Atheism: The True Path?

[Kyuuketsuki]

[fr0d0]

I agree. I was wanting you to separate the two. But nevermind.

Huh? You mean you engineered a trap and I failed to spring it?

It wasn't a trap. But admission of that lets me knowwhat you think.

We're still using exactly the same original source in EVERY version there is. The most accurate version currently is the NIV originally published in 1978, with a minor revision in 1984.

Bollocks

Not at all!

Ah, the mythical "Q" ... in that case I believe you should be looking at the world's oldest known bible but be careful ... apparently there's no mention of the resurrection.

Nothing 'mythical' about it. You deny the existence of the paper trail as well? Trouble is, if you go this far down the road of denial, it looks illogical to the most casual observer. You need to stay on the side of reason.

Like I said the NIV is the most accurate around today.

And the fact remains that others (other theists) do not agree with you so your view is hardly authoritative.

The fact is that EVERY Christian agrees with me. That's enough for an assertion.

Oh trust me I'm not merely interpreting ... it says DAYS and therefore one needs a specific reason, a specific logic, a specific justification to decide it meant something other than days and yet again there are many Christians who interpret it as exactly that, DAYS. In addition there are other problems:

You ARE EXACTLY interpreting though. Or repeating an interpretation. Yes you could discuss that with deluded individuals (IMHO). That doesn't make it any more than interpretation though.

I've heard an almost exact account as you cited there preached explaining Genisis. It has little merit in either camp when used to dismiss either science or God. The account is an explanation in human terms. The metaphor of 'days' fulfills this requirement. That is all.

[leo-rcc]

[Edwardo Piet]

You don't. You have to argue your god is somewhere else, somewhere that can't be tested or reached by science ... you have no choice.

I agree.

Wow!

Kyu

To be fair Kyu--unless I'm missing something here (either on your side or fr0d0's side)--isn't that what fr0d0 has been saying all along? That God is unreachable by science? That's how he defines God? Science can't reach God because the God fr0d0 believes in is defined to be unfalsifiable and unprovable. So whatever 'reasons' he has for believing they aren't scientific...right fr0d0?...

...The thing is though fr0d0: I am just having trouble understanding what those reasons are and/or how they are at all valid to whether your God actually exists or not. That's the problem I have with your "Faith".

EvF

[fr0d0]

Interesting result Leo but hardly authoritative. Not that I dismiss the postings, just that I know through serious study that the NIV is the most accurate. Yes I'd always agree about cross reading versions. Every Christian I know does that. There's also continual discoveries of meanings from the original to throw light on any translation. Most sermons on the bible I've been to contain this element.

---

To be fair Kyu--unless I'm missing something here (either on your side or fr0d0's side)--isn't that what fr0d0 has been saying all along? That God is unreachable by science? That's how he defines God? Science can't reach God because the God fr0d0 believes in is defined to be unfalsifiable and unprovable. So whatever 'reasons' he has for believing they aren't scientific...right fr0d0?...

Exactly right Evie

...The thing is though fr0d0: I am just having trouble understanding what those reasons are and/or how they are at all valid to whether your God actually exists or not. That's the problem I have with your "Faith".

EvF

No, my reasons are not valid as to whether my God exists or not. That (existence) is completely down to faith. To not knowing.

[leo-rcc]

I thought you might argue that these are examples of "arguments from authority" or "arguments from popularity" and I will even grant you that. But keep in mind I only posted this because you said "The fact is that EVERY Christian agrees with me. That's enough for an assertion." And these cases from the top 3 alone show that that is not the case.

[leo-rcc]

As for what bible is more accurate than the other, I don't know and I don't care. To me this ranks right down there with the question "Who did the best translation of Hans Christian Andersen's Little Mermaid". If it really is that important that I check biblegateway.

[fr0d0]

I thought you might argue that these are examples of "arguments from authority" or "arguments from popularity" and I will even grant you that. But keep in mind I only posted this because you said "The fact is that EVERY Christian agrees with me. That's enough for an assertion." And these cases from the top 3 alone show that that is not the case.

Did I say that? ...Oh! I thought I was saying to Kyu that the bible source and single accepted set of books is accepted by all Christians. But obviously I didn't, and I agree with your criticisms there.

[rwas3]

This is a little game. Not to be taken too seriously (or too lightly). Convince me atheism is the right path to go down. Just to keep things fresh don't use the classic 'there is no evidence hence such and such does not exist'. Perhaps a little unfair, but if you don't like it, don't post. Anyway, I figure that one of you must have another good argument hidden under your hat.

I like this game, it caused me to consider why atheism offers me the same "magic" that religion offers so many of the masses of humanity throughout history. My answer? The mystery of the universe does not disappear when you choose not to put some mythic god at it's source. Thinking, wondering, longing for an understanding of the nature of matter, existence itself is my source of "faith". I just don't know, nor do any deists out there. Admitting this is the path.
My equivalent to the "glory" described by religious folk can be found looking at a starry night sky. Yes, I want to know where this all came from, but no, simple mythic answers just won't do.

[Kyuuketsuki]