@SBFlopple According to you I have the right to: murder, bully and steal as long as I'm not seen doing any of it (rights are those things we can do freely unless someone stops us). So if nobody stopped me I could do whatever I want?
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
I couldn´t love this more,I´m a taoist and think of it more as a spiritual and occultist philosophy but also think secularism and freedom of thinking should make up the basis of any society which claims itself to be progressive and truly humane,there´s no true goodness without secularism but only religious conceptions of it !
He says the same thing on every video. It's not groundbreaking stuff. At least Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have some KNOWLEDGE in their brains.... (albeit mostly put to waste. Nonetheless.....)
If god did/does exist then what right does he have to judge us? A father hasn't got the right to judge his son and a creator hasn't got the right to judge his creation.
@JamesSkuzz Actually, I very much DO have the right to judge my son, or anyone else I choose. Rights are those things we can do freely unless someone prevents us from doing them: life, speech, et cetera. You don't have the right to try to stop me from forming an opinion about someone's actions; you do have the right to dislike my doing so.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
The issue of atheistic dogma and scientific fundamentalism goes far beyond those words being dropped by theists as part of a strawman argument. There is a degree of resistance to change among scientists; look at any major scientific discovery and you'll find plenty of detractors whose sole opposition was based in their convictions about what they "knew" to be true.
@SBFloppie Yes, what they "knew" from their religion. Name one scientist today who continues to hold an outdated belief, I can think of one, the head of the human genome research project, who continues to believe that Jesus died for him.
@ShouldersofGiants100 Global cooling is one thing that stands out in my mind. Remember when that got shot down? Or most anything to do with quantum mechanics. Pick any relatively new idea in science, and you'll find a generation of scientists resisting it because it turns over *something* that is fundamental to their worldview. Human beings don't like finding out that they were mistaken about things, no matter how much we profess to be unbiased and impassionate.
@SBFloppie You are confusing scientific discourse with a refusal, no scientists do not accept new ideas on a whim, they require the highest standard of proof before they will change the idea, I am aware of the examples you have provided and for none of them is the evidence complete, science will not lower its burden of proof to the level of religion
@ShouldersofGiants100 Clearly you aren't open to an honest discussion and instead resort to "us versus them" mentality by arguing that all scientists think one way, all religious people think another, and drawing a vast chasm between religion and science. I see that it would be futile to discuss this with you as you can't accept the idea that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, and just as prone to pride (possible more so?) as the rest of us.
I accept that scientists are human, I simply reject the idea that a scientist will stand against the very fundamental principle of science, namely advancing the general knowledge. A scientist who breaks this fundamental principle is ostracized, just ask cold fusion proponents.
@ShouldersofGiants100 "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." -Einstein
Scientists resist new ideas all the time because they fly in the face of things they have accepted as fact for years. Right now you're refusing to consider the notion that a scientist can be guilty of dogma simply because of their chosen profession, yet you think scientists incapable of doing the same thing?
@SBFloppie The Einstein quote you provided is misapplied, he did not believe in "a personal god", even cursory research would reveal this.
Scientists, as I explained, do not (as a collective, I cannot speak to individual motives) do not reject an idea that goes against common belief to protect that belief, they do it to prevent ideas that are inaccurate from getting through, also your points are not relevant, no scientific theories contrary to evolution of any type exist, or have been presented
@ShouldersofGiants100 I never said anything about Einstein believing in any particular God. You completely missed my point. Hint: it's regarding the real meaning behind that quote.
You're arguing points I haven't made. When you're done with the straw men, can we get back to the discussion about how scientists are perfectly capable of dogmatic thinking?
Actually, it was not a Straw man, that requires someone to restate an argument. I apologise if I misinterpreted the quote, but I have only ever seen that used by fools to deputize Einstein as agreeing with them.
Your second point shows you ignored the bulk of my post, which is directly on the discussion you want to have, respond too that part of the post, which shows why belief in evolution of any type is not dogmatic.
@ShouldersofGiants100 A strawman argument can simply be based on false assumptions. Such as the one that my argument has *anything* to do with evolution. You hold up science as this great infallible thing; I see it as an ideal, something to which we aspire but even the best of scientists fall short of. I'm here warning against dogmatic adherence to scientific theory in the face of evidence, and you're insisting that scientists never do that, and that any who do aren't real scientists.
In order for it to be a fallacy the position has to be deliberately misrepresented, assuming an ambiguous quote to have a purpose is not misrepresenting it. You then proceeded to crate your own straw man, I never claimed science was infallible, but in spite of my persistent efforts to get examples of where this dogmatism has come out in the last 50 years, you refuse to provide one, look at your first post in this discussion and give me names so I have a clue what evidence backs you.
@SBFloppie "human as the rest of us, and just as prone to pride (possible more so?) as the rest of us."
Sure, scientists are human...however, the vast majority of scientists are as humble as they come constantly insisting that they might be wrong and focusing on evidence leaving interpretation of evidence to the scientific community as a whole. If anything, they have LESS pride than your average person.
@SBFloppie "There is a degree of resistance to change among scientists"
As there should be... HOWEVER, new evidence enhance and augment scientific theories and models ALL the time. Science wouldn't be science if it wasn't flexible accommodating new discoveries and evidence. What exactly is your point?
@fuck192ass That's the danger about the new atheist movement. The ideas that serves as the basis of the movement can eventualy be taken as dogmas, and then the atheists become so obsessed by their (un)beliefs that they can't see their own mind narrowing, difficulting interaction and relation with theits and deists people.
You are wrong in this Sam Harris! I am an agnostic but I've talked to, call it a psychic, fortune teller, and he told me of details that could have not been guessed....anyway I love your speech most of times
Seriously! the person who told me stuff could not guess, I believe in it! seems there are many out there that talk about very simple things that are easy to guess or general stuff but If you talk to a good one like I did you will be suprise
@franciszek8D "The question is why we have so many religions if we all believe in one God? Human imagination is to be blamed!" "Only Jesus fulfilled all these requirements." And what about that Jesus? What about his supposed miracles? What about people seeing random Jesuses in the paint? He is dead, all this mythology around Christianity is just a figment of imagination. And think before blaming Mohammed or Buddha as false prophets. If anything Buddhism is more realistic than Christianity.
I think that it is good that Sam challenged our beliefs. If you really try to find truth and are determined to live according to the truth you will find God. So many people challenge His existence because their lives are broken. Examine your conscience! If you brake natural law or Decalogue you are not interested in the existence of Creator because You are afraid to be punished.
@franciszek8D How are you different from a battered wife who is beaten by her husband when she doubts him or does not obey him? But when she does obey him, he loves her? THe way you present your deity and your religion as the true religion is arrogant. The gods you don't believe in, I don't believe in. But you have chosen a god after dismissing the others. And you see me doubting your god as an opposing doctrine instead of a base line.
Hey kiddhitta! I'm a midget, and I'm really offended by his "troll" remark! Plus, beware of anybody that's so sure of themselves like him, I smell a rat.
@MichaelnChristine of course you did. You're much better read, and way smarter than me, that's why you're atheist. The "smart ones" are the atheists, aren't they? Of course you've let us all know how superior you are so far.
My views on edits and mistranslations are based on study. You can consult Bart Ehrman's books on the subject as well so going to seminary. I did. As far as 99% ignore 100's of rules it's a rough approximation but not inaccurate. Please name me 1 Christian who has killed homosexuals the way God requires. Or beats their children. Or requires women to be silent in the presence of a man (that last one is Timothy 2 if you want to check it). So MOST Christians ignore most biblical laws. FACT.
@MichaelnChristine read the New Testament yourself, maybe you havent noticed that there is a chronological order there.....The archaic laws were rebuked by Christ, or maybe you havent gotten that far yet.
@helpmetony More diarrhoea of the mouth. Please a little pith. Just as you are woefully ignorant of 1 Peter 3:15 you seem to have forgotten Mathew 5:17. "17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." This is sort of pathetic....
@helpmetony Because it's true. If the ancient Greek Empire had still existed and colonized America, you would be worshiping Zeus vs the Christian god. In fact, Zeus seems to be kinder, less racist/sexist/plain evil, etc.
@fioszip Zues is not worshipped 2000 years later by millions and millions of people. Perhaps you are with Dawkins, and think that these millions are all just "mass hallucinating?"
@helpmetony I won't speak for Dawkins but for myself I would say "ABSOLUTELY!" NEVER has anyone ever demonstrably shown God's existence. Believing something with no proof is at best a mistake and at worst a delusion. Also I think you need to check a history book to see just how long the Gods of the near and middle east were worshiped.
@MichaelnChristine ..do you believe that there is no supernatural anything? In other words, do you think there are things that may be real but are beyond our human comprehension?
@helpmony If there are things thing that are beyond human comprehension then how can either of us know it? We are both human.....aren't we? You aren't like Yuri Geller who claims to be from the planet Hoova are you? I don't believe anything exists outside of the natural order because I've seen no evidence that such a thing is possible. Neither have you because no evidence can exist for such a thing. So why should we believe a proposition on no evidence. A dragon is sitting on your shoulder
@MichaelnChristine well, first of all, you have no way of knowing what I've seen, or experienced. I too believe very much in natural order! What I'm saying is that if we do not open ourselves to admitting that there are things that exist beyond our comprehension, to me, that is very close-minded. agree?
@helpmetony If you, or any one of us has experienced a thing that thing, by definition, must be in the natural order. Our senses, our minds are part of nature and so if something is perceived by that sense and that mind the "thing" exists in nature. Therefore no experience that is seen, felt, heard, smelt, or imagined can be said to be outside of nature. It doesn't matter what it is, if you've perceived it is natural. Believing otherwise is a delusion.
@fioszip Christianity has the true God. Islam is a political movement, was from the beginning. Judaism is the Old Testament. Same God there as the Christian God.
Popularity surely does not make something true. I agree, but the historical authenticity of the Bible is overwhelming. Once we take a good look at it, of course.
@helpmetony Give proof that Christianity has all claims to a true god, besides circular-referencing the bible. Give proof it is not Jupiter, Zeus, or some obscure Mayan god. Otherwise, you're just showing signs of what I like to call CIS: childhood indoctrination syndrome.
@helpmetony You're avoiding my question. Where's the proof of Christianity having the true god? What loving god would tell men to beat their wives and instruct how hard to beat a slave?
@fioszip if you give me scripture reference for these, perhaps I can help..
The proof? That's entirely up to you to find. Not for me to tell you. I cannot. No one can. But, God can. I know this probably sounds really stupid to you..
@helpmetony Go to skepticsannotatedbible . com/women/long . html . Disgusting. You've basically admitted there is no proof. A non-existent deity can't give you existence of itself, it's a logical fallacy.
@helpmetony Actually it is your responsibly when asked, as he has. 1 Peter 3:15 (if I remember) says you must graciously and kindly offer your reasons for belief when asked. "Not up to you"? Actually it IS.
@helpmetony So I'm asking. A significant portion of the Bible was added hundreds of years after the fact, it was edited and re-edited, mistranslated and even today 99% of Christians ignore 100's of God's rules. What reason is there to believe. The Bible doesn't qualify. 1 week in seminary will prove that. The apologetics course teach you how to lie for the Bible. They don't call it that but that's what they are teaching. "If they ask just tell them THIS pseudoprofundity".
@MichaelnChristine first of all, you are making assumptions about mistranslation and editing a bit. Your facts and figures are made up. 99%? Christians are human, just as you and I are. Nobody is perfect. The Bible is a guideline on how to life a good, healthy, and compassionate life for yourself and more importantly for others, as Christ did.
Apolegetics and lying? Lying is not an option for the good apologists. It's one of the fundamental things you don't do.
@helpmetony Apologetics require that you lie. Anything that deliberately subverts the truth is a lie. The teaching of Jesus would not be a good/moral/healthy life. They require that you leave your family if they aren't Christian, they require a combination of unhealthful pacifism and rash, vengeful delusion. I suspect you've never made it through the New Testament much less the whole bible and are just arguing in these vague, apathetic ways due to ignorance.
@MichaelnChristine sure! my ignorance and lack of education is demonstrative of my Christian faith, isn't it? Of course, atheism is the smart way to go. Denying the existence of something that you cannot understand. Let's put US in charge of the universe, eventually we'll have ALL the answers! I'm sure that in the future, we will have the answer for the origin of the universe, and WHY it was created/happened. We will prove the origin of objective morality once and for all! I can't wait!
@helpmetony so you're a christian becasue you want answers but aren't willing to actually find the truth. so you latch on to a 2000 + year old story of fairy tales and myth and follow along with all the other sheep who were stupid enough to believe a lie. good for you. reject atheism because they dont know all the answer but aren't willing to lie about the questions they dont know.
@kiddhitta C- watch spelling and punctuation! Are we going to have to hold you back another year? I think I can interperet......personally, I don't care much for fairy tales. Now when you say, "believe a lie, good for you" , that's sarcasm, right?
@helpmetony I think you might wish to check your own use of punctuation before you try to correct others. Also your use of the English language, while colourful, is a bit hard to take from someone who claims to know everything by virtue of being on a first name basis with the almighty.
@kiddhitta I suspect "Helpmetony" is just a troll. If you look at our convo he doesn't know his Bible AT ALL. I've had to correct every philosophical and scriptural claim he's made. It's pathetic really.
@helpmetony I'm sorry but Atheists say "Sorry you haven't made your case, I don't believe your religion is true" it's the religious who claim to be on a first name basis with the creator of the universe and claim to have all their answers direct from it. So make your case. What convinced you that there is a God?
@helpmetony sorry i wans't aware my fucking youtube comment was going to read by a university english professor. and no its sarcasm not . you believe in lies and fairty tales.
@helpmetony Please look up "objective" in the dictionary. You are misusing words again. It's embarrassing to talk to you when you do that. Morals exist in our minds and therefore have no objective reality, they are subjective which is why a Catholic member of the SS had no problem killing Jews but you and I, presumably wouldn't do such a thing. If you are suggesting that morals can be "without bias", than that's a rather banal point to make and has nothing to do with God existing.
@MichaelnChristine who said you had to talk to me? More of your facts also! Great! The SS were all Catholic? Wow! You are a fount of knowledge! So the Catholics hated the Jews?!?!? I learn more and more everyday! Well done! Screwtape has a check in the mail for you!
@helpmetony Actually the majority of the 'Schutzstaffel' were confessing Catholics. I don't see what your point is or what it has to do with you not knowing the Bible while trying to convert and harass Atheists. How can you be a good Christian who doesn't KNOW anything about Christianity. Frankly I am starting to suspect you are a lonely 15 year old trolling rather than a pious believer.
Bible is fake. The Earth is 6000 years old? Science disproves this but Christains say to blindly reject real proof and accept faith or believing in something that does not exist. Doubt is humble. Would god create the Earth old just to trick us?
you should read The Bible Unearthed by 2 prominent Jewish archaeologists/historians who show (much to their chagrin) that the evidence does NOT prove the bible.
BTW, anyone here ever look at BibleArchaeology(dot)org ?
If some choose not to, its no surprise. As the father of the scientific method himself, Sir Francis Bacon, said: "People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true," and as Johann Fichte put it "men do not will according to their reason, but reason according to their will."
Yes, we are tendentious creatures by nature, us humans.
Actually, science presupposes not only mathematics, but logic itself. Logic itself cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted (only EXPRESSIONS of it can be).
In the end, there is absolutely no separating science from the metaphysical. Metaphysics and science go hand in hand.
I suppose the rationale used by some people could easily be used to disprove the documented history of the Hun empire.
According to multiple records, the Huns owned hundreds of thousands of horses. AND YET, as The Cambridge History of Inner Asia points out "not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns"!
In other words, there is not a SHRED of "proof" that the Huns owned horses.
Yes, but I bet a lot of people (not including me) would just shoot back with "But the old Hun records don't make an extraordinary claims!"
To which I reply, "Nonsense!" Especially considering they claim the Huns owned scores of thousands of horses and we can't find archaeological evidence of even ONE horse having been there.
To this, I guess a true skeptic would have to say, "Case closed! The Hun records are all a sham!"
Oh, yeah, ANY extraordinary claims is what I meant. Good eye!
I guess another thing I find interesting is when skeptics just go ahead and assert that archaeology has disproved the Bible, but then offer NO documentation or evidence to back up their assertion.
Making claims without valid evidence is obviously bad when religious believers do it, but just as bad when "skeptics" do it.
@DareCherub Why do you seem so fit to assert that it's everybody's obligation to prove to you that your religion is wrong? The Bible makes a lot of claims which aren't supported by archaeology. That's ignoring claims of supernatural things and ignoring the fact that we have characters who breed with their own children and their offspring show absolutely no detrimental effects. Claims of witches and spirits and things which defy all laws of physics we know.
Whoa, hold the phone there a second! What's this talk about "my religion"? I don't recall claiming any religious affiliations.
My only point is that when religious people, let's say Bible believers in this case, claim historical aspects of the Bible can be supported by archaeology, the onus is on them to show the evidence. Hence websites like BibleArchaeology(dot)org.
But if people say archaeology DISproves the Bible, they also need to give evidence. So far, nobody here has.
@DareCherub Why is the Bible the only case of "religious people" you can really think of then? Why do you not think this for other religions? Why so much attention to this specific religion if you apparently aren't a member of it or something?
The problem is you're biased towards it apparently.
Besides, you're moving the goalpost, I didn't say that "archaeology disproves the Bible", you wanted a skeptical response to a group of videos you saw.
I was just following up on the conversation that took place on this thread a few days ago in which the Bible was apparently the central issue. I have nothing against talking about any other text though, including "The Atheist's Bible" if you want (yes, that book really does exist).
Also, I never said YOU claimed that "archaeology disproves the Bible" but you'd better believe someone else here HAS claimed that "biblical archeology has actually further disproved the bible."
@DareCherub Somehow I doubt you really know what "The Atheist's Bible" is or if it's absolutely anything like the Christian Bible, just taking it's title for the context.
If you weren't talking about me and my arguments then why were you bringing it up in the first place.
Yeah, I've seen plenty of people asserting that archaeology shows their religion is right. I've seen somebody claim a dirt formation is Noah's ark, along with pictures of a mountain being the Ark...
Believe it or not, I own a copy of "The Atheist's Bible." It's sitting right on the shelf behind me. No joke!
Yes, there have sure been a lot of what we could call archaeological hoaxes regarding the Bible. The question remaining is whether or not they are ALL hoaxes.
Anyway, I do NOT believe archaeology can prove the existence (or activity) of any God or gods. Even if archaeology can show the Israelites were once slaves in Egypt but escaped, it wouldn't prove Yahweh did it.
@DareCherub Just because you supposedly own a copy doesn't mean that you've read it. Took a brief look and I really have to wonder what claims are in there to "prove".
The problem with the hoaxes is that we've got people who are ready to believe something and willing to alter the facts in front of them if it will fit their religion's beliefs. Those cases were only the ones I've heard myself from Christians.
If you don't believe that, why were you bringing it up? Just for a reaction?
I've read it from cover to cover, but I don't expect you to believe I have. It makes a lot of assertions open to rational consideration. The very first page contains a passage: "The reason there are so many opinions is that NO ONE knows the Truth."
It also states, on p. 41, that "believers in science can be as dogmatic and faithful to their beliefs as some religions and religious believers are to theirs."
Anyway, there is no escaping metaphysical presuppositions in science.
@DareCherub I don't know, looks like you've just grabbed whatever quote you could somehow try to manipulate rather than giving it serious thought.
What's the connection really, I mean, you think it's a "metaphysical presupposition" to not believe in the Bible or something? Or to assume archaeology doesn't prove the Bible? What's your point you're trying to make if you're actually trying that is.
@sonic8005 Actually, I could fully quote any of the 174 pages of The Atheist's Bible you want to know about. But I'm sure not going to transcribe all of them here.
I just gave you a tiny sample of the assertions made in it, both of which you can rationally contemplate (if you so choose).
I do NOT believe it's a metaphysical presupposition to reject the Bible. Leave the Bible totally aside, if you want. I only said that science is founded upon various metaphysical presuppositions. And it is.
@DareCherub So... what was there to "prove through archaeology" in the Atheist Bible? Isn't that why you brought the book up in the first place?
None of those quotes have anything to do with archaeology...
"I do NOT believe it's a metaphysical presupposition to reject the Bible. Leave the Bible totally aside, if you want"
If you didn't wanna talk about the Bible then don't bring it up. Don't just change the subject to make new assertions to start new arguments whenever you want.
@sonic8005 In fact, as I've already said MULTIPLE times, I did NOT "bring up" the Bible. The Bible was "brought up" by the people engaging in the conversation that took place BEFORE I came on here. I just picked up on the train of thought. So stop saying I brought it up.
Also, I never said archaeology could prove or even test The Atheist's Bible. I just said I'd be willing to talk about its claims (if you want).
I'm also not "changing the subject." I'm just saying you can do so if you want.
@DareCherub Why did you even bring up the videos you were talking about in the first place then if you supposedly aren't concerned about or believing in it? You didn't respond to any conversations it would seem, you just asked if somebody could respond to a video which claims that archaeology proves the Bible.
Wrong, yet again. I am NOT the one who "brought up" the archaeology video in the first place. It was brought up in the conversation that took place BEFORE I ever came on here. If you don't believe me, go back and look for yourself.
@DareCherub "Just saw the Proving the Bible Through Archaeology doc. I wouldn't mind seeing any rebuttals skeptics might have to the specific points made in it."
Your exact comment word for word which I responded to. Yours was the only comment speaking about any such a thing at the time so you were the only one bringing up such a topic.
So, the question of why it even matters to you if you supposedly don't believe any of it is still relevant.
@DareCherub Along with people claiming that because a wheel was found in the Red Sea, that means that Moses parted the waters and the armies of Egypt were drowned there when they tried to pursue.... and last, but not least, that because the cities mentioned in the Bible existed, that means the Bible's true about all it's events.
When we discovery something that doesn't match up with what the Bible claims, it should at least count as contradictory evidence against said claims.
@ReResearcher I take it then you don't realize that biblical archeology has actually further disproved the bible? For example, there's zero evidence to suggest the hebrew people were ever enslaved in egypt.
Oxford states that "dogma" is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
If that is the definition, then basically everyone, including atheists and agnostics, accepts certain dogmas, although not all the same dogmas. Atheists accept ideas which we have no way of scientifically testing. For example, they accept mathematical truths, which science can only PRESUPPOSE (using science to "prove" mathematics is to argue in a circle).
@DareCherub The first ten minutes of the video were preaching what they believe. Sadly, most Christians don't properly do as the book tells them to do, actually, a lot of them do not whatsoever. Not a single evidence of actual archaeology in the first ten minutes, it's obviously not concerned about evidence as it's primary aspect.
Not to mention the concept seems a bit rigid. I've heard of people saying said cities exist and what not but that's evidence for miracles... how?
@sonic8005 Have you noticed that christians often claim archeology has helped prove the bible, but are completely unable to list any evidence to support their claims? And often when asked they dance around it, ignore it, or excuse it just saying it's out there go look! It's quite juvenile, not to mention annoying.
Just following the convo here and thought I'd interject something some might like to look at, or maybe not (either way, I don't care). There's this piece by Trent Dougherty titled Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Logical Consistency over on The Prosblogion (which is this site I check out whenever I'm not visiting RichardDawkins(dot)net). Dougherty's piece has some interesting comments under it too.
If you like Dougherty's thoughts or not, I really don't care. Just passing it along.
It is MUCH easier to disprove the existence of Zeus than it would be to disprove the existence of Allah, Marduk, Odin, or Yahweh. Zeus is said in the mythology of ancient Greece to dwell in an ETERNAL palace atop Mount Olympus. Unfortunately, Mount Olympus is a real place, located in northeastern Greece. Thus, to disprove the existence of Zeus, one need only climb to the summit of Olympus and look around. If there is no "eternal palace" there, Zeus is a lie.
@1kdtaylor Eh, one can just do as christians do and make up some explanation. For example, one could say while zeus is on top of the mountain, we can't see him because the gods reside in another dimension (like christians say of heaven). He'd still be on the top of the mountain, just out of phase with this reality.
@humanistheart You are quite right that one can do so. However, to do so would be to ignore what the ancient Greek mythological texts repeatedly say, to wit: Neither Zeus nor the Eternal Palace atop Olympus are invisible. In fact, precisely because they are not supposed to be invisible, the Greeks believed clouds encircled Olympus to prevent mortals from seeing the otherwise visible gods.
@1kdtaylor Very good point, but still, that's how faith works. For example, the judeo-christian bible expressly says humans were CREATED in one day, but now that evolution has disproved that, many claim that's just a metaphor. I'm sure a person of faith would have no more trouble 'rationalizing' this discrepancy for Olympus than christians have with the various things that disprove their religion.
It may be of interest to you to know that over 1500 years ago, St. Augustine wrote that the word "day" ("yom" in Hebrew) used in Genesis might very well mean something quite different from a strictly literal 24-hour day. After all, Genesis also says that "in the DAY" Adam partook of the fruit of the tree, he would "surely die" (Gen. 2:17), and yet he lived to be 930 years old, according to the record. Clearly, "day" did not mean a 24-hour period in this case.
@1kdtaylor As far as I'm aware "St" Augustine did not use the oldest available Aramaic writings when he translated that so including the hebrew word is hardly relevant. The example of adam not dieing that day is yet another example of the many things that disprove the religion, but that members manage to ignore.
@humanistheart Wow, two consecutive replies to little old me! I am honestly not sure how "Aramaic writings" enter into it, since, with the sole exception of a few chapters in Ezra and Daniel, the original manuscripts of the Old Testament (including Genesis) were strictly written in Hebrew.
And Augustine (who is traditionally designated "St. Augustine") was most certainly acquainted with Hebrew versions of scripture. In fact, he and Jerome famously disputed over the latter's Hebrew Bibles.
@humanistheart Dictionary(dot)com defines the noun form of "record" as "an act of recording; the state of being recorded, as in writing," among many other definitions. There is not one narrow definition.
Meanwhile, this notion of Adam not dying (or "dieing," as you humorously spelled it) that day somehow "disproving the religion presupposes, without any presented proof, that "day" MUST mean a literal 24-hour day.
Anyway, I am not a Biblical Inerrantist, so there isn't much to argue, for me.
@1kdtaylor By that definition one could say it's recorded that harry potter defeated the evil (what is his name? I'll take a stab at it) Mortivort.
You are providing examples of my point. Anyone who wants to continue believing in something clearly debunked with make up all manner of things to continue believing it, as your examples show.
I don't think that the exegetical analysis of the original Hebrew in which Genesis constitutes "making up all manner of things to continue believing." It is simply taking into account the linguistic paradigms out of which a text arose. This is just honest scholarship.
BTW, merely pointing out that "day" ("yom" in Hebrew) does not necessarily mean a 24-hour period does NOT prove that Genesis is true, and I realize that.
@1kdtaylor The point remains, just as christians will make up new rationales to allow them to continue believing their fiction, so would followers of zues.
It is interesting to note, though, in point of actual fact, that the "rationale" is NOT "new," since it days back to the writers of ancient world (St. Augustine, etc.). Even Abraham Ibn Ezra back in the 11th century wrote that Genesis can "only be understood in a figurative sense."
Meanwhile, there are exactly ZERO ancient Greek documents indicating that Zeus only lived "figuratively" atop Mount Olympus in a "figurative" Eternal Palace.
There was a reason the ancient Greeks postulated clouds (literally) encircling Olympus: It was supposed to shield the Eternal Palace of the Olympians (including Zeus) from the sight of mortals.
When we begin to speak in terms what followers of Zeus (or "zues" as you spelled it) "would" do, we are just dreaming.
@1kdtaylor You're claim is that it's harder to disprove the christian religion than the greek gods of old. The point remains, it's no harder to disprove christianity than the Olympians.
As a matter of fact, all you have to do to disprove the existence of the Olympians is climb to the summit of Mount Olympus and look around (no talk of how followers of Zeus "might" respond that the Olympians lived in another dimension is worth suggesting, here, because it has no basis).
On the other hand, as far as the Christian God goes, the most a rigid rationalist could say is that since He is supposed to live in Heaven, we can neither prove nor disprove His existence.
@1kdtaylor "since He is supposed to live in Heaven, we can neither prove nor disprove His existence."
I don't even have to go to Mt Olympus to disprove the christian god, so if anything it's easier. At any rate, 'heaven' in many passages is described in a physical sense, so it's hardly any different than with Zeus, and if Christians can say heavens in another realm than one can say the same of the Olympian god's.
@humanistheart Actually you cannot even begin to disprove the existence of the Christian God, nor can you even begin to disprove the existence of Allah, Marduk, Odin, etc.
What you COULD do, in theory, is prove that there is no good evidence that they exist.
On the other hand, Mount Olympus is right here on Earth.
@1kdtaylor First of all, Heaven was said to be in the sphere's above earth, thus our word 'heavens' meaning in the sky. Since we've been to space and not seen it it's no different than Mt Olympus.
Second, it's very easy to disprove the christian god. He's said to be all-knowing and all-powerful but those are mutually exclusive concepts, thus this god cannot exist as that is impossible.
@SBFlopple According to you I have the right to: murder, bully and steal as long as I'm not seen doing any of it (rights are those things we can do freely unless someone stops us). So if nobody stopped me I could do whatever I want?
JamesSkuzz 2 days ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
clairebehun 6 days ago
At least we still have guys like Sam Harris now that Hitchens died...
0122460166 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 3 weeks ago in playlist Atheism Magazine: Best Clips FFreeThinker
I couldn´t love this more,I´m a taoist and think of it more as a spiritual and occultist philosophy but also think secularism and freedom of thinking should make up the basis of any society which claims itself to be progressive and truly humane,there´s no true goodness without secularism but only religious conceptions of it !
Gwynsek 1 month ago
He says the same thing on every video. It's not groundbreaking stuff. At least Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have some KNOWLEDGE in their brains.... (albeit mostly put to waste. Nonetheless.....)
tpstrat14 1 month ago
big words are big.
litojonny 2 months ago
If god did/does exist then what right does he have to judge us? A father hasn't got the right to judge his son and a creator hasn't got the right to judge his creation.
JamesSkuzz 3 months ago
@JamesSkuzz Actually, I very much DO have the right to judge my son, or anyone else I choose. Rights are those things we can do freely unless someone prevents us from doing them: life, speech, et cetera. You don't have the right to try to stop me from forming an opinion about someone's actions; you do have the right to dislike my doing so.
SBFloppie 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
The issue of atheistic dogma and scientific fundamentalism goes far beyond those words being dropped by theists as part of a strawman argument. There is a degree of resistance to change among scientists; look at any major scientific discovery and you'll find plenty of detractors whose sole opposition was based in their convictions about what they "knew" to be true.
SBFloppie 4 months ago
@SBFloppie Yes, what they "knew" from their religion. Name one scientist today who continues to hold an outdated belief, I can think of one, the head of the human genome research project, who continues to believe that Jesus died for him.
ShouldersofGiants100 2 months ago
@ShouldersofGiants100 Global cooling is one thing that stands out in my mind. Remember when that got shot down? Or most anything to do with quantum mechanics. Pick any relatively new idea in science, and you'll find a generation of scientists resisting it because it turns over *something* that is fundamental to their worldview. Human beings don't like finding out that they were mistaken about things, no matter how much we profess to be unbiased and impassionate.
SBFloppie 2 months ago
@SBFloppie You are confusing scientific discourse with a refusal, no scientists do not accept new ideas on a whim, they require the highest standard of proof before they will change the idea, I am aware of the examples you have provided and for none of them is the evidence complete, science will not lower its burden of proof to the level of religion
ShouldersofGiants100 2 months ago
@ShouldersofGiants100 Clearly you aren't open to an honest discussion and instead resort to "us versus them" mentality by arguing that all scientists think one way, all religious people think another, and drawing a vast chasm between religion and science. I see that it would be futile to discuss this with you as you can't accept the idea that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, and just as prone to pride (possible more so?) as the rest of us.
SBFloppie 2 months ago
@SBFloppie
I accept that scientists are human, I simply reject the idea that a scientist will stand against the very fundamental principle of science, namely advancing the general knowledge. A scientist who breaks this fundamental principle is ostracized, just ask cold fusion proponents.
ShouldersofGiants100 2 months ago
@ShouldersofGiants100 "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." -Einstein
Scientists resist new ideas all the time because they fly in the face of things they have accepted as fact for years. Right now you're refusing to consider the notion that a scientist can be guilty of dogma simply because of their chosen profession, yet you think scientists incapable of doing the same thing?
SBFloppie 2 months ago
@SBFloppie The Einstein quote you provided is misapplied, he did not believe in "a personal god", even cursory research would reveal this.
Scientists, as I explained, do not (as a collective, I cannot speak to individual motives) do not reject an idea that goes against common belief to protect that belief, they do it to prevent ideas that are inaccurate from getting through, also your points are not relevant, no scientific theories contrary to evolution of any type exist, or have been presented
ShouldersofGiants100 2 months ago
@ShouldersofGiants100 I never said anything about Einstein believing in any particular God. You completely missed my point. Hint: it's regarding the real meaning behind that quote.
You're arguing points I haven't made. When you're done with the straw men, can we get back to the discussion about how scientists are perfectly capable of dogmatic thinking?
SBFloppie 2 months ago
@SBFloppie
Actually, it was not a Straw man, that requires someone to restate an argument. I apologise if I misinterpreted the quote, but I have only ever seen that used by fools to deputize Einstein as agreeing with them.
Your second point shows you ignored the bulk of my post, which is directly on the discussion you want to have, respond too that part of the post, which shows why belief in evolution of any type is not dogmatic.
ShouldersofGiants100 2 months ago
@ShouldersofGiants100 A strawman argument can simply be based on false assumptions. Such as the one that my argument has *anything* to do with evolution. You hold up science as this great infallible thing; I see it as an ideal, something to which we aspire but even the best of scientists fall short of. I'm here warning against dogmatic adherence to scientific theory in the face of evidence, and you're insisting that scientists never do that, and that any who do aren't real scientists.
SBFloppie 2 months ago
@SBFloppie
In order for it to be a fallacy the position has to be deliberately misrepresented, assuming an ambiguous quote to have a purpose is not misrepresenting it. You then proceeded to crate your own straw man, I never claimed science was infallible, but in spite of my persistent efforts to get examples of where this dogmatism has come out in the last 50 years, you refuse to provide one, look at your first post in this discussion and give me names so I have a clue what evidence backs you.
ShouldersofGiants100 2 months ago
@SBFloppie "human as the rest of us, and just as prone to pride (possible more so?) as the rest of us."
Sure, scientists are human...however, the vast majority of scientists are as humble as they come constantly insisting that they might be wrong and focusing on evidence leaving interpretation of evidence to the scientific community as a whole. If anything, they have LESS pride than your average person.
blaisingm 2 weeks ago 2
@SBFloppie "There is a degree of resistance to change among scientists"
As there should be... HOWEVER, new evidence enhance and augment scientific theories and models ALL the time. Science wouldn't be science if it wasn't flexible accommodating new discoveries and evidence. What exactly is your point?
blaisingm 2 weeks ago
@fuck192ass That's the danger about the new atheist movement. The ideas that serves as the basis of the movement can eventualy be taken as dogmas, and then the atheists become so obsessed by their (un)beliefs that they can't see their own mind narrowing, difficulting interaction and relation with theits and deists people.
(PS: sorry for my bad english, i'm brazilian)
gilsonunes 4 months ago
That music intro is ridiculously loud.
LithiumLogica 5 months ago
Sam Harris is just... dreamy...
incurablehumanist 7 months ago 2
You are wrong in this Sam Harris! I am an agnostic but I've talked to, call it a psychic, fortune teller, and he told me of details that could have not been guessed....anyway I love your speech most of times
aylinumber1 9 months ago
@aylinumber1
this isn't magic its very simple tricks with language and leading a person.
NefariousVirtuoso88 9 months ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88
Seriously! the person who told me stuff could not guess, I believe in it! seems there are many out there that talk about very simple things that are easy to guess or general stuff but If you talk to a good one like I did you will be suprise
aylinumber1 9 months ago
@aylinumber1
urgh ! ! !
NefariousVirtuoso88 9 months ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88
Please don't be upset, if you are. Is what I believe
aylinumber1 9 months ago
@aylinumber1
I'm not upset.
I just feel bad for you ... something this easy has tricked you.
There was even an episode of South Park on it.
If that person had supernatural gifts why isn't he / she world famous ?.
There is a reward available to people that can demonstrate supernatural powers in lab conditions. Google It.
... I wont hold my breathe - dont respond I wont even both reading it. I'm not upset.
NefariousVirtuoso88 9 months ago 2
@aylinumber1 Psychic nonsense is just another form of religious nonsense.
TacticusPrime 6 months ago
God is one and your God and my God is the same.
The question is why we have so many religions if we all believe in one God?
Human imagination is to be blamed!
If God is using someone as His prophet He has to empower him: in gift of prophesy, gift of performing miracles and gift of correct teaching.
Only Jesus fulfilled all these requirements.
So, in conclusion only Jesus came from God. Others like Mohammed or Buddha were false prophets. All of them can not be right because their teaching di
franciszek8D 9 months ago
@franciszek8D "The question is why we have so many religions if we all believe in one God? Human imagination is to be blamed!" "Only Jesus fulfilled all these requirements." And what about that Jesus? What about his supposed miracles? What about people seeing random Jesuses in the paint? He is dead, all this mythology around Christianity is just a figment of imagination. And think before blaming Mohammed or Buddha as false prophets. If anything Buddhism is more realistic than Christianity.
11115384 9 months ago
my god has balls......meatballs!
fermos11111 10 months ago
@franciszek8D lol. good troll bro. i don't know a single intelligent person who still believes in mytholgy
mrnoodleisdead 10 months ago
I think that it is good that Sam challenged our beliefs. If you really try to find truth and are determined to live according to the truth you will find God. So many people challenge His existence because their lives are broken. Examine your conscience! If you brake natural law or Decalogue you are not interested in the existence of Creator because You are afraid to be punished.
franciszek8D 11 months ago
@franciszek8D How are you different from a battered wife who is beaten by her husband when she doubts him or does not obey him? But when she does obey him, he loves her? THe way you present your deity and your religion as the true religion is arrogant. The gods you don't believe in, I don't believe in. But you have chosen a god after dismissing the others. And you see me doubting your god as an opposing doctrine instead of a base line.
evilyig 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATHEISTS....LICK MY ASSHOLE!
atheistdestroyer1 11 months ago
He boiled for you sins! Praise be FSM!
nicko1023456 11 months ago 2
Zeus isnt dead!
MercuryRis 11 months ago
Our god is a saucy god
he reins in space above
with pirates helping out to save
the ozone we love
Our god (echo) is saucy god
he reins (echo) as the noodly one
with complex carbons
oh may his sauce cover all of us
(A song I'm writing for his most supreme and noodliness. RAmen!)
newloser 1 year ago 77
@newloser
All hail the FSM!
He's actually a pretty cool guy, apparently.
thissystemneeds 1 year ago 30
@newloser And he said "Let ther be noodles and broth!" and lo, there WAS noodles and broth... and it was good. RAmen...
DeusExMach 10 months ago
@DeusExMach
ahhh - book of Gemelli verse 3 chapter 1.
RAmen... ay.
newloser 10 months ago
@newloser
So let it be written... so shall it be done.
newloser 6 months ago
@newloser
"reigns", not "reins".
Awesome otherwise--this is meant in the spirit of good-natured help.
B^)
PJW1269 8 months ago
@PJW1269
could be "rains"...
mcurtis6311 7 months ago
@mcurtis6311 Well strictly speaking, not in "Space". But I suppose if s/he existed s/he could rain in space if s/he wanted to.
Peace.
B^)
PJW1269 7 months ago
@PJW1269
HEIL GRAMMAR!!!
(and thanks - never hurts to be corrected every so often)
newloser 7 months ago
@newloser Should we not end the song/prayer with Parmesamen?
stramster1 6 months ago
Merry Christmas everyone!
Shadofx 1 year ago
The 99 people who don't like this can't have actually watched the video...
SFT24 1 year ago
@SFT24 Obviously religious nitwits thumbed it down. Who else would bother? I thumbed it up just to add another to the intelligent majority!
bartonim 1 year ago
@SFT24 you don't become religious by listening to reason
fatmeteor 11 months ago
Hey kiddhitta! I'm a midget, and I'm really offended by his "troll" remark! Plus, beware of anybody that's so sure of themselves like him, I smell a rat.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony I can't help that I spent 15 years studying your religion and know it better than you do. Suck it up and go read it yourself.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine of course you did. You're much better read, and way smarter than me, that's why you're atheist. The "smart ones" are the atheists, aren't they? Of course you've let us all know how superior you are so far.
helpmetony 1 year ago
My views on edits and mistranslations are based on study. You can consult Bart Ehrman's books on the subject as well so going to seminary. I did. As far as 99% ignore 100's of rules it's a rough approximation but not inaccurate. Please name me 1 Christian who has killed homosexuals the way God requires. Or beats their children. Or requires women to be silent in the presence of a man (that last one is Timothy 2 if you want to check it). So MOST Christians ignore most biblical laws. FACT.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine read the New Testament yourself, maybe you havent noticed that there is a chronological order there.....The archaic laws were rebuked by Christ, or maybe you havent gotten that far yet.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony More diarrhoea of the mouth. Please a little pith. Just as you are woefully ignorant of 1 Peter 3:15 you seem to have forgotten Mathew 5:17. "17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." This is sort of pathetic....
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
this guy has big fucken ears. good video though.
copedotsupdupdotorg 1 year ago
" It's an accident of history that we do not worship Poseidon?" How can this man seriously say this with a straight face?
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Because it's true. If the ancient Greek Empire had still existed and colonized America, you would be worshiping Zeus vs the Christian god. In fact, Zeus seems to be kinder, less racist/sexist/plain evil, etc.
fioszip 1 year ago
@fioszip that's a big "if". Zeus "seems"? huffing gas again? p.s., are you following me? three videos? it's getting weird!
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Yes, because Zeus doesn't condone prostitution, slavery, or telling women to shut up and make their husbands a sandwich.
Your Recent Activity box is really obvious by the way.
fioszip 1 year ago
@fioszip you are talking about a mythological character, or maybe you don't realize that.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony It's sad you don't realize how hypocritical your comment is.
fioszip 1 year ago
@helpmetony Zeus was just as real to the Greeks as the Christian god is to you.
fioszip 1 year ago
@fioszip Zues is not worshipped 2000 years later by millions and millions of people. Perhaps you are with Dawkins, and think that these millions are all just "mass hallucinating?"
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony I won't speak for Dawkins but for myself I would say "ABSOLUTELY!" NEVER has anyone ever demonstrably shown God's existence. Believing something with no proof is at best a mistake and at worst a delusion. Also I think you need to check a history book to see just how long the Gods of the near and middle east were worshiped.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine ..do you believe that there is no supernatural anything? In other words, do you think there are things that may be real but are beyond our human comprehension?
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmony If there are things thing that are beyond human comprehension then how can either of us know it? We are both human.....aren't we? You aren't like Yuri Geller who claims to be from the planet Hoova are you? I don't believe anything exists outside of the natural order because I've seen no evidence that such a thing is possible. Neither have you because no evidence can exist for such a thing. So why should we believe a proposition on no evidence. A dragon is sitting on your shoulder
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine well, first of all, you have no way of knowing what I've seen, or experienced. I too believe very much in natural order! What I'm saying is that if we do not open ourselves to admitting that there are things that exist beyond our comprehension, to me, that is very close-minded. agree?
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony If you, or any one of us has experienced a thing that thing, by definition, must be in the natural order. Our senses, our minds are part of nature and so if something is perceived by that sense and that mind the "thing" exists in nature. Therefore no experience that is seen, felt, heard, smelt, or imagined can be said to be outside of nature. It doesn't matter what it is, if you've perceived it is natural. Believing otherwise is a delusion.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@helpmetony I was hatched from an egg.
What's that? You want proof?
Were you there?
Kind of closed-minded no?
TheAtomicist42 1 year ago
@helpmetony Millions of people also laughed at those who believed the earth was round. Popularity doesn't make something true.
There's Christianity, Judaism and Islam as major religions in the world right now. Which one has the true god?
fioszip 1 year ago
@fioszip
@helpmetony
@MichaelnChristine
Check it:
ww w.an archa dia. c om
StarfishBingo 1 year ago
@fioszip Christianity has the true God. Islam is a political movement, was from the beginning. Judaism is the Old Testament. Same God there as the Christian God.
Popularity surely does not make something true. I agree, but the historical authenticity of the Bible is overwhelming. Once we take a good look at it, of course.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Give proof that Christianity has all claims to a true god, besides circular-referencing the bible. Give proof it is not Jupiter, Zeus, or some obscure Mayan god. Otherwise, you're just showing signs of what I like to call CIS: childhood indoctrination syndrome.
fioszip 1 year ago
@fioszip that's an assumption that is far from correct about me. Would you like to have a real discussion?
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony You're avoiding my question. Where's the proof of Christianity having the true god? What loving god would tell men to beat their wives and instruct how hard to beat a slave?
fioszip 1 year ago
@fioszip if you give me scripture reference for these, perhaps I can help..
The proof? That's entirely up to you to find. Not for me to tell you. I cannot. No one can. But, God can. I know this probably sounds really stupid to you..
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Go to skepticsannotatedbible . com/women/long . html . Disgusting. You've basically admitted there is no proof. A non-existent deity can't give you existence of itself, it's a logical fallacy.
fioszip 1 year ago
@fioszip ok then! time to move on. Good luck to you!, and keep up the negativity! I'm sure it will eventually do wonders for you.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Actually it is your responsibly when asked, as he has. 1 Peter 3:15 (if I remember) says you must graciously and kindly offer your reasons for belief when asked. "Not up to you"? Actually it IS.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine Thank you, You are correct.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony So I'm asking. A significant portion of the Bible was added hundreds of years after the fact, it was edited and re-edited, mistranslated and even today 99% of Christians ignore 100's of God's rules. What reason is there to believe. The Bible doesn't qualify. 1 week in seminary will prove that. The apologetics course teach you how to lie for the Bible. They don't call it that but that's what they are teaching. "If they ask just tell them THIS pseudoprofundity".
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine first of all, you are making assumptions about mistranslation and editing a bit. Your facts and figures are made up. 99%? Christians are human, just as you and I are. Nobody is perfect. The Bible is a guideline on how to life a good, healthy, and compassionate life for yourself and more importantly for others, as Christ did.
Apolegetics and lying? Lying is not an option for the good apologists. It's one of the fundamental things you don't do.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Apologetics require that you lie. Anything that deliberately subverts the truth is a lie. The teaching of Jesus would not be a good/moral/healthy life. They require that you leave your family if they aren't Christian, they require a combination of unhealthful pacifism and rash, vengeful delusion. I suspect you've never made it through the New Testament much less the whole bible and are just arguing in these vague, apathetic ways due to ignorance.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine sure! my ignorance and lack of education is demonstrative of my Christian faith, isn't it? Of course, atheism is the smart way to go. Denying the existence of something that you cannot understand. Let's put US in charge of the universe, eventually we'll have ALL the answers! I'm sure that in the future, we will have the answer for the origin of the universe, and WHY it was created/happened. We will prove the origin of objective morality once and for all! I can't wait!
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony so you're a christian becasue you want answers but aren't willing to actually find the truth. so you latch on to a 2000 + year old story of fairy tales and myth and follow along with all the other sheep who were stupid enough to believe a lie. good for you. reject atheism because they dont know all the answer but aren't willing to lie about the questions they dont know.
kiddhitta 1 year ago
@kiddhitta C- watch spelling and punctuation! Are we going to have to hold you back another year? I think I can interperet......personally, I don't care much for fairy tales. Now when you say, "believe a lie, good for you" , that's sarcasm, right?
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony I think you might wish to check your own use of punctuation before you try to correct others. Also your use of the English language, while colourful, is a bit hard to take from someone who claims to know everything by virtue of being on a first name basis with the almighty.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine haha thanks.
kiddhitta 1 year ago
@kiddhitta I suspect "Helpmetony" is just a troll. If you look at our convo he doesn't know his Bible AT ALL. I've had to correct every philosophical and scriptural claim he's made. It's pathetic really.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine much like many christian. if all christians read their bible, im sure there wouldn't be so many christians
kiddhitta 1 year ago
@kiddhitta RAmen to that! The more you know the less Christianity makes sense!!
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine if more Christians knew how to read the Bible, there would be alot less to make fun of, for sure.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine hahaha RAmen. may the FSM be with you.
kiddhitta 1 year ago
@kiddhitta For our God is a Saucy God...
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine and may one day we all become pirates and stop this thing we call global warming
kiddhitta 1 year ago
@kiddhitta Nice.....
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@! never claimed that. I thought YOU had all the answers! Keep 'em coming!
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony I'm sorry but Atheists say "Sorry you haven't made your case, I don't believe your religion is true" it's the religious who claim to be on a first name basis with the creator of the universe and claim to have all their answers direct from it. So make your case. What convinced you that there is a God?
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@helpmetony sorry i wans't aware my fucking youtube comment was going to read by a university english professor. and no its sarcasm not . you believe in lies and fairty tales.
kiddhitta 1 year ago
@kiddhitta I apologize. I have no business coming of like that. Accept my apology, please.
What do you believe in?
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony i believe that you are some wierdo who sits at his computer trying to preach a relgion that he knows nothing about. thats what i believe
kiddhitta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiddhitta believe what you will.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Please look up "objective" in the dictionary. You are misusing words again. It's embarrassing to talk to you when you do that. Morals exist in our minds and therefore have no objective reality, they are subjective which is why a Catholic member of the SS had no problem killing Jews but you and I, presumably wouldn't do such a thing. If you are suggesting that morals can be "without bias", than that's a rather banal point to make and has nothing to do with God existing.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine who said you had to talk to me? More of your facts also! Great! The SS were all Catholic? Wow! You are a fount of knowledge! So the Catholics hated the Jews?!?!? I learn more and more everyday! Well done! Screwtape has a check in the mail for you!
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Actually the majority of the 'Schutzstaffel' were confessing Catholics. I don't see what your point is or what it has to do with you not knowing the Bible while trying to convert and harass Atheists. How can you be a good Christian who doesn't KNOW anything about Christianity. Frankly I am starting to suspect you are a lonely 15 year old trolling rather than a pious believer.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
Bible is fake. The Earth is 6000 years old? Science disproves this but Christains say to blindly reject real proof and accept faith or believing in something that does not exist. Doubt is humble. Would god create the Earth old just to trick us?
TheMoTucker 1 year ago
you should read The Bible Unearthed by 2 prominent Jewish archaeologists/historians who show (much to their chagrin) that the evidence does NOT prove the bible.
srverons 1 year ago
BTW, anyone here ever look at BibleArchaeology(dot)org ?
If some choose not to, its no surprise. As the father of the scientific method himself, Sir Francis Bacon, said: "People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true," and as Johann Fichte put it "men do not will according to their reason, but reason according to their will."
ReResearcher 1 year ago
@ReResearcher
And as Goethe said, "As are the inclinations, so are the opinions."
Absolute "objectivity" is an absurd myth, especially when human beings are involved.
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub
Yes, we are tendentious creatures by nature, us humans.
Actually, science presupposes not only mathematics, but logic itself. Logic itself cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted (only EXPRESSIONS of it can be).
In the end, there is absolutely no separating science from the metaphysical. Metaphysics and science go hand in hand.
ReResearcher 1 year ago
@ReResearcher
True that! But I guess we shouldn't fault some people for overlooking these things.
Sam Harris doesn't actually even have a Ph.D. in philosophy, even though CNN once mislabeled him a "philosopher." Ha!
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub
I suppose the rationale used by some people could easily be used to disprove the documented history of the Hun empire.
According to multiple records, the Huns owned hundreds of thousands of horses. AND YET, as The Cambridge History of Inner Asia points out "not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns"!
In other words, there is not a SHRED of "proof" that the Huns owned horses.
Guess those Hun records are just "fairy tales."
ReResearcher 1 year ago
@ReResearcher
Yes, but I bet a lot of people (not including me) would just shoot back with "But the old Hun records don't make an extraordinary claims!"
To which I reply, "Nonsense!" Especially considering they claim the Huns owned scores of thousands of horses and we can't find archaeological evidence of even ONE horse having been there.
To this, I guess a true skeptic would have to say, "Case closed! The Hun records are all a sham!"
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub I'm guessing you meant "...ANY extraordinary claims..." True enough!
ReResearcher 1 year ago
@ReResearcher
Oh, yeah, ANY extraordinary claims is what I meant. Good eye!
I guess another thing I find interesting is when skeptics just go ahead and assert that archaeology has disproved the Bible, but then offer NO documentation or evidence to back up their assertion.
Making claims without valid evidence is obviously bad when religious believers do it, but just as bad when "skeptics" do it.
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub Why do you seem so fit to assert that it's everybody's obligation to prove to you that your religion is wrong? The Bible makes a lot of claims which aren't supported by archaeology. That's ignoring claims of supernatural things and ignoring the fact that we have characters who breed with their own children and their offspring show absolutely no detrimental effects. Claims of witches and spirits and things which defy all laws of physics we know.
sonic8005 1 year ago
@sonic8005
Whoa, hold the phone there a second! What's this talk about "my religion"? I don't recall claiming any religious affiliations.
My only point is that when religious people, let's say Bible believers in this case, claim historical aspects of the Bible can be supported by archaeology, the onus is on them to show the evidence. Hence websites like BibleArchaeology(dot)org.
But if people say archaeology DISproves the Bible, they also need to give evidence. So far, nobody here has.
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub Why is the Bible the only case of "religious people" you can really think of then? Why do you not think this for other religions? Why so much attention to this specific religion if you apparently aren't a member of it or something?
The problem is you're biased towards it apparently.
Besides, you're moving the goalpost, I didn't say that "archaeology disproves the Bible", you wanted a skeptical response to a group of videos you saw.
sonic8005 1 year ago
@sonic8005
I was just following up on the conversation that took place on this thread a few days ago in which the Bible was apparently the central issue. I have nothing against talking about any other text though, including "The Atheist's Bible" if you want (yes, that book really does exist).
Also, I never said YOU claimed that "archaeology disproves the Bible" but you'd better believe someone else here HAS claimed that "biblical archeology has actually further disproved the bible."
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub Somehow I doubt you really know what "The Atheist's Bible" is or if it's absolutely anything like the Christian Bible, just taking it's title for the context.
If you weren't talking about me and my arguments then why were you bringing it up in the first place.
Yeah, I've seen plenty of people asserting that archaeology shows their religion is right. I've seen somebody claim a dirt formation is Noah's ark, along with pictures of a mountain being the Ark...
sonic8005 1 year ago
@sonic8005
Believe it or not, I own a copy of "The Atheist's Bible." It's sitting right on the shelf behind me. No joke!
Yes, there have sure been a lot of what we could call archaeological hoaxes regarding the Bible. The question remaining is whether or not they are ALL hoaxes.
Anyway, I do NOT believe archaeology can prove the existence (or activity) of any God or gods. Even if archaeology can show the Israelites were once slaves in Egypt but escaped, it wouldn't prove Yahweh did it.
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub Just because you supposedly own a copy doesn't mean that you've read it. Took a brief look and I really have to wonder what claims are in there to "prove".
The problem with the hoaxes is that we've got people who are ready to believe something and willing to alter the facts in front of them if it will fit their religion's beliefs. Those cases were only the ones I've heard myself from Christians.
If you don't believe that, why were you bringing it up? Just for a reaction?
sonic8005 1 year ago
@sonic8005
I've read it from cover to cover, but I don't expect you to believe I have. It makes a lot of assertions open to rational consideration. The very first page contains a passage: "The reason there are so many opinions is that NO ONE knows the Truth."
It also states, on p. 41, that "believers in science can be as dogmatic and faithful to their beliefs as some religions and religious believers are to theirs."
Anyway, there is no escaping metaphysical presuppositions in science.
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub I don't know, looks like you've just grabbed whatever quote you could somehow try to manipulate rather than giving it serious thought.
What's the connection really, I mean, you think it's a "metaphysical presupposition" to not believe in the Bible or something? Or to assume archaeology doesn't prove the Bible? What's your point you're trying to make if you're actually trying that is.
sonic8005 1 year ago
@sonic8005 Actually, I could fully quote any of the 174 pages of The Atheist's Bible you want to know about. But I'm sure not going to transcribe all of them here.
I just gave you a tiny sample of the assertions made in it, both of which you can rationally contemplate (if you so choose).
I do NOT believe it's a metaphysical presupposition to reject the Bible. Leave the Bible totally aside, if you want. I only said that science is founded upon various metaphysical presuppositions. And it is.
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub So... what was there to "prove through archaeology" in the Atheist Bible? Isn't that why you brought the book up in the first place?
None of those quotes have anything to do with archaeology...
"I do NOT believe it's a metaphysical presupposition to reject the Bible. Leave the Bible totally aside, if you want"
If you didn't wanna talk about the Bible then don't bring it up. Don't just change the subject to make new assertions to start new arguments whenever you want.
sonic8005 1 year ago
@sonic8005 In fact, as I've already said MULTIPLE times, I did NOT "bring up" the Bible. The Bible was "brought up" by the people engaging in the conversation that took place BEFORE I came on here. I just picked up on the train of thought. So stop saying I brought it up.
Also, I never said archaeology could prove or even test The Atheist's Bible. I just said I'd be willing to talk about its claims (if you want).
I'm also not "changing the subject." I'm just saying you can do so if you want.
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub Ah, no sweat, DC. If you were a 21-year-old still, you might misapprehend a lot of things, too.
Anyway, I don't know what all this talk is about changing "THE subject," as if there can be only one single solitary subject at a time.
Last time I checked, in an open forum you can talk about whatever you want whenever you want.
ReResearcher 1 year ago
@DareCherub Why did you even bring up the videos you were talking about in the first place then if you supposedly aren't concerned about or believing in it? You didn't respond to any conversations it would seem, you just asked if somebody could respond to a video which claims that archaeology proves the Bible.
sonic8005 1 year ago
@sonic8005
Wrong, yet again. I am NOT the one who "brought up" the archaeology video in the first place. It was brought up in the conversation that took place BEFORE I ever came on here. If you don't believe me, go back and look for yourself.
DareCherub 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DareCherub "Just saw the Proving the Bible Through Archaeology doc. I wouldn't mind seeing any rebuttals skeptics might have to the specific points made in it."
Your exact comment word for word which I responded to. Yours was the only comment speaking about any such a thing at the time so you were the only one bringing up such a topic.
So, the question of why it even matters to you if you supposedly don't believe any of it is still relevant.
sonic8005 1 year ago
@DareCherub Along with people claiming that because a wheel was found in the Red Sea, that means that Moses parted the waters and the armies of Egypt were drowned there when they tried to pursue.... and last, but not least, that because the cities mentioned in the Bible existed, that means the Bible's true about all it's events.
When we discovery something that doesn't match up with what the Bible claims, it should at least count as contradictory evidence against said claims.
sonic8005 1 year ago
@ReResearcher I take it then you don't realize that biblical archeology has actually further disproved the bible? For example, there's zero evidence to suggest the hebrew people were ever enslaved in egypt.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart
A very intriguing claim. I await your documented proof with great interest.
Meanwhile, I feel just plain sorry for anyone too lazy to type in the URL for BibleArchaeology(dot)org and use the search feature on it.
ReResearcher 1 year ago
Oxford states that "dogma" is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
If that is the definition, then basically everyone, including atheists and agnostics, accepts certain dogmas, although not all the same dogmas. Atheists accept ideas which we have no way of scientifically testing. For example, they accept mathematical truths, which science can only PRESUPPOSE (using science to "prove" mathematics is to argue in a circle).
ReResearcher 1 year ago
Just saw the Proving the Bible Through Archaeology doc. I wouldn't mind seeing any rebuttals skeptics might have to the specific points made in it.
DareCherub 1 year ago
@DareCherub The first ten minutes of the video were preaching what they believe. Sadly, most Christians don't properly do as the book tells them to do, actually, a lot of them do not whatsoever. Not a single evidence of actual archaeology in the first ten minutes, it's obviously not concerned about evidence as it's primary aspect.
Not to mention the concept seems a bit rigid. I've heard of people saying said cities exist and what not but that's evidence for miracles... how?
sonic8005 1 year ago
@sonic8005 Have you noticed that christians often claim archeology has helped prove the bible, but are completely unable to list any evidence to support their claims? And often when asked they dance around it, ignore it, or excuse it just saying it's out there go look! It's quite juvenile, not to mention annoying.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@sonic8005 Yep, I couldn't agree more about the first ten minutes.
Meanwhile, I'd still like to see any possible rebuttals a skeptic might have to the specific points raised AFTER the first 10 minutes.
DareCherub 1 year ago
Just following the convo here and thought I'd interject something some might like to look at, or maybe not (either way, I don't care). There's this piece by Trent Dougherty titled Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Logical Consistency over on The Prosblogion (which is this site I check out whenever I'm not visiting RichardDawkins(dot)net). Dougherty's piece has some interesting comments under it too.
If you like Dougherty's thoughts or not, I really don't care. Just passing it along.
DareCherub 1 year ago
It is MUCH easier to disprove the existence of Zeus than it would be to disprove the existence of Allah, Marduk, Odin, or Yahweh. Zeus is said in the mythology of ancient Greece to dwell in an ETERNAL palace atop Mount Olympus. Unfortunately, Mount Olympus is a real place, located in northeastern Greece. Thus, to disprove the existence of Zeus, one need only climb to the summit of Olympus and look around. If there is no "eternal palace" there, Zeus is a lie.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor Eh, one can just do as christians do and make up some explanation. For example, one could say while zeus is on top of the mountain, we can't see him because the gods reside in another dimension (like christians say of heaven). He'd still be on the top of the mountain, just out of phase with this reality.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart You are quite right that one can do so. However, to do so would be to ignore what the ancient Greek mythological texts repeatedly say, to wit: Neither Zeus nor the Eternal Palace atop Olympus are invisible. In fact, precisely because they are not supposed to be invisible, the Greeks believed clouds encircled Olympus to prevent mortals from seeing the otherwise visible gods.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor Very good point, but still, that's how faith works. For example, the judeo-christian bible expressly says humans were CREATED in one day, but now that evolution has disproved that, many claim that's just a metaphor. I'm sure a person of faith would have no more trouble 'rationalizing' this discrepancy for Olympus than christians have with the various things that disprove their religion.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart
It may be of interest to you to know that over 1500 years ago, St. Augustine wrote that the word "day" ("yom" in Hebrew) used in Genesis might very well mean something quite different from a strictly literal 24-hour day. After all, Genesis also says that "in the DAY" Adam partook of the fruit of the tree, he would "surely die" (Gen. 2:17), and yet he lived to be 930 years old, according to the record. Clearly, "day" did not mean a 24-hour period in this case.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor As far as I'm aware "St" Augustine did not use the oldest available Aramaic writings when he translated that so including the hebrew word is hardly relevant. The example of adam not dieing that day is yet another example of the many things that disprove the religion, but that members manage to ignore.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart Wow, two consecutive replies to little old me! I am honestly not sure how "Aramaic writings" enter into it, since, with the sole exception of a few chapters in Ezra and Daniel, the original manuscripts of the Old Testament (including Genesis) were strictly written in Hebrew.
And Augustine (who is traditionally designated "St. Augustine") was most certainly acquainted with Hebrew versions of scripture. In fact, he and Jerome famously disputed over the latter's Hebrew Bibles.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor Also there is not 'record' claiming adam lived 930 years.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart Dictionary(dot)com defines the noun form of "record" as "an act of recording; the state of being recorded, as in writing," among many other definitions. There is not one narrow definition.
Meanwhile, this notion of Adam not dying (or "dieing," as you humorously spelled it) that day somehow "disproving the religion presupposes, without any presented proof, that "day" MUST mean a literal 24-hour day.
Anyway, I am not a Biblical Inerrantist, so there isn't much to argue, for me.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor By that definition one could say it's recorded that harry potter defeated the evil (what is his name? I'll take a stab at it) Mortivort.
You are providing examples of my point. Anyone who wants to continue believing in something clearly debunked with make up all manner of things to continue believing it, as your examples show.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart
I don't think that the exegetical analysis of the original Hebrew in which Genesis constitutes "making up all manner of things to continue believing." It is simply taking into account the linguistic paradigms out of which a text arose. This is just honest scholarship.
BTW, merely pointing out that "day" ("yom" in Hebrew) does not necessarily mean a 24-hour period does NOT prove that Genesis is true, and I realize that.
Like I said, I am not a Biblical Inerrantist.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor The point remains, just as christians will make up new rationales to allow them to continue believing their fiction, so would followers of zues.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart
It is interesting to note, though, in point of actual fact, that the "rationale" is NOT "new," since it days back to the writers of ancient world (St. Augustine, etc.). Even Abraham Ibn Ezra back in the 11th century wrote that Genesis can "only be understood in a figurative sense."
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@humanistheart
Meanwhile, there are exactly ZERO ancient Greek documents indicating that Zeus only lived "figuratively" atop Mount Olympus in a "figurative" Eternal Palace.
There was a reason the ancient Greeks postulated clouds (literally) encircling Olympus: It was supposed to shield the Eternal Palace of the Olympians (including Zeus) from the sight of mortals.
When we begin to speak in terms what followers of Zeus (or "zues" as you spelled it) "would" do, we are just dreaming.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor You're claim is that it's harder to disprove the christian religion than the greek gods of old. The point remains, it's no harder to disprove christianity than the Olympians.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart
As a matter of fact, all you have to do to disprove the existence of the Olympians is climb to the summit of Mount Olympus and look around (no talk of how followers of Zeus "might" respond that the Olympians lived in another dimension is worth suggesting, here, because it has no basis).
On the other hand, as far as the Christian God goes, the most a rigid rationalist could say is that since He is supposed to live in Heaven, we can neither prove nor disprove His existence.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor "since He is supposed to live in Heaven, we can neither prove nor disprove His existence."
I don't even have to go to Mt Olympus to disprove the christian god, so if anything it's easier. At any rate, 'heaven' in many passages is described in a physical sense, so it's hardly any different than with Zeus, and if Christians can say heavens in another realm than one can say the same of the Olympian god's.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart Actually you cannot even begin to disprove the existence of the Christian God, nor can you even begin to disprove the existence of Allah, Marduk, Odin, etc.
What you COULD do, in theory, is prove that there is no good evidence that they exist.
On the other hand, Mount Olympus is right here on Earth.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor First of all, Heaven was said to be in the sphere's above earth, thus our word 'heavens' meaning in the sky. Since we've been to space and not seen it it's no different than Mt Olympus.
Second, it's very easy to disprove the christian god. He's said to be all-knowing and all-powerful but those are mutually exclusive concepts, thus this god cannot exist as that is impossible.
humanistheart 1 year ago