The Zeitgeist Movement

[AGAG]

Every design is forced. We would live on trees if we wouldn't. Perfect life!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SHITmate!

:pacscat: :pacscat:

[AGAG]

I TURNED THE PAGE ONCE MORE!

What is this? IS DER ZEITGEIST causing this?? Ach, kalte wirklichkeit. Achhh, ach, acht, echt...

[AGAG]

Neben die Straße scheißt ein Mann.

La la la.

[mayhem-for-all]

I thought the circular desing was meant for creating artificial islands to live on with solar power and fish to keep things going.

[Ultimo Mordecai]

Every design is forced. We would live on trees if we wouldn't. Perfect life!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SHITmate!

:pacscat: :pacscat:

What I meant by 'forced' was a design that requires massively altering the landscape when it's not required, or otherwise performing actions that waste far more energy than you would have needed to spend with a better design. No point in arguing the semantics of the word 'forced', also your spamming is unnecessary and somewhat annoying.

@mayhem
The purpose of the circle city is to enclose the maximum volume into the smallest area, so that the least amount of energy needs to expended in transportation (and as a bonus, the least amount of wilderness needs to disturbed). Of course for cities on the ocean (which I'm personally still skeptical about, I'd need to see more evidence for it first) there would be no reason to use any shape other than circle, since you wouldn't have to worry about the terrain.

[AGAG]

also your spamming is unnecessary and somewhat annoying.

What a contumelious remark.

I know I know.. But The events were these: I got high on cigarettes and fucked my neighbours birch while they were out on the arboretum buying a new mango-tree. Now the police is running a thorough investigation and I need to find a painless way to remove all the stems and splinters without leaving any marks or certifying evidence.

[AAAAAAAAAA]

also your spamming is unnecessary and somewhat annoying.

Do NOT talk to my woman like that, or I'll have you tarred, feathered, deep fried and sprinkled with oregono like the chicken thigh you are. Capiche?? :pissed3:

[AGAG]

also your spamming is unnecessary and somewhat annoying.

Do NOT talk to my woman like that, or I'll have you tarred, feathered, deep fried and sprinkled with oregono like the chicken thigh you are. Capiche?? :pissed3:

You are too sweet :luv4:

[browneyedgirl]

Makes sense considering this is a movement which values logic and rationality!

YES! It is very logical to make cities that are circles and that they have rings for every major human activity and endeavour. It reminded me of an anus and now I cannot help to ass-ociate Zeitgeist with that.

I gotta be honest, I totally thought that when I first saw the circular city design too!

Of course we have to remember that the circular city would only be possible in absolutely ideal locations, where the terrain is relatively flat without too many obstacles. The point of the circular city is to provide maximum efficiency in transportation, but if it would make more sense to design the city in another way, then the circle design wouldn't be used. The idea is always to be openminded, and adapt to the situation at hand, rather than try to force a design that wouldn't fit the environment.

Wasn't the city of Atlantis supposedly a circular city? And, weren't these people well advanced technologically for that time?
Or do you believe there ever was a city Atlantis?

[mayhem-for-all]

Wasn't the city of Atlantis supposedly a circular city? And, weren't these people well advanced technologically for that time?
Or do you believe there ever was a city Atlantis?

Of couse there was. It was destroyed by an explosion.
They like all of Minoan culture had very advanced technology. For example they had a sewer system and toilets that functioned with water.

[Black_Kitty]

Every design is forced. We would live on trees if we wouldn't. Perfect life!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SHITmate!

:pacscat: :pacscat:

What I meant by 'forced' was a design that requires massively altering the landscape when it's not required, or otherwise performing actions that waste far more energy than you would have needed to spend with a better design. No point in arguing the semantics of the word 'forced', also your spamming is unnecessary and somewhat annoying.

@mayhem
The purpose of the circle city is to enclose the maximum volume into the smallest area, so that the least amount of energy needs to expended in transportation (and as a bonus, the least amount of wilderness needs to disturbed). Of course for cities on the ocean (which I'm personally still skeptical about, I'd need to see more evidence for it first) there would be no reason to use any shape other than circle, since you wouldn't have to worry about the terrain.

Well...every design alter the landscape because you have to built foundations. I'm not that sure that a circular design enclose the maximum volume...in a perfect world yes, but in the real world, you are losign A LOT of space because every single furniture is made for an orthogonal world. If you create a circular city (or building) and you want to keep some space...you need to make the furniture with it
The perfect exemple is the biosphere by Buckminster fuller...it was design to enclose the maximum space in a sphere...but in the reality, there's a lot of unusable space.

[Ultimo Mordecai]

I don't think I'm well informed enough on the "Atlantis" issue to make a judgement call on it's validity, so I'll just leave it at "I don't know", although I did recently watch a documentary about how the location of Atlantis may have been misjudged, and it's actually just an ancient Minoan city on land. As far as 'advanced' technology, the Minoans were far ahead of their time (both technologically and socially) but they were still far technologically inferior to us at present (socially is another question though.....)

@black_kitty: Yes landscaping and such would need to be done, but again, the key is to keep it as MINIMAL as possible, and not do any unnecessary damage. And obviously if the city was made circular, things like furniture would be built to take advantage of the shape.
Also you're making the mistake of thinking a circle is the same as a sphere. The shape of the city is 2d and thus only determines the way the city would be arranged on the ground. Anything built above ground (such as the actual buildings themselves) would be built in whatever way would work best for the situation and the desired result.
The problem with a sphere is that humans cannot fly, and thus the uppermost parts of the sphere would be difficult to make useful. But again, we're not talking about a 3d sphere, just a 2d circle on the ground. If anything, I would think that the buildings themselves would be shaped almost like curved trapezoids so that they could interlock and form a nice ring around the circle.
Though as I said before, there is no rule that a city MUST be built in a circle. If there was a big freakin mountain in the way, it would probably make more sense to build around it, even if it disrupts the ideal circular shape.

[AGAG]

Please, don't forget the main attraction on the center.

[Ultimo Mordecai]

Wow, looks like this thread is pretty much dead....unless someone were to bump it

So just to repeat the question I was asking earlier (copied and pasted):

Imagine a world in which all goods and services are available in such high quantity due to automation that there would be no need to be indebted in any way to any one for obtaining anything, unless you felt like it. Without money, scientific research would accelerate at a rediculous rate (saying this from firsthand experience with research), so this society would also be far more technologically advanced than our current one. Disease and aging could be nearly eliminated completely (I can elaborate on this point if you wish, mostly because I did a bit of first hand research on this myself).
Anyways, this world is one where every need is met, advanced technology is freely available to everyone, education on any subject is freely available to anyone, things like disease, poverty, crime, war, etc. have been rendered obsolete (again, I can eloborate if you wish on how any of this would be possible).

In a world like this, what in the world would you do with your time? (keeping in mind that you might live to be a healthy 200 years old)

[mayhem-for-all]

Wow, looks like this thread is pretty much dead....unless someone were to bump it

So just to repeat the question I was asking earlier (copied and pasted):

Imagine a world in which all goods and services are available in such high quantity due to automation that there would be no need to be indebted in any way to any one for obtaining anything, unless you felt like it. Without money, scientific research would accelerate at a rediculous rate (saying this from firsthand experience with research), so this society would also be far more technologically advanced than our current one. Disease and aging could be nearly eliminated completely (I can elaborate on this point if you wish, mostly because I did a bit of first hand research on this myself).
Anyways, this world is one where every need is met, advanced technology is freely available to everyone, education on any subject is freely available to anyone, things like disease, poverty, crime, war, etc. have been rendered obsolete (again, I can eloborate if you wish on how any of this would be possible).

In a world like this, what in the world would you do with your time? (keeping in mind that you might live to be a healthy 200 years old)

Well the word Utopia has some negativity in it nowadays but how would you comparethis world to Platos republic?

[robocop656]

In a world like this, what in the world would you do with your time? (keeping in mind that you might live to be a healthy 200 years old)

Check the Strato forum, duh.
:bounce1: :bounce1: :bounce1:

[Jabi]

Sorry about continuing off-topic, but I just thought I'd drop my 2 cents on the religion matter. In my opinion, one of the most important reasons Christianity makes no sense to the vast majority of people is they have never heard the original gospel. Religious tradition has taught us that average Joes and Janes are expendable, and God only redeems his "elect few". The rest will spend eternity in darkness and torment. However, over time I've come to believe this wasn't the original message of Jesus and the apostles. For all of you spiritual seekers out there: I suggest you visit the following site:

http://www.lighthouselibrary.com

Select "Authors Directory" --> "All Authors" --> "V" --> "Van Assen, Dora". Read the book and take a look at the diagram. It explains a lot.

You have managed to poke at what is perhaps the biggest issue I struggle with. The writings of John Calvin. Understand that the ideas of election and predestination are found NOWHERE in the Gospel, and while they are clearly referenced in Ephesians, the idea of what is and isn't election is not covered, nor is the nature of who is elect, whether the "unelect" exist, or whether election means irresistible salvation. Calvin's ideas (And reformed theology as a whole) are based purely on conjecture, and in this man's opinion, a sense of general irresponsibility in the fate of the world

Sorry about the late reply, I forgot to follow the thread. Didn't really expect serious discussion to arise, considering the current state of the forum.

Anyway...

I believe that neither Arminians nor Calvinists are right. Both camps have certain things right, but both camps are also missing something important.

Calvinists are correct when they claim that God is the author of salvation. Sinners can take no credit for making the right choice. Even this is the gift of God to the sinner.

Arminians are correct in claiming that salvation is for everyone, not just an elect few.

Paul explained in his letter to Corinthians "As in Adam ALL die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." The confusion on the matter comes because both Arminians and Calvinists believe in eternal torment.

Taking a look at the church history, a few important words were mistranslated, resulting in various forms of false doctrine. One of these is the Greek word aion, which is an age with a beginning and an end. Mistranslation of this word led to the belief that God punishes forever. That is why Calvin's idea of election seems so ridiculous to Arminians. Anyone who understands God's character knows that there is no justice in eternal torment. Anyone who understands God's character knows that His will is that everyone would be saved. Calvinists know that God is all powerful, and that His purpose cannot be thwarted. That is why Calvinists have such a hard time accepting Arminian views.

The thing is, as I've said, they are both right and they are both wrong.

If they both could take a good look at what Paul had to say, then they would understand. We already know that he said "As in Adam ALL die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." But do you know what he said next? "Each in his own turn." The reason this is not taken into account is also a result of the mistranslation of the word aion.

Calvinists' understanding of the concept of the elect is clouded by their failure to understand aion. In this aion, God is calling to Himself a group of people who're the firstfruits.

God does not do this to exclude everyone else. No, it is just the opposite. God does this to include everyone else. The elect are called to be ministers of reconciliation. Paul explained this concept in the Ephesians and Colossians. Here, take a look:

Eph 1:10 in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him; 11 in whom also we did obtain an inheritance, being foreordained according to the purpose of Him who the all things is working according to the counsel of His will,

Col 1:20 and through him [Jesus] to reconcile the all things to himself -- having made peace through the blood of his cross -- through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens.

The elect are called to be ministers of reconciliation.

For further info one can check the booklet at Lighthouse Library.

[mayhem-for-all]

We need a new thread for religions.
I just can't take your religion related nonsense so I will propably have a philosophical outburst soon so be prepared.

[Rebel]

We need a new thread for religions.
I just can't take your religion related nonsense so I will propably have a philosophical outburst soon so be prepared.

The Atheistic counterargument against religion is downright laughable, the display of ignorance and double standard displayed by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" is unbelievable

[Carcass]

We need a new thread for religions.
I just can't take your religion related nonsense so I will propably have a philosophical outburst soon so be prepared.

The Atheistic counterargument against religion is downright laughable, the display of ignorance and double standard displayed by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" is unbelievable

You sound just like Dawkins.

[Rebel]

We need a new thread for religions.
I just can't take your religion related nonsense so I will propably have a philosophical outburst soon so be prepared.

The Atheistic counterargument against religion is downright laughable, the display of ignorance and double standard displayed by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" is unbelievable

You sound just like Dawkins.

It was kind of intentional. But if you take a serious study of Christian apolegetics vs. the works of Dawkins and others, you'll find that the theist argument is FAR stronger than the naturalist argument.

The funniest part of The God Delusion to me is where Dawkins talks about "St. Paul writing the letter to the Hebrews". Dawkins is completely unwilling to engage any developed Christian theology.

As a Christian, I believe wholeheartedly and fully that Jesus Christ, the prophesied Messiah of the Jewish scriptures, came for the remission of all sins, and to offer the gift of absolute grace. This was achieved through the key issue, the absolutely most important part of proving or disproving Christianity, the death, and subsequent Resurrection, of Jesus Christ. My faith's foundation is on his crucifixion, and after 3 days, return from the dead.

The basic atheist argument that many (Including some in this thread) stop at, is that religion is laughable because people can't rise from the dead.

My response?
I wish I could make a bigger point with this, but caps lock looks stupid, and big fonts are unnecessary, so please just stick with me here, because this is the biggest point.
It is impossible for someone to die and rise again after 3 days, the entire point, the entire idea, behind a miracle, is that it is something that is otherwise impossible. To that resurrection is impossible only brings you to the start of the argument. What nobody seems really willing to examine is, "If this is so impossible, why is it, even in 40 and 50 AD, within the same generation of Christ, were people willing to be put to death for that belief that they had seen the risen Christ", and it's something that goes WAY beyond simple illusions or trickery.

[Stealth]

if you take a serious study of Christian apolegetics vs. the works of Dawkins and others, you'll find that the theist argument is FAR stronger than the naturalist argument

Not at all.

[mayhem-for-all]

The funniest part of The God Delusion to me is where Dawkins talks about "St. Paul writing the letter to the Hebrews". Dawkins is completely unwilling to engage any developed Christian theology.

So you read it?
Or did you just read some fundamentalist site critisizing it?

As a Christian, I believe wholeheartedly and fully that Jesus Christ, the prophesied Messiah of the Jewish scriptures, came for the remission of all sins, and to offer the gift of absolute grace. This was achieved through the key issue, the absolutely most important part of proving or disproving Christianity, the death, and subsequent Resurrection, of Jesus Christ. My faith's foundation is on his crucifixion, and after 3 days, return from the dead.

Now actually here you didn't say anything to prove why the book is laughably wrong or anything even close to it.

Are you familiar with this? http://www.skepsis.fi/haaste/

If you read the book you also know about the great Praying test that showed that praying has no effects on health. If you say that science can't really prove something like that then we have a lot of counter arguments that you should have read while reading God Delusion. One of mine for example would be that science is neutral toward religion and if there is some way you can make even more neutral it will be implemented on scientific method even possibly changing the Paradigm.

The funniest part of The God Delusion to me is where Dawkins talks about "St. Paul writing the letter to the Hebrews". Dawkins is completely unwilling to engage any developed Christian theology.

That is an odd combination of bad arguments number 1 and 2. Attacking a person and using a Straw Man.

Thirdly Dawkins himself countered this one in case you didn't happen to notice while being busy to not to read the actual book.
One doesn't need to study the differences between clothes in a univesity to notice that the emperor is naked.

The basic atheist argument that many (Including some in this thread) stop at, is that religion is laughable because people can't rise from the dead.

Another Straw Man
(you also used number 3 and 12 earlier)

Should I respond in kind? Ok the basic theist argument is to say God exists. So you are wrong.
(The key to my deduction: 1. Ball is a round object 2. Bananas taste good Ergo: God Exists) And that is pretty much equal to yours.

It is impossible for someone to die and rise again after 3 days, the entire point, the entire idea, behind a miracle, is that it is something that is otherwise impossible. To that resurrection is impossible only brings you to the start of the argument. What nobody seems really willing to examine is, "If this is so impossible, why is it, even in 40 and 50 AD, within the same generation of Christ, were people willing to be put to death for that belief that they had seen the risen Christ", and it's something that goes WAY beyond simple illusions or trickery.

You don't seem to see the big picture here.
If you believe in God ONLY BECAUSE some people died for their faith in Christ.
That maybe even beats the Bayes proof.

Jews were willing to die for their religioon many generations after Moses in WWII. Shouldn't they be right instead?

Are you really so certain about miracles? If you are then you obviously are blind to 99% of them. How about miracles of other religions? How do you respond to them?

Or then how about I tell you about a miralce. What if I say I am God because last night I learned how to fly but no one saw that. Oh and shouldn't you be worshipping David Copperfield or something if you faith is based on belief on miralces? You would have to be sceptical to deny other miracles and while doing so you would have to pretty much break your beliefs on the miracles you do believe in. If you deny one God you can deny them all. If you believe in one god there is no way to deny the rest.

OK enough of miracles. If they prove the existance of then then how is this god then? How could you be sure he is as in Bible? In case he is I have to say is pretty damn stupid. If he is almighty then why make his son suffer instead of using his powers to do the same. Throughout the history of Theology (the worst pseudoscience of all) there has been so much bad argument number 17: Ad Hoc that I can't believe how people don't see it.

Then on the other hand like God delusion notes too over 90% of all studies report of a negative correlation between either high education or intelligence and religious thinking.
7% of National Academy of Science members believe in God and 3,3 of the members of Royal Society believe in God. I guess that explains things for the most part.

Then we have bible. Like you earlier said Jesus fills prophecies of the OT but as Dawkins noteshe was made to fill them. For example gospels disagree on where he was born as some of them wanted him to born in Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy. And now your "historically accurate" book comes to a flaw. Herodes was dead by the time people were taxed and they were not meant to travel to any city to be taxed and on top of all the taxing was not even made by Octavianus (Augustus).
Then Fundamentalists are going to also have trouble with the generation between Josef and David another Gospel counts around 20 and the other names up to 44 names that are mostly different. The Gospels were NOT written by people of the same generation as Christ. (From wikipedia: the gospel of Matthew was written as a direct response to developments within the Jewish community following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. (John): The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD. (Mark) number of modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around AD 70. (Luke) The date of the Gospel of Luke is traditionally fixed to some time before the end of the final events of Luke's second volume to Theophilus, Acts, so as early as 59 or 60) 30-60 years after Jesus died. People in those days did not live quite long.

Actually what mean there was a difference on life on earth before and after Jesus died? Nothing in the world actually changed.

Believe it or not. You believe in God because of the way are raised and the people who surround you. Not because you would have seeked truth and found it. The thing with Christian morals and teachings is "You don't agree with God´, God agrees with you". You can use the bible or other christian text to find parts that back your opinnions and ignore those that oppose them. And why does this allloving god want us to believe in him? Why is it or our sexuality that he gave us so important? Don't you see how it simply reflects the morality of the people who originally wrote the things? They created god to agree with themselves. Instead of making a god that hates them they made a God that loves just them and when it turned it Christianity and started to spread it changed into God loves all of us. You follow the arbitary beliefs of people long gone and religion in society is simply too problematic to give any special rights to. If we ask relgious leaders do they accept some things then we have gone too far. Anyone can form a religion and then demand the freedom to express it. I can simply say My religon includes burning building and if the law restricts me it is unjust by restricting my religion

I really don't have the energy go any further right now since the stubborness method really goes beyond pseudoscience to religion.


Oh and since you don't seem to respect the arguments of Dawkins so please give counterarguments. I'd be happy (already laughing) to hear them.

[robocop656]

Do you believe in dinosaurs? Since I have scrolled up and down, I will consider myself an expert.

[mayhem-for-all]

Oh I am surprised. This is the second time Rebel charges in with explosions and an army fo Arnold Schwarzeneggers blasting with bazookas and says he is right and others are wrong with nothing proper to back up his beliefs and when I give my counterarguments he forgets they ever existed and continues to insult my beliefs pretty much without even reading what I wrote.

and to add a reaction of mine to him saying that Dawkins should have studied theology more closely before writing a book like that: then I could say you don't know anything without proper understanding of ephistemology and you don't even exist if you don't understand metaphysics (ontology). So before you start arguing about existance of any single thing study philosophy first thank you.

[robocop656]

Ok. But the real question was: Dinosaurs. If you believe in Christianity, those people say the earth is only 6,000 years or so old. The dinosaurs were around millions of years ago. If you believe in that, you don't believe in dinosaurs. Now what?

[Carcass]

[Rebel]

If you read the book you also know about the great Praying test that showed that praying has no effects on health. If you say that science can't really prove something like that then we have a lot of counter arguments that you should have read while reading God Delusion. One of mine for example would be that science is neutral toward religion and if there is some way you can make even more neutral it will be implemented on scientific method even possibly changing the Paradigm.

I believe scientific law is harmonious with Christianity.

Thirdly Dawkins himself countered this one in case you didn't happen to notice while being busy to not to read the actual book.
One doesn't need to study the differences between clothes in a univesity to notice that the emperor is naked.

But you do need to be aware of what clothes are. This if anything, is a terrible argument, because Dawkins is taking a sledge hammer to a broad philosophical concept of blind faith when Christianity doesn't ask for blind faith.

Another Straw Man
(you also used number 3 and 12 earlier)

I do believe it might be beneficial for you to understand what exactly a straw man is. Let me explain. A straw man is when you pick out a specific issue in an argument, a belief that somebody holds, and you push that belief to the illogical extreme, then you observe that illogically extreme version of someone's belief, conclude it is false, and as a result, claim that somebody's entire argument is false. I have made no such arguments.

You don't seem to see the big picture here.
If you believe in God ONLY BECAUSE some people died for their faith in Christ.
That maybe even beats the Bayes proof.

While this isn't a straw man, it's edging closer, I think you can legitimize the ressurrection of Christ through MULTIPLE means, however the actions of the apostles are perhaps the most easily observable. I realize that people have died for BELIEFS millions of times throughout history, which is why I'm NOT making the argument that someone dying for their beliefs is the way to prove a point. Not to violate any laws of arguments here, but you could easily call me a nazi if I said that. What I am arguing is that that the apostles did not die because they believed Christ was the Messiah, they died because, with their own eyes, they saw the risen Christ, walking on earth and preaching, even though he had been killed and placed in a tomb. It would have been easy for them to have died for Christ before the resurrection because there was an element of uncertainty around Christ, there wasn't a way to definitively prove whether Jesus was who he said he was, and therefore the apostles might have been misled, just like millions throughout history have been for whatever causes.

The point is, after Christ's death, there was NO ROOM for confusion. In his ministry he had told his followers that he would die, and rise again. Even when he died, even in the gospel accounts, there was dismay, Peter, who was the first disciple called into Christ's ministry, denied his association with Christ 3 times on the night Jesus was captured.

I would argue then, that faith alone was not enough for these men to die, but what's important is what comes next. The stone is moved from Christ's tomb and his body is gone, these are not disputed by history. Never mind the extreme difficulty (Or even asinine stupidity) of implying that this was a plot, this brings us to what the apostles died for.

It was not for faith, something easily misled, it was to maintain the FACT that they had all seen, and spoke with the risen Christ. Not just a brief episode, a few words, but 40 days. It was for this experience, that the apostles were crucified (By FAR the most painful death you could possibly suffer in the world at that time). Faced with denying their experiences (Which you maintain were lies), or facing the most painful form of execution known to man, they chose to maintain their truth.

Jews were willing to die for their religioon many generations after Moses in

Are you really so certain about miracles? If you are then you obviously are blind to 99% of them. How about miracles of other religions? How do you respond to them?

Mark 13:22
For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God's chosen ones.

Or then how about I tell you about a miralce. What if I say I am God because last night I learned how to fly but no one saw that. Oh and shouldn't you be worshipping David Copperfield or something if you faith is based on belief on miralces? You would have to be sceptical to deny other miracles and while doing so you would have to pretty much break your beliefs on the miracles you do believe in. If you deny one God you can deny them all. If you believe in one god there is no way to deny the rest.

The argument raised, since you cannot argue the legitimacy of anything, or anyone, purely on miracles (As is established in the gospel of Mark as well as many places in the old testament) is that you have to look also, at prophecy. The explanation for what was, and wasn't, prophecy in the old testament is a very, very, complicated matter that really isn't worth explaining, but what we do know is that the old testament that is printed in every Christian Bible existed in its complete form before Jesus. We know that the series of Messianic prophecies (Events described in the books of Isiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, and others) were, in parts, very specific to identifying the chosen one who would redeem the gentiles and create the true covenant between man and God. We know that many of these, including the place of Christ's birth, and many things involving events far outside his control, were listed in prophecy and Jesus fit the prophecies. Look for example, with me, to the book of Daniel, in the 9th chapter.

20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill— 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision:
24 “Seventy ‘sevens’[c] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.[e]

25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[k]”[l

This is explained in depth in this link
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm
But the jist of it is, that from the time that prophecy went out, there was to be decreed a period of 444 years, after which the covenant would be made new, and interestingly enough, that points, almost exactly to the year that Christ was crucified (somewhere between 30-33AD)

OK enough of miracles. If they prove the existance of then then how is this god then? How could you be sure he is as in Bible? In case he is I have to say is pretty damn stupid. If he is almighty then why make his son suffer instead of using his powers to do the same. Throughout the history of Theology (the worst pseudoscience of all) there has been so much bad argument number 17: Ad Hoc that I can't believe how people don't see it.

As is outlined in Hebrews 9:22, blood is required for the atonement of sins. Justice was something created by God, and God has never been willing to subvert justice. In order to save mankind, a sacrifice HAD to be made, otherwise justice becomes worthless.

Then on the other hand like God delusion notes too over 90% of all studies report of a negative correlation between either high education or intelligence and religious thinking.
7% of National Academy of Science members believe in God and 3,3 of the members of Royal Society believe in God. I guess that explains things for the most part.

Then we have bible. Like you earlier said Jesus fills prophecies of the OT but as Dawkins noteshe was made to fill them. For example gospels disagree on where he was born as some of them wanted him to born in Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy. And now your "historically accurate" book comes to a flaw. Herodes was dead by the time people were taxed and they were not meant to travel to any city to be taxed and on top of all the taxing was not even made by Octavianus (Augustus).

I need to find the book I have that addresses this issue, the arguments that you are referencing are based in out of date archeological information, within the last 15-20 years, we have discovered quite a bit of finds that have made the gospel accounts seem much more reliable and consistent, in particular Luke's accounts in the book of Acts are regarded by the historical community as the most accurate representation of the various areas described and visited that we have.

Then Fundamentalists are going to also have trouble with the generation between Josef and David another Gospel counts around 20 and the other names up to 44 names that are mostly different.

The two gospels track different family lines, one through Mary, and one through Joseph (who was unimportant to Christ's birth, but important to prophecy)

The Gospels were NOT written by people of the same generation as Christ. (From wikipedia: the gospel of Matthew was written as a direct response to developments within the Jewish community following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. (John): The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD. (Mark) number of modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around AD 70. (Luke) The date of the Gospel of Luke is traditionally fixed to some time before the end of the final events of Luke's second volume to Theophilus, Acts, so as early as 59 or 60) 30-60 years after Jesus died. People in those days did not live quite long.

Again, out of date information, manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark have been found dating as early as 64AD, with other gospels following later. What is more important however, are the writings of Paul, including his first epistle to the Corinthians, which is, conservatively dated to have been written in 54AD, but is now believed to have been written much earlier. 1 Corinthians has many accounts of, again, that foundational belief in the divinity of Christ and the absolute certainty in the risen Christ.

Actually what mean there was a difference on life on earth before and after Jesus died? Nothing in the world actually changed.

Believe it or not. You believe in God because of the way are raised and the people who surround you. Not because you would have seeked truth and found it. The thing with Christian morals and teachings is "You don't agree with God´, God agrees with you". You can use the bible or other christian text to find parts that back your opinnions and ignore those that oppose them. And why does this allloving god want us to believe in him? Why is it or our sexuality that he gave us so important?

First of all, you have to understand what the old testament laws were, leviticus was the laws for the people of Israel spoken through the messengers of God to those people. Israel was an incredibly small nation, therefore things like masturbation and homosexuality were seen as counter intuitive to the growth of the nation. It's also important that throughout Christian theology, the covenant between a man and a woman is seen as one of the most holy and sacred things given to mankind, violation and pervasion of this is a bit deal, thirdly, in the purely evolutionary worldview, sexuality, or the act of reproduction, is the driving force, apparently, behind every aspect of life.

Don't you see how it simply reflects the morality of the people who originally wrote the things? They created god to agree with themselves. Instead of making a god that hates them they made a God that loves just them and when it turned it Christianity and started to spread it changed into God loves all of us. You follow the arbitary beliefs of people long gone and religion in society is simply too problematic to give any special rights to. If we ask relgious leaders do they accept some things then we have gone too far. Anyone can form a religion and then demand the freedom to express it. I can simply say My religon includes burning building and if the law restricts me it is unjust by restricting my religion

See now THAT is a straw man. You take the idea of blind faith, something that is not essential to Christianity (Although it is regarded as noble, to a degree), extracting it from the whole of the proof I have presented, and then applying it to the illogical extreme, and using that as a counterargument against everything I have said.

I really don't have the energy go any further right now since the stubborness method really goes beyond pseudoscience to religion.


Oh and since you don't seem to respect the arguments of Dawkins so please give counterarguments. I'd be happy (already laughing) to hear them.

The Dawkins Delusion, in about a third of the time, goes through and addresses each of the major concerns addressed by Dawkins. 97 pages, what do you have to lose?

[Rebel]

Ok. But the real question was: Dinosaurs. If you believe in Christianity, those people say the earth is only 6,000 years or so old. The dinosaurs were around millions of years ago. If you believe in that, you don't believe in dinosaurs. Now what?

There are a couple ways you could address this issue. I think that the issue is secondary to the greater proof of Christ's resurrection, and being that I believe that, I think that the rest of the world can be correctly interpreted through that. I suppose an interesting question is, have you ever written a story? Made a character in your head? I started writing a story 3 years ago, but some of the characters are much older than that, I didn't start the story with their birth, and then walk them through it, nothing is to say that when God created the earth, He didn't create it with a history.

[AAAAAAAAAA]

I think that the issue is secondary to the greater proof of Christ's resurrection.

If there was definitive proof of Christ's resurrection, Christianity would not be a religion...it would be a science. You've convinced yourself in Gods existence through a combination of poorly documented historical events and so called "miracles" that have no basis whatsoever.

I guarantee, I can find you countless "miracles" proving Elvis is still alive, Sasquatch roams free, and Lady Gaga has a penis. There is ample "evidence" out there... if you really wanted to believe it. That is, if your very livelihood depended on Lady Gaga having a huge dick, it would not take much to convince you.

Take the Loch-Ness monster for instance. It was eventually debunked, but for some time many people truly believed it. There was ample "evidence" and various "miracles" ranging from grainy footage, blurry photos, and testimonies from all sorts of weirdos who were either bored, vying for attention, or completely delusional. If I decide I want to believe it, there is no freakin' way you're going to change my mind. You can tell me that all the pictures are fake, and I'll say its a conspiracy hatched from the pro-bigfoot supporters (who can't handle that another legendary beast is stealing their thunder). Even if you tell me that the original Loch Ness "witness" admitted it was a hoax, I can always gracefully sidestep it by quoting some "verse" from the book of long-necked ungulates. Which leads me to...

Are you really so certain about miracles? If you are then you obviously are blind to 99% of them. How about miracles of other religions? How do you respond to them?

Mark 13:22
For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God's chosen ones.

When I read that, I couldn't help but cringe. It just sounds so manipulative, doesn't it? "Here are our miracles...Oh, those other miracles? Those are from the bad people. The nasty people. Don't pay attention to those." I almost could not come up with a more manipulative statement if I tried.

And even if Christ truly was resurrected...do you really know the full story of how the bible was written? Every sentence? Every word? Maybe the apostles asked some dude to hold the bible while he took a piss, and he added a few lines in the end just for fun? Maybe the guy was drunk on mead when he wrote some of it (what the hell is mead, anyway?).

Hell, half of our history textbooks (that are based on well documented historical events from hundreds of professors and researchers)...even these textbooks have blatant mistakes, errors, fabrications, and are constantly being revised. To actually base your life's values on the teaching of a book written by unknown authors with unknown motivates at unknown times...is a BIG mistake!