Above post is right, mythology books are more factual than the Bible / Testament / Karan.

The way I see it is that there is this thing called SCIENCE. It explains stuff. I drop a lightbulb and it breaks(physics). I put kool aid mix in water and get kool aid(chemisty(i hate kool aid)). So if there is a god he would have had to've created the universe all at the beginning and set things into motion with A. either no plan at all, meaning the only meaning in him being called god would be his immense power to create a universe or B. him having everything planned out ( all of the infinite paths of all of the universe's atoms planned out fort eternity(an omnipotent being can do that!) in which case christianity doesn't make sense cause there is actually no free will. And of course option C. is there is no god and the universe was created randomly.

But I will never know. No matter how much more plausible option C. seems there is no evidence. So all I have is my humanity and the joy that I am alive!

Do you guys think there is another option? Assuming you believe science exists?

I believe that the those sorts of sacred books(bible, kuran) are viewed as completely factual( however metphorical you want to get with it) by the religious..... people

At 1/19/10 02:43 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Tell me, if the Bible is bunk, who would follow such maxims without any proof or evidence it helps, or is true, or can be interpretted in a beneficial manner?

Several types actually:

1. Dumb people
2. People easily lead by figures of authority
3. People who are afraid of the bits about divine and eternal punishment if they don't obey
4. People who want the reward at the end of the game.
5. People who want to feel superior to others
6. People who want power.

Sure there's perfectly good people that follow it and are upright inspirational individuals...but that isn't the only reason to follow the book. It also doesn't prove the veracity of the book or any of your other claims which are all based on personal belief and philosophy.

The bible is not a story book to christians. You denying its veracity, to a lot of them, is like saying the holocaust never happened

At 1/19/10 11:45 PM, falz3333 wrote: The bible is not a story book to christians. You denying its veracity, to a lot of them, is like saying the holocaust never happened

But then I could sit there and say that we have so much proof that the holocaust DID happen and deniers are full of shit. Whereas Christians have no solid proof that ANYTHING in the Bible happened, and there's actually a ton of proof to wholly and completely debunk entire sections of it...therefore I can doubt the hell out of the Bible as a source of unimpeachable fact. Not only doubt, but flat out state that it isn't.

That's the difference. Nice try with the emotional appeal there though...but this is why such tactics don't work in a debate based on facts.

At 1/20/10 02:41 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/19/10 11:45 PM, falz3333 wrote: The bible is not a story book to christians. You denying its veracity, to a lot of them, is like saying the holocaust never happened

But then I could sit there and say that we have so much proof that the holocaust DID happen and deniers are full of shit. Whereas Christians have no solid proof that ANYTHING in the Bible happened, and there's actually a ton of proof to wholly and completely debunk entire sections of it...therefore I can doubt the hell out of the Bible as a source of unimpeachable fact. Not only doubt, but flat out state that it isn't.

That's the difference. Nice try with the emotional appeal there though...but this is why such tactics don't work in a debate based on facts.

The Bible has been used by historians. It is historically accurate. To say that there is no solid proof that ANYTHING in the Bible happened is a misinformed statement--if you have ever read the Bible, and paid attention to history classes, you'll see the connections. Even Titus Flavius Josephus, a Roman citizen documented the life of Jesus (a long with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD).

And by the way, absolute truth does exist.

At 1/20/10 03:42 AM, Syncakes wrote:

Even Titus Flavius Josephus

Not, "even", ONLY Josephus documented the life of Jesus. And that's still uncertain.

The bible is not reliable as a standalone historical document. Some parts do deal with real events and real places, but we know only because we were able to confirm it independently.

At 1/20/10 03:59 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/20/10 03:42 AM, Syncakes wrote:

Even Titus Flavius Josephus

Not, "even", ONLY Josephus documented the life of Jesus. And that's still uncertain.

The bible is not reliable as a standalone historical document. Some parts do deal with real events and real places, but we know only because we were able to confirm it independently.

Only Josephus? What of Tacitus?

I do agree though, that the Bible is not a reliable standalone historical document. It's not a history book, and it never was meant to be one.

In debunking the premise for "doubt[ing] the hell out of the Bible as a source of unimpeachable fact" it is cited that "The Bible has been used by historians." and "It is historically accurate."

Now, before I go any further, I've gotta know Syncakes, are you just objecting solely to the premise of Avie's argument? Or both the premise and subsequently the conclusion?

For clarity...
Premise (part of it): Christians have no solid proof that ANYTHING in the Bible happened.
Conclusion: I can doubt the hell out of the Bible as a source of unimpeachable fact.

So which is it?

At 1/20/10 03:59 AM, poxpower wrote: Not, "even", ONLY Josephus documented the life of Jesus. And that's still uncertain.

Wait, what do you mean by Josephus was the only one who documented it? Are you saying that Josephus was a writer of the Bible? If so, I don't recall anything about him being mentioned in the Bible.

The truth of the matter is, there's no less evidence for Jesus than there was for Socrates or Aristotle, or even William Shakespeare. People just use this as an example of why they hate religion. I really don't find it any better than someone saying global warming or evolution isn't real.

At 1/20/10 04:00 PM, Ericho wrote:

Wait, what do you mean by Josephus was the only one who documented it?

He could be, yes. The others might have merely copied him later on.
At any rate, you can count them on the fingers of one hand.

Are you saying that Josephus was a writer of the Bible?

lolno

The truth of the matter is, there's no less evidence for Jesus than there was for Socrates or Aristotle, or even William Shakespeare.

There's plenty more evidence for those people, and more importantly: it's not important if they existed or not.
No one's beliefs are invalidated by Aristotle being fictional.

If Jesus is fictional, there is no Christianity. Bye-bye

At 1/17/10 11:08 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/16/10 02:32 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 1/14/10 10:53 PM, Warforger wrote: ....No, how do you know that he is real? I mean, he's as likely to be real as Santa Claus and Unicorns, so why is your God real?

My God is real because He provides a conduit for growth. Santa Claus (Saint Nick) was a living, breathing person. He didn't slide down chimneys to give gifts to little children. He helped the needy children and became a saint after his death.

If you don't believe God is able to exist, in any tangible form, then it's not really a question of why I believe. I believe because I can logically accept a higher power than myself, as well as feel a connection to something greater than myself. Much like we are greater than the sum of our cells, God is greater than the reality you and I are blessed to experience. We determine if life on earth is to be heavenly or hellish. My God is real, more so than a unicorn, because His teachings are not simply flights of fancy. Even if you don't believe humans need God, you may not deny those open to God's embrace simply because you're ignorant of what religious beliefs, and God, seek to teach.

Sure what modern day pastors try to teach is a bit more innocent and would help the community, the problem is, is that this puts people under the impression that if you don't have a God you don't do good things at times. Thats not even to mention the Bible doesn't even spread good messages through its texts, for example my sig shows a quote saying slavery is ok if you go look up the quote, the Bible has two more paragraphs giving who you should enslave, last month it was imagination was evil, and I didn't even bother to circle the hundreds of lines which say to kill people as punishment and other Bible stories that consist of racism and hatred.

At 1/17/10 11:08 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Context is always important. To know what modern religion is all about, go to church and find out. You'll find mostly hospitality and empathy, forgiveness and redemption. Friendship and trustworthiness are not uncommon either.

Thats not what alot of the Bible says to do. Again, the Pastors cherry pick quotes so people do good things, so yah of course they'd do good things. And may I bring up the fact that you don't need a God to be nice and do good things, if your saying that those people only do good and nice things because there is a God, then that doesn't make them good people are heart, I wonder how'd they be if they thought there wasn't a God?

At 1/17/10 11:08 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Hell how is even the Christian/Muslim/Judism God the real God? Maybe your God is just bullshit and the real God is the flying Spaghetti monster and Cthulu are the only real Gods, prove me wrong.

Should I prove you incorrect by pointing out all those names were created by humans, and thus, are only symbolic of the true nature of God the Creator.

Gee thanks for being tolerant of other religions. May I also point out the fact that Hinduism was around before Judaism, so how is your God real?

Again this brings me back to the original point, your god isn't anymore valid then any other god, so how do you know that your god isn't just another creation of man? Hey If someone takes the time to write the Harry Potter books then there must be another person to have the time and materials to make there own religions book, if I make up a religion on the spot, it is as valid as your religion because it has the same amount of evidence that your god is real as mine: none.

At 1/17/10 11:08 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

OMG YOU CALLED ME A KID! So I assume you must be a WWII veteran along whose a former UN ambassador with a 12 inch long penis and hangs out at the local douchebag club of exclusive people who matter.

Grow up, punk.

Was not directed at you.

At 1/20/10 03:42 AM, Syncakes wrote: The Bible has been used by historians.

The kind that want to skew it to fit into the Bible yes. All others I've heard of have only looked into it insofar as a cultural myth artifact and if some of the motifs and stories that recur in other cultural myths (like flood stories, and some aspects of Genesis) to see if they may have been based from some historical event way back in humanity's infancy. That's not the same as saying "this is historical fact.

It is historically accurate.

Adam and Eve. Cain and Abel. Noah and The Flood. The inaccurate portrayals of historical and probable historical figures in Exodus. No solid proof of other claims it purports. This book is NOT historically accurate in a provable way. I actually just listed a few examples, two or more that are CONCRETE to prove the Bible is NOT historically accurate in it's entirety and an article of Jewish and Christian faith is that it is. But it isn't.

To say that there is no solid proof that ANYTHING in the Bible happened is a misinformed statement.

No it isn't, it's a truthful statement. Just like when I say the Creation story AS WRITTEN is completely IMPOSSIBLE.

if you have ever read the Bible, and paid attention to history classes, you'll see the connections.

I got straight A's in history, I love history, I was even a bit of a teachers pet and was recommended to the Honors History classes. Never did we discuss the Bible or it's veracity because even though some historical names get referenced in the Bible, doesn't mean the stories they're in or the way they're portrayed is accurate. By that logic I could go re-read Neil Gaiman's story about Augustus Caesar and how his Uncle Julius raped him as a teenager in exchange for becoming Roman Emperor and say that despite the fantastic element of a force of the universe Gaiman created it's historically accurate because Gaiman built the story around historical personages. History doesn't work that way, but by all means please elaborate on these supposed "connections".

Even Titus Flavius Josephus, a Roman citizen documented the life of Jesus (a long with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD).

Oh damn...here we go. I am not someone that denies the existence of Jesus. I think it's pretty well proven Jesus was a historical figure. I think it's pretty well proven and I can accept Jesus was a religious reformer and a figure of note. But everything else is subject to certain bias's (The Gospels are written for a Roman audience, meaning the Crucifiction must naturally be made to look like even though the Romans executed it, they are not to be blamed for it). Not to mention statements attributed to Jesus in the book are more compatible with the idea of a trouble maker and a revolutionary vs. a peaceful prophet. There's also no evidence beyond the Bible to ascribe any miraculous abilities or powers to him, or that he ever claimed to be anything more then a priest and revolutionary. I suggest you go actually read up on your history. Start with this as your search term "Pauline Christianity" and you'll be amazed to find out that Christianity when it started is completely different then Christianity as it is now.

Again, just because a historical figure is written about in the Bible, doesn't mean EVERYTHING written is literal history, or historically accurate.

And by the way, absolute truth does exist.

At 1/20/10 04:09 PM, poxpower wrote: There's plenty more evidence for those people, and more importantly: it's not important if they existed or not.

Well, the only one of that list that MIGHT be fictional is Socrates. Since when I took Philosophy 101 in college it was stated that Socrates never had any works really attributed to him independently that we've been able to verify. What we know of Socrates we know through Plato (who definitely existed) by way of when he published something he often referenced Socrates and "qouted" him. Leading some to speculate that perhaps Plato invented Socrates as a way to enhance the veracity of his own thought. But that is speculative and in no way proven.

Those other guys though? Definitely existed, we have plenty of evidence to satisfy that they absolutely did exist. Now syncakes is just being utterly silly to make his points seem stronger.

At 1/20/10 05:42 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

And by the way, absolute truth does exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#
Perception_and_reality

lol, consensus reality is absolute truth

So yeah why only talk about bible and christianity? If you want to delve into the title of the thread then you will have to go farther than "hey there was never a giant ass flood!!"

At 1/20/10 05:46 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Well, the only one of that list that MIGHT be fictional is Socrates. Since when I took Philosophy 101 in college it was stated that Socrates never had any works really attributed to him independently that we've been able to verify. What we know of Socrates we know through Plato (who definitely existed) by way of when he published something he often referenced Socrates and "qouted" him. Leading some to speculate that perhaps Plato invented Socrates as a way to enhance the veracity of his own thought. But that is speculative and in no way proven.

Only as a point of filler:
This happens with surprising frequency in antiquity. The problem is we don't have complete sources, so many times the only evidence of someone's existence is through a secondary source. Sometimes a person is mentioned by more than one source, but it's not uncommon for a person to have a single extant reference.

It's really not that surprising, only because what we have available is rather limited. There are even some cases where a person's existence has been reduced to a single obscure quote.

Generally speaking, unless a work was copied in mass quantities and well integrated into the public sphere (like Homer), you rarely run across 100% complete anything.

Caesar, as in Gaius Iulius, wrote 2 commentaries, and THOSE are difficult to put together due to document fragmentation.

Socrates is another good example. Nicias, a fairly prominent Athenian, is mentioned in Thucydides and Plutarch......and that's it.

Historical mentions of Jesus? Abundant by comparison.
Actually, the same discussion about Jesus has been done with Homer. Did Homer really exist? Dunno. Nobody really knows. Homer, the "author" of the Iliad and Odyssey, and there is no conclusive evidence of his existence.

Besides the 4 gospels, there's Josephus, the Gnostic gospels (remember folks, the books in the Bible aren't the ONLY books, they're just the ones Constantine allowed), and I believe most recently, the Gospel of Thomas.

Bottom line, there are many references for Jesus, even if you threw out the 4 canonical gospels. People who say Josephus is the "only" real source are talking out their uninformed asses.

My favorites are:
Gospel of Judas
any of the Sethian Gnostic texts.

And my personal favorite, Syriac Infancy Gospel. Why? Reference of Jesus' magical diaper that could heal people!!

Complete bullshit, but FUCKING FUNNY! :)
Any time you get to say "this text mentions a magical healing diaper", you're having fun!

Which actually brings me to another point of contention:
People who say there are no mentions of Jesus' childhood are PROVABLY wrong. Once again, speaking only from their uninformed asses, only because they believe the Bible is the end all for stories on Jesus, and NOT a collection of the best 30 out of 100 written.

At 1/20/10 06:54 PM, Imperator wrote: And my personal favorite, Syriac Infancy Gospel. Why? Reference of Jesus' magical diaper that could heal people!!

;;;
I wonder if that's where the custom of wearing a turban (wound cloth) on the head came from ;)

Still waiting to see if National Geo puts out anything else about the Gospel of Judas.
I also like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.h tm

Hey, what do you guys think about religious schools (Christian schools and the like) teaching Creationism? One one hand, its a school and schools should teach scientific creation theories. But on the other....in a religious school.

Whaddya think? I think they are entitled to teach it, since its a religious school and all. It'd be odd for a nun to be teaching the Big Bang theory wouldnt it?

At 1/20/10 05:57 PM, NOTunowned wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#
Perception_and_reality

lol, consensus reality is absolute truth

That should actually be directed at the other dude. I just happened to forget to delete that sentence since I had no real reply for it. My bad :)

At 1/20/10 08:09 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I wonder if that's where the custom of wearing a turban (wound cloth) on the head came from ;)

While that is most likely a huge insult to cultures that wear turbans, I find this the Joke de jour.

Still waiting to see if National Geo puts out anything else about the Gospel of Judas.
I also like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.h tm

What many people don't realize is these things may have been discovered a while ago, but they take LOOOONG stretches of time to translate. I've heard some "smaller" projects taking individuals (and mind you, these are full, distinguished, and accomplished professors) upwards of 15 years.

Mary's Gospel is the perfect example. First fragments discovered in 1896. First fragments published in 1938.

People don't realize the condition these fragments come to us in, and why my job is a fucking BITCH.

Take a copy of David Copperfield written in an ancient (and dead) language, send it through the paper shredder, send the shreds through the shredder again, scatter them across a 50 mile area. Oh yeah, also add doodles on the sides of the pages, write in terrible handwriting, have other things erased and written over, bleeding through the Dickens, make the print microscopic, and age the result 2000 years, with lots of ink fading, "weathered" looks from the elements, and all manner of dirt smudges.

Now dig it up and provide a nice neat translation.
Welcome to Classics!

At 1/20/10 08:41 PM, Grizzli wrote: Hey, what do you guys think about religious schools (Christian schools and the like) teaching Creationism? One one hand, its a school and schools should teach scientific creation theories. But on the other....in a religious school.

I can accomplish the same result by watching the Flinstones. There, I just invalidated Creationism as an academic subject.

Whaddya think? I think they are entitled to teach it, since its a religious school and all.

Since they're private, yes, they are entitled. They're entitled to teach that Creation began when Chuck Norris went back in time and jacked off in the primordial ooze too.....

Neither should be taken seriously as academic theories.

It'd be odd for a nun to be teaching the Big Bang theory wouldn't it?

Not really. John Paul II was a very vocal advocate of the Big Bang.

At 1/22/10 12:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Well, all I've got to say is that the argument, "your God isn't as valid as my God/no God" doesn't much convince me of whoever's faith is in question. Validity, ha.

Thats not the argument, you said that God is the one and only true god basically and all other gods are fake, and again the arguement is "Your god is no more realisitic and valid then any other god including the ones I can make up on the spot"

At 1/22/10 12:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: When you go to church, they scan your religi-card to make sure it's up to date.

By letting anyone come in without verification.

At 1/22/10 12:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Either the concept of a God jives for you, whatever that concept may be (being part of something bigger, having a divine mission, etc), or it doesn't. The faith required for belief in God is not dissimilar to the faith needed and used in everyday life. Now, this faith can be taken to extremes, sure. People are known for fucking up potentially great things. It happens. You can be forgiven, but only through the knowledge of the sacrifice... at least in christian concept. Islamo-fascism would probably just cut your hand off, flog or stone you. Who knows what the bushmen would do; every culture has different standards for violating the expected behaviors and cultural mores.

Ah, but since God hasn't came out and said "this is what I meant" there interpretation of what he wants is just as valid as yours, so like if one user makes a thread stating God hates fags, and then another entirely disagree's, there opinions are just as valid as each other.

At 1/22/10 12:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: God is supposed to encompass all livings things. Ask me how and I'd have to give you some faith-based conjecture. You don't have to take what I say for truth, I wouldn't expect anyone to. But the power of simply knowing a person believes is undeniable. Since God's family spans all the human race, believers should be that much tenacious in the defense of their (extended) family. Survival technique or legitimate worship practices? I'd rather be part of God's family than China's.

So, just because people believe its true, its true then? What about Hinduism? If people believe thats true then isn't it? What about Scientology? If people believe thats true then isn't it? etc. and if he was so, then why the hell aren't there Jews/Christians/Muslim natives in East Asia, why did Islam/Christanity need to spread? You'd think that if he did create the world there'd be a considerable percentage still worshiping him. Hey what about Hinduism? The Bible seems to claim the Earth was created 6000 years ago, but the Hindu's were around 7000 years ago, so how would you back up the 6000 year old claim?

My thing is, it just seems kind of ridiculous to me that some all-powerful being created an entire universe out of nothing... I dunno.
I'm an atheist, but I respect theists too... As long as they a) don't shove it in my face, and b) keep it out of politics. Believe what you want, but until this person shows him / herself, I'll just go about my life as normal. Nothing particularly bad has happened to me, so I guess if a god does exist, he / she doesn't mind much.

At 1/22/10 11:18 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: My thing is, it just seems kind of ridiculous to me that some all-powerful being created an entire universe out of nothing... I dunno.

Digest Me.

I'm not saying it can't be true, I'm just saying it doesn't seem very likely, so we should keep an open mind about other ways of explaining the Universe.

At 1/23/10 09:01 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: I'm not saying it can't be true, I'm just saying it doesn't seem very likely, so we should keep an open mind about other ways of explaining the Universe.

Let's suppose you shoot someone dead.

I explain to you that murder is the act of killing another human being. The example provided is of someone being stabbed rather than shot. I accuse you of murder and you reply...

"I didn't stab anyone."

You're kind of missing the point.

At 1/23/10 09:01 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: I'm not saying it can't be true

You're right. You're not. You're saying divine creation is ridiculous. Ridiculous enough to believe that it is not true. That is an argument from personal incredulity when prefaced with "My thing is, it just seems" and followed by no explanation.

At 1/24/10 03:53 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: You're funny. Earth is obviously 8000 years old. Those billions year old (solar year is a short time, mind you) rock were simply planted here to confuse you.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Or yourself.

At 1/24/10 02:19 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/23/10 09:01 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: I'm not saying it can't be true, I'm just saying it doesn't seem very likely, so we should keep an open mind about other ways of explaining the Universe.

Let's suppose you shoot someone dead.

I explain to you that murder is the act of killing another human being. The example provided is of someone being stabbed rather than shot. I accuse you of murder and you reply...

"I didn't stab anyone."

You're kind of missing the point.

What does that have to do with it?

At 1/23/10 09:01 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: I'm not saying it can't be true

You're right. You're not. You're saying divine creation is ridiculous. Ridiculous enough to believe that it is not true. That is an argument from personal incredulity when prefaced with "My thing is, it just seems" and followed by no explanation.

I feel that I'm justified in thinking that the theory of a god creating the Universe is ridiculous. That god would violate pretty much every law of physics, making it impossible for that god to exist.

At 1/24/10 04:39 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: What does that have to do with it?

I accuse you of an argument from personal incredulity. You don't have to say "divine creation can't be true" to be committing an argument from personal incredulity, though that is what the example shows. (By analogy, you don't have to stab someone to murder them, despite the example of murder being a stabbing.)

I'll level with you. My accusation is really presumptuous. But replying, "I'm not saying it can't be true," does not refute the accusation (per the reason above). What you say below does.

I feel that I'm justified in thinking that the theory of a god creating the Universe is ridiculous. That god would violate pretty much every law of physics, making it impossible for that god to exist.

When you say impossible you mean unlikely right?

my word, what a heated debate... well ill offer my two-bits: i used to be a christian, but i can't find any logical proof that THAT particular religion is true. however, it only makes logical sense that there is SOME driving froce behind everything. consider the big bang (THEORY... not proven...) if there was sucj a thing (probably was) then how could the perfect cicumstances for it to happen... have happened? furthermore, a planet had to be created whoich was the exact perfect size, distance from a star, etc., etc. to sustain life, and then the life had to evolve, and stay there without being completely destroyed. this points towards some form of intelligent design, another example is the fact that we are discussing this, how could such a level of intelligence be a normal product of evolution? Existentialism really has no purpose as far as survival goes, yet here it is, almost no doubt because something wanted it to be so. maybe all religions are somewhat correct... who knows? all i can say is that there is no way that all of this is a coincidence. any replies??????