God v Atheism

[hrmwrm]

there's a lot of effort put in to making facts as correct as knowledge allows from documentated proof. much more reliable than a 2000 year old source that has no living authors. if someone has a place to host a 100mb file, i have all 14 vol. in a zip file. just proves that the bible stories are not infallible as they are changed over time before final canonization. as well, stories from the bible have uncanny similarities to much older stories from other sources. noah and the epic of gilgamesh. jesus and the stories of krishna, attis,dionysus, mithra, horus, etc. check here.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
and here.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

and i wouldn't deny the TRUTH of the bible, if it could be proven as true. and i reopened this thread instead of carrying on in a thread not really on the subject of arguement there.

 

[shagdrum]

You really have a problem with Christianity, don't you.

there's a lot of effort put in to making facts as correct as knowledge allows from documentated proof. much more reliable than a 2000 year old source that has no living authors.

That is an absurd statement. By that logic, all first-hand accounts of the Revolution or the Civil War, or Lincoln's assasination are not as credible as something someone wrote today about it because the authors aren't living?! That is a JOKE! Direct sources are always, repeat ALWAYS, considered more reliable then someone writing after the fact. Your whole justification behind claiming your source is more credible then the Bible is based on a huge flaw in reasoning.

I also highly doubt your source doesn't share your bias against Christianity.

and i wouldn't deny the TRUTH of the bible, if it could be proven as true.

Again, denying the whole point of Christianity; faith. You keep trying to make Christianity an intellectual debate, which only further demonstrates your own bias against it.

 

[hrmwrm]

you wish to make it islam, i'll argue against it too. or pick one. i picked christianity because that is the side others chose to argue for. the basis of the bible has been re-written over history, so taking the latest version as proof would be ludicrous. with everything being written so late after the fact, who would be the original authors then shag? things like noah's story coincide with an older tale of the epic of gilgamesh. so the original source would have been lost. it is somebody writing after the fact. genesis wasn't written by adam & eve and then past down. it was written after the fact. you've provided the proof against your own arguement. these are not direct sources that write.some more from gales encyclopedia, vol.1

"ABRAHAM IN THE WORLD OF THE NEAR EAST. The ancestors
of Israel are portrayed in the Bible as living a nomadic
or pastoral life among the older population of Palestine before
the time of the Israelite settlement (c. thirteenth century
BCE). With the great increase in knowledge about the ancient
Near East during the past century, scholars have attempted
to fit Abraham and his family into the background of Near
Eastern culture in the second millennium BCE. Comparisons
are made with the personal names of the ancestors; the names
of peoples and places; social customs having to do with marriage,
childbearing, and inheritance rights; and types of nomadism
in the various stories in order to establish the background
and social milieu out of which the ancestors came.
The effort to place the patriarchs in the second millennium
BCE has been unsuccessful, however, because all of the features
in the stories can be attested to in sources of the first
millennium BCE, and some of the items in the stories, such
as the domestication of the camel or reference to Philistines,
Arameans, and Arabs, belong to a much later time. The special
effort to fit the war between Abraham and the kings of
the east (Gn. 14) into the history of the second millennium
by trying to identify the various kings and nations involved
has failed to yield plausible proposals. The four eastern kingdoms,
Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, and that of the Hittites, referred
to cryptically in this text, never formed an alliance, nor
did they ever control Palestine either collectively or individually
during the second millennium BCE. The whole account
is historically impossible, and the story is very likely a late
addition to Genesis."

 

[fossten]

You are enmeshed in denial and self deception. I have no desire to drag you unwillingly from such a state, especially in a necroed thread.

 

[Kbob]

The effort to place the patriarchs in the second millennium
BCE has been unsuccessful, however, because all of the features
in the stories can be attested to in sources of the first
millennium BCE, and some of the items in the stories, such
as the domestication of the camel or reference to Philistines,
Arameans, and Arabs, belong to a much later time. The special
effort to fit the war between Abraham and the kings of
the east (Gn. 14) into the history of the second millennium
by trying to identify the various kings and nations involved
has failed to yield plausible proposals. The four eastern kingdoms,
Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, and that of the Hittites, referred
to cryptically in this text, never formed an alliance, nor
did they ever control Palestine either collectively or individually
during the second millennium BCE. The whole account
is historically impossible, and the story is very likely a late
addition to Genesis."

This is the only part I've attempted to research cause the camel thing sounded like some email someone would forward that you'd immediately look up and find out it's a hoax. So I checked it out. But don't take my word for it. Do a simple search on when camels were domesticated and you'll see that they've been domesticated for about 4000 years or so. Some sources will say more than 5000, some state 3500, most are in between. So that encyclopedia is wrong on that account.

The information in that encyclopedia seems to be dated because the cities mentioned in Genesis 14 have been historically proven with the archeological site of Ebla in Syria:

http://www.xenos.org/teachings/ot/genesis/gary/gen14-1.htm

From the article:

"Critics viewed cities like Sodom and Gomorrah as mythical (like Babel) because they had no extra-biblical attestation of their existence. All that has changed since 1975, when archeologists excavated the city of Ebla at Tel Mardikh in what is today north-west Syria. They almost 20,000 of clay tablets (SLIDE) which were the royal archives of the city. These tablets date back to the middle of the third century BC, even earlier than Abraham's time. Tablet 1860 names the five cities of Gen. 14:2--in the exact same order--as trade partners of Ebla!"

Note that the quote states "third century BC", but this is a typo in the article. It should have said "third millenia BC". Do a search on the site of Ebla, too, for further verification.

 

[hrmwrm]

about camels
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/camel/camel.html

"The dromedary is easy to domesticate and the first evidence for tame dromedaries dates back to the late third millennium BCE. The domestication first happened on the Arabian peninsula, and it seems to have been connected to the exploitation of distant copper mines. However, it was only much later, in the tenth or ninth century BCE, that the dromedary became a really popular animal in the Near East. From now on, long distance trade and desert nomadism became possible. The use of dromedaries in the second millennium BCE by nomadic tribes, as implied in the Biblical book Genesis, is almost certainly unhistorical and shows that Genesis was composed at a later age. The domestication of the Bactrian camel can be dated to about the same time, the first quarter of the first millennium. Again, there are some indications that it happened at an earlier stage, but unfortunately, these clues are not unambiguous. After all, one does not need tame camels to use their dung, bones, or wool. The famous Black obelisk of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (858-824), now in the British Museum, is thought to contain the oldest representation of domesticated camels, but it may still be a wild one. At least one camel was presented by the Assyrians to pharaoh Takelot II (850-825). The first solid evidence of domestication is from Qasr Ibrim, a town in Lower Nubia: it is a radiocarbon dating of camel dung radiocarbon from c. 740 BCE."

but camels aside, if you read, it states trying to put 3rd millenia history in the 2nd millenia history with abraham is how it doesn't work. which would put the writings at a later date.
and the compilation of the encyclopedia is dated to 2005. it has been updated to at least then.

 

[hrmwrm]

You are enmeshed in denial and self deception. I have no desire to drag you unwillingly from such a state, especially in a necroed thread.

that's your view. quite frankly, i percieve it the other way around.

 

[Dereck]

Hi Guys

God/religion is the crutch of the insecure.

Regards

Dereck

 

[mrfathersir]

The problem here is a lack of knowledge and lots of arrogance.

For one to say that there isn't a God based on their ability to reason is just as ignorant as saying that the earth is flat.

Science supports theories & "facts" that are changed & discredited all the time.

Science is currently looking @ space for answers to the the unaswered, when there are things on earth yet to be "discovered"(check out the oceans and rainforests)

If you have to have evidence of anything before you believe in its existence, or if you won't believe in something b/c you don't like the way it operates is at best just dumb.

To dispute a faith based claim is simply pointless. You can't reason the existence of God. Debating the fact will not bring "conversion". I think some people here thinks that the answers of others are an effort to convert or make "the way" plain.

Simply put, if you are looking for evidence to disprove or contradict the Bible you will find what you are looking for, simply b/c you are already looking from a biased pov.

 

[Kbob]

Camels were indeed domesticated in Abrahams time. And here's a link to a very informative site linking Abraham with camels:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnocamel.html

I'll rephrase my statement about that encyclopedia: instead of being dated, it is simply wrong.

Regarding Philistines in the time of Abraham:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/583

The last paragraph of that article: "Although critics accuse biblical writers of revealing erroneous information, their claims continue to evaporate with the passing of time and the compilation of evidence."

 

[Kbob]

Hi Guys

God/religion is the crutch of the insecure.

Regards

Dereck

Hello Dereck!

That's a philosophical opinion I don't share.

:Beer

Ken

 

[shagdrum]

Hi Guys

God/religion is the crutch of the insecure.

Regards

Dereck

"Dereck is a fool!"

Hey! Look! I can make irrelevant personal attacks too!

Can you back that up with any evidence or are you just talking out your @$$?

 

[Dereck]

"Dereck is a fool!"

Hey! Look! I can make irrelevant personal attacks too!

Can you back that up with any evidence or are you just talking out your @$$?

Hi Shagdrum

Unlike yourself I made no personal attack on anyone, as Kbob pointed out I was stating my opinion.

And as for being irrelevant isn't this a thread about God/Religion/Atheism?

I have no evidence to back up the non existence of god the same way a believer has no evidence to back up the existence of god.

I have a question maybe you can answer (no one has yet), why do you need to believe in god?

Regards

Dereck

 

[hrmwrm]

well kbob, your article is very speculative, and i'd say it's source is more than just biased.

 

[Calabrio]

"If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if
without it?"

-- Benjamin Franklin (to Thomas Paine, Date Unknown)

Reference: Original Intent, Barton (297); original The Works of
Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed., vol. 10 (281-282)

 

[shagdrum]

Hi Shagdrum

Unlike yourself I made no personal attack on anyone, as Kbob pointed out I was stating my opinion.

Wrong. Your opinion, as stated was inherently a personal attack on people of faith (opinions and personal attack are not mutually exclusive; on can be conveyed through the other).

And as for being irrelevant isn't this a thread about God/Religion/Atheism?

Yes, and the only way your opinion could be percieved as relevant is if it was ment as a reason to discredit religion, which is the definition of a personal attack. Which, interestingly, is what makes it irrelevant to anyone who knows anything about reason and logic.

I have no evidence to back up the non existence of god the same way a believer has no evidence to back up the existence of god.

This has been pointed out many times, but it seems you are either too lazy to read it or can't grasp it mentally. Religion is based in faith! As such, there is no evidence needed to back up the existence of God, and absolute proof would defeat the whole purpose of religion. You are trying to make something into an intellectual debate that is inherently beyond that.

No one who believes in God needs to justify it, or prove it, and you are trying to make them do so, in an attempt to make them seem foolish. Your actions come across as childish and petty.

I have a question maybe you can answer (no one has yet), why do you need to believe in god?

Never said I did believe in God. As to a "need". Believing in God is a choice. Why do you need to try and prove people of faith wrong? I imagine your motivations are similar to that of an elementary school bully, because it is blatantly obvious, with your confrontational tone, that you are uninterested in any serious debate; you seem bent on demonization of people of religion.

My advise: Grow up.

 

[Kbob]

well kbob, your article is very speculative, and i'd say it's source is more than just biased.

likewise

 

[shagdrum]

well kbob, your article is very speculative, and i'd say it's source is more than just biased.

Ad hominem reasoning. A source's bias alone says nothing about the truthfulness or falseness of the claims made by that source.

 

[SilverSweetness]

What Really Matters

December 21 2012 okay check it out make your own decision as to the truth but think about this...

The Mayans predicted a catastrophic event of earthquakes and volcanoes along with a mass change in our "consciousness" as a species.

Revelation Is pretty much a play by play of this same series of events.

Mayans weren't Christians...

Hmm...

Okay I was raised Christian, but also by wannabe "hippies" so I think pretty deeply about what else makes sense. This correlation makes sense.

So what really matters, and what no one can FULLY deny is the extreme state of despair the planet and her people are in. We are on the edge of something BIG! I can feel it deep down inside, !!!!THE SAME PLACE INSIDE ME THAT USED TO BE AFRAID OF THE DARK!!!!. I have felt it since I was a little kid, and I bet so can some of you, Atheists feel it in their head Spirituals feel it in their hearts and souls. So what to do eh? Well I suggest becoming closer with your friends and speaking to them about and deep dark fears of destruction and death and any other strange dreams you may be having. If not only to become closer to them but to see that you and I are not alone in our fears for the survival of the people of earth. And also to get groups of people together who you trust to help yourselves survive this event. "Now come on" you say... JUST LOOK AT THE WORLD NEWS, LOCAL NEWS, AND SCHOOLS! We are not trending towards good, by any stretch of the meaning. deny it as trends of fluctuation all you want but deep down some of you really feel the anxiety of something huge looming over the horizon, and what it is may be a mystery, maybe not.

Look into what all the native cultures of the planet built in prominent locations. Structures to line up with the winter solstice. WHY!? planting crops I think not... Research, theory, and history show evidence of a great change to come. THE OLD NATIVES BELIEVED IT WOULD COME ON THE WINTER SOLSTICE OF 2012, thus the need for accurate time keeping devices to identify the solstice.

(corroborating evidence)

Mayans say "x" will happen

Bible describe actual event (plus some serious fantasy sci-fi)

Maybe not eh? well okay cool!, we keep on trucking in this direction for who knows how long but eventually something has to give. The people of this planet are less nice, less happy, less content, and less GOOD, overall than they were just 5-10-15 years ago, and its only getting worse. The weather is doing weird stuff, maybe a fluke of trends alone, but in concert with societal changes trending to the worse, I'll be on guard for any signs of impending danger.

Hey I like Barack Obama, but come on other than that we have a woman associated with more conspiracy and generally fishy stuff than Al Capone (no seriously look it up she has a conspiracy sheet pretty long) Our other option is a guy who is having "senior moments" on the campaign trail... well he's using that excuse anyways, still nice guy maybe but I just don't want more of the same. And the man of change himself (Barack) is inexperienced (so who knows what would actually come of his presidency) and although he would probably push for more change for the better than either of the other two, he'll probably be assassinated like JFK for his dissention from the ranks (or just not be elected by the electoral college). So the prospects for our country as of now don't look too good.

America as a measure of the world is not exactly what I am trying to say here but look at other regions. Iraq and the surrounding countries, in or out we are not looking at a nice trouble free region. North Korea alone makes me want to build a bomb shelter in Canada or northern Minnesota. China would love to "Fuzz with our Jive" but thanks to Sam Walton we really don't have to worry about that cuz If they messed with us now they'd really only be shooting themselves in the foot (wal mart imports nearly everything from china) but then again I still worry about the recent military buildups in china. The Russians are rumored to have "misplaced" I believe 80 yes! eighty suitcase sized nukes, powerful enough to destroy a medium city, creepy huh?

I cannot immediately think of any other foreign threats, but it is the cumulative effect of all these things compounded by evidence from mayan sites that point towards a mass change in our consciousness coinciding with a mass destruction of life and land. I guess when 1/3 to 1/2 or more of all the people on the planet are dead within a few days, the rest of us couldn't help putting aside our differences crying a bit, and then hugging our remaining neighbors whilst VOWING never to allow the societies we rebuild to return to any semblance of their former vile states.

Most unfortunate is that I believe a catastrophic event is the only thing could effect these changes!

If the people who witnessed Jesus' crucifixion could speak to us I bet they didn't know what they were witnessing. I'd like to think that since his time we have EVOLVED enough to see and feel the imminent danger we are in!

(I have a very unique belief system, that combines quite a few different thought schools into one creed (read "theory"), email me for further info if you are curious)

Rant Rant Rant....

Blah Blah Blah....

THINK! THINK! THINK!!!!!!!!

FEEL! FEEL! FEEL!!!!!!!

C'MON I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!

It doesn't matter what you believe or have faith in just that you can see what is going on all around us and see and feel the signs that "times are changing" and get ready for whatever may come.

this is...

What Really Matters...



P.S. It's late and I am tired so I probably missed a few points I'd like to have covered, so for more info on my theory of our destiny, please feel free to contact me for info or just to rant about my "Crazed Apocolyptic Dream"

"I am just a man who might be a Prophet"

I hope all are moved to research the correlation between 12/21/2012 and the book of Revelation, because that alone is enough to also make me want to take extreme cautionary measures in the next few years.

Check out http://www.theveildprophet.com for a good start on 12/21/2012

also you can goto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ZShXTK1BA

Please give this some thought, I might be wrong...

BUT JUST MAYBE I'M RIGHT

 

[Calabrio]

 

[hrmwrm]

The problem here is a lack of knowledge and lots of arrogance.

For one to say that there isn't a God based on their ability to reason is just as ignorant as saying that the earth is flat.

Science supports theories & "facts" that are changed & discredited all the time.

Science is currently looking @ space for answers to the the unaswered, when there are things on earth yet to be "discovered"(check out the oceans and rainforests)

If you have to have evidence of anything before you believe in its existence, or if you won't believe in something b/c you don't like the way it operates is at best just dumb.

To dispute a faith based claim is simply pointless. You can't reason the existence of God. Debating the fact will not bring "conversion". I think some people here thinks that the answers of others are an effort to convert or make "the way" plain.

Simply put, if you are looking for evidence to disprove or contradict the Bible you will find what you are looking for, simply b/c you are already looking from a biased pov.

and to argue there is a god just because you can read the bible and the fact that it exists is just as highly arrogant and lacking knowledge. your wording troubles me in that it almost sounds like somebody who believes in god is incapable of reason.
and your final statement is reciprocal. believers are just as biased to their side as non believers. the difference is the rationality of the evidence. irrelevant of the small things, the biggest thing to me would be the genesis story and the fact of the fossil record. even if you can make correlations between recent history and the bible, the creation story must be viewed as a myth. it didn't happen as stated. which makes the bible suspect as to it being written by GOD. if it's to be all truth, and something is found to be unbelievable, then it throws the whole book into question. but then, thats just being rational.

 

[fossten]

even if you can make correlations between recent history and the bible, the creation story must be viewed as a myth. it didn't happen as stated. which makes the bible suspect as to it being written by GOD. if it's to be all truth, and something is found to be unbelievable, then it throws the whole book into question. but then, thats just being rational.

There is nothing truthful about what you just said. You cannot conclusively back up the claim that Creation is a myth, simply because you did not witness either Creation or the so-called Big Bang. This is your own logic being used against you. If you did not witness any event in history, then you cannot definitively say whether or not it happened. That is the epitome of agnosticism.

Furthermore, you just stated the exact photographic negative of what I've stated. If your logic is correct, and finding one flaw calls the Bible into question, then you must also admit that if there is merely ONE substantiated prophecy fulfilled in the Bible, then you MUST acknowledge the Bible's supernatural nature.

But I challenge you to PROVE anything in the Bible is false. Saying something in the Bible is "unbelievable" is merely a conscious personal choice on your part, not documentable fact.

 

[shagdrum]

and to argue there is a god just because you can read the bible and the fact that it exists is just as highly arrogant and lacking knowledge

Mischaracterization of the argument. The simple fact that the bible exists and they can read it is not being used to justify anything. You are spinning, and attempting to set up a trojan horse.

your wording troubles me in that it almost sounds like somebody who believes in god is incapable of reason.

the choice to believe in God is not based in reason, but in faith. You keep wanting to put it in the realm of reason, thus taking it out of context.

if it's to be all truth, and something is found to be unbelievable, then it throws the whole book into question. but then, thats just being rational.

Depends on what kind of "truth" the bible is preaching. If it is emperical truth, then you would be barkin up the right tree (though the use of the word "unbelievable" is inaccurate). If the Bibe is using analogy, and stories to demostrate certian truths about life (as the Bible does), then that is a completely different thing.

 

[fossten]

The Bible said the Earth was a sphere before modern science ever did. How is that unbelievable? What may seem incredible to you now may be revealed later to be true, and you will have your bubble burst.

 

[fossten]

Here's an hour-long debate between Ray Comfort, an Evangelist and and Author, and Ron Barrier, a national Atheist spokesman. Pay close attention to the quality and logic of the arguments.