The origins of atheism

[ecco]

Hi Ecco,
You've just described philosophy.
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence

No. You described philosophy.
I presented what could be considered a philosophical viewpoint.

 

[Colter]

The first sentence in the post I quoted is wrong. If Revelations affirms that first sentence, then Revelations is wrong. It's really that simple.

Your pull quote would be true to a wise philosopher, but you obviously aren't one, so you see without seeing.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Ummm....okay?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Scientific_inaccuracies_in_the_Bible

It is a horrendously false idea that religion and science are enemies, that these fields can never come to agreement. God is most certainly on the side of science. He supports (and has actually established) the real purpose of science, that is, the search for and establishment of truth among human beings. All truth is God’s truth. However, God is not for that ‘science’ which is done without integrity. He is not for research done for political purposes and which bends both the methods of fact-finding and the interpretation of the results so that that they support whatever the researcher wants to publicly promote. As an individual who had my dissertation research published in a scientific journal, I know how easy it is to falsify data. I could have easily done so and no one would have known the difference.

Some positive news: both deliberate lies and ignorant errors must eventually fall to the wayside, for all misinformation is short term. The truth will show itself again and again, and ultimately it cannot be covered up. This is why I believe that natural truth (revealed from nature and our scientific study of it) and scriptural truth (special revelation more directly from God to human beings) will eventually come together and be of one piece, a unity without contradiction or conflict of interpretation. Yes, we have a long way yet to go.

http://www.virtueonline.org/bible-and-science-preliminary-principles-associated-gods-purposes

 

[DogmaHunter]

When our beliefs are uncertain that's when hope is the most powerful because it gives us a reason to continue making rational assumptions that can lead to the truth, which then allows us to be certain of our beliefs.

No. Hope does not imply beliefs or assumptions.

It seems you indeed don't understand the difference between the words.

 

[AirPo]

Your pull quote would be true to a wise philosopher, but you obviously aren't one, so you see without seeing.

Actually it was basic logic.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

I take it you will not be starting a thread to discuss said huge amount of evidence?

Nope. I already have read (and have) the books by Josh McDowell ("Evidence That Demands a Verdict"). Anyone interested can order them on Amazon.com. No thread would do these justice, it would be pointless unless all who participated had read them. You would not be sufficiently interested to invest the time.

 

[AirPo]

Nope. I already have read (and have) the books by Josh McDowell ("Evidence That Demands a Verdict"). Anyone interested can order them on Amazon.com. No thread would do these justice, it would be pointless unless all who participated had read them. You would not be sufficiently interested to invest the time.

I hope you ddn't pay any money for them.


'Evidence' That Demands a Refund (2001)

 

[Chriliman]

No. Hope does not imply beliefs or assumptions.

It seems you indeed don't understand the difference between the words.

Do you care to explain your view about the difference between the words?

 

[AV1611VET]

Provide 1 contemporary source that confirms the claims of Jesus's life.

QV please:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

And I repeat, no credible evidence has ever been produced that testifies to the existence of your, or anyone else's, god.

You mean other than churches, cathedrals, hymns, decals, organizations, hospitals, iconography, holidays, and martyrs?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you care to explain your view about the difference between the words?

"hope the truth can be known": I would personally like it better if the truth can be known
"assuming the truth can be known": actually believing the truth can be known.

One expresses a preference.
The other expresses a belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the people supposedly inspired by God to write in the original Hebrew and Greek were wrong?

No, not at all.

You don't understand what I said.

Here it is again:

Where the King James Bible differs with the originals, the originals are wrong.

The Hebrew & Greek writings that were inspired by God would not have been wrong.

So to tell if a Hebrew or Greek writing is authentic, compare it to the KJB.

And given that we no longer have the original Hebrew & Greek writings ...

So in short, the KJB will never differ with the originals because:

1. We don't have the originals.
2. Both Writings were superintended by God.

A good example is a dollar bill.

Where a dollar bill differs from a mint dollar bill, the mint dollar bill is wrong.

So if someone shows you a mint dollar bill, and it differs from the dollar bill in your wallet, then you know the mint dollar bill that someone is showing you is not really a mint dollar bill.

It is a counterfeit.

 

[AirPo]

You mean other than churches, cathedrals, hymns, decals, organizations, hospitals, iconography, holidays, and martyrs?

None of those testifies to the existence of your God.

 

[ecco]

ecco:

From your (LynnC) link:

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.​

Consider:
A family of four. A woman, her husband, their 3 year old son and their 10 year old daughter.
The husband/father has already been slain
The wife/mother will be slain
The 3 year old son will be slain
What do you think is going to happen to the 10 year old daughter?
Do you believe a nice 14 year old boy is going to say “When we get older I'd like to marry you”?

Really? They have already slain all the men, all the older women, all the young boys. Are so enamored with the bible that you find it impossible to apply any critical thinking?
​

Greetings Ecco,
I think we can not deduce, by what is written, that it was a rape culture.
That would be making presumptions without proper evidence.

Throughout the recorded history of man, victorious invaders have killed males and raped females. I was going to post detailed accounts to provide evidence. However, I decided to keep the brutal details off these pages. The next two sites provide those details if you are inclined to read them for yourself:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/9...ls-sold-at-sex-slave-market-interview-143690/​

The next one gives a timeline that goes back to the era we are discussing.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_rape1.htm
In ancient times: rape was a reward to the victors: The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)​

I can't disprove what you want to believe, but neither do I jump to the worst of all conclusions without evidence.

You don't need to jump to any conclusions without evidence. You just have to look at the evidence.

Perhaps you just have a problem accepting that Moses would be so brutal.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.​

 

[Belk]

Nope. I already have read (and have) the books by Josh McDowell ("Evidence That Demands a Verdict"). Anyone interested can order them on Amazon.com. No thread would do these justice, it would be pointless unless all who participated had read them.

I see. You are certainly not making this book sound very convincing if discussing it's contents is pointless.

You would not be sufficiently interested to invest the time.

I tell you what. How about you stick to expressing your own thoughts instead of telling me what mine are.

 

[Colter]

Actually it was basic logic.

Basic logic dictates that the whole person view the whole of reality not just one aspect.

​

 

[AirPo]

Basic logic dictates that the whole person view the whole of reality not just one aspect.

​

No it doesn't

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is a horrendously false idea that religion and science are enemies,

At a fundamental level, they are.

 

[Chriliman]

"hope the truth can be known": I would personally like it better if the truth can be known

Don't you prefer this because it would make sense that the truth can actually be known? If not then why would you personally like it better if the truth can be known?

"assuming the truth can be known": actually believing the truth can be known.

If you would like it better if the truth can be known because it would make sense for it to be knowable, why not assume/believe it is knowable? And saying: "because I don't know" is not a valid answer, it's a cop out.

Sorry, I can't help but feel like you're calling me irrational for believing the truth can be known, yet you can't explain why it's irrational and instead your own words imply it is in fact rational to believe the truth is knowable.

I can explain why it is rational, which I just did, based on your own words. If you claim I'm wrong, it's because you're changing your own words. Why do that?

 

[Colter]

No it doesn't

The fact that you have a difference of opinion proves the point....but that may still allude you.