Are religions self-contradictory?

Originally posted by Circe

Out of curiosity - are you even familiar with Nag Hammadi and the gnostic movement?

Heflores, I am a she;)
Click to expand...

I knew it, such great ideas can only come out of the better sex here.;)

I know very little about the gnostic movement, but I really like the pearls of wisdom site, do you know if that is made by gnostics.
 
Heflores,

I am not familiar with that website but I will check it out later today.
If you want to find out more about gnostics, I recommend Elaine Pagels books, especially "The Gnostic gospels".
 
Originally posted by Bridge
Consequent Atheist:

In my humble estimation someone is spending way too much time soaking up that drivel at infidels.org
Click to expand...
I suspect that the humility is more feigned than real.
Originally posted by Bridge
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?
Click to expand...
Actually, in some circumstances the absence of evidence can, indeed, serve as circumstantial evidence of absence and, as such, may be deemed valuably when only circumstantial evidence is available.
Originally posted by Bridge
I suppose we could say the same for nearly everyone that lived in the first century, they are all purportive, with only a tiny fraction of anything substantive surviving until today.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. The continual reexamination of erstwhile historical truths keeps history a worthy enterprise.
Originally posted by Bridge
Why Jesus. Why not question the existence of the first century church. Do you doubt Moses existed? Plato? Alexander the Great?
Click to expand...
Extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence.

The story of Jesus is so full of silliness, awkwardness, intra-cult politics and deception that it can and should be dismissed on the face of it. Does this mean that there was never a Jewish cult leader named Jesus? Not necessarily. In fact, there may have been many.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Moses existed as anything other than a Sargon look-alike, and even less reason to accept the account in the Torah.

As for Alexander the Great:
In 331 B.C., the Egyptian oracle at Siwa confirmed that Alexander was the son of the Zeus. Actually, the oracle confirmed that he was the son of Ammon, but Ammon is the Egyptian equivalent of Zeus in nearly as clear a way as Jupiter is his Roman equivalent.

- see Alexander the Great
Click to expand...
So, what do you think. Was Alexander the Great the son of Zeus? Did saints crawl out of their graves and stroll around the streets of Jerusalem?
 
Originally posted by Bridge
heflores:


and another billion believe HE is God.
Click to expand...

Oh Bridge, you know full well that it's this question of whether the chicken came before the egg or the egg before the chicken that will always set us apart and make our children fight holly wars and kill each others in the name of the chicken and the egg.

I stick to my belief. First there was a chicken, then the egg came out.
 
C.A. wrote:

So, what do you think. Was Alexander the Great the son of Zeus? Did saints crawl out of their graves and stroll around the streets of Jerusalem?
Click to expand...

Neither. The evidence is too shaky. Nothing substantive. I don't believe there ever was an Alexander the Great. Maybe an Alexander the Mediocre, never the Great.

heflores wrote:

I stick to my belief. First there was a chicken, then the egg came out.
Click to expand...

Did the chicken evolve or was it created?
 
well nearly
Originally posted by Bridge
Did the chicken evolve or was it created?
Click to expand...
The chicken is one of the few animals that WAS created, created by man.
Kind of, its ancestors evolved but then man took those ancestors and started breeding them selectively to create chickens. Man used his own modified version of evolution to create them.
 
Originally posted by Bridge
Did the chicken evolve or was it created?
Click to expand...

That's an illigal move from a theist. I never question how god the creator of all have came to existance himself...Way out of my league....and will get me in the vicious Atheistic cycle....They claim god is a circular argument because of the very question you ask....
I'm sorry, but humans logic will always fail when it steps out of it's league.
 
Originally posted by heflores
That's an illigal move from a theist. I never question how god the creator of all have came to existance himself...Way out of my league....and will get me in the vicious Atheistic cycle....They claim god is a circular argument because of the very question you ask....
I'm sorry, but humans logic will always fail when it steps out of it's league.
Click to expand...
I have to laugh at this aspect of the religious person's psyche'. The "don't think" rule:p Fearing knowledge strikes me as an odd requirement and frankly humorous.
I was watching some cheesy christian show hosted by some crazy lady from the bible belt and she started talking about parts of the bible that speak of god's "wrath".
There is some line in it somewhere that says "if a man does touch the mountain of such and such he shall be put to death by arrows or stoned by a crowd"
This woman said "I started thinking, why does god want to stone people? Whats the deal? why? And then I realised, the more questions you ask the more confused you get.. blah blah blah"
In other words she is telling people to stop thinking because they might find out the truth.
Very bizarre indeed but if this wasn't a strict rule there couldn't be religions. When people start "breaking the rules" and thinking about things for themselves they realise the organised religions of the world are a joke.

Now heflores there is no question as to how the chicken came about, considering it is a domesticated animal we can trace its ancestry easily.
We KNOW humans made them by selectively breeding wild fowl.
That little tidbit of information didn't hurt did it? :p
 
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Now heflores there is no question as to how the chicken came about, considering it is a domesticated animal we can trace its ancestry easily.
We KNOW humans made them by selectively breeding wild fowl.
That little tidbit of information didn't hurt did it? :p
Click to expand...

Actually, you know a little tidbit and try to run a marathon on it's behalf.......You'll run out of breath...believe me. You are telling me that the chicken came about by selectively breeding wild fowl......and how did the wild fowel come about??? Atheistic position offers nothing and risks all.
 
Atheistic position offers nothing and risks all.
Click to expand...

certainly , yet misdefining theism brings us even further from home than atheism . Atheism being the basic , is 0 to be the basic . From 0 we still can go all ways , but when we already decide Theism is this or that , and we're wrong but believe it nevertheless , we're stuck in the trap forever .
 
Originally posted by heflores
Atheistic position offers nothing and risks all.
Click to expand...
Bullpuckie. The "atheist position" is that you are far better off employing the methods of science than the drug of religious fundamentalism.
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Bullpuckie. The "atheist position" is that you are far better off employing the methods of science than the drug of religious fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

Which science? The man made explanation for how he thinks things are behaving...The science that does not exist tomorrow. I say, Atheists believing in science are a bunch of balony, and religious fundamentalism is the biggest crap and plight of humanity.
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Actually, in some circumstances the absence of evidence can, indeed, serve as circumstantial evidence of absence and, as such, may be deemed valuably when only circumstantial evidence is available.
Click to expand...
CA,

U r talking in legal terms..! (where have u been for quite some time..!);)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top