captain_stan 0 #76 October 27, 2011 QuoteUS atheists don't believe in God and want to have a fucking medal for it. Don't be too hard on them; I attribute this to cultural differences. In the US, we have an arrogant, intolerant, abusive brand of religion that can indeed behave very offensively. And since atheism is often reactionary, a greater offense is met with a stronger backlash. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #77 October 27, 2011 Much of this argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the concept of agnosticism. It has nothing to do with a belief in the existence or non-existence of god. It is simply the conceptual position that absolute knowledge about the existence of non-existence of a god is impossible (unless you get to chat with him one on one). You can be an agnostic atheist - someone who does not believe god exists but isn't so arrogant as to believe that they actually know or can prove that as empirical fact. You can also be agnostic theist - someone who does believe a god exists but equally, does not believe that to be empirically provable. I wouldn't even suggest such views preclude someone from formal religious positions - it's just a logical precept that something such as this is impossible to prove one way or another (cue Russell's teapot argument). Agnosticism does not define on which side of the fence you sit. It is ONLY a commentary on the potential degree of proof possible, (in the absence of a supreme being actually revealing themselves to you). That being so, there is no need to sit on the fence at all. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe god exists. I'm happy to debate his existence and say that I believe theists are wrong but I do not put it any higher than that – it is simply my personal belief on the point, (perhaps assisted by logic and undermining some of the illogical precepts espoused by some of the more ardent theistic community). I am not however, so stupid as to think I can ever actually prove my position to someone. Hence agnostic atheist. In fact, I think a lot of people who consider themselves to be Christian [or, insert religion here] would actually, when it's explained to them, identify as an agnostic theist, in that they believe god exists but, when pressed on the point, accept that they could never actually prove that their beliefs are correct. That's fine by me – believe what you want. And I'll believe what I want. We can even try to convince one another occasionally in polite conversation. As we both accept that neither can win by force of arms, only by logical argument, it actually kinda leads to a sort of utopic world in which one religion can no longer bully another around. I think acceptance of agnostic principals is actually kinda groovy, irrespective of on which side of the fence you sit. I means we can all still be friends, even though there's a fence for us to lean on. An 'I'm right and your wrong' attitude just leads to acrimony whereas a joint acceptance of the limits of knowable truths leads to harmony. Agnosticism rocks. Absolutism sucks. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise - that's cool, I think you're wrong but as I don't think I can ever prove you wrong... lets go get a beer together while we chat about it... so long as you accept you can never prove me wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #78 October 27, 2011 Quote Quote There are many more colors out here than just black and white. Whether or not god exists is a binary question; either he does or doesn't. There are no colors in between. I agree with quade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #79 October 27, 2011 QuoteNo atheist is 100% that there is no God, therefore are all atheists actually agnostic? Yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaybird18c 24 #80 October 27, 2011 QuoteI don't know if somewhere in the universe horselike creatures with a single horn on the head exist, so yes, I'm agnostic towards unicorns. etc. I'm not "completely open" to the possibility, and I'm not waiting for evidence/deem it necessary to decide about it, because I couldn't care less whether unicorns (or deities for that matter) exist or not. The whole comparison with unicorns, tooth fairy, FSM, etc. is such a straw man argument given the eye-witness testimony in favor of Christianity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Meso 38 #81 October 27, 2011 QuoteThe whole comparison with unicorns, tooth fairy, FSM, etc. is such a straw man argument given the eye-witness testimony in favor of Christianity. Don't know about that, the witness testimonies tend to generally occur in circles where they are hoping and expecting said 'experiences' For example, my sister has a lot of retarded psytrance neo-hippies. And many of them claim they have seen faeries or witnessed mother nature performing magic. Just see it as people seeing what they want to see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #82 October 27, 2011 QuoteThe whole comparison with unicorns, tooth fairy, FSM, etc. is such a straw man argument given the eye-witness testimony in favor of Christianity. Just goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaybird18c 24 #83 October 27, 2011 QuoteDon't know about that, the witness testimonies tend to generally occur in circles where they are hoping and expecting said 'experiences' For example, my sister has a lot of retarded psytrance neo-hippies. And many of them claim they have seen faeries or witnessed mother nature performing magic. Just see it as people seeing what they want to see. But that description does not fit the biblical record. The "Lord, liar, or lunatic" argument comes to mind. Someone (or a group of persons) can certainly be out of their minds and come up with all kinds of crazy stuff but that is not the general consensus in this regard. Your other option is that they were all lying for some reason (which also is not supported). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #84 October 27, 2011 QuoteDon't be too hard on them; I attribute this to cultural differences. In the US, we have an arrogant, intolerant, abusive brand of religion that can indeed behave very offensively. And since atheism is often reactionary, a greater offense is met with a stronger backlash. This doesn't explain the (seemingly) condescending tone in which most US atheists in this topic talk about/to agnostics. I'm not offended or something, I think it's peculiar and not very smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaybird18c 24 #85 October 27, 2011 QuoteJust goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. If what you said was true, how could you trust anything. How would you know those who signed the Declaration of Independence actually were the ones who signed it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #86 October 27, 2011 Quote Quote [This stereotype that atheists are the proselytizers of the non-believing world is just as broad and inaccurate a brush .... Well, there is foundation for that stereotyping. We have some really good examples right here in DZ.com. I find the thread title to be a leading one. Will there be a similar thread titled, "Agnostics, why don't you choose to believe?" Yes, because everyone knows that the presence of outspoken zealots (of any stripe) on an online forum necessarily proves that everyone who shares their beliefs also shares their behavior. As for the thread title, I thought just the opposite. The presence of the parentheses around dis semed to me to imply both questions (e.g., "why don't you believe" AND "why don't you disbelieve") were included. As neutral as you can make it, IMHO."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #87 October 27, 2011 QuoteThe "Lord, liar, or lunatic" argument comes to mind. Personally if I've to choose from those three I would go with lunatic, because someone who turns the other cheek and loves there enemy, isn't sane. But of course Lewis' trilemma is a false trilemma, because there's many more options. Jesus could be lord, liar, lunatic, made up, composed of different persons, misquoted, roughly based on someone, etc. etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #88 October 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteJust goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. If what you said was true, how could you trust anything. How would you know those who signed the Declaration of Independence actually were the ones who signed it? Ever watch a good magic show? .. Do people really levitate? or get sawn in 1/2? - you see what you want to see ... or what THEY want you to see. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaybird18c 24 #89 October 27, 2011 QuoteBut of course Lewis' trilemma is a false trilemma, because there's many more options. Jesus could be lord, liar, lunatic, made up, composed of different persons, misquoted, roughly based on someone, etc. etc. But that doesn't fit the evidence that we have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaybird18c 24 #90 October 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteJust goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. If what you said was true, how could you trust anything. How would you know those who signed the Declaration of Independence actually were the ones who signed it? Ever watch a good magic show? .. Do people really levitate? or get sawn in 1/2? - you see what you want to see. Again...no evidence of trickery or attempt at deceit. Could it happen? Yes. Is there evidence that it did happen? No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #91 October 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteJust goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. If what you said was true, how could you trust anything. How would you know those who signed the Declaration of Independence actually were the ones who signed it? Ever watch a good magic show? .. Do people really levitate? or get sawn in 1/2? - you see what you want to see. Again...no evidence of trickery or attempt at deceit. Could it happen? Yes. Is there evidence that it did happen? No. But what evidence do you have? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #92 October 27, 2011 QuoteBut that doesn't fit the evidence that we have. Your "eye-witness testimonies" aren't very reliable according to historians. I think most historians agree that the gospels are probably based on a real person, but it isn't even a proven fact that Jesus of Nazareth really existed, let alone his resurrection and all the miraculous stuff that's claimed about J6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaybird18c 24 #93 October 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteBut that doesn't fit the evidence that we have. Your "eye-witness testimonies" aren't very reliable according to historians. I think most historians agree that the gospels are probably based on a real person, but it isn't even proven that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even close to a "majority" of historians who don't hold to at least the New Testament manuscripts as being historically and textually accurate and trustworthy. Added: QuoteOne of the most important questions asked by non-Christians as they look into Christianity is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Can the Bible be trusted? If it has been corrupted, then we cannot trust what is attributed to Jesus' words and deeds. So, is the Bible reliable or not? Yes, the Bible is reliable. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don't have the "typos" or by simply reading the context. You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us. The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible. The Bible was written by those who were inspired by God, so it is accurate and true, and represents historical occurrences. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ. Do you? - Matt Slick Is the Bible Reliable? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #94 October 27, 2011 I don't think many historians actually believe that the four gospels are correct in every detail, especially so if they're not biased (i.e. not Christian) The majority thiing Jesus actually existed, and was a guru of sorts, but the miraculous stuff is disputed. And without that Jesus is just a man of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #95 October 27, 2011 Quote Is the Bible Reliable? Yes, that seems like an unbiased sourceIf most scientists would think the bible was reliable, most scientists would be Christians, but as we all know, the majority of *REAL* scientists is irreligious, or at least not a cover2cover Christian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Meso 38 #96 October 27, 2011 For something that is so insanely accurate, there sure is a lot of things that historians claim is unlikely. Whether it be events themselves, the manner in which one understands a sentence or the translation. For instance the widely believed theory that the parting of the Red Sea was in fact about the Reed Sea. Or about people thinking a blatantly obvious political paragraph relates somehow to the fall of Lucifer as an evil being, instead of the metaphor it is referring to. Ironically Jesus refers to himself as Lucifer in the bible (bright morning star). The texts themselves can be accurate, but there are obvious translation problems and the way in which people read it can completely change just how amazing Jesus was. People can make Jesus however amazing they want, simply by choosing which to look at metaphorically and which to believe is a story of an actual event. The accounts of the bible are flawed as it's quite easy for one man to claim everyone else was amazed. If I were to write text on how 300 gullible idiots at a John Edwards show was amazed and publish it, explaining what it is he did, and people weren't aware of the show, he too could be made to look like a God. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nigel99 577 #97 October 27, 2011 Quote Quote You know how funny that statement is coming from someone who follows blind belief without questioning? Uhhhhh, Nigel...I know Max. You may want to re-think that. Ok I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since I know youExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaybird18c 24 #98 October 27, 2011 QuoteI don't think many historians actually believe that the four gospels are correct in every detail, especially so if they're not biased (i.e. not Christian) The majority thiing Jesus actually existed, and was a guru of sorts, but the miraculous stuff is disputed. And without that Jesus is just a man of course. That certainly takes all of the offensiveness out of the discussion, doesn't it? If Jesus had just said that He was "a way" and not "the way" to the Father, everyone could hold hands and sing Kumbaya. By the way, Jesus was also fully human. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #99 October 27, 2011 QuotePersonally if I've to choose from those three I would go with lunatic, because someone who turns the other cheek and loves there enemy, isn't sane. Ya, because hate and the desire to retaliate has proven otherwise... It's hard to believe you were ever a christian who ever actually committed to study and practical aplication. I suppose it was insane for me to give you that practical life advice for which you went out of the way to thank me for how it helped you, eh? I mean, why should I care after your bitter mocking, right?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #100 October 27, 2011 QuoteThis doesn't explain the (seemingly) condescending tone in which most US atheists in this topic talk about/to agnostics. You have just set a new standard for irony...Somebody get this guy a medal! ...preferably made of iron.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jaybird18c 24 #80 October 27, 2011 QuoteI don't know if somewhere in the universe horselike creatures with a single horn on the head exist, so yes, I'm agnostic towards unicorns. etc. I'm not "completely open" to the possibility, and I'm not waiting for evidence/deem it necessary to decide about it, because I couldn't care less whether unicorns (or deities for that matter) exist or not. The whole comparison with unicorns, tooth fairy, FSM, etc. is such a straw man argument given the eye-witness testimony in favor of Christianity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meso 38 #81 October 27, 2011 QuoteThe whole comparison with unicorns, tooth fairy, FSM, etc. is such a straw man argument given the eye-witness testimony in favor of Christianity. Don't know about that, the witness testimonies tend to generally occur in circles where they are hoping and expecting said 'experiences' For example, my sister has a lot of retarded psytrance neo-hippies. And many of them claim they have seen faeries or witnessed mother nature performing magic. Just see it as people seeing what they want to see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #82 October 27, 2011 QuoteThe whole comparison with unicorns, tooth fairy, FSM, etc. is such a straw man argument given the eye-witness testimony in favor of Christianity. Just goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #83 October 27, 2011 QuoteDon't know about that, the witness testimonies tend to generally occur in circles where they are hoping and expecting said 'experiences' For example, my sister has a lot of retarded psytrance neo-hippies. And many of them claim they have seen faeries or witnessed mother nature performing magic. Just see it as people seeing what they want to see. But that description does not fit the biblical record. The "Lord, liar, or lunatic" argument comes to mind. Someone (or a group of persons) can certainly be out of their minds and come up with all kinds of crazy stuff but that is not the general consensus in this regard. Your other option is that they were all lying for some reason (which also is not supported). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #84 October 27, 2011 QuoteDon't be too hard on them; I attribute this to cultural differences. In the US, we have an arrogant, intolerant, abusive brand of religion that can indeed behave very offensively. And since atheism is often reactionary, a greater offense is met with a stronger backlash. This doesn't explain the (seemingly) condescending tone in which most US atheists in this topic talk about/to agnostics. I'm not offended or something, I think it's peculiar and not very smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #85 October 27, 2011 QuoteJust goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. If what you said was true, how could you trust anything. How would you know those who signed the Declaration of Independence actually were the ones who signed it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #86 October 27, 2011 Quote Quote [This stereotype that atheists are the proselytizers of the non-believing world is just as broad and inaccurate a brush .... Well, there is foundation for that stereotyping. We have some really good examples right here in DZ.com. I find the thread title to be a leading one. Will there be a similar thread titled, "Agnostics, why don't you choose to believe?" Yes, because everyone knows that the presence of outspoken zealots (of any stripe) on an online forum necessarily proves that everyone who shares their beliefs also shares their behavior. As for the thread title, I thought just the opposite. The presence of the parentheses around dis semed to me to imply both questions (e.g., "why don't you believe" AND "why don't you disbelieve") were included. As neutral as you can make it, IMHO."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #87 October 27, 2011 QuoteThe "Lord, liar, or lunatic" argument comes to mind. Personally if I've to choose from those three I would go with lunatic, because someone who turns the other cheek and loves there enemy, isn't sane. But of course Lewis' trilemma is a false trilemma, because there's many more options. Jesus could be lord, liar, lunatic, made up, composed of different persons, misquoted, roughly based on someone, etc. etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #88 October 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteJust goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. If what you said was true, how could you trust anything. How would you know those who signed the Declaration of Independence actually were the ones who signed it? Ever watch a good magic show? .. Do people really levitate? or get sawn in 1/2? - you see what you want to see ... or what THEY want you to see. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #89 October 27, 2011 QuoteBut of course Lewis' trilemma is a false trilemma, because there's many more options. Jesus could be lord, liar, lunatic, made up, composed of different persons, misquoted, roughly based on someone, etc. etc. But that doesn't fit the evidence that we have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #90 October 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteJust goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. If what you said was true, how could you trust anything. How would you know those who signed the Declaration of Independence actually were the ones who signed it? Ever watch a good magic show? .. Do people really levitate? or get sawn in 1/2? - you see what you want to see. Again...no evidence of trickery or attempt at deceit. Could it happen? Yes. Is there evidence that it did happen? No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #91 October 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteJust goes to show that the Police are right on this matter too ... eye-witness testimony is notoriously vague at best. If what you said was true, how could you trust anything. How would you know those who signed the Declaration of Independence actually were the ones who signed it? Ever watch a good magic show? .. Do people really levitate? or get sawn in 1/2? - you see what you want to see. Again...no evidence of trickery or attempt at deceit. Could it happen? Yes. Is there evidence that it did happen? No. But what evidence do you have? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #92 October 27, 2011 QuoteBut that doesn't fit the evidence that we have. Your "eye-witness testimonies" aren't very reliable according to historians. I think most historians agree that the gospels are probably based on a real person, but it isn't even a proven fact that Jesus of Nazareth really existed, let alone his resurrection and all the miraculous stuff that's claimed about J6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #93 October 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteBut that doesn't fit the evidence that we have. Your "eye-witness testimonies" aren't very reliable according to historians. I think most historians agree that the gospels are probably based on a real person, but it isn't even proven that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even close to a "majority" of historians who don't hold to at least the New Testament manuscripts as being historically and textually accurate and trustworthy. Added: QuoteOne of the most important questions asked by non-Christians as they look into Christianity is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Can the Bible be trusted? If it has been corrupted, then we cannot trust what is attributed to Jesus' words and deeds. So, is the Bible reliable or not? Yes, the Bible is reliable. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don't have the "typos" or by simply reading the context. You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us. The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible. The Bible was written by those who were inspired by God, so it is accurate and true, and represents historical occurrences. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ. Do you? - Matt Slick Is the Bible Reliable? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #94 October 27, 2011 I don't think many historians actually believe that the four gospels are correct in every detail, especially so if they're not biased (i.e. not Christian) The majority thiing Jesus actually existed, and was a guru of sorts, but the miraculous stuff is disputed. And without that Jesus is just a man of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #95 October 27, 2011 Quote Is the Bible Reliable? Yes, that seems like an unbiased sourceIf most scientists would think the bible was reliable, most scientists would be Christians, but as we all know, the majority of *REAL* scientists is irreligious, or at least not a cover2cover Christian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meso 38 #96 October 27, 2011 For something that is so insanely accurate, there sure is a lot of things that historians claim is unlikely. Whether it be events themselves, the manner in which one understands a sentence or the translation. For instance the widely believed theory that the parting of the Red Sea was in fact about the Reed Sea. Or about people thinking a blatantly obvious political paragraph relates somehow to the fall of Lucifer as an evil being, instead of the metaphor it is referring to. Ironically Jesus refers to himself as Lucifer in the bible (bright morning star). The texts themselves can be accurate, but there are obvious translation problems and the way in which people read it can completely change just how amazing Jesus was. People can make Jesus however amazing they want, simply by choosing which to look at metaphorically and which to believe is a story of an actual event. The accounts of the bible are flawed as it's quite easy for one man to claim everyone else was amazed. If I were to write text on how 300 gullible idiots at a John Edwards show was amazed and publish it, explaining what it is he did, and people weren't aware of the show, he too could be made to look like a God. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 577 #97 October 27, 2011 Quote Quote You know how funny that statement is coming from someone who follows blind belief without questioning? Uhhhhh, Nigel...I know Max. You may want to re-think that. Ok I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since I know youExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #98 October 27, 2011 QuoteI don't think many historians actually believe that the four gospels are correct in every detail, especially so if they're not biased (i.e. not Christian) The majority thiing Jesus actually existed, and was a guru of sorts, but the miraculous stuff is disputed. And without that Jesus is just a man of course. That certainly takes all of the offensiveness out of the discussion, doesn't it? If Jesus had just said that He was "a way" and not "the way" to the Father, everyone could hold hands and sing Kumbaya. By the way, Jesus was also fully human. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #99 October 27, 2011 QuotePersonally if I've to choose from those three I would go with lunatic, because someone who turns the other cheek and loves there enemy, isn't sane. Ya, because hate and the desire to retaliate has proven otherwise... It's hard to believe you were ever a christian who ever actually committed to study and practical aplication. I suppose it was insane for me to give you that practical life advice for which you went out of the way to thank me for how it helped you, eh? I mean, why should I care after your bitter mocking, right?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #100 October 27, 2011 QuoteThis doesn't explain the (seemingly) condescending tone in which most US atheists in this topic talk about/to agnostics. You have just set a new standard for irony...Somebody get this guy a medal! ...preferably made of iron.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
