Thread: Christmas poll

Originally Posted by TheBaron

A man, shows up in town with the power of GOD at his fingertips and not one other person, not even a scribe of the roman community thinks this is important enough to jot down? Not even a foot note? No one but his friends wrote down anywhere, in any text, anything of his existence? I mean for an average man I'd say sure only his friends wrote about him, but this man started a following that required the intervention of the roman government. So much so that they hunted him and his friends down and brutally killed them all.

The Romans where educated, we have tons of documents from the era regarding works from philosophers and story tellers and yet there is no document uncovered other than the bible that this man ever existed.

Please stop responding with what the bible said they did over and over again. I am telling you that this is not proof of the existence of Jesus. I have read the accounts of Jesus and his apostles, and I don't need you to regurgitate it for me.

What I am telling you is that you have no proof that those accounts in the bible are true beyond your own faith. You also may want to reconsider if you are thinking you can prove the bible as an accurate reference, the religion is faith based for a reason, to try and prove something as fact that god intended as faith could be considered as attempting to undo his work.

So based on the simple idea that gods word is intentionally based on faith, the only two options for you is; either the bible cannot be used as scientific evidence, or you believe that you know better and know some miraculous way to turn a faith based document into scientific fact.

That was very well put.... for about the 100th time in this thread..

Faith is Faith... Proof is Proof...

Trying to erase history was not and is not uncommon...the same goes for making up history.
I think to some degree it all requires a bit of faith be it science, God, or climate change and everything else in between.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

That was very well put.... for about the 100th time in this thread..

Faith is Faith... Proof is Proof...

Let's blow the lid off another crock of baloney, shall we?

This so called "Socrates", some sort of brillant philosopher.... or merely a power play by a bunch of disgruntled college kids?

Socrates (pronounced /ˈsɒkrətiːz/; Greek: Σωκράτης, Sōkrátēs; c. 469 BC–399 BC^[1]) was a Classical Greek philosopher. Credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, he is an enigmatic figure known only through the classical accounts of his students. Plato's dialogues are the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity

Socrates, Wiki

Yes, folks, fool me once with that Bible nonsense, but I won't be taken in again with more hearsay and fictitious fabrication not backed by cold hard facts filed in triplicate!

A young Plato was languishing at the local Athens Starbucks, under appreciated, and forlorn. Nobody was listening to his talks, ideas, and he couldn't get any of his theories into publications of the day. So, he concocts a ficticious "teacher", a great master of philosophy. That way, it won't seem that he is blowing his own horn, but rather the ideas would have sprung from studying at the feet of the master!

And so, if Plato was a liar about his teacher, what else was he lying about? I'd have to say he pretty much was a liar through and through! His ideas about natural philosophy, science, and Western philosophy are therefore all laid bare as bold faced lies by this miscreant!


Let's recap:
Socrates never existed.

Plato was a blatant liar.

Most likely Aristotle was in on the whole thing as well.

Philosophy and religion are two wholly different topics. Socrates, Plato or Aristotle never claimed to be immortal/divine/superhuman. Philosophy is open to interpretation and argument, and does not require that people dedicate their time, money, and effort to understanding / believing it. Whether or not Socrates existed is neither here nor there. He never really contributed much in terms of science -- just philosophy. I don't think you can make the same argument regarding any historical scientific contributor.

Science is "above" humanity while religion "requires" humanity. Without humanity, there would be no religion because religion requires humans to sustain it through preaching / oral tradition. Its tenets are not observable (feelings, suspicions, hairs on the neck, are neither measurable nor constant).

Aristotle had a number of ideas about scientific method and physics (i.e. "the elements") that were advanced for his time but have been disproved over time, experimentation and observation. So, you can call him a liar because he was "wrong", but in reality he got the ball rolling so his successors could figure out what was "right".

Take Archimedes as a simple example of how science is above humanity. He figured out how to measure volume using water displacement. Now, if he hadn't have written down what he found, the same thing would have been found by somebody else because the test is repeatable and observable.

Religion has the luxury of being "right" from the start, and unchallengeable throughout its existence.

It's for these reasons that I don't think the "Socrates argument" holds much water and that the "Aristotle argument" is ineffective.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Let's blow the lid off another crock of baloney, shall we?

This so called "Socrates", some sort of brillant philosopher.... or merely a power play by a bunch of disgruntled college kids?




Socrates, Wiki

Yes, folks, fool me once with that Bible nonsense, but I won't be taken in again with more hearsay and fictitious fabrication not backed by cold hard facts filed in triplicate!

A young Plato was languishing at the local Athens Starbucks, under appreciated, and forlorn. Nobody was listening to his talks, ideas, and he couldn't get any of his theories into publications of the day. So, he concocts a ficticious "teacher", a great master of philosophy. That way, it won't seem that he is blowing his own horn, but rather the ideas would have sprung from studying at the feet of the master!

And so, if Plato was a liar about his teacher, what else was he lying about? I'd have to say he pretty much was a liar through and through! His ideas about natural philosophy, science, and Western philosophy are therefore all laid bare as bold faced lies by this miscreant!


Let's recap:
Socrates never existed.

Plato was a blatant liar.

Most likely Aristotle was in on the whole thing as well.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Philosophy and religion are two wholly different topics. Socrates, Plato or Aristotle never claimed to be immortal/divine/superhuman. Philosophy is open to interpretation and argument, and does not require that people dedicate their time, money, and effort to understanding / believing it. Whether or not Socrates existed is neither here nor there. He never really contributed much in terms of science -- just philosophy. I don't think you can make the same argument regarding any historical scientific contributor.

Science is "above" humanity while religion "requires" humanity. Without humanity, there would be no religion because religion requires humans to sustain it through preaching / oral tradition. Its tenets are not observable (feelings, suspicions, hairs on the neck, are neither measurable nor constant).

Aristotle had a number of ideas about scientific method and physics (i.e. "the elements") that were advanced for his time but have been disproved over time, experimentation and observation. So, you can call him a liar because he was "wrong", but in reality he got the ball rolling so his successors could figure out what was "right".

Take Archimedes as a simple example of how science is above humanity. He figured out how to measure volume using water displacement. Now, if he hadn't have written down what he found, the same thing would have been found by somebody else because the test is repeatable and observable.

Religion has the luxury of being "right" from the start, and unchallengeable throughout its existence.

It's for these reasons that I don't think the "Socrates argument" holds much water and that the "Aristotle argument" is ineffective.

I posted this thread to find out if people believed that Jesus was a person who actually existed (i.e.- was actually born, seeing as we are celebrating Christmas, I thought it appropo), not as to whether or not He was the Christ, religious beliefs, etc.

For many pages the historical validity of his existance was debated, prior to taking a turn into discussions about faith vs. reason or what not.

In my previous witty, and cunningly crafted () post in regards to Socrates I am not so much calling into question the merits, or not of philosophy, science, et al, but rather the fact that I think most folks believe that Socrates actually existed, even though all we have to go on is the same "facts" as we have in regards to Jesus, that being, accounts written about him by the people who were close to him.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I posted this thread to find out if people believed that Jesus was a person who actually existed (i.e.- was actually born, seeing as we are celebrating Christmas, I thought it appropo), not as to whether or not He was the Christ, religious beliefs, etc.

For many pages the historical validity of his existance was debated, prior to taking a turn into discussions about faith vs. reason or what not.

In my previous witty, and cunningly crafted () post in regards to Socrates I am not so much calling into question the merits, or not of philosophy, science, et al, but rather the fact that I think most folks believe that Socrates actually existed, even though all we have to go on is the same "facts" as we have in regards to Jesus, that being, accounts written about him by the people who were close to him.

Right you are. My apologies for being off-topic. I'll say "Yes", Jesus the person existed. My only concession on the topic!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I posted this thread to find out if people believed that Jesus was a person who actually existed (i.e.- was actually born, seeing as we are celebrating Christmas, I thought it appropo), not as to whether or not He was the Christ, religious beliefs, etc.

Seraphim,

Sorry for being one of those who took it offtopic.
I believe there was a man named Jesus.

My intention in any of my posts, was not to question your, or anyone elses faith or right to believe the things he/she might have chosen.

Originally Posted by Sailor

Seraphim,

Sorry for being one of those who took it offtopic.
I believe there was a man named Jesus.

My intention in any of my posts, was not to question your, or anyone elses faith or right to believe the things he/she might have chosen.

Question away! It was inevitable that the topic would go astray.

I appreciate your input in this thread. Your posts were always clearly expressed and well thought out, even after spending time at the pub!