Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[Retro Rob]

No there isn't a difference but I'm sure it comforts you to think that there is. History is history, whether it's written in the Bible or a book about cooking.

So you agree that me writing a fictional story about a fight you an your wife had and saying you beat her with a hammer is the same as the actual verbal argument that didn't involve you getting physical?

After all, the facts are real (you and your wife fighting, and ya'll are actual people) with the details fictionalized (you using a hammer instead of just yelling)?

There's no difference.

The OT aside, although it may suffer from the same problem; the various Gospels of the NT were written anywhere from 30 to 90 years after Jesus' death so recording history as it happens, not so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel See especially the first paragraph and the Development and Composition section

In that section, it says "many scholars" DOUBT the eye-witness writings. Doubt doesn't equal "fact".

If a total of 40 scholars commented on the time period, "many" would probably be 12 of the 40....not even half.

So you can have your "many", who cannot even agree on a date so they throw out a 60-year time frame, and I'll keep my facts.

Thanks.

The opinion of one Egyptologist does not a consensus make.

Show me evidence that Egypt recorded their defeats. And if you can show more than 1, I'll concede.

Not if it's destroyed or lost through decay, improper archaeological preservation techniques, war, etc.

Agreed.

But keep the fading dream alive.

You never let dreams fade. :thumbsup:

 

[alzan]

So you agree that me writing a fictional story about a fight you an your wife had and saying you beat her with a hammer is the same as the actual verbal argument that didn't involve you getting physical?

After all, the facts are real (you and your wife fighting, and ya'll are actual people) with the details fictionalized (you using a hammer instead of just yelling)?

There's no difference.

In that section, it says "many scholars" DOUBT the eye-witness writings. Doubt doesn't equal "fact".

If a total of 40 scholars commented on the time period, "many" would probably be 12 of the 40....not even half.

So you can have your "many", who cannot even agree on a date so they throw out a 60-year time frame, and I'll keep my facts.

Thanks.

Show me evidence that Egypt recorded their defeats. And if you can show more than 1, I'll concede.

Agreed.

You never let dreams fade. :thumbsup:

To write that story you would have to be able to prove that my wife and I fought.

"Many" is a large number of; most people would agree it signifies an amount greater than 50%. What you're describing is closer to the definition of "several" or "significant".

 

[JEDIYoda]

To write that story you would have to be able to prove that my wife and I fought.

"Many" is a large number of; most people would agree it signifies an amount greater than 50%. What you're describing is closer to the definition of "several" or "significant".

or you could prove that your wife and you did not fight...ohh I forgot...Atheist`s don`t have to prove anything...well doh!!!

 

[Retro Rob]

To write that story you would have to be able to prove that my wife and I fought.

"Many" is a large number of; most people would agree it signifies an amount greater than 50%. What you're describing is closer to the definition of "several" or "significant".

"Many" is simply more than one. Two of five are "many". At any rate, those scholars don't know when those gospels were written, according to your link, and they "doubt".

Sorry, but more than one scholar, "doubting" something combined with no clear date, but a 60 year range doesn't equal "fact".

That's like saying I know Alzan robbed that bank because I doubt if it was anyone else, and it happened between 30-60 days ago, and I have many people who agree with me, though not being eye witnesses.

Yep, I guess that's enough to land you in prison.

 

[Retro Rob]

"Many" is a large number of; most people would agree it signifies an amount greater than 50%. What you're describing is closer to the definition of "several" or "significant".

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that a consensus doesn't equal evidence.

There was a point in time when the Church had a "consensus" that seizures meant a person was possessed, or there was a overwhelming "consensus" that thunder was indicative God's anger.

It bothers me that "scholars" agree on something in which no hard evidence exists in support of, and it bothers me more than you cite this information and agree with it.

That shows just how gullible the masses have become.

 

[spittledip]

What is the myriad of things in this universe that reflect the god of the christian bible?

You have never read it before? Can you not think of a couple examples yourself?

 

[alzan]

"Many" is simply more than one. Two of five are "many". At any rate, those scholars don't know when those gospels were written, according to your link, and they "doubt".

Sorry, but more than one scholar, "doubting" something combined with no clear date, but a 60 year range doesn't equal "fact".

That's like saying I know Alzan robbed that bank because I doubt if it was anyone else, and it happened between 30-60 days ago, and I have many people who agree with me, though not being eye witnesses.

Yep, I guess that's enough to land you in prison.

Once again you completely missed my original point; the Bible or any holy book, is a book of allegory with a certain amount of historical fact to lend it credence. Does it contain actual geographical land masses or city names, yes; does it contain people who are written of in other historical texts, yes; but it is in no way a reference source for anyone other than a believer or religious scholar.

Was it an actual star or comet that pointed the way of the magi to Bethlehem? And what would it matter either way; it's not important to the article of faith being presented. Did Pilate literally wash his hands over the issue of Jesus, what does it matter because once again it's not central to the parable being told.

It's as I said before: you concentrate on the letter of the word and not the spirit. You're so caught up in the "proving" of the Bible that you miss the core message. Telling posters with which you disagree to "shut up" or calling them names as you have in past threads on this subject; not very Christian of you to say the least.

Honestly Rob, you may be a smart adult but emotionally you are somewhat immature at times. Your ravings at Cerpin Taxt, for example, remind me of a brattish child, arms folded as he talks back to his parent.

 

[Retro Rob]

Once again you completely missed my original point; the Bible or any holy book, is a book of allegory with a certain amount of historical fact to lend it credence. Does it contain actual geographical land masses or city names, yes; does it contain people who are written of in other historical texts, yes; but it is in no way a reference source for anyone other than a believer or religious scholar.

I don't think I missed the point. You claimed, by link(s), that the Gospel's are not authentic, and when called on your bullshit, you claim the Bible isn't a historical book from the start, just a book of moral lessons with a bit of history mixed into it.

You cannot defend your position...plain and simple.

It's as I said before: you concentrate on the letter of the word and not the spirit. You're so caught up in the "proving" of the Bible that you miss the core message. Telling posters with which you disagree to "shut up" or calling them names as you have in past threads on this subject; not very Christian of you to say the least.

If you're so much about the "spirit", why are you trying to provide arguments to support the absence of evidence for the Exodus, thus, proving it didn't happen?

You don't care about the "spirit"...you care about disproving the historicity as much as I care about proving it.

Honestly Rob, you may be a smart adult but emotionally you are somewhat immature at times. Your ravings at Cerpin Taxt, for example, remind me of a brattish child, arms folded as he talks back to his parent.

I've been called worse, trust me.

 

[sandorski]

Because your reasoning is circular. You reject the miracles because of the sources, and you reject the sources because they contain miracles.

Negative. The Miracles are rejected due to the extraordinary nature of their claims and the complete lack of Evidence that they even occurred.

The Source is questioned for the above reason and other reasons.

 

[Retro Rob]

Negative. The Miracles are rejected due to the extraordinary nature of their claims and the complete lack of Evidence that they even occurred.

The Source is questioned for the above reason and other reasons.

Who says Miracles are extraordinary? To me, and billions of others, miracles are a effortless function of a powerful God just like walking is a effortless function of humans.

That's a subjective statement.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You have never read it before? Can you not think of a couple examples yourself?

I read the whole bible when I was a kid and it was forced on me. I can't think of a single thing that reflects a christian god, no. What do you consider some of the myriad of evidence to be? I see nothing that suggests that.


*edit - The banana fits the hand, maybe?

 

[sandorski]

Who says Miracles are extraordinary? To me, and billions of others, miracles are a effortless function of a powerful God just like walking is a effortless function of humans.

That's a subjective statement.

mir·a·cle

[mir-uh-kuh

l] Show IPA
noun 1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.

3. a wonder; marvel.

4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.

5. miracle play.

 

[Retro Rob]

I read the whole bible when I was a kid and it was forced on me. I can't think of a single thing that reflects a christian god, no. What do you consider some of the myriad of evidence to be? I see nothing that suggests that.

Just "reading" the Bible doesn't make one an expert no more than reading a book on Physics make one a Physicist.

There is a reason why scholars are "educated" in Biblical history, because they understand that "reading" the Bible "as a kid" doesn't mean you know anything about it.

I'm fine with you rejecting the Bible, but don't tell me you reject because you forcibly read it as a kid (which means you only read it because of your parents, not because you were trying to learn anything).

 

[Retro Rob]

mir·a·cle

[mir-uh-kuh

l] Show IPA
noun 1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.

3. a wonder; marvel.

4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.

5. miracle play.

The second definition is the more accurate one. Nothing performed by God is "extraordinary" because we know he can do it without little effort.

A human lifting a 10,000lbs truck completely on his own would be "extraordinary".

 

[sandorski]

The second definition is the more accurate one. Nothing performed by God is "extraordinary" because we know he can do it without little effort.

A human lifting a 10,000lbs truck completely on his own would be "extraordinary".

So what are these "Miracles"?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Just "reading" the Bible doesn't make one an expert no more than reading a book on Physics make one a Physicists.

There is a reason why scholars are "educated" in Biblical history, because they understand that "reading" the Bible "as a kid" doesn't mean you know anything about it.

I'm fine with you rejecting the Bible, but don't tell me you reject because you forcibly read it as a kid (which means you only read it because of your parents, not because you were trying to learn anything).

Please see my edit!


Find one place where I've ever claimed to be an expert on the bible. I read it when as a kid, I went to CCD, church, etc. I'm not an expert, but my opinion is educated on the subject. I'm not ignorant, the extraordinary claims it makes are ridiculous and provide zero evidence to believe them. I also can't see any tangible reason how a person can know that their christian faith is the 'correct' religious belief.

I'd need a lot more than it just happening to be the most popular world religion in this period in time. My opinion is that if we could live long enough, one day humanity will move past religion on the whole, but I don't think that's something that will happen in our lifetimes. *edit - That is of course we don't kill ourselves, which is a real possibility unfortunately. And we can thank religion to some degree for helping to up the odds of us doing that. :thumbsup:

 

[dphantom]

So what are these "Miracles"?

For one who argues so insistently there is no God because the Bible and other sources are not at all true, you must know then what the Bible says are miracles. Since you have done an exhaustive study of all religions and absolutely know there is no God, you can easily list the purported miracles without asking.

Unless you are asking for a less than honest reason. I think the latter but give you the benefit of doubt until you show otherwise.

 

[SlowSpyder]

For one who argues so insistently there is no God because the Bible and other sources are not at all true, you must know then what the Bible says are miracles. Since you have done an exhaustive study of all religions and absolutely know there is no God, you can easily list the purported miracles without asking.

Unless you are asking for a less than honest reason. I think the latter but give you the benefit of doubt until you show otherwise.

For the 45848537854th time atheists don't absolutely know there is no god. But there isn't any evidence for one, certainly not a christian god, so we go about life as such.

 

[MongGrel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[Retro Rob]

For the 45848537854th time atheists don't absolutely know there is no god. But there isn't any evidence for one, certainly not a christian god, so we go about life as such.

Atheists "don't about life as such". No one proselytizes about their non-belief in Unicorns, but they sure proselytize their lack of belief in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unbelievers

 

[Retro Rob]

For one who argues so insistently there is no God because the Bible and other sources are not at all true, you must know then what the Bible says are miracles. Since you have done an exhaustive study of all religions and absolutely know there is no God, you can easily list the purported miracles without asking.

Unless you are asking for a less than honest reason. I think the latter but give you the benefit of doubt until you show otherwise.

There are very few atheists who have the balls to say there is no God...Penn Jillet is one of them (whom I respect for that), and its ironic that he's into "magic".

I guess magical thinking isn't the sole realm of religion.

 

[sandorski]

For one who argues so insistently there is no God because the Bible and other sources are not at all true, you must know then what the Bible says are miracles. Since you have done an exhaustive study of all religions and absolutely know there is no God, you can easily list the purported miracles without asking.

Unless you are asking for a less than honest reason. I think the latter but give you the benefit of doubt until you show otherwise.

I am fully aware of what "Miracles" are according to the Bible. You might wanna consult Rob and let him know about them though.

 

[sandorski]

Atheists "don't about life as such". No one proselytizes about their non-belief in Unicorns, but they sure proselytize their lack of belief in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unbelievers

Unicornists are not trying to impose their Beliefs onto us.

 

[sandorski]

There are very few atheists who have the balls to say there is no God...Penn Jillet is one of them (whom I respect for that), and its ironic that he's into "magic".

I guess magical thinking isn't the sole realm of religion.

Performing "Magic" has nothing to do with "Magical Thinking".

 

[Retro Rob]

Unicornists are not trying to impose their Beliefs onto us.

So you don't live your life as if God doesn't exists, then, because if you did, you wouldn't proselytize as people who don't believe in unicorns don't proselytize because they live their lives as if unicorns don't exists.

You're not making sense...either non stamp-collecting is a hobby, or it isn't?

If atheists wouldn't make stupid-ass analogies to prove they're not proselytizers, then we wouldn't have anyhing to say about it...but atheism is treated much like a religion of "lack-of" belief.

Those links I posted prove that they work together to de-convert the masses.