TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Archaeology
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-12-2014, 10:59 AM   #26
gabbagabbahey
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
And so it is how man becomes shackled by superstition and fear, and compelled to perpetuate the cycle for the next generation...

In my family the cycle ended with me. My children, ages 12 & 19, are free thinkers. All I have ever asked of them is to think, and explore things for themselves and to reach their own conclusions. Don't automatically believe what anyone else says to you (including me) on face value.

In these discussions of proof of god because believers can never actually provide any concrete proof it always comes back to, "Well, you gotta have faith." Well, sorry, we don't.

They will say "You have faith that the plane you're riding on won't crash, right?"

Actually, no, we don't. We have a reasonable expectation based on actual provable facts that it won't happen. Planes have been tested and retested. Pilots need to have the proper training. Statistically 99+% of flights go as planned and land safely. And you know what we do if they don't? We investigate the crash and try to make changes so that it does not happen again.

On a side note, it is never to late to stop believing. My 67 year old mother, a former lifelong Catholic, has become an atheist in the last few years. She, like many people, had not really thought very deeply about such things. She just believed because her parents did and her parents did because their parents did and so on etc. One day though, she started to actually think about it. And bit by bit, the curtain was pulled back, not revealing a god, but just a funny looking con man just pulling on levers.
gabbagabbahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 11:44 AM   #27
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabbahey
In my family the cycle ended with me. My children, ages 12 & 19, are free thinkers. All I have ever asked of them is to think, and explore things for themselves and to reach their own conclusions. Don't automatically believe what anyone else says to you (including me) on face value.

That's the perfect way to approach it.

I question everything, but then I'm naturally cynical as to the motives that lie behind things that are often taken for granted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabbahey
In these discussions of proof of god because believers can never actually provide any concrete proof it always comes back to, "Well, you gotta have faith." Well, sorry, we don't.

They will say "You have faith that the plane you're riding on won't crash, right?"

Actually, no, we don't. We have a reasonable expectation based on actual provable facts that it won't happen. Planes have been tested and retested. Pilots need to have the proper training. Statistically 99+% of flights go as planned and land safely. And you know what we do if they don't? We investigate the crash and try to make changes so that it does not happen again.

And faith is a thing cannot be argued with. You either have it, or you don't.

I never had it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabbahey
On a side note, it is never to late to stop believing. My 67 year old mother, a former lifelong Catholic, has become an atheist in the last few years. She, like many people, had not really thought very deeply about such things. She just believed because her parents did and her parents did because their parents did and so on etc. One day though, she started to actually think about it. And bit by bit, the curtain was pulled back, not revealing a god, but just a funny looking con man just pulling on levers.

I'm happy to report that both my parents are now atheists! Very much the same manner of coming to a realization of being duped, albeit through ignorance and good intentions.

My grandmother had been brought up to believe the world was only 6,000 years old! It wasn't until my dad managed to get some sense into her that she began to see how silly that belief was.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 12:11 PM   #28
gabbagabbahey
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
And faith is a thing cannot be argued with. You either have it, or you don't.

I never had it.


And what they try to do is switch it back on you and tell you that you are not trying hard enough. Your heart is too hard. You don't have enough faith. That you are selfish and egotistical and denying god because you think you are better than him. They try & put this whole guilt trip on you about being a bad person who hates god.

No. I tried. I was raised Catholic & went to church every Sunday for 18 years. But when I really started to think about it I realized that there was no more actual evidence for a god than there was for mermaids. The funny thing is even the most devote, Christian person you know is also an atheist. They don't believe in Zeus. Or Poseidon. Or that Joseph Smith or Mohammed were actual prophets. They completely understand what it's like to not believe in all of the other gods and prophets. They just can't understand why you don't believe in theirs, even though there is no more evidence for theirs than any of the others.

"Oh, but you don't understand! My god is special! My god is different!"

That's what they all think. What makes you so sure that you are right, and that they are wrong?
gabbagabbahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 01:23 PM   #29
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,942
Time to reintroduce this classic gem:

Arguing with a believer is like playing chess with a pigeon. It upturns your pieces and leaves droppings all over the board. Then it flies back to its roost and brags how it won a game of chess.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 01:43 PM   #30
IAdventurer01
IndyFan
 
IAdventurer01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wish I knew....
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabbahey
The funny thing is even the most devote, Christian person you know is also an atheist. They don't believe in Zeus. Or Poseidon. Or that Joseph Smith or Mohammed were actual prophets. They completely understand what it's like to not believe in all of the other gods and prophets. They just can't understand why you don't believe in theirs, even though there is no more evidence for theirs than any of the others.

Well, not really. Everyone one is a heretic, sure, but not an atheist. By definition, an atheist is one who denies the existence of all deities. In my experience, I've met many theists who find it easier to understand someone believing in different deities than none at all. There's definitely a line between not believing in specific gods and not believing in any.
IAdventurer01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 01:49 PM   #31
The Drifter
IndyFan
 
The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The distant figure that walks the treeline. The man standing in the field.
Posts: 4,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Time to reintroduce this classic gem:

Arguing with a believer is like playing chess with a pigeon. It upturns your pieces and leaves droppings all over the board. Then it flies back to its roost and brags how it won a game of chess.

I've met plenty of non-believers that fall into into that analogy.
The Drifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 01:52 PM   #32
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drifter
I've met plenty of non-believers that fall into into that analogy.
No doubt. There are morons in all walks of life.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 02:30 PM   #33
The Drifter
IndyFan
 
The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The distant figure that walks the treeline. The man standing in the field.
Posts: 4,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
No doubt. There are morons in all walks of life.

Agreed, good sir!
The Drifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 03:56 PM   #34
gabbagabbahey
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAdventurer01
Well, not really. Everyone one is a heretic, sure, but not an atheist. By definition, an atheist is one who denies the existence of all deities. In my experience, I've met many theists who find it easier to understand someone believing in different deities than none at all. There's definitely a line between not believing in specific gods and not believing in any.


IMO the very word "atheist' is problematic because of the different things it means to different people. It is a loaded word that was only created to label people as immoral or different than the norm. It presupposes that, there is, in fact, a god, and that anyone who does not simply accept this is outside the norm. It shifts the burden of responsibility to the non-believer to "prove" that there is not a god or gods.

People often think atheist means someone who says they know that there is nota god. IMO all the word means is it is someone who has not seen any (strong or verifiable) evidence for it. And no, that does not mean they are agnostic, because that's implying that you feel that it is a 50/50 proposition. Are you agnostic about leprechauns? I mean, you can't prove they don't exist...

What is the word we use for someone who does not believe in magical fairies? How about unicorns? Bigfoot? See what I mean?
gabbagabbahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 08:30 PM   #35
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Lemme share a little story here...

Not long ago, I was taking the light-rail train to the Mall of America to meet up with my girlfriend. While on there, there was this young man who was clearly either drunk out of his mind or severely drugged up, as he could barely stand, talked sluggishly, and was hardly conscious. All throughout the ride, everyone else in the train refused to look at him or speak to him.

Not me.

I saw how crappy the guy looked, and repeatedly offered him my seat to sit and rest, since all other seats were taken and thus forcing him to somehow stand on that rickety, shaking train. He refused my offer, though showed gratitude for my concern, and when we got off the train, I sincerely wished him well and made sure he could get on his bike and ride properly before I went on my way.

I am not religious. I am not in any way a person of faith. I don't believe in the supernatural or paranormal. And yet, I was the only person kind enough to give a damn about this pathetic guy who, for all I know, probably has been really having it rough in life right now. Was he kicked out of his house? Did he lose his job? Does he have a bunch of kids he can't possibly care for? The list can go on endlessly. I have no idea what his situation is. It's entirely likely that he is dead now, probably having overdosed or taken his own life.

But I feel a little better with the knowledge that the poor guy had at least one person show him a bit of compassion. If the reaction of the others on the train was any indication, he probably rarely got that sort of treatment from people. I was putting myself in his situation, and realized that if I was like that, I personally would be hugely desperate for a speck of kindness. Those pretentious, pompous jerks on that train wouldn't even glance at him, or if they did, they probably were staring rudely.

I don't need religion to be a kind and thoughtful person. That's one big mistake of religion: they think if you don't have it, you are automatically somehow 'incomplete' or 'flawed' and cannot truly be a virtuous person. How much you wanna bet those people on that train have some kind of God, and yet couldn't bother to offer a seat to that miserable fellow?

In conclusion: I don't need religion to be a good person. And get very offended when people of faith try to convince me it will do me good.
kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 11:02 AM   #36
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,940
Head note: Some links in this post will be a link to Bible Gateway. It is an accurate authoritive resource for Biblical citation. That is to say, I'm not paraphrasing, nor including or excluding anything that could be relevant. I say that so as not to mislead anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabagabahey
We have a reasonable expectation based on actual provable facts that it won't happen. Planes have been tested and retested. Pilots need to have the proper training. Statistically 99+% of flights go as planned and land safely. And you know what we do if they don't? We investigate the crash and try to make changes so that it does not happen again.

If you look at the world through a lens of a Biblical world view, this is precisely how it can be known that the Bible and God are as they present Themselves.

Not surprising to me, some of the skeptics who are posting here are also demonstrating a classical Cartesian Doubt. That doubt, for those versed in philosophy, is also uniform to the same Biblical world view. What I usually see happen is that when the Biblical world view comes into focus with an individuals world view, a choice presents itself. The dissonance that that choice reveals becomes the motivation for everything after. In every individual. Self included.

Quote:
He never, ever, ever leaves you alone.

This is however, slightly askew from what the Bible claims. Hell as it were, is the total separation from God. But I can understand where that dissonance comes from. Unfortunately, many organized religions would have you think otherwise, but as has been pointed out above, that is soley for 'their' control and it is not accurate to the Gospel. In a spot of irony that control is warned about too within the Bible itself. No one usually likes to talk about that, though.

I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Arguing with a believer is like playing chess with a pigeon. It upturns your pieces and leaves droppings all over the board. Then it flies back to its roost and brags how it won a game of chess.

Arguing is. I would hope this discussion and discourse, at least to this point is different. No one here is claiming any victory as it were, which I quess is a win for all, up to this post? Or maybe I should say, no one's being moronic yet? which is good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabagabahey
What is the word we use for someone who does not believe in magical fairies? How about unicorns? Bigfoot?
In philosophy, I believe it's skeptic or a form thereof.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 11:15 AM   #37
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,940
Separate thoughts for discussion?

Incomprehensibility, Holiness, Sovereignty, Justice, Immutablity, Veracity, Aceity, Righteous...
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 12:20 PM   #38
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
Not surprising to me, some of the skeptics who are posting here are also demonstrating a classical Cartesian Doubt.

I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am.

Descartes came to his own conclusions!

I read a bit of
Blaise Pacal
while composing essays on various subjects. He said some interesting things, but came to his own conclusions as a believer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction.

There's a lot of that going on in the world today, and I suppose it was never any different. Whether He exists or not, men will use whatever leverage they can to get done what they think must be done. For whatever reason is hidden deepest beneath the act itself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
Arguing is. I would hope this discussion and discourse, at least to this point is different. No one here is claiming any victory as it were, which I quess is a win for all, up to this post? Or maybe I should say, no one's being moronic yet? which is good?

History has shown that argument and war has a tendency to increase conviction, rather than erode it. And moronic acts on any side do little for their cause.

But don't go too far away, just in case!
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 12:55 PM   #39
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,940
I'm of the mindset that these things can be discussed, even in written form, to the betterment of all. I think of the PBS series between Freud and C.S. Lewis. Both men engaging in reasoned discourse t'ween a topic frought with potential minefields.

Will this evolution of TheRaven prove the same as that, or will it go predictably south. We, each of us, will only have ourselves to blame if it does.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 01:54 PM   #40
gabbagabbahey
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse

This is however, slightly askew from what the Bible claims. Hell as it were, is the total separation from God. But I can understand where that dissonance comes from. Unfortunately, many organized religions would have you think otherwise, but as has been pointed out above, that is soley for 'their' control and it is not accurate to the Gospel. In a spot of irony that control is warned about too within the Bible itself. No one usually likes to talk about that, though.


Well, you can't get more bothersome to someone than to damn them to an eternity of torture, whether you are actually present for the festivities or not. : )
gabbagabbahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 01:57 PM   #41
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabbahey
Well, you can't get more bothersome to someone than to damn them to an eternity of torture, whether you are actually present for the festivities or not. : )


I don't understand. Why not?
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 12:01 AM   #42
IAdventurer01
IndyFan
 
IAdventurer01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wish I knew....
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabbahey
People often think atheist means someone who says they know that there is nota god. IMO all the word means is it is someone who has not seen any (strong or verifiable) evidence for it. And no, that does not mean they are agnostic, because that's implying that you feel that it is a 50/50 proposition. Are you agnostic about leprechauns? I mean, you can't prove they don't exist...

Fair enough, it certainly is a word with a lot of excess baggage. Still, taking your definition: if atheist as someone with no strong evidence of a god, I think my point still stands, and perhaps is enforced by your more lax definition. Beyond the lines between individual religions, there is an additional line between those who feel there is evidence for a god and those whom do not. Religious people, for their own unique reasons, feel that there is sufficient evidence of some sort to believe in a god. Even if they think they could be wrong about their specific details, it's easier to imagine at that point another religion's interpretation of god(s) than to accept the lack of any higher being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
I would hope this discussion and discourse, at least to this point is different. No one here is claiming any victory as it were, which I quess is a win for all, up to this post? Or maybe I should say, no one's being moronic yet?

I think it helps that this seems to be developing a bit more as a meta-discussion about discussing religious arguments than actually attacking individual beliefs. It helps keeps things civil, while still allowing for a lively debate.
IAdventurer01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 10:14 AM   #43
gabbagabbahey
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAdventurer01
Religious people, for their own unique reasons, feel that there is sufficient evidence of some sort to believe in a god. Even if they think they could be wrong about their specific details, it's easier to imagine at that point another religion's interpretation of god(s) than to accept the lack of any higher being.

I think on some level that the various faiths shy away from being overly critical of each other because they think, "Hey, I won't ask you to prove there was a talking snake if you don't ask me to prove how a magic horse can fly someone to heaven." Subconsciously they all know that they often believe things that are unprovable and downright silly if you say them out loud in the light of day.

In their minds a belief in a god, any god, is better than none at all. Why is that? People find solace in numbers. They want to fit in and be the norm. They want to conform. They do not want to be ostracized or pointed out as being different than the rest of the tribe. Someone who admits they are an atheist is going to be looked down on by the majority of Americans. Atheists are the least likely minority to get voted in to public office, even below those that are openly gay.

Enough already. If someone has evidence to prove that they really do have god on their side, bring it forward. Other wise keep it out of our schools, laws and government.
gabbagabbahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 01:48 PM   #44
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAdventurer01
Fair enough, it certainly is a word with a lot of excess baggage. Still, taking your definition: if atheist as someone with no strong evidence of a god, I think my point still stands, and perhaps is enforced by your more lax definition. Beyond the lines between individual religions, there is an additional line between those who feel there is evidence for a god and those whom do not. Religious people, for their own unique reasons, feel that there is sufficient evidence of some sort to believe in a god. Even if they think they could be wrong about their specific details, it's easier to imagine at that point another religion's interpretation of god(s) than to accept the lack of any higher being.
Term "Atheist" actually has two meanings. It is a derivation of Greek word atheos, "without gods". Mostly, it is understood as someone who does not believe in any deity.

However, it could also be understood as someone who is not under the protection of any deity, e.g. not a member of single religion. And yes, I've heard many people use it in this sense in modern times as well, whether they've been aware of this deeper etymology or not.

Which gets us to an interesting conclusion: A person can describe him- or herself as an atheist, but still believe in the Christian (or some other) God.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 01:58 PM   #45
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,940
For a minute there I thought there was someone clapping to stir up the pigeons and then along comes Finn.

Thank you, Finn.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 03:42 PM   #46
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,940
My answer to the Original (implied) Question

The truth of the Bible can be evidenced in more than one way. Two way are its self consistency despite dozens of writers spanning a couple millenniums, and itís more authentically sourced than any other literature in antiquity. Those simple facts alone (which aren't in dispute among the intellectually honest) should be reason enough for anyone to purposefully investigate the claims therein, regardless of whether or not you choose to put faith in those claims. That is to say, such facts support the Bible's claim to be the infallible Word of God, though arguably it doesn't prove it, decisively.

Archeology too, confirms Scripture, in the very least on a historical level. Not entirely, we haven't found the Garden of Eden, or Babel, or Noah's Ark. Instead of confirms, (because why use a fallible procedure to judge an infallible work), I'll say archeology consistently supports the claims of Scripture. However, until archeology is a decisive science, it will be shallow confirmation at best Öfor now.

For those that have read the Bible, its detailed predictive prophecy (from a statistical analysis) is stunning to say the least. The book of Isaiah has amazing insights about the heavens that couldn't be proven until around the 1920's. The book of Job too has insight into our solar system and its neighboring galaxies though it was written 2000 BC+/-. This sort of evidence is consistent to the Bibles claims that its contents are inspired by God. I do realize though that even ardent skeptics will say this doesn't constitute proof. For reasons I care not to share at this time (which are far better that the supposed ones coming), I'll still say up to this point, I agree.

Now for the reasons above, good students asking the right questions, seeking the right answers, knocking on all the closed doors will take the above evidence and upon studying it will find the following:

The Bible is the standard of standards.
Consider the law of logic: A true claim can not contradict another true claim. This law is the same everywhere and applies at all times, without exception. If we take the Biblical world view, we see the claim that God's mind is the standard for all knowledge. Expanding on that, there can never be an exception to a law of logic because the claim is "the law of non-contradiction" and God's mind is Sovereign truth. If we are then, as the Bible claims, made in His image, we confirm/and conform to that law.
What if you reject that claim? That's a fair question. I would ask what then is the basis of the foundation of our laws? I mean, scientists accept these laws are 'universal' but to my knowledge, not one scientist I've met has universal knowledge. How can that be answered rationally if not for the revelation of God omniscient? I'll leave this here to percolate.

The Bible is the foundation of science Gasp

Similar to the above science allow us to describe the predictable, consistent way in which the universe normally behaves. Science allows us to make successful predictions about certain future states. From a Biblical world view, God tells us. This is unique, because the Bible claims God is beyond time, therefore he is not subject to it. Why does that matter from a scientific standpoint? Because the scientific method refutes the fallacy of begging the question. That is: How can we know the future will be like the past? Because past success is a good indicator or future success. This is maddening logic, and it is circular unless you use a Biblical world view to that vicious cycle.

The God that is dismissed by men

If we make the claim that only the Bible has the ability to make sense of the standards of knowledge (like those above), then what of the paradox to those who reject the claims of the Bible, do they have no knowledge? How can one reject the truth of the Bible, while simultaneously relying on that truth From a Biblical worldview we are taught that God 'hardwired' that truth in each one of us. As a result there are some who are able to use the knowledge of logic and uniformity that He has placed in us, all while denying the God that makes such knowledge possible. This fact that (doubters and skeptics) are able to use logic and science is a proof that the Bible really is true. And it is consistent with the claims there in. It can be reasonably said that the worldview delineated by the Bible is the only worldview that can make sense of all those things necessary for knowledge.

The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. Essentially, the proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldnít prove anything at all.



Disclaimer: No faith or faiths were harmed or claimed in the makings of this post. No other religions or peoples were consulted or referenced, nor implicated though the above reasoning. It is offered without malice or inequity, for the authorís sole purpose of furthering an investigation to those who want to. It is being presented as a reasoned, logical, and grounded answer to the question "How do we know anything is true. Any further discourse concerning other claims within the text being questioned and investigated above will be not be addressed, without first determining motivation. Which up to this point have been determined to be somewhat obfuscatory.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 04:15 PM   #47
gabbagabbahey
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 71
Inconsistencies in the bible;

Genesis
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night,
on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the
sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day)
working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls
heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.
This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our
space program. 1:6-8

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their
photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making
the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a
hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions
of stars. 1:16

"And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth." Really? Then why are only a tiny fraction of stars visible from
earth? Under the best conditions, no more than five thousand stars are
visible from earth with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of
billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies.
Yet this verse says that God put the stars in the firmament "to give
light" to the earth. 1:17

God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth
upon the earth." This verse is used to justify Christian opposition to
birth control, to concern for the environment, and to animal rights. The
earth was made for humans, and they can do as they damn well please with
it. 1:28

All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats,
mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as they were
created by God. But, of course, we now know that there were carnivorous
animals millions of years before humans existed. 1:30

Here is a list of hundreds of more inconsistancies;

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bib...sistencies.pdf

Here is a list of over 400 scientific and historical inaccuracies;

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Failed prophecies and promises? The bible is chock full of them. IMO prophecy needs to be much more unique and specific than the vague "astrology" type found in the bible, where the prophecies are so vague & broad that just about anyone can read anything into them. Also, it's pretty easy to say prophecy is true if you either write it after the fact or it is something that you can fulfill after you've predicted it.

For example, if I "predict" that some day that I shall have a shaven head, be a leader of men, and always wear green socks, and then 25 years down the road I get a job as a preacher , I shave my head and buy a boat load of green socks, well, it wasn't anything supernatural that made those things come true, was it? I just shaved my head, bought the socks and studied to be a preacher.

Also, it's quite easy to make prophecies look like they really happen if you edit out the uncomfortable, glaringly incorrect bits.

The bible was written by mortal men. It was edited by mortal men. It is interpreted, in many wildly different ways by mortal men. And it looks exactly how you would expect ancient bronze age desert dwellers to try & explain their world. That's why there are more different Christian Sects (over 40,000) than there are sentences in the bible.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Give me an example of what you think is the best prophecy in the bible & we'll take it from there. I'm willing to be convinced, but it better be good. : )
gabbagabbahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 06:38 PM   #48
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
For those that have read the Bible, its detailed predictive prophecy (from a statistical analysis) is stunning to say the least. The book of Isaiah has amazing insights about the heavens that couldn't be proven until around the 1920's. The book of Job too has insight into our solar system and its neighboring galaxies though it was written 2000 BC+/-. This sort of evidence is consistent to the Bibles claims that its contents are inspired by God. I do realize though that even ardent skeptics will say this doesn't constitute proof. For reasons I care not to share at this time (which are far better that the supposed ones coming), I'll still say up to this point, I agree.
A Tom Clancy novel can describe the real-life U.S. political climate down to a frightening detail, yet it still is and will be nothing but a work of fiction.

I'll be the first to admit though, that was a bad analogy. The Bible is not a work of fiction, at all. It is a history book, a book that describes known facts of the natural sciences, and a book that offers unique insight into human behavior. It is one of the humanity's first attempts to write a 'handbook to everything'. It was written after the most exact scientific methods known by man at the time.

However... as such a handbook, it is badly outdated. Our knowledge has expanded since its writing, and some of the things considered facts back then have been overturned when new light has been shed into things. Of course, some still stand. But it is a huge leap in logic to claim that because some teachings of the Bible still prove true, everything in it does.


All right. Now that we got the boring rationale out of the way - time to unleash one of the true wonders of this universe: What the mind of a god is truly capable of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
The Bible is the standard of standards.
Consider the law of logic: A true claim can not contradict another true claim. This law is the same everywhere and applies at all times, without exception. If we take the Biblical world view, we see the claim that God's mind is the standard for all knowledge. Expanding on that, there can never be an exception to a law of logic because the claim is "the law of non-contradiction" and God's mind is Sovereign truth. If we are then, as the Bible claims, made in His image, we confirm/and conform to that law.
What if you reject that claim? That's a fair question. I would ask what then is the basis of the foundation of our laws? I mean, scientists accept these laws are 'universal' but to my knowledge, not one scientist I've met has universal knowledge. How can that be answered rationally if not for the revelation of God omniscient? I'll leave this here to percolate.
These "universal laws" most scientists refer to are actually called the "laws of physics". For the known universe to exist, there needs to be a framework that ensures that certain things always happen the same way. If there wasn't, anything or any of us could just poof out of existence at any given moment.

Now, one might ask, who planned such a framework for the universe to operate in such a manner? Here is another pointer a man can (sometimes intentionally) get wrong. Our universe was not planned to work the way it does. No, it simply is the way it is thanks to certain things always working the same way. "Standard" refers to something that is there as opposed to something that is non-standard. Neither is mutually exclusive. But when we talk about the universal laws, there is no such thing as non-standard here. There is no cause and consequence. No outcome. There is simply stability - things are the way they are because they are.

The Bible is not a standard of standards, because the "universal laws" don't conform to any standard - because they don't have to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
The Bible is the foundation of science
Similar to the above science allow us to describe the predictable, consistent way in which the universe normally behaves. Science allows us to make successful predictions about certain future states. From a Biblical world view, God tells us. This is unique, because the Bible claims God is beyond time, therefore he is not subject to it. Why does that matter from a scientific standpoint? Because the scientific method refutes the fallacy of begging the question. That is: How can we know the future will be like the past? Because past success is a good indicator or future success. This is maddening logic, and it is circular unless you use a Biblical world view to that vicious cycle.
Those laws that are referred to here, are called the laws of probability. Some of them are based on the laws of physics, others simply to observation of the events that have happened before. The logic is that because something has happened, it has a fairly good chance to happen again. However, it does not happen always.

And therefore, what comes to the claim "The Bible is the foundation of science", I can prove that as false with two simple sentences.

They are: The Bible contains a ton of absolutes. Science deals with none.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
The God that is dismissed by men
If we make the claim that only the Bible has the ability to make sense of the standards of knowledge (like those above), then what of the paradox to those who reject the claims of the Bible, do they have no knowledge? How can one reject the truth of the Bible, while simultaneously relying on that truth From a Biblical worldview we are taught that God 'hardwired' that truth in each one of us. As a result there are some who are able to use the knowledge of logic and uniformity that He has placed in us, all while denying the God that makes such knowledge possible. This fact that (doubters and skeptics) are able to use logic and science is a proof that the Bible really is true. And it is consistent with the claims there in. It can be reasonably said that the worldview delineated by the Bible is the only worldview that can make sense of all those things necessary for knowledge.
God created man in his image. That means a man can use logic and science because man is God. No man can know what God knows, but all men do. Yet there are things out there we can fairly certainly say that no man knows. Which means that either man is not created in the image of God, and therefore not a God himself - or that God, who can by this logic only know what the man knows, is not omniscient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. Essentially, the proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all.
The Bible is the Word of God, because it is the Word of Man, who in turn, is God. Therefore, the knowledge in the Bible is the knowledge made by possible by man.

So, what is true? The answer is simple. Everything you know and consider true, and the man next to you does, and the man next to him - all that is true. If the next man does not, that does not mean that it is untrue. Instead, it is unknown.


In the end, what we choose to believe in boils down to one simple thing: How we approach the things we don't know. When man wrote the Bible, plenty of things that are everyday knowledge to us were unknown to them, and they had no means to find out what causes them. Despite never achieving said state, man is a creature built to achieve perfection. So they couldn't just let them be unknowns. They had to explain them some way. And that way was to chalk it up to the existence of the supernatural.

The Man still does not know everything. As a matter of fact, if they did, it would create yet another paradox. If the man did, he would be omniscient, and therefore God would be as well. However, if we knew everything, everything would be natural for us, and there would be no place for God, because He is not mundane.

So... the things we don't know. Many of the things that were unknown to our ancestors are known to us. But what of the things we still don't know. Have we crossed a critical threshold, after which we can safely assume that even the things we don't know will turn out to be perfectly natural, or is there still room for something that will be truly supernatural?

And that, my dear peers, is the closest thing of a Holy Grail we can have - the search of the divine within ourselves.

Now, there is just one little thing left to keep in mind: When you contemplate your faith, do not let it get in the way of logic. Because if you do, there is a chance that you may poof out of existence at any given second.


Disclaimer: No common sense was violated in the making of this post. Despite this, the text above may confuse. As a matter of fact, it is supposed to. Because that, you puny mortals, is the best way to teach you what may happen when you challenge the mind of a god.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 10:39 PM   #49
IAdventurer01
IndyFan
 
IAdventurer01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wish I knew....
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Term "Atheist" actually has two meanings. It is a derivation of Greek word atheos, "without gods". Mostly, it is understood as someone who does not believe in any deity.

However, it could also be understood as someone who is not under the protection of any deity, e.g. not a member of single religion. And yes, I've heard many people use it in this sense in modern times as well, whether they've been aware of this deeper etymology or not.

Let's all just take away from this that words are terrible at conveying meanings and we should be wary of assigning nouns to ourselves and others.
IAdventurer01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 01:19 PM   #50
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616


Ezekiel 23:20-21.

No wonder the Bible became so popular. It was the only porno you could open on a Sunday.

Filthy beasts.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.