This thread is almost as good as the pnl trade, but instead of trying to boost your fragile ego by bragging about how much you made, we have a bunch of iconoclastic mental masturbators beating their chest and waisting energy that could be better put toward causes such as saving suffering children.
[/quote]Here we go again: another self-imagined scientist without any idea of what constitutes "knowledge of a scientific kind". You can't be a credible trader either: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from AudiQuattro: Buddhists would probably make great quants. Everything flows from a common operating system, regression to the mean, stoicism, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leading Buddhists still believed 60 years ago that light of the moon radiated from within the moon itself. Better keep on toying with little Audi Quattro's [/quote] I never said I was a scientist. You read that in just like every good scientist would. "knowledge of a scientific kind"- you must mean scientific knowledge. You are batting 100 in credibility. You are so much more enlightened than those Buddhists of 60 years ago that you subscribe to astrology newsletters, and you are convinced that you alone can crack the mystical fibonacci code!
Isn't that what ET is about? a bunch of time wasting between overseas trips to save the children from starvation.
... which is what I was saying. ... which is what I was saying. ... which is not what I was saying. (sigh) The early martyrs were not believers, they were knowers because they were contemporaneous. You missed it entirely. While my analytical skills may need to be revisited on some things, you've continued to miss the point. I concede it is somewhat complex, but you claim to be up to the challenge. The early disciples knew that Jesus claimed to be God and offered as proof that he would die and rise again after 3 days. They knew that either he did this or he didn't; he either rose from the dead, or he stayed in the grave. So, either he rose from the dead and proved he was God, or he didn't, and proved that he was a madman. If he didn't rise from the dead, would they die for what they knew to be false? -- because die they did, willingly (hundreds of historically-recorded deaths). You need to read the Simon Greenleaf treatise to understand it. You'll actually have to devote some thought to it, something I've found lacking in non-christians. And, it's obvious you've not read it, if you're as smart as you say. It's sort of like the mensa-related question: "A traveler comes to a fork in the road and does not know how to reach his destination. There are two men at the fork, one of whom always tells lies, while the other always tells the truth. The traveler doesn't know which one is which. He may ask one of the men only one question to find his way. What is his question and which man does he ask?" My question: Why would they die -- not for what they believed -- but for what they KNEW to be false? If you claim they are fanatics, you're in another tautology. In your own point # 2 you agree that these people wouldn't willingly die unless they knew that Jesus had risen from the dead, thus proving that he is God. Without being aware of it, you have answered my question.
... which is to say you cannot refute it. At least, you haven't done so. You could at least try, eh? All you have to do, if you're up to the challenge, is prove that the domain of effects a) is always a function of cause, or b) is never a function of cause. I seriously doubt you can do it. But, hey, give it a whirl. If you can't prove one of the two, my original statement stands.
There are about 24,000 manuscripts or fragments that are about 98% agreed textually. It is commonly accepted -- except by people with an anti-christian bias -- that you can determine the text of any document by a sort of reverse-engineering. In other words, if these twenty-four thousand documents are in textual agreement 98%, there should be little question as to the words of the original document. Let me ask you a question: If we could send a Harvard-trained archaeologist back in time with a video camera and record the original events which are recorded in the bible ... Would you accept this testimony? I think your bias is too severe to allow for certain possibilities.
Actually both arguments are flawed, quantum physics is a perfect example, time flows backwards, effects precede causes, non local influence... you can only settle this debate one way... the only way anyone has ever settled it to their satisfaction... you must train the mind to perceive beyond the illusion of matter and see the substance of existence... in short... meditate grasshoppers
U got lucky...I was inculcated catholicism by my mom since I was young and it has made me insecure and doubtful: while I keep questioning god I can't ignore the damage done to my instincts and feelings... still having a dead hope hanging around my mind. Hopefully we will see the day when humanity wakes up to reality that religion is not good and a distortion of reality which must be consigned to the dustbin of (bad) history.