Australian Politics Forum - How gullible are some people?

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74452
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #540 - Apr 14^th, 2014 at 4:14pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 1:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 12:51pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 8:54am:

Paul says nothing about Jesus???? Have you ever read the Pauline books of te Bible? He refers to Jesus in every chapter and almost every verse. He didn't go over his life story for the very real reason that people of that time didn't need convincing of His existence.

Paul evangelised far away from Palestine where nobody had heard of Jesus. This was precisely the genesis of his problem with the Jerusalem Council... Because no one had ever heard of Jesus where Paul evangelised, he was free to invent the story of Jesus as he went along. However, he mentioned almost nothing of Jesus' life to them, because, most probably, there were no detailed stories or texts of his life to refer to.

that is assumptive nonsense. For starters, Paul's letters to the churches were AFTER he had established them and taught them of Jesus' life and ministry.

And that's really the problem, isn't it. Everything is written after the supposed death of Jesus. Apparently he's so unremarkable before his supposed death that nothing is written about him.

Then there's Acts... As elusive of the historicity of Jesus as the rest.

As I have said, none of this means that there is no evidence at all... Just that its weak evidence at best.

And yet the vast majority of historians totally disagree. Funny that.

Two points.

1- I doubt that you'll find many that say his existence is beyond a doubt.
2- Why is it when debating climate change, consensus doesn't prove anything, but here its all you cry about?

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: How gullible are some people? Reply #541 - Apr 14^th, 2014 at 4:18pm longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 4:09pm: And yet the vast majority of historians totally disagree. Funny that. Not sure they'd disagree that the evidence is weak, or, (at the very least), more than the evidence for the existence of Plato.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

Quantum

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3373

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #542 - Apr 14^th, 2014 at 4:34pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 4:00pm:

Quantum wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 1:35pm:

Then there's Acts... As elusive of the historicity of Jesus as the rest.

In what way? Acts was written by Luke, who also wrote Luke's gospel.

Luke 1:1-4

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Acts 1:1-3

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Why would Acts (part B) go over the same events as Luke (Part A)?

Scrolls have a maximum length. From what we know of those times, the book of Luke is about as long as a scroll can get. The books of Acts likewise pushes maximum lengths. Luke's history is therefore written in a Part A/Part B format.

Complaining that Acts doesn't cover the history of Jesus is completely unjustified. It is the second half or a larger record, and the first half covered the very thing you are after.

Luke suggests he was also not an eyewitness to Jesus himself :

Luke 1 1:2
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Actually Luke doesn't claim to have had any closer association with the historical Jesus than Paul.

Which has nothing to do with the issue you raised regarding Acts. Acts doesn't talk about the life of Jesus because it is the second book of two, and the first book dealt with the history of Jesus.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #543 - Apr 14^th, 2014 at 5:35pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 4:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 1:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 12:51pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 8:54am:

Paul says nothing about Jesus???? Have you ever read the Pauline books of te Bible? He refers to Jesus in every chapter and almost every verse. He didn't go over his life story for the very real reason that people of that time didn't need convincing of His existence.

Paul evangelised far away from Palestine where nobody had heard of Jesus. This was precisely the genesis of his problem with the Jerusalem Council... Because no one had ever heard of Jesus where Paul evangelised, he was free to invent the story of Jesus as he went along. However, he mentioned almost nothing of Jesus' life to them, because, most probably, there were no detailed stories or texts of his life to refer to.

that is assumptive nonsense. For starters, Paul's letters to the churches were AFTER he had established them and taught them of Jesus' life and ministry.

And that's really the problem, isn't it. Everything is written after the supposed death of Jesus. Apparently he's so unremarkable before his supposed death that nothing is written about him.

Then there's Acts... As elusive of the historicity of Jesus as the rest.

As I have said, none of this means that there is no evidence at all... Just that its weak evidence at best.

And yet the vast majority of historians totally disagree. Funny that.

Two points.

1- I doubt that you'll find many that say his existence is beyond a doubt.
2- Why is it when debating climate change, consensus doesn't prove anything, but here its all you cry about?

1) you will find most DO accept that He existed beyond reasonable doubt
2) consensus is not proof. ACC has nothing BUT consensus

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74452
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #544 - Apr 14^th, 2014 at 9:27pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

1) you will find most DO accept that He existed beyond reasonable doubt

do you know the difference between 'a reasonable doubt' and 'beyond a doubt? It doesn't look like it

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

2) consensus is not proof. ACC has nothing BUT consensus

good, then stop using what others say as an argument ....

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #545 - Apr 14^th, 2014 at 10:01pm

I think the significance of important religious figures, whether they can be proved to have exited or not, is indisputable in that they personify an idea that transcends the need for provable historicity... It is irrelevant... Which is the difference between these figures and those legendary figures of lesser (non-religious) value.

Zoroaster, Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed (no argument about his historicity?) and even the Hindu gods coalesce ideas that are, in their own ways, fundamental to the human psyche.

Because they attempt to answer, in their own ways, the most fundamental of human questions... In the Socratic speak, "How should we live"?

How should we live? What should we live for? What would we die for?

That the traditions of these figures' historicity have survived at all is, I believe, that they answer these questions for those who apprehend a great truth in their (traditionally accepted) dialogues with their alleged disciples.

And for those who do believe they apprehend a great truth in the (attributed) teaching, may find the answer to another great, existential question... What does my life mean, to the world, or in the aid of my own advancement, that I have lived at all?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

aquascoot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 34602
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #546 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 6:50am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

I think the significance of important religious figures, whether they can be proved to have exited or not, is indisputable in that they personify an idea that transcends the need for provable historicity... It is irrelevant... Which is the difference between these figures and those legendary figures of lesser (non-religious) value.

Zoroaster, Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed (no argument about his historicity?) and even the Hindu gods coalesce ideas that are, in their own ways, fundamental to the human psyche.

Because they attempt to answer, in their own ways, the most fundamental of human questions... In the Socratic speak, "How should we live"?

How should we live? What should we live for? What would we die for?

That the traditions of these figures' historicity have survived at all is, I believe, that they answer these questions for those who apprehend a great truth in their (traditionally accepted) dialogues with their alleged disciples.

And for those who do believe they apprehend a great truth in the (attributed) teaching, may find the answer to another great, existential question... What does my life mean, to the world, or in the aid of my own advancement, that I have lived at all?

Very good NoN.
I feel most aetheists are like a company that lacks a "mission statement"
Or a rudderless ship would be another way of putting it.
Ive never believed i'm going to "meet my maker" or "see saint peter at the pearly gates" or "be presented with 74 virgins" or "be reincarnated as a cow"
But I have found reading the teachings of some of these traditions enormously helpful.
Wisdom has a way of being created by these great concentrated minds.
Wisdom cannot and will not be created by aetheist mindlessness (you simply will remain a perpetual fool if all you do is play candy crush, watch NRL , shop on ebay and detail your car.
These seem to be the aetheist hobbies and I feel very sorry for them.
Sit down in a field with 20 horses and read a bit of the Japanese nature worship traditions and you can actually "morph' back into a new dimension.
I have experienced this many times.
Becoming so attuned to the herd that when a horse spooks at , say, a rabbit, you feel a wave of energy hit you in the gut , you feel the hair raise on your neck.
God, nature, truth, path, journey.

Why on earth are aetheists so pedantic and down on these amazing tools.

Their loss. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #547 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:46am

John Smith wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 9:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

1) you will find most DO accept that He existed beyond reasonable doubt

do you know the difference between 'a reasonable doubt' and 'beyond a doubt? It doesn't look like it

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

2) consensus is not proof. ACC has nothing BUT consensus

good, then stop using what others say as an argument ....

oh for goodness sake. did you ever go to school beyond year 8???? Historians don't have an OPINION. They study actual evidence which is why they believe what they do.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #548 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:54am

aquascoot wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 6:50am:

Very good NoN.
I feel most aetheists are like a company that lacks a "mission statement"
Or a rudderless ship would be another way of putting it.
Ive never believed i'm going to "meet my maker" or "see saint peter at the pearly gates" or "be presented with 74 virgins" or "be reincarnated as a cow"
But I have found reading the teachings of some of these traditions enormously helpful.
Wisdom has a way of being created by these great concentrated minds.
Wisdom cannot and will not be created by aetheist mindlessness (you simply will remain a perpetual fool if all you do is play candy crush, watch NRL , shop on ebay and detail your car.
These seem to be the aetheist hobbies and I feel very sorry for them.
Sit down in a field with 20 horses and read a bit of the Japanese nature worship traditions and you can actually "morph' back into a new dimension.
I have experienced this many times.
Becoming so attuned to the herd that when a horse spooks at , say, a rabbit, you feel a wave of energy hit you in the gut , you feel the hair raise on your neck.
God, nature, truth, path, journey.

Why on earth are aetheists so pedantic and down on these amazing tools.

Their loss.

You paint a sweeping gray picture of atheists! Are they necessarily so down on these things? Are they necessarily so one dimensional?

I have mentioned Socrates many times and it was he who was accused of atheism at his trial and, although he countered that argument with some rhetoric that implied he may not be an atheist out of contempt for his accuser, he essentially was.

And yet his entire known life was dedicated to living ethically, morally and righteously. ("How should we live?").

Socrates' message was in part not to trust the legends of the gods because they may be wrong. He insisted (at least the way Plato imagines him) that belief in these legends of gods may not lead the young mind to a better life, but stultify it. And, although, he didn't invent philosophy (or science that followed it), he is, by tradition, the one that personifies the spark that ignited the Greek sense of wonder and liberated it from the bonds of blind belief.

The type of person you describe, is not necessarily an atheist, but one who is affluent and bored... Who has a stultified mind and is already half-dead... The very kind of mind that Socrates (the philosopher / atheist) would have felt the need to "sting like a bee the lazy horse".

Imagine the likes of Fred Hollows... Every inch the atheist... Would you characterise him as a perpetual fool and his legacy, mindless?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: How gullible are some people? Reply #549 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:55am longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:46am: Historians don't have an OPINION. They study actual evidence which is why they believe what they do. Are they all Vulcans?
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: How gullible are some people? Reply #550 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:03am NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:55am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:46am: Historians don't have an OPINION. They study actual evidence which is why they believe what they do. Are they all Vulcans? Clever... if rather pointless. 'live long and prosper'
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #551 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:06am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:54am:

aquascoot wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 6:50am:

Very good NoN.
I feel most aetheists are like a company that lacks a "mission statement"
Or a rudderless ship would be another way of putting it.
Ive never believed i'm going to "meet my maker" or "see saint peter at the pearly gates" or "be presented with 74 virgins" or "be reincarnated as a cow"
But I have found reading the teachings of some of these traditions enormously helpful.
Wisdom has a way of being created by these great concentrated minds.
Wisdom cannot and will not be created by aetheist mindlessness (you simply will remain a perpetual fool if all you do is play candy crush, watch NRL , shop on ebay and detail your car.
These seem to be the aetheist hobbies and I feel very sorry for them.
Sit down in a field with 20 horses and read a bit of the Japanese nature worship traditions and you can actually "morph' back into a new dimension.
I have experienced this many times.
Becoming so attuned to the herd that when a horse spooks at , say, a rabbit, you feel a wave of energy hit you in the gut , you feel the hair raise on your neck.
God, nature, truth, path, journey.

Why on earth are aetheists so pedantic and down on these amazing tools.

Their loss.

You paint a sweeping gray picture of atheists! Are they necessarily so down on these things? Are they necessarily so one dimensional?

I have mentioned Socrates many times and it was he who was accused of atheism at his trial and, although he countered that argument with some rhetoric that implied he may not be an atheist out of contempt for his accuser, he essentially was.

And yet his entire known life was dedicated to living ethically, morally and righteously. ("How should we live?").

Socrates' message was in part not to trust the legends of the gods because they may be wrong. He insisted (at least the way Plato imagines him) that belief in these legends of gods may not lead the young mind to a better life, but stultify it. And, although, he didn't invent philosophy (or science that followed it), he is, by tradition, the one that personifies the spark that ignited the Greek sense of wonder and liberated it from the bonds of blind belief.

The type of person you describe, is not necessarily an atheist, but one who is affluent and bored... Who has a stultified mind and is already half-dead... The very kind of mind that Socrates (the philosopher / atheist) would have felt the need to "sting like a bee the lazy horse".

Imagine the likes of Fred Hollows... Every inch the atheist... Would you characterise him as a perpetual fool and his legacy, mindless?

Atheists don't have a particularly good history of social works. the vast majority of charities are run by Christians. The vast majority of schools were begun and still run by Churches. For centuries the only universities were those run by the Church. Social welfare was until relatively recent times the sole province of the church. and so on.

the atheist can point to very few socially beneficial acts.

And for ever Fred Hollows there are a million anonymous Christians working to help the poor.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #552 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:06am

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:03am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:46am:

Historians don't have an OPINION. They study actual evidence which is why they believe what they do.

Are they all Vulcans?

'live long and prosper'

Without ever forming an opinion, I assume!

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #553 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:15am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:06am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:03am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:46am:

Historians don't have an OPINION. They study actual evidence which is why they believe what they do.

Are they all Vulcans?

'live long and prosper'

Without ever forming an opinion, I assume!

why did you feel the need to remove part of my quote? I dislike the tendency of some to selectively quote or quote out of context. I would not normally have attributed that to you.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #554 - Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:15am

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:06am:

Atheists don't have a particularly good history of social works. the vast majority of charities are run by Christians. The vast majority of schools were begun and still run by Churches. For centuries the only universities were those run by the Church. Social welfare was until relatively recent times the sole province of the church. and so on.

the atheist can point to very few socially beneficial acts.

And for ever Fred Hollows there are a million anonymous Christians working to help the poor.

Not sure we can know how many atheists actually changed history or dedicated themselves to the benefit of others, because to admit one's atheism, for nearly all of the last few thousand years, would have been (almost literally) suicide. Socrates is an example of that. Ostracism and execution awaited the atheist.

Its true that most members of the US Congress and Senate (when protected by anonymity) freely admit to being an atheist (or at the very least, agnostic). But they know, of course, that to admit it is to be labelled, in many parts of the US, a Satanist!

Most of the US founding fathers were atheists (or deists which practically is the same thing - a Deist 'god' does not intervene in the world and there is no point praying to him or attempting to assuage his anger as there is none).

Even a few of the popes were on record as not believing in god.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged