Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

sink

Sorry for going off topic but I just want to bring this to peoples attention.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The universe is contracting now, and in billions of years time will form a critical mass and expand again. Thus it was written thus it shall always be.

Your knowledge of astrophysics is a little out of date. The big bounce hypothesis is no longer given much weight in the scientific community due to the discovery that the universe is expanding at an ever accelerating rate and also the fact that the theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.

There are two hypotheses on the fate of the universe which roughly evenly split the broad majority of scientists opinions, they are 'the big rip' and 'heat death'. Both of these theories contend that the universe will continue to expand leading to it's demise.

DeVore

Jakkass wrote: »

Thanks for the queston DeVore.

I think in order to put an end to Christianity for me, you would have to do a lot of ground work. However I'll keep this specific to the Resurrection.

You would most certainly have to narrow any possible gap where God could have possibly have come into the process of the formation of the universe. Why the formation of the universe counts in relation to the question of the Resurrection is precisely because you would have to destroy any notion that the Creation was a supernatural event, but rather was the result of it having happened of it's own accord. Basically one would have to explain step by step in an entirely logical process that there wasn't a hope of God having been involved in the creation of the universe, and that there is no means whatsoever that a higher power could have been involved at all.

Then to finish it off you would have to find a decent explanation as to why the disciples did what they did based on historical documents by those who had witnessed them at the time insisting that they were absolute frauds, or documents that discussed the fabrication of the New Testament texts, and admitted that they were a hoax while proving that they were from the correct dating in history, had the correct language, and were found in the correct location.

Basically DeVore, to disprove my position, someone would have to do a lot of ground work. I think this is reasonable, because I have decided to commit my life to Christianity, and I have decided that I want to grow and develop as a human being to Christ's teachings. It's a big investment, and it would need a lot of groundwork to justify ditching such a big investment.

So, I need to prove all of physics and chemistry (ok, I think I can do that) but then also explain the psychology and motives of a long dead scribe or scribes. Hmm.. let me try here.


Firstly, the world, indeed the universe is not in the slightest bit improbable. Quick aside: given the physical laws we have observed, if the world was NOT as we see it today, I would find that sufficiently IMPROBABLE that I would accept it as proof of external intervention (some kind of deity)!
Thats how *probable* I consider the consequences of the big bang. From the bang onwards, we were pretty much assured of things like planets, humans, boards.ie etc. Its not perdestined fate... its just highly LIKELY.

From gas to planets is pretty easy. You can see it happen when you roll a snowball down a hill. Gravity pulls things together. Its not surprising its kinda clumpy out there in space and it hasnt finished yet (cf: Super Black Holes).

On a given planet, getting from chemical soup to replicating chains of chemicals is just a matter of lots of "goes" at it. Give it enough time and it would be dead weird if it HADNT happened. Very VERY weird.

Once thats happened, well... the rest is easy. Selection removes the unsuccessful and just like every arms race from weapons to internet technologies, sophistication develops.

So, I see no need for God in any of this bit. I will grant you that the big bang itself is a bit of a mystery as we cannot, by definition, look outside the totality of the universe. I'm perfectly happy to give "God" credit for clicking his fingers and causing a big explosion. In fact, its awfully clever how "he" did it if he did and I find that more of a testament to "awesomeness" then reviving some dead jewish bloke
But that done, imho "He" hasnt meddled since then if He exists at all.

I see absolutely no need to invoke Deus Ex Machina here or anything like it. The process simply doesnt need it.


So on to the scribes...

Here is where hard Science gets its coat and takes Logic down the pub for a swift half and a game of pool.

Who the f*ck knows why they wrote this story. But once you start a story like that, there are VERY good reasons to jump on board and perpetuate it. Most are pretty ugly and I dont want to tar "christians" with them but quite frankly, money, power, simple greed, self-agrandisement, collective delusion, convergence, hysteria theres any number of incentives/reasons.
(You cant say that the catholic church isnt one of the richest organisations in the world.... who wouldnt want in on the ground floor of *that*. )

But if we are to take it at face value that we should accept such writings (and thats all you have, not a jot of *physical* evidence... only what lawyers would refer to as "hearsay").... why would we not equally accept Scientology and the writings of L Ron Hubbard? Because your writings are older?

The reason I asked the original question is because I didnt think you COULD be convinced. I dont think anyone anywhere could convince you and basically your reply confirms that. Thats ok, you have faith and fine, nothing wrong with it when you keep it to yourself but dont pretend like you are being reasonable about the level of proof required because it cant and will never exist so your ivory tower is safe and you can continue to claim some scientific basis for a belief which you should not really be trying to claim a scientific basis for.

DeV.

johnnyskeleton

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but you would need to substantiate that argument. From my reasoning of it, natural would imply "frequently observable" to me. The creation is not something which is frequently observable, therefore I would consider it to be supernatural, or outside the sphere of observation. To deem something natural, we can only go on what is inside the universe. However if we are going to get behind the causation of the Big Bang in any serious way, instead of just saying that the universe created itself, we will have to ask questions about the supernatural, i.e what exists outside the natural universe.

On that basis anyone can believe anything they like and, once they believe it is supernatural, they don't require proof.

Jakkass wrote: »

Despite mathematicians arguing the opposite? The probability of the universe and life coming into existence the way that it currently has has been calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1 to (10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123) which won't even fit on your average calculator. So you would have to substantiate your reasoning to suggest that it is probable for the universe to exist given these odds.

I think that is the probability of everything coming to be exactly as it is now. By contrast, the odds of there being a planet capable of sustaining intelligent life and intelligent life subsequently forming on that planet are quite low (an absolute certainty if you accept that the universe is infinite.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. It seems to me that you are assuming that the universe coming into existence is probable. Actually most people I've discussed this with have conceded that it was actually grossly improbable for what has happened to have happened at all. We're extremely lucky to be alive.

For it to have happend this way is, when viewed objectively, quite unlikely, but for it to have happened at all is highly probable - indeed there are probably countless similar scenarios scattered across the universe.

Jakkass wrote: »

You'll have to elaborate on your previous understanding, or revise it before we can really continue. How can something that has been shown to be as improbable as the Creation and the formation of life be any more improbable than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

When you weigh up the evidence for each hypothesis, the only rational conclusions are that it was physics and not god that created the world, and that Jesus (if he even existed) was a liar and not the son of god.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "reasonable explanation". I'd disagree with you on that. I have yet to hear a decent explanation of the history of the early church without a Resurrection event.

How about Jesus wasn't dead but just pretending? How about his disciples were only pretending that he rose from the dead - Peter[loudly across a busy market]: "Hey did you see Jesus?" Bartholomew: "Yeah, he's hanging out with Mark".

Jakkass wrote: »

Em, I don't think I have invented anything, or propogated a lie concerning this. I think every person should feel a need to want to explain the unexplainable. Infact I think a person who does not want to do this lacks ambition.

I meant the plural you as in Christians, and didn't mean to impugn you personally in any way. There is a difference between wanting to understand the unexplainable on the one hand, and to simply have any old explanation which fits and accept that as truth. I don't think I'll ever understand the entirety of everything, but I think it is no harm to try to postulate what happened. I accept the possibility that there may be an almighty creator being but that is only one possibility and if it's true he is unknowable to us.

Jakkass wrote: »

Anyhow, God given His nature, won't be performing miracles to prove Himself. He doesn't need to do that, and I wouldn't expect Him to pander to people who have blasphemed against Him. As I say, I'd say Jesus regards this generation more evil and perverse than His.

Just out of curiosity, how does he view atheiests who have rejected other religions e.g. Islam. They can't be evil because they were never his people to begin with. Does he send that over to another department?

philologos

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On that basis anyone can believe anything they like and, once they believe it is supernatural, they don't require proof.

Which is where other forms of indication come in. The existence of God through creation is really only one tier of argument. It's dealt with rather extensively in any philosophy of religion textbook. I'd recommend anything written by Brian Davies, particularly this book, goes through a quick series of arguments and dialogue between atheists and theists on the issue in a formal manner, unlike the way we often carry out on Boards.ie. It also deals with things like Faith and Reason, and the Problem of Evil. I don't feel I need to run over the arguments that have been made since the Middle Ages basically, although there are quite a lot of modern arguments for God's existence. Then after you have reviewed the existence of a God of sorts, Christian apologetics would be a good idea, if you are serious about assessing how Christians argue for Christianity in the mainstream arena.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think that is the probability of everything coming to be exactly as it is now. By contrast, the odds of there being a planet capable of sustaining intelligent life and intelligent life subsequently forming on that planet are quite low (an absolute certainty if you accept that the universe is infinite.

How can the universe be infinite if it started spreading a finite amount of time ago?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

When you weigh up the evidence for each hypothesis, the only rational conclusions are that it was physics and not god that created the world, and that Jesus (if he even existed) was a liar and not the son of god.

Jesus could be a liar and not the Son of God. However myself and other Christians believe He proved Himself by fulfilling the prophesies of the Old Testament. If you wish to discuss these please start a new thread in the Christianity forum.

BTW, can't God have created the world through physics? This argument is so weak. Christians would believe that God was the author of the laws of creation, such as the laws of biology, the laws of physics, and the laws of chemistry.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How about Jesus wasn't dead but just pretending? How about his disciples were only pretending that he rose from the dead - Peter[loudly across a busy market]: "Hey did you see Jesus?" Bartholomew: "Yeah, he's hanging out with Mark".

How could a man be flogged to the extent that Christ was, left to hang on a cross for several hours, and then after this had happened had his flesh pierced to make sure that he was indeed dead, and yet survived?
As for his disciples pretending he was dead, that's ridiculous, why would you risk death if you clearly knew it was under false pretences.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I meant the plural you as in Christians, and didn't mean to impugn you personally in any way. There is a difference between wanting to understand the unexplainable on the one hand, and to simply have any old explanation which fits and accept that as truth. I don't think I'll ever understand the entirety of everything, but I think it is no harm to try to postulate what happened. I accept the possibility that there may be an almighty creator being but that is only one possibility and if it's true he is unknowable to us.

It's rather simple johnnyskeleton, I don't believe that Christianity was manufactured, but rather that it was the truth. I don't see what point there is in squabbling back and forth about it being made up if neither of us are going to agree on it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, how does he view atheiests who have rejected other religions e.g. Islam. They can't be evil because they were never his people to begin with. Does he send that over to another department?

The only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ. All are equal before God. We are all deserving of punishment for our sins. However those who have believed in Him, and have been baptised, have been baptised into His death and resurrection, as such they have already been punished for their sins, and they can put themselves right before God after the final days. Those who have not believed, repented, and been baptised will be judged by Jesus Christ in righteousness and receive the due penalty for their sins. Christ is the only way.

All people were God's. We are His creation according to Christianity. If you do not believe in Christ you will be punished at the final judgement. So no, no "other department" I'm afraid.

sink

Just wanted to add some perspective on the whole argument from improbability whether for or against.

Pick any bog standard pebble and the probability of that pebble existing in that exact configuration of molecules is staggeringly improbable, depending on it's size it is a few trillion trillion to one, but yet the pebble exists. The reason it exists is due to the self organisation of matter and organised matter has to exist in some shape or form and it just so happened to form into it's current configuration.

The same can be said for our galaxy, our solar system, our planet and all life upon it's surface. It was not predetermined for it all to form exactly as happened, but due to the way matter behaves it had to form in some way and we just so happened. Our being here is no more significant than that pebble.

If all that exists is infinite, the probability of our existence is 1:1.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

The only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ. All are equal before God. We are all deserving of sin. However those who have believed in Him, and have been baptised, have been baptised into His death and resurrection, as such they have already been punished for their sins, and they can put themselves right before God after the final days. Those who have not believed, repented, and been baptised will be judged by Jesus Christ in righteousness and receive the due penalty for their sins. Christ is the only way.

All people were God's. We are His creation according to Christianity. If you do not believe in Christ you will be punished at the final judgement. So no, no "other department" I'm afraid.

Because some muppet ate a piece of fruit that he shouldn't have?

Wow. How dare I...

philologos

sink: Yes, it might be rather convenient to say that the odds were 1:1, however, why are mathematicians such as Dr. Penrose coming out and saying that the odds are closer to mathematical impossibility? It doesn't make sense.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

sink: Yes, it might be rather convenient to say that the odds were 1:1

Sink said across infinity, the probability is 1. This is true for anything. If you have AGAIN not read a post correctly I suggest you be a lot more careful doing so in future.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Sink said across infinity, the probability is 1. This is true for anything. If you have AGAIN not read a post correctly I suggest you be a lot more careful doing so in future.

Have a bit of mercy woman, I'm just trying to decipher the point. I'm just not getting how we are about as significant as a pebble. It's still grossly improbable that it happened. I'm fine with that fact, but I do think it's a bit ridiculous when people dismiss the Resurrection for being so improbable when the earth and life and everything that is to do with it having come into existence is so vastly improbable. Surely a reasonable point to make?

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

sink: Yes, it might be rather convenient to say that the odds were 1:1, however, why are mathematicians such as Dr. Penrose coming out and saying that the odds are closer to mathematical impossibility? It doesn't make sense.

Your missing the point, ignore my last line, that was just superfluous. Even if the universe is finite, due to the way matter organises in large systems over large time scales something had to form. The number of possibilities are countless but one possibility has to happen and we just so happen to be part of the possibility that came true. If it was an alternate possibility we wouldn't be here talking about it.

philologos

sink wrote: »

Your missing the point, ignore my last line, that was just superfluous. Even if the universe is finite, due to the way matter organises in large systems over large time scales something had to form. The number of possibilities are countless but one possibility has to happen and we just so happen to be part of the possibility that came true. If it was an alternate possibility we wouldn't be here talking about it.

I don't think this approach is helpful though. I understand where you are coming from. Something had to happen, and ours was the one that happened. Big deal get over it. Essentially that's your argument.

However, it does provoke wonder, and awe and it does make you wonder how on earth it happened at the very least. At the very most, it does sound miraculous.

However, this argument is about the equivalent of me saying. There was only so many possibilities of what could have happened to that body in Jerusalem, and one possibility has to happen, and we happen to be saved by that possibility

You can't help but thinking it's a bit hypocritical for people to criticise Christians about the Resurrection when they believe in something as improbable as the Creation at the same time.

I'm not trying to deride you for believing what you do about the beginnings of the earth, infact I believe your opinion is by and large reasonable, as I believe that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is reasonable.

J_Kerr

Jakkass wrote:

The only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ. All are equal before God. We are all deserving of sin. However those who have believed in Him, and have been baptised, have been baptised into His death and resurrection, as such they have already been punished for their sins, and they can put themselves right before God after the final days. Those who have not believed, repented, and been baptised will be judged by Jesus Christ in righteousness and receive the due penalty for their sins. Christ is the only way.

All people were God's. We are His creation according to Christianity. If you do not believe in Christ you will be punished at the final judgement. So no, no "other department" I'm afraid.

Seriously, the concept of original sin because of a talking snake (not the devil, but snakes were present in other religions and putting a snake in Eden was meant to discredit these religions) is one of the ugliest concepts ever thought up.

DeVore

You can't help but thinking it's a bit hypocritical for people to criticise Christians about the Resurrection when they believe in something as improbable as the Creation at the same time.

What exactly is "improbable" about this world, leaving aside the big bang (which we cant say is probable or improbable since it happened outside of time and time is needed for "probablility" to make any sense).

So.... whats so improbable about this world? Its almost a certainty, given the big bang.

Amazing yes, improbable, no.


DeV.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think this approach is helpful though. I understand where you are coming from. Something had to happen, and ours was the one that happened. Big deal get over it. Essentially that's your argument.

However, it does provoke wonder, and awe and it does make you wonder how on earth it happened at the very least. At the very most, it does sound miraculous.

However, this argument is about the equivalent of me saying. There was only so many possibilities of what could have happened to that body in Jerusalem, and one possibility has to happen, and we happen to be saved by that possibility

You can't help but thinking it's a bit hypocritical for people to criticise Christians about the Resurrection when they believe in something as improbable as the Creation at the same time.

I'm not trying to deride you for believing what you do about the beginnings of the earth, infact I believe your opinion is by and large reasonable, as I believe that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is reasonable.

But the formation of the earth and life is one possible outcome of the way matter behaves, all possibilities are the result of simple natural laws. The resurrection of Jesus is not one of the possible outcomes for it would have had to break the laws and therefore does not feature as part of any possible configuration of matter in the universe.

Think of it like the machine that picks the lottery numbers. The number of possible combinations of balls are in the billions but one combination has to happen. The combinations that are possible follow the laws of physics, but something that does not follow the laws of physics is impossible such as one of the balls spontaneously changing it's number.

philologos

sink: That assumes that both the Resurrection, and the creation are to be assessed purely by the rules of naturalism. This is contested by a lot of people.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You can't help but thinking it's a bit hypocritical for people to criticise Christians about the Resurrection when they believe in something as improbable as the Creation at the same time.

Yes but "creation" did happen, this universe exists. no one has demonstrated that the resurrection actually happened.

If it could be show that the resurrection did actually happen that would be interesting to say the least. But no one has ever done that. As it is we have one ridiculously improbable possibility (a man rose from the dead) contrasted with a far more plausible possibility (he didn't but for some reason his followers thought he did).

So you aren't comparing like to like. The universe did come into existence, so no matter how unlikely that event is (and so far I've never seen any measurement that shows such an event is unlikely, simply that such an event producing this exact universe is unlikely, but that is like saying that last weeks winning lotto number was unlikely to be that exact number, but it could have been any of the other ones as well), it still happened. There is little reason to suppose the resurrection actually happened.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

How can the universe be infinite if it started spreading a finite amount of time ago?

It's not infinite. It's an expanding sphere with a radius ~78 billion light years.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

You can't help but thinking it's a bit hypocritical for people to criticise Christians about the Resurrection when they believe in something as improbable as the Creation at the same time.

What are you saying here? That it's crazy to believe that the universe exists? On the basis of probability?

What ever way you cut it, you don't need faith to believe that the universe began.

Genghiz Cohen

ZOMG

TehWiki wrote:

Davis traveled to Haiti in 1982 and, as a result of his investigations, claimed that a living person can be turned into a zombie by two special powders being entered into the blood stream (usually via a wound). The first, coup de poudre (French: 'powder strike'), includes tetrodotoxin (TTX), the poison found in the pufferfish. The second powder is composed of dissociatives such as datura. Together, these powders were said to induce a death-like state in which the victim's will would be entirely subject to that of the bokor.

Voodo Jeebus!

Zombrex

Naz_st wrote: »

It's not infinite. It's an expanding sphere with a radius ~78 billion light years.

It's not actually, but the over all point of your post (that it is not infinite in volume) is probably correct.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

sink: That assumes that both the Resurrection, and the creation are to be assessed purely by the rules of naturalism. This is contested by a lot of people.

And herein lies the crux of the matter. We don't know very much about the big bang and we haven't a clue what caused it but we know it happened. For everything that has happened since we have a rough idea of how it came about by purely natural means and we have no evidence to suggest that anything supernatural has taken place.

So given that my being here has a natural explanation from the point of the big bang onwards and we know for certain the big bang happened, the resurrection with absolutely no evidence that it happened and requiring a supernatural force for it to be possible, it is not reasonable to assume it happened at all.

Naz_st wrote: »

It's not infinite. It's an expanding sphere with a radius ~78 billion light years.

I hear it's actually a four dimensional doughnut. Get you head around that :P

Naz_st

Wicknight wrote: »

It's not actually, but the over all point of your post (that it is not infinite in volume) is probably correct.

Picky, picky!

Ok, the metric is an estimate for the observable universe taken from the diameter of the sphere of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Personally, in terms of global shape, I think it's way easier to think of the universe as the inside of an expanding sphere, it seems to make intuitive sense. How do you visualise it? As some other abstract geodesic manifold or Poincare Dodecahedral maybe?

DeVore

Is this thing on? Am I talking to myself here?


Also, your (plural) understanding of "infinity" is pretty limited. Consider a number line from 1 to 2, kinda like a part of a ruler.
Not very long you might say and you'd be right. Certainly nothing "infinite" about it.

Now, for any two numbers (oh say 1 and 2) I can find a number in between them by adding them together and dividing the sum by 2. So, 1+2 = 3, divided by 2 = 1.5. Now that gives me three numbers on our number-line, 1, 1.5 and 2.

I can repeat this again for both 1 and 1.5, as well as 1.5 and 2. Giving me two more numbers namely 1.25 and 1.75. Now I have 5 numbers between 1 and 2 (inclusive).

There is no limit to the number of times I can generate new numbers on the original number line of 1 to 2. So there must be an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. (I can generate as many as I like).

That bears repeating: There are an infinite number of numbers between the VERY FINITE span of "1 to 2".

This is just one manner of infinity within the finite.


I'm still wondering what you find so improbable about the world Jak.

DeV.

Naz_st

DeVore wrote: »

Also, your (plural) understanding of "infinity" is pretty limited. Consider a number line from 1 to 2, kinda like a part of a ruler.
Not very long you might say and you'd be right. Certainly nothing "infinite" about it.

Now, for any two numbers (oh say 1 and 2) I can find a number in between them by adding them together and dividing the sum by 2. So, 1+2 = 3, divided by 2 = 1.5. Now that gives me three numbers on our number-line, 1, 1.5 and 2.

I can repeat this again for both 1 and 1.5, as well as 1.5 and 2. Giving me two more numbers namely 1.25 and 1.75. Now I have 5 numbers between 1 and 2 (inclusive).

There is no limit to the number of times I can generate new numbers on the original number line of 1 to 2. So there must be an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. (I can generate as many as I like).

That bears repeating: There are an infinite number of numbers between the VERY FINITE span of "1 to 2".

This is just one manner of infinity within the finite.

At the risk of permanently straying off topic, what's your point? You can always mathematically divide any finite (real) number line into an infinite number of components, but:
a) It doesn't change the fact that the original numbers were finitely bound
b) It's not conceptually transferrable out of the mathematical realm and into the physical since at some point when dividing the physical you get down to the elementary particles (leptons/quarks/etc)

Also, there is a conceptual difference between mathematical infinity and physical (or cosmological) infinity. For example, the 2D surface of a sphere (e.g. the Earth) has no edge/boundary (you can travel from any given point, in any direction, forever), but it's not infinitely large.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

As for his disciples pretending he was dead, that's ridiculous, why would you risk death if you clearly knew it was under false pretences.

On this point, look at 9/11, or the dedicated followers of L. Ron Hubbard, or the millions of people who have been willing to die for their religions that were not christianity, or the fact that George Bush thought it was ok to lie about WMDs because he thought his cause was just, I could fill a book with the number of times when people have been dedicated to a cause to the point of being willing to die for it despite it not being based on the truth. In fact I could fill a library

You know all these other cases where not based on the truth but in this one particular instance you think it's so incredibly unlikely that these people were dedicated without having the truth that you think it's more likely that some jewish guy raised from the dead

What most likely happened was they were dedicated to the message of Jesus which is a very good message about how to live your life and much better than the Jewish one but they knew that no one would care what some random carpenter said so they took the already known messianic prophecies and said he met them and got him crucified, or maybe even got a stand in to do it. Someone can be totally dedicated to someone's message without believing that they are divine and can be willing to lie about his deeds in order to spread the message that they so strongly believe in. Look at the 9/11 conspiracies where they make up evidence to support their case. Making up the evidence doesn't mean they don't believe in their message. Or even Zeitgeist, they made up some stuff to support their case. It happens all the time and is far more likely than a supernatural resurrection

philologos

Sam Vimes:

Problem: The 9/11 terrorists actually believed in Islam. They didn't fly planes into the WTC based on the view that it was false. If you had read the point that was put forward to me, it implied that Christianity was under false pretences, and that the disciples were lying. Theres a clear difference there, and you know it.

Noopti

I have been reading through this whole thread, and one thing is really standing out to me:

DeVore is making extremely good cases & points, and Jakkass is ignoring every single one of them. A case of picking and choosing his arguments if ever I saw one.

liamw

Jackass, I actually find it hard to believe that someone, in the 21st century, still believes in a resurrection.

"Let's use occam's razor for the moment, and instead of assuming something grossly improbable, miraculous and supernatural happened, that something fairly ordinary happened - one or more people lied about a man dying and coming back to life."

I will try to understand you. Please give me a reason, other than you read it out of a book written hundreds of years ago, that you think the resurrection happened. Why do you need to invoke it at all?

I mean, what's the point? Why do you trust the words in this book so blindly?

Try looking at this from a rational and logical point of view, and tell me what your saying isn't ridiculous. If you can't, then I guess your still brainwashed.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes:

Problem: The 9/11 terrorists actually believed in Islam.

Yes, their religiosity was the problem.

Also, since you don't believe in Islam, as far as you're concerned they were killing themselves under "false pretences". So you answered your own question on how someone can be prepared to kill themselves for something that is false.

Flamed Diving

Noopti wrote: »

I have been reading through this whole thread, and one thing is really standing out to me:

DeVore is making extremely good cases & points, and Jakkass is ignoring every single one of them. A case of picking and choosing his arguments if ever I saw one.

Why? Are you surprised?