patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,432 comments by 15,051 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, ElYorsh online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 30 - 68 of 68 Search these comments
Dan8267
2012 Jan 13, 1:17pm
If all life is just an accident with no real purpose, than why shouldn't we destroy our planet's ecosystem? It's all ultimately meaningless.
Life is an emergent property of the universe. The fact that life exists on Earth rather than Mars or Venus is due to blind luck. If you want to call that an accident then fine. It’s not an accident like a car wreck, but an accident like winning the lottery.
Just because life isn’t planned by some higher being doesn’t make it meaningless. How many babies are the result of unplanned pregnancies? Does that make their lives meaningless?
If your grandfather decided to piss in a restaurant instead of holding it, he would have taken a different cab to work, and would have arrived later, and would have never run into your mother on the elevator. That is a very chaotic and random series of events, and had not every one played out exactly as they did, your grandparents would have married other people and you would not exist. So, yes, your very existence is due to random and completely unimportant shit happening in the past. Does that make your life meaningless?
The fact is that the difference between existence and non-existence is due to a lot of random and inconsequential things happening. This is true on the level of the individual as well as entire species and even entire worlds. Had our solar system formed slightly differently, we wouldn’t be here because the Earth wouldn’t be here.
Isn't it arrogant to say that life is better than non-life?
No. Why would it be? And why would it be at all arrogant to have a preference for sentience over non-sentience?
For most of us, life is a miserable and bitter struggle. And its ultimately all for naught, since we just die anyway. Why delay the inevitable? Why shouldn't we all just commit suicide?
If life were nothing but pain and misery, then suicide would make sense. I’m all for euthanasia and the rights of people to decide whether or not they continue living.
However, life is full of joyful experience. Have you ever rolled around with puppies? Try being miserable while doing that. It’s impossible.
If you belive that your life is ultimately insiginificant
Why the fuck would I think my life is insignificant? Does life have to be eternal to have meaning? Where’s the logic in that?
Hell, if there were an afterlife and innocent babies went to heaven when they died, we’d have a moral obligation to kill those babies before they could risk their immortal souls and eternal damnation.
The acceptance of the Christian afterlife and a conscience logically dictates the mass murder of babies to ensure their everlasting life in pure bliss. If I’m wrong and you’re right, then morality demands we kill babies. But if I’m right and your wrong, murdering babies is a terrible, terrible thing. The fact that you find the idea of the mass killings of babies to be repugnant, proves that instinctively, you know I’m right and there is no afterlife.
Especially since religions make your life so miserable...
Religion does not make my life miserable, although the religious evidently do try their best. But religion does make the world a far more dangerous place. Do you want Iran to get the bomb? I fear the irrationality of your religion for the exact same reason you fear the irrationality of Iran’s.
Furthermore, religion has hampered scientific, technological, social, and political advancement that would save countless lives and improve the living conditions of all people. If it hadn’t been for Christianity holding science back for a thousand years, we’d already have the cure for all cancers.
freak80
2012 Jan 16, 4:17am
Good points all around.
I get what you're saying about "chaos" and sensitivity to "initial conditions." I'm both a meteorologist and mechanical engineer by training (I majored in both). If I remember right, "chaos theory" doesn't imply randomness, just determinism that is extremely sensitive to the initial state. Did you ever see that halloween episode of The Simpsons where Homer builds a time machine out of a toaster? Home keeps messing up the "present time" by stepping on bugs millions of years ago.
Hell, if there were an afterlife and innocent babies went to heaven when they died, we’d have a moral obligation to kill those babies before they could risk their immortal souls and eternal damnation.
The acceptance of the Christian afterlife and a conscience logically dictates the mass murder of babies to ensure their everlasting life in pure bliss. If I’m wrong and you’re right, then morality demands we kill babies. But if I’m right and your wrong, murdering babies is a terrible, terrible thing. The fact that you find the idea of the mass killings of babies to be repugnant, proves that instinctively, you know I’m right and there is no afterlife.
If I remember right, historic Christianity does NOT hold that babies are innocent. Christianity (rightly or wrongly) has the doctrine of "original sin". That's why, until the 1500s, all Christians "baptized" infants, believing that baptism actually worked salvation. It wasn't until the radical Anabaptist movement (google it for more info) that some Christians denied infant baptism.
I can tell you have a better understanding of Christianity than many "Christians!" Your quote above is a very strong refutation of every Christian denomination that denies infant baptism...I had never thought of it that way before!
I really do respect people who understand historic Christianity, even if they reject it themselves. I really have a hard time respecting someone who says "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe all that stuff about Jesus being God, sin, salvation, substitutionary atonement, hell (which Jesus taught), etc.
Yes, Christianity is a radical religion. It's too radical for most people, especially in a country like America. Jesus taught many radical things. As one person said "If Christ came today, the first thing we'd do is kill him again".
The mixing of Christianity and politics is a very toxic thing, I agree. When Constantine converted to Christianity and made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, Christianity went downhill fast. I believe politics to be an inherently satanic game (no matter who is doing it) and it's best to keep politics as far from Christianity as possible.
I really don't understand why so many "conservative" Christains seem to want an American Christian Theocracy. Christianity already tried Theocracy in Europe, and it resulted in a "church" that did all of those nasty things you describe. Like you pointed out in one of your other posts, Christianity has continued to fragment, with each power-hungrly "leader" trying to get his slice of the "pie." Will we humans ever stop trying to conquer Christ's church? How many denominations are there now?
Dan8267
2012 Jan 16, 1:26pm
If I remember right, historic Christianity does NOT hold that babies are innocent. Christianity (rightly or wrongly) has the doctrine of "original sin".
Whether or not the baptizing of the babies before they are murdered washes away original sin is irrelevant. No Christian sect is going to say that unbaptized babies, especially the unborn, are going to rot in hell for all eternally. To make such a claim would be to ensure that no one follows your sect.
As such all Christian sects believe that babies, baptized or not, will eventually go to heaven and have no risk of going to hell. The may differ on the details and the existence of limbo, but that's a minor point when considering all of eternity.
So my point stands. If the Christian afterlife hypothesis is correct, then it is a moral obligation to kill all babies. If the hypothesis is wrong, then it is a moral obligation to not kill all babies. Which conclusions are you willing to entertain? If only the later is acceptable morality to you, then you must deep down realize that there is no heaven.
I can tell you have a better understanding of Christianity than many "Christians!"
I grow up Catholic being taught by nuns and Christian brothers and had to take extremely boring classes like Church history. I know the teachings and the history of the Christian Church and all of its splits.
Yes, Christianity is a radical religion. It's too radical for most people, especially in a country like America. Jesus taught many radical things. As one person said "If Christ came today, the first thing we'd do is kill him again".
Christianity was a radical religion when it was started. That's why Christ was crucified. He was a threat to the establishment. After he died, like all rebels, he was cartoonified and incorporated into the state by Constantine, who found Christ useful for manipulating the peasantry of the Roman empire. Had that not happened, Christianity would not even exist. But when that happened, Christianity ceased being a radical religion and started towing the state line.
And yes, most Christians would reject Jesus today, particularly the fundamentalist. Jesus was a commie true and true. He demanded that you give all your possessions up to follow his way, and the only time he ever got pissed off was at the bankers or money changers as they were called. Christian philosophy is incompatible with capitalism. Yet, the religious right mistakes Gordon Gecko for Jesus. So, what little good Jesus's philosophies have, is lost on most Christians.
When Constantine converted to Christianity and made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, Christianity went downhill fast.
Make no mistake. Constantine's conversion was pure politics. He remained a pagan his entire life.
I really don't understand why so many "conservative" Christains seem to want an American Christian Theocracy.
Christian fundamentalists believe in the false premise that if they are extremely religious and evangelical and literally interpret the Bible, then their daughters won't become sluts. The fundamentalist movement came about in response to the sexual revolution. The Bible thumpers thought that cramming down religion would keep their girls from fucking. It didn't work. Rent any Girls Gone Wild video and listen to the accents. All the sluts come from the Bible Belt and the Heartland. You never see someone from an East Coast liberal college in Girls Gone Wild.
You see, it turns out, that making women dumb by using religion or other means turns them into sluts. Whereas, educating women with things like math, science, history, etc. makes them more capable of running their lives, starting careers, and avoiding the stripper pole. That's why you never see engineering majors from MIT or Princeton or even U. of Penn. on Girls Gone Wild. But the fundamentalists are too stupid to realize that teaching evolution rather than denying it would keep their daughters from exposing their pussies on Girls Gone Wild. I suppose that I should thank religion for that, as it's the only contribution to society it has ever made.
How many denominations are there now?
It is the nature of all religions to grow and fragment as selfish priests fight engage in power struggles for control of the dumb masses. Notice that this never happens in science. Science doesn't have denominations. The physics studied in America is the same that's studied in Russia, Australia, and everywhere else. Science unites, religion divides.
Dan8267
2012 Jan 17, 9:05am
Your argument is moot to this point becasue
Technically if u follow the CONCEPTS taught in the bible (protestant) and the catholic church all unbelievers infants or not would go to hell. While most "sects" as u refer to them agree babies go to heaven as the bible doesn't strictly DEFINE one way or the other its not wrong(just unpopular) to have the opinion that babies would go to hell. Just look at St. Augustin, so your claim that ALL denominations agree is wrong.
- Technically if u follow the CONCEPTS taught in the bible (protestant) and the catholic church all unbelievers infants or not would go to hell.
If you go into any church and ask any priest on the record practically all, except for a few crackpots, will say unborn babies who die don't go to hell, nor do babies that die before baptism. Think about it. If a church actually preach that nonsense, it would upset parents who would join a different church the first time they lose a pregnancy, a common event especially before the 20th century.
Thus no church preaches that babies go to hell.
In fact such an absurdity would be ammunition to atheists who would point out what an evil fuck that god must be to do such a thing.
Just look at St. Augustin, so your claim that ALL denominations agree is wrong.
Show me the church advertising that shit.
Nonetheless, if babies go to hell, god is evil. If god is evil, he's not god since god has to be "all good".
If babies don't go to hell, my original point stands that the existence of the Christian afterlife would mean that killing babies is a moral imperative. Either way, you're mythology is fucked. That's the problem with contradicting the logical conclusion of your myths.
You forget that there's a commandment to NOT kill, even if it would send one soul to heaven. If you truly believe then the moral obligations is to follow gods orders. That trumps a notion that you are sending people to heaven.
Hardly. The morality of saving the souls of countless babies is far outweighs the morality of obeying a god's order. Furthermore, any non-evil god would be morally bound to not cast any such self-less person into hell. To risk ones own soul to save another's is the most moral act a person could possibly make -- that is, it would if the soul actually existed.
Ergo, either once again you accept the wholesale slaughter of babies or you reject the possibility of heaven.
There is no logical loophole you can exploit. The premise of heaven leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is far better for babies to die than live and risk their souls. And therefore, anyone who looks after the best interest of the babies must kill them since 100 years of life on Earth is nothing compare to all of eternity in heaven or hell. And that is why the concept of the afterlife is just plain retarded. And the fact that you are not accepting the logical conclusion means that you disbelieve in the afterlife and thus god as much as I do. And no amount of bullshiting is going to change that.
HAHA, keep thinking that science has many "schools of thought" which is effectively a scientific denomination.
Um, no.
Science is universal. It transcends all national, racial, regional, gender, political, social, and economic boundaries. Religion historically has promoted xenophobia and no amount of whitewashing can change that.
Economics are a good example Austrian v Keynesian comes to the top of my mind.
Economics is not a science. It should be, but it isn't. Not by a long shot.
As for physics as that's my specialty
Yeah, no physicist is going to quote Wikipedia when there are far better resources on the Internet. And your previous posts make me believe that you are a physicist as much as I'm the pope pretending to be an atheist just to mess with people.
Dan8267
2012 Jan 17, 9:33am
That's a quote from you that I was refuting! Geeze, if you are going to contradict yourself, why should we believe you?
Dan8267
2012 Jan 17, 10:14am
the fact that men have distorted God's word does not make God a liar.
The fact is that men are the voices behind all god puppets. There is no supreme being that speaks for what is morally right. If there were, it wouldn't let "men" treat it like an ass puppet and feed it words.
“in his image,†that is, the ability and capacity to love.
Meerkats have the capacity to love. Love, like all emotions, was created by evolution.
Charles Darwin's nephew was the first one to use the term "eugenics".
Oh yes, Charles Darwin was a Nazi and he burned millions of Jews in ovens. Please, make that argument.
Animals ARE souls- "And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind." Genesis 1:21
So PETA is right? Meat is murder?
freak80
2012 Jan 19, 2:43am
After he died, like all rebels, he was cartoonified and incorporated into the state by Constantine, who found Christ useful for manipulating the peasantry of the Roman empire
That's a very interesting claim. Can you prove that?
freak80
2012 Jan 19, 2:56am
And yes, most Christians would reject Jesus today, particularly the fundamentalist. Jesus was a commie true and true. He demanded that you give all your possessions up to follow his way, and the only time he ever got pissed off was at the bankers or money changers as they were called. Christian philosophy is incompatible with capitalism.
I don't think anyone is out there making the case that Christianity = Capitalism.
As for "Fundamentalist", I don't know what you mean by that. I don't think I've ever met a "fundamentalist." I've met lots of Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.
freak80
2012 Jan 19, 3:00am
Christian fundamentalists believe in the false premise that if they are extremely religious and evangelical and literally interpret the Bible, then their daughters won't become sluts. The fundamentalist movement came about in response to the sexual revolution. The Bible thumpers thought that cramming down religion would keep their girls from fucking
That's quite a claim. Can you back that up? I think your term "Bible thumpers" says more about you than it says about the "fundamentalist" people you don't like.
Dan8267
2012 Jan 19, 5:04am
it's not what you and I think that counts, it's what God thinks
That presumes the existence of god, which I and others have thoroughly discredited. And even if you were to take one of those bullshit "impossible to define god" stances, then you couldn't know what such a b.s. god thinks.
More importantly, what man thinks affects his behavior including the behavior of waging wars, using nuclear and biological weapons, protecting or destroying the environment, establishing social justice or totalitarian regimes. So, what man thinks matters.
Dan8267
2012 Jan 19, 5:24am
Dan8267 says
Arrogant: The belief that your god is the one and only god.
1. most important, what does God believe ?
2.You are guilty of this too aren't you. You essentially say your belief system is the best, because you have thought it over. What is wrong with that thinking and optimizing etc. ?
I would never say that one of my conclusions is best because I thought it over. That is antithetical to my world view. The messenger is irrelevant and the person who cranks out the math is irrelevant. What's important is the argument itself, not who makes it.
however there is the danger of becoming dogmatic, if that is what you mean. But that goes for atheists as well.
I have yet to meet a single person who was irrationally atheistic. In theory that's possible, but it sure ain't the norm. Now irrational about faith, that's quite common. Why just this morning I was listening to NPR while driving my Volvo to work (yes, I'm a cliché), and on the radio a caller told the story below. I'll have to paraphrase from memory, but I'll get it as close as I can.
I was a little girl and during school one day I made a painting. I was so proud of it I excitedly ran up to the teacher and say, "Look what I created!" The teacher snapped at me, "Only god creates!"
Yep, that's someone I'd like teaching my kids.
After he died, like all rebels, he was cartoonified and incorporated into the state by Constantine, who found Christ useful for manipulating the peasantry of the Roman empire
That's a very interesting claim. Can you prove that?
What would constitute proof to you that Jesus was cartoonified?
I don't think anyone is out there making the case that Christianity = Capitalism.
Obviously, you haven't been listening to the Republicans for the past 30 years.
That's quite a claim. Can you back that up?
Watch the entire episode. It explains where, when, and why fundamentalism started.
I think your term "Bible thumpers" says more about you than it says about the "fundamentalist" people you don't like.
It says that I, like most people in the world, have no respect for people who behave badly and use religion as a justification for their actions. I reserve the right to pass judgment on assholes, especially assholes who poison the minds of children, bash gays and foreigners, and promote unjust wars.
freak80
2012 Jan 19, 5:51am
It says that I, like most people in the world, have no respect for people who behave badly and use religion as a justification for their actions. I reserve the right to pass judgment on assholes, especially assholes who poison the minds of children, bash gays and foreigners, and promote unjust wars.
Dan,
Who are you to decide what is bad behavior? Prove it, scientifically. Otherwise, I asume you are just spouting your opinions which are no better than anyone else's. Who are you to judge?
It seems that your secular utopia will be just as "intolerant" and "judgemental" as the Bible thumper utopia.
Who are you to say what's right and wrong? Who made you judge?
freak80
2012 Jan 19, 5:58am
Obviously, you haven't been listening to the Republicans for the past 30 years.
Right, I haven't been. All politics is bullshit, it's just cynical power games.
freak80
2012 Jan 19, 6:01am
What would constitute proof to you that Jesus was cartoonified?
Anything. I'm still waiting for something specific. Like a claim that the written accounts of Jesus' life were somehow altered or "cartoonified".
marcus
2012 Jan 19, 9:55am
I don't pretend to define god for anyone other than what I believe - but it has struck me that in order to disbelieve in something - you have to have an idea of what you think it is in the first place
Well said. Exactly.
For example let's say you have some nuanced beliefs that you have cultivated over your entire life, and these are personal beliefs that you can't even describe. And let's also say that tangential to these beliefs, is your membership to a community, that has some traditions and rituals, that I sort of do understand, but I take them literally, and I have rejected these traditions (for myself). But because of my particular emotional and ego makeup, it's not enough for me to reject them just for myself. Like Richard Dawson I come along and say that even though I have almost no clue what it is you believe (I can not relate to these beliefs in the slightest), I am going to tell you that your beliefs are not only wrong, but that all people that have any of an entire class of beliefs of which you beliefs fit, are wrong and are irrational. Furthermore, mankind would be better off if nobody had beliefs like yours.
If I made such claims, as Richard Dawkins and other extremist religious atheists do, I would have to be inconceivably arrogant, or emotionally unhinged (or both), or possibly as Einstein put it, simply still hung up on the process of tearing myself away from religious dogma of my youth.
"The fanatical atheists," Einstein said in correspondence, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."
Although Einstein did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because
such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook
(Jammer, Max (2002). Einstein and Religion: physics and theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press)
Dan8267
2012 Jan 19, 1:40pm
Who are you to say what's right and wrong? Who made you judge?
What are you bitching about now? Are you complaining that I think it is wrong to rape and murder? OK, you go out and do those things and then tell a judge who he is to say what's right and wrong.
Wtf does any of that have to do with this thread and Marcus's incorrect argument that the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment means that there is a god?
In any case, this thread has certainly shown how nasty and mean Christians are. And that's the best argument against your religion one could make.
Try to talk objectively about the existence of god with the faithful and they bring out the pitch forks. And that alone is sufficient reason to not spread the virus of religion to the next generation.
Dan8267
2012 Jan 19, 1:49pm
What would constitute proof to you that Jesus was cartoonified?
Anything. I'm still waiting for something specific. Like a claim that the written accounts of Jesus' life were somehow altered or "cartoonified".
Page 1 of the Google image search for "Jesus".
Why the hell is an ancient Middle Eastern man being rendered as a white guy with blue eyes? He's literally fucken cartoonified!
I guess the south wouldn't be as apt to worship the guy if they knew he was a dark brown skin man.
As for Jesus's life events being altered. Well, he didn't have 12 apostles, walk on water, raise Lazarus from the dead, was born of a virgin, or rise from the dead himself. That all was ripped of from the older myth of Horus.
Dan8267
2012 Jan 19, 2:11pm
Um, it was the Bible belt that attempted to succeed from the Union and started the Civil War.
marcus
2012 Jan 19, 2:21pm
Marcus's incorrect argument that the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment means that there is a god?
The funny thing, is that after all the times I clarified, I honestly believe that's his inference of what my point was.
And he wonders why he didn't hear more arguments from me.
Cool Shrekian troll moves dude.
marcus
2012 Jan 19, 2:37pm
You moderates out there, and right wingers too, please don't think that all liberals are assholes like Dan. I think he wants you to think that.
Dan8267
2012 Jan 19, 2:52pm
You moderates out there, and right wingers too, please don't think that all liberals are assholes like Dan. I think he wants you to think that.
Wow, I'm the first liberal that wants to see Romney beat Obama in the upcoming election. I'm so far left.
It makes no sense for me to argue against your imaginary and paranoid delusions of what you think I believe. I will just say this. I am like a mirror. I reflect the inner image of the person talking to me, only inverted. Right-wing nuts see me as an elite liberal socialist. Left-wing nuts see me as a heartless conservative fascist/capitalist. In both cases, it is the one looking into the mirror that casts the image.
I am orthogonal to the batshit crazy left-right line you and your ultracon counterparts draw. The truth, and my beliefs, does not lie between dumb ass Tea Baggers and dumb ass hippies. No, it lies on the other side of the smart-dumb axis, which evidently runs at a right angle to the left-right axis. So maybe you should stop talking out of your ass about what other people must be thinking, and instead listen and ask questions when you are uncertain.
Yet, I keep having to repeat that. So polarized has our society become.
freak80
2012 Jan 24, 11:15pm
Why the hell is an ancient Middle Eastern man being rendered as a white guy with blue eyes? He's literally fucken cartoonified!
I guess the south wouldn't be as apt to worship the guy if they knew he was a dark brown skin man.
Yes, the presentation of Jesus with blue eyes and blonde hair is pretty ridiculous. In African countries, Jesus is portrayed as someone from Africa. I suppose it's just human nature to think that all humans look like the locals. But that's a whole different topic.
But you claimed that Constantine, specifically, cartoonified him and essentially made up everything about his life, and you have yet to offer any specific evidence for that claim.
The following Pauline Epistles were written between 50 and 60 AD and record the same beliefs of Christians today: First Thesselonians, Phillipians, Philemon, First & Second Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. If there's evidence that Constantine did some "shuck and jive" with those documents, then let's hear it.
freak80
2012 Jan 24, 11:33pm
Dan,
Believe it or not, I completely agree with you that "God personally told me to do X, Y, and Z" is very dangerous. During the protestant reformation, that kind of thinking was called "enthusiasm" or literally, "god-within-ism".
The following article is by a conservative Christian and is very critical of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry:
Not all Christians are Pentecostal wackos.
freak80
2012 Jan 24, 11:42pm
Marriage is a whole new debate. With regard to marriage, maybe the best solution is to keep the government out it? If marriage is an inherently religious institution, than the establishment clause makes a good case for keeping government out of marriage.
Ultimately, what's the point of "marriage" anyway, now that pro-creation is essentially "optional?" Is marriage just a tool for "gold diggers" to get their hands on another person's money?
But again, that's a whole 'nuther topic.
Dan8267
2012 Jan 25, 12:45am
But you claimed that Constantine, specifically, cartoonified him and essentially made up everything about his life, and you have yet to offer any specific evidence for that claim.
Correction, what I said was:
Christianity was a radical religion when it was started. That's why Christ was crucified. He was a threat to the establishment. After he died, like all rebels, he was cartoonified and incorporated into the state by Constantine, who found Christ useful for manipulating the peasantry of the Roman empire. Had that not happened, Christianity would not even exist. But when that happened, Christianity ceased being a radical religion and started towing the state line.
And this is well supported. For example, the book Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor goes into detail about how Constantine manipulated Christianity for political gains. Publishers Weekly book summarizes this book and Constantine's motives
Stephenson, a historian at the University of Durham, successfully combines historical documents, examples of Roman art, sculpture, and coinage with the lessons of geopolitics to produce a complex biography of the Emperor Constantine. Rather than the divinely guided hero of legend who singlehandedly brought pagan Rome to Christian orthodoxy, Constantine is depicted as very much a product of his political environment. Recognizing the growing influence of the Christian Church, he adapted the generally pacifist faith to the Roman theology of victory and created a newly militant Christianity that would sustain his rule. Constantine wisely sought to impose religious toleration on the diverse Roman Empire while discouraging trivial disputes among the Christian faithful. Stephenson examines the variety of religious beliefs in the early fourth century with emphasis on Mithraism, a pagan mystery cult practiced by pre-Constantine soldiers, and on the bitter divisions within victorious Christianity that ultimately led to the Council of Nicaea. Constantine is revealed as a master politician who, while delaying his own baptism for reasons not fully explained in the text, became the ruler of both church and state.
But all the physical evidence and historical documents isn't going to convince you that Christianity could have easily been a footnote in history if it weren't for Constantine. After all, if Christianity exists only because a corrupt politician -- and I know that's redundant -- decided that it would be useful for controlling the masses, then surely Christianity has no merit and is nothing but lies. Since you cannot accept the conclusion, you ignore the facts. That is the entire basis of faith. Science, on the other hand, says that the facts determine the conclusion and whether or not you like the conclusion has no bearing on whether or not it is correct.
freak80
2012 Jan 25, 1:06am
But all the physical evidence and historical documents isn't going to convince you that Christianity could have easily been a footnote in history if it weren't for Constantine.
Why do you say that? If Chrisitianity is little more than Constantine's invention, I don't want anything to do with it. Why live for a lie? That would be tragic.
If there's good evidence that Christian beliefs were not actually established by Jesus and Paul in the first century, but rather by Constantine, I will reject Christianity. I will read that book.
At this point, I just want the truth.
freak80
2012 Jan 25, 1:47am
Dan,
I'm behind a Websense firewall, so I cannot watch any videos right now. What is the video about? Can you explain it in words?
freak80
2012 Jan 25, 2:18am
That's an extremely rude comment, is it not? Why should I take you seriously any longer?
Dan8267
2012 Jan 25, 3:56am
That's an extremely rude comment, is it not?
No, your humor detector is malfunctioning. Try hitting it on the side.
Dan8267
2012 Feb 1, 4:05am
"all catholic woman are sluts."
Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.
Is that pedophile Cloud still stalking me? I have him on ignore but, this comment seems to indicate that the stalker is still jizzing out his mental masturbation. Talk about obsessive. It's like I'm reliving Single White Female.
« First « Previous Comments 30 - 68 of 68 Search these comments
In this famous thought experiment, which could actually be done, someone might say, "well, since by definition, we don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, the statement that the cat is alive is by definition false."
True, it is false in the sense that we can not know that it's alive. Therefore the statement that it's alive is false.
What might be easy to miss though, by someone who is only parroting this argument and using it in a fallacious way, is that the exact same reasoning can be made regarding someone who says the cat is dead.
That statement is also false.
We just don't know.