[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
[/quote]
Actually, as a Christian I don’t believe it took 6 days to actually for the universe and earth.
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
[/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
According to the correspondence theory of truth
…
I believe the criteria I described are valid.[/quote]
They are much too vague. Because Batman could plausibly exist (he doesn’t have any superpowers, after all, only cool gadgets and an unlimited budget), your “correspondence” theory of truth says that his existence is true. I’m pretty sure it’s not.
Just because a man can be highly trained in martial arts and unarmed combat, have a lot of money, get cool gadgets made and run in the night wearing a mask while fighting crime doesn’t mean it’s actually happening.
Yet all those things meet the criteria of “the existence of a fact with corresponding elements and a similar structure. The theory maintains that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world,”
Nothing in Batman (or Sherlock Holmes) is flat-out impossible. Yet that fact doesn’t make either of them historical figures.
Your criteria are insufficient because they allow any non-fantastic fiction to be declared “true.”
The worst part is that they fail to establish the truth of the Bible, since no miracles have ever been objectively documented by any secular source; making the miracles described in the Bible without correspondence in the real world.
You’ve proven Batman and missed Jesus… not doing to well so far, are you?
It doesn’t have to be science. But even philosophically, most “proofs” of God come up wanting or end up in undecidable paradoxes. There’s generally an “out” provided by creating special rules for God, or by subtracting him from being subject to logic or consequence… Some people find those cop-outs satisfying; I don’t.
Well yes, and looking at the success that science has had, it’s hard to argue that its approach is flawed. For better or worse, science works. Our universe operates according to rules and we’re able to understand those rules from observation and testing. Never has any test shown that there is reason to expect those rules to change arbitrarily, or to expect them to be suspended for various amounts of time and/or space…
If there is a God, wouldn’t there be a way to detect his existence? Would there be no difference between a universe where he exists from one where he does not?
If his existence is detectable, then science can find him. Maybe not right now, but eventually. We knew about atoms and molecules long before we had the technology to see them.
If his existence is completely undetectable - if a universe with God is completely identical with a universe without God, why assume he exists at all?
Yeah, and my kids go on the assumption that Santa exists and that he’ll bring them presents at Christmas.
Vikings assumed that thunderstorms were the work of Thor and that after death, the Valkyries would take them to go fight alongside Odin…
Scientologists assume that our thetan (soul) is overloaded with engrams (bad memories from past lives) and that these can be removed by auditing…
I could go on all day.
Just because you decide to begin with an assumption, does nothing to determine the objective truth of it. For a long time, the vast majority of humans believed truthfully that the Earth was flat; that didn’t make it so.
You need to establish the truth of your assumption before you begin anything with it. Otherwise, you can claim to believe in it’s truth, but don’t waste your time trying to convince others of it.
How would you describe God?
A religion sprang up around Dianetics and Scientology because that’s exactly what the author intended. Hubbard is often quoted as saying “If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.”
It speaks more to the gullibility of people and the need for many to be lead than it does to the reality of a soul (or thetan).
Find a Scientologist and have at it.
I’ll claim that it’s made up hogwash like all other religions. The main difference is that lack of any redeeming qualities to it. With Christianity, at least the teachings of Jesus make up a fine guide for leading a good life. Scientology…meh, not so much.
Well then: I claim that I keep an invisible, intangible dragon in my back yard. I feed him psychic energy, which is why I’m often tired at night. When I telepathically talk to him, he sometimes makes my wishes come true.
Prove me wrong.
Once you’re done, I’ll tell you about my out-of-phase flying ninja monkeys I use to get back at people who aren’t nice to me. Try to prove they don’t exist and I’ll send you a couple, see how you like them.
Show me a single documented example (from a verifiable secular source) that shows a supernatural occurrence happening.
I gather that you believe that psychics exist? That John Edwards really talks to the dead (even if only by first letters), that astrology is worthwhile and that we could transmute lead to gold if only we’d kept at alchemy a bit longer…
And you also didn’t answer the question: Could an ordinary man - with extraordinary teachings - named Jesus have lived 2000 years ago? Do you even allow for the possibility that a religion was built around a completely ordinary (in the non-supernatural sense) man?
That a place named Jerusalem exists doesn’t confirm the existence of Jesus - it confirms the existence of Jerusalem.
That the temple exists or that other building existed at that time confirms the existence of those buildings - not of Jesus.
That the London of Sherlock Holmes existed confirms the existence of London, not Holmes.
Just because a text borrows events and places from history, it doesn’t automatically certify the rest of it as truthful. You can find no end of historical novels and “what if” fiction that incorporates tons of elements from real life. They still remain fiction. Even if the author claims them as truth (like Withley Striber’s Communion, about his alien abduction) most people will require some supporting evidence before they believe it.
Religion, because of cultural tradition, gets a free pass. You’re not to question to much and you can’t understand anyway… If you ignore the taboos and put religion under scrutiny; it tends to fall apart rather quickly.
Man is capable of great good and of great evil. That the Bible restates that evidence and builds stories around it does nothing to establish any veracity or validity. The Bible can talk about the blue sky, and I won’t dispute those claims, but you seem to think that it’s an all-or-nothing proposition. Either it’s all true, or all false. That’s ridiculous. There’s a lot of true parts and perfectly valid observations and good moral teachings in there; but there’s also a lot of fictitious tales, poetry, ramblings, etc.
[quote]Mary wasn’t “officially” a virgin until somewhere around 400AD… where it then became canon/dogma that she was.
Actually, the Apostle’s Creed contained the doctrine of the virgin birth. The Apostle’s Creed dates back to the apostolic church, much earlier than 400.[/quote]
The earliest known concrete historical evidence of the creed’s existence as it is currently titled (Symbolum Apostolicum) is a letter of the Council of Milan. (390 AD)
Sorry for rounding off 10 years.
I’m more concerned about why it hasn’t come across it yet? Modern science has been going on for about 400 years; why hasn’t it come upon a single unexplainable, yet repeatable occurrence in all that time?
While I can not be certain it will never happen, asking it you way always leaves the cop out of “science will confirm it later.”
Or maybe you’ll understand my objection better this way: How can you be certain that science won’t disprove conclusively the existence of God at some point?
Not really. I think the universe operates according to specific laws and that we can eventually understand most, if not all of them.
I feel as if I’m caught in Reality.
I’d ask: If you believe in the supernatural, how do you go about evaluating supernatural claims? How can you decide if someone claiming to be able to heal people by prayer is genuine or a scam artist? Or a psychic? Or a dowser? If the supernatural is possible, isn’t then every supernatural claim possible?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
Are you sure?
[/quote]
Yes I am sure, you see the word ‘interpretation’ in there, thats how 6 days has been interpreted since the bible was written and if you read the theories behind these interprtations you will soon realise its a load of bollox, I am sorry but if you want to be a true Christian you should be following the rule book without bending it or interpreting it.
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
Are you sure?
Yes I am sure, you see the word ‘interpretation’ in there, thats how 6 days has been interpreted since the bible was written and if you read the theories behind these interprtations you will soon realise its a load of bollox, I am sorry but if you want to be a true Christian you should be following the rule book without bending it or interpreting it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
Are you sure?
Yes I am sure, you see the word ‘interpretation’ in there, thats how 6 days has been interpreted since the bible was written and if you read the theories behind these interprtations you will soon realise its a load of bollox, I am sorry but if you want to be a true Christian you should be following the rule book without bending it or interpreting it.
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Also I would love for you to video yourself at a school for disabled kids, explaining to every parent that visits exactly what you just told me above, then please post the video for everyones enjotment, cheers[/quote]
I’ll make sure to wear my “Don’t blame me, I’m just the messenger.” t-shirt.
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Sloth wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
Are you sure?
Yes I am sure, you see the word ‘interpretation’ in there, thats how 6 days has been interpreted since the bible was written and if you read the theories behind these interprtations you will soon realise its a load of bollox, I am sorry but if you want to be a true Christian you should be following the rule book without bending it or interpreting it.
SIX days is SIX days end of.
Are you evangelical?
I might be a cunt but I’m not that much of a cunt
[/quote]
Well, ok…Then why do you interpret every passage as literal truth?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Sloth wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
Are you sure?
Yes I am sure, you see the word ‘interpretation’ in there, thats how 6 days has been interpreted since the bible was written and if you read the theories behind these interprtations you will soon realise its a load of bollox, I am sorry but if you want to be a true Christian you should be following the rule book without bending it or interpreting it.
SIX days is SIX days end of.
Are you evangelical?
I might be a cunt but I’m not that much of a cunt
Well, ok…Then why do you interpret every passage as literal truth?
[/quote]
I do not iterpret it to be literal truth, I read it and I come to the logical conclusion that when the stoned hippies in sandals wrote ‘six days’ they actually meant ‘six days’ I do not however believe that this actually happened becuase I am atheist I just think the bible should be taken as it is written and that it does not need to be reevaluated and interpreted to allow it to still hold relevance in the 21st century.
By the way I know we have mentioned the Nazi’s so far, has anyone opened up the whole dinosaurs can of worms into this discusson yet?
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Sloth wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Sloth wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
Are you sure?
Yes I am sure, you see the word ‘interpretation’ in there, thats how 6 days has been interpreted since the bible was written and if you read the theories behind these interprtations you will soon realise its a load of bollox, I am sorry but if you want to be a true Christian you should be following the rule book without bending it or interpreting it.
SIX days is SIX days end of.
Are you evangelical?
I might be a cunt but I’m not that much of a cunt
Well, ok…Then why do you interpret every passage as literal truth?
I do not iterpret it to be literal truth, I read it and I come to the logical conclusion that when the stoned hippies in sandals wrote ‘six days’ they actually meant ‘six days’ I do not however believe that this is actually happened becuase (that god created the earth) I am atheist I just think the bible should be taken as it is written and that it does not need to be re-evaluated and interpreted to allow it to still hold relevance in the 21st century.
By the way I know we have mentioned the Nazi’s so far, has anyone opened up the whole dinosaurs can of worms into this discusson yet?
If not I would like to be the first
DINOSAURS!!!
[/quote]
The two largest Christian denominations (and oldest) don’t view the bible in the way you’re describing. An atheist who argues sola scripture, odd.
The two largest Christian denominations (and oldest) don’t view the bible in the way you’re describing. An atheist who argues sola scripture, odd. [/quote]
I don`t know, it would be refreshing to insist that religious people actually have to respect their scriptures.
Otherwise you always get the “well, you have to interpret it this way”-dance which means that suddenly you talk about the voices in their heads that make up 90% of their religion.
The two largest Christian denominations (and oldest) don’t view the bible in the way you’re describing. An atheist who argues sola scripture, odd.
I don`t know, it would be refreshing to insist that religious people actually have to respect their scriptures.
Otherwise you always get the “well, you have to interpret it this way”-dance which means that suddenly you talk about the voices in their heads that make up 90% of their religion.[/quote]
Wait. Why are you telling us to practice sola scripture? The Catholic and Orthodox don’t. While it might be refreshing for this argument (i.e. makes things easy for you) if the two largest Christian denominations did, they don’t.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Two atheists arguing on behalf of Sola Scripture…weird.[/quote]
Isn’t Sola Scriptura one of the base tenets of Protestantism, though?
I’m pretty sure there are more Protestants than Orthodox, and especially so in the US, where it’s pretty much Protestant - Catholic - Everything else for the larger groups.
It’s also telling in itself that you have to ask to what denomination a Christian belongs to before you can argue with him… You’d think that God’s Truth would be a little less open to various interpretations.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Two atheists arguing on behalf of Sola Scripture…weird.
Isn’t Sola Scriptura one of the base tenets of Protestantism, though?
I’m pretty sure there are more Protestants than Orthodox, and especially so in the US, where it’s pretty much Protestant - Catholic - Everything else for the larger groups.
It’s also telling in itself that you have to ask to what denomination a Christian belongs to before you can argue with him… You’d think that God’s Truth would be a little less open to various interpretations.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing that Christianity is a monolithic body of agreed upon tenets. Oddly enough, it has been the atheists arguing in a such a manner. Which is why I’m pointing out that protestant creationism isn’t a “christian” tenet. It is undeniably sectarian. In fact, not only do the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic not hold young earth creationism as a tenet, but I believe the same can be said for the Anglican. And there may be more, I’m just not completely knowledgable of every sect.
What I’m finding odd is that two atheists seem to favor the protestant approach to the bible. Very odd.
If I was to follow the Christian religion I would do it properlly and not interperet what is written into different meanings to suit my own needs, but as I recognise the bible to simply be a fable, an old story book I see no reason in following any of its connected religions.
Do you need to see pictures of them to belive they exsisted?
It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that dinosaurs exsisted on earth.
And there is a trillion times more evidence of their exsistance than there is any evidence of a god ever exsisting or having any involvement in the creation of the universe
If I was to follow the Christian religion I would do it properlly and not interperet what is written into different meanings to suit my own needs, but as I recognise the bible to simply be a fable, an old story book I see no reason in following any of its connected religions. [/quote]
