jump to last post 1-50 of 396 discussions (1882 posts)

Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

  1. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    The debate is Theism Vs. Atheism. The spirit of this particular thread is solely for a more formal discussion of the topic. There are rules...which obviously can be broken but should be followed out of courtesy.

    1.) Sources for arguments of fact need to be cited. There are exceptions to this rule if the argument can be logically deduced. Also when posting a new argument state your world view and make it clear.

    2.) There is also no particular format so pissing contests and rabbit trails are discouraged. Stay on topic...Theism Vs. Atheism.

    3.) If you value your dignity, think before you write because the consequence is public humiliation and shame. This is a warning to all those "Shut up, Jesus loves me!" wussies and Davinci Code quoting pseudo-intellectuals!

    4.)Insults are fun. What is not fun is sexism, racism, or prejudice comments about one's sexual preferences. Be aware that when it comes to religion/atheism, discussions about these topics are sure to come up. Use common sense when arguing.

    5.) Comments are very welcome. Root for your favorite team or dis the opposition!

    A little bit about my self:

    As you all might have guessed, Ender is not my real name. It's Joey Perez and it's not really Joey it's Roberto. I am arguing for the validity of a Theistic world view, more specifically the Christian world view. Atheism is a false belief system.

    I have a four year degree in Theology with an interest in Christian Apologetics.

    OK Lets begin with a simple statement and see where is goes from there.



    The Holy Bible is complete in it's content, context, and continuity. It has been preserved over the ages and is the most reliable ancient text known to man. The content of the text is true from beginning to end. The original Bible text is the infallible word of God, written by man through divine inspiration.



    This should be fun! Remember kids, fight dirty and fight correctly!

    1. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Holy Bible is complete in it's content, context, and continuity. It has been preserved over the ages and is the most reliable ancient text known to man. The content of the text is true from beginning to end. The original Bible text is the infallible word of God, written by man through divine inspiration.

      It has been preserved over the ages and is the most reliable ancient text known to man.
      Much before that comes the Hindu Vedas and Zarathustras Gathas.
      Much more knowledgeable than the Bible is the Vedas written by the ancient poet saints.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        But the Eastern religion brought only poverty, diseases, suffering, what is good about it? Now India is going to the extreme way to socialism. Am I right Sir? But I do love Indian people.

        1. countrywomen profile image61
          countrywomenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Sir- Even I being an Indian love being loved by others like you. I just wanted to elaborate that history/geography/culture sometimes have a unique blend on different civilizations. In the past many civilizations have admired the richness and wonders of India tried to get to India for exploring its riches. But Indians unlike western European powers never went on expeditions/conquests to other parts of the world hence mostly concentrated in a limited geography hence posing one of the reasons for the so called poverty/per capita income due to its huge population.

          In the past India has suffered with similar attitude of a "white man's burden" and the erstwhile British who considered themselves as a "benevolent force of good" were really traders who wanted to have complete authority to further there commercial interests thus weakening India and strengthening the coffers of the British empire.

          India today is a strange mixture of extreme poverty and stupendous wealth at the same time. There are billionaires like Mukesh Ambani who was ranked in the top 3 in the world recently as the richest billionaires and then there are so many who are poor with a huge middle class population. Unless one travels to India and has a first hand account one can't get the complete picture. I feel those so called aid/evangelical organizations tend to project extremely poor image of India due to there own ulterior motives. India today is ranked 4th in the world economy as far as GDP (PPP) is concerned.

          In India when people buy things like car or property mostly it is paid out of selling ancestral property or personal savings hence on the surface they may not appear to live extravagant lives as the Americans do. But if you dig deeper an average American is far too indebted in Education/Car/house loans, credit card debt and so on. If one would consider somebody rich based on the material possession without considering the net worth (assets/liabilities) then it is not a true measure.

          And India started out with Socialist programs like 5 year plans, massive public sector undertakings, nationalized banks and so on but only in the last two decades it has become a true free market economy. Hence there are some folks who feel that it is moving away from its original socialist ideology.

          Sir, since you were not aware of the ground realities I am taking this much time to explain. I hope you don't feel bad about my addressing your post as I felt it is necessary to explain about us to those who may still view it as an extremely backward country which is somewhat true but that would be an incomplete picture. smile

          PS: Sorry folks for digressing and henceforth will try to http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/4835/stayontopiccx9.gif

          1. mohitmisra profile image60
            mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The world is looking at eastern mysticism for answers they have not found.So many masters of the Caliber of Jesus have come from the East.

      2. 61
        yoyo832posted 19 months ago in reply to this

        "When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

        But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!"  G.Carlin

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You mentioned that you think atheism is a belief system. I understand that some one with your beliefs must necessarily think that everyone else only has "beliefs," but I feel we should first clear this up.

      A-theism is a lack of belief in a deity. Simple.

      Now onto your point.

      Irrational and illogical:

      Ten things that prove the christian god exists:
      1.
      2.
      3.
      4.
      5.
      6.
      7.
      8.
      9.
      10.

      Two things that proves the christian god does not exist:

      1. See above
      2. Evolution proves there is no christian god

      Atheism is boring:

      Having dispensed with the irrational idea that there is a god, I am now open to all sorts of possibilities for a belief system. I can for instance choose to believe that heaven has a beer volcano and a stripper factory, alongside the belief that the earth was seeded by aliens. And if you open your mind you will see that this makes perfect sense.

      What are you offering. Grovelling in church on a Sunday morning while spending the rest of the week doing things you promised not to do on Sunday?

      Your contention that the bible is the infallible word of god hardly warrants a response. If that is the word of your god, I am completely underwhelmed.

      1. SharonPapcin profile image60
        SharonPapcinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        God talks to me,  He exists.  Thank you, may your life be beautiful, God is loving you!  <3

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Love means engaging with what people are saying, not just shouting your own message.

          1. SharonPapcin profile image60
            SharonPapcinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ...free will  Love <3

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't say you couldn't do it.  I said it was basically illogical to call it an act of love. Like being a hubber but not making hubs. Regards. 3<

              1. SharonPapcin profile image60
                SharonPapcinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                ...you have free will to conceive "shouting",   I really do have a very soft voice...

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What does he say? How do you know it's God and not your imagination pretending to be God?

          1. SharonPapcin profile image60
            SharonPapcinposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Hi sorry I just saw this.  Well, God says just about everything.  He jokes He laughs, he tells me how proud He is of me, and also  when I can do better, He encourages me, he forgives me and He unburdens me, he helps m understand tings that I never understood before, He gives me strength and Peace inside, and I feel it from my head to my toes when that happens........... 

            OK so One time I had such beautiful thoughts about us dancing. I will summarize it .........  I was in purple gown, and God was dancing with me by the waterfall.  We were having a wonderful picnic, and I asked if he would  dance with all my family and friends and He did.      BUT...Then after I was not sure what I was thinking,  I was still new at coming to Lord,  I still had doubts and insecurities, and also, I still  had the old mindset that it was about Religion and traditions , so I dropped to my knees and said I am not worthy of such thoughts.   I was condemning myself for no reason, because I had such little self-worth and to be honest so many Religions growing up did  mostly condemn, so that is what I was used to, ya know.   I cried and said I am sorry for having such a thought because You are Royalty( and I specifically used the word Royalty) and I am nothing.............NOT!.............Not at all what God was thinking.  IN FACT, I went to Church and someone I never met before, told me the  thoughts that I had about Dancing with Jesus etc...,  and told me that purple means royalty!   and you know what,  I was wearing purple in that thought!  God was comforting me through this individual and telling me that I am worthy and that what I saw is real!   How did this individual at Church know about what I saw?  I did not tell anyone, yet He described it to me out of no where!  I have so much more.....I will tell you some more if you would like? Let me know if you would like to email...God is good, God Bless you and your family and friends.

        3. 61
          yoyo832posted 19 months ago in reply to this

          "I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

          Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man." G. Carlin

          1. SharonPapcin profile image60
            SharonPapcinposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            lol, Ok I gotta ask,  because I grew up a figure skater...The Ice Capades!?!?!!!  hahahaha that is so fun-funny!  Anyway, I guess what I used to do is confuse what people choose to do with their free will in the world,  with God's will.  But then that would not at all be free will then!  Choosing is just such a great word when positive meditation is applied.  Does that make sense? 

            The second part of your message,  I can only say that The world has such marvelous beauty He creates!  I could never create the blue in a blood vain of a human body nor the blue sky on a sunshiny day!  Hope I do not appear too corny.  I have been through a lot and God has always been there to see me thru it, I am just still now coming to terms that it was never me, But God...it is certainly a light of a journey I have come to smile  Its good, is very good!  bye bye, Blessings! Talk again!

            1. 61
              yoyo832posted 19 months ago in reply to this

              "So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
              So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.
              And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

              Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite". G. Carlin

              1. SharonPapcin profile image60
                SharonPapcinposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                hahahaha George Carlin lyrics!  I like your personality, and your Carlin message has a hint of tickle-fun and sarcasm-jabs mixed together, like a sour patch kid !  smile  I am fond of your humor!  So is God, He will use that in your future someday, BTW!

        4. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Your subconscious talks to you and you interpret it as god. It does exist, and we're all glad you're such a loving person.

          1. SharonPapcin profile image60
            SharonPapcinposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Thank you smile  Yes I am sure at times that might be true, and God tells me, that was not me saying that That was you...lol...true!   Although my subconscious cannot answer me with physical results after. I sometimes wonder is the world IS the actual subconscious that people choose to remain in, instead of the real capacity of our Soul...ugh, kinda deep there, sorry about that, now I sounded freakishly quintessential, BUT truly it is how I feel to the core of my being and I want to be truthful, regardless of ridicule!  God Bless your day, Yes!

    3. Inspirepub profile image88
      Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Your first argument breaks your first rule.

      Jenny

      1. Armatice profile image61
        Armaticeposted 7 years ago in reply to this
      2. 61
        nick g beckettposted 7 years ago in reply to this
      3. AlexK2009 profile image89
        AlexK2009posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The Bible  is a selection of books chosen by the dominant faction in the church  in the 4th century,  The history of the documents involved is fairly well known as are the myths which make it up -  I understand there are  two creation stories in  Genesis. The Koran is also said to have been dictated by God. In that case why did he choose to make Islam and Christianity enemies?

        1. 61
          yoyo832posted 19 months ago in reply to this

          even more...why two books?  why so many different religions?  why so many different words of God that contradict each other?   people, this is all manmade crap.

    4. Born Again 05 profile image80
      Born Again 05posted 7 years ago in reply to this
    5. Make  Money profile image73
      Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I believe the above quote is correct.  I also believe that the Holy Bible is the oldest account of mankind in existence.  Genesis speaks of things that happened before the flood.  Noah's great grand son Nimrod (Genesis 10) who commissioned the building of the Tower of Babel is believed to be how the religion of Zoroaster came about.  Nimrod is also identified with a complex of Mediterranean deities such as Asar, Baal, Dumuzi and Osiris.

      There is a seamless transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament with the continuity remaining in tact.  Henoch, Cains son from long before the flood is spoken about in Genesis and other parts of the Old Testament.  Henoch is also spoken about in the New Testament in the Gospel of Luke and Paul's letter to the Hebrews.  The prophecies from the Old Testament about Jesus are revealed in the New Testament.  The end time prophecies in the New Testament can be confirmed in the Old Testament.  The original Bible text is the infallible word of God, written by man guided by the Holy Spirit.

    6. usmanali81 profile image61
      usmanali81posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Regarding Atheism, i agree that it's nothing more than a RUBBISH and Freemasons use it.

      Regarding Bible, i dont agree as these Bibles are written by John, Mathew, Mark, Luke etc and not Jesus (peace be upon him) himself. It has undergone several changes and interpolations with the passage of time. It has got several flavours, old testaments, new testaments. It's not in it's origional language, HEBREW..................................... and many other defects

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You were saying Jenny?

        1. Inspirepub profile image88
          Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see anything here that is being suggested as a "fact" for the purposes of this discussion.

          I would classify the entire post under Rule 5 - it's just a comment.

          Sort of like the heckles from other parliamentarians when one of them has the floor - no need to respond to it.

          Jenny

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Good point. Let us hope it remains a light heckling rather than the usual onslaught. big_smile

      2. Eric Graudins profile image61
        Eric Graudinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's been nice not talking to you usmanali81.
        Let's not talk again real soon.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          LOL

          You'll be lucky. wink

        2. usmanali81 profile image61
          usmanali81posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Did i put my foot on your tail ???

          1. Eric Graudins profile image61
            Eric Graudinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No, I don't have a tail. You're probably confusing me with Mr. Knowles.
            But when you come in here swinging a big RUBBISH bag around, I'm perfectly entitled to ignore you.
            Which I haven't done in this case, because I'm  also exceedingly polite. Sometimes.

      3. onthewriteside profile image73
        onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Usman,

        Unfortunately we will never be able to see the world from your point of view because we will never be able to get our heads that far up our asses!

        1. usmanali81 profile image61
          usmanali81posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          you mean to say your ass acts as a brain for you lol lol lol

          1. onthewriteside profile image73
            onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ummmmm....no.

    7. chukra G profile image59
      chukra Gposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      there are so mANY stuff out there you dont know yet buddy, check out first

    8. 0
      dennisemattposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "The debate is Theism Vs. Atheism." 
      I personally do not believe in structured religion. whether or not I beleive in God has nothing to do with that.I see them as completly different things. You stated that atheism is illogical and boring. I personally find MOST 'religious' people to be the same.

      "If you value your dignity, think before you write because the consequence is public humiliation and shame."

      I do value my dignity, and am not afraid of being  "publicly humiliated" based on a religous forum on the internet. I can turn my computer off.  smile

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOL - You can never be "publicly humiliated. Just look at the garbage the religionists are pumping out. Anyone who is so insecure they believe this stuff will not be able to humiliate you.

        LOL

        How many brothers did the imaginary Jesus have?
        How many virgins give birth?

        Talking snakes and arguing about this - no wonder they are ridiculed. Not a single solitary fact in sight - yet they think they are going to live forever. lol lol

        I will leave this one to the religionists I think.........

        As usual.

        1. 0
          dennisemattposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I still insist I am a vrigin!!!!!!

    9. pudding_ninja profile image60
      pudding_ninjaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Atheism is irrational and illogical. I'm sorry, but that made me laugh. But seriously, there is no conclusive evidence that any religion is entirely right, wrong, or anywhere in between. There could be a god, gods, or no god, nobody really knows. However, many stories from religions texts have been scientifically proven to never have occurred. Just throwing that fact out there...

    10. brohhma profile image52
      brohhmaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      it seems we all have something to say......no matter....our saying got any matter in it or not...........

      hey

      what i am doing here.........!!

    11. RRRood profile image84
      RRRoodposted 7 years ago in reply to this
      1. RRRood profile image84
        RRRoodposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have been on both sides and just want to say life as a Christian is much more positive and stable than life as an atheist.  Though I once turned my back on God, I am greatly blessed that He never turned his back on me!  And I was one offensive non-believer!!  God is Good and life in his Grace is Better!!

  2. Jewels profile image81
    Jewelsposted 7 years ago

    For someone who was going to bed 3 hours ago, you sure are productive.  You realise you're going to have to brew some coffee.

    Oh, edit.  Both theists and the atheists drink coffee.  Just thought I'd contribute.

  3. tksensei profile image59
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    The question is, which side finds it harder to at least try to respect the views of the other?

    1. Jewels profile image81
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ahhhh. This will be a good contest.  I have popcorn, want some?

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Depends. Who made the popcorn?

        1. Jewels profile image81
          Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Oh!  I'll make it.  I don't believe in a personal God, nor will I put a witchy curse on you.

    2. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Both as they both feel they are correct.I was an atheist and I thought believers were nutcases with nothing better to do with their lives.
      Now I know god exists but cannot force a non believer or atheist to believe me as he needs to find out for himself like I did.

      1. anjalichugh profile image87
        anjalichughposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'm glad you found your path. smile

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I love Mo!  BTW Mo, your book's key words ended up bringing me traffic. smile

          1. mohitmisra profile image60
            mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Glad I could help as I love you as well. smile

        2. mohitmisra profile image60
          mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          smile

  4. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 7 years ago

    Theism and Atheism form a false dichotomy. The opposite position to "believing there is a god" is "not believing there is a god". It is not "believing there is no god". It is logically impossible to prove non-existence of anything. The Rationalist doesn't need to make assertions beyond the limits of his/her knowledge, but is content to say "I cannot know, therefore I have no need of belief".

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

      Hear hear! Atheism is lack of belief, not belief of lack. It is nothing else. Atheism tells us one thing and one thing only about a person. It says nothing about what else they may think..

      1. SharonPapcin profile image60
        SharonPapcinposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        I agree with this statement.  I do not see a belief system set up in Atheism. I feel like this argument is an archaic form of manipulation, it seems that it is often used to manipulate an atheist into thinking that they do in fact believe in something, when they do not!   It is said to irritate an atheist into drama and confusion.  So then it must be said that choice based on twisting of words,  would not be real.   I think also, inside each Christian,  is a feeling that deep inside each person is something that is God...and so because that is a part of us, then atheism is sometimes un-necessarily offensive and so the defense mechanisms kick in and uhh bouy!  And that is a direct contradiction to what having The kind compassionate Holy Sprit inside me is all about...So hard,  the walk is toughie, yes!

        I also have personal feelings involved in it, and  that I would not want to get  belief and atheism confused, because that does affect the perception of  belief, my belief, my belief in the existence of The Lord and that belief  is not a contradiction to atheism.  It is simply a state of being and choosing God or not choosing God.  Loving God is my choice that I stand by,  and therefore I believe in Him and have a system of ways that encompass my belief, praying, talking to God, thanking God, asking for forgiveness, hugging and kissing God etc....all the things that I enjoy in my belief system have no opposite reactions in atheism.  If Newton was correct ( I used to teach science)  that every action has an equal or opposite reaction, then that might just be simply feelings of dislike for another opinion.    An atheist says there is no Him to believe in so there is no system in place to love and talk to anyone, nor hate anyone, that to the atheist,  does not exist.   Yowzaa!     Now if you hate God, then that is different then atheism because then you are hating actual someone or something...but an atheist does not have anyone or anything to hate because in their eyes He does not exist, so therefore perhaps the true atheist does not really have any negative thoughts to say about God, other than that they feel non-existence. 

        Of course the same could be said of some atheists who feel compelled to manipulate or ridicule a believer, but then they are choosing to hate me and my belief and not God, because an atheist says there is no God so it is not true to them and not because of any type of belief.  so I guess that  part also may be true as well... That's kinda a big bummer.   

        Its hard to be truthful and I make mistakes all the time, but I am trying.  I guess each,   get exasperated with each other sometimes, its more about egos.  Egos can really bite,  But once they are set aside something "BAM" happens.

        Can you have a friendship between a believer and non-believe, yes...I have friends that cheer me on because they realize my belief has changed my life and all they want for me is my happiness, and that is really nice...Do I  hope they will come to The Lord, ofcourse I do, not out of hatred for them but out of mutual love for them and that is the truth!    simply because of what I have experienced and the Love that I have felt, yes that makes me fervent in God's Love, I am soooooooooooo grateful,  and sometimes I express this fervently and yes I can be annoying, how do I know because God tells me so smile  God wants me to be truthful and a loving person to everyone, and that means seeing many different facets while I stay strong in The Love of The Lord!   Its a toughie journey sometimes, and  only possible because of His strength inside me.  Thank you.

  5. Eric Graudins profile image61
    Eric Graudinsposted 7 years ago

    Nice work Joey.
    You hooked a couple of big ones already!

    Anyway, I disagree with your fundamental premise.
    How can a decision not to become involved with something (ie a Christian view of the world) be a "belief system" which pits one against the might of the religious juggernaut. 
    It's just a simple decision.

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yep. That's what I said, too. The problem the OP has is the common one of thinking that his believing in god makes god important to everyone else. It's an illogical position, akin to 'I like toast so everyone in the world MUST have a strong opinion about toast' Some would call it inflated ego. But only illogical post-Freudians.

      1. Eric Graudins profile image61
        Eric Graudinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ahh - Toast. I take it you're a Red Dwarf fan. If you're not, you need to see the "toaster" episode, where a manic talking toaster is an evangelist for toast, and all types of heated bread products.

        OK next thread Joey. This one's been blown to bits already. And I have no theological knowledge and don't even hang out in here lol

        1. Paraglider profile image90
          Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Red Dwarf? No. Toast was just a handy example of something unimportant. I think I'll bow out of this one too. There's not much chance of a meaningful discussion with someone who can't manage an internally consistent original post.

  6. tksensei profile image59
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    LOL!

  7. David Bowman profile image60
    David Bowmanposted 7 years ago



    I see myself as a rationalist as well; however, I refer to myself as an atheist because technically the two terms are not mutually exclusive and I would like to see more people using the word "atheist" to identify their stance on religious belief in order to eventually (hopefully) de-stigmatize the word. As Paraglider so eloquently stated, "not believing there is a god" and "believing there is no god" are two different positions, of which, I hold the former.



    Well, prove it. Especially the divine inspiration part. As Thomas Paine, one of my favorite freethinkers, was quoted as saying: "Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him." [excerpt from The Age Of Reason]

    1. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Guru Nanak " you need to be in a similar vibration to appreciate what I say or else you will call me a fool."
      It takes master to appreciate a master.

      Then again don't believe until it becomes your experience is also the truth..

    2. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      For completeness, I'd add that I'm perfectly happy with "There is no god" as a proposition (not a belief) that is falsifiable by a single verified manifestation. And I'm not holding my breath.

  8. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    Wow, Siskiyou Bible College.  Why didn't you say so Joey.  I would never have argued with someone from this great accredited foundation if I had known you had a degree from there.  I am impressed.  Ha! Ha! Ha!

  9. Eaglekiwi profile image77
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Cheering for Christ
    Cuz I read the end of the book   smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps if you read the beginning and the middle, rather than just jumping to the last chapter, you would understand why the idea of an external god is so incredibly funny. These may help:

      This is where the story of christ was stolen from.

      This is why there is no such place as hell.

      Hope that helps. big_smile

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image77
        Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Actually Mark and co. I am saved by grace (not by a book)
        Are you familiar with that concept by any chance smile

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No sweetheart - I do not need saving. wink

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image77
            Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well should you change your mind,its called Grace
            (Compatible with all software)

            This period is known as Time of Grace
            Para, I think you were refering to the 'Judgement' era
            Basically speaking ,cause and effect scenerio
            Mankind make a dah bombs
            World blow up

    2. Born Again 05 profile image80
      Born Again 05posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Me too! Can't wait!! Can you??

      1. Paraglider profile image90
        Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. I read it too. The violence, the vengeance, the destruction, the obscenity, the glorification in torture and punishment. Pretty foul. Difference is, I saw it as the deluded ramblings of a bitter and sick old man, while you saw it as the word of god. And you 'can't wait' to see it all played out. hmmm...

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That is because she has it right and can't wait for those of us who have it wrong to get whats coming.

          And people wonder why I am anti-religionist. big_smile

          There is a loophole you know born again. lol

          http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/loophole.png

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            lol, I got a comment the other day telling me that god was an anvil and would smash atheist!

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That is how they show you how much they love you. It is for your own good.  wink

            2. Paraglider profile image90
              Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, that's par for the course - your commentator has special knowledge of the nature of god but doesn't know the difference between an anvil and a hammer lol

        2. Eaglekiwi profile image77
          Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Isnt all already being played out para?
          Still men will blame God for the decisions they make

          Im just saying Id rather back a winner smile

          1. Paraglider profile image90
            Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Who's blaming god? Who's blaming anyone? I see no evidence of god and am quite happy to take responsibility for my own decisions.

        3. Eaglekiwi profile image77
          Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Who do you see is responsible Para?

          1. Paraglider profile image90
            Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Responsible for what? The current state of the world? Collectively, we all are, as humans, though some are more responsible than others by virtue of their use/misuse of a disproportionate share of influence. That's not so hard, is it?

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image77
              Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Nope not for me at all...smile

              1. Paraglider profile image90
                Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                So where is this leading? We've created this world (not physically, but the prevailing conditions) and if it doesn't suit us we'd better fix it. And stop bothering about supernatural stuff that's of no consequence. Anyway, there I must leave it for tonight smile

      2. spiderpam profile image59
        spiderpamposted 7 years ago in reply to this
  10. 0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    I think it is always good to point out that even the Bible is not 2000 years old so technically it has not survived 2000 years by the will of an invisible god.

    Though I cannot remember off the top of my head, the first book of the new testament wasn't written until what 150ad or something which is a huge gap to try and fill in the pieces with hearsay from people who never even met Jesus.

    Plus, why would the bible be described as magical for surviving the years when works from other great philosophers have survived much, much longer than that, not to mention the remains of ancient Egyptian's, tombs, bodies and all but not 1 of any character from the Bible. 

    All there are, are scrolls with a story written on them.  A missing box of the covenant that doesn't exist, a boat the size of half the Earth that doesn't exist and bit and pieces of history all rolled into one narrow perspective.

  11. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 7 years ago

    enderw1ggens wrote: ((Alright my friend save that argument for the moment. I'm going to start a new thread with a provocative title. Lay down some ground rules and open with a simple argument. Then i'm going to sleep!))

    WAKEY WA-A-A-KEY!!!

    http://www.musicweb-international.com/nostalgia/2005/Billy_cotton_AJA5557.jpg

  12. onthewriteside profile image73
    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago

    I would like to see one of these on every street corner in the babble-belt:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9GHoR-RJLy8/SQZv98rC6HI/AAAAAAAAJL0/IQPV3y4ka7E/s400/brains_bits.jpg

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Visit Wales. Brains is the national brewery. You do find Brains houses on every corner!

  13. Ivan the Terrible profile image60
    Ivan the Terribleposted 7 years ago

    I respect anyone who believes in whatever they want to believe in and I would expect to treated in like fashion.  I also believe in no god or gods, godesses or super-divine beings.  Maybe there is life out there more intelligent than we are - that wouldn't be hard to get to that point!  However, I have no reason to believe in god(s) so I just don't even consider it.  That does not mean that I am out to prove that a god or gods don't exist. 

    I do however contend that your christian bible is neither accurate nor ancient and is not reliable.  It seems to me to be filled with contradictions and, even though I have been told by many that no such errors exist, I manage to find quite a few with very little trouble.

    Also I ask that if the bible is at all accurate, why don't people who believe in it follow all the rules set out there?  Only following some of the rules is like saying one is only a little pregnant.  It doesn't work that way, in my estimation.

    Also, there are other religious and non-religious texts that would seem to be older.  As for more accurate I can not say, not having seen the original texts.

    One last thing, I do not agree that anything the bible has to say about how human beings came into existance is true.  therefore I resent when peopler try to foint the biblical passages off as science to be taught in schools.  We might as well teach that the earth sits atop a giant elephant standing on four great turtles.  It makes about as much sense to me, one as the other.

    Thanks for posing the question.

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ivan - he didn't pose a question; he came here armed with answers wink

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Not really living up to his namesake either. sad

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          but god made it rain in Oregon.... sheesh.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Was Ender from Oregon?

            1. 0
              sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              No, he is from god. lol

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                LOL

                No - Ender Wiggins is a fictional character - a book worth reading actually - "Ender's Game. big_smile

                1. 0
                  sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, I haven't read that.  Maybe I will check it out. smile

          2. countrywomen profile image61
            countrywomenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Sandra- Over here in Seattle, Washington we consider not having rain a blessing http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/education/kids/images/water-images/sunraincloud.anim.gif We would rather Thank God if it was sunny http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b94/mybusiness/Smilies/sunningsmilie.gif

            1. 0
              sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              lol, I grew up there and I call it a blessing to have moved to California.  big_smile

              1. countrywomen profile image61
                countrywomenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Now don't make us feel bad...hehe. We love our "evergreen state" in spite of the rain. smile

  14. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    Alright, you filthy hyenas! Beating me up in my sleep. Got one guy Google spying, another guy inventing false dichotomy scenarios, people insulting my rebuttal before I've made it...oooh! It's payback time, sucka!

    Lets begin with Mohitmisras first comment, which somebody could have commented about this while i was gone. He asserts that the Vedas are a more ancient scripture. My argument was not about the age of ancient texts but the reliability.
    The earliest manuscript of the Rig Vedas was written in the 19th century B.C., thats around 3,000 to 3,500 years in between.

    Now, i know all of you ravenous wolves are begging for your beatings but unfortunatlesy I have some work to do. I'll be back in a few hours to make all of your arguments barren wastelands.

    The next guy to get it...Mr. False Dichotomy.

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If your 'rebuttal' is as rigorous as your 'dismissal' of Eastern religio-philosophy, I'm not over-worried. But do your worst. If it's half-way consistent (unlike your opening post) I might reply. Or not. Impress me, if you can.

    2. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      My argument was not about the age of ancient texts but the reliability.

      enderw1ggins sorry what do you mean by reliability?
      Are you saying the Vedas is not a reliable text? Common you are too intelligent for that.

  15. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL

  16. Mason Hymas profile image61
    Mason Hymasposted 7 years ago

    I think Ive read that book 9 times now. highly recommended.

    Ender's character is so clearly modeled after a savior that it might almost be blasphemous according to Roberto's  theology to compare himself to Ender... smile

    1. Inspirepub profile image88
      Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting take on the book.

      When I read it, it was about a kid who was duped into committing genocide when he thought he was just playing a computer game.

      Less saviour, more The Great Destroyer.

      Jenny

  17. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    Let me begin by explaining what dichotomy is. It is simply an either-or dilemma. For instance, “A light bulb is either on or off.” A light bulb cannot be on or off at the same time.

    A False Dichotomy is presented when truth statements are made to force a dichotomy when there are other alternatives available.  “If you do not believe in God you will go to hell.” Is  a perfect example of False Dichotomy because it presupposes that God exists and that everybody agrees. However a false dichotomy argument can be reconciled given the evidence for such a premise is affirmed undeniably.

    The topic “Theism Vs. Atheism” is not a truth statement therefore your remark is dismissed, and now the angry mob feels free to throw shaved cats at your Swiss-cheese argument.

    Allow me to use your sucky argument to further enhance my own.
    “The opposite position to ‘believing there is a god’ is ‘not believing there is a god’. It is not ‘believing there is no god’.”

    Let’s put this desiccated viscera on the slab and have a look..shall we?

    This silly notion, presupposes that “not believing” is somehow different then “believing there is no”. Here’s the conundrum, not believing is presuppositional. Presuppositions are the product of world views and belief systems. You, my friend, have  apathetically stumbled into the “believing there is no” frat party. And the same goes to you Eric!

    To further embarrass your whole school of thought, strict rationalism solely as a test for truth is inherently self-defeating.  Because logic, by rationalistic methodology, is only  a negative test for truth. The impotency of such thought is demonstrated with this quote,

    “The Rationalist doesn't need to make assertions beyond the limits of his/her knowledge, but is content to say ‘I cannot know, therefore I have no need of belief’.

    Strict rationalists are incapable of providing undeniable truth, either definitional or existential. Your entire belief system is apathy. You say that because you don’t know that you cannot know so there is no need for knowledge.

    Am I the only one that think this is the weakest kool-aid ever made?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      okay smarty pants with big words. lol big_smile  please describe for me, god.

      1. enderw1ggins profile image61
        enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sandra,

        I like that you think my pantaloons are intelligent? I happen to like your extremely genius wrist watch!

        Anyways, it seems that I am the only fighter here for my team. I know everybody wants a little piece of the Ender...and i don't blame you. But i cant answer everybody.

        So if i ignore your post it's not because i'm avoiding being wrong or think your particular argument is stupid. I just have to sift through all this.

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol, then I will wait my turn.  big_smile

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And who exactly is capable of providing undeniable truth? There is no such thing as existential undeniable truth.

      Your entire belief system rests on semantics and well, that is it really. wink

      Piss weak kool aid I guess.

      1. onthewriteside profile image73
        onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Mark...

        I'm just wondering what possible "evidence" he thinks he can come up with that hasn't been tried and found wanting already?

  18. 0
    Gods Gardenposted 7 years ago

    In the end ...I would rather be wrong in my beleifs , then to have to explain why did'nt...

    For the record...I have no desire to climb trees, eat banannas, or pluck bugs outta my friends hair... Thus if this evolution theory is "proven" why do we still have apes???????

    I'll put my faith in the Bible...

    Have a Wonderful Day all!!

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So, as always, it is all about fear smile

      1. Make  Money profile image73
        Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes Misha that is exactly what it is about, the fear of God's wrath coming down on friends.  God is a loving God and a vengeful God at the same time.  Even Jesus' mother said "And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him" (Luke 1:50).  What kind of people would we be if we knew about God's wrath to come without trying to tell everyone?  I'd prefer that nobody felt God's wrath and it's very easy to avoid it.

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I do not see it that way. Why do little innocent children get cancer apparently without environmental input, then suffer and die? Is that part of your god's wrath?

          1. Make  Money profile image73
            Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No a child dying is not God's wrath Earnest.  Nobody should be expected to answer that because only God knows why.  Maybe God had a heavenly purpose for the child.  There has to be some sort of environmental input for a child to die of cancer like food, the area where he or she lived, solvents in the house or many other environmental reasons.

            1. Misha profile image75
              Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Fear Mike, fear. smile

            2. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              This answer is most un satisfactory to me. You see there is no reason, and your god has no say or control over such things, or he is less than human. These are the only conclusions that I can arrive at using the imperical evidence available.

              1. Make  Money profile image73
                Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Oh God does have control over it.  I just can't tell you why it happens.  Sorry.

        2. mohitmisra profile image60
          mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Bot are true love and fear god- I do. smile

      2. 0
        Gods Gardenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Not Fear...Faith...Big Difference!!

        1. enderw1ggins profile image61
          enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Old News

        2. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Explaining: You fear that you will be held responsible for not believing, and believe because of that fear. smile At least this is what your argument implies smile

    2. Jewels profile image81
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps you will find at one point in your evolution that ignorance is not bliss.

  19. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    Of course.  Fear is the basis for most religions.

    1. anjalichugh profile image87
      anjalichughposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's unfortunate but true.

    2. Born Again 05 profile image80
      Born Again 05posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

      Proverbs 10:27 "The fear of the Lord prolongs days, but the years of the wicked will be shortened."

      Proverbs 14:27 "The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life to turn one away from the snares of death."

      Proverbs 19:23 "The fear of the Lord leads to life...

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Keep fearing smile

        1. Pete Maida profile image60
          Pete Maidaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          How can someone fear an all good, gentle, and merciful being?  Unless of course the entity is not all good and gentle.  If the entity is actually very violent and will to use and horrible means necessary to impose its rule.  That would be something to fear.  We have been called God's children.  If a child was in constant fear of the parent the parent would be considered an abuser.

          1. mohitmisra profile image60
            mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            True but if you did something wrong wouldn't your parents punish you in order to correct you so you don't repeat the wrong as its not good for you.
            I get a kick in my butt immediately when I go wrong and it reminds me to do the right thing, its because god cares for me otherwise he wouldn't bother.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Are these invisible super powerful parent who neglect to tell you exactly how you should behave. And did they burn you in hell for all eternity for not deciphering which of the interpretations of the rules you should follow? And were the rules clearly ridiculous ones designed to keep you in your place.

              Really Mohit - are you going over to the "you will burn in hell if you do not follows these rules god gave me to tell you about" camp?

              There is no punishment by an invisible god. I have nothing to fear from not following the rules.

              Sheesh. This is the problem with thinking you have a god speaking into your head.

              1. mohitmisra profile image60
                mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No Mark I have always said god is within you and no one can rob that from you .You go home or back to god when you are ready and you don't have to believe in anyone including the prophets to to do so.
                I have also said we are in hell  and heaven is with God.

                You have nothing to fear from him as long as you are a good person and don't harm anyone and I think you do have a good heart.

                I have told you I was an atheist and didn't believe in any of the prophets before enlightenment so I know this for a fact that you don't have to believe in them in order to connect with your inner self or god.

                They are guides to guide you how to but its only a fanatic who says believe in this particular religion or prophet or you will burn in hell.They don't know god.

  20. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Unfortunately not only for religions sad

  21. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    Gosh, I understand why people think that Christianity sucks. The Bible says that we are to be ambassadors for Christ on this earth.

    The apostle Peter speaks about being ready to give a defense for the faith that lies within.

    The Christ that is offered to the world via Christians (not every one)is a jerk. The Jesus that I know, not only personally, but written about in the Bible looks different than the Christ often presented.

    I am appalled that the only Christians to chime in on this thread are to either (a) Root me on on or (b) make statements like "you will never understand unless you have a revelation".

    The people in the A category rock but the B category Christians refuse to believe that Christ did indeed die for the sins of all mankind. Making Christ unavailable to others by acts of ignorance is hating your fellow man.

    Assuming that everybody in the entire world has to live up to Bible standards is lame at best. The people who do are those who believe what the Bible has to say.

    This is a challenge to Christians. At least know why you believe what you believe. If you're foolish enough to fall for any ideology based off of conjecture, then you are foolish enough to fall for anything.

    To everybody waiting for me to back my claims in my opening statement, I will get to it shortly.

    1. Jewels profile image81
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is why I respect you. I think you rock as a human smile

    2. Inspirepub profile image88
      Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am still waiting for some response to my observation that your opening statement breaks your own first rule for this debate.

      Jenny

      1. enderw1ggins profile image61
        enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Jenny, I haven't forgotten but you will have to wait until another time. Sorry, but I have honestly been the only one fighting for my team until recently so, i was a little caught up.


        Onthewriteside, I can use the Bible when speaking to people who believe in it. I think you need to save your oafish remarks until its your turn....Jenny is next. Nice picture by the way.

        1. onthewriteside profile image73
          onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hey you said you never used the Babble to try to justify your point.  I merely pointed out that you did is all.  And thanks for the comment about my picture...I guess I'm not as fortunate as you.  I wish I personally knew a Gray alien to stand in for me too....then I could have eyes too big for my head like you do!  hehe

  22. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 7 years ago

    @ EnderW1ggins - Yes, fine, I know what a dichotomy is and I also know that hiding behind pomposity is a common technique of the insecure when playing for time.

    I don't go along with 'belief'. I don't need it. Belief is a psychological need that you can learn to overcome. This then frees you to learn as much as is learnable and to recognise the point at which you have to say 'I don't (can't) know'. At this point you can say, 'I don't know, but I believe the proposition true', or, 'I don't know, but I believe the proposition false'. Or you can reserve judgment, keep an open mind, and learn more another day. The third option is rational.

    So, for all your sneering, you haven't remotely troubled or impressed me.

  23. 0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    I thought a false dichotomy was a non existent divide... a division made up by fallacies.  Like racism or something; being black is better then white or vise versa so being tan is better than black or white, or something like that.

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The whole "false dichotomy" thing is a smoke screen.  As always happens, this guy has nothing to go on but his "blind faith"...and it is exactly that....blind.  Anyone who tries to prove the validity of his faith by quoting the Bible, is quite frankly not right...no matter how intelligent he/she may be.  It presupposes that we all take the Babble as fact, which obviously, we non-believers don't.  If he could show any non-biblical/religious mythos evidence of the existence of his God, I would be more than happy to listen..but he can't.

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It is frustrating but I think most will never really understand it.  I think that is what I dislike most about it.  All these perfectly wonderful people who are so afraid that they don't know how easy it is to become those things that this god hates so much. 

        It's trips my mind out.  I don't know if it makes me sad or angry half the time.  Sad because I know they can't let go because they don't want to disappoint (which the way I see it, is they wouldn't be disappointing if letting go of religious dogma would make the world a better place... the heaven above and below thing, ya know) or angry because I know that they are too afraid to let go or that if they let go they would be sad.

        NEWay.

        1. onthewriteside profile image73
          onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I know what you mean.  And if the real purpose is to have everyone on Earth live by the "Golden Rule" then why should they really care if we believe in their Sky Fairy or not?  I mean I"m as moral, (if not more so), as any Christian I know.  Apparently it isn't enough to teach the masses the "right" way to live.  We have to be deluded to the point of believing that their Sky Fairy is ultimately going to decide whether we are worthy or not...

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That makes sense to me as well.

      2. Paraglider profile image90
        Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sandra & writeside - his implied dichotomy was - either you are a theist or you are an atheist. And that's false because you can be neither smile
        Edit - oh, I notice he's come back to me. I'll have a read wink

  24. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    The guy makes a cogent argument, actually...I can admire that.  What I don't get--and don't get about most in the religion forums, frankly (and I'm sorry), is the need to proselytize.  Let's face it, most of the world's population are not Christians.  Most are also not atheists, either.  I do not understand the either/or necessity, and I wouldn't describe myself as a rationalist, either.

    It is true that many world atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.  Many good things have been accomplished, too. 

    For many, belief (or not believing) is a personal experience--I simply do not understand the aim to push others towards believing exactly the way you do.  I find THAT boring, irrational and illogical--given cultural differences, individual differences, personal life experiences, etc., etc.

  25. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 7 years ago

    Lita - I agree with most of that. My interest in these arguments is to try to get people to see that belief beyond the point of verifiable knowledge is not rational. Just like a love for music is not rational but perfectly human. If they agree, and continue to believe, that's absolutely fine with me. But I find people genuinely frightening who will not accept that their 'leap of faith' is purely personal and who insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Not personally frightening, but frightening in the sense that such 'certainties' have lead to atrocities through all time.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I believe you do an excellent job at putting thought into words. As the love for music would be irrational to use emotion for logical thought, so would love for a child. It of course wouldn't be right to deny love of a child for happiness right? So if someone wants to have faith in something, even if they aren't sure but they are happy with belief, is happiness with belief not the ultimate goal?

      1. Paraglider profile image90
        Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No problem with that. I have no interest in disrupting anyone's beliefs. My interest is in helping people to understand the difference between belief and knowledge. Once understood, a degree of humility usually follows.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Thank You. I have another question to pose because I know you will give me a thoughtful answer. If a religious woman was on her death bed hours from dying and had religious faith that she was going to a higher place, she was happy and content with her time to go, would you be happy for her belief or would you tell her you don't have the same belief? Thank You

          1. Paraglider profile image90
            Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I have been in that position. With both my parents (OK, one wasn't a woman!) I do not think even the angry young Dylan Thomas would have  berated his dying father with:

            Do not go gentle into that good night,
            Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
            Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

            These are the rational thoughts, later, of the young man. We should honour our mothers and fathers. We do not need to believe their ideas correct in order to do this. (I hope that answers the question? - Thank you for asking me!)

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Excellent thought again and I commend you if it means anything for being a true individual and giving me a thoughtful answer. I too have been in this situation. I have one more question if you do not mind?

              If the dying person is religious, how would you respond if they asked you if you have faith in their belief? If you thought that saying yes to agree with them to make their departure easier, would you sacrifice individual belief and lie to agree with their faith if you thought it would make their death easier?

              1. enderw1ggins profile image61
                enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                This is a very good conversation. I think that being an Atheist does not mean that you don't have any tact, general respect for others, or morals.

                Good conversation...off topic. You should move this over to the "I'm gonna high jack Enders sweet thread" thread that you made, Dood.

                1. Inspirepub profile image88
                  Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Now, now, ender, marinealways24 very politely moved her Atheism thread out of the Hubbers Hangout at the request of several people there.

                  The fact that you had a similar one going at the time is a co-incidence.

                  And as far as I can see, they are very different discussions and there is plenty of room for both.

                  Jenny

                  1. enderw1ggins profile image61
                    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I was just heckling! I think this is a great topic for sure!

              2. Inspirepub profile image88
                Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Could we have a new thread for this one, too, please?

                The debate generates so many posts, we need to keep this thread really tightly on topic - so much so that it is the only moderated thread in the forum, by request of the community.

                Jenny

              3. Paraglider profile image90
                Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I would have no problem at all in saying "I am sure He will be waiting to receive you", if that seemed to be the appropriate 'white lie'. And (later) it would not weigh on my conscience because I do not acknowledge the concept of sin. This would take too long to explain, but I have written a hub called "I am not a sinner - how about you?", easily found if you want to. Like many rationalists, I am also a pragmatist wink

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I will be sure to read! That was a very honerable answer you gave! I pretty much did the same as I endured christian church music and videos in the last few days. It was very much worth it when a loved one dies in complete peace rather than debate. I much like you agree in speaking in logic, ration, and I have no clue in hell what pragmatic is if you wish to enlighten me. lol Thanks again for your excellent thoughts.

            2. Inspirepub profile image88
              Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              This is a very good discussion to be having in the Religion forum, and it will probably be lost in this thread, which has a narrowly defined purpose to debate atheism vs theism.

              Would it be possible for one of you to start a new thread with a copy of your two posts? Then others can contribute without the two discussions getting mixed.

              Jenny

        2. enderw1ggins profile image61
          enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hey this is good. Atheism and Theism both can be rationally deduced. Which was my point in quoting Para's "agreement" earlier:
          " If the text says something reasonable, I'll accept it as probably true. If it says something outlandish, I'll consider it  possibly true, but probably not."
          I could also rationally deduce the opposite. This is a subjective argument.
          If you take the way-back machine you might remember me stating that strict Rationalism is an impotent truth test because you cannot deduce anything factual, just the possibly factual.
          That is why I proposed other alternatives to reach objectivity. Rationalism is great if you want to find out what is not truth but strict rationalism will never be able to approve any event in history...ever.

  26. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    Paraglider,

    The trick of it all is to accuse others of bad form while at the same time slipping in your own fallacies and getting away with it. Obviously my hiding behind  my pomposity works as well as your self-defeating argument. I will continue to try harder my friend.

    Your rebuttal agrees with my assertions minus the insults and playful nature of the proposition. Which is, rationalism is a self-defeating methodology as an actual test for truth.

    To propose that the unknowable necessarily exists follows the same rhetoric as the ontological argument as well as the reversal of the ontological argument. If both propositions are necessarily true then your argument contradicts itself. Both statements follow the same rationalist methodology to two irreconcilable truths.

    It is much safer to say, "I assume that what can be known is knowable and what is unknown isn't necessarily unknowable."

    The problem with the unknown is that it might be known already, it could be known tomorrow, or it will never be known. You sir are given around 80 years to live in which time the unknown might be known by somebody else or remain unknown. To stay apathetic to truth claims such as "hell" until the unknown is certain is a foolish gamble.

    You say to me. "I don't go along with belief. I don't need it."

    And my response to you is, "Do you believe that?"


    OK some feedback from the peanut gallery would be great. How are we doing people?

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      WHY is having no belief in hell necessarily a gamble?  Even if you do believe in God (but oh, say, you are more of a mystic or a pantheist as the best way to describe your disparate beliefs).  That is the sticking point in your argument.  People can have faith...but not be rationally convinced of certain beliefs that frankly seem irrational and at best connected to simplistic moralistic stories told to heathens with the intent to convert...  These are stories told to at best(in a complimentary fashion) a young race, and pejoratively, to children.  ie, 'my' God would probably be a little more complex than damning me to hell for not being a good 'Christian.'  I do not believe in hell and I'm not particularly worried about that unknown, while still maintaining what most would call faith.

    2. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The core of your response is here:You are missing the point. There is no test for truth except within closed tautological systems like arithmetic. Rationality (or scientific method if you prefer) is a test for falsehood. Some testable propositions can be shown to be false and should then be discarded. Other testable propositions have not yet been falsified and so might be true. Some propositions are simply not testable, for example 'Jesus was born of a virgin'. Everyone is free to believe whatever they like, but thoughtful people should at least be able to understand the concept of irrational beliefs and to recognise their own. And, armed with that understanding, should refrain from claiming to know truth.

  27. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    Paraglider have you ever had anyone say to you that they feel it is rational to believe in God?

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. Our mutual friend aka-dj has said exactly that.

  28. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    Ok, I saw the peanut gallery did respond.

    False Dichotomy smoke screen? I simply picked a fight with an atheist but all other posse's were invited to join in. I created no such smoke screen. "Theists and Atheists" in the context of what was written is an obvious generalization that includes deists, agnostics and all others who do not subscribe to those book clubs. So if i can be given the honor of revising the Theists Vs. Atheists topic to "All Out War" that would be great!

    oh to the guy who said that i proved the claims of the Bible with the Bible...prove it. I did no such thing. But what I can say is this, I probably will and I wont apologize for it because it is in fact a trustworthy historical document as well as a religious text....I'll prove it.

    Like i said earlier its difficult to answer everybody's deal and make my own assertions at the same time.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's fine, as long as you realize the rational limitations of your own argument.  wink  Which is why I stay out of this religion forum.  Black and white and not read all over.  Have fun!

    2. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well you clearly stated that:

      "The Bible says that we are to be ambassadors for Christ on this earth.

      The apostle Peter speaks about being ready to give a defense for the faith that lies within."

      Now if that isn't using the Babble as an attempt to make your point, then please tell me why you bothered saying it?

  29. glendoncaba profile image81
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    To enderwigins:

    After about a week of exploring the religion forum I have discovered that is impossible to conduct a fairly decent conversation in this atheist vs theists atmosphere.  Nobody listens and everybody is right. 

    I approach all religious discussions primarily from the perspective of a practitioner (at this stage in my life just a humble preacher/church elder), and not necessarily as a theoretician.  Now I know that in the real world we need both academicians and practitioners.  And everyone ought to give an account of their faith. But I doubt that these discussions even allow for successful sharing/defence of the faith.  In fact I have decided to withdraw from any further participation in the Nigerian Witch Hunt thread because I dont enjoy fighting endlessly and feeling like I was victim of clever debating tricks. 

    So if you enjoy the jousting, fine go ahead. I may chime in now and again but it is against my training and experience to engage in these loose debates because:

    1.  As an evangelist, I am more interested in sharing the powerful message of the gospel of Jesus Christ with people to give them hope for today and for ever.

    2.  One could enjoy a respectable theological and philosophical discussion if it were possible to have a Solomonic moderation.

    3.  I would only participate if we had rules to stay on topic, and to explore point by point, the articles of Christian faith related to that topic.  And since this is not a Christian forum but a religion forum we would have to invite input from other religions as well.  Are you ready for that, can you handle a sub-plot of comparative religion.  History of religions argument has started already, soon the freemasons and new agers will take the field. I mean I know you can deal with them but do you have time and resources at hand.  A good idea would be to select a team of three persons to research selective areas and then do rebuttal on area of focus. 

    4.  I know you are a lively witty one but your topic is normative, emotionally laden and provocative.  Can you expect to control the stampede, I doubt it, but I'll chime in with my 2 cents worth if it makes sense. 
     
    5.  The basic tenets of amartology will suggest that idea of debating the existence of God over the internet is a lose-lose because:  evil and deception in the human heart rebels against God therefore human logic will easily discount the sovereignty of God; we are aware of the personal revelation of God on the basis of his revelation in scripture rather on the basis of rational arguments; God reveals himself through scripture, nature, and history, but the conviction of his existence is by a personal relationship. 

    6.  At this stage the only way to counter atheism is to bring persons into a saving knowledge of God through: pointing out mans need of salvation; tell the story of jesus the loving Saviour; ask for a decision.   Sounds very simple but its the truth. The technology is improving every day but the internet is not a great place for doing this because of the limitations.

    When all is said and done I'll do some research and post some points later in week. But I'm gonna pray hard and ask Lord for leading because I wonder if it makes sense.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      As you feel a need to counter atheism, I feel a need to remind Christians like yourself that your asumptive way of putting your case is an affront to my beliefs. Read any of the threads on the religious forums and you will see it is the religionists loaded questions and assumptively titled threads that annoy atheists so much, You did it again in this very thread.

      1. glendoncaba profile image81
        glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe I'm taking this way too personal but by "You" what do you mean.  What did I do in the above comments except by way of preamble gave an overview of the problems of engaging a sound debate. 

        I already said the title was provocative and normative.
        And as for loaded questions?

        That's what I mean.  Nobody listens. 

        Respond to one thing at a time. 

        I find this approach so frustrating because in addition to being a believer I have taught public speaking, and I have done some writing for broadcast.  People we need to develop our ideas and be specific.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You = glendoncaba.

          "Counter atheism," = offensive to people who do not subscribe to your irrational belief system.

          That simple enough?

          1. glendoncaba profile image81
            glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            but i dont find it offensive that you should object to religion.  In fact it's downright logical to the human mind to question invisible god and faith.

            If you get offended so easily you will behave rude and turn off people like me who hate fighting.

            "counter atheism"  I was stating what the proposition was seeking to do.

            It's a debate.  There are two sides.  Dont take offense.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              LOL

              I am just telling you how it is. This assumption that you are right and need to "counter atheism," is offensive.

              It is up to you if you choose to listen to what I have to say or not. All I can do is explain why you come across negative reactions. But you go ahead and keep doing it - what you want is far, far more important than respecting other people.

          2. glendoncaba profile image81
            glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think by 'you' he meant the historical context of religious forum.  I'm pretty new here.

  30. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    Some progress...

    Lita, weak argument. I was talking about ignoring truth claims while waiting for certainty. Truth claim like hell. Good try.

    Paraglider, I've been getting the point. Rationality is simply a test of what is false therefore it is impotent as an adequate test of truth by its lonesome. Thats what I said and your arguments agree.

    The past is unknowable to the strict rationalist. Heres the problem, what you did yesterday is pure speculation to the rationalist. Many of us saw you on the forums yesterday so for us the unknown is knowable even without certainty.

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      OK. We've established as common ground that ultimate truth is not knowable as certainty. That is why proof in a court of law doesn't mean absolute proof. It means beyond reasonable doubt. So there you go - I've lowered the bar for you. If you can show me beyond reasonable doubt that your first assertions about the bible are 'true' then I will be suitably impressed and will certainly take you seriously. But I have to say I'm still underawed.

  31. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    "To stay apathetic to truth claims such as "hell" until the unknown is certain is a foolish gamble."

    I saw the 'as such.'  Nonetheless, the tenor of your verbiage and your certain diction tells me you do believe in hell.  And my 'argument' isn't an argument per se in a rational sense--it is you who is calling it that.  It is simply my belief....one you are not prepared to take on here, as you are arguing black and white.

    That's cool, but ya shouldn't call weak something you cannot/will not address (I don't even want it addressed).  I want my own palette, wink.  Wouldn't have it any other way.

  32. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Glendoncaba-
    You 'assume' to know the truth.  It's an overall tone. You assume to speak to them as if you do.  You assume to be an expert.  You assume to evangelize.

    1. glendoncaba profile image81
      glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is a religious discussion so I am laying out my biases and concerns early.

      Stick to my opening comments.  Dont broad brush every one.  I spent more time criticizing wiggins really.

    2. glendoncaba profile image81
      glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I did not hide that I'm a believer iin biblical propositins (truth) and an evangelist.

      My contention is that the nature of debate in these fora lead nowhere because we dont listen to each other.  For example I laid out my concerns, stated my biases, as well as the loopholes in such a debate. 

      It was more of a warning than first punches really.

      Perhaps we need to elect a moderator who is very skilfull at conciliation and communication like eric.

      Certainly not me, I'm way too caught up with my own spiritual journey to claim neutrality.

      Admittedly a little impatient too.

  33. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    Glendoncaba is right guys,

    Look i'm not afraid to have a battle of the minds with anybody. I'll do it any time any where. Talking trash is ultra fun to give as it is to take. I honestly dont think anybody here thinks that I am a coward. I DID post the challenge and sparked the controversy.

    Then we get the false accusers expecting airtime. Ninja please!

    Point is this. I am a thinker and I am a Christian at the same time. There are many who existed, exist, and will exist. I also know that there are others out there with different beliefs or "non-beliefs" who are thinkers as well.

    I assume that Christian or self-proclaimed Christians should believe in the authority of Bible and live by its standards.Those who do not believe in the Bible do not have to live by it.

    Glendoncaba is absolutely right on, gathering evidence and shooing fly's takes time. I think fighting is fun but it is ineffective.

    I have come to the conclusion that queries which invite a desire to understand Christian theology, doctrine, practices and culture is much more beneficial to all of you here.

    Many arguments presented by myself and others are simply contests... Poke holes in the others argument and lie in wait just to make them look stupid later.

    So heres the deal party people. I am going to lay down the fight in exchange for a little wisdom and humility.

    Thank you Glendoncaba.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, it's cool by me!  Entertaining....taking on the big Kahunas of the religion forums...who just happen to be rationalists and atheists.  lol

    2. glendoncaba profile image81
      glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      May I ask however, since you feel inspired to lead out in a forum discussion could you ask permission from the usual suspects and accomplices to stick to some additional rules?  What goes for me does not have to go for you.

      Already you are beseiged with way too many points for you to handle effectively.

      Perhaps you could discuss the inspiration and reliabillity of scripture before going on to talk about hell and judgement.  Just a thought.  Otherwise we'll all end up where we started.
      Limit the scope of the thing.  I'm new here so dont listen to me alone.

      People do need to talk about God. My opinion/observation.

      We just need someone to moderate, again my humble opinion. You cant be moderator and proposer at same time for such a provocative approach.

  34. onthewriteside profile image73
    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago

    I'm mean it isn't like we have evidence to the contrary...but then again...we don't have the burden of proof, as we aren't claiming the existence of anything...

  35. Inspirepub profile image88
    Inspirepubposted 7 years ago

    I am happy to moderate to the extent that Ender set out some rules very clearly at the beginning of the thread, and I can point out when a post breaks one of his rules.

    I will refrain from making any comment on the content of the debate - simply on whether any given post is "within the rules" for this thread or not.

    That should simplify the thread greatly, since the vast majority of posts are breaking one or more of Ender's rules.

    Jenny

    The Rules Of The Game

    1.) Sources for arguments of fact need to be cited. There are exceptions to this rule if the argument can be logically deduced. Also when posting a new argument state your world view and make it clear.

    2.) There is also no particular format so pissing contests and rabbit trails are discouraged. Stay on topic...Theism Vs. Atheism.

    3.) If you value your dignity, think before you write because the consequence is public humiliation and shame. This is a warning to all those "Shut up, Jesus loves me!" wussies and Davinci Code quoting pseudo-intellectuals!

    4.)Insults are fun. What is not fun is sexism, racism, or prejudice comments about one's sexual preferences. Be aware that when it comes to religion/atheism, discussions about these topics are sure to come up. Use common sense when arguing.

    5.) Comments are very welcome. Root for your favorite team or dis the opposition!

    I will note for the record that Ender's fourth rule breaks his first rule. The "fact" that insults are fun cannot be logically deduced and therefore a credible source should be cited. Until that "fact" is agreed, I suggest that we all avoid insults.

  36. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    Jenny I love you!

    1. glendoncaba profile image81
      glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So does that mean you accept her sweet moderation then.  well now that we have a referee can we stick to your opening statement on the Bible. 

      Maybe leden the deist would make a good match umpire, because the ground rules of jenny will tie you up a bit i think.  You guys may spend the next 2 weeks ironing out the rules.

      Man I hate fighting so much i take all the fun out of this thing.

  37. Inspirepub profile image88
    Inspirepubposted 7 years ago

    OK, the tally for this thread so far:

    Facts presented with credible source or valid logical deduction as per Rule 1

    1. Statements cannot be proven true, but they can be proven false.
    2. Believing something to be true is a choice beyond the rational, as the rational can only demonstrate that something is false, not that it is true.

    If you have another fact which you would like to have added to the tally, please present it now, along with the credible source and/or logical deduction in support of it.

    Jenny

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Both of which came from me. The OP has yet to contribute anything pertinent wink

      1. Inspirepub profile image88
        Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am impartial here - and I believe that both these points were agreed by both "sides" in this debate.

        glendoncaba, if you want Ender's original assertion included as a fact, we will need to see a credible source or a logical deduction to justify the claim.

        Actually, the paragraph he posted contains multiple elements, and each separate proposition requires a credible source or a logical deduction.

        Jenny

        1. glendoncaba profile image81
          glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Here is our first dilemma:

          do you accept the bible as a credible source?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            A credible source of what?

            1. onthewriteside profile image73
              onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That's my question, Mark.  The Bible may quite possibly be a copy of much older sources of "historical nature" (and I'm only referring to the OT when I say this).  But as a source of fact when it comes to evidence of religiosity?  Naaaaa....

          2. Inspirepub profile image88
            Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You can't use the Bible to establish the Bible as a credible source. That's circular reasoning, which is not logical deduction.

            There are two options here.

            Either find a logical deductive reasoning process for accepting the Bible as a credible source, or find other accepted sources which validate the Bible, either of which establishes the credibility of the Bible as a "fact" for the purposes of this discussion.

            Or, ask the community to take the credibility of the Bible as a given for the purposes of this debate. If all agree, we can make it a premise (assumption) which does not require proof or evidence.

            I should point out that you could also undertake the discussion without making use of the Bible as a "credible source".

            If facts are actually facts, there will be other credible sources or logical pathways to establish them as facts under the rules of this debate, and the Bible will not actually be required.

            Jenny

          3. Sufidreamer profile image82
            Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You need to define 'source.' As a historical source, it has some merit, although needs to be placed in the context of other literature and archaeological findings from that period.

            As literal truth..........I will accept the Bible as literal if you accept the Iliad in the same way smile

            1. onthewriteside profile image73
              onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well said Sufi

        2. Paraglider profile image90
          Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I am impartial too and interested only in preventing demonstrable falsehoods posing as truths.

          1. Inspirepub profile image88
            Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I expect that if we all follow Ender's First Rule, we shall avoid this problem ...

            Jenny

            1. Paraglider profile image90
              Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That's fine by me, and even though logic was admitted as an acceptable alternative to citations, lest there be anyone out there who thinks I'm making it all up, my credible source in matters of logic is Bertrand Russell and in Falsifiability theory, Karl Popper. Without my books to hand, I can't cite chapter & verse!

  38. glendoncaba profile image81
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    its 2:58 am in jamaica and i want to sleep but i cant leave evderything hanging so:

    In 1798 Napoleon led an expedition into egypt.  saw relics and inscriptions they didnt understand.  Year later in 1799 discovered Rosetta Stone. Then 1822 Jean Francois Champollion deciphered hieroglyphics.  For the first time the modern rational world believed that Biblical Egypt was attested.  Proof.

    The Ebla tablets from Syria confirmed historicity of OT even mention twin cities of sodom and gomorrah.  Proof.  Historicity.

    1947.  Dead sea scrolls.  Portion of every book in OT except Esther found.

    Just talking archaelogy here.  Just scratching surface on historicity of bible. 


    Question again do you accept bible as a source?

    For the bible is also a historical document which validates itself from time to time.  And willing to point examples. Or do you find that logically indefensible and prefer an external evidence.  enderwiggins over to you. 

    (I have to hug up my wife now.  I've got a lot of explaining to do if my dont start making a few cents soon).

    (Mark had better mentor me into online success for tempting me to use my hub writing time to listen to him in this forum.  If only i could get him to reason without fighting).

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Do I agree that the Bible has historical information in it?  Yep.  Just like I believe that the written works from Babylon, Egypt, Sumer, and the like did as well.  That still doesn't mean that the Bible can be used as proof of a deity, anymore than any of those other cultural writings can be.

      1. glendoncaba profile image81
        glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        But we need to establish the historicity of the book.  By itself the historical information does not verify deity but it must be historically verifiable in order to be put on the table.

        Fact:  the bible is historical verifiable therefore it deserves consideration proposed.

        SEE EDIT TO REPHRASE  TO "BY ITSELF THE HISTORICAL INFORMATION"

        1. onthewriteside profile image73
          onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It only can be considered meritorious from an historical point of view, because those are the only statements within it that are verifiable.  If you want to say that because Sodom and Gomorrah have been found, then God must also be real, then that is just like saying that since Ur and Nippur have been found, then the Anunnaki Gods must be real as well.

          1. Sufidreamer profile image82
            Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Excellent point - like picking up an Icelandic saga and saying that, because it is 60 - 70% historically accurate, Thor exists smile

            I like your way of thinking.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL

      You have not yet answered the questions posed to you. And I am not really interested in the "archaeological facts" you just listed because they prove nothing other than the fact that the bible was taken from other, previous religions.

      "the Rosetta Stone is a tax amnesty given to the temple priests of the day, restoring the tax privileges they had traditionally enjoyed from more ancient times."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

      1. glendoncaba profile image81
        glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Not the content of Rosetta Stone.  My evidence is that the Rosetta Stone unlocked the secrets of egypt and forced modern rational man to accept historicity of biblicall narrative.  it was a key.  for translation.  Because it had hieroglyphics, demotic egyptian, and greek.  Like reading interlinear bible.  Showed that biblical narrative was historical.  Used the info from stone to translate other writings. 

        bible has to prove itself historical in an age of reason.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Please provide this "evidence."

          1. glendoncaba profile image81
            glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Take it on face value that this is commonn knowledge:

            http://www.bible-history.com/archaeolog … stone.html

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/hiero1.jpg

              big_smile

              Deary me.

            2. onthewriteside profile image73
              onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              There was also a "Rosetta Stone" type artifact that enabled scholars to decipher the Sumerian tablets.  It was written in Sumerian cuneiform, Akkadian, and Babylonian.  The earliest version of the flood story appeared on a tablet dating back to roughly 3800 BCE....Abraham wasn't born until 2123 BCE by biblical dating, and he was supposed to be the father of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions.

              1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry sir, the word: "suppose to be" is not an argument. Abraham was and is not father of three religion. He is father of faith. That's all. Religion and biblical faith are two different matters.

                1. spiderpam profile image59
                  spiderpamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you smile well said

                2. onthewriteside profile image73
                  onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  It wasn't meant to be an argument.  I merely said "supposed to be" because I don't happen to be believe it.

                  Regardless of what you may personally believe as a Christian, the Jews do regard Abraham as the founder of Judaism.  And the Muslims also regard him as the great ancestor of all Arabs through his son Ishmael.  They further regard Islam as the restoration of the religion of Abraham.  I trust The Columbia Encyclopedia and The World Encyclopedia will be credible enough sources for you:

                  http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Abraham.aspx

                  But I guess I'm sliding off target here, so I'll stop this line of debate.

  39. David Bowman profile image60
    David Bowmanposted 7 years ago

    I accept that much of what is contained in the Bible may be historically accurate; however, some historically verified things in the Bible such as, places, events, etc., do not automatically validate other unverified things like, the virgin  birth, ressurection, etc. These claims also require evidence. What say you? Oh, and by the way, I am an atheist.

  40. Sufidreamer profile image82
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    Pretty much agree with onthewriteside.

    Put it this way - the Great Flood.

    Do I think that the Great Flood happened, it rained for 40 days and Noah built an Ark? No, there is no credible evidence backing up this claim.

    Did 'a' flood happen? Possibly. Imagine the inhabitants of that period trying to explain the flooding of the Mediterranean. It would seem like the world was ending, and this sort of event remains in tribal memory for many generations.

    A theory, but with some geological and archaeological support. Other theories suggest rising sea-levels or the flooding of the Black Sea.

    The other use of the Bible was a public information bulletin - some of the laws concerning diet, for example, make perfect sense.

    EDIT: I second that the Bible should be accepted as a historical document, no more, no less.

    EDIT II: Btw - I am Greek Orthodox, but also a scientist and amateur historian smile

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sufi...I agree.  in fact the flood is a perfect example.  It first showed up in ancient Mesopotamia long before even the Jews.  The Epic of Gilgamesh is a prime example.  They referred to Noah as Utnapishtim, or Ziasudra.  And the Sumerian explanation of how the flood came about makes much more sense than the biblical interpretation.  In fact, cultures from all over the world talk about a global deluge.  It's interesting that it all occurred at the same time the last ice age was ending.  Which makes the Sumerian tale that much more plausible.  If all the world's various cultures had their roots in Mesopotamia (or Africa), it would make sense that they would all have folk accounts of the same event.

      1. glendoncaba profile image81
        glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ladies and gentlemen,

        Sorry if I keep popping in with info on ground already covered but H1N1 is in my country now so I had to get my sleep to boost my immune system.  And because it was the godly thing to do!!!!!

        So I took a night off and you guys are like 20 pages of post.  Man!!!!

        On the writeside:  May I humbly submit that inspiration does not only work with revelation of new material.  Inspiration also works with selection of known material.

        Luke 1:3:  "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning good also to me to write an orderly account..." 

        And the ancient near east was filled with many stories and many gods.  It took the miraculous and divine to preserve the salvation history recorded in the bible. But I will lay out the arguments one by one in time.

        1. ledefensetech profile image81
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It just wasn't the Sumerians who had a tale of a worldwide flood. Aztecs too told a tale of the destruction of the Fourth Sun, I believe, in which Chalchiuitlicue flooded the earth for 52, or a sheaf, of years.  This ambiguity in dating is common in mythology, see forty days and forty nights in the Bible for a comparison.  In this case, humanity was saved by being turned into fishes.  So it would seem the Flood, whatever it might have been, had worldwide consequences.

          1. Make  Money profile image73
            Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah there are a total of 35 occurrences of the great flood legends by different cultures from around the world.
            http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              lololo

              Yeah - there was a great flood recently:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of … ew_Orleans

              You guys are so funny. Sad, desperate funny. lol

  41. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 7 years ago

    The bible is a compilation of history, mythology, poetry, law, theology, etc. It is a fascinating book which I have read several times. Its very existence is proof that it was written by many people over many centuries. Most of these people had no idea their works would end up in that particular compilation. No-one has yet offered proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it deseves to be called the word of god.

  42. Sufidreamer profile image82
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    Sure - I am a great believer in ancient folklore, and think that we place too much emphasis on writing.

    I know one old Greek man who cannot read, but he remembers everything and has a remarkable memory. Stories can be passed down through generations extremely accurately - we tend to forget that and try to impose our own values.

    I remember a story from the Asian Tsunami. One group of islanders, when they saw the sea recede, took to the hills. Their legends contained stories about such events, and they knew that all hell was about to break loose. They did not lose a single person.

    @ glendoncaba. Happy to accept that the Rosetta Stone supports the Bible as a historical document. However, it deals a blow to literalism - you cannot translate directly, from Greek, to Latin or English.

  43. Inspirepub profile image88
    Inspirepubposted 7 years ago

    OK, it seems to me that we have a new "fact", accepted by the majority of participants.

    3. The Bible makes reference to verified historical events, people and places.

    This means that these Biblical events, people and places that are verified by other sources (archaeology, non-Christian texts, etc) can be accepted as having existed or occurred.

    What we don't seem to have agreement on is that verification for some of the historical elements of the Biblical narrative can be generalised to blanket acceptance of all its contents as "credible". And while we have agreement that the Bible makes reference to these things, we don't have agreement that the reference made in the Bible is accurate, ie when compared with the other sources there are discrepancies in the factual content.

    Nice work, folks - this is more progress than I have seen in a discussion like this in a long time!

    Jenny

  44. glendoncaba profile image81
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    More details:

    The Rosetta Stone discovered by Napoleon’s armies in 1799 helped to unlock the secrets of the hieroglyphics and reveal the great battles between Ramesses II, King of Egypt and Hatusilli of the Hittites, exactly as the Bible described.

    1. Inspirepub profile image88
      Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Mark, for the purposes of forwarding the main plot, can you at least agree that archaeology in general has provided some evidence that some historical events mentioned in the Bible did actually occur in some form, even if not exactly as described in the Bible?

      Jenny

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sure. Why not. big_smile

  45. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 7 years ago

    @ Jenny - good summary.

  46. Sufidreamer profile image82
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    Jenny - I agree. It must be treated like any other historical source - a few verifiable historical events does not mean that it is all true. See earlier coment about the Iliad.

    I propose an addition, before any literalists jump in. The modern versions of the Bible cannot be regarded as a word-for-word, literal translation from the Ancient Greek - that is impossible. I suspect that translating from Hebrew has the same difficulties.

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sufi....so true.  In fact there are many scholars who believe that the OT actually started with an additional letter (an Aleph) which would throw off any hidden codes found through Gematria or by delving into the Pardes.

      1. Paraglider profile image90
        Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Gentlemen - are you implying that numerology applied to the King James Authorised Version is unscientific??

        1. onthewriteside profile image73
          onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          All I'm saying is that if the OT actually started with the word Abreshet instead of Breshet, it would completely screw up the letter count in any attempt to find a code based on "the original word of God".

          1. enderw1ggins profile image61
            enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Manuscripts of the Hebrew, Chaldee, Aramaic and Greek texts are available to observe. While it is possible for a specific word or phrase to be somewhat lost in translation, literal translations in other languages don't change in context, history or doctine.

            1. Sufidreamer profile image82
              Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Just trying to head off potential roadblocks before they occur - it is not meant as an attack on the accuracy of the Bible as a document. For example, we had the 'Suffer the poisoner/witch' debate on here. A few pages of whether Farmakeio means poisoner or witch ensued - it can mean both, so arguing about such fine distinctions is counterproductive.

              EDIT @Brenda - But this is a good debate, rather than a slanging match. There probably will be no agreement at the end, but we will all have learned something big_smile

            2. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              big_smile

            3. onthewriteside profile image73
              onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That is so not true.  The ancient Hebrew word for salt also meant vapor.  This was because the Dead Sea (dead because of its salt content) gave off a very visible vapor during the cool nights.

              When you think of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, does it make more sense that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt or that she was vaporized?  From a destructive standpoint, I would think the latter (if it even happened at all).  But my point is that words can most certainly be mistranslated as time goes by.  The Hebrew word for "rib" when referring to the creation of Eve could also be translated as "side", but when it came to reproduction, also took on the connotation of "blood".  Now it seems to me that it would make more sense that if someone or something was going to create a being from another being, it would be through some sort of genetic manipulation requiring: either blood or perhaps the marrow of a rib bone.  Either way it hardly requires a God, as we simple humans have the technology today to perform the same feat.

              1. Inspirepub profile image88
                Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                This may be a rabbit hole, onthewriteside. I reserve judgement at this point.

                However, if it is not a rabbit hole, then you need a credible source for your final claim.

                As far as I know, we can't yet gestate an embryo to full term without the involvement of a woman, let alone get it from there to adulthood without any parenting ...

                Jenny

                1. onthewriteside profile image73
                  onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You are correct.  As far as I know, we can't bring a fetus to term outside of a real womb.  And I understand that this is what the Bible is suggesting.  However if you read the original creation story...the one on which the biblical account is obviously based...it gives much more detail concerning the whole process.

                  In the Sumerian "Creation of Man" myth, the first man, called a LU.LU (meaning "mixed one"), was created by "mixing" the genes of the Anunnaki (Sumerian Gods) with those of the most advanced hominid on Earth at the time.  The God Enki's wife, Damkina, was used as the surrogate.  When they had perfected the procedure, 14 "birth goddesses" were chosen as future surrogates, 7 to give birth to males, and 7 to females.  But as with any Hybrid, the new creatures were unable to procreate on their own.  So a second genetic manipulation was performed to correct the sterility issue.  This resulted in the creation of the A.DEM (clearly the inspiration for the biblical Adam).  This explains the contradiction in Genesis where first, God created Man and Woman together (the sterile people), and then later he created Adam alone (the A.DEM).

                  1. 0
                    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Interesting, that is something I haven't heard before.

        2. Sufidreamer profile image82
          Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol In a word, Yes!

      2. Sufidreamer profile image82
        Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Just trying to carry on in the spirit of debate - this is a good thread. Too many of these threads degenerate into semantic, scriptural battles about the specific meaning of a single word. Usually ends up derailing the thread completely.

        Eric - she is doing a great job! big_smile

        1. onthewriteside profile image73
          onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.  And now that the OP is back, we shall see witness of exactly that....LOL.

  47. glendoncaba profile image81
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    Inspire:

    I'm loving u too.

    But I see this is going to be a long, very long month month. 

    well my wife will travel overseas on business soon but for now i gotta run and be a husband.

    Aside to Mark:  do you know that the hubpages search has put the Nigerian thread statement on front page for a  rosetta keyword phrase.  Number one.  seems like we are likely to get good  traffic with organic method of simply writing and let traffic come after all.  I must do a hub on rosetta stone.

    G'night comrades all.

    CORRECTION:  sorry!  Was sleepy, not google but our hub search.

    GOOD NEWS FOR HUBBERS CORRECTION:  as of this writing this hub is now number 2 on front page of Google for keyword phrase "rosetta stone bible proof".  wow hubpages rocks man.  Guess it wont sell much stones, roses or bibles but its a lesson in organic traffic.

    1. glendoncaba profile image81
      glendoncabaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      EDIT:  Just going through thread and noticed I was so sleepy I said hub when I meant thread.  The thread was ranked high at the time for a particular keyword.  Either the atheist thread or the nigerian one, dont remember now.

  48. David Bowman profile image60
    David Bowmanposted 7 years ago

    I concur with the above statement.

  49. Eric Graudins profile image61
    Eric Graudinsposted 7 years ago

    Jenny,

    Awesome job pulling this lot into line. You even got a concession out of Mr. Knowles cool (But I think that's just because he needs your favours in FSM related matters)

    This has the makings of the most lucid thread ever seen here.

    You've got biggest cojones on the religious forums. lol

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Eric, I have to agree.  Jenny has done an outstanding job of laying it all out for us...making sure we stay on topic.  And you're right....this has probably been the most rational religious discussion I have seen on here...despite the way it began.  The OP was a bit obnoxious...but then he left...

      1. Eric Graudins profile image61
        Eric Graudinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The OP is a breath of fresh air in these forums.
        Granted, he's a bit heavy on the sesquipedalian verbiage at times.

        But I'm sure he'll be back. Timezones and all that - Even religious scholars have to sleep.lol

  50. enderw1ggins profile image61
    enderw1gginsposted 7 years ago

    I just woke up to get some water and ya'll are getting busy. Time to make some coffee!

    We've established that the Bible has some credible historical information contained within and is admissible as such. The historical, literary, and archaeological evidence thus far has affirmed the accuracy of the context.

    I propose that the events written in about in the Bible be taken at face value in its entirety.

    Internal and external criticism has proven the trustworthiness of the content with no falsifiable evidence against it's claims. The burden of proof falls upon the accusers.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    However, only the accuracy of the historical content and not the religious context has been cleared.

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't accept that proposal. There is no justification in jumping from a general consensus that some of the bible is historically true to the assumption that all of it is.

      And, as in any investigation, the more improbable a claim, the more stringent should be the test. So, it is easier to accept, say, that Moses walked the Earth than that he turned his staff into a serpent.

      1. onthewriteside profile image73
        onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yep.

    2. Sufidreamer profile image82
      Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Innocent until proven guilty is not an acceptable historical assumption. If that is the case, then you must accept that the Iliad, and pretty much every religious text, is historically factual. That could become messy, with all the contradictions. smile

      Slight edit for clarity.

      1. onthewriteside profile image73
        onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.

 
working