Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JPD · 11-29-2005, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Christians don’t agree with that. That’s what makes Christians and atheists different.

What the atheists have figured out is that, if the Bible is not true, then they should eat, drink, and be merry. That is why atheists love themselves and why it is irrelevant whether they love their families.

You need to sit down and have a think about this. Clearly applying a tar brush is an ignorant generalisation that can only fail. Of course you will find examples of every kind of behaviour exhibited by all kinds of people.

There is no "if" about the Bible not being true. It contains so many errors and contradictions that it can't be true if considered as a whole. Of course there will be elements of truth within it but if the Biblical God did turn out to be in all actuality the real God, boy is he a fucked-up piece of shit. No chance of anyone in their right mind worshipping that.

rhutchin · 11-29-2005, 04:24 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Actually, it is because they are not easy that we have so many men claiming to be ex-Christians.

Ubercat
Not just claiming. I for one AM an ex-christian. I have no reason to doubt the testimony of all the others, either. It would be the height of arrogance for me to accuse them of lying, when I have no evidence to back up my accusations. Therefore, I'm mature enough to just take their word for it, and trust that they're more familiar with their own lives than I am.

Hmmmmm. Are you claiming to be an ex-Christian for the reason arising from Delia's comment??

You do not have to judge; let the Bible call them a liar. An ex-Christian is nothing more than a person who says that he was a Christian. People can say many things and anything, not all of them true.

JPD · 11-29-2005, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

What the atheists have figured out is that, if the Bible is not true, then they should eat, drink, and be merry. That is why atheists love themselves and why it is irrelevant whether they love their families.

Whereas Christians are positively encouraged to drive a wedge called God/Jesus (/big tuna tin in the clouds/dappy headed Chinese speaking pink puppy with super-power spectacles and a beard...

) between themselves and their families.

JPD · 11-29-2005, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Hmmmmm. Are you claiming to be an ex-Christian for the reason arising from Delia's comment??

You do not have to judge; let the Bible call them a liar. An ex-Christian is nothing more than a person who says that he was a Christian. People can say many things and anything, not all of them true.

Whereas a Christian is nothing more than a person who says that he is a Christian. So there is no difference. But then, of course, you know that you are a true Christian. And how do we know this? Because you are inconsistent, make excuses for the Bible, know less than you imagine you do, and constantly fail to present an argument even approaching rationality. Not that that will bother you, naturally, as you know "the truth". And "the truth" is an internally inconsistent text.

rhutchin · 11-29-2005, 04:31 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Why would one pray to God for a cure to one's incurable cancer?

Wayne Delia
Because Jesus said anything prayed for would be delivered to the faithful. Also, Jesus said that Christians would be distinguished by their abilities to cure any illness. Not that they need to cure every illness, but that they would be identified as Christians for their ability to cure any illness. So, there's no such thing as "incurable anything," much less "incurable cancer," if Jesus was telling the truth, and if any Christians had sufficient faith, and if any of those Christians were willing to use their magical super-powers.

You need to read the Bible and not just pick verses out of context to create a theology.

However, see if you can answer my original question, “Why would one pray to God for a cure to one's incurable cancer?�? Note that my question was not, “Can one pray to God for a cure…�? but “Why would one pray to God for a cure…�?

popeye1 · 11-29-2005, 04:36 AM

Well it is now obvious that we have frightened Mr.Rhutchin away. There are so many questions that he cannot answer logically. And I reckon he figures that he cannot save any of us poor miserable heathens from hellfire and damnation I feel sorry for the poor fellow. But perhaps he is mentally mature enough to withstand the heat that he should expect from this forum. Peace Popeye

rhutchin · 11-29-2005, 04:36 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
As I understand it, science predicts until scientists learn something new and predict something else.

Scientific estimates began with, "If we assume that what we know is correct, then our estimates can predict so and so, and then we can accept those estimates with a certain degree of probability. Of course, when we learn new stuff, we can always go back and revise our estimates"

Earlier, I said (or meant if not expressed well) that we can know what the Bible says, but we may not understand everything about what we read.

Wayne Delia
And on that basis, it's better to rely on the Bible instead of science - for the explicit reason that the Bible is less certain? Are you out of your mind? The scientific method, even as you have naively described it here, is self-correcting, and That's A Good Thing, because as new information becomes available, it is incorporated into the body of knowledge, with revisions to older hypotheses modified or entirely discarded to account for the newly-discovered information. On the other hand, we're stuck with what the Bible says, with no revisions, modifications, or discarding of anything permitted. New knowledge is discouraged, which sucks for any hope of scientific advancements.

This pretty much refutes your entire argument in this area.

Not really -- to what you conclude.

The scientific method is not self-correcting; it is the self-correcting mechanism to keep scientists in line. It keeps scientists from proving anything that is contrary to that which the Bible says.

JPD · 11-29-2005, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You need to read the Bible and not just pick verses out of context to create a theology.

However, see if you can answer my original question, “Why would one pray to God for a cure to one's incurable cancer?�? Note that my question was not, “Can one pray to God for a cure…�? but “Why would one pray to God for a cure…�?

Good old context eh?

Lifeline of the faithful.
Obviously he has read the Bible as has everyone else here. The difference is that we didn't approach it all dewy eyed and limply twittering. You cannot see what is so obviously wrong with it because you live in fear of what will happen to you after you die should you do anything other than believe in it 100%. So you don't question any of it. If you come across a contradiction you just say to yourself "Ah, this appears to be a contradiction but I know that God knows that it isn't because God knows all and I don't need to provide an explanation beyond that. Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die".

rhutchin · 11-29-2005, 04:40 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
No, I would not say that. My view is that we should do those things that Christ taught us to do.

John A. Broussard
In other words, Christ was saying, "Do as I say and not as I do."

Am I reading you correctly?

Not really. We should do as Christ did, but there are things that Christ did that we cannot do. For example, we cannot tell what a person is thinking as Christ could, so we can only judge a person by his outward actions and not his thoughts.

JPD · 11-29-2005, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Not really -- to what you conclude.

The scientific method is not self-correcting; it is the self-correcting mechanism to keep scientists in line. It keeps scientists from proving anything that is contrary to that which the Bible says.

So science is a self-correcting mechanism designed to prevent scientists from demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt anything that runs contrary to the Bible? Fascinating. Do Muslim and Hindu scientists do the same thing with respect to their chosen religious texts? I must know. I really must.

Much less was known about the world and the universe when the Bible was written so the number of challenges that the Bible presents will be limited. The Bible is static in its recording whereas science moves on "correcting itself" where necessary. That is called "learning" - you might enjoy that. Does the Bible tell us that water is composed of two gases? Does the Bible tell us that the atom can be split?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-29-2005, 04:36 AM	#236
popeye1 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: ,Iowa Posts: 84	Well it is now obvious that we have frightened Mr.Rhutchin away. There are so many questions that he cannot answer logically. And I reckon he figures that he cannot save any of us poor miserable heathens from hellfire and damnation I feel sorry for the poor fellow. But perhaps he is mentally mature enough to withstand the heat that he should expect from this forum. Peace Popeye

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.