Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: The Bible
April 19, 2009 at 11:31 am
(April 19, 2009 at 9:23 am)chatpilot Wrote: Kyu if that were the case then we would have to accept that all so called holy literature was inspired by God and if we do that then we would have to accept that since all of their messages are so different that there is more than one god.God is a creation of man and not the other way around you dont need a degree in anthropology,theology or any other ology to figure this out this is the part where common sense and and reason prevail.
Reason sure but common sense? Jeez man, that's what creationists use all the time against science ... is it common sense that one species can change into another? No. Common sense that unguided processes can bring about the appearance of design? No. There is a great deal of sense (little but actually) in science but little of it is common.
The simple fact is that no one (not a single one of us) can prove there is no god (and as such one can't absolutely argue a given god is a creation of man) but despite that, the assumptive position (that there is no god until demonstrated otherwise) makes vastly more sense than any other especially when one considers that despite the lack of testable deities there is heavy implication that no such entities exist.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: The Bible
April 19, 2009 at 3:42 pm
(April 19, 2009 at 4:13 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: (April 18, 2009 at 9:30 am)chatpilot Wrote: As stated several times in the forum the bible was written,preserved by oral traditions, and finally printed by man.
There are many, many reasons why one is led to believe that is true, however none of us can actually PROVE that a god wasn't in some way involved can we? When the god in question won't come out to play we cannot prove it is or is not.
Kyu
(April 19, 2009 at 11:31 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The simple fact is that no one (not a single one of us) can prove there is no god (and as such one can't absolutely argue a given god is a creation of man) but despite that, the assumptive position (that there is no god until demonstrated otherwise) makes vastly more sense than any other especially when one considers that despite the lack of testable deities there is heavy implication that no such entities exist.
Kyu
Shit I'm leaving... Kyu's turned into ME!
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: The Bible
April 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm
(April 19, 2009 at 3:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Shit I'm leaving... Kyu's turned into ME!
I'm reporting you for abuse 
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 298
Threads: 10
Joined: March 9, 2009
Reputation:
2
RE: The Bible
April 20, 2009 at 8:39 am
While reading about the supposed existence of Jesus I came across an interesting site. Check it out at: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Basically it runs through the evidence to suggest why Jesus did not exist. In some parts it mentions the bible and the gospels specifically. One interesting point was:
- no original New Testament documents exist; all we have are copies of the originals. The earliest copies we have come more than a century later than the supposed original.
But if we do not even have the originals, how can we be sure that they're not just a forgery, or modified, or even meant to be read as literal fact?
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: The Bible
April 20, 2009 at 8:50 am
(April 20, 2009 at 8:39 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: While reading about the supposed existence of Jesus I came across an interesting site. Check it out at: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
I am still writing my reply to Dagda (a.k.a I'm a lazy skiving git) so thanks for that, I'll review that as I write it.
(April 20, 2009 at 8:39 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: But if we do not even have the originals, how can we be sure that they're not just a forgery, or modified, or even meant to be read as literal fact?
That's what they call "Q" isn't it?
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 298
Threads: 10
Joined: March 9, 2009
Reputation:
2
RE: The Bible
April 20, 2009 at 8:56 am
No worries 
uh, "Q"?
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: The Bible
April 20, 2009 at 8:58 am
(April 20, 2009 at 8:56 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: uh, "Q"?
I think that's what they call the hypothetical source documents.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: The Bible
April 20, 2009 at 9:42 am
The Q document(s) (Q comes from "Quelle", which is German for source) is supposed to be the lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 298
Threads: 10
Joined: March 9, 2009
Reputation:
2
RE: The Bible
April 20, 2009 at 9:44 am
Interesting. What makes it better is that this is either something christians avoid mentioning or simply don't know about.
Posts: 1694
Threads: 24
Joined: August 28, 2008
Reputation:
22
RE: The Bible
April 20, 2009 at 10:17 am
(This post was last modified: April 20, 2009 at 10:18 am by chatpilot.)
(April 20, 2009 at 8:39 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: While reading about the supposed existence of Jesus I came across an interesting site. Check it out at: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Basically it runs through the evidence to suggest why Jesus did not exist. In some parts it mentions the bible and the gospels specifically. One interesting point was:
- no original New Testament documents exist; all we have are copies of the originals. The earliest copies we have come more than a century later than the supposed original.
But if we do not even have the originals, how can we be sure that they're not just a forgery, or modified, or even meant to be read as literal fact?
I have been saying that throughout this forum over and over again that all the documents we have are copies of copies and that none of the so called original documents have been found.Also,regarding the gospel of Q it also has never been found but has been referred to as a source document for some of the gospel stories that are similar in content.
not to mention that all of the documents are not first hand accounts of the life of Jesus.They are a bunch of oral traditions that have been set to papyrus or paper or print.
|
