Atheists what is your proof?

Sophistry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you decide that the book doesn't say what the words say, but what you want it to mean.

What illogical nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why we bother to feed the trolls?

Of corse God gave us the capacity of nature and laws to develop the world within a short space and time. And that is what makes time relative(=. Oh great Einstein with the chaos you managed to accrue with your imagination. If he only knew.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you take parts of the bible and use it for a metaphor to a real event, then you cannot pick and choose which parts are factual and which parts are exaggerated or put down as metaphors. So as I pointed out earlier since the bible isn't even consistent on historical events we cannot take it with any real seriousness without evidence to support its claims.

So was Jesus really a son of a God or was he just a radical open minded person who his followers turned into a God to promote his way of life.

 

Crunchy Cat,

If the whole earth had been covered by water, the water would
have raised up to six miles. Where would the water have gone to
when it had subsided? Secondly the Babylonian, Egyptian,
and Chinese history, is unaffected by floods through this period.

jan.

 

Explain?
Or are you going to evade, again.

jan.

 

AlexG, do you not acknowledge that language evolves over time? And do you not acknowledge the impact church politics has had over biblical translations for the last couple thousand years? What gives you so much faith in the inerrancy of the interpretations and translations you have been positing?

 

regarding translating.

A long time ago, a person was translating the Exodus and he made one glaring error which was to have far reaching repercussions and Charlton Heston a lot of money!!

Red Sea should have actually read REED sea.

 

That's how you know it's a work of fiction

 

Not entirely, I am demanding that evidence be provided for the claim that "god made words" as opposed to what we know which is that language evolved. Now, if you accept that language evolved but now claim that 'god did it' through that process, I once again demand evidence. If you cannot or will not provide such evidence, there's little more anyone need say.

Not so says Richard Carrier [1]

I'll agree here because I recognise that outside of mathematics one does not 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. If we use it in a weak sense, (which is to say have logical arguments and evidence against), then we can - to our own satisfaction if nobody elses.

Fallacy: Begging the question.

Ths issue of this supposed 'free will' is a lengthy one and something we can get into if needs be, but it must be noted that just saying you 'have free will, therefore free will is true' isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.

It need be mentioned that I need give no explanation. I asked you to provide evidence for your claim.

However, I would be saying you have no free choice, instead the 'choice' made is determined by the specific state of your brain 'bubbles'.

Regards,

-----

[1] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

 

Bingo!

 

What about the rest of the people? Are they not God's son too? Just because one man in history had the ability and wisdom to follow good ways and gain both a good name and reputation. Sure he is god's son, but do we not all share this divinity regardless of this negative aspect of God. Just because someone is more god like does not make the others not still technically god.

Do you still deny this circular logic? Free will involves the "divinity" being a hands off from third party. Well I say there are millions of these "deities of thought" who stand by and abuse their free will, say nothing, do nothing, but the point still stands to my negative. Does that fact itself not serve to prove my negative. Is it not all out in the open. Where does this God have to hide now I ask when he is called for what he is. It is to my belief that I say with a smirk.

"IPSO FACTO I'M YOUR BOSS" LOL

 

I am unsure what you are referring to. Please clarify.

Kindly provide evidence that 'free will' exists or that 'divine' entities exist. I don't see where I have said anything that would give rise to this statement of yours.

With respect but none of this really makes any coherent sense. I cannot address it.

 

OK I am sick and tired of beating around the bush with people that are intellectually dishonest.

Why don't you christians explain how your "language evolution" explains why God would have authors writing sometimes no more than 50 year apart giving different versions of both Jesus life and death and resurrection and lineage. Interesting that the earliest books make no claim of impregnation by a ghost. And last time I checked people were not building a cult around me and claiming my father was an all powerful supernatural and eternal being. So no we are not all sons of God in that respect, why did they feel the need to turn a mortal man into a divine God that escapes death? Do you think maybe they felt the message of love your neighboor and even your enemies was important enough to give it extra weight? Were those authors aware that there words would be used to justify war and murder and treating other cultures as if they are misguided sinners? Tell me how significant is the percentage of the bible belts population that would think its ok to preach their gospel without needing to listen to other peoples point of view or religion? That is very alarming, your religion is a detriment to human evolution in this modern age because you are refusing to follow evidence and give weight to other perspectives and instead choose to trust in a book written by people who thought genocide was ok, who said women should sit down and shut up in church, who told the slaves tough luck.. do you not see the contrast between these authors and the red letters of the man they claim to be like?

You accuse people of ducking and dodging yet you completely ignore the bibles long long list of not only interpetation problems, but historically inaccurate and contradictory statements.

Belief in a God is one thing, however asking people to prove that there isn't something or someone responsible for everything is simply stupid. Why don't you ask them to prove santa clause doesn't exist, or that elfs never existed.

Just because you don't know how you got here and you don't understand all the science behind what we do know, doesn't make it OK to dismiss science and yet expect science to respect your ignorance. You can believe in a God and still adhere to science and enlightenment, but to do that you must admit you could be wrong and not only that be open to being wrong. What most of you do is hold onto a hope and dream of eternal life instead of considering this might be all you get.. if you did that you may spend your life more in search of answers, or being more tolerant to other people. You couldn't just cop out on a prayer of forgiveness and excuse your belligerent behavior.

And btw your bible is consitent on one thing, if there is an afterlife for us we will be judged by our deeds and not by what faith we had. The bible does not say you go to hell for not believing in God or believing in many Gods or different Gods, nowhere does it say that unless you use your own play on words you accuse the authors of. Yet still accusing the authors of typos you still tell people they are going to go to hell, that your religion is the only way to heaven.

"no man can come to the father but by me" I know you are about to quote that right? What does that statement mean? Did he say he doesn't take people to the father that don't say the sinners prayer? Did he say people that don't know or believe in his divinity have to go to hell? Or is that just what you were taught to think that means?

Maybe he is saying simply he answers his dads door... How can you think that means Jesus is the only way to heaven when the bible also says ALL ARE JUDGED BEFORE GOD. hmm maybe Jesus will be the guy that introduces him eh?

Uh oh, how you realize maybe you have to be nice to get a reward?? I think that is more scientific and logical than you do 7 hail marys.

Please stop with this trying to justify attacking atheism, and I say the same for atheists but normally they are the ones that have suffered the most in human history. Maybe them picking on you is what goes around comes around.

 

I don't want to be judged by someone who couldn't walk in my shoes btw. And if Jesus was divine and knew it then what a cope out for God, why not send his son into the world ignorant of his divinity, see if he can be so nice not knowing whats next after death. How could such a god judge our behavior when he cannot know what death is like or pain or suffering, and no if Jesus was as the bible says he cannot count. If I knew certainly that after I died i was back to being God, sure I could suffer through a lifetime of misery and still turn the other cheek.. anyone could cause it doesn't matter.

Part of being human is the unknown and dealing with the unknown, I'm sorry but sending a God to earth simply like putting on a different outfit doesn't make me think God appreciates us. Why didn't he come down without his miracles and without being able to lean on knowing his condition was temporary?

That makes me wonder if he was confident he could even be a good person on earth as a human... now how would you like being judged by that guy.

I think its more likely if I was a God that I would spend a lifetime on earth just like a human before I go burning anyone for infinity or sending them into any pits. I bet if any god did that he would immediately stop this cruel experiment we call human society lol. My god would have to be better than that, and if there is one I am certain he/she is.

 

The 'known' world flooded is a more appropriate phrase. Remember 99% of the people knew nothing outside their own neighbourhoods. And an 'ark' was discovered on Mount Ararat wasn't it, not far from what is now the Black Sea but was once a 'highly fertile populated' land?

 

I cannot speak for others, and I am not sure who you are calling out as being intellectually dishonest, but I can reply with my perspectives. As such, I cannot comment on the NT directly, as I don't recognize it has having divine authority. With that said, I think it IS important to distinguish between the notion that "God would have authors writing ..." and "authors writing with divine inspiration". I think the terminology that has come into popular use (such as "God's message") has confused the reality of the situation. The idea behind the divinity of the Bible is that throughout history there have been people of particular spiritual discernment. These people were more often than not condemned by the religious leaders of the day, but in retrospect their message was deemed to be of divine inspiration and incorporated into scripture. Divine inspiration just means that the ideas, sermons, acts, etc. transcended the popular wisdom of the day. This transcendent wisdom was recognized to be divine, and representative of a spiritual connection to God.

Yes, interesting - and the part of point behind the interest in constantly re-evaluating the Bible. Again, I don't associate the NT with inherent divinity, so the discrepancies in particular fascinate me as I seek the truth. I try to learn all the different points of view, and count on my own faith and my own relationship with God to help me discern the spiritual truths. As such, the non-spiritual details rarely interest me, as they are irrelevant to the things of the Spirit, or as Paul put it, the Kingdom of God.

I'm not sure I see your point here. Are you suggesting that some people got the message wrong, and that incorrect message should be used to judge the whole of Christianity? I'm not sure where your sarcasm ends and your actual points begin. If you are truly interested in getting to the truth of others' perspectives (or mine at least), please be more direct and I will answer your questions to the best of my ability.

Of course not. How would anyone know how their words might be used in the future? To your point in particular, why would anyone expect teachings of love to be used to justify war and murder? ALSO, to make a point, can you tell me what message HAS been used to justify the atrocities you describe? (In my experience, it has been when churches move beyond the words of the Bible and create their own rules and mandates that you find atrocities carried out in their name. People today have a very bad habit of associated Catholic history with Christianity, but much of Catholicism is based on non-Biblical teachings - and it isn't hard to see where the atrocities come in.)

Wow. Did you see what you just did? You associate the Bible Belt with Christianity. If you see the flaws in their views, and how non-Christian their attitude is, why would you pretend that it IS Christianity?

Yes, well done - you have used an example of non-Christianity to point out how un-Christian it is. Unfortunately, you have done so in an attempt to CALL it Christianity, and in doing so have brought yourself closer to the very intellectual dishonesty about which you complained at the beginning of your post.

They aren't being ignored at all. They are being recognized as potentially false, and new interpretations (and at times translations) are being pursued. It is the atheists (in this forum at least) who act as though only one translation/interpretation can possibly be a correct representation of Christianity (and of course pick the one that is most easily dismissed with modern knowledge - convenient for them and another example of intellectual dishonesty).

I agree.

I agree, but again you are making your statement as though it reflects all of, or in your view "true" Christianity - which it does not. More intellectual dishonesty, since I am sure you know the difference.

I agree, and I have said before (and will say again) that all true Christians are also agnostics. For Christianity places faith in a position of supreme importance. Faith is defined as believing without proof. Believing without proof MEANS not knowing. Agnostics ackowledge they do not know. Christians should to. It is a testament to their faith if they can acknowledge that they believe for no other reason.

Once more, I agree with your sentiment, but object to the characterization that you are describing anything other than a corruption of Christianity.

Ummm... where do you get this from? The entirety of the NT (and the primary basis for Christianity) says the exact opposite. "For by faith are you saved, and not by works." is but one example.

Excellent points, and the basis for the current theme of re-evaluating scriptures in light of modern understandings. Just because a potentially corrupt body created by and led by men teaches something doesn't mean it is true. Christians should be eager to learn alternative points of view and count on God (not preachers) to help them discern the truth.

Or perhaps he is simply referring to his message. At the time, it was the only message of its kind, so to say that no man comes unto the father except by me would have been true at that particular point in time. I'm not necessarily saying I believe this to be the case, but I am open to all interpretations of scripture. I count on God to help me discern the truth.

OK; now you are just flat-out referring to non-Biblical Catholic tradition. You don't really think that that IS Christianity, do you?

I don't deny that the CATHOLIC CHURCH in particular has had quite the history of attacking science, but to lash out at all religions, or even all Christians, in response is a misdirection (more intellectual dishonesty) - AND even if it weren't a misdirection isn't a justifiable cause. You know, two wrongs don't make a right...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even then it depends on who is telling the story, also what about where it tells us before then there was no rain? Then raining nonstop with people freaking out because they never saw any rain before?

I think its a story based on our fear of flooding, how do you deal with mother nature destroying your home and killing your family members... God was angry at us seemed a good reason back then. And no there was no ark found anywhere, Noahs ark was physically impossible to build the way described. I'm sure there were little boats back then and big imaginations used to rationalize the world around them.

Really how can you still be stuck on the flood when people are simply tearing apart the entire foundation of the christian religion. I think the flood is irrelevant at this point in the discussion, the whole book is just full of myth, legend, and lies. yes lies when two people tell different stories then one at least or probably both are lying.

 

First I want to thank you for your reply, I will address everything you point out. First my view on what christianity is may be the correct view, that simply being kind and treating people as you wish to be treated makes you "christ like". However that is not what popular consensus is, the bible belt is used because if you live there Christianity is defined by the very people calling themselves christian, mostly baptists, pentechostals, and other fundamental bibile literalists. So no you cannot say because I define those people as false that I get to undo what they have done to the religion. They define it, the majority.. not me. That is why I use the word christianity to describe them.

And I pointed out I don't have a cult following in sarcasm to "we are all sons of God", not in the sense of christianity. If you are not christian and are jewish or simply a theist I have to ask why you don't hold the same view of the old testament?

The OT is even worse with genocide and reffering to other peoples as "unclean" or "not god's chosen people". I have news for you, if there is a God or supreme intelligence he will not be racist. The mere act of believing ones own way to be the "correct" way always leads to wars, famines, pestilence, and hatred.

I tell you why, lets say your religion tells you that you are not to mix with other people. Why would that be? Are other people somehow dirty? If you move into another country of another people how do you think they are going to take your "religion"? Do you think maybe they would take that pretty offensively? Don't you see how that may lead to violence? As the world gets bigger this problem expands into nations living among other nations.

Religion is at the heart of modern "us vs. them" mentality. This line of thinking may have been useful when we were little more than animals fighting over the same resources, however today we should know better.

I find it peculiar that you seek proof of religion being used to murder, remember the crusades? And even though people may not admit it, they look down on other cultures because differing points of view on God and other things. This leads to treating people less than human in one way or another all the way up to genocide. Nowhere is this mentality more obvious than in the minds of religious fundamentalists.

Now you mention the catholics, actually I have little issue with them. The pope it seems is trying hard to be tolerant, to accept science, and to accept other religions as just as "right" as their own. However mostly you don't see catholics out here picking fights with atheists or trying to justify their bible as a factual document, heck most are even open to the notion that maybe there isn't a God but if there isn't I'm still going to live this way and believe there is one. I have no problem at all with that kind of faith because its not harming anybody when executed properly.

And I was not singling you out, however the fact you felt I was simply shows this line of thought bothers you. You have tried to engage yet still you ignore what the bible actually says about "inspired by god" which I pointed out in several scriptures spanning both new and old testament. The bible's books proclaim they are the literal law or word of God to be followed to the T.

The fact that any man felt comfortable saying that and teaching that to entire races of humans makes me very skeptical of their intentions being "divine", more controlling most likely.

 

Let us pause for a moment and ask ourselves. Is "thought" divine or manmade?