Isnt God kind of childish/egotistical?

[In This Mind]

When the Israelites were around, back in the not so good old days, there wars a lot of funny religious practices, such as, sacrificing your first born son to Molech.

Objection!

Provide evidence for your claim. And by evidence we do not mean the bible or any writings that use the bible as their base.

[solja247]

Sorry I didn't explain it enough - You have to also check with other sources who have written about the same accounts to make sure they line up. Everyone in the bible is contradicted by someone.. several times. Maybe not everyone.. I'm not entirely sure?

Jospehus wrote about Jesus.

The Bible doesnt contradict itself.

[Darwinian]

The Bible has no contradictions?

Explain all these then please.. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...tions.html

[solja247]

Okay, so you believe that the Jesus character in the Bible.2 died and then resurrected to then ascend into heaven, correct? That belief makes you a Christian/theist (e.g. a believer in a personal god). If someone were able to convince you that the the resurrection of Jesus probably never happened, you would cease believing in a personal (Christian) god and instead believe in an impersonal creator deity. That is what you are saying, right?

That implies that belief in a 'god' is not being questioned. The existence of a god is accepted as true and not subject to your self-proclaimed skepticism. My question is: Why not?

Atheism works on the benefit of doubt and in my opinion havent brought anything to the table. If my views of God were proven to be wrong, I would be Agnostic. How can one be an atheist if there is no evidence to prove there is no God (Just because you dont see there being a God, doesnt mean you are right) Agnosticism is much more reasonable and rational than Atheism.
My skeptism started with the fact I had no evidence to prove God existed, just as I couldnt prove harry prove harry potter existed. It was all based on faith. The more we learn about the universe, the more it unveils a complicated mind who started it all, In my opinion.

---

Objection!

Provide evidence for your claim. And by evidence we do not mean the bible or any writings that use the bible as their base.

The Bible, in parts, is a historical book. You can say its not. But it is accepted by scholars, in parts as being historical and showing how society was like around there.
Do some research mate.

[ABierman1986]

I think my favorite point for beginning research into the historical validity of the bible is Penn & Teller's Bullshit on the Bible. It really illustrates the folly of trusting anything inside the bible as historical and provides some great starting points to do research into the history. Whether the bible is right on some accounts is really not a good valid argument, half of what we know in history from 100 years ago isn't true. The important thing, and the necessary thing I believe for a period this long ago, is to be able to reconcile the specific instances you are looking at with archaeological data, independent secular sources, and consistency. If the bible decided true historical events made the best stories to exaggerate into biblical events then that still has nothing to do with the religion itself. The only relevant points of the bible from a theistic point of view have no corroborating evidence outside the bible.

[Mr Camel]

Did he just say the bible doesn't contradict itself?

Blimey :S

And he clearly doesn't know what Atheism is...

[Rhizomorph13]

Atheism is the not rejection of not-god. You can't prove I shouldn't not reject not-god so until you can't not unprove not-god the unicorns will rule the universe with their mighty mugwumps of justice! Believe it!

Underpants gnomes will steal your underpants in the middle of the night so until you can prove that they don't exist you should guard well because only disproof is proof against their theiving ways.

Rhizo

[In This Mind]

Objection!

Provide evidence for your claim. And by evidence we do not mean the bible or any writings that use the bible as their base.

The Bible, in parts, is a historical book. You can say its not. But it is accepted by scholars, in parts as being historical and showing how society was like around there.
Do some research mate.

I have done the research. And research that isn't based solely on the bible, but on actual archeological evidence indicates that the writers of the bible were flat out lying about child sacrifices to Moloch as a method of justifying their own atrocities, such as the slaughter of women and children, committed against those cultures. This idea is supported by the fact that the Christians have done much the same thing every time they have destroyed other cultures, up to and including the Native Americans and the very basis for going to war in Iraq.

The bible has proven to be in error via archaeological evidence on multiple occasions. For other references to such blatant works of fiction, see most of Exodus and the flood myth.

The bible is not a 'historical' work any more than Clan of the Cave Bear is a historical work.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Atheism works on the benefit of doubt and in my opinion havent brought anything to the table. If my views of God were proven to be wrong, I would be Agnostic. How can one be an atheist if there is no evidence to prove there is no God (Just because you dont see there being a God, doesnt mean you are right) Agnosticism is much more reasonable and rational than Atheism.

That's fine. I don't really understand agnostics either except as atheists who essentially can't completely let go of wanting a god to be for whatever reason or another. I don't believe in god because there is no reason for one to exist and there is no evidence that one ever existed. Same reason most reasonable people don't believe there are boogeymen hiding in their closets.

The Bible, in parts, is a historical book. You can say its not. But it is accepted by scholars, in parts as being historical and showing how society was like around there.
Do some research mate.

It's accepted by religious historical scholars, as seporate from people who study general history. It's certainly useful, even in that field, but anyone who knows anything about the actual time period won't be using the bible as though it were historical truth.

[solja247]

The Bible has no contradictions?

Explain all these then please.. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...tions.html

A lof those 'contradictions' are based on exegesis and not understand there are some mistakes in the Bible (In the transcriptions when they have been copied) and are based on 21st century theology....

Atheism is the not rejection of not-god. You can't prove I shouldn't not reject not-god so until you can't not unprove not-god the unicorns will rule the universe with their mighty mugwumps of justice! Believe it!

Underpants gnomes will steal your underpants in the middle of the night so until you can prove that they don't exist you should guard well because only disproof is proof against their theiving ways.

Exactly my point. The majority of intellects, academics and scholars are careful not to dismiss God or creator in the way you have done.
There is evidence that God's existence is very probabale.
Lets work with probability.

What is the probability of Underpants gnomes existing?
Not much

What is the probability of an intellectual mind behind the creation of our universe?
Much higher than the existence of Underpants gnomes.

That's fine. I don't really understand agnostics either except as atheists who essentially can't completely let go of wanting a god to be for whatever reason or another. I don't believe in god because there is no reason for one to exist and there is no evidence that one ever existed. Same reason most reasonable people don't believe there are boogeymen hiding in their closets.

There is no logic in dissmising God. You claim God's existence is on the same line as a boogeyman hiding in the closet. Let me ask you. Which one do you think is more probable of existing?