Do You Believe In GOD

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I am no biblical scholar, but I do have a question:  when people say "many people saw Christ walk after he was resurrected", how do we truly know that to be true?  Isn't the proof really just a few disciples claiming that many saw the deceased/reanimated Christ walk?  Since they were utterly invested in their belief, can we trust their words to be true?

I am not trying to be a "gotcha" asshole here.  I ask these questions in agnostic earnestness.

Some of the things in the New Testament are demonstrably false (a couple of the gospels are even contradictory with each other), and material was clearly placed there to promote the aggrandizement of Jesus.  This is not a controversial matter amongst scholars.  Nor is it controversial that a committee of nabobs got together at the council of Nicea and decided which canonical texts would be included in the New Testament, and which were too far-fetched to include and would be counter-productive (Jesus as a boy striking dead playmates who teased him; Jesus bringing alive stone statues of birds; etc.)  Yeah, they VOTED about which of God's Holy Texts would likely pass the smell test amongst the laity. 

As for the resurrection you inquire about, let me answer that by presenting you with this list.  Who is this?

* Born of a virgin
* Born on Dec 25th
* Star in the East
* Adored by three kings
* Prodigal child teacher at age of 12
* Baptized at the age of 30; began ministry after that
* Traveled with 12 disciples
* Performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water
* Known as: The Truth, The Light, God's anointed shepherd, The Lamb of God, and others
* Betrayed and crucified
* Buried for three days, then resurrected

Jesus?  No, Horus of Egypt, circa 3000 BCE, three thousand years before Jesus.  You might be surprised to hear that there is a multitude of religious figures who died and were resurrected three days later.  Not to mention many of the same attributes as on the list above.  The whole Jesus myth is a rehash of characteristics that had been applied to dozens of other religious figures going back long before the time of Jesus.

So take the fact that the resurrection story was assigned to practically every major religious figure of the time and for ages before, plus the known "creative writing" about Jesus to enhance his stature as the messiah, and you can't help but conclude that it's probably nothing more than bullshit.

[Kelt]

  Who is this?

* Born of a virgin
* Born on Dec 25th
* Star in the East
* Adored by three kings
* Prodigal child teacher at age of 12
* Baptized at the age of 30; began ministry after that
* Traveled with 12 disciples
* Performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water
* Known as: The Truth, The Light, God's anointed shepherd, The Lamb of God, and others
* Betrayed and crucified
* Buried for three days, then resurrected

Fuck, you could be talking about ME there.

Although I've been fucked up on benders that lasted way more than three days, like that one time I came to in the K5 in Prague with a Senegalese dancer chugging on my junk, realising I'd missed my flight to Detroit by about a week and a half... Did Jesus ever do shit like that?

No, he hung out with a bunch of stinky dudes and talked shit about fig trees.

Some god you've got there, Christians.

I'm not saying I'm better than jesus, I'm just saying our actions speak for themselves.

[Bart Ell]

[Kelt]

[Bart Ell]

[onan]

I often have atheists knocking on my door to discuss my salvation.

[Bart Ell]

I often have atheists knocking on my door to discuss my salvation.

FINE! Add lazy to their list of qualities, too.

[FightTheFuture]

I am no biblical scholar, but I do have a question:  when people say "many people saw Christ walk after he was resurrected", how do we truly know that to be true?  Isn't the proof really just a few disciples claiming that many saw the deceased/reanimated Christ walk?  Since they were utterly invested in their belief, can we trust their words to be true?

I am not trying to be a "gotcha" asshole here.  I ask these questions in agnostic earnestness.

Those are great questions.

What we know from mutliple historical records, which virtually every legitimate scholar in the world -- even the atheists and agnostics in the group -- concede as completely authentic, is that the Disciples were in despair after Jesus was crucified. Then, three days later, they claim to have seen, and interacted with, the risen Jesus. Don`t forget, Paul had his conversion approximately 2 years after the cross,  while on his way to Damascus to persecute the new Christians.

As far as making the whole thing up, well, that`s pretty unlikely. Why would the Disciples, who had just watched Jesus get horribly beaten, tortured, and crucified, go into hiding...only to emerge emboldened and enthused, ready to spread the news -- at great peril to themselves?

Why would James, Jesus` brother, go from unbeliever to full-on believer and also begin spreading the news? Because the risen Jesus also appeared to him. Which, btw, led to his execution. Why would Paul, who despised Christians, and took joy in their persecution, suddenly become one, which also led to his execution, after being jailed, beaten and tortured on numerous occasions? Any rational person must conclude that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and interact with the disciples. Paul even writes of a sermon Jesus gave to over 500 people!

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Those are great questions.

What we know from mutliple historical records, which virtually every legitimate scholar in the world -- even the atheists and agnostics in the group -- concede as completely authentic, is that the Disciples were in despair after Jesus was crucified. Then, three days later, they claim to have seen, and interacted with, the risen Jesus. Don`t forget, Paul had his conversion approximately 2 years after the cross,  while on his way to Damascus to persecute the new Christians.

As far as making the whole thing up, well, that`s pretty unlikely. Why would the Disciples, who had just watched Jesus get horribly beaten, tortured, and crucified, go into hiding...only to emerge emboldened and enthused, ready to spread the news -- at great peril to themselves?

Why would James, Jesus` brother, go from unbeliever to full-on believer and also begin spreading the news? Because the risen Jesus also appeared to him. Which, btw, led to his execution. Why would Paul, who despised Christians, and took joy in their persecution, suddenly become one, which also led to his execution, after being jailed, beaten and tortured on numerous occasions? Any rational person must conclude that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and interact with the disciples. Paul even writes of a sermon Jesus gave to over 500 people!

Dude, wtf.  On the one hand, you say that you're not going to submit yourself to be questioned about your beliefs, and then on the other you post this kind of horseshit repeatedly which just begs for people to cornhole it.

In the words of Harry Truman, "If you can't stay in, then get the hell out."  If your beliefs are so fragile that they can''t stand up to scrutiny, then maybe you should shop them somewhere else where contrary opinion is not allowed.  I can tell you for damn sure that you are lying with what you are posting here.  Isn't there some imperative against lying in the bible?  Or is that only when the lying doesn't further the cause of christianity?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I often have atheists knocking on my door to discuss my salvation.

Some time ago I had some Jehovah's Witnesses ring my bell (which sits right below a sign saying NO SOLICITORS).  I opened the door, pulled out my johnson and wagged it at them and said, "Witness this."

They haven't been back since.

[FightTheFuture]

Dude, wtf.  On the one hand, you say that you're not going to submit yourself to be questioned about your beliefs, and then on the other you post this kind of horseshit repeatedly which just begs for people to cornhole it.

In the words of Harry Truman, "If you can't stay in, then get the hell out."  If your beliefs are so fragile that they can''t stand up to scrutiny, then maybe you should shop them somewhere else where contrary opinion is not allowed.  I can tell you for damn sure that you are lying with what you are posting here.  Isn't there some imperative against lying in the bible?  Or is that only when the lying doesn't further the cause of christianity?

Just wanted to let ya know, the portobello burger recipe you floated my way was a huge winner! I do appreciate it! I even dabbed a bit of liquid smoke on one and hit it with the broiler...nice.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Just wanted to let ya know, the portobello burger recipe you floated my way was a huge winner! I do appreciate it! I even dabbed a bit of liquid smoke on one and hit it with the broiler...nice.

Pleased to hear it.  Tell me about your mods by PM, always looking for improvements.

[SciFiAuthor]

This is all dependent upon the human race having the capability, now or in the future, to create a situation whereby we can achieve a genuine and full 'understanding'.  That simply may never be possible.

It would depend on some aspect of the universe not being quantifiable. It's, so far, shown itself to simply be made up of quantifiable information.

The gradual, latterly rapid, development of the human race from a technological point of view, while impressive, is no real grounds to believe we will always develop at such a pace, or if there are limitations to the degree to which we might develop. If there are biological and technological limitations to human evolution and manufacturing then that puts the brakes on any idea of complete and full understanding of, for want of a better term, Life, the Universe, and Everything.

There aren't many instances in history though were technological development slows. Catastrophes such as the fall of the Western Roman Empire can do it, but when one removes those and looks at tech in general from the dawn of the stone age until now, all it does is move faster exponentially. There probably is a point where all information becomes known and all invention is as far as it can go within the physical laws of the universe, but I think that's long after the development of human-equivalent AI. We're really not that far away at present development speeds.

I don't believe there are any biological roadblocks that would prevent augmentation and improvement of the species. Ethical roadblocks, yes, but the science for improving ourselves is basically there already. It's now the techniques that need to be tackled. We're really not that complicated as opposed to the universe itself. 

Now I'm a technophile, which means I love technology rather than an admission that I have sex with underage computers, and I have confidence that for the foreseeable future we will continue to advance at at an ever-increasing rate, particularly as we can delegate more and more problems to computers and whatever follows on from there.  What I can't be sure about, however.. and I don't think anyone can be sure about...  is the likelyhood that at some point we're going to encounter a degree of diminishing return.

There's certainly a limit, you can't shrink it infinitely and you can only move an electron so fast, so there will come a time of diminishing returns and eventually a brick wall. But I don't think we're close to it with things like quantum computing and atomic-level machining making headway.

By that time we may have colonised z8_GND_5296, have rebuilt our bodies to withstand the direct heat and gravity of a pulsar, and be sending tourists back in time to see the birth of jesus christ himself, assuming he ever existed even though we've established he may not have, probably didn't and for sure definitely never did.... however, that STILL might not be even .0001% of the way towards understanding the scope and complexity of the universe in which we live.

Pffft, we don't need that shit. Just simulate the pulsar, put the 3d virtual glasses on and act like you're there. While you could be right on understanding the scope and complexity part, I suspect that General Relativity, Special Relativity and Quantum theory have us much further than .0001% already. Once a quantum theory of gravity shows up (which is admittedly a sticking point, if we don't find one, we're in trouble) the understanding of the universe will advance very rapidly for a while. We'll run into other things, new avenues to ponder, but that could well be where the law of diminishing returns comes into play. We may already have the answer in one of the variations of string theory.

We may never, in that case, achieve the capability required to create a supercomputer that can comprehend the full extent and mechanisms behind our universe.  Possibly in three or four dimensional space we could, since that's what our biology has evolved to understand, but beyond that there's simply no way of knowing if we could even understand true multidimensional space where our physics and perceptions would be completely alien.  Even now there are simple ancient texts that we have no way of understanding, and these were written by human beings more primitive than ourselves, in three dimensional space.  Will we be able to translate them? Possibly, but for all our genius we haven't done it yet.

Reevolve our biology to understand 11 dimensions. Just sayin'. That said, we've also translated the vast majority of ancient texts that derive from formerly lost languages. For those that don't, well, all the more reason for someone to develop an ancestor simulation.

Extrapolate those limitations, even taking advances into consideration, and place them in a realm where our own physical concepts of time and space have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, even as we evolve and advance technologically, there's no guarantee that we'll ever be able to understand, perceive, or manipulate any kind of readable data.

Time itself appears to simply be a dimension, which deflated the hell out of its mystery. That said, I don't know that other dimensions of space would have different physical attributes so different that they'd violate the laws of physics, they would after all still be part of this universe. Maybe non-locality or something might be a bigger player, but we already understand that. Now asking what's outside the universe should a multiverse exist, that one may be unknowable. But it's also outside the universe.

Can we master three dimensional space?  Probably, given enough time and resources. We could become a type X ciivilisation, that can use our universe as a fluffy fucktoy. Kids can have pet Red Dwarfs, we could vacation on the event horizon of a black hole, but these all exist inside our own three or four dimensions of space and time.  Even the most exotic of physics still, more or less, make some kind of sense.

Doing a good job so far, string theory seems to have a nice handle on 11 dimensional space. But it may also not be right, so perhaps the real problem will come in our ability to experiment and prove any of it. We may have a model that behaves exactly like the universe does, but can't declare it a fact because we can't do the experiments to prove it. But that doesn't stop one from creating a simulation that seems to  behave as the universe does.

As for the simulation, as you say it's a rudimentary approximation of a tiny portion of what might constitute the three dimensional universe if the universe were a closed system containing the limited number of parameters with which our coding can impart... it's a little like having a 2 year old draw a picture of hyperdimentional space in 11 or more dimensions and saying, yeah, that's kind of an approximation, though the drool in the left hand corner probably represents nothing.

I'd liken it more to a puzzle piece with a recognizable feature that tells you what you already know, that the end puzzle picture is Miss Piggy.

It's an interesting experiment, but to call it limited would be something of an understatement.

Make it bigger. And they will.

I would have to say that your estimate of a half century before we're altering our genetics to any significant degree is probably quite a way off.  We may be transplanting printed hearts, or lab-grown penises, but "altering ourselves into anything we wish" I would say is wishful thinking.  If I wanted to be a ten-eyed supermutant with functioning wings and a sweet prehensile tail for swinging on branches then I'm going to guess at considerably longer than 50 years before I can get the required surgery that allows my dreams to come true in that respect.

Oh god no. Given the financial potential of being able alter one's appearance, it will be here probably earlier than I predict. Look at how lucrative cosmetic surgery is; westernization of the eyes is by far the most popular cosmetic surgery in Asia. If something promises to do the alterations better, more naturally and more safely as genetic manipulation does, then that shit will hit as fast as it can in countries like South Korea. You probably won't see the prehensile tail, it doesn't strike me as an easy sell (then again, furries do exist), but you'll see people changing their race and making their kids into geniuses pretty fast.

As far as dick size, that may never be possible. We may hit a snag where the curse of many men cannot ever be solved and we're left with many of us (myself excluded, thank the LORD. Praise Jesus!) are never able to overcome our shortcomings.

[SciFiAuthor]

And, well, futurist science fiction authors NEVER get their predictions right.


Arthur C. Clarke Predicts the Internet & PC

Seriously, that SOB was spooky.

[SciFiAuthor]

Now you're getting into a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.  Yes, I understand that it's a continuum between pure ideology and pure expression of power, and difficult to know where one begins and the other ends in any one particular case.  You could abstract it even further and say it's human nature that's the cause.  What distinguishes religion is that it has unassailable authority baked in as an essential element.  Politics is always something that is subject to debate; religious doctrine is not.  It's anti-social and regressive, unless you have a hankering to return to the good old days of absolute monarchy.

No, I mean it gets dangerous when it becomes an expression of politics. Loving thy neighbor seems to go really wrong when a crusade is called and self-proclaimed atheists were some of the biggest murderers of the 20th century. It had nothing to do with religious or atheist ideology, and simply boiled down to politics. That said, I don't really see atheism as any different these days. It's become militant, pushy, fossilized because it became political. I mean really, this thread is a thinly veiled political thread involving all us usual suspects doing the same thing we do in the politics section holding the same sorts of positions and having the same fight. I mean how disturbing is that if you take a step back and look at it?

[area51drone]

As far as making the whole thing up, well, that`s pretty unlikely. Why would the Disciples, who had just watched Jesus get horribly beaten, tortured, and crucified, go into hiding...only to emerge emboldened and enthused, ready to spread the news -- at great peril to themselves?

Why would James, Jesus` brother, go from unbeliever to full-on believer and also begin spreading the news? Because the risen Jesus also appeared to him. Which, btw, led to his execution. Why would Paul, who despised Christians, and took joy in their persecution, suddenly become one, which also led to his execution, after being jailed, beaten and tortured on numerous occasions? Any rational person must conclude that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and interact with the disciples. Paul even writes of a sermon Jesus gave to over 500 people!

I'm sure others have better answers than I, but what is more likely: that whole thing was made up, or a group of followers saw some guy rise from the dead?   

Lots of people have claimed to have seen Elvis too, but you don't believe he's still alive now, do you FTF?

When people have "religious" experiences, they tend to change beliefs pretty quickly and with great conviction - i.e. near death experiences or dreams.    For all you know, assuming that Peter was a real person, Peter had some drug induced "vision" of Christ that caused him to change his ways.   Or maybe a believer threatened his life or family in some way causing him to sacrifice his own life to save others.  Perhaps he drank from pottery that was laced with mercury and went insane.  Who knows why he would make it up, but you weren't there, so why do you believe this old book?   Now, jumping back to reality, you don't even know that this even happened with Peter, again if he even existed in the first place.   The book was probably written well after the times.  It very easily could have just been a story for the purpose of indoctrinating others.

The problem with your religion is that you put your faith into a book that has no real intrinsic known truth to the stories contained within.   You assume everything is true, and you cherry pick what you like and ignore what you don't.

[Kelt]

It would depend on some aspect of the universe not being quantifiable. It's, so far, shown itself to simply be made up of quantifiable information.

Except for the 75% of which is made up of 'dark energy' that we have no idea what it is, does, consists of, or how it functions, and what its purpose might be.  So that giant chunk right there could perhaps be considered, at this point, unquantifiable. That's a pretty significant portion of the universe with a giant question mark hanging over it as things stand, so it likely isn't true to say the universe is simply made up of quantifiable material.

There aren't many instances in history though were technological development slows. Catastrophes such as the fall of the Western Roman Empire can do it, but when one removes those and looks at tech in general from the dawn of the stone age until now, all it does is move faster exponentially. There probably is a point where all information becomes known and all invention is as far as it can go within the physical laws of the universe, but I think that's long after the development of human-equivalent AI. We're really not that far away at present development speeds.

Well the fall of the Western Empire didn't really do a whole lot on a global scale, the Middle East, the Chinese, and the Egyptians more or less continued along at the same level of technological advancement as they had prior to the fall of Rome. We tend to overstate the effects of Rome's collapse since Westerners are what you might call Westerncentric when it comes to history. Bad news for Europe, though, that's for sure.

Unless you were German, then it was great.

Anyway, it goes without saying that given the largely forwards thrust of evolution we're not going to get dumber, but that's not to say that there isn't a biological limit to the capacity of the human brain. It's not that big, and even factoring in larger brains, there's always the potential that it just isn't biologically feasible for a brain to grow beyond a certain size... it almost certainly can't, just given the energy needed to keep a relatively small brain functioning.

I don't believe there are any biological roadblocks that would prevent augmentation and improvement of the species. Ethical roadblocks, yes, but the science for improving ourselves is basically there already. It's now the techniques that need to be tackled. We're really not that complicated as opposed to the universe itself. 

Artificial augmentation is one thing, but again, if you have a brain that has only so much capacity for growth and processing, jamming memory chips and supercomputers into the human brain (figuratively if not literally) may reach a critical mass beyond which you're meeting those diminishing returns, and that may well be at a far lower threshold than you seem to believe.  Sure, I want to be like The Mekon, but that may simply not be possible.

Pffft, we don't need that shit. Just simulate the pulsar, put the 3d virtual glasses on and act like you're there. While you could be right on understanding the scope and complexity part, I suspect that General Relativity, Special Relativity and Quantum theory have us much further than .0001% already. Once a quantum theory of gravity shows up (which is admittedly a sticking point, if we don't find one, we're in trouble) the understanding of the universe will advance very rapidly for a while. We'll run into other things, new avenues to ponder, but that could well be where the law of diminishing returns comes into play. We may already have the answer in one of the variations of string theory.

We're only beyond .0001% if all things were equal, I suspect. We're figuring out the easy shit... once you start trying to figure out 11th dimensional physics that aren't even physics by any measurement we can apply, even with our Z80 chip-laden craniums running on the power of a sun at full gallop, then it seems likely our earlier progress will look like the gimme it was.

Reevolve our biology to understand 11 dimensions. Just sayin'. That said, we've also translated the vast majority of ancient texts that derive from formerly lost languages. For those that don't, well, all the more reason for someone to develop an ancestor simulation.

We usually translate these ancient scripts as a result of having a frame of reference. When we come up against things like the Voynich manuscript, or a Rongorongo shopping list we're completely fucked, there being no frame of reference by which to even begin a translation.

Time itself appears to simply be a dimension, which deflated the hell out of its mystery. That said, I don't know that other dimensions of space would have different physical attributes so different that they'd violate the laws of physics, they would after all still be part of this universe. Maybe non-locality or something might be a bigger player, but we already understand that. Now asking what's outside the universe should a multiverse exist, that one may be unknowable. But it's also outside the universe.

Time functions as time because it's largely within our four-dimensional sensory understanding, though until a few hundred years ago we weren't even that familiar with the concept. 6am was "That time of day when the dog starts pawing at the door." rather than a standard measurement of the Earth's rotation around the sun. Who's to say that time isn't doing some mad shit behind the scenes?  We already know a gravitational field will alter its 'speed', so what if a higher dimension is doing something crazy with time that we simply don't notice because we can't see, measure, or even observe that higher dimension or its effects on time.  We assume we understand time because in our four dimensional space it acts like we say it should act. Maybe when we slap on the noumenal glasses we'll go 'well, holy shit.. didn't see that before."  assuming we ever reach a level where we can manufacture noumenal glasses, or comprehend the information they make available to us.

Doing a good job so far, string theory seems to have a nice handle on 11 dimensional space. But it may also not be right, so perhaps the real problem will come in our ability to experiment and prove any of it. We may have a model that behaves exactly like the universe does, but can't declare it a fact because we can't do the experiments to prove it. But that doesn't stop one from creating a simulation that seems to  behave as the universe does.

And there's a stumbling block.  Until you have a top-down view of something you can never really be sure.

Some years ago I spoke to a guy who is a bona fide scientist. He was something of a condescending dick, but whatever... I was asking him when we could expect a faster than light drive that would allow us to to exactly that... go faster than the speed of light. I was assured that would never happen, because physics. Surely with the advancement of our understanding of physics, I responded, we could get around the problem that current physics said was and wasn't possible. I was told that it wasn't possible, because physics.

Now personally I believe he had his head up his arse, and though he was undoubtedly smart he just wasn't very imaginative. I believe, like you, that what is impossible today may not be impossible tomorrow, and as soon as Japan starts mass producing a Raquel Welch almost-human consumer item I'll be right there at the front of the line with my whatever-passes-for-currency clutched tightly in my sweaty palm. I also happen to believe that FTL travel is more than possible, it's an inevitability.  Harnessing the power of the Universe is almost certainly achievable, I believe. and as you mention, biolo-tech enhancements are going to become commonplace... though 50 years, I think you're massively overambitious.  50 years ago we were promised rocketpants.  Where are the functional rocketpants?  There are no functional rocketpants.

Practical application tends to lag behind what we think is a realistic time-frame.

But what his dull, unimaginative science-drone did instill in me was that there can be limitations.  Just because we can imagine it, doesn't mean we can achieve it. When I began studying philosophy it became apparent that there are possibly many things we can't even imagine, never mind understand in their entirety.

The human race, if it doesn't terminally fuck itself in the next two centuries, is destined for great things.  It's just very likely that biologically, technologically, and sensorially, there are things that superchimps just will never be able to achieve.

Oh god no. Given the financial potential of being able alter one's appearance, it will be here probably earlier than I predict. Look at how lucrative cosmetic surgery is; westernization of the eyes is by far the most popular cosmetic surgery in Asia. If something promises to do the alterations better, more naturally and more safely as genetic manipulation does, then that shit will hit as fast as it can in countries like South Korea. You probably won't see the prehensile tail, it doesn't strike me as an easy sell (then again, furries do exist), but you'll see people changing their race and making their kids into geniuses pretty fast.

I want that tail... fuck the whole project if I can't have the tail.

As far as dick size, that may never be possible. We may hit a snag where the curse of many men cannot ever be solved and we're left with many of us (myself excluded, thank the LORD. Praise Jesus!) are never able to overcome our shortcomings.

E-Peens are always a minimum of 9" long.  That's a verifiable fact, btw.

[Camazotz Automat]

Who is this?

* Born of a virgin
* Born on Dec 25th
* Star in the East
* Adored by three kings
* Prodigal child teacher at age of 12
* Baptized at the age of 30; began ministry after that
* Traveled with 12 disciples
* Performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water
* Known as: The Truth, The Light, God's anointed shepherd, The Lamb of God, and others
* Betrayed and crucified
* Buried for three days, then resurrected

Jesus?  No, Horus of Egypt, circa 3000 BCE, three thousand years before Jesus. 

All implied when I specifically used "TAU" in the DANZIG post.  I was trying to save you the trouble, DigiPig††† and that those concerned would ~dig~.

Come on people. Ratchet this wreck up a notch. I want to see something I didn't learn in 1988.

I have an Itz pizza in the oven. Fairly soon, it's going to go from smelling like heaven to burning like hell. We need to wrap this up and send it to Uncle Bill.

Tick tock tick.

When the looney runes cock crows once:

Foghorn Leghorn : I say, I say, that pizza is a metaphor, boy, for a Mayan communion disc with everything, I say, everything on it. Boyyyyyyyy.

You're harshing, I say, you're harshing my buzz, boy. Stop lookin' at me like that.

[attachimg=1]

††† Damn if that doesn't border on appearing to be a reflective inverted palindrome at first glance.

[FightTheFuture]

I'm sure others have better answers than I, but what is more likely: that whole thing was made up, or a group of followers saw some guy rise from the dead?   

Lots of people have claimed to have seen Elvis too, but you don't believe he's still alive now, do you FTF?

When people have "religious" experiences, they tend to change beliefs pretty quickly and with great conviction - i.e. near death experiences or dreams.    For all you know, assuming that Peter was a real person, Peter had some drug induced "vision" of Christ that caused him to change his ways.   Or maybe a believer threatened his life or family in some way causing him to sacrifice his own life to save others.  Perhaps he drank from pottery that was laced with mercury and went insane.  Who knows why he would make it up, but you weren't there, so why do you believe this old book?   Now, jumping back to reality, you don't even know that this even happened with Peter, again if he even existed in the first place.   The book was probably written well after the times.  It very easily could have just been a story for the purpose of indoctrinating others.

The problem with your religion is that you put your faith into a book that has no real intrinsic known truth to the stories contained within.   You assume everything is true, and you cherry pick what you like and ignore what you don't.

Those are fair points. Is it possible the disciples made the whole thing up? Possible, I suppose, but not accepted by any scholars that I know of. Even Bart Ehrman concedes that the disciples sincerely believe they saw the risen Jesus. As does (did, he`s passed now) Anthony Flew. They just argue that it was hallucination. But that`s a pretty tough road to hoe. Hallucinations are rare. They only occur under the following conditions: 1) Bodily deprivation, 2) Someone taking drugs. These facts do not fit the descriptions of the disciples. Remember, the Disciples faced almost certain death for their beliefs! Horrible, agonizing death. One day they are drowning in despair, the next they are rejoicing and spreading the gospel, knowing that their fate is sealed. Why?

And what about Paul? Paul has his conversion on the road to Damascus. He is a man who enjoys his work; persecuting these upstart blasphemous Christians. Almost nobody disputes the fact that Paul believed that Jesus appeared to him and interacted with him. You can rationalize his experience as drugs, mercury, whatever, but how does that explain his years and years of cogent dedicated service  to Christianity? It`s simply not reasonable.

Remember, Paul traveled to Jerusalem just three years after conversion (about 5 years after the crucifixion), met with James (the family skeptic, converted after seeing his brother risen) and Peter for 15 days. Barnabas brought Paul to see Peter and James.  What did Paul receive from Peter and James? “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15.5,6). Jesus was seen by at least 11 to 12 different groups in different settings.

We have to remember, this is the first time Paul has met with the Disciples. He learns that Jesus has appeared to many. That`s pretty huge.

[zeebo]

Those are fair points. Is it possible the disciples made the whole thing up? Possible, I suppose, but not accepted by any scholars that I know of. ...

I have to give you credit FTF for at least knowing some biblical details, and knowing why you believe what you do, as opposed to just rattling off trite talking points.  I mean this sincerely - I'm not being patronizing.

However for me I could never buy into it all - there's too many contridictions, vague parts open to misinterpretation, flawed human influence in how the bible was put together, and (especially in the OT) a fair number of things I just plain think are wrong or crazy and I won't go along with. 

Still, I am curious, given how certain parts of the bible can be so heartfelt, what really happened back then to trigger such a passionate response that still reverberates around the world to this day.

[SciFiAuthor]

Except for the 75% of which is made up of 'dark energy' that we have no idea what it is, does, consists of, or how it functions, and what its purpose might be.  So that giant chunk right there could perhaps be considered, at this point, unquantifiable. That's a pretty significant portion of the universe with a giant question mark hanging over it as things stand, so it likely isn't true to say the universe is simply made up of quantifiable material.

75% of the content does not equate to 75% of the misunderstanding. Dark Matter is no biggie and neither is dark energy because many theories already exist as to their nature. They are testable.

Well the fall of the Western Empire didn't really do a whole lot on a global scale, the Middle East, the Chinese, and the Egyptians more or less continued along at the same level of technological advancement as they had prior to the fall of Rome. We tend to overstate the effects of Rome's collapse since Westerners are what you might call Westerncentric when it comes to history. Bad news for Europe, though, that's for sure.

I don't believe in terms like western centric. I believe in good ideas and stability, and China has had plenty of upheavals over the last 2200 years including multiple political upheavals and Mongol and Manchurian invasions that occupied and neutered the place for centuries. They've also bought into some really shitty ideas. To this day they hobble their economy with communism; a last holdout of a failed western idea that they didn't invent but accepted for some bizarre reason. As far as the middle east, well, that went to shit when the eastern Roman/Byzantine empire no longer had the resources of the western half to fight the Persians decisively, so a bunch of religious extremists started taking over. Sort of like ISIS, actually.  The western world is the most superior set of ideas that the world currently has, and yet we celebrate the primitives for no good reason other than political correctness instead of calling them a pack of idiots. The middle east especially, I mean, do you as an atheist really respect Islam?

Anyway, it goes without saying that given the largely forwards thrust of evolution we're not going to get dumber, but that's not to say that there isn't a biological limit to the capacity of the human brain. It's not that big, and even factoring in larger brains, there's always the potential that it just isn't biologically feasible for a brain to grow beyond a certain size... it almost certainly can't, just given the energy needed to keep a relatively small brain functioning.

Bah. Your computer requires on the upper average 120 watts to function. The brain uses less than 20. The brain is ridiculously efficient. That it weighs five pounds makes it even more amazing for what it does. Double the size of that mofo and stick 40 watts to that bitch and let's see what we get.

Artificial augmentation is one thing, but again, if you have a brain that has only so much capacity for growth and processing, jamming memory chips and supercomputers into the human brain (figuratively if not literally) may reach a critical mass beyond which you're meeting those diminishing returns, and that may well be at a far lower threshold than you seem to believe.  Sure, I want to be like The Mekon, but that may simply not be possible.

Why would it have a capacity for growth and processing? Evolutionary history is progressive, never regressive. Why would there be a limit?

We're only beyond .0001% if all things were equal, I suspect. We're figuring out the easy shit... once you start trying to figure out 11th dimensional physics that aren't even physics by any measurement we can apply, even with our Z80 chip-laden craniums running on the power of a sun at full gallop, then it seems likely our earlier progress will look like the gimme it was.

I'd buy that if we weren't able to apply and use Quantum theory and relativity. We do. So where are the unknowns that confound us to the point that we can't come up with a theory to test? We're doing fine so far.

We usually translate these ancient scripts as a result of having a frame of reference. When we come up against things like the Voynich manuscript, or a Rongorongo shopping list we're completely fucked, there being no frame of reference by which to even begin a translation.

Yeah, but the Voynich manuscript may have been intended to by gobbledegook crap. We don't know, but there's no indication that the guy was doing anything other than being crazy and doodling.

Time functions as time because it's largely within our four-dimensional sensory understanding, though until a few hundred years ago we weren't even that familiar with the concept. 6am was "That time of day when the dog starts pawing at the door." rather than a standard measurement of the Earth's rotation around the sun. Who's to say that time isn't doing some mad shit behind the scenes?  We already know a gravitational field will alter its 'speed', so what if a higher dimension is doing something crazy with time that we simply don't notice because we can't see, measure, or even observe that higher dimension or its effects on time.  We assume we understand time because in our four dimensional space it acts like we say it should act. Maybe when we slap on the noumenal glasses we'll go 'well, holy shit.. didn't see that before."  assuming we ever reach a level where we can manufacture noumenal glasses, or comprehend the information they make available to us.

Time is a function of the universe whose behavior is predicted by relativity. Other than that, you're telling me that we figured out time but might not be able to figure out time. Time is an aspect of space-time, and can be experimentally shown to be so. It's already been done.

And there's a stumbling block.  Until you have a top-down view of something you can never really be sure.

I don't think that's correct. That's saying that you have to fly the plane first so you can know that it can't fly. That just needlessly kills test pilots.

Some years ago I spoke to a guy who is a bona fide scientist. He was something of a condescending dick, but whatever... I was asking him when we could expect a faster than light drive that would allow us to to exactly that... go faster than the speed of light. I was assured that would never happen, because physics. Surely with the advancement of our understanding of physics, I responded, we could get around the problem that current physics said was and wasn't possible. I was told that it wasn't possible, because physics.

See Alcubierre Drive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but what you came up against is dogma. Dogma is bad. Militant atheism is filling itself with dogma these last few decades. Religion always had it.

Now personally I believe he had his head up his arse, and though he was undoubtedly smart he just wasn't very imaginative. I believe, like you, that what is impossible today may not be impossible tomorrow, and as soon as Japan starts mass producing a Raquel Welch almost-human consumer item I'll be right there at the front of the line with my whatever-passes-for-currency clutched tightly in my sweaty palm. I also happen to believe that FTL travel is more than possible, it's an inevitability.  Harnessing the power of the Universe is almost certainly achievable, I believe. and as you mention, biolo-tech enhancements are going to become commonplace... though 50 years, I think you're massively overambitious.  50 years ago we were promised rocketpants.  Where are the functional rocketpants?  There are no functional rocketpants.

I'm 38, to me Raquel Welch is older than my dad. Alright for being 70-something, but if I'm going to fantasize, I'll go for what Kathy Ireland once was in my youth. Oh age, such a harsh mofo you are. 

Practical application tends to lag behind what we think is a realistic time-frame.

This is true, but only because of premature prediction. Futurists today like to say, for sensationalist purposes, that cancer will be cured in 4 years. It usually takes longer, but we'll get there in the end, probably 10 years. Even still, it pays not to go to negative, remember Thomas J. Watson, the founder of IBM, once said that "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers". Well . . .

But what his dull, unimaginative science-drone did instill in me was that there can be limitations.  Just because we can imagine it, doesn't mean we can achieve it. When I began studying philosophy it became apparent that there are possibly many things we can't even imagine, never mind understand in their entirety.

No, you just were led to unrealistic expectations. They're not so unrealistic now.

The human race, if it doesn't terminally fuck itself in the next two centuries, is destined for great things.  It's just very likely that biologically, technologically, and sensorially, there are things that superchimps just will never be able to achieve.

Why not? You know, there is such a philosophy as anti-humanism. It's overwhelmingly unlikely to be valid.

I want that tail... fuck the whole project if I can't have the tail.

Cash is king, give me enough and I'll get your ass a tail muafucka. Has to be profitable though, know what I'm sayin' G? (Been watching the new season of Trailer Park Boys and have been driving my girlfriend nuts acting like J-Roc all day just to piss her off).

E-Peens are always a minimum of 9" long.  That's a verifiable fact, btw.

I have no concerns. I'm a dolphin, largest penis to species ratio known.

[zeebo]

Couple aspects of physic's quantum theory with simulated reality concepts from computer science and add in some philosophical posits -- all based on science and reason -- and the existence of a God ends up almost a certainty.....

I'm not suggesting a hypothetical god doesn't exist. In fact I'm willing to concede that a hypothetical god absolutely exists. ......

Special commendation to SciFi & Kelt for their interesting discussion.  I've only read half of it, and taking a break to let my synapses cool off.

[FightTheFuture]

I have to give you credit FTF for at least knowing some biblical details, and knowing why you believe what you do, as opposed to just rattling off trite talking points.  I mean this sincerely - I'm not being patronizing.

However for me I could never buy into it all - there's too many contridictions, vague parts open to misinterpretation, flawed human influence in how the bible was put together, and (especially in the OT) a fair number of things I just plain think are wrong or crazy and I won't go along with. 

Still, I am curious, given how certain parts of the bible can be so heartfelt, what really happened back then to trigger such a passionate response that still reverberates around the world to this day.

Appreciate the tip`a the hat, Zeebo.

Most kind.

[area51drone]

Horrible, agonizing death. One day they are drowning in despair, the next they are rejoicing and spreading the gospel, knowing that their fate is sealed. Why?

Put yourself back into their times.  Everyone was stupid, uniformed and most could probably not even read.   Suppose you believed in your heart, as voraciously as say a Manson follower, that Jesus was in fact the son of god or better yet, god himself.    You would then believe that in death, you'd go to heaven.  Even more so if you were martyred in the name of your god.   It's not out of the question - people do it this day and age pretty much every day in the name of your same god under the tutelage of islamic beliefs.   

As for why they would make up the story of resurrection?   Again, supposedly christ told them to go spread the word.  They were commanded to do so, and told not to forsake him, lest they face hell and eternal damnation.  (A very scary thought to someone with limited intellect who would believe such a thing.)   But, everyone had just seen (or heard about) this mofo dying on the cross!   Why would they believe it if a disciple came and told them Jesus was god?   They would laugh in their faces - they would say "No no, he just died, I saw it. You're full of pig shit."   So, in order to get people to believe, they would make up this story.   Although it's crazy sounding, it's not like it doesn't happen - this sort of thing happened at Jonestown.    Now, it's even within the realm of possibility that they not only said that Jesus rose from the dead, they produced someone and said he was Jesus, when he very well may not have been - ie another disciple or other willing participant (again, there are many references to preachers who use fake people being healed as an example - Benny Hinn, Bob Larson, et al).   

If you believe in christianity, you might as well believe in islam and mormonism too, because they all are based on older books that have millions of followers who claimed to have seen god or at least have a direct communication to god.    So the argument that "people saw god/jesus/whomever and wrote it down" is a very weak one.

[UnscreenedCaller]

The interesting part about seeing Jesus after he was resurrected is that no one recognized him when he appeared to them. Mary Magdalene didn't recognize him at first, On the road to Emmaus, two disciples meet up with another traveler and walk on, discussing the recent events with him. When they break bread together, they realize this is Jesus and he disappears. Thomas has to put his hand in the wounds of the risen Jesus for him to believe.

Thomas, and the Emmaus anecdote seem to be leveled to future disciples who haven't known Jesus personally, in that the early communion ritual would be their personal revelation of Christ, while for the doubters there's Thomas's story plus the blessing for those who believe without the need for physical proof. The anecdote that always puzzled me was Mary, since she was so close to Jesus. What is her failure to recognize the risen Christ telling future readers - that the early church doesn't have an advantage over the later? I don't know, but all these anecdotes had a purpose, while they don't prove that Jesus actually rose. They're there to strengthen faith because the early church believed Jesus was coming back imminently.

The question posed in the title makes it pretty clear that the subject is an Abrahamic GOD, and not whether there is a "higher power" (or however you want to describe it) pulling levers behind a curtain.  There's certainly nothing wrong with extending the topic into that space, but at least in my case that's why the discussion hasn't ranged there.  I'm not sure how such a discussion could be productive in any case, since as you point out the only thing one can properly say about it is, "Maybe.  Who knows?"

Driving a discussion into a hole is only one of my many gifts, lol. But when I think of 'God', I do tend to think in broader terms than the Judeo-Christian God into more of the concept of what 'god' really is and, of course, that leads right into the philosophical hole. Or whole, depending on your point of view. BTW, fantastic portobello recipe, and one I will make.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Those are fair points. Is it possible the disciples made the whole thing up?

I don't know if you haven't been reading my posts and are ignoring them, or if you haven't been, but I'll repeat it: the resurrection myth is something that was attributed to every significant religious figure in ancient times, as well as many of the other characteristics attributed to Jesus.  One of the apostles ginned up a story about the Jesus being whisked off to Egypt to escape Herod's attempts to kill the rumoured baby messiah.  That story is almost certainly 100% horseshit.  Herod's life was well documented, and there is no reference to this action of his anywhere besides the apostles, nor is there any historical or even oral tradition reference to that slaughter, even though it would have been a major traumatic event that surely would have shown up in someone's accounting.  So why was it written?  Because it mirrored the experience of Moses, and the propagandists wanted to portray Jesus as the next Jewish leader who would come out of Egypt and restore the Kingdom of God (which was Israel, by the way, NOT some place in heaven).  All of the apostles were written after the destruction of the Second Temple and the diaspora of the Jews.  Jesus was made out to be (a) the figure who would restore Israel, and (b) had to be powerful enough to bust a cap in the Roman army.  He HAD to be portrayed as god-like for anyone to believe he had the power to overcome the might of the Roman Empire, so he was given the traditional god-like attributes, including resurrection.

And what about Paul? Paul has his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Again, your problem is ignorance.  Paul NEVER told such a story.  It was an invention of the apostle Luke, a presumed follower of Paul who had his nose firmly buried in Paul's ass crack.  As for Paul, he declared himself a disciple, and not just any disciple, but the primary disciple, replacing Peter.  As part of that power grab, he had to claim that he was the last person to see Jesus, and of course hear the last word from Jesus, to make himself credible.  Paul was given a pants-down spanking by James the Just (brother of Jesus) and others in Jerusalem and forced to participate in an offering ritual to show repentance.  He only escaped being murdered in Jerusalem by turning himself over to the Romans, which hardly endeared him to the real disciples, because, you know.

The origin of Paul's message, his teachings and his practices are so much at odds with those of Jesus as found in the gospels that they could reasonably be considered to be talking about two different religious philosophies.  Things like the communion, predestination, the gospel as grace, morality as life in the Spirit, original sin, and faith (not good deeds) being the ticket to salvation originated with Paul, not Jesus.  Further complicating the matter is that half of the letters bearing Paul's name (which are now known as chapters in the new testament) are works written by others after his death.

Almost nobody disputes the fact that Paul believed that Jesus appeared to him and interacted with him. You can rationalize his experience as drugs, mercury, whatever, but how does that explain his years and years of cogent dedicated service  to Christianity?

I don't see the significance of him "believing" that Jesus appeared to him.  Is his belief supposed to be objective evidence of something?  There were no witnesses and no evidence, so it's his word.  Why would he lie?  Because he was taking on a lucrative position as self-appointed head of the Jesus franchise.  He didn't perform "dedicated service" to Jesus' teachings.  He saw an opportunity to bring the Jesus version of Judaism to the non-Jewish, western world and to shape that religion into a form that he liked, and he took it.  There was no "Christian" (non-Jewish) version of the religion of Jesus before Paul came around.

Remember, Paul traveled to Jerusalem just three years after conversion (about 5 years after the crucifixion), met with James (the family skeptic, converted after seeing his brother risen) and Peter for 15 days. Barnabas brought Paul to see Peter and James. 

I don't have time to look it up, but what you are describing sounds like Paul's account of his trip as written in Galatians.  Is Paul's self-serving account of his trip supposed to be evidence of something?  I don't recall anything in Galatians about him being anointed as a disciple.  He simply met with two of the disciples (NOT Peter, you are wrong about that, he met with SIMON PETER, not a disciple).  Okay, so he met a couple of disciples.  Big deal.  In Galatians he actually makes a point of swearing before God that he's telling the truth about his account of the trip.  Why did he need to do that, if he was being recognized as one of the Twelve, or had any stature whatsoever at that point?

We have to remember, this is the first time Paul has met with the Disciples.

He met with two of them.  So what?

He learns that Jesus has appeared to many. That`s pretty huge.

So we have a third-hand account that some people claim to have seen Jesus.  So what?  Lots of people claim to have been abducted by aliens or other such self-serving bullshit.

[pyewacket]

First off, I'd like to say that I don't want to offend anyone for their belief. I don't believe in a god manifested by organized religion. I was raised Catholic but I was really bad at being Catholic.

I explored different religions and gave them all a pass- but that is my personal choice. I do like Buddhism. My experience with meditation is far more meaningful and enlightening than any religious practice.

I do believe that there is a "force", for lack of a better word, that is greater than anything we've held up for worship. I believe that we can connect with this force through meditation. I feel it when I get into a deep meditative state. There is a profound clarity- things just seem to make sense. All anxiety and preconceived notions fall away because they are unnecessary. This remains briefly when I come out of meditation and I feel a real loss when the connection fades. I wish I could retain more but I know that I can return to that state with proper practice.

I can't imagine anything of a divine nature demanding worship or advocating any form of violence. I'm not sure if this makes me a believer or not, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents.       

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

First off, I'd like to say that I don't want to offend anyone for their belief. I don't believe in a god manifested by organized religion. I was raised Catholic but I was really bad at being Catholic.

I explored different religions and gave them all a pass- but that is my personal choice. I do like Buddhism. My experience with meditation is far more meaningful and enlightening than any religious practice.

I do believe that there is a "force", for lack of a better word, that is greater than anything we've held up for worship. I believe that we can connect with this force through meditation. I feel it when I get into a deep meditative state. There is a profound clarity- things just seem to make sense. All anxiety and preconceived notions fall away because they are unnecessary. This remains briefly when I come out of meditation and I feel a real loss when the connection fades. I wish I could retain more but I know that I can return to that state with proper practice.

I can't imagine anything of a divine nature demanding worship or advocating any form of violence. I'm not sure if this makes me a believer or not, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents.       

You...you...apostate.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I do tend to think in broader terms than the Judeo-Christian God into more of the concept of what 'god' really is and, of course, that leads right into the philosophical hole. Or whole, depending on your point of view.

For a while in my twenties, I would make a point to jerk off onto the bible whenever I stayed at a hotel. Someday, millennia after the apocalypse, after humanity has rebuilt, someone will find one of those bibles and through DNA testing, determine that I was the author.

BTW, fantastic portobello recipe, and one I will make.

I'll supply the burgers, and Bart Ell will bring the whine.

[attachimg=1]

[pyewacket]

You...you...apostate.

I'm a political apostate, too. So... in what Circle of Dante's Inferno that does that put me?