 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
06woman
Posts:356
 | | 07/12/2007 4:44 PM |
 Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 07/12/2007 1:56 PM
cvanglider,
tiro,
Don't preach. Non-theists have little, if not no, interest in that method of trying to get a point across. As soon as I read "God wrapped himself in flesh..." I immediately skimmed the rest of your post to see if there was anything worth reading in full. Nope, nothing.
LOL, me too! I saw not one shred of anything. Also, in defense of what I said, I said "fanatical Christians" and I used the word "many" which does not imply the meaning of "all". I truly believe that the majority are closed minded to any new evidence of what Jesus's life was really like because they do not want to lose the sensational image they have right now. It would crush their world and life would be meaningless. To me, that's a sad existence to depend on that alone for the meaning of your life. | |
"Happiness is a journey...not a destination."
"The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." -
Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
This is my son and a Lake Erie sunset. July 8,2007
Senior Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: May 2006 | |
|
| | Trogdor!
Posts:294
| | 07/12/2007 4:46 PM |
Alert | "Somebody still hasn't disprove the bible."
"Ah, thank you EEE, for reiterating the original idea that the Bible has yet to be disproven."
Can anyone disprove the tea pot? | |
 | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 07/12/2007 4:52 PM |
Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 07/12/2007 4:46 PM
"Somebody still hasn't disprove the bible."
"Ah, thank you EEE, for reiterating the original idea that the Bible has yet to be disproven."
Can anyone disprove the tea pot?
If I could or could not disprove the tea pot, what does that have to do with proving the Bible.
If you want to disprove the Bible, start with evidence.
Disproving something else doesn't disprove the Bible. What science class taught you that? Richard Dawkin's illogical reasonings are making people dumber even though they like to be called the "rational thinkers". | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | 06woman
Posts:356
| | 07/12/2007 4:53 PM |
Alert | Posted By Jason on 07/12/2007 3:51 PM Posted By Trogdor! on 07/12/2007 3:21 PM
Jason,
This seems to be the basis of your arguments: If science can't explain it, then it must be "God".
Why is it insisted that "God" is the default explanation to the currently unexplainable? I see the problem here. You're mixing what I believe with the arguments I'm trying to make. My arguments are that one cannot argue that it is ridiculous to believe in a God and that atheists have faith because they cannot explain how we got here. In essence, without proof that there is no God, it would be ridiculous to dismiss one. I can't explain how we came to be. We may know someday, or we may never know, but that doesn't mean that until we do know, the explanation must be "God". Why can't you simply not know, instead of using the cop-out of "God"? I did not say it "must" be God, nor would I try to push that on someone. Personally I came to believe what I believe over a long period. It took much convincing. I'm usually a "see it to believe it" type person. But your question of why can't we just "not know"? Isn't that obvious? Humans are very curious. If we just left it as "not know" we would still be in the dark ages, wouldn't we? Trogdor, why do you keep going to the extremes? You're saying one must either completely disbelieve or that person is saying there "must" be a God. The sentences I used don't say that at all.
Yes, I'm going back a little bit but because of the downtime of this site I've been unable to keep up.
Anyway, how do you know that George Lucas was not inspired by God and that the Star Wars stories aren't really the word of God for the modern age? You are so quick to believe a book that's so old yet, I bet if someone wrote something now and said that "God spoke" to him/her, the Christian community would have all their panties in a bunch! That's putting it mildly because then the Vatican will have an "official" ruling on it and if the Pope doesn't "feel" that it is divine, then they would deem it to be pure bunk.
Also, why did God send Jesus here 2000 years ago, but we as a society could use him more than ever right now, so where is he now?
| |
"Happiness is a journey...not a destination."
"The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." -
Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
This is my son and a Lake Erie sunset. July 8,2007
Senior Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: May 2006 | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 07/12/2007 4:55 PM |
Alert | Posted By 06woman on 07/12/2007 4:53 PM
Anyway, how do you know that George Lucas was not inspired by God and that the Star Wars stories aren't really the word of God for the modern age? You are so quick to believe a book that's so old yet, I bet if someone wrote something now and said that "God spoke" to him/her, the Christian community would have all their panties in a bunch! That's putting it mildly because then the Vatican will have an "official" ruling on it and if the Pope doesn't "feel" that it is divine, then they would deem it to be pure bunk.
Also, why did God send Jesus here 2000 years ago, but we as a society could use him more than ever right now, so where is he now?
Ok, and this disproves the bible how? | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | Trogdor!
Posts:294
| | 07/12/2007 4:59 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 07/12/2007 4:52 PM
If I could or could not disprove the tea pot, what does that have to do with proving the Bible.
If you want to disprove the Bible, start with evidence.
Disproving something else doesn't disprove the Bible. What science class taught you that? Richard Dawkin's illogical reasonings are making people dumber even though they like to be called the "rational thinkers".
Are you incapable of drawing parallels? You cannot prove/disprove the tea pot, bible, or god... that's the point. However, somehow reverence is made for the bible and god. How about my tea pot? If not the tea pot, how about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The FSM even has a gospel to back it. | |
| |
|
|  | 06woman
Posts:356
| | 07/12/2007 5:08 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 07/12/2007 4:55 PM Posted By 06woman on 07/12/2007 4:53 PM
Anyway, how do you know that George Lucas was not inspired by God and that the Star Wars stories aren't really the word of God for the modern age? You are so quick to believe a book that's so old yet, I bet if someone wrote something now and said that "God spoke" to him/her, the Christian community would have all their panties in a bunch! That's putting it mildly because then the Vatican will have an "official" ruling on it and if the Pope doesn't "feel" that it is divine, then they would deem it to be pure bunk.
Also, why did God send Jesus here 2000 years ago, but we as a society could use him more than ever right now, so where is he now?
Ok, and this disproves the bible how?
I did not say it disproves the Bible. Have you ever taken Geometry? I never really understood how to do a proof and it's never really mattered in my life. However, the premise is that you use theorems and postulates to prove the statement. Here I am merely pointing out some arguments against the Bible being fact. Sure Jesus was a real person and that's history. What I think that Trogdor means by "historical fiction" is that the stories have some fact basis, but like the loaves and the fishes story or the wedding feast of Canaan, they are great stories, but it could just be fictional; entertainment at best. When the church was formed it was a government. It still controls a lot of government to this day. Do you not think that the book may have been written to serve this agenda? To gain control of the people by seducing them with stories of a divine being and fear of God if they don't follow the rules?
| |
"Happiness is a journey...not a destination."
"The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." -
Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
This is my son and a Lake Erie sunset. July 8,2007
Senior Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: May 2006 | |
|
| | J9Design
Posts:271
| | 07/12/2007 5:18 PM |
Alert |
The Bible tells us where Jesus is. Have you read the book? I mean, really read it? If it is like any other book, as some say, why discriminate against the Bible then?
I hear smatterings of Catholic references in your post, but this does not make up every Christian profile. Because the Vatican says something, doesn't mean all Christians agree.
I hear much anger and frustration in your post, were you a former Catholic?
I am also curious as to why these questions come about regarding christian faith being bunk, but not other faiths??? Why slam Christians and not just religion as a whole? i hear the knocking of unresolved issues at the door. | |
Formerly known as *werunohu* !!
werunohu
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: July 2005 | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 07/12/2007 5:19 PM |
Alert | Are you incapable of drawing parallels? You cannot prove/disprove the tea pot, bible, or god... that's the point. However, somehow reverence is made for the bible and god. How about my tea pot? If not the tea pot, how about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The FSM even has a gospel to back it.
Ok, what Science class did you take that teaches you that anything is a parallel of anything?
The Bible's accuracy has no parallel to a tea cup orbiting earth.
The Gospel of the FSM has one writer, which makes it impossible to believe in the FSM, since he is the only person to believe it. The Bible has 40 different writers that are in harmony and without contradictions over a long span of time in diverse locations.
Even if men tried to write the bible to deceive people, they could not come up with what's in the bible today. We would find errors and contradictions. That is why we know the Book of Mormon and the Quran and other writings were not inspired by God, because the evidence of contradictions is visible within the writings.
Here is a parallel for you on Man's mistakes: I like watching Forensic Files. It's amazing how people try to commit the perfect murder, but always leave traces of mistakes behind because they are human. If man wrote the bible without the inspiration of God, we would find mistakes, especially how complicated the assembly of the bible is.
| |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | 06woman
Posts:356
| | 07/12/2007 5:33 PM |
Alert | No, J9, I'm not angry and frustrated. Yes, I am a former Catholic. The Catholic church was the first church and is the most powerful. I've been to all different Christian churches. I'm not very well versed in other religions and I start in on Christianity and the bible because that's what most familiar and there are far more Christians here and available to debate with than Buddhists and Taoists, correct? I want to know what makes Christianity right and Buddhism wrong?
Because I can not disprove the bible, does not necessarily mean that it must be all true. I'm questioning the validity. In every instance so far, no one here has really told me a good answer to any of my questions.
Oh, but there are mistakes in the Bible! It fails to point out that Moses was just schizophrenic and he was talking to what he thought was a burning bush that was talking back to him, however, he was hallucinating and hearing voices in his head! LOL! Could be, right? We would never really know because we weren't there! The stories of miracles, manna in the desert, parting the Red Sea, are sensationalism at its best. It's like propaganda, but from ancient times. | |
"Happiness is a journey...not a destination."
"The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." -
Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
This is my son and a Lake Erie sunset. July 8,2007
Senior Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: May 2006 | |
|
| | J9Design
Posts:271
| | 07/12/2007 6:01 PM |
Alert | Thus the term faith. Those stories all also have a scientific correlation. During the Middle Ages, if someone were try and explain quantum physics to the people of the time, they would not only not understand, but disbelieve it. Because no one of that time period could validate it, doesn't make it untrue.
Like I said, my faith is firm (even though I am a former Catholic myself) and I am fascinated with the scientific correlations to stories in the Bible. I still believe it to be true, and believe much is still beyond my grasp. Just as the prophecies of Daniel, ezekiel etc which were explained in a descriptive sense of the times but still beyond their comprehension. | |
Formerly known as *werunohu* !!
werunohu
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: July 2005 | |
|
| | Trogdor!
Posts:294
| | 07/12/2007 6:53 PM |
Alert | "Ok, what Science class did you take that teaches you that anything is a parallel of anything?"
Ever take a standardized test?
1) Fruit is to orange as _____ is to lettuce.
a. car
b. God
c. vegetable
d. Jesus
"The Bible's accuracy has no parallel to a tea cup orbiting earth. "
God exists because we cannot prove otherwise. The bible is completely accurate because we cannot prove otherwise. The orbiting tea pot exists because we cannot prove otherwise. Do you see my point?
Here's an inaccuracy for you: Jesus rose from the dead.
Another: Jesus was a virgin birth.
Can you prove either of these to be true? No? How about false? No?
Teapot! | |
| |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 07/12/2007 7:06 PM |
Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 07/12/2007 4:42 PM
"You're mixing what I believe with the arguments I'm trying to make."
- So you don't believe in your own arguments?
No, that's not what I said. I'm saying let's set aside my personal beliefs for a second and just consider the arguments I made. They were:
- It is irrational to say that there can't be a God.
- Atheists have faith because they can't prove there is no God. They have faith that there is no one they are responsible to. They have this faith because they have no explanation for how human life came to be.
Now what I was saying in that quote is that these two statements, by themselves make no statement to suggest that because you can't disprove God, there must be one.
- No, using "God" to explain things that we don't know would leave us in the dark ages. If I admitted not knowing, then I would be free to strive to gain that knowledge. If the reason is "God", then why investigate further.
You missed my point again. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can believe God created the universe, etc. and still wish to understand the details. However, my statement you quoted was in reference to the statement that it is enough to appreciate the world we're in without trying to explain it. That would result in the very thing you're cautioning against in your quote here.
"Trogdor, why do you keep going to the extremes? You're saying one must either completely disbelieve or that person is saying there "must" be a God."
- Sometimes I go to the extremes because sometimes it is necessary in order to try pointing out the ludicrousness of belief in "God". A person can completely disbelieve in "God", but I find it preposterous for anyone to say that there must be a god.
You must understand that when someone says there "must" be a God it is from their point of view. Everything they have experienced in their life. For them, there must be a God. IMHO, because you can't have something from nothing, there must be a God. You might not agree with me because you wish to hold out for an explanation of something from nothing, but that doesn't mean my belief is any more preposterous than yours. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 07/12/2007 7:09 PM |
Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 07/12/2007 4:46 PM
"Somebody still hasn't disprove the bible."
"Ah, thank you EEE, for reiterating the original idea that the Bible has yet to be disproven."
Can anyone disprove the tea pot?
Here is what started the thread:
"It's all bunk! Let's argue!"
In order to make such a claim (and not be an idiot), one would need some sort of proof, because proof already exists that some of it is true. Do you have any proof that there is a teapot out there? But there is proof that some of the Bible's events did happen. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 07/12/2007 7:11 PM |
Alert | Posted By 06woman on 07/12/2007 4:53 PM
Anyway, how do you know that George Lucas was not inspired by God and that the Star Wars stories aren't really the word of God for the modern age?
George Lucas isn't even claiming that.
Also, why did God send Jesus here 2000 years ago, but we as a society could use him more than ever right now, so where is he now?
I don't know, but I do know that generations prior to us have asked the same thing, thinking that things were so bad that they needed God physically there to make an improvement. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 07/12/2007 7:13 PM |
Alert |
Here's an inaccuracy for you: Jesus rose from the dead.
Another: Jesus was a virgin birth.
Can you prove either of these to be true? No? How about false? No?
Teapot!
You are drawing a parallel between to two things because they are both true or both false. It doesn't work that way.
smh, When I have kids I'm going to home school them now. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | J9Design
Posts:271
| | 07/12/2007 8:18 PM |
Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 07/12/2007 4:42 PM
Jason,
"So it would be wrong to say the Bible as a whole is fiction and it isn't even comparable to Star Wars."
- I wouldn't say that the bible as a whole is fiction... it's historical fiction. The Star Wars reference was merely in jest, but you're right the the two are comparable...Star Wars is a much better read and the Force more believable than that "God" character.
"You're mixing what I believe with the arguments I'm trying to make."
- So you don't believe in your own arguments?
"If we just left it as "not know" we would still be in the dark ages, wouldn't we? "
- No, using "God" to explain things that we don't know would leave us in the dark ages. If I admitted not knowing, then I would be free to strive to gain that knowledge. If the reason is "God", then why investigate further.
"Trogdor, why do you keep going to the extremes? You're saying one must either completely disbelieve or that person is saying there "must" be a God."
- Sometimes I go to the extremes because sometimes it is necessary in order to try pointing out the ludicrousness of belief in "God". A person can completely disbelieve in "God", but I find it preposterous for anyone to say that there must be a god.
J9,
I don't believe that science and religion can't coexist. I can imagine a religious scientist that finds beauty in the natural world and uses science to get closer to "God", but you can't use religion to gain a greater understanding in science. It's not really a deliberate separation, it's just not..... backwards compatible.
Who says you can't use religion to gain a greater understanding of science??? You?? Who deemd your wisdom to be true on that? I for one have a greater understanding of the complexities of science based on my understanding of the Bible.
It's not just beauty there, that people use from science to gain understanding of God, but physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc.
| |
Formerly known as *werunohu* !!
werunohu
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: July 2005 | |
|
| | TortosaGuy
Posts:676
| | 07/12/2007 9:16 PM |
Alert | | just my opinion on this topic.....but in the past...people created gods or a god for things that were unexplainable to them....science has been able to give us answers to many things...and some of those silly gods or icons or beings have gone the way of the dodo....however...there are still things we dont understand fully....and organized religion specifically....has instilled a fear in society that if you dont do certain things or act a certain way that GOD will get you somehow....but he loves you...(kinda reminds me of a george carlin bit)....anyhow...today i think religion prays on peoples faith and makes a monetary fortune off of the public...and i personally think churchs should be taxed until their clergy start riding up in horse drawn carraiges instead of their fancy cars | |
*formerly known as inyrfce2*
Senior Member
Posts: 797
Joined: Dec 2006 | |
|
| | C-Dub
Posts:46
| | 07/12/2007 11:44 PM |
Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 07/11/2007 10:51 PM C-Dub, I don't think "faith in atheism" is really the correct way to think about it. It's more about an absence of faith rather than faith to the contrary.
Trogdor, The problem is that to be a TRUE Atheist you need to be making a statement "There is no God". In order for you to make that statement you need to have empirical proof that there is no God. Since you do not have all the empirical data necessary to make such a statement you must believe certain things regardless of the data. In a rather simple definition, that is what "faith" is. Now if you are running down the path of Agnosticism, that would be more along the lines of what you stated above. And 06woman...You make statements about Moses being Schizophrenic, accusations about conspiriacies to keep certain books out of the Bible. Then you say, "It could be true..." Sounds like you have faith.  | | | |
|
| | C-Dub
Posts:46
| | 07/13/2007 12:00 AM |
Alert | When the church was formed it was a government. It still controls a lot of government to this day. Do you not think that the book may have been written to serve this agenda? To gain control of the people by seducing them with stories of a divine being and fear of God if they don't follow the rules?
Umm, you haven't read the Bible very carefully if you feel that the Church was formed as a Governmentand that the Bible was written to serve that agenda.
If you read the Gospels, you'll find that Jesus was not interested in setting up His kingdom here on Earth when He came the first time. Everytime they wanted Him to be King, He took off. Even Pilate wanted to make Him out to be a King and Jesus shrugged that off as well.
John the apostle sums up the reason why "the book was written". It wasn't for some government agenda.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know you have eternal life." - 1 John Chapter 5.
"These things I have written to you that your joy may e full."
Doesn't sound like "We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility...."
| | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|