The Atheism Thread - Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
He did.

Galileo made up and falsified a ton of his evidence in support of his theory. He was wrong about a ton of things, but to be fair his main point was accurate. He just needed way more measurements than what would've been available to him at the time, and so instead it just made up a bunch of crap.

By today's standards Galileo is a complete fraud.



i find your original post disingenuous if this is the evidence you sight. him fudging calculations to try to prove his theory explained the tides has little to do with his evidence for heliocentrism, which was what you were replying to a comment about. and to solve that problem he would have had to discover gravity not made more measurements.
 
Last edited:
i find your original post disingenuous if this is the evidence you sight. him fudging calculations to try to prove his theory explained the tides has little to do with his evidence for heliocentrism, which was what you were replying to a comment about. and to solve that problem he would have had to discover gravity not made more measurements.
It was in response to a discussion about the historical realness of Jesus, and one poster said
If Galileo had as little balls as historians, we'd still be teaching kids that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Is there anything more ridiculous than our calendar system? Even Christian scholars admit we can't be certain of what year Jesus was born.
Noting that historians accept Jesus despite insufficient evidence, ignoring that Galileo also had insufficient evidence but made his claim anyways based on what evidence he did have.

Much like as the case with historians. The evidence for Jesus may not be anymore compelling than that of Hannibal, but there is no evidence supporting the notion that Jesus is simply a mere myth like Horus (in fact he doesn't resemble the Horus story at all, despite what Bill Maher said. I really wonder, did his writers research that? They could've read the wikipedia article and known Horus and Jesus were miles apart in terms of story).
 
and that's exactly my point. gallieo did have sufficient evidence to claim heliocentrism. yet you suggest he didn't citing mistakes in explanation of tides.

and yes you cannot prove a negative but it is not expected of historians to. it is expected that they don't make claims from the lack of evidence they have.

also the stories of thor and the hobbit are miles apart but it's obvious one inspired parts of the other. i know that alot of the factual claims about horus have been twisted to better fit, but to suggest the jesus myth is all original would be incredulous.
 
Last edited:
and that's exactly my point. gallieo did have sufficient evidence to claim heliocentrism. yet you suggest he didn't citing mistakes in explanation of tides.

and yes you cannot prove a negative but it is not expected of historians to. it is expected that they don't make claims from the lack of evidence they have.

also the stories of thor and the hobbit are miles apart but it's obvious one inspired parts of the other. i know that alot of the factual claims about horus have been twisted to better fit, but to suggest the jesus myth is all original would be incredulous.
It's pretty original. But no one ever claims religions don't have clear parallels. That's simply more due to the similarities of what most people will encounter in their lives. Floods, miracles, terrible storms, plagues, and supposedly "magical" individuals are things most people experience, even today people claim to witness these things with regularity. Hell, alien abduction stories aren't far off from angel abduction stories, or goblin abduction stories which existed before the concept of aliens existed.

Are you saying it repeats tropes of hero stories? So do most. Superman, Hercules, Jesus, and Optimus Prime all have similar themes of death/rebirth, miraculous feats, but have you ever read the Horus story? There are very few similarities. He wasn't born of a virgin, for one. He didn't have 12 disciples, and didn't even have disciples, just 4 demi-gods he was usually with, and he certainly wasn't poor, nor was he crucified, so it's a pretty different story.

Also, Jesus (and Muhammad) are very unique in how they are "human" religious icons, and how they started a different trend in religions. You could say Christianity was Nolanized religion, religion that existed in a grounded reality and used that as it's link to the supernatural, rather than assuming reality was controlled by supernatural forces alone. As far as we know, there are no human counterparts for the Gods of Mount Olympus.

You guys continue to want to push this Jesus myth thing when it's a fairly incredulous position

And no, you're wrong, if Galileo did that today the Science community would absolute rebuke him for it (although many scientific discovers start off as bad science, hence why they get tweaked so much before we arrive at the versions we're familiar with today).

The whole "Jesus is a myth" thing was actually something originally dreamed up by other religions as a means to slander Christianity. It's not new, no credible historian believes such a thing, and it's all been roundly debunked.
 
Last edited:
how was i suggesting galileo's fudging of calculations to explain tides wasn't wrong? how does this make your earlier contention right?

never said it wasn't a different story. explicitly said some reports of it twist it to make it fit better.

stop strawmaning my argument please. and bringing up new unrelated stuff doesn't strenghen your original argument either. it's a debate tactic that works better when there's a time limit.
 
how was i suggesting galileo's fudging of calculations to explain tides wasn't wrong? how does this make your earlier contention right?
I didn't say you did. Go reread my response. I was responded to a different poster when we moved towards this Galileo discussion.
never said it wasn't a different story. explicitly said some reports of it twist it to make it fit better.
Some reports twist?

Dude, it's not even .01% correct. Horus and Jesus don't even barely resemble each others stories. He doesn't resemble any of the Krishna (who died almost exactly like Achilles), Dionysus (who never died) or Mithra (who never died, period, his life is eternal) or any others they make parallels to. It's all from that Da Vinci Code crap.

It's also simply not possible. I don't think the people writing the Jesus story when it finally was written would've known or cared much about Egyptian or Eastern religions, which he is said to be copies of. If anything he's closest to Siddartha in terms of story.
stop strawmaning my argument please. and bringing up new unrelated stuff doesn't strenghen your original argument either. it's a debate tactic that works better when there's a time limit.
Lol? Who is debating? Is this a formal debate? If so I want my podium.
 
Last edited:
so when you quoted me, said no your are wrong, followed up with talking about galileo's fudging of calculations. you weren't calling me wrong. how could i ever have thought that.

if they could write then they could read and that wouldn't even be the only transmission form possible for elements of the stories to move to different areas. heck you already said it was like a nolanisation of myth.

also look up the definition of debate.
 
None of the tropes are particularly original. Born of a virgin? Seen it. Suffered for us? Seen it. Old man with a white beard? ...well, some of these aren't actually in the Bible, but they've become part of Christian lore nonetheless.

What I do find interesting, and someone pointed it out, is how vague Christianity is about heaven.
 
None of the tropes are particularly original. Born of a virgin? Seen it. Suffered for us? Seen it. Old man with a white beard? ...well, some of these aren't actually in the Bible, but they've become part of Christian lore nonetheless.

What I do find interesting, and someone pointed it out, is how vague Christianity is about heaven.


Is there tv up in there? Games? Or is it your best memories? :huh::huh::huh:
 
Well, polls have shown that about half of American Christians believe that their pets will be waiting for them when they get to heaven.
 
None of the tropes are particularly original. Born of a virgin? Seen it. Suffered for us? Seen it. Old man with a white beard? ...well, some of these aren't actually in the Bible, but they've become part of Christian lore nonetheless.

What I do find interesting, and someone pointed it out, is how vague Christianity is about heaven.
Actually virgin birth is fairly uncommon.

The most common trope is no parentage, like you often see with superheroes.

But even if that's true, it's a fairly idiotic point. The Church didn't decide on Mary being a virgin-virgin until much later. Virgin in Hebrew is simply a young woman, not necessarily one that was untouched. That's more of a retroactive story element. So is the ressurection since its heavily suspect that the original text from which the Gospels are written contained that ambiguous "empty tomb" ending.

I'm telling you all this endless parallels stuff is wildly debunked bible codes. Go read the actual religious texts. All the stuff you're talking is Bible codes.
 
Last edited:
Well, polls have shown that about half of American Christians believe that their pets will be waiting for them when they get to heaven.


-_- I believe in no such thing...no heaven, no hell, no cats waiting for me on the other side...just reincarnation and a purgatory like place...and even then, I'm so moody at times, I rather be 'tossed into a black hole in a loop cycle' I'm um...moody.
 
Wouldn't be heaven without endless chicken wings now would it?
 
Heaven to me has always been the most comical thing in religion.

It's rather amusing, because when you ask religious people about hell, they usually give you a very detailed (not to mention graphic) account of what they imagine (lake of fire, burning flesh, etc).

When you ask them about heaven, they have very little to say.
 
Heaven to me has always been the most comical thing in religion.

It's rather amusing, because when you ask religious people about hell, they usually give you a very detailed (not to mention graphic) account of what they imagine (lake of fire, burning flesh, etc).

When you ask them about heaven, they have very little to say.

Actually, I find most describe both as something not physical but spiritual.
 
Do you guys think that the Colonel is burning in hell at this very moment? For the deaths of all those chickens?
 
Last edited:
Personally, if there actually turns out to be a heaven, I hope it's the Pastafarian one. I mean, how can you go wrong with a beer volcano and stripper factory?
 
The Flying Spaghetti Monster sent his only son, Chef Boyardee, to teach mankind about living in peace and thus ascending to heaven.
 
Does anyone know of any person who has claimed to be Jesus, and actually lead a large group of people to believe it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"