This discussion is still going on?

Honestly..this video is reason for people to believe that a god-man was born 2000 years ago?

But millions upon millions of fossils, at the same time, is NOT evidence that evolution happened?

Im willing to bet modern Christians would take a prize from a cracker jack box and claim it proof that Jesus was the one and true god...

Honestly, those who think this video is legitimate evidence... what can I say... I shake my head in shame at you. I cant make it sound nice. Those who think this is legitimate evidence are embarrassing themselves on this forum.

(October 22, 2011 at 8:47 am)Stimbo Wrote: I don't care what software NASA uses. They could work it all out on their fingers for all the difference it makes to me. The only reason I was pressing you on the point is that you clearly thought it important enough to bring up in the first place. Now you've switched the points and sent the train of your argument into another tunnel, viz:

(October 22, 2011 at 6:52 am)CoxRox Wrote: You do not have to CONNECT this event with the beliefs of the magi, or gospel writers. You can just accept that the Bible has recorded an astronomical event that DID happen.

I don't connect those things. I merely went through Larson's work (and I'm being astonishingly polite there) as you recommended and came back with my analysis. You came in with "What if science can show, that the 'star' that was a sign of the Messiah's birth, did exist?" which nailed your colours to the mast from the get-go. In case I'm being too abstruse, that means the question, coupled with your later statements, clearly indicated where your feelings on the matter lie; that is to say, that you are of the opinion that the gospel myths represent real history and you want to believe Larson because his preachings, at face value, appear to add some weight to that opinion. Now you seem to be trying to distance yourself from your initial stance. Please, make up your mind what you want to establish here. Miracle or mundane?

For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the confirmation by science of such a 'weird' astronomical event occuring around the time that Jesus was supposedly born, is of great interest to us.
There may be folk on here, who having read the biblical account of a strangely behaving 'star', assumed it was a fairy tale because the account contradicted 'science'. At the very least it can now be shown, that the simplistic explanations of the astronomical alignments of 3/2 BC, when retrograde motion was not understood, in the gospel account, are now understood and no longer 'silly' in light of what we now know. It doesn't 'prove' that the significance of the star is that claimed by the bible, and I apologise for how I worded my opening post. I was wording it from my Christian perspective. A better wording as not to offend the non believers here, would have been: '"What if science can show, that the 'star' that was claimed to have 'appeared 'over' Bethlehem 2000 years ago to herald the birth of Messiah', did exist?" Non believers will say 'big deal, so the reference to a star is true. That doesn't mean the claims about Messiah are true'. Absolutely. But it would surely provide some interesting things to debate.

(October 22, 2011 at 8:47 am)Stimbo Wrote: I've already told you of my own independent findings which you either didn't notice or chose to ignore. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, 'cos I'm a nice guy. You only get one though. My processor is tied up at the moment with another project but first chance I get I'll run another simulation and this time I'll take some visual records for you.

In the meantime I'll leave you with a line borrowed from the atheist pope, Matt Dillahunty: The Spiderman comics and movies are set in New York. We know that New York exists as a real place. Does that make Spiderman real?

---

P.S. Did anyone else see Larson's web address and think it said "bethlehamster"?

Oh. Just me, then.

I must have missed your reference to your independent findings. Sorry. I'll look forward to seeing them.

I must 'let off some steam' though, and say that I find the hostility and personal attacks from most participants of this thread to be very disheartening. If I'm wrong about something, I'll put my hands up and admit it. I just don't understand why people can't be friendlier and kinder. We can agree to disagree about things, without insults and hosility.

That's fair enough. And while I obviously can't speak for anyone else, I'm as friendly as they come, or I try be for the most part. I do have some shit going on in my life, have had for the greater part of the last two years actually, which does tend to colour what I say and the way I say it on occasion. It's something I have no control over. Plus there is always going to be a certain degree of heated opinion, shall we say, in discussions of this nature. However there is a line between that and just plain rudeness, and I try very hard not to cross it; unless it's justified, obviously.

My laptop is ultra sensitive and i posted too early. I've ammended it now, so please read it..

(October 22, 2011 at 9:45 am)CoxRox Wrote: I just don't understand why people can't be friendlier and kinder. We can agree to disagree about things, without insults and hosility.

It is because we get the same incoherent rot day in day out... You can only prod at a lion for so long before it eats your head.

(October 22, 2011 at 10:23 am)frankiej Wrote:

(October 22, 2011 at 9:45 am)CoxRox Wrote: I just don't understand why people can't be friendlier and kinder. We can agree to disagree about things, without insults and hosility.

It is because we get the same incoherent rot day in day out... You can only prod at a lion for so long before it eats your head.

Then if that's the case why do you enter a thread that is going to 'prod' you?

Curiosity is a dangerous thing

(October 22, 2011 at 10:27 am)frankiej Wrote: Curiosity is a dangerous thing

Yes, but no excuse for rudeness.

I don't see it as rude. I imagine you want honest opinions on things like this and this is what you get, otherwise you wouldn't be on an atheist forum.

"you're offended? So fucking what?" - Stephen Fry

(October 22, 2011 at 10:34 am)frankiej Wrote: I don't see it as rude. I imagine you want honest opinions on things like this and this is what you get, otherwise you wouldn't be on an atheist forum.

"you're offended? So fucking what?" - Stephen Fry

Personally I find the bible to be VERY offensive.