exactly my point regarding an absence of any other 'proof' from that period of who did or didnt exist,,,,

No, your point was there was no evidence contradicting books not yet written or known to the public at the time. No one writes about events that DIDN'T happen ... that would be silly, thus my examples.

I could say right now that a man named Bubblebutt actually tiptoed on tulips in 300 AD and danced across an airborne leaf and by your reasoning, since you won't find any documents from the era REFUTING that no one danced across tulips (nor is anyone from that era still alive to refute it), then you can't say Bubblebutt didn't exist or do what I've claimed.

I think its a pretty ridiculous claim. Wouldn't you want some other source to confirm my claim? Obviously you don't care for the specific example above, but that's what this topic really boils down to ... "Here's a ridiculous story." "This can't be true." "But it is, here read this." "What else do you have for proof?" "Nothing, why should I need anything else?" "..."

bogie,

I'm only responding here to extend an invitation for you to join the Correspondence thread in the science/philosophy forum. It deals with truth.

wow, thanx for informing me of my point..lol

actually, my point WAS That an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,,, a continuation of a point I have already made several times throughout this thread


as amazed as jeannie is that there is no 'evidence' of David existing,,, I am amazed there is no 'evidence' that the crucifixion of Jesus didnt happen

certainly, for some men to write about such a public and brutal event about a SPECIFIC man, others of that time would have written a refutal as to the validity of those writings.....

Im not talking about writing now about what happened some 1700 years ago, Im speaking about writing in the SAME time period of those who wrote the original claim and the SAME time period (Within the same century) of those who were being written about,,,

Ms.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. Just so ya know. But, there can be no evidence against an event that never happened. Now, that is not to say that the crucification did not happen. It is only to say that that explanation for the lack of contrary evidence is as equally plausible as the one which holds that the lack of contrary evidence suggests that the event did happen.

I mean, to put it simply, the lack of contrary evidence of an event could mean that the descriptions of the event were/are true, or it could mean that the event never happened to begin with.

Good point - very simply put and understandable.

this is what I said, both sides of the argument

lack of evidence CONTRADICTING the story could mean there is no contradiction(ie, its true), just like lack of evidence CONFIRMING a story could mean the story didnt happen(ie. its false)

There isn't "both sides" ... there are multiple sides. Its not "black and white" or "heads or tails". You're ignoring that the lack of evidence contradicting the story could still mean it is false.

1. Evidence = story may true.
2. Evidence = story may STILL be false.
3. Lack of evidence contrary = story may be true.
4. Lack of evidence contrary = story may still be false.

Again, the arguments made by several of us here: illiteracy, lack of efficient means of communication and lack of efficient publication means; is a strong counter to your disbelief of a lack of contrary claims to the stories.

As creative said:



Who documents in anything: "Dear Diary, there was no alien invasion today. There was no conspiracy found in the American government. Giant fairies didn't buzz around the sky spraying pixie dust over everyone and the populace flew around without airplanes. It wasn't amazing!" It just doesn't happen.

than it would also be a strong counter to disbelief of a lack of CONFIRMATION to the stories,,,


sigh

Right. I'm just saying, include all sides ... there's not just a coin to consider. :)

Double post, sorry.

It seems to me that if people sincerely seek evidence for things they'd take a hard look at the evidence that already exists.

The Bible claims that mankind's fall from grace is what brought death, disease, and all manner of imperfection into the world. There is even a place in the scriptures where it says that this event is what brought forth thorns on plants. Evidence shows that death, disease, and all manner of imperfections, including thorny plants existed long before mankind showed up on the plant.

The Bible claims that the earth was formed within 6 days of creation. Evidence shows that it took billions of years for the earth to form. And we even understand how it was done from observations of other star systems in the universe around us.

The Bible claims that there was a catastrophic world-wide flood that killed all of mankind save for a handful of people who had built an ark that supposedly carried at least one pair of every species of animal on the entire planet.

Clearly that doesn't even make common since that would have had to have included things like polar bears, etc.

There is also the common sense problem of where all the water came from and went back to. Then there's the problem of all the freshwater and marine fishes and other aquatic live survived the catastrophe.

There actually exists plenty of evidence that no such flood could have possibly taken place during the period of time that humans existed. It's not just lack of evidence for a flood, but rather it's evidence that no such flood could have possibly occurred that recently. So it's actually evidence against such a flood.

Some people attempt to argue that the flood wasn't truly world-wide, but rather it was just a local flood. But if that were the case then there have been no need for any ark to save a pair of each species. So that "excuse" for the story doesn't pan out.

I'm truly amazed why any rational person still clings to these stories as potentially being true. As far as I can see we have every bit as much reason to dismiss them as we had for dismissing the Greek religious beliefs as "mythology".

Like Jeanniebean suggests, this is no reason to stop believing in a God. It's just a reason to dismiss an obvious myth.

Or at the very least to quit trying to support it as some sort of infallible verbatim word and commandments of some God.

A God who would 'punish' women by making childbirth painful?

That's supposed to be the behavior of a benevolent sane righteous and FORGIVING God?

I wouldn't wish such a curse on my worst enemy! Why should I want to put my FAITH in an idea that my creator could be so heartless and cruel?

Why was Eve and afterthought anyway? If God had planned to make both men and women why not created them together at the same time as a couple?

Why would Adam need a "helpmate"?

Help with what? Adam himself couldn't even procreate. What would Adam's goal would have even been without Eve?

If Eve is the one who is capable of procreation she should have been ths "star" of the show and God should have been offering Adam to her as a "Helpmate"

I mean, seriously, this story is just riddled with totally unjustifiable male chauvinism and patriarchal baloney.

They even view the God as a MALE and call him "Father".

Where the hell is the "Mother" of creation in all of this?

I mean seriously. We have more than enough "evidence" and rational reasons to totally question these stories at the very least.

And my MAJOR POINT all along has been this:


I don't even care if someone else wants to believe this for themselves. But for them to act like other people should be buying into these stories lest they are somehow "refusing to honor and obey our creator", is just utter nonsense.

There is absolutely nowhere near enough reasons, evidence, or even rational justifications for these utterly absurd stories to be acting like if someone doesn't believe them they are willfully and knowingly refusing to obey the "Word of God".

That's just utter nonsense.

There are more than enough sane rational and intelligent reasons to dismiss these ancient stories as being nothing more than the superstitious fables of a truly crude and rude male-chauvinistic society

Asking anyone to believe that these stories from this culture represent the behavior and commandments of some God is simply unjustifiable.

There are more than enough rational intelligent reasons to dismiss them completely.


And that's really all I ask of people.

Just acknowledge to the non-believers that their non-belief does indeed have rational merit. And quit trying to convince them that if they refuse to believe in these stories they are "rejecting God's will".

There simply is no credibility in that accusation.

That's my position.

So to those who discredit the bible do you not participate in any of the traditions or historic events that the bible caused?

Do these things to you seem too hypocritical for you to partake in?

The reason why I ask. I know people who when they took their stand for something, they did it completely, no exceptions. Even the way they practiced their daily lives cause they thought that giving in to a part was the same as giving into the whole.

Would this apply than to everything that is attached to Christianity for you? Or just the parts you want to observe or not?

For myself if I was going to get my back up against the wall and reject something with such passion I would do it wholly and completely or I would feel like a hypocrite.

This is not a trick question I'm just interested.

Abra be nice. Lol

I'll be as nice as I can be mg.

After reading your post here my very first thoughts would be:

What exactly are you suggesting that Christianity "owns"?

Can you be more precise?

You say:


I'm not sure what events you are referring to. Certain Christian holidays and rituals actually coincide with many pagan beliefs, events and traditions.

For example the birth of the God at the winter solstice at Yule has been associated with pagan religions long before it became associated with the birth of Jesus.

The is when the sun turns around and begins to rise again in the sky. That has been associated with the rebirth of the God long before the times of Jesus.

Same thing with Easter and the "resurrection" or rebirth of the God. In fact Easter actually got it's name from the pagan traditions. That is the time when the God is said to impregnate the Goddess to carry on the cycle of life. In Wicca it's called "The Great Rite". Pagans often used the symbol of the egg to represent this fertilization of the Goddess.

Ever wonder why eggs are associated with Easter?

What would Eggs have to do with someone resurrecting from a grave?

So both of those traditions and holidays existed long before Jesus' time.

So you'd need to be a bit more specific of what you believe to be uniquely "Christian" traditions and historical events, etc.

Personally I think you'd be really hard-pressed to find too many things that Christianity can truly claim original ownership of.

Was that nice enough?

I think it was very nice. I think its also a nice way to explain how I feel about religion being the 'blame' for anything in this world...

you sum it up here
(replace 'christianity' with 'religion')



What exactly are you suggesting that Christianity "owns"?

i'll take a look, cs, but the science/philosophy forum when i've visited seems alot of philosophy and not much science. never understood how philosophy and science got connected on a forum anyway. one has nothing to do with the other.

aww bogie,

But it does... The scientific method is a result of philosophy, not science. Hard materialism(empiricism) birthed science. A Phd is a philosophy doctorate.

I hope you join in.

I'm in total agreement with your sentiments here.

Science and philosophy are not the same thing.

Philosophy considers things are pure logic and thought, and that can take a whole lot of different twists and turns based on which premises a person starts out with.

Science is based on the scientific method of empirical observations and physical experiment.

Whilst it's true that scientist often hypothesis ideas using philosophical methods, those ideas don't become "science" until they can be shown to be the case in the lab, or via astronomical observations, or some other evidence that strongly suggests that the ideas are indeed an actual property of the physical universe.

So, yes, they are 'related' in practice. But in principle they are totally separate disciplines.

I too feel that they should be totally different forums. But I don't bother with those topics much on a dating site anyway.

There are entire science and philosophy forums on other web sites that do recognize the differences between those disciplines. So when I'm interested in science or philosophy I visit one of those.

and i've never understood the phd as related to science. why not a science doctorate? a missnomer if you ask me, course nobody ever does. lol. at any rate i'll not get into a debate about scientific methodology. i'm fully aware of the method and how it came to be and am not interested in convincing anybody. i checked out the correspondence thread as you asked and there too i choose not to participate. i've already stated my position on truth and it's obviously far afield from where you stand.