Whats even attractive about Christianity anyway that people want to stay in ignorance

[The Grand Nudger]

What gifts, can either of you demonstrate such things?

Evidence?

(Btw, I don't like your metaphor and symbolism translation either, can you demonstrate that Gen1 is not literal? What may be possible to conclude and what is are often not the same thing. I don't like trickster gods, and the "revealed/inspired word" probably wouldn't be the best place to be playful with language. Look at what's happened. Surely the almighty would have known better?)

[Minimalist]

I mean the ruins of the Jerusalem temple are still there for all to see. So at least that part about a temple is true. Meaning it's not ALL fiction.

The ruins of the Jerusalem Temple are from Herod the Great's building project. I defy you to produce a single artifact from the alleged "solomonic temple" anywhere.

I don't remember saying anything about Solomon.

Okay, good. You'd probably be surprised how many we get around here who think solomon's temple is historically and archaeologically attested. I'm glad you aren't one of them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Historical fiction is still "all fiction". Dracula was set in London. "Dracula isn't ALL fiction."

[Minimalist]

Many people try to find inconsistencies in the bible but don't take into account the context, culture, and original language. This is my counter.

Oh, chippy I knew you'd pull out the "context" argument eventually.

Here's a little test. Deuteronomy 2 30-34. I read this and say "your god is a murdering sack of shit."

30But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

31And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.

32Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.

33And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.

34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

You put it into whatever context you like and show where he isn't.

By the way, it's your precious KJV courtesy of Bible Gateway.com so you don't have to go looking for misquotations from Evil Bible.

[chi pan]

"But I believe the creation story is true and if you think you have evidence against it go ahead and come out with it." - Chipan

Okay. Let's return to Titus 12:1 "...All Cretans are liars." As I showed elsewhere this verse is a paradox. It cannot be literally true. Therefore Paul was making a joke to prove a point, i.e. he stated something that on its face is not true but points to a higher symbolic truth. If that is the case, then in at least one place the bible is not literally true, but only symbolic. Therefore it is possible to conclude that other passages, like GEN 1 can be pure allegory without needing to be historically accurate in each particular.

The argument from design will never convince anyone to embrace the Christian faith. Do you know a single person that gave themselves to Christ because they once believed in evolution and turned creationist. It doesn't happen. Use the gifts of the Holy Spirit in another way.

Look, no one made up anything about that quote. He said that out of anger and it was included because it illustrates a point. Do you correct a child who comes home saying "everyone at school is mean to me" saying "that can't be true. Not the people you don't know"? Obviously not. As for the creation story, God would not give such details of an event if it did not happen.

[Minimalist]

God would not give such details of an event if it did not happen.

Yeah but the men who invented it would to fool the gullible.

Got to give them credit. We have proof that the method works.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"...can you demonstrate that Gen1 is not literal?" - Rhythm. I think you and others here have already have demonstrated that it could not be literal using current scientific evidence.

" What may be possible to conclude and what is are often not the same thing." - Rhythm. Fair enough. But my appeal was primarily to Chipan using church-speak, not my preferred dialect, as you've learned.

The temple where Jesus is said to have drove out the money changers was the most elemental example I could make. As references become more specific they become more speculative an open to dispute. I do not believe they are as conclusively refuted as you would like to claim. A spring fed pool recently discovered MAY likely have been the pool of Bethesda. That's a step up from the previous assertion the because no pool fitting the description had yet been discovered then the story must have been fabricated. Likewise, the absence of a site for Sodom and Gomorrah was used as evidence that the story was pure myth. Recently however a site fitting the description was found. Does that mean that site actually was the buttsex towns? No, but it allows for the possibility.

[The Grand Nudger]

As for the creation story, God would not give such details of an event if it did not happen.

A god who was not present likely would, since that's exactly how the Chaldeans (as well as others in the region) figured it went down, and the Jews got their info secondhand. They were great goatherds, not so good with astronomy or cosmology. They felt completely confident in going with what was the best "scientific" knowledge of the day..why aren't you?

Evidence?

@Chad, A spring fed pool? Alert the authorities. Fuck me, wheres the nearest church? I was looking for a thundering god, but I guess I'll settle for a spring fed pool. A spring fed pool allows for the possibility of a spring fed pool. I don't know why this strikes you as important, unless you doubted the existence of spring fed pools? Similarly, finding two ruins allows for the possibility of apocalyptic destruction by a god exactly how? Rhetorical.

[Voltair]

First of all let me say that I am an atheist who is not 100% convinced of evolution because I have not studied it. However I suspect that it is most likely true partially because I seem to trust science on many other things etc. However I can be okay with it not being true without accepting the God theory.

The reason for this is having an alternate explanation for how things came about does not automatically make it valid even if all other "current" explanations disappeared. For example if you said the world was a cube and I said it was a triangle I am clearly wrong. However just because I am wrong does not make you right either, in fact we are both wrong. The Christian apologetic arguments such as Design, Morality, and Cause are POSSIBLE explanations for the phenomenon known as life in that they can't be proven false. The problem is all these arguments are is simple speculation/opinion. Something looks designed therefore it is? Not necessarily you still have to prove that it was in fact designed. Saying look how pretty the stars are! Does not provide anything other than your opinion/feelings on the matter.

Again I would like to ask how the Christian arguments do anymore than to suggest a possible explanation? As far as I can see they can't prove anything. So far all I have seen is people saying "Well it looks this way therefore it is, therefore God". As far as arguing from scripture itself one of the primary issues is the lack of contemporary historical sources. Now you may counter by saying we have other historical issues we accept on the same or less volumes of evidence. I will give you that but consider the difference here.

Those other historical accounts about various things in history may in fact be wrong. However Christianity is supposed to be backed up by the very creator of the universe. It also talks about things that we have NEVER witnessed to be a part of existence such as demons, miracles, supernatural appearances etc. Many Christian's today don't believe things work the same way as they used to and those that do often are led along by manipulative people such as Benny Hen who use slight of hand.

So we have a book that makes claims about things that don't appear to exist in reality. It also mentions supposedly historical events such as herod's great slaughter which is in NO other source. In addition it mentions 12 men going around doing miracles like Jesus did and doing it over a larger geographical area with again, no other source. So far I have seen very little evidence and a whole lot of speculation.

It doesn't matter whether or not someone has an alternate worldview, what matters is can you prove your own? Even if other people are being inconsistent in your eyes you saying "see you are as inconsistent as me by having faith" does not give you more credibility.

Now granted being religious supposedly gives you the right to faith while an atheist obviously does not. But faith in what? Is it simply blind faith based on nothing other than hope? If it is so baseless though do you simply just base it out of fear or is it something else? I have yet to see this solid evidence that proves the miraculous/unsupported historical claims of scripture as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because it isn't there, it has never been there, and it has been this way for 150,000 years. We've forgotten more gods than we can remember.