Eastern Philosophy

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BEAKER

If you seek adice from God (assuming that there is One):

Always a bad thing to do, after all to "***ume" is to make an "***" (out of) "u" (and) "me". :-)

"what is Truth?"; Pilot asked Jesus and recieved no answer.

Until the actual existence of a bibilical Jesus can be proved, it is useless to use him as support for something.

Why would anyone want to hold a philosophy which can not be validated?

Exactly how much validaion is necessary?

How about ANY?

 

The bible, the claimed pefect word of their all powerful god, is filled with contradictions and errors. The concept of such a god violates the laws of physics and can not be acepted logically. There is not a single contemporary eyewitness report that supports the biblical Jesus the Christ stories and many that refute specific claimed events.

 

There is not a single valid piece of factual evidence to support Christianity.

 

So how much validation should someone expect before accepting an assertion? Hopefully more than a complete lack there of.

Each person will have to answer that for themselves.

Very true. However, as soon as someoone wants to legislate or in any other way force their views on others, they had better have SOMETHING behind it!

 

We can see the results of following personal whims in the current disastor the US adminstartion has put us in.

We pride ourselves on our ability to contemplate ideas and define by virtue of reason why the things that we believe are what they are, or at least what we are convinced they are;

Isn;t it amazing how many people CLAIM to follow reason and logic and even try to show the process. Only to be exposed as nothing more than fallacies and unsupportable assumptions. We find that here all the time. People making claims they are not able to provide the first valid support for. Yet they continue to cling desperately to these unsupportable claims when their failure is pointed out.

 

Each person has to decide how much value they place on their own life. It is unfortunate to see how many sell their only life out to a personal philosophy that is empty and valueless. And often actually harmful!

but no amount of reason and scientific deduction can eliminate some measure of faith from all that we assume about our universe.

Yes we have to start with an assumption that we do actually exist. Even though it can not be proved beyond question.

 

However there is a big difference between accepting that causality is a working process we are locked into and arbitrary claims that lack any valid testing. As such it is perhaps not the correct usage of "faith" to describe a thought process which has soime significant level of support and provides highly accurate predictability.

[BEAKER]

Until the actual existence of a bibilical Jesus can be proved, it is useless to use him as support for something.

 

Well, the fact that (most of) the entire "civilized" world, (with the exception of maybe some undiscovered tribe of aboriginies) uses a callandar system with the year prefixed by BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini meaning: the Year of the Lord); would probably be too obvious.

[TINNY]

Beaker, please explain how the calendar proves your point.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BEAKER

Until the actual existence of a bibilical Jesus can be proved, it is useless to use him as support for something.

Well, the fact that (most of) the entire "civilized" world,...

at one time believed the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, ....

 

This is the Fallacy of argumentum ad numerum.

 

Facts are not something you vote on to determine a winner. Truth and Reality stay the same no matter how many agree or disagree with it.

(with the exception of maybe some undiscovered tribe of aboriginies) uses a callandar system with the year prefixed by BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini meaning: the Year of the Lord); would probably be too obvious.

Buy where should I start the education process?

 

Perhaps at this point in time, there are more systems that do not use the convention you suggest. DOS/ Windows which is the calendaring system reference of millions of boxes and thus reference sources, does not use that system. Nor does UNIX.

 

As there are more people in China than anywhere else and the Chinese calendar says this is the year 4701...

 

As to the Gregorian Calendar you seem to be referring to. It is relatively new. It came into usage in Western Europe in the mid 1700's. Even Russia did not adopt it till Russian Revolution of 1917. Eastern Europe came around 1923 and even then some variations of the Julian Calendar are still being used today.

 

As to "year zero" (or one) of the BC/ AD. As there is nothing to support the existence of the biblical Jesus, any effort to establish an exact birth date is absurd. Even the bible can not agree as to when it might have been. Based on the Gospels it is considered to be somewhere around 7-3 BC.

 

To help eliminate this highly unfactual approach, Science and Archeology have stopped using BC/ AD. The correct designation is CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before the Common Era).

 

However, there is nothing about this that provides even the first shred of evidence to support the biblical Jesus myth.