Why you belive there is no God
Posted on: Thu, 2007-03-29 19:24
Offline
Why you belive there is no God
Hi, i would like to know in a short manner why you belive there is no God. thanks
User login
Navigation
RRS Websites
This site is part of the Rational Response Squad network of sites. Your username/password will work at these sites:
Other sites...
Offline Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 35 guests online.
Online users
- Brian37
[quote=logos]So, men are the head of the household?[/quote]
I didn't say that, the Bible did.
Also, it says "he will rule over thee."
Sounds pretty harsh.
[quote]That doesn't mean men and women are created unequal.[/quote]
Oh really? See [url=http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html]here[/url].
[quote]Men have a responsibility to support their families and love and care for their wives. That what is means by "rule." Man's role is to lead his family through being a servant.[/quote]
The verses doesn't say to be a servant.
[quote]Ever heard of Proverbs 31: 10-31?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]10An excellent wife, who can find?[/quote]
LOL! That verse sounds like it's saying that it's hard to find an excellent wife.
[quote]For her worth is far above jewels.
11The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.
12She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.
13She looks for wool and flax
And works with her hands in delight.
14She is like merchant ships;
She brings her food from afar.
15She rises also while it is still night
And gives food to her household
And portions to her maidens.
16She considers a field and buys it;
From her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong.
18She senses that her gain is good;
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hands grasp the spindle.
20She extends her hand to the poor,
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.
21She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22She makes coverings for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and (W)purple.
23Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.
24She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies belts to the tradesmen.
25Strength and dignity are her clothing,
And she smiles at the future.
26She opens her mouth in wisdom,
And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27She looks well to the ways of her household,
And does not eat the bread of idleness.
28Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:
29"Many daughters have done nobly,
But you excel them all."
30Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.
31Give her the product of her hands,
And let her works praise her in the gates.[/quote]
V.S. [b]1 Corinthians 14:34- [/b] [i]Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.[/i]
And she seems to be doing most of the work in all those verses you listed.
i dont see any evidence of a magical being, and all of the religious books dont make any sense
[quote=the ozonized]
Why do I belive in God, because it makes more sense than beliving in nothing.[/quote]Oh, I don't believe in nothing. I just don't believe that which there is no verifiable, scientific evidence for.
[quote=the ozonized]and do you have any proof that he doesnt exist?[/quote]Do you have any proof that there are no invisible, undetectable unicorns living on the moon?
[quote=the ozonized]and dont say evolution.[/quote]Why not?
[quote=the ozonized]Evolution is nonsensical[/quote]If you believe what the creationists say evolution is.
Go read something about natural selection. Natural selection is a very simple concept that fully explains why changes go in the directions they do.
[quote=the ozonized]If it was true why is it so hard to find missing links[/quote]It isn't.
[quote=the ozonized]Please correct me if im wrong, but It works on the idea that it takes hundereds of years to have one species turn into another[/quote]Depends on a very large range of circumstances, including, but not limited to, what natural selection pressures there are.
Usually it takes millions of years, not hundreds.
[quote=the ozonized]so why is it so hard to find little rats slowly but surely getting wings so that they become bats. Or apes slowly starting to have shorter tails and stand up straight to be humans.[/quote]Because the natural selection pressures aren't there to force the changes to go that way
[quote=the ozonized]So what loss do I have IF there is no God?[/quote]Would you like a list?
for starters, there's time,. there's understanding, there's anything you might spend on religion...
[quote=Egann]If that is the definition of "science" that you hold, there are and have never been any true "scientists."[/quote]What do you base this claim on?
[quote=Egann]The scientific method asserts that we need a hypothesis, then we test the hypothesis. A computer might be able to do this, but humans cannot.[/quote]Why not?
[quote=Egann]All people have presuppositions[/quote]I'd like you to give a scientific study that demonstrates this.
[quote=Egann]that determine how they interpret the world around them.[/quote]Actually, scientists tend to rely on evidence to determine how they interpret the world around them.
[quote=Egann]These cannot be questioned, regardless.[/quote]Bullshit. Yes they can.
[quote=Egann]Presuppositions can blind people to some things[/quote]Yes they can. Have you looked in a mirror?
[quote=Egann]over-magnify others, and even can fabricate proof via rationalization.[/quote]that doesn't make sense.
Making unfounded presuppositions is not rational.
I wouldn't call anybody who tries to fabricate proof rational.
[quote=Egann]So, everyone has these, theist and atheist alike.[/quote]Theists would like to think so, in order to try and put themselves on the same level as atheists.
But if you really do think this, you are being intellectually dishonest. It may be hard for you to accept, but there really are people who do not make unfounded presuppositions. I'm sorry if you don't like that fact.
[quote=Egann]The theist, for instance, assumes God exists and studies the universe accordingly.[/quote]Most do.
Some honestly believe they have come to the conclusion that god exists through scientific evidence. But there isn't really any scientific evidence for god.
[quote=Egann]So is it fundamentally different for the atheist to say "There is no God." and study the universe accordingly? No.[/quote]Yes, since there is no evidence for any god's existence.
Add the fact that they don't have to make rationalisations if the evidence does not fit their religious belief (because they don't have one)
But still, you are completely ignoring the third option; that is [i]lack of[/i] god belief without making the assumption either way.
[quote]The only thing that changes is the obviousness of the presupposition[/quote]See above.
[quote=Egann]because the atheistic presuppositions[/quote]What atheist presuppositions?
[quote=Egann]are more consistant with mundane life (never mind whether or not it is internally consistant.)[/quote]You don't know exactly what the word 'atheist' means, do you?
[quote=Egann]So is it "less scientific" to have presuppositions? No. More closed minded, but not scientifically wrong.[/quote]It is if your presuppositions completely contradict scientific evidence. Such as ID.
[quote=Egann]The scientific method is a method for testing hypotheses (pl.) Where these hypotheses came from and [b]how the experiments are interpreted[/b] is irrelevent to whether or not the experiment was scientific.[/quote]Bullshit, how the experiments are interpreted has everything to do with whether or not they are scientific.
For example, one could interpret the experiment as actions of god. That's completely unscientific.
[quote=Egann]So you might as well ignore a person's presuppositions and just look at the science, regardless as to whether or not your own presuppositions will allow proper interpretation. Otherwise, one is left to having to beg the question about what science is.[/quote]How about, instead of ignoring the presuppositions, you use the scientific method on them to test whether they're valid?
And your conclusion is non-sequitar.
[quote=Egann]PS If scientific method does not correspond with science[/quote]They're the same thing.
[quote=Egann]science is arbitrarily defined.[/quote]All words are arbitrarily defined. That doesn't make the meanings attached to these words invalid.
[quote=twag][quote]Evoulution. If evolution has missing links I'll bring up your book of irrogance that says we have to suns and the world compelety flooded.[/quote]
[quote]I'm not familiar with the two suns; enlighten me. Why is a universal flood so ignorant?[/quote]
oh yeah, has any christian ever taken into account that the world has something we call precipetation(SpellCheck)? Water must evaporate to have rain, considering around 70% of the world is water, and 30% is land, where did the other 30% of water needed to cover the earth come from? and where did it go? if it evaporated, it would rain again. if the so called flood happened, the earth would be doomed forever, than you evaporation, than you precepitation. you dissproved a flood.
[/quote]
Actually, many scientists today believe that billions of years ago the Earth was covered almost completely by water. Only a few spots of land (extremely high peaks) were visible, and everything else was pretty much covered. Later on down the line (a few million years) the Earth was hit by a Mars shaped object (referred to as "Orpheus" by some) which consequently melted the crust, sending huge amounts of debris and water vapor into the area around the earth. As the earth cooled, the water vapor within our Roche Radius fell back inward and created much of the water we see now on earth. The resulting debris just outside the radius, according to scientists and astronomers, collected to form the moon.
Of course this is all a theory, it's neither true nor false since we don't honestly know what happened a few billion years ago, but it does show that the ability for Earth to be covered in water is there in theory if nothing else.
Now believe me, I'm not trying to disprove anything that you're saying, neither am I trying to prove anything. I'm just stating some info that I found interesting on the topic of giant spherical objects covered in water.
Furthermore, the idea of two suns isn't that far off. In 1054 there was a Type II supernova (which later formed the Crab Nebula) visible in the daytime sky for over 23 days, and at night for another 650. Considering the time period, it's also interesting to think that perhaps this visible ball of light in the daytime sky could be confused with another sun (the Chinese called it a "guest star") and, given the time period (shortly before the middle ages and the rule of the Catholic Church) it wouldn't be a far stretch to think that perhaps a few thought the occurrence to be religious?
Oh well, I'm not proving or disproving anything, just sharing a few things that made me go "Hmm, wow..." when I first heard them. Both sides have good arguments, but I'm not going to side with either of them.
[quote]I didn't say that, the Bible did.
Also, it says "he will rule over thee."
Sounds pretty harsh.[/quote]
What I meant was: So, men are the head of the household? (who cares/big deal)
Rule over thee means lead. The role of man is explained throughout the entire Bible.
[quote]Oh really? See here.[/quote]
Talk about biased sources. Technically, according to your standards, I am not required to respond to this link because it is "biased." However, I choose to respond.
This women is simply scrolling through the Bible finding anything bad that happens to a woman and claiming it as proof of unequal Creation. One word: Pathetic. In all likelihood, she has not read these verses in full context and probably does not even understand what they mean.
Well, this may come as a suprise, but bad things happen to men in the Bible as well. And yet you don't see us running around claiming men's rights and that God hates men. What, you say, men disgraced in the Bible? UNTHINKALBLE!
Examples:
Samson, a judge who was set apart for God's service, had his eyes gouged out and was displayed as a mockery before a hord of Philistines and was used as a mule driving a grinding mill. Guess God hates men, huh?
Barak, a leader in the Israelite army was afraid to go and fight Sisera's troops unless Deborah, the LEADER of Israel, goes with him. And thus Barak's glory in victory is taken from him. Guess God hates men, huh?
When Sisera escapes from the battle and flees across the plains, he comes to the tent of a woman and takes refuge inside it. Jael, the owner of the tent, drives a spike through his temple into the ground while he sleeps. And thus, the Lord disgraces Sisera and handed over the highest General of the Canaanite armies into the hands of a woman. Guess God hates men, huh?
Something I would like to bring special attention to: childbirth. This argument is used often. Although, yes, childbirth is painful and indeed the pains are a punishment from God placed on women, is childbirth not also a blessing? I find it hard to comprehend why some women choose to complain. Childbirth creates a special bond between mother and child, something men can never have. Men could say that they were created unequally because they will never have this bond.
Also in the Bible, the men protected their families by fighting in battles. One thing I would ask the author of this selection is would she rather fight in a war surrounded by dead and wounded comrades as well as the uncertainty of whether or not she would come out of battle alive. Neither seems enticing, but at least childbirth has experiential benefits that come from the suffering.
Bottom line: she should stop complaining. Bad things happen to everyone. Deal with it.
[quote]The verses doesn't say to be a servant.[/quote]
The Bible implies that a man's relationship with his wife is to be as God's relationship with the Church. He is to show unconditional love towards her. And therefore be a servant to her.
[quote]LOL! That verse sounds like it's saying that it's hard to find an excellent wife. ... And she seems to be doing most of the work in all those verses you listed.[/quote]
These verses are praising the work that women do. It is acknowledging that women are important and that "her worth is far above jewels."
[quote=DoaOzz][quote=twag][quote]Evoulution. If evolution has missing links I'll bring up your book of irrogance that says we have to suns and the world compelety flooded.[/quote]
[quote]I'm not familiar with the two suns; enlighten me. Why is a universal flood so ignorant?[/quote]
oh yeah, has any christian ever taken into account that the world has something we call precipetation(SpellCheck)? Water must evaporate to have rain, considering around 70% of the world is water, and 30% is land, where did the other 30% of water needed to cover the earth come from? and where did it go? if it evaporated, it would rain again. if the so called flood happened, the earth would be doomed forever, than you evaporation, than you precepitation. you dissproved a flood.
[/quote]
Actually, many scientists today believe that billions of years ago the Earth was covered almost completely by water. Only a few spots of land (extremely high peaks) were visible, and everything else was pretty much covered. Later on down the line (a few million years) the Earth was hit by a Mars shaped object (referred to as "Orpheus" by some) which consequently melted the crust, sending huge amounts of debris and water vapor into the area around the earth. As the earth cooled, the water vapor within our Roche Radius fell back inward and created much of the water we see now on earth. The resulting debris just outside the radius, according to scientists and astronomers, collected to form the moon.
Of course this is all a theory, it's neither true nor false since we don't honestly know what happened a few billion years ago, but it does show that the ability for Earth to be covered in water is there in theory if nothing else.
Now believe me, I'm not trying to disprove anything that you're saying, neither am I trying to prove anything. I'm just stating some info that I found interesting on the topic of giant spherical objects covered in water.
Furthermore, the idea of two suns isn't that far off. In 1054 there was a Type II supernova (which later formed the Crab Nebula) visible in the daytime sky for over 23 days, and at night for another 650. Considering the time period, it's also interesting to think that perhaps this visible ball of light in the daytime sky could be confused with another sun (the Chinese called it a "guest star") and, given the time period (shortly before the middle ages and the rule of the Catholic Church) it wouldn't be a far stretch to think that perhaps a few thought the occurrence to be religious?
Oh well, I'm not proving or disproving anything, just sharing a few things that made me go "Hmm, wow..." when I first heard them. Both sides have good arguments, but I'm not going to side with either of them.
[/quote]
It could be true about the theory you stated, yet the "flood" happened in 2000 B.C. long before anyone heard of jesus, long before anyone thought the bible would be written. it still seems to me, impossible to repopulate a world in 6,000 years, and for the world to evaporate that much water.
i don't know anything about the two suns, i have honestly never heard of that before.
[quote=logos]Talk about biased sources.[/quote]
What's biased? That's the list. Are you going to refute it or not?
[quote]Technically, according to your standards, I am not required to respond to this link because it is "biased."[/quote]
I had to lower my standards for the stupid fundy christians.
[quote]However, I choose to respond.[/quote]
Ok.
[quote]This women is simply scrolling through the Bible finding anything bad that happens to a woman and claiming it as proof of unequal Creation. One word: Pathetic.[/quote]
What's pathetic? That's what the damn Bible says. If you actually read the damn Bible, you'll see that the men get married with more than one woman.
When a woman does it, she's a "whore".
[quote]In all likelihood, she has not read these verses in full context and probably does not even understand what they mean.[/quote]
Have you even read her book?
[quote]Well, this may come as a suprise, but bad things happen to men in the Bible as well. And yet you don't see us running around claiming men's rights and that God hates men. What, you say, men disgraced in the Bible? UNTHINKALBLE![/quote]
And it's not obvious for the millions of women who complain that the Bible is sexist.
[quote]Samson, a judge who was set apart for God's service, had his eyes gouged out and was displayed as a mockery before a hord of Philistines and was used as a mule driving a grinding mill. Guess God hates men, huh?[/quote]
I had a feeling that someone would bring up a violent story from the Bible. LOL!
[quote]Barak, a leader in the Israelite army was afraid to go and fight Sisera's troops unless Deborah, the LEADER of Israel, goes with him. And thus Barak's glory in victory is taken from him. Guess God hates men, huh?[/quote]
This would have a lot of meaning it the story actually happened.
[quote]When Sisera escapes from the battle and flees across the plains, he comes to the tent of a woman and takes refuge inside it. Jael, the owner of the tent, drives a spike through his temple into the ground while he sleeps. And thus, the Lord disgraces Sisera and handed over the highest General of the Canaanite armies into the hands of a woman. Guess God hates men, huh?[/quote]
I think it's interesting that you're using the violent stories from the Bible to show that 'God hates men'. Good job, genius.
I guess women have to kill to please god.
[quote]Something I would like to bring special attention to: childbirth. This argument is used often. Although, yes, childbirth is painful and indeed the pains are a punishment from God placed on women, is childbirth not also a blessing? I find it hard to comprehend why some women choose to complain. Childbirth creates a special bond between mother and child, something men can never have. Men could say that they were created unequally because they will never have this bond.[/quote]
And in childbirth something like 30,000 women lose their lives every year.
Oops!
[quote]Also in the Bible, the men protected their families by fighting in battles. One thing I would ask the author of this selection is would she rather fight in a war surrounded by dead and wounded comrades as well as the uncertainty of whether or not she would come out of battle alive. Neither seems enticing, but at least childbirth has experiential benefits that come from the suffering.[/quote]
Are you saying that women should through childbirth instead of going to war?
Yeesh.
There are a lot of women that want to go war and prove their courage, not to men, but to themselves.
Also, not all women want to have kids.
[quote]Bottom line: she should stop complaining. Bad things happen to everyone. Deal with it.[/quote]
I guess when a man pulls out his Bible and says "so and so says you should do this" she should just stop complaining and do so?
[quote]The Bible implies that a man's relationship with his wife is to be as God's relationship with the Church. He is to show unconditional love towards her. And therefore be a servant to her.[/quote]
It [i]implies[/i], huh?
Anyway, back to the [url=http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html]list[/url]. It remains.
[quote=twag][quote=DoaOzz][quote=twag][quote]Evoulution. If evolution has missing links I'll bring up your book of irrogance that says we have to suns and the world compelety flooded.[/quote]
[quote]I'm not familiar with the two suns; enlighten me. Why is a universal flood so ignorant?[/quote]
oh yeah, has any christian ever taken into account that the world has something we call precipetation(SpellCheck)? Water must evaporate to have rain, considering around 70% of the world is water, and 30% is land, where did the other 30% of water needed to cover the earth come from? and where did it go? if it evaporated, it would rain again. if the so called flood happened, the earth would be doomed forever, than you evaporation, than you precepitation. you dissproved a flood.
[/quote]
Actually, many scientists today believe that billions of years ago the Earth was covered almost completely by water. Only a few spots of land (extremely high peaks) were visible, and everything else was pretty much covered. Later on down the line (a few million years) the Earth was hit by a Mars shaped object (referred to as "Orpheus" by some) which consequently melted the crust, sending huge amounts of debris and water vapor into the area around the earth. As the earth cooled, the water vapor within our Roche Radius fell back inward and created much of the water we see now on earth. The resulting debris just outside the radius, according to scientists and astronomers, collected to form the moon.
Of course this is all a theory, it's neither true nor false since we don't honestly know what happened a few billion years ago, but it does show that the ability for Earth to be covered in water is there in theory if nothing else.
Now believe me, I'm not trying to disprove anything that you're saying, neither am I trying to prove anything. I'm just stating some info that I found interesting on the topic of giant spherical objects covered in water.
Furthermore, the idea of two suns isn't that far off. In 1054 there was a Type II supernova (which later formed the Crab Nebula) visible in the daytime sky for over 23 days, and at night for another 650. Considering the time period, it's also interesting to think that perhaps this visible ball of light in the daytime sky could be confused with another sun (the Chinese called it a "guest star") and, given the time period (shortly before the middle ages and the rule of the Catholic Church) it wouldn't be a far stretch to think that perhaps a few thought the occurrence to be religious?
Oh well, I'm not proving or disproving anything, just sharing a few things that made me go "Hmm, wow..." when I first heard them. Both sides have good arguments, but I'm not going to side with either of them.
[/quote]
It could be true about the theory you stated, yet the "flood" happened in 2000 B.C. long before anyone heard of jesus, long before anyone thought the bible would be written. it still seems to me, impossible to repopulate a world in 6,000 years, and for the world to evaporate that much water.
i don't know anything about the two suns, i have honestly never heard of that before.
[/quote]
I wasn't trying to disprove your argument about the flood, I'm just merely stating that according to many Astronomers, the Earth may have once had much more water than it does presently (although 6000 years ago? I doubt it.)
hello
[quote=loversonia]hello[/quote]
Loversonia, you can introduce yourself in another thread.
Hi, KCahill. I'd like to take this time to show you how inadequate your reasons are for nonbelief.
[quote]Oh I do:
Contradictions of your bible and...[/quote]
What are you, a fundamentalist? Since when does a contradiction in the Bible ultimately prove the whole thing wrong, and therefore eliminate any god from existing? I don't believe that our current Bible is free from error, but that doesn't mean I have to be an atheist.
I can think of no logical reasons for thinking that if the Bible has a contradiction in it, then all stories in it are false, or that God is therefore ruled out. But even if this is granted, then all you've done is show that the Christian God doesn't exist. You still have several different conceptions of God to deal with. What of the deist God, or the nondescript First Cause?
[quote]Evoulution.[/quote]
Why does this rule out God?
Have you ever heard of Francis Collins? He's the nation's leading geneticist, director of the Human Genome Project. I attended a lecture of his about the HGP and his newish book, "The Language of God." He believes that evolution and the God of the Bible are fully reconcilable concepts. He's a theistic evolutionist Christian.
How about Michael Behe? Most people label him as a "creationist", but this is technically false. While he believes that there was an initial creation, he fully accepts the theory of evolution, but as guided by God.
I can really think of no reason to think that God doesn't exist because of evolution. If anything, you've really only established a literal intepretation of Genesis as being false, not that you have a legitimate reason to not believe in God.
[quote]If evolution has missing links I'll bring up your book of irrogance that says we have to suns and the world compelety flooded.[/quote]
So I guess you [i]are[/i] a fundamentalist, seeing as you're merely criticising the hyperliteral interpretation of the verse about "two lights."
[quote]You wasted:
1)Time[/quote]
This is very interesting.
So would you also say that all the mission trips that churches go on to foreign countries or poorer sections of their own country, helping build and repair homes and, I don't know...feed starving children...Are they wasting their time since they are also there to evangelize because of their love for God?
[quote]2)Money (donations in the church)[/quote]
Yeah, that's right. Donations to the church, which often go to mission and relief efforts as described above, are money [i]wasted[/i]. You could be spending your money in much better places...like video games and porn.
I think it's ridiculous that people complain about giving donations to churches. It's not like they're merely going into greedy pastors' pockets.
[quote]3)My time[/quote]
Tell me, what is so valuable about your time, seeing as if God doesn't exist, then your life is ultimately meaningless and purposeless?
Not to mention that if the theist believes that people who haven't been forgiven by Christ will go to Hell, then he should spend as much time as possible trying to convince you of it's truth, should he not?
[quote]Since when does a contradiction in the Bible ultimately prove the whole thing wrong[/quote]
It does not. Parts of the bible are most certianly true (and even if you want... most of it (i do not believe so))
However, this does prove two things
no. 1 - the bible in its current state could not have come from god (because it would not have error... unless god is increadably evil))
no. 2 - the bible is not a infallible source of evidence, moral message, or accurate history... because it is not 100% true
[quote]
Why does this rule out God?
Have you ever heard of Francis Collins? He's the nation's leading geneticist, director of the Human Genome Project. I attended a lecture of his about the HGP and his newish book, "The Language of God." He believes that evolution and the God of the Bible are fully reconcilable concepts. He's a theistic evolutionist Christian.
How about Michael Behe? Most people label him as a "creationist", but this is technically false. While he believes that there was an initial creation, he fully accepts the theory of evolution, but as guided by God.
I can really think of no reason to think that God doesn't exist because of evolution. If anything, you've really only established a literal intepretation of Genesis as being false, not that you have a legitimate reason to not believe in God.[/quote]
Yes, the concepts of evolution and God are compatible. I do not believe in god because I see no gods that have been proven adequately. I believe that there is no god because I believe that it is a contradiction. However, Evolution is not an adequate means of disproving god... only of disproving a certain aspect of creationism and a certain idea of god that cannot adapt.
So...can the concept of god be disproven at all, or is everything as you put it "opinion?" Obviously you think that this really isn't a matter of opinion because you are willing to hold the position that god diffinitively does not exist, yet you say that what you believe is nothing more than an opinion.
What the heck?
[quote]It does not. Parts of the bible are most certianly true (and even if you want... most of it (i do not believe so))[/quote]
What parts of the Bible do you believe are "certainly" true, out of curiosity?
[quote]However, this does prove two things
no. 1 - the bible in its current state could not have come from god (because it would not have error... unless god is increadably evil))[/quote]
Correct. I would, of course, argue that it's original state came from God, and the textual discrepancies that have arrived are a result of textual transmission mistakes like scribal errors and things of that sort. They are all really rather trivial anyway.
[quote]no. 2 - the bible is not a infallible source of evidence, moral message, or accurate history... because it is not 100% true[/quote]
Technically, this is correct as well. But just because our current Bible is not "infallible" doesn't make the whole thing less of a "source of evidence," or "moral message" or "accurate history." There may be a discrepancy for how many chariots Solomon had, but does that give us the right to slap a big label on the entire book, which is really a collection of many different writings from many different periods in history? I don't think so.
For example, I don't think that something recorded in the Old Testament would decrease the evidence given in the Gospel accounts. I don't think something said in Proverbs is hindered by the moral message given in Job. And I certainly don't believe that if Genesis is not accurate history, the stories of Jesus are less accurate either.
As I've said before, the textual errors we find do not affect any doctrine of Christianity. They're really rather trivial.
[quote]Yes, the concepts of evolution and God are compatible. I do not believe in god because I see no gods that have been proven adequately.[/quote]
What is your standard for a deity being proven "adequately?"
[quote]I believe that there is no god because I believe that it is a contradiction.[/quote]
Do you mean that certain aspects of God contradict one another, or do you believe that the statement, "God exists" is really self-contradictory?
[quote]However, Evolution is not an adequate means of disproving god... only of disproving a certain aspect of creationism and a certain idea of god that cannot adapt.[/quote]
Correct.
[quote]What parts of the Bible do you believe are "certainly" true, out of curiosity?[/quote]
That pontius pilot was a ruler... that Herod (or however you spell it..) Umm, I am pretty sure that there was a guy named abraham... and that there were pharohs (not sure if moses led jew out of egypt thogh)
I dunno, ill have to get back to you on that... mostly I thnk that it was a semi true badly written history (no offence for 'badly written'... i just find it boring and somewhat less than clear (of course that could be because all of the bibles in my house are King james versions...) (a history textbook could be badly written...))
[quote]Correct. I would, of course, argue that it's original state came from God, and the textual discrepancies that have arrived are a result of textual transmission mistakes like scribal errors and things of that sort. They are all really rather trivial anyway.[/quote]
And I would say differently.... of course... and some are rather big... some are trivial
[quote]Technically, this is correct as well. But just because our current Bible is not "infallible" doesn't make the whole thing less of a "source of evidence," or "moral message" or "accurate history." There may be a discrepancy for how many chariots Solomon had, but does that give us the right to slap a big label on the entire book, which is really a collection of many different writings from many different periods in history? I don't think so.
For example, I don't think that something recorded in the Old Testament would decrease the evidence given in the Gospel accounts. I don't think something said in Proverbs is hindered by the moral message given in Job. And I certainly don't believe that if Genesis is not accurate history, the stories of Jesus are less accurate either.
As I've said before, the textual errors we find do not affect any doctrine of Christianity. They're really rather trivial.[/quote]
Again, I would agree with you if I had the thought that the bible was accurate in the first place (I do not believe that God wrote it/ was divinly inspired....) So even If I had the oridginal thing, I would dislike the morality issues in it and not accept it as good (even though now it is more contradictory)
[quote]What is your standard for a deity being proven "adequately?"[/quote]
I had a discussion a while ago with a person on the chat room (I went their once or twice) and we talked about this... I would be content in believing in a god if some sort of physical evidence were present. For instance, if I saw him/her/it or Heard. However, I would also be content if miracles did occur (I see no solid evidence of them either)
Also if soem branch of physics mamandatory that a supernatural force were present.
I believe that there is no god because if there were, then there would be some physical evidence for and no evidence against. There is evidence against all of the gods currently put forth as well as the concept 'God' in general. This evidence I speade it k of is that existance (reality) cannot be bent to the mind directly. A god by nature would be able to do this - for if god had to use tools to bend reality (create the world) then why would we worship him? He could be taken down in power by removing his tools... A god that requires assistance is not a god, he could be a really strong superman, a math genius... even an immortal... yet he would not be god
Because we cannot bend reality to our minds, and there is no evidence to suggest that we will ever be able to, it counts against god (essentially I see it as point one)
Secondly (and I will stop listing points after this... because it is getting long)
An immortal being (of any nature) would have no purpose. The motivation that drives us is a purpose for life.
( to avoid some sort of plagerism... I have thaken this from Leonard Peikoff)
For instance, If we take a need of Humans, a drive or pull... we will find that this has no pull on it. Take any human physical need (food, shelter, clothing) all of these will have no use to this being because it cannot be hurt. Emotions? no this being will not have emotions because it has no values... If you can suggest a value that it would have and give a logical reason why it would have this value... then I will drop this argument.
[quote]Do you mean that certain aspects of God contradict one another, or do you believe that the statement, "God exists" is really self-contradictory?[/quote]
Well, I think both... but first give me a definition of what exactly you mean by 'God'
I believe that the Christian god, as well as every other explicit god (by that I mean all religions except things like deism and 'spiritualism') does not exist and is self contradictory (so do you, except for the one Christian god.)
I believe that the concept of an immortal being is self contradictory, so if god is a being and is immortal... then yes.
Through basic observation of the world around me.
[quote]Through basic observation of the world around me.[/quote]
Funny, since the vast, vast majority of people over the last few thousand years of recorded history have observed the world around them and concluded that some sort of deity exists.
What makes you different? What have you seen that they haven't?
Welcome back, P.
Where ya been?
[quote]Welcome back, P.
Where ya been?[/quote]
Thanks, AA.
Busy, that's where I've been. Lots of stuff going on with various college stuff and choral events...Plus, I have been spending the majority of my time on another forum. But I thought I'd drop by again.
Miss me? :-)
[quote=P-Dunn][quote]Welcome back, P.
Where ya been?[/quote]
Thanks, AA.
Busy, that's where I've been. Lots of stuff going on with various college stuff and choral events...Plus, I have been spending the majority of my time on another forum. But I thought I'd drop by again.
Miss me? :-)[/quote]
Indeed.
Edit: In a non-homosexual matter of course.