Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hedshaker · 06-22-2004, 08:19 AM

Isn't it a little strange that, in order to invetigate the the truth of the bible one has to "first" believe it to be true. That's right! There is no other way to verify the bible's validity but to believe it to be the absolute truth first.

Wisdom, huh?

Once upon a time (exept there wasn't any time yet[sic]) there was a magical nothing. Along came a fairy god and poofed the world into existance.... then the fun starts. Talking snakes and donkeys, people living for hundreds of years, a world-wide flood, parting of the sea, a talking bush, a virgin birth, walking on water, feeding 5000 peeps with a few fish and a few loave of bread......... etc

Mmmmm, maybe a loaf of bread is a metaphore for dozen huge bakeries with all the staff working over time and the fish were really whales. Yeah I know a whale isn't a fish but when has the facts stopped them

Orbit

Naked Ape · 06-22-2004, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thugpreacha

An ancient collection of books written over a span of 1500 BC until 100 AD. Written by more than 40 kings, prophets,leaders, and followers of Jesus. Fascinating that, although so diverse the Bible is a unique testimony to literary unity and to presenting a case for the source of all wisdom.

I'm not sure what you find so fascinating. Some anonymous group (Council of Nicea?) selects (by unknown criteria) books of uncertain authorship and provenance for inclusion in 'The Bible', and you point to the homogeneity of these books as "a unique testimony to literary unity" ?
Do you feel up to "presenting a case for [the bible as] the source of all wisdom" yourself?
Would you categorize the claimed existance of ruminant bunnies, non-mammalian/avian bats and four legged birds as wisdom?
Who inspired the books the biblical redactors threw away?
How can you be sure?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thugpreacha

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

It is apparent to most here that the culprit is not "schooling", so the question is: What have you been letting interfere with your education?

Cheers,

Naked Ape

Aravnah Ornan · 06-22-2004, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thugpreacha

It is not the "book" nor is it the "early church" nor is it the political agenda of the early Popes. It is the very essence of the reality of the Holy Spirit. If other religions were so right, they would also be in touch with this same Spirit by default. At the risk of being labled absolutist, arrogant, and wrong, I maintain that Christianity is right because Christ is Alive and because the Spirit exists. I cannot prove it, but He can. I cannot prove Him, but the very fact that many people have sensed His presence indicates an argument For the existance of this Spirit. Can any of you say that there is no such thing as a supernatural realm? Aside from the issue of no solid evidence in mainstream science, many many documentations of supernatural events are out there. Lets just say that for the sake of argument the evidence is thin at this time. For you, at least.

How can Christians be in touch with the same Spirit, and read the same New Testament under the guidance of the same Spirit, and yet arrive at so many, mutually contradictory dogmas?

Thugpreacha · 06-23-2004, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicar Philip

Oh man, where to start?Assertion.Assertions. Argumentum ad populem, argument from numbers.(bolding by me) Well, you see, that little ol' issue of "no solid evidence in mainstream science" is kind of the issue. If it weren't for that pesky little problem, we'd ALL be theists! I'm sorry, Thug, but I find your arguments entirely unconvincing. Thanks for your input, though.

Exactly, Vicar! You see, my argument boils down to the fact that HE exists. You claim assertions. Yet you claim that human wisdom, or "I" collectively personified, is the source to be acknowledged. Well, in defense of Him, I assert that the collective "I" of Human Wisdom is not proof enough for me.
Just one guys opinion, though.

Heathen Dawn · 06-23-2004, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thugpreacha

As a Christian, I believe that God is the source of all wisdom.

If so, then there should have been through the ages an output of wisdom from Christians; an output that no human could have conceived, the secrets of the universe. Instead, what we have had from Christians are more and more refinements on the great mystery of “believe or burn.”

Quote:

In defense of my belief, I will assert this fact: A Christian is not a Christian by means of education,indoctorination, or by way of any scholarly pursuit. A Christian is a Christian due to spiritual impartation.

Is this another “only Christians can understand spiritual things” argument? I’ve heard it an umpteen times on Christian Forums and I’m just sick and tired of it.

Quote:

I present my case for Christ. He died and rose again. Civilization changed from that time onward.

I’d say civilisation changed when Gutenberg invented the printing press.

Quote:

So who were the vessels of this spiritual impartation from the time of Jesus until Constantine? Who carried it forth until the year 1500 and the start of printed knowledge?
It most certainly was not the Popes and Cardinals.
It was the little people (monks,mainly) who had a love of this source of wisdom. They preserved the original scriptures. Taking into account how hard it was to write a book in those early days, the New Testament writers certainly had a passion for doing so! They did not write literary fables. They wrote with an inner voice...the very voice of God!

All mythology is the spiritualised record of man’s encounter with Deity. The Bible is one of those mythologies.

Quote:

An ancient collection of books written over a span of 1500 BC until 100 AD. Written by more than 40 kings, prophets,leaders, and followers of Jesus. Fascinating that, although so diverse the Bible is a unique testimony to literary unity and to presenting a case for the source of all wisdom.

The Vedas span a larger period of time than the Bible and are regarded by their believing readers to present a case for the source of all wisdom.

Alludium Fozdex · 06-23-2004, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thugpreacha

I cannot prove Him, but the very fact that many people have sensed His presence indicates an argument For the existance of this Spirit.

I'm certain that what you actually meant to say was that many people claim to have sensed His presence.

Biggus · 06-23-2004, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thugpreacha

Exactly, Vicar! You see, my argument boils down to the fact that HE exists. You claim assertions. Yet you claim that human wisdom, or "I" collectively personified, is the source to be acknowledged. Well, in defense of Him, I assert that the collective "I" of Human Wisdom is not proof enough for me.
Just one guys opinion, though.

Just FYI:

Fact n.
2.a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

Assertion n.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Now that this has been cleared up, I'd like you to present us with evidence in support of your deity. This evidence needs to stand up under scientific analysis to be acceptable.

pie~* · 06-23-2004, 08:37 AM

Allow me to provide a normative prediction:

Now that the issue of since has been raised, Thugpreacher would most likely try to assert the notion that science and logic is imperfect and unable to prove everything, so, there is no proof for the non-extence of god as there is no proof for the existence of god.

thus, I would like to give a rebuttal beforehand:

Why do you believe if there is no reason to belief, or no evidence of what you are believing so far....doesn't that sound stupid? The spiritual element that you claim is a subjective experience which does not prove that your religion is the objective truth for everyone else. The objective truth remains independent of your subjective notions and so called 'spirituality'. Therefore, your assertions are in essence, normative and are thus nothing more than hot air.

Heathen Dawn · 06-23-2004, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggus

I'd like you to present us with evidence in support of your deity. This evidence needs to stand up under scientific analysis to be acceptable.

You ask for the impossible. Science can only deal with the natural, and is an unsuitable tool for evaluating the supernatural, which deities are.

pie~* · 06-23-2004, 08:55 AM

But as I've argued, Logic, which is part of science, allows Humans to make sense of what is presented to them. If science and logic cannot prove the diety, then there is no reason for said human to believe, as he/she cannot *know*(ergo, make sense of, rationalise) said deity to believe in him/her. Thus, the argument that dieties are above science and logic are now somewhat invalid, don't you think?

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

06-22-2004, 08:19 AM	#11
Hedshaker Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: https://soundcloud.com/dark-blue-man Posts: 3,526	Isn't it a little strange that, in order to invetigate the the truth of the bible one has to "first" believe it to be true. That's right! There is no other way to verify the bible's validity but to believe it to be the absolute truth first. Wisdom, huh? Once upon a time (exept there wasn't any time yet[sic]) there was a magical nothing. Along came a fairy god and poofed the world into existance.... then the fun starts. Talking snakes and donkeys, people living for hundreds of years, a world-wide flood, parting of the sea, a talking bush, a virgin birth, walking on water, feeding 5000 peeps with a few fish and a few loave of bread......... etc Mmmmm, maybe a loaf of bread is a metaphore for dozen huge bakeries with all the staff working over time and the fish were really whales. Yeah I know a whale isn't a fish but when has the facts stopped them Orbit

06-23-2004, 08:37 AM	#18
pie~* Junior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 28	Allow me to provide a normative prediction: Now that the issue of since has been raised, Thugpreacher would most likely try to assert the notion that science and logic is imperfect and unable to prove everything, so, there is no proof for the non-extence of god as there is no proof for the existence of god. thus, I would like to give a rebuttal beforehand: Why do you believe if there is no reason to belief, or no evidence of what you are believing so far....doesn't that sound stupid? The spiritual element that you claim is a subjective experience which does not prove that your religion is the objective truth for everyone else. The objective truth remains independent of your subjective notions and so called 'spirituality'. Therefore, your assertions are in essence, normative and are thus nothing more than hot air.

06-23-2004, 08:55 AM	#20
pie~* Junior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 28	But as I've argued, Logic, which is part of science, allows Humans to make sense of what is presented to them. If science and logic cannot prove the diety, then there is no reason for said human to believe, as he/she cannot know(ergo, make sense of, rationalise) said deity to believe in him/her. Thus, the argument that dieties are above science and logic are now somewhat invalid, don't you think?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.