Definitive proof that the Bulldogs are NOT the 2004 Premiers

[Guest]

Ok a couple of centuries isnt enough but what about the Egyptians etc a couple of thousand centuries away and I know they have found proof of them in their pyramids etc but so have they found evidence of the bible so why is it so hard to believe one over another.

 

[Fluffy]

That is a fine approach rivsrose but that means you also follow all other written religous books from other religons not just the bible. This is not possible.

Mata simple answer to why it cant be proven is because the muslims and the christians do not follow the same religous books. There is as much likelyhood of one or the other being right. Hence for every arguement you put forward - history etc i can counter argue that there is a muslim parallel which prooves they are right.

Now you cant porve that ALL contradicting parts of ALL of religons are wrong compared to the bible. Therefore there is some possibilities that the bible is wrong and therefore proof that it may not be correct.

 

[Guest]

Very good point 🙂

 

[Matabele]

That is a fine approach rivsrose but that means you also follow all other written religous books from other religons not just the bible. This is not possible.

Mata simple answer to why it cant be proven is because the muslims and the christians do not follow the same religous books. There is as much likelyhood of one or the other being right. Hence for every arguement you put forward - history etc i can counter argue that there is a muslim parallel which prooves they are right.

Now you cant porve that ALL contradicting parts of ALL of religons are wrong compared to the bible. Therefore there is some possibilities that the bible is wrong and therefore proof that it may not be correct.

Fluffy, partially true. There are of course points of synergy between the Muslims, the Jews and the Chrisitans you realise? (Eg Abraham is the "father" of all three. The Muslims and Christians both recognise Jesus, though some Jews don't etc etc).

If I may take up Zap's point that the colonisation of Australia is proof of Captain Cook, well doesn't the existence of a church, however corrupted, similarly show that something could well have happened 2000 years ago?

The question of course is, how do we find out what is true and what is false? Normally in a court of law this is achieved through an evidential approach.

There is of course much "evidence" for Cook's landing in australia. There is also much evidence for the life of Christ, significantly longer ago. Are you disputing that? Well you may but I would suggest your grounds for dispute would have similar ramifications for good old Captain Cook.

What do you think?

 

[fLIP]

:lol: Im tired of this rubbish. Your right mata, I give up.

 

[Dan]

Flipper dont give up, bible boy will be beaten one day 😀

 

[Fluffy]

Mata why can you not understand plain english, ill write it again again.

I am claiming that you cannot prove the bible is true and right.

I have not ever claimed here that it was wrong or isnt as it says it is.

show that something could well have happened 2000 years ago

Abosolutly something COULD well have happened but it is not definate.

Im glad you finally aree with me.

 

[Matabele]

Fluff, and in plain English I will state it again:

Taking your basis of proof, nothing is definite. Nothing in the past, nothing now and nothing in the future.

Which means you live a life that contradicts your world view.

Can I make it any simpler?

 

[Fluffy]

That doesnt mean i live a life that contradicts my view. That is just you dribling again because you were beaten in an arguement. And its not that nothing is definate as some things are but a lot of life is not definate and we do base things on likely outcomes.

Mata you lost this one when you let your personal feeling take over your mind and began to preech rather than debate.

 

[Matabele]

Incorrect. I was merely following your lead. Normally when someone claims to have won an argument they have done no such thing. But then your world view wouldn't want to put it to an objective test, would it?

My point is we ALL have "personal feelings" and tend to pontificate from our own standpoint. You have done nothing different except you tend to get more personal about it. It's not often the winner in the debate that needs to resort to personal sledging.

So answer the question:

If you claim that nothing is definite, how then do you go about making the most basic of decisions?

It's a simple question Fluff. Just answer it and give the personal stuff away.

 

[Fluffy]

I will answer when i claim nothing is definate

again i watch you with plenty of time skip over the main points of arguments.

Thats about the 10th time in 2 days.

Youve done it to me, flipper and Zap.

You simply ask a question and ignore almost everything else.

Yesterday you claimed it was that you didnt have time yet you found time to write a long post to start this thread.

History is a strange thing - the longer ago it happened the less truth you find in its writings. Back when the bible was written (if it was by god or others) there was a lot of anti christian feelings and it is most likely that 99%+ were destroyed.

 

[Hopium]

Hi there.
Allow myself to introduce... myself. I "belong" to fluffy. He seems to think that I have some form of intelligence. I disagree. However, me writing a rant on why I choose not to be religious, and why, to me, it is merely an excuse for inhumane behaviour and is the crutch of the weak-willed will allow me to see him tonight. I hope he buys me dinner.

Let me start by saying that since I am on holidays and have about... 3 minutes to write this in I won't be using any fancy words. I can't be bothered. Don't get me wrong, catch me during semester, when I am studying hard and you probably won't understand me. Unless you are doing my course... or in the profession already.

First off the Bible. Strange though it is that the works of a group of MEN ONLY have come to dictate most of this world. Damn. I TOLD the founding fathers they should have read Pratchett.
The substantive issues.
Now the Old testament is obviously written long after the actual events it describes. I does describe a fire and fury type of God. Some kind of deity that would love to let the lighting rain down on us mere mortals. Nice story. Anyways, the Adam and Eve stuff have been shown to be rather incorrect by Darwin's theory of evolution. He didn't mean to disprove the stories, he was a nihilist.
Ever played Chinese whispers? You know how an event is interpreted, twisted and changed the more the tale is told through different people? Well, no author of the old testament was there at the time of these happenings. While it tries to describe the history of the planet, it fails miserably. It misses events such as the ice ages, the dinosaurs or even the fact that the earth is not the centre of the universe.
But don't get me wrong... I LIKE the old testament. People lived till they were 500 and there was lots of begetting.
Like alot of christians (I was christened... strangely enough) I know the new testament alot better.
I enjoy the fact that the book was written about 40-200 years after the death of Jesus (35 was about the average age of the times... it was a rough life... it somehow goes up to 100 in the bible... 100 is still a rare age to achieve). So there probably was a great many mistakes. What am I saying? There were many mistakes. There seems to be a fair bit of disagreement. And now there are the chapters from the dead sea scrolls. These were written AT THE TIME OF THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS. BY AN EYE WITNESS. By a guy called Paul. They actually say Jesus was a great man. But just a man. He had a family... you know, a wife and kiddies? And that is all from the original text.
Did you also know that it was the Romans that made up the bible? They also edited it as they went along.
Beautiful eh?


So yes, organised religion. So many have died.
Do you know the Inquisition still exists?? Yep! It's now called the Holy Office... their job now is to ban certain publications (or historic findings) that they consider blasphemous. There is quite alot.
Religion plunged us into the dark ages. Imagine how much more advanced we would be if it wasnt for that break?
It caused the crusades. It lead Hitler to genocide.
And it hasn't stopped.

I think religion is good for those that need it to go on living... or to give them a purpose. But me? Rather than preach I volunteer for the Red Cross, WWF, the Wilderness Society and help anyone I can.
I don't have time to preach.

Also, what "loving" god would leave the world the way it is?

ENOUGH OF THIS DEPRESSING BANTER

I have one more thing to say...

42

 

[Dan]

nice man nice

 

[Fluffy]

I invited her here cause i thought she would enjoy it, not to gang up on anyone.

Also she loves history whereas i cant give a damn about what happened really, so knows a lot more on that sort of thing.

 

[Dan]

its cool, im sure Matabele will have fun disputing that 😀 or the parts he feels he can :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Fluffy]

it will be interesting to see what he says about those facts. See she has spent too much time looking into this sort of thing.

 

[Hopium]

What can I say? I get bored... so I learn things...

Not all of them of any use... but interesting.

Anyways... I know these things so Life of Brian appears funnier! LOL

 

[Matabele]

Hopium should be re-named Opium.

Her disertation on the dead sea scrolls is priceless. Straight out of the Barbare Theiring text book. Now that's a lark. A very good example of not letting facts get in the way of a good story. Welcome Opium, please enlighten us on why Luke refers to himself in the first person in the book of Acts?

Fluff, you too skip plenty and you're not fighting a war on four fronts. You seem to have plenty of "friends" queeuing up to help. My opening dissertation was written last night, much to the disgust of my wife. I'm the only one here (apart from Zap) brave enough to put my views on the dock for everyone to take pot shots at. How about you do the same for a while. That's my challenge to you.

However, so you don't accuse me of not answering your question:

"History is a strange thing - the longer ago it happened the less truth you find in its writings. Back when the bible was written (if it was by god or others) there was a lot of anti christian feelings and it is most likely that 99%+ were destroyed."

Would you like a reply?

Reply is as follows:

There's no doubt that the further you go back in antiquity, the harder it is to "prove" certain points. However, as stated previously the bible is the most scrutinised book in the history of the world on a number of levels. And rightly so, for there is much at stake, especially if someone came to earth claiming to be a God.

Taken to its end point you would be saying that there would be little proof of the holocaust because so many people were persecuted and the conditions were horrific. However, there are many eye witness accounts that have come out from those camps, diaries etc that give us the ability to read and get an understanding of what happened. There's no reason to believe that the holocaust won't be seen as 'history' in 3945.

Interestingly though there are already neo-nazis and the like appearing out of the woodwork trying to discredit those that say the holocaust happened and to re-write history. Interesting isn't it? There were a lot more people with a vested interest in re-writing history and clamping down on the eye witness account of Jesus and also a lot of people who appear to have been remarkably transformed by his influence and had reasons to keep that legacy alive (many of them to the point of horrific death). Can you explain that to me?

So, in your next post, please include the following:

A full and detailed statement of your belief for us to critique; and

An explanation of why so many people wanted to silence the "legend" of Jesus and why there were others prepared to die to keep it alive?

Over to you.

 

[Hopium]

Opium. Hmmm... getting a little low. They call me Hopium because I'm happy without the use of drugs.

Why does Bridget Jones refer to herself int he first person? Might have something to do with the author.

Christianity was once a very small religious sect. Very small. But then, every religion was.

And the dead sea scrolls do exist. Your thinking comes straight from the Holy Office. I choose not to beleive those that damn free thought and expression.

Religion is the crutch of the populace. Yes this statement comes from Marx and Lenin, but they are so right. You see, religion is just too darn convenient. People can sit and spout whatever they like - as long as it follows the rules. They don't actually DO anything.
They don't need to do anything. Why is it that there are so many other religions in the world when only one is right? Leads me to think that all are right.

And why will people die for it? It has a name... "brainwashing". People are not able to think for themselves. I has not only been suggested, but demonstrated, that a mobs of people have fanatical devotion. But go to these people individually, you'll find alot more are merely complacent.


My beliefs? Well, I hold no religious theories to my heart... unless of course, you could count my fanatical devotion to making this earth a better place. Christians themselves really haven't done anything. All they do is argue, grumble and strat wars. Like the USA.

 

[Matabele]

And at that point I am indeed going to heed Fro's advice.

Fluffy may think that it's fun to bring his screw ball mates into the picture putting up such absolute **** that it doesn't even bear recognition, let alone comment.

I don't mind a rationed debate such as I've had with people like Zap and even Fluff at times but when it degenerates into a continual muckfest, I shake the dust off my heels and move on.

I'm not prepared to respond to every screw ball theory of the deranged. I'm quite happy to take genuine questions in PM but I have too many other important things to do than to trade insults with an imbecile. That's not a back down, just a clear declaration that I'm no longer prepared to cast pearls before swine.

In the words of my doctorate brother:

"And you do realise that demolishing people's arguments (however completely) seldom changes their minds... particularly post-modernists!"

ciao