(August 9, 2009 at 2:58 am)Pippy Wrote: We have to figure this out. I don't believe the burden of proof falls on me. I don't believe the burden of proof falls on me. If you guys get out that dusty stick again, I will repeat. I don't agree that the burden of proof falls on me.

Well tough. Because in that case I just wonder by what logic you are making your God an exception. Becasuse the burden of proof lies on the belief in the existence of something, untill that belief actually has evidence to support it. Only then does the burden of proof shift, and does it need evidence against in order to be falsified. And the burden of proof otherwise only lies on a belief in 'non-existence' if it's a gnostic belief, a claim of absolutes and not merely a rejection due to lack of evidence.

Quote:Why I believe in god. I know of no evidence. You've all given me what you believe to be evidence, but's it's not evidence, it doesn't dismiss god.

Which is a reversal of the burden of proof. You may not care about it. But in that case, by what logic are you picking your God out? There are a million things that lack evidence, why don't you believe in all of them? Why not believe in everything? Why not the FSM ?

By what logic are you picking your God out if he carries no evidence? Why are you making an exception to the burden of proof, why are you reversing it?

Quote:And you too EvF... I CAN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

So why do you believe if you have no evidence? You believe without a rational reason to believe therefore. Because, in its broadest sense - that's what evidence is: That what gives credence to a belief.

Quote:Stop chastising me for not making my god seem obvious to atheists.

I'm certainly not expecting you to make stuff obvious to me or other atheists. I'm just asking for evidence becasue, why do you believe if you don't have evidence? You can't rationally believe without evidence by definition, because to rationally believe means to believe with a reason, and if you believe with a reason then that reason gives credence to your belief, which is: Evidence

Why do you make your God an exception to evidence and the burden of proof?? Unless you pick other stuff out to be an exception too?

[...] and I always maintained that we are in a type of cyber relationship that excludes the possibility of either of us sharing evidence in this format. Sigh.[/i]

Well that's where you ignore that great importance of the burden of proof. Without it you might as well just believe in the FSM because he lacks evidence just as much as your God does.

Quote:no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence...

Yeah that's kind of the problem that I'm addressing....

Quote:I am sorry, you will have to find god all on your own.

I doubt that will happen.

Quote:This is why I don't want to discuss god. It gets no where, but so slowly...

So if you don't want to discuss God on an atheist forum, then what? You want to discuss absence of God, what atheism is like, without ever discussing the alternative, without ever discussing God?

I expect evidnece for a belief because by definition that's rational for reasons stated in this post.

EvF

(December 6, 2008 at 8:07 am)Tiberius Wrote: Thanks for that story. I think the majority of atheists here who used to be Christians would agree that the Bible is a big reason why we deconverted.

Have you ever read the original bible? written in hebrew? The Holy Bible has been translated in so many different languages, I wouldn't be surprised if there are errors. You can't translate something in 50 different languages and cultures, and expect there to be no translation errors. Why do you think people in Israel are so committed to God and the Bible? Because they have the original manuscripts in the temples. Not a book that has been translated so many times, modern translators have mis-copied and mistranslated words from ancient times.

I had an atheist tell me; "Jesus said we must HATE our parents before we can become his disciple".

That is untrue. 1. Jesus lived by the law, and the law was, "Honor thy mother and father".

Jesus used the word "Si'nah" in Hebrew. Meaning, "to love lesser than".
(Not physical hatred towards someone)

Modern translators have translated the word "hate" into the bible. And that is clearly not the message Jesus was sending. Greek translators printed, "Miseo" in the N.T. Miseo in Greek means "to despise, or hate".

Modern man is too stupid to translate the words of God. Modern man translates the words they use in their time era to best fit the description in these verses... when they are clearly wrong.

God said, "I am a jealous God". "Jealousy" in ancient hebrew didn't have the same meaning as the jealousy we think of in modern english. Jealousy meant, "warmth" in hebrew.

Anyone with a normal thinking brain knows darn well what is going to happen when something is translated over and over and over within a 3000 year time period.

before you atheists tell me, "so, the word of God is not perfect afterall".

My rebuttal. Yes it is perfect. The original writtings are sacred and no errors are found.

Atheism didn't start to increase until the bible became translated over the centuries.

The problem is, we don't even have the originals, or the copies of the originals...or the copies of the copies of the originals. So to say that the original writings are sacred with no errors is a massive assumption.

(August 21, 2009 at 8:45 am)Tiberius Wrote: The problem is, we don't even have the originals, or the copies of the originals...or the copies of the copies of the originals. So to say that the original writings are sacred with no errors is a massive assumption.

There are original manuscripts in Jerusalem. Soley written in hebrew. Once the bible started to be translated in english and other cultures, the words became more and more harder to figure out. Just remember, the words in ancient days didn't have the same meanings as we know them. You can walk into a Temple in Israel, and you can find the original manuscripts that have not been translated 6000 times.

1. A Holy Bible in Israel, Jesus said, "we must love God more than anyone, even our parents".
2. A Holy Bible in America, Jesus said, "we must hate our parents before we can be a disciple".

I can see how atheists criticize the bible for being an error.

If you want the truth about something.. how about going back to it's roots, instead of reading the words of God translated through an english dictionary? The language spoken in the bible no longer exists. I can see how modern translators could have screwed up.

Where is this temple? It would be a great find considering that all Biblical and historical scholars are hunting for the original manuscripts and most consider them "lost".

Quote:Jesus used the word "Si'nah" in Hebrew. Meaning, "to love lesser than".

And this makes it all better how????


It's not just that one verse.....You're forgetting the many on slavery, incest, murder, etc. that are very to the point on a "God's Commandment".

Forgetting about a book that has been so plagiarized from other mythological tales passed down, that the original text would not make a difference...(And no Truth...we do not have the original text).......

Forgetting that God talks of his hate, jealousy, and warmongering throughout the Bible even in the Hebrew writing.

However, I will agree with you on that the King James Version in comparison to the 5 books of Moses from the Torah do have discrepancies. Little mistranslations throughout it. just thank the Emperor back then for agreeing with the translations presented to him from Hebrew to Greek. I can only imagine what all was lost.

Truth,

Wait, so god is powerful enough to pass his word from himself through a prophet into text but can't work his magic on translators to assure that an accurate version exists in English? I guess omnipotent just doesn't mean what I think it means.

Rhizo

Quote:There are original manuscripts in Jerusalem. Soley written in hebrew.

You are either wrong...or worse, you are a liar.

The oldest version of the OT is written in Greek and is called the Septuagint. It dates from the early 3d century BC. "Tradition" has it that Greek scholars "translated" it but there is no evidence to support that. "Tradition" as we know is frequently a euphemism for "wishful fucking thinking." As far as we know RIGHT NOW the Greek version IS the original version.

The oldest Hebrew manuscripts are the Dead Sea Scrolls some of which date from the mid-2d century BC (at the earliest) and seem to have been written over a 1-200 year period.

Thank you for that Min....I had always read that Greek Scholars were whom translated the books from Hebrew to Greek, and in which the Emperor (Can't remember his name) is who was subjected to agree with the translations before they could be released and bound.

Your post implies that after a translation is done, another translation is done on the translated work. It is nonsense.

AFAIK the most of the translations go back to the sourse.

So your 6000 translations = 1, each new.

(August 21, 2009 at 9:01 am)The_Truth Wrote: , the words in ancient days didn't have the same meanings as we know them. You can walk into a Temple in Israel, and you can find the original manuscripts that have not been translated 6000 times.

1. A Holy Bible in Israel, Jesus said, "we must love God more than anyone, even our parents".
2. A Holy Bible in America, Jesus said, "we must hate our parents before we can be a disciple".

I can see how atheists criticize the bible for being an error.

If you want the truth about something.. how about going back to it's roots, instead of reading the words of God translated through an english dictionary? The language spoken in the bible no longer exists. I can see how modern translators could have screwed up.