Ehh yeah I understand all that but it doesn't really answer my questions about why we are the only animals with a conscious mind. If anything you're adding to the mystery in mah brain. You're explaining that the human brain isn't so far advanced at a cellular level as that of any other animal and that once consciousness is achieved the population will thrive... so why has nothing else got it yet? Why are we the only ones to put on our emergence suit and make the jump to a conscious brain and from there thrive. To answer my own question a little, we do have the best bodies to make use of this brain power... maybe that's the answer. What could an elephant or dolphin do with a brain as advanced as a humans? Not a lot... but that still doesn't explain why they haven't really, as you said earlier in the thread evolution is blind. Maybe elephants did develop a brain as complex as a humans but they all committed suicide because they were so frustrated they had no thumbs and so couldn't build themselves some pyramids. There's a big difference between war and self sacrifice though. Countless people have killed their own livestock, their own children or themselves in the name of countless Gods and idols. I can understand that they would do it because they "foresee a benefit" as you say, but I cant understand why we would evolve with a tendency to do it in the first place. I would say it runs a lot deeper than peeing on the floor. We have evolved the tendency to worship an idol to unite our tribes, keep members loyal, etc. I would say the same about self sacrifice, we have evolved a tendency to punish ourselves for committing sin, to kill our own animals, our own children, ourselves, etc etc. For what purpose? No animal does this.. we are only hurting the chances of our tribe surviving. Anyway this is going way off topic. I will justice this being related to the existence of God because, as far as I am concerned, the conscious mind is the only thing which makes sense to me as being the work of a higher power. It is only through this conciousness that anything has meaning or purpose...
Consciousness was an accident, evolution gave us a very rare opportunity and we took it. Kangaroos took a similar path with hopping. Hopping should not happen but evolution gave them that window and they took it, as well. It is incredibly beneficial but incredibly hard to get and takes a lot of luck to get. You are equating the development of the brain exclusively to humans as the best species to use it and I would say with our brain, yes, we are the best species to use it but that is only because our brain has adapted to suite our body's needs while our body tries to suite our brain's needs. I wouldn't say our brain is the best brain, though (it might just be the best at math and planning). Elephants have incredible memories, dolphins can read sonar with their brain, bees can see the ultra-violet spectrum. Its all in how you use it. I don't kill cows, myself, or others. Like I said it requires conditioning but even without, humans are still capable of murder whether they be psychologically unsound, suffer from mental illness, or are sociopathic. But it goes deeper than that. Stress caused by a divorce can cause a man without illness or sociopathic tendencies to act rashly and stupidly. This is when the Id, ego, and super ego complex breaks down. Not all morality is hard wired and much of it is subjective and conditioned. That's amazing, considering that they are old testament documents... I'm sure there was, doesn't mean it's accurate. We have video footage of Hitler and eye-witness accounts of him, some of whom are still living today. You can claim that but the Russians told us they found him dead. If you want to support this claim I'll be happy to follow. Gee what's the point of debating? What's the point of free speech? What's the point of an intellectual market place?... Weak.
First note... OTHER historic Documents... Like maybe Roman history?... but w/e dude you just read one word and start writing.... Hitler would have been a Trophy for the Russians to use against the US after the war... as well a historic Icon to show Russia protecting its nation... DO YOU really think it was a good choice IF!... they did destroy his body? and for what reason?.... See your claim is So similar to guesses... which you often make...I'm just simply pointing out ... there just as much information about Jesus...as Hitler... Hitler was not at all as important to human history In my point of view..but comparing the years indifference... facts of information can be lost.
If you believe the stories..and the dental record story yes... but they don't have any records of his death nor his orders to do this....
But how come Jesus, born 1889 years prior to Hitler, has a somewhat equal account of his life? Like, people know that Jesus went and did these miracles and stuff. It's possible, but how do you know? Time is, as Nitrous' sig says, an artificial construct. It was simply made so people could easily account "when" things happened in relation to our system of timekeeping. Time isn't part of nature; the sun rises and falls, but that's just the rotation of the Earth and stuff. The Mayans and many early cultures had their own ways of keeping time. Obviously, time can't have a beginning since it is something relative to the method of timekeeping. I actually find it easier to think of "time" as an infinite loop. That way it removes the issue of "Wow, how did it all start?" PLUS! If you believed time had a beginning, it would then need an end. How would you end time? You can't because it's not really there to begin with. We're all just in this infinite loop of... existence. Our definition of time is not necessarily flawed, but we are just applying it to the existence of everything, which cannot be quantified. People used religion (you gotta admit) to attract people to them. It was used as an incentive to gather in this person's "tribe". Strength in numbers: Darwin recommends it. Now, people used to think the God(s) would be pleased by sacrifice. No rain? Give a cow to the God(s), and they'll hand you some water. We are not so extreme anymore, but that is the origin of our punishments for sinning. It (human sacrifice, that kinda stuff) seems counterintuitive, but when you're talking about your eternal life, you do what ya gotta do. People will go to extremes to get ahead, and that is what nature is like. Bottom line is, we have the same instincts as your dog, cat, pet hamster, even the old woman next door.
No it's not. When you don't have remains or any document other than the bible to turn to it's kind of hard to identify a person as existing. For instance, the most obscure ruler of the Roman empire, I'm sure has at least more than two documents pointing towards his existence. I believe Jesus existed as a person and may have indeed preached the gospel, however, I also accept the fact that there is very little evidence that points towards his existence. We need to remember that Jesus was a carpenter and part-time messiah, not a Roman ruler, to expect evidence as vast as that would be foolish. G043R, if you are going to use the Dead Sea scrolls as evidence that Jesus existed then I'm going to call you out on it. You were wrong in that assumption, now admit it. Before you read one word and start writing read this one more time "I mean dead sea Scrolls...support the claim there was A Jesus" When you use the word and you imply both. Either learn English or gets your facts straight. If a higher up found him I'm sure the thought would have crossed his mind but if a soldier found Hitler, after losing 20 million fellow Russians I'm sure you would desecrate the **** out of that body. Now I said I believe the historical account of what happened to Hitler's body, not that I'm guessing, as you claim. There is not as much information on Jesus as there is Hitler and I dare you to prove your point, because you have to prove the positive, I don't have to prove the negative. I must have slighted you at some point because you sure are reactive. A person who kills 6 million Jews in a holocaust is pretty important. It keeps us from repeating the mistakes of history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You would be wise not to downplay the significance of Hitler.
Keep hiding in your Defensive logic.. So nothing learned... For the rest.. maybe you can move the unmoving Nitrous... because he does not understand ... SAYING nothing is not a deference nor is it proving himself right. SO Roman Leaders ... Learders similar to US presidents... kinda odd SOME of the United States presidents are hardly know...and that is recent history the same. History is remembered because some one tells it or writes it. SO Why do we have evidence that Jesus existed? Because the story was shared.... because we dont' have paper evidence?....Well for someone so revolutionary ... didn't talk as much to the rich but to the poor masses...most of which didn't write... SO... thus word of mouth is possible to being a evidence to existing.... As for Hitler existing... we are lucky that we have history teaching us it happened. ... I hope you understand that anything that happens before you were born... you have to believe happened. It is that simple. As for my English... Listen and maybe you'll understand it... Back to topic... Hitler has only a few documents existing most of which is 3rd person accounts... does this make it as a Legend or ..what? I feel that an example has been taken to the point of Black and white... Some people don't even things Shakespeare existed... thou his plays are loved and even cherished... Did he Exist?... We don't even know how he looked... that was 200 years ago.... So for 2000 years Jesus... is doing really good comparative. PS... Dead Sea Scrolls Support that Jesus was coming as well possibly validating his place and time of coming to earth...but besides that if you dont' believe the Dead sea scrolls there are other historic documents.
Leveling Belief It's not even close to that simple. The extremely important details to consider when deciding to believe if something happened before you were born, or after you were born for that matter and just not in your presence, are: 1. Who is telling you that the event happened? 2. What is the persons credibility? 3. Are there possible motives for that person to make up or embellish their account of the event? 4. What physical evidence is provided by said person? 5. How many other people agree with the account? These are just a few things to consider. Saying that you are simply "believing" anything that happened before your life time to be true, puts everything on the same level, from tales of hobbits and dragons to the signing of the declaration of independence. I can see how that attempt at leveling belief would be good for your argument, fortunately most people take evidence into account when deciding whether or not they believe something happened. When you compare the likelihood of Hitler existing to the likelihood of Jesus existing the bottom falls out of your argument completely(and it makes you seem a bit delusional as well). Hitler's life and existence is clearly documented on a large scale with photos, video, eye witness accounts, and signatures on documents. Jesus's existence is clearly much, much less documented and even if you prove without a doubt that a man named Jesus existed that does nothing to prove that he was the son of god. While there is some level of belief and trust in others when excepting past events, some accounts hold up when scrutinized and others fall flat.
Defending what? What you learn in science is what drives the forces of life on this planet. Facts. Facts are there and always will be, there's the defense. Religion is a spiritual thing, a personal thing. Religions equal beliefs, and if you want to use just your opinion in a debate, it won't work. Facts are needed, and that is where religion lacks. Like Nitrous said, he doesn't need to prove the negative; you need to prove the positive however. So you think that word of mouth through most of the years have kept the story of Jesus through. Think about that, and while you're thinking, recall how myths and legends formed back then. People would exaggerate a little here and there so people would listen to their stories. We have history books and written accounts that are from people that were at certain events. The bible is not proven to be from people who were with Jesus. Plus, it has been proven through history that the Church used shady methods to keep and get more followers. Who is to say they didn't change some stuff? Shakespeare has paintings of himself, Jesus... has paintings of what people think he looked like. (Like how people think God looks like Zeus. Coincidence?) It's not Shakespeare's existence that is in question (maybe for the conspiracy theorists) but it is if he actually made some of his plays. Answer this question. Do you or do you not know that the bible is true? TO CLARIFY: I AM NEVER TRYING TO BE OFFENSIVE IN THESE DEBATES. I AM ONLY TRYING TO MAKE A POINT, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. I VALUE EVERYONE'S OPINION, SO DON'T THINK I AM BEING "DISMISSIVE" IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY POINTS.
Okay, I'm just sitting back and reading the argument at hand. He was giving several examples and making points backed by these examples (shakespeare, hitler, etc) and because you didn't like one of his arguments, you change the subject? Seems a bit evasive. You're asking him a question that he was already answering, does he know the bible is true? His original response was, you can't know for sure, likewise, you can't know that shakespeare existed except that the majority of people believe it. Seriously, you're wanting evidence, all we have are writings... likewise, all we have on shakespeare are writings. Hell, with that, did homer exist? I'm not taking a stance in this argument, but you can't sit there and dismiss points he gives just because you don't like them.
Nonono, that's the whole point. If he says he doesn't know the bible is true and just thinks it is true, then he is admitting that he doesn't think the bible is all true, and therefore not God's word. Then he can't use it as a source. It was a question at the end. If you read, you will see that I addressed all his points. I didn't evade or say "you're an idiot". And this is a debate. If we were just using opinions without evidence, then how can we back up any of our arguments? Evidence is what make you credible. That question was one he did not answer clearly. The difference between Shakespeare's writings and the Bible is that Shakespeare wrote his plays (most or all, but that's beside the point). The Bible doesn't have that kind of credibility. If you don't want us to question your beliefs, then debates are not for you. Keep in mind, I was a Catholic when I came to this site. I'm not a mindless twit spouting ant-religious crap. I made a decision to be an agnostic. I know what the religious side stands for. ALSO. Many others who argue for the agnostic/religious side have once been theists.
Majority You did take a stance in this argument. Your stance seems to be that whether we are talking about Jesus, Shakespeare, or Hitler, belief that they existed is all the same type of belief. There is much more evidence than "the majority of people believe it" for William Shakespeare's existence(baptism records, court documents from copyright lawsuits, property purchase records, a will, and a tombstone to name a few). I hope you can see that there is quite a bit less evidence for Jesus existing, although there is some. My point is that there are varying levels of certainty regarding trusting others when it comes to forming an opinion on something you did not have direct exposure to. Hopefully most people believe things based on logic and a look at all evidence available and not just because "the majority of people believe it".
I understand this is a debate and no, I didn't take a stance with that argument. I, myself am highly agnostic, it just seemed like a nasty evasion maneuver... And you have to realize the subject of the debate and, well, your burden of proof, too. The subject is god... the biggest... how to say this politely... excuse in the universe. He's omnipotent, hell, he could make himself not exist if he wanted to, so "evidence" really isn't probable or hindering. Likewise your burden isn't to prove there isn't any evidence, rather prove that there's evidence to the contrary of his existence. I mean, how omnipotent is a being if they have to follow the rules of his/her own creation, including, but not limited to, logic, debate etiquette, and physics. I'm just saying.
Check your source... I got text book say other wise... http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=Jessus&btnG=Search+Images O yes..btw here some of Jesus pictures since Google is trust worthy.