|
|
| Re: nonsense about atheism (241644) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 16:25:58 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:48:06 2007. "You say that as the majority don't want it, then the minority have to bend to their way."Correct." so you say that minority have to bend to the way of the majority "That's also why a majority of whites sitting in a school cannot exclude a black person from attending the school. Majority rule is the norm, but the Constitution protects the minority, at the same time. Individual rights are balanced against group interests." so you say that the minority doesn't have to bend the rule of the majority. I can't tell what you are saying as you are making statements that contradict each other! ""If the Jewish/Roman authorities could find and show Jesus' body" Mozart's body was not found either. Neither was Jimmy Hoffa's. How do we know they're not resurrected too? Maybe instead of praying to Jesus, you should be praying to Jimmy Hoffa." The know why they haven't found Mozart's body - he was buried in a mass grave, as a pauper, in a recyclable coffin (the bottom was a door - pull the latch, the body falls out). I don't know who Jimmy Hoffa is, but there is no evidence to suggest that he rose from the dead, where is a wealth of evidence, with respect to Jesus, I've offered to post it if you so wish, however I'm not going to spend ages typing it if you don't want it, as I doubt very much that you'd actually accept it as evidence, as it's not scientific evidence, but historical from a wealth of sources, church and secular, from that time period. "Essentially correct. In religion, there is no one proof, nor one truth." Can you scientifically prove that? It seems to be going against everything I learnt in science - that there is only one right answer! As you'll only accept scientific proof, then so will I, but I'll be happy to look at any other proof of that statement. If you can't scientifically prove it, by your view, then "you are entitled to believe it, but you are inherently in conflict with other taxpayers who do not believe it" if you impose it on people, say, on the issue of religion being taught in schools. "Thus, when you enter a tax-payer supported institution, your imposition of your religious "truth" on others must be suspended." So likewise tax shouldn't be used for anyone to teach an opinion that isn't scientifically proven, say in an English class that Macbeth is a study of the nature of human evil, as it's unable to be proven scientifically, and therefore an alternative viewpoint that it was written solely to make money and please the King is just as true? Wow, I could have got an A in an essay I got a D in, for disagreeing with the teacher's view (which is linked in with the examiner's view). Basically in my English Literature GCSE I could have written down anything, as long as it was a view on the question, and they should have given me full marks, not a C! "The resurrection of Jesus relies purely on a particular brand of faith." No to accept the resurrection of Jesus as fact relies on being open to the evidence. It only needs a particular brand of faith as all others, including atheism and agnosticism (when of the "we're unable to know" brand, not the "we just don't know yet" brand) believe that it won't happen, as it screws everything up. By faith you choose not to believe, making faith based excuses like "for something to be real, it has to be scientifically proven" or "the disciples, who didn't want to die, so fled, went back, fought a heavily armed detachment of Roman Soldiers, with no injury to either party, rolled the massive stone away carried away the body and hid it where we couldn't find it" or "Jesus wasn't killed - the crack squad of executioners failed to kill him, and failed to check the body, when asked again. Jesus then spent 36 hours in a cold tomb, with 75lbs of spices on top of him. He got up, rolled the stone that it took several men to move, a long way from the tomb, caused the armed guard to flee, and then didn't need urgent medical attention for exposure and blood loss". |
|
|
|