charmeyn

Well first off , I've been reading the threads at this forum for the past few days before deciding to join and I have to admit it's amusing some of the reasoning's people have here to debate the non-existance of God or Jesus as I see that this site is a predominately athiest format, it's not surprising the only findings they will support are those of other athiests points of view and there dogma. The question I would like to ask of the ahtiest is this: "Were you even there during the first century to validate your claims that Christ didn't exist? Were you athiests there to see Jesus didn't raise the dead?, didn't heal the sick, didn't die on the Cross?"
Maybe you should ask yourselves of all the countless crucifixtions in Roman history ,and there were plenty,why is it that Jesus Christ's stands out?
Now as to why I'm replying to your post Liviu, I have to correct you : The law was not abolished on Christs death as not all has been acomplished yet, and that he has not yet returned, and this is what Jesus meant when he said "until all has been accomplished"

Sorry, I just find it amusing, and quite sad, that people can not see that it's separate points of view, and "mis-use" of the Bible,that have been the root of all hatered between people for centuries and the cause of plenty of wars. And it's sites such as this that only reinforce my belief in what the Bible says to be true, and that is there will be those who will refute it's message, turn from it, mis-represent it, re-write it and so on, so my question to the Athiest is: What is it that is so hard to understand about the message of Jesus Christ and what he tuelly stood for?
The reason I see why so many people reject the word's of the Bible is because it was mankind himself who misunderstood it and mis-used it for their own personal or political gain (Do the Christian Crusades ring a bell to anyone? for example), and this my friends is not the fault of the Bible or Jesus Christ but our own mis-doing, nothing more.

Jack the Bodiless

No, the reasons we atheists reject the Bible are:

1. No reason to accept the Bible in the first place: nothing it contains indicates divine inspiration.

2. Numerous scientific and historical errors: the Bible says things that "just ain't so".

3. Internal contradictions, failed prophecies etc.

4. Glorification of numerous atrocities.

JPD

So what would the consequences be?

I don't see anyone ignoring them. What I do see is a failure by Christians to explain them adequately. Not that you would accept that of course as you know "the truth" don't you?


So what you are saying is that we have a choice between God or fantasy - um, now how would one go about differentiating between the two precisely and how would one be free to choose between them? Assuuming, that is, that there are only two options available, a favourite trick employed by fundamentalists when faced with trying to bring evolutionary theory to its knees.


As do many books but which don't demand that you believe in fairy stories to enable them to make sense. So where is your evidence that fervent prayer will be answered by God?

charmeyn

Well do you realize many people "Glorify atrocities" everyday by watching disaster movies, Horror shows, people getting "Theatricly Killed" (but that's O.K it's just fake blood?), running to the scene of an accident just to stand and gawk. Celebrate Holidays who's histories stem from many people dying during wars. So I take it as an athiest you do none of this that I mention?

I'm sorry but the Athiest logic truelly baffles me, and I don't claim to be educated in theology to argue with you people but I'm certainly not blind when it comes to what I see going on in this world to put any discredit against what the Bible says will be.

I read some post here somewhere some Athiest reasoning's( And I find rather immature and hilarious) for why the Bible was ever written was because it was a form of entertainment back then because these writer's of the , Athiest quote: "Didn't have anything better to do and had no internet, so it seems fitting to say that I guess some of you athiests have "Nothing better to do" than to dis-credit the authenticity of the Bible, by use of that which the writer's of the scripture's didn't have:The internet.Sorry but the Bible has been around long before you and will be long after you are gone, so your beating your heads against a brick wall and spitting in the wind as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concened , from the majority of the topics I have read here before joining,this is no more than a hate mongering site, nothing more nothing less.

JPD

How wrong you are. Stick around and you will see that this is a minor ingredient in the whole mix. Your tarring an entire site with its diverse views with one large brush demonstrates astonishing ignorance, as do those who accept what the Bible/Quran says without question. Search hard enough and you can find predictions of events which have come to pass in the most obscure works. You don't have to look very hard to find errors in the Bible/Quran. If you claim that there are none then you are not familiar enough with either text to take part in a rational and intelligent discussion. If you claim that it all comes down to context and interpretation then anything can be explained in a manner which claims the exact opposite of what a verse or a passage appears to state.

Jack the Bodiless

charmeyn:
You seem to have overlooked the fact that we were discussing the BIBLE there, not personal feelings.
Scientists don't know everything, and neither do historians. But both know enough to prove that the Bible is wrong about many things. Maybe you can explain how the ancient Egyptians survived Noah's Flood so easily that they didn't even notice it? It would have been right in the middle of their Old Kingdom period, when the pyramids were being built. Perhaps we could then move on to the evidence which disproves the Genesis creation story?
Even if the Bible DID contain fulfilled prophecies, that wouldn't change the fact that it also contains FAILED prophecies (and internal contradictions etc). But the Bible doesn't appear to contain any successful prophecies that are specific enough to clearly indicate divine inspiration ("There will be false prophets" is not exactly a remarkable claim, there have always been false prophets).
Correct: I do not celebrate such things. I certainly don't imagine that a "loving" God would order the massacre of babies, the cutting-open of pregnant women, human sacrifices, the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others, and so forth (I suspect there are parts of the Bible that you haven't studied yet).

Amaleq13

You are describing a common physiological phenomenon. IIRC, scientists have recently specifically identified which region of the brain is responsible for this "feeling" and have induced it in test subjects. You are mistaken if you believe this "feeling" means anything except that you have a functioning brain.

You can probably learn more about this if you visit the Science & Skepticism forum and run a search.

charmeyn

Well I assume then if you people believe everything science claims, then that would include that mankind evolved from apes, so if apes evolved into humans as we are today, then why is it that apes still exist on this great and awesome earth.
Oh I guess you believe science because some scientists says that something existed 60 Billion years ago, so it could not be possible for God to create the universe in 6 days, but could it never occur to you that the scope of God's time is far grander than ours; and yes I am fully aware that the Bible does try to explain the scope of God's day in comparison to ours by stating that for our one day God's day is likened to 1000 years; yet even I can grasp the concept that the speaker at the time was only mearly giving a rough example, an analogy if you like, for all he knew God's time could measure 10,000, 100,000 or even 10 Billion years. And Oh yes there were dinosaurs in the Bible ,Virginia(pun), and fire breathing beasts:JFYI, there still are "Fire Breathing" creatures that exist today, although not on a grand scale as that of the Biblical Leviathan, but just a tiny little beetle bug in the Jungles of South America, although the name of this beetle escapes me at this time for you curious minds to paunder, or possibly discredit.
I certainly would love to see a scientist create a universe without the use of his hands or "God" given brains, nor any ingrediants for that matter, then and only then will I believe half the garbage they spew out their little glass beakers when it comes to their theories of our existance and creation; and no I am not trying to discredit science as a whole because some wonderful things came out of that area of study, but only because these so called scientists were "created" and given brains ..... and gee I wonder who gave them these Brains, they certainly didn't get them out of a Cracker Jack box, although there are a few who very well could have with some of their lame theories.
And oh yes, I am quite aware that the Bible is not without error, because it was in fact translated from the "Old Hebrew" , not the Hebrew that is spoken to date a big difference,by (Hmmm gee this is probably a hard concept for some of you Athiests to grasp) mankind; but this still does not discredit the word of God, that discredit goes to mankind himself for his mis-understanding of it.
Oh and here's a good (Not!!) theory I heard the other day, not on this board of course, the theory is that Man created God; Now how ludicrous is that, that "Man" would create a "God", who thus "Created" "man" ; A God who they feared as apposed to a God who they could kiss up to and do anything they darn well pleased like spoiled little children with no parental supervision. Now I ask you, Athiests of course, if given a chance today to "Create" a "God" what would he be like: A loving parent who corrected you when you did wrong out of love or a candy coated "sugar plumb fairy" wuss?

Edited to add: Oh and BTW, there are plenty of scientists and Historians who have proven the Bible to be authentic and accurate, so I guess it's a matter of which scientist we choose to side with: that of the ones the Athiest tend to agree with (and suites their purpose of course) and appose the authenticity of the Bible, or that of the Scientists which Give the Bible it's due credit

Amaleq13

I'm not sure if it is the way you state it or if you genuinely misunderstand but this seems inaccurate to me. "We" tend to accept claims that are supported by evidence. "Science" tends to state claims within the context of the evidence thought to support them and the specific reasons scientists find that evidence to support them. Sometimes, the nature of a particular subject requires significant background knowledge to comprehend a given explanation of the evidence and "we" are forced to rely on the experts to reach a consensus opinion but, more often, a non-expert can educate herself sufficiently to make an informed judgment about a given conclusion based on the evidence. It has been my experience that few theists who feel compelled to attack science have ever bothered to do the work necessary to acquire a sufficient understanding to render an informed judgment. Instead, they read and repeat straw man mischaracterizations of scientific claims on creationist websites and mistakenly assume they have accurate information. Again, this is really not an appropriate discussion for this forum and I have already supplied a link to the one that is appropriate.

This is also an inappropriate subject for this forum but it belongs in Evolution/Creation. If you go there, you will (hopefully) become disabused of your current misconceptions about evolution. For example, you will learn (I hope) that we did not evolve from apes but that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. You will also learn (again, I hope), that apes are actually heading in the direction of extinction but primarily because of the actions of humans. At various points in the past, there have been several species of upright hominids inhabiting the planet but ours is the only one that has managed to survive this long.

In the future, please try to keep your posts in this forum specifically relevant to biblical criticism and/or history.

Thanks in advance and welcome to IIDB.

Avatar

Not this one again. Nowhere has anyone claimed that we eveolved from apes. We evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Apes developed one way, we went another. Asking this question is like asking "If you are a true human, then why do you have cousins?"
If the earth and the universe were created in only six days, why does all the physical evidence point to a multi-billion year development? Did God deliberately make the universe so it only looks billions of years old? If so, then how do you know that the universe wasn't created six seconds ago and that we are all wandering around with memories of events that never actually happened?
This sounds like a Kent Hovind claim...one that has been refuted even by other creationists.
Unlike relgionists who tend to make things up as they go along, scientists do not make theories out of whole cloth. Theories have evidence...proof that anyone can discover and test for themselves.
Well if the Bible has errors in it despite a little thing like the nessecity of translation, it certainly looses a great deal of its credibility as a reliable source doesn't it?
If I were to try to imagine a deity, I would want it to actually be just and loving as opposed to the "You must worship me and praise my name every day of your life or I will destroy you" egomaniac of the Christian Bible. I would want it to be fair and honest in its dealings with humanity as opposed to a being that deliberately stacks the deck against all humanity out of petulkant spite for offenses that may not have even happened. Heck, you don't need a scientist to create a deity...people are very good at making ones up themselves.
I really hope your're not talking about Hovind, Behe, or Wyatt here. The question you might want to ask before you choose a side is this: Which side has more solid evidence of their claims?