[quote]SpeedKills wrote:
Sorry if this has been posted before but I don’t have the patience to read this whole thread. Just one thought:
Better to live life believing in God and find out there isn’t one, then to live life not believing in God and find out there is one.[/quote]
That’s Pascals wager, but I disagree. First, it’s intellectual dishonest. Better to stand up for what you know to be true, come what may.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Massif wrote:
It gave me the heebie-jeebies just reading it.
Right, Massif.
And now look to that zebbish guy:
We have here our own cozy thread where we discuss politely the gleeful meaning of atheism and then the stalking begins.
[/quote]
I like Zeb. Him and I have had some good discussions, but he’s probably in the wrong thread here.
I think the concentrated craziness over there is what gets me. It’s just post after post of “Hallehuljah” and “hail Mary” and “Praise be to Jesus” and “I was a sinner, but now I’m saved”.
The biggest thing that gets me about it is the whole “unless you are one of us, you are doooooomed!” feel about it. It feels like a fucking sales meeting, where everyone shouts “we are the best” and then start telephoning everyone to get more converts.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m on my period.
These are from Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20, all describing the same event. For shorthand, I will refer to them as MT (Matthew), MR (Mark), L, and J. I have taken this from the NIV.
define: internal inconsistency
MT
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
MK
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
J
MT
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
MK
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
L
4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead?
[quote]zarathus wrote:
we don’t troll the Xians post, so please, respond with appropriate courtesy.
[/quote]
You don’t?
if by trolling, you mean…quoting the bible, then…er…perhaps.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
zarathus wrote:
we don’t troll the Xians post, so please, respond with appropriate courtesy.
You don’t?[/quote]
Good call.
[quote]Massif wrote:
JPBear wrote:
zarathus wrote:
we don’t troll the Xians post, so please, respond with appropriate courtesy.
You don’t?
Good call.
Can we please not have a war here?[/quote]
WE already have one. I asked for a cease and desist. Notice, I didn’t go over the other thread first, nor, when I did so, I didn’t say hail satan or any shit. I quoted some bible verses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and that was that.
[quote]zarathus wrote:
WE already have one. I asked for a cease and desist. Notice, I didn’t go over the other thread first, nor, when I did so, I didn’t say hail satan or any shit. I quoted some bible verses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and that was that.
[/quote]
What you did certainly isn’t going to help. That thread is for them to pat each other on the back and have a rah-rah meeting. So let them have it.
Pointing out contradictions in the bible is not adding anything to that thread, and it was done to purely stir up shit.
You have done exactly what the invading Christian hordes have done to this thread.
Wow,
This thread has gone nuts since the last time I checked. Ive only skimmed over the posts and dont even know where to start. I do see alot of misinformation in a few of the posts. Modern scolarship has the new testament written earlier then was previously thought. Even the most liberal scholars have parts of the new testament written within 1 lifetime of Jesus and there is ample evidence that the gap between Jesus life and the first written copies of the new testament were even much shorter then that.
I was once an adnostic/athiest depending on whose definition you use and was challenged to look at the evidence. After taking an honest look Im now a Christian and the evidence in my opinion points strongly to the bible being Gods word. For me it took more faith to hold on to my current views then to believe the bible. This is subjective and doesnt make me right but nonetheless is enough for me to believe.
I also find it funny that Christians or theists are un-intelligent and dont think rationally. I could use the same arguement against athiesm and ask how does life come from non-life? Where does information come from? How do you explain our souls which dont have matter but obviously exist? In a naturalistic world view you have to take things by faith just as a thiest does becuase nothing can explain the above objections to athiesm. Doesnt mean they will never be answers but you have to accept it by faith nonetheless.
Antony Flew the worlds leading atheist and well know debator actually changed his stance and while not holding to a particular religion, believes in a “God” of some kind. He said to be intellectually honest with himself he had to admit that the evidence for Gods existence outwieghed the evidence for atheism. I respect him for being honest an open minded which seems to be missing in this age old debate. Im a Christian and havent found an arguement or evidence to convince me otherwise yet and Ive read just about every biblical textual critisism book, atheist/theist debate and whatever else I could get my hands on and tried to be open minded on the subject. Sorry for rambling, its about bed time. God Bless
Austin
[quote]zarathus wrote:
Massif wrote:
JPBear wrote:
zarathus wrote:
we don’t troll the Xians post, so please, respond with appropriate courtesy.
You don’t?
Good call.
Can we please not have a war here?
WE already have one. I asked for a cease and desist. Notice, I didn’t go over the other thread first, nor, when I did so, I didn’t say hail satan or any shit. I quoted some bible verses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and that was that.
[/quote]
Be the better man. Don’t sink to the level of the other trolls lest you make us all look as bad as the invaders. I’d much prefer to stick to the high ground.
[quote]aslater wrote:
Antony Flew the worlds leading atheist and well know debator actually changed his stance and while not holding to a particular religion, believes in a “God” of some kind. He said to be intellectually honest with himself he had to admit that the evidence for Gods existence outwieghed the evidence for atheism. [/quote]
This is not an arguement for Christianity. Even if he does believe in “a” God, that certainly doesn’t mean he buys all that drivel that is written in the bible. I find it the height of arrogance that as soon as you mention God, Christians assume that you are talking about their God.
Anyway, if Anthony now believes in “a” god, he is the world’s FORMER leading atheist.
While these are not identical accounts for sure, I wouldn’t use them as examples of internal “inconsistency.” I would say that they are factually co-incomplete. It is certainly a valid question as to why they are not completely congruent-I hope you see what I mean, that they don’t logically contradict one another, all of the events in all accounts could have happened. Keep in mind that none of the authors was present in either instance so they were all second or third hand accounts. I am not trying to rectify all of the incongruities here, but the Jewish day begins at different times depending on whther you mean day, or 24 hour period-the day ends with morning, but in another sense midnight and in another at 6 AM all used as the start of the day for different purposes.
Also, there is no moral truth that is to be taken differently for different accounts.
Also, the Christians who formalized the bible could obviously tell that the accounts were not identical, and yet they didn’t see it as a problem for including all different versions in the same book. If anyone back then had said “Hey, your accounts don’t match, why should we believe you Christians” they must have been able to easily explain why they included the different accounts. If not, they would have gotten together and matched them up before they began to proselytize.
Let me offer that there is a bigger inconsistency in John’s gospel which seems to put the crucifixion on a different day of the week. This would be “internal inconsistency”, why not pick on it? I have heard Christian and non-Christian religious historians say that John was obviously using poetic freedom to demonstrate a theological principal. I took a class in the writing of John at a Jesuit university (and the Jesuits don’t really care what you say) and the professor was a straight down the line Joseph Campbell zealot who was certainly not Christian-he was more of a social anthropologist, and he pretty much felt that the Gospels were all written as attempts to demonstrate the same theological and moral truth, but not that the writers jsut didn’t care about the historical accuracy.
[quote]zarathus wrote:
These are from Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20, all describing the same event. For shorthand, I will refer to them as MT (Matthew), MR (Mark), L, and J. I have taken this from the NIV.
define: internal inconsistency
MT
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
MK
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
J
MT
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
MK
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
L
4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead?
[/quote]
[quote]Massif wrote:
What you did certainly isn’t going to help. That thread is for them to pat each other on the back and have a rah-rah meeting. So let them have it.
up shit.
[/quote]
Actually there is a lot more anger and disagreement between the Christians on the other thread than there is on this thread.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Tell me you’re kidding.
If not, you’re surely the most ignorant creature I’ve encountered on the web, hiding behind an pityful account of books.
[/quote]
Isn’t you whole premise on how you read all sorts of books and that is how you know Jesus didn’t die on the cross.
I asked you to give proof of your claim that the historical part of the NT is wrong. I am not debating miracles or even Jesus Diety.
I have read plenty of those books. It just so happens that apologetics is a topic that is of great interest to me. I have come across plenty of great skeptics that make me question plenty of things. You are not one of them. All you have spouted off is an opinion.
As for the different accounts of his death all four gospels say He died on the cross. How is that a different account?
But you will not convince anyone.
haney wrote:
However that is irrevelent since you also ignore oral traditions as a prominent part of the day, and written word came secondary.
Is that your best?
There are oral traditions…sure, now I see, Jesus has indeed risen from the dead, because two thousand years ago, people were not totally superstitious and
two generations + propaganda won’t warp any real events at all.
Again you arguments are always based upon the bible. This way it’s not really possible to communicate with you.[/quote]
How is it not possible? Please explain to me how we can’t talk about the historical parts of the Bible being accurate? I have not asked about his miracles, Nor have I used the Bible to prove anything.
So are you going to keep begging the question by not providing a source for why Jesus was not Crucified, or buried in a tomb?
I am not asking for Miracles. I am asking for where your history came from.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
haney wrote:
here is a rough example.
The positive is God exist
Negative is God doesn’t
A typcial argument might look like this
If there is a God he would give proof that he exist, since I don’t see any proof there must not be a God.
It leaves out the possiblity for other options which is a negative fallacy.
I am personally not aguring against anything other than a dogmatic stance that God does not exist. People like buel are the reasons why I even stated it. They claim intelectual superiority, yet they don’t fall with in the constructs of the rules for debate and philosophy.
We don’t live in a perfect world, there are very few things that can be proven definitively, and most arguments will not take place within the ‘rules’ of debate and philosophy.
Technically, you are correct in saying the outright declaration of God’s non-existence is a logical fallacy, however, that does not mean it isn’t true.
There are many reasons not to believe in the Christian God, the most important of which I believe is the complete lack of evidence for his existence, save the bible, which is not really evidence at all.
Even if we were to take it as evidence, it was written after man’s ‘fall from grace’, so how can we know it wasn’t written with the intention of deception?
If God is really so benevolent, why does he not ensure that his message is clearly received by all his children? Why the plethora of competing religions and acrimonious disputation, even between members of the same faith?
As well as failing to communicate the central message effectively, way too many important questions are left unanswered by the scriptures, so how could they be divinely inspired? You would think the deity could compose something that would seem airtight and irrefutable to his intended audience
Again, you can cry ‘logical fallacy’ all you want, but the bulk of the evidence lies on the side of the non-believers.[/quote]
I only wanted people to stop saying they used logic to not believe in God.
I could tell you what I know, and why I believe, but as I said I am not here to convert anyone. I would guess you are a rather smart individual, and if you were searching you would find the answer you are looking for.
If you really want my opinion on those topics cool, if not no big deal.
I get involved in these threads only because I consider myself a student of truth, and I don’t like Christians or Atheist that blurr the lines between common sense and reality.
by and by, on the xian thread, i didnt use the words “internal inconsisency”.
its debatable, but all i did was post scripture w/ absolutely no commentary.
I really hate to become involved in this as I’ve head similar debates countless times and it seems that nothing is ever really solved and while there may be something to gained, it often gives me mental blue balls. Also, I have not read through the entire thread, so forgive me if I say something that has already been covered, but this is something I would like to comment on which I came across;
[quote]Gregatron wrote:
Some evils are the same everywhere…
murder, rape, greed…
Both the believer and the non-believer would probably feel the same way about these things.
[/quote]
It is not true that these are all evil all the time in all cultures. In the Victorian era, rape was viewed as the fault of the women for “being a whore” or dressing “whoreishly” thereby “asking for it.” Killing of other men takes place in war and is not necessarily viewed as evil, depending on the side one is on. I’m sure Hitler’s most devout followers didn’t view him as greedy, but more as taking what rightfully belonged to the superior race. It is so subjective.
-Matt
One of my main problems with religion is as follows. Imagine that religion as a collective whole is T-Nation. Now, the different authors are different religions. Poliquin and Ian King might advise that counting tempo is very valuable where Waterbury may say it isn’t worth a shit flavored lollipop. Metal Milita has one way of training, Westside Barbell another, etc.
These coaches can have different opinions and end up at the same result. Producing lean, mean, strong athletes. There are so many factors that come into play, we can’t just say “If Waterbury says it’s not true then it isn’t and therefore Poliquin is full of crap.”
The person who is religous believes that there and only there religion is correct. Everyone else is basically damned. You can’t argue that such and such religion is crap because you can never prove the end goal…salvation (or a better athlete or whatever it may be).
In my opinion, there is not much value on arguing what religion is correct or better or whatever. Do what you want. My issues come up when people start trying to force their beliefs on me in the government and whatnot.
-MAtt
PS- I have not read through the entire thread so forgive me if I am missing some major point.
[quote]violatepropriety wrote:
true Atheism is PROOF of the non existence of God. Got it? Lets see it.
Not quite. However, I will answer your simple question. No one has yet to show a single shred of evidence to support the existence of a god; no one.
Since you have no evidence Atheists don’t have to prove a damn thing.
My my my. This thread has really gone whacky.
I didn’t think it was atheists against christians. Why do those christians bring out the worst in you. What have they done to get some of you so angry?
Spitting and stomping on the bible is just as bad as a bible thumper trying to shove religion down someones throat.
I’m wondering on another point.
What is it stopping any one of us from pistol whipping an old lady? Or raping a child? Or cheating on your friends? Is it fear of being caught?
Is it some type of ingrained moral code?
We instinctively understand when something is wrong. Some of us do not give a shit. These are the evil elements of our society.
I personally am very happy that most of the population of the world believes in some type of god.
Could you imagine what would happen if some of these religious zealots were suddenly let loose on this planet without a creator figure to chastise them for sinning?
God is a good idea. If there was no god and no moral code as a result then it probably would not be a good idea to let me into your house when I come a knockin.
We have not evolved we have devolved into something that the animal kingdom would never recognise as their own.
We kill other animals for the sport of it. We pollute the planet for personal profit. We wage wars in the name of country, religion and greed.
We hate. We lie and decieve.
we are not superior beings but monsters who have been programed to obey certain laws.
Somebody mentioned the book Lord of the flies.
That is who we are. Savages who wear a suit and a tie.
Have you ever noticed how the masks come off people when they can sit behind a keyboard with no chance of being recognised?
If the internet has done one thing then it has given us a peek at the hidden nature of man.
Some are trolls and some are friendly.
I have read the most hatefull stuff from the most anassumming of people.
It’s usually the people who are well balanced that are polite and generous with their posts.
Sorry to go off on a tangent.
Now i’m off on a ski trip for ten days where I will be in awe of the grandeur that all the combined gods created and will pray to the god of snowboard to let me find my groove.