menesheh:



i did get u, u mean do i, how?

Mindfulness:


I don't know if you need the show, that's why I was asking.

menesheh:



ok, absolutely no.

but why didn't you agree with the previous BOLDED

Mindfulness:


I do agree that we do not need ANYONE to save us from the "original sin" but I also think that we need people like Jesus, Buddha, Mandela, MLK, Ghandi and their likes to save us from self-destruction. They can serve us as good examples, inspire and motivate us.

menesheh:



ok now i understand your point, Mandela, MLK, Ghandi (didnt know much about budha) are historical figures and have enough evidence to support events that was attributed to them. A person by name jesus may have existed but the point here is that those events attributed to his name have no historical bases. the historical jesus with the extra-ordinary events that violates natural laws is an imagery story. so it is irrelevant giving such imagery meduim anything since those things he was attributed to have no bases in our present civilization and well-being

Mindfulness:


Buddha and Jesus are historical figures too. Whether Jesus performed any miracles is irrelevant. Whether Ghandi, MLK and Mandela knew anything about Buddha is irrelevant. The point that I am trying to make is that all these people share a similar philosophy.
A philosophy that is based on the principles of humility, forgiveness, respect and non-violence. All these people are great examples of personified humanity, kindness and benevolence. This is what I focus on, not on whether Jesus actually could walk on water or make the dead alive.

Exactly, this is the point .... I honestly love this.

And perhaps when you are dead humanity will also remember you in good light as they remember those ones.. Another living example is Dalalai Lama... I too is of same ideology too

Like i have been trying to tell this girl on the other thread

"If you want good to be in the world then be the good in the world

johnydon22:
[i]Exactly, this is the point .... I honestly love this.

And perhaps when you are dead humanity will also remember you in good light as they remember those ones.. Another living example is Dalalai Lama... I too is of same ideology too

Like i have been trying to tell this girl on the other thread

"If you want good to be in the world then be the good in the world

Mindfulness:


Buddha and Jesus are historical figures too. Whether Jesus performed any miracles is irrelevant. Whether Ghandi, MLK and Mandela knew anything about Buddha is irrelevant. The point that I am trying to make is that all these people share a similar philosophy.
A philosophy that is based on the principles of humility, forgiveness, respect and non-violence. All these people are great examples of personified humanity, kindness and benevolence. This is what I focus on, not on whether Jesus actually could walk on water or make the dead alive.

menesheh:



How do you go about proving that they are really historical figures and the weird event that was associated with them.

We have people that specializes and devoted their entire life in the fields necessary for investigating and evaluating all the past events like anthropologists, pathologist, historians, archeologists etc. There is no shroud of evidence pointing to all these persons and claims as factual.

Mindfulness:


Who are you talking about now? Who are ALL THESE persons?

menesheh:



Jesus

Mindfulness:


There are historians who claim that Jesus existed and at least one other who disagrees.

johnydon22:
[b]The thing is, there is high chance that a man named Yehushua existed in the Roman Israeli outpost of 1st century because that name is a very common name in Israeli, it is same thing as Joshua.

Same way there may have existed an outstanding warlord, a war machine and a talented hand in fighting in ancient greek named Achilles son of Pelius leader of the myrmidons, many archeological finds suggest so.... But historicity knows how to detect fables inside a story..

They may be an Achilles and a Jesus in fact i lean on the side that they are both historical but when you tell me Achilles mother was a Nymph (Goddess), His body cannot be pieced or Jesus was born of a Virgin and a God father yahweh, he strolls on water and put back chopped off ears instantly then that is what modern historicity regard as pure Fables or outright fabricated myth.

It's like me saying Mindfull exist but he has wings. . . That mindfull exist is a fact but that Mindfull has a wing is pure fabricated and outrightly exaggerated fable by me..

I think they may be a historical Jesus, many of them actually if you check the records of 1st century Jesus'[/b]

johnydon22:
Yeap to me a tangible amount of plausible empirical evidence can change my views about everything or anything. I am of the opinion the we strive to know by learning and scrutinizing empirically so as to ascertain how a phenonemenon actually is instead of learning to believe every postulation asserted without evidence no matter how absurd it is... That to me is intellectual dishonesty

JMAN05:


But u won't posit that everything would need to pass thru the emperical test to be true?

johnydon22:
For every postulation, empirical back up determines the certainty of such postulations

JMAN05:


U ve not answered the question. I said, But u won't posit that everything would need to pass thru the emperical test to be true?

johnydon22:
actually i do

johnydon22:
[b]The thing is, there is high chance that a man named Yehushua existed in the Roman Israeli outpost of 1st century because that name is a very common name in Israeli, it is same thing as Joshua.

Same way there may have existed an outstanding warlord, a war machine and a talented hand in fighting in ancient greek named Achilles son of Pelius leader of the myrmidons, many archeological finds suggest so.... But historicity knows how to detect fables inside a story..

They may be an Achilles and a Jesus in fact i lean on the side that they are both historical but when you tell me Achilles mother was a Nymph (Goddess), His body cannot be pieced or Jesus was born of a Virgin and a God father yahweh, he strolls on water and put back chopped off ears instantly then that is what modern historicity regard as pure Fables or outright fabricated myth.

It's like me saying Mindfull exist but he has wings. . . That mindfull exist is a fact but that Mindfull has a wing is pure fabricated and outrightly exaggerated fable by me..

I think they may be a historical Jesus, many of them actually if you check the records of 1st century Jesus'[/b]

menesheh:
First of all, as an atheist, ask me 'menesheh what will change your view on believes?'
EVIDENCE AND PROOF.


Bible Literalists love to pose the notion that atheists are closed minded and that they themselves are actually very open-minded. Of course, like many of their other bizarre statements, the exact opposite is true. Many of them, have made it clear that there is no amount of evidence that could ever change their views. When asked what they would do if its proven that god doesn't exist, most do state that they would pray to god for guidance.

There are mountains of physical evidence against the literal biblical perspective of human origins. Those said evidence basically constitutes the whole of scientific knowledge. The fact is, that in order to hold to a biblical perspective on human origins, one has to either ignore or manipulate every bit of scientific evidence in order to hold to that perspective. The thing we all have to remember however, is that for fundamentalist Christians, this perspective towards science is necessary to validate their religious beliefs. For them, the Christian perspective only works in a literalist context.

This is why:

If the biblical creation myth isn't true, then there is no original sin. Without original sin, there is no need for Jesus. So each piece is dependent on the last for validity, and if you destroy the foundation the whole structure falls.

The reality is that theologically speaking, they're absolutely correct. Any belief outside of the literalist perspective is tantamount to belief in elves or unicorns. It is belief without any valid foundation... otherwise known as faith.

It's odd how a real understanding of these ideas can clear up some misperceptions.

It seems to me that biblical literalists actually worship the bible rather than the god they profess, that idea is what is at play here also. it seems that by following the literalist perspective they are more theologically sound, however the progressive Christian actually meets the requirement of god to believe by faith rather than proof.

The same paradox that arises here is the one which makes the no true Scotsman argument a fallacy. Theologically speaking, there's no true and valid way to say which position makes one a true Christian. So we must accept the notion that both are true Christians, and that the nature of Christian doctrine is such, that it allows for multiple and ambiguous views, thus for different schools of theological understanding. From that, we can gather that a claim of absolute truth by any Christian sect or denomination is fallacious and is based entirely on personal interpretation.

To Christians cum theists

What's the nature of evidence that can alter your religious views?

Image123:


If you could see, where Jesus brought me from to where i am today. Then you will know the reason why i love Him so. Now you can take the world, it's wealth and riches, i don't need earth's power. It's my desire, to live for Him


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhuTjGopDVk

menesheh:

Flex your prerogative.


Group solidarity (video)