We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4182
Latest Activity: Nov 17, 2016

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Drinking Coffee Associated with Lower Risk of Multiple Sclerosis

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Christopher Lowe Sep 14, 2016. 2 Replies

Neanderthals, Denisovans and ancestor X

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Aug 7, 2016. 3 Replies

The evolution of work

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jul 12, 2016. 61 Replies

Has man evolved?

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by John Elder Jun 18, 2016. 5 Replies

The Probability Of Being

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by John Elder Jun 11, 2016. 4 Replies

Living Relatives of Leonardo da Vinci have been Found

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Qiana-Maieev Apr 18, 2016. 6 Replies

Johns Hopkins Receives $125,000,000 to Fight Cancer

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Apr 1, 2016. 2 Replies

A new theory explaining the origins of life?

Started by Donald L. Engel. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Mar 31, 2016. 5 Replies

Map of Archaic Ancestry

Started by Qiana-Maieev. Last reply by Joseph P Mar 29, 2016. 5 Replies

Homo Erectus food processing

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 19, 2016. 1 Reply

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Bryon on November 17, 2010 at 4:04pm
conceivable perhaps but unlikely. If he existed, he would most likely would have been executed for insurrection or some such thing and would not have been allowed a respectful burial. not to mention that the archeological evidence would indicate that the Romans were not in the habit of taking bribes for such things.
Comment by Mark M on November 17, 2010 at 2:08pm

Just saw this post while dicking around at work, so I ran it by a Christian colleague of mine. He pointed out that Joseph of Arimathaea came to Pilate the day after the crucifixion and paid Pilate to have the body removed to his custody. This is concieveable, as it would represent a bribe. In the case of Vercingetorix, it makes sense that a bribe wouldn't be honored as he was an enemy of the state, but for a petty criminal to be removed from the cross isn't outside the realm of possibility.
Comment by Tony Davis on November 17, 2010 at 10:47am

Thanks so much for taking the time to read, and comment on, my articles. It is one thing for me to blather on about what I think on certain topics, but to have others like you commenting really adds a lot to it!

Comment by Bryon on November 17, 2010 at 10:43am
Here is my post on your article. It is there as well.

Another thing that seems to very rarely if ever come up when discussing the crucifixion is how quickly the body was removed upon death. The whole point of crucifixion is the terror inspired by seeing such gruesome, tortuous execution and the lack of respect for the remains of the "criminals" killed. The body of Vercingetorix, had to be stolen back by his Gallic followers after being dumped in a mass grave for executed criminals and he was a King. So what are the chances of the Romans turning the body of a criminal over to the family? They didn't even do that for Citizens. Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refers to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, including 6,000 survivors of the Spartacus revolt captured by the legions of Crassus were crucified, lining the Appian Way from Rome to Capua, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus.This is because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. Again, Rome was ruled by terror.
Comment by Tony Davis on November 17, 2010 at 8:26am

Correct, not Jurgen. I have to admit that I'd never heard of Jurgen until I started working on this article, but had heard of Gary many many times since I started debating apologists because (and DAMN I forgot to point this out!) the "beauty" of the minimal facts argument (from the apologists perspective) is that since it relies on "historical facts" and not the Bible saying God is real, they are not bothered by all the errors in the Bible.

I remember once pointing out a number of errors in the Bible and asking a apologist if that concerned him. To my utter amazement he said "No, not at all. I don't need the Bible to be accurate. I've got more than enough evidence without the Bible." and he introduced me to the minimal facts argument. I normally try really hard to be respectful even when I disagree but I think my reply was something like "are you f'ing HIGH? How would you even know about these so called facts without the Bible???"

Thanks so much for the feedback!

Comment by david perry on November 17, 2010 at 12:57am
@Tony- You aren't talking about Jurgen Habermas. He would not espouse such a flimsy idea. Are they related?
Good article though. I especially like the idea about the incompatibility of the miraculous with the commonplace, I never thought of it that way. It just always seemed obvious to me that if there were evidence of miracles, they would leave even a tiny trace. The thing about science that makes the theists nervous in my opinion is that it is repeatable and verifiable, if miracles were as commonplace as they suggest the laws of physics would necessarily have to be quite different. I think it was Einstein that thought that was the miracle so to speak, that the laws of physics work everywhere, all the time. They would then, if they're smart, point out that quantum physics says such occurances are possible, indeed have happened. They conveniently then leave out the observer part of it.
It's an easy argument to poke holes in as you point out, and as Ron did before.
Comment by david perry on November 17, 2010 at 12:33am
@Tony- You areI presume referring to Jurgen Habermas? I've never seen him called Gary. Good luck with an interview. He's an extremely old man. I'll see if I can finish the article now, it's getting late.
Comment by Tony Davis on November 16, 2010 at 11:28pm
OK, here it is:

I am sitting here, on my third glass of wine, thinking to myself that in the morning I will read it again and wonder "what the hell was I thinking when I hit the "publish" button. ;-p

Again, criticism is more than welcome. I have a thick skin and it is the only way I will get any better.

Comment by Tony Davis on November 16, 2010 at 9:28pm

Thanks for the reply. I can just publish the article then post the link here and make changes to the article based on feedback (The beauty of online articles!). I could also post it on my personal web page but that is not a very user friendly way of doing it (mostly due to my lack of web master skills).

The only reason I am going about it this way is that the minimal facts approach is one of the few apologetic arguments that I've never seriously engaged anyone on. I suspect there are far greater problems with it that I am capturing. Part of the problem (and reason I suspect a larger issue) is that I cannot find any of Habermas' sources. He talks a lot about reviewing all the relevant literature in English, French and German and the vast majority of scholars, even the atheists and agnostics, agree on the "12 facts". But what I suspect is that less than 5% of these "scholars" are other than Christians and so you are hardly ever going to get less than 90-95% agreement even on the most ludicrous of these "facts" because they are in the Bible.

If anyone here has any thoughts I'd be glad to hear them. I am even looking for Habermas' contact info (I will even go to Liberty University to interview him if he will grant it) so that I can ask the question personally.

I will just tweak the article a bit more, post it, then share the link here.

Comment by david perry on November 16, 2010 at 8:46pm
@Tony-It will stay visible indefinitely if you open a new discussion page with it. You could do it either way.
Can't you just post a link?

Members (4177)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service