Thread: Question for athiests...

Originally Posted by kingerman

For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

Firstly, thank you very much for replying. I look forward to reading your reply now. Unfortunately, they are getting long, so please understand that if I am not quoting it, it is because I have no objections to it - not because I am deliberately ignoring it.

As for this quote, I think I agree. I just don't understand it's relevance yet. I just want to make sure that you know that I, personally, agree.

How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions.

What is the methodology you employ..? You say you are using reasoning to reach this conclusion, but you are not explaining it.

1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.

I won't debate Buddhism with you - I will leave that for someone who is more educated in it than I (for I personally am not very educated in Buddhism yet).

However, I have already point out many inconsistencies in Christian faith. Namely the bibles foundation itself - it has been edited far too many times and yet is referred to as the word of God. Why is the immutable word of God edited by man and wrote 100 years after Jesus' birth? (New testament written, old testament re-vamped and with books omitted).

2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus lived in North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.

You are right about Mormonism - there is no evidence for their claims at all.

To bring it to your beliefs, what of the references of the earth being flat in the bible? What about Adam and Eve? What about the flood? What about the lands of giants and moving mountains? What about stars coming down to earth? There are more, but I am most concerned with Adam and Eve. Considering you just used archaeology to argue Mormons.. what about the archaeology that demonstrates the impossibility of Adam and Eve?

3. Existential relevancy—the belief system must conform to reality as we know it, and it must make a meaningful difference in the life of the adherent. Deism, for example, claims that God just threw the spinning world into the universe and does not interact with those who live on it. How does such a belief impact someone in a day-to-day manner? In short, it does not.

Would not then science be the best answer to this variable? Not religion? Religion uses faith in reasoning whereas science uses skepticism and doubt in order to determine the best, unbiased, solution for problems and questions. Religion does not do this but presume the conclusion from the beginning before even researching anything.

First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not)...

Have you ever read Descartes? Do we need to elaborate the Cartesian doubt for you..?

Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is......

Again, would not science then be the best medium in this respect? Science works with only systematically and reproducible observations.

Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite. Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible. This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false. Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.

Is this not also applicable to faith..?

The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.

Uhm.. you cannot just say "it exists" and that means it does. You have to justify you propositions.. and you have not.

This leads us to the next question of whether reason/logic can be used in matters of religion...Logic is absolutely critical in dismantling pluralism (which says that all truth claims, even those that oppose each other, are equal and valid).

Logically, you ought to only know those things which are valid and true.

A) God is God
B) God exists because of God
Thus,
C1) God exists.

This is illogic but is the crux of faith. I am really hoping you start to say how logic proves God...

For example, Islam and Judaism claim that Jesus is not God, whereas Christianity claims He is. One of the core laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. Applying this law to the claims Judaism, Islam, and Christianity means that one is right and the other two are wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God. Used properly, logic is a potent weapon against pluralism because it clearly demonstrates that contrary truth claims cannot both be true. This understanding topples the whole “true for you but not for me” mindset.

I don't understand why you are saying this then.. ought you not then see that all these faiths are wrong?

Next comes the big question: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say “no.” While volumes have been written and debates have raged throughout history on this question, it is actually not difficult to answer. To give it proper attention, you must first ask this question: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? In other words, how did you and everything around you get here?

You have asked a very fundamental question in philosophy, and I am happy for that.

However, do not make the mistake of thinking that Atheists think it is impossible for God to exist.

I think it is possible for God to exist. I have simply not seen the evidence for it that surpasses an imaginary concept or fairy tale.

The argument for God can be presented very simply:
Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.

Have you considered the video I have posted three times for you now..?

...so the second premise is true. Therefore, the third premise must be true—an eternal Being responsible for everything must exist.

That does not mean it is your God... please watch my video... I do not want to post it again..

This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

Oh for crying out loud.



Fourth time.

I will consider the rest of what you say when you consider what others have to say.

~

Kingerman really reminds me of Bigmo, the Muslim who quoted verses from the Koran and almost completely ignored the points people used to debate him. He would get stumped and apparently think he made up for it by posting twenty Koran verses and babbling for ten paragraphs about one point somebody made. PJ was convinced Bigmo was an Islamic spambot. I think Kingerman might be a Christian spambot. We might as well be debating somebody we are watching on television, and the points are generic creationist propaganda. There is a good chance there is not even a person posting that stuff.

Originally Posted by O'nus

However, I have already point out many inconsistencies in Christian faith. Namely the bibles foundation itself - it has been edited far too many times and yet is referred to as the word of God. Why is the immutable word of God edited by man and wrote 100 years after Jesus' birth? (New testament written, old testament re-vamped and with books omitted). ~

The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 B.C. to 400 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately A.D. 40 to A.D. 90. So, anywhere between 3400 to 1900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Also during this time, the books of the Bible have been copied again and again. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?

When God originally inspired men to write His Word, it was God-breathed and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 17:17). The Bible nowhere applies this to copies of the original manuscripts. As meticulous as scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. As a result, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. Of all of the thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are in existence, no two were identical until the printing press was invented in the A.D. 1500s.

However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).

Do you see what I mean?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you see what I mean?

Yeah but what i replied made sense didn't it?

Originally Posted by O'nus

To bring it to your beliefs, what of the references of the earth being flat in the bible?

Many a skeptic claims that the Bible depicts a flat earth. Scriptural references such as Revelation 7:1 are cited, which speaks of “four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.” However, this passage makes reference to the cardinal directions as seen on a compass – i.e. north, south, east and west. Terminology to a similar effect is used today when we speak of the sun rising and setting each day, even though we know that it is in fact the earth which orbits round the sun.

Another passage often referred to is Psalm 75:3, which speaks of God holding the pillars firm. However, the psalms are written in the poetry genre. Rather than referring to literal pillars, this rather is representative of God guaranteeing the earth’s stability. Even when the moral order of the world seems to have crumbled, God will not fully withdraw His sustaining power.

In contrast to the supposed “flat earth” verses, there are numerous Scriptures that clearly indicate otherwise. The earth is described in Job 26:7 as being suspended over empty space, implying a spherical figure. This notion is further entertained in Isaiah 40:21-22, which refers to “the circle of the earth.” This is further supported by Proverbs 8:27 (NKJV) which speaks of God drawing a circle on the face of the deep. From a ‘bird’s-eye-view’ of the ocean, the horizon is seen as a circle. Such an observation indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins, describing the reality of day and night on a spherical earth.

The round earth is further supported by Jesus in Luke 17:31,34: “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back...I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left.” This would seem to indicate the phenomena of day on one side of the globe while darkness abides on the other.

In conclusion, the curvature of the earth is certainly a biblical concept, and there is little or no basis for the charge that the Bible teaches a flat earth. The Scriptures that seem to present a flat earth can all easily be explained when correctly interpreted and understood.

Kingerman do you work for http://www.gotquestions.org/? I must say all the walls of text are from there.

Do you even use your own mind for anything? Even if you did, it wouldn't help. The got questions people aren't geniuses either.

Should I start copy pasting scientific papers or are we having an honest debate?

Originally Posted by pounce

Great post, a reply like this should easily end the thread but of course, people will always argue that their beliefs are right.



I sometimes wonder whether all this astrological mystical spiritual BS is just a giant hoax that everyone on the planet is in on except me. It's so ridiculous for people to think this way.

I meant that Christianity is based on astrology. Hence, the repetition of 12, and the images of the two, the bull, the ram in the Bible.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

I meant that Christianity is based on astrology. Hence, the repetition of 12, and the images of the two, the bull, the ram in the Bible.

and the fish, and the scales, and the three kings, and star in the east, and the virgin, and the lion....

I seem to remember watching an interesting video on Youtube about that at some point.

It also covered a few aspects of Christian mythology that were taken from Egyptian mythology regarding Horus/Isis.

The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it

I would have thought such a powerful being would therefore be able to avoid getting basic facts wrong as well as being self-contradictory. And such a wise being would have been sure to make sure the book had no ambiguities.

Originally Posted by kingerman

The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 B.C. to 400 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately A.D. 40 to A.D. 90. So, anywhere between 3400 to 1900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Also during this time, the books of the Bible have been copied again and again. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?

When God originally inspired men to write His Word, it was God-breathed and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 17:17). The Bible nowhere applies this to copies of the original manuscripts. As meticulous as scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. As a result, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. Of all of the thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are in existence, no two were identical until the printing press was invented in the A.D. 1500s.

However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

It was been edited over time. This point is meaningless if it has been edited all along by man. Consider the councils of Nicaea.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

Wrong. Councils of Nicaea.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Many a skeptic claims that the Bible depicts a flat earth...

...

In conclusion, the curvature of the earth is certainly a biblical concept, and there is little or no basis for the charge that the Bible teaches a flat earth. The Scriptures that seem to present a flat earth can all easily be explained when correctly interpreted and understood.

The flat earth is not really a big concern of mine and I am not going to argue it.

However, Adam and Eve is a huge part of the bible and it is definitely not right. Adam and Eve did not exist and there is empirical evidence that they did not. You used archaeology yourself to debate, so I do not see why you cannot use it again here.

~

Originally Posted by kingerman

Yeah but what i replied made sense didn't it?

In terms of a response to my religious points and questions, no.

I remember PJ told me that spambots can be accompanied by actual people who throw in a few comments that are more personal so the spambots will seem more genuine. Since somebody was there for a moment, I ask you... why have you been ignoring me and others?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Kingerman do you work for http://www.gotquestions.org/? I must say all the walls of text are from there.

Do you even use your own mind for anything? Even if you did, it wouldn't help. The got questions people aren't geniuses either.

Should I start copy pasting scientific papers or are we having an honest debate?

Hey you know what, i googled what you said and 53 results came out.
You expect me to believe every post you made came from your own mind?
In the end of all copying and pasting everything i say is mainly influenced from one source,one book THE BIBLE.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It was been edited over time. This point is meaningless if it has been edited all along by man. Consider the councils of Nicaea.



Wrong. Councils of Nicaea.



The flat earth is not really a big concern of mine and I am not going to argue it.

However, Adam and Eve is a huge part of the bible and it is definitely not right. Adam and Eve did not exist and there is empirical evidence that they did not. You used archaeology yourself to debate, so I do not see why you cannot use it again here.

~

If you can't believe the bible as the word of god, what proof would help you!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In terms of a response to my religious points and questions, no.

I remember PJ told me that spambots can be accompanied by actual people who throw in a few comments that are more personal so the spambots will seem more genuine. Since somebody was there for a moment, I ask you... why have you been ignoring me and others?

Yeah i wanna spam lucid dreamers because lucid dreamers are making video game machines obsolete.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Yeah i wanna spam lucid dreamers because lucid dreamers are making video game machines obsolete.

Video games? Why have you been ignoring my points about God?

Originally Posted by davej

How does Christianity REALLY effect you... How does someone being a christian effect you? Besides those people that won't leave you alone while walking down the sidewalk or in the mall or whatever. Those people get on my nerves as well.

Haven't read the rest of the posts so I'm sure it's been said. I can't get married because of the religious right. Christianity also made me suicidal as a teenager for being gay, it also stops scientific progress through stem cell research and other lines of research because of "playing god".

Originally Posted by kingerman

Hey you know what, i googled what you said and 53 results came out.
You expect me to believe every post you made came from your own mind?

Well actually you didn't Google my posts, because if you did you'd get anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of results. The number of results doesn't matter here. What matters is that I got only one result which is questions.org, all of which was mostly identical to your sudden appearance of long posts. Not that I aspire to be believed by somebody like you, yes I actually use my mind on the forums, there would be no point to just copy paste anything, since I come here to voice my opinion and not somebody else's.

Originally Posted by kingerman

In the end of all copying and pasting everything i say is mainly influenced from one source,one book THE BIBLE.

Normally I wouldn't care, nor am I an authority on what you can or can't do on this forum. Copy paste all you want, I don't really care. It just seems unfair since there is a dialogue here. Reading an argument from somebodies post and then pasting a wall of text from questions.org, while ignoring well thought out responses for the last 5 pages, to which you only answered with a sentence that didn't clarify anything. Carry on.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Hey you know what, i googled what you said and 53 results came out.
You expect me to believe every post you made came from your own mind?
In the end of all copying and pasting everything i say is mainly influenced from one source,one book THE BIBLE.

I do not think it is such a bad thing to reference things. You have already admitted that you do not think for yourself. But, you could at least link to those that you are referencing. Otherwise you are doing something that is actually very illegal;

Plagiarism.

Originally Posted by kingerman

If you can't believe the bible as the word of god, what proof would help you!

Thank you for a fair question. This is the most reasonable thing you have said so far, I think. (I mean this seriously).

The only thing that would make me think that it is the word of God is if God himself actually dropped it from the sky or if the book could not be linked to any human traits. In other words, if it was written magically on its own.

The fact of the matter is, every single holy doctrine has been written and edited by man.

How can you trust the way to live your life ascribed to a book that has been blatantly wrong about too many things and edited more than any other book in history?

No matter what the case is, the books are named after people who transcribed the bible.. not God. Even if God influence others to write it, he did not write it himself. The best you can hope for is an elaborate explanation that God wrote it through people. However, in this respect, then God is limited in his power and cannot even write a book on his own.

Furthermore, this is like a perfect being writing with a broken pencil. Humans are incredibly erroneous, I think we can easily agree. God cannot even influence humans to live perfect lives in his name.. how can you expect him to get humans to keep a consistent book throughout 2000 years while being edited by 1000's of people? Have you heard of the telephone game?

You're obviously a smart person. Please consider your autonomy.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I do not think it is such a bad thing to reference things. You have already admitted that you do not think for yourself. But, you could at least link to those that you are referencing. Otherwise you are doing something that is actually very illegal;

Plagiarism.



Thank you for a fair question. This is the most reasonable thing you have said so far, I think. (I mean this seriously).

The only thing that would make me think that it is the word of God is if God himself actually dropped it from the sky or if the book could not be linked to any human traits. In other words, if it was written magically on its own.

The fact of the matter is, every single holy doctrine has been written and edited by man.

How can you trust the way to live your life ascribed to a book that has been blatantly wrong about too many things and edited more than any other book in history?

No matter what the case is, the books are named after people who transcribed the bible.. not God. Even if God influence others to write it, he did not write it himself. The best you can hope for is an elaborate explanation that God wrote it through people. However, in this respect, then God is limited in his power and cannot even write a book on his own.

Furthermore, this is like a perfect being writing with a broken pencil. Humans are incredibly erroneous, I think we can easily agree. God cannot even influence humans to live perfect lives in his name.. how can you expect him to get humans to keep a consistent book throughout 2000 years while being edited by 1000's of people? Have you heard of the telephone game?

You're obviously a smart person. Please consider your autonomy.

~

Councils of Nicea.Was that from Dan brown?
Okay i researched and found out that,The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. didn't decide what books would go into the Bible - they only gathered together the books that were already recognized as Scripture by believers. It's a misconception to think that Nicea decided what books would go in and what would stay out.

Adam and Eve
Jesus also verified that Adam and Eve were the first two people on earth in Matthew 19

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus was referring to Genesis 2

And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Gensis 3:20 also states that Adam called His wife Eve which means she is the mother of all the living....they were the first two people on earth and had no ancestors.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Not that I aspire to be believed by somebody like you

Is it because I'm Asian?

Adam and Eve did not ever exist. This has been proven. It is completely and empirically untrue and impossible.

What was the point of including that with no thought or, well, thought? Just to quote and say it does mention them?

Originally Posted by kingerman

Councils of Nicea.Was that from Dan brown?

No. History books.

Okay i researched and found out that,The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. didn't decide what books would go into the Bible - they only gathered together the books that were already recognized as Scripture by believers. It's a misconception to think that Nicea decided what books would go in and what would stay out.

What did you do, skim over wikipedia?

The Council of Nicaea's purpose was the ensure that Jesus' appearance was Godlike and to remove all forms of mortality within him. Furthermore, it's primary purpose was also to bring together pagans and Christians in order to bring peace between the two large warring factions.

Here are more reliable sources:
Hillary of Poitier
Eusebius
Eustathius of Antioch
Athanasius
Gelasius of Cyzicus

These are all primary sources that record the Councils of Nicaea directly. I suggest you thoroughly read through them if you are to truly dedicate your life to the book that they wrote.

Adam and Eve
Jesus also verified that Adam and Eve were the first two people on earth in Matthew 19

You are using the bible to justify this now whereas earlier you used archaeology to disprove Mormonism.

Why are you now immune to this? There was no Adam and Eve - it is impossible and also undeniable. To think otherwise is like saying that gravity doesn't exist or that the earth is flat. In other words, delusional.

You are a smart person - do not ignore this significantly wrong fact.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus was referring to Genesis 2

And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Gensis 3:20 also states that Adam called His wife Eve which means she is the mother of all the living....they were the first two people on earth and had no ancestors.

You still try to justify that Adam and Eve exist by utilizing the bible as your source?

Have you considered that the writers of the bible do not have the evidence to prove otherwise to themselves? They did not have the fossil history that we now have - they could not argue otherwise. Thus, it is no surprise that the people back then were duped by their lies.

However, we now know for certain that it is an impossibility for Adam and Eve to have existed.

You're intelligent. Why do you deny this?

~

From gotquestions

Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known.