Your assumptions fail. My reasons 4 doubting scripture r not bcuz I don't wan't to believe in a god. I was a Xian before u were born. It was only after yrs of study that I became convinced of no Xian god. If the biblical god was real, then he was an evil monster who did not value life, since he was so quick to take it.
I have 2 questions for u.
1. How do u justify god's cursing of mankind (OS) 4 Adam & Eve's disobedience?
2. If u found out Judaism was originally polytheistic, what does it mean?
@Cootabux There you go with those assumptions...you use your own assumptions about how God should or should not be in order to disprove mine; hypocritical and self-refuting. Your litmus test for God being real is nothing more than your own fancy....your own preference. Well speaks Paul of your kind, supposed atheists who reject the Biblical God "because they did not LIKE to retain God in their knowledge" (Rom 1:28). Do you have any real arguments or just your own bias?
@Cootabux If there is no God, tell me, where does your value of human life even come from? If you have to reach out to a biblical presupposition--the sanctity of human life--to refute the bible, you are refuting your own claim.
Judaism wasn't originally polythestic. The Hebrews came from a polythestic background which they gave up long before the religion was called Judaism. God's cursing of mankind is explained by the superstitious Hebrews who either blamed God or gave Him credit for every natural occurance. God did not dictate every word the Hebrews wrote down.
@Cootabux Well, first there are no errors and contradictions. If you cite one, I will do my best to explain it. As it stands, you sound more like you are parroting something you read about the bible. Have you ever read it for yourself? Yes, the Bible claims to be inspired by God. This is easily confirmed by fulfilled prophecy, archaeological finds, the internal consistency of its contents, extra-biblical witnesses, scientific accuracy, and manuscript evidence.
@Cootabux I could easily take you down anyone of those lines of evidence, but the problem is your assumptions. You assume there is no God and the Bible could not be true that precludes you from interpreting the evidence in its true light. You make weak prejudicial conjectures here, based on an ignorant and biased understanding of the Book. Take your gross misunderstanding of prophecy regarding Christ's imminent return--In short, Jesus Christ did fulfill his prophecy. CONT...
@Cootabux His return was conditional upon the leaders of Israel's reception of his invitation; that is why he told his disciples that "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:7). After repeatedly rejecting the Messiah, God closed the door on Israel and ushered in the mysterious church age of approximately 2,000 years. Stephen in Acts 7 saw the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy to come back...yet God "stopped the clock."
@Cootabux This is Daniel's 70th week as prophesied in Dan 9:24-27 in which Jesus Christ would be "cut off in the midst of the week". When the church age ends in the near future, the completion of Daniel's 70th week will continue as prophesied; God's attention will once again be on Israel and his imminent advent will reach its final fulfillment. I apologize for a terse response to a complicated question in 500-word blocks. Suffice it to say, there is no contradiction...cont
@Cootabux ...and there is much you have not thought about or explored regarding the Bible issue. Are you truly seeking the truth? Are you as suspect as Homer as you are of the Bible? The earliest manuscript of Homer we have is at least 600 years after Homer might have penned his words; the scriptures were completed within the first century.
That should go without saying, since there is nothing in those holy books about God owning a pen. The fact that men did the writing does not make something false. If it did we need to go back to those humans that wrote about George Washington. As for the Bible, there is a lot of archeological evidence that makes Bible history a possibility. There is none that makes it impossible or even unlikely.
@Tree409 Please cite the archeological evidence you speak of. We, the skeptics would like some examples and citations. You've made the statement. Please back it up with facts.
Since You did not specify which ones you are having a proble with I assume you plan on reading the hundreds of books that I use as My sources, or do you want to narrow it down to a few Your having trouble with? If Your assuming I claim to have positive evidence i did not say i did. In the meantime I can give you a place to start until I get the list of books ready.
If Your assuming I have links to one or two internet sites that I agree with I do not depend on the internet for my sources, like the average skeptic does. Their just as biased unless they provide links to credible archeology books or articles. I don't trust sites that claim to have proof that debunks science anymore than those that claim science debunks the Bible.
Since I cannot post links let me know where you want me to send it.
@Tree409 Nothing stopping you from youtube mailing them to me, so far as I know. I have yet to see compelling evidence accepted by the scientific community (particularly archeological) that indicates the physical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.
@Tree409 Well, if you are making the claim Jesus existed, of course I'm expecting you to have some sort of positive evidence that your claim is accurate. That's only rational.
One of us is having trouble keeping up. I don't remember claiming that I have compelling evidence that He lived. I don't remember making the claim that every single historical event can be proven without a doubt. I never said that any event can be proven without a doubt. I remember using the word possibility, but not in connection with "all". But like You said if enough of something historical is shown to be possible there is no reason to believe the rest isn't.
@Tree409 It's really very simple. If you say something or someone happened or existed, and I say show me, give me evidence of it, let me see for myself, and you can't do that, all I have to go by is your word which is extremely flimsy evidence for anyone to rest a "certainty" on.
You tell me Jesus was real, and there is a lot of evidence for it, but when pressed for that evidence you can't provide it, leaving me with only your word to go by. Sorry, your word is insufficient for me.
You tell me Jesus was real, and there is a lot of evidence for it, but when pressed for that evidence you can't provide it, leaving me with only your word to go by. Sorry, your word is insufficient for me.
I don't rmember telling you that I knew for sure Jesus was real. I may have said I believe he was.I never said there was evidence of anything being real. I said there is evidence of the possibility of some Bible history being real. That makes all of it a possibility.
Your claims can be applied to all holy books, and indeed you will find youtubers that will make the same claims for Koran, or any other scripture. You all share the same condescending attitude, penchant for silly circular logic, failure to present any evidence whatsoever for your claims, making your favorite holy book the source of morality and logic, and finally ending with the predictable menace of hell-ever-after, you know, for those who still hold any shadow of a doubt.
@n33v33 Actually, the Bible's claim canNOT be applied to all holy books because of contradictions inherent in other holy books with the BIble and within themselves (to cite one reason). I don't mean to be condescending; in fact, it is your tone that bespeaks hostility. Finally, the Bible's manuscript evidence, archaeological accuracy, prophecy fulfilled, let alone personal conversion, provide more than enough evidence to confirm its claims.
@JesusIsUrSaviour Archaeological accuracy? Ok, furnish archaeological evidence that the ark existed, either one of them. How about Jesus' tomb? Jesus himself? The garden of Eden? The land of Nod? Etc. etc.
The archaeological evidence of the bible is the evidence that several manuscripts were written by men that make up what we know as the bible today, and that in SOME cases countries and cultures existed that it mentions that we can verify did exist. It does not prove the existence of god.
@GermanChocolateCake Yes, archaeological accuracy--in ALL cases. Even when the skeptics wrote the Bible off--as in the case of the Hittite people--archaeology eventually caught up with God and confirmed his word. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is possibly the single most verified fact in all of history. Because you refuse to acknowledge it and choose only certain things of evidence if only proof of your philosophical and emotional bias towards God.
@JesusIsUrSaviour Oh, so it's just an emotional and philosophical objection I have to religion is it? Well, I'm glad I have you here to clarify what I think for me. The simple archaeological fact is that nobody has found either ark, nor a host of other things that the bible mentions that would back up your assertion that the bible demonstrates "archaeological accuracy--in ALL cases". Tell me where is Noah's ark? The ark of the covenant? Hmm? Where are they?
@GermanChocolateCake Yes, it is clearly an irrational bias you have as evidence by your last response. You have set up this straw man that since the ark has not been found, the Bible must not be true. You disregard the plethora of other evidence which is only proof of your bias. I wonder how your parameters would apply to other historical or scientific phenomena...For example, do you believe in George Washington? What if historians can't find the sword he brandished at one battle?
@JesusIsUrSaviour How is it a straw man? I'm asking for evidence two (and more if you have them) very significant events/items mentioned in your bible. Good, solid, physical evidence that the flood, the ark, the ark of the covenant actually occurred/existed. there is nothing unreasonable about that at all. In fact, why not evidence for the garden of Eden, Christ, Christ's cross, Christ's tomb, Nazareth. the manger in Bethlehem? What about Moses?
@JesusIsUrSaviour The only thing evidenced by my response is my intolerance for people "putting word's in my mouth" as if they have any real idea what actually goes on in my mind. I'm sorry, but your powers of telepathy seem sorely lacking.
@GermanChocolateCake Does that mean George Washington did not exist because archaeologists are unable to retrieve the sword he brandished at the Battle of Trenton? Do you see how ridiculous it would be to discredit George Washington because researchers can't provide the evidence I demand, despite all the other proofs? Such it is with you and the Bible. I doubt you are as "skeptical" of George Washington...or evolution for that matter. Why? Because those Washington doesn't judge your sin.
@JesusIsUrSaviour I don't discredit George Washington's existence because there is good contemporary evidence that he did indeed exist. Say for instance his grave, his own hand writing, corroborated accounts of his existence, a plaster cast of his face, items and property he owned, his TEETH (dentures). Such is the benefit of being a fairly contemporary person, we have good evidence for him having lived. The god you believe, by contrast, has no evidence to back up its existence whatsoever.
@JesusIsUrSaviour Furthermore your claim that "Such it is with you and the Bible. I doubt you are as "skeptical" of George Washington...or evolution for that matter. Why? Because those Washington doesn't judge your sin." is a false equivalence. I believe in those two things because there is significant evidence to demonstrate their existence, unlike god(s). Sin doesn't factor in because it is a descriptive, subjective value assigned to human behaviors by humans, one I don't choose to use.
@GermanChocolateCake "because it is a descriptive, subjective value" (typo correction). I have no idea what a deive is, but it managed to sneak into the sentence, so it must be very stealthy.
@JesusIsUrSaviour Haha, yeah I want to deny Jesus and accept Washington because of that old bogeyman "sin". You're welcome to believe that, however you would be incorrect. Outside of being a man-made label for behavior some consider to be distasteful, I do not believe in the existence of sin, not in the "mandate of greater powers" sense that you do. Again, we can dig up Washington, see physical evidence of his existence, read archived documents of his writings. We've yet to do the same of Jesus.
@GermanChocolateCake Your post bespeaks your own philosophical bias. You can not dig up the bones of Jesus because he is risen from the dead--even secular historians agree that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most attested to facts in all of history--in terms of physical evidence and early independent sources. Just because you don't LIKE something does not give you license to ignore the facts.
@JesusIsUrSaviour Attested to by whom? What physical evidence? What sources? What facts? Can you name them?
"You can not dig up the bones of Jesus because he is risen from the dead", well now isn't THAT a convenient little loophole for your argument?
So far you've presented nothing as factual as saying that there was indeed an Alice and a rabbit hole she went down, and with just as much evidence of such.
The problem with biased opinions is that even a lack of evidence can look like evidence. Your beliefs are not absolute truths, unless You are omniscient,in which case you are a god, which makes you wrong about God not existing. I can't prove your not a god, but an x/Y graph says it is very,very, unlikely.
@Tree409 Oh indeed, I'd extend that point a bit further and point out that bias has made the religious happily engage a lack of evidence as evidence frequently.
For instance JesusIsUrSaviour says that you can't dig up Jesus' bones because he rose from the dead. If pressed on that point it is highly likely that he would then claim that the LACK of of those bones is testimony to Jesus' resurrection and divinity, thus turning a lack of evidence of Jesus' existence into evidence for another claim.
One thing that a lot of Christians don't understand is that skeptics don't accept blind faith uinless it is with science. Most skeptics don't even accept the scientific understanding that anything is possible. The problem is not Jesus arising. He could not have entered Heaven as flesh and bone. The Bible says it's impossible. The problem would be with satisfying skeptics, which would be nothing short of DNA testing. Even then some would find fault with that.
@Tree409 You're really deluding yourself if you assume all skeptics put blind faith in science. Truth is, many, like I don't put blind faith in anything. In fact, science is the business of NOT putting blind faith in anything, but of trying to find out how things work, determining which observations are valid, reproducible, and as accurate as possible, and learn what we can from it.
To begin with I never said anything about all skeptics. I have never met all skeptics. I don't assume anything. I write from experience. I understand that science is all about finding out how things work. That does not mean that every skeptic depends on undeniable evidence. I have met some who actually believe that a theory is undeniable evidence. That's having blind faith in science, or rather blind faith in the scientist .Not all theories are truth.
@Tree409 Anyone who claims that a theory is undeniable has a tenuous grasp of scientific theory. Pure science does not deal in absolutes, it deals in sound, repeatable, demonstrable, testable conclusions drawn from the best evidence available at any given time. Every theory is subject to revision should new evidence draw its conclusions into question.
@GermanChocolateCake I agree. There's probably a lot of people that don't understand theory. It is more than just belief, but it can be proven right or wrong. It is not law, but it is not assumption either. The sound demonstratable basis for the theory will end in a sound conclusion. That conclusion will either result in it becoming law or being thrown out.
"The sound demonstratable basis for the theory will end in a sound conclusion. That conclusion will either result in it becoming law or being thrown out."
Not scientific Theory! S. Theory is better than fact, bcuz it's a foundational structure demonstrating how the theory works. S. Theories never become law. They're never concluded. It always continues as a S. Theory, and that takes nothing away from it's efficacy.
Evolution is true bcuz of overwhelming evidence...& that's a fact.
@Cootabux I'm thinking there has been a bit of confusion in quoting posts.
First the above don't sound like the way I would post, unless it was a quote from someone else. Second, I believe in evolution. I am not a young earther, but I do believe the Bible is not in error. I believe there ae errors in interpretatio and translation. I also understand that the ancient Hebrews had a very different view of God than the New Testament writers.
It all goes back to sites like the above link that claims the Bible is not the word of God. For the author to know that he would have to be all knowing, which would make Him a god. He would be contradicting His own existence. It's skeptics that make those kinds of statements that have the burden of proof not the Christians who believe in God. many of The skeptics I know insist that science has proven God does not exist. Most Christian understand that it cannot do that.
@Tree409 In that respect you are using sound reasoning. Any skeptic or scientist using sound reasoning will tell you that the existence of a god(s) can at this time neither be confirmed nor denied. There is too little evidence to make a sound theory out of the subject. The bible's authorship and accuracy, where real evidence indicates human involvement and editing, can be questioned. Can we say it is not the word of god? No. We can't deny or claim the involvement of an unknown quantity (god(s)).
That is typical of skeptics who claim that if a certain man made object has not been found yet, God is not real. It is not a scientific approach, but it is typical. Back to George Washington, where is the coin he threw across the Potamac?. Where is the ax that he used to chop down a cherry tree? You see how ignorant that sounds. Your assumption that there is no archeological evidence to support is based on an ignorance of ancient history, the same as with all skeptics.
You might have a long wait. I never said there was archeological evidenc that Jesus existed. I said you can't say He didn't simply because You have not seen the evidence. What does not finding an ark have to do with Jesus not being a real person? Your reasining leaves a lot to be desired. If You haven;t seen the axe Washington used to cut down a cheery tre, according tour your reasoning, that's proof he was made up. Who cares if an ark has been found. It means nothing
@Tree409 Well, without evidence, there is not much reason to believe he actually existed, though the possibility is still there. Same can be said of the ark of the covenant or Noah's ark. In fact, same can be said of various schoolyard myths about other historical figures such as Washington. However, we have very real evidence of Washington's existence., though not necessarily stories about him such as the cherry tree. However evidence for his existence is in greater supply than of Jesus.
@EPR89 Well, since real operational science, historym, archaeology, and prophecy--not to mention personal conversion--all confirm the Bible's self-attesting inspiration by God, I think the burden of proof is on you to establish your claim. If not, your position remains an irrational and arbitrary preference. As the Bible says, "because they did not LIKE to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28). Why is it you reject the Bible?
@JesusIsUrSaviour I really have to eplain it to you. You make the claim that your God inspired the Bible, so the burden of proof is on you.
And no, "because the Bible says so" is not a valid argument. Btw. prophecy and personal conversion is about as much science as a the Invisible Pink Unicorn is visible.
@EPR89 The book has foretold the future...your heart is so depraved that you equate that with unicorns. I'll pray for you. Just remember: You will be judged by that book regardless of your stubborn fist-shaking at God. Just because you "do not like to retain God" in your knowledge is not grounds for saying the Bible is not what it claims to be. Your responses are little more than brash prejudicial conjectures.
@JesusIsUrSaviour By that book? And why not the Quran or any other holy book? You have nothing to show me that your book is the right one, so I don't accept it as the right one. It's as easy as that. All I cn say is that a book with so many flaws can definitely not be by God.
In some other religion you are the one striving for a sinful life and not respecting the deity (or deities).
@Tree409 Not seeing evidence is not the same as proving a negative. You are the one who seems to have difficulty understanding the concept. Evidence starts at a sum of zero and builds upwards. You start at zero with no positive reason to believe a claim, evidence is provided to support the claim, thus moving from zero into a positive sum. As the sum increases, the validity of the claim is strengthened. it is an x/y graph containing no negative numbers.
Your right, and I never said it was the same. What I said was that noone can say Jesus did not exist. An X/Y graph does not prove something never existed. I understand the concept very well, but one of us doesn't. You cannot prove a negative, only that the chances may be slim. The graph has no negatives because you cannot prove anything with a negative. I cannot prove that you never ate pie even though I have never seen evidence you have.
@Tree409 True you can not prove Jesus didn't exist, you can attempt to prove he did. The problem is, you've not managed to provide any compelling evidence that he did. So far I've not seen the graph move from 0,0.
I never said I could or that anyone copuld prove Jesus was real. Unlike thoe who put a lot of faith in a percentages graph, I realize there is no possible way to prove Jesus was real. It's a lot like scientific theories. If it cannot be proven or duplicated in a lab, there is a chance it may not be accurate. It don't matter what you see in the graph. I never told You I have proof that Jesus was a real person, or that I could get it.
@Tree409 Faith in percentage graphs? Heh, now you're just putting words in mouths. Besides, my illustration of the graph model was to demonstrate a model of rational thinking. The difference between Jesus and scientific theories is that we can provide compelling evidence to support scientific theories. We don't just assert that something is or was and leave it at that.
Second: the assertion "the bible is written by men" is a reasonable one since there is absolutely no evidence that the bible was written by anything else. Your only defense to this is prophecy; which quite frankly is weak since the bible makes no unequivocally strong prophecies, none. Even if the prophecy in the bible were true it would be a logical non sequitur to jump and say "therefore the bible is the word of a god."
I don't even know if I should respond to your video, your reasoning is so shallow that it makes me suspect this you're just trolling.
First: asking "Don't you know the bible is written by men?" is not circular reasoning because there is no argument yet being advanced yet, it's simply an assertion which may or may not be true. If I were to say "don't you know the bible is written by men because the bible says it's written by men" that would be closer to circular reasoning.
Oh dear, I could stand 4 and a half minute if this junk before I got enough.
You can read Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan books and be sceptic, but they write about facts that can be tested and they never claim so stupid things as the bible, like the ark story watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g, the creation watch?v=JcQTCoY3wYQ, where the small dots on the sky only needed one day to be made, if your life is based on that book you have a completely wasted life.
@ytbabbler Your comments betray a philosophical bias. You pick and choose what you want to call "facts." For instance, you ignore the plethora historical, prophetic, and archaeological "facts" verified and predicted by the Bible. Instead, you embrace the naturalistic musings of Dawkins, Sagan and the like. Cont...
@ytbabbler May I remind you that Richard Dawkins has admitted to "believing" our universe might have been seeded by aliens who evolved from some albeit unknown evolutionary process. That requires faith. Be careful not to equate "naturalism" with "fact." Question: how do you decide what is a fact?
@JesusIsUrSaviour No, not at all, I have heard what he said and you twist it.
What he mean is that if we have a creator it don't solve the problem, the next question is who created the creator, and if the creator don't need a creator we don't need one. As a respond to a direct question he said it could be possible that life on earth was seeded by aliens , but he do NOT believe it, and he clearly say that in that case they are developed by natural processes.
He got a direct question if live on earth could be seeded by aliens, and as a open minded person he had to admit it's possible, but he also stated that then they must have to be a result of evolution, so it's the same thing as who created the creator.
@Zen8804 The only evidence the Bible was written by man is the judgment you have set up in your mind and heart to rationalize your refusal to submit to an absolute authority. Rebellion is one of the oldest sins in the book.
The same question you asked must be answered by you first. If you claim the bible is the word of god, how can you tell? Are you omniscience? omnipresent? Omnipotent? LOL. Stop and think a minute about what you are saiyng. If god ever would be proven to be true, you would never read my comment here.
@mikedirnt81 You are assuming that there is no record. I have the Creator's infallible record--the word of God. The Bible's prophecy, for one, shows it to be the work of an omniscient, omnipresent hand, just as it claims to be. I never claimed to be God, but I can read the record he left. It is your unwillingness to submit to an authority like that...
@JesusIsUrSaviour I do assume that there is no record, the same with the scriptures of islam, of the greek gods, of the asian gods and viking gods, that are way older than the catholic bibles and that u fail to submit to their authority. No use to use arguments like that against people that reject the bible. It's the same as saying "because I said so". Uu will look like a fool in every conversation about the topic. Study a little harder and u will find better arguments to support the bible.
@mikedirnt81 Your refusal to acknowledge the historical record that is the Bible shows your emotional and irrational bias. Do you know about the Bible's prophecy? Its historical accuracy? Not to mention its power to change a life--as it did mine. I would offer you your same advice. Well does the Bible speak of you when it reads, "Because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28).
@JesusIsUrSaviour I know about the prophecies, none of them came true till this moment and the dates keep being pushed further. What I want to say is that one can not totally trust the bible, since it is not accurate and has many flaws and contradictions. Other religions and scriptures also have the power to change lives, why are they false and yours is true?
@mikedirnt81 ...that causes you to hide behind this mystical "evidence" that would satiate your skepticism. Would you like God to exist or are you content to remain in the dark?
The bible is not the beginning of knowledge, civilization dates back thousands of years before the bible. Of course men wrote the bible. There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by men of that time. If the bible had been written by an all powerful God, don't you think it would be so compelling that no one could deny it?
@bigpchamber Your last point here is completely arbitrary. I could just as easily say that if evolution were such a verifiable theory, there would not be so many scientific inconsistencies that need to be assumed or explained away to make them fit. Or if atheism were so rational, why haven't people stopped believing in God?
@JesusIsUrSaviour Actually, my last point was a question. Just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it is wrong. Couldn't an all powerful God write a better ten commandments - which are a very poor basis for law or morality, I could easly write a better version. (I know, arbitrary).
@JesusIsUrSaviour People haven't stopped believing in God because people are not completely rational. This may come as a shock to you, but most Americans who accept evolution believe in God.
@bigpchamber See, how do you know people are more rational or intelligent now than they were a hundred years ago? You betray this philosophical bias, this inclination toward naturalism in statements like this. How do you know we are less rational? I could as easily say we are less rational today in our postmodern arrogance to refuse to accept that there is any truth outside of our own perception.
@JesusIsUrSaviour I made no claim that people are more rational than they were 150 years ago, I was responding to your question - "If atheism is so rational, why haven't people stopped believing in god?". As for a bias toward naturalism, i freely admit it. In fact I'm proud of it.
@bigpchamber The "shock" you made about evolution proves nothing also. Plenty of Americans think a lot of things that may or may not be true--the ad populum is fallacious. Plenty of people thought light rocks fell slower than heavy rocks till Galileo proved them wrong.
@JesusIsUrSaviour I wasn't trying to prove anything, it simply occurred to me that if atheist are about 10% and evolution acceptors are 40% and believers in god are 90% than the other 30% of evolution acceptors must believe in god. Do you think a person can be a Christian and accept evolution?
@JesusIsUrSaviour I think you should watch "The facts of evolution 1 - 6". Its very good it takes about an hour. I, in return, will watch an hour of video you reccommend.
Every person or lets say being considering theres other shit out there has a different perception to things not one person has the same perception to life. This could explain the bibles changing perceptions on morality throughout the book. A perfect being does not change its perception why would it its perfect it would not need to change. I am not saying there is no creator perhaps there is but perhaps humans should discover more about themselves before they dwell on divine topics.
It's funny. Your arguments are the same arguments other religions have, but you choose to not believe those.
Think about why you don't believe those, and you'll get a good idea of why we don't believe the bible is anything but a morally corrupt piece of fiction written by man and believed by people without the capacity to think for themselves.
@tommy605 The fact that you can on the one hand call the Bible morally corrupt while having no basis for morality--no rational basis that is--shows how absurd your position is. What is your basis for morality? How is science possible? Consider your epistemology and you will see that your entire atheistic faith stands on nothing.
@JesusIsUrSaviour For me to get my morals from the bible, I would have to LOWER my morals. I'm glad I don't get them from that book. It's a shame you have to though.
Christianity, no, all religion, stands on nothing. I hear evidence on how things occur, evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, and take my knowledge from that.
Religion believes it all appeared like a David Copperfield trick.
@tommy605 How do you have morals in a naturalistic universe? To get morals, you must borrow a biblical concept because kindness, compassion, empathy, mercy, justice and the like have no basis in your evolutionary universe. What's more,when it comes to "illusions", abiogensis and the big bang put David Copperfield to shame.
@JesusIsUrSaviour Really? Have you watched nature? Have you seen how animals, both domesticated and wild, are with animals in their packs? There is compassion and empathy, most notably in, wait for it, primates. Wonder where we get it from? I, like every other human, get my morals from nature. It's scary to think that there are billions of people who, if it was proven there was no god, would go on a killing and stealing spree tomorrow because their basis for morals is gone.
@tommy605 Projecting human morality into nature is what John Ruskin coined as the pathetic fallacy. Just because you project human empathy onto animals does still not explain the basis for it. Besides, your choices are highly selective. You didn't mention the lion who tears up the innocent gazelle drinking at the river. So much for all the natural empathy...
@JesusIsUrSaviour No, it doesn't explain the basis of. It does provide enough evidence to prove that god isn't the basis either.
Your lion/gazelle example proves my point more. The lion kills the gazelle for survival. It doesn't try to enslave it, sacrifice it or kill it becaus the gazelle doesn't believe in the lions god. That same lion killing the gazelle makes sure it's whole pride is protected and fed.
@tommy605 My point is empathy is rational because God and his word provide a basis for it. If we are chance chemicals reacting by unguided natural processes--a basic premise of evolution--how could we empathize? How does mercy comport in an evolutionary view? Can there be a "right" if we're all just the product of inherited genetic information? Can there even be choice?
So, let me get this straight, see if I have it right.
You're saying humans get our morals from God and the bible?
From the being who, out of anger and disappointment, decided to kill all life on the planet (except the inhabitants of the ark of course)? Or a book that advocates the killing of people for ANY reason by stoning? I say again, I'd have to lower my morals to follow god
humans, like wolves, are social beings..empathy, altruism, reward, punishment, are survival techniques utilized by social animals..if an adult wolf harms a young pup, that wolf is banished from the pack..this is to ensure the saftey of the offspring, and to ensure that no other wolves make that mistake..wolves, like many other social animals, live by a moral code..only a fool would claim that god is neccessary for morality.
@JesusIsUrSaviour There are so many other Holy books and Nostradamus who wrote prophecies that people claim to came true. What makes the bIble stand out?
I don't believe in something that as no actual evidence to support it the bible is just a mid evil novel written by men because they felt the need to write and that book has caused nothing but death and destruction because morons like you bought what it says hook line and sinker. Go sell your insanity some where else we Atheist are above your intelligence.
@erikcjustice The fact that you think the Bible is from the "medieval" (not "mid evil") period demonstrates that you do not really know much about the Bible or its contents. This is what we call prejudicial conjecture. I suggest you read the Bible if you have not, do some research, and get your facts straight.
When you finally get around to making your first point you fail. "Men wrote the bible." is not a logical fallacy. It is an opinion. Nor is it a logical fallacy to say, "God inspired the writing of the bible." These are opinions. A logical fallacy would be "Men wrote the bible because the bible says so." Or, more to the point, "God wrote the bible because the bible says so."
@dangerics Let's say I asked you to prove you wrote that post, ultimately your defense would be, "Because I wrote it." That would be circular BUT it would not be fallacious because it terminates in an authoritative statement. If the Bible is the word of God--as it is--then it must be self-attesting, which it is. The Bible does not need something else to prove it's veracity. Hence, using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a VICIOUS circle.
@JesusIsUrSaviour I wrote it because I wrote it IS a fallacy. It is not proof. So is your circle jerk about the bible. Even if the bible WERE true, your argument is still a fallacy.
@dangerics But what are you basing your claim that the Bible IS not inspired? Whatever it is that you are basing your judgment of the Bible on, how do you know THAT is true? And on and on...until you reach the point that you just don't like that the Bible judges your sin.
@JesusIsUrSaviour I made no claim about the veracity, inspiration or literal authorship of the bible. I simply pointed out that you have committed a logical fallacy.
And the problem with your particular fallacy is that anyone can make the same argument about any religious text, or non-religious text for that matter.
LOL, one does not need to be omniscient, ominpotent, and omnipresent to be sceptical that the Bible was written by God. Maybe I'm just using due diligence to make sure the Bible is not a false prophet. Lookng at this objectively,
This has more holes in it than swiss cheese. The burden of proof is on me to prove the Bible wasn't written by the Bible? How do I know? Well, let me offer this: The Bible, contrary to what you would want us to believe, does not "provide a basis for logic, for reason, for science, for morality." Therefore, by your own admission and definition, the Bible cannot be the word of God.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Could you provide one of these holes? Right now, your entire post is rather arbitrary and meaningless as such. For instance, how do you know there is a truth to be arrived at in this debate? How does your worldview--without the Bible--provide for that? I challenge you to refute the impossibility of the contrary--that the Bible is not the word of God.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Could you provide one of these holes? Right now, your entire post is rather arbitrary and meaningless as such. For instance, how do you know there is a truth to be arrived at in this debate? How does your worldview--without the Bible--provide for that? I challenge you to refute the impossibility of the contrary--that the Bible is not the word of God.
@JesusIsUrSaviour@JesusIsUrSaviour Hows this: You said that "The Bible is a very different book because the Bible makes the claim that all scripture is given by inspiration of God so while God used men, men did not write the Bible." You're using your premise -- "Men did not write the Bible" -- to prove your premise - "the Bible makes the claim that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.
@JesusIsUrSaviour The prophesies that allegedly came to fruition are terribly vague. And there are many that haven't or didn't come true. If you were honest, you'd realize that no one with a Judea Christian agenda could look at the Bible and think it was anything other than the work of men.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Terribly vague? To cite a few: the OT names the town, the type of birth, the family lineage, the tribe, the star, the people who wold see him at his birth, the place he would flee, the number of years from the command to rebuild the temple under the Persian King Cyrus and Messiah's offering...I could go on and on. These defy probability. Cont...
@Haroldbeavis1969 Mind you, written by 40 authors over 1900 years who did not necessarily communicate with each other! To say this is the work of men is to be terribly ignorant of the facts or shamefully stubborn. You get five people together to predict the details of the details of a man's birth, life, and death one hundred years in the future. But you can't confer with each other. Good luck.
@JesusIsUrSaviour Not really. All they had to do when writing the New Testament was to look at what had been written in the Old Testament in order to create the illusion that prophesies had been fulfilled. After all, there was never any independent verification that any of these events actually happened the way it was written. In fact, the birth from a virgin mother in the east came from earlier mediterranean religions now defunct. But keep the faith!
@Haroldbeavis1969 Sir, your answer here betrays both a bias and an ignorance of the Bible. Many prophecies were written in such a way that they could only be clear in hindsight once the Messiah came. What about the OT writers who agree with each other when they did not have access to each other's writings? But you clearly have faith in your presuppositions to explain away the Bible as an implausible conspiracy
@JesusIsUrSaviour My answer betrays a bias? Sir, if you had come across this book without any prior knowledge of it and read it with an objective set of eyes, I dare say you wouldn't believe a single word of it. It only makes sense if you first believe it is the word of God. Only by starting with this conclusion can you make an argument. It doesnt work so well the other way. There are also numerous inconsistencies to prove this book had to have been written by men.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Yes, your answer is biased. How could you possibly know what people would do if they came across the book? Don't you see how you presume based on your limited, finite, and erroneous knowledge?
@Haroldbeavis1969 Are you as skeptical of Socrates' existence as much as you are of Jesus since there are far fewer historical documents to corroborate the Greek philosopher as there is to document the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you have anything but opinion, prejudicial conjecture, and philosophical bias against God to offer? Or is it because you do not "like to retain God" in your knowledge? (Romans 1:28)
@JesusIsUrSaviour JesusIsUrSaviour. One doesnt need a vast amount of knowledge to determine the Bible's veracity. One needs common sense. Talking snakes? Virgin mothers? People from dirt? A 5,000 year old world? But you keep getting it backwards: My job isn't to prove that the Bible isn't the word of God. Yours is to prove that it is. And since the Bible has so many holes in it, it cannot be what you say it is.
@JesusIsUrSaviour Regarding Socrates, I'm not passionate about his actual existence one way or another, basically because I've et to have someone tell me emphatically that Socrates is my God whom I need to worship. Not only do I retain God but He is a very important part of my life. And He reminds me daily to not pay any attention whatsoever to the Bible as it was written by men, not Him. He also tells me it pisses Him off when people like you continually put words in His mouth.
@Haroldbeavis1969 You betray your bias yet again. I have not put any words in God's mouth, merely tried to point you to some of his words. I would encourage you to read the Bible and see what God has to say rather than take mine or anyone else's word for it--"For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding" (Prov 2:6).
@JesusIsUrSaviour "Pointing out" some of his words when he never said any such words is the same as putting words into his mouth. Do me a favor. Don't tell me what God did or didn't say. If He's truly God as you say he is, He shoudn't have any trouble speaking for Himself directly to me. At any rate, He sure as heck doesnt need you or anyone else "pointing out" His own words.
@Haroldbeavis1969 No, sir, I cited you book, chapter, and verse. I did not put words into God's mouth but tried to show you the words that came from his mouth. God did speak for himself: he wrote one book, the Holy Bible. If the Bible is the word of God, are you willing to listen? Or do you "kill the messenger" because you are like those who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28)?
@JesusIsUrSaviour The God that I know does not need false idols such as the Bible to speak for Him. And if the God that I know really wanted to write a book, he wouldn't have inspired men to write it for Him. He would have just done it himself. Just wondering, don't you get tired arguing with everyone who comes across your mindless video?
@Haroldbeavis1969 I think the "god" you know does not exist because he/she/it is a figment of your imagination. You have broken the second commandment in making a god in your own image. Jesus said, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:35)
@Haroldbeavis1969 I am sorry to see you have digressed into such vulgar responses. This only shows that your original claim against the Bible was and is one of conjecture based on an emotional response to something you clearly do not want to hear. "He that is of God heareth God's words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God" (John 8:47)
@JesusIsUrSaviour So the part about the invalidity of any question that begins with "if" went over your head huh? Fair enough. To be honest, I don't know what's dumber: You comparing your god with mine or me attempting to have a conversation with you in the first place. But JesusUrSavior, if you're happy, I am too! Enjoy.
@JesusIsUrSaviour You consider it an "impossibility" that the Bible was not written by God? That's pretty strong language. How about the fact that other holy books exist? What advantage does the Bible have over the Quran? Both are proclaimed the infallible, eternal word of God by a billion people. They present many of the same stories. There's nothing in the Bible that couldn't have been written by ancient humans. Why no astronomy? Why no mathematics? Why such an emphasis on pastoralism?
@bcgonynor Well, the Qu'ran contradicts itself--it claims Jesus was a prophet and then refutes his own claims. But, if you are going to pluralistic, then you must also accept the Bible as true. If you accept the Bible as true, then you must accept the Bible's claims that all other holy books are false. Your argument self-destructs.
@JesusIsUrSaviour What are you talking about? "Pluralistic" is not a verb. Anyway, these various Holy Books are mutally exclusive, you're right. Which means that not all of them can be true. But they can all be false, which is my position. Someone who decides to accept the Quran and not the New Testament is on just as firm a foundation as you are - which is to say, not very firm at all.
The Bible does not provide any basis for reason or science, and provides a very poor basis for morality. Biblical morality is a series of arbitrary commands backed up by the threat of force. Not to mention that Mosaic Law is basically incompatible with what people say about Jesus, or with the idea of compassion. Kant and Hume provide a much better basis for morality, the foundations of the scientific method were laid in spite of the Bible, not because of it.
We don't need to be omniscient to prove that an omniscient God did not inspire the Bible. We can examine texts on their own content. For example, if I read a math textbook, which from context I can tell is not a joke, and it says pi = 3; I do not know whether the author is male or female, young or old, but I know they are not omniscient. The Bible contains this exact error at 1 Kings 7:23. Not to mention all the blatant contradictions therein.
The question "Don't you know men wrote the Bible?" only assumes its conclusion becuase of the way you phrased it. "How can you prove the Bible was inspired by God?" is a better phrasing since it places the burden of proof on those making an extraordianary claim. Why does God only write books? Can he code software? If God published an OS better than OS/X I just might worship him. How about a musical?
"... provide a basis for logic, reason, science, morality.. like the bible does." The bible fails to do any of those things.
Where is the scientific method in the bible? Your belief in the bible is arbitrary. Be skeptical of all books. It ISN'T just the bible. I can't believe a full grown modern man believes that there really was a man named Samson who killed an army of 1000 men with the jawbone of a donkey, then caught 300 foxes, tied their tails together and lit them on fire. In reality.
@hugesinker Sorry if these things can exist outside the confines of your little three pound brain. Do you reject everying you can't understand, or just the parts that you choose in order to maintain your pseudo-scientific facade? Do you understand how the particles of an atom hold together? Can you explain to me how the planets orbit the sun with regularity?
@hugesinker Can you explain to me where the matter and energy in the universe came from? How about what the weather is going to be tomorrow? Your response is your own philosophical bias--you can't even explain how your mind works that you treasure so dearly. But you don't reject that. And yet you're going to discard the Bible cause you can't understand the account of Samson...
I will make a video response and hit each of your dishonest points.
halolIlmao0 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Circular reasoning, false equivalency, arguments from ignorance, logical fallacies.
halolIlmao0 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Circular reasoning, false equivalency, arguments from ignorance, logical fallacies... you sir are a true biblical scholar.
Snarkonymous 7 months ago
Your assumptions fail. My reasons 4 doubting scripture r not bcuz I don't wan't to believe in a god. I was a Xian before u were born. It was only after yrs of study that I became convinced of no Xian god. If the biblical god was real, then he was an evil monster who did not value life, since he was so quick to take it.
I have 2 questions for u.
1. How do u justify god's cursing of mankind (OS) 4 Adam & Eve's disobedience?
2. If u found out Judaism was originally polytheistic, what does it mean?
Cootabux 11 months ago
@Cootabux There you go with those assumptions...you use your own assumptions about how God should or should not be in order to disprove mine; hypocritical and self-refuting. Your litmus test for God being real is nothing more than your own fancy....your own preference. Well speaks Paul of your kind, supposed atheists who reject the Biblical God "because they did not LIKE to retain God in their knowledge" (Rom 1:28). Do you have any real arguments or just your own bias?
JesusIsUrSaviour 11 months ago
@Cootabux If there is no God, tell me, where does your value of human life even come from? If you have to reach out to a biblical presupposition--the sanctity of human life--to refute the bible, you are refuting your own claim.
JesusIsUrSaviour 11 months ago
@Cootabux
Judaism wasn't originally polythestic. The Hebrews came from a polythestic background which they gave up long before the religion was called Judaism. God's cursing of mankind is explained by the superstitious Hebrews who either blamed God or gave Him credit for every natural occurance. God did not dictate every word the Hebrews wrote down.
Tree409 10 months ago
It's not about us claiming god had nothing to do with writing scripture. Nice try, but it won't work.
The question is, are u claiming that god inspired scripture? Yes, you are, so the burden of proof is on you.
If god did inspire it, then why the errors, contradictions, etc?
Any ancient book is to be suspect.
No, you better check the prophecies again.
Jesus failed in his prophecy of his 1st coming. He told his disciples he'd return within their lifetimes. He even told Caiaphas the same thing!
Cootabux 11 months ago
@Cootabux Well, first there are no errors and contradictions. If you cite one, I will do my best to explain it. As it stands, you sound more like you are parroting something you read about the bible. Have you ever read it for yourself? Yes, the Bible claims to be inspired by God. This is easily confirmed by fulfilled prophecy, archaeological finds, the internal consistency of its contents, extra-biblical witnesses, scientific accuracy, and manuscript evidence.
JesusIsUrSaviour 11 months ago
@Cootabux I could easily take you down anyone of those lines of evidence, but the problem is your assumptions. You assume there is no God and the Bible could not be true that precludes you from interpreting the evidence in its true light. You make weak prejudicial conjectures here, based on an ignorant and biased understanding of the Book. Take your gross misunderstanding of prophecy regarding Christ's imminent return--In short, Jesus Christ did fulfill his prophecy. CONT...
JesusIsUrSaviour 11 months ago
@Cootabux His return was conditional upon the leaders of Israel's reception of his invitation; that is why he told his disciples that "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:7). After repeatedly rejecting the Messiah, God closed the door on Israel and ushered in the mysterious church age of approximately 2,000 years. Stephen in Acts 7 saw the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy to come back...yet God "stopped the clock."
JesusIsUrSaviour 11 months ago
@Cootabux This is Daniel's 70th week as prophesied in Dan 9:24-27 in which Jesus Christ would be "cut off in the midst of the week". When the church age ends in the near future, the completion of Daniel's 70th week will continue as prophesied; God's attention will once again be on Israel and his imminent advent will reach its final fulfillment. I apologize for a terse response to a complicated question in 500-word blocks. Suffice it to say, there is no contradiction...cont
JesusIsUrSaviour 11 months ago
@Cootabux ...and there is much you have not thought about or explored regarding the Bible issue. Are you truly seeking the truth? Are you as suspect as Homer as you are of the Bible? The earliest manuscript of Homer we have is at least 600 years after Homer might have penned his words; the scriptures were completed within the first century.
JesusIsUrSaviour 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God doesn't exist
hazza1o1 11 months ago
Yes, men DID write all of the holy books. It's an academic fact.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
That should go without saying, since there is nothing in those holy books about God owning a pen. The fact that men did the writing does not make something false. If it did we need to go back to those humans that wrote about George Washington. As for the Bible, there is a lot of archeological evidence that makes Bible history a possibility. There is none that makes it impossible or even unlikely.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 Please cite the archeological evidence you speak of. We, the skeptics would like some examples and citations. You've made the statement. Please back it up with facts.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
Since You did not specify which ones you are having a proble with I assume you plan on reading the hundreds of books that I use as My sources, or do you want to narrow it down to a few Your having trouble with? If Your assuming I claim to have positive evidence i did not say i did. In the meantime I can give you a place to start until I get the list of books ready.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409
If Your assuming I have links to one or two internet sites that I agree with I do not depend on the internet for my sources, like the average skeptic does. Their just as biased unless they provide links to credible archeology books or articles. I don't trust sites that claim to have proof that debunks science anymore than those that claim science debunks the Bible.
Since I cannot post links let me know where you want me to send it.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 Nothing stopping you from youtube mailing them to me, so far as I know. I have yet to see compelling evidence accepted by the scientific community (particularly archeological) that indicates the physical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@Tree409 Well, if you are making the claim Jesus existed, of course I'm expecting you to have some sort of positive evidence that your claim is accurate. That's only rational.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
One of us is having trouble keeping up. I don't remember claiming that I have compelling evidence that He lived. I don't remember making the claim that every single historical event can be proven without a doubt. I never said that any event can be proven without a doubt. I remember using the word possibility, but not in connection with "all". But like You said if enough of something historical is shown to be possible there is no reason to believe the rest isn't.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 It's really very simple. If you say something or someone happened or existed, and I say show me, give me evidence of it, let me see for myself, and you can't do that, all I have to go by is your word which is extremely flimsy evidence for anyone to rest a "certainty" on.
You tell me Jesus was real, and there is a lot of evidence for it, but when pressed for that evidence you can't provide it, leaving me with only your word to go by. Sorry, your word is insufficient for me.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
You tell me Jesus was real, and there is a lot of evidence for it, but when pressed for that evidence you can't provide it, leaving me with only your word to go by. Sorry, your word is insufficient for me.
I don't rmember telling you that I knew for sure Jesus was real. I may have said I believe he was.I never said there was evidence of anything being real. I said there is evidence of the possibility of some Bible history being real. That makes all of it a possibility.
Tree409 1 year ago
Your claims can be applied to all holy books, and indeed you will find youtubers that will make the same claims for Koran, or any other scripture. You all share the same condescending attitude, penchant for silly circular logic, failure to present any evidence whatsoever for your claims, making your favorite holy book the source of morality and logic, and finally ending with the predictable menace of hell-ever-after, you know, for those who still hold any shadow of a doubt.
n33v33 1 year ago
@n33v33 Actually, the Bible's claim canNOT be applied to all holy books because of contradictions inherent in other holy books with the BIble and within themselves (to cite one reason). I don't mean to be condescending; in fact, it is your tone that bespeaks hostility. Finally, the Bible's manuscript evidence, archaeological accuracy, prophecy fulfilled, let alone personal conversion, provide more than enough evidence to confirm its claims.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Archaeological accuracy? Ok, furnish archaeological evidence that the ark existed, either one of them. How about Jesus' tomb? Jesus himself? The garden of Eden? The land of Nod? Etc. etc.
The archaeological evidence of the bible is the evidence that several manuscripts were written by men that make up what we know as the bible today, and that in SOME cases countries and cultures existed that it mentions that we can verify did exist. It does not prove the existence of god.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake Yes, archaeological accuracy--in ALL cases. Even when the skeptics wrote the Bible off--as in the case of the Hittite people--archaeology eventually caught up with God and confirmed his word. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is possibly the single most verified fact in all of history. Because you refuse to acknowledge it and choose only certain things of evidence if only proof of your philosophical and emotional bias towards God.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
Comment removed
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Oh, so it's just an emotional and philosophical objection I have to religion is it? Well, I'm glad I have you here to clarify what I think for me. The simple archaeological fact is that nobody has found either ark, nor a host of other things that the bible mentions that would back up your assertion that the bible demonstrates "archaeological accuracy--in ALL cases". Tell me where is Noah's ark? The ark of the covenant? Hmm? Where are they?
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake Yes, it is clearly an irrational bias you have as evidence by your last response. You have set up this straw man that since the ark has not been found, the Bible must not be true. You disregard the plethora of other evidence which is only proof of your bias. I wonder how your parameters would apply to other historical or scientific phenomena...For example, do you believe in George Washington? What if historians can't find the sword he brandished at one battle?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour How is it a straw man? I'm asking for evidence two (and more if you have them) very significant events/items mentioned in your bible. Good, solid, physical evidence that the flood, the ark, the ark of the covenant actually occurred/existed. there is nothing unreasonable about that at all. In fact, why not evidence for the garden of Eden, Christ, Christ's cross, Christ's tomb, Nazareth. the manger in Bethlehem? What about Moses?
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour The only thing evidenced by my response is my intolerance for people "putting word's in my mouth" as if they have any real idea what actually goes on in my mind. I'm sorry, but your powers of telepathy seem sorely lacking.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake Does that mean George Washington did not exist because archaeologists are unable to retrieve the sword he brandished at the Battle of Trenton? Do you see how ridiculous it would be to discredit George Washington because researchers can't provide the evidence I demand, despite all the other proofs? Such it is with you and the Bible. I doubt you are as "skeptical" of George Washington...or evolution for that matter. Why? Because those Washington doesn't judge your sin.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I don't discredit George Washington's existence because there is good contemporary evidence that he did indeed exist. Say for instance his grave, his own hand writing, corroborated accounts of his existence, a plaster cast of his face, items and property he owned, his TEETH (dentures). Such is the benefit of being a fairly contemporary person, we have good evidence for him having lived. The god you believe, by contrast, has no evidence to back up its existence whatsoever.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Furthermore your claim that "Such it is with you and the Bible. I doubt you are as "skeptical" of George Washington...or evolution for that matter. Why? Because those Washington doesn't judge your sin." is a false equivalence. I believe in those two things because there is significant evidence to demonstrate their existence, unlike god(s). Sin doesn't factor in because it is a descriptive, subjective value assigned to human behaviors by humans, one I don't choose to use.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake "because it is a descriptive, subjective value" (typo correction). I have no idea what a deive is, but it managed to sneak into the sentence, so it must be very stealthy.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Haha, yeah I want to deny Jesus and accept Washington because of that old bogeyman "sin". You're welcome to believe that, however you would be incorrect. Outside of being a man-made label for behavior some consider to be distasteful, I do not believe in the existence of sin, not in the "mandate of greater powers" sense that you do. Again, we can dig up Washington, see physical evidence of his existence, read archived documents of his writings. We've yet to do the same of Jesus.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake Your post bespeaks your own philosophical bias. You can not dig up the bones of Jesus because he is risen from the dead--even secular historians agree that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most attested to facts in all of history--in terms of physical evidence and early independent sources. Just because you don't LIKE something does not give you license to ignore the facts.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusIsUrSaviour Attested to by whom? What physical evidence? What sources? What facts? Can you name them?
"You can not dig up the bones of Jesus because he is risen from the dead", well now isn't THAT a convenient little loophole for your argument?
So far you've presented nothing as factual as saying that there was indeed an Alice and a rabbit hole she went down, and with just as much evidence of such.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
The problem with biased opinions is that even a lack of evidence can look like evidence. Your beliefs are not absolute truths, unless You are omniscient,in which case you are a god, which makes you wrong about God not existing. I can't prove your not a god, but an x/Y graph says it is very,very, unlikely.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 Oh indeed, I'd extend that point a bit further and point out that bias has made the religious happily engage a lack of evidence as evidence frequently.
For instance JesusIsUrSaviour says that you can't dig up Jesus' bones because he rose from the dead. If pressed on that point it is highly likely that he would then claim that the LACK of of those bones is testimony to Jesus' resurrection and divinity, thus turning a lack of evidence of Jesus' existence into evidence for another claim.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
One thing that a lot of Christians don't understand is that skeptics don't accept blind faith uinless it is with science. Most skeptics don't even accept the scientific understanding that anything is possible. The problem is not Jesus arising. He could not have entered Heaven as flesh and bone. The Bible says it's impossible. The problem would be with satisfying skeptics, which would be nothing short of DNA testing. Even then some would find fault with that.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 You're really deluding yourself if you assume all skeptics put blind faith in science. Truth is, many, like I don't put blind faith in anything. In fact, science is the business of NOT putting blind faith in anything, but of trying to find out how things work, determining which observations are valid, reproducible, and as accurate as possible, and learn what we can from it.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
To begin with I never said anything about all skeptics. I have never met all skeptics. I don't assume anything. I write from experience. I understand that science is all about finding out how things work. That does not mean that every skeptic depends on undeniable evidence. I have met some who actually believe that a theory is undeniable evidence. That's having blind faith in science, or rather blind faith in the scientist .Not all theories are truth.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 Anyone who claims that a theory is undeniable has a tenuous grasp of scientific theory. Pure science does not deal in absolutes, it deals in sound, repeatable, demonstrable, testable conclusions drawn from the best evidence available at any given time. Every theory is subject to revision should new evidence draw its conclusions into question.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake I agree. There's probably a lot of people that don't understand theory. It is more than just belief, but it can be proven right or wrong. It is not law, but it is not assumption either. The sound demonstratable basis for the theory will end in a sound conclusion. That conclusion will either result in it becoming law or being thrown out.
Tree409 1 year ago
Tree409
"The sound demonstratable basis for the theory will end in a sound conclusion. That conclusion will either result in it becoming law or being thrown out."
Not scientific Theory! S. Theory is better than fact, bcuz it's a foundational structure demonstrating how the theory works. S. Theories never become law. They're never concluded. It always continues as a S. Theory, and that takes nothing away from it's efficacy.
Evolution is true bcuz of overwhelming evidence...& that's a fact.
Cootabux 11 months ago
@Cootabux I'm thinking there has been a bit of confusion in quoting posts.
First the above don't sound like the way I would post, unless it was a quote from someone else. Second, I believe in evolution. I am not a young earther, but I do believe the Bible is not in error. I believe there ae errors in interpretatio and translation. I also understand that the ancient Hebrews had a very different view of God than the New Testament writers.
Tree409 10 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake
It all goes back to sites like the above link that claims the Bible is not the word of God. For the author to know that he would have to be all knowing, which would make Him a god. He would be contradicting His own existence. It's skeptics that make those kinds of statements that have the burden of proof not the Christians who believe in God. many of The skeptics I know insist that science has proven God does not exist. Most Christian understand that it cannot do that.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 In that respect you are using sound reasoning. Any skeptic or scientist using sound reasoning will tell you that the existence of a god(s) can at this time neither be confirmed nor denied. There is too little evidence to make a sound theory out of the subject. The bible's authorship and accuracy, where real evidence indicates human involvement and editing, can be questioned. Can we say it is not the word of god? No. We can't deny or claim the involvement of an unknown quantity (god(s)).
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
That is typical of skeptics who claim that if a certain man made object has not been found yet, God is not real. It is not a scientific approach, but it is typical. Back to George Washington, where is the coin he threw across the Potamac?. Where is the ax that he used to chop down a cherry tree? You see how ignorant that sounds. Your assumption that there is no archeological evidence to support is based on an ignorance of ancient history, the same as with all skeptics.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 Put your money where your mouth is and provide some archeologically accepted evidence of Jesus' existence. Provide sources.
Once you've done that, provide scientific evidence that Jesus was an incarnate god.
We're waiting.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
You might have a long wait. I never said there was archeological evidenc that Jesus existed. I said you can't say He didn't simply because You have not seen the evidence. What does not finding an ark have to do with Jesus not being a real person? Your reasining leaves a lot to be desired. If You haven;t seen the axe Washington used to cut down a cheery tre, according tour your reasoning, that's proof he was made up. Who cares if an ark has been found. It means nothing
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 Well, without evidence, there is not much reason to believe he actually existed, though the possibility is still there. Same can be said of the ark of the covenant or Noah's ark. In fact, same can be said of various schoolyard myths about other historical figures such as Washington. However, we have very real evidence of Washington's existence., though not necessarily stories about him such as the cherry tree. However evidence for his existence is in greater supply than of Jesus.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
Comment removed
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
How do you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not inspire the Bible?
EPR89 1 year ago
@EPR89 How do you know God didn't?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Do I really have to explain to you what the expression "burden of proof"means?
EPR89 1 year ago
@EPR89 Well, since real operational science, historym, archaeology, and prophecy--not to mention personal conversion--all confirm the Bible's self-attesting inspiration by God, I think the burden of proof is on you to establish your claim. If not, your position remains an irrational and arbitrary preference. As the Bible says, "because they did not LIKE to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28). Why is it you reject the Bible?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I really have to eplain it to you. You make the claim that your God inspired the Bible, so the burden of proof is on you.
And no, "because the Bible says so" is not a valid argument. Btw. prophecy and personal conversion is about as much science as a the Invisible Pink Unicorn is visible.
EPR89 1 year ago
@EPR89 The book has foretold the future...your heart is so depraved that you equate that with unicorns. I'll pray for you. Just remember: You will be judged by that book regardless of your stubborn fist-shaking at God. Just because you "do not like to retain God" in your knowledge is not grounds for saying the Bible is not what it claims to be. Your responses are little more than brash prejudicial conjectures.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour By that book? And why not the Quran or any other holy book? You have nothing to show me that your book is the right one, so I don't accept it as the right one. It's as easy as that. All I cn say is that a book with so many flaws can definitely not be by God.
In some other religion you are the one striving for a sinful life and not respecting the deity (or deities).
See you in some other religion's hell!
EPR89 1 year ago
@EPR89
Because I've never seen any evidence is not a valid argument either.
Do I really have to explain proving a negative to you?
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 Not seeing evidence is not the same as proving a negative. You are the one who seems to have difficulty understanding the concept. Evidence starts at a sum of zero and builds upwards. You start at zero with no positive reason to believe a claim, evidence is provided to support the claim, thus moving from zero into a positive sum. As the sum increases, the validity of the claim is strengthened. it is an x/y graph containing no negative numbers.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
Your right, and I never said it was the same. What I said was that noone can say Jesus did not exist. An X/Y graph does not prove something never existed. I understand the concept very well, but one of us doesn't. You cannot prove a negative, only that the chances may be slim. The graph has no negatives because you cannot prove anything with a negative. I cannot prove that you never ate pie even though I have never seen evidence you have.
That is the concept.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 True you can not prove Jesus didn't exist, you can attempt to prove he did. The problem is, you've not managed to provide any compelling evidence that he did. So far I've not seen the graph move from 0,0.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake
I never said I could or that anyone copuld prove Jesus was real. Unlike thoe who put a lot of faith in a percentages graph, I realize there is no possible way to prove Jesus was real. It's a lot like scientific theories. If it cannot be proven or duplicated in a lab, there is a chance it may not be accurate. It don't matter what you see in the graph. I never told You I have proof that Jesus was a real person, or that I could get it.
Tree409 1 year ago
@Tree409 Faith in percentage graphs? Heh, now you're just putting words in mouths. Besides, my illustration of the graph model was to demonstrate a model of rational thinking. The difference between Jesus and scientific theories is that we can provide compelling evidence to support scientific theories. We don't just assert that something is or was and leave it at that.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@EPR89
Burden of proof is one the one that makes the claim "You are wrong".
I don't have to prove something I believe in but if you say I'm wrong, it's up to you to prove I am.
Tree409 1 year ago
@EPR89
I don't. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows wherte the ark is. You might ask Him.
Tree409 1 year ago
@EPR89
I don't. How do you know he doesn't have the ark?
Tree409 1 year ago
I must admit, this is a pretty cute attempt at a logical argument. I love the threat at the end.
KrakkaJax 1 year ago
Second: the assertion "the bible is written by men" is a reasonable one since there is absolutely no evidence that the bible was written by anything else. Your only defense to this is prophecy; which quite frankly is weak since the bible makes no unequivocally strong prophecies, none. Even if the prophecy in the bible were true it would be a logical non sequitur to jump and say "therefore the bible is the word of a god."
lowbaccaus 1 year ago
*facepalm*
I don't even know if I should respond to your video, your reasoning is so shallow that it makes me suspect this you're just trolling.
First: asking "Don't you know the bible is written by men?" is not circular reasoning because there is no argument yet being advanced yet, it's simply an assertion which may or may not be true. If I were to say "don't you know the bible is written by men because the bible says it's written by men" that would be closer to circular reasoning.
lowbaccaus 1 year ago
Actually, god popped out a cloud one day and said psssss,hey read this.Wow u ppl are retarded.
b1150 1 year ago
Oh dear, I could stand 4 and a half minute if this junk before I got enough.
You can read Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan books and be sceptic, but they write about facts that can be tested and they never claim so stupid things as the bible, like the ark story watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g, the creation watch?v=JcQTCoY3wYQ, where the small dots on the sky only needed one day to be made, if your life is based on that book you have a completely wasted life.
ytbabbler 1 year ago
@ytbabbler Your comments betray a philosophical bias. You pick and choose what you want to call "facts." For instance, you ignore the plethora historical, prophetic, and archaeological "facts" verified and predicted by the Bible. Instead, you embrace the naturalistic musings of Dawkins, Sagan and the like. Cont...
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Funny that just a religious creationist claim that I pick and choose :-)
Can you tell me one "archaeological fact verified and predicted by the Bible"
I mean where predicted means that you understand the text before it happen, not a thing it's possible to understand only after.
I have another homework for you, that can make you save your country in 5 minutes, or test your faith if it's real or not.
watch?v=F-8gIkKWpwY
And last, who wrote the bible? watch?v=4VxE7OOl6Qo
ytbabbler 1 year ago
@ytbabbler May I remind you that Richard Dawkins has admitted to "believing" our universe might have been seeded by aliens who evolved from some albeit unknown evolutionary process. That requires faith. Be careful not to equate "naturalism" with "fact." Question: how do you decide what is a fact?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour No, not at all, I have heard what he said and you twist it.
What he mean is that if we have a creator it don't solve the problem, the next question is who created the creator, and if the creator don't need a creator we don't need one. As a respond to a direct question he said it could be possible that life on earth was seeded by aliens , but he do NOT believe it, and he clearly say that in that case they are developed by natural processes.
It's not honest to do a straw man.
ytbabbler 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour That is a straw man, very dishonest.
He got a direct question if live on earth could be seeded by aliens, and as a open minded person he had to admit it's possible, but he also stated that then they must have to be a result of evolution, so it's the same thing as who created the creator.
ytbabbler 1 year ago
There is evidence the bible was written by men. There is only assertions that it is divinely inspired.
Zen8804 1 year ago
@Zen8804 The only evidence the Bible was written by man is the judgment you have set up in your mind and heart to rationalize your refusal to submit to an absolute authority. Rebellion is one of the oldest sins in the book.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Can you tell me where in the bible it says it is the word of god, and where are the instuctions by god on how to build a canon?
Zen8804 1 year ago
The same question you asked must be answered by you first. If you claim the bible is the word of god, how can you tell? Are you omniscience? omnipresent? Omnipotent? LOL. Stop and think a minute about what you are saiyng. If god ever would be proven to be true, you would never read my comment here.
mikedirnt81 1 year ago
@mikedirnt81 You are assuming that there is no record. I have the Creator's infallible record--the word of God. The Bible's prophecy, for one, shows it to be the work of an omniscient, omnipresent hand, just as it claims to be. I never claimed to be God, but I can read the record he left. It is your unwillingness to submit to an authority like that...
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I do assume that there is no record, the same with the scriptures of islam, of the greek gods, of the asian gods and viking gods, that are way older than the catholic bibles and that u fail to submit to their authority. No use to use arguments like that against people that reject the bible. It's the same as saying "because I said so". Uu will look like a fool in every conversation about the topic. Study a little harder and u will find better arguments to support the bible.
mikedirnt81 1 year ago
@mikedirnt81 Your refusal to acknowledge the historical record that is the Bible shows your emotional and irrational bias. Do you know about the Bible's prophecy? Its historical accuracy? Not to mention its power to change a life--as it did mine. I would offer you your same advice. Well does the Bible speak of you when it reads, "Because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28).
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I know about the prophecies, none of them came true till this moment and the dates keep being pushed further. What I want to say is that one can not totally trust the bible, since it is not accurate and has many flaws and contradictions. Other religions and scriptures also have the power to change lives, why are they false and yours is true?
mikedirnt81 1 year ago
@mikedirnt81 ...that causes you to hide behind this mystical "evidence" that would satiate your skepticism. Would you like God to exist or are you content to remain in the dark?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
The bible is not the beginning of knowledge, civilization dates back thousands of years before the bible. Of course men wrote the bible. There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by men of that time. If the bible had been written by an all powerful God, don't you think it would be so compelling that no one could deny it?
bigpchamber 1 year ago
@bigpchamber Your last point here is completely arbitrary. I could just as easily say that if evolution were such a verifiable theory, there would not be so many scientific inconsistencies that need to be assumed or explained away to make them fit. Or if atheism were so rational, why haven't people stopped believing in God?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Actually, my last point was a question. Just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it is wrong. Couldn't an all powerful God write a better ten commandments - which are a very poor basis for law or morality, I could easly write a better version. (I know, arbitrary).
bigpchamber 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour People haven't stopped believing in God because people are not completely rational. This may come as a shock to you, but most Americans who accept evolution believe in God.
bigpchamber 1 year ago
@bigpchamber See, how do you know people are more rational or intelligent now than they were a hundred years ago? You betray this philosophical bias, this inclination toward naturalism in statements like this. How do you know we are less rational? I could as easily say we are less rational today in our postmodern arrogance to refuse to accept that there is any truth outside of our own perception.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I made no claim that people are more rational than they were 150 years ago, I was responding to your question - "If atheism is so rational, why haven't people stopped believing in god?". As for a bias toward naturalism, i freely admit it. In fact I'm proud of it.
bigpchamber 1 year ago
@bigpchamber The "shock" you made about evolution proves nothing also. Plenty of Americans think a lot of things that may or may not be true--the ad populum is fallacious. Plenty of people thought light rocks fell slower than heavy rocks till Galileo proved them wrong.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I wasn't trying to prove anything, it simply occurred to me that if atheist are about 10% and evolution acceptors are 40% and believers in god are 90% than the other 30% of evolution acceptors must believe in god. Do you think a person can be a Christian and accept evolution?
bigpchamber 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I think you should watch "The facts of evolution 1 - 6". Its very good it takes about an hour. I, in return, will watch an hour of video you reccommend.
bigpchamber 1 year ago
Every person or lets say being considering theres other shit out there has a different perception to things not one person has the same perception to life. This could explain the bibles changing perceptions on morality throughout the book. A perfect being does not change its perception why would it its perfect it would not need to change. I am not saying there is no creator perhaps there is but perhaps humans should discover more about themselves before they dwell on divine topics.
utube2344 1 year ago
It's funny. Your arguments are the same arguments other religions have, but you choose to not believe those.
Think about why you don't believe those, and you'll get a good idea of why we don't believe the bible is anything but a morally corrupt piece of fiction written by man and believed by people without the capacity to think for themselves.
tommy605 1 year ago
@tommy605 The fact that you can on the one hand call the Bible morally corrupt while having no basis for morality--no rational basis that is--shows how absurd your position is. What is your basis for morality? How is science possible? Consider your epistemology and you will see that your entire atheistic faith stands on nothing.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour For me to get my morals from the bible, I would have to LOWER my morals. I'm glad I don't get them from that book. It's a shame you have to though.
Christianity, no, all religion, stands on nothing. I hear evidence on how things occur, evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, and take my knowledge from that.
Religion believes it all appeared like a David Copperfield trick.
tommy605 1 year ago
@tommy605 How do you have morals in a naturalistic universe? To get morals, you must borrow a biblical concept because kindness, compassion, empathy, mercy, justice and the like have no basis in your evolutionary universe. What's more,when it comes to "illusions", abiogensis and the big bang put David Copperfield to shame.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Really? Have you watched nature? Have you seen how animals, both domesticated and wild, are with animals in their packs? There is compassion and empathy, most notably in, wait for it, primates. Wonder where we get it from? I, like every other human, get my morals from nature. It's scary to think that there are billions of people who, if it was proven there was no god, would go on a killing and stealing spree tomorrow because their basis for morals is gone.
tommy605 1 year ago
@tommy605 Projecting human morality into nature is what John Ruskin coined as the pathetic fallacy. Just because you project human empathy onto animals does still not explain the basis for it. Besides, your choices are highly selective. You didn't mention the lion who tears up the innocent gazelle drinking at the river. So much for all the natural empathy...
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour No, it doesn't explain the basis of. It does provide enough evidence to prove that god isn't the basis either.
Your lion/gazelle example proves my point more. The lion kills the gazelle for survival. It doesn't try to enslave it, sacrifice it or kill it becaus the gazelle doesn't believe in the lions god. That same lion killing the gazelle makes sure it's whole pride is protected and fed.
tommy605 1 year ago
@tommy605 My point is empathy is rational because God and his word provide a basis for it. If we are chance chemicals reacting by unguided natural processes--a basic premise of evolution--how could we empathize? How does mercy comport in an evolutionary view? Can there be a "right" if we're all just the product of inherited genetic information? Can there even be choice?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour That's abiogenesis, but I won't split hairs.
So, let me get this straight, see if I have it right.
You're saying humans get our morals from God and the bible?
From the being who, out of anger and disappointment, decided to kill all life on the planet (except the inhabitants of the ark of course)? Or a book that advocates the killing of people for ANY reason by stoning? I say again, I'd have to lower my morals to follow god
tommy605 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour
humans, like wolves, are social beings..empathy, altruism, reward, punishment, are survival techniques utilized by social animals..if an adult wolf harms a young pup, that wolf is banished from the pack..this is to ensure the saftey of the offspring, and to ensure that no other wolves make that mistake..wolves, like many other social animals, live by a moral code..only a fool would claim that god is neccessary for morality.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour
> "If we are chance chemicals reacting by unguided natural processes--a basic premise of evolution--..."
Evolution doesn't work purely by random chance. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not random. Otherwise evolution would not work.
TheAtheistExperience 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusIsUrSaviour
> "My point is empathy is rational because God and his word provide a basis for it."
And what about all those billions of people who have never even heard of your "God"? The majority of the people on this planet are not Christians.
TheAtheistExperience 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour
> "how could we empathize? How does mercy comport in an evolutionary view?"
People are social animals that work and hunt in groups. A worthy opponent that swtiches sides can become a useful friend or ally.
TheAtheistExperience 1 year ago
Of course the bible was written by men, and not in the same way a pen puts the ink to paper. The bible was man's idea.
And errors on every page (Flat earth, age of the earth, the ark, adam and eve, etc)
Yes, Dawkins, sagen, darwin could be wrong. But science contiues to show how right they are.
Here's the thing, science works bymaking mistakes, and learning by them. Religion works by faith and fear.
tommy605 1 year ago
hmm... U said How do you know God did not inspire the bible... How did you know he did? Is there any evidence?
jonathanquek 1 year ago
@jonathanquek Prophecy.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour There are so many other Holy books and Nostradamus who wrote prophecies that people claim to came true. What makes the bIble stand out?
jonathanquek 1 year ago
I don't believe in something that as no actual evidence to support it the bible is just a mid evil novel written by men because they felt the need to write and that book has caused nothing but death and destruction because morons like you bought what it says hook line and sinker. Go sell your insanity some where else we Atheist are above your intelligence.
erikcjustice 1 year ago
@erikcjustice The fact that you think the Bible is from the "medieval" (not "mid evil") period demonstrates that you do not really know much about the Bible or its contents. This is what we call prejudicial conjecture. I suggest you read the Bible if you have not, do some research, and get your facts straight.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
When you finally get around to making your first point you fail. "Men wrote the bible." is not a logical fallacy. It is an opinion. Nor is it a logical fallacy to say, "God inspired the writing of the bible." These are opinions. A logical fallacy would be "Men wrote the bible because the bible says so." Or, more to the point, "God wrote the bible because the bible says so."
dangerics 1 year ago
@dangerics Let's say I asked you to prove you wrote that post, ultimately your defense would be, "Because I wrote it." That would be circular BUT it would not be fallacious because it terminates in an authoritative statement. If the Bible is the word of God--as it is--then it must be self-attesting, which it is. The Bible does not need something else to prove it's veracity. Hence, using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a VICIOUS circle.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I wrote it because I wrote it IS a fallacy. It is not proof. So is your circle jerk about the bible. Even if the bible WERE true, your argument is still a fallacy.
dangerics 1 year ago
@dangerics But what are you basing your claim that the Bible IS not inspired? Whatever it is that you are basing your judgment of the Bible on, how do you know THAT is true? And on and on...until you reach the point that you just don't like that the Bible judges your sin.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour I made no claim about the veracity, inspiration or literal authorship of the bible. I simply pointed out that you have committed a logical fallacy.
And the problem with your particular fallacy is that anyone can make the same argument about any religious text, or non-religious text for that matter.
dangerics 1 year ago
LOL, one does not need to be omniscient, ominpotent, and omnipresent to be sceptical that the Bible was written by God. Maybe I'm just using due diligence to make sure the Bible is not a false prophet. Lookng at this objectively,
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
This has more holes in it than swiss cheese. The burden of proof is on me to prove the Bible wasn't written by the Bible? How do I know? Well, let me offer this: The Bible, contrary to what you would want us to believe, does not "provide a basis for logic, for reason, for science, for morality." Therefore, by your own admission and definition, the Bible cannot be the word of God.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Could you provide one of these holes? Right now, your entire post is rather arbitrary and meaningless as such. For instance, how do you know there is a truth to be arrived at in this debate? How does your worldview--without the Bible--provide for that? I challenge you to refute the impossibility of the contrary--that the Bible is not the word of God.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Could you provide one of these holes? Right now, your entire post is rather arbitrary and meaningless as such. For instance, how do you know there is a truth to be arrived at in this debate? How does your worldview--without the Bible--provide for that? I challenge you to refute the impossibility of the contrary--that the Bible is not the word of God.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour @JesusIsUrSaviour Hows this: You said that "The Bible is a very different book because the Bible makes the claim that all scripture is given by inspiration of God so while God used men, men did not write the Bible." You're using your premise -- "Men did not write the Bible" -- to prove your premise - "the Bible makes the claim that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.
Now that's a HUGE hole, don't you think?
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Not at all. The Bible provides prophecy, to name just one thing, to corroborate its claims.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour The prophesies that allegedly came to fruition are terribly vague. And there are many that haven't or didn't come true. If you were honest, you'd realize that no one with a Judea Christian agenda could look at the Bible and think it was anything other than the work of men.
If you were honest.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Terribly vague? To cite a few: the OT names the town, the type of birth, the family lineage, the tribe, the star, the people who wold see him at his birth, the place he would flee, the number of years from the command to rebuild the temple under the Persian King Cyrus and Messiah's offering...I could go on and on. These defy probability. Cont...
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Mind you, written by 40 authors over 1900 years who did not necessarily communicate with each other! To say this is the work of men is to be terribly ignorant of the facts or shamefully stubborn. You get five people together to predict the details of the details of a man's birth, life, and death one hundred years in the future. But you can't confer with each other. Good luck.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Not really. All they had to do when writing the New Testament was to look at what had been written in the Old Testament in order to create the illusion that prophesies had been fulfilled. After all, there was never any independent verification that any of these events actually happened the way it was written. In fact, the birth from a virgin mother in the east came from earlier mediterranean religions now defunct. But keep the faith!
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Sir, your answer here betrays both a bias and an ignorance of the Bible. Many prophecies were written in such a way that they could only be clear in hindsight once the Messiah came. What about the OT writers who agree with each other when they did not have access to each other's writings? But you clearly have faith in your presuppositions to explain away the Bible as an implausible conspiracy
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour My answer betrays a bias? Sir, if you had come across this book without any prior knowledge of it and read it with an objective set of eyes, I dare say you wouldn't believe a single word of it. It only makes sense if you first believe it is the word of God. Only by starting with this conclusion can you make an argument. It doesnt work so well the other way. There are also numerous inconsistencies to prove this book had to have been written by men.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Yes, your answer is biased. How could you possibly know what people would do if they came across the book? Don't you see how you presume based on your limited, finite, and erroneous knowledge?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Are you as skeptical of Socrates' existence as much as you are of Jesus since there are far fewer historical documents to corroborate the Greek philosopher as there is to document the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you have anything but opinion, prejudicial conjecture, and philosophical bias against God to offer? Or is it because you do not "like to retain God" in your knowledge? (Romans 1:28)
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour JesusIsUrSaviour. One doesnt need a vast amount of knowledge to determine the Bible's veracity. One needs common sense. Talking snakes? Virgin mothers? People from dirt? A 5,000 year old world? But you keep getting it backwards: My job isn't to prove that the Bible isn't the word of God. Yours is to prove that it is. And since the Bible has so many holes in it, it cannot be what you say it is.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour Regarding Socrates, I'm not passionate about his actual existence one way or another, basically because I've et to have someone tell me emphatically that Socrates is my God whom I need to worship. Not only do I retain God but He is a very important part of my life. And He reminds me daily to not pay any attention whatsoever to the Bible as it was written by men, not Him. He also tells me it pisses Him off when people like you continually put words in His mouth.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 You betray your bias yet again. I have not put any words in God's mouth, merely tried to point you to some of his words. I would encourage you to read the Bible and see what God has to say rather than take mine or anyone else's word for it--"For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding" (Prov 2:6).
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour "Pointing out" some of his words when he never said any such words is the same as putting words into his mouth. Do me a favor. Don't tell me what God did or didn't say. If He's truly God as you say he is, He shoudn't have any trouble speaking for Himself directly to me. At any rate, He sure as heck doesnt need you or anyone else "pointing out" His own words.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 No, sir, I cited you book, chapter, and verse. I did not put words into God's mouth but tried to show you the words that came from his mouth. God did speak for himself: he wrote one book, the Holy Bible. If the Bible is the word of God, are you willing to listen? Or do you "kill the messenger" because you are like those who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28)?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour The God that I know does not need false idols such as the Bible to speak for Him. And if the God that I know really wanted to write a book, he wouldn't have inspired men to write it for Him. He would have just done it himself. Just wondering, don't you get tired arguing with everyone who comes across your mindless video?
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 I think the "god" you know does not exist because he/she/it is a figment of your imagination. You have broken the second commandment in making a god in your own image. Jesus said, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:35)
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour You ask, "If the Bible is the word of God, are you willing to listen?" I ask, "If the Queen had balls, wouldn't she be King?"
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 I am sorry to see you have digressed into such vulgar responses. This only shows that your original claim against the Bible was and is one of conjecture based on an emotional response to something you clearly do not want to hear. "He that is of God heareth God's words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God" (John 8:47)
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour So the part about the invalidity of any question that begins with "if" went over your head huh? Fair enough. To be honest, I don't know what's dumber: You comparing your god with mine or me attempting to have a conversation with you in the first place. But JesusUrSavior, if you're happy, I am too! Enjoy.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour You consider it an "impossibility" that the Bible was not written by God? That's pretty strong language. How about the fact that other holy books exist? What advantage does the Bible have over the Quran? Both are proclaimed the infallible, eternal word of God by a billion people. They present many of the same stories. There's nothing in the Bible that couldn't have been written by ancient humans. Why no astronomy? Why no mathematics? Why such an emphasis on pastoralism?
bcgonynor 1 year ago
@bcgonynor Well, the Qu'ran contradicts itself--it claims Jesus was a prophet and then refutes his own claims. But, if you are going to pluralistic, then you must also accept the Bible as true. If you accept the Bible as true, then you must accept the Bible's claims that all other holy books are false. Your argument self-destructs.
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@JesusIsUrSaviour What are you talking about? "Pluralistic" is not a verb. Anyway, these various Holy Books are mutally exclusive, you're right. Which means that not all of them can be true. But they can all be false, which is my position. Someone who decides to accept the Quran and not the New Testament is on just as firm a foundation as you are - which is to say, not very firm at all.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
The Bible does not provide any basis for reason or science, and provides a very poor basis for morality. Biblical morality is a series of arbitrary commands backed up by the threat of force. Not to mention that Mosaic Law is basically incompatible with what people say about Jesus, or with the idea of compassion. Kant and Hume provide a much better basis for morality, the foundations of the scientific method were laid in spite of the Bible, not because of it.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
We don't need to be omniscient to prove that an omniscient God did not inspire the Bible. We can examine texts on their own content. For example, if I read a math textbook, which from context I can tell is not a joke, and it says pi = 3; I do not know whether the author is male or female, young or old, but I know they are not omniscient. The Bible contains this exact error at 1 Kings 7:23. Not to mention all the blatant contradictions therein.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
The question "Don't you know men wrote the Bible?" only assumes its conclusion becuase of the way you phrased it. "How can you prove the Bible was inspired by God?" is a better phrasing since it places the burden of proof on those making an extraordianary claim. Why does God only write books? Can he code software? If God published an OS better than OS/X I just might worship him. How about a musical?
bcgonynor 1 year ago
"... provide a basis for logic, reason, science, morality.. like the bible does." The bible fails to do any of those things.
Where is the scientific method in the bible? Your belief in the bible is arbitrary. Be skeptical of all books. It ISN'T just the bible. I can't believe a full grown modern man believes that there really was a man named Samson who killed an army of 1000 men with the jawbone of a donkey, then caught 300 foxes, tied their tails together and lit them on fire. In reality.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker Sorry if these things can exist outside the confines of your little three pound brain. Do you reject everying you can't understand, or just the parts that you choose in order to maintain your pseudo-scientific facade? Do you understand how the particles of an atom hold together? Can you explain to me how the planets orbit the sun with regularity?
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago
@hugesinker Can you explain to me where the matter and energy in the universe came from? How about what the weather is going to be tomorrow? Your response is your own philosophical bias--you can't even explain how your mind works that you treasure so dearly. But you don't reject that. And yet you're going to discard the Bible cause you can't understand the account of Samson...
JesusIsUrSaviour 1 year ago