Religimyth...

[brvheart 1,752]

Wow... this thread is on fire. I don't have the energy.

[Balloon guy 158]

But, based on all of the arguments, as well as the fact that many sects of christianity agree with them because of the mounting evidence, I'm sure you can understand why I can't accept these supposed prophecies, taken on their own, to be proof of anything. Also, and again I know this is semantics, but the "tribe of Israel" is a whole separate entity from the "nation of Israel", in my opinion. Or at least it could be debated, another reason why I can't just accept those prophecies. To believe in the fact that a man could actually predict the future, it has to be pretty damn ironclad.

If Daniel was the 'proof' then I would understand your position, it is only one of hundreds of prophecies. I can present a link with hundreds of examples if you would like, and I started a thread a while back to discuss individual prophecies, that turned into pretty much what this is turning into...the real proof that the book of the Bible that made the prophecy is discounted because it's not possible to predict the future.When an ancient text is read, we never assume the text is lying about it's authorship unless it is a Christian text, but you guys find these improbable explanations completely acceptable. A guy in the last century before Christ studied ancient civilizations and tried to pass off a book as an example of something written by a man of that time period in order to make the Jewish religion look like it predicted the future. With almost no justification for this supposition, you easily accept that some Jewish scribe in the middle of Jerusalem had access to history books of civilizations centuries in the past, was able to then forge a clever book to pretend that he was Daniel and that he lived in the time of Babylon, and then he 'predicts the future' just so he can....give some ammunition to people a couple thousand years later? Because let's face it, the Jews don't proselytize, so what do they care whether or not the Romans think their religion is true or false, And they are already pretty much a committed people to their beliefs, so why would someone need to trick them into accepting that this 'new' book of Daniel was just found and has been in the Jewish faith for centuries...Cause Jewish people are so easy to sucker into scams.

[Balloon guy 158]

To delegitimze my opponent now that you mention it. This is poker forum and you hardly follow accepted debating tactics or logic. The fact I mentioned I, like many, at a young age found the bible anything more than similar stories to mythology and comic books and there was no factual basis other than "it takes faith" or the "you'll go to hell". I remember these discussions at the catholic school I attended vividly.I still think it was fair that you can claim "prophesies as factual" and "dinosaurs as fictional" and do anything other than deligimitize you. I guess I just don't know how to talk to you.

Should be easy, but could you show me where I said dinosaurs are fictional? I remember you and RT making this claim for me, but so far I haven't made that claim.

In any single one of these prophecies was there anything specific like someone's name or an exact place and date? I would think that if he could truly see the future, with a god-given power it wouldn't be a reach. Or are all these just generalized prophecies that can be molded to fit different situations? One name? One date? One specific place?

There was this one set of prophecies...about a guy called Immanuel, it was only something like 10 E¹⁴ :1 against all of them happening, so I'm sure you can see why it's not very accurate though and therefore easy to dismiss.

I think most of the basic tenets were discussed here ad nauseum but I can't remember BG actually doing anything close to discounting a single theory let alone proving him a charlatan. I suppose that's each's point of view though.BG despises him so much that throwing a few tidbits out should be fairly easy.

I have actually pointed out Dawkins flawed way of thinking a few times, he is beneath discussion though because his arguments are so poorly thought out.

You know, I could probably accept someone that was blankly ignorant or using religon as a means to make money to discount evolution but it boggles the mind that BG discounts it as smart as he is.

What about Chris Macosko, PhD. Professor of Chemical Engr/Mat Sci at Twin Cities campus of Univ. of Minnesota?I mean he's an actual PhD and he doesn't believe in evolution.I can list others PhDs, from nuclear physicist to molecular biologist...but I'm not sure what that would prove, since you have already decided that evolution is real and therefore anyone who doesn't believe in it is foolish.

Maybe we should discuss, "Is it better to teach evolution to our children or ban it from schools." I mean, if it's false because christianity says so, what if they decided mathematics is evil, or astronomy (again), etc. Or maybe lets discuss, "How believing in evolution other than christianity makes my life better on a daily basis."

Yea, let's discuss how the world is better by teaching evolution other than Christianity.

[Balloon guy 158]

last i checked YOU are. you're using their argument about presuppositions to support your belief in the historical accuracy of miracles in the bible. i was pointing out YOUR double standard.

No you were trying to equate the link I provided from a secular source that discounted your position and tried to delegitimize the source by saying that Christians are incapable of providing truth, and instead use double standards. Because after all, when you are confronted with facts, you try to bring in other religions as your proof that I don't believe what I say.It's really kind of becoming a trend with you to ignore the facts I point out and try to bring the discussion into a realm you think you are versed in.

[Balloon guy 158]

it doesn't follow that if the bible is inaccurate it's authors and apologist scholars and historians of the early church who put it together were all liars. some may have been, but it's likely many if not most were simply people who genuinely believed mythology based on false assumptions.secular data lol? you're implying all of modern science is one giant anti-religious conspiracy, which is quite insane. after all most of the world and 40% of scientists believe in god. subversion of genuine data is not remotely possible. on the contrary if anyone actually had data refuting evolution they would win the nobel prize.

Really. it doesn't follow that a group of people would allow a book to be introduced into their thousand year old religion and told that it has been with them for most of their religion when in fact it was written last night? Yea. of course those people would just accept their religious leaders telling them this, after all religious people will believe anything

[Balloon guy 158]

So you're illegitamizing the approach of any christian that has believed wholeheartedly in the bible since he or she was a small child? I hope not, since that's the vast, vast majority of people who agree with you.

No, just pointing out the fallacy that RR tried to make that religion is sooo stupid that even a 10 year old can see it for the collection of dumb stories that it is.

I haven't read any of his books. Out of curiosity, what are a few examples of his distortions? I can guess what you think are his false conclusions.

I have enough on my plate, there's a ton of links to look at the foolishness of Dawkins positions.

[crowTrobot 2]

..the real proof that the book of the Bible that made the prophecy is discounted because it's not possible to predict the future.

as i just said there are multiple reasons scholars date daniel to the 2nd century BC that have nothing to do with prophecy. you of coursehave to rely on mischaracterizing science as shallow and biased because you have no way to intellectually support your position.

When an ancient text is read, we never assume the text is lying about it's authorship unless it is a Christian text

blah blah science is biased blah

but you guys find these improbable explanations completely acceptable. A guy in the last century before Christ studied ancient civilizations and tried to pass off a book as an example of something written by a man of that time period in order to make the Jewish religion look like it predicted the future. With almost no justification for this supposition, you easily accept that some Jewish scribe in the middle of Jerusalem had access to history books of civilizations centuries in the past, was able to then forge a clever book to pretend that he was Daniel and that he lived in the time of Babylon, and then he 'predicts the future' just so he can....give some ammunition to people a couple thousand years later? Because let's face it, the Jews don't proselytize, so what do they care whether or not the Romans think their religion is true or false, And they are already pretty much a committed people to their beliefs, so why would someone need to trick them into accepting that this 'new' book of Daniel was just found and has been in the Jewish faith for centuries...Cause Jewish people are so easy to sucker into scams.

from what i've read scholars think the evolution of the traditionalist view of daniel is much more a matter of genuine misinterpretation than intentional deceit. but good job there coming up with the most extreme straw man scenario you can think of.

[crowTrobot 2]

No you were trying to equate the link I provided from a secular source that discounted your position and tried to delegitimize the source by saying that Christians are incapable of providing truth, and instead use double standards.

trying to rewrite history won't help you when anyone who cares can see what happened.

[crowTrobot 2]

Really. it doesn't follow that a group of people would allow a book to be introduced into their thousand year old religion and told that it has been with them for most of their religion when in fact it was written last night? Yea. of course those people would just accept their religious leaders telling them this

oversimplified extreme scenario pulled out of thin air.

after all religious people will believe anything

considering that you think 2/3 of the world hold false religious belief i wouldn't bother going there.

[Royal_Tour 0]

There was this one set of prophecies...about a guy called Immanuel, it was only something like 10 E¹⁴ :1 against all of them happening, so I'm sure you can see why it's not very accurate though and therefore easy to dismiss.

Are you referring to the prophecies of Isaiah? I'm thinking you are. Anyways, BG, you know that you can't use this as an example of fact... right? Example: The guy who wrote the matrix, and how a chosen one who would save them.. and then in future text and scripts wrote that a chosen onewas found and his name was Neo, and everything they wrote about Neo in the past was coming true.. well you get the idea.. i hopeKey word in that sentence was "wrote" You see, you can "write" anything you want, about anything you want... I know to you its a crazy idea, but your imagination has no borders. And pen combined with paper gives the imagination the tools to express these thoughts. P.S. Do you people now see why I've taken to joke making and very very basic explanations in my previous posts. You guys are all resorting to large amounts of information and data that has been argued over for the last XX amount of years, and trying to use this data on someone who believes that the prophecies of Isaiah, more specifically Emmanuel (Immanuel) are real is rather pointless.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Example: The guy who wrote the matrix, and how a chosen one who would save them.. and then in future text and scripts wrote that a chosen onewas found and his name was Neo, and everything they wrote about Neo in the past was coming true.. well you get the idea.. i hopeKey word in that sentence was "wrote" You see, you can "write" anything you want, about anything you want... I know to you its a crazy idea, but your imagination has no borders. And pen combined with paper gives the imagination the tools to express these thoughts. P.S. Do you people now see why I've taken to joke making and very very basic explanations in my previous posts. You guys are all resorting to large amounts of information and data that has been argued over for the last XX amount of years, and trying to use this data on someone who believes that the prophecies of Isaiah, more specifically Emmanuel (Immanuel) are real is rather pointless.

We know why you're making jokes. The next step is for you to see the flaw in your arguments.

[Royal_Tour 0]

We know why you're making jokes. The next step is for you to see the flaw in your arguments.

What flaw? are you sure you know what the argument is?Let me sum for you.RT says - religion is real - its structure is make-believe - science is giving us more reasons to doubt it.BG says - religion is real - Its makings have been proven. - science is out to get religion.Its impossible to argue with someone who lacks all reason. Crow is like BG's superman to his Lex Luther. Whether BG truthfully believes what he is writing or just wants to see if he can trump Crow, its a pointless debate because one side plays the fiction card.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

What flaw? are you sure you know what the argument is?

I was talking about your Matrix example. I don't see what the ability to write anything you want has to do with anything.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I was talking about your Matrix example. I don't see what the ability to write anything you want has to do with anything.

OT written - NT written prophecies of Isaiah told/written - Stories of Christ told/written are you following??I'll try and simplify this even more (please dont take this for anything more than just an example) 1990 - I write a story about the coming of a baby who can fly. 2002 - I give the book to a friend and he writes another story about the short life of the baby that was born and that could fly.2011 - Another person gives these books to people and makes a claim that I was right, I knew a flying baby would be born, and they have the before and after to prove it.

[vbnautilus 48]

Regarding prohesies: 1 - You have an evidentiary problem when both the prophesy and the fulfillment of the prophesy come from the same source. 2- The prophesy has to be very specific for its fulfillment to mean anything. Horoscopes are fulfilled every day, because the language is general enough that it will fit lots of people. "You will face a big challenge today." Did the Bible predict "this specific event will happen at this date"? And if so, where? I have yet to see any credible evidence of a prediction that was not susceptible to either #1 or #2.

What about Chris Macosko, PhD. Professor of Chemical Engr/Mat Sci at Twin Cities campus of Univ. of Minnesota?I mean he's an actual PhD and he doesn't believe in evolution.I can list others PhDs, from nuclear physicist to molecular biologist...but I'm not sure what that would prove, since you have already decided that evolution is real and therefore anyone who doesn't believe in it is foolish.

We all know having a Ph.D. doesn't mean anything. After all, there are several Christians who have achieved the same degree.

Yea, let's discuss how the world is better by teaching evolution other than Christianity.

If only all scientific education were replaced by biblical study! Then we could all experience the pleasures of polio and have this conversation on good old ink and paper. (parchment?)

are you following??

Uh, no? Try again?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Uh, no? Try again?

You obviously are following. You just copied what I said. (although I wouldnt agree that they come from the same source, but close enough)"Regarding prohesies:1 - You have an evidentiary problem when both those prophesy and the fulfillment of the prophesy come from the same source. "lol do you honestly believe you need to use comments like"I have yet to see any credible evidence of a prediction that was not susceptible to either #1 or #2."when arguing something which lacks scientific thought?? You really are overthinking religion as a whole. Its not rocket science. If it was, we would all be in big trouble.

[vbnautilus 48]

You obviously are following. You just copied what I said. (although I wouldnt agree that they come from the same source, but close enough)"Regarding prohesies:1 - You have an evidentiary problem when both those prophesy and the fulfillment of the prophesy come from the same source. "lol do you honestly believe you need to use comments like"I have yet to see any credible evidence of a prediction that was not susceptible to either #1 or #2."when arguing something which lacks scientific thought?? You really are overthinking religion as a whole. Its not rocket science. If it was, we would all be in big trouble.

I.. just have a really hard time understanding where you are coming from. You think I should try and make less sense in my arguments against religion?What am I arguing for here is reason. You put yourself against reason, which is why I have ended up arguing with you even though you are against religion.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I.. just have a really hard time understanding where you are coming from. You think I should try and make less sense in my arguments against religion?What am I arguing for here is reason. You put yourself against reason, which is why I have ended up arguing with you even though you are against religion.

show me where i have put any of my arguments against reason.You cant.just because i'm simplifying my side so that a child can understand it, does not mean any of my points are void of reason.seriously. Its kinda funny that you're trying to be pretentious in a religion debate.

[vbnautilus 48]

show me where i have put any of my arguments against reason.You cant.just because i'm simplifying my side so that a child can understand it, does not mean any of my points are void of reason.

Well, I was responding to this:

lol do you honestly believe you need to use comments like"I have yet to see any credible evidence of a prediction that was not susceptible to either #1 or #2."when arguing something which lacks scientific thought?? You really are overthinking religion as a whole. Its not rocket science. If it was, we would all be in big trouble.

Every time you have been asked for clarification in your arguments, you deflect and say it isn't necessary because religious thought is not clear. You seem to feel no need to make coherent arguments at all. And if it were so easy to counter religion, would it still be so prevalent? I think you are vastly underestimating what we are dealing with here.

seriously. Its kinda funny that you're trying to be pretentious in a religion debate.

In case you haven't noticed, I try to be pretentious no matter what subject I am talking about.

[Royal_Tour 0]

And if it were so easy to counter religion, would it still be so prevalent? I think you are vastly underestimating what we are dealing with here.

Its very easy to counter religion. Scientific thought and technology picks apart religion and completely trumps it. The problem is that the people you are debating with, who are strong supporters of christianity and other forms of religion see no fault in saying obtuse things like "It happened because it says so in the bible..."So, you've countered various aspects of religion, yet its followers fail to see how your points can be validated.

you deflect and say it isn't necessary because religious thought is not clear. You seem to feel no need to make coherent arguments at all.

I only started to claim it as pointless after a number of posts i made were picked apart by the opposition and re-worded to suit their opinions. so, when people do that in a debate, its up to a 3rd party to just view it for what it is.all previous points contained substance and reason

In case you haven't noticed, I try to be pretentious no matter what subject I am talking about.

well thats always a good thing.

[Randy Reed 0]

No, just pointing out the fallacy that RR tried to make that religion is sooo stupid that even a 10 year old can see it for the collection of dumb stories that it is.

I never said they were dumb or generalized that all 10 year olds would get that it might not be true. I suppose it wouldn't be a big leap to think that most kids might not believe that a whale ate Jonah or that Jesus came back as a ghost and flew up to heaven though.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

When an ancient text is read, we never assume the text is lying about it's authorship unless it is a Christian text

Not true. Homer didn't exist. Socrates probably didn't either, and was a construction of Plato. (Actually, Socrates is probably a good foil for Jesus. They were both poor guys who went around talking to people. Some thought they were brilliant, some were annoyed by them, and in the end, they were both put to death.)

[looshle 6]

Not true. Homer didn't exist. Socrates probably didn't either, and was a construction of Plato. (Actually, Socrates is probably a good foil for Jesus. They were both poor guys who went around talking to people. Some thought they were brilliant, some were annoyed by them, and in the end, they were both put to death.)

Why the **** did i learn about socrates and his shaith in college if he might not have existed? How could they teach me something that wasn't real? Better defend it till the day i die imo

[speedz99 145]

If Daniel was the 'proof' then I would understand your position, it is only one of hundreds of prophecies. I can present a link with hundreds of examples if you would like, and I started a thread a while back to discuss individual prophecies, that turned into pretty much what this is turning into...the real proof that the book of the Bible that made the prophecy is discounted because it's not possible to predict the future.

I'm saying, the Daniel prophecies aren't legitimate because of all the reasons previously outlined, or at least they are so highly suspect that objectively they can't be used as proof for anything. Forget hundreds of anything, all I want is one or two that you think are very solid...shit, you gave me one that's even refuted by evangelists and catholics based on the heaps of evidence. Surely you can do better than that.

When an ancient text is read, we never assume the text is lying about it's authorship unless it is a Christian text.

That's not true at all. Give me one example of a singular history book with no corroboration that is generally passed off as 100% factual. Bonus points if this example includes events that defy the laws of physics as we know them.

A guy in the last century before Christ studied ancient civilizations and tried to pass off a book as an example of something written by a man of that time period in order to make the Jewish religion look like it predicted the future. With almost no justification for this supposition, you easily accept that some Jewish scribe in the middle of Jerusalem had access to history books of civilizations centuries in the past, was able to then forge a clever book to pretend that he was Daniel and that he lived in the time of Babylon, and then he 'predicts the future' just so he can....give some ammunition to people a couple thousand years later? Because let's face it, the Jews don't proselytize, so what do they care whether or not the Romans think their religion is true or false, And they are already pretty much a committed people to their beliefs, so why would someone need to trick them into accepting that this 'new' book of Daniel was just found and has been in the Jewish faith for centuries...Cause Jewish people are so easy to sucker into scams.

Your entire argument is based on very subjective interpretations of the intentions of men who lived thousands of years ago. The arguments against you are compelling enough to convince all but the most conservatives christians and jews that the traditional view was flawed. Frankly, I'm not sure why you would even care to keep to the traditional view even when it's proven to be so unlikely...it's not like thinking Daniel was written later in the timeline disproves anything else in the bible.

show me where i have put any of my arguments against reason.You cant.just because i'm simplifying my side so that a child can understand it, does not mean any of my points are void of reason.seriously. Its kinda funny that you're trying to be pretentious in a religion debate.

Your argument is, "Religion is ridiculous and for stupid people." You call it simplification, I call it a gross exaggeration, as well as patently false. We speak to BG like an adult because he is one, and the majority of us respect his opinion, even if it's exasperating to watch him continuously refuse to concede even very basic points of fact by changing the subject or shifting the burdon of proof towards Spaghetti Monsterism. None of your arguments are necessarily against reason, but as JJJ pointed out, you also haven't made any arguments that even an atheist couldn't poke holes in. What you call being pretentious is what we call...talking. You need to bring your A game around here, son.

[Randy Reed 0]

I have enough on my plate, there's a ton of links to look at the foolishness of Dawkins positions.

BG. obviously you don't believe in the scientific aspect of Dawkins and his citing there is no evidence for an ultimate creator but it's not like he is inciting people to lead immoral lives. He does address morality in the God Delusion. I would think most people however appaled by the fact he claimsthere is no evidence of a God, as long as he isn't attempting to incite immorality probably don't havethat much of an issue with him. Do you think he incites immorality?Do you think that an athiest can live a moral life? I personally think that I have a better appreciation oflife, the planet, other people by being an athiest. Is that so unrealistic to you? Perhaps we all to often critizice you and other christians for all for the faults of religon but I would be interested in seeing what your faultswith athiests are?