Free For all - Open Discussions and DebatesI am confusedThis would only be a presupposition on my part if there was no evidence. There is a wealth of evidence showing how all ancient civilisations were governed to lesser or greater degrees by superstition. Look at the Druids in England during the Dark Ages. Look at the Aztecs in Mexico in the 15th Century. Look at the Ancient Eqyptians. Through a wealth of archealogical evidence, these ancient cultures are showing us how they related to the world around them and how they sought to understand things that amazed or confounded them, through superstitious belief. This is perfectly reasonable. For example, for an ancient people living long before the enlightenment, seeing the sun rise in the morning would have been a truly awe-inspiring sight. They had no way of understanding that the Sun is actually a giant nuclear reactor at the centre of our galaxy, round which we and the other planets of our galaxy rotate. Instead, they had to invent the notion of gods. In the absence of any scientific enquiry, how else could they explain such a phenomenon except through the creation of some sort of sun god? These types of superstitious beliefs grew into cults and eventually became religions. Indeed, the modern Bible finds it's archetypes in older mythologies and cults. (This is not an assumption, the evidence is there for anyone who wants to look at it.) The story of Christ finds it's origins in older pagan mythologies which would have been well-known at the time. Christ conforms perfectly to a mythical stereotype which was already well-established by the time the gospels were written.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense again. Did you actually think through that statement before you started typing? What I see as rational is that which is backed up by good strong evidence and conforms to logic and reason. In what way could this be a genetic 'mistake'? Indeed, are you suggesting that your God is given to making mistakes? As to my alleged apelike ancestor, well I wonder to what degree you've studied Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If you've studied it at all, did you approach it with a clear open mind, or with an assumption that the Bible must be right so therefore all scientific evidence available in the Natural World must be wrong? What you and others like you seem unable to grasp, is that scientists don't 'assume' their ideas are correct. Science does not function through assumption and presupposition. Your faith in God and your belief that the Bible offers a true historical account is based on assumption and presupposition. It is you who have no evidence to back up your claims. Have you actually seen God? No. (If you think you have, then you need to see a Pychiatrist) Have you actually seen Christ? No. Do you have one single scrap of evidence that proves the Bible to be an accurate account? No. On the other hand, given what we know about ancient cults, myths, superstitions and religions, not to mention our understanding of the physical world, does it seem remotely likely or reasonable that the Bible offers an infallible and factual account? You will say yes of course, but the answer to any sane, rational and educated mind has to be no. You see, this is where you really demonstrate your ignorance I'm afraid. Current theories about the age of the Universe, and about Evolution and Naturalism ARE based on observable facts. If you had properly read anything about cosmology for example, you would understand how scientists reach the conclusions they do. I will happily give examples, except you are clearly so uneducated in this field, it is difficult to know where to begin. You need to open your mind, think freely for yourself and learn. There is a wealth of information out there that you can research for yourself, and no scientist is going to demand that you believe in fairy tales. Science is a discipline which requires you to ask questions without bias, to observe and to learn from your obervations. Science will never require you to just assume that you are correct. However, religion requires that you read an ancient book and ACCEPT it as truth without any evidence whatsoever to back up that assumption. The only questions one is allowed to ask are ones like, 'who is Jesus Christ?' which is not a real question at all but rather a presupposition. If you want to turn it into a proper question, you should be asking, 'what factual evidence do we have to support the existence of Jesus Christ, and do we have any evidence to suggest he may not have existed?' You then examine the evidence and draw your own logical conclusions. But your conclusions must be based on evidence, not on what you want the answer to be. You must also be prepared to re-evaluate or develop your ideas if further evidence comes to light. However, simply being told that Jesus Christ existed does not constitute evidence. And being told it is a matter of faith is just another way of saying 'we don't have a scrap of evidence to justify our beliefs, but we're going to believe it's true anyway'. You see? There you go pre-supposing again. What evidence do you have that proves God exists? You have asserted this to be a fact, so now you have the responsibility to produce the evidence. If you reply with another question such as 'what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?' that is nothing but evasion. I want to know what EVIDENCE you have to back up your assertion. Furthermore, I want to know what EVIDENCE you have that proves God 'knows everything and recorded it for us' as you put it. Let's see if you can respond to this challenge in a rational and educated manner. If you can present me with such proof, I will reassess my current view in light of your evidence. Your statement is wholly accurate if it is applied to YOU. It is you who is starting with a pre-supposition as I have already explained. If you automatically assume God exists and that the Bible provides a factual account, without any evidence to support those claims, it is YOU who will never be able to arrive at the truth. When I first read the Bible, I did not automatically assume it was either factual or mythical. I kept an open mind, and looked at the evidence. The evidence shows that a literal interpretation of the Bible is at violent odds with what we KNOW from science and the observable natural world. Whilst it cannot yet be conclusively proven that Jesus did not exist, there is a very great deal of evidence suggesting that he is indeed a myth. Certainly, the evidence supporting his mythical status is far greater and far more compelling and varied than what scant evidence can be found in support of his factual existence. Personally, I suspect there will come a time when it will be proven that Jesus Christ is a mythical figure, but I am convinced that will not stop people like you believing in his existence anyway. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame