Debate here if you deny Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[Apatheist]

Okay, lots to unpick here. I'll abbreviate it to make it easier to deal with everything.

I assume you are here to explore these questions; I am not sure you find my answers worth reading.

Just because I don't agree with your view, it doesn't mean I don't find it interesting.

Apatheist, I am challenging to offer something intelligent to discuss, unlike the drivel posted and impotent insults offered by others. I find your question about Scientology a mere distraction and avoiding more important topics and questions. If you have not tried to Fast for Religious reasons, and you continue to attack, deny, and denigrate religious matters, then really there is NO POINT to discuss this, other than as a POSSIBLE intellectual discussion of "what if"? It seemed to me that that is all you want. You do not give religious matters any real consideration, other than it is "NOT for me."

I give them consideration, and my reasons for not going along with them. I've had nearly 64 years to decide whether I believe in them.
You asked if I've fasted, and I haven't; you believe it has a benefit, I don't.
Unfortunately I can't give you an alternative practice to do instead to prove your worth to god, or whatever, because I don't believe there is one.
I appreciate that it means that all my responses are negative - but that's the nature of this debate. You're saying you believe religion because of this, that and the other - I'm afraid that all I can do is explain why I don't agree. If you do manage to say something that convinces me, rest assured that I shall acknowledge it. Bear in mind though that the thread is about denying, which is what I'm doing.

You say we cannot know it all. You said:

I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying?

Science, which you seem to put much "faith" in, CANNOT answer that question as to WHY we're here. Religion can, and does. You asked me, and I gave you TWO answers.

I agree, science can't - or perhaps hasn't yet been able to - answer the WHY. Religion gives answers - but different religions give different answers, which is my problem with them. You've given two answers indeed; my Muslim, Hindu and Jewish friends (and yes I do have them) would give other answers.
My response, to be clear, is that because of the variety of explanations, I can't opt to follow any of them in the way that you are happy to.

You seem to put much "faith" in Science. But Science and Religion are two different ways to explore the unknown. One does NOT exclude the other, imo. You seem to reject Religions, all of them, and instead accept only Science for answers. That is fine. But realize the limitations of Science. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Let me ASK YOU a question: do you understand any philosophical implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Of course I am familiar - and Schrödinger's cat and Pavlov's dogs
I think the difference is that I am prepared to carry on without knowing everything - I don't need to fill in the gaps with religion. I'm not perturbed by there being things that we don't yet know.

the speed of light being 186000 mph
As a scientist, I am surprised that you claim the speed of light in non-metric units (mph).
...
but as a citizen of the UK, I would expect you to use SI and not the old British Imperial system. Perhaps this is ALL a minor point.

That's your misunderstanding of the UK. Our road speed limits are still in mph - certainly the vast majority of people my age would talk distance in miles, as well as their height, and weight, in imperial. We still go to the pub for a pint, not a 0.47 litre. Petrol is sold in litres (because the numbers looked scary for the price of a gallon) but we still talk about miles per gallon. No-one will tell you how many kilometres their car gets to the litre.

One more example: we discuss fasting and you basically say "it ain't for me" and give NO possible credence to the notion that it can be spiritually beneficial.

You can't expect me to consider a spiritual benefit when I don't believe in the spirit.

First, and perhaps most importantly, I doubt we will ever know definitively while in this world what the "Star of Bethlehem" was. Second, I do not see any Scientific consensus that the "Star of Bethlehem" was a comet. There is some evidence that it may have been a confluence of planets; there are other possible explanations.

They investigated this on The Sky at Night, including the other theories about a confluence of planets and a supernova.
The telling part is that, in the biblical account, it talks of the "star" brightening, then disappearing for a while, then appearing going the other way, but less bright.
This is classic cometary behaviour. They related it to I think a Babylonian tablet which recorded the comet in 6BC.
As with believing David Attenborough on nature, I am happy to take my information on this from astronomer Professor Chris Lintott.

As for the eternal verities - it's just realism. I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying?
So why are we discussing such topics, Apatheist? Why do we bother NOW?

I only discuss them when attempting to show up the fallacies of religion. I don't give them a thought otherwise.

I think you are engaging in an activity that humans have explored since we could THINK. This fundamental question of why we humans are HERE, on earth, NOW, has vexed humans for our entire existence, imo. We are exploring that question, so why shut out reasonable ideas that may offer insights?

I'm not shutting them out arbitrarily, I'm rejecting them when they fail in my view. Do you believe that you've been reincarnated and were a rabbit in a previous life? If not, do you give that view any credibility, or spend any time wondering whether it's true or not? Either there is some form of reincarnation or there isn't; you choose to reject one view, I choose to reject both.

[jusplay4fun]

For Lionz,

Let me tackle the Rock Layers and the Great Flood involving Noah first:

In order for you "experiment" or analogy to work to create the layers of ROCK, you need a big MIXER. How does all the rocks get "mixed" or stirred or agitated to put into a container of some sort to settle into different layers? You attribute that to the Great Flood. That does not work, for many reasons.

First, in your experiment, the larger heavier (more massive) rocks settle to the bottom. The fine sand and finer silt settle later. Your photo of layers shows large rock layer in the middle, the lighter color one. The layers below are some of sand and silt.

Where was this big "mixer" bowl? The Ocean?

And how did that layer end up so far above the Ocean?

There are likely more problems for Lionz on this one point, but that is enough to start THAT part of the discussion.

Lionz is trying to use Geology to defend the Great Flood that affected the ENTIRE World and Noah.
1) There is not geologic evidence for a world wide flood in the geologic record.
2) There is evidence that the Story of Noah and the Great Flood was an adopted from stories from ancient Babylon, now the region in the country of Iraq.
(See Gilgamesh flood myth for more details on the possible origin of the Story of Noah. I included those refences at the end, for those who want to delve into that aspect.)

AI Summary

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To assess the geological evidence for the Great Flood of Noah, consider the following points:

Lack of Universal Evidence: No geological evidence supports a global flood event as described in the Bible.

Local Flood Theories: Some suggest that local floods could have inspired the Noah story, particularly in Mesopotamia.

Sedimentary Layers: Geological layers show a long history of sediment deposition, not a single catastrophic event.

Fossil Records: Fossil distribution indicates gradual evolution and extinction, inconsistent with a sudden flood.

Ice Age Evidence: Geological records support ice ages and glacial periods rather than a singular flood event.

Cultural Myths: Many ancient cultures have flood myths, suggesting a common human experience rather than a specific historical event.

The AI summary above agrees with nearly everything I have read on the matter of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. Below are details below to add depth to those bullet points from AI that summarize the scientfic and geologic evidence.

and, specific sources:

"The one thing we know for sure from geology is that a global flood never happened," said David Montgomery, a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington in Seattle and author of "The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood" (W. W. Norton & Company, 2012). "If you look at it as literally a global flood that covered the world's highest mountains, I'm sorry, there's just not enough water on Earth to do that," he told Live Science. (...)

According to historical documents, Noah's flood is a retelling of older stories, and it's likely allegorical rather than a literal recounting of an event. Ira Spar, professor of ancient studies at Ramapo College of New Jersey, told Live Science that the biblical stories in the Old Testament, which were written down between 800 B.C. and 500 B.C., likely came from older oral traditions and multiple sources.

There are slightly different accounts of Noah's flood story in other religious books, such as the Quran, while earlier versions of a cataclysmic flood stem from ancient Mesopotamian texts. Spar noted that there's a Sumerian flood story recorded in fragments that dates back to the late third millennium B.C.

https://www.livescience.com/human-behav ... lly-happen

and

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth (...)

Scientific Evidence Against a Whole-Earth Flood (...)
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, [Utnapishtim] is warned that a god plans to destroy all humanity and is told to build a ship to save himself, his family, friends, and cattle. In the Epic of Atrahasis, a tribal chief survived with his family by floating in a boat down to the Persian Gulf. After the flood subsided, the chief got out on dry land and erected an altar and sacrificed to a water god so that such a flood would not happen again (Anonymous nd-a). Noah also built an altar when he got off the Ark and offered sacrifices (Genesis 8:20). Because these stories all describe an ancient huge flood in Mesopotamia, it is extremely likely that a huge flood could have occurred. However, the next question is: "Did the Noachian Flood cover the whole earth?" (...)

Regional Evidence for the Noachian and Similar Floods
Two rivers, the Euphrates and Tigris flow through Mesopotamia, which is now the country of Iraq (Figure 1). There are several layers in exposed rocks near these two rivers in southeastern Mesopotamia (Iraq) that are likely flood deposits. Most are about a foot (0.3 m) thick, but one is as much as 3 meters thick (MacDonald 1988). Flood debris from this same thick deposit along the Euphrates River near the ancient Sumerian city of Shuruppak about 200 km southeast of Baghdad has been dated by the C14 method, giving an age of 2900 BCE (Best nd). Flood deposits 2.4 meters feet thick are also reported by MacDonald (1988) as far northeast as the ancient Babylonian city of Kish (120 km south of Baghdad). At any rate, the many flood-deposit layers show that flooding in southeastern Mesopotamia was not unusual in ancient times. (...)

Almost every culture through history has a flood story to tell, as would the people in Bangladesh, but in each of these times and places, the floods would have been local and not worldwide.

and, same source, and very cogent to me:

On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time.

https://ncse.ngo/yes-noahs-flood-may-ha ... hole-earth

and,
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom ... ood-story/

more background, on the possible origins of the Story of Noah:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

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

The key point is NOT the FACTS of the story or what happened, but what these stories tell us about the Salvation of Humans.

The Science and History are NOT IMPORTANT in the Bible; Salvation of all humans and of the individual is the key point.

I have read lots about Geology, especially since my college days, and have read NOTHING that supports the Story of a Great World-wide Flood that impacted Noah.

After taking my courses in Geology in college, I was struck by several salient points:
1) the age of the Earth, and that the Geologists were correct that the Earth was BILLIONS of years old;
2) the environmental impacts of our modern society;
3) one should never build on a flood plain, especially of a river;
4) beaches are temporary , to the extend that the sand of the beach are constantly moving, not daily, but for a much longer period of time. Thus one should never build on beaches, unless one is willing to spend money to replenish the shifting sands.
5) identification of rocks and minerals; hence my interpretation of the rock layers in the Photo posted by Lionz.
6) There is MUCH more, but these are the points I will mention that are mostly germane to this discussion.

I may discuss other issue that Lionz raises later.

[Apatheist]

“Oh, that's right, it's because all the religious people were convinced that everything orbited the Earth, so a binary star wouldn't exist, would it?”

Doesn’t even mainstream cosmology suggest that everything including the sun is moving in the heavens? And how familiar are you with the morning star and what it does in earth’s sky every eight years? It’s like the Creator is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers or something.

Yes it does. My point was that the religious doctrine, on pain of death, was that everything revolved AROUND the Earth. You raised Sirius B, which by your own admission rotates around Sirius A, thereby showing that the religious doctrine (allegedly wisdom received from a god) was wrong, and is therefore not to be trusted.
I'm well aware of transits, retrograde motion, and orbital cycles. What's that got to do with anything religious? That's the result of mass, gravity and angular momentum.
You've left out that the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, yet 400 times nearer, which is why we get the eclipses we do...except of course, the moon is moving further away, and has been for some time, we're just lucky to be around when it's at this distance. There is such a thing as coincidence - two completely unrelated events that happen at the same time. It is a well-known fact that correlation does not imply causality.
Jupiter revolves in 10 hours, Mars has two moons - add them together and you get the number of disciples!! Just as relevant, I'm afraid.

“The Nephilim: Often translated as ‘giants’ or ‘fallen ones,’ they were considered heroic or famous warriors of antiquity, rather than strictly large in stature.”

I recommend looking into what was widely reported as recently as the 1800s by newspapers like New York Times if you don’t think literal giants existed in the past. Click individual images here if you want links directly to the New York Times:

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

Again, you're missing the point. Yes, of course giants of varying size existed, and still do (the definition is anyone over 6'5", and I've known a couple of them). I've never said they didn't.
The point was that the translation of Nephilim indicates nothing out of the ordinary - this was raised as though they were something supernatural, superhuman giants or fallen angels. I merely pointed out that the alternative translation suggests that they were important and brave warriors who "fell" in battle.

I've also seen a tv program which mentions the American giants, and the Homo floresiensis, or "Flores Man," an extinct species of small, ancient humans (approx. 3ft 7in or 1.1m tall) that lived on the Indonesian island of Flores until about 50,000 years ago. Nicknamed "hobbits," they lived alongside modern humans, hunted dwarf elephants, and likely evolved their small size through "island dwarfism" in isolation.

They posited that they, along with homo habilis, were three different experiments by aliens, to see which version of humans would actually survive.
Now, is that wrong because a) nothing was here 50,000 years ago b) there aren't (or weren't ever) any aliens c) aliens never visited here or d) it's just a barking mad theory by people who WANT to believe in aliens, with no basis in evidence? Or might it just be that animals evolve in different ways according to different environments?
I'm sure we'll all have different views on that. Before responding, you might like to consider parallels with any other belief system.

PS: Some people believe in gods. Some people believe that we were visited by aliens in the past. Some people believe that stories of gods are derived from and inspired by what people saw aliens doing - flying, controlling fire and light, resurrecting people, going to and from the sky, and perhaps other things that would have seemed magical to them (but in reality, sufficiently advanced technology, as observed by Arthur C Clarke). There are cave drawings and ancient icons that one could see as people in space suits or space craft, and of course the Nazca lines that can only be seen properly from the air. Can you honestly say that that viewpoint is any less credible than being visited by the only son of the creator of the universe?

[jusplay4fun]

Nephilim is, imo, a topic NOT Worth discussing.

Apatheist, I suggest that you stick with Science and ignore things that you do NOT understand and THOSE things you do not Grasp and/OR that you do NOT understand.

And NEITHER Apatheist nor Lionz want to comment on the what I posted about Geology?

[HitRed]

I live within those who have let me in their heart. The most sacred place of the human body. The center of the body. I come to each heart waiting to be let in. Waiting to be the center of their lives. - God

[Apatheist]

Nephilim is, imo, a topic NOT Worth discussing.

Apatheist, I suggest that you stick with Science and ignore things that you do NOT understand and THOSE things you do not Grasp and/OR that you do NOT understand.

And NEITHER Apatheist nor Lionz want to comment on the what I posted about Geology?

I don't know what you think I don't understand. I'm just picking up on (and picking apart) what others post. I'm just on a mission to dissuade as many people from being religious as I can Nephilim was ConfedSS's assertion along with Bigfoot on the Sistine chapel.
The geology discussion was between you and Lionz - you seemed to be dealing with his misguided views quite well, so I didn't feel the need. For what it's worth, I agree with you, but I don't claim any great knowledge of geology.

You didn't address my comments about ancient alien visitors.

[Apatheist]

Mookie,

Hey and welcome. Don’t worry too much about stepping on my toes and asking hard questions.

Consider below if you are convinced earth was a lopsided island planet with land mostly confined to one hemisphere. What’s just about Africa and the Americas when it comes to how neatly things fit together like a puzzle?







And consider here if you want evidence for things shifting quickly with land in a mud or putty like state:

@Lionz,
What do you make to cave paintings that have been dated to 30,000 years ago? Are you saying that they were placed there less than 6000 years ago and that the assumptions about rock layers and carbon dating are wrong?

[jusplay4fun]

Nephilim is, imo, a topic NOT Worth discussing.

Apatheist, I suggest that you stick with Science and ignore things that you do NOT understand and THOSE things you do not Grasp and/OR that you do NOT understand.

And NEITHER Apatheist nor Lionz want to comment on the what I posted about Geology?

I don't know what you think I don't understand. I'm just picking up on (and picking apart) what others post. I'm just on a mission to dissuade as many people from being religious as I can Nephilim was ConfedSS's assertion along with Bigfoot on the Sistine chapel.
The geology discussion was between you and Lionz - you seemed to be dealing with his misguided views quite well, so I didn't feel the need. For what it's worth, I agree with you, but I don't claim any great knowledge of geology.

You didn't address my comments about ancient alien visitors.

There was NO Need to comment on ancient alien visitors; it is another NON-issue, just like the Nephilim.

This post above says LOTS: Apatheist, you are here mainly to denegrate religion and those who follow Christianity. I will still debate you and discuss issues with you. I enjoy a good debate and intelligent discussion. You seem intelligent, unlike some who repeat 1-2 incessant, redundant, AND FALSE claims. You do respond to most of my points and my queries. So this discussion is worth continuing.

You seem to have a little knowledge of geology; I give you that. I will say, based on my recall, that you understand some of it.

You look at Astronomy and see a glass half-empty; I see the same glass and see it half-full. We can agree on some aspects of the "glass" and draw different conclusions. That is free will and that is part of the idea of one using one's intellect to think about the facts observed. NOT everyone draws the same conclusion, and we are influenced by our experiences and our world view.

I see Astronomy showing us the Majesty of the Creator. I am in awe of his Creation. If you do not see the Hand of God in Creation, that is your choice. I will argue that you are wrong, but as (I think you said it already) we will never know for sure in this world.

To me, your approach of seeing the world from ONLY the view of Science is like seeing the "glass" with only one eye. You miss subtle points and loose some perspective on the World. Seeing the world with only one eye leads that person to view the world with a loss of Depth perception. Religion does offer a valid perspective of knowledge. That was a mostly accepted view, until Science and the ability to comprehend much knowledge became so specialized that one could (basically) ONLY be a geologist or botanist or zoologist; we even now have herpetologists. What happened to the Renaissance Man?

Let me offer a few ideas from great thinkers:

First, are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

and MORE from Pascal:

AI Summary

To analyze the existence of God through Pascal, consider the following points:

Pascal's Wager: Evaluate the pragmatic argument that believing in God is a safer bet than not believing.
Human Experience: Reflect on Pascal's assertion that the heart has reasons that reason cannot understand, emphasizing personal experience.
The Infinite: Consider Pascal's idea of the infinite nature of God versus the finite nature of humanity.
Moral Order: Analyze Pascal's view on the moral implications of belief and the consequences of atheism.
Faith and Reason: Explore Pascal's belief that faith complements reason rather than contradicts it.
Existential Reflection: Contemplate the human condition and the search for meaning as a pathway to understanding God.

More ideas:
AI Summary To analyze the existence of ... theorems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems

and more:

AI Summary

To analyze the existence of God through a mathematician's lens, consider the following points:

Axiomatic Foundations: Examine the axioms of existence and necessity in mathematical logic.
Infinity and Limits: Explore concepts of infinity and how they relate to the idea of a transcendent being.
Probability and Design: Assess the probability of complex life arising by chance versus intelligent design.
Mathematical Constants: Investigate the significance of mathematical constants (like π) as symbols of order in the universe.
Gödel's Incompleteness: Reflect on Gödel's theorem, which suggests limits to what can be proven, paralleling arguments for faith.
Symmetry and Beauty: Consider the aesthetic appeal of mathematical structures as indicative of a higher order or creator.
Logical Paradoxes: Analyze logical paradoxes that challenge the notion of existence and non-existence.
Set Theory: Discuss the implications of set theory on the concept of God as a "set of all sets."
Mathematical Models: Evaluate how mathematical models can represent or fail to represent divine attributes.
Philosophical Implications: Connect mathematical reasoning with philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God.

[Apatheist]

Nephilim is, imo, a topic NOT Worth discussing.

Apatheist, I suggest that you stick with Science and ignore things that you do NOT understand and THOSE things you do not Grasp and/OR that you do NOT understand.

And NEITHER Apatheist nor Lionz want to comment on the what I posted about Geology?

I don't know what you think I don't understand. I'm just picking up on (and picking apart) what others post. I'm just on a mission to dissuade as many people from being religious as I can Nephilim was ConfedSS's assertion along with Bigfoot on the Sistine chapel.
The geology discussion was between you and Lionz - you seemed to be dealing with his misguided views quite well, so I didn't feel the need. For what it's worth, I agree with you, but I don't claim any great knowledge of geology.

You didn't address my comments about ancient alien visitors.

There was NO Need to comment on ancient alien visitors; it is another NON-issue, just like the Nephilim.

I find this interesting. You say it's a non-issue, yet to me it might be an indication of the basis of religions in the first place. If you take a step back and imagine, for a moment, that there were ancient aliens, how would the unscientific populace perceive them and what they were able to do? They would have seemed like gods, wouldn't they? This is where I think your religion limits your view - it stops you being open to other possibilities for its origin.
As I said, I don't think being visited by aliens is any less credible than being visited by the son of the creator of the universe.
Can you prove that it didn't happen? For example:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10 ... 3803833794

I'm not saying I believe the theory - I just find it an interesting curiosity.

This post above says LOTS: Apatheist, you are here mainly to denegrate religion and those who follow Christianity.

Please let me be clear. This thread is about Jesus, but I am equally happy to disparage all religions. They all have fundamental flaws and paradoxes, and the world would be better off without any of them.

To me, your approach of seeing the world from ONLY the view of Science is like seeing the "glass" with only one eye. You miss subtle points and loose some perspective on the World. Seeing the world with only one eye leads that person to view the world with a loss of Depth perception. Religion does offer a valid perspective of knowledge. That was a mostly accepted view, until Science and the ability to comprehend much knowledge became so specialized that one could (basically) ONLY be a geologist or botanist or zoologist; we even now have herpetologists. What happened to the Renaissance Man?

There's too much for any one person to know these days. It's the same reason we reduce the number of subjects as we go through school - 9 O levels at 16, 3 A levels at 18, one at university. You couldn't study and retain the knowledge to get 9 degrees at the same time.

Pascal's Wager: Evaluate the pragmatic argument that believing in God is a safer bet than not believing.

As the singing group The Flying Pickets put it, eternity is a long time to spend in the wrong place.
It's true that if you believe in a god and there isn't one, you'll probably suffer less than someone who doesn't believe and finds out that there is.
I have my arguments prepared for the day of judgement - we'll see how that debate goes

I'm not saying that religion isn't possible or part of the explanation - it's just that in my view, none of them has given an explanation that I'm prepared to believe, as what they say to be true doesn't hold water - as with court testimony, one exposed lie undermines the credibility of the testimony. The more times religious claims are shown to have scientific explanations, the less credible they become.
One I haven't mentioned yet is the plagues. Sent by god as punishment? No, the direct result and aftermath of an explosion on Santorini or thereabouts that changed the environmental conditions. From AI:
The Ten Plagues of Egypt are frequently linked by scientists and historians to the massive volcanic eruption of Thera (Santorini) around 1600 BCE, which may have triggered a chain reaction of environmental disasters. Ash and climate shifts likely caused the Nile to turn red, followed by swarms of insects, animal deaths, and darkness.
Also:
https://greekreporter.com/2026/01/07/er ... ble-egypt/

Parting of the Red Sea? Even if it's more than just a fabricated story, it can be explained by a geological and meteorological coincidence. From AI:
Scientific explanations for the parting of the Red Sea often center on a phenomenon called "wind setdown," where strong, sustained winds—estimated at over 60 mph—could have pushed back water from a shallow lake or lagoon, exposing a land bridge. This effect, often associated with a "Sea of Reeds" (likely Lake Manzala or the Suez gulf), aligns with biblical descriptions of an overnight east wind, allowing the Israelites to cross before the waters returned, as researched by Carl Drews.

Every time one of these appears, it lessens the assertion that information was received from a god.

[jusplay4fun]

Let's simplify this a bit:

1) Apatheist and his views of Religion; he said, as he responds to me:

This post above says LOTS: Apatheist, you are here mainly to denegrate religion and those who follow Christianity.

Please let me be clear. This thread is about Jesus, but I am equally happy to disparage all religions. They all have fundamental flaws and paradoxes, and the world would be better off without any of them.

So Apatheist confirms what I said. Thank you.

I TOTALLY disagree with your conclusion that the world would be better off without any of them.

Yes, religions have flaws; they are a human creation and I think we can agree that humans are far from perfect.

2) Too much to know; Apatheist says:

There's too much for any one person to know these days.

There is TOO much for one person to comprehend to the point of being an EXPERT in the field. I do not claim to be an expert in Geology, for example, but I know enough to discuss its major points intelligently, and I think Apatheist has acknowledged that, when you said:

The geology discussion was between you and Lionz - you seemed to be dealing with his misguided views quite well, so I didn't feel the need. For what it's worth, I agree with you, but I don't claim any great knowledge of geology.

The same for other fields; I KNOW that I do not know all (about anything) BUT I know enough to discuss some matters intelligently. That is what we are doing here, I think; having an intelligent discussion. That is why I prompted you and suggested that you avoid minor matters and (what I perceive to be) "red herrings."

3) You have lots of hubris, it seems to me if you think you will convince the "Powers that are" that you deserve Eternal Life in the good place if you deny it your entire life, Apatheist. I do not see you winning THAT debate, despite what you believe NOW.

I have my arguments prepared for the day of judgement - we'll see how that debate goes

4) I find this statement of your totally absurd:

The more times religious claims are shown to have scientific explanations, the less credible they become.

THAT seems to contradict your faith in Science, Apatheist.

5) As far as the Ten Plagues (and frankly, many Bible stories) I see some or much of that as an attempt by man (from a limited perspective) to interpret events. Using such stories to denigrate the Bible seems to me to be a minor issue when you do NOT accept major tenets about fundamental beliefs.

Let's dig a bit further; you said:

One I haven't mentioned yet is the plagues. Sent by god as punishment? No, the direct result and aftermath of an explosion on Santorini or thereabouts that changed the environmental conditions. From AI:
The Ten Plagues of Egypt are frequently linked by scientists and historians to the massive volcanic eruption of Thera (Santorini) around 1600 BCE, which may have triggered a chain reaction of environmental disasters. Ash and climate shifts likely caused the Nile to turn red, followed by swarms of insects, animal deaths, and darkness.

I had read about this theory MANY years ago and I see this as God working through nature. I see this as "half-full" and this gives to me more credibility about my Faith. You take the OPPOSITE view, that this disproves God. That shows the extent of your disbelief. Good Luck with that when you debate for Eternal Life.

6) ancient alien visitors; Apatheist says:

to me it might be an indication of the basis of religions in the first place

There is NO proof there were "ancient alien visitors" so this is a moot argument. It is a NON-issue to reiterate my point.

I have said this several time over many years about such Claims: Extraordinary Claims demand Extraordinary Evidence. NO SUCH evidence exist. I once read a book (long ago) Called "Crash Go the Chariots" where the writer was responding to Extraordinary Claims about aliens in flaming Chariots. If Apatheist wants to present any SUCH Extraordinary evidence, let him do so now.

Re: UFOs
Post by jusplay4fun » Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:37 am

On the overall point, about UFO being possibly REAL:

1) My fundamental point here is that extraordinary claims (such as UFO or UAP) demand extraordinary proof. With so many folks with a video recording device in their hands (their cell phone), then where is the PROOF? There can be other forms of evidence, but again, NONE exists that I have seen or read about from a credible source. I have seen NONE that rises to the level of real and significant credibility.

One thing that I think is COGENT here: I have given these matters much thought over many years. I have recently had more time to delve deeper into my ideas and find consolation in affirming my Faith. This affirmation is not limited to religious matters; I learn something new about Physics and Chemistry weekly, if not more often, as I take time to learn MORE. BTW: I taught both subjects for many years in the USA in a public high school (grades 9-12, ages 14-18). I taught a college level course during this time, too. Granted, I was not a TV show, as Apatheist was.

I recently learned more about Huygens and am impressed by the intellect and many achievements of this man. The same for Christopher Wren, who help establish the Royal Society in Britain. I read about Wren yesterday. btw: he was renown as an architect, but had interests in many fields.

7) Lastly, for now: I have been to the UK twice (England in 2019) and during my last visit, to Scotland, in July of 2025, I learned that the Scots still use miles and feet. When I asked our Scottish tour guide why use miles, her simple reply said volumes: "Why not?"

[Silvertop]

I'm a self efficacyist. I believe a person can achieve much more then he thinks he can without believing in one or other God. Mind you, I was raised as a christian. I follow those norms and values.

[Apatheist]

Let's simplify this a bit further:

Yes, religions have flaws; they are a human creation and I think we can agree that humans are far from perfect.

Animals existed for millions of years quite happily without religion. If people stuck to the principle of accepting the views of others, they'd be fine, but so much killing and division has resulted from religion. You say "a human creation" - indeed, so not informed by any deities, which are also man-made.

4) I find this statement of your totally absurd:

The more times religious claims are shown to have scientific explanations, the less credible they become.

THAT seems to contradict your faith in Science, Apatheist.

Your interpretation of what I wrote suggests that you've misread it. I'll clarify:
The more times religious claims are shown to have scientific explanations, the less credible the religion becomes.

I had read about this theory MANY years ago and I see this as God working through nature. I see this as "half-full" and this gives to me more credibility about my Faith. You take the OPPOSITE view, that this disproves God. That shows the extent of your disbelief. Good Luck with that when you debate for Eternal Life.

Incorrect. I don't say that it disproves god. I say that it disproves what religious people say about the origin of the phenomena, thereby rendering anything else that they say comes from god as untrustworthy.

6) ancient alien visitors; Apatheist says:

to me it might be an indication of the basis of religions in the first place

There is NO proof there were "ancient alien visitors" so this is a moot argument. It is a NON-issue to reiterate my point.

Did you look at the picture? What is your explanation for what very much appears to be an ancient carving of a man in a space suit?

I'm afraid your attitude to the ancient alien theory is the same as mine towards religion - not that I'm promoting the ancient alien theory as the truth, but I see parallels in the way people interpret things that they don't understand. You ask for evidence, but you haven't refuted the proposed evidence, just dismissed it as a non-issue; I could say the same about anything in the bible or creation. Saying that it came from a god is just as extraordinary a claim, for which no-one (imho) has provided any extraordinary proof.

H.L. Mencken: "The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride".

Anyway, interesting discussion, but we're not going to agree, so I intend to leave it there.

That will leave us both time to deal with the arrant nonsense and irrelevancies coming from Lionz, ConfedSS and HitRed, for which we largely seem to be on the same side
I won't be responding for a while as I'm actually off to film another tv show - not related to this topic though

[jusplay4fun]

Let's simplify this a bit further:

I think nesting quotes within quotes does not actually simplify matters. My attempt there was to avoid doing too much of that.

Yes, religions have flaws; they are a human creation and I think we can agree that humans are far from perfect.

Animals existed for millions of years quite happily without religion. If people stuck to the principle of accepting the views of others, they'd be fine, but so much killing and division has resulted from religion. You say "a human creation" - indeed, so not informed by any deities, which are also man-made.

That is not a valid argument or analogy. Killing and division occurs by humans without religion. Economics (for material gain) and the desire for Power are enough to cause many wars and killing with NO religious implications. Yes, there has been too many killings AND Wars caused by religion. The Christian and Catholic Faith was founded, to a large extent, on the Blood of the martyrs who were killed for their Faith. This alone does not make religion invalid; this to me shows Man's sinful nature.

Further, animals do not have a soul and the vast majority do not have enough what we deems as intelligence to consider anything beyond their basic survival (instinct). I would not list any as truly salient.

4) I find this statement of your totally absurd:

The more times religious claims are shown to have scientific explanations, the less credible they become.

THAT seems to contradict your faith in Science, Apatheist.

Your interpretation of what I wrote suggests that you've misread it. I'll clarify:
The more times religious claims are shown to have scientific explanations, the less credible the religion becomes.

Another invalid argument. I use Science to validate Religion. That does NOT make Religion less credible. WHY is that? Why does VALIDATION invalidate? It is still an Absurd Argument, it seems to me.

I had read about this theory MANY years ago and I see this as God working through nature. I see this as "half-full" and this gives to me more credibility about my Faith. You take the OPPOSITE view, that this disproves God. That shows the extent of your disbelief. Good Luck with that when you debate for Eternal Life.

Incorrect. I don't say that it disproves god. I say that it disproves what religious people say about the origin of the phenomena, thereby rendering anything else that they say comes from god as untrustworthy.

The distinction is NOT significant, not enough to render your argument valid.

6) ancient alien visitors; Apatheist says:

to me it might be an indication of the basis of religions in the first place

There is NO proof there were "ancient alien visitors" so this is a moot argument. It is a NON-issue to reiterate my point.

Did you look at the picture? What is your explanation for what very much appears to be an ancient carving of a man in a space suit?

This gets to the SAME point I made about Big Foot and the like: an ancient painting or diagram DOES not validate ANYTHING. (GOD KNOWS CRYPTOZOOLOGY IS REAL!!!!!!!) What was meant by the alleged space suit? There are MANY explanations. Crash Go the Chariots and Crash went your aliens in space suits visiting long ago as PROOF of ancient aliens. That DOES not rise to the level of Extraordinary Proof, Apatheist. Do you want to try again? because if that is your best "proof" you came up WAY SHORT. That does not even rise the level of Proof.

I'm afraid your attitude to the ancient alien theory is the same as mine towards religion - not that I'm promoting the ancient alien theory as the truth, but I see parallels in the way people interpret things that they don't understand. You ask for evidence, but you haven't refuted the proposed evidence, just dismissed it as a non-issue; I could say the same about anything in the bible or creation. Saying that it came from a god is just as extraordinary a claim, for which no-one (imho) has provided any extraordinary proof.

H.L. Mencken: "The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride".

I say that you do not understand Religion. You dismiss it as legends and fairy tales; you use any means and stories and what you see are inconsistencies to call it a failure. I say that you fail to
1) give it a real chance, intellectually.
2) You look at any small doubt as a major cogent argument against Religion.

You say you have never fasted for religious reasons, but dismiss its ability to offer religious insights and value FOR YOU. I say you NEVER gave it a chance. I offer fasting by Muslims during Ramadan, and as far as I recall, you never addressed that except a dismissive comment that fasting "does not work for me." (And that may be a paraphrase, but is a reasonable summation of your response and attitude.)

Anyway, interesting discussion, but we're not going to agree, so I intend to leave it there.

That will leave us both time to deal with the arrant nonsense and irrelevancies coming from Lionz, ConfedSS and HitRed, for which we largely seem to be on the same side
I won't be responding for a while as I'm actually off to film another tv show - not related to this topic though

I hear lots of what I consider nonsense by Lionz. I will give him credit for starting this thread and a good discussion. I have enjoyed the discussion generated in this thread. He seems fascinated and obsessed about
1) Noah's Great Flood and
2) ancient drawings that he thinks disprove evolution,
to offer a brief summary.

I do not recall other salient and/or cogent arguments that he has made. Perhaps he is willing to offer more.

Much of what ConfedSS posts are incoherent ideas, mostly stream of consciousness expression of some vague ideas, and much rantings from a conservative point of view. I am not sure how religious he is. He implies he is Catholic, but, it seems to me, he rarely discusses religion. He discussed the painting in the "Sixteenth Chapel" confusing it with the Sistine Chapel, so that alone put his knowledge of religion and related matters into DOUBT. Then he (again) refuses to admit his error, as if he were a child caught in a lie. I know, since I dealt earlier today with my 4-year-old grandson who lied about a matter and got very defensive to the point of getting belligerent. THAT to me was a sign that he knew that he was lying.

I am not sure about HitRed; I think most here on CC dismiss him as a lunatic who thinks he hears God's voice. I am not sure what to make of most of his posts. He too comes from what seems to be a conservative viewpoint, but leaves out many details. Outside his quotes of God speaking to him, he offers view details and does not "connect the dots" well. For example, he will post about the price of silver, but does not add context or explain why that is a significant economic data point that would show his greater comprehension of the workings or understanding of the US Economy.

When I am FORCED by good arguments to defend my viewpoint, I enjoy the chance to think deeper on my long-held values and beliefs, so I thank you and others in this discussion. This Forum also gives me reason to try to better understand the news and what is going on in this world. I enjoy the chance and challenge to LEARN. This topic in this thread is more worthy of my time than pointing out the false claims about Science. And this topic is certainly more worthy than disputing and refuting what I see is mostly RAGE about politics by many who offer little real analysis and very little thought beyond a slogan or the headlines. A few want to come in here, to this Forum, offer one idea, then run away. Or there is the trolling and self-loathing person who offer redundant rantings and LIES. A few will offer something that is worthy of being called a good argument; I put Duk and Mookie in this last category. btw: I notice that Mookie has not returned to this thread in quite some time, too.

What I have discussed here I have shared in this thread with other good thinkers who are not on this website. Once in a while, my wife will ask me a question about the news and I will share what I learn while discussing topics here in this Forum

btw: You acknowlege awareness and some level of understanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I had no doubt that you do. However, you, Apatheist, did not address the larger and key point on its philosophical implications. Did I miss that?

Also, going back to re-read what you said, I see I missed your post of

by Apatheist » Wed Mar 25, 2026 6:56 am

since I was busy writing, thinking, and posting of

by jusplay4fun » Wed Mar 25, 2026 7:34 am

in this same thread. My apologies for not responding to that, so I guess I have lots of time to ponder and respond to that.

While you are gone, I suppose I will have to read more political rantings in search of intelligence and thought. btw: that search at this time led to no such findings. I did take time to point out MORE errors by one silly poster. I would have ignored it, but he used HUGE font and then made that same error BOLD too to point to his HUGE mistake. And of course he had to add a worthless insult. Otherwise, there was nothing there worthy of a comment.

Enjoy your new adventure filming another show, Apatheist.

[Apatheist]

As I said, I'm not debating it any more, but I couldn't let you get away with this:

Further, animals do not have a soul and the vast majority do not have enough what we deems as intelligence to consider anything beyond their basic survival (instinct). I would not list any as truly salient.

A soul: the seat of consciousness, personality, intellect, and emotion.
Animals have all of those. If you don't believe that, I would guess you haven't had many pets.
I've just watched a video of an orang-utan tying a knot in a shawl to keep it on. They are way smarter than many believe.
If heaven doesn't include having cats to cuddle and play with, I want no part of it.

[jusplay4fun]

Okay, lots to unpick here. I'll abbreviate it to make it easier to deal with everything.

I assume you are here to explore these questions; I am not sure you find my answers worth reading.

Just because I don't agree with your view, it doesn't mean I don't find it interesting.

Good. I am and have enjoyed the discussion. I will give you credit for not throwing out insults because we disagree. (That is meant for those who do insult others who disagree with them.)

Apatheist, I am challenging to offer something intelligent to discuss, unlike the drivel posted and impotent insults offered by others. I find your question about Scientology a mere distraction and avoiding more important topics and questions. If you have not tried to Fast for Religious reasons, and you continue to attack, deny, and denigrate religious matters, then really there is NO POINT to discuss this, other than as a POSSIBLE intellectual discussion of "what if"? It seemed to me that that is all you want. You do not give religious matters any real consideration, other than it is "NOT for me."

I give them consideration, and my reasons for not going along with them. I've had nearly 64 years to decide whether I believe in them.
You asked if I've fasted, and I haven't; you believe it has a benefit, I don't.
Unfortunately I can't give you an alternative practice to do instead to prove your worth to god, or whatever, because I don't believe there is one.
I appreciate that it means that all my responses are negative - but that's the nature of this debate. You're saying you believe religion because of this, that and the other - I'm afraid that all I can do is explain why I don't agree. If you do manage to say something that convinces me, rest assured that I shall acknowledge it. Bear in mind though that the thread is about denying, which is what I'm doing.

What can I say, other than we agree to disagree. (Well, I can say more, as I reflect on this; ) I think if you were more open-minded, that you might find some value in the spiritual.

Have you asked, beyond the cursory answer(s) that you have given why, from your childhood that you have been anti-Christian? I think you said your parents weren't religious; and you say all the religions give different answers.

And I would also say that your attitudes about religion are similar to many others your age. I usually avoid such questions of those I meet as that puts most people on the defensive and they avoid further discussions on this point.

You say we cannot know it all. You said:

I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying?

Science, which you seem to put much "faith" in, CANNOT answer that question as to WHY we're here. Religion can, and does. You asked me, and I gave you TWO answers.

I agree, science can't - or perhaps hasn't yet been able to - answer the WHY. Religion gives answers - but different religions give different answers, which is my problem with them. You've given two answers indeed; my Muslim, Hindu and Jewish friends (and yes I do have them) would give other answers.
My response, to be clear, is that because of the variety of explanations, I can't opt to follow any of them in the way that you are happy to.

You do reaize, I assume, that the Hebrew Scripture (to simplify things) is what Christians call the Old Testament of the Bible, right? And you do realize that Muslims accept Jesus as a great prophet, right?

AI Summary

To clarify the Muslim perspective on Jesus, consider the following points:

Muslims regard Jesus (Isa) as one of the greatest prophets in Islam.
He is believed to have been born of the Virgin Mary (Maryam).
Jesus is recognized for performing miracles by God's permission.
Muslims do not consider Jesus to be the Son of God or divine.
The Quran contains several references to Jesus and his teachings.
Muslims believe Jesus will return before the Day of Judgment.

So there is "overlap." I have done some investigations into comparatives of religions, but I do not consider my knowledge of them to be thorough. I have felt no need to do so. I did, a few years ago, look at the Mormon Faith (yes, the do not prefer that term, but I will use it here for the sake of brevity). They have some odd ideas. Then, having visited Temple Square in Salt Lake CIty, I revisited the issue of the Mormon Faith and my conclusion that they have "odd" ideas on the origins of their faith was affirmed.

They are considered, by most, to be Christians, but they are an odd offshoot. The Mormons are good citizens, hard-working and very family oriented. I like most that I have met personally; I have even taught a few. They were good students.

The more I think on this, the more I am NOT surprised that there are many religions. The fact that so many "fall away" from the Church, any Church, is really no suprise to me, seeing so many NOT take their faith seriously. I have seen stats that suggest even those who attend Sunday service regularly are not that committed. I realize that I fall short in some of my observations of being a better Christian; I should pray much more and spend more time reading Scripture. I should also go the Gym more often to lift weights. I prefer, at the moment, to be here, reflecting and writing and organizing my thoughts on these important matters. Anyway, I digress.

You seem to put much "faith" in Science. But Science and Religion are two different ways to explore the unknown. One does NOT exclude the other, imo. You seem to reject Religions, all of them, and instead accept only Science for answers. That is fine. But realize the limitations of Science. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Let me ASK YOU a question: do you understand any philosophical implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Of course I am familiar - and Schrödinger's cat and Pavlov's dogs
I think the difference is that I am prepared to carry on without knowing everything - I don't need to fill in the gaps with religion. I'm not perturbed by there being things that we don't yet know.[/quote]

As I said already, some 8 hours ago, you did not answer the main question here, Apatheist. Do you understand any philosophical implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Have you even considered such?

the speed of light being 186000 mph
As a scientist, I am surprised that you claim the speed of light in non-metric units (mph).
...
but as a citizen of the UK, I would expect you to use SI and not the old British Imperial system. Perhaps this is ALL a minor point.

That's your misunderstanding of the UK. Our road speed limits are still in mph - certainly the vast majority of people my age would talk distance in miles, as well as their height, and weight, in imperial. We still go to the pub for a pint, not a 0.47 litre. Petrol is sold in litres (because the numbers looked scary for the price of a gallon) but we still talk about miles per gallon. No-one will tell you how many kilometres their car gets to the litre.

I did consider that, since I was in Scotland this past summer. Anyway, the speed of light for me is 2.99792 x 10^8 m/s (or about 3.00 x 10^8 m/s; I learned 186,000 miles per second as a child and still know it).

And because there are at LEAST two major systems of measuring that you have NO FAITH in Measurement, Apatheist? Consider that point.

One more example: we discuss fasting and you basically say "it ain't for me" and give NO possible credence to the notion that it can be spiritually beneficial.

You can't expect me to consider a spiritual benefit when I don't believe in the spirit.

It seems that you are a hopeless case, Apatheist. btw: Do you consider yourself an antheist or agnostic?

First, and perhaps most importantly, I doubt we will ever know definitively while in this world what the "Star of Bethlehem" was. Second, I do not see any Scientific consensus that the "Star of Bethlehem" was a comet. There is some evidence that it may have been a confluence of planets; there are other possible explanations.

They investigated this on The Sky at Night, including the other theories about a confluence of planets and a supernova.
The telling part is that, in the biblical account, it talks of the "star" brightening, then disappearing for a while, then appearing going the other way, but less bright.
This is classic cometary behaviour. They related it to I think a Babylonian tablet which recorded the comet in 6BC.
As with believing David Attenborough on nature, I am happy to take my information on this from astronomer Professor Chris Lintott.

I have read information recently that suggest that the "Star of Bethlehem" may have been a comet; that theory seems to be the popular theory of the moment, but I have seen this debate change a bit with new evidence so I will maintain that we will likely never be sure of its exact nature. We do not even know with certainty the year Jesus was born (most think between 4 - 7 BC). Humans have made such errors for a long time, it seems.

As for the eternal verities - it's just realism. I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying?
So why are we discussing such topics, Apatheist? Why do we bother NOW?

I only discuss them when attempting to show up the fallacies of religion. I don't give them a thought otherwise.

I think you are engaging in an activity that humans have explored since we could THINK. This fundamental question of why we humans are HERE, on earth, NOW, has vexed humans for our entire existence, imo. We are exploring that question, so why shut out reasonable ideas that may offer insights?

I'm not shutting them out arbitrarily, I'm rejecting them when they fail in my view.

I think that you will think more about this specific matter as you grow older. As we near the end of our existance in this life, I think it is natural for us humans to reflect on our lives and cherish those things we hold dear and reflect a bit on our regrets, how we could have "Done Better." I reflect on that as I observe my grandchildren and consider the mistakes I made as a parent. Do you have grandchildren or children, Apatheist?

Do you believe that you've been reincarnated and were a rabbit in a previous life? If not, do you give that view any credibility, or spend any time wondering whether it's true or not? Either there is some form of reincarnation or there isn't; you choose to reject one view, I choose to reject both.

I do not believe in reincarnation.

Is that the view of Hindus and those who follow Buddha?

AI Summary

To understand which major religions believe in reincarnation, consider the following:

Hinduism - Reincarnation is a fundamental belief, where the soul is reborn in different forms based on karma.
Buddhism - Teaches the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (samsara) influenced by karma, aiming for enlightenment to escape it.
Jainism - Believes in the cycle of reincarnation influenced by karma, with the goal of achieving liberation (moksha).
Sikhism - Incorporates the concept of reincarnation, emphasizing the soul's journey through various lives until it merges with God.
Certain Indigenous Religions - Some tribal and indigenous beliefs include concepts of reincarnation or cyclical existence.
New Age Spirituality - Many modern spiritual movements embrace reincarnation as part of their belief systems.

I got most of that right; I thought there may be at least one more. I think many of these are in the region in and near India; that is no surprise that one influenced and influences others. I am not aware of major conflicts among them, but I am sure there was some armed conflicts and some level or persecution.

The level of conflict between Jews, Christians, and Muslims seem to me especially violent. For religions who seem to support and advocate PEACE, there is much, and too much, strife, violence, and killings. Even Muslims have fought each other, Sunnis vs. Shiites. That is one reason for the current conflict with Iran and Iran's attack on its mostly Sunni neighbors.

Now to spend lots of minutes being sure I nested quotes properly and to proof what I have typed so far.

I hope I got that nesting done correctly.

I need to get things done and try to be a better Christian, starting with prayer and Scripture that I usually DO FIRST. I enjoy our discussion, even IF YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG. Apatheist...!!