1) Ex4Life, Rostos, Smoothd have ALL admitted that the Bible has been edited, changed, rewritten, parts lost, etc. By comparison, if I showed you an old history book and said: "Out of 20 chapters, 8 of them are historically inaccurate because of rewrites or missing pieces," you wouldn't give the book a second look. In Ex4Life's masterpiece composition of idiocy (where he uses lines from the BIBLE to prove that the BIBLE is true, a method that would get him laughed out of even special education classes), even he admits that it's a book that's been written by 50+ authors over 1000+, not to mention we have NO IDEA what's supposed to be "metaphor" and what's "real." So:
a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?
b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
2)How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
a) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to
death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
b) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a
virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not
found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there
her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against
Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil
from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
c) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to
death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
5) Why do we have a "spiritual void" if we don't believe in Christianity? Since a huge majority of the world ISN'T Christian, are they spiritually blind as well? Are only Christians correct? This refers to question two as well.
AND IF ANYBODY TRIES TO REFERENCE THE BIBLE FOR ANY ANSWERS, YOU'RE A MORON. YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
I'm going to post this until I get some answers:
1) Ex4Life, Rostos, Smoothd have ALL admitted that the Bible has been edited, changed, rewritten, parts lost, etc. By comparison, if I showed you an old history book and said: "Out of 20 chapters, 8 of them are historically inaccurate because of rewrites or missing pieces," you wouldn't give the book a second look. In Ex4Life's masterpiece composition of idiocy (where he uses lines from the BIBLE to prove that the BIBLE is true, a method that would get him laughed out of even special education classes), even he admits that it's a book that's been written by 50+ authors over 1000+, not to mention we have NO IDEA what's supposed to be "metaphor" and what's "real." So:
a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?
b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
2)How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
a) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to
death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
b) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a
virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not
found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there
her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against
Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil
from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
c) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to
death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
5) Why do we have a "spiritual void" if we don't believe in Christianity? Since a huge majority of the world ISN'T Christian, are they spiritually blind as well? Are only Christians correct? This refers to question two as well.
AND IF ANYBODY TRIES TO REFERENCE THE BIBLE FOR ANY ANSWERS, YOU'RE A MORON. YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
Smoothd - In my previous post and yours, I thought we were making progress, too. But then you said the single dumbest thing any human being can say. You said you "KNOW" there is a god. As you and I and Rostos and everyone else in this forum know, this is impossible. If you believe in god, I don't have a problem. If you proclaim to know that which is unknowable, I get pissed off. The atheist has at no point said anything that isn't absolute fact unless we acknowledged that it was theoretical or opinion-based. Only the believer claims to know things and claims to have the answers to the unknowable and unanswerable. You even said "I never proclaimed to have a smidgen of answers." Then you subsequently said you know god exists. Clearly you have no idea what you know. How can you be taken seriously? How can anyone who proclaims to know god exists be taken seriously?
And it also pisses me off when you people say we will "find" god. I will not find god because god doesn't exist. I humor you guys by saying if evidence arises, I will believe. But I'm not stupid. I know there will never be any evidence. I know magic doesn't exist. Just you wait. In 50 years, there will be even fewer and fewer things to apply god to. Science will discover the answers to more things previously attributed to god. God serves one purpose and one purpose only: to explain the unexplainable. As things start to be explained, god's role shrinks just a little bit.
And Rostos - the inconsistencies occur because we don't know the answers. The are a few theories as we've discussed previously. But one stance that has been unwavering, is that we don't need to know the answers, to know god isn't the answer.
Smoothd - In my previous post and yours, I thought we were making progress, too. But then you said the single dumbest thing any human being can say. You said you "KNOW" there is a god. As you and I and Rostos and everyone else in this forum know, this is impossible. If you believe in god, I don't have a problem. If you proclaim to know that which is unknowable, I get pissed off. The atheist has at no point said anything that isn't absolute fact unless we acknowledged that it was theoretical or opinion-based. Only the believer claims to know things and claims to have the answers to the unknowable and unanswerable. You even said "I never proclaimed to have a smidgen of answers." Then you subsequently said you know god exists. Clearly you have no idea what you know. How can you be taken seriously? How can anyone who proclaims to know god exists be taken seriously?
And it also pisses me off when you people say we will "find" god. I will not find god because god doesn't exist. I humor you guys by saying if evidence arises, I will believe. But I'm not stupid. I know there will never be any evidence. I know magic doesn't exist. Just you wait. In 50 years, there will be even fewer and fewer things to apply god to. Science will discover the answers to more things previously attributed to god. God serves one purpose and one purpose only: to explain the unexplainable. As things start to be explained, god's role shrinks just a little bit.
And Rostos - the inconsistencies occur because we don't know the answers. The are a few theories as we've discussed previously. But one stance that has been unwavering, is that we don't need to know the answers, to know god isn't the answer.
You are sorely mistaken about Karma. Karma is a Cause and effect, Universal Law. You don't have to wait until a next life to catch Karma. Sometimes karma can be instant. You commit murder and that same day your entire family is wiped out in a car accident. That's Karma. Time is an illusion so whether the price is now or a thousand years from now. The price will be paid. No I fully understand the concept of Karma and I also understand Dharma. Something you're dealing with right now and the reason why you keep coming back here searching for answers and running away from your reality. Dharma. Look it up.
Uhhh no. You are sorely mistaken about the meaning of Karma. Karma is the idea that what you do in this life will come back to you when you are reincarnated. Modern people think it means "what goes around comes around" but it does not.
Not only that, but what goes around does not come back around. Everything on this earth is completely random. No one gets what is coming to them. The good die young, assholes live forever, and no one gets what they deserve.
Quote Originally Posted by smoothd20:
You are sorely mistaken about Karma. Karma is a Cause and effect, Universal Law. You don't have to wait until a next life to catch Karma. Sometimes karma can be instant. You commit murder and that same day your entire family is wiped out in a car accident. That's Karma. Time is an illusion so whether the price is now or a thousand years from now. The price will be paid. No I fully understand the concept of Karma and I also understand Dharma. Something you're dealing with right now and the reason why you keep coming back here searching for answers and running away from your reality. Dharma. Look it up.
Uhhh no. You are sorely mistaken about the meaning of Karma. Karma is the idea that what you do in this life will come back to you when you are reincarnated. Modern people think it means "what goes around comes around" but it does not.
Not only that, but what goes around does not come back around. Everything on this earth is completely random. No one gets what is coming to them. The good die young, assholes live forever, and no one gets what they deserve.
But you are, you are here day and night arguing, sounds like you are spending alot of time here.....
This is not a personal attack, but one thing i have noticed the major difference between myself, Offensive, SJD , Matt and Smooth is that we are and have been very very consistent withour thoughts and arguments the whole way through. What i have noticed in particluar between you and especially KK is alot inconsintencies in your arguments. Again, not personal, but your logics and arguments are changing left right and centre. It is a sign of confusion mate, athesim is confusion because it is not logically consistent.
In this very thread youn said you arent spending time on God but you are here day and night. As smoothd said, even myself.
If i titled a thread called, Harry Potter is real and he really exists, i guarantee you, everyone will come on here and call me nuts and they will NEVER come back into this thread. 98% of people wouldnt even bother responding , cause they are totally secure within themselves that harry potter is not real, the 2% would simply just laugh at me.
This thread is 120 pages long...There is a reason why that is the case.
It may seem like I'm just sitting at home on my computer staring at this thread, but I have what is called an "iPhone" and I love my phone so I'm on it a lot, but it makes me happy!! Anyway, I don't remember ever being inconsistent in my argument...
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
But you are, you are here day and night arguing, sounds like you are spending alot of time here.....
This is not a personal attack, but one thing i have noticed the major difference between myself, Offensive, SJD , Matt and Smooth is that we are and have been very very consistent withour thoughts and arguments the whole way through. What i have noticed in particluar between you and especially KK is alot inconsintencies in your arguments. Again, not personal, but your logics and arguments are changing left right and centre. It is a sign of confusion mate, athesim is confusion because it is not logically consistent.
In this very thread youn said you arent spending time on God but you are here day and night. As smoothd said, even myself.
If i titled a thread called, Harry Potter is real and he really exists, i guarantee you, everyone will come on here and call me nuts and they will NEVER come back into this thread. 98% of people wouldnt even bother responding , cause they are totally secure within themselves that harry potter is not real, the 2% would simply just laugh at me.
This thread is 120 pages long...There is a reason why that is the case.
It may seem like I'm just sitting at home on my computer staring at this thread, but I have what is called an "iPhone" and I love my phone so I'm on it a lot, but it makes me happy!! Anyway, I don't remember ever being inconsistent in my argument...
Mikniks- The site is fractured or having a bad day and I can't read your entire post but I assure you. You don't have to wait until a "next life" for cause and effect Karma if you will to take effect. You have grossly misunderstood the concept of Karma. Karma can be carried over into other lives but it by no means is restricted to a future lifetime. That is simply not the case.
Mikniks- The site is fractured or having a bad day and I can't read your entire post but I assure you. You don't have to wait until a "next life" for cause and effect Karma if you will to take effect. You have grossly misunderstood the concept of Karma. Karma can be carried over into other lives but it by no means is restricted to a future lifetime. That is simply not the case.
Sugarbear- You will need years of therapy to get over your illness. You are truly delusional and I'm beginning to think there may be no hope for you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Sugarbear- You will need years of therapy to get over your illness. You are truly delusional and I'm beginning to think there may be no hope for you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Kitty Kat- I wish I could read your entire post but it seems you have alot of anger issues with God and theists. When I have more time maybe we can sort through these issues. It's my Birthday so I gotta run but I wanted to check in on you guys during this holiest of seasons.
Kitty Kat- I wish I could read your entire post but it seems you have alot of anger issues with God and theists. When I have more time maybe we can sort through these issues. It's my Birthday so I gotta run but I wanted to check in on you guys during this holiest of seasons.
So let's clarify. Rostos standards: atheist arguments must be infallible; theist arguments are allowed to be fallible Difference is the atheist is capable of making infallible arguments, while the theist has zero infallible arguments
So let's clarify. Rostos standards: atheist arguments must be infallible; theist arguments are allowed to be fallible Difference is the atheist is capable of making infallible arguments, while the theist has zero infallible arguments
So because Dawkins doesn't want to debate, this means he knows he would lose?? I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion, because nobody can lose. Clearly Dawkins doesn't want to go through the unnecessary aggravation. Having a public debate does nothing for anyone. Each side will still think the other is wrong and idiotic. Dawkins is taking the high road obviously...
So because Dawkins doesn't want to debate, this means he knows he would lose?? I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion, because nobody can lose. Clearly Dawkins doesn't want to go through the unnecessary aggravation. Having a public debate does nothing for anyone. Each side will still think the other is wrong and idiotic. Dawkins is taking the high road obviously...
Clearly Dawkins doesn't want to waste his time. Why bother debating something where neither side can win? I do it because I'm a glutton for punishment...
Clearly Dawkins doesn't want to waste his time. Why bother debating something where neither side can win? I do it because I'm a glutton for punishment...
he doesnt like Craigs dioderhant
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
