no that statement is fiction we have no originals of any bible book we do not know who wrote what when who added edited or just made stuff up
Not what I said, ray, I said that the copies that we have are closer to the originals than we have for any other book of antiquity, and that the completes and the fragments, except for minor gramaticals, are consistent with each other, whether separated geographically or temporally (or both). If you deny the veracity of the Bible (which I know that you do), then you need to discount Plato, Aristotle and Shakespeare (and all the others).
quote
we do know the earth is not 6000 years old there was no world wide flood or 1000 year old men or jewish empire [inside egypt's empire ?]
Where is your proof of these statements? What book exists from that time that refutes that? Recent archaeological digs have timed David and Solomon exactly when the Bible says they existed. But you, yourself, have made the statement that David never was. The "Jewish empire" was hardly that when seventy people traveled down to Egypt. They became about 1.5 million (based on census of men only) when they left. They were still not integrated at all into Egyptian culture. Sheep herders were looked down on in Egyptian culture, and as slaves, then they had even less stature. Why would the Egyptians write of an exodus of slaves, especially given the circumstances of that exodus?
It's also interesting that an ancient Chinese symbol for "Large boat" is a combination of "Eight," "Person" and "Vessel." And there are other interesting examples of this written language that developed about 4,000 years ago... not long after the Tower of Babel....
So, until you can demonstrate life from inert material (much less a high energy point from absolutely nothing), or one animal becoming another (such as a reptile becoming a bird), then you can't scientifically demonstrate your hypotheses either. You, ray, are living by faith.
In my world, there is a very definite delineation between good and evil. In your world, that is all relative. We are each happy in our own.
IP: Logged
10:11 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
Was it not Lucifer who convince humans to eat and therefore gain truth and knowledge, for without it, humans would be mindless animals. God then became angry that they gained truth and knowledge and banned them from paradise. Do you want truth and knowledge or do you want to keep on being a mindless worshipper of an angry god?
Humans ate well before Lucifer came on the scene. He deceived the woman who then handed the fruit to the man. The woman was gullible, and, if you read closely enough, the man blamed God for the whole thing.
If you drink and drive, you lose your license. The Police don't ban you from driving - you've done it to yourself. You are responsible for your own record and the consequences.
IP: Logged
10:25 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
You speak about one person loving another person.:2 people that exist. It is easy for an outside observer to see that one person performing kind acts to another person could be considered "love". Measureable or not, "love" is an act between 2 living tangible people. People can believe in and depict love because 2 people EXIST.
Religious acts are towards unproven entities. Any and all religious acts are between a personal and an imaginary being. It is much harder to prove love between a real person and an imaginary being. Anybody can look at the sky and say "I love you Jesus!" and to an outside observer, he is talking to NOBODY. A husband saying I love you to his wife who returns the statement with a kiss and smile can be SEEN and PROVEN.
Comparing apples and oranges here.
Burden of proof still lies in he/she asserting something exists. god has never been proven.
Wow, you totally missed the point. Thank you for playing.
IP: Logged
10:31 PM
xquaid Member
Posts: 958 From: Westerville, Ohio, USA Registered: Dec 2007
No. Actually you are. The burden of proof is on you. I don't believe in the story of Genesis as being factual accounts. Only those that believe in a magical garden and a talking snake is walking on the line between ignorance and insanity.
I don't have to try hard, because it's make believe to me.
IP: Logged
10:35 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
No. Actually you are. The burden of proof is on you. I don't believe in the story of Genesis as being factual accounts. Only those that believe in a magical garden and a talking snake is walking on the line between ignorance and insanity.
I don't have to try hard, because it's make believe to me.
You forget, I'm not trying to prove anything. As I said in my first reply to you in this thread, you have the free will to believe that. That hasn't changed.
IP: Logged
10:48 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I agree with you. Free will is rampant in this entire discussion.
You freely ignore our points because you are not capable of proving any religious statements. You freely choose blind ignorance. You freely prove an inability to refute evidence in front of your and the inablity to give tangible evidence. (you and every other religious person on this Earth)
*Fallacy of circular reasoning applies* *Fallacy of (attempted) shifting burden of proof applies*
First people should define 'god,' if you are to make any progress. You need to be ignostic. Wait for them to define 'god' in contradictory manners.
IP: Logged
12:09 AM
xquaid Member
Posts: 958 From: Westerville, Ohio, USA Registered: Dec 2007
It has always interested me just how hard people who don't believe in God, feel the need to save us from our belief in a God.
If there is nothing after this for believers and non-believers why do you guy work so hard for such a pointless endeavor.
Funny enough, it may actually go back to something as simple as trying to save you.
Some societies used to believe that by sacrificing their children it would spare the whole community from misfortune. But they don't do that no more. Someone actually convinced them that there was no truth to their belief. Saved them, by giving them a different belief.
I think they were called Missionaries.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-17-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:55 AM
jmclemore Member
Posts: 2395 From: Wichita Ks USA Registered: Dec 2007
So you think crushing another persons faith is salvation. (I don't think you do)
if all we have to look forward to is a "lights out" what exactly are you saving anyone from. I'm not trying to convince you to believe in a God. I'm asking why you would care that anyone else chooses to believe in one?
At least someone who believes in an afterlife, no matter how delusional, has a reason behind telling others about their faith. It's not like they can force you to accept anything.
I can understand their motives?
But say you do convenience someone that their faith is pointless because all they have to look forward to is "light out". Why would you choose to do that to someone. what would be the point of stripping them of a belief that motivates them to contribute, if not to discourage.
quote
Originally posted by xquaid:
*Fallacy of circular reasoning applies* *Fallacy of (attempted) shifting burden of proof applies*
So without giving you circular argument or placing the burden of proof on you, I have simply asked about your beliefs. instead of attacking them.
quote
Originally posted by xquaid:
Somebody using the word pointless insinuates another's cause is not worthwhile.
When I used the word pointless it was because that is the argument that atheist make against faith. Which naturally draws the legitimate question, If it all ends as you believe why waste your time debating the issue.
I have not taken offense and I don't think you intend any.
Yeah, he's had his moments over the past year, and I've commended him for that, but sometimes I just don't think he can help the baiting.
Wichita, when you repeatedly describe things as magical (in a tone that is obviously poking fun) and also throw in that God is "evil" it's pretty obvious that you are just looking for a reaction. It's not cute.
IP: Logged
02:31 AM
PFF
System Bot
NoMoreRicers Member
Posts: 2192 From: Spokane, WA Registered: Mar 2009
Yeah, he's had his moments over the past year, and I've commended him for that, but sometimes I just don't think he can help the baiting.
Wichita, when you repeatedly describe things as magical (in a tone that is obviously poking fun) and also throw in that God is "evil" it's pretty obvious that you are just looking for a reaction. It's not cute.
Either is grown adults believing in Santa Claus.
But they have company, so it makes it ok.
For the most part a large portion of Christian believers and their organizations or church are harmless and may in fact help others or the community. But there are plenty who sees their beliefs as that of a higher calling that they are above everyone else and therefore use their beliefs to take advantage of others and accept discriminatory practices.
I have no doubt that the Patrick Dads of the world does the later. I've seen so many people use their Christian faith in scrupulous ways to the point that I feel that it can be a very dangerous belief that one can subscribe to.
Yes, I do make fun and make sarcastic statements on the Christian faith, but there is a reason why I do. Not for sure if it is affective or not, because many Christians are so drunk on the Kool-Aid that it probably doesn't do much.
As an example, the KKK a once prominent Christian organization that boosted millions of members and was widely accepted in the USA was brought down ( granted it is still around but doesn't have the prominent place as it once did) by people making fun of them, even Children and Superman Comic books made fun of them. This is what crashed the KKK.
It maybe taboo and considered crass to jab at the Christian faith and their blind loyal followers, but I'm willing to stick my neck out and poke the angry hornet nest a bit in hopes of opening their eyes that their beliefs are in fact very silly.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 09-17-2013).]
IP: Logged
08:03 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
The burden of proof is on you. I don't believe in the story of Genesis as being factual accounts. Only those that believe in a magical garden and a talking snake is walking on the line between ignorance and insanity.
I don't have to try hard, because it's make believe to me.
For me, the unsubstantiated arguments about things you do not believe are confusing to converse with.
IP: Logged
09:08 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Originally posted by jmclemore: But say you do convenience someone that their faith is pointless because all they have to look forward to is "light out". Why would you choose to do that to someone. what would be the point of stripping them of a belief that motivates them to contribute, if not to discourage.
Why do we push the Santa Clause myth so strongly? It would work better to let kids know that the gift-rewarder is also the one who monitors & has to put up with their behavior throughout the year. Especially when the kids eventually learn the truth anyway.
Why does it have to be something mystically unseen, untouchable, with superhuman powers...
What's the reason, the point?
IP: Logged
11:51 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Nobody has to disprove something that hasn't been proven. I do not ask you to disprove "KeeM Tuups Delsvs". Why? Because it doesn't exist so you would have a hard time disproving it!
You believe what you want. Nobody told you not to.
You are arguing you with yourself. I was asked to talk about my beliefs and I typed them. You can attack my beliefs or take them on a personal level but I am merely answering a question that was posed to me earlier.
No I was merely pointing out that your perception of those religious folk may be incorrect. Bandwagon and all that jazz.
IP: Logged
11:52 AM
PFF
System Bot
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Why do we push the Santa Clause myth so strongly? It would work better to let kids know that the gift-rewarder is also the one who monitors & has to put up with their behavior throughout the year. Especially when the kids eventually learn the truth anyway.
Why does it have to be something mystically unseen, untouchable, with superhuman powers...
I was born and raised attending church as a child (up to about 9 years old roughly).
You must have been one gifted child to be able to make up your mind at such a young age. Most nine year olds are still eating their buggers and think girls have cooties.
IP: Logged
12:08 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
However there are some religious groups and organizations I have encountered while growing up that use obedience and threats of punishment to encourage behavior change (speaking more towards youth behavior and guidance). I understand a church has it's reasons to encourage abstinence etc.
That's why I make a distinction between the business of religion and an individual's religious beliefs and practices.
IP: Logged
12:13 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20696 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Why does anybody believe in something without proof?
The act of studying is initiated by faith. before anyone focuses on a subject they have to assume a reward for doing so.
Science has done well for us all and it will only get better but the very act of "continuing to seek more information" comes from the belief that there is more to learn and we are capable of understanding what we observe.
Now the odds are in favor of us finding new and more information and that we will make sense of it for our advancement. But until we conclude that we have learned all that is available, it is a faith in scientific methodologies that motivates us. Which make science by definition a God, Faith and belief.
I think that religious and atheists people who choose to dismiss others based on beliefs are both flawed in their logic because they ignore data out of prejudiced instead of proof. Both can correctly say that neither proof for or against either position is conclusive.
While there are likely to be "some" on both sides who dismiss ideas they refuse to accept, I do not see Science and God as being opposing points of view. I am a Christian I believe in A God. Your Faith in science doesn't disrespect or deny my choice to observe it. Likewise, my faith in a God does not disrespect or deny your faith in science and choice to observe it.
I think Science has enough tolerance accept God and God has the Strength to tolerate science. If either God or Science would dismiss the truth, neither are what they claim to be.
