Finally, proof there is no God.

[///ajd]

-DeaDLocK- said:

Hypothetical question for the hardened atheists on here:

In a dire situation, say your child is on the brink due to terminal illness, or you're in a situation where the prognosis is bleak (take your pick: crashing plane, burning house, circling sharks etc)... do any of you feel you may just resort to a form of prayer or some cry to a "higher power" as a last resort?

Not making any assumptions - just curious.

The inevitable sarcastic responses are welcomed, but am much more interested in the serious ones.

No, as it is a fundamentally (to me) false and fake concept (noting it can bring comfort to those who believe), religion would not feature. Depending on circumstances I would make the best of the situation either spending last precious moments together or leaving messages for real people that are important.

The question is interesting as it suggests - "surely you might give it a try". I think this misses the point about how unlikely many feel deity is. Saying you are 6.9 is just being polite really.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I gave two examples of jesus stories that are not - it seems - literally true, and as such do not do anything to elevate him as anything other than a normal, albeit probably charismatic, chap.

The link to sun worship is not always direct or inclusive, but it is what christianity and other religions appear to have evolved from. Some stories may not be directly linked to sun worship (they were created to provide other rules/morals) though several clearly it seems are. An example is probably the homophobic stories in the bible, these probably have nothing to do with sun worship, but flawed middle age morals and prejudice.

In terms of sun worship parallels, the lake example is quite striking as you can see some direct links. Same with the ressurection period exactly matching the winter solstice. Co-incidence? I suspect not.

I have given several examples/answers, but you have given none so far. Which parables would you like to discuss/prove? I understood you are wanting to show how these provide evidence Jesus is the son of god. I'm listening.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thanks VK

To take your last - Barabbas. What does this teach you, what is the moral?

In terms of his link to Jesus, he was freed of course by pilate and Jesus was crucified.

Now, the crucifiction is linked to sun worship, as the sun/son 'dies' on the 21st Dec before being reborn and rising again 3 days later. The dates and linkage to easter are mixed up, but the three kings are also symbolic of orions belt which points to the low point & rebirth of the sun in winter, etc.

Stonehenge is interesting in that it was built in 2-3000BC, and includes celestial features that maybe indicative of contemporary religion of the time including sun worship.

Out of interest, how do these parables confirm Jesus as the son of god to you? I'm genuinely interested as to why you feel they are convincing.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think I've given some good examples that liken some aspects of christianity to previous sun worship. Do you at least recognise the similarity between:

1. the ressurection and solstice?
2. the disciples in the storm being saved by the sun/son?

Can you see the links at all? Have you noticed the linkage between astrology and various religious concepts?

I don't think I have ever said sun worship covers everything in all religions - clearly I don't see the drivers for homophobia in any sun worshipping principles related to sun brjnging life/agriculture etc.

Can you expand on your statement that 'christianity is based on jesus existing'. What is important about his existence - just that he existed, or the things he did that 'proved' he was the sun of god? I find the latter concept the most likely, and interesting. The disciples stated I think that the lake/storm incident was the occassion they were 'really convinced jesus was the son of god'. I'm sure you can see why that is interesting, as it potentially places one of the key bits of evidence that jesus was the son of god, potentially firmly rooted in some previous religions based on the sun. This idea really stacks up the case for god/religion being a) man made and b) made up.

Edited by ///ajd on Wednesday 11th March 20:53

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No, I think I need to clarify, and I'll explain more simply why I have already provided several examples.

When considering sun worship, my understanding is that the sun was worshipped as it brought life and made things grow etc. - furthermore the belief was the sun was somehow created. There was a creator behind the sun and everything etc. During the solstice, various religions would celebrate the death and rebirth of the sun over a 3 day period, and look forward to it giving new life. The sun is ressurected so that man may live. You should see some parallels here already. This is also presumably how people ended up sacrificing goats etc. to please the sun.

Now, with christianity, some significant parts of these concepts are retained, but retold as the son of god - i.e. an actual person. He died and was reborn - interestingly over a 3 day period - so that man may live etc.

I think I've explained this as simply as possible. The fact that one religion copies from another - while being told through a totally different story, is revealing I think.

[///ajd]

cymtriks said:

You are confusing two issues. You are also changing the subject again.

I point out the flaws in the reasoning that a new theory disproves a creator
change subject to Noah
I point out that the Noah story could be based a real event that we have archaeological evidence for
change subject to evidence for God

The answer to your latest change of direction is, wait for it, faith. You either think that the accounts in the Bible were influenced or inspired by God in some way or you think that they are tribal history. There isn't really a different answer.

Regarding James Bond what point are you trying to make? That line of reasoning ends up with any account of anything being dismissed! We have very good historical evidence for a lot of the Bible story. As history no one seriously disputes most of it and the there isn't much reason to suppose that the remainder is not history either.

So it comes to three choices regarding the Bible:
1) A historical account of events starting with the tribal founders in their first settlement (Adam and Eve in Eden), then a family, a tribe, a group of tribes and finally a nation.
2) As above but with the events caused by, or inspired by, God. This is Christianity.
3) Fail utterly to distinguish between 1 and 2 and dismiss it all as rubbish despite overwhelming evidence for the historical accounts cos Dawkins init.

"As history no one seriously disputes most of it and the there isn't much reason to suppose that the remainder is not history
either."

Are you including the bits were adam is 800 years old and eve is made from his rib?

What point are you making with 1 & 2?

Are you saying there is archeological evidence of a big flood, in the middle east, so that proves god tipped off noah?

What about all the archeological evidence for evolution that requires no creator?

Do you think Adam was made by god and was 800 years old, or that man evolved from apes etc. over millions of years? Can't be both, can it?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You know I never said that; I suggested elements of christianity were derived from sun worship. And I've provided examples which give evidence for my assertion.

For the third time, can you see the parallels between the solstice and the resurrection? Or are you blind and in some form of insecure denial about admitting these parallels? Why does recognising them scare you? Would it shake your faith to do so? From a rational viewpoint, it should.

Edited by ///ajd on Wednesday 11th March 23:25

[///ajd]

Troubleatmill said:

Or that God changed his mind like a weather vane whether to help his chosen ones - or wipe them off the map.

Or that talking snakes are bloody good at psychology.
Or the fact that donkeys that can talk don't take anyone by surprise - you just have a normal conversation with them.
Or that if you are female - you can expect your father to throw you out to rent-a-rape-gang.

Racism, slavery, infanticide, celebrating by smashing children's heads against stones while praising the Lord.

How do you defend the indefensible?
If you stand back - and look at it objectively - the bible is the stuff of nonsense.

The problem is - if you believe - you have had a lifetime of it drummed into you - so it must be true. There is no other possible answer.


If no-one is going to defend racist Jesus - would anyone like to debate talking donkeys - and cunning snakes ( who can also talk )?

What is the crack with the talking donkey? Not heard of that.

I think Gervais exposed the snake nonsense rather brilliantly.

[///ajd]

Troubleatmill said:

It's a classic. A little bit of wee came out when I read it.
http://biblehub.com/kjv/numbers/22.htm

In short. Balaam is walking his donkey down a narrow road. But an angel is in the way
The donkey sees the angel but Balaam doesn't.

The donkey moves over - so it don't cross the angel - but it stamps on Balaam's foot.
Balaam gives the donkey a bit of a slap - as his foot is sore.

God decides to intervene - and speaks via the donkey to chastise Balaam.

Balaam and the donkey have a bit of a conversation about it.

Have a read at it - and I defy you not to laugh.


Edit: The new international version is a bit more readable http://biblehub.com/niv/numbers/22.htm

Edited by Troubleatmill on Wednesday 11th March 23:35

Interesting. There is a sort if moral there somewhere.

If your donkey is weaving about the place, don't hit it as it might be trying to help you avoid an angel with a sword that you can't see.

There is a positive message in there about animal cruelty I think, but I would have thought human empathy for avoiding suffering was perhaps a more convincing vehicle for setting an example than (I presume) an imaginary talking donkey, speaking the word of god.

Hands up anyone who think god actually spoke through the donkey? Doesn't such fallacy risk losing the actual message about not hitting donkeys? I'll concede a talking donkey has some asthetic appeal and it makes it memorable.

It is a moral that has nothing to do with religion of course.

[///ajd]

CrutyRammers said:

///ajd said:

When considering sun worship, my understanding is that the sun was worshipped as it brought life and made things grow etc. - furthermore the belief was the sun was somehow created. There was a creator behind the sun and everything etc. During the solstice, various religions would celebrate the death and rebirth of the sun over a 3 day period, and look forward to it giving new life.

OT - what's the thing with this 3 day period? It's not one I've come across before (I'm interested from a neolithic point of view)

Its a theme of both astrological and many other religions.

In short, during the winter solstice, the sun (apparently) is at its lowest point for 3 days before it is 'resurrected' and rises again.

More here

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_god

"During the Roman Empire, a festival of the birth of the Unconquered Sun (or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) was celebrated on the winter solstice—the "rebirth" of the sun—which occurred on December 25 of the Julian calendar. In late antiquity, the theological centrality of the sun in some Imperial religious systems suggest a form of a "solar monotheism". The religious commemorations on December 25 were replaced under Christian domination of the Empire with the birthday of Christ.[2]"

The parallels relate to the birth, the crucifixion etc.

There are many parallels, it seems there is substantial evidence that some of the themes of christianity are taken from earlier religions. This has a number of implications. Some suggest this means there must be something behind all the religions, I tend to conclude it means it is all made up.

Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 12th March 15:30

Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 12th March 15:32

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Have you managed to read my replies carefully to understand how I have answered that point several times? Not explaining everything in the bible in terms of sun worship DOES NOT imply there are no parallels. But you know that, and why it makes your question irrelevant to the point you raised.

Can you see the parallels between sun or celestial based religions and christianity yet? You first question was along the lines of "what has the sun got to do with the son of god". I think I have amply explained this but it seems you refuse to acknowledge and wish to deflect. Why is that? Is it too challenging a fact to recognise?

Do you see the possible link between the disciples in the boat during the storm and the sun? Or is this really beyond your imagination?

Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 12th March 20:09

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have. I'm sorry you don't understand why, I can't think of a way of saying it any more simply.

This is a debate not a competition. If you don't want to debate but just pretend to 'win' on false pretences, that is up to you.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You know you are twisting the point I was making - which is the link between christianity and sun worship.

It is fascinating to see you unable to admit those parallels and deflect to another point. Is it actually impossible for you to recognise these glaring parallels? Actually impossible? When you read these sentences is your brain telling you la la la la don't read this la la la?


Why don't we try another discussion, perhaos on yoir favourite parable. What parable most convinces you Jesus is the son of God, and why?

[///ajd]

mcdjl said:

///ajd said:

You know you are twisting the point I was making - which is the link between christianity and sun worship.

It is fascinating to see you unable to admit those parallels and deflect to another point. Is it actually impossible for you to recognise these glaring parallels? Actually impossible? When you read these sentences is your brain telling you la la la la don't read this la la la?


Why don't we try another discussion, perhaos on yoir favourite parable. What parable most convinces you Jesus is the son of God, and why?

I think you possibly have the sun connection slightly wrong. Rather than Jesus being a parallel for the sun, Christianity, like many other "New" religions borrowed and replaced existing festivals with its own. As you point out these had previously been celestial in nature leading to the appearance of Christianity being a form of Sun cult, however as far as I know this is usually understood to be the case. The logic behind this is that it's much easier to convert people to your cause if you can take their familiar observation and replace it with a similar one of your own.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but just have read about some parallels that make you think and are worthy of discussion.

A few of the ideas are here in this youtube vid, including the 3 day issue towards the end. Of course the sun doesn't literally stop for 3 days, but its movement is barely perceptable for 3 days.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mQCL7DrvCiM

As I consider the stories are fabricated anyway, it matters little if there are minor inconsistencies as the tales are converted through the ages.

[///ajd]

cymtriks said:

My guess is that Adam was actually hundreds of months old, the story being transferred from a culture that used lunar dating to one that used annual dating. It made perfect sense to the original authors and the original audience but not to us. See all my comments on history and context.

The last bit is, in my opinion, a direct result of people refusing to read the story as it was meant to be read. The creation is intended to be mythical and blending into the account of the first people, the tribal founders, who were the first people from a tribal point of view.

You seem to be saying it might have made sense (literally) in the context of when it was written, but not now.

Where does this leave the miracles - e.g. feeding the 5000 or walking on water. How is walking on water correct in a historical context? What was going on there?

What about the talking donkey? What was happening there exactly?

Genuinely interested how you interpret & rationalise these parts.

[///ajd]

ChrisnChris said:

cymtriks said:

///ajd said:

Are you saying there is archeological evidence of a big flood, in the middle east, so that proves god tipped off noah?

Yes there is, considerable evidence, circa 2900 BC, covered half of modern Iraq. Google it. Woolley's excavation pit is an impressive photo, that archaeologist really dug deep.

"The period 2900 to 2800 BCE is much too late to fit Woolley's impressive flood remains at Ur, which must be dated at about 3500 BCE. This period does, however, fit well for the two earliest floods at Kish and a flood level at Shuruppak, and many scholars specializing in the ancient Near East have concluded that the Flood stories of cuneiform literature and the Bible find their ultimate origin in the event attested to by the remains at Kish and Shuruppak (Mallowan, 1964, pp. 62-82; Kramer, 1967, pp. 12-18; Woolley, 1955, pp. 16-17. Woolley's findings were generally rejected by others, including his chief archaeological assistant, Mallowan)."

Interesting reading here, if you've got the time.

http://ncse.com/cej/8/2/flood-mesopotamian-archaeo...

Thanks, interesting. My point was not whether the was a flood or not (I was aware of the ancient floods) but whether or how it proved the existence of god. The article is interesting in that hardcore creationists refuse to acknowledge that the Ur flood could be that referred to in the bible (even though it seems to 'fit' from several perspectives), as it was not a 'worldwide' event and many people and settlements survived outside of the 'ark'.

What does a 'fairly big flood' where lots if people survived anyway tell us about a creator?

How is it any different to the japanese tsunami?
What does the japanese tsunami tell us about god?

[///ajd]

gumshoe said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So you're implying, by your example, that you appreciate and understand that God may not exist?

As it seems from VK above, his answer is no, the suggestion of choice "might pick blue, might pick red" is false.

It seems it is more a case of "I can only pick blue as I cannot even imagine the red one is in any way possible to buy and wear".

It is perhaps a good analogy for which side really has the closed mind.

Earlier VK you mentioned it was all about belief in jesus existing, and presumably doing certain things. Can you expand on this? As it seems central to your faith, and belief in god, it seems relevant to the discussion.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

To be clear then, you "haven't denied ... any possibilities".

So you are open to there being no god? That is what it seems you were refuting in your response above.

I've not stated I don't want religion to exist, but more precisely kids should be protected from it, like smoking, until they can make their own choices. Same as cutting off their genitalia, religion should not be allowed to do it to kids. E.g. FGM is inhumane.

Everyone can see I've tried to answer your questions, whilst you avoid mine. Like I said before, this for me is a debate not a competition. Your reluctance to debate openly is part of that discussion I guess, and revealing.

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 14th March 10:28

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Interesting, does this mean that you find the fact that jesus may have been an actual person makes the whole christian god religion thing (more) believable, and is your personal 'evidence' underpinning your belief?

Perhaps there is something convincing about the jesus real person aspect that has made christianity historically successful.

Can you define what it is that makes you believe in him, and why he is more than just another bloke?

[///ajd]

More red jumpers blowing up blue jumpers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-31894708

I also saw some news from India about red jumpers specifically going out to rape blue jumpers.