The Beast, new movie slated for 2006

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Also, you can't PROVE that something doesn't exist or never existed, the very notion is a contradiction. You can show that little or no evidence exists to support the claim of his existence, but you can't prove something never was.

Jason
Sorry to the OP for the digression but, Jason, how do you reconcile that sentiment with the WMD claim?
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
dornick

Do you find it amusing that it was also millentia before people questioned that the Earth was the center of the universe? (I could make a whole list here, but I think one item makes the point.)

You're comparing geocentrism with the existance of a certain man? If someone was wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe, it was because they made a bad assumption and there was no evidence to go against them. But asking whether some guy existed isn't something people generally get wrong. Historians 2000 years after the supposed date aren't exactly in the best position to say how history actually happened.

Come on you guys... billion people conspiracies don't happen
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Sad that Paul butchered Jesus' word and teachings so badly. Genius, though, I must say.

Jason
Guess that's why Bush does so well. People love sucking up propaganda. ;)

Now that's true. Jeez, Conjur that's what, two agreements in a week? Personal record for us :)

Jason
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

I'm not sure where you get the idea that nobody ever questioned his existence until just recently. Sounds pretty bogus to me.

Jason

I figured if people had been arguing that Jesus didn't exist, we'd have heard about it by now.

But this is still ridiculous. Nobody argues that Plato or Alexander the Great didn't exist even though they probably had as much influence. It's hilarious that people are arrogant enough to declare 2000 years of history false and claim that they have the truth.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Also, you can't PROVE that something doesn't exist or never existed, the very notion is a contradiction. You can show that little or no evidence exists to support the claim of his existence, but you can't prove something never was.

Jason
Sorry to the OP for the digression but, Jason, how do you reconcile that sentiment with the WMD claim?

what are you talking about? THe WMD claim was that our intelligence agencies believed there WERE WMD's based on assorted intelligence, satellite photos, testimony, etc. The President thought it was a credible threat, so did Congress, and bang, War. It's not that complex. As for anyone now trying to prove that WMD's never existed, I don't see how it's related in any meaningful way. Yeah, I get your point that we can't PROVE they ever existed, and it's a valid, legitimate point. I don't dispute that and never have. What I *have* said is that while we can't prove they *did* exist, neither can you or other war detractors prove that they *didn't* exist or that we were "Lied to" about it. It's easy to make the case that we had botched intelligence, but anything beyond that is mere conjecture.

In any case, we've discussed this in a zillion other threads, let's not pollute this one, OK? :)

Jason
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Sad that Paul butchered Jesus' word and teachings so badly. Genius, though, I must say.

Jason
Guess that's why Bush does so well. People love sucking up propaganda. ;)

Now that's true. Jeez, Conjur that's what, two agreements in a week? Personal record for us :)

Jason

Stop with that crazy talk or I'll have to whip out my Howard Dean scream.mp3 on yo azz! :p
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: dornick
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

I'm not sure where you get the idea that nobody ever questioned his existence until just recently. Sounds pretty bogus to me.

Jason

I figured if people had been arguing that Jesus didn't exist, we'd have heard about it by now.

But this is still ridiculous. Nobody argues that Plato or Alexander the Great didn't exist even though they probably had as much influence. It's hilarious that people are arrogant enough to declare 2000 years of history false and claim that they have the truth.

Well, I definitely agree with you that it's arrogant, especially for those of us who aren't archaeologists and/or historians (read: Most of us :). I'd say there's probably a good deal more evidence for the existence of Alexander and Plato (and please, don't forget Aristotle, Plato's much more intelligent student!) than for Jesus, but even so I don't find it useful or legitimate to declare unequivocally that Jesus never existed.

I'll say that I think the *Supernatural* claims are utterly silly and dubious at best, but I won't deny that there's still some valid lessons to be learned from the story, whether it's fiction or fact.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Sad that Paul butchered Jesus' word and teachings so badly. Genius, though, I must say.

Jason
Guess that's why Bush does so well. People love sucking up propaganda. ;)

Now that's true. Jeez, Conjur that's what, two agreements in a week? Personal record for us :)

Jason

Stop with that crazy talk or I'll have to whip out my Howard Dean scream.mp3 on yo azz! :p

Oh, that's fvckin' funny. Now I'm gonna be *hearing* the Howard Dean scream all day long! :)

Jason
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Well, I definitely agree with you that it's arrogant, especially for those of us who aren't archaeologists and/or historians (read: Most of us :). I'd say there's probably a good deal more evidence for the existence of Alexander and Plato (and please, don't forget Aristotle, Plato's much more intelligent student!) than for Jesus, but even so I don't find it useful or legitimate to declare unequivocally that Jesus never existed.

I actually had Aristotle written and changed it to Alex cuz I didn't want 2 philosophers.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

I'll say that I think the *Supernatural* claims are utterly silly and dubious at best, but I won't deny that there's still some valid lessons to be learned from the story, whether it's fiction or fact.

I agree that the supernatural stuff is much more dificult to validate than simple existence. My point was just that those who simply write of Jesus's existence as myth are just pricks.

BTW, my faith in Christianity is not based in the existence of Jesus, but in the coherency of the religion as a whole.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Sad that Paul butchered Jesus' word and teachings so badly. Genius, though, I must say.

Jason
Guess that's why Bush does so well. People love sucking up propaganda. ;)

Now that's true. Jeez, Conjur that's what, two agreements in a week? Personal record for us :)

Jason
Stop with that crazy talk or I'll have to whip out my Howard Dean scream.mp3 on yo azz! :p
Oh, that's fvckin' funny. Now I'm gonna be *hearing* the Howard Dean scream all day long! :)

Jason
Damn...thought I had that on my website. Well, enjoy this until tomorrow (I'll put it up there tomorrow ;) )
Sovereignty:D
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: dornick

I agree that the supernatural stuff is much more dificult to validate than simple existence. My point was just that those who simply write of Jesus's existence as myth are just pricks.

BTW, my faith in Christianity is not based in the existence of Jesus, but in the coherency of the religion as a whole.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of Christianity? :confused:
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: dornick

I agree that the supernatural stuff is much more dificult to validate than simple existence. My point was just that those who simply write of Jesus's existence as myth are just pricks.

BTW, my faith in Christianity is not based in the existence of Jesus, but in the coherency of the religion as a whole.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of Christianity? :confused:


what do you mean?
 

thriemus

Senior member
Mar 2, 2005
215
0
0
More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else in the world, ever, since the beginning.

Sorta sad isnt it. I live in Northern Ireland and here religion is a daily thing in the day to day running of our lives and it pisses me off. The single, narrow mindness of people never ceases to amaze me. However, the UK's continuing saga of American emulation (albeit decades behind as a society) we are now moving on to racisim en mass. With the EU opening up borders now we have something else to fight about; Immigrants. The uk is turing into a melting pot much the same way America did decades ago and it is creating a situation which is going to get alot worse before it gets any better.

I guess people just cant get on with each other as a whole. The person is smart, people are stupid.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
They use religion as a excuse but politics and greed are really the true reason.

Look at the stuff that goes on in the west bank... It really has nothing to do with religion what they really want is land for their people!
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: dornick
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: dornick

I agree that the supernatural stuff is much more dificult to validate than simple existence. My point was just that those who simply write of Jesus's existence as myth are just pricks.

BTW, my faith in Christianity is not based in the existence of Jesus, but in the coherency of the religion as a whole.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of Christianity? :confused:

what do you mean?

What makes Christianity... Christianty is the beilef that the Sun of God or Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again.

 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: Tabb
They use religion as a excuse but politics and greed are really the true reason.

Look at the stuff that goes on in the west bank... It really has nothing to do with religion what they really want is land for their people!

Not their land. Never was.

But they can't stand Jews living next to them and want to drive them into the sea like they have stated. At least the several terrorist groups operating in that region.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: raildogg
I'll take this to mean 'No, I don't have any examples and am content to make generalizations that make me look stupid.'

Are you hard headed? Or are you denying reality? Just look at the Islamic threads in which the author discusses growing radical Islam. Great name calling. Great man.

Again, I was defending a great religion that is being tarnished by the anti-religious folk here. And they especially target christianty. I will defend chrisitianty and other religions of the world as long as I'm allowed here. That does not make me religious. Can't you understand that?

Iraq and Afghanistan were both threats to America and our national interests. Iraq is debatable somewhat while Afghanistan should have been bombarded the day right after 9/11. Heh, its down to 10,000 lives eh? Well tell that to you're fellow lefties who claim Bush murdered 200,00 in Iraq.

Again, where is my double standard? (Oh and lovely name calling, I guess when you can't present facts, thats all you can do)

Ah, the tolerant, open-minded left.

Oh and about you're sig, I stand by that statement. Give me some hard evidence that Fox News is biased.

Meh, I would consider Christianity having a very violent past. It's rather disgusting really, it's abused by leaders consistantly and used to blind people.

How where Iraq and Afganistan threats to our national interests? Afganistan itself wasn't really a threat until they wouldn't hand over Osama Bin Laden and his group. That made them a threat towards our national security. You're right though, Iraq was a threat to our national interests. We're mass consumer of oil and we need some more! Afganistan should have not have been bombarded a day after, we lacked credible evidence that the taliban or more specifically Afganistan was infact behind the events of september 11th. Waiting for credible evidence and getting prepared was better than a "knee-jerk" reaction.

Hard evidence that fox news is biased? Go watch it, they discuss the news, they don't report it! Look at the indiviuals that are on the channel on a dalily basis. Ann Culter, Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity. All very republican.


 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Tabb
They use religion as a excuse but politics and greed are really the true reason.

Look at the stuff that goes on in the west bank... It really has nothing to do with religion what they really want is land for their people!

Not their land. Never was.

But they can't stand Jews living next to them and want to drive them into the sea like they have stated. At least the several terrorist groups operating in that region.

Never said it was and maybe it is. I honestly don't know. Just pointing out the fact it isn't really about religion there's more too it.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
dornick

You're comparing geocentrism with the existance of a certain man? If someone was wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe, it was because they made a bad assumption and there was no evidence to go against them. But asking whether some guy existed isn't something people generally get wrong. Historians 2000 years after the supposed date aren't exactly in the best position to say how history actually happened.

Come on you guys... billion people conspiracies don't happen

So people don't get it wrong? How about King Arthur, Robin Hood, Noah.

And the people involved in the conspiracy numbered a handfull, not a billion. The billion are just the ones duped by it. No one wrote about Jesus until at least a generation after his reported death. The people that wrote about him never even knew him. He appeared in no public records. The people who did write had an agenda, which was to split their cult off from Judeism.

You asked before why people did not question his existance before. They did, and they were killed for it. That kind of treatment does not foster publishing your ideas and evidence.
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: dornick
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: dornick

I agree that the supernatural stuff is much more dificult to validate than simple existence. My point was just that those who simply write of Jesus's existence as myth are just pricks.

BTW, my faith in Christianity is not based in the existence of Jesus, but in the coherency of the religion as a whole.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of Christianity? :confused:

what do you mean?

What makes Christianity... Christianty is the beilef that the Sun of God or Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again.


Yes, this is what I believe. Don't get me wrong, I was saying that the reason I'm a Christian is not Jesus himself but the worldview as a whole.
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

You're comparing geocentrism with the existance of a certain man? If someone was wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe, it was because they made a bad assumption and there was no evidence to go against them. But asking whether some guy existed isn't something people generally get wrong. Historians 2000 years after the supposed date aren't exactly in the best position to say how history actually happened.

Come on you guys... billion people conspiracies don't happen

So people don't get it wrong? How about King Arthur, Robin Hood, Noah.

And the people involved in the conspiracy numbered a handfull, not a billion. The billion are just the ones duped by it. No one wrote about Jesus until at least a generation after his reported death. The people that wrote about him never even knew him. He appeared in no public records. The people who did write had an agenda, which was to split their cult off from Judeism.

You asked before why people did not question his existance before. They did, and they were killed for it. That kind of treatment does not foster publishing your ideas and evidence.

I don't really have any evidence that Jesus existed. My original point was that it's highly arrogant for people to claim 2000 prior years of history false because they think they have some sort of special perspective. I'm not going to argue evidence for his existence because I think it's stupid to try and revise history two mileniums after it happened.

Contrary to what's populary held in our time period, people in the past were not idiots. If someone just made up a story about a guy and tried to push it as a world religion, it wouldn't last too long.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
So people don't get it wrong? How about King Arthur, Robin Hood, Noah.

And the people involved in the conspiracy numbered a handfull, not a billion. The billion are just the ones duped by it. No one wrote about Jesus until at least a generation after his reported death. The people that wrote about him never even knew him. He appeared in no public records. The people who did write had an agenda, which was to split their cult off from Judeism.

You asked before why people did not question his existance before. They did, and they were killed for it. That kind of treatment does not foster publishing your ideas and evidence.
The people who did write about him were killed for it, yet they did it anyway. That would lead me to believe they had some good reason for doing so. When did Christianity kill people for speaking against it? Not any time close to 0 AD. They would have had no vehicle to do so until the 300's when Constantine converted the Roman Empire from paganism to Christianity after the 'miracle' that he experienced converting him.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
dornick

You're comparing geocentrism with the existance of a certain man? If someone was wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe, it was because they made a bad assumption and there was no evidence to go against them. But asking whether some guy existed isn't something people generally get wrong. Historians 2000 years after the supposed date aren't exactly in the best position to say how history actually happened.

Come on you guys... billion people conspiracies don't happen

So people don't get it wrong? How about King Arthur, Robin Hood, Noah.

And the people involved in the conspiracy numbered a handfull, not a billion. The billion are just the ones duped by it. No one wrote about Jesus until at least a generation after his reported death. The people that wrote about him never even knew him. He appeared in no public records. The people who did write had an agenda, which was to split their cult off from Judeism.

You asked before why people did not question his existance before. They did, and they were killed for it. That kind of treatment does not foster publishing your ideas and evidence.
Well, there were writings from those who knew Jesus (Gospel of Mary Magdelene - I mean...she was Mrs. Jesus, after all. I think she knew him! Gospel of Thomas, too). It's just that the Church of Rome decided not to use their writings or their writings were altered to suit their agenda of a divine Jesus born of an immaculate conception that was crucified and physically rose from the dead 3 days later (when we all know that "rising from the dead" means being restored spiritually after a period of ex-communication.)