fact: bible chronology says the flood occurred between 2348 and 2370 bce, depending on which scholar you listen to.
fact: the great pyramid of giza was constructed 200 years before, in c. 2560 bce..
so, if you believe in a literal interpretation of noah's flood, you believe that the egyptians built a great civilization, were destroyed by the flood in 2370 bce, and then somehow, they reappeared immediately after the flood, picked right back up where they left off without skipping a cultural beat.. oh, and isn't it ironic that legitimately studying the great pyramid of giza debunks jw mythology now?
Bugbear
They are not written on paper or Papyrus, they are written of stones in original. They are not transcriptions of translated transcriptions who is translated destroyed and translitterated again.
You forgot to mention "and guaranteed free from lying christard inserts".
fact: bible chronology says the flood occurred between 2348 and 2370 bce, depending on which scholar you listen to.
fact: the great pyramid of giza was constructed 200 years before, in c. 2560 bce..
so, if you believe in a literal interpretation of noah's flood, you believe that the egyptians built a great civilization, were destroyed by the flood in 2370 bce, and then somehow, they reappeared immediately after the flood, picked right back up where they left off without skipping a cultural beat.. oh, and isn't it ironic that legitimately studying the great pyramid of giza debunks jw mythology now?
Cappytan
Fact: Bible chronology says the flood occurred between 2348 and 2370 BCE, depending on which scholar you listen to.
Fact: the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed 200 years before, in c. 2560 BCE.
Well, I wasn't around at the time of the great flood (or was that the Big Rain (Vicar of Dibley-style?)) but I've been to see the pyramids and even crawled around in one. I can assure you there isn't one tide mark. Maybe I should have gone to Specsavers?
i want you to see how fake people are who pretend their open-minded, dr. erhman try's to reason with someone whose mind is totally made up.
the topic is whether there was a man named jesus and paul, the infidel atheist get's owned because he shows his true colors!.
1. when would you tell this fool he stupid or willfully ignoring the facts?.
Sparrowdown
Here we go.
There we went.
i want you to see how fake people are who pretend their open-minded, dr. erhman try's to reason with someone whose mind is totally made up.
the topic is whether there was a man named jesus and paul, the infidel atheist get's owned because he shows his true colors!.
1. when would you tell this fool he stupid or willfully ignoring the facts?.
The fact is that there is no CONTEMPORARY evidence that jesus ever existed. Given that he went around Galilee preaching to 5,000+, performing miracles, preaching at the local temples and upsetting the userer's tables, that's a bit odd, especially as we had all those Romans writing things down.
The first non-christard reference that occurs was by Josephus in 94/95 AD (60 - 61 after jesus popped his cloggs). The two passages that refer to jesus were little more than a sentence one of which has been shown to be a definite insert by early christards. Looks like they lied even back then. There's question marks over the second also. In addition, Josephus lived less that 30 minutes walk from where jesus lived and yet never mentions it. Josephus' references are secondary pieces of evidence questionable at best. What was Josephus' source? Who knows, he doesn't say.
The next reference doesn't occur until 106 AD in Tacitus. That's 87 years after jesus popped his cloggs. This source is thought to be genuine and not a christard insert. However, at best, this is a tertiary source. What was Tacitus source? Who knows, he doesn't say either. Again, this source amounts to a sentence or two.
So, the 3 sources amount to less than a paragraph between them, one of which even scholars dismiss as being a christard insert and non of which are contemporary with jesus.
This IS the evidence for the existence of jesus - apart from the babble.
For those who wish to know more, visit Carrier's lectures on Youtube.
what was it that moved your child to return to jehovah?
asks the speaker.. .
well it was the missed association with the family, says brenda sutton proudly and unflinchingly.. andd heres why, i had always told our kids... i would die for you, i love you, would die for you, but if you ever leave jehovah i wouldnt be there.
Don't ya just love jovies?
if crisis of conscience is one of the top watchtower doctrine killers, what is the coc of theism?.
i'd like to read a book, or other material that does the best job logically arguing for atheism.. i've not read any darwin, however it is my assumption that his focus is primarily on evolution, is this correct?
if you were to recommend one book or a few pieces of reading material, which do the best job of defending atheism, what would they be?.
Millie210
Continuing in devils advocate mode...the thing that gives me pause in the can/cant prove God does exist argument, is that atheists are no happier than everyone else.
Over the centuries, christards have murdered between 100 and 200 million souls. That doesn't include those souls that they raped, pillaged, tortured and enslaved.
christinsanity is the most murderous cult the world has ever seen. Not bad for a cult that insists that it is about peace and love.
Other religtards have murdered countless millions too.
I don't know about you but I'm happier not being a religtard than being one and condoning its history.
so this weekend there was a part about not following jesus at a distance.
the speaker made a big point of stating that any baptized jw male who was not either appointed ms/elder, or at the very least "reaching out" actively, was in fact following jesus at a distance.
he said that the only way to live through the big a was to follow jesus closely.
if crisis of conscience is one of the top watchtower doctrine killers, what is the coc of theism?.
i'd like to read a book, or other material that does the best job logically arguing for atheism.. i've not read any darwin, however it is my assumption that his focus is primarily on evolution, is this correct?
if you were to recommend one book or a few pieces of reading material, which do the best job of defending atheism, what would they be?.
D4G
My point is, a single book will not do it.
Some of us don't need a book at all. We just 'know' that there is no god. The idea is just so preposterous.
For some, 1,000 books will not be enough. They want to believe in god and that's the end of it.
The bulk of the people are somewhere in the middle. Some people need a range of books to be convinced. Some just need the right book.
Which ever camp you are in people, ffs, get on, read, accept that god doesn't exist. and lets get this farcical episode in Man's history out of the way so that we can move on.
In the years to come, future Man is going to look back on this part of Man's history and say, "They believed in what? A sky wizard that knew all, heard all and saw all! WHY?"
It's embarrassing.
a few weeks ago, these two jovies turned up on my doorstep.
being in a good mood that particular day, i told them that if they could prove that god existed, i'd become a jovie - and i meant every word.. they gave me two documents which they asked me read and told me that they'd be back in a week.
the first was called "was life created?
Telemetry11
Clearly there are no assumed mechanisms in my argument.
Clearly there are assumed mechanism(s) in your argument. You quote a probability. That probability is based on the creation of a protein and given that the protein is assembled in some way, shape or form, a mechanism must be involved, even if it is randomness.
Anyone can Google and cut and paste without understanding. Obviously you are one such person.
If your stats are correct, then life cannot have evolved.
If life didn't evolve, then, the sky wizard did it.
It is obvious that the sky wizard doesn't exist.
Therefore, the stats quoted by you are incorrect and a mechanism exists where the stas are totally different and allow for the evolution of life within the known time frames.
if crisis of conscience is one of the top watchtower doctrine killers, what is the coc of theism?.
i'd like to read a book, or other material that does the best job logically arguing for atheism.. i've not read any darwin, however it is my assumption that his focus is primarily on evolution, is this correct?
if you were to recommend one book or a few pieces of reading material, which do the best job of defending atheism, what would they be?.
D4G
The God Delusion. I read it in 2006, and it provided a good primer for at least helping me understand what atheism really is.
Atheism isn't a belief system. It is simply and merely a response to an assertion that god exists.
