Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Owlswing]

Stop whingeing and regurgitating the science v. religion schtick. Pllleeeeease.

Stop trying to convince people that Christianity knows more than science then!

Or that Christianity's view of history is more accurate than sciences.

I would rather be accused of 'whingeing and regurgitating the science v. religion schtick' than of trying to convince unbelievers that your God exists by regurgitating endless streams of theist crap. 

[Owlswing]

That applies to LR's post as well which was saying we were here because of science which seems to be cherry picking. I think Vlad's position here, and is in line with yours. Either science is neutral or it has to be debited with the bad things as well as credited with  the good.

As has the God of the Christians!

[Owlswing]

hy would I ignore you? I just don't get the point you are making. Do you want to expand?

Well done NS - Vlad must be ecstatic. You have completely diverted attention from his usual atheist antitheist rubbish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop trying to convince people that Christianity knows more than science then!

Or that Christianity's view of history is more accurate than sciences.

I would rather be accused of 'whingeing and regurgitating the science v. religion schtick' than of trying to convince unbelievers that your God exists by regurgitating endless streams of theist crap.

Completely misrepresentative.
If science were enough for you why are you still a pagan with your own Gods and don't please guff on in your normal tedious way about not believing your own gods exist in anyway shape or form or whatever construct you make up to allow yourself to run with the hare and the hounds.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Completely misrepresentative.

Wow. Just wow.

[jeremyp]

If it didn't have a beginning, then as the article says, it would be eternal and would have have burnt itself out long ago.

No you are not getting it. Time is a property of the Universe. Words like "eternal" and "beginning" have meaning only in the context of being in the Universe.The Universe itself could just be. Much like you argue about your god.

For the same reason that you can't fully explain our own existence by saying that you were found in a hospital or I was found in a vegetable patch.

That doesn't answer my question which was "why does a universe that had a beginning need a cause?" You have just answered "why are we compelled to look for a cause?"



 

[jeremyp]

That is a very good answer to a completely different point.

No it isn't. It perfectly answers your point about the Universe having burnt out.

[Owlswing]

Completely misrepresentative.

If science were enough for you why are you still a pagan with your own Gods and don't please guff on in your normal tedious way about not
believing your own gods exist in anyway shape or form or whatever construct you make up to allow yourself to run with the hare and the hounds.

Your misrepresentation not mine.

I am not, and have never, claimed to have any prooof of any knid that my deities (Gods and Goddesses) exist.

They may not, but I have faith that they do and, until proof comes along that they do not, I will continue to honour them.

I do not, as you do with your deity, claim that my Goddesses and Gods exist just because some old book (of questionable origin) whose equally questionable accuracy is under discussion in this thread, says he does. Oh sorry - your God demands a capital H for He doesn't He!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your misrepresentation not mine.

I am not, and have never, claimed to have any prooof of any knid that my deities (Gods and Goddesses) exist.

They may not, but I have faith that they do and, until proof comes along that they do not, I will continue to honour them.

I do not, as you do with your deity, claim that my Goddesses and Gods exist just because some old book (of questionable origin) whose equally questionable accuracy is under discussion in this thread, says he does. Oh sorry - your God demands a capital H for He doesn't He!

No, misrepresentation on your part.

I have never said anywhere that science doesn't know more than religion or religion knows more than science.

Science could have a trillion facts and still be missing information of ultimate importance existententially.

Your ''old book'' tosh is the fallacy of modernity tattooed in foot high black Gothic letters on a large person's arse cheeks.

[floo]

No, misrepresentation on your part.

I have never said anywhere that science doesn't know more than religion or religion knows more than science.

Science could have a trillion facts and still be missing information of ultimate importance existententially.

Your ''old book'' tosh is the fallacy of modernity tattooed in foot high black Gothic letters on a large person's arse cheeks.

It is between your southern cheeks where your posts are spouted!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

............... southern cheeks................

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

But you have said that religion knows something - or at least that your religion does. Your difficulty though is just running away whenever you’re asked for a method to distinguish this supposed knowledge from just guessing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

But you have said that religion knows something - or at least that your religion does. Your difficulty though is just running away whenever you’re asked for a method to distinguish this supposed knowledge from just guessing.

It must know something Hillside even/especially if it were the greatest con in History. Don'tcha love how folks won't buy even that because they can't conceive of the religious doing or having the greatest thing since religion is some kind of failed science or something.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

But you have said that religion knows something

''Religion knows nothing'' is an arseclenching ridiculous slogan which is wankfodder for rabid antitheists. Do you talk like this in the real world?

What you mean is religion is not science something I think wed all probably agree on. For the scientismatist like yourself that has some higher mystical significance i'm sure.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

As you seem to have missed the point entirely, I’ll spell it out for you. Again. If you think you that one or more religions know something to be objectively true, how do you know that? What method do you apply to the claim to distinguish it from guessing or palpable nonsense?

Is it really such a hard question for you to grasp, at least conceptually?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

As you seem to have missed the point entirely, I’ll spell it out for you. Again. If you think you that one or more religions know something to be objectively true, how do you know that? What method do you apply to the claim to distinguish it from guessing or palpable nonsense?

Is it really such a hard question for you to grasp, at least conceptually?

Palpable nonsense is that which can be demonstrated as palpable nonsense not just what Hillside and his wee flying primates opine.

Guessing is an action. A doing word.

How do we distinguish between the knowing simper of a celebrity atheist and them having shit themselves?

[Stranger]

Palpable nonsense...

So you can't answer the question (yet again). What's the problem?

How about a simpler question: can you name one objective fact that your religion has given us?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Total avoidance of the question noted. Why do you bother?

[ippy]

Palpable nonsense is that which can be demonstrated as palpable nonsense not just what Hillside and his wee flying primates opine.

Guessing is an action. A doing word.

How do we distinguish between the knowing simper of a celebrity atheist and them having shit themselves?

It's obvious to me why you can't give a straight answer to questions like the one asked of you in Blue's post 989 on this thread.

The reason you don't answer is because there isn't an answer to be had, you could say, 'but it's my belief', at least that would be honest.

The gibberish you keep presenting doesn't really do you any good Vlad.

Regards ippy 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you can't answer the question (yet again). What's the problem?

How about a simpler question: can you name one objective fact that your religion has given us?

Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.

[ippy]

Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.

I get the impression you think this is an answer, you can't answer can you Vlad, come on admit it?

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

So you can't answer the question (yet again). What's the problem?

How about a simpler question: can you name one objective fact that your religion has given us?

Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.

You could have just said no.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion, well certain religions have given rise to the finest psychologies and anthropologies and sociologies which have proved to be extremely predictive. Hence their continued success. Religion also Birthed science and some of the great philosophies.

 
You could have just said no.

Religion is not science but there are areas in which science works less successfully like psychology and anthropology and sociology;
Suffice it to say that when you, Ippy and The Side guff on about any short comings of religion and elevate science into scientism the only real argument you ever have is science is not religion....well, so what?

[Stranger]

Religion is not science but there are areas in which science works less successfully like psychology and anthropology and sociology;

Is this actually a serious claim? If so, you really will need to do more than just assert it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Religion is not science but there are areas in which science works less successfully like psychology and anthropology and sociology;

Less successfully than what?