Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


Faith is Dangerous.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Atheism Versus Religion
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2508

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
christianzack wrote:

Sorry i wasnt there but your welcome to disprove it if ud like


The burden of proof is on you, as you are the one who has made a claim.


Quote:

prove what? ancient man wasnt that smart and why would god use an explanation they couldnt even comprehend?????


Pfft, so little imagination!

God doesn't need to TALK to tell us anything. He's omnipotent. He can download knowledge right into our brains. Any background that ancient man would have needed to understand, god could have given him.

Ancient man had no greater physical limitations on their intelligence than we do. Anything we are capable of understanding, so were they. It's a matter of education.




Quote:
Quote:

What god supposedly gave them is not a brief summary - it's entirely made up. There's not a shred of physical truth in it.


PROVE THIS


Read this, and compare it to the story in genesis:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wri.....y_faq.html

Quote:

Quote:

Really? Okay. Show us some of the evidence that proves that jesus existed.

the writings of JOSEPHUS and a roman historian both of which were not christian acknowledged he existed the link below will provide you with the stand and references.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1764


I guess no one told you: josephus and tacitus were born after jesus supposedly died.
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Even courts have ruled that he was a real person.

Wow, courts!
You know what else courts did?
They acquitted OJ simpson.


not a valid arguement.


Nor is judicial recognition, for that matter. The fact that a judge or a jury believes a claim about history has no bearing on the truthood of that claim.
Quote:

Quote:

Then again, people didn't question geocentricity for quite a while too. And look how that turned out.


history is far different from science and theory because the older text, stories and events get the harder it is to prove what actually happened.


I'm sorry, i didn't explain well. I'll be more explicit:
The amount of time that a belief remains unquestioned has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of that belief.

Quote:
besides jesus is a person not a theory.


Oh it's even worse than that: the idea that jesus existed at all is nothign more than a hypothesis.

Quote:

Quote:

The biggest question has always been was he really god in the flesh? which he was.


Okay. Prove it.

your welcome to disprove it.


You made the claim. Your job to offer evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

The bible (and "other documents")....which was written decades after his supposed death. No, that doesn't cut it.


nothing will ever cut it for you if what i provided is not sufficient.


Do you understand why your "evidence" is insufficient?

Quote:

Quote:

I think they're a fairy tale, but i don't think they're a parable.


well they are written in the old testament which makes them very real whether or not you believe in them


Oh i don't mean the commandments themselves are fake - obviously they exist.

I mean that the idea that they were handed to man by god is a fairy tale. The idea that they're divine in any sense is a fairy tale.

Quote:

and if you are saying how they came about is a myth then i would like to see evidence that supports that conclusion


Here's my line of reasoning:

-The bible claims that something spectacular and supernatural happened. Can i simply assume that this is true?
-No, because there is no evidence to suggest that any such thing is even possible, much less that it happened the way that the bible describes.

-So, what evidence IS there to support the bible's claim?
-None.

-What does this story most closely resemble?
-The mythology of an ancient tribal civilization.

That's how i reached my conclusion, and that's why you must prove what you claim. In the absence of evidence, an extroadinary claim cannot merely be assumed to be true.

Quote:

because the only person there when they were given was MOSES and his account is the only one.


Or so you believe. But you have no evidence to suggest that this is true.

In fact, if the story is mythological in nature, then your belief is certainly incorrect.

Quote:

which is written in the old testament and we do know that suadem was a real place and that people were there so that further adds to the proof.


First of all, no, we do not know that sodom was a real place. Some people think it may have existed. Others don't. There's little evidence to suggest that it did exist.

Second, even if it were a real place, no, it actually does not add to the proof.

The fact that a story takes place in a location that actually exists does not mean that any of its claims are valid.

Quote:

your welcome to research suadem and gemorra
i would mind seeing any text that say otherwise


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....istoricity

And an easy way to remember the spelling of "Sodom" is to remember the words "sodomy" and "sodomize"; those words were derived from "sodom".
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
queerxnation wrote:
I defense of Christianity, lester- Jesus, the 10 commandments... they ARE parables. Parable doesn't mean "BS story that isn't real and has no pertinance to real life." Parable means "a story that teaches values and morals."

Jesus, the story of Mount Sinai, the creation myth... they're all parables used to instill Christian morality.

Which is okay, I think, but only if people realize what they are and what they mean, and don't pretend that it's factual evidence they can use to support an argument.


I think you missed the part about why parables are such a problem, they are open to interpretation, and as such, there is no fundamental truth behind them, because each person interprets them according to his own experiences.
Back to top
christianzack
Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="exton"][quote="christianzack"]
Sorry i wasnt there but your welcome to disprove it if ud like[/quote]

The burden of proof is on you, as you are the one who has made a claim.

[b]well the bible does say that is what happened and regardless of whether or not you believe in its validity i do have a text to back my claim while you do not and that is why i asked you to prove it.[/b]

[quote]
prove what? ancient man wasnt that smart and why would god use an explanation they couldnt even comprehend?????[/quote]

Pfft, so little imagination!

God doesn't need to TALK to tell us anything. He's omnipotent. He can download knowledge right into our brains. Any background that ancient man would have needed to understand, god could have given him.

Ancient man had no greater physical limitations on their intelligence than we do. Anything we are capable of understanding, so were they. It's a matter of education.

[b]if god had given these men the intelligence to understand such information they surely would have been smart enough to know that other people still not comprehend it and therefore still would have put it in simpler writing that the other people of that time would understand.[/b]




[quote][quote]
What god supposedly gave them is not a brief summary - it's entirely made up. There's not a shred of physical truth in it.[/quote]

PROVE THIS[/quote]

Read this, and compare it to the story in genesis:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wri.....y_faq.html

[b]this explains it quite well creation, evolution, ect http://www.kingdavid8.com/CreatedUniverse.html[/b]

[quote]
[quote]
Really? Okay. Show us some of the evidence that proves that jesus existed.[/quote]
the writings of JOSEPHUS and a roman historian both of which were not christian acknowledged he existed the link below will provide you with the stand and references.
http://www.apologeticspress.or.....64[/quote]

I guess no one told you: josephus and tacitus were [i]born[/i] [b]after[/b] jesus supposedly died.

[b]yes josephus was born in 37 AD about 3-4 years after jesus died but outside of the bible this is the oldest secular reference to the existance of jesus followed by tacitus.

obviously this so called jesus MYTH would have been floating around at the time he was on the earth so if you have text from this time period or from the time period of josephus that say he was a myth then id more than happy to look over them. (and just because there are many text that dont mention jesus doesnt mean this is proof he was a myth because there are many people that arent mentioned in history slaves, peasants, soldiers and such but just because they are not mentioned does not mean that they did not exist. [/b]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Even courts have ruled that he was a real person.
[/quote]
Wow, courts!
You know what else courts did?
They acquitted OJ simpson.[/quote]

not a valid arguement.[/quote]

Nor is judicial recognition, for that matter. The fact that a judge or a jury believes a claim about history has no bearing on the truthood of that claim.
[quote]
[quote]
Then again, people didn't question geocentricity for quite a while too. And look how that turned out.[/quote]

history is far different from science and theory because the older text, stories and events get the harder it is to prove what actually happened.[/quote]

I'm sorry, i didn't explain well. I'll be more explicit:
[b]The amount of time that a belief remains unquestioned has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of that belief.[/b]

[b]yes it does have to do with the validity of the evidence because over time things can get scewed from tranlation.[/b]

[quote]besides jesus is a person not a theory.[/quote]

Oh it's even worse than that: the idea that jesus existed at all is nothign more than a [b]hypothesis[/b].

[quote]
[quote]
The biggest question has always been was he really god in the flesh? which he was.[/quote]

Okay. Prove it.

your welcome to disprove it.[/quote]

You made the claim. Your job to offer evidence.

[quote]
[quote]
The bible (and "other documents")....which was written decades after his supposed death. No, that doesn't cut it.[/quote]

nothing will ever cut it for you if what i provided is not sufficient.[/quote]

Do you understand [i]why[/i] your "evidence" is insufficient?

[b]How so?[/b]

[quote]
[quote]
I think they're a fairy tale, but i don't think they're a parable.[/quote]

well they are written in the old testament which makes them very real whether or not you believe in them[/quote]

Oh i don't mean the commandments themselves are fake - obviously they exist.

I mean that the idea that they were handed to man by god is a fairy tale. The idea that they're divine in any sense is a fairy tale.

[quote]
and if you are saying how they came about is a myth then i would like to see evidence that supports that conclusion[/quote]

Here's my line of reasoning:

-The bible claims that something spectacular and supernatural happened. Can i simply assume that this is true?
-No, because there is no evidence to suggest that any such thing is even possible, much less that it happened the way that the bible describes.

[b]but there is not enough evidenc against it either[/b]

-So, what evidence IS there to support the bible's claim?
-None.

[b]umm history, biblical prophecy, eye witness testimony. and yes im sure you will find a way to discredit all of these using other atheists writtings most of which i have already seen and use no references or simply ones that are not of valid origin. [/b]
-What does this story most closely resemble?
-The mythology of an ancient tribal civilization.

[b]the jesus story actually destinguishes itself quite well from other ancient civilizations mythology, go ahead and bring up horus, adonis, mythra and who ever else because they have already been debunked long ago and ill be happy to show you proof.[/b]

That's how i reached my conclusion, and that's why you must prove what you claim. In the absence of evidence, an extroadinary claim cannot merely be assumed to be true.

[b]You have yet to prove any of my claim and the evidence i have given has no rival or at least none that you have shown me[/b]

[quote]
because the only person there when they were given was MOSES and his account is the only one.[/quote]

Or so you believe. But you have no evidence to suggest that this is true.

[b]its called the old testament and you have yet to show me text from that time period that say otherwise so what i have is better than what you have which is nothing[/b]

In fact, if the story is mythological in nature, then your belief is certainly incorrect.

[b]ITS NOT[/b]

[quote]
which is written in the old testament and we do know that suadem was a real place and that people were there so that further adds to the proof.[/quote]

First of all, no, we do not [i]know[/i] that sodom was a real place. Some people think it may have existed. Others don't. There's little evidence to suggest that it did exist.

[b]little evidence to exist it didnt either[/b]

Second, even if it were a real place, no, it actually does not add to the proof.

[b]It would add some seeing as how it would support the old testament[/b]

The fact that a story takes place in a location that actually exists does not mean that any of its claims are valid.

[b]but more likely than not having a place[/b]

[quote]
your welcome to research suadem and gemorra
i would mind seeing any text that say otherwise[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....istoricity

[b]this article doesnt prove it didnt exist only that its existance is debated and there is no sure proof on either side but certainly not enough evidence against it[/b]

And an easy way to remember the spelling of "Sodom" is to remember the words "sodomy" and "sodomize"; those words were derived from "sodom".[/quote]

[b]thank you i appreciate that memory tool it will come in handy[/b]
Back to top
queerxnation
Newbie


Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 41
Location: Houston, TX

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
queerxnation wrote:
I defense of Christianity, lester- Jesus, the 10 commandments... they ARE parables. Parable doesn't mean "BS story that isn't real and has no pertinance to real life." Parable means "a story that teaches values and morals."

Jesus, the story of Mount Sinai, the creation myth... they're all parables used to instill Christian morality.

Which is okay, I think, but only if people realize what they are and what they mean, and don't pretend that it's factual evidence they can use to support an argument.


I think you missed the part about why parables are such a problem, they are open to interpretation, and as such, there is no fundamental truth behind them, because each person interprets them according to his own experiences.


Well, sure. I personally think that everyone should interpret them as they like, and it's up to the churches do decided what is and isn't valid. In this country, if you don't like what your church has to say, you can just go to another one, drop out of the whole church thing, or just start our own.

Fundamentalists are the problem here, not religious people in general.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2508

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
queerxnation wrote:

Fundamentalists are the problem here, not religious people in general.


Religion is a problem in and of itself, entirely separate from fundamentalism.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2508

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let's say that i claim that i own an invisible unicorn.

Would you believe me?
Probably not.

But why not? You can never prove that i don't have an invisible unicorn - it's impossible to disprove that claim.

And yet, even so, my claim is still absurd. It's barely worth considering, despite the fact that it can never be proven wrong.

Why is that?

It's because i have no evidence to support my unicorn claim. None.

But what if i get a friend of mine to say that he knows my unicorn exists? What if he, too, claims that my unicorn is real?

Would you believe me then?
Probably not, no.

But why not? It's not just me talking about unicorns. It's me and some other guy. Both of us say the same thing, and you can't prove either one of use wrong.

So does that mean that i now have evidence of my unicorn? Does the fact that someone corroborates my story mean that it's more likely to be true?

No. Because, no matter how much my friend and i assert that i own an invisible unicorn, that changes nothing - there's still no real evidence suggesting that the unicorn exists.

Suppose i claim that, not only do i own an invisible unicorn, but that this invisible unicorn is immortal, and is a family heirloom. It's been passed down the generations, and now the unicorn is mine. I show you the diaries of my ancestors, and those diaries have entries about my invisible unicorn. I show you correspondence in which the neighbors talk about the unicorn.

Does that mean that the unicorn is any more likely to exist? Does that mean that i now have evidence supporting my claim of an invisible unicorn? Is it now reasonable to conclude that i really do have a unicorn?

No. My claim is still as absurd as ever. None of that makes any difference, because none of it changes the fundamental problem with my claim: i have no evidence to support it.

I can say that I can't show you the unicorn, because it's invisible. And I can say that you can't touch it, because it's shy and runs away when strangers come near. And I can tell you that it feeds on invisible, intangible unicorn food, so you can't see that either.

All of those things are, hypothetically speaking, valid justifications of my lack of evidence. If i really do have an invisible unicorn, then all of those claims are true.

Does that make it any more reasonable to believe that i own an invisible unicorn?

No. Because, again, nothing has changed: i still have no evidence. I can come up with all sorts of excuses and justifications, but the fact still remains: i have no evidence to support my claim.

But what if i claim that i have a dog? A regular dog. One that barks and runs and eats adn all that. And you've never seen this dog before, because it lives with my parents, so i've never been able to show it to you. Is it reasonable to believe that i am telling the truth? Can you reasonably assume that i own a dog?

Yes.

But why? It's much the same case as with the unicorn - i'm claiming that i own and animal, and i have no evidence to offer for my claim other than my own words. And yet, in one case (the unicorn), my claim is absurd and not worth considering, whereas in the other case (the dog), my claim can be trusted on its own merits. Why?

Because invisible unicorns are fanciful creatures that resemble more the product of an imagination than a product of nature. You can't find one at the zoo, in the wild, or even in outer space. You've never found one, and neither has anyone else.

But dogs are different. Dogs are everywhere. You've undoubtedly seen many, many dogs. You can see them at pet stores, at other people's homes, and perhaps even your own. You can look at them and poke them and pet them and listen to them bark.

And that's the critical difference: you can assume i'm telling the truth about my dog, because you already know that dogs really do exist, and that many people own them. It's still possible that i'm lying, but it's not unreasonable to conclude that i am telling the truth.

My claim about my unicorn, on the other hand, cannot stand on its own merits. It's an extraodinary claim for which there is no evidence. Not only can it be considered absurd, but it must be considered absurd.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
queerxnation wrote:
Lester wrote:
queerxnation wrote:
I defense of Christianity, lester- Jesus, the 10 commandments... they ARE parables. Parable doesn't mean "BS story that isn't real and has no pertinance to real life." Parable means "a story that teaches values and morals."

Jesus, the story of Mount Sinai, the creation myth... they're all parables used to instill Christian morality.

Which is okay, I think, but only if people realize what they are and what they mean, and don't pretend that it's factual evidence they can use to support an argument.


I think you missed the part about why parables are such a problem, they are open to interpretation, and as such, there is no fundamental truth behind them, because each person interprets them according to his own experiences.


Well, sure. I personally think that everyone should interpret them as they like, and it's up to the churches do decided what is and isn't valid. In this country, if you don't like what your church has to say, you can just go to another one, drop out of the whole church thing, or just start our own.

Fundamentalists are the problem here, not religious people in general.


The church should decide whats valid? Why? They have no power other than that which their congregation gives them, it would be fine if each person had his own personal religon and no-one imposed anything on the others, thats just self-delusion, it happens all the time, and I'm perfectly happy with that, but organized religon involves more than one person, and they all place limits on the others on the basis of utter rubbish, and people support the whole, even when they don't support big parts of it.

For example, my mother goes to church, she puts money in the collection box, and as such, she funds the catholic church, now, the catholic church is against gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, my mother claims she has no problem with homosexuality, and yet she is directly funding movements that are against her own interests, and she doesn't change religons to one that accepts homosexuals, even though they exist, and why not? Because the church has imposed on her that *they* are the one that matters, they've done it by tying her down with baptised children and friendships with priests, and while it's not malicious in that the church has good intentions, it is definately wrong.

Another example, many people give to religous charities that work in africa, these charities have doctors working there that are fully able to perform safe and healthy abortions, and yet, they do not do so, and because of this they force women to endanger their lives by either having another mouth to feed or by risking a home abortion. Now compared to all the good the charities do you may say that they are still a good thing, but yet it is similar to you giving someone a present, but only on the condition they follow your religous guidelines.
Back to top
joeyjock
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 227
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
queerxnation wrote:
Parable means "a story that teaches values and morals."


But whose values and morals?
Are the values and morals instilled by your parables any less valid than the values and morals instilled by those of the jihadists?
Back to top
Johnguitars
Newbie


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 47
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:26 am    Post subject: Faith is dangerous Reply with quote
Faith is dangerous. It is the only thing we have that scares the Devil.
Back to top
joeyjock
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 227
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
But whose devil is that...yours or mine?
Back to top
christianzack
Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="exton"]Let's say that i claim that i own an invisible unicorn.

Would you believe me?
Probably not.

But why not? You can never prove that i [i]don't[/i] have an invisible unicorn - it's impossible to disprove that claim.

And yet, even so, my claim is [i]still[/i] absurd. It's barely worth considering, despite the fact that it can never be proven wrong.

Why is that?

It's because i have no evidence to support my unicorn claim. None.

But what if i get a friend of mine to say that he knows my unicorn exists? What if he, too, claims that my unicorn is real?

Would you believe me then?
Probably not, no.

But why not? It's not just me talking about unicorns. It's me and some other guy. Both of us say the same thing, and you can't prove either one of use wrong.

So does that mean that i now have evidence of my unicorn? Does the fact that someone corroborates my story mean that it's more likely to be true?

No. Because, no matter how much my friend and i assert that i own an invisible unicorn, that changes nothing - there's still no real evidence suggesting that the unicorn exists.

Suppose i claim that, not only do i own an invisible unicorn, but that this invisible unicorn is immortal, and is a family heirloom. It's been passed down the generations, and now the unicorn is mine. I show you the diaries of my ancestors, and those diaries have entries about my invisible unicorn. I show you correspondence in which the neighbors talk about the unicorn.

Does that mean that the unicorn is any more likely to exist? Does that mean that i now have evidence supporting my claim of an invisible unicorn? Is it now reasonable to conclude that i really do have a unicorn?

No. My claim is still as absurd as ever. None of that makes any difference, because none of it changes the fundamental problem with my claim: i have no evidence to support it.

I can say that I can't show you the unicorn, because it's invisible. And I can say that you can't touch it, because it's shy and runs away when strangers come near. And I can tell you that it feeds on invisible, intangible unicorn food, so you can't see that either.

All of those things are, hypothetically speaking, valid justifications of my lack of evidence. If i really do have an invisible unicorn, then all of those claims are true.

Does that make it any more reasonable to believe that i own an invisible unicorn?

No. Because, again, nothing has changed: i still have no evidence. I can come up with all sorts of excuses and justifications, but the fact still remains: i have no evidence to support my claim.

But what if i claim that i have a dog? A regular dog. One that barks and runs and eats adn all that. And you've never seen this dog before, because it lives with my parents, so i've never been able to show it to you. Is it reasonable to believe that i am telling the truth? Can you reasonably assume that i own a dog?

Yes.

But why? It's much the same case as with the unicorn - i'm claiming that i own and animal, and i have no evidence to offer for my claim other than my own words. And yet, in one case (the unicorn), my claim is absurd and not worth considering, whereas in the other case (the dog), my claim can be trusted on its own merits. Why?

Because invisible unicorns are fanciful creatures that resemble more the product of an imagination than a product of nature. You can't find one at the zoo, in the wild, or even in outer space. You've never found one, and neither has anyone else.

But dogs are different. Dogs are everywhere. You've undoubtedly seen many, many dogs. You can see them at pet stores, at other people's homes, and perhaps even your own. You can look at them and poke them and pet them and listen to them bark.

And that's the critical difference: you can assume i'm telling the truth about my dog, because you already know that dogs really do exist, and that many people own them. It's still possible that i'm lying, but it's not unreasonable to conclude that i am telling the truth.

My claim about my unicorn, on the other hand, cannot stand on its own merits. It's an extraodinary claim for which there is no evidence. Not only can it be considered absurd, but it [i]must[/i] be considered absurd.[/quote]

well the thing is is that god has done miraculous things that many people saw and as a result were recorded in the bible.

The evidence is the eye witness accounts which is what the bible is full of and what HISTORY is based off of. According to your argument nothing from that period in time can be proved and therefore never happened because we can not prove it. It could have ALL been an elaborate hokes that a bunch of people put together and agreed with. According to your logic we can't even prove that Christopher Columbus was a real person. He was probably a parable and a fictitious character. Show me proof that he existed.

The bible does line up with history and if it is not valid than neither is history.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just because something lines up with history doesn't mean it's just as true as history, and if you talk to a historian I'm sure they will tell you that history is never certain, it's solid conjecture, but it's still conjecture. For example, the norse discovering Canada before anyone else?? That was a hoax last time I checked..
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2508

PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
christianzack wrote:

well the thing is is that god has done miraculous things that many people saw and as a result were recorded in the bible.

The evidence is the eye witness accounts which is what the bible is full of and what HISTORY is based off of. According to your argument nothing from that period in time can be proved and therefore never happened because we can not prove it. It could have ALL been an elaborate hokes that a bunch of people put together and agreed with. According to your logic we can't even prove that Christopher Columbus was a real person. He was probably a parable and a fictitious character. Show me proof that he existed.

The bible does line up with history and if it is not valid than neither is history.


Go back and read what i wrote zack. Read the WHOLE thing.
Back to top
joeyjock
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 227
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
We are in the same debate as society had to battle 500 years ago when Nicolaus Copernicus first interoduced the idea of the earth rotating around the sun
...it went against Church doctrine!
It cannot be true because it questions the existence of God!

Galileo was jailed for the latter part of his life for it and where are we now?
Very few question now that the earth does not revolve around the sun and so it's the same for evolution...

evolution is the centerpiece for all biological study
in the modern world
without it biology as we know it simply does not exist
you take evolution away and we simply fall behind the rest of the thinking world...period
This is why - people that blind faith becomes dangerous
because it stops people from doing what we were put here on earth to do...
and that is to ... think
Back to top
christianzack
Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="joeyjock"]We are in the same debate as society had to battle 500 years ago when Nicolaus Copernicus first interoduced the idea of the earth rotating around the sun
...it went against Church doctrine!
It cannot be true because it questions the existence of God!

Galileo was jailed for the latter part of his life for it and where are we now?
Very few question now that the earth does not revolve around the sun and so it's the same for evolution...

evolution is the centerpiece for all biological study
in the modern world
without it biology as we know it simply does not exist
you take evolution away and we simply fall behind the rest of the thinking world...period
This is why - people that blind faith becomes dangerous
because it stops people from doing what we were put here on earth to do...
and that is to ... think[/quote]

no one was debating evolution and the bible does not support geocentricity anywhere. This was something that the people made up because they did not understand how things worked. they just knew that the sun moved through the sky everyday and assumed it was the one actually circling the earth and yes i expect you to attack me with the same point on religion saying that god was fabricated from a lack of understanding via science of how things worked but science lines up quite well with the CONCEPTS in the creation story of genesis which i and many people believe to be a parable. I believe evolution can fit into the bible and have seen no good arguments that oppose that idea.

what do you mean put here on earth to do? Are you implying that there is a god, sorry i took you for an atheist. In my opinion I do not believe that Christianity keeps people from thinking. I believe that certain leaders and secs of christianity have opposed free thought but i have seen nowhere where the bible teaches such principals.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Atheism Versus Religion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics