Jesus Rose from the Dead and is Alive Forevermore!!!

The evidence is there, volumes worth to be honest, whether you choose to accept it as extraordinary is up to you.

Now that I've ticked off unbelievers, allow me to tick off believers. In Exodus 20:3, God commands his people to not bring any other gods before him. Easter, however, originated as a celebration to the Anglo-Saxon goddess of light, called Eastre. The symbols of rabbits and eggs are pagan in origin, honoring various gods and goddesses of fertility. 2 Cor 6:15- "What fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?" Mark 7:7,8- "They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

On that note- Happy Sunday, April 20, 2014 of the Common Era- believers, unbelievers and undecideds alike!!!! :fest30:

I wish everyone a fantastic YAY IT'S FINALLY SPRING day!!!!

 

Red herring. Also, implied false dichotomy and poisoning the well fallacies. If I posited that "the claim that George Washington was the first president of the US has not been proven by science" you'd likely scratch your head and wonder what the heck I was talking about. There may be certain ways that science can help prove or disprove historicity, but the evidence is not limited to scientific data and, more importantly, no one was saying that scientific data wasn't a part of the equation to begin with, so why defend it as if anyone did?

be·lief
noun
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Without belief, science can not advance past solipsism. Scientific theories are sets of statements, projected into hypotheses which are themselves statements for which there is a question of veracity which are themselves are either validated or invalidated empirically. In other words, the POINT of science is to find out what can be accepted as true or as existing, that is, what to believe.

 

A referendum on scientists is a separate question from a referendum on science. Even so, I'd be much more inclined to accept the trustworthiness of scientific claims over theological claims, since the former are the ones who at least have accountability to other professionals and a directive of transparency of methodology. Frauds and errors have occurred, including a few very recent ones, but it isn't like scientists typically just make stuff up.

 

I highly recommend this book: Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them, David H. Freedman: 9780316087919: Amazon.com: Books. (I also highly recommend to check your library for it before buying it!) Some very interesting insights on how scientific studies receive funding and a bias towards findings of positive results in scientific journals and popular media.

The point is to always be skeptical, not just selectively so. Be extremely skeptical of anyone making a religious claim and be extremely skeptical of someone making a scientific claim. Lastly, be extremely skeptical of skeptics' claims.

 

Jelly beans, however, are a more recent development and therefore apparently are still okay even for the most conservative of the faithful. :wink:

 

I can attest to this, personally. Also, to the fact that the day after Easter, when the chocolate Easter bunnies are just chocolate bunnies, they are still freakin delicious. :redface:

 

I like how you remembered to begin the sentence with the word "if". Let me see how well I can follow suit.

If (so far so good!!) you are so afraid of the truth that you would rather dishonestly and self-servingly attribute unflattering and unreasonable positions to others than to actually hear their case out, then you are multiple times more ignorant than you falsely believe said others to be- by choice.

What? I said "if".