Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 396 discussions (1882 posts)

0
\Brenda Scullyposted 16 years ago
Sufi I am so surprised to see you in this debate, when it is over will you let me know the conclusion or the answer please
reply report
73
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Welcome back, Ender.

You have delivered a barrage or propositions you would like accepted as fact, so let's take them one at a time and apply Rule 1.

I don't think the crowd has been swayed by the logical deduction "some of it is related to reality, therefore all of it is literally true".

And rightly so - if you study the rules of logical debate, that conclusion does not logically follow from that premise.

You will need a valid logical argument to get from Fact 3 to this proposition.

Give it another go!

Citation ... ?

In law, this means that a statement is false until proven beyond a reasonable doubt (or an the balance of probabilities, depending on the court and the accusation).

You would appear to be applying it backwards ... saying that any claim must be treated as true until proven false.

However your own Rule 1 set up this debate the other way around. If you want something accepted as a fact in this thread, you have to provide sufficient evidence - credible source or logical deduction - to warrant its inclusion.

Citation ...?

Again, kudos to everyone - the discussion is staying remarkably focused.

Jenny
reply report
67
Mishaposted 16 years ago
Wow Jenny,

As usual I bow to you My Goddess!

Putting all these guys on track is quite the task
reply report
1. 61
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well, look at what she'll be able to put on her resume:
  "I sorted out the HubPages religious forums".
  
  That's right up there with cleaning out the Aegean stables
  
  (sorry, I don't have the time or the inclination to take part in this scholarly discussions. Can I be the court jester who drops in from time to time to make a comment (rule 5)?)
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  But of course, Eric!
  
  We shall name it after you.
  
  "Ender's Rule 5 - the Rule of Eric."
  
  Long live The Rule Of Eric!
  
  Jenny
  reply report
73
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Thanks, Mishenka!

It is just fortunate that I am in this timezone (Europe) with a boring day's work to do, and like the idea of having a reason to stop every hour or so to check the HubPages Religion forum ...

If I were at home I would be asleep by now.

Jenny
reply report
1. 67
  Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It's cool Jenny!
  
  Hope your business in Europe will take at least a few more days, so we'll have a pleasure of seeing you around. What brought you there?
  reply report
61
Eric Graudinsposted 16 years ago
Your clarity and wisdom knows no bounds, oh High Pastess.
Ramen.

(Research the origins and significance of THAT, Enders )
reply report
69
jenblacksheepposted 16 years ago
Reading this discussion has distracted me from writing a Hub about why I am an atheist .. believe it or not. This has taken me about an hour to read, so bear with me in my comments:

1) I've always been taught (I've just finished a three year Philosophy degree and two years of religious studies before that) that the burden of proof is with the theist to prove that God exists. There are many things that do not exist, Descartes' evil demon for example. We cannot PROVE that there is no evil demon (and for those who do not know the evil demon, it is NOT Satan or an opposing force to God) but we are not expected to show/prove why it doesnt exist. If someone wanted to claim that it did exist it would be their task to show it. Theists are defending their position that God exists and Atheists are attacking it, not the other way round.

2) I find the title of this thread highly insulting. I may be wrong, but I don't recall the OP actually giving any argument as to why Atheism is irrational and illogical other than that a God exists and that its irrational not to believe in him. Circular argument methinks. On a side note I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed that the word BORING was used, which made me lose respect for OP before I had even read anything.

3) When I call myself an Atheist it is because I am opposed to the Theistic concept of God. All we know about the nature of God is what we learn from the Bible and this is HUGELY contradictory. Hume's triangle for example demonstrates this.

4) In terms of the authenticity of the Bible and its proof of God: In discussing this, are people aware that there were actually many other books that were written for the New Testament that just never made it in. They don't all agree with with Matthew Mark Luke and John, some are very different. When the New Testament was put together the Church (I think) made the conscious decision of which ones to publish and which to leave out. (I don't know if you are expecting me to find a source for this, but I'm sure a minimal amount of Google searching will provide an answer).

I apologise for writing so much, but a lot has been said and it's a topic I am very interested in. Must now make lunch and get back to my hub!
reply report
1. 61
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome.
  I must stick up for the OP, because I encouraged him to start this thread, and to use as provocative a title as he could think of so that it would attract attention. Glad it worked for you.
  
  Stick around, he's actually an interesting bloke. May have bitten off a bit more than he can chew though
  Cheers, Eric G.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I am extremely disappointed so far.
  reply report
  61
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well, in the Witch Children thread he said he was gunning for you.
  He's probably off getting more ammo. Or a bigger gun
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well, he did send me a personal email telling me my arguments are childish and I need to grow up. I was hoping for so much more.......
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
Must agree with Eric - I am pretty sure that the OP knows that he is not going to convince any atheists to convert

However, it has created an interesting debate, with good arguments coming from many fields. More importantly, every participant (apart from Usman!) has brought something to the table.

Liked your input, though - nice to have a philosophical angle
reply report
67
Mishaposted 16 years ago
Methinks I agree to Mark. I am yet to see any logical or just plain interesting argument from him. Sure, bitching around is fun, but it gets boring pretty soon if it's the only item in the menu...
reply report
69
jenblacksheepposted 16 years ago
@Eric, I understand that, but I think any topic of theist v atheist is going to spark some debate. And saying 'irrational and illogical' covers that. It was just the use of the word boring goes against everything ive ever been taught as a *gulps* philosopher ... i only mentioned it as an aside anyway, its irrelevant to the rest of the debate.
reply report
59
Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago
Well, now I have time to add a little input.

I will, of course, accept that a minuscule portion of the bible is based on "fact."

I am not really sure using the bible as any sort of argument in favor of theism is practical though. By definition, it has already jumped to the conclusion that there is a personal god and must surely be colored by that assumption, therefore of little value to the discussion.

Whether there was a flood or not, for example, is a moot point because the bible is claiming that the flood was caused by the invisible super being in the sky for his own ends.

Clearly, if there was a flood it was a local event, then included in the bible as part of whichever tribe's leaders added that part in an effort to include their pre-existing myths. I mean - you can hardly have a "word of god," that does not include things you already know were sent from god.

This of course has led to many bastardizations of the bible casting serious doubt on it's validity as anything other than a collection of folk tales - some of which have some practical value, but by and large are no longer needed since the advent of refrigeration and female emancipation.

Therefore the bible is of no value in a discussion of this type.
reply report
73
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
OK, so now we have someone proposing the opposite to Ender.

jenblacksheep proposes that we accept the following as a fact:

It is incumbent on the Theist to prove the existence of God, as it is not possible to prove the non-existence of something.

She provides within the proposition a logical deduction.

Now, firstly, do we accept her logic?

If we accept her logic, will we accept her "fact"?

And if we accept her fact, how do we reconcile it with Fact Number 1 - you can't prove hypotheses to be true, you can only falsify them. ....?

Perhaps a weakened version of the statement would work better - it is incumbent on the Theist to provide evidence of God to a level (either beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probability).

What say you all?

Jenny
reply report
73
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
And Mark has a proposition:

The existence of some historical information in the Bible is not sufficient to make it a credible source for the purposes of this discussion.

He has supplied a deductive logical argument in support of his assertion.

Do we accept this proposition as a "fact" for the purposes of this discussion?

Evidence for your vote yea or nay as per Rule 1, please.

Jenny
reply report
1. 87
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think that it is a credible source but, like any historical source, it needs context and other corroborating evidence. Not accurate enough to stand on its own merit, but I have to vote a guarded nay to Mark's proposition.
  
  For Jen's point - I am a theist, but accept that my view is built upon nothing more than personal belief. Therefore, I abstain!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  So - is there any corroborating evidence for the virgin birth as an example?
  
  This goes to the question I asked earlier.
  
  A source of what exactly?
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I suspect that the desire of the Christian Theists is to be able to quote from the Bible as an authority during this debate.
  
  Ender, for example, has proposed that we accept all events reported in the Bible as literally true.
  
  I have not seen a source or a logical deduction in support of that proposition yet.
  
  Mark is proposing that any material from the Bible used in discussion would require corroborating evidence from elsewhere. Therefore, he argues, why not cut out the middle man and just cite the corroborating evidence from elsewhere in the first place?
  
  At least I think that's the gist of his logic. Correct me if I am wrong, Mark.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
69
jenblacksheepposted 16 years ago
I don't understand your current Fact 1 - 'can't prove hypotheses to be true, you can only falsify them.' I'm fairly sure any scientist would disagree with that. You don't start by assuming everything is true and then set about falsifying it. You start with nothing and then determine what is true.
reply report
1. 73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well, jenblacksheep, generally a scientist will start with an hypothesis.
  
  Something like "radiation causes cancer".
  
  This of course immediately creates what is called a "null hypothesis" - radiation doesn't cause cancer.
  
  Then, she will use the hypotheses to create an experiment, and the point of the experiment is to falsify the null hypothesis - that is, to find evidence which contradicts the null hypothesis.
  
  So, for example, she may irradiate some mice (making sure she has identical non-irradiated mice for comparison). Then she measures the cancer rates in the two groups of mice.
  
  The null hypothesis would predict the cancer rates to be the same. If the cancer rates are different, with the irradiated mice having more cancers, and different by a large enough margin to be statistically significant (usually a 5% or 1% chance that it might have happened randomly), then she rejects her null hypothesis.
  
  She hasn't actually proven her original hypothesis to be true - she has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the alternative, null hypothesis is false.
  
  I know it is a subtle distinction, but it is a very important one.
  
  Bear in mind, too, that one time in 20 the null is right, even though the evidence says otherwise and the null has been rejected.
  
  So even though it is falsified, it is not completely falsified. Failure to replicate the results may lead to the null hypothesis being re-adopted.
  
  Apologies for the detour into the philosophy of science, for those who would rather be contemplating the supernatural ...
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  78
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  thanks for the revision jenny.
  
  all about the empirical method.
  
  Sometimes I wonder if it is fair to debate religion using the hard and fast rules of the scientific method...
  reply report
2. 92
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Jenblacksheep - if there was an accepted way of determining what is true, there would be far more consensus in the world. As even the OP admits, there is a way of determining what is false, but only if the proposition is set out in a falsifiable form. That is the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science. The reason this discussion can lead nowhere is that religion is non-science. As such it is akin to politics and is accepted (or not) on faith.
  
  The onus is certainly on the theist to disprove the proposition: there is no god. That is a falsifiable (scientific) proposition, whereas the theist's 'god exists' is an unfalsifiable (non-scientific) proposition which simply does not need to be addressed.
  reply report
  87
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed, Paraglider, although that does not make the debate any less interesting. Personally, I enjoy looking at the different viewpoints and also showing that it is not a completely black-and-white argument, as is so often the case. Most folks are somewhere in the middle, and happy with that
  
  There were lots of interesting little subplots - onthewriteside is atheist, I am more inclined to theism, yet we agreed on many things - belief or non-belief is no excuse for sloppy history
  reply report
  83
  Aya Katzposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Paraglider, but don't you first have to rigorously define God?
  
  If God is undefined, then it might be impossible to prove anything one way or the other.
  reply report
61
Randy Godwinposted 16 years ago
Mark is correct of course, comic books can contain historical facts but this doesn't mean Superman is real.
reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
@Mark: Nope, therefore I do not believe that it happened, until somebody shows me evidence to the contrary. I am not sure what you mean by 'a source of what?' An insight into life in the Ancient Middle East?

I am thinking more like the Iliad - Schliemann found the site of Troy by using the measurements, but that does not mean that Achilles existed. There is some historical data in there, but it is buried beneath allegory and imagination

Does it prove that Atheists are irrational, illogical and boring, or that God exists - IMO, definitely not

EDIT - Just seen Jenny's point. I see where you are coming from, now. I think that we actually agree, but it was lost in translation.
reply report
87
quicksandposted 16 years ago
Atheism is irrational and boring!
Oops! Sorry! No offense meant, I just mentioned the title in case someone has forgotten the topic that is being discussed!

... er, any chance of coming to a conclusion in the near future? Not likely I guess.
reply report
73
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Well, to reach a conclusion we would have to have an agreed pool of raw material on which to ponder.

We are currently exploring the territory, seeking to include in the pool of raw material any facts which can pass the test of Ender's First Rule.

Sounds relatively simple, doesn't it?

We have been at this for over 200 posts and we have agreed on precisely three facts so far.

But it's stimulating, right, folks?

Jenny
reply report
59
Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago
@ Jenny - precisely. Anywhere near me at the moment?

@ Sufi - yes, jenny said it so much better than I did.

@quicksand - anything to support that statement?

Boring is rather subjective, but irrational and illogical should be doable.
reply report
1. 87
  quicksandposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  @Mark - I only repeated the title of this forum without any personal remarks.
  
  Well atheism is certainly NOT boring, certainly NOT irrational. Atheism is something which keeps believers on their feet, constantly alert, watching out for newer "threats."
  
  However "newer" threats never come at all. Atheists use the same weapons over and over again. Darwin, Logic, and a phrase called "beyond reasonable doubt."
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
No worries, Mark - I misinterpreted your question.

The joy of timezones means that there is no-one to disagree with us, which is a little dull.

Might be time to play Devil's Advocate for a bit - off to see what I can find
reply report
1. 73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Surely there are Christians outside the Americas? Surely ...
  
  Jenny
  reply report
2. 60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  WOW!! This has to be the best thread ever. It took me close to 20 minutes to come this far. Can I play the devil's advocate then? Well the whole premise that God also can be proved/disproved the way we do scientific theories seems inadequate for me. IMO my personal experiences which include my extensive long walks/talks with my grandfather who passed away a few years back gives me certain opinions which others who haven't had similar experiences may not be able to relate to. Hence in matters of faith it is difficult to arrive at consensus depending on the geography, culture and experiences each one has a different sense of reality which is "real" for that individual but not real enough for others. Even the western concept(similar to Anumana) deductive/inductive may not be sufficient rules for this topic and other rules won't be acceptable to everyone.
  
  PS: I have used the Indian Vedic School which goes like this: Tri Pramana (three means to know something):
  1. Agama Pramana- through knowledge from the scripture and sage.
  2. Anumana Pramana- through experiment and analytical study.
  3. Pratyaksa Pramana- through direct experience.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Viveka- discerning knowledge.
  reply report
  60
  chukra Gposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  but these 3 is within nature:) thats why i am telling nature is guru that will give you clue, only when our mind in neutral state we can understand exact
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Nature is god and is alive, the essence of god permeates everything.
  reply report
  60
  chukra Gposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  i am nature
  reply report
73
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
I am in Oslo at present, Mark, and will be in Stockholm soon. Sorry I am not heading to the south of France this time, much as I would like to. I think the closest I will get is Tallinn (Estonia). Maybe next time ...

Misha - it's a personal trip, but my business is completely portable and I have plenty of time to work while Kip is working. Sorry no detour via Washington this year ...

Jenny
reply report
1. 67
  Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Tallinn is a nice city. Say hello to Vana Toomas for me. And to Kip of course
  
  It's a pity you don't come to DC this year, but looks like there is not much we can do, so till next time
  reply report
73
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
While logic may not be the best way to discuss the nature of God, the purpose of this thread is laid out in Ender's original post.

This is a debate over the existence of a God (of any kind), rather than an exploration of the ins and outs of any particular God.

And Ender started the thread as an exercise in logical debate, because he has a degree in Theology specialising in Christian Apologetics and he wanted to try out his skills.

If you want to have a discussion without the constraints of formal logic, by all means start a thread for that purpose, but my duty here (as unofficial thread moderator by acclamation) is to keep this thread true to the guidelines in Ender's original post.

Jenny
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well what did I say earlier? I will play the devil's advocate...LOL. Anyway coming to the point. I must commend you(Jenny) for moderating this thread so wonderfully. And I especially liked the inputs from Paraglider, Glendon, Mark, Jenblack and Sufi. The OP hasn't brought substantial input into this thread to impress me yet(other than starting this wonderful thread). Of course I must also put in a word for our humorous jester Eric.
  reply report
60
Steve Renschposted 16 years ago
Recommendation: All theists spend a month in the atheistic position, in all aspects of their lives and speech. Atheists do the same with the theistic position. I am not intending to be degrading or specious. Each would understand his/her own position much better after doing so. Example: a close friend of mine, who is Jewish, who wore a "Jews for Hitler" armband for a month to better understand what it is to be a Jew.
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Role playing does work sometimes but it also depends on the individuals inclination and circumstances. I am not sure if anybody here is up for such a serious total psychological makeover.
  reply report
2. 69
  jenblacksheepposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I am a Jew ... was a Jew. I was brought up Jewish, told I believed in God and spent my childhood/early teens just assuming there was a God. When I actually had the chance to really question my beliefs I quickly became an atheist. I like my current set of beliefs a lot better!
  reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 16 years ago
I am still waiting for a response...*toe tapping*. The discussion leads nowhere until you can define for anyone what this "unseen" god is.

Then when you go to consort with the Bible as the only reliable text ever written in history as the truth about life.

I would also like to know the rational behind filling in the gaps of the missing pieces of the dead sea scrolls and how anyone can be "absolutely" correct about which words were chosen to fill in the blanks on a piece of paper that was not fully complete by any means and then call it a fact.

Unless of course, using older more reliable sources was indeed the source used to fill in the blanks. Then I would also like to know why codex's written in 1ad while Christ was "still alive" are omitted as reliable sources or as part of the Bible collection while ones written long after "his" death by people who are going by hearsay are called fact?
reply report
61
David Bowmanposted 16 years ago
Some atheists, myself included, are former theists. I know exactly what it is like on the other side of the fence.
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Me too.
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well I keep switching between being agnostic and socially being a Hindu theist. It sure isn't easy.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I feel ya CW. I feel more like an unorthodoxed believer in everything.
  reply report
  87
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Same here - an unorthodox Orthodox
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  "unorthodox orthodox" good paradox
  
  PS: I am outta here before someone says
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You seem similar to me then. Personally my mantra is "be good do good". In others I try to see the good in an individual rather than the background they come from. It sure is tough when sometimes your own(in my case Hindu friends) don't tend to like my views. That's why I try to be careful with my views in personal interactions.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed it is tuff. Especially when a personal view looks something like this:
  
  and others look more like:
  
  with nothing in between
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Nice pictures. You summed it up beautifully
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
Some theists used to be atheists!

Good point, though - one of the staples of Greek debate. You can only fully understand somebody's position once you have worn their shoes for a while

PS - CW: Still working on the Hub
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You really do remember I am eagerly looking forward to it.
  
  Btw when are you going to play devil's advocate?
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
@Countrywomen

Got to go shopping, soon, so have not had much time. Here is one for you:

http://geography.huji.ac.il/personal/Fr … 202002.pdf

These researchers used the Bible as a source of chronological information for their study into historical fluctuations in the level of the Dead Sea.

History, folks
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  reply report
61
Pete Maidaposted 16 years ago
I thought statements were supposed be to be backed up with facts. Are there statistics that prove the Bible is more reliable than another revered book?
The Bible has been used as an excuse for so many horrible acts because it can be interpreted almost any way you want. I'm sure God did not expect his children to be burned at the stake because they speculated about other solar systems in the galaxy. A man named Bruno was and that is fact.
reply report
61
David Bowmanposted 16 years ago
No need for "newer" threats when the old ones work so well.
reply report
87
quicksandposted 16 years ago
They sure do! However, being cautious is being wise!
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty much why I threw out religion as truth all together.
  reply report
  87
  quicksandposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Wow!
  reply report
39
lmpowelljrposted 16 years ago
I'm a Christian. I do believe in God and that He sent His Son, Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. Sin being the violation of God's law...the 10 commandments. Listed below:
From Exodus 20:
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy
5. Honor your father and mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
10. You shall not covet.

That being said, all of us are guilty of one if not many of these sins. For example, most have probably not committed an actual murder, but the Bible says if you hate your brother that you have committed murder in your heart. Or if you have looked at a woman with lust then you have committed adultery. If you've stolen a pen then you are a thief in God's eyes...etc. These sins will keep a person from entering Heaven.

If I am right and I know that I am. Then as a Christian who has confessed my sin, repented and turned away from that sin...I am heaven bound. If I am wrong based on some of the post, then dust I will return and either their will be no life after death or life will be in some other form (based on evolution).

Now if an atheist is right then it will concur with what happens if I (the Christian) am wrong. If the atheist is wrong, then that person will spend an eternity in Hell. So by believing...what do you have to lose? An eternity in Hell.

In addition, I prefer to believe that I was formed in the image of God and not an ape somewhere.
reply report
1. 60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  There is nothing in the OT that says God can be carved up into pieces to become the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. By worshiping the Son, you are putting another God before him.
  
  Jesus on the Cross is a carved image...Christians bow down before it all the time in church.
  
  The Sabbath day is Saturday...Christians go to church mostly on Sunday. I guess you blew that one too...
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I had to update my post, so you can go back and read the changes. To comment quickly on the Sabbath. This is a quote from Exodus 20:
  "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
  
  Did you read anything in there about going to church on the Sabbath?? The Bible only gives specific instructions on what not to do on that day. So you do not have a clue as to how I spend my Saturday's or Sunday's. Nice Try Though!!
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus went to church as a regular practice. Luke 4:16 says, "He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom." (NIV) It was his custom—his regular practice—to go to church. The Message Bible puts it like this, "As he always did on the Sabbath, he went to the meeting place."
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Here is the exact verse: "He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read." What was He doing there? What was the purpose of reading? He was teaching. Jesus did this everyday. When he was driven out of that synagogue, He moved on to teach somewhere else. He continued Preaching and healing after leaving the synagogue.
  
  The "church" is the people. Without people, it is a building and that is it. So whether our "church building" has service on Saturday or not does not matter. I do not have to go to a specific building to worship. The Bible also says, "where 2 or more are gathered in My Name, there I AM in the midst." Matthew 18: 20
  
  I believe with my heart that if there is a person who doesn't know God and I have an option to either go to church on the Sabbath or go minister to that person, I know where God would have me. That is what I try to do, everyday.
  
  I should mention also in this time, when Jesus was in the synagogue, there were a lot more lost people there. People who thought they were doing right. While I believe that there are still people in the congregation who only think they are saved and still need to be ministered to, there are a lot more people on the outside that need to hear the Gospel. That is not to say that I ignore those on the inside. I try to minister as God leads.
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I should mention also that the Bible consists of the OT and NT. This is taken from 1 Thessalonians
  
  1Paul, Silas[a] and Timothy,
  To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
  Grace and peace to you.[b]
  Thanksgiving for the Thessalonians' Faith
  2We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers. 3We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.
  
  4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. 7And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, 9for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
  
  As I mentioned before and I quote: I'm a Christian. I do believe in God and that He sent His Son, Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. And I also believe in the Resurrection.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't usually argue the NT. If the OT can be shown to be crap, then anything using it as a foundation is sure to collapse as well. In my mind, Christianity is a twig on the Judaic tree, which is rooted in the Pantheism of ancient Mesopotamia. By examining the source, it is easy to see how such trees and twigs developed, but the bastardization of the real origin is also very apparent.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Your arguments are conjecture nothing more. I would like to know which book clubs Moses was a part of? The religions of ancient Mesopotamia bear no resemblance with Judaism.
  Your apparent similarities fall along the lines of "Star Wars is a big Westside Story rip off!"
  
  Mark, you have not debunked my argument nor provided anything substantial. Just alot of yak!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That would be because you did not make an argument. You just made an arbitrary, baseless statement. What exactly is there to debunk?
  
  "The proposal that Christian sources are not admissible is rejected."
  
  This is not an argument. I suspect you need at least another 8 years in school to make an actual argument. How about:
  
  "I reject your rejection."?
  
  Just another religionist...... Too bad. I had high hopes.
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Citation ...?
  
  Atheists, feel free to offer citations to the contrary ...
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, once he has established his argument then I will offer citations.
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yet you use the NT in attempt to prove your point about the Sabbath.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  As many Christians refuse to hear arguments based on sane, rational logic, sometimes it's just easier to use their own Book of Babble to make a point. As we have demonstrated, the book is so replete with contradiction that it isn't hard to find opposing statements on just about any point.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Prove it. Where are the opposing statements any why are they necessarily unreconcilable? Seriously, you are breaking the rules of conduct with your abuse of unsubstantiated conjecture.
  
  lmpowelljr, it's true about proving the Bible with the Bible at this point in the game. It has been accepted my the moderator of this debate as somewhat historically accurate.
  Dood, I believe in the Bible too but that doesnt mean the "guy who looks and talks like the weasel who got spit on by the dinosaur in Jurrassic Park and died" has to.
  For now talk about the credibility of the Bible text. We can talk about spirituality and doctrine later.
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I concur with Ender, onthewriteside - please supply examples of said contradictions.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well I would have to cite the Bible to do it...
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You can, proving the Bible apart from the historical and strict literary content is what is not allowed.
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That takes the fun out of it. Christianity is based on Faith. I believe "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."
  
  I can find 10 men believe this same thing and at the same time can find 10 more men who swear it isn't true. Both groups of people can write article after article on why it is or isn't true and really get nowhere. Unless and until you go deeper than man's opinion of a time period in which they supposedly were monkeys anyway and wouldn't possibly remember Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  True statement.
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  OK, that's it you two - you are breaking the rules.
  
  No quoting from the Bible - it has not yet been accepted as valid in its entirety.
  
  No making claims of fact without supporting evidence.
  
  And no going down rabbit holes!
  
  Please get back on topic ...
  
  Jenny
  reply report
59
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
"Literary critics still follow Aristotles {i}dictum[/i] that "the benefit of the doubt is given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.' (Montgomery, EA, 29)
Therefore, 'one must listen the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known inaccuracies.'" {McDowell, EDV, p45}

External non-Christian writing from the times also corroborate the validity of the Bible such as Tactus the Roman historian.

The proposal to admtit the Bible as an accurate historical and literary commentary in it's enirety is warranted on tested reliabillity in various branches of Literary Criticism such as; Textual Criticism, Source Criticism, and Form Criticism. (Literary Criticism of the Old Testament by Norman Habel, Text of the New Testament by Kurt and Barbara Aland.)

The proposal that Christian sources are not admissible is rejected. It is the same as saying a biologist is not an authority on biology.

I also reject Rationalism as the only form of reasoning that is accepted. As stated in earlier posts, Rationalism is a self-defeating argument on its own. It's premise implies an inherent truth while being only a negative test for truth ie. It cannot logically deduce its own premise with using its own reasoning.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh deary me. It would appear that spending 4 years learning how to apologize for the atrocious behavior of so-called Christians has taught you very little.
  
  You can reject whatever you like, but it seems you are unable to follow the basic rules you laid down.
  
  The bible is a worthless book that belongs in the dark ages - and you have said nothing that would persuade me otherwise.
  
  What a let down. Just another religionist who has all the answers. I guess that means I win.
  
  Atheism Rules !
  
  ciao
  
  Do not send me any more personal emails.
  reply report
2. 73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  OK, I see a source.
  
  Any atheists who would like to dispute the inclusion of the Bible in its entirety must now present evidence of contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible.
  
  (This should be interesting ...)
  
  I do not recall this argument being put. The only argument I have seen that is vaguely similar to this is the argument that you can't rely on quoting a document as its own source - that is circular reasoning, which is not logical deduction (required by Rule 1)
  
  No valid logical deduction can logically deduce its own premise.
  
  You set up the thread, Ender, and the requirement for logic is in your Rule 1.
  
  You can't set up an argument based on logic and then reject the use of logic.
  
  Well, you can, but if everyone agreed with you that would end the thread.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
OK...this guy has saved me some time by posting a boatload of examples:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … tions.html
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Quote from the first paragraph on the linked webpage:
  
  "Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his own intelligence and decide for himself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study.]"
  
  Do you have a reliable source by any chance? Try wikipedia!
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If Wikipedia isn't allowed, then why did you suggest I check it?
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That quote says it all. Basically, he is putting his disclaimer on it so that should I respond and explain where he is mistaken with the contradiction, his reply would be..."I didn't say all were contradictions." Way to cover yourself with that post...onthewriteside. I would say anyone with a disclaimer like that should be disqualified as a resource.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ummmm....I didn't post the "editor's note" bit...enderwiggins did.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You are able to save face here. I was deceptive in my argument and i apologize.
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ender, you can't just dismiss this out of hand - if you want to apply intelligence (aka logical deduction) to the examples, go right ahead.
  
  onthewriteside, why don't you select one or two that you think DO stand up to intelligent scrutiny, just to save us from a "straw man" attack on some of the less clear ones?
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hi jenny,
  
  Avoiding a barrage of questionable material can and should be dismissed, especially with a disclaimer like that at the top. But you're the moderator so I'll be happy to comply.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  enderw1ggins you started a great topic.
  reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
OK then....here's another:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/scb/scb01.htm
reply report
59
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
Please state your argument specifically. What apparent contradiction are you talking about? Is is the Trinity? Are you arguing about Mesopotamian religion and its similarities?

Then cite specifically what you are arguing about. While you try to get your act together, I will work on establishing and even deeper credibility for the Bible.
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Please answer my question now Ender...
  
  Describe god for me please.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh man, i'm sorry i did forget about you this time! Forgive me.
  
  I represent the traditional Christian school of thought. God is described as...
  
  Triune. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. One Godhead three distinct personalities.
  
  God is all knowing, all present, and powerful.
  
  God is revealed to us through the scriptures and revelation.
  
  I'm not sure if that was the answer you were looking for?
  
  To Everybody else,
  
  This is my presupposition not an argument to support it.
  
  Stay on topic, reliability of the Bible.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Your statement ommitts the NT as a credible source. The NT is Gospel not Scripture.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Did you really just make this comment?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, now without using the NT to describe god... using the OT scripture, can you describe god for me?
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sandra - this is not what this thread is for.
  
  At some point, we will have to define "God", but we are not up to that yet.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
2. 60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't arguing contradictions at all. I merely stated that contradictions in the bible exist. You then asked me to show you some. I did. You apparently found the sources lacking.
  
  If you want to debate a specific contradiction, perhaps you could tell us all what's going on in Genesis 1 and 2 regarding the two different creation myths of Man?
  
  As far as Hebrew monotheism stemming from mesopotamian polytheism, consider this from your precious Wikipedia:
  
  Scholars of the Ancient Near East see Hebrew monotheism as emerging from a common Mesopotamian/Levantine background of polytheistic religion and myth.[19] The narrative elements of Genesis 1-11 draw specifically from four Mesopotamian myths: Adapa and the South Wind, Atrahasis, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. These myths share similar motifs and characters with Genesis 1-11, with Genesis challenging the Babylonian view point.[20]
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry pal, Wikipedia is not admissible. The citations that I provided are peer-reviewed, the real McCoy.
  
  Unless the specifics about Judaism stemming from Mesopotamian religions is actually proven, your arguments remain conjecture.
  
  Hey, maybe you could argue with my Sunday school students, they need a little practice.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Peer-reviewed? So I'm supposed to take for granted that your "peers" are some sort of experts? What makes them better than the scholars that have come to the above conclusions? Here's the bibliography list used as references for the above article:
  
  * Rouvière, Jean-Marc, (2006), Brèves méditations sur la création du monde L'Harmattan, Paris.
  * Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation in the Old Testament (editor) (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
  * Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Ver Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament (ISBN 0-13-948399-3)
  * Reis, Pamela Tamarkin (2001). Genesis as Rashomon: The creation as told by God and man. Bible Review '17' (3).
  * G.J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.
  * Davis, John, Paradise to Prison - Studies in Genesis, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975, p. 23
  * P.N. Benware, "Survey of the Old Testament," Moody Press, Chicago IL, (1993).
  * Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David The Book of J, Random House, NY, USA 1990.
  * Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible?, Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987.
  * Nicholson, E. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen Oxford University Press, 2003.
  * Tigay, Jeffrey, Ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986
  * J.D. Douglas et al., "Old Testament Volume: New Commentary on the Whole Bible," Tyndale, Wheaton, IL, (1990)
  
  So you are telling me that all these guys are full of crap?
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No sir, i'm saying that you are full of crap.
  
  About the two different creation myths of man.
  
  1.) Where are the opposing statements
  2.) And why are they necessarily unreconcilable
  
  You have made no argument at all, instead you choose to be lazy, link wikipedia and then copy and paste the credentials of the citations on the site.
  
  And Sandra, I see where you are getting at but i don't have time to put out little fires day long.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You mean you don't know how to refute or entertain it without the whole argument about the Bible's credibility being tossed out the window.
  
  It's cool brother.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, girlfriend! My pride is almost hurt enough to get down on this! I'm just kidding...i think you know i have a perfectly adequate solution as to the supposed belief that the God of the Old Testament is somehow different then the God of the New Testament. But you just should come out and say what you mean. Make the statement, back it up and I shall give you a very eloquent answer that will blow your mind!
  reply report
61
Pete Maidaposted 16 years ago
Can you explain why the illogic that puts the creation plant life on the second day that the sun on the third day is exactly the same illogic that put the Babylonian God of plant life on the second day of the Babylonian week and the God of the stars on the third day. Oh yeah, the Babylonian calendar was first, it had seven days, and the Hebrews were in Babylon when the Genesis was written.
I'm sorry, this is from the book "A View from the Center of the Universe" by Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams. I'm sure you'll find a reason to discount it.
reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
"Hey, maybe you could argue with my Sunday school students, they need a little practice."

Perhaps you should stick with the kiddies...at least you can still fool them...
reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
I guess Enderwiggins had to run back to church to rob the coffers again...
reply report
67
Mishaposted 16 years ago
It's a pity how soon he became boring
reply report
69
jenblacksheepposted 16 years ago
Oh come on you guys, grow up! If you want to argue about religion then do that, but don't just insult each other.

Misha's right, this is getting boring!
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  you guys are right. sorry
  reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
"You have made no argument at all, instead you choose to be lazy, link wikipedia and then copy and paste the credentials of the citations on the site."

Just like a fundie...ask for "a credible source like wikipedia", and then claim its a bunch of crap when I do.

Genesis 1-27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2- Deals with the Adam being created alone first, then Eve was constructed from his rib.

These aren't necessarily irreconcilable. In fact if you look at the original Sumerian text upon which this biblical account is based, it's very easy to see what is happening here. Of course, you wouldn't like the answer though...
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That was a "your references suck" joke. Wikipedia is not a credible source...I figured you knew that already. Sorry for the deception.
  
  1.) You debunked your own argument.
  2.) You still haven't proven that the Bible is in fact based off of ancient Summerian, Mesopotamian or whom ever else's text.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well if you consider that the debunking can be found through the examination of older, more concise texts, then I guess so.
  
  If we consider:
  
  1) The Hebrews lived in the same area as other Mesopotamian cultures.
  2) The Hebrews were most certainly aware of other cultures' Gods and Myths.
  3) The Sumerian culture pre-dated the Hebrews.
  
  Now, since we find a similar story in the bible and in the older Sumerian texts, does it make sense to say that it's just a coincidence, or would it be more logical to assume that the bible borrowed from the earlier texts and is attempting to tell the same story but just in a twisted version to keep within its monotheistic format?
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You have still not provided any proof that Moses did in fact borrow form ancient Sumerian text. Your argument looks like this.
  
  1.)Ender lives in Oregon and is a writer.
  2.)There are people in Oregon who have written longer than Ender.
  3.)Therefore Ender copied older Oregonian writers.
  
  I'm sorry but were moving on.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If I found a story in Ender's writing that was nearly identical to a story written by an earlier Oregon writer, then yes...I would feel compelled to say you probably plagiarized.
  
  Maybe I haven't shown proof as that is probably impossible. But the evidence is surely there to suggest what I'm saying is certainly plausible.
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This is over...I'm not going through this with you any longer. Dood, you have got to follow the rules.
  
  Instead i'g going to answer Sandra's implied argument about the God of the Old Testament being different than the God of the New Testament.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Okey dokey! Toodles Noodles...
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This is gonna be good. I can already feel it.
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You have misrepresented onthewriteside's argument here.
  
  It actually went
  
  1.) Ender lives in Oregon and is a writer.
  2.) There are people in Oregon who have written longer than Ender.
  3.) Ender's writings are highly similar to those earlier Oregonian writers.
  4.) Therefore Ender copied older Oregonian writers.
  
  Applying Occam's Razor, it is more likely that similar works are a result of one influencing the other than that two writers in the same area spontaneously came up with an identical bizarre story independently.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Is it older? Is it more concise? and does older necessarily mean better?
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The oldest known copy of the OT dates to the 5th century BC, but parts of it have been found going back as far as 1300 BC. Copies of the Sumerian versions of the tale go back as far as 2500 BC. More concise? Well they certainly are more detailed, and include a lot of additional information not mentioned in the biblical account. Does it make it better? Well the closer to the source, the better the info I should think...
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  At this point, Ender, onthewriteside is not trying to prove anything about the origins of the Bible - he is simply giving you an example of a contradiction in the Bible.
  
  Which you asked him to do.
  
  Now you need to engage with the substance of the contradiction and resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
39
lmpowelljrposted 16 years ago
You have made no argument at all, instead you choose to be lazy, link wikipedia and then copy and paste the credentials of the citations on the site.

That was my point exactly. I was told I couldn't quote the Bible because it isn't proven true...who says!! I'm sure I can find many articles stating that evolution isn't proven either.

No Wikipedia isn't allowed as it's sources have not been validated. And who is going and validating all of the other sources on here. These references are only ones opinion to validate their point.

On that note: you forget who you are talking to. They do not believe in God nor the Bible; therefore, their Biblical sources are found on the internet. What do you expect? With what we know about the internet much of it is not true. Which is where he comes up with that junk about the creation of man. He didn't read the Bible, else he wouldn't have mentioned it. He's finding someone else's argument and passing it off. He's yet to mention a single contradiction that can actually be found in the Bible, because there isn't one.
reply report
1. 60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  See my above post.
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
Just popping in before I go to bed.

After reading through the posts, it looks like there was a misunderstanding with Wikipedia. We should rewind a couple of pages.

Ender - Sarcasm does not always work via the written word
reply report
69
jenblacksheepposted 16 years ago
Quick question that I'd like to throw in here since I've never actually met a Christian that takes the Bible literally before ....

Adam and Eve ... Cain and Abel ... where did the rest of humanity come from?

Same question in regards to the flood ... two of every animal ... where did the rest come from?
reply report
1. 39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Adam and Eve had daughters. Most women were not mentioned in the Bible. Is that what you were asking??
  reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
OK then...what would you consider to be a credible source then? Apparently scholars of the middle east aren't good enough for you. I have a sneaking suspicion that any source I present that disagrees with your view will be added to your list of incredible sources. So why don't you tell me what you would consider credible?
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Just submit it and see, i guess. Ultimately its up to the mediator to decide what is admissible. But chances are, you cite it, i'm going to try and kill it. I'm going to try and get away with logical fallacy whenever i can while calling you out on yours.
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That will make the debate a little tedious Ender - why don't you stick to things you genuinely believe to be logically valid?
  
  It will save time and bytes and rabbit holes, and might get your arguments taken more seriously by the rest of the crowd.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
83
Aya Katzposted 16 years ago
Maybe something from the Dead Sea Scrolls that shows scribal divergence?
reply report
69
jenblacksheepposted 16 years ago
Cain and Abel were both men ... and my mummy told me that men couldnt get pregnant. If you take the bible literally it says there was Adam and Eve and they had two sons, Cain and Abel. There's only so many times that they could get Eve pregnant!

I'm not starting an argument, I'm asking a question. Do you believe that from those four people there are now the billions of people in the world today?
reply report
1. 39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I thought about that after you said it. I changed my response. Please look again. I apologize. I didn't mean to be rude.
  reply report
60
onthewritesideposted 16 years ago
Got to make dinner...be back soon!
reply report
59
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
The different God's argument is as follows:
Christians believe that God is actually three Gods. The Jewish faith, which the Christian faith is based off of believes in One God.

The basis of the proposition lies within:

1.) God is the same today, tomorrow and forever. Why the personality change?
2.) the appearance of contradiction of One being Three at the same time.
3.) that the Hebrews did not believe in the 'Trinity'.

Ok I'm going to leave this up for a while. Let some people get into it and formulate arguments for or against the proposition.
reply report
1. 59
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Am I right to assume this is your argument sandra? Do you have anything to add?
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Actually I wasn't implying that the two gods are different. I was implying that the Bible cannot be used as a reliable source to reference itself because of your previous statement...
  
  Which brought us to this:
  
  Now you are stating that
  
  And now you are saying that the one god of the OT is not credible because again... the NT which we already determined was not a reliable source...because the NT (as you say) believes in three gods, right?
  
  I have this saying if you would like to hear it. You prolly wouldn't want to because you would definitely find it offensive although I take it as a personal truth given the circumstances of every argument that tries to define god.
  reply report
3. 60
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The Hindu version of trinity divided god into Brahma-creator,Vishnu-preserver and Shiva destroyer.
  
  Then you also have Shiva and Shakti, Shiva being the source and Shakti what comes from the source .
  This is the meaning of the Shiva Lingum- the center is Shiva the source from which all things arise ,the circle around it represents Shakti.
  reply report
59
Mason Hymasposted 16 years ago
this is exhausting to read. I think im going to go learn Kung Fu.
reply report
59
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
I'm sorry i don't understand the question then. Please explain it a little better. When did i say that the NT isn't scripture and who doesn't believe that it's scripture? Really, its your argument, you should make it a little more clear.

And Yes i would like you to give me your offensive saying. I posted a thread called Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring. I think i can take it.
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  "Only a fool tries to define god". As you have done...
  
  As for clarity, I would suggest you use a clearer reference as well. Starting with telling me how the unseen god is seen again?
  
  The First 3-4 gospels in the NT are considered Gospels not scriptures as a testament to the resurrection of Christ. Without using the Gospels of the NT because they are not scripture... then the whole NT is not a reliable source, incomplete and completely fallible.
  
  However by definition, scripture can be any document held as sacred. I could call my journal scriptures too, but I am sure you would deny this as a logical argument, right?
  
  Also, you might consider some of your fellow Christian's feelings on the trinity as it is apparent that not all Christians believe in the trinity.
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Many Christians do not believe in the trinity, and believing in god is not a prerequisite in understanding it.
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You are right there, it is not impossible just difficult for many including Christians to understand. I believe in it. I'd like to know what part of it exactly that these Christians do not believe in. Maybe I have missed a post somewhere.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Basically the trinity is the father, the son and the holy ghost in one godhead.
  reply report
  39
  lmpowelljrposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Not really my question. Go deeper. So I'm asking a "Christian" who does not believe in the Trinity. Assuming you believe in God and you believe that Jesus was born to a virgin, died on the cross, and was raised from dead. And you believe that the Holy Spirit remained after Christ ascended to Heaven and lives in you. Then how do you not believe in the Trinity?? Are you saying you believe each exists, but are not one Godhead?? Help me understand what is being said.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry I am not a christian, so I will let someone else speak.
  reply report
  73
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This may be developing into a rabbit hole ...
  
  It's not quite on point of the thread, which is theism vs atheism.
  
  You can always start a thread on the Trinity.
  
  Jenny
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 4 5 … 8 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies