Religimyth...

[crowTrobot 2]

fair point.see what religion discussions do... they throw you off course into a rage fueled debate over small issues resulting in car bombings mass genocide

sorry for OT, but it's not really a small point to me obviously misconception of what atheists generally think leads to prejudice, allows theists to get away with shifting burden of proof etc. lots of negatives.

[Royal_Tour 0]

sorry for OT, but it's not really a small point to me obviously misconception of what atheists generally think leads to prejudice, allows theists to get away with shifting burden of proof etc. lots of negatives.

how does agnostics and atheist differ? because its seems i've taken one as a broad term(serious question since you're a better source than wikipedia)

[timwakefield 68]

If you look at various religions dating before Christianity, we see several similarities in the stories of the birth of a savior.

Not just his birth - much of his life, death, resurrection, and meaning are paralleled in various ancient pagan religions which predate Jesus. It's probably just Satan trying to mess with us though, amirite?

[crowTrobot 2]

how does agnostics and atheist differ? because its seems i've taken one as a broad term(serious question since you're a better source than wikipedia)

technically i think an agnostic is someone who believes the truth is fundamentally unknowable in principal, not just in practice. in other wordssomeone who wouldn't bother looking for evidence. many people use it as you have to connote simple uncertainty, but that describes virtually everybody. in truth there is a continuous range of level of certainty of disbelief in god. it's not really a black-and-white thing where people can be easily categorized based on atheist = 100%, agnostic = 50/50or whatever. in truth almost all nonbelievers are in the middle somewhere with no lines drawn. that's why i think the restrictive definition of atheism is misleading. atheism as rejection of a positive assertion based on evidence is more useful and more accurately reflects the way most non-believersthink. also exactly how you define god is critical to potential level of certainty, obviously.

[Balloon guy 158]

The bible is a collection of stories written down hundreds of years after the fact. Do we agree to this?

No, in fact the Bible is a collection of 65 books, some history, some poetry, some letters to churches, some prophecy, written over the span of 1,600 years by over 40 authors. The New Testament has been proven to be accurate to the original text which was written within the generation of the life of Christ, we have enough ancient church father's letter where they quote passages of scripture to recreate over 90% of the New Testament without any other source material, but we do have over 10,000 ancient copies of the New Testament and have such a good understanding progression of copies and translations that we can trace all copies through clear lines of the ages to the present copies. In fact we have found that we are probably 99.99% sure that what you read in today's modern New American Standard Bible is as close to the original words and meaning as you can have. Of the thousand or so translations known, there are only really two I can think of that make any changes that would change the message of the Bible, and one of those is the Jehovah's Witnesses version which was translated by 5 guys who could not read or write Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. I have a copy of the court transcripts where the lead translator admitted to this.

Lets just look at the Nativity of Jesus. There are many discrepancies in these stories from Luke and Matthew, which has lead to several critical scholars to claim these stories are totally fictional, or at least predate the Gospels themselves.

Please list these so called discrepancies, just know in advance that they have all been dealt with hundreds of times for hundreds of years and always proven factually correct by anyone who is willing to look at them. Do you really think that for 2,000 years all the people in charge of all the churches would have glaring examples of blatant contradictions and never remove them? That the people who first wrote the books wouldn't take a few minutes to get their stories straight? Just basic common sense would make your point weak at the onset. But seriously, all contradictions in the 4 Gospels have been clearly explained for over a thousand years to anyone interested in truth. I have requested contradictions from everyone here many times and the few they give me are quickly shown to be misunderstood, pulled out of context, or flat out silly.

If you look at various religions dating before Christianity, we see several similarities in the stories of the birth of a savior. (Look up Zeitgeist to learn more on this. Or just dive into the books yourself)

Again, I am going to assume you are new to this argument, but Christianity is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, so much so that for the first hundred or so years they were just considered a sect of Judaism, not a new religion. Therefore their beginning pre-dates all these other 'religions'. Second the stories you allude to are all real stretches of the imagination to argue that Christians stole them. Mithris, Zeitgeist, all vague story lines that have no real relationship to the story of the Bible except by people who want to make these far removed connections. Do you really want to argue that some chick-god went around and gathered the pieces of her dismembered husband and reassembled them to have sex with them is the archetype for the virgin birth of Christ?

Science, asks questions and poses answers. With evidence to back up these answers. The idea that science doesn't know its "butt from a hole in the ground" sounds childish.

It was supposed to. Supposed too? Dang it.

It sounds like you want answers to why something is what it is. And you've turned to the bible to give you the answers to these questions.

Me and a few billion other people for over 2,000 years.

The point of using Greek Mythology was not to prove discrepancies in the bible, doing so would sound silly to anyone who believes the bible as truth. It makes the idea of worshiping several gods foolish, doesn't it?

One of the reasons the greek stories are in the mythology section of our public libraries, and the Bible is in the religion section, is one is a myth, the other is not.

Do you believe in a burning bush that talks?

Do I believe there was A burning bush that spoke to Moses? Sure, why not? Are all miracles impossible? Do you feel that science can explain all things in the metaphysical world? Are you willing to say with certainty that you know for a fact that everything that happens happens for only natural reasons and nothing can happen without clear obedience to natural laws, that there are no miracles ever and have never been any?

[Balloon guy 158]

how does agnostics and atheist differ? because its seems i've taken one as a broad term(serious question since you're a better source than wikipedia)

You are just going to have to accept that the word atheist doesn't mean what we all know it means because that would make them arrogantly arguing that they know the existence of everything in the entire universe.I've already had this argument with them. They are stubborn in their ability to reinvent word definitions.Wait till you try to equate atheist with communism ( the only government that uses the disbelief in God as a basic tenant of their worldview )...btw I think your admission that you are an agnostic to be a much more intellectually honest definition of your beliefs.

[Balloon guy 158]

Although I laughed at your knee slapping post, it's not really accurate to say he believes in talking bushes. It's more like he believes that God can speak through a burning bush if he chooses to do so. Because, you know, he's God.

Now now, don't stop them form hanging themselves with their petty attempts to pigeonhole God by first trying to make the argument that he isn't capable of doing things outside of their understanding of the universe.

[Balloon guy 158]

He does! He does! <slapping knee>

Want a real knee slapper, tell him how old I think the earth is...

[Balloon guy 158]

Probably not worth your time to argue the bill maher point or the atheist definition point. No one cares what bill maher thinks. Just stick with making fun of balloon guy for his stupid ancient beliefs.

It would make this section of the board much more interesting.but only if you could actually achieve the objective...

[Balloon guy 158]

Not just his birth - much of his life, death, resurrection, and meaning are paralleled in various ancient pagan religions which predate Jesus. It's probably just Satan trying to mess with us though, amirite?

satan doesn't need to waste time with people who are willing participants.

[crowTrobot 2]

No, in fact the Bible is a collection of 65 books, some history, some poetry, some letters to churches, some prophecy, written over the span of 1,600 years by over 40 authors. The New Testament has been proven to be accurate to the original text which was written within the generation of the life of Christ, we have enough ancient church father's letter where they quote passages of scripture to recreate over 90% of the New Testament without any other source material, but we do have over 10,000 ancient copies of the New Testament and have such a good understanding progression of copies and translations that we can trace all copies through clear lines of the ages to the present copies. In fact we have found that we are probably 99.99% sure that what you read in today's modern New American Standard Bible is as close to the original words and meaning as you can have. Of the thousand or so translations known, there are only really two I can think of that make any changes that would change the message of the Bible, and one of those is the Jehovah's Witnesses version which was translated by 5 guys who could not read or write Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. I have a copy of the court transcripts where the lead translator admitted to this.

everything you said there is virtually unanimously disputed by secular scholars. in other words meaningless to anybody not predisposed to believe it.

Please list these so called discrepancies, just know in advance that they have all been dealt with hundreds of times for hundreds of years and always proven factually correct by anyone who is willing to look at them. Do you really think that for 2,000 years all the people in charge of all the churches would have glaring examples of blatant contradictions and never remove them? That the people who first wrote the books wouldn't take a few minutes to get their stories straight? Just basic common sense would make your point weak at the onset. But seriously, all contradictions in the 4 Gospels have been clearly explained for over a thousand years to anyone interested in truth. I have requested contradictions from everyone here many times and the few they give me are quickly shown to be misunderstood, pulled out of context, or flat out silly.

christian apologists have a long history of equivocating obvious contradictions. you've got a lot of excuses to draw from.

Me and a few billion other people for over 2,000 years.

along with a few billion that turned to the koran and vedas.

One of the reasons the greek stories are in the mythology section of our public libraries, and the Bible is in the religion section, is one is a myth, the other is not.

what section should i look for the koran in?

Do I believe there was A burning bush that spoke to Moses? Sure, why not? Are all miracles impossible? Do you feel that science can explain all things in the metaphysical world? Are you willing to say with certainty that you know for a fact that everything that happens happens for only natural reasons and nothing can happen without clear obedience to natural laws, that there are no miracles ever and have never been any?

lame attempt to shift burden of proof.

[crowTrobot 2]

You are just going to have to accept that the word atheist doesn't mean what we all know it means because that would make them arrogantly arguing that they know the existence of everything in the entire universe.

the word atheist has to mean what you think it does because if it didn't you wouldn't be able to rely on straw men and shifting the burden of proof to dodge argument.

[Balloon guy 158]

everything you said there is virtually unanimously disputed by secular scholars. in other words meaningless to anybody not predisposed to believe it.christian apologists have a long history of equivocating obvious contradictions. you've got a lot of excuses to draw from.along with a few billion that turned to the koran and vedas.what section should i look for the koran in?lame attempt to shift burden of proof.

Well lucky for me you once again argue without facts and have defaulted to your standard :"Nuh uh" defense, which allows me to place your views right along with the left over burrito I had for lunch in the trash.

[Balloon guy 158]

the word atheist has to mean what you think it does because if it didn't you wouldn't be able to rely on straw men and shifting the burden of proof to dodge argument.

No I get your definition, atheist means we know that there is probably no God, but allow for a remote .00000000001% chance just to allow us to pat ourselves on the back and pretend we are open minded, even though we think it more likely that our planet was seeded by space aliens.It's just the rest of the world you need to explain it to, cause they think it means believe there is no God. Otherwise you would be an agnostic.Now how would I shift the burden of proof again? you claim not to believe in God, but don't want that label exactly, and I am the one being accusing of dodging

[crowTrobot 2]

Well lucky for me you once again argue without facts and have defaulted to your standard :"Nuh uh" defense, which allows me to place your views right along with the left over burrito I had for lunch in the trash.

it is a fact that secular scholars almost universally dispute what you said about the bible. it's not evidence for anything.

[Balloon guy 158]

it is a fact that secular scholars almost universally dispute what you said about the bible. it's not evidence for anything.

It is a fact that religious scholars dispute everything you are disputing. So your evidence is even less valuable than mine.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Want a real knee slapper, tell him how old I think the earth is...

OkLots to cover since i left. lolbut first, i want to just point out this little post by BG.If I'm reading this post correctly, You're saying you believe the earth is roughly 5 thousand years old??

[Balloon guy 158]

OkLots to cover since i left. lolbut first, i want to just point out this little post by BG.If I'm reading this post correctly, You're saying you believe the earth is roughly 5 thousand years old??

Pfftttt It wishes.It's all of 6,000 years old if its a day

[crowTrobot 2]

No I get your definition, atheist means we know that there is probably no God, but allow for a remote .00000000001% chance just to allow us to pat ourselves on the back and pretend we are open minded, even though we think it more likely that our planet was seeded by space aliens.It's just the rest of the world you need to explain it to, cause they think it means believe there is no God. Otherwise you would be an agnostic.Now how would I shift the burden of proof again? you claim not to believe in God, but don't want that label exactly, and I am the one being accusing of dodging

not sure what you're babbling about here.

[Balloon guy 158]

not sure what you're babbling about here.

That's because you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation.

[crowTrobot 2]

It is a fact that religious scholars dispute everything you are disputing. So your evidence is even less valuable than mine.

i didn't present any evidence. point was if only apologists believe what you said about the bible it's worth nothing.it's worth less than nothing actually because it's propaganda.

[crowTrobot 2]

That's because you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation.

only with you.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Pfftttt It wishes.It's all of 6,000 years old if its a day

Ok. couple quick questions just to find out a little more on your beliefs. So if i mention dinosaurs. do you believe they roamed the earth at all?also. If I mention Nasa, do you believe man has walked on the moon. if No.do you believe we have successfully launched and stationed satellites in orbit, which now orbit the earth?

[Balloon guy 158]

Ok. couple quick questions just to find out a little more on your beliefs. So if i mention dinosaurs. do you believe they roamed the earth at all?also. If I mention Nasa, do you believe man has walked on the moon. if No.do you believe we have successfully launched and stationed satellites in orbit, which now orbit the earth?

Define orbit..

[Balloon guy 158]

i didn't present any evidence. point was if only apologists believe what you said about the bible it's worth nothing.it's worth less than nothing actually because it's propaganda.

Must be a wonderful world to wake up to where your truth is the only truth and all other truth is propaganda.Do you sometimes refer to yourself as Truman?