Author Topic: Question  (Read 13745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #116 on: October 27, 2011, 07:45:01 PM »
At the very least, comparing a real person like Jesus to Santa Claus is demented.

Wheres the proof that Jesus was even real? Much less the fables of the bible, there is not any proof.

You can hang on to that false argument if you want, but Christians are neither pathetic,  arrogant or on a high horse. We understand we're sinners and know we're not better than other

How are ya not, you guys are so determent that you all are going to heaven when you die but no one can decide which story is true, do the Christians wait till the return or when you die you go straight to heaven, well no one can say because GoD will not clarify it for any one.

You mean, a) modern, educated people who believe life arose spontaneously from nonlife as opposed to b) backward, uneducated people who believe life arose from a Being greater than man? Hmmm, let me think......yep, I still choose b

just like if you were Hindu you would believe you would be reincarnated, no difference 

It's even more amazing that that I used to write the crap you write here. You want an education Jetson? Lose your education

History repeats it self with stories and it is clear that you are blind to the fact that the bible was not written by GoD there were bible before it, there were religions like the christain religion before it, this religion is nothing more then a copycat, cut and paste to fit what the Israelite want to believe. They felt left out so they took story from other and made there own. the Adam and eve story from the Jewish Talmud, the flood from the Sumerians, and the King of England wanted a divorce from his wife so he incorporated the Church of England to do it which turn in the christian religion we have today. A few years later came along the King James babble and out goes the Geneva bible.

Your right education blinds us from the reality that GoD is real.  &)   
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7314
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Question
« Reply #117 on: October 27, 2011, 08:00:44 PM »

It's even more amazing that that I used to write the crap you write here. You want an education Jetson? Lose your education.

This is telling, isn't it?  That you are actually willing to tell me to lose my education, because apparently you value mythology and faith, I guess, more than education.  It says all I need to know, actually.  You are here to preach, and you have no intention of considering anything that the members say to you.  Too bad.  You do have decent grammar and writing skills, which is rare from the theists that join the fray here.

Oh well.  God doesn't need thinkers anyway.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #118 on: October 27, 2011, 09:49:41 PM »
Whatchamean, I don't have a special grudge against Jesus and the Bible.
Truthfully, I don't carry an axe for any unbeliefs or beliefs atheists have either (or people of other faiths.)

I am merely skeptical of Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc.
Any normal thinking person would be, but I'm convinced your belief that all life rose from the dead is dead wrong.

I would really like for you to provide some actual evidence (not circular reasoning) for the Bible being a historical document that the others cannot tear to shreds after close examination. Seriously. I am all ears.
There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book, so your proposal doesn't make sense. Your definition of "circular reasoning" is incorrect as well. because many of the people within it are regarded even by skeptics as having lived on earth. It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, or still do and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity. The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists. (I looked up the founder of Wikipedia and wasn't at all surprised.) Did you read my rebuttal on Hezekiah and Sennacherib?

I have the same amount of skepticism towards Biblical miracles that I would toward ANY other extraordinary claims that I have not been shown real evidence for.
You haven't been shown any real evidence for the idea that your existence is the result of evolution, but you believe that. (And please, I don't mean glitter coated guess work.)

If you provided some logical reasons and solid evidence that pointed toward Jesus being the Messiah, I would not deny that. But so far none of the theists that I have ever come into contact with have ever done that.
I've given you very logical reasons curious. You've just been so poisoned into imagining that God must think like you, your entire view of God has been distorted. There's a possibility you'll never escape it.  As far as the miracles recorded in the Bible, after an objective view of the whole, you either believe those or you don't.

Honestly, you could tell me a very unlikely story (like a leprechaun that can read minds living in my garage, or perhaps a guy being resurrected) and as long as you could support it with logic and evidence, I would not be opposed to believing it.
You're not opposed to believing leprechaun stories without reason or evidence curiousgirl. You've been taught that God owes you an explanation for why He doesn't heal amputees. In the end honey it's just going to be me and you. Not me and my church friends (don't actually go to church), or you and your atheist friends. Just me and me alone.....and you and you alone. Do yourself right.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Question
« Reply #119 on: October 27, 2011, 10:03:43 PM »

There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book, so your proposal doesn't make sense. Your definition of "circular reasoning" is incorrect as well. because many of the people within it are regarded even by skeptics as having lived on earth. It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, or still do and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity. The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists. (I looked up the founder of Wikipedia and wasn't at all surprised.) Did you read my rebuttal on Hezekiah and Sennacherib?

The fallacy here, is attempting to use the historicity of Sadduceean Judaism to back up the non-historicity of Christianity, because the two religions accompany each other in your compilation. The Jews were much more careful at constructing stories that could be proven untrue - with all the miracles being in the distant past. Except in Acts, Christianity is bereft of anything historically verifiable.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Question
« Reply #120 on: October 27, 2011, 10:08:33 PM »
I am merely skeptical of Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc.
Any normal thinking person would be, but I'm convinced your belief that all life rose from the dead is dead wrong.

That's fine, but you have to prove that YOUR God created life, and not someone else's God. By prove, I mean, in the same sense that you ask of atheists: you have to supply actual pictures of God doing the work.

Proof = good documented evidence, logic, maths, repeatable. Proof is quite rigorous.

Evidence is anything you like. The moon is made of cheese, and I have evidence. The evidence can be anything I like.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Question
« Reply #121 on: October 27, 2011, 11:14:39 PM »

I am merely skeptical of Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc.


Any normal thinking person would be, but I'm convinced your belief that all life rose from the dead is dead wrong.

Where did I claim that "all life rose from the dead"? Is this a misunderstanding or a strawman on your part? When I said "rising from the dead," I was specifically referring to Jesus.

I would really like for you to provide some actual evidence (not circular reasoning) for the Bible being a historical document that the others cannot tear to shreds after close examination. Seriously. I am all ears.

There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book, so your proposal doesn't make sense.

That sounds suspiciously "No True Scotsman" to me. What you are implying is that if a student disagrees with your claim that "the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book," then they are not a serious student. Flawed logic. And yes, my skepticism definitely makes sense.


Your definition of "circular reasoning" is incorrect as well. because many of the people within it are regarded even by skeptics as having lived on earth. It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, or still do and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity. The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists. (I looked up the founder of Wikipedia and wasn't at all surprised.) Did you read my rebuttal on Hezekiah and Sennacherib?

My defintion is correct, for reasons that I outlined in my original post about why it is circular reasoning to use the Bible as evidence for God when you have not established the existence of God. Think of this: the Bible is supposedly God's word. When one thinks of the Bible as such, they are assuming that God exists, is omnipotent, etc. If you have to assume that God exists for the Bible to be true, you cannot assume that the Bible (and its contents) are proof of God's existence.

Also, there are numerous events in the Bible that do not appear to have taken place (for lack of evidence), such as Noah's Flood and his Ark and the way his family was the only group of people left to repopulate the entire planet. In fact, there are many atheists on this board that question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (even as a mere man).

I have the same amount of skepticism towards Biblical miracles that I would toward ANY other extraordinary claims that I have not been shown real evidence for.

You haven't been shown any real evidence for the idea that your existence is the result of evolution, but you believe that. (And please, I don't mean glitter coated guess work.)

It is ridiculous for you to assume that I have not been shown real evidence for my existence being the result of evolution. Perhaps you have not seen evidence for evolution, because you refuse to educate yourself. One word: FOSSILS. What is the "glitter coated guess work" you are referring to? Because science will certainly make more sense than the Bible to an atheist.

If you provided some logical reasons and solid evidence that pointed toward Jesus being the Messiah, I would not deny that. But so far none of the theists that I have ever come into contact with have ever done that.


I've given you very logical reasons curious. You've just been so poisoned into imagining that God must think like you, your entire view of God has been distorted. There's a possibility you'll never escape it.  As far as the miracles recorded in the Bible, after an objective view of the whole, you either believe those or you don't.

Actually, SPAG is common within Christians. I don't imagine that God must think like me, because I am skeptical of God's existence. A non-existent entity cannot think because it does not exist.

Honestly, you could tell me a very unlikely story (like a leprechaun that can read minds living in my garage, or perhaps a guy being resurrected) and as long as you could support it with logic and evidence, I would not be opposed to believing it.

You're not opposed to believing leprechaun stories without reason or evidence curiousgirl. You've been taught that God owes you an explanation for why He doesn't heal amputees. In the end honey it's just going to be me and you. Not me and my church friends (don't actually go to church), or you and your atheist friends. Just me and me alone.....and you and you alone. Do yourself right.

I am not opposed to believing in Jesus if you could show some reason and evidence for why I should believe that he is the Son of God who rose from the dead. His being the Son of God is as conceivable to me as the existence of leprechauns. If God does not owe me an explanation, he should not have put the desire for an explanation in my nature (if he even exists).

BTW, those last few sentences reeked of something you have been spoonfed by your church, with a little tiny hint of Pascal's Wager thrown in. Except the irony is that you are right that we are "alone," but in the sense that God is merely a projection of ourselves.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #122 on: October 28, 2011, 02:03:10 AM »
Weird that I´m  suspected for taking Wiki articles as "THE truth" or something.

I do realize that in making my point about your praise of the process of review and editing, in regards to Wikipedia, that I implied that you take Wiki as "THE truth". My apologies. It was an unfortunate side effect to get my question across about the similarities in the editing process between how you described Wiki articles and how the Bible is revised.

Am I to conclude from the rest of your answer that you do not give similar praise to how the Bible is revised and edited even though it is similar to the process of how Wiki articles are revised and edited? Or would you rather restate your admiration for the process entirely? Or would you just rather redact your praise for Wikipedia in general?
Sorry again. Even I can't spend all my time in discussion forums. :D
I have lurked here for years, and lately registered only when i felt that some claims by this whatcha-character were not addressed directly enough. Enough with him. I´m not going to continue. I might return to my passive state, for me personally combating Christianity is beginning to feel like beating a dead horse. From the perspective of a more secular nation like Finland and me not being an ex-christian escaping from fundamentalism. Anyway Antiquity studies were not my speciality.

To your post:
There are differences.
First the editing and updating the Bible stopped long time a go. So long ago that less educated religious people don't realize it being an edited human construction but respect it (and their own interpretation of it) like it fell from the skies as it is now.

Most authors of the Bible were not much interested in historical or scientific accuracy. They wrote to propagate their points adding legendary elements at will. Source criticism did not exist nor was expected. This continued through the Middle Ages, when it was perfectly acceptable for writers who actually respected or maybe even had known personally some saint or king they wrote about, to invent all kinds of legendary elements to their story about this person. So when I say that the Gospel writes lied, from the perspective of modern thought it is so. But at the time it was the norm. The Bible is a book of lies, but back then almost nobody did mind. It was not they felt like they were bullshitting, the mentality to separate fact from legend just didn't exist.

Nowadays even Biblical fundamentalists are used to more fact-oriented style of information. But the fundamentalists treat the Bible too as a history book or a science book. They do this by choice. That arrogant stubborness is dubbed "faith" and "faith" has got social respect. But that is like someone decided that the latest (maybe Hollywood) version of the Robin Hood legend is historically accurate and by that decision would dissmiss real historical research who Robin Hood might have been and what he actually did. That would be stupid and dishonest. But the Christian fundamentalists still demand that their worldview should be treated equally. "Teach the controversy." But then there would be too many similar and as unscienfical worldviews. Astrology respected and taught alongside astronomy? Book of Mormon taught alongside American History? Evolution, creationism and Scientology considered as equals? That's what movements like the playful Church of The Flying Spagetti Monster a.k.a the Pastafarians are trying to demonstrate demanding the same rights and respect as Chistianity still has.

History research does not study just the sources. The aim is to see through the sources what actually happened. In modern days research and documentary publications and encyclopedias like Wikipedia ( I almost forgot that you were asking my view of that specifically :D ) at least strive to get their facts straight. That is the purpose and justification of encyclopedias.

But just as in history research, it is virtually impossible to be totally non-biased. Historians don't anymore believe that such a thing even exists. Everybody has a cultural point of view. That's why every generation writes their own history. That is quite all right and even honest, because when times change, the ways we look and evaluate history changes too. And there are new questions to ask from these new viewpoints. If they don't use counterfit sources or misquote existing sources and cross-check what other sciences know about the period, that kind of revision is not lying.

On the other hand the Bible writers lived in a time when factuality and source criticism were not important. They were more like storytellers pushing their theological views with not much concern for the facts. I think many modern Christians too are not able to understand the strive for factuality. In a way they live in dreams. So they view everything at the same level as religion, including science. All but their own chosen religion.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #123 on: October 28, 2011, 08:33:20 AM »
The belief comes from taking God at His word ...

But you've not taken god at his word.  You've taken god at someone else's word.  Normally, when you "take someone at his word", it means someone has told you something of dubious credibility, but, you trust that he is telling the truth anyway, most likely because you know the person to be reliable.   But in the case of god, he's not actually spoken to you.  Unless I am mistaken, you are calling the bible "his word".  But the bible never says it was written by god.  So, if you believe the bible, then you are trusting that the guys who wrote it were right and telling the truth.  You are taking them at their word, not god.  The worst part is, you don't know them.  You have no way to know if they were reliable.  Even worse, we know parts of the bible are outright falsehoods.  So really, you should be listening to the bible writers with a raised eyebrow.

Or are you claiming god has spoken to you?

and then growing in His knowledge,

I hear xians say this all the time.  I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.  How do you "grow in His knowledge" when you cannot even see him?  I can grow in my knowledge of biology by studying biology, which is a collection of observations and explanations of actual living things.  But with god, there is nothing to observe.  So how does that work?  How does one "grow in his knowldge" of god?  It sounds like wide-eyed malarkey to me.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #124 on: October 28, 2011, 08:40:44 AM »
Velkyn,

According to the Catholics, they did hang on to the magic foreskin of Jesus for many years, losing it conveniently just before DNA analysis was discovered. What a sad coincidence..

Whatcha say to that whatchamean?? Do you believe it or not? Are there really that many lying christians?
I've read claims  they had at least seven, count 'em - 7, foreskins of Christ, all possessing magical powers. Either ancient Christians were skilled in cloning, or Jeezus had miraculous regenerative powers...
Odd that the Catholic church no longer puts these holy prepuces on display, alongside the Shroud and that vial of blood that magically uncongeals every Easter.
 
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #125 on: October 28, 2011, 10:37:07 AM »
Quote from: whatchamean? link=topic=20296.msg452390#msg452390

Well Klonk,
It seems Noah brought pairs of organisms on board the ark. It is obvious from the text that "kind" means from the same ancestral genetic pool. How many kinds were there? Nobody knows. Science does not know how many animal, bird or insect species there are currently living on our planet, but they estimate there are currently 2-30 million animal, 10 thousand bird an1-30 million insect,  so maybe Noah had thousands of kinds. Nobody really knows.
it's so cute when Christians bastardize science to make their myths attempt to make sense.  No, it's not "obvious" at all. Your myth is one of many (though not found in all cultures so that lie about flood myths is out of your grasp) other myths trying to explain the presence of evil in the world and how respective gods supposedly handle it.   

Quote
Salt and fresh water fish? All kinds of plausible pro and con theorys swimming around out there. Pick your own agenda.


No, there aren’t.  Your amazing ignorance of biology is quite telling here.  And I’m sure that ignorance extends much further.  There is no evidence of any “noah” flood.  None at all.  At best, you would have to claim that your god magically hid all evidence of it, which reduces to “last thursdayism”, the believe that a god created the world last Thursday and we only “think” we lived before that.  It’s so pathetic that the willfully ignorant attack things they have no clue about and then so hypocritically enjoy the fruits of the science they so decry.


edit - fixed quote
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 12:59:19 PM by screwtape »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Question
« Reply #126 on: October 28, 2011, 10:54:42 AM »
Quote
There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book,

A compilation of "historical documents" that were created/edited solely for two religions.

Quote
so your proposal doesn't make sense. Your definition of "circular reasoning" is incorrect as well. because many of the people within it are regarded even by skeptics as having lived on earth.

Like who? Adam and Eve? Lololol.

Quote
It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, or still do and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity.

A global deluge never occurred, people did not cross the Red Sea, an all powerful and all knowing God did not get pissed off at people trying to reach heaven simply by building a phallic tower that represented their ego.

Quote
The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists. (I looked up the founder of Wikipedia and wasn't at all surprised.)

Please provide concrete evidence that the Bible is remotely historically accurate at all besides putting in random people and locations that were real at the supposed time the alleged events described occurred.


Quote
You haven't been shown any real evidence for the idea that your existence is the result of evolution,

You seem to be confusing the study of evolution, a process, with biopoesis.

Quote
I've given you very logical reasons curious. You've just been so poisoned into imagining that God must think like you, your entire view of God has been distorted.

Were we not made in "His image"? So God would not be thinking like us, we'd be thinking like HIM. Doesn't matter in the end though. The one who's been "poisoned" would be you I say.

Quote
There's a possibility you'll never escape it.

One cannot escape from freedom of mind that excludes certain, silly religious beliefs, but only towards it.

Quote
As far as the miracles recorded in the Bible, after an objective view of the whole, you either believe those or you don't.

What about the rules that God commanded we should follow? Do you believe that we should stone homosexuals, workers working on the Sabbath and so forth?

Quote
You're not opposed to believing leprechaun stories without reason or evidence curiousgirl. You've been taught that God owes you an explanation for why He doesn't heal amputees. In the end honey it's just going to be me and you. Not me and my church friends (don't actually go to church), or you and your atheist friends. Just me and me alone.....and you and you alone. Do yourself right.

Rubbish.
The Second C

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #127 on: October 28, 2011, 01:20:55 PM »
There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book,

depends what you mean by "historical". If you mean "they are political and religious propaganda that tell us something about the past even if what they say is not the truth, so a lot of reading between the lines and investigation is required", then yes, I agree. 

If, on the other hand, you mean, "the stories in the bible are accurate, unbiased, journalistic accounts of actual events in history and can be taken as true," then you could not be more wrong.

It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, ...

a lot of them did not exists when they were said to have existed.  You seem to miss the Harry Potter analogy here.   

... and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity.

Like...?  It is also true that many events recorded in the bible were not recorded anywhere else and others can even be shown to have never happened.

The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists.

"Falsely", that's a laugh. 

islamic websites.  jewish websites.  I dunno if hindus have websites, but I bet they do and I bet they have good reasons for doubting the bible.   

Are you saying atheists cannot be honest in their assessment of history?  I find that to be a rather convenient bit of bigotry on your part.

And anyway, if a xian did honest scholarship that indicated the bible was wrong, what do you think would happen?  I ask, because once upon a time I was an honest xian who did some bible scholarship and found it to be a collection of myths by a savage people.  What happened was, I ceased to be a xian.


You've been taught that God owes you an explanation for why He doesn't heal amputees.

Not god.  You.  You owe the explanation.  Xians who showcase a god that allegedly heals all manner of ailment as evidence of its awesome existence owe an explanation for the ailments that very conspicuously and consistently are never healed.  Because a god that heals some things but not others has some serious implications that demand an explanation.  If you are not that kind of xian, then the question is not for you.



Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #128 on: October 28, 2011, 05:28:29 PM »
I have no quarrel with you good sir. So I wont push the issue any further after this post. But I do feel the need to address a couple of points you made which are demonstrably in error.

First the editing and updating the Bible stopped long time a go.

I provided several links here which describe several past and current revisions. Now I know that Screwtape did not acknowledge these examples as being comparable to revisions made to Wikipedia, so I just wanted to highlight something both of you did not acknowledge.

All I'm saying is that the *process*[1] is the same.
 1. Different people at different times reviewing what has been written and making changes as necessary to fit more closely to current understanding

Without trying to speculate or expound on the differences in the type of people doing the revisions and what their motivation may be I would like to know why you and Screwtape think the *process*is different.

If the Bible hasn't been updated or edited in So long ... that less educated religious people don't realize it being an edited human construction but respect it (and their own interpretation of it) like it fell from the skies as it is now. Then how do you describe the activities concerning the Bible in the links I provided?


Quote
Most authors of the Bible were not much interested in historical or scientific accuracy. They wrote to propagate their points adding legendary elements at will. Source criticism did not exist nor was expected.

I will address this shortly.

Quote
This continued through the Middle Ages, when it was perfectly acceptable for writers who actually respected or maybe even had known personally some saint or king they wrote about, to invent all kinds of legendary elements to their story about this person.

This is consistent with my understanding of human nature as well. We can still see this sort of thing happening on small and large scales today.

Quote
So when I say that the Gospel writes lied, from the perspective of modern thought it is so.

This just smacks of arrogance but if you say it's so then I guess it's true. But then it must also be true for everything man wrote during those times.

Quote
But at the time it was the norm.

Hold on to that thought

Quote
The Bible is a book of lies, but back then almost nobody did mind. It was not they felt like they were bullshitting, the mentality to separate fact from legend just didn't exist.

Bullshit. Utter rubbish. Our brains haven't changed that much in 2000 years.

Quote
History research does not study just the sources. The aim is to see through the sources what actually happened.


Is that like "reading between the lines"? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to know what you mean by "see through" the sources.

Quote
In modern days research and documentary publications and encyclopedias like Wikipedia <snip> at least strive to get their facts straight. That is the purpose and justification of encyclopedias.


Right, and I am not disputing that. I understand that, from time to time, it is necessary for people to re-examine what has been written and make changes, as necessary, to fit more closely to current understanding. 

Quote
But just as in history research, it is virtually impossible to be totally non-biased. Historians don't anymore believe that such a thing even exists. Everybody has a cultural point of view. That's why every generation writes their own history.


Remember that thought I asked you to hold onto? Is it still the norm? Could it be possible considering that there is no such thing as non-biased and considering that there is an established tendency for writers to embellish a little in favor of their subject?

Quote
That is quite all right and even honest, because when times change, the ways we look and evaluate history changes too. And there are new questions to ask from these new viewpoints.

Indeed.

Quote
If they don't use counterfit sources or misquote existing sources and cross-check what other sciences know about the period, that kind of revision is not lying.

Now we finally get to the meat of it don't we? Despite the fact that you expect and accept a little embellishment and different takes on historical events from non-secular sources you have zero tolerance for the exact same *process* when it comes to the Bible. Because 2000 years ago the people who wrote the Bible were not evolved enough to tell the difference between fact and legend.

Quote
On the other hand the Bible writers lived in a time when factuality and source criticism were not important.

So nice you had to say it twice. If you are going to insist on presenting this claim as a fact I will need other sources than your word. Because the problem with that statement is that you discredit everything mankind has written or thought about before what? A couple hundred years ago?

 

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #129 on: October 29, 2011, 07:43:58 PM »
Jaybwell: Don't call me "sir", boy! :D

I really don't understand why you seem to value the revisions of the Bible to the same level as updates of modern encyclopedias. Sure the Bible has been edited and re-edited, especially the OT, and theology traces these revisions. But looking as the historical-critical Bible research does, it becomes apparent that these revisions were not done to give more information of the past but to support then-current religious views and political goals. That is quite the opposite of modern scientific papers, publications and encyclopedias, who collect new data and then present the most plausible scenarios what actually happened back then.

It is like you were comparing the Soviet "Pravda" to western journalism at its best.

The links you provided are about new translations.
Not very impressive for "re-editions" of the Bible.
Yes it is necessary to have the most accurate translation possible. But even with that it brings no more credibility to the original texts. If you got the best possible English translation of the Finnish "Kalevala", I would not call that an improved edition, nor would you take the stories as facts. I bet first you would consult even let me think..hmmm.. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala And when finding out that the poems were "updated" in the early 19:th century, that would not strenghten your trust for Kalevala as a historical source, would it?

Translation is a difficult field. Especially with old Hebrew, which uses only consonants and the grammatical tense is almost lacking. An accurate translation of ancient Hebrew text would ne just a list of words in an  uncertain order. Then the translations of the Bible tend to project our own time to the past. Even the latest Finnish official translation does that too much, sort of streamlining the more ambivalent parts to what the translators think is the modern meaning in their everyday understanding. Which is usually too plain if the words could mean something deeper.

BTW if you complain the using and "trusting" Wikipedia, then goddammit, YOUR links are providing stuff from the Catholic Church, then some religious sect called "Tentmaker" (whose interpretation of the maybe original Isaiah 53 word "light" is ridiculously overreaching) and for crying out loud, you are linking Conservapedia! That doesn't necessarily mean that they get facts wrong, but you of all people ought not to be sneering at the use of Wikipedia.

About the Bible lying isn't it self-evident even for you? You can't explain away the conflict with actual physical evidence, the dishonestly how the Gospel writers used the Torah, or all the contradictions. If you would claim to "know" that there are none, then you would lie yourself. Bible writers made stuff up. Nowadays that woud be called lying, but above I tried to soften that accusation by stating that in the olden times that was more accepted, so they are not so guilty.

About the mentality of people:
Sure the human brain has not changed much for a couple of hundred thousand years. If anything, the brain size of Homo Sapiens has diminished according to some paleontologists. The people were maybe more intelligent than us, because nowadays (and saying this is not Politically Correct) at least in the more developed countries people with a lower IQ usually have more children, so evolution actually "favors" lesser intelligence now.

But I tend to go with Daniel Dennett, who claims that our conciousness has developed partly due to cultural evolution. He gives examples like  how apparently less than two thousand years ago many people could not read without saying the words aloud. (Source:  Just some TV-broadcast about Dennett, sorry). I myself have heard that it took years to get audiences to understand then-new media, the movies with their hops from set to set in fast cuts, which is unknown to actual life. My 80-year old parents really can't read comics nor understand Rock music aestehetics. And it seems impossible for them to understand how Computer graphic interfaces like Windows are meant to act like actual physical reality. They see it just like shadows on the screen and try to memorize every click.  They are not demented at all, just from a different time.  Used to the text-based computer interfaces during the latter part of their working career. (Hey this is Finland, not Poland :D )

So I think that what we call conciousness does have accumulated and layered cultural add-ons.

I admit, that there were SOME writers in Antiquity who aspired to present facts. Caesar with the war in Gallia, Plinius, Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus to name some. But they were rare and not so good historians by modern standards, because they were pioneers of the field. Not much was even documented to act as sources for them. And at the same time the Roman world had no problem with taking the Iliad with gods and all as actual history. They even wrote a fantasy sequel, the Aeneid, as the official state history. The Gospel writers added fantasy content with no shame. Think Matthew's saints raising from the grave when Jesus died. Matthew didn't even care if somebody else would confirm it (no one else records what would have been the media event of all time), and his readers did not mind. Makebelieve was O.K.

About your wondering what it means in history research to see beyond the sources. Studying just the sources would be the domain of Literature studies. Historians say that their aim is not to study the sources. It is more like police detective work, where finding "whodunnit" you just can't start by taking the wittness or suspect stories as facts.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4716
  • Darwins +107/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Question
« Reply #130 on: October 29, 2011, 11:21:34 PM »
Made up stuff, your post is nonsensical If it was that hard how do you know what the translators "made up"?

 Speaking of making stuff up,Joseph Smith did a good job of "making stuff up" and now long dead has almost 14 million followers.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 11:51:23 PM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Question
« Reply #131 on: October 29, 2011, 11:23:42 PM »
islamic websites.  jewish websites.  I dunno if hindus have websites, but I bet they do and I bet they have good reasons for doubting the bible.   

http://indianatheists.com/

The Indians fight shit on all fronts: Muslim shit, Hindu shit, Christian shit, Ayurvedic shit. They are basically assailed by shit from all directions.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #132 on: October 29, 2011, 11:29:14 PM »
Perhaps you are god. How else can I explain this magnificent life like strawman you created? Hell the damn thing can practically walk! But as impressive as your skills are you still have not answered my question directly. Moving right along.

I really don't understand why you seem to value the revisions of the Bible to the same level as updates of modern encyclopedias.

Where did you get that idea? I was asking you if you valued them the same since the process is the same. And since you haven't addressed my definition of the process in question, I must assume that you agree with the definition as evidenced by your silent acquiescence. You just keep bandying on about the substance of the revisions and the changing times and insulting the mental capacities of the religious types. Anything to avoid the question.

Quote
Sure the Bible has been edited and re-edited, especially the OT, and theology traces these revisions. But looking as the historical-critical Bible research does, it becomes apparent that these revisions were not done to give more information of the past but to support then-current religious views and political goals. That is quite the opposite of modern scientific papers, publications and encyclopedias, who collect new data and then present the most plausible scenarios what actually happened back then.

But you said That's why every generation writes their own history. That is quite all right and even honest, because when times change, the ways we look and evaluate history changes too. Which is it? How can it be honest for non-secular scholars to re-interpret what was written to more closely fit our modern times when it is dishonest for secular scholars? Why the double standard?

Quote
It is like you were comparing the Soviet "Pravda" to western journalism at its best.

Thank you for providing what looks like an excellent news source. I had never heard of them before.

Quote
The links you provided are about new translations.
Not very impressive for "re-editions" of the Bible.
Yes it is necessary to have the most accurate translation possible. But even with that it brings no more credibility to the original texts. If you got the best possible English translation of the Finnish "Kalevala", I would not call that an improved edition, nor would you take the stories as facts. I bet first you would consult even let me think..hmmm.. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala And when finding out that the poems were "updated" in the early 19:th century, that would not strenghten your trust for Kalevala as a historical source, would it?

Strawman...I wasn't asking you about the credibility of the original text. I wasn't defending the credibility of the Bible. All I am interested in is the process. Nothing more.

Quote
Then the translations of the Bible tend to project our own time to the past. Even the latest Finnish official translation does that too much, sort of streamlining the more ambivalent parts to what the translators think is the modern meaning in their everyday understanding.

But you said That's why every generation writes their own history. That is quite all right and even honest, because when times change, the ways we look and evaluate history changes too.

Quote
BTW if you complain the using and "trusting" Wikipedia, then goddammit, YOUR links are providing stuff from the Catholic Church, then some religious sect called "Tentmaker" (whose interpretation of the maybe original Isaiah 53 word "light" is ridiculously overreaching) and for crying out loud, you are linking Conservapedia! That doesn't necessarily mean that they get facts wrong, but you of all people ought not to be sneering at the use of Wikipedia.

Not sure what you call this logical fallacy. All I said was that I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. What would you have said if I had provided no sources to back up my claim that the Bible, has before and is, currently undergoing revision?

Quote
About the Bible lying isn't it self-evident even for you? You can't explain away the conflict with actual physical evidence, the dishonestly how the Gospel writers used the Torah, or all the contradictions. If you would claim to "know" that there are none, then you would lie yourself. Bible writers made stuff up.


You're barking up the wrong tree again. Please...stop changing the subject and just answer the question.

Actually, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here. Can you show me what I said that makes you think that I am a believer in the Bible? You may even go through my past comments on other threads if you can't find anything solid in this thread.

Quote
About your wondering what it means in history research to see beyond the sources. Studying just the sources would be the domain of Literature studies. Historians say that their aim is not to study the sources.

This makes even less sense than putting screen doors on submarines. You do realize that in your previous post while you were criticizing the liars who wrote the bible you argued that they lived in a time when factuality and source criticism were not important. They were more like storytellers pushing their theological views with not much concern for the facts, don't you? Now you are telling me that modern historians don't even bother to look at the sources they are rewriting? Incredible.

I refuse to acknowledge the parts of your post I left out because they have nothing to do with the conversation. Just a bunch  bloviating to reinforce your bias.
I am only going to ask one more time, if you refuse to answer the question directly then I have nothing further to say. To help keep you focused on what started all this please refer to this link

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #133 on: October 30, 2011, 01:33:25 PM »




Quote
The Bible is a book of lies, but back then almost nobody did mind. It was not they felt like they were bullshitting, the mentality to separate fact from legend just didn't exist.

Bullshit. Utter rubbish. Our brains haven't changed that much in 2000 years.


But EDUCATION Has - in spite of the theologues best efforts.
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #134 on: October 31, 2011, 07:57:08 AM »
Where did I claim that "all life rose from the dead"?When I said "rising from the dead," I was specifically referring to Jesus.
Follow your belief in evolution to its logical conclusion. Get as finite with your family tree as you can. It's ridiculous to you that Jesus rose from the dead, but you believe our most distant ancestor was a lifeless soup mix. 

What you are implying is that if a student disagrees with your claim that "the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book," then they are not a serious student.
What I'm implying is that after careful study, students will come to their own conclusion that the Bible is reliable. I'm not suggesting that serious study only includes running to sources that are designed to disprove the Bible.

My defintion is correct, for reasons that I outlined in my original post about why it is circular reasoning to use the Bible as evidence for God when you have not established the existence of God. Think of this: the Bible is supposedly God's word. When one thinks of the Bible as such, they are assuming that God exists, is omnipotent, etc. If you have to assume that God exists for the Bible to be true, you cannot assume that the Bible (and its contents) are proof of God's existence.
I will agree that you cannot solely make that assumption, but you must consider the possibility and that's where you have failed. All experiments begin with assumptions and are followed until the conclusion proves impossible. You haven't even started.

Also, there are numerous events in the Bible that do not appear to have taken place (for lack of evidence), such as Noah's Flood and his Ark and the way his family was the only group of people left to repopulate the entire planet.
Don't be afraid to investigate a claim.

In fact, there are many atheists on this board that question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (even as a mere man).
Try questioning the existence of any person who is no longer among us. That'll really blow your mind.

I have the same amount of skepticism towards Biblical miracles that I would toward ANY other extraordinary claims that I have not been shown real evidence for.
You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated without the assistance of God, but you believe it anyway. You have zero evidence that we are genetically related to apes, but you believe it anyway. Good science has rightfully taught us that what you believe is not possible.

 
It is ridiculous for you to assume that I have not been shown real evidence for my existence being the result of evolution. Perhaps you have not seen evidence for evolution, because you refuse to educate yourself. One word: FOSSILS.
Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.

Actually, SPAG is common within Christians. I don't imagine that God must think like me, because I am skeptical of God's existence. A non-existent entity cannot think because it does not exist.
And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist. You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do. What do you make of these?

"Then God said, "Take your only son, Isaac, the son you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Kill him there and offer him as a whole burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. After he cut the wood for the sacrifice, they went to the place God had told them to go. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey. My son and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you." Ge.22:2-5

"A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in the town of Bethany, where Mary and her sister Martha lived. Mary was the woman who later put perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. Mary's brother was Lazarus, the man who was now sick. So Mary and Martha sent someone to tell Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."....Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, but when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was for two more days.
Jn.11:1-3,5-6

If God does not owe me an explanation, he should not have put the desire for an explanation in my nature (if he even exists).
I meant an explanation in the form of an apology....sorry.

BTW, those last few sentences reeked of something you have been spoonfed by your church, with a little tiny hint of Pascal's Wager thrown in. Except the irony is that you are right that we are "alone," but in the sense that God is merely a projection of ourselves.
My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible. My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #135 on: October 31, 2011, 09:43:54 AM »
http://indianatheists.com/

The Indians fight shit on all fronts: Muslim shit, Hindu shit, Christian shit, Ayurvedic shit. They are basically assailed by shit from all directions.

That's because india is full of shit.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5263
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #136 on: October 31, 2011, 10:15:21 AM »
whatchamean:  You aren't being at all reasonable here.

First off, evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis.  Evolution is concerned with what happened after life got started on Earth, not how it got started.  And as far as the resurrection goes, if it were possible for human beings to come back to life after being dead for several days, we would see it occasionally.  And it isn't even remotely reasonable to claim that something happened when all we have is hearsay written down decades after the fact.

The default way humans learn is to slavishly copy the actions and attitudes of the ones teaching them, even when it doesn't make logical sense.  So of course if someone studying the Bible has a teacher who honestly believes that it is a series of factual historical documents, they will pick up that attitude; it has nothing to do with careful study and everything to do with the way the teacher acts.

And you are simply wrong that atheists such as curiousgirl have not considered the possibility of the Bible being true.  They have; that is largely why they are atheists, because they considered the possibilities, investigated the claims and evidence, and concluded that there really wasn't much of a basis for concluding that the Bible is a particularly valid historical document.  The fact that it includes some historical stuff doesn't make it a valid historical document anymore than a book about a secret 9/11 government conspiracy includes people, places, and things that actually exist makes it truthful about all the claims it makes.

As for "questioning the existence of someone who is no longer among us", what exactly is this supposed to mean?  I don't doubt that there were generations upon generations of people who have no historical records to back up their existence, but there is a difference between saying, "people in general lived even though we don't have specific records about them" and saying "this specific person did these specific things even though we have no records except for a religious holy book to verify it".

You have zero evidence that life was created by God.  The Bible does not count, because life existed long before the Bible was even a collection of verbal chants, let alone written down.  It is true that scientists don't have evidence to verify what exactly got life started on Earth, but to go from there to the conclusion that God did it is nonsensical, especially since we have no other verifiable evidence of the things Christians said God did.

And please stop with the nonsense about "transitional fossils".  Seriously, just stop.  I already explained to you in that other topic you started that there are no such things as transitional species.  Because there are no transitional species, there can be no such things as transitional fossils.  If you want to say there are, you have to show that my statement is invalid, and you have not done so.

People pray to God because they feel helpless about things, that those things are beyond their power or control.  So of course, if something happens that is beneficial afterward, they assume that some higher power intervened on their behalf.  This ignores the much more likely situation where things don't get better despite the prayer.  It isn't a matter of thinking that God should have helped someone who prayed, it's a matter that it was nothing more than chance - and not a very good one - of something beneficial happening.  Rather than relying on a poor chance of a good outcome happening while doing nothing, it is better to try to make that good outcome happen.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Question
« Reply #137 on: October 31, 2011, 10:40:46 AM »
Follow your belief in evolution to its logical conclusion. Get as finite with your family tree as you can. It's ridiculous to you that Jesus rose from the dead, but you believe our most distant ancestor was a lifeless soup mix. 

Is it more plausible that some male three-in-one god made man from the dust and woman from a rib? Take a look at this:

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

Quote
In 1952, in the Miller-Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

The underlying hypothesis held by Oparin and Haldane was that conditions on the primeval Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. A recent reanalysis of the saved vials containing the original extracts that resulted in the Miller and Urey experiments, using current and more advanced analytical equipment and technology, has uncovered more biochemicals than originally discovered in the 1950s. One of the more important findings was 23 amino acids, far more than five originally discovered.[22]

Amino acids don't need God to come down and say, "Let there be amino acids." No God is needed for them to form. They have even been developing in vials since the original Miller-Urey experiment.

Now, your turn. Any real proof that God created us?


What I'm implying is that after careful study, students will come to their own conclusion that the Bible is reliable. I'm not suggesting that serious study only includes running to sources that are designed to disprove the Bible.

So every student that studies the Bible carefully will come to the conclusion that it is reliable? Doesn't that imply, by your "logic," that they did not study it carefully if they find it unreliable? Still sounds too "No True Scotsman" for me. I think a student can certainly study the Bible carefully and conclude that it is unreliable. But not in your world, right?


I will agree that you cannot solely make that assumption, but you must consider the possibility and that's where you have failed. All experiments begin with assumptions and are followed until the conclusion proves impossible. You haven't even started.

I have no problem considering that something is possible, as long as you can back it up with proof. That is where you have failed.


You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated without the assistance of God, but you believe it anyway. You have zero evidence that we are genetically related to apes, but you believe it anyway. Good science has rightfully taught us that what you believe is not possible.

Those are either flat-out lies, or ignorance. BTW, if you don't like the Wiki link I provided above, here's another one:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Quote
At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

So science does support that amino acids came into existence without the help of God. Unless you can show me an experiment that proves that men are from dust and women are from ribs. Doubt that will happen, though. Also:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

Quote
However, with the advent of molecular techniques to compare similarities in our DNA starting in the 1960s, most experts have come to accept the fact that humans and chimps are most closely related. Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical.

I’m not sure what planet you are living on in that head of yours, but I have just shown you evidence. God did not make man in his own image. Go read the article I provided. The lineages of humans and chimps diverged so that we could become homo sapiens and they could be homo troglodytes. If you kick and scream from this point on, I will have to attribute it to willful ignorance.

 
Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.

So where are the fossils proving that Noah’s Flood happened, which I discussed in my last post? There should have been evidence of a mass extinction around the purported time of that event if it really happened. There is fossil evidence for evolution, which is obviously better than no fossil evidence for creationism.

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html
Quote
The oldest reptiles having mammal-like features, the synapsids, occur in rocks of Pennsylvanian age formed about 305 mya. However, the first mammals do not appear in the fossil record until Late Triassic time, about 210 mya. Hopson (1994) noted, "Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record.... Structural evolution of particular functional systems has been well investigated, notably the feeding mechanism... and middle ear, and these studies have demonstrated the gradual nature of these major adaptive modifications."
 

The fossil evidence above clearly shows evidence of evolution. Note at least 100 million years between the synapsids and the first mammals. Kind of kills the creationists’ 6000-year-old Earth idea.

And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist. You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do. What do you make of these?

Strawman. The whole point of the schoolteacher story is to illustrate that whether you pray or not does not matter. Shit is going to happen whether or not you pray, because prayer does not seem to work. As far as the SPAG, I explained that it is a Christian thing, so I’m not sure why you keep attributing it to me, because I don’t even think there is a God, let alone believe he would think like me.

"Then God said, "Take your only son, Isaac, the son you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Kill him there and offer him as a whole burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. After he cut the wood for the sacrifice, they went to the place God had told them to go. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey. My son and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you." Ge.22:2-5

"A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in the town of Bethany, where Mary and her sister Martha lived. Mary was the woman who later put perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. Mary's brother was Lazarus, the man who was now sick. So Mary and Martha sent someone to tell Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."....Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, but when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was for two more days.
Jn.11:1-3,5-6

Do you have any real evidence that these events occurred? Or could it be that they are just part of a story, like God?

If God does not owe me an explanation, he should not have put the desire for an explanation in my nature (if he even exists).

I meant an explanation in the form of an apology....sorry.

An apology has nothing to do with the discussion. I am talking about the possibility that IF God exists, he supposedly created me and therefore put the desire for truth in my heart. So why do Christians and the Bible tend to get things so wrong when it comes to truth?

BTW, those last few sentences reeked of something you have been spoonfed by your church, with a little tiny hint of Pascal's Wager thrown in. Except the irony is that you are right that we are "alone," but in the sense that God is merely a projection of ourselves.

My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible. My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.

Actually, being one of the most eager Bible students in my classes throughout my childhood is what finally caused me to question the Bible. I would take the word “atheists” in your last sentence and replace it with “Christians” to be more accurate.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 10:46:27 AM by curiousgirl »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Question
« Reply #138 on: October 31, 2011, 10:52:58 AM »
Quote
My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible.

We here at the Atheist Thesaurus have several words for that: sheep, lazy, obedient, ignorant, indoctrinated;' take your pick.

Quote
My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.

It's more so that you cannot comprehend the atheists' superior study and deductive reasoning skills regarding your religion and your silly god that you think this. You're not even open-minded for starters, don't even attempt to address the actual arguments made by others with actual evidence and so on.
The Second C

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #139 on: October 31, 2011, 11:25:37 AM »
Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.

Funny how you use the word "honest" when you do not do the same thing and evidently think no one will check up on your attempt at deceit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html 

You are indeed lying to us.

Quote
And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist. You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do. What do you make of these?
"Then God said, "Take your only son, Isaac, the son you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Kill him there and offer him as a whole burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. After he cut the wood for the sacrifice, they went to the place God had told them to go. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey. My son and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you." Ge.22:2-5
God is rather psychotic, for doing this to a father.

Quote
"A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in the town of Bethany, where Mary and her sister Martha lived. Mary was the woman who later put perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. Mary's brother was Lazarus, the man who was now sick. So Mary and Martha sent someone to tell Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."....Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, but when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was for two more days.
Jn.11:1-3,5-6
Jesus and God have less empathy and concern than an average human. Adn this is what you worship?
Quote
My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible. My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.
Wow, what a baseless claim.  It is a shame for Christians that this is a written medium, since the words document here show your claims are false.  I wonder, does bearing false witness against others bother you, oh Christian?   All your words do here is show that you are like so many other Christians, insisting that those who don’t agree completely with you aren’t studying “correctly” or using their reasoning skills “correctly”.  Unfortunately for you, you can’t demonstrate this.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2127
  • Darwins +252/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Question
« Reply #140 on: October 31, 2011, 04:33:41 PM »
Follow your belief in evolution to its logical conclusion. Get as finite with your family tree as you can. It's ridiculous to you that Jesus rose from the dead, but you believe our most distant ancestor was a lifeless soup mix. 

No more or less unreasonable than understanding that you yourself were once an egg and a sperm.  And that egg and sperm, before they became you, were just lifeless strains of protein that formed a certain way. 

And that is how evolution works too.  Imagine taking a picture of yourself every day of your life and stacking them end to end on a really long bookshelf. (Avid Dawkin's readers will know where I'm going with this).  If you were to take 1 picture out at random, and hold it up next to the surrounding pictures from 10 days in either direction, would there be any difference?  No.  But somehow, someway, you went from a sperm and an egg to a fully grown human being, correct?  That is how you have to think of evolution.  Any species will be just like the species it came from, but will also be like the species it gave off.  But over a really REALLY long period of time, with small changes (just like how you've changed throughout your life) you will see enough changes to consider it a different species. 

In terms of these pictures... a good analogy for what you are doing here would be asking for the specific day, hour, minute and second you went from being a young adult to an adult.  Can you do that?  The same goes for evolution. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7314
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Question
« Reply #141 on: October 31, 2011, 07:07:12 PM »
Hello fellow forumites.  The recent set of replies to watchamean made me proud to be an atheist!  Well written, well spoken replies and opinions on the fallacies and ignorance that was displayed regarding evolution, and biblical accuracy.

Damn...a smal tear just formed in my left eye.   :'(

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Question
« Reply #142 on: October 31, 2011, 07:55:29 PM »
Thank you, Jetson! And Happy Halloween!  :)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline JL

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Jin Jing ??...You are beautiful :)
Re: Question
« Reply #143 on: October 31, 2011, 10:04:28 PM »
http://indianatheists.com/

The Indians fight shit on all fronts: Muslim shit, Hindu shit, Christian shit, Ayurvedic shit. They are basically assailed by shit from all directions.

That's because india is full of shit.

Right on, digress a bit...check this out http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/filthy-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html

Have a good read and now back to topic.
"Religion is regarded by the common man as true, the wise man as false, and the rulers as useful"

Now listening to--> Linda Chung 'My Love Story Album'

For Jazz :Exotica by Paul Taylor + The Dream by David Sanborn and Latin Quarter by Marc Antoine

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2127
  • Darwins +252/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Question
« Reply #144 on: October 31, 2011, 10:10:46 PM »
I will agree that you cannot solely make that assumption, but you must consider the possibility and that's where you have failed.

I don't think you understand this at all.  Do you really, honestly think we have not considered the possibility that God is real?  Why would we not do that?  Of course we've considered that God could be real!  More than anything else, an atheist is a person who approaches the subject of religion by weighing the evidence on both sides of the argument with the same amount of vigor and skepticism.  And we do that with all religions.  The difference is that you don't do that for the Christian God, but you probably do it for all the other ones.

The question YOU have to ask yourself is... could YOU be wrong here?  Fact: There are millions of Christians.  Fact: There are millions of non-Christians.  Do you really think those millions of atheists have NEVER CONSIDERED that God might be real?  That's hysterically funny.  The opposite is true.  It is not the Christian who questions things.  It is the atheist. 

All experiments begin with assumptions and are followed until the conclusion proves impossible. You haven't even started.

If you believe this, then start with the assumption that you don't know if God is real.  And then look at the claims and the evidence for those claims on both sides.  Start with something simple... 

Claim: God loves everyone. 

Does reality show this to be true or not true?  First, you have to figure out what love we are talking about.  Most Christians would say it's like a father to a child.  Alright, well, I'm a father.  If God loved everyone even remotely in the way I love my children, then we would expect to see certain things, would we not?  While you may say God loves you, does he love the 5 year old who gets raped and killed by a stranger?  Does he love the thousands of children who die every day from starvation?  Does he love the people with cancer?   Obviously, God does not love everyone.  Now, you may say that He does, and that we just don't understand it, but the other explanation is that bad things and good things happen naturally all the time.  Which is the most reliable theory here?  The God theory that leaves a shit load of open questions?  Or the natural theory which explains everything without the intervention of an all powerful deity?  The most likely answer is obvious.   

You can do this with any God claim you want.  They all end up as a loss for you. 

You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated without the assistance of God, but you believe it anyway.

Can we not say the same about you?  You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated with God, but you believe it.  The thing is, you use this gap in current knowledge and fill it in with God as if it's the right answer by default.  It's not.  It never has been.  When we didn't understand earthquakes and people filled that gap in knowledge by saying it was God's anger, was it right?  How about disease?  When people didn't understand disease, they filled in that knowledge gap with God's wrath too.  Were they right?  No, no, no, no.  After a billion knowledge gaps have been filled by science, when is it finally OK to say, "You know what?  We may not know how this happened right now, but you can be pretty sure it wasn't a magical sky man." 

You have zero evidence that we are genetically related to apes, but you believe it anyway. Good science has rightfully taught us that what you believe is not possible.

Now THAT'S completely wrong.  In every way. 

Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.

Maybe what you need to do is really educate yourself about what the actual scientists are saying before you make statements like this.  You aren't lying because you honestly believe what you are saying, but that doesn't mean you are saying the truth.  Educate yourself.  NOT from Christian sources who have everything to gain by telling you what to think.  Get your information from sources who have everything to gain by PROVING EACH OTHER WRONG. 

And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist.

Do you really find that unreasonable?  If God is the most powerful being in the universe, capable of literally anything, and he loves us with all his heart, you would think that he might help the teacher by... oh, I don't know, making the gun jam?  Having the police break in?  Making him trip and lose the gun?  While this, in and of itself is NOT evidence enough to make a solid conclusion, it certainly does damage to the idea that God exists, doesn't it?   Where does that go awry for you?

If a school teacher prayed to Zeus when confronted by a crazed gunman, and gets shot, does that evidence lead TOWARD the notion that Zeus is real, or AWAY from it.   

You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do.

Christians say that God loves everyone.  If God loved everyone, he would have saved the teacher, right?  Sure you could make up any excuse you want as to why God didn't save the teacher... just as I could make up any excuse I want as to why Zeus didn't save the teacher.  That gets you nowhere.  The obvious fact is that if God is real, he didn't help.  And if he doesn't help in situations like that, one possible reason is that GOD ISN'T REAL.  Can you really not see this? 

My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible.

True that. 

My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.

No, whatchamean.  It is that very study and deductive reasoning that leads to atheism.  You see, when people convert from one religion to Christianity, or from atheism to Christianity, how does it usually happen?  Ask yourself that.  Is it an in depth use of study and deductive reasoning skills that makes someone say, "Huh, yeah I guess people really can live inside of a fish for 3 days"?  Or is it some sort of life altering emotionally charged experience they have?  It's the latter.  Now ask yourself the opposite.  What are the main causes of someone leaving Christianity? Is it an emotionally charged event?  A near death experience?  No; it is study, logic and reasoning. 

Let me ask you this.   If you were to go about debunking the Islamic faith, how would you go about it?  When you read the Quran and see that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, what goes through your mind?  What do you tell yourself?  Do you say... "Well, that could happen", or do you reject it?  Eventually, you do reject it, but why?  When you've answered these questions, please apply that same reasoning to the bible when it says that Jesus died and rose from the dead 3 days later.  It is the SAME reasoning that brings you there.  If you read those words in ANY other book, you would reject them outright as false.  That is a FACT.  It is YOUR reasoning that is faulty when it comes to Christianity.  You give a free pass to Jesus walking on water, rising from the dead, etc, but you do NOT accept that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.  Those are equally ludicrous claims, but you do not treat them equally.  We do.  And we do because we apply reason and logic the SAME WAY to all religions. 

I, personally, have read more books in the past 3 years about the bible than about ANY other subject.  I will admit that the vast majority have been written by atheists and agnostics, but I have read a few by Christians.  I've read 2 apologetics books, and more recently a book by Ravi Zacharias that wasted a significant amount of my time that I will never get back.  I've also read the bible, and I have read many books about the history of how the bible came to be.   Please do not try to say that we don't know about the bible.  We do.  More than the Christians who happily sit in church on Sunday while the preacher fills their heads with shit that they have to swallow unquestioningly.  They are sheep.  And I feel sorry for them.  And for you. 

Edit: word substituted
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 10:19:21 PM by JeffPT »
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT