Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[88keys]

When God says "thou shall not kill" and you kill millions of times, you are not Christian. Christians do not proclaim themselves to be replacements for God either.

Hitler was an antichrist.

Atheists are just annoying.

I thought Christians only followed the new testament....

does this mean that people who commit envy, gluttony, adultery, dishonour their parents, lie, steal, and idolatry are also not Christians?

Illogical? You guys are seriously grasping here. Things exist. Are you asking us to amputate whatever natural curiosity we have to ascertain their origin? Do we witness complex things like wristwatches come into being on their own, or is the fact that they exist evidence of a watchmaker?

I'm sorry, but if you want to deny what is plainly evident to a blind person, the burden of proof is on you.

If it was intelligent design, than it is most certainly a flawed design. Whoever thought it was a good idea to breath and eat through the same orifice?

So because a watch is proof of a watchmaker, a rock is proof of a rock maker, or a star is proof of a star maker.
We don't believe in rock makers or star makers because we understand the origins of these things much like we understand the origin of biological life. To just say "god did it" is just intellectually lazy.
How can you recognize design? crystals are one of the most ordered structures in the world, but we don't attribute it's existence to having been designed by a god because science has reached a perfectly satisfactory explanation for such things.
There is nothing wrong saying that a designed object is designed when there is no plausible natural explanation for it's existence.
But there is a naturalistic explanation for life called 'evolution'.

I suppose the only logical answer to that is that whatever the creator is, it has always existed; it is eternal. Otherwise you have an infinite regress of creators.

And what makes that conclusion logical?

 

[Jaskalas]

What created the creator?

I suppose the only logical answer to that is that whatever the creator is, it has always existed; it is eternal. Otherwise you have an infinite regress of creators.

This infinite loop is why you should surrender to Agnosticism before you guys dig a hole too far.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, I was religious until I realized that I had been programmed into believing things by people whose only evidence was a set of books they had been told were true by other people who had themselves been told it was true by other people, and so forth.

So, how do you know any of that happened?

The Bible is historically accurate when it touches on such matters of history -- if you don't know this, you haven't even remotely studied it.

This accuracy gives me confidence in what it says is true. That's how I know it happened -- I don't have to see it myself.

Obviously, you weren't around to see the historical facts you accept. With many things, we only have written records and some findings. That's sufficient enough.

The Bible, for instance, did make a prophecy about Ninevah, not only being destroyed, but lying desolate from then on. It's just a mound now, confirmed via secualr history.

 

[88keys]

But the bible is not entirely accurate as many things have been disputed due to mis translations and revisions.
And even if it was entirely accurate historically, how does that prove that it's god's divine word? It could still just as easily have been written by a man.

 

[Retro Rob]

But the bible is not entirely accurate as many things have been disputed due to mis translations and revisions.
And even if it was entirely accurate historically, how does that prove that it's god's divine word? It could still just as easily have been written by a man.

Mistranslations doesn't make it wrong -- it makes our translations flawed, not the Book itself.

What makes it stand out as a divine Book is its prophecies, like the one I just mentioned.

 

[OCNewbie]

How do you know?

The voices in someone's head said so and then they wrote it down! Duh!

Edit: Oh, and it happened a long time ago, but people STILL talk about it!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The Bible is historically accurate when it touches on such matters of history -- if you don't know this, you haven't even remotely studied it.

Religious people are able to cherry-pick a handful of things that, if interpreted in the right way, and with a significant amount of leeway, can be correlated to other historical accounts.

That's about it.

Most of the Bible is not even remotely "historically accurate". It is full of stories that are scientifically impossible, and ridiculous claims that no sane person could possibly believe.

The real truth is that you don't know if any of the things you believe happened actually happened. You simply don't care. You put the belief first, and then convince yourself of whatever is necessary to support the belief.

And that's why religion has nothing to do with science -- particularly your brand of religion.

The Bible, for instance, did make a prophecy about Ninevah, not only being destroyed, but lying desolate from then on. It's just a mound now, confirmed via secualr history.

Along with thousands of other cities. Wow, I'm so impressed.

Most of these "fulfilled prophecies" are the same sort of nonsense used by astrologers.

 

[Retro Rob]

Religious people are able to cherry-pick a handful of things that, if interpreted in the right way, and with a significant amount of leeway, can be correlated to other historical accounts.

You're in denial.

It is full of stories that are scientifically impossible, and ridiculous claims that no sane person could possibly believe.

So? God isn't a natrual phenomenom that can be tested via a flawed, and often time corrected "scientific method".

Move on from this, please.

The real truth is that you don't know if any of the things you believe happened actually happened. You simply don't care. You put the belief first, and then convince yourself of whatever is necessary to support the belief

The truth is you're, again, being presumptuous about myself and how I hold my beliefs. Again, why does this bother you?

And that's why religion has nothing to do with science -- particularly your brand of religion.

So? I don't care. You don't even know my brand of religion. LOL. That's what makes you wrong, and quite frankly, ignorant because you "know" my brand of religion without me having to tell you or you even bothering to ask.

Most of these "fulfilled prophecies" are the same sort of nonsense used by astrologers.

So?

I'm no astrologer.

 

[OCNewbie]

You're in denial.

Projecting

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You're in denial.

You're claiming the Bible is "historically accurate", and *I'm* in denial? LOL

Say, where did the water from the flood go? Why is there no evidence anywhere of a worldwide flood?

How about Joshua making the sun stand still? Neat trick.

I could rattle off a hundred more, and you'd ignore them all. Because I am in denial. Heh.

So? God isn't a natrual phenomenom that can be tested via a flawed, and often time corrected "scientific method".

Laughing.. YOU are the one who brought up the claim that the Bible is "historically accurate". Not me.

And the first time you're challenged on this you immediately fall back to "God is beyond your simple mortal ways". Not too impressive.

The truth is you're, again, being presumptuous about myself and how I hold my beliefs. Again, why does this bother you?

Because you choose to believe in a load of bullshit and constantly claim that it is equivalent to rational beliefs based on science. That's why.

You want to live your life based on nonsense in some book that somebody told you was divine? Great, knock yourself out. Just don't give me BS about how "science is religion" or "atheism is religion", because I'm not going to let that slide.

So?

I'm no astrologer.

Woosh. Amazing.

I don't know why I bother.

Astrologers successfully "predict" things by making general statements that are bound to be true for large numbers of people. A prophecy about a city thousands of years old being destroyed is meaningless, because there are countless other cities that have eventually been destroyed. It's too generic to be meaningful.

 

[OCNewbie]

So? God isn't a natrual phenomenom that can be tested via a flawed, and often time corrected "scientific method".

You're proving the OP right. Making up explanations to justify anything and everything. All bets are off! Leave no room for logic in evaluating the Bible! It is beyond logic! Soooo very rational.

What's your opinion of the beliefs of those that belong to the Westboro Baptist Church belief? Why is their interpretation (I love that word) of the Bible wrong, or is it?

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't know why I bother.

Astrologers successfully "predict" things by making general statements that are bound to be true for large numbers of people. A prophecy about a city thousands of years old being destroyed is meaningless, because there are countless other cities that have eventually been destroyed. It's too generic to be meaningful.

Yeah, why do you bother?

Believe whatever you wish -- this is the beauty of being human.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yeah, why do you bother?

Well, at one point I thought you were actually interested in serious discussion of these issues. Now I know better.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're proving the OP right. Making up explanations to justify anything and everything. All bets are off! Leave no room for logic in evaluating the Bible! It is beyond logic! Soooo very rational.

What's your opinion of the beliefs of those that belong to the Westboro Baptist Church belief? Why is their interpretation (I love that word) of the Bible wrong, or is it?

Again, so what about the OP's opinion? It's nothing more than that, unless you have some evidence that ALL believers do this and can actually present that evidence in a post. Outside of that, please, shut up and stop generalizing.

I don't care about the Westboro Church. They are free to interpret how they see fit. Why should I? They can do what they wish.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, at one point I thought you were actually interested in serious discussion of these issues. Now I know better.

Thanks.

 

[OCNewbie]

Again, so what about the OP's opinion? It's nothing more than that, unless you have some evidence that ALL believers do this and can actually present that evidence in a post. Outside of that, please, shut up and stop generalizing.

When you say "this", are you referring to what you're doing?

I don't care about the Westboro Church. They are free to interpret how they see fit. Why should I? They can do what they wish.

Ok, but is their interpretation correct, or are ALL interpretations correct? And if they aren't all correct, how does one conclude which one is?

 

[Retro Rob]

You're proving the OP right. Making up explanations to justify anything and everything. All bets are off! Leave no room for logic in evaluating the Bible! It is beyond logic! Soooo very rational.

And fyi, it's true, unless someone has a "God detector", that via scientific means he can't be detected, or tested, or whatever.

This is why scienctists take the default position on this -- don't believe, unless there is enough scientific evidence. They will indefinitely hold this position, because God simply cannot be detected like we would detect things in our natural world.

"And"?

This is true. Always has, always will be.

Doesn't bother me one bit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is why scienctists take the default position on this -- don't believe, unless there is enough scientific evidence. They will indefinitely hold this position, because God simply cannot be detected like we would detect things in out natural world.

He's quite "detectable" in the stories from your Big Book O' Myths.

Funny how it always works out that way.

 

[OCNewbie]

They will indefinitely hold this position, because God simply cannot be detected like we would detect things in out natural world.

And you know this, how?

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok, but is their interpretation correct, or are ALL interpretations correct? And if they aren't all correct, how does one conclude which one is?

Why don't you go find out if their interpretation is correct, and come tell me.

To find out which interpretation is correct, go read it yourself, and come back, and talk. There are a gazillion copies of the Bible out here. Stop being lazy.

 

[sandorski]

And fyi, it's true, unless someone has a "God detector", that via scientific means he can't be detected, or tested, or whatever.

This is why scienctists take the default position on this -- don't believe, unless there is enough scientific evidence. They will indefinitely hold this position, because God simply cannot be detected like we would detect things in our natural world.

"And"?

This is true. Always has, always will be.

Doesn't bother me one bit.

If no one has a God Detector, how do you know that a "God" exists?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes, the interpretation of the Bible is simple and straight-forward. That's why everyone agrees on what it means, and there's only one type of Christianity and only one kind of church.

PS Where did Cain's wife come from?

 

[Retro Rob]

And you know this, how?

Has science detected God yet via the scientific method?

 

[Retro Rob]

If no one has a God Detector, how do you know that a "God" exists?

If no one has a God detector, how you know that a "God" doesn't exist?

 

[IronWing]

Has science detected God yet via the scientific method?

That circle you're running in is getting smaller and smaller.