Crosswords0 min ago
Does It Rely Matter If There Is A God
48 Answers
DOES IT RELY MATTER WHAT WE BELIEVE /??
Do you think that life has a purpose ?
c/p Evolutionist William b Provine say s /what have learned about the
evolutionary process has enormous implications for us .
Affecting our senses of meaning in life his conclusion ??
so what is the purpose of life // just to live and die ??????
Do you think that life has a purpose ?
c/p Evolutionist William b Provine say s /what have learned about the
evolutionary process has enormous implications for us .
Affecting our senses of meaning in life his conclusion ??
so what is the purpose of life // just to live and die ??????
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by locusts. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"...Soul-destroying..." pixie. Those with religious belief have a soul. A soul is a divine concept that beasts are bereft of.
Well, you can state the existence of the soul, and you can believe it if you want, but you have no evidence to support the objective existence of a soul.
Its arguments like that - the religious have souls, beasts do not - that allow for a fairly casual and exploitative view of the rest of the natural world, IMO.
Well, you can state the existence of the soul, and you can believe it if you want, but you have no evidence to support the objective existence of a soul.
Its arguments like that - the religious have souls, beasts do not - that allow for a fairly casual and exploitative view of the rest of the natural world, IMO.
LazyGun
Mark as Best Answer
There is absolutely no reason and certainly no evidence to support the notion of a divinely gifted "purpose", some holy mission that all living things share.
yes that may be true for some./ but / I think. There must be some purpose./ you talk about the enjoyment of sports/ hiking /mountaineering/ swimming these are pleasures and design. Even with in designing for something better. designing for something which is special, even in designing with the evolution of time for all these things to be better,
but if / I / change my thinking to an atheist point view for a moment , I still have a problem / is,/ that you say with evolution over the course of time it will change / reproduce/ into something to something else , so if you reason that way it has purpose. So if it has purpose it has a reason of the designing, so it must have intelligence, with intelligence. it must have had a reason for designing// designing to give it some reason for living , so if it has purpose for living also / so where did this intelligence come from in the first place, geting this intelligence in the first place, the design to give it/ his reasoning for life.
Just some reasoning, if you have nothing you cannot create something. Unless you get the right ingredients
Mark as Best Answer
There is absolutely no reason and certainly no evidence to support the notion of a divinely gifted "purpose", some holy mission that all living things share.
yes that may be true for some./ but / I think. There must be some purpose./ you talk about the enjoyment of sports/ hiking /mountaineering/ swimming these are pleasures and design. Even with in designing for something better. designing for something which is special, even in designing with the evolution of time for all these things to be better,
but if / I / change my thinking to an atheist point view for a moment , I still have a problem / is,/ that you say with evolution over the course of time it will change / reproduce/ into something to something else , so if you reason that way it has purpose. So if it has purpose it has a reason of the designing, so it must have intelligence, with intelligence. it must have had a reason for designing// designing to give it some reason for living , so if it has purpose for living also / so where did this intelligence come from in the first place, geting this intelligence in the first place, the design to give it/ his reasoning for life.
Just some reasoning, if you have nothing you cannot create something. Unless you get the right ingredients
Locusts, //So if it has purpose it has a reason of the designing, so it must have intelligence//
Even if that were true, there is no reason to assume that you know what or who the designer was. You don’t. It makes no sense whatsoever to attribute the unknown to the unknown. The most you can possibly say with any semblance of conviction is ‘I don’t know’.
Even if that were true, there is no reason to assume that you know what or who the designer was. You don’t. It makes no sense whatsoever to attribute the unknown to the unknown. The most you can possibly say with any semblance of conviction is ‘I don’t know’.
Locusts - Along with many other Christians you are wilfully ignorant. You either know little or nothing about evolution or you know but deliberately ignore.
I would suggest that. if you want to bring arguments about evolution to the table, you read a book or two on the subject and not some apologist drivel.
I would suggest that. if you want to bring arguments about evolution to the table, you read a book or two on the subject and not some apologist drivel.
naomi24
Mark as Best Answer
Goodlife, //A worshiper is only deceiving himself or letting himself be deceived by other religionists//
That's what you're doing.
beso
Mark as Best Answer
goodlife //No lasting good is gained from worshiping a god that does not exist. //
That is the most sensible post ever from goodlife.
For instance lets just/just / supposed there is a God/ and a God is Jesus Christ /a God as many people think that he his God/ who came to this earth : to get know who the people is/ and there think and what their relationship to him is ?, then we know he died and was resurrected by the historian Josephus who recorded his life/ for this returned to the heavens this is one possibility and it is recorded into the writings/ and we have been forewarned of the problems/ the problems before he returns once again to clame what really belongs to him. And we know that Jesus was a real person on this earth, so why not asking ourselves what is his real purpose of jesus come to this earth ? or Is Jesus that God that does not exist question or a more powerful invisible being, question
Mark as Best Answer
Goodlife, //A worshiper is only deceiving himself or letting himself be deceived by other religionists//
That's what you're doing.
beso
Mark as Best Answer
goodlife //No lasting good is gained from worshiping a god that does not exist. //
That is the most sensible post ever from goodlife.
For instance lets just/just / supposed there is a God/ and a God is Jesus Christ /a God as many people think that he his God/ who came to this earth : to get know who the people is/ and there think and what their relationship to him is ?, then we know he died and was resurrected by the historian Josephus who recorded his life/ for this returned to the heavens this is one possibility and it is recorded into the writings/ and we have been forewarned of the problems/ the problems before he returns once again to clame what really belongs to him. And we know that Jesus was a real person on this earth, so why not asking ourselves what is his real purpose of jesus come to this earth ? or Is Jesus that God that does not exist question or a more powerful invisible being, question
locusts, Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus and his references to Jesus, hearsay at the best, are unreliable for several reasons. In an effort to authenticate the existence of Jesus, the work was altered by early Christians, and that is borne out by the fact that since Jesus did not fulfil the role that Jews expect of the still awaited messiah, no Jew would have claimed the executed Jesus to be the messiah.
naomi24//locusts, Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus and his references to Jesus, hearsay at the best, are unreliable for several reasons. In an effort to authenticate the existence of Jesus, the work was altered by early Christians, and that is borne out by the fact that since Jesus did not fulfil the role that Jews expect of the still awaited messiah, no Jew would have claimed the executed Jesus to be the messiah.
Locusts /// Even Richard Dawkins / and will not openly say yes or no /existence even when there is so much evidence is man didn't exist/ the Christ and many /many scholars even atheist/ there was a man called Christ /even with all the evidence of prove proof that there was a man called Christ /and he did live// you keep on saying there's no proof /you are blinded to the truth .and I have read many documents relating to this ,
just some references to this discussion and there are more if like to look .
c/p http://
Josephus on Jesus Chapter 3.
Jewish Antiquities", by Flavius Josephus. Book 18, Chapter 3, paragraphs 1-5. Paragraph 3 is the Testimonium Flavianum itself, which contains the reference to Jesus Christ.
3. (63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.
C/p Historical elements[edit]
Existence[edit]
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][30][31][32] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[33][34] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucifiedby the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13]
c/p Geza Vermes believes in the partial authenticity of the Testimonium and the existence of a reference to Jesus within it.[136][138] Vermes states that if the Testimonium had been the work of a Christian forger, it would have placed blame on the Jewish leaders, but as is it is "perfectly in line" with the atitude of Josephus towards Pilate.[138] Vermes also states that the detached depiction of the followers of Jesus is not the work of a Christian interpolator.[138] Vermes calls the Jesus notice in the Testimonium a "veritable tour de force" in which Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness
c/p Jesus as myth[edit]
Main article: Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory (also known as the "Jesus myth theory" or "Jesus mythicism") is the proposition that Jesus never existed in any form but was invented by the Christian community around 100 CE. The idea was first put forward in the late 18th century and developed and popularised in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer.[40]
A few contemporary writers, notably G. A. Wells, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price[41] still regard the question of whether Jesus ever existed as open. This position is not held by most professional historians, nor the vast majority of New Testament scholars.[9
locusts, there’s no point in copying and pasting what you think Josephus wrote. I’ve told you his work has been tampered with, so that does nothing to validate your claim. Let me put it this way. If there was irrefutable evidence that Jesus existed there would be no argument – we would know - but there is none – which is why Richard Dawkins cannot say whether or not he existed. Personally I think he probably did – but I don’t believe that anything is supernatural, nor that he was what you think he was. I think he was a man born of two human parents - just like every other man.
Locusts -
As Naomi has rightly pointed out, the writings of Josephus on the existence of a literal Jesus are questionable at best. Although there is a general consensus amongst historians that a man called Jesus did exist, once again, this is absolutely no proof whatsoever that he was anything other than an ordinary moral man born of perfectly normal mortal parents.
The idea that Jesus was God 'made flesh' is absurd in the extreme since it makes no rational sense at all. Stories of a man who walks on water, who feeds thousands of people by magical means, who can miraculously repair the optical nerves of blind people by touch alone and who can raise the dead are just that – stories. And tall ones at that. To believe in such blatant falsehoods is to relinquish your rationality.
Just out of interest, if I told you that I too could raise the dead and have done so, would you believe me? And if not, why not? It's a serious question because I want to try and understand under what circumstances (excluding biblical accounts) you would accept a story that a man could bring a dead person back to life. Presumably you would require some kind of evidence. What evidence would be acceptable to you personally?
As Naomi has rightly pointed out, the writings of Josephus on the existence of a literal Jesus are questionable at best. Although there is a general consensus amongst historians that a man called Jesus did exist, once again, this is absolutely no proof whatsoever that he was anything other than an ordinary moral man born of perfectly normal mortal parents.
The idea that Jesus was God 'made flesh' is absurd in the extreme since it makes no rational sense at all. Stories of a man who walks on water, who feeds thousands of people by magical means, who can miraculously repair the optical nerves of blind people by touch alone and who can raise the dead are just that – stories. And tall ones at that. To believe in such blatant falsehoods is to relinquish your rationality.
Just out of interest, if I told you that I too could raise the dead and have done so, would you believe me? And if not, why not? It's a serious question because I want to try and understand under what circumstances (excluding biblical accounts) you would accept a story that a man could bring a dead person back to life. Presumably you would require some kind of evidence. What evidence would be acceptable to you personally?
birdie1971
Locusts -
As Naomi has rightly pointed out, the writings of Josephus on the existence of a literal Jesus are questionable at best. Although there is a general consensus amongst historians that a man called Jesus did exist, once again, this is absolutely no proof whatsoever that he was anything ot
Locusts // I will translates into English the best way I possibly can/ to explains/ why I believe that the Bible is right and what it say / and Josephus was a very good historian. for his today, we have to remember that the Romans were very particular in the reports/ all were written for the Romans commander .
The historian like Josephus could lose his head immediately for reports /that was not correct/ /because the Romans uses intelligence for the insurrection at that time in Jerusalem. Also he had reported may hundreds reports before / about that man who they executed on that day
even the Roman soldier would have had to reports the information to his intelligence officer //and the people would have had to report that Jesus had died at that time to some Roman officer what they had seen. So all this information would've been reported to an officer which had it written down as the reports would've went back to Caesar in Rome /
so we can say the least 99 percent or even 80 is true. The Romans in 29 C.E. were very brutal and strict /, dominates the whole Palestine/ time/ within iron fist .
We also known it was not only Josephus the historian how/ Write
there were other historians at that time/ who Write about Palestine and the death of a righteous man//
and we understand a lot more because /Dead_Sea_scrolls/ you cannot say these are forgeries or deny or existed .
I like to read about it Roman history
http://
Locusts -
As Naomi has rightly pointed out, the writings of Josephus on the existence of a literal Jesus are questionable at best. Although there is a general consensus amongst historians that a man called Jesus did exist, once again, this is absolutely no proof whatsoever that he was anything ot
Locusts // I will translates into English the best way I possibly can/ to explains/ why I believe that the Bible is right and what it say / and Josephus was a very good historian. for his today, we have to remember that the Romans were very particular in the reports/ all were written for the Romans commander .
The historian like Josephus could lose his head immediately for reports /that was not correct/ /because the Romans uses intelligence for the insurrection at that time in Jerusalem. Also he had reported may hundreds reports before / about that man who they executed on that day
even the Roman soldier would have had to reports the information to his intelligence officer //and the people would have had to report that Jesus had died at that time to some Roman officer what they had seen. So all this information would've been reported to an officer which had it written down as the reports would've went back to Caesar in Rome /
so we can say the least 99 percent or even 80 is true. The Romans in 29 C.E. were very brutal and strict /, dominates the whole Palestine/ time/ within iron fist .
We also known it was not only Josephus the historian how/ Write
there were other historians at that time/ who Write about Palestine and the death of a righteous man//
and we understand a lot more because /Dead_Sea_scrolls/ you cannot say these are forgeries or deny or existed .
I like to read about it Roman history
http://
Chrisgel//Since the bible was written our lifespans have more than doubled//
Yet when you read the Bible, you see that in the first few centuries of man's existence, they were living to 900+.
for example: Adam lived for 930 years; Shem a survivor of the flood lived for 600 years; Methuselah lived for 969 years; Noah lived to 950 yrs. So what went wrong? Why do we only live to about 100 yrs today?
Yet when you read the Bible, you see that in the first few centuries of man's existence, they were living to 900+.
for example: Adam lived for 930 years; Shem a survivor of the flood lived for 600 years; Methuselah lived for 969 years; Noah lived to 950 yrs. So what went wrong? Why do we only live to about 100 yrs today?
Latest Posts
Is There A Pro England Rally Today
News2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.