forgot he doesn't exist does he? so why blame something that doesn't exist ? silly humans.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

love isnt anything, its a blanket term that encapsulates many emotions and meanings.

if you strip it down to human love then you can find perfectly logical Darwinian reasons for it and essentially it boils down to gene preservation and transfer

That's the scientific response? That love isn't anything? Is that the official response of science?

Love exists. Faith exists. You can't prove or disprove either.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Livia

That's the scientific response? That love isn't anything? Is that the official response of science?

Love exists. Faith exists. You can't prove or disprove either.

what love exists?

love for an ice lolly, love for a tv show or a car, love for a pal

its just a word that is used to describe preference

parents have love for their children but that is because of millions of years of evolution and gene preservation. the ones that did not "love" their children died out.

[Johnnyuk123]

This is worth a watch.

Youtube video