Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 4:39 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In The Beginning ...
#11
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm)Daystar Wrote: You have? I must have missed that. You most certainly have not!
Well who says he hasn't? You just don't understand it/refuse to understand it.
And who says that you have demonstrated truth of God Daystar?
And how can you be so certain? Do you ignore probability again?
Reply
#12
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 7, 2008 at 9:29 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The bible is fiction. Whether the authors intended it to be or not, its fictional.
If I write a non-fiction book thats a load of nonsense, its ficiton in the same way as that.

You know, don't you, that just because you keep saying that it doesn't make it true. I suppose that you can't use the scripture to demonstrate that the Bible is fiction the same as you suggest that I can't use it to demonstrate it isn't. You give the baseless argument of the close minded faithful of your own religion. All that you are really saying is that the Bible can't be true because science says it isn't.

I keep trying to tell you that you need to walk before you can run so you don't even need to address the issue of its reality. You have no argument against or for that position because you don't even know what it is.
(November 7, 2008 at 10:36 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: 1953? You're serious? I'm not saying that such research is irrelevant but do you realise how much our understanding of the universe has moved in during the subsequent FIFTY FIVE years? This Filmer guy ... is he relevant? I ask this because I've done some searches and the ONLY stuff I can find on him is theological so it looks to me like he might not be the best source to quote if you're hoping to convince a bunch of secular sceptics.

Kyu, the thread was introduced with the intention to establish that the Bible has always been ahead of science; even when it wasn't thought to by science. If you are going to balk at the ancient history of 1953 science while I am talking about thousands of years you only demonstrate my point.
(November 7, 2008 at 3:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
(November 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm)Daystar Wrote: You have? I must have missed that. You most certainly have not!
Well who says he hasn't? You just don't understand it/refuse to understand it.
And who says that you have demonstrated truth of God Daystar?
And how can you be so certain? Do you ignore probability again?

I am most confident, EVF - but maybe I have missed a step. Show me.
Reply
#13
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 7, 2008 at 3:03 pm)Daystar Wrote: I suppose that you can't use the scripture to demonstrate that the Bible is fiction the same as you suggest that I can't use it to demonstrate it isn't.
Yes exactly. But you miss what I've been saying. The burden of proof is on YOU the believer. I don't have to disprove what the bible says or disprove God. You have to prove it. Scripture indeed cannot be used as proof or disproof of God. Which means you need proof. I don't need disproof.
Russell's Teapot.
Reply
#14
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 7, 2008 at 3:09 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Yes exactly. But you miss what I've been saying. The burden of proof is on YOU the believer. I don't have to disprove what the bible says or disprove God. You have to prove it. Scripture indeed cannot be used as proof or disproof of God. Which means you need proof. I don't need disproof.
Russell's Teapot.

I don't know what Russell's Teapot is but I can tell you that I am not at all interested in proving anything to anyone. Waste of time. I don't have to prove nothing and don't ask for you to prove anything to me. We are having a discussion.

I think that it is a shame that most of our discussions have centered around that subject rather than what we are really here to discuss (from my perspective).

I am here to talk about the Bible and hopefully in the process learn something about what you believe regarding science and atheism. I'm here to correct, to teach and to learn.
Reply
#15
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm)Daystar Wrote:
(November 7, 2008 at 3:09 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Yes exactly. But you miss what I've been saying. The burden of proof is on YOU the believer. I don't have to disprove what the bible says or disprove God. You have to prove it. Scripture indeed cannot be used as proof or disproof of God. Which means you need proof. I don't need disproof.
Russell's Teapot.

I don't know what Russell's Teapot is but I can tell you that I am not at all interested in proving anything to anyone. Waste of time. I don't have to prove nothing and don't ask for you to prove anything to me. We are having a discussion.

I think that it is a shame that most of our discussions have centered around that subject rather than what we are really here to discuss (from my perspective).

I am here to talk about the Bible and hopefully in the process learn something about what you believe regarding science and atheism. I'm here to correct, to teach and to learn.
Ok well I'm not particularly interested in the bible as fiction, the fact its fiction is a good thing for my atheism. And this is an atheism forum. If you just want to talk about the bible as a work of fiction then fine.
Sorry if I misunderstood you because you have claimed the bible to be true.
Maybe I will read the whole bible one day, but then I'll just read it. I don't need to read your interpretations.
For start you seem to contradict yourself because often you interpret the bible literally and other times you seem to interpret it metaphorically so it makes sense.
How do YOU know when it should be interpreted literally and when it should be interpreted metaphorically? Does the bible tell you when to interpret it literally and when to interpret it metaphorically?
I think you need to be consistent to interpret it properly. As with all books unless the book itself specifies otherwise. Or the book has a 'how to' manual or something.
This is what I am wondering. This is what I would like to know. Please.
Reply
#16
RE: In The Beginning ...
I still fail to see why anyone would want to teach me the interpretation of a book that I care little about if they didn't believe it was important / true.

The way I see it, if the "correct" interpretation needs massive amounts of explanation, why do you insist it's the correct explanation? How do you know? Why would a God make it so mindboggling? More to the point, why has it's interpretation been changed sever hundred times since it's writing, and why is it that only 2000 years later we know the "correct" interpretation?
Reply
#17
RE: In The Beginning ...
Daystar if you aren't trying to teach us the 'correct' interpretation, why are you bothering to 'teach' us it? If I tried to teach to you the 'correct' interpretation of a very contradictory science fiction novel wouldn't that be a bit odd? If you didn't ask for my interpretation, or any interpretation at all?
Reply
#18
RE: In The Beginning ...
EVF, I am not saying that the Bible is fiction, I am saying that in order to learn more about it you are better off approaching it from the perspective that it were fiction because you get all hung up on how the notion of a supernatural god could be nothing but fiction. It seems that it is a conditional threat to what you believe.

You don't absolutely have to read it but understand it more carefully. That is why definitions of words like sin, soul, spirit, hell, heaven, god, and satan are important. Atheist primarily form their opinions on the Bible from the teachings of Xianity which have distorted the true teachings of the Bible through pagan influence such as the immortal soul from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, hellfire from Dante and Milton, the Cross from Constantine and Tammuz, Christmas and Easter from Pagan festivals and the Rapture from John Miller.
(November 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I still fail to see why anyone would want to teach me the interpretation of a book that I care little about if they didn't believe it was important / true.

I do believe it is important and true.

(November 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The way I see it, if the "correct" interpretation needs massive amounts of explanation, why do you insist it's the correct explanation? How do you know? Why would a God make it so mindboggling? More to the point, why has it's interpretation been changed sever hundred times since it's writing, and why is it that only 2000 years later we know the "correct" interpretation?

Lets just consider hell. The majority of Xians teach hell is a place where the immortal soul of the sinner is punished forever in a place underground. A place where the Devil - having horns and a pitchfork runs around making sure everyone pays for not being good Xians.

If I explained to everyone here, and I have, that the Bible actually teaches hell isn't that at all, how would I demonstrate that? I would show where the Bible says straight out that the soul dies and so isn't immortal and so can't be punished forever in hell. I would show that the Bible teaches that God is in hell and that the devil was in heaven and then was sent to earth, and then would be sent to hell and then destroyed along with hell. I would show the roots of the pagan teaching and how Milton and Dante influenced Xian teaching. Greek philosophy of the immortal soul as well.

I would show that the Bible says that when we die that is it. We are just dead, until resurrection. What the spirit is because it doesn't go to hell. How Jehovah God was disgusted at the notion of someone, even a sinner, burning.

Think about what you the atheist or the believer have been taught about hell and what I can show you the Bible actually does teach on hell and how could you wuestion the importance of how your understanding of the Bible is wrong and needs improving.

I know children who know this stuff, it isn't complicated.

I think it tends to be a sort of threat to your thinking though, which is why I don't ask that you believe it to be true until you understand it more acurately.
Reply
#19
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 8, 2008 at 11:08 am)Daystar Wrote: I do believe it is ... true.

Why?
Atheism as a Religion
-------------------
A man also or woman that hath a Macintosh, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with used and abandoned Windows 3.1 floppy disks: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
Reply
#20
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 8, 2008 at 11:08 am)Daystar Wrote: EVF, I am not saying that the Bible is fiction, I am saying that in order to learn more about it you are better off approaching it from the perspective that it were fiction because you get all hung up on how the notion of a supernatural god could be nothing but fiction. It seems that it is a conditional threat to what you believe.
We do approach the Bible from the perspective that it is fiction. We're atheists...what other perspective are we going to take??? I think you are trying to change our perspective to something it already is, and thus confusing us along the way as to your motives.
(November 8, 2008 at 11:08 am)Daystar Wrote: You don't absolutely have to read it but understand it more carefully. That is why definitions of words like sin, soul, spirit, hell, heaven, god, and satan are important. Atheist primarily form their opinions on the Bible from the teachings of Xianity which have distorted the true teachings of the Bible through pagan influence such as the immortal soul from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, hellfire from Dante and Milton, the Cross from Constantine and Tammuz, Christmas and Easter from Pagan festivals and the Rapture from John Miller.
Unfortunately, most Biblical scholars disagree with your view, and thereby your interpretation. So really, who are we meant to trust? Scholars who do this for a living, or a random stranger on a forum who claims he and he only has the correct interpretation. I mean honestly...
(November 8, 2008 at 11:08 am)Daystar Wrote: I do believe it is important and true.
That was my point.
(November 8, 2008 at 11:08 am)Daystar Wrote: Lets just consider hell. The majority of Xians teach hell is a place where the immortal soul of the sinner is punished forever in a place underground. A place where the Devil - having horns and a pitchfork runs around making sure everyone pays for not being good Xians.

If I explained to everyone here, and I have, that the Bible actually teaches hell isn't that at all, how would I demonstrate that? I would show where the Bible says straight out that the soul dies and so isn't immortal and so can't be punished forever in hell. I would show that the Bible teaches that God is in hell and that the devil was in heaven and then was sent to earth, and then would be sent to hell and then destroyed along with hell. I would show the roots of the pagan teaching and how Milton and Dante influenced Xian teaching. Greek philosophy of the immortal soul as well.

I would show that the Bible says that when we die that is it. We are just dead, until resurrection. What the spirit is because it doesn't go to hell. How Jehovah God was disgusted at the notion of someone, even a sinner, burning.

Think about what you the atheist or the believer have been taught about hell and what I can show you the Bible actually does teach on hell and how could you wuestion the importance of how your understanding of the Bible is wrong and needs improving.

I know children who know this stuff, it isn't complicated.

I think it tends to be a sort of threat to your thinking though, which is why I don't ask that you believe it to be true until you understand it more acurately.
Please...I've read the Bible passages that talk about Hell. Don't try to argue it isn't what it says in the Bible, because first perhaps you should read what it says: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?sea...rdsonly=no

Oh, and please don't write another thread preaching how the Bible doesn't speak of Hell. None of us want to hear any of your mindless drivel.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)