Garbanzo- have you ever copied a copy of a copy of a paper? It comes out completely distorted. Think of the concept of 2012 and the Mayans. Where does it say anything besides "we don't feeling like adding more to the calendar until its time"? That is a time-distorted concept, pleaser correct me if I am drastically wrong, for some reason I have a slight nagging in my brain about that one. My point is, who knows what may have changed since those original scriptures were made? They could have been changed bit by bit over centuries to match events. People don't do it to lie, but as a side effect of true belief in the religion, they edit events to match a religion, or, in this case, vice versa. If more evidence that expectations can change your perception of things is needed, I have a fair amount more.
A challenge to Atheists! #2
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Did you read this??
I got a reply back from him and would like an answer to this first before I move onto anything else:
Also, the Mayans have a calander cycle that goes beyond 2012, so its not that they just randomly picked that date to end it on. The Mayans never said it was the end of the world but it is evident they expected the world to change on that date. Their prophecies also states that a God will come back (yes, back) down from the stars on that date. Very interesting. I am certainly a believer that an alien or aliens will make themselves known on that date after looking over the evidence.
@garbonzo --
No, Daniel(if such a man existed) didn't predict the exact date. And yes, a lucky guess is an adequate explanation for this.
The bible makes a lot of predictions, and while some have come true(though mostly the self-fulfilling ones), the most important ones(such as the return of Jesus occurring within his follower's lifetimes) are either ignored by theologians or they claim that they will be fulfilled someday. And they very well may be, however given enough time literally everything will happen some day.
No, Daniel(if such a man existed) didn't predict the exact date. And yes, a lucky guess is an adequate explanation for this.
The bible makes a lot of predictions, and while some have come true(though mostly the self-fulfilling ones), the most important ones(such as the return of Jesus occurring within his follower's lifetimes) are either ignored by theologians or they claim that they will be fulfilled someday. And they very well may be, however given enough time literally everything will happen some day.
His entire reply is nothing but one very long appeal to personal incredulity. Furthermore it's now a well known fact that not only were the gospels written much later than the lifetimes of any disciples Jesus may have had, but that they were written by people who had a vested interest in making things line up "properly"(i.e. christians).
Also note his last paragraph there, basically telling you that he doesn't want to hear anything but acceptance of his message and to leave him alone if you're even remotely skeptical. He doesn't want challenge or to figure out if he's right. He's already made up his mind that he's right and won't change his mind for anything. He's starting with a conclusion of dubious validity and working his way backwards, and you know what they say, garbage in, garbage out.
Also note his last paragraph there, basically telling you that he doesn't want to hear anything but acceptance of his message and to leave him alone if you're even remotely skeptical. He doesn't want challenge or to figure out if he's right. He's already made up his mind that he's right and won't change his mind for anything. He's starting with a conclusion of dubious validity and working his way backwards, and you know what they say, garbage in, garbage out.
Haha. What are your sources for your first paragraph, though? Obviously he won't just accept that. xD
According to Stephen L Harris and many other scholars, the authorship is both unknown and very likely occurred much later than the actual events. The earliest recorded agreement on the authorship of the gospels was in the second century, well after the supposed death of Jesus. Of course, the authorship of the gospels is actually quite irrelevant as they can't agree on many relevant points(such as the birthplace of Jesus or the goings on at the time).
Obviously though, no matter what you tell this man he won't accept it. Be prepared for this man to pull all sorts of excuses out of his ass, ranging from people just being wrong to full blown conspiracy theories. He's already displayed a willingness to embrace fallacy simply to avoid coming out and saying that he doesn't know, and that never bodes well for any discussion.
Obviously though, no matter what you tell this man he won't accept it. Be prepared for this man to pull all sorts of excuses out of his ass, ranging from people just being wrong to full blown conspiracy theories. He's already displayed a willingness to embrace fallacy simply to avoid coming out and saying that he doesn't know, and that never bodes well for any discussion.