You know god exists, you just don't like it.

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
You know god exists, you just don't like it.

THIS COMMENT WAS POSTED IN A THREAD BY A THEIST VIA OUR ANONYMOUS POSTING.  IT DESERVES TO BE ADDRESSED BUT WAS OFF TOPIC IN THE AREA POSTED.  HAVE AT IT...

 

How about an appeal to reason and common sense?  The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that a Creator exists or else how did we/it get here?  You have no answer for that.  Christianity does.  I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one.  Common sense and logic tells us this is the case.  I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind.  You believe that there is no such thing as God but your whole life revolves around Him. 

You spend all your time creating websites about Him, writing articles about Him, blasphemeing His name.  You may spend the time saying and writing that He doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by God.  How ironic.   Allah does not exist.  That is why I do not bother talking or writing about him.   What for?  He doesn't exist.  Jesus Christ does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others. 

I suspect the reason you spend all your time trying to refute the God of the Bible and not other "gods" is for the same reason.  You know He exists.  You just don't like it.  Or else you would spend equal amount of time crying out against other "gods".  But you don't.  It is almost exclusively attacks against Christianity and the God of the Bible.     


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3707
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Another dismissal

Quote:
Another dismissal of the truth with a simple hand wave.  How easy life is when we can just live life by hand waving off those things which we don't like to deal with. 

Hundreds of witnesses?  What hundreds of witnesses?  They never existed

*wave hand as gesture of dismissal*

Things just get darker and darker.

If you're just going to keep whining, the argument will continue indefinitely. You are the proponent; thus, you have the burden of producing evidence to support your claim that hundreds of witnesses did exist. 

Quote:
Premise 1: God is the author of truth.

Premise 2: The truth never changes.

Conclusion 1: What you or I believe has no bearing on what is truth.

Conclusion 2:  The truth is true even if no one believes it.

Conclusion 3:  A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

Virtually everyone on this forum agrees with premise 2. Your three conclusions are redundant. Premise 1 is unsupported.

Quote:
Even if God were to raise someone from the dead you wouldn't believe.

Aw, why don't you have a little faith in us?

Quote:
Unfortunately, those who do not repent and place their trust in Jesus will be judged by the Law and all their sins will be exposed and will be found guilty of breaking those Laws whether we are afraid of judgement or not.

Oooohhh, scary.

spike.barnett wrote:
I take solace in the fact that there is no God.

Doc wrote:
What proof do you have of this?  For anyone to make this statement and have it be worth anything they would have to have all knoweldge of all things known and yet to be known.

Why would you need to know everything to take the position that God doesn't exist? Oh, wait a second.....I just proved it.

Premise 1 - You have to know everything to know that God doesn't exist.

Premise 2 - Spike.barnett knows that God doesn't exist.

Premise 3 - Thus, spike.barnett knows everything.

Premise 4 - Only God knows everything.

Premise 5 - Thus, spike.barnett is God.

Conclusion - Therefore, God exists.

Quote:
But why do you need 25?  Wouldn't 3 or 4 be sufficient?

You said there were hundreds of witnesses. Why can't you provide the names of 25?

Quote:
You admit that you "have no idea" if Jesus existed yet you so aggressively criticize and mock those who know and testify of His existence.  Interesting.  That makes no sense.  If you had an idea then maybe you could contribute something worthwhile. Otherwise those who have "no idea" about a particular subject should remain silent or at least neutral in the matter.

Neutrality on the issue necessitates ignorance?

Quote:
and He proved it by raising from the dead.

Evidence?   

Quote:
What proof do you have that they were/are myths?

Burden of proof.

Quote:
Therefore, He still can be angry at sin without having to be disappointed at what occurred because He knew it would happen. All of it was part of His will but that doesn't mean He isn't angry with sinners and the breaking of His Laws.

So, you believe that God has predetermined everything?

Is God ever disapointed? How come he can get angry, but not disapointed?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Diagoras23
atheist
Diagoras23's picture
Posts: 77
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
yawn

 

How about an appeal to reason and common sense?

OK

The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that a Creator exists

WRONG. EXISTANCE DOES NOT PROVE A CREATOR. 

or else how did we/it get here?

SOME OF US ARE WORKING THAT OUT, OTHERS ARE NOT HELPING, IN FACT THEY ARE EVEN PREVENTING. 

You have no answer for that.

WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA.

Christianity does.

READ GENESIS AGAIN AND TELL ME THAT.

I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one.

NO, YOU DON'T NEED ONE. WE DO.

Common sense and logic tells us this is the case.

COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC TELLS US THAT YOU DON'T NEED EVIDENCE? WRONG.

I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind.  You believe that there is no such thing as God but your whole life revolves around Him.

WHAT AN ADVANCED CONCEPT OF GOD YOU HAVE. 'HIM'. YOU GENDER ASSIGN THE ALL KNOWING GOD? LET ME GUESS, LATE 50's HEAVY SET, TOGA, BEARD, LIGHTNING BOLT, ON A CLOUD? VERY ZEUS-LIKE? IS YOUR CONCEPT OF GOD A RESULT OF CHRISTIANITY'S ASSUMPTION OF THE CHARACTER OF ALL CHIEF PAGAN GODS, IN ORDER TO SUBJEGATE? TELL ME IT ISN'T SO? I AM SO SAD FOR YOU.  

You spend all your time creating websites about Him, writing articles about Him, blasphemeing His name.  You may spend the time saying and writing that He doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by God.  How ironic.   Allah does not exist.  That is why I do not bother talking or writing about him.   What for?  He doesn't exist.  Jesus Christ does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others.

GREAT A CRUSADER WITH VOICES IN THEIR HEAD. THAT IS WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW A CRUSADE. HOW IS THAT GOING FOR YOU? OH AND YES I BLASPHEME HAPPILY. CHRISTIANITY IS EVIL AND I STAND AGAINST IT. HOW DOES THAT GRAB YOU? OH AND IF JESUS EXISTED, HE WAS NOT THE SON OF GOD (BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE). 

I suspect the reason you spend all your time trying to refute the God of the Bible and not other "gods" is for the same reason.  You know He exists.  You just don't like it.  Or else you would spend equal amount of time crying out against other "gods".  But you don't.  It is almost exclusively attacks against Christianity and the God of the Bible.

YAWN. UNITED STATES WEB SITE. LEAD RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES IS CHRISTIANITY. LEAD RELIGION AMONGST THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD IS CHRISTIANITY. AND YOU ASK WHY AN ENGLISH SPEAKING UNITED STATES ATHEIST SITE FIELDS A LOT OF CHRISTIAN QUESTIONS? YOU REALLY ASK THIS?

PS WE DO ALL RELIGIONS HERE.

JOIN US

Join Us

join us

....  ..

.. .

Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Premise 1: God is

Doc wrote:
Premise 1: God is the author of truth.

Premise 2: The truth never changes.

Conclusion 1: What you or I believe has no bearing on what is truth.

Conclusion 2:  The truth is true even if no one believes it.

Conclusion 3:  A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

Premise 1 is unfounded.

Premise 2 needs a definition for "truth".

All three conclusions do not follow from the premises.

Plus, it misses the point I was making.

I accept all three of conclusions already. Belief does not make truth - and by truth I mean "objective reality". Reality remains reality whether folks believe in it or not.

I try to measure reality through observation of evidence, coalation of that evidence, and come to tentative conclusions based on that evidence - with the observations and conclusions subject to correction or updating. I do my best to omit my emotional response in my deciding on reality, because emotions are notorious for causing us to make bad decisions.

I mention that in hopes you'll tell me how you measure reality, since the issue here is - being that you understand that belief is NOT a measure of reality - how do you come to the conclusion that there is a god and it happens to be the god described in the Bible?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:pauljohntheskeptic

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If there were 100s of witnesses please name 25 complete with DOB, home address, and a notarized statement to the effect they saw the previously dead corpse of one Yahshua bar Joseph aka Jesus of Nazareth aka Jesus Christ walk among the living. If you can't do that, please provide a signed list of such witnesses dated to the 1st century CE or list at least the first 100 names of those 100s that saw the corpse walk among the living in the 1st century CE and historical proof for inclusion of these 100. 

I will play your game.  But why do you need 25?  Wouldn't 3 or 4 be sufficient?  I will name just a few for the sake of time, however, with the data you requested.  

I took 6 dice and rolled them and it came out with 25. Actually it would be a significant statistical sample if you had 25 or approximately 10% of about 250, the claim you made was 100s meaning in general statistics more than 300. You only cite 3 so it is far short of a valid statistical sample.

Doc wrote:

Firstly, Peter aka Simon Peter. 

           DOB: approx. 1 BC

           Home address: Bethsaida, east of the Jordan River

           notarized statement: 1 Peter and 2 Peter written to the churches scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. 

            Status: Deceased

I sent out an interviewer and no one seems to know where this guy used to live. No birth or death certificates were located either. The books you refer to are only found as copies and none of these are any  older than about the 4th century. There does not appear to be any significant proof this man ever existed. No notary stamp was located on any of the copied books attesting to the validity of the work and there was no notary ID number.

Witness not accepted.

 

Doc wrote:

Secondly, John aka John the Apostle

                DOB: 6 AD

                Home address: Galilee in Northern Israel

                Notarized statement:  The gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John 

                Status: Deceased

Exactly why did you pick 6 CE for a DOB? Was this so he'd only be in his 80s when he allegedly wrote his books?

Again, no birth or death certificate for John. The books you claim he wrote are not originals and date to the 4th century at best. Copies of documents are not allowed by a notary to attest to proof. By the way, I'm a Florida Notary. A copy can be used only if the owner or originator of the document brings in the original for comparison. On the back or attached to the copy a statement will indicate the 2 documents were compared and the legal IDs of the owner of said document would be recorded along with the statement and signature of the owner of said document. So again, your documents are not valid as attestation of said claim.

Witness not accepted.

 

Doc wrote:

Thirdly, Paul aka Paul the Apostle, The Apostle Paul or Paul of Tarsus

            DOB:  Unknown but known to have been born in Tarsus Known to have died approx. 64-67 AD 

            Home address: Tarsus, Turkey

            Notarized Statement:  Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephisians and Philemon. 

            Status: Deceased

The heretic Jew Paul seems to have existed but he had nicknames of "the liar", the "deceiver" and after the rebel Jews that were Jesus believers discovered he was a Roman he seemed to have been left to his own devices. Acts 22:25 is when Paul reveals he is a hated Roman and thereafter no contact anymore with James and the Jerusalem Church.

The only supposed sighting Paul had of Jesus the Christ was in his mind according to his 2 accounts but your welcome to try to use Sci-Fi Luke's multiple choice accounts. Since he had a sighting or a seizure as a single person event his claim would also require two signed witnesses to validate. 

Again you are submitting copied books that can't be any older than the 4th century and they have no attestation by the originator they are an exact copy. Sorry.

Witness not accepted.

Doc wrote:
      

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Sounds like bullshit to me.

No need for cursing.  There are ladies and gentlemen who visit this site.

I'm in Denver right now and an ad had just ran for the Stock Show.

Sounds like a deluded fantasy to me.

 

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have no idea if Yahshua bar Joseph existed or not...

You admit that you "have no idea" if Jesus existed yet you so aggressively criticize and mock those who know and testify of His existence.  Interesting.  That makes no sense.  If you had an idea then maybe you could contribute something worthwhile. Otherwise those who have "no idea" about a particular subject should remain silent or at least neutral in the matter.

Absolutely. All the supposed basis and proof you delude yourself into accepting about Jesus is based on the myths and fables of Yahweh the god of thunder. The years I spent in parochial schools and the 2 years I spent in grad school at a Jesuit university certainly lead me to the position that even if Jesus did exist he was no more than some sort of rebel against Rome. As Yahweh is one of a multitude of gods that originate in the ancient Mid-East and the pretty tales (except when the god kills, which he does a lot then its more bloody) are completely without proof in the real world. Go ahead try and prove the myths of the Hebrew Bible especially the single person accounts and the fairy tales with talking animals, the Sun being stopped, and  wandering Hebrews lost in the Sinai for 40 years.

 

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
      

...and even if he did that isn't proof Yahweh sent part of himself to be killed to placate himself over an issue on the insignificant backwoods planet Earth in one galaxy amongst billions upon billions of galaxies.

No, except that is what He said (not in those words).  and He proved it by raising from the dead.

Do you have those words in MP3 or on video? Oh, you are again referring to the book of fairy tales aren't you?

 

Doc wrote:
 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You have absolutely nothing that substantiates truth/reality based on the Jewish myths of the bible that were misinterpreted and regurgitated into Christian delusions.

What proof do you have that they were/are myths?

Not this again.

Talking snakes, whales that take people for rides so they can harass the Assyrian city of Nineveh, just about the whole book of Exodus with 600,000 men plus families wandering the desert for 40 years and leaving no trash. Today, we can't have a small football game without leaving evidence. By the way, there is evidence of nomads and their flocks in the area, as well as Egyptian forts from the time period. But no trash for what, 1.8 to 2.4 million people? Cities being destroyed such as Jericho that had no walls, cities such as Ai that were destroyed at least 1000 years earlier and claimed to be by Josh, . And son, that's just what I can think of in a few minutes.

 

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

When  anger is attributed to God or he is said to be angry this is an emotion showing disappointment in his human creatures.

This is a false statement.  Anger is "a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath; ire."  Disappointment is "defeated in expectation or hope".  Just because God gets angry doesn't mean He is "disappointed".  

I suggest you look into this: see here. 

More on emotions.

 

 But if you know it all why be angry at anyone other than the inept creator, himself. Sorry. Fail.

 

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Disappointment indicates the god can't be all-knowing as he would already know or have known even prior to constructing his universe that said creature would do something other than he'd really like. That being the case he would not be disappointed or angry.  Every place in the bible where the god shows such emotions shows the writings of men about their delusions of the mythical god.

Another false statement.  God knew that man would sin even before He created them.  Therefore, He still can be angry at sin without having to be disappointed at what occurred because He knew it would happen.  All of it was part of His will but that doesn't mean He isn't angry with sinners and the breaking of His Laws.  what proof do you have that the men who wrote the Bible were delusional and that the God of the bible is a myth? 

Do you need music to do this two-step?

Please consult a basic text on psychology or psychiatry or look at wiki.

Disappointment at wiki. 

Anger at wiki.

 

 *Edit*

Sorry, I forgot to thank you for playing prove that assertion.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I knew it! You are using the myths written by ignorant ancients in some version of the bible.  Depending which version you use affects the basis of your delusion.

Again, what proof do you have that they are myths?

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I see no evidence that after death nothing else is different from the condition I was in before I was born, not existing.

How sad.  However, that doesn't mean it is not true.  Just because you don't know that doesn't mean it is not true.   

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

To quote a famous president, "there you go again", sin can only exist if there is a god to irritate. No god of thunder Yahweh no sin.

 

Ah, and there's the rub.  You deny God so that you can keep on sinning because you love your sin and hate righteousness.  You love the darkness and hate the light.  Just as the Bible says and predicted.  Keep telling yourself that "no God equals no sin".  It may provide some comfort temporarily but in the end your death will be your proof that you have sinned against God. 

 

 


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:If you're

butterbattle wrote:

If you're just going to keep whining, the argument will continue indefinitely. You are the proponent; thus, you have the burden of producing evidence to support your claim that hundreds of witnesses did exist.

I am not whining.  But it is difficult to reason with someone who is unreasonable.  No one can learn if the things you don't agree with are dismissed as false without evidence to the contrary as if a hand waving gesture makes the truth disappear.  There is evidence of eyewitneses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Those people even testified to others of this and it was written down (i.e.-manually recorded).  Now many, including yourself, may dismiss this as not being evidence but you and others accept as fact other things without nearly as much evidence.     

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Virtually everyone on this forum agrees with premise 2. Your three conclusions are redundant. Premise 1 is unsupported.

If "virtually everyone" agrees with premise 2 (that the truth never changes) but you deny premise 1 as being "unsupported" (that God is the author of truth) then who determines what the truth is (who is the author of truth?)?  If God, the creator of the universe, is not the one that determines what is truth then premise 2 which you say "virtually everyone", including yourself, agrees with cannot be true.  

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Why would you need to know everything to take the position that God doesn't exist?

Because to make an absolute statement like that you have to have absolute knowledge.  If you don't know everything then there remains a possibility that God does exist but you just don't know it. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Neutrality on the issue necessitates ignorance?

No, it's the other way around.  Ignorance necessitates neutrality.  If you have "no idea" about a subject, in essence, it means you are clueless about what is being discussed.  You have nothing of substance to contribute on the matter.  You admitted that you had "no idea" if Jesus Christ existed yet you argue against those who "have an idea" of His existence.  If you have "no idea" it means you may be wrong so why argue against something you have "no idea" if what you argue against is false?   

   

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Burden of proof.

You made the claim it is a myth.  The burden of proof is on you to validate that claim. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So, you believe that God has predetermined everything?

No, I think God knows everything and knew what would happen.  It is not the same as predetermining things. 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Because to make an

Doc wrote:
Because to make an absolute statement like that you have to have absolute knowledge.  If you don't know everything then there remains a possibility that God does exist but you just don't know it.
Ahem!  That would only work if you were able to give a coherent definition of your god.  You're not.  Or you haven't.  Can you?  I've not come across a definition of god that isn't contradictory or somehow incoherent.  A contradictory god cannot exist.  The god of the bible cannot exist.

 

 

Quote:
No, I think God knows everything and knew what would happen.  It is not the same as predetermining things. 
Excuse, me, but you're going to have to show in what way having knowledge of everything that will happen before it happens doesn't equate to predetermination.  Explain yourself very carefully. 

You understand, of course, that if your god has all knowledge, and knowledge of the future before it happens, it is indistinguishable in practice from predetermination.  Further, your claim is paradoxical considering you that you believe god to be the creator of the universe.  If god created the universe and knows everything that will happen, then your god defacto predetermined everything.  If nothing has been predetermined in either case, you're god cannot know 'everything' (certainty of the future being impossible at that point).  So, which is it?  Did your god create the universe and does it know everything?  Or, does your god merely know everything and some other causal agent is responsible for the existence of the universe?  Or, did your god create the universe, but does not know everything?

I mean, really, you're not going to try to seel such shitty logic, are you?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Premise 1 is

JillSwift wrote:

Premise 1 is unfounded.

According to who?

JillSwift wrote:

Premise 2 needs a definition for "truth".

Again truth is not relative.  We do not define what the truth is. 

JillSwift wrote:

All three conclusions do not follow from the premises.

They absolutely do.

JillSwift wrote:

I accept all three of conclusions already. Belief does not make truth - and by truth I mean "objective reality". Reality remains reality whether folks believe in it or not.

Finally, something we agree on.

JillSwift wrote:

I try to measure reality through observation of evidence, coalation of that evidence, and come to tentative conclusions based on that evidence - with the observations and conclusions subject to correction or updating.

Your comment here is interesting.  You use "tentative conclusions" as a basis for your truth or reality?  If they are "tentative" that means they are subject to change.  You admit as much when you say that your observations and conclusions are subject to "correction or updating."  If the truth needs correcting or updating was it ever really the truth?   If the truth needs correcting or updating then it wasn't true to begin with you only thought it was true.  If what you believe is true today is found to be in error tomorrow where does that leave you in relation to God?  If what you believe is true today is found to be in error tomorrow then your truth or "reality" was never true or "real" you only thought that it was.  Bottom line with this line of thinking you don't ever really know what the truth is.        

 

JillSwift wrote:

I do my best to omit my emotional response in my deciding on reality, because emotions are notorious for causing us to make bad decisions.

I totally agree with this also.

 

JillSwift wrote:

I mention that in hopes you'll tell me how you measure reality, since the issue here is - being that you understand that belief is NOT a measure of reality - how do you come to the conclusion that there is a god and it happens to be the god described in the Bible?

That is a very good, rational and appropriate question.  I wish more people would ask these types of questions rather than mocking, ridiculing or insulting what others say or write. I measure reality on observable evidence as well.  I use both science and the Bible as part of that observation.  I include science and the Bible to make judgements on reality.  They are not mutually exclusive but they must be in agreemnet in order for it to be considered true.       

My conclusion that there is a God and that He is the God of the Bible is not based on blind faith but faith based on evidence.  

Firstly, when I look at the universe and see the scientific data that we have accumulated over the years it is evident to me that there is a God and He created this universe.  Why?  Well, logically and through the laws of physics we know that nothing cannot create or give rise to something.  Science has concluded that the universe had a begining.  (this is in agreement with the Bible but I'll get to that later).  The fact that this universe exists tells me something must have created it or else it wouldn't be here.  This is both logical and scientific.  To say that the universe is eternal and , thus, God is unecessary goes against the basic tenants of scienctific knowledge.  The begining of the universe and its existence demands that something created it.  The complexity of the universe, the vastness of space, the complexity of living organisms and the human body all play a part in convincing me that God does indeed exist.  If something has design or purpose then there must be intelligence behind this.  Purpose and design cannot come about by chance or random events.  It is a statistical improbability.  Intelligence is only found in living things. When you look at DNA you see purposeful infromation.  Purposeful information can only come about through an intelligent living being.  

To summarize:

Creation=Creator (God)

Design and purpose= intelligence= living creator (God)

Purposeful information= intelligence= living creator (God)

Thus, I conclude God does exist.

 

Now, as to who that God is?  That is an altogether different question.  When I study the different "religions" and who they claim that God is I see vastly different things between Christianity and every other religion of the world.  Firstly, the Bible has more manuscript evidence than any other document in antiquity.  There are thousands and thousands of scriptural manuscripts which all say the same exact same thing.  Granted we don't have the original writings but the earliest manuscripts can be traced back and dated close to the time of its content.  Secondly, the Bible is a historical document.  Its writings are rooted in history.  The places, people, and historical events described are known to have at one time existed.  No other "religious" document can make this claim.  Not the Koran or the Book of Mormons or any other sacred book or writing.  Thirdly, archeological evidence validates the claims of the Bible.  There has never been one, not one, archeological find that has disproven something in the Bible yet there are thousands of archeological finds that support the claims of the Bible.  Coincidence?  Also, the prophesies of the Bible are evidence of its supernatural origins.  There are hundreds of prophesies in scripture written hundreds of years before they actually occurred.  How could a mere man be able to predict the future accurately without divine intervention?  Also, there is scientific claims in the Bible that were not discovered by science until hundreds of years later. For example:

 

The Bible long ago stated that the universe had a begining.  Science has since discovered that the universe had a begining. 

When everyone thought the earth was flat the Bible had said for hundreds of years that the earth was a sphere.  We now know that the earth is a sphere.   

When everyone thought the earth was in a free float in space the Bible said that the earth pivoted or rotated about its axis.  We now know that the earth rotates on its axis.

When science thought that there were only a few hundred stars in existence the Bible said that the stars in the universe were inummerable and could not be counted.  Science has discovered that there are billions upon billions upon trillions of stars in the known universe, too many to count.  

The Bible described wind and ocean currents long before meteorologist and oceanographers discovered them scientifically.

The Bible, wisely, taught that in order to avoid disease hands should be washed under running water during a time when people washed in standing water.  We now know, from science, about the existence of viruses and bacteria that can transmit diseases and use running water to better wash away these germs.  

There were people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles, death and resurrection, told others about it and wrote things down.  The disciples of Christ were scared and defeated, hiding in the upper room, afraid to go out after Jesus was crucified until they encountered the resurrected Jesus then became bold and were willing to spread the message of Christianity even if it meant dying for doing so.  Do you think they would have done this if they made it up and knew as fact that it was a lie? 

All these things point to the Bible being supernatural in origin and not just written by mere men without divine inspirtion. 

All other religions are about what man can do to please god and earn his favor.  How man can work to remove their sins and how man can reach up to god.  Only in Christianity will you find God reaching down to save man from their sins.  It makes all the difference in the world.  This last thing does not necessarily prove that the Bible is true.  I only point it out to make the distinction between Christianity and all other religions. Many lump Christianity in with all the other false religions of the world when true, biblical Christianity is unlike any other "religion" and is the only one that offers forgiveness of sins through God's grace.  

To summarize:

The Bible is true because of:

1. Manuscript evidence

2. Archeological evidence

3. Accuracy of prophecy

4. Scientific evidence found in the Bible

5. Historical evidence

Taking all these things into consideration I conclude that God exists and the Bible is correct in describing who this God is


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:pauljohntheskeptic

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I knew it! You are using the myths written by ignorant ancients in some version of the bible.  Depending which version you use affects the basis of your delusion.

Again, what proof do you have that they are myths?

I'm not into repetition as a form of education or I'd be a school teacher, read what I wrote.

Which version of the fairy tales do you use? KJV, JPS Hebrew, NAB, NIV, Douray-Rheims or??

Doc wrote:
 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I see no evidence that after death nothing else is different from the condition I was in before I was born, not existing.

How sad.  However, that doesn't mean it is not true.  Just because you don't know that doesn't mean it is not true.  

I also feel really sad for you wasting your life on the delusion of god belief when you could put it to better use in helping other people in the real world or learning and understanding. A life is a sad thing to waste and I always feel bad about those who do so in the belief of a reward in the next life when they could make a real difference now  and do not.

Maybe I'm wrong and you are living the life of Jesus and have given all away and do nothing but help your fellow man, but I doubt it.  I do many things to help others in what every means that I can do. This world is about people which is the most important thing in reality. If you did not learn that from your savior Jesus you missed the most important part of his message. The dream you have of a next life is but a story from ancient times brought to you through multiple interpretations by many and morphed into one of 100s of different religious views. That you choose to consider an unprovable fantasy as real over the actual needs and suffering you can see in this world shows you to be an extremely self centered person.

Doc wrote:
 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

To quote a famous president, "there you go again", sin can only exist if there is a god to irritate. No god of thunder Yahweh no sin.

 Ah, and there's the rub.  You deny God so that you can keep on sinning because you love your sin and hate righteousness.  You love the darkness and hate the light.  Just as the Bible says and predicted.  Keep telling yourself that "no God equals no sin".  It may provide some comfort temporarily but in the end your death will be your proof that you have sinned against God.  

You can accuse me of sinning against your fantasy god of thunder all you want while I'll continue to accuse you of being a selfish uncaring person. Your methods of help are to bring even more people into your delusional fantasy thus bringing less productivity into the world by diverting resources to an ultimate waste. While you waste money on churches and preachers to spread the fantasy even more hardship will occur in the world. Religion is not a solution but is a large share of the problems. 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:butterbattle

Doc wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

If you're just going to keep whining, the argument will continue indefinitely. You are the proponent; thus, you have the burden of producing evidence to support your claim that hundreds of witnesses did exist.

I am not whining.  But it is difficult to reason with someone who is unreasonable.  No one can learn if the things you don't agree with are dismissed as false without evidence to the contrary as if a hand waving gesture makes the truth disappear.  There is evidence of eyewitneses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Those people even testified to others of this and it was written down (i.e.-manually recorded).  Now many, including yourself, may dismiss this as not being evidence but you and others accept as fact other things without nearly as much evidence.     

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Virtually everyone on this forum agrees with premise 2. Your three conclusions are redundant. Premise 1 is unsupported.

If "virtually everyone" agrees with premise 2 (that the truth never changes) but you deny premise 1 as being "unsupported" (that God is the author of truth) then who determines what the truth is (who is the author of truth?)?  If God, the creator of the universe, is not the one that determines what is truth then premise 2 which you say "virtually everyone", including yourself, agrees with cannot be true.  

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Why would you need to know everything to take the position that God doesn't exist?

Because to make an absolute statement like that you have to have absolute knowledge.  If you don't know everything then there remains a possibility that God does exist but you just don't know it. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Neutrality on the issue necessitates ignorance?

No, it's the other way around.  Ignorance necessitates neutrality.  If you have "no idea" about a subject, in essence, it means you are clueless about what is being discussed.  You have nothing of substance to contribute on the matter.  You admitted that you had "no idea" if Jesus Christ existed yet you argue against those who "have an idea" of His existence.  If you have "no idea" it means you may be wrong so why argue against something you have "no idea" if what you argue against is false?   

   

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Burden of proof.

You made the claim it is a myth.  The burden of proof is on you to validate that claim. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So, you believe that God has predetermined everything?

No, I think God knows everything and knew what would happen.  It is not the same as predetermining things. 

 

Doc,

Thanks for giving me credit for that which I did not write, though I do agree with Buttlebattle's comments.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Ahem!  That

Thomathy wrote:

Ahem!  That would only work if you were able to give a coherent definition of your god. 

You don't know God so how do you know what the definition of God is?  Besides I don't define God I only testify of what He has already claimed about Himself.    

 

Thomathy wrote:
You're not.  Or you haven't.  Can you? 

I can and I did.  Whether you choose to accept it as such is a different story. Besides I can only tell you what I know by what He has revealed about Himself.  

Thomathy wrote:
 

I've not come across a definition of god that isn't contradictory or somehow incoherent. 

One does not define God as if He were a scientific equation or vocabulary word.  If you want to know who God is He has already been described to you but you insist on burying your head in the sand.  I thought only ostriches buried thier head in the sand? Apparently, you like to do it too.  But remember, when you bury your head in the sand you place your ass in the position where your brain once was and should be.   

Thomathy wrote:

A contradictory god cannot exist.

I agree.

Thomathy wrote:
 

The god of the bible cannot exist.

The God of the bible is not contradictory. 

 

Thomathy wrote:

Excuse, me, but you're going to have to show in what way having knowledge of everything that will happen before it happens doesn't equate to predetermination.  Explain yourself very carefully.

I know my wife extremely well.  I know she loves to shop and buy things on sale.  I know her so well that I know if she is at the store and sees something she likes on sale she is going to buy it no questions asked.  My wife tells me she is going to the store.  I know tha the store she is going to go to has a sale of her favorite perfume.  I know before she comes home (i.e.- ahead of time) that she is going to buy this item I know her that well.  Does this mean I caused her to buy it or somehow my knowledge of her future purchase predetermined that she would purchase the perfume?   

 

 

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To summarize:The Bible

Quote:

To summarize:

The Bible is true because of:

1. Manuscript evidence

2. Archeological evidence

3. Accuracy of prophecy

4. Scientific evidence found in the Bible

5. Historical evidence

 

1. You cannot say that "we have lost the original manuscripts" and then proceed to claim you have, on the basis of what was later written, evidence of anything - except of course evidence for a later desire to furnish myth with a semblance of truth through apocryphal reference to supposedly real events.

 

2. Archaeological evidence has a habit of contradicting biblical claims and revealing the writings' historical references as shoddily researched by their authors. In some cases it reveals downright mistruths. Of course there is still a seemingly limitless queue of so-called "scholars of biblical archaeology" who cite as fact the discredited findings of Gerstang in relation to Jericho, for example, or who simply choose to forget that archaeology has showed that Ai ceased as a city a thousand years before the bible would have it, not to mention that archaeology stubbornly refuses to provide evidence of a Nazareth contemporary with the new testament claims.

 

3. The only accurate prophecies in the bible are those which it claims itself were fulfilled at time of writing. Fiction, in other words, and not even convincing fiction.

 

4. There is no scientific "evidence" of anything to be found in the bible, and nor should one expect to find any such thing in a document produced for the purpose it was at the time it was and by the people who wrote its contents. One will find however a plentitude of very unscientific claims.

 

5. Historical evidence when applied to the bible by its devotees is always accompanied by a latitude in interpretation and a dropping of normal historiographical standards that would be risible if applied to any other area of historical study. If the bible's historical claims are taken point by point and cross-referenced with other data sources,  the book's devotee finds himself repeatedly having to fall back on the old "absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence" aphorism - to such an extent of repetition that even the least cynical person with half a brain must at some point realise that what he is reading are pseudo-historical assertions, and lots of them.

 

In summary - your assertion that the bible is "true" based on the criteria you mention is founded on the assumption that the normal standards by which your criteria are judged simply should not apply to the document in whose veracity you have invested faith. No amount of lying and wishful thinking will make inaccurate data accurate or false claims true. The bible is riddled with both. Indeed it would have no value as a religious text if it wasn't.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:According to

Doc wrote:
According to who?
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of logic. The arguments here are, at core, about the existence of a god or gods, and so can't be used as a premise.
Doc wrote:
Again truth is not relative.  We do not define what the truth is.
We do have to define what the word means. That is different from saying what is true.
Doc wrote:
They absolutely do.
It's easy to make the assertion, less so to demonstrate why the assertion follows.

Doc wrote:
JillSwift wrote:

I accept all three of conclusions already. Belief does not make truth - and by truth I mean "objective reality". Reality remains reality whether folks believe in it or not.

Finally, something we agree on.

Note I defined "truth" there, so we could know what we were talking about.

Doc wrote:
Your comment here is interesting.  You use "tentative conclusions" as a basis for your truth or reality?  If they are "tentative" that means they are subject to change.  You admit as much when you say that your observations and conclusions are subject to "correction or updating."  If the truth needs correcting or updating was it ever really the truth?   If the truth needs correcting or updating then it wasn't true to begin with you only thought it was true.  If what you believe is true today is found to be in error tomorrow where does that leave you in relation to God?  If what you believe is true today is found to be in error tomorrow then your truth or "reality" was never true or "real" you only thought that it was.  Bottom line with this line of thinking you don't ever really know what the truth is.
I call it "comfortable uncertainty". At its heart it's just an admission that I'm a limited being who can be wrong, and need to take care that I never stop re-examining what I think is true lest I get dogmatic about something that just happens to be wrong.

 

Doc wrote:
That is a very good, rational and appropriate question.  I wish more people would ask these types of questions rather than mocking, ridiculing or insulting what others say or write. I measure reality on observable evidence as well.  I use both science and the Bible as part of that observation.  I include science and the Bible to make judgements on reality.  They are not mutually exclusive but they must be in agreemnet in order for it to be considered true.
The problem here is that you presuppose the bible contains or is on the whole, true.

Doc wrote:
To summarize:

Creation=Creator (God)

Design and purpose= intelligence= living creator (God)

Purposeful information= intelligence= living creator (God)

Thus, I conclude God does exist.

Your first premise presupposes that the universe is a creation, apparently based on a misunderstanding of the big bang theory. Without that established, the rest of the progression collapses.

 

Doc wrote:
Now, as to who that God is?  That is an altogether different question.  When I study the different "religions" and who they claim that God is I see vastly different things between Christianity and every other religion of the world.  Firstly, the Bible has more manuscript evidence than any other document in antiquity.  There are thousands and thousands of scriptural manuscripts which all say the same exact same thing.  Granted we don't have the original writings but the earliest manuscripts can be traced back and dated close to the time of its content.  Secondly, the Bible is a historical document.  Its writings are rooted in history.  The places, people, and historical events described are known to have at one time existed.  No other "religious" document can make this claim.  Not the Koran or the Book of Mormons or any other sacred book or writing.  Thirdly, archeological evidence validates the claims of the Bible.  There has never been one, not one, archeological find that has disproven something in the Bible yet there are thousands of archeological finds that support the claims of the Bible.  Coincidence?  Also, the prophesies of the Bible are evidence of its supernatural origins.  There are hundreds of prophesies in scripture written hundreds of years before they actually occurred.  How could a mere man be able to predict the future accurately without divine intervention?  Also, there is scientific claims in the Bible that were not discovered by science until hundreds of years later. For example:
Archaeological finds support references in the bible; references the writers of the bible would have known about and used in their story telling. Specifics are nonexistent, especially for bible events that should have left tremendous and irrefutable evidence, like the flood story.

 

Doc wrote:
The Bible long ago stated that the universe had a begining.  Science has since discovered that the universe had a begining.
Again, this is based on a misunderstanding of current theory.

Doc wrote:
When everyone thought the earth was flat the Bible had said for hundreds of years that the earth was a sphere.  We now know that the earth is a sphere.  
The bible doesn't say sphere, it says circle.

Doc wrote:
When everyone thought the earth was in a free float in space the Bible said that the earth pivoted or rotated about its axis.  We now know that the earth rotates on its axis.
I'm sorry, where is this in scripture? I can't find the reference.

Doc wrote:
When science thought that there were only a few hundred stars in existence the Bible said that the stars in the universe were inummerable and could not be counted.  Science has discovered that there are billions upon billions upon trillions of stars in the known universe, too many to count. 
OK

Doc wrote:
The Bible described wind and ocean currents long before meteorologist and oceanographers discovered them scientifically.
Again, I've no idea what scripture you refer to. Though it seems an odd thing to claim as sailing had been around quite a while before the bible, rather strongly suggesting a knowledge of atmospheric and ocean currents.

Doc wrote:
The Bible, wisely, taught that in order to avoid disease hands should be washed under running water during a time when people washed in standing water.  We now know, from science, about the existence of viruses and bacteria that can transmit diseases and use running water to better wash away these germs. 
Hand-washing was being used by other cultures centuries before the bible was compiled.

Doc wrote:
There were people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles, death and resurrection, told others about it and wrote things down.  The disciples of Christ were scared and defeated, hiding in the upper room, afraid to go out after Jesus was crucified until they encountered the resurrected Jesus then became bold and were willing to spread the message of Christianity even if it meant dying for doing so.  Do you think they would have done this if they made it up and knew as fact that it was a lie?
I think people can believe in what they like and perpetuate a lie quite by accident.

Doc wrote:
All these things point to the Bible being supernatural in origin and not just written by mere men without divine inspirtion.
I disagree - there are plenty of other explanations that don't require we posit the supernatural.

Doc wrote:
To summarize:

The Bible is true because of:

1. Manuscript evidence

2. Archeological evidence

3. Accuracy of prophecy

4. Scientific evidence found in the Bible

5. Historical evidence

Taking all these things into consideration I conclude that God exists and the Bible is correct in describing who this God is

I refer to Nordman's post.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I'm

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not into repetition as a form of education or I'd be a school teacher, read what I wrote.

I did but you did not offer any proof just speculation.  I asked for proof.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I also feel really sad for you wasting your life on the delusion of god belief when you could put it to better use in helping other people in the real world or learning and understanding.

I do help others all the time.  I am continually learning and understanding.  You are wrong on all counts.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A life is a sad thing to waste and I always feel bad about those who do so in the belief of a reward in the next life when they could make a real difference now  and do not.

I agree a life is a terrible thing to waste.  A soul is also a part of that life.  And I don't worship Jesus because of a belief of a reward in the next life.  I worship Him because 1) only He is worthy of worship and 2) out of gratitude for what He has done for me already in sacrificing Himself on the cross to forgive all of my exceedingly sinful sins. Once again your assumptions are erroneous.     

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong and you are living the life of Jesus and have given all away and do nothing but help your fellow man, but I doubt it.

No one can live the life of Jesus because no one is perfect.  However, I try the best I can to follow Him and obey His commandments out of love and gratitiude for Him.  But since you like to throw stones should I assume you have given up everything and have given all you have to the poor because of your selfless desire to help those in need?   

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do many things to help others in what every means that I can do.

That is nice but on the day of judgement that won't help you. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

This world is about people which is the most important thing in reality.

That is half right.  Only 2 things truly matter in this world: Your relationship with God and your relationship with other people.  Everything else is vanity and unimportant.   

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If you did not learn that from your savior Jesus you missed the most important part of his message.

You do not even know or believe Jesus and you are going to tell me what the most important part of His message was?  You clearly don't understand His message.  It was not ot make this world a better place by feeding the hungry or taking care of the poor.  Those are things that we should do and how we should treat each other but that was not His message.  Jesus came to testify of the truth and He came to suffer and die on the cross to shed His blood so that the sins of the world may be taken away to those who repent of their sins and trust in Him. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The dream you have of a next life is but a story from ancient times brought to you through multiple interpretations by many and morphed into one of 100s of different religious views.

How do you know this?  What proof do you have this is true and not just something you heard from someone else and are regurgitating it here?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That you choose to consider an unprovable fantasy as real over the actual needs and suffering you can see in this world shows you to be an extremely self centered person.

You do not know me so you have no idea who I am or what I do.  Your accusations are baseless and erroneous.  Besides do some studying of statistics.  Christians help the needy more and give more to the poor and charities than atheists or other "religious" people.  It is not even close.  The statistics show this to be true.   

  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You can accuse me of sinning against your fantasy god of thunder all you want while I'll continue to accuse you of being a selfish uncaring person.

I don't accuse you of anything.  You accuse yourself.  The Law accusses you.  Your conscience accusses you.  God accusses you.  Are you saying you have never lied, stolen, cheated, lusted, hated, blasphemed God, dishonored your parents, coveted, etc?  As for me being a selfish, uncaring person you do not know me or know anything about me so there is no merit to your accusations.  Now, you may also say I don't know you but I do know that every single person has lied, stolen, coveted, lusted, etc (i.e.-everyone has sinned) myself included.   

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

Your methods of help are to bring even more people into your delusional fantasy thus bringing less productivity into the world by diverting resources to an ultimate waste. While you waste money on churches and preachers to spread the fantasy even more hardship will occur in the world.

As oppossed to atheism which has helped countless of people, right? Check your facts.  Check out the statistics.  Not even close.  Communism which is an atheistic ideology has killed more people, oppressed more, caused more suffering and has taken away more human rights than Christianity ever has.  Get the facts straight before making any conclusions. Meanwhile, Christians build schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc.  Yes, what selfish people those Christians are. *sigh* What resources are you diverting and wasting that could instead go to feed starving children in Africa?  What do you waste your money on that instead can go to help the poor?  Isn't that causing more hardship in the world?  Why do you have a computer?  If you sell your computer you could use that money to feed several families in Africa.  Don't ever go out to eat in a restaurant again because with the money you waste there you could buy groceries for a month for a starving child.  Don't ever go to the movies, or buy music CD's, or jewlery, or books, or houses, or cars or anything else for that matter because all that money is being wasted and diverted from caring for the poor and ultimately causing more hardship in the world.  But then again, you don't really care about the poor that much, do you?  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

Religion is not a solution but is a large share of the problems. 

I agree but who said anything about religion?  If people would stick to the truth and stop making up their own religions because of a rebellious desire to do things their own way we would be much better off.   

 

 

 


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:1. You cannot

Nordmann wrote:

1. You cannot say that "we have lost the original manuscripts" and then proceed to claim you have, on the basis of what was later written, evidence of anything - except of course evidence for a later desire to furnish myth with a semblance of truth through apocryphal reference to supposedly real events.

For a detailed answer to this please see the following: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

Although the originals are not available the overwhelming manuscript evidence provide insight to the original writings and confidence that they are accurate.  No one ever questions the veracity of other ancient manuscripts like the writings of Aristotle even though there are significantly fewer manuscripts for his writings than the biblical authors.  Why is that?

 

Nordmann wrote:

2. Archaeological evidence has a habit of contradicting biblical claims and revealing the writings' historical references as shoddily researched by their authors. In some cases it reveals downright mistruths. Of course there is still a seemingly limitless queue of so-called "scholars of biblical archaeology" who cite as fact the discredited findings of Gerstang in relation to Jericho, for example, or who simply choose to forget that archaeology has showed that Ai ceased as a city a thousand years before the bible would have it, not to mention that archaeology stubbornly refuses to provide evidence of a Nazareth contemporary with the new testament claims.

Your claims are untrue and demonstrate your lack of knowledge of archeology.  In fact, there have been occassions in which archeologists were looking for archeological evidence of certain people groups or cities that have been thought to exist but did not find it until they looked in the area where the Bible recorded them to be.   

 

Nordmann wrote:

3. The only accurate prophecies in the bible are those which it claims itself were fulfilled at time of writing. Fiction, in other words, and not even convincing fiction.

The prophecies of Jesus Christ alone number in the 300's including the city of His birth, the timing of His birth, the method of His birth, the nature of His death, etc.  All things that the authors could not have self-fullfilled even if they tried.  These facts about Jesus were known within the lifetime of His life, death, and resurrection yet no one at that time ever disputed it. Why? If these "apostles" made up the fullfillments of these prophecies why didn't anyone write about the erroneous claims?  Surely anyone at that time could have written that what these claims the apostles were spreading never happened.  

 

Nordmann wrote:

4. There is no scientific "evidence" of anything to be found in the bible, and nor should one expect to find any such thing in a document produced for the purpose it was at the time it was and by the people who wrote its contents. One will find however a plentitude of very unscientific claims.

Either you don't know the Bible or you don't know science.  Although the Bible was not meant to be a science book it does contain scientific facts that were only discovered to be true by modern science later on as I pointed out.   

 

Nordmann wrote:

5. Historical evidence when applied to the bible by its devotees is always accompanied by a latitude in interpretation and a dropping of normal historiographical standards that would be risible if applied to any other area of historical study. If the bible's historical claims are taken point by point and cross-referenced with other data sources,  the book's devotee finds himself repeatedly having to fall back on the old "absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence" aphorism - to such an extent of repetition that even the least cynical person with half a brain must at some point realise that what he is reading are pseudo-historical assertions, and lots of them.

A great many people and places that are described in the Bible have been proven to be historically accurate even by secular historians standards. 

 

Nordmann wrote:

In summary - your assertion that the bible is "true" based on the criteria you mention is founded on the assumption that the normal standards by which your criteria are judged simply should not apply to the document in whose veracity you have invested faith. No amount of lying and wishful thinking will make inaccurate data accurate or false claims true. The bible is riddled with both. Indeed it would have no value as a religious text if it wasn't.

In summary- your claims that the bible is riddled with innacurate data and false claims are wishful thinking made by someone who lacks critical thinking skills and can only regurgitate falsehoods and lies made by others in an effort to deny the evidence that will lead to the conclusion of the veracity of the scriptures.  However, it doesn't make it so.     


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:We do have

JillSwift wrote:

We do have to define what the word means. That is different from saying what is true.

Understood.  For most people the truth is anything that is in agreement with fact or reality.   
 

JillSwift wrote:

I call it "comfortable uncertainty". At its heart it's just an admission that I'm a limited being who can be wrong, and need to take care that I never stop re-examining what I think is true lest I get dogmatic about something that just happens to be wrong.

So that means you could be wrong about the existence of God which would by definition make you an agnostic rather than an atheist. 

 

JillSwift wrote:

The problem here is that you presuppose the bible contains or is on the whole, true.

Do we not all have presuppossitions?  You presuppose that it is not true.   

JillSwift wrote:

Your first premise presupposes that the universe is a creation, apparently based on a misunderstanding of the big bang theory. Without that established, the rest of the progression collapses.

How would you describe the universe if not a created entity?  If it was not created then you must conclude it is eternal and that goes against the scientific knowledge that we have.  If it is not eternal then how did it get here? 

 

JillSwift wrote:

Archaeological finds support references in the bible; references the writers of the bible would have known about and used in their story telling.

Hence, validating that they were speaking about real places and real people and not making it up.  Also, there are references to people and groups of people written hundreds of years before those people or groups were known to have existed.

JillSwift wrote:

Specifics are nonexistent, especially for bible events that should have left tremendous and irrefutable evidence, like the flood story.

Untrue, many references are specific and have left unrefutable evidence.  You mention the flood.  The geological landscape and fossil evidence we see today are only completely compatible with a catastophic world wide flood.  (As the Bible records)  

 

JillSwift wrote:

Again, this is based on a misunderstanding of current theory.

Are you saying many scientists misunderstand their own theories because this is what they claim?

JillSwift wrote:

The bible doesn't say sphere, it says circle.

Are you really going to semantics?  Isn't a circle round as is the earth? It is making refernce to its shape. 

JillSwift wrote:

I'm sorry, where is this in scripture? I can't find the reference.

Job 38:12: “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
v.14 “ It takes on form like clay under a seal.”  Job paints the picture here is of clay being turned or rotated on the potter's wheel like the earth rotates on its axis.

JillSwift wrote:

Again, I've no idea what scripture you refer to. Though it seems an odd thing to claim as sailing had been around quite a while before the bible, rather strongly suggesting a knowledge of atmospheric and ocean currents.

Job 38:16, Psalm 8:8, Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 

JillSwift wrote:

Hand-washing was being used by other cultures centuries before the bible was compiled.

I am not refering to just hand washing.  I am refering to using running water to wash hands.  Neither was I refering to when the bible was compiled but when it was actually written.  When those verses were written the healers of the day did not use running water to wash but used standing water where germs can accumulate.  The writer of the scripture, because of the knowledge of God given through the Holy Spirit, said use running water to avoid disease. 

 

JillSwift wrote:

I think people can believe in what they like and perpetuate a lie quite by accident.

I agree. But would one willfully die for what they knew in fact was a lie? I don't know of anyone who would.  People can be willing to die for what they think is true even if it isn't such as muslim suicide bombers.  They beleive that what is written in the Koran is true and are willing to die for it.  But that is different than knowing something to be a lie and willingly dying for it or because of it.  If the apostles fabricated the story of Jesus' resurrection do you think they would have allowed themselves to be killed knowing as fact that it was just a lie?

 


Todd Pence
Todd Pence's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Prophecy, smophecy

doc wrote:

The Bible is true because of:

 

3. Accuracy of prophecy

 

 

In addition to the fact that all of the supposed Messianic prophecies are demonstrably either not prophecies at all and/or were unfulfilled by Jesus as described in the New Testament; the Bible is full of prophecies that were either shown to be false, or which have not been fulfilled unto the present day. The amount of false and unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible is so great that by no means could the Bible in any way be described as "prophetically accurate". To do so completely betrays one's ignorance about the Bible and what it really says. To wit:

 

 

THE PROPHECY:

In Genesis 2:17 God warned Adam against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, promising “In the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

WHAT HAPPENED:

God was either lying to Adam or mistaken about the tree’s lethal properties, for according to Genesis 5:5 Adam lived for over nine hundred years(!)

 

THE PROPHECY:

God is proclaiming his penalty on Cain for his brother’s murder. Genesis 4:12: “You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.”

WHAT HAPPENED:

The verses that follow this proclamation summarize Cain’s subsequent life, and that account bears no relation to what God proclaimed for him. Cain lived in one place, took a wife, and even founded his own city.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Abraham’s descendants will own the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18, 17:3,8; Deuteronomy 1:7-8)

WHAT HAPPENED:

Abraham’s descendants, of course, never owned all that land. (Acts 7:5, Hebrews 11:13). Yet another failed prophecy by the Almighty himself!

 

THE PROPHECY:

In Genesis 35:10, God changes Jacob’s name to Isreal, prophesying “no longer shall your name be called Jacob.”

WHAT HAPPENED:

God later slipped up and called Isreal by his former name, invalidating his own prophecy. Doh! (Genesis 46:2) Isreal also continued to be referred to at times as Jacob in Genesis, making for a somewhat confusing narrative.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Jacob/Isreal prophesied that the tribe of Zebulun would have their border at Sidon (Genesis 49:13)

WHAT HAPPENED:

Zebulun was never bordered by Sidon, which would have been at the far north of the Galilee (Zebulun occupied the south, with many other tribes between them and the boundaries of present-day Lebanon). In addition, although technically bordered by oceans at East and West, the tribe of Zebulun did not appear to be a coastal dwelling tribe as Jacob prophesied for them, at least on the basis of later Bible narratives.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Exodus 3:8 – The Isrealites are headed for “a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey”, according to the Lord.

WHAT HAPPENED:

Yeah. That perfectly describes Isreal, all right.

 

THE PROPHECY:

In Joshua 17 verse 18, Joshua speaks to the tribe of Joseph, guaranteeing them that they will drive the Canaanites out of their land, despite their chariots of iron.

WHAT HAPPENED:

According to the first book of Judges, none of the tribes succeeded in driving out the Canaanites.

 

THE PROPHECY:

II Samuel 7:10 – “And I will appoint a place for my  people Isreal, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and violent men shall afflict them no more.”

WHAT HAPPENED:

Once again, such a prophecy could not be more further from the actual subsequent condition of the Isrealites.

 

THE PROPHECY:

The throne of David will endure forever. There will never be a time without a man upon that throne. (II Samuel 7:13-16; I Chronicles 17:12-14; Psalms 89:3-4, 35-37; Jeremiah 33:17)

WHAT HAPPENED:

Zedekiah was the last of the Davidic line of Kings. Although the monarchy was revived some four centuries later for a brief period, there has been no Davidic king since the time of Christ.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Babylon will become a deserted city, never to be inhabited by man again. (Isaiah 13:20; Jeremiah 50:39-40; 51:26, 29, 37, 43)

WHAT HAPPENED:

Babylon has never been uninhabited since that time. It is one of the oldest surviving cities of Biblical times. Both of these sections (Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51) promise a worldwide destruction whose time was said to be “close at hand.” The world continues to exist. Furthermore, Jeremiah and Isaiah contradict each other about how Babylon will meet its terrible fate, Isaiah saying that it will be innuandated by water (14:23) and Jerimiah saying that it will be dried up (51:36).

 

THE PROPHECY:

Damascus will cease to be a city and will become a heap of ruins (Isaiah 17:1).

WHAT HAPPENED:

Like Babylon, Damascus survives to this very day.

 

THE PROPHECY:

The Nile River will dry up (Isaiah 19:5; Ezekiah 30:12; Zechariah 10:11

WHAT HAPPENED:

All those OT prophets were in De-Nile.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Isaiah 19:18 – “In That day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt which speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the Lord of hosts.”

WHAT HAPPENED:

No Egyptian city ever spoke the language of Canaan, which is a dead language today.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Isaiah 29:17 – “Is it not yet a very little while until Lebanon shall be turned  into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be regarded as a forest?”

WHAT HAPPENED:

“Not yet a very little while” indeed. Try never.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Isaiah 30:23-26 gives us more endtimes doomcrying.

WHAT HAPPENED:

In the wake of 9/11, some fundamentalists pointed to Isaiah 30:25 as proof of the Bible’s awesome powers of prognostication illuminating the phrase “in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall.” Aside from the fact that there is nothing remarkable in itself in seeing such an image of destruction alluded to in a book which is prophesying all kinds of calamity for the world at large, such proponents of Biblical prophecy actually fail to point out that none of the other events alluded to in that particular passage occurred on 9/11, including the moon becoming as bright as the sun and the sun becoming seven times as bright as it was.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Isaiah 34:9-10: “And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into brimstone; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.”

WHAT HAPPENED:

The land then known as Edom (between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Agaba) is doing fine today, as are the people who inhabit it.

 

THE PROPHECY:

According to Isaiah 52:1, uncircumcised people would never enter Jerusalem again.

WHAT HAPPENED:

Although I haven’t personally checked them all, I’m quite sure that such people have entered the city for thousands of years.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Jeremiah 34:5 promises king Zedekiah will die in peace.

WHAT HAPPENED:

If the fate of Zedekiah as described in II Kings 25:7, and Jeremiah 52:10-11 constitutes a peaceful death, I’d hate to die an un-peaceful one.

 

THE PROPHECY:

The Lord talking to his chosen people: “All the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to live there shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; they shall have no remnant or survivor from the evil which I will bring upon them.”

WHAT HAPPENED:

Quite contrary to the dire warnings of the Lord, the Jews who chose to live in Europe prospered, and later became an integral part of that nation’s culture.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Ezekial 29:9-12 promises complete destruction of the nation of Egypt, and the scattering of its peoples around the world for forty years.

THE RESULT:

Egypt continues to exist as a nation, and the Lord’s prophecy failed to come to pass.

 

The books of Isaiah and of Ezekial are full of many more outlandish prophecies which never happened.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Amos 7:17 foretells that Amaziah’s sons will all die by the sword.

THE RESULT:

At least one did not die by the sword, because Amaziah’s son Uzziah died of leprosy according to II Chronicles 26:1 and 21.

 

THE PROPHECY:

The book of Zephaniah is another end-times prophecy whose time of fulfillment was said by its author to be “at hand” or “near”.

THE RESULT:

Virtually none of Zeph’s dire prophecies ever came to pass.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Deuteronomy 23:3 – “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever.”

THE RESULT:

The book of Ruth tells us that Ruth, a Moabite, not only entered the congregation of the Lord but was an ancestor of David.

 

THE PROPHECY:

II Chronicles 1:12 – God promises Solomon riches and wealth greater than any king in the history of the world.

THE RESULT:

By kingly standards, Solomon’s wealth was rather modest. He could by no stretch of the imagination be called “the richest king in history”.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Ezekial 26:14 (as well as several other verses in Ezekial) predicts the utter destruction of the city of Tyre.

THE RESULT:

Tyre was not destroyed. It was mentioned several times in the New Testament and still exists today.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Jeremiah 49:33 – “Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever; there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.”

THE RESULT:

Hazor has never been uninhabited, but it has never seen the advent of such mythical beasts as dragons (the RSV curiously reads “Jackals&rdquoEye-wink.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Isaiah tells King Ahaz that he would not be harmed by his chief enemies, Rezin and Pekah (7:1-7).

THE RESULT:

Ahaz suffered greatly at the hands of the two (II Chronicles 28:5-6).

 

THE PROPHECY:

Deuteronomy 15:6 – Isreal shall never borrow from other nations.

THE RESULT:

Isreal has borrowed heavily from more powerful nations and has been in their debt many times.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Deuteronomy 33:23 says that Naphtali would rule lands in the South.

THE RESULT:

Naphtali’s province wound up being in the north of Palestine.

 

THE PROPHECY:

David predicts his own death at the hand of Saul (I Samuel 27:1).

THE RESULT:

David outlived Saul (I Samuel 31:5-6, II  Samuel 1:1)

 

THE PROPHECY:

Jeremiah 22:30 says explicitly that no descendant of Coniah will ever sit upon the throne of David.

THE RESULT:

Coniah is listed in Matthew as one of the ancestors of Jesus, the ultimate Davidic King.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim’s body would not be buried and instead left to rot in the elements.

THE RESULT:

II Kings 24:6 states that Jeremiah was buried with his fathers.

 

THE PROPHECY:

In Ezekial 26:7-12, the Lord predicts that King Nebuchadrezzar would successfully sack the city of Tyre and make a plunder of her riches.

THE RESULT:

Nebuchadrezzar’s assault upon Tyre was a failure, according to the account of Ezekial 29:18-20, and he took no loot from it.

 

From the New Testament:

 

THE PROPHECY:

Matthew 12:40 - For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the body of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

WHAT HAPPENED:

Jesus purpotedly died on Friday evening and was resurrected on Sunday morning. That's only two nights.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Matthew 19:28 - "Truly I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Isreal." This is echoed in Luke 22:30.

WHAT HAPPENED:

It seems unlikely, according to Matthew 26:20-25, that Judas (who was one of the twelve addressed) kept his throne.

THE PROPHECY:

On the cross, Jesus promised the theif who defended him against the sarcastic attacks of the other theif that "Today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 22:43)

WHAT HAPPENED:

According to Matthew 12:40, and other verses (particularly in Acts), Jesus went into the heart of the Earth immediately following his death and remained there until his resurrection.

 

THE PROPHECY:

Matthew 4:17 – “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Matthew 16:28 – “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (also Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27)

Matthew 24:34 – “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.” (also Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)

These quotes all clearly show that Jesus promised that his establishing of God’s kingdom on Earth would take place within the lifetimes of those he was addressing. From the phrases “There are some standing here who will not taste of death” and “This generation shall not pass away”, a time limit of about fifty years, give or take a decade, can be set. Certainly the phrases cannot refer to a time span of more than a century.

THE RESULT:

More than two thousand years have passed since the time of that proclamation, and the second coming has yet to occur. It seems that we must consign Jesus to the list of false doomsday prophets.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3707
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Premise 1: God is

Doc wrote:
Premise 1: God is the author of truth.

Premise 2: The truth never changes.

Conclusion 1: What you or I believe has no bearing on what is truth.

Conclusion 2:  The truth is true even if no one believes it.

Conclusion 3:  A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

I really want to go over this again because I thought it was extremely interesting.

JillSwift wrote:
Premise 1 is unfounded.

Doc wrote:
According to who?
 

It's not a matter of perspective. Our entire discussion is a debate over the existence of God. Yet, you have championed this as a fact in your first premise. This is our area of disagreement, so clearly, you must support this. Even if the rest of your line of logic was coherent, it would be invalid without establishing the existence of God.

Actually, on second thought, the existence of God is the claim that you're trying to prove, so, shouldn't it be the conclusion?

JillSwift wrote:
Premise 2 needs a definition for "truth".

JillSwift wrote:
Again truth is not relative.  We do not define what the truth is.

Sounds like a wonderful communication implosion to me. JillSwift wants you to give a definition for the word "truth," but you interpreted this as needing to establish what is true.

Please define "truth."

I define truth broadly as "the actual state" or "conformity to reality." If truth conforms to reality, then truth must change because reality changes. Here's what I mean. If I am holding two dollars in my hand, then the truth is that I have two dollars in my hand. However, if my friend walks over and takes one dollar, then the truth is that I only have one dollar in my hand. Thus, under this definition, truth changes.

Thus, perhaps you are actually trying to state that truth doesn't change based on opinion. I would agree with this.

JillSwift wrote:
All three conclusions do not follow from the premises.

Doc wrote:
They absolutely do.

However, this would inevitably cause it to mean the same thing as conclusion 1. Additionally, conclusions 2 and 3 are the same claim, worded as a positive and a negative, and they can be derived from conclusion 1 with a single syllogism. We also don't need conclusions 2 or 3 as they add nothing to the argument.

Okay, so now that I've attempted to dissect this argument as much as I can, what do we have left? 

- Premise 1 is the conclusion.

- P1 and C1 mean essentially the same thing.

- We can take out C2 and C3

So now, I'm going to risk being completely wrong and rebuild the argument.

Premise 1 - Truth doesn't change based on our opinions. 

Premise 2 - Thus, God exists whether we believe in Him or not.

Conclusion - God exists.

That looks better. It's a lot easier to see the fallacy this way.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:I know my wife

Doc wrote:
I know my wife extremely well.  I know she loves to shop and buy things on sale.  I know her so well that I know if she is at the store and sees something she likes on sale she is going to buy it no questions asked.  My wife tells me she is going to the store.  I know tha the store she is going to go to has a sale of her favorite perfume.  I know before she comes home (i.e.- ahead of time) that she is going to buy this item I know her that well.  Does this mean I caused her to buy it or somehow my knowledge of her future purchase predetermined that she would purchase the perfume?
It is insulting that you are trying to pass this off as analogous.  It is not.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:So that means you

Doc wrote:
So that means you could be wrong about the existence of God which would by definition make you an agnostic rather than an atheist.
Not quite. I am an "agnostic atheist", meaning that as a matter of knowlege, I must be agnostic. As a matter of belief, I am an atheist.

Doc wrote:
Do we not all have presuppossitions?  You presuppose that it is not true.
No, we don't all have presupposition. I start from the null hypothesis.

Doc wrote:
How would you describe the universe if not a created entity?  If it was not created then you must conclude it is eternal and that goes against the scientific knowledge that we have.  If it is not eternal then how did it get here?
There are quite a few theories on that subject - none involving a creator.

Doc wrote:
Hence, validating that they were speaking about real places and real people and not making it up.  Also, there are references to people and groups of people written hundreds of years before those people or groups were known to have existed.
No, it only means they knew of these places while telling their stories.
Doc wrote:
Untrue, many references are specific and have left unrefutable evidence.  You mention the flood.  The geological landscape and fossil evidence we see today are only completely compatible with a catastophic world wide flood.  (As the Bible records) 
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The geography, geology and fossil record are explained by natural processes such as vulcanism and erosion - which does not include word-wide floods.

Doc wrote:
Are you saying many scientists misunderstand their own theories because this is what they claim?
I'm saying you misunderstand the theory.

Doc wrote:
Are you really going to semantics?  Isn't a circle round as is the earth? It is making refernce to its shape.
It's not semantics to say that a circle (wich is two-dimensional) is not a sphere (which is 3 dimensional).

Doc wrote:
Job 38:12: “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,

v.14 “ It takes on form like clay under a seal.”  Job paints the picture here is of clay being turned or rotated on the potter's wheel like the earth rotates on its axis.

Eh? Clay under a seal - a seal as in a governmental or royal seal. That is, it's formed by being stamped.

Doc wrote:
Job 38:16, Psalm 8:8, Ecclesiastes 1:6-7
None of which describe currents. If you really generalise the definitions of words, maybe - but surely it loses all meaning at that point.


Doc wrote:
I am not refering to just hand washing.  I am refering to using running water to wash hands.  Neither was I refering to when the bible was compiled but when it was actually written.  When those verses were written the healers of the day did not use running water to wash but used standing water where germs can accumulate.  The writer of the scripture, because of the knowledge of God given through the Holy Spirit, said use running water to avoid disease.
I'm sorry, but my statement still stands. The use of running water for hand washing as an improved measure against disease predates both the bible and the era of the stories within. See Chinese history.

Doc wrote:
I agree. But would one willfully die for what they knew in fact was a lie? I don't know of anyone who would.  People can be willing to die for what they think is true even if it isn't such as muslim suicide bombers.  They beleive that what is written in the Koran is true and are willing to die for it.  But that is different than knowing something to be a lie and willingly dying for it or because of it.  If the apostles fabricated the story of Jesus' resurrection do you think they would have allowed themselves to be killed knowing as fact that it was just a lie?
My answer is two-fold:

First: I don't even know if the apostles ever really existed.

Second: If they did, it is very possible that, rather than fabricate any stories, they misinterpreted the situation they found themselves in and ended up with a stoy that was more mistake than description.

By the way, do please register with the site so the admins don't have to approve your posts. I almost missed your reply because I keep coming to the end of the thread looking for new posts, and there were posts following your hidden-till-approved posts. Fortunately I went back to re-read some posts and spotted your new posts.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:I know my wife

Doc wrote:

I know my wife extremely well.  I know she loves to shop and buy things on sale.  I know her so well that I know if she is at the store and sees something she likes on sale she is going to buy it no questions asked.  My wife tells me she is going to the store.  I know tha the store she is going to go to has a sale of her favorite perfume.  I know before she comes home (i.e.- ahead of time) that she is going to buy this item I know her that well.  Does this mean I caused her to buy it or somehow my knowledge of her future purchase predetermined that she would purchase the perfume? 

 

Knowing the standard operating procedure of your wife's shopping habits has nothing to do with knowing the future. You may guess she's buying some perfume at the store, and you might be right. But, that's just what you believe she's most likely to do, you have no way of knowing what others might be doing. You're sitting at home, she's on her way to the store, and a mac truck plows in to her car at an intersection.

Would you see that coming?


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Doc

Thomathy wrote:

Doc wrote:
I know my wife extremely well.  I know she loves to shop and buy things on sale.  I know her so well that I know if she is at the store and sees something she likes on sale she is going to buy it no questions asked.  My wife tells me she is going to the store.  I know tha the store she is going to go to has a sale of her favorite perfume.  I know before she comes home (i.e.- ahead of time) that she is going to buy this item I know her that well.  Does this mean I caused her to buy it or somehow my knowledge of her future purchase predetermined that she would purchase the perfume?
It is insulting that you are trying to pass this off as analogous.  It is not.

 

What is insulting is that you consider dissmisal of someone's arguement by a hand wave critical thinking.   


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:pauljohntheskeptic

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not into repetition as a form of education or I'd be a school teacher, read what I wrote.

I did but you did not offer any proof just speculation.  I asked for proof.

You want me to prove to you that a book of fiction is fiction or myths.

Open the cover of your KJV bible. 

Gen 1:2 "And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

Unfortunately, this fails immediately as the Earth was a chunk of hot molten material leftover as the Sun formed. This hot liquid of molten elements had no water upon it. The Sun, a normal type star was already shining upon the molten Earth as were countless other stars. Feel free to disprove this theory.

The Sumerians had very similar myths as to many of the stories in the bible including how man lost immortality, a flood and others that predate even the wandering nomads that brought sheep into Canaan circa Abraham by over a thousand years. Abe came from the land of Sumer and his dad appeared to be a moon worshipper, as in they lived in Ur and moved to Haran both centers of worship of the Moon god Sin.

We can go chapter by chapter and go over each and ever fairy tale if you like, but to do so you should register and a new thread should be started.

In the meanwhile, read The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman for a simple understanding of some of the issues.

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I also feel really sad for you wasting your life on the delusion of god belief when you could put it to better use in helping other people in the real world or learning and understanding.

I do help others all the time.  I am continually learning and understanding.  You are wrong on all counts.

I did say I might be wrong. I advocate Read more! Kill less!

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A life is a sad thing to waste and I always feel bad about those who do so in the belief of a reward in the next life when they could make a real difference now  and do not.

I agree a life is a terrible thing to waste.  A soul is also a part of that life.  And I don't worship Jesus because of a belief of a reward in the next life.  I worship Him because 1) only He is worthy of worship and 2) out of gratitude for what He has done for me already in sacrificing Himself on the cross to forgive all of my exceedingly sinful sins. Once again your assumptions are erroneous.

As you appear to not be a murdering Christian Crusader the only problem I have with you is assertion of unfounded beliefs.

You are freely accepting unfounded ideas from sources that are suspect and open to question. This is what you call faith. I call it delusion or wishful thinking. You accept hearsay testimony from marginal sources in the 1st century that you don't even have a copy. The DSS copies (even the Jews have no originals) exist dated from 150 BCE - 50 CE establishing part of the Jewish myths. But yet not a single copy of NT books are any older than the 4th century.   

Doc wrote:
 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong and you are living the life of Jesus and have given all away and do nothing but help your fellow man, but I doubt it.

No one can live the life of Jesus because no one is perfect.  However, I try the best I can to follow Him and obey His commandments out of love and gratitiude for Him.  But since you like to throw stones should I assume you have given up everything and have given all you have to the poor because of your selfless desire to help those in need?  

Nice dodge. Why? Jesus was a little off base in his ideas. Such as the idea that all should give up everything and follow him. That god even provides for the sparrows. This would cause world wide starvation. Is god helping those in Africa that are starving?

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do many things to help others in what every means that I can do.

That is nice but on the day of judgement that won't help you.

Another assertion that requires you to first prove there is a god and he's the one as described in your version of the bible. And of course you have properly understood what he wants.

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

This world is about people which is the most important thing in reality.

That is half right.  Only 2 things truly matter in this world: Your relationship with God and your relationship with other people.  Everything else is vanity and unimportant.  

So we half agree.

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The dream you have of a next life is but a story from ancient times brought to you through multiple interpretations by many and morphed into one of 100s of different religious views.

How do you know this?  What proof do you have this is true and not just something you heard from someone else and are regurgitating it here?

Personal research. I did study theology.

I'm still waiting on that witness list of 100s that personally saw Jesus. 

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That you choose to consider an unprovable fantasy as real over the actual needs and suffering you can see in this world shows you to be an extremely self centered person.

You do not know me so you have no idea who I am or what I do.  Your accusations are baseless and erroneous.

I withdraw the personal accusation. As you also don't know me you have several things you should retract as well.

Doc wrote:

Besides do some studying of statistics.  Christians help the needy more and give more to the poor and charities than atheists or other "religious" people.  It is not even close.  The statistics show this to be true.  

The largest contributor to world aide is the US government, supposedly secular.

  

Doc wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

Your methods of help are to bring even more people into your delusional fantasy thus bringing less productivity into the world by diverting resources to an ultimate waste. While you waste money on churches and preachers to spread the fantasy even more hardship will occur in the world.

As oppossed to atheism which has helped countless of people, right? Check your facts.  Check out the statistics.  Not even close.  Communism which is an atheistic ideology has killed more people, oppressed more, caused more suffering and has taken away more human rights than Christianity ever has.

Sorry, communism is not advocating atheism but instead advocates the state comes first. Really, its more Christian, "to each according to their needs and from each according to their ability." 

Uncounted millions have died in propagating Christianity, from the time of Constantine to the war in Ireland. Let's not forget the Spanish and their invasion of the New World. Anywhere from 20 to 200 million died as a result of European Christian invasion of North & South America. Usually most don't count this.

Doc wrote:

Get the facts straight before making any conclusions. Meanwhile, Christians build schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc.  Yes, what selfish people those Christians are.

Usually with strings too.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Religion is not a solution but is a large share of the problems. 

Doc wrote:

I agree but who said anything about religion?  If people would stick to the truth and stop making up their own religions because of a rebellious desire to do things their own way we would be much better off.    

What is the truth? There's the problem. Is your version of interpretation true? Or the Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or atheists?

So many choices, so little proof.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Judgement Day

Doc wrote:
Unfortunately, those who do not repent and place their trust in Jesus will be judged by the Law and all their sins will be exposed and will be found guilty of breaking those Laws whether we are afraid of judgment or not.

Despite all that Jesus said in the New testament, you believe that Jesus is some sort of horrible evil demon who will be throwing innocent people into the lake of fire on Judgment day. You’re not a Christian, you do not believe in the Jesus of the NT, you’re a Satanist.

You can save us, you can save all of us, all you have to do is provide some reasonable evidence for your assertions. But you cannot do that, can you, because all your religious beliefs are false, aren’t they, because you do not have any reasonable evidence that they are true, isn’t that right!

We do not believe in your evil demon Jesus boogeyman. Christians spend their lives in horrible fear that their friends and loved ones or even themselves might do something wrong and end up burning alive forever in the lake of fire. Imagine the evil Jesus demon with his pitchfork poking your mother and father and your wife and your children to keep them in the lake of fire.

Christianity is a hoax, you’ve been conned, you’ve been a gullible sucker. Christianity is fiction just like the other 10,000 religions in the world. Your God and Jesus are a fictional characters just like the tens of thousands of other Gods that are worshiped in the world. Your scripture is fiction just like hundreds of similar scriptures of other religions in the world. You have no reasonable evidence for your god or your scripture, just like all the other religions in the world, because your religion is false, just like the other religions in the world. We all know that Christianity is no more special and no more unique and no more moral than any of the other 10,000 religions in the world.

---------------------------------

Let us speculate about the nature of God, if he were to exist, just like we might speculate on the nature of fairies, if they were to exist.

If there were a God he would have to be rational to have created the universe, and he would not believe in a higher power then himself, because he would have no evidence of a higher power, so he would be an atheist with regard to a higher power, and if there were a heaven, then god would want to be with rational atheists like himself, and if there were a hell, then he would throw irrational theists into hell because irrationalism is evil.

The best strategy to get into heaven and avoid hell is to become a rational atheist.

----------------------------------------

For 1500 years Christianity terrorized the western world in the name of Jesus. They burned scientists for knowing that the bible was wrong, they burned free thinkers for not being orthodox, they burned innocent moms and dads for being witches. The methods and crimes of Christianity are the same as the methods and crimes of fascism and communism and Islamic terrorism because basically Christianity is not any different then fascism and communism and Islamic terrorism. They are all irrationalism, and they all naturally form right wing authoritarian regimes, crush all opposition, and impose tyranny.

Doc wrote:
Christians build schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc. Yes, what selfish people those Christians are.

You sound like an apologist for a pedophile.

Nazis build schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc. Yes, what selfish people those Nazis are.

Communists build schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc. Yes, what selfish people those Communists are.

Hamas builds schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc. Yes, what selfish people those terrorists are.

Right wing authoritarian regimes always do charity as they crush the slaves under their iron boot.

Christianity is irrationalism just like Communism, Fascism and Islamic fundamentalism. Irrationalism is the most horrible human evil that the world has ever known.

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"