Geekmom has a point. For the most part, we believe whatever the hell we want to believe. I don’t know how many people I know still believe the shroud of Tourin is the genuine article. Hell, most Christians I know believe that the Biblical Flood destroyed the dinosaurs.

This is just another attempt made by Jews to belittle Christianity. Why don’t they make a movie about the $17,000,000 the US spends each day for foreign aid to Israel while homelessness in this country runs rampant?

I’m Jesus, and so’s my wife

Hopefully Cameron will jazz it up a bit with a Jesus-Terminator taking out the Romans but finally being crushed by the rolling stone door of the tomb…

Actually I’m just subscribing to this thread. It’s pretty entertaining already and is bound to get more so. 

Vjack, y’know, maybe Jesus’ last descendant did die on the Titanic.  It’s a long walk from the middle of the ocean to New York. 

BTW the Romans crucified a lot of people.  Wouldn’t prove a darn thing if we found one of them.

Mamakas1: This is just another attempt made by Jews to belittle Christianity.

1. It’s pretty easy to do; y’all are so damned insecure ... just kidding.
2. It takes very little thought.
3. Great pleasure comes from pissing off millions of delusionalised psychos.
4. Don’t ever forget: Jesus was always a Jew and never a xian
5. If it wasn’t for that Jewish Roman tax collector you’d never’ve been able to have your Pauline fantasy to keep you secure, warm and fuzzy.

Damn!
I know it’s pointless going on cos you’re still back there wondering how the fuck eye knew yew called yourself ‘Mamakas1’.

Academic resurrection stuff

James Cameron is Jewish? Since when?

Tom - Re your “Academic resurrection stuff” site.

Years ago I did a speed reading course. One thing I still use all the time (especially when there’s lots and lots and lots to read) is: read the first and last paragraphs … you can make an educated guess at what happens in between.

Obviously, the heading “Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ” sort of gives it away.
So I’m going into it with eyes wide open.

So, the First paragraph:

“Man," writes Loren Eisley, “is the Cosmic Orphan.” He is the only creature in the universe who asks, Why? Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has learned to ask questions. “Who am I?” he asks. “Why am I here? Where am I going?”

This is supposed to mean something spooky but having read a bit of stuff containing these sentences I just know we’re gonna get into the Invisible Man theory.
So, the Last paragraph

These three great facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith--all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus. Today the rational man can hardly be blamed if he believes that on that first Easter morning a divine miracle occurred.

Yep; I was right - Invisible Man stuff and all ‘proved’ by circular logic using the bible. You have heard of circular logic, haven’t you Tom?
It goes like this ... from Slate.com:

Intelligently designed organisms are intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. That’s pretty much all there is to ID… … In other words, “If it looks like it was designed than it was designed and the proof that it was designed is that it looks like it was designed.”
Gotta love good old fashioned circular logic.

So, Tom, did you think this ancient superstitious occult stuff was gonna sink its claws into me and make me a believer?

Tom, one fine day you may wake up from your delusional dreams and realise ... The wiser you become the more you realise there are no invisible old men with grey beards swooping round the earth granting wishes and causing Tsunamis.

You may also be lucky enough to realise Xianity, as any other religion, is just another Weapon of Mass Distraction.

I wish you no harm Tom but go play in a more fertile field – try children.
I’ve heard their minds are easy to scare with threats of ex-communication and hell and all that other stuff you threaten non-believers with.

By the way, leaving a site address to go look at is no better than leaving a buncha mindless quotes from a silly old book written by half naked desert nomads crazed by the sun and seeing mirages everywhere they looked. 

Well, if nothing else, we’ve established that we’re both very firm in our beliefs. Reading the opening and closing paragraph of an article, without looking at the meat of the arguments presented, is perhaps the height of close-mindedness. The logic of the arguments presented is what drove me to share it, since this crowd insists on logic,logic,logic. It seems if I present the gospel, I’m blown out of the water. If I present any personal thought, I’m personally ridiculed. If I present any outside links (even when it pertains to the original story posted), it’s disregarded without being digested. I’m seeing that this forum exists (the religious pieces) simply as a place to mock True Believers. Hence, my recent bible quote about mockers.
Les asked why my first instincts when I show up here is to act like an ass. After giving that question some serious thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone posting here suggesting that the gospel is true will be considered an ass. Yeah, yeah, go ahead and tell me that it’s my personal style that you’re all having a problem with.
I don’t think so. I believe that it’s impossible to present the fact that people are sinners needing salvation without raising defenses. There are two parts to the gospel. A) You’re a filthy sinner in God’s eyes. B) Despite that, He loves you and provides a way to become righteous anyhow. So, if someone listens to A, but rejects B, all they’re hearing is - “You’re bad.” Would they go on to accept B, they would then reevaluate the giver of the news, and say “Hey, I hated to hear it, but thanks for letting me know that I needed salvation.’ If that doesn’t happen, it’s only natural to feel resentment.
So, I guess I need to realize that being looked at as an ass is O.K. I think I’ll get a t-shirt that says “Ass for God.” Wonder if they sell them at the local Christian gift shop?
See ya. Mock on....

Tom, Word, whatever you want to be called.  The reason your link wasn’t taken seriously is cause you did a drive by.  If you look at the stats of this site, there have been nearly 5000 posts.  In all this time how many drive by links do you think people here have seen?  How many Tom’s and Word’s do you think people have held a discussion with?

If you think dropping off a link is going to get you a civil discussion, this must be one of your first times dropping a line in an atheist forum.  I can assure you there are better ways to seek dialog if that is what you are truly after.

So don’t come in here acting like Mr. High and Mighty and we’re just a bunch of Believer bashing assholes.  How about dropping off a link but also doing an analysis of it and asking us for our opinion.  The ones that do that get a lot more out of us.

BTW, the logic in your link is lacking because it uses the circular argument right off the bat.

Tom: Despite that, He loves you

Of course he does.
In fact he loves me so much that if don’t believe in Big Daddy, The Kid and The Spook I go to hell ... for ever … that’s amore.
Tom, if that’s the kinda love you’re secure in then be happy with it.
As for only reading part of that LONG article - I have better things to do with my time especially when I KNOW it’s only gonna say the same stuff you and every other xian on the planet uses as logic.
Don’t you realise if the first premise is a crock then whatever is built on it is also a crock.
I don’t believe god exists so therefore his book is meaningless to me as well as all the stuff people preach as a result of reading that book and quoting that book.
You’re surprised none of your stuff turned me on.
Hey, I’m even more surprised you believe it but I’m not surprised you didn’t comment on circular logic because if you ceased to use it you’d cease to present a case for the belief in whatever you’ve chosen to be enslaved by.

Go find some children you can dazzle with bullshit, Tom.

Reading the opening and closing paragraph of an article, without looking at the meat of the arguments presented, is perhaps the height of close-mindedness.

Nope. The closing paragraph tells me that the argument presented begs the question and is not worth my time if I were interested to hear the argument in the first place.

The logic of the arguments presented is what drove me to share it, since this crowd insists on logic,logic,logic.

Here’s a link for you: Logical Fallacies

It seems if I present the gospel, I’m blown out of the water.

Yes. It’s like dangling your dick in front of a known lesbian’s face to turn her straight.

Take your proselytizing elsewhere. We all know how to find a church.

If I present any personal thought, I’m personally ridiculed.

Perhaps. You’ve poisoned your well, didn’t you?

I’ve been around here for a while. You can find civil debates and discussions with Christians, some of them long-time regulars themselves, but the difference between them and you is that they don’t preach to the audience.

If I present any outside links (even when it pertains to the original story posted), it’s disregarded without being digested.

That’s because there’s nothing digestible there…

I’m seeing that this forum exists (the religious pieces) simply as a place to mock True Believers.

True Believers™ do and say many things well deserving of mockery. As opposed to true believers. Quoting scripture just makes you come across as a sanctimonious TB.

Les asked why my first instincts when I show up here is to act like an ass. After giving that question some serious thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone posting here suggesting that the gospel is true will be considered an ass.

Anybody suggesting the gospel to be literally true is likely to be called an ass around here. Other than that, it depends.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and tell me that it’s my personal style that you’re all having a problem with.

Fine. I do have a problem with your personal style.

I believe that it’s impossible to present the fact that people are sinners needing salvation without raising defenses.

What you call a fact, i.e. that people are sinners, is not a premise we accept. You have to show it to be a fact without resorting to scripture - in other words, you have to show it to be true within our world view. I’m not holding my breath.

There are two parts to the gospel. A) You’re a filthy sinner in God’s eyes.

To put it bluntly, your god can take it and shove it.

B) Despite that, He loves you and provides a way to become righteous anyhow.

I’m thinking a word beginning with “a”.

So, if someone listens to A, but rejects B, all they’re hearing is - “You’re bad.” Would they go on to accept B, they would then reevaluate the giver of the news, and say “Hey, I hated to hear it, but thanks for letting me know that I needed salvation.’ If that doesn’t happen, it’s only natural to feel resentment.

The atheists on this site already reject A. Is this enough of a clue concerning the source of resentment?

So, I guess I need to realize that being looked at as an ass is O.K. I think I’ll get a t-shirt that says “Ass for God.” Wonder if they sell them at the local Christian gift shop?

Suit yourself.

See ya. Mock on....

Sure thing.

I’m seeing that this forum exists (the religious pieces) simply as a place to mock True Believers.

L4T/Tom/Word, I did take the time to read the link you provided and I have to say your opinion that it is an academic piece is generous indeed. Offered as “Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ”, there’s not a speck of evidence within it.

Instead his proofs are that someone saw something which could only have been Jesus’ ghost, others saw an empty tomb, concluding “that the resurrection appearances cannot be dismissed as mere subjective visions on the part of the disciples, but were objective visionary events.”

And the believer-come-lately (fifty-plus years late) “Paul’s information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead.” ("Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period...(T)hus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary.)

The writer’s arguments consist fully of nebulous qualifiers such as apparently, seemingly, the best explanation, undoubtedly, virtually indisputable and so on. He builds proof on hearsay and innuendo and, yes, circular argumentativeness. The bottom line is that he uses the Biblical accounts as his sole source for his conclusions. That’s not the least bit academic or evidential.

It’s likely the biggest mistake you made here was to take on the moniker of “Looking4Truth”. Nothing you have said, thus far, suggests that, no matter where they might lead you, you wish to discover truths.

I believe that it’s impossible to present the fact that people are sinners needing salvation without raising defenses. There are two parts to the gospel. A) You’re a filthy sinner in God’s eyes. B) Despite that, He loves you and provides a way to become righteous anyhow.

You believers flippantly scatter around that accusation without even stopping to think how insulting you’re being. You seem to think that because an antiquated book generously throws the “sinner” epithet around, you can do so too without apology. It’s base and puerile and you should stop doing it.

Toughen up dude and present your arguments reasonably and unapologetically. We’ll give you whatever credit you deserve, but we’ll let you know when we think you’re taking the easy way out too.

It’s likely the biggest mistake you made here was to take on the moniker of “Looking4Truth”. Nothing you have said, thus far, suggests that, no matter where they might lead you, you wish to discover truths.

Brock, note the distinction between capital-T Truth and plain old truth.

I object that the article says Christians worship the alleged Tomb of Jesus.

I am what you would probably consider a “True believer” and I am not bothered by this story at all.  I find it quite comical in fact, but I can see some people getting upset about it.  But honestly I have seen more atheists upset about this than Christians.

About the remark

“Calling Atheism a Religion is like calling Bald a hair color”

What would you call Atheism?  The absence of Religious beliefs?  If it’s not a Religion, that’s what I would call it I guess… but then again, all a Religion is(as far as I’ve always understood) doesn’t mean you have to believe in a God.

Here’s the wikipedia definition,

“A Religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion can also be described as a way of life.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. “Organized religion” generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation and responsibility. “Religion” is sometimes used interchangeably with “faith” or “belief system,"[1] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.”

So, Atheism is definitely not a “faith”, but you could call it a religion.  It is a stance on the supernatural, theology, and divine beings… it claims, “There is no God.” Agnosticism, is not a Religion though because it makes no claims regarding the supernatural, it is simply a position… or the absence of a position?

Bald though, is not a hair color because there is no hair to be colored.  But Atheism can be a Religion because it has an official statement or belief regarding the supernatural “There is no God.” Very different from hair.  In fact, Atheism even has it’s evangelists, and conventions(The Alabama Atheist Convention, and many others.) If you wish to disagree, do so.  If you wish to disagree publicly, do so… but please, at least entertain me and the others with a reasonable argument, not just a clever funny statement.

Calling a statement like the one you made an intelligent argument is like calling bald a hair color… there is no argument, or intelligence.

-James’

The word of God says it all, but unfortunitally many in this world even Christians will be foolish enough to adhere to Mr Camerons claims.(Fables) This little exercise from James Cameron will indeed seperate the Sheep from the Goats!!!!

Mark 13 vs 22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
2 timothy 4 Vs 2 to 4.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; : And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

GreatBongChicken, atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods, not a disbelief per se.

I am what you would probably consider a “True believer” and I am not bothered by this story at all.  I find it quite comical in fact, but I can see some people getting upset about it.  But honestly I have seen more atheists upset about this than Christians.

When you make a statement like this one, you need to follow it with examples/situations that justify why you think atheists are more upset; otherwise it’s just sensationalism.

Elwed: Ah ha, I hadn’t noticed his refusal to commit. He’s looking for little t truth. (Looking4truth).

Julian: You forgot the ™

How can I do that please?

TheGreatBongChicken/James: What would you call Atheism?  The absence of Religious beliefs?  If it’s not a Religion, that’s what I would call it I guess… but then again, all a Religion is(as far as I’ve always understood) doesn’t mean you have to believe in a God.

I think it depends on the angle you look at it, because there’s more than one version of atheism and theism, common to both:
-simple belief in a religion or atheism - If you conclude that that’s the way things are without complete unquestionable proof/logic/personal experience that this is definitely how things are, sometimes this can be used in conjunction with the next point
-self categorisation, but due to the nature of categorisation, using pre-set limits probably won’t fit exactly with yourself and the limits can be arbitary, but it is a strong force in society, and that certain categories of people (ie people of certain jobs) should always hold certain views, which isn’t 100% true, and for those who do deviate it’s often significant deviation
-what best fits your current logical model of how things are and best explains stuff like NDE’s and the more everyday stuff that doesn’t really register, and both theism and atheism are used here too

I think the funniest (in retrospect) thing I ever did when I was a Bible Thumper was write a term paper for Philosophy of Religion that basically was intended to prove that Jesus was god.  I honestly believed that no-one had ever written anything to that effect, and that my instructor was going to read it and just immediately come to see things my way and become a Christian.

I was perhaps an extreme case, but honestly, do most True Believers really think that most people in this day and age are completely ignorant about their religion?  You know, the one that 80% of the population claims to subscribe to?  Anyone that answers yes to that should probably get out and talk to some real people, not just listen to what your preacher says on Sunday morning.

You haven’t even seen Cameron’s information yet, Frank and already you’re trashing it.

Oh, and that scripture quoting really brought home your point. Who could argue with you now?

(I bet Kirk Cameron is wishing he had a different last name right about now.)

I’m having a hard time believing that Tom is the same “Looking4Truth” from all those months ago. You would think that anyone with even a passing familiarity with this site wouldn’t be so quick to assume that we would bend over and accept blatant proselytizing (or become so childishly indignant when we don’t).

Hmm… Brock, I believe that this article is evidence that I there is quite a stir, or at least discussion on this subject.  It is the first article I have found and browse many popular Christian websites.

Agnosticism is a lack of belief in Gods, Atheism is a specific “God does not exist” statement.

Once again, from Wikipedia,

Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism.[3][4][5] However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[9][10] In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).[11][12][13]

Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors that all atheists adhere to.[14][15][16]

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or non-spiritual.[17] However, some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities.[18][19] Atheism is also sometimes equated with anti-theism (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion),

Note, the official definition first.  Then what contemporary atheists have changed it to, that is why I specifically said “Atheism can be a religion.” Because according to some individual definitions(Which better fit the definition of Agnosticism) would not fit into the definition.  You see, the official definition given first, is a Religion.  The individual who made the first claim made an absolute analogy to baldness and hair.

… is like saying baldness is…

You see?  Calling such a claim an intelligent argument is like calling bald a hair color....  it has neither intelligence, or an argument.

I stand on my original position.

-James’

What would you call Atheism?  The absence of Religious beliefs?

To stay with the baldness metaphor, just because some bald people discuss certain abhorrent hairstyles, are sick and tired of being called bad persons by the coifs, and modest numbers join bald pride organizations, it still doesn’t follow that baldness is a hair color.

Hmm...I’m thinking up a logical fallacy that might explain it....

All True Believers are Trolls, but not all Trolls are True Believers.

OK, sorry about that, I guess I qualify as a Troll now…