(October 9, 2013 at 2:59 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 10:29 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Dawkins considers himself a 6/7 on his own scale.

His scale, IIRC, doesn't address anti-theism - only atheism and agnosticism.

He defines anti-theism as strong atheism or certianty there is no god which is a 7. I don't think he thinks a god is impossible, but rather that the christian god is as ikely as the easter bunny.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: See john. Inorder, for the bible to even meet your definition,

It was your definition.

Quote:the majority of the world would have to be Christian,

No, the majority of the world would need to accept evidence similar to that of Christianity, i.e. ancient texts.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:10 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: It doesn't necessarily have to be the case that one religion is 100% true and all the others are 100% false it could be some people just happen to be a little closer to the idea than others.

It does for you, according to your First Commandment and many other sources. It also makes logical sense that a one, true religion would dominate most of the world, because the obvious truth of it would either naturally trump all incorrect different superstitions, or because those superstitions would essentially be minor variations of the same theme. What we have in real life is a monotheism fractured into three major subdivisions each with hundreds to thousands of sub-subdivisions, with ends of the spectrum on all levels barely recognizable as the same religion on the opposite end. Christianity has more than 40,000 recognized sects (with who knows how many lesser ones), and their market share worldwide is shrinking. When you take into account that Christianity's spread throughout the world has been almost entirely by force, it doesn't sound to me like a religion that has any inherent truth to it, and that's to say nothing of the complete lack of evidence to support a single extraordinary claim that it makes.

Quote:Fair enough that there tends to be a lot human cultural stuff and tradition in the mix, I don't think anyone would deny that. I don't think bit of culture is a bad thing even Dawkins would agree to not have churches bulldozed or all Christian traditions abolished.

There are no Christian-invented traditions that serve any useful purpose to humanity, but you guys have made some really pretty works of art and architecture, I will grant that.

John V Wrote:No, the majority of the world would need to accept evidence similar to that of Christianity, i.e. ancient texts.

If scientists accept what is written in scientific publications, then whatever hypothesis I come up with is plausible as long as I find someone willing to publish it? That's the dumbest argument I've heard so far today. Congratulations, but no. They have to accept your ancient texts, specifically. And Christians can't even agree amongst yourselves on that score.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:13 pm)John V Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: See john. Inorder, for the bible to even meet your definition,

It was your definition.

Quote:the majority of the world would have to be Christian,

No, the majority of the world would need to accept evidence similar to that of Christianity, i.e. ancient texts.

Okay so then how do you prove chrisitianity is the accurate religion, and that all others are false using that standard of evidence?

(October 9, 2013 at 3:07 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Which is, after all, what it's proponents for thousands of years claimed it was.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

Does that say all scripture is literal historical fact?

What part of proponents don't you understand? Please read what people are writing before you reply. Thanks.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:32 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: What part of proponents don't you understand? Please read what people are writing before you reply. Thanks.

Saint Timothy and the early Christians of the first church weren't proponents of Christianity then?

(October 9, 2013 at 3:53 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 3:32 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: What part of proponents don't you understand? Please read what people are writing before you reply. Thanks.

Saint Timothy and the early Christians of the first church weren't proponents of Christianity then?

Did I say 'they' weren't?

So, what, the biblical literalists of Westboro aren't proponents then? The countless numbers of people from times gone by who have used a literalist interpretation of biblical texts to denounce (and often kill) their enemies aren't proponents either?

Are you actually saying that the bible was written, initially through its formation and collation of texts, not as a literal interpretation of how those events occurred (from Genesis right through) but as some sort of allegory?

In effect,you're admitting that the bible is just a fiction? I know a few people on this very forum who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal and accurate description of the truth of how man first walked this 6000~ Y/O earth. I invite them to debate you on this point now. There are quite a few hundred million more out there in the real world too (depends on ones definition of real I guess).

What is the bible going to rebuke, then, as Timothy supposedly points out, if there is no real historic substance to it? Or is only some accurate history, and the other parts are just filler?

Don't get me wrong, SOC, I admire someone who agrees with 'us' mean old atheists that the bible isn't really a good conveyor of anything when talking about historic accuracy.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:24 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Okay so then how do you prove chrisitianity is the accurate religion, and that all others are false using that standard of evidence?

I don't prove it - faith is involved in the faith. And I've noted ways to differentiate various beliefs in recent threads.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:07 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Which is, after all, what it's proponents for thousands of years claimed it was.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

Does that say all scripture is literal historical fact?

For how many centuries was it seen to be literal historical fact?
It was many centuries wasn't it.

Faith had to (eventually) change to fit the facts when the facts did not agree with the bible and the evidence was overwhelming.

Until then it was thought to be inerrant historical fact.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:07 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Which is, after all, what it's proponents for thousands of years claimed it was.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

Does that say all scripture is literal historical fact?

Why don't you apply some critical thinking there for a second? One claim about the Christian god is that he's a perfect being (don't even ask for a reference; I'm sure you agree with this point). That being said, if the scriptures truly are god-breathed by a perfect being, then the fact that the book is so full of inaccuracies should give momentary pause about what you are admitting there.