For all the Christians on here.

[mk]

But I'm not the one trying to disprove or prove anything. That's kind of the point.

The reply was for erikistired and his silly Devil's advocate logic, not you.

 

[Malak]

The reply was for erikistired and his silly Devil's advocate logic, not you.

His devil's advocate reply was referencing me and responding to someone else that is trying to prove/disprove in every single thread.

 

[zinfamous]

Odd, because I've never seen a theologian that didn't believe it. Don't start with this nonsense of "in fact" crap, when you have no facts at all. Generally that means you just want someone else to be wrong, without having any means of legitimately showing a case for why.

Feel free to prove it wrong, I don't even care! The who and why doesn't really matter.

haha, yes. History is of no importance, when the book proclaims itself the truth.

Then why is there such a push to dig up physical evidence of such events? People try to prove the "truth" of the ark all of the time. The shroud...all of this silliness.

There is indeed plenty of historical evidence for the man that was Jesus, the events surrounding his time in Jerusalem. The problem is, it gets muddled when the book likes to re-shape the historical records that existed before the gospels were written.

anyway, here's a good start:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

the commentators are all theologians, the ones who write these books. All of them from well-respected divinity schools. Roman history is quite extensive. In fact, it's almost shocking how much we actually do know about this time period.

"but but but Frontline is liberal clap-trap!" some will say. to that...I say, "lol"

 

[sandorski]

Jerry Falwell will be in hell, because he was intolerant and unloving.

How else would he be listening to Liberace?

 

[sandorski]

Actually, that is an interesting question. What did Jesus's death allow the Christians to do that Jews could not do? I was told the Jews would kill innocent lambs in order to atone for original sin and be allowed into heaven. In which case Jesus died so we wouldn't need to kill lambs?

Further more, if Jesus is taking the penalty of our sins (as taught by many versions of christianity) then shouldn't he be in hell?

The whole thing doesn't make any sense (which is to be expected from religion in general).

Not to mention that Lambs are tasty and we're gonna kill them anyway. :\

 

[Malak]

haha, yes. History is of no importance, when the book proclaims itself the truth.

It proclaims no such thing. In fact, there are a few things in it that I feel I can safely assume to be false.

Then why is there such a push to dig up physical evidence of such events? People try to prove the "truth" of the ark all of the time. The shroud...all of this silliness.

People don't try to prove the story of the ark, they try to prove it exists period. I don't believe it carried every animal, and I don't believe Noah and his family were the only people that survived the flood.

 

[Nik]

But I'm not the one trying to disprove or prove anything. That's kind of the point.

I just don't understand why you would continually choose to believe in something that doesn't exist, even after someone has tried opening your eyes to reality.

 

[zinfamous]

But I'm not the one trying to disprove or prove anything. That's kind of the point.

nor was I. There is no need to prove or disprove history, when the record survives. The extensive problems that exist today, and have existed, occur completely on the notion that some of taken fables to be literal representations of truth. This is absolutely not the intent of the Torah. Nor the Bible--particularly when the record shows that the gospels, and much later silly little chapters such as Revelations, were written as political discourse in the guise of a pretty good story.

When you want to start proclaiming that you know the truth behind the words (you've already proclaimed that your history books tell you this--so stop with this "I am not trying to prove/disprove anything" nonsense), there really is no less reason to interpret such words as driven by political motivation anymore than as a literal representation of some magical fairy man shelling out some pretty good advice about living well, oh--and being the son of God and such. the contradictions from gospel to gospel rather accurately follow along the sentiment of the various decades in which they were written.

 

[Nik]

It proclaims no such thing. In fact, there are a few things in it that I feel I can safely assume to be false.

So why do you believe? By your own words, you can't cherry pick.

People don't try to prove the story of the ark, they try to prove it exists period. I don't believe it carried every animal, and I don't believe Noah and his family were the only people that survived the flood.

How can you pick and choose what to believe?

 

[zinfamous]

It proclaims no such thing. In fact, there are a few things in it that I feel I can safely assume to be false.



People don't try to prove the story of the ark, they try to prove it exists period. I don't believe it carried every animal, and I don't believe Noah and his family were the only people that survived the flood.

then...what is the point? There are those that seek to find literal examples of these stories in the world, and there are those that literally believe, word for word--the truth of this.
Is there any reason to prove that "an ark" existed any more or less than to try and prove that "The Ark" existed?

I'm arguing the concept here. Not putting this on you, per se, just saying that with a large segment of the fundies, the purpose of finding such physical evidence is to justify "the truth," word for word.

Hell, why isn't anyone looking for Gilgamesh's boat?

 

[Malak]

I just don't understand why you would continually choose to believe in something that doesn't exist, even after someone has tried opening your eyes to reality.

This is the best response you've ever posted.

My reality is that God does exist, miracles do happen, and loving you is more important than trying to get you to believe in God.

I have never had the intention of proving God exists to anyone.

 

[Nik]

This is the best response you've ever posted.

My reality is that God does exist, miracles do happen, and loving you is more important than trying to get you to believe in God.

I have never had the intention of proving God exists to anyone.

But why do you continue to believe in something when you have absolutely no reason to believe?

Why choose to be insane?

Why not choose to believe in santa instead? What made you choose the judeo christian god over anything else equally preposterous?

 

[Locut0s]

THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT PIE!

UHHHH... Christian Pie I guess:

 

[Malak]

But why do you continue to believe in something when you have absolutely no reason to believe?

Why choose to be insane?

Why not choose to believe in santa instead? What made you choose the judeo christian god over anything else equally preposterous?

Why do you think I have no reason to believe? Because you couldn't find a reason?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Why do you think I have no reason to believe? Because you couldn't find a reason?

If you had one, you would've stated it by now. In the end, it takes faith.

 

[moshquerade]

 

[sandorski]

THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT PIE!

UHHHH... Christian Pie I guess:

If you don't stick your Penis in the Pie, Jesus died for nothing!

 

[Locut0s]

Thanks mosh

 

[HeavyD]

Been following this thread all day and have been enlightened. Have to admire Atheist for challenging one to not take what you have been taught at face value. Do your own research and think for yourself.

Something like is the Bible the word of God? The answer is no but that's a whole other thread.

 

[Malak]

I tried to get a counter-meme going with that picture to the no wai meme by putting Yahweh! on it.

 

[Nik]

Why do you think I have no reason to believe? Because you couldn't find a reason?

Because you refuse to testify. It's an honest question. It's probably one of the few questions I ask about religion that don't have some sort of argumentative retort already prepared, simply because of the nature of the question. It's the first question that broke me of my brainwashing so it's the one I find myself asking believers in earnest. Really, truly, why do you believe?

 

[Malak]

Because you refuse to testify. It's an honest question. It's probably one of the few questions I ask about religion that don't have some sort of argumentative retort already prepared, simply because of the nature of the question. It's the first question that broke me of my brainwashing so it's the one I find myself asking believers in earnest. Really, truly, why do you believe?

It is a legitimate question, but my issue is why you ask it. It has nothing to do with my refusal to answer it, and I'm not refusing. I just want to be clear that you are honest about why you ask.

 

[dud]

I just don't understand why you would continually choose to believe in something that doesn't exist, even after someone has tried opening your eyes to reality.

I pity you. If you are correct in your assumption that there is no God then you are doomed. If you are incorrect ... and there is a God then you are worse then doomed for you have heard ... but not taken heed.


Nik, suggest you cease in your rantings as anyone who actually believes will not be convinced by your "logic" ... and those who do not believe are already without any sort of faith.

What gets me about atheists and agnostics (like Nik) is that they just cannot stand that fact that people cannot believe in something that cannot be seen and that they cannot believe in anything unless they are shown proof.


""Is it because you have seen me that you have believed? How blessed are those who have never seen me and yet have believed!" John 20:29 NIV


Nik, you are as pathetic as I am. You will convince no one with your "logic".

 

[sandorski]

If you are correct in your assumption that there is no God then you are doomed.

What? :\

 

[Nik]

I pity you. If you are correct in your assumption that there is no God then you are doomed. If you are incorrect ... and there is a God then you are worse then doomed for you have heard ... but not taken heed.


Nik, suggest you cease in your rantings as anyone who actually believes will not be convinced by your "logic" ... and those who do not believe are already without any sort of faith.

What gets me about atheists and agnostics (like Nik) is that they just cannot stand that fact that people cannot believe in something that cannot be seen and that they cannot believe in anything unless they are shown proof.


""Is it because you have seen me that you have believed? How blessed are those who have never seen me and yet have believed!" John 20:29 NIV


Nik, you are as pathetic as I am. You will convince no one with your "logic".

What logic is that? Simply asking for proof?

Isn't it the duty of the person making wild claims to provide supporting evidence as to why they believe as they do? Blind faith is evil.