@WolfpackN64

Good one.

@klx300r 

My apologies, I haven't even themed my avatar (Err, still November, no?) and I'm not helping here. I just missed out on a direct target. But I already got the hint.

@klx300r

What a load of old religious crap. Religion has a place Amigaworld is not the place to talk about god. If there was one we would have OS 4.2 by now because I have prayed for it bloody long enough LOL

_________________
A1200 ACA1232 128MB Indivison MkIICr
Elbox empty Power Tower
RPi3 Emulating C64 ZX Atari PS BBC
Wii with Amiga emulation
Vampire v4 SA

@thread

This is amazing :) For starters, Christmas was celebrated before Jesus worshipping became fashionable (and was later enforced on populations). The winter solstice, new year and all that whole season have been a big deal since the dawn of mankind, just like the Summer Solstice, Vernal Equinox and Autumn equinox. Christianity later appropriated the winter feasts for their own purposes, thus it became known as Christmas. We don't even know for sure when Jesus was born exactly, so Christmas is just chosen arbitrarily, like a race horse's birthday, further complicated by changes in the calendar system in the middle ages. Many aspects of Christmas were already part of the celebrations - trees brought indoor and decorated, gifts, feasts, carol singing and more, all predate Jesus himself. The only bit that Christianity brought to the whole affair was a renaming and an obligation to attend your place of worship so you could be reminded of the perils of not obeying the church.

As for proof of Jesus... Nope. I'm fairly sure there probably was a guy by that name at the time who had a bit of a following, and then it just got all out of control. His mother wasn't a virgin though, that was probably just a story to try and avoid being stoned to death, and in superstitious times, people actually believed that, and Mary was saved. He also certainly wasn't his own father, because of elementary logic. And he also certainly wasn't resurrected. More likely, if he was a bit of a celebrity, after graverobbers stole his body from his tomb, his followers likely used this a propaganda to further their cause. And if he was resurrected, how come there's so little of his story that comes after that point? Surely there would be far more interest in him after that, resulting in more documented details of his second life? Or maybe he was tired after resurrecting himself and didn't bother healing or feeding anyone, opting to live out his life in peaceful solitude instead?

If you think there's absolute proof of the resurrection and Jesus' other magic tricks, you really don't understand the word "proof", or the first thing about the scientific method. You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you try to assert those beliefs on others, you're going to need more than a mediaeval story book and your word. Without actual, verifiable evidence, Jesus Christ is simply Santa Claus for grown-ups.

Even the definition of winter as a season is arbitrary; we were taught that winter consists of November, December and January in Irish primary schools for example, so it really depends on local convention, much like time zones and the side of the road to drive on.

Now, while certain people pray for me and all the inconvenient truths to be smote from existence, let me point out that I'm all for Christmas. I think it's great - I take lots of time off, see lots of family members I wouldn't ordinarily see, and celebrate another successful year with as many friends and loved ones as I can squeeze in. I'll wear a silly Christmas jumper to work and whenever I can, sing songs, give presents and help charities out. I've even been known to attend church services on Christmas Eve, though that's purely to admire the glorious sounds of a Christmas choir and orchestra demonstrating the fruits of weeks of rehearsals. Yeah, Christmas is commercialised these days, but it's also a great time of year, filled with joy and wonder, especially for children (and plenty of booze for the grown ups). So, Merry Christmas all, including BigD and others of every religion and none. Maybe I'll look into a nice Santa hat for my avatar later on.

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

@Daedalus

Quote:

Daedalus wrote: @thread This is amazing :) For starters, Christmas was celebrated before Jesus worshipping became fashionable.

Yuletide was indeed an established feast before Christmasand Christmas took over many of it's practices, but Yuletide isn't exactly Christmas. So no, "Christmas" wasn't celebrated before Christ.

Quote:

The winter solstice, new year and all that whole season have been a big deal since the dawn of mankind, just like the Summer Solstice, Vernal Equinox and Autumn equinox. Christianity later appropriated the winter feasts for their own purposes, thus it became known as Christmas. We don't even know for sure when Jesus was born exactly, so Christmas is just chosen arbitrarily, like a race horse's birthday, further complicated by changes in the calendar system in the middle ages. Exact dates are pretty difficult to determine, but it's generally accepted the date of his birth was around Christmas (there is more debate surrounding the exact year of his birth). [quote] Many aspects of Christmas were already part of the celebrations - trees brought indoor and decorated, gifts, feasts, carol singing and more, all predate Jesus himself. The only bit that Christianity brought to the whole affair was a renaming and an obligation to attend your place of worship so you could be reminded of the perils of not obeying the church. Again, not really a problem. Christianity brought several new practices to the tradition, saying that going to the church is the only Christian tradition is selling it short. [quote] As for proof of Jesus... Nope. I'm fairly sure there probably was a guy by that name at the time who had a bit of a following, and then it just got all out of control. His mother wasn't a virgin though, that was probably just a story to try and avoid being stoned to death, and in superstitious times, people actually believed that, and Mary was saved.

"I'm fairly sure" isn't very scientific. That's not how logic works. Jesus existed, that's something I'm confident in, but let's just keep it at p v ~p (Jesus or not-Jesus), you can't get more certain then that. Mary being a virgin is largely symbolic. It's meant to ephasise purity and that's why she was chosen by God. Taking every story literally is something most Christians don't do (at least we Catholics, I don't know every strand of Protestantism and their dogma's).

Quote:

He also certainly wasn't his own father, because of elementary logic. And he also certainly wasn't resurrected. More likely, if he was a bit of a celebrity, after graverobbers stole his body from his tomb, his followers likely used this a propaganda to further their cause. And if he was resurrected, how come there's so little of his story that comes after that point? Surely there would be far more interest in him after that, resulting in more documented details of his second life? Or maybe he was tired after resurrecting himself and didn't bother healing or feeding anyone, opting to live out his life in peaceful solitude instead?

Now you're just guessing at what happened in stead of the revelation of the scripture. That's your good right, but again, not very scientific.

Quote:

If you think there's absolute proof of the resurrection and Jesus' other magic tricks, you really don't understand the word "proof", or the first thing about the scientific method. You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you try to assert those beliefs on others, you're going to need more than a mediaeval story book and your word. Without actual, verifiable evidence, Jesus Christ is simply Santa Claus for grown-ups.

Again, p v ~p. No proof one way or the other and making claims out of personal certainty is not very scientific.

Quote:

Even the definition of winter as a season is arbitrary; we were taught that winter consists of November, December and January in Irish primary schools for example, so it really depends on local convention, much like time zones and the side of the road to drive on.

That's the capitalist notion of measured time.

Quote:

Now, while certain people pray for me and all the inconvenient truths to be smote from existence, let me point out that I'm all for Christmas. I think it's great - I take lots of time off, see lots of family members I wouldn't ordinarily see, and celebrate another successful year with as many friends and loved ones as I can squeeze in. I'll wear a silly Christmas jumper to work and whenever I can, sing songs, give presents and help charities out. I've even been known to attend church services on Christmas Eve, though that's purely to admire the glorious sounds of a Christmas choir and orchestra demonstrating the fruits of weeks of rehearsals. Yeah, Christmas is commercialised these days, but it's also a great time of year, filled with joy and wonder, especially for children (and plenty of booze for the grown ups). So, Merry Christmas all, including BigD and others of every religion and none. Maybe I'll look into a nice Santa hat for my avatar later on.

You mean inconvenient thoughts . Anyway, I really didn't want to stretch the religious aspect of this thread, but you know how these discussions go.
I wish you a Merry Christmas all the same .

@Daedalus

Quote:

Daedalus wrote: Surely there would be far more interest in him after that, resulting in more documented details of his second life? Or maybe he was tired after resurrecting himself and didn't bother healing or feeding anyone, opting to live out his life in peaceful solitude instead?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Bal

Not sure if it was that one but I do remember seeing a docu bout some shrine in that region dedicated to a guy with wound on his hands and feets.

Would make perfect sense for "Jesus" to flee there after he somehow tricked the Romans unto taking him of the cross premature since most of his teachings really are buddhist wisdoms modified to at least fit a bit into Judaism.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: @Daedalus [quote] Would make perfect sense for "Jesus" to flee there after he somehow tricked the Romans unto taking him of the cross premature since most of his teachings really are buddhist wisdoms modified to at least fit a bit into Judaism.

What? Where did you get that kind of heretical nonsense?
With all due respect, Buddhism and Christianity don't have a lot in common (and what they have in common is mostly coïncidental.)

@WolfpackN64

Jesus' core message was "peace out" which is pretty much the same as buddhism.

Both were than sprinkeld with lots of nonsense to make them better fit into the dominant sheephearder folklore of the time.

The old and new testament describe 2 fundamentally different types of gods, but somehow they are supposed to be the same.......

Last edited by Kronos on 28-Nov-2017 at 04:19 PM.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

That's just the golden rule. That's pretty common amongst most religions and beliefs. Wheather they are "sprinkled with nonsense" is just a matter of your own personal outlook. Even my own bible has footnotes which points out when multiple traditions are smashed together in a text and when inconsistenties appear. Doesn't make it "nonsense", just the nature of these kind of texts.

@WolfpackN64

Quote:

WolfpackN64 wrote: Yuletide was indeed an established feast before Christmasand Christmas took over many of it's practices, but Yuletide isn't exactly Christmas. So no, "Christmas" wasn't celebrated before Christ.

Indeed, the important thing there being the quotes.

Quote:

Exact dates are pretty difficult to determine, but it's generally accepted the date of his birth was around Christmas (there is more debate surrounding the exact year of his birth).

Yep, some time between September and January, with the nominated date more or less coinciding with the Pagan festival celebrating the Winter Solstice.

Quote:

Again, not really a problem. Christianity brought several new practices to the tradition, saying that going to the church is the only Christian tradition is selling it short.

Probably right, but Christmas has evolved, commercially or otherwise, into a situation where more of the practices associated with Christmas are related to things other than Jesus than those that are actually to do with Christ.

Quote:

"I'm fairly sure" isn't very scientific. That's not how logic works. Jesus existed, that's something I'm confident in, but let's just keep it at p v ~p (Jesus or not-Jesus), you can't get more certain then that.

Indeed, which is why I qualified it with "I'm fairly sure." I'm not claiming for sure that he existed or not. I can't imagine there was this much noise about someone who didn't exist; it seems far more likely he did exist and became the subject of myths and legends, which is why I'm "fairly sure".

Quote:

Mary being a virgin is largely symbolic. It's meant to ephasise purity and that's why she was chosen by God. Taking every story literally is something most Christians don't do (at least we Catholics, I don't know every strand of Protestantism and their dogma's).

Absolutely, and it's good to see there are some sensible Christians around as well as those who blindly swallow everything in the Bible as Gospel (yes, intended...) Where I grew up, there was a parish priest who told his congregations that all the stories from the Bible were apocryphal and should just be taken as fables. This was refreshing to hear from a member of the clergy, but needless to say he wasn't at all popular with the devout Catholics of the town or his superiors, and was edged out or relevance and the public eye. But it showed, at least in my area, that many people really did believe in the immaculate conception, resurrection, transubstantiation and everything else that was written in the Bible.

Quote:

Now you're just guessing at what happened in stead of the revelation of the scripture. That's your good right, but again, not very scientific.

Absolutely, and that's my point. There's equal proof of my hypothesis as there is of that from the scriptures. Having said that, in comparison to that of the religious texts, my hypothesis is entirely plausible, and if you're looking for a scientific approach, it's the only hypothesis that still stands, since our current scientific knowledge of the universe eliminates the idea of resurrection.

Quote:

Again, p v ~p. No proof one way or the other and making claims out of personal certainty is not very scientific.

And again, no proof either way (and ignoring the whole burden of proof that comes with claiming something contrary to current human knowledge) leads one to examine various hypotheses and rule as many out as possible based on what we *do* know. We know that unicorns don't exist for example, but can you prove that? Similarly, we know that resurrection doesn't happen. And if it can't happen now, it can't have happened in the past. And that rules out the hypothesis where Jesus left the tomb under his own steam. Which, of the two hypotheses being discussed here, only leaves one.

Quote:

That's the capitalist notion of measured time.

Not really sure what you mean here. Most of the various allotments of season boundaries are arbitrary for whatever reason. In Ireland that happens to be to divide the year into four 3-month seasons on month boundaries, starting 1st of February, and this stems from the Gaelic traditions rather than any more recent capitalist influence. But anyway, it was in response to this:

Quote:

The season is called Winter and that doesn't start until 1st December by the meteorological calendar or 21st December by the astronomical calendar. By either measurement it's not even Winter never mind Christmas right now!

As opposed to any commentary on religious or commercial notions.

Quote:

You mean inconvenient thoughts

The points which were my thoughts were expressed as such.


@Kronos
That's an interesting hypothesis

Last edited by Daedalus on 28-Nov-2017 at 04:38 PM.

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

@Kronos

Quote:

Jesus' core message was "peace out" 

I think that's the gospel according to Oprah. It doesn't really comport with Matthew 10:34.

Or maybe Doctor Who. From The Keeper of Traken: "A whole empire being held together by people being terribly nice to each other."

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@Daedalus

Quote:

Daedalus wrote: @WolfpackN64 [quote] Yep, some time between September and January, with the nominated date more or less coinciding with the Pagan festival celebrating the Winter Solstice.

That the date isn't exact I'll give you, that it was moved around a bit for the Winter Solstice is also in the realm of probability.

Quote:

Probably right, but Christmas has evolved, commercially or otherwise, into a situation where more of the practices associated with Christmas are related to things other than Jesus than those that are actually to do with Christ.

True, but in essence Christmas is still a religious holiday, just one that many people choose to celebrate on a non religious basis, which is fine.

Quote:

Indeed, which is why I qualified it with "I'm fairly sure." I'm not claiming for sure that he existed or not. I can't imagine there was this much noise about someone who didn't exist; it seems far more likely he did exist and became the subject of myths and legends, which is why I'm "fairly sure".

There always be a debate arround myth-legend or revelation, but the your point is understandable.

Quote:

Absolutely, and it's good to see there are some sensible Christians around as well as those who blindly swallow everything in the Bible as Gospel (yes, intended...) Where I grew up, there was a parish priest who told his congregations that all the stories from the Bible were apocryphal and should just be taken as fables. This was refreshing to hear from a member of the clergy, but needless to say he wasn't at all popular with the devout Catholics of the town or his superiors, and was edged out or relevance and the public eye. But it showed, at least in my area, that many people really did believe in the immaculate conception, resurrection, transubstantiation and everything else that was written in the Bible.

When you live in a country that's very sceptical towards religion, you tend to examine and study your own tradtions more diligently to understand them better. The Catholic Church in Belgium is very much aware of the difficulties and there is a lot of extra explanation and even open talks and debate with lay people.

Quote:

Absolutely, and that's my point. There's equal proof of my hypothesis as there is of that from the scriptures. Having said that, in comparison to that of the religious texts, my hypothesis is entirely plausible, and if you're looking for a scientific approach, it's the only hypothesis that still stands, since our current scientific knowledge of the universe eliminates the idea of resurrection.

Depends, I don't know anything that completely excludes the possibility of all kinds of ressurection. Also, Jesus' ressurection was of very peculiar nature (being very temporary) in comparison with for example the Dharma Wheel concept.

Quote:

And again, no proof either way (and ignoring the whole burden of proof that comes with claiming something contrary to current human knowledge) leads one to examine various hypotheses and rule as many out as possible based on what we *do* know. We know that unicorns don't exist for example, but can you prove that? Similarly, we know that resurrection doesn't happen. And if it can't happen now, it can't have happened in the past. And that rules out the hypothesis where Jesus left the tomb under his own steam. Which, of the two hypotheses being discussed here, only leaves one.

Again, "we know resurrection doesn't happen" isn't really factually proven. Contrary to current human intuition is not the same as "contrary to human knowledge". Proof of burden is a nominal concept. Science usually starts from a hypothesis it wants to proof. As long as there is no proof, both possibilities remain open and you logically have a "p v~p" construct ("a thing or not-a-thing"), which is a logically true construct and the only one which has absolute certainty in this case.


Quote:

The points which were my thoughts were expressed as such.

At least you opt for reason instead of just postulating your opinion as many people unfortunatly do.

@WolfpackN64

Quote:

WolfpackN64 wrote: Depends, I don't know anything that completely excludes the possibility of all kinds of ressurection. Also, Jesus' ressurection was of very peculiar nature (being very temporary) in comparison with for example the Dharma Wheel concept.

Well, we go back to our two competing hypotheses then, one in which Jesus was resurrected, one in which he wasn't. We don't know for sure that Jesus was resurrected, other than from myth and legend similar to those superpowers of thousands of other figures from myths, so that can't possibly serve as an example. As I'm sure you're aware, proving something doesn't exist is very different to proving that it does exist, and by its nature, generally more difficult. But death in living things is pretty well understood, has been observed billions of times over, and all without a single recorded instance of a resurrection. All it takes to disprove a null hypothesis is one recorded example that contradicts it, yet that hasn't happened. And until it does and is verified, only one hypothesis can possibly stand: that in which Jesus was not resurrected.

Quote:

Again, "we know resurrection doesn't happen" isn't really factually proven.

Again, the burden of proof is on the claim that resurrection does happen, because we do know it doesn't happen, since we've seen death billions of times without it happening. As above.

Quote:

Contrary to current human intuition is not the same as "contrary to human knowledge".

In the entirety of human knowledge, there is no verifiable case of resurrection. Along with this, death in living creatures has been studied in immense detail for centuries, with not one single case of resurrection occurring. Until it happens once, it's perfectly valid to say that it doesn't happen, because, indeed, it doesn't happen.

Quote:

Proof of burden is a nominal concept. Science usually starts from a hypothesis it wants to proof. As long as there is no proof, both possibilities remain open and you logically have a "p v~p" construct ("a thing or not-a-thing"), which is a logically true construct and the only one which has absolute certainty in this case.

Not entirely. If you can't prove either, you start eliminating possibilities based on what you can prove, which is also a common scientific approach. This means trying to disprove every hypothesis, regardless of their stance. The hypothesis of gravediggers stealing Jesus' body and then his followers turning it into a miracle by claiming he was resurrected is extremely difficult to prove, because, based on our current knowledge, it's perfectly plausible - graverobbers have been documented for thousands of years, as have stories concocted for political, personal or social gain. The hypothesis of Jesus himself arising from death, exiting his tomb, showing himself to only a handful of people before disappearing again, is much easier to disprove, because that simply does not happen.

I've been through all that already though, so I don't need to rehash it here. It's interesting to note however that you apply different standards to different parts of the various myths - you readily accept that the immaculate conception is symbolic, but not the resurrection. Since there is no more evidence of one that the other, it seems a pretty arbitrary point at which to switch between absolute faith and rationality.

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

@Daedalus

Quote:

Not entirely. If you can't prove either, you start eliminating possibilities based on what you can prove, which is also a common scientific approach. This means trying to disprove every hypothesis, regardless of their stance. The hypothesis of gravediggers stealing Jesus' body and then his followers turning it into a miracle by claiming he was resurrected is extremely difficult to prove, because, based on our current knowledge, it's perfectly plausible - graverobbers have been documented for thousands of years, as have stories concocted for political, personal or social gain. The hypothesis of Jesus himself arising from death, exiting his tomb, showing himself to only a handful of people before disappearing again, is much easier to disprove, because that simply does not happen. I've been through all that already though, so I don't need to rehash it here. It's interesting to note however that you apply different standards to different parts of the various myths - you readily accept that the immaculate conception is symbolic, but not the resurrection. Since there is no more evidence of one that the other, it seems a pretty arbitrary point at which to switch between absolute faith and rationality.

I'm just going to adress the last point as the whole or this post would get unruly long. Ressurection has, of course, not been recorded in modern times by modern means of keeping record. One could argue from basically three standpoints and apply logic to them. The scientific standpoint is that ressurection has never been recorded, but death has countless times (which doesn't say much about ressurection). One could disprove ressucrection on the count it hasn't been proven, but a lot of scientific applications rest on theories that we have no way of actually proving (at least not now). The case of reincarnation would complicate this matter immensly, because one can under no circumstance witness reincarnation (as the soul would be bound to a new lifeform in a different time and place). Personally, I don't believe in reincarnation, but this is something so ungraspable by science, I'd say the scientific method is simply disqualified from trying to prove or disprove ressurection or reincarnation.

That leaves two similar yet different fields: philosophy and theology. Christian theology starts from dogmatic presumptions and works out it's theories from there, so of course it accepts ressurection. But I fully understand if you reject this notion on the accord of not being religious. Thus we come to philosophy. We could have a very long philosophical discussion about the afterlife, but you'd probably agree that philosophy will not give a closing awnser to our question.

So the only position in which we both can be certain is "ressurection or no-ressurection". All hypotheses stand.

@WolfpackN64

Quote:

WolfpackN64 wrote: well your atheism infuriates others

Comprehension, or just reading problems? Either way thanks for the support.

Let me quote myself from the post you've responded to:

Quote:

Anyway, the point, which was not surprisingly missed was to demonstrate that religious discussions have no place here. I was tired of hearing your religious ramblings so decided to show you how spewing religious beliefs can annoy people. You missed it completely however and instead just went on to re-enforce my point, oblivious to the fact, thinking you was arguing a point while supporting mine.

@WolfpackN64

Quote:

The case of reincarnation would complicate this matter immensly, because one can under no circumstance witness reincarnation (as the soul would be bound to a new lifeform in a different time and place). Personally, I don't believe in reincarnation, but this is something so ungraspable by science, I'd say the scientific method is simply disqualified from trying to prove or disprove ressurection or reincarnation.

How convenient that reincarnation cant be witnessed. Honestly, the selective blindness to stupidity of some is hilarious.

Discarding science, which *has* re-animated life as far back as '37 is also an odd omission.

@klx300r

Sorry, I'll leave it at that.
I've said my bit and made my point, no point in droning on it.

I do however apologize for the almost inevitable responses I'll receive.

Believe it or not the reason I even said anything was to try to kill any religious discussion.

BigD trying to force his beliefs onto you was very arrogant and pissed me off (arrogance is bad enough, but arrogance based on delusions is something I won't abide).


@Anyone interested in responding to me:

Please don't bother, the off topic portion of this thread has run it's course. Also know that I won't take you seriously anyway, and each and every word you type will just increase my internal ridicule of you. In short, let it go, there will be no jollies for you by responding.

@fishy_fis

Just remember to not only view people based on their beliefs, but factor in their application of it.

As I said; Chris Hedges is a very progressive man, and defender of equality, and doesnt let is personal faith affect his perspective on life.
Hes very critical towards any abuse, also when applied thru organised religion.

for Christmas avatars!

@ mods

Christmas banner time

_________________
____________________________
c64-2sids, A1000, A1200T-060@50(finally working!),A4000-CSMKIII
! My Master Miggies- Amiga 1000 & AmigaOne X1000 !
mancave-ramblings
X1000 I BELIEVE

@klx300r

I updated mine before the turkey was cold.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@klx300r

Done! Thanks for the reminder

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios