Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?

December 24, 2014 by David A Weintraub, The Conversation
What was the celestial body the three wise men followed 2,000 years ago? Credit: epSos.de, CC BY

Bright stars top Christmas trees in Christian homes around much of the world. The faithful sing about the Star of Wonder that guided the wise men to a manger in the little town of Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. They're commemorating the Star of Bethlehem described by the Evangelist Matthew in the New Testament. Is the star's biblical description a pious fiction or does it contain some astronomical truth?

Puzzles for astronomy

To understand the Star of Bethlehem, we need to think like the three wise men. Motivated by this "star in the east," they first traveled to Jerusalem and told King Herod the prophecy that a new ruler of the people of Israel would be born. We also need to think like King Herod, who asked the wise men when the star had appeared, because he and his court, apparently, were unaware of any such star in the sky.

These events present us with our first astronomy puzzle of the first Christmas: How could King Herod's own advisors have been unaware of a star so bright and obvious that it could have led the wise men to Jerusalem?

Next, in order to reach Bethlehem, the wise men had to travel directly south from Jerusalem; somehow that "star in the east" "went before them, 'til it came and stood over where the young child was." Now we have our second first-Christmas astronomy puzzle: How can a star "in the east" guide our wise men to the south? The north star guides lost hikers to the north, so shouldn't a star in the east have led the wise men to the east?

And we have yet a third first-Christmas astronomy puzzle: How does Matthew's star move "before them," like the tail lights on the snowplow you might follow during a blizzard, and then stop and stand over the manger in Bethlehem, inside of which supposedly lies the infant Jesus?

What could the 'star in the east' be?

The astronomer in me knows that no star can do these things, nor can a comet, or Jupiter, or a supernova, or a conjunction of or any other actual bright object in the nighttime sky. One can claim that Matthew's words describe a miracle, something beyond the laws of physics. But Matthew chose his words carefully and wrote "star in the east" twice, which suggests that these words hold a specific importance for his readers.

The adoration of the Magi, after they followed that ‘star in the east’ to Jesus. Credit: Fr Lawrence Lew, O.P., CC BY-NC-ND

Can we find any other explanation, consistent with Matthew's words, that doesn't require that the laws of physics be violated and that has something to do with astronomy? The answer, amazingly, is yes.

Astrological answers to astronomical puzzles

Astronomer Michael Molnar points out that "in the east" is a literal translation of the Greek phrase en te anatole, which was a technical term used in Greek mathematical astrology 2,000 years ago. It described, very specifically, a planet that would rise above the eastern horizon just before the Sun would appear. Then, just moments after the planet rises, it disappears in the bright glare of the Sun in the morning sky. Except for a brief moment, no one can see this "star in the east."

We need a little bit of astronomy background here. In a human lifetime, virtually all the remain fixed in their places; the stars rise and set every night, but they do not move relative to each other. The stars in the Big Dipper appear year after year always in the same place. But the planets, the Sun, and the Moon wander through the fixed stars; in fact, the word planet comes from the Greek word for wandering star. Though the planets, Sun and Moon move along approximately the same path through the background stars, they travel at different speeds, so they often lap each other. When the Sun catches up with a planet, we can't see the planet, but when the Sun passes far enough beyond it, the planet reappears.

And now we need a little bit of astrology background. When the planet reappears again for the first time, and rises in the morning sky just moments before the Sun, for the first time in many months after having been hidden in the Sun's glare for those many months, that moment is known to astrologers as a heliacal rising. A heliacal rising, that special first reappearance of a planet, is what en te anatole referred to in ancient Greek astrology. In particular, the reappearance of a planet like Jupiter was thought by Greek astrologers to be symbolically significant for anyone born on that day.

Thus, the "star in the east" refers to an astronomical event with supposed astrological significance in the context of ancient Greek astrology.

What about the star parked directly above the first crèche? The word usually translated as "stood over" comes from the Greek word epano, which also had an important meaning in ancient astrology. It refers to a particular moment when a planet stops moving and changes apparent direction from westward to eastward motion. This occurs when the Earth, which orbits the Sun more quickly than Mars or Jupiter or Saturn, catches up with, or laps, the other planet.

Together, a rare combination of astrological events (the right planet rising before the Sun; the Sun being in the right constellation of the zodiac; plus a number of other combinations of planetary positions considered important by astrologers) would have suggested to ancient Greek astrologers a regal horoscope and a royal birth.

Wise men looking to the skies

Molnar believes that the wise men were, in fact, very wise and mathematically-adept astrologers. They also knew about the Old Testament prophecy that a new king would be born of the family of David. Most likely, they had been watching the heavens for years, waiting for alignments that would foretell the birth of this king. When they identified a powerful set of astrological portents, they decided the time was right to set out to find the prophesied leader.

If Matthew's wise men actually undertook a journey to search for a newborn king, the bright star didn't guide them; it only told them when to set out. And they wouldn't have found an infant swaddled in a manger. After all, the baby was already 8 months old by the time they decoded the astrological message they believed predicted the birth of a future king. The portent began on April 17 of 6 B.C. (with the heliacal rising of Jupiter that morning, followed, at noon, by its lunar occultation in the constellation Aries) and lasted until December 19 of 6 B.C. (when Jupiter stopped moving to the west, stood still briefly, and began moving to the east, as compared with the fixed background stars). By the earliest time the men could have arrived in Bethlehem, the baby Jesus would likely have been at least a toddler.

Matthew wrote to convince his readers that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. Given the astrological clues embedded in his gospel, he must have believed the story of the Star of Bethlehem would be convincing evidence for many in his audience.

Explore further: Astronomers find 'cousin' planets around twin stars

Related Stories

'Hot Jupiters' provoke their own host suns to wobble

September 11, 2014

Blame the "hot Jupiters." These large, gaseous exoplanets (planets outside our solar system) can make their suns wobble when they wend their way through their own solar systems to snuggle up against their suns, according ...

What is the Smallest Star?

December 5, 2014

Space and astronomy is always flaunting its size issues. Biggest star, hugest nebula, prettiest most talented massive galaxy, most infinite universe, and which comet came out on top in the bikini category. Blah blah blah.

Finding infant earths and potential life just got easier

December 4, 2014

Among the billions and billions of stars in the sky, where should astronomers look for infant Earths where life might develop? New research from Cornell University's Institute for Pale Blue Dots shows where - and when - infant ...

Recommended for you

Total lunar eclipse woos sky watchers

January 21, 2019

An unusual set of celestial circumstances came together over Sunday night and the wee hours of Monday for sky watchers in Europe, Africa and the Americas, where the moon was fully obscured before lighting up again with a ...

Making stars when the universe was half its age

January 18, 2019

The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, and its stars are arguably its most momentous handiwork. Astronomers studying the intricacies of star formation across cosmic time are trying to understand whether stars and the ...

Saturn hasn't always had rings

January 17, 2019

One of the last acts of NASA's Cassini spacecraft before its death plunge into Saturn's hydrogen and helium atmosphere was to coast between the planet and its rings and let them tug it around, essentially acting as a gravity ...

145 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BSD
4.2 / 5 (30) Dec 24, 2014
They weren't wise enough to know what they were looking at.

The bible is nothing more than an old fairy tale.
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (31) Dec 24, 2014
@BSD

The Bible is historically accurate book and all its parts are in complete harmony with each other even though they were written by different people through the Holy Spirit. Obviously you do not know well the history of the world, nor have significant knowledge in key areas of science, so your statement is naive. Ignorance is not a reason for confidence.
Lord_jag
4.4 / 5 (20) Dec 24, 2014
And tomorrow we'll learn if the geologists can find the homes of the three little pigs!
Lord_jag
4.5 / 5 (25) Dec 24, 2014


@viko
Ignorance is not a reason for confidence.

Ignorance is the only reason religious people have confidence in their fairy tale books.

Next you'll be telling me the Illiad is an accurate history book because some of the events did happen too. I can't wait to meet Zeus!
SedroWoolley
1.7 / 5 (27) Dec 24, 2014
They weren't wise enough to know what they were looking at.

The bible is nothing more than an old fairy tale.

What makes me most sick about you Atheists is that you won't even acknowledge the Bible as a historical document ...as if the men who wrote it had financial motivation or just liked to write fiction like the brothers grim . No , you won't even acknowledge that these men who wrote those books faced death at ever turn especially those that wrote the new testament . Those men betrayed the Jewish faith in the eyes of the elders of the time and faced stoning or crucifixion ...you really think they just made all of that up for kicks ? To what ends ? What motivation did they have ? They had ZERO idea ( or did they ) that what they wrote in the years just after the death of Christ would change the world forever yet you claim it's all just a fairy tale . You sir are an imbecile and I feel pity for you .
Lord_jag
4.2 / 5 (20) Dec 24, 2014
...you really think they just made all of that up for kicks ? To what ends ? What motivation did they have ? They had ZERO idea ( or did they ) that what they wrote in the years just after the death of Christ would change the world forever yet you claim it's all just a fairy tale .

Yep. Money power, fame.

They write what they're told to by the powers that told them what to write. Anything to take some of the power held over people by the Jews or Romans.

You sir are an imbecile and I feel pity for you .


How very Christian of you.

How about if you make an effort to acknowledge the fact that it's a fairy tale just like every other fairy tale.
tadchem
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2014
"How could King Herod's own advisors have been unaware of a star so bright and obvious that it could have led the wise men to Jerusalem?"
Perhaps because it was NOT 'bright and obvious' but rather subtle and noticable only to careful and diligent observers (like the Babylonian astronomers and unlike provincial dictators).
I prefer the suggestion of Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend (in "Hamlet's Mill", 1969), that the 'star' was a series of astronomical events - a triple conjunction in which Jupiter (Zeus) aligned three times with Saturn (Jupiter's father Chronos) within one year (BC 7 and BC 6, coinciding with the Census of Quirinius) - as the location of the sun on the spring equinox progressed into Pisces (the new age of the Fish) from Aries (the old age of the Ram) signifying the change in worship rituals from sacrificing lambs on altars to sharing fishes on mountainsides.
Modernmystic
4.8 / 5 (22) Dec 24, 2014
Do we really NEED to explain it? Can we focus on reality and let people who believe in the literal truth of the bible to figure it out themselves (assuming of course they don't try to shove their beliefs down my throat)...
viko_mx
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
@Lord_jag

Can you name a part of the Bible that contradicts historical facts and explain on what basis you think the Bible is fairy tale? Whether your attitude stand behind only ignorance (or wrong "knowledge", acquired in the modern education system to prepare you for the nut in system of Mammon) and certain emotions?
Modernmystic
4.8 / 5 (24) Dec 24, 2014
@Lord_jag

Can you name a part of the Bible that contradicts historical facts and explain on what basis you think the Bible is fairy tale? Whether your attitude stand behind only ignorance (or wrong "knowledge", acquired in the modern education system to prepare you for the nut in system of Mammon) and certain emotions?


When a man rose from the dead? When it said the Earth was created in six days and was done by an imaginary supernatural omnipresent being. When it said a guy walked on water, When it said a guy created matter and energy from nothing (the bread and the fish), when it said a guy brought another guy back from the dead....

There's a lot more. How about you start to understand that the bible is NOT a historical text, and it's NOT a scientific text...it's a SPIRITUAL text. There's a lot in it that is worthy of attention, but stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and expecting the world not to laugh a tich...
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2014
Here's a few more...

http://www.mesacc...ems.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2014
"Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?"

-Science can explain lots of things. Archeology and geology has explained how the bible stories are all impossible... exegesis shows us all the many inconsistencies, foibles, mistakes, graffiti etc to be found in the bible...
What makes me most sick about you Atheists is that you won't even acknowledge the Bible as a historical document ...
-and psychology gives us some insight into why it is so easy for so many people to ignore evidence and reason in favor of feel-good fantasy.

In fact religion, when put to the test, always fails to explain ANYTHING. It only illuminates the gullibility of most people. It can tell us how the human primate developed within the context of the tribal dynamic, where the quality of surrendering ones individuality for the good of the group was consistently selected for over the course of 1000s of gens.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2014
Can you name a part of the Bible that contradicts historical facts and explain on what basis you think the Bible is fairy tale?
"Tel Aviv university archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

-Can you explain why you are not aware of any of these things?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2014
"Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed."

"Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:
"Really, it's a myth,"... "This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem."

-Etc. I bet you would swear that Moses parted the Red Sea even though your book clearly states that it was yam suph, or a salt marsh somewhere.

You don't even care what's in your book - what would you care about what critical thinkers have found out about it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2014
Sorry double post
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2014
I prefer the suggestion of Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend (in "Hamlet's Mill", 1969), that the 'star' was a series of astronomical events
I prefer the opinions of dozens of critical thinkers who have examined the issues from a number of angles over the last few centuries, that the stories in the bible are all myths.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2014
I prefer the suggestion of Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend (in "Hamlet's Mill", 1969), that the 'star' was a series of astronomical events
I prefer the opinions of dozens of critical thinkers who have examined the issues from a number of angles over the last few centuries, that the stories in the bible are all myths.
http://youtu.be/O6CKTqC0-4M
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2014
Again with the double post. Must be Kim Jung ill and his crack team of typing monkees.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2014
Wrong science; they should ask archaeology. These religious _myths_ are non-historical, non-factual, told many generations after the purported events.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2014
Since this is about religious myths for once:

@viko: "The Bible is historically accurate book and all its parts are in complete harmony with each other".

Wrong!

- These myths are either known to be archaeologically or historically wrong (e.g. describes non-historical kingdoms or persons - describing myth kingdoms, getting the known kings wrong; describes non-existent migrations - the archaeologically records speak of unbroken cultures) or not in evidence. It is 99.9 % wrong where it can be tested, and we know it from science.

- It amounts to the claim "this myth is lying", as already the two first abrahamistic myth texts g´have two creationist tales in conflict, the wrong time order. After that we can put these texts away.

Admit it, you have never studied them. As many skeptics, on average more well studied on religion than the average religious is, say: "It is thanks to religion I am areligious."
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2014
@SedroWolley: "What makes me most sick about you Atheists is that you won't even acknowledge the Bible as a historical document"

Then you are sick for the wrong reason. We know this isn't a historical document, ask any historian. The texts dates generations after the purported events.

You claim doesn't make it out of your mind, because it is an erroneous one. Simple as that.

@viko: "Can you name a part of the Bible that contradicts historical facts and explain on what basis you think the Bible is fairy tale?"

All of it that can be tested. For the science background and specific examples, see my previous response to you.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2014
>Can you name a part of the Bible that contradicts historical facts

Since we're discussing Christmas, let's *just* keep it to the circumstances around Christ's (supposed) Birth narrative, even.

1) The Census of Quirinius doesn't coincide with Herod's reign.
2) If Herod did massacre all the newborns in Israel... wouldn't someone else record such an event?
3) The genealogies of Jesus differ *within* the bible itself
4) There's no reason they would have to go to Bethlehem even if they were decended of David.

Good enough for now?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
@TGO: "On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed."

Yup, when they hit bedrock without any historical traces, a rare occasion, they invented the ludicrous idea that the current temple was rebuild out of a former building on the place. A very transparent handwaving, and inconsistent with archeological practice of finding, you know, evidence.

The history is very interesting. We know from comparative religion that there are many religious myth, so none is true, and we know specifically that all the purported founders are non-historical until the printing press was invented. (Thereupon we know that all of them, from Smith to Moon, started out as scam artists until they succeeded with the ultimate scam, inventing yet another religion.)

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
[ctd]

For abrahamism, the earliest evidence is the Dead Sea Scroll scraps of an unfinished, various, text mass with repetitions from right after the hellenic conquest of the area some 2400 years ago. History says the first such sects are in evidence among many others in the area about 2000 years ago. And the historically evidenced king Herod build many temples around 2100 years ago, including the one there we later find that sect. (The jews.) Likely then it was build for them, and that was the start of abrahamism, later described by Josephus. The building spree of temples would explain why it was build on pristine land.

[tbctd]
ACW
5 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2014
There is also the fact that genetics have proven that the bible and other religious writings guessed wrong about mankind and its origins.

Human Antiquity, Kenneth Feder, Michael Park
McGraw-Hill Companies,Incorporated, Jul 24, 2006
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
[ctd]

The origin area seems to be Alexandria, after a war pushed together refugees and local traders there as well as scholars. That places the first judaists and later christianists both. That would nicely predict the greek synchretic religion with many semite and egyptic influences. (Semitic: babylonian calender & festivals, assyrian language. Egyptian: Moses, shamanic magic descriptions instead of pure 'gods and their hosts' magic.)

The ongoing abrahamist efforts to build a history that wasn't reminds of earlier efforts to invent histories for 'god kings', with the difference that abrahamists deify preacher myth personas instead of living royals. Any which way, that is 8+ millenniums of pure bullshit. Some things never change.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2014
They weren't wise enough to know what they were looking at.

The bible is nothing more than an old fairy tale.

What makes me most sick about you Atheists is that you won't even acknowledge the Bible as a historical document
The bye-bull is a historical document and "Oh Me So Horney" by Two Live Crew is now classical music
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2014
@ Modernmystic

For me it's more unbelievable high organized universe to emerged accidentally from a primary vacuum by some sort of quantum instability as suggested by pseudo scientific speculators, than is created by almighty and wise God. Many people do not like the existance of God because of his law and principles, which is difficult to follow for them and creates some "discomfort" in the modern materialistic society, but which categorically opposes the sin. They do not like the idea to feel responsible for their actions to supreme independent and fair authority, as only God can be. Because the sense of responsibility cooled their passions and desires. Who benefits from denying God and to promote evolutionary theory in society? It satisfies the wishes of many people to avoid responsibility and gives them an excuse for their sinful deeds. Sleepy conscience illusions. Such people seek salvation in the majority of people where they feel safe and can carry only group responsibi
viko_mx
1 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2014
, but not in the highest authority, thank to which we owe our existence. You can not know the methods by which God controls being, matter and energy, so your conclusions are unfounded.
DeliriousNeuron
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2014
I see it as a book written for control based off fear...hell.
Nik_2213
not rated yet Dec 24, 2014
Well-honed 'Game Theory', DN...
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2014
Wrong religions are created for cоntrol by people with impure intentions, while the true faith is for justice and salvation.
dan42day
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2014
Ghost

Again with the double post. Must be Kim Jung ill and his crack team of typing monkees.


Kim Jung ill got ill and died some time ago, you must be referring to his son Kim Yung'Un
Hev
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2014
It is a myth based on the belief that each person born has a star. A myth incorporated into another collection of myths. Some of us have moved on in the last 2,000 years.
Bob Osaka
1 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2014
The answer is: No, astronomy can't explain it. Might have been a UFO for all we know. Doubtlessly it is part of the story of the most influential king in human history. "But where is your kingdom?" they asked. "It is not on this Earth," he said. Reportedly he said many things,"If you do not understand the Earthly things I have told you, how will you understand the heavenly things?" He was at odds with the institutions and organizations of the world including religion and continues to be an inspirational figure for those struggling to achieve social justice.
Whatever your bent, much of the truth remains unknown and is unaffected by beliefs.
thatsitalright
5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2014
@Lord_jag

Can you name a part of the Bible that contradicts historical facts and explain on what basis you think the Bible is fairy tale? Whether your attitude stand behind only ignorance (or wrong "knowledge", acquired in the modern education system to prepare you for the nut in system of Mammon) and certain emotions?


I guess this will be my christmas present to you. https://www.youtu...eOBYTrDE
thatsitalright
not rated yet Dec 25, 2014
I find it interesting how far the Author is willing to stretch to connect the dots here, yet can dismiss so easily the found in a manger / found as a toddler contradiction that arises. Stay off the science believers, it's just twisting your head even more.
orti
1 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2014
A fairer treatment than I've come to expect from The Conversation. There's also a DVD by Rick Larson ("The Star of Bethlehem") that finds a lot of specific correlations between astronomical events then and verses in the Bible.
Tony Lance
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2014
Christmas Day Noon follows Jupiter in Opposition. 14 BC
Picture of SkyX Professional planetarium screenshot, from Bethlehem.
Shows Chiron, 4 asteroids and 7 planets sunside of Earth.
http://www.bigber...ds39.png
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2014
I am not a believer but would rather describe myself as agnostic instead of atheist. I grew up in the catholic tradition and feel grateful for the way I was raised. I still enjoy very much the catholic tradition and, although I do not celebrate the birth of Jesus as such, I still celebrate Christmas for the values of love and sharing in my own family. I do not think that we should argue about the scientific value of this article, instead we should use it to send our wishes for happy holidays to everyone who by faith or just by tradition, like me, still enjoy the moment. After all we are still going to spend the rest of the year bickering about the place of God in science; some good will, especially today, should be a must. Merry Christmas to all.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2014
I still celebrate Christmas for the values of love and sharing in my own family.
@TechnoCreed
Personally, i celebrate because it is a fine reason to get family together and have a heck of a feast and make diced kosher ham cubes in baked macaroni and cheese!
;-)

you make a good point
(and there is always going to be this type of article as long as there is religion anyway)

Merry Christmas Techno, and everyone else

or Happy Holidays, whichever you prefer

OZGuy
4.9 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2014
"What makes me most sick about you Atheists"
Ah nothing like reading comments from a tolerant christian...
Egleton
1 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2014
You shouldn't eat pigs. They are family.

Anyway, how can anybody be certain of anything when Quantum Erasure says that a back history is loaded up to fit the observed facts?
ie History is what we need to observe the present. There are an infinite number of histories.
My favourite quote was expirgated by Constantine (Him of the Lions) at the Council of Nicosea.
It should be the Scientific Credo

"Seek, and do not stop looking until you find. When you find you will be perplexed. When perplexed, astounded and rule over all."
Christ- The Gospel of St Thomas. (Doubting Thomas, the Skeptic)

Now what possessed Him to say something as prescient as that?
malapropism
5 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2014
Unfortunately your arguments contain more holes than a fishnet cast into the sea at Galilee. However, picking on just a couple of them,
Many people do not like the existance of God because of his law and principles, which is difficult to follow for them

This may be true of some people but I suspect that the majority of atheists do not believe in a god because they think rationally and realise that appealing to a god for creation or causation of anything has no explanatory power whatsoever. While science doesn't yet have a full answer for why the universe came into existence, it seems likely that eventually it will. Claiming creation by a god however simply sets the ultimate cause back one remove (what was the cause of the god's existence). And suggesting that god has always existed is as meaningful (or meaningless) as the alternative that the universe has always existed.
malapropism
5 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2014
And here's another hole:
They do not like the idea to feel responsible for their actions to supreme independent and fair authority, as only God can be.

Surely this is a better argument for atheism and against your god? You are, after all, denying individuality and free will. Although there are philosophical arguments that truly "free" free will may not exist these are not arguments for godly control. Your argument however, abrogates responsibility in favour of following received directives. But doing anything that falls outside of those directives, or that you simply really, really want to do, is ok, you can do whatever you like and then expunge any wrongdoing as "sin" forgiven by your god so long as you tell him/her/it about it and say sorry. Can you truly not see how hypocritical that is?
DonWilson
4 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2014
Jesus existed:False assumption. Herein is your problem.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2014
Not just hypocritical: it is used to justify discrimination, persecution, murder, and many other evils, but all in the name of God you understand? I much prefer a system of personal honor and integrity, where one accepts the responsibility for ones thoughts and actions, and does the right things, even when it is hard.
@KB_Thailand
GOOD POST! Good to see others who actually get that point

A faith is a personal belief without evidence (as long as it is personal, isn't harmful)

Religion is the codification of rules set out by design to segregate, discriminate, control the weak and judge others without fear of reprisal by gathering together en masse in order to push/spread/teach their prejudice, hate and fear

this is proven by the fractured multi-sect x-tianity found the world over...
and they all hate/judge each other

But they call themselves religions of love....
except if you are gay
or interracial
or
or
or
ad infinitum
Egleton
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2014
Do not attribute the behaviour of man to God.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2014
Many people do not like the existance of God because of his law and principles, which is difficult to follow for them

You should note that many christians - including some on phys.org - believe that it's ok to pick and choose which parts of god's laws and principles to believe and follow. So the difficulty (or even the requirement) in following his laws and principles doesn't generally appear to be an issue for christians.
Egleton
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2014
Straw gods are being attacked and set on fire in effigy.
It is all a bit shallow and predictable.
There comes a time in life when you have to give up childish notions of God.
There comes a time when you have to move on.
Materialism does not fill the void and is a false god.

"Seek and do not stop until you find. When you find you will be perplexed. When perplexed, astounded. And rule over all."

That men are frail creatures is hardly a revelation.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2014
@BSD

The Bible is historically accurate book and all its parts are in complete harmony with each other even though they were written by different people through the Holy Spirit.

WOW! What the hell are you on!? And it just totally appalls me that you are very far from being not the only one that is totally INSANE! No sane person can ever believe such gibberish in this modern day of science and reason. It is YOU who is being "naive" here and that is putting it very mildly. Just for starters: How do you explain the logical contradictions in the Bible? And How do you KNOW that the Bible is "accurate"?
orti
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2014
http://www.wsj.co...19544568

Oops. Seems to only work for subscribers.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2014
http://www.wsj.co...19544568

Oops. Seems to only work for subscribers.


Your link asserts that science implies there is a God (close enough ). Obviously, this must be false else we would have heard of scientific evidence and/or rational scientific explanation for the existence of a God. This is so obvious that the only people that can take that link seriously and pay for reading this fiction are morons. Can an example of scientific evidence/reasoning for a God be given here so we can have a chance to examine it without wasting our money?....
Hev
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2014
Amazing that a science magazine gets so many religious nutters - or do they make a point of targeting any facts that upset them.
Egleton
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2014
Atheism is a religion too.
malapropism
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2014
Atheism is a religion too.

No, atheism is not a religion by definition. I'm sure there are numerous, and probably contradictory, definitions of what a religion is but @Capt. Stumpy gave us a pretty fair one just above.

Given then that religion is a codification of the practice of a faith, which itself is a deeply-held belief even in the face of a lack of evidence, then atheism is the absence of that same deeply-held belief because of the lack of evidence. It does not seem reasonable to propose that one can believe in a non-belief. Given a lack of faith it is not sensible to practice the religious obligations associated with that faith.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2014
Interesting that atheist scientists are commenting on Christianity. There is something deep down even in their hearts where they know that God is true, that this world and their life are not really by chance, but were put here by a Creator God who sent His Son Jesus to this world even for them. No matter how hard we kick against God, He comes back to us with His love, which was shown better than ever on that first Christmas day.

Merry Christmas!

Walfy
1 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2014
A metaphor for a deep metaphysical truth is mistaken for an astronomical reference.

The "star in the east" is an archaic reference to the third eye, or the link of human consciousness to cosmic consciousness.

The wise men were guided by higher intuition, which appears as a star behind closed eyes in deep meditation. Meditate long enough and see it for yourself. It's very scientific. In fact it's a perfect union between science and religion, when you perceive it for yourself.

"...if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Matt 6:22). Jesus is referring to the "star in the east": cosmic consciousness entering human consciousness.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2014
Bart_A

... that this world and their life are not really by chance,...

few scientists, whether atheist or not, would claim or think that the 'world' or 'life' is here by pure 'chance'. Abiogenesis is often assumed to be inevitable under the right conditions. Natural selection isn't simply random but has a large level of probabilistic predictability. As for the 'world' (which I assume means 'universe' here) here by 'chance'; no credible scientific theory I am aware of ( and I am qualified ) says that the world is hear by some kind of pure 'chance' cause with no degree of predictability so that is nonsense as well.

What you speak of above is pure straw man and has nothing to do with atheism in particular. In fact, I assume many theists, albeit mainly the none Creationist kind, would be more likely to believe the vague assertion you stated above ....because, like you, they are so totally ignorant of what science actually IS as to think this is what it is!
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2014
Maybe this is simple enough to explain to the ignorant atheists why Christians can eat port, yet need to follow moral laws.
https://www.youtu...;index=1

And for those that think Christians stole the idea for Jesus or Christmas: https://www.youtu...;index=3
gculpex
3 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2014
The secret of the universe is .......Three
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2014
And for those that think Christians stole the idea for Jesus or Christmas
Has anyone noticed a common trait among religionists - they cannot be funny? (except for jews that is) No need for sarcasm and self-deprication when youre gods favorite.

Its typical of xians to cite long-dead and long-discredited critics. Ft should scrutinize more contemporary critics, some of who, strangely enough, are themselves very devout. I think theyre just pretending.
http://en.wikiped..._Century

-The superhero man/god character can be traced back through 1000s of years. Most share common traits, including a connection with the zodiac and a human female visitated upon by a god. Jesus is obviously a particularly successful rendition, in part because he was cobbled from the most favored traits, and he had the roman empire to force his love upon the people of the western world.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2014
You refer to ignorant atheists.....


All of them are.

Kaktar
5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2014
Christians have such a problem with facts.

Like believing the trilogy(father-son-holly ghost). In the Greek gospels it is not even close to that. But they still believe their version not knowing it was created by a monk in the 4th century.

Then we have the omniscient God(so the bible scholars say). This means your god already knew everything before it happened. Like Adam and Eve would happen and then knew the flood would happen. That means this evil God of yours killed innocent unborn babies. Innocent children. Innocent mothers. How many innocent people? And said he wanted a change. And then almost immediately after the flood we have bad humans again. How stupid does one have to be to believe this book and its stories.

Fear. Religion is a drug. And like most drugs it is very powerful in the way peoples minds get confused.

Go look in the crazy house and see how many stories they believe in. Are they wrong?

What you Christians have is called delusional behavior.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2014
Take a look over this list Bart. You may recognize a few.
You have just called Bohr, Feynman, Hawking etc. ignorant.


Yes, part of them are ignorant.

Take a look over this list, which is much more extensive and historical:
http://en.wikiped..._science

You can see that the history of science is filled with Christian thinkers, in fact the Bible has given them the basis for their scientific work.

Bart_A
1 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2014
It was your hubris that proclaimed that 'all' atheists are ignorant.


I don't take my statement back. They are all ignorant. Lost in the English was the meaning of all. Sorry.

I meant to say that not every part of their work is ignorant. The part that has to do with acknowledging a Creator and believing in themselves is ignorant. For all of them. They claim to see. Yet they are blind.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2014
Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?


No, astronomer's views are even more myopic than the religionists.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2014
Anyone who does not believe the gobbledygook that you hold to be true is "blind" and "ignorant". How convincing.


Yes. The one born on Christmas day also said the same words, and people laughed Him to scorn. Yet He remains the most popular person on earth to this day.

EnricM
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2014
@BSD

The Bible is historically accurate book and all its parts are in complete harmony with each other even though they were written by different people through the Holy Spirit. Obviously you do not know well the history of the world, nor have significant knowledge in key areas of science, so your statement is naive. Ignorance is not a reason for confidence.


sure. So, starting with Moses:
Can you explain to me how it came that no Egyptian account of the XVIII Dynasty talks about such event? Nor any Hitite account... and how did the Hebrews pass unseen in the frontier among these two superpowers of the day? Or why no account in Egyptian history _ever_ mentions any hebrew slaves?

So much for your historicity mate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
It is the proper interpretation of an ancient text that does the job
Indeed, it requires one to believe first that the bible was written by an infallible god. Then, mangling bible verses in order to make sense of them is right and proper.

Do what Ken Hamm does; offer some half-assed explanation and then conclude by saying 'well since we know that the bible is the word of god then it must be right.'
The text of the Bible requires the same careful study, as this article clearly shows, as texts of Homer or Hesiodos, and even Mesopotamian clay tablets. Only by taking a scientific approach can one avoid the usual pitfalls.
Religionist science is done by experienced apologists who draw upon and refine the work of many such apologists who preceded them. Most of their work involves apologizing for said dead apologists whose artifice has been exposed by real science, and can no longer be concealed. IOW their work involves turning embarrassment into something respectable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
Verse-mangling is actually easier than it sounds. Scholars and scribes spent a few centuries mangling the original books in order to make them as vague as possible. They knew this would make the job of future apologists much easier.

This effort was continued in the various translations and canons, which further obscure meaning and make it that much easier to make the books say anything the apologists want them to.

Religionists are quite used to this mangling. They're not supposed to be able to understand the word of god anyway, and only care about getting to heaven and having their wishes granted, and so are able to accept quite a lot from church salesmen without much objective scrutiny.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
Apologies it took me so long to get back. Holidays and all...

@ Modernmystic

For me it's more unbelievable high organized universe to emerged accidentally


And yet the incredulity of a single organism in the vast universe...believe it or not...isn't evidence of anything other than a lack of imagination. Try again.

Many people do not like the existance of God because of his law and principles,


No, no, no...you misunderstand us. We find it absolutely and entirely impossible to believe in quite frankly, what amounts to a fairy tale for "grown ups"...when I say that I mean people's chronological age of course.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2014
It satisfies the wishes of many people to avoid responsibility and gives them an excuse for their sinful deeds.


You mean it gives them permission to thumb their nose at your silly notions of how human beings should act without the slightest trace of fear or reticence. The fact that human beings are FREE to ignore YOUR precepts of morality and it bothers you says far more about YOU than them.

Most Christians in my experience behave far more appallingly than atheists. Talk about the ultimate dodge in responsibility...how about an ultimate "get out of jail free card" provided by Jesus on the cross. Moreover, you people seem to use the bible as justification FOR atrocity, hatred, and judgement...have you READ the red words in the book?

Get the beam out of your own eye sir...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2014
@Modernmystic
Apologies it took me so long to get back. Holidays and all...


Are you referring to the "fairy tales for grown ups" holiday? What exactly were you celebrating?
h20dr
not rated yet Dec 29, 2014
The second I saw the title of this article I knew it was going to illicit a strong response from both atheists and proponents of religeon.
I never try and argue for or against God although I am a believer. I believe it is pointless. It is a personal decision for each of us- no matter how you arrive at your own conclusion. I respect your decision and I hope you respect mine. Unless you ask me how I arrived at my decision I am not going to explain it to you and certainly, I am not going to try to change your mind or condemn you for your belief and I hope you will do likewise. Unfortunately, this happens much too often from both sides of the fence.
On that note, I came across this article today and found it rather interesting and thought provoking- whatever your belief.

http://www.wsj.co...19544568
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
@Modernmystic
Apologies it took me so long to get back. Holidays and all...


Are you referring to the "fairy tales for grown ups" holiday? What exactly were you celebrating?


Family and friends :)

What were you celebrating? The genocide in the old testament, or the bastardization of a pagan winter festival into the fictional birth date of your zombie god?

The truth? It's unrelenting asses like you that made me turn a cold hard eye towards Christianity bud. You couldn't ask for a bigger group of judgmental, self righteous, bigoted, cretins who profess faith as an ideal and turn to twisting facts as if they meant something to their spiritual beliefs.

Go count some dancing angels on a pin...seriously.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
Are you referring to the "fairy tales for grown ups" holiday? What exactly were you celebrating?

Most cultures and religions celebrate the winter solstice. In fact, the only one that I'm aware of that didn't celebrate the solstice was christianity. To get in on the fun, they borrowed bits from many cultures and made up a "birth of christ" holiday. But I'm sure you knew that already.

So the reason most people celebrate at Christmastime is the same reason they've always celebrated: the winter solstice and the return of the sun (and why not have a party?).

Personally, I tend to just stick with the secular bits that aren't related to christianity: a tree, presents, a fire in the fireplace, most songs, etc. I'm ok if christians want to celebrate christmas at the same time, but don't pretend that christmas is the only holiday at this time or that it's a very original one.
cantdrive85
not rated yet Dec 29, 2014
@Modernmystic
Apologies it took me so long to get back. Holidays and all...


Are you referring to the "fairy tales for grown ups" holiday? What exactly were you celebrating?


Family and friends :)

What were you celebrating? The genocide in the old testament, or the bastardization of a pagan winter festival into the fictional birth date of your zombie god?

The truth? It's unrelenting asses like you that made me turn a cold hard eye towards Christianity bud. You couldn't ask for a bigger group of judgmental, self righteous, bigoted, cretins who profess faith as an ideal and turn to twisting facts as if they meant something to their spiritual beliefs.

Go count some dancing angels on a pin...seriously.

Sorry, no christian here.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2014
Sorry, no christian here.


Apologies...you sure do a good impersonation...

Maybe you should check out a local church, your personality would fit right in.

You're pseudo-scientific and a general *****.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2014
Anyone who does not believe the gobbledygook that you hold to be true is "blind" and "ignorant". How convincing.


Yes. The one born on Christmas day also said the same words, and people laughed Him to scorn. Yet He remains the most popular person on earth to this day
-This is only because john lennon is dead.

But I like what neil degrasse tyson had to say:

"On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642"
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) December 25, 2014

-and millions of xians were deeply offended. Like I say they have NO sense of humor. Similar insult in times of more religious freedom of expression is what got giordano bruno killed.

Let us not forget how easily the western world could revert. After all, the xian sentiment may have progressed but the books still say exactly the same things.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
Heres bill maher discussing bible literalism with a frothing religionist.
https://www.youtu...KlA3Z09c

-Slavery, stoning, etc are still practiced, BY xians, in many places in the world today, because the book says its required.

The 'he who is without sin' passage was added hundreds of years later. More apologism. More adulteration. More cut and paste. More imperfection. More ass-covering. Like maher says if jesus needed to correct the OT why is it still part of the bible, patiently waiting for people to ACT on it at the proper time?

WHY???

Because they do you know. And they are more right than the yahoo in the maher video because GOD is telling them to act on it. Or else it wouldnt be a part of a perfect work by a perfect god.

Here is a very recent example of the OT in action.
http://www.thegua...-vatican
rhugh1066
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
If you're not a believer, why do you care? Why the expended energy, the bile expressed in comment after comment? I don't believe in Hinduism but I can't imagine lashing out at Hindu-related articles yet I see it here again and again almost pathologically each and every time anything Christian comes up. What is it with you people? Is it because you know they're no threat to you and are a safe target? Or perhaps you resent the enormous good works they actually do globally each day? Save your spite for those who may deserve it, Christianity as practiced in today's world certainly does not.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2014
If you're not a believer, why do you care? Why the expended energy, the bile expressed in comment after comment? I don't believe in Hinduism but I can't imagine lashing out at Hindu-related articles yet I see it here again and again almost pathologically each and every time anything Christian comes up.


You would if you were a Muslim in India...believe it.

What is it with you people? Is it because you know they're no threat to you and are a safe target?


No threat? You belittle the hell out of people and drive some of them to suicide because of your backward and bigoted attitudes DESPITE your god on Earth's admonishments to not judge. Kindly cut the unqualified BS please. Most of you are backward buffoons with NO clue about the effects you're having on others.

Save your spite for those who may deserve it, Christianity as practiced in today's world certainly does not.


Pot meet kettle.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2014
All that being said, there are some worthy aspects to Christianity...mostly because it's been brought to heel under and enlightened civil authority. Don't mistake that for a pass on your daily behavior and attitudes to your fellow human beings though....most of you are very small minded and fearful people which you play out by trying to legislate ANYTHING you don't want to be confronted with to oblivion.

You could all use a healthy dose of Thomas Jefferson's "It neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2014
f you're not a believer, why do you care?
I guess you skipped over the link to the rwandan genocide that I posted?
I don't believe in Hinduism but I can't imagine lashing out at Hindu-related articles
Perhaps if you knew of all the many atrocities committed in the name of the hindu gods you would have a different opinion. Buddhism was founded in india but the hindus exterminated them.

Just as you so easily ignore those parts of your book that you dont like, you ignore all the damage and misery that your selfish beliefs cause. 'Thats not US' you say. 'Theyre not doing it right' you say.

But they read the same book as you do. They insist that the same god exists as you do. Theyve just found themselves in the kind of situation where those nasty bits from the OT come in handy.
What is it with you people?
What is it with YOU people that makes you think you arent culpable in the horrors that others commit in the name of YOUR god?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2014
Even jesus was not so benign. In john 3:16 he promises eternal life but in 18-21 he says that people who dont believe in him cannot be good. Regardless of what the guy in the maher vid said. This is right out of the 10 commandments. If you cant follow the first 3 then you are incapable of following the rest.

Come on, admit that this is what you believe.

And so if people cannot be good then you wont want to live next to them or do business with them or have them in your home, unless you are trying to convert them. And you CERTAINLY dont want them in your family.

Which is why jesus said 'I have not come to bring peace but a sword', to destroy families 'unto death'.

If you look up the term religious bigotry you will recognize the same words throughout both the old and new testaments. Your book is codified bigotry. It leads to ruined lives, social discord, persecution, war.

And the foulest of all violence - martyrdom. The main reason jesus came here in the first place.
TechnoCreed
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2014
"On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642"
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) December 25, 2014

-and millions of xians were deeply offended. Like I say they have NO sense of humor. Similar insult in times of more religious freedom of expression is what got giordano bruno killed.


I would expect a scientist to be factual. Newton was born December 25, 1642 according to the Julian calendar. So it brings his birthday on January 4, 1643 on our actual (more precise) Gregorian calendar. So his claim was inacurate and he new that it was BS, so it was an intentional provocation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2014
I would expect a scientist to be factual. Newton was born December 25, 1642 according to the Julian calendar. So it brings his birthday on January 4, 1643 on our actual (more precise) Gregorian calendar. So his claim was inacurate and he new that it was BS, so it was an intentional provocation.
Ahaahaaaaa go pick a nit. Jesus was actually born in 6bc (as part of his fictional storyline)

More trouble in la-la land

"The first female bishop at the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland was the driver in a hit-and-run crash that killed a bicyclist in Baltimore, a diocese spokeswoman said Monday."

-Well maybe she ran because she was drunk. Thats understandable. Jesuits used to get away with murder all the time; they even assassinated a pope doncha know. So why not episcopalians?

God is a religionists judge and jury. This is why the overwhelming majority of inmates in US prisons are religious and were raised that way.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2014
Otto, I do not care about the religion part; I am not a believer. What pisses me off about it is disinformation from a man of science.
David Senesac
1 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2014
If one actually reads scripture, it is obvious that much of what God performed on Earth was not like some miraculous magic as though think a thought and poooof it happens. Regardless of what some metaphysical philosophy scriptures say about his powers.

So regarding this speculation on the star of Bethlehem, consider first the stars move across the sky as our planet rotates in the Galaxy of stars. Thus stars are not going to be anchored over specific locations. But a spacecraft in the night atmosphere hovering miles above a location certainly could and to the ancients would appear like a star just like our satellites do to us.

The credibility of the Bible will take on a far more believable possibility if one considers God from the perspective of a technologically advanced entity of beings.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2014
Ghost---your posts are so full of disinformation, you don't qualify to be a scientist or a person commenting on religion. When you are ready to deal with truth, then please come back and comment.

'nuf said.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
If one actually reads scripture, it is obvious that much of what God performed on Earth was not like some miraculous magic as though think a thought and poooof it happens. Regardless of what some metaphysical philosophy scriptures say about his powers
-As I was saying, religionists feel free to mangle their book however they see fit. Compare this statement with the very first verse in genesis: 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' - poooof

'And God said 'let there be light' and there was light' - poooof

-etc. Nothing BUT abracadabra. How are you able to mangle this with a straight face David? By the way the bible describes the earth as fixed with everything orbiting it. Where do you get the notion that the bible says the earth rotates??

Thanks for your very revealing examples of religionist self-deception.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
Ghost---your posts are so full of disinformation
No they're not. You're just not aware of many facts regarding your beliefs vs the real world.
you don't qualify to be a scientist or a person commenting on religion. When you are ready to deal with truth, then please come back and comment
If you'll be specific I will provide references from people such as hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, dennett, finkelstein, Tyson, etcetc plus scads of archeologists which is where I get my facts.

Plus a habit of reading your book for what it SAYS and not what I may WANT to it to say.
nuff said
-door slams, minds made up.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
If one actually reads scripture, it is obvious that much of what God performed on Earth was not like some miraculous magic as though think a thought and poooof it happens. Regardless of what some metaphysical philosophy scriptures say about his powers.


IOW it's not literal. Yes indeed, I've been where you are...here's the problem of trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole though...

WHICH parts are literal and which are not....
Were the ten commandments?
Was the part where Jesus said anyone who believes he was the son of god, died for their sins, was raised from the dead, and is coming back someday going to heaven?
OR, is it just the blatantly false and, in light of modern common knowledge, inconvenient parts of Genesis that are to be taken with a grain of...how did you put it..."metaphysical philosophy"...?
I like the part about not judging or you'll be judged to the same degree. Actually that squares with modern psychology quite well. Pick and choose? ;)
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
According to Atheists, In the beginning there was nothing but after a really long long long extremely long time something came from nothing and they called that the big bang.

According to Atheists, this something though not alive, after a long, long, long, very long time this nothing that became something became alive.

According to many Atheists, since the earth wasn't around for long enough for life to begin here, this life that took a long, long, long, long, very long time got thrown into space, and then drifted a long, long, long, long, extremely long time till it floated down to earth.

According to Atheists, this thing that was alive, after a long, long, long, very long time, and after floating in space for a long, long, long, very long time, became them, but only after a very, very, very, very, very long time.

According to Atheists, everything is chance, and everything is meaningless, including life.

According to Atheists
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
For anyone who thinks God doesn't have a sense of humor, you need to watch the following youtube video where Richard Dawkins prays. It's only 2 minutes and 28 seconds long.

https://www.youtu...R3zcAcDY
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
The big question one needs to ask Atheists is to ask them, What proof would it take for you to believe that there is a God?

Fundamentally, truthful atheists will admit to you that there is NO proof that they will accept. They are closed minded.

If someone would ask me, what would it take for me to reject Christianity, my answer would simply be, show that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, show me the body or come up with an explanation of where his body is. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the new testament is nothing but lies. If Jesus rose from the dead, then the bible is true and needs to be taken literally.

So for all the atheists on this board, answer me this one question, where is the body of Jesus?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
Ghost---your posts are so full of disinformation, you don't qualify to be a scientist or a person commenting on religion. When you are ready to deal with truth, then please come back and comment.

'nuf said
@Bart_A
not that Ghost needs any help refuting the bible or religion, but what exactly has he posted that is factually incorrect regarding the bible?

not "interpretations" of the bible or your "interpretation" or "perception" or "belief"....
what, specifically, was posted that cannot be directly proven with empirical evidence?

The reason i ask is simple:
you are saying his posts are
so full of disinformation
and you also claim
When you are ready to deal with truth...
if you want to refute the argument
you should have posted links and empirical evidence refuting him, not just said "nyeah, nyeah. your wrong because i said so!"

if you can support your comments, please provide links/proof/evidence for everyone

Thanks
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
According to Atheists, In the beginning there was...
@freefromthought
ATHEIST - a•the•ist (āˈthē-ĭst)n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

by definition, an atheist could be anti-science as well
so your assertions are conjecture without evidence as well as logical fallacy based upon delusion and religious processes

a faith is the belief in something without evidence, so your "god" is simply a delusion you've chosen to worship publicly ... there is no evidence supporting the existence nor is there a reason to assume it is the original version/interpretation of the god, nor that it is factual or real

your religion, however, is the codification of the series of laws defining the faith which are, BY DEFINITION, designed to segregate, add friction, judge others and control the weak minded by fear

Religions are the bane of logical, rational or individual thought
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
@Bart_A
CORRECTION to the above

The reason i ask is simple:
you are saying his posts are
so full of disinformation
and you also claim
When you are ready to deal with truth...
if you want to refute the argument you should have posted links and empirical evidence refuting him
not just said "nyeah, nyeah. your wrong because i said so!"

if you can support your comments, please provide links/proof/evidence for everyone

Thanks
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
According to Atheists, In the beginning there was nothing but after a really long long long extremely long time something came from nothing and they called that the big bang.


According to theists it was a grown up version of the tooth fairy and he did it in six revolutions of an insignificant celestial body amongst sextillions of them...

According to Atheists, this something though not alive, after a long, long, long, very long time this nothing that became something became alive.


According to theists after a few rotations of the same celestial body the same imaginary friend made every living thing...even though there was no oxygen to support them (empirical fact).

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
According to many Atheists, since the earth wasn't around for long enough for life to begin here, this life that took a long, long, long, long, very long time got thrown into space, and then drifted a long, long, long, long, extremely long time till it floated down to earth.


According to theists the light coming from 13.7 billion light YEARS away got here in about 5000 years...hmmmm. I guess the big tooth fairy could fix that one too though..yeah?

According to Atheists, this thing that was alive, after a long, long, long, very long time, and after floating in space for a long, long, long, very long time, became them, but only after a very, very, very, very, very long time


According to theists a magical genocidal mainiac after a very short peroid of time made them from dust, and then females from the rib of one of the males....*snicker* (sorry)
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
According to Atheists, everything is chance, and everything is meaningless, including life.


Theists think that because they attribule ALL meaning to a fictional being that others who don't think everything is meaningless...if THAT isn't the height of megalomania...

If someone would ask me, what would it take for me to reject Christianity, my answer would simply be, show that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, show me the body or come up with an explanation of where his body is. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the new testament is nothing but lies. If Jesus rose from the dead, then the bible is true and needs to be taken literally.


You have that backwards. Prove to me that someone actually DID rise from the dead (since that never actually happens in the real world) and I'll take notice. Produce the body, otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

Which parts do YOU take literally and which ones do YOU ignore free??
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
According to Atheists
According to godders the fact that science doesnt yet have all the answers means conclusively that their god is responsible for it all. But since he wrote a book full of stories about things we know never happened and people we know never existed, we can dismiss THAT god conclusively.
According to Atheists, everything is chance, and everything is meaningless, including life
Naw these are only examples of the many lies malicious godders have refined over the centuries about unbelievers.

Other particularly foul examples: unbelievers cant be good and deserve to burn in hell or at least to be victimized in this life; that believers will live forever in paradise if they treat unbelievers with the proper animosity; and further that god will grant all their wishes and alleviate all their guilt for the things they did last night, and will probably do again tonight as well.

God enables sin. Thats why US prisons are full of believers did you know it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
You have that backwards. Prove to me that someone actually DID rise from the dead (since that never actually happens in the real world) and I'll take notice
Actually thats a trap which is relatively easy to get out of. If youre christopher hitchens that is.
https://www.youtu...AGhC-gLU

-Resurrection in biblical times was apparently something of a banality. And xians are still left holding an empty sack.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
Ghost---please stop spitting out your vitriol. You are qualified neither to comment on science nor religion.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
Captain---I would present you with lots of facts regarding Ghost's misinformation---but it wouldn't change your thinking one bit. Rather, why don't you start digging into all of the claims Ghost is making and see for yourself. You will see that he is full of beans.

There is also no reason to keep refuting the bogus scientists on this site that continue to claim cold fusion etc.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
If someone would ask me, what would it take for me to reject Christianity, my answer would simply be, show that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead...

Show that he did...

Christmas is over. We can drop this topic, I think...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
I would present you with lots of facts regarding Ghost's misinformation---but it wouldn't change your thinking one bit
@Bart_A
i am not like you
i follow the rule of science in real life every bit as much as with science
i follow the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself

my post was also a good suggestion
when you post, make a point, link supporting evidence and make sure it is a valid reputable site with peer reviewed studies (IOW - empirical evidence)

you think Otto is posting unsubstantiated claims, but it just so happens that i know a lot of what he said is validated by science

keyword there: science
not religion

also, i don't care what faith a person has
to each their own
but it is THEIR OWN... not everyone else's belief
AND
there is a difference between a faith and a religion
(you should learn this)

if you CAN refute the post
you SHOULD
this keeps things clear and based upon reality
not a single POV or a religion
Bart_A
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
Gyre---Christmas is to celebrate Jesus' birth, not resurrection. We will be celebrating His rising from the dead in 3 months from now. Stay tuned.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
There is also no reason to keep refuting the bogus scientists on this site that continue to claim cold fusion etc.
@Bart_A
as for this, i must completely disagree

When a nooB comes here, they see all the posts and usually will start reading from top to bottom
there are some posts that are obvious TROLL posts, and can be dismissed
BUT
some posts are complete and utter balderdash
AKA Pseudoscience

The US and other places already have a problem with too many people being scientifically illiterate
This is why you see people still arguing against global warming and the science behind it

if there is no one there to refute the pseudoscience
most people would accept it as legit science

case in point: the eu clan
they make arguments that sound logical to those scientifically illiterate people
but when you look at the reality of it
too much either violates the laws of physics or has no empirical evidence

nooB's wouldn't get that
SOMEONE has to point it out
Bart_A
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
Ghost,
i am not like you...

You don't need to state the obvious.

i follow the rule of science in real life every bit...i follow the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself....

So do I. Next question?

my post was also a good suggestion....

??? You're not making sense. Your posts have been neither good nor suggestions.

also, i don't care what faith a person has....to each their own....

I do care what faith a person has. Because I love them. And God does too. Yes there is a difference between faith and religion. In a sense Christianity is not a religion. It is faith, and it is a way of life, and it presents us with a unique and eternally satisfying worldview.

If you really understood this you would stop spitting out your vitriol.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Ghost---please stop spitting out your vitriol. You are qualified neither to comment on science nor religion
I only need to cite the experts who are.
I would present you with lots of facts
No, you don't because you can't. I suspect you're info would come from religionist websites, which rely on the ignorance and gullibility of believers to get away with restating old facts which have long since been debunked.
I do care what faith a person has. Because I love them. And God does too
Of course you do. And since you know that yours is the only true faith you will try to convert them. And if you can't you will still love them but you won't want to do business with them, live next to them, or let your daughter date their son.

But you will still 'love' them won't you? I suppose the xian Serbian militias who butchered so many Moslems 'loved' them as well. I suppose there is little difference between that sort of love and the emotions a sociopath feels for his victims.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Christianity is not a religion. It is faith, and it is a way of life, and it presents us with a unique and etc
It is a religion like any other. It promises exactly the same things - eternal life in heaven for believers, and eternal punishment for enemies. It promises to grant wishes (ask and it shall be given unto you), alleviate guilt, and provide for the future (give no thought for the morrow).

It requires service in the form of shunning unbelievers, producing more babies than your family can reasonably support, and spreading the good word. And in time of conflict it requires you to martyr yourselves and destroy the enemy.

All this for the thrill of the epiphany and a sense of belonging. Fellowship is also a drug, not a bad one. We have been selected for tribal affinity. But religions withhold it unless you believe.

Faith is belief despite evidence. This is the way religion teaches us to ignore reason and logic in favor of the thrills that faith provides.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
Bart_A
and it presents us with a unique and eternally satisfying worldview.


Correct me if I am wrong Bart - your unique and eternally satisfying worldview is that at least 2/3 of the people alive on the earth today will live short, often miserable lives, and then die and be whisked of to hell, to suffer wretchedly for eternity. This is the plan - cooked up by an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God.


It's even worse than that...even the people who DO believe, if they don't believe "correctly" are still going to hell. Even those that do believe "correctly" but don't act correctly have a chance at going to hell too (a stricter interpretation that says that if works don't follow faith then the person doesn't "really" believe).

Then there's the JW's who say only about 144,000 are going to make the cut...and since there are more JW's than 144,00 that's pretty damn depressing...
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Proof Jesus rose from the dead. Simple, he was crucified by the Romans, sealed in a tomb, the tomb was guarded by soldiers, later he was seen by over 500 people in different circumstances and times.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
All other religions require you to work for your salvation. Christianity is unique in that someone else has worked for our salvation.

Ghost---like all of your posts before, your latest misinformation on Christianity is truly mind-boggling. Please stop making senseless claims. You should be embarrassed.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Proof Jesus rose from the dead. Simple, he was crucified by the Romans, sealed in a tomb, the tomb was guarded by soldiers, later he was seen by over 500 people in different circumstances and times.

Documentation available from the Romans?
Documentation and witness statements? From the time, mind you - not taken 30 or more years after the event...
And I'd like to know what he did all those years between childhood and about 30 or so... Why nothing bout that?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
Bart, Otto is either the most ignorant person on Christianity, or someone who has a pathological need, due to his hatred of Christianity, to deliberately misstate Christian principles.

He keeps restating falsehoods even after being presented evidence otherwise. He loves to misquote and take out of context.

Be patient with him, people like him, once they get over their hatred, become very devoted followers of Christ as they know the truth and know the lies people like him use.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
Bart, Otto is either the most ignorant person on Christianity, or someone who has a pathological need, due to his hatred of Christianity, to deliberately misstate Christian principles.

He keeps restating falsehoods even after being presented evidence otherwise. He loves to misquote and take out of context.

Be patient with him, people like him, once they get over their hatred, become very devoted followers of Christ as they know the truth and know the lies people like him use.


Speaking of lies Free...how about those whoppers in Genesis we know to be lies. Which parts are literal to you and which parts do you deny because in the modern world it's virtually impossible to rationalize the myths away?

Or are you prepared to admit the bible is a spiritual text and not a scientific one which REQUIRES proof?

If it does...where's your faith brother...
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
MM before going to Genesis, lets talk about Did Jesus rise from the Dead. Christianity can be destroyed if you or anyone can show that Jesus did not rise from the Dead. People like you have for 2000 years been trying to find Jesus' body, after over 500 people saw him alive.

So what is your explanation about where Jesus' body is?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
Green, truth takes longer to speak than lies. For information you seek, here is Ravi Zacharias giving information you seek: https://www.youtu...gP1gC8gM
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
MM before going to Genesis, lets talk about Did Jesus rise from the Dead.


Nope, I prefer going into Genesis bud :)

Is it literal or not?

Then we can talk about what you want to. I've been patient and answered your questions, how about some reciprocity....mkay.

I will address this however...

So what is your explanation about where Jesus' body is?


Where is the body of Alexander the Great? People can't even agree on THAT one. What makes you think it's a reasonable question to ask??
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
People like you have for 2000 years been trying to find Jesus' body, after over 500 people saw him alive.

Is there official Roman governmental documentation of kind from more than a couple of guys who said "There were a bunch of people there - maybe 5 hundred - who saw him in the air!"
Additionally what about all the Gospels (re - historical records) that WEREN'T included in the bible? The ones that intimated he didn't die...
Besides, there are a LOT of bodies of historical figures that we don't know where there are...
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
People like you have for 2000 years been trying to find Jesus' body, after over 500 people saw him alive.

Is there official Roman governmental documentation of kind from more than a couple of guys who said "There were a bunch of people there - maybe 5 hundred - who saw him in the air!"
Additionally what about all the Gospels (re - historical records) that WEREN'T included in the bible? The ones that intimated he didn't die...


There are even books in the old testament that aren't included in the modern bible...it's a mishmash of political strong arming and what the authorities thought they could use to keep people under control at various times in various countries. It's amazing that the parts that say "love thy neighbor", and "judge not" even survived...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
There are even books in the old testament that aren't included in the modern bible...it's a mishmash of political strong arming and what the authorities thought they could use to keep people under control at various times in various countries. It's amazing that the parts that say "love thy neighbor", and "judge not" even survived...

those are "control" phrases, too, MM...:-)
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014

those are "control" phrases, too, MM...:-)


So is all of culture Gyre ;)

I don't mind a little more love and a little less judging.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2014

those are "control" phrases, too, MM...:-)


So is all of culture Gyre ;)

I don't mind a little more love and a little less judging.

And... in thinking about it.....
That "star" was simply a shiny adornment on top of a tall palm tree (they didn't have your standard xmas tree back then in the Mideast) that was tall enuff to catch the sun til they got there...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
he was crucified by the Romans, sealed in a tomb, the tomb was guarded by soldiers, later he was seen by over 500 people
The ONLY source for this is a book full of verifiable lies.
All other religions require you to work for your salvation. Christianity is unique in that someone else has worked for our salvation
-According to your own custom-built personal savior that is. But the book is clear - "So you see, faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless." James2:17

Unfortunately the epistle of james is one of the forgeries, according to ehrman. Luther called it an epistle of straw.
after over 500 people saw him alive
The last 11 verses of mark which describe jesus walking amongst his entourage were not part of the original gospel. An obvious adulteration, they were added perhaps 200 years later.

No fringe conspiracy stuff. This is taught in seminaries and considered common knowledge. Question is, why havent they tolld you?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
MM, anyone claim Alexander the Great is Alive? Here is information on his body if you like: http://en.wikiped...he_Great

So MM, why is it unreasonable to ask where the body of Jesus is? Did the Jews steal it? Did the Romans steal it? Did the disciple steal it? Why no answer?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
MM, anyone claim Alexander the Great is Alive? Here is information on his body if you like: http://en.wikiped...he_Great

So MM, why is it unreasonable to ask where the body of Jesus is? Did the Jews steal it? Did the Romans steal it? Did the disciple steal it? Why no answer?

My Theory? Wherever you find Mary Magdalene's body... They were the same person...
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
MM, anyone claim Alexander the Great is Alive? Here is information on his body if you like: http://en.wikiped...he_Great

So MM, why is it unreasonable to ask where the body of Jesus is? Did the Jews steal it? Did the Romans steal it? Did the disciple steal it? Why no answer?


Did you READ that source...no one knows for sure about it. You CAN read, so I have to ask if you have issues with comprehension...

Now, I noticed you WEASELED out of my questions about Genesis...did you notice that?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
Ghost,
i am not like you...

You don't need to state the obvious.

i follow the rule of science in real life every bit...i follow the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself....

So do I. Next question?

my post was also a good suggestion....

??? You're not making sense. Your posts have been neither good nor suggestions.

also, i don't care what faith a person has....to each their own....

I do care what faith a person has. Because I love them. And God does too. Yes there is a difference between faith and religion. In a sense Christianity is not a religion. It is faith, and it is a way of life, and it presents us with a unique and eternally satisfying worldview.

If you really understood this you would stop spitting out your vitriol.

@bart
i am NOT GHOST
the least you could have done was check the poster before replying and get that much right... not like it is rocket surgery, man

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Christianity is not a religion
@Bart_A
a FAITH is the belief in something without evidence
a religion is the codification of rules (around a faith normally) in which the "faithful" can then abide by and become "better" at the faith, which also are designed to segregate (not only the non-believers from believers, but the good believers from the bad believers, etc), cause friction and separation and are for the control of the weak by the strong
That is why a RELIGION has RULES
to segregate them (and others) from the rest and to designate those who can & can't be "good" or "bad" or whatever stupid fallacious belief you have
xtians are the WORST about this, as they are not even aware of their own bible and rules... and worse yet, they're not aware of the fallacious parts vs the other
THAT is what the whole Canonization of the texts was about...or did you think some magical being wrote it?
why delete texts from a "holy document" unless it is all about control and segregation
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
Proof Jesus rose ...later he was seen by over 500 people...
@freefromthought
1- eyewitness testimony is notoriously horrible as far as accuracy is concerned
2- NO roman Doc's ever found supporting this
3- given your "proof", then we can also assume that Elvis lives and works in a convenience store on I-75 in Florida, Demons live in the White House, There are aliens invisibly talking to all the worlds nations governments spilling the secrets of the cosmos and faeries and elves work nights to finish chores or do mischevious deeds for the sake of the balance of the world

Please stop making senseless claims. You should be embarrassed.
@Bart_A
you've never proven that Ghost has made ANY false claims yet
most of his "senseless claims" (regarding religion especially) are validated by investigation, science and simple logic
Why keep repeating that he is wrong if you can't prove it?
you do realise that you are just strengthening his argument, right?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
why is it unreasonable to ask where the body of Jesus is? Did the Jews steal it? Did the Romans steal it? Did the disciple steal it? Why no answer?
@freefromthought
there is no body found likely for the same reason that no one has ever been able to find my twins body after that "accident" i had in the military...

When you find HIS body, you will also find the body of jesus
He loves to misquote and take out of context.
actually, i think he knows your own bible and the history behind it better than you do

free/Bart
yall make CLAIMS that are not verifiable and rely upon accepting the FAITH first, as it is written SANS EVIDENCE...
but then are reiterating the same arguments in a book KNOWN to be authored by humans, and known to NOT be authored by the credited people.

while GHOST has been able to at least link VERIFIABLE INFO
INFO that can be found and legitimate science/facts

UNSUBSTANTIATED CONJECTURE is equivalent to blatantly lying in this topic
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2014
freefromthought
there is no body found likely for the same reason that no one has ever been able to find my twins body after that "accident" i had in the military...

When you find HIS body, you will also find the body of jesus

Now, THAT statement piques my curiousity...:-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
freefromthought
there is no body found likely for the same reason that no one has ever been able to find my twins body after that "accident" i had in the military...

When you find HIS body, you will also find the body of jesus

Now, THAT statement piques my curiousity...:-)
@Whyde
LMFAO

the answer is:
Neither have any empirical evidence of existing
no matter how many search parties are sent out looking for them

So just because there is no proof that he is not on earth doesn't mean that there is any proof that he existed to begin with...
it's a logical fallacy and circular reasoning
you can't assume anything without evidence
:-)

HAPPY NEW YEAR
may the trolls and pseudoscience acolytes be fed to the gators, eh Ira!
LOL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2015
Freethinking - I spent 2 hours watching your philo video. I have a much shorter one for you to think on - I think it is much more clear and to the point.

https://www.youtu...67fmSOFY
@GREEN
1- thanks for that video, it is VERY cogent and awesome
2- i think i am in love, LMFAO
3- i'm looking at a few other vid's from her.... AWESOME...
she gets a few things wrong, like that "pair" of animals in the ark.... actually, it is seven animals each...

but i LOVE that argument she had about the fecal matter... tons of it and only 8 people to move it above decks for disposal!

to make a long story short... she LOGIC'ed the religious and they have NO refute
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2015
I am hamstrung by my poor education - and the fact that I was raised in a fundamentalist home -
@Greenonions
you can change that
and at your own pace too
go here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
also set yourself up with a profile here: http://openstudy....0Physics
and also here: http://saposjoint.net/

you can get that education at your own pace and learn about REAL science, not the pseudoscience BS like jvk, cd, and those folk push!

Look for the physics course by Walter Lewin (FUN course)
OZGuy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
@Greenonions
Keep an eye on https://www.coursera.org they have a broad range of courses from a lot of universities and unless you want a verified certificate they are usually free,
Tony Lance
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2015
Nativity and the Passion by Tony Lance
Five Reasons this is the Christmas Day tale.
1. Three thousand year event.
(Jupiter in Opposition, 7 planets, 5 asteriods sunwards.)
2. Jupiter in Opposition begins day.
3. Regulus in Opposition ends day.
4. Transit of Regulus 'pauses' Jupiter earlier.
5. Eclipse at place and time 32 years 5 months later.
(Gives the Passion tale)
One reason why not. It's a planetarium.
The Planets Suite by Holst (Jupiter, Mars and Mercury)
Warsaw Concerto (9 min) Both courtesy archive.org
http://youtu.be/jLATT09tL50
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2015
I am hamstrung by my poor education - and the fact that I was raised in a fundamentalist home - and so at the time when my mind would have been most receptive to the weird reality of things like GR, and SR - I was busy learning to recite verses out of the bible. Stuff that has no relevance to gaining an understanding of the universe. Religionists have no idea how much their ideas hold us stuck in the middle ages.
I am sorry for your suffering. Religion is a state-sanctioned form of child abuse. Fairy tales are fine for the imagination but somehow the line between playtime and study time was removed by the powers that be. Mixing fact and fiction can make one pathological and unable to survive outside a mental institution. Imagine if children playing video games were told the characters were real and they died real deaths, but the killing was necessary to serve the god Nintendo or Microsoft and after death, you a reborn as an avatar based upon your life here
feralblue
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2015
it seems to me there is no arguing - people who have faith believe what they believe - the new and old testaments are historical truth ! you can't change their minds - just ask a scientologist if what s/he believes is true or not! People say that science is a belief, too. Proof is not a belief. math is not a belief; chemistry is not a belief, nor is physics, nor zoology, nor paleontology, etc. . . believing that myths and legends are true history is ridiculous. they do have a kernel or more of true history there somewhere and that is part of what is fascinating about legends. l.ron hubbard was a scifi writer - take it from there. . .

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.