Why believe the bible?

[Silver]

It was also easier to be told to believe when the majority of the population was illiterate and could not read the books themselves.  It's astounding how little critical thinking goes into reading the bible now by theists who are literate, for there is no greater reason for atheism than actually reading the bible.

Wow such a nice blanket statement/stereotype. Riddle me this mr thinker... what is the difference between make degrogitory stereotypical statement about a man's skin color verses how you perceive he thinks? Rather which is worse?

Is Hating a man because he is a shade lighter or darker some how 'better'  in your enlighten state that using the same EXACT SAME HATE to disparage a man on how or what you perceive he thinks?

Yeah.. good job sport.. You certainly showing us who the enlightened are...

It is not far fetched, nor a derogatory or stereotypical statement, to bring attention to the fact that theists generally do not think critically about the bible.

Passionately disliking a man for his religious beliefs is far better than hating him because of the color of his skin, no contest.

Well, you know, someone has to do it.  Too bad you haven't been enlightened one bit, however.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, if you don't know the difference between criticizing someone because he believes world is flat and wizard created universe in six days for his or her beliefs and criticizing someone solely on the color of his/ her skin you are a bigot and a racist.

[Minimalist]

what is the difference between make degrogitory stereotypical statement about a man's skin color verses how you perceive he thinks?

It's actually quite simple, dripshit.  A person has no choice about his skin color.  You do have a choice to be a blithering retard.  You could stop... if your silly fairy tales did not make you all warm in the pants.

[Angrboda]

I've decided not to rely to "Hey, Christians/Theists threads." Soliciting the opinions of believers where they are a very small minority and probably not a good representative sample is like fishing for salt water fish in a fresh water stream.

Well, Neo, I would hope that every Christian has rational reasons for believing the bible. If you're saying that such Christians are so rare that I cannot reasonably be expected to find even one on this forum, then I think you're merely proving my point. Perhaps you simply meant that you personally do not have rational reasons for believing the bible. That again simply proves my point. 1 Peter 3:15 states that you should, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." I guess from this that you not only aren't a particularly rational Christian, you're just not a very good Christian, period.

But thank you for your non-participation anyway. I got from you the answers I wanted even if you were reluctant to give them.

[downbeatplumb]

Yeah, quote a bunch of scriptures out of context, that'll  do it...

---

The existence of immoral behavior among animals does not help your case Huggy

First of all those actions aren't considered "immoral" in relation to animals, which kind of does prove my point.

[Huggy Bear]

Yeah, quote a bunch of scriptures out of context, that'll  do it...

---

First of all those actions aren't considered "immoral" in relation to animals, which kind of does prove my point.

Your video is nothing but a bunch of drivel, but I suppose people that are unable to think for themselves, need to have someone do their thinking for them.

So unless your willing to say you agree with absolutely everything said in the video (which I can easily debunk), how about arguing morality with your own words.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Your video is nothing but a bunch of drivel, but I suppose people that are unable to think for themselves, need to have someone do their thinking for them.

So unless your willing to say you agree with absolutely everything said in the video (which I can easily debunk), how about arguing morality with your own words.

There is nothing moral in the Bible so you can't use it as an example of good morality.

[Amarok]

First of all those actions aren't considered "immoral" in relation to animals, which kind of does prove my point.

And your dense and missed the point of the comment and mats already humiliated you

---

Your video is nothing but a bunch of drivel, but I suppose people that are unable to think for themselves, need to have someone do their thinking for them.

Lol says the man who can't think period 

So unless your willing to say you agree with absolutely everything said in the video (which I can easily debunk), how about arguing morality with your own words.

Nope you can't debunk this video

---

The 27 individual books are the evidence. They individually discuss and outline the claim.

Nope they are the claim and only the claim and require evidence independent of them

---

I didn't ignore anything, I didn't think it was necessary to explain how "building blocks of morality" do not equate to 'morality'. 

Could you even define what a "building block of morality" even is in the first place? Nevertheless De Waal stated that he would not call animals moral beings so obviously he does not believe they posses all the "building blocks of morality"

Morality isn't just the ability to discern right and wrong, it's also about having a system of justice to punish immoral behavior. 

Law defines immoral or unacceptable behavior, without law there can be no morality (or at least morality that isn't subjective) because morality isn't left up for one person to decide.

This is what differentiates us from animals.

So much gibbering stupidity mat already debunked your crap .Your wrong live with it .

[Huggy Bear]

Not much of an intellectual, are you? I'll just let your post speak for itself.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Not much of an intellectual, are you? I'll just let your post speak for itself.

What are the five most moral things in the Bible?