Hellenic religion

[makedonin]

What could be more important than the topic of God?


Do not be afraid of truth as unpopular it might be. Beware that you are not allowing emotionalism to determine your world view.

You ask what is more important than God? My real life, my Family and the rest of it!

Do you have life out of that what you do here? I do, and it needs my attention and care! You should get yourself Life out of the kake you babble!

In the short Random interaction I had with you, you think you know me or anything about my world view. You sure jump on conclusion. How old are you? 10!

I ain't afraid of the truth, and I surely did Not See any presented by you! I did not go emotional, I was serious! It is your Problem what you think of what I said, and that is certainly was not the Best articulated by me, but if I get to spend my time to chew for you and Write assays, what is I to get out of it? Will you pay the Time I invest inthat? Get real, we are on forum and Not on the Academy!

I gave you small insights and you think you accomplished crushing something, the joke of the Day!

Sayonara Smart Ass !

[makedonin]

Vangelovski, chill out dude, you take some People to seriously.

Use your Head and produce something your self, don't repeate others thoughts and View. Grow your self Balls and Look at the World with your eyes, not with someones elses. You will spend your Life trying to prove someones elses thoughts and miss the whole Life. When you get older, you will regret it, mark my words.

Spare me the copy paste and don't talk to me again.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, chill out dude, you take some People to seriously.

Use your Head and produce something your self, don't repeate others thoughts and View. Grow your self Balls and Look at the World with your eyes, not with someones elses. You will spend your Life trying to prove someones elses thoughts and miss the whole Life. When you get older, you will regret it, mark my words.

Spare me the copy paste and don't talk to me again.

Makedonin,

You came on here making huge claims about the inaccuracy of the Bible and questioning the very existence of Jesus and now that I provide you with evidence, that is your response???

[makedonin]

Makedonin,

You came on here making huge claims about the inaccuracy of the Bible and questioning the very existence of Jesus and now that I provide you with evidence, that is your response???

Learn what evidence really means how is to be Provided and than collect some and show it here, than and only than maybe we can come to tems to discuss. If I have Time, that is.

No Religion have yet Provided reproducable evidence as Science has done.


Give it a rest dude. Get your self à real life and Start to use your head.

[Vangelovski]

Learn what evidence really means how is to be Provided and than collect some and show it here, than and only than maybe we can come to tems to discuss. If I have Time, that is.

No Religion have yet Provided reproducable evidence as Science has done.


Give it a rest dude. Get your self à real life and Start to use your head.

Makedonin,

Perhaps you can inform us of what constitutes evidence in your own mind because clearly you dismiss what constitutes evidence in the fields of science (you have contradicted yourself here), history, philosophy and archeaology (noting the fundamental differences in each) OR you have not bothered to read or listen to anything already provided.

Your suggestion that scienfic principles of evidence relate to ALL fields is ridiculous. How can the principle of observation and repetition be applied to history for example? What you are basically saying is that we can only prove something happened (i.e., that Alexander the Great did in fact exist) if we can observe it and repeat it. That may apply for the laws of nature, but to suggest that in order to prove Alexander the Great actually once lived we would have to observe/witness his life and then be able to repeat his life is absolute nonsense.

Or maybe it is that you just do not have a rebuttle to what has been provided and it has brought your own world view into question?

[makedonin]

Vangelovski, I asked you to give it a rest!

I don't intend to go on to your questions or "evidence".

I told you already, move a Mountain, or bring a dead of my choice to an life, than I will throw my self on my knees before your God!

Before that happen, I ain't interest in your "evidence" or what you have to preach, cause you fart hot air, as any other of your kind does.


But just for clarity, I will post the simplified way how Hawking's defined a scientific theory and what it is based on! I won't use my interpretation, cause I want to save me the time writting consistent description.

In order to talk about the nature of the universe and to discuss questions
such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about
what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simpleminded view that a
theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a
set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we
make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality
(whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two
requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on
the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it
must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. For
example, Aristotle believed Empedocles's theory that everything was made out
of four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. This was simple enough, but
did not make any definite predictions. On the other hand, Newton's theory of
gravity was based on an even simpler model, in which bodies attracted each
other with a force that was proportional to a quantity called their mass and
inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Yet it
predicts the motions of the sun, the moon, and the planets to a high degree
of accuracy.
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a
hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of
experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time
the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can
disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with
the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has
emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a
number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by
observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the
predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but
if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify
the theory.
At least that is what is supposed to happen, but you can always question the
competence of the person who carried out the observation.
In practice, what often happens is that a new theory is devised that is
really an extension of the previous theory. For example, very accurate
observations of the planet Mercury revealed a small difference between its
motion and the predictions of Newton's theory of gravity. Einstein's general
theory of relativity predicted a slightly different motion from Newton's
theory. The fact that Einstein's predictions matched what was seen, while
Newton's did not, was one of the crucial confirmations of the new theory.
However, we still use Newton's theory for all practical purposes because the
difference between its predictions and those of general relativity is very
small in the situations that we normally deal with.

A Brief History of Time!
Stephen Hawking's

You leck empirical evidence, which can be reproduced, but you have theory! In other words, your belif is another theory, which is not based on observation. You can't observe God! If you insist that you can, than provide how you do that! Which means or instruments you are using. Unlike scientific theories, your Dogma is meant to be everlasting and can't be proved and disproved, we have to believe in it!

And just to add the clarification what empirical evidence is:
Miriam Webster online dictionary empirical means:

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

The diference between your view of the world and mine is simple: I have a dynamic view of the world. I don't presupose anything and am ready to learn. If some theory is disproved, I don't go to the ground, as your comrade Atanasovski wanted to state. In a dynamic world, no knowlege is static and finit or complete. On the other side, your view is static. You have attached your self to a book, and are on the quest of proving it's consistency! In a dynamic world to have a static view can be devastating.


And just to correct your false statement from the other post of yours, I never said that God does not exist, show me where I did that. Nither any real scientist does that. Science is not really concernedwith God, cause it can't observe him, not yet!

[Atanasovski]

In other words, your belif is another theory, which is not based on observation. You can't observe God! If you insist that you can, than provide how you do that! Which means or instruments you are using. Unlike scientific theories, your Dogma is meant to be everlasting and can't be proved and disproved, we have to believe in it!

There are so many things that cannot be "observed" but are all rational to believe. The idea that you need to observe something before being able to rationally believe it is nonsense. I bet that i could list a number of things that you have rationally believed even though they simply cannot be scientifically proven. Not that i dont think there is a scientific/emperical evidence in the case for christianity.

The diference between your view of the world and mine is simple: I have a dynamic view of the world. I don't presupose anything and am ready to learn.

Your world view is already broken internally because it undermines science. If there is no god, your beliefs and scientific theories are ultimately the results of the motions of atoms in your brain produced by an unguided, random, mindless process. Why should you believe them? What makes anything you think true or rational? In fact, there is no sense to speak of rationality and truth. In his book the god delusion, Dawkins admits that in the absence of God there are no absolutes. The example he uses is 911. There is no sense in saying that it was right or wrong - the terrorists were simply “dancing to their DNA.” On atheism, you are just an unguided, random, mindless bio-chemical machine evolved on a spec of dust lost in a hostile and mindless universe. We are all just the atoms, dancing/fizzing/moving about. Why should we believe the illusory meanings of life and understanding of the universe? The reason theism doesn't have this problem is because there is the foundational presupposition that the universe is rationally intelligible since it was created by the rational mind of God.

[makedonin]

There are so many things that cannot be "observed" but are all rational to believe.
.....
Dawkins admits that in the absence of God there are no absolutes.
The example he uses is 911. There is no sense in saying that it was right or wrong - the terrorists were simply “dancing to their DNA.”

I never said that God don't exist or exists! To know God is to observe him, which you can't! That is why you talk about belief, it is assumption, an Idea which is not based on observation!

It may be rational to believe that God exists, but which will be the right rationality?! Yours?

The things you say that are "rational" to believe are "rational" to you, but not to milions others!

That is why you have so many belief systems! There will never be a consensus on what is "rational" to believe or not!

Philosophers, Religious People will or will not agree upon what you think it is "rational" to believe!

What Dawkins said is true, there is no absolute in this universe! Everything is changing! Only you hang on some static dogmatic knowledge which will not change! And you dare talking about my world view! Pathetic!

The 911 terrorists did that because for them exactly that was "rational" to believe! Israelites were "told to do" similar things by God! (Deuteronomy 20:17) Why do you say their deeds were wrong? Is it not "rational" to believe for you? Don't be a child!

You don't have to go to the core of the atom!

PS. I get to kick this habit of mine replying to you! It costs me money!

[Atanasovski]

Yes, it is true that not all philosophers and scientists share a common world view. That alone is enough to show that it’s simply not the case that atheism is some sort of proven world view and that only religious nuts hold onto theistic views.
At the end of the day, only one of them is correct and what we have both been trying to establish here is that one of our world views is less rational to believe. So far it appears that the "dynamic" or should i say "illusory" world view that you have created for yourself is moot.

Let’s have a look at your beliefs from our discussion:
1. Everything in this universe has a physical “form” - WRONG
2. Everything in the universe occupies space - WRONG
3. Everything in the universe is in time - WRONG
4. If God exists, it would not be possible for Him to become the man Jesus – WRONG
5. We have to go outside of the “bounds” of the universe in order to know God – WRONG
6. In order to know something is true you must be able to observe it AND it must be reproducible – WRONG

I have also stated that in the absence of God there are no absolutes. There is no truth - You agree.

Your world view is internally incoherent since it undermines logic and science - you seem to agree with this too.

Moving on, if the Christian God does exist, then your beliefs and views are simply wrong. But the hilarious thing about this is that in your world view, if God does not exist, your beliefs and views are still only an illusion since there is no real truth, it is "dynamic" and relative - Anything you have observed and accepted as true is no more rational/true/logically coherent than someones belief that they are, well i dont know, anything, they may decide to believe that they are themselves dreaming the world into existence and controlling the universe with their mind.

[makedonin]

That alone is enough to show that it’s simply not the case that atheism is some sort of proven world view and that only religious nuts hold onto theistic views.

Who is here atheist. Drop your sun glasses and stop puting me in categories where I don't belong!

You can't get that in your thick head, do you?

All I am saing that you have no basis to claim that the Bible is the word of God, as well as any other religious book! As you say your self, about atheism, it is the same case for theism, but you dogmatically prefer to claim it as some "proven" world view!

So, I am off, you have no legitimity to say anything about God, cause you don't know him (can't observe him), and have no basis on which you claim your knowledge about God, i.e. some book ("rational" believe)!

Sayonara!

[Makedonetz]

Vankelovski have a look at this i read your material check this out.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

In response to your post about scientific theories and observation - I agree. I never questioned that as the scientific method for specific fields such as physics.

I asked you how that methodology relates to the fields of history, philosophy, and archaeology? You implied that what constitutes evidence in the scientific fields must also constitute evidence in all other fields. And you implied this by dismissing the historical, archaeological and philisophical evidence that I provided as not being "observable" and "reproducable", a methodology appropriate to 'prove' the laws of nature, but not historical events or the accuracy of historical documents.

[makedonin]

Makedonin,

In response to your post about scientific theories and observation - I agree. I never questioned that as the scientific method for specific fields such as physics.

I asked you how that methodology relates to the fields of history, philosophy, and archaeology? You implied that what constitutes evidence in the scientific fields must also constitute evidence in all other fields. And you implied this by dismissing the historical, archaeological and philisophical evidence that I provided as not being "observable" and "reproducable", a methodology appropriate to 'prove' the laws of nature, but not historical events or the accuracy of historical documents.

But that is how it goes, historians rely on archeology and provided documents! Archeology relies on provided documents and makes assumption and trys to make findings upon those assumptions! New documents and archeological findings (the observation) prove or disprove some theories which were put forward by previous historians! Every new evidence is to be reexamined and compared with the theory if it still fits. Where would the Macedonians be if we did not reexamined those sources etc? That is also what happened with the Slavic migration theory etc.

On the scale of natural science and accuracy, history is before philosophy of science while philosophy is the last of them and I don't even count it as science! The brunch philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. But it never preaches dogma!

Begining with History, they are prone to manipulation (the Greek case) and it is hard to prove much, cause the interpretation of the material is based or poluted by individuals motives!

In order to fill the gaps they have in their theories, they enter the realm of the mentioned "rational" belief, which is more than obvious that does not function, that is why so many historians or philosophs tend to disagree with one another, thus build camps based on their motives, the Stephan Miller case!

The religion can't be even seen as a science, cause it utterly rely on the "rational" belief realm, which may or may not produce some valid points, and are prone to be manipulated to the core! If we say, it produces some "rational" things we can believe, who is to decide which are those things? Are we to go by numbers of followers who accept or don't accept what seems to be "rational"? That is what religious people do all the time! That is why we have so many religious beliefs, and recruiting of religious followers all around the world! Is that accurate? In no way! The prove is found in the fact that even the same book, say the Bible or the Quran, is interpreted differently by different members of different brunches!

Religious belief is something that each individual decides for it self, and that is mostly based on the background and cultural environment this individual comes from. It is more than obvious!

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

It now appears that you do accept historical (documentary and archaeological) evidence.

So back to the original question - among all the claims that you made, one was that there is no evidence (outside of the Bible) that Jesus even existed. I provided you with excerpts from contemporary (non-Biblical, Jewish and non-Jewish) writers that demonstrate otherwise. You rejected the information provided by these contemporary writers on the basis that historical documents do not fit into the methodological criteria that you would use for, say physics (observation and repetition) and therefore do not constitute evidence.

Seeing as you have backflipped on this, do you now accept that along with the Biblical record, there were also non-Biblical documents that record the life of Jesus?

Finally, rather than throwing in more red-herrings, you should try to deal with the multiple issues that you have already raised and have been found lacking.

[makedonin]

Makedonin,

It now appears that you do accept historical (documentary and archaeological) evidence.

So back to the original question - among all the claims that you made, one was that there is no evidence (outside of the Bible) that Jesus even existed. I provided you with excerpts from contemporary (non-Biblical, Jewish and non-Jewish) writers that demonstrate otherwise. You rejected the information provided by these contemporary writers on the basis that historical documents do not fit into the methodological criteria that you would use for, say physics (observation and repetition) and therefore do not constitute evidence.

Seeing as you have backflipped on this, do you now accept that along with the Biblical record, there were also non-Biblical documents that record the life of Jesus?

Finally, rather than throwing in more red-herrings, you should try to deal with the multiple issues that you have already raised and have been found lacking.

I told you that history is inaccurate. Second history must be backed up by archeology to gain some credibility! You seem that you avoided that part of my post!

Are there archeological findings that he was existent as a person? Or just some historical books? There are some serious reasons why some of those books ain't telling what you read in there! See the links I posted below!

Books are not enough! I know of none archeological findings proving that he existed as person. It is not enough to show some archeological findings that some places mentioned in the Bible are proven to exist! For other books, there are similar proofs! Not even the Caiaphas Tomb is prove of his existence as a person! People who were writting the NT had the means to know who Caiaphas was! He was the high priest after all! Other Books have their own archeological evidence of this caliber!

So what are you accusing me of!?

As I said there is no empirical evidence for Jessus existence as person. That does not means that there will be none in the future.

If there will be some archeological evidence to substanciate his existence as person, we will than have to find empirical evidence that those who wrote about him told the truth about his deeds! That is also important, cause religious people tend to exaggerate things and blow them out of proportions!

For now, it is a fact that all those who wrote about him had many motives to tell the story they told us. There are other Gospels who wrote about Jesus, but they bring different light on him!
All of them even might believed what they wrote, but there are many cases of notorious liars believing their stories. Their belief in the story ain't empirical evidence.

If I would be like you, and foreward with the "evidence" you like to use here, I will put you the following readings which disclaim your "evidence":

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm

http://www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus

http://www.godwouldbeanatheist.com/2problem/202jesus.htm

We can wage a war all day long like that, we won't come to consensus, and on the end of the day, we lose money cause not doing our jobs! If I would be stupid enough, I would spend my life debating with you. You ain't worth it!

It is like some drug you pouring in here!

So let it be, hold on to your belief, don't bother me, you ain't gonna turn me or anyone else over! That does not mean that I don't like the described character of Jesus, but that is another story!

Give it a rest!