|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 10:02:42 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
The universe could have always been.
You can't be serious, that has not been believed by the scientific community since the 70's.
If critics of the Bible would read it with an open mind, if they would pay attention to genre, grammar, syntax, semantics and context many would recognize that their faith is placed in their own dogmatic assertions rather than in a substantive defensible argument.
Many atheist's problems, at the end of the day, is that they're closed minded. Many believe that the entire universe can only be explained through naturalistic phenomena. In other words, you look at philosophical naturalism and you say, "there we have the holy grail.." Where a truly open minded person will account for both natural and supernatural explanations for what they encounter in this world.
For example, you look at the universe and say, "well.. logic tells me that every effect has to have a cause that is equal to or greater than itself. Perhaps I should at least open my mind widely enough so I can countenance the idea that there is a possibility of the supernatural."
They don't have to accept it, but they should have at least that much of an open mind. But most do not and that is the great irony of the situation. Many are closed minded bigots. Pure and simple.
Someone asked me today if people like Bill Maher, Oprah, Eckhart Tolle, etc are a real problem for Christianity.
The real problem are Christians who have objecated their responsibility to be salt and light. We haven't been transforming agents. If you take the salt out of the mix, then everything ends up being putrid.
We're supposed to be a light on the hill. But if you take a cover to that light what is going to happen?
The point is that we do not want to create a we-they siege mentality. What we want to do is reach out.
Even those who profess Christ have little ability to counter many sophomoric arguments.
An atheist like Bill Maher is constantly looking for new forums to spout his idiosyncratic fundamentalism. He has done it many times on Larry King Live - where he last time said we believe in fairy tales and are dumb for having faith.
We don't believe in fairy tales, that's the whole issue with Christianity - it is historic and evidential.
You start with the premise that God created the universe, we're not functions of random chance. This is something that you can assert philosophically, you don't even have to go to the Bible for this nugget of truth. Because there is no plausible philosophical explanation for the universe apart from an uncaused first cause.
You can postulate that it's a figment of our imagination, but those people who adhere to that belief still look both ways before crossing a street.
You can suppose that the universe sprang out of nothing, but that's absurd. Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. It flies in the face of not only common sense but basic laws of science, like the law of conservationism.
You can suppose that the universe has eternally existed but most scientists have given up on that implausible idea by the late 70's. They no longer think that because it is ridiculous, it flies in the face of fundamental generalizations of the universe.
Therefore the only plausible explanation for the universe is that when you have an effect that is grand and glorious like the universe - that is complex.. you eventually say there has to be a cause for that effect.
If you see a baseball.. and I will be watching the Cubs and Sox tomorrow night.. they will have plain old baseballs in play, nothing particular special about it. But even that baseball no one would suppose that is just sprang into existence out of nothing, you suppose that there was a cause for that baseball.
Someone made it, it's an effect that has a cause equal to or greater than itself.
If you just look philosophically and plausibly at these things at least you're not going to say it's a fairy tale.
There are basis for us saying something complex had a Maker. A bang had a banger. We also can say beyond that God has condescended to reveal Himself. He is not merely transcended and He did that through the person of Jesus Christ, the resurrection is something we believe not because we have some odd predilection in that direction but because there is a compelling case to be made that Jesus died and rose again, the tomb was empty. Christianity cannot survive with an identifiable tomb containing the corpse of Jesus Christ.
And beyond that we have a plausible explanation for saying the Bible is divine rather than merely human in origin.
Someone like Bill Maher wants to be a fundamentalist for atheism, but a fundamentalist nonetheless. He loves to make these dogmatic assertions without defensible arguments. He says the whole Bible is a parable.
But anyone that knows anything about literature would never make a statement like that. Not even the most ardent atheist that reads instead of running off at the mouth on television would say that it is all parabolic.
That's just absurd. You can believe it or disbelieve it, but you cannot say it is all parabolic.. that is displaying an ignorance in an age of scientific and literary enlighentment that boggles the mind.
And what boggles my mind is that a guy like Bill Maher can get on television to applause and hoots and people think, "man this guy is really smart.." He is not smart at all. He may be capricious and clever in some sense but he's certainly not very bright when he takes the Bible, which whatever you say about it, is the best selling book in the history of humanity. It has been translated into more languages, it's been printed in more copies, it's been read by more people and then to simply brush it off as merely parabolic.. it displays a fundamentalism that is breathtaking.
And what is more breathtaking is that he gets away with it. And the reason is.. and we have to point back on ourselves as believers.. we haven't been able to give credible answers to honest and good questions. So someone like him who hasn't taken time, obviously to read the Bible, because if he has he would know it is not all parabolic. Doesn't know that his own arguments bordering on insanity
earthless, you're verging on being rude. Please repost that and take out the snide remarks and I'll gladly reply.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 10:06:00 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
What do you lose believing in the Bible?
The truth.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Even if it turned out to be false, what does it take away from your life that you can not enjoy it?
It takes away the truth, but no.. that doesn't stop you from enjoying anything.
Is that really your answer? You can be any more specific, for the sake of the thread.
IMO your losing just that, not believing in the Bible.
Sure, you may also lose out on the immense feeling someone may get when gazing into the unknown.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 10:12:28 PM
|
|
|
mikejonesoftn
Posts: 58
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
What do you lose believing in the Bible?
The truth.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Even if it turned out to be false, what does it take away from your life that you can not enjoy it?
It takes away the truth, but no.. that doesn't stop you from enjoying anything.
Is that really your answer? You can be any more specific, for the sake of the thread.
IMO your losing just that, not believing in the Bible.
Sure, you may also lose out on the immense feeling someone may get when gazing into the unknown.
explain, I am not seeing your point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 10:40:16 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
What do you lose believing in the Bible?
The truth.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Even if it turned out to be false, what does it take away from your life that you can not enjoy it?
It takes away the truth, but no.. that doesn't stop you from enjoying anything.
Is that really your answer? You can be any more specific, for the sake of the thread.
IMO your losing just that, not believing in the Bible.
Sure, you may also lose out on the immense feeling someone may get when gazing into the unknown.
explain, I am not seeing your point.
Without the answers the Bible so readily supplies, there's a wonderful sense of inspiration to go out and discover. I look at the stars and feel at awe of the unknown. But, that's so circumstantial. Not every atheist feels that and not every theist doesn't feel that... that's why I'm so hesitant to give an answer to that question.
< Message edited by PrexicKehdaki -- 6/26/2008 10:46:23 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 10:58:30 PM
|
|
|
Walker311
Posts: 1501
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't believe in atheists.
A majority of those who claim the title come to Christian websites to strengthen their decision to deny that a supreme being could exist and to get their jollies.
They are usually intelligent, fairly happy, and quick witted. They claim that they have no empty void to fill. They are people just like all the good Christians with jobs, families, aches/pains, and their feet stink too.
They usually have a pretty good answer for just about every question or statement that a Christian could have. However, they have no way of disproving how the prophecies about Christ came to be.
You can't really argue with an atheist and expect to win. We know that they have a soul but WE can't save it. We also know that God can do the impossible and He will if a door is open. All that is left to do in a forum setting is to fill a white space full of digital letters.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 11:05:36 PM
|
|
|
mikejonesoftn
Posts: 58
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
Without the answers the Bible so readily supplies, there's a wonderful sense of inspiration to go out and discover. I look at the stars and feel at awe of the unknown. But, that's so circumstantial. Not every atheist feels that and not every theist doesn't feel that... that's why I'm so hesitant to give an answer to that question.
So what I am getting from your post is that in other words, you look at the stars and wonder how they get there and why are there 8 other planets and etc? If I'm comprehending your post correctly, how do you lose that by following the Bible? You can go out and discover and be fascinated by the stars but don't let that move you away from God, which it has already done.
It's easy, look at the stars, you got your first answer. Who Created them, God. Move on to the next, What are stars? Exploding balls of gas. I'm just giving examples, sorry for the rambling, but hopefully you see my point. Your letting man, people who are just like you, move you away from God.
It just puzzles me how men think they can find physical proof or anything close to anything or someone, or whatever they believe created life and the things around us. Honestly, if you know someone or something was strong enough to actually created the universe and everything in it, what makes you think you could physical find them.
I'm a Christian and I am sure I am not doing 100% what God wants me to do but I'm getting closer, believing anything other than God words, would be the exact opposite, you can't expect to find him that way. Thats like heading north when you suppose to go south and expect to end up in south lol.
< Message edited by mikejonesoftn -- 6/26/2008 11:12:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 11:13:25 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
isaacxmom:
OK, I have a non-scientific question. I'm a history/literature girl. From a history standpoint -- do you believe that the Bible is not historically accurate? Even with archaeological evidence and eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ, his death and miraculous resurrection? What is your stance on the accuracy of the historical events that make up the Bible?
This is exactly where I'd start, because it is this debate that won me over. I fought this battle between religion (specifically Christianity) and non-religion, and there were days where panic attacks from thinking about religion kept me up all night. If the Bible can somehow be proven wrong, I would not only renounce by faith In Christ, but I would make an effort to preach against it. But I did some studying, and it is amazing how much historical defense exists for God's Word, and it was this evidence that God used to show me the truth. The Bible is the foundation of modern Christianity (other than Jesus of course), and when arguing with an Atheist, this is EXACTLY where I'd start, because it is this debate that converted me. If an Atheist here would like for me to elaborate on this, I will be more than happy to, but I'll need some time  .
quote:
2) If someone convinced me the Bible was inerrant, I may believe in God.
PK, (may I abbreviate your name this way? Your name is a bit difficult to type) this can never happen. There are stories in the Bible that will never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Faith is not faith without doubt. I'm not saying stupidity is faith, I'm simply stating that no Christian can ever prove the Bible is inerrant, but what they can do is show you how unlikely it is to have a mistake, or counter wise, how likely is was to have been perfectly interpreted and preserved. After all, this is the most an evolutionist can do, and I'm sure you have no problem accepting evolution as fact, do you? (I'm not an evolutionist, just for the record [;) ]).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 11:58:22 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 8685
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
All in all, God is not a suitable answer.
Not for science, no. But science isn't the end all, be all.
quote:
You can ask, "God always existed"
I can say, "The universe always existed"
You can ask, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
I can say, "neither, the creator did."
Saying there is a God is no less illogical than saying there isn't one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tapestry
Please show me proof that God does not exsist.
Such evidence doesn't exist. If it did, Christianity would've been a long forgotten fairytale by now.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 12:20:05 AM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 16988
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
PrexicKehdaki
Welcome to Forums!
This is a Christian Website, designed to "Enhance fellowship, communication and relationship-building within the Christian community"
We do not require that you are a Christian to be a member of the site, but we do require that you respect our Terms of Service.
You may want to read our Range of Doctrine, and even our Statement of Faith.
Statements such as this is against our Terms of Service
quote:
The only written material about Jesus was written decades after his supposed life.
Sincerely
Kath
Volunteer Assistant Administrator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message as I am unable to discuss it further.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please allow time for a response.
Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 12:40:21 AM
|
|
|
Gazingstock
Posts: 76
Joined: 5/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
PrexicKehdaki: technically, no, I don't think it's possible to know for a fact that God is real.
Then you presume to know the experiences of others. I accept that you have not experienced intimacy with God, but you can not accept that I have, and do. This is a double standard.
Also, by the expectations laid out in your YouTube video, you would believe if God spoke to you out loud with a witness present or told you exactly about a future event. These are the exact experiences of the prophets. But since it did not happen to you, you will not accept them. -Many elements of science were disbelieved because they were invisible as well.
Keeping on topic, questions:
1) Have you ever asked God to reveal himself to you?
2) Which do you think came first, the adult or the infant?
_____________________________
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual [ones]. -1Cr 2:13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 1:39:02 AM
|
|
|
Darien8869
Posts: 29
Joined: 6/20/2008
From: Claremore Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
primordial earth had hydrogen, hydrogen-cyanide, methane, ammonia
Where did the primordial earth come from? And where did it get it's hydrogen, hydrogen-cyanide, methane and ammonia? You left that part out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 6:10:53 AM
|
|
|
BibleL7
Posts: 493
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
|
On what do you base your statement that the earth or univers is 4.6 billion years old?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 7:43:33 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5732
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
macro evolution is simply a lot of micro evolution over a long period of time.
That is a guess, not science.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
Evolution is an observable fact. We see bacteria evolving and we use evolution to breed different dogs. Creationists proclaim that evolution cannot create an entirely new species. This usually comes from the misconception that evolution occurs in straight lines. That's not the case. It's divergent. In other words, one group of organism will begin to evolve in TWO DIFFERENT directions. Once these two different directions evolve so much that the two paths cannot mate, then speciation occurs.
Speciation, macro evolution, HAS been observed in finches, fruit flies, types of grass, etc.
Those are changes within same species/geno type - not what Darwinian adherents tout as fact.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
In fact, a couple of weeks ago cultures of E. coli that have been maintained for 20 years now by Richard Lenski and recently, in his paper, he describes how one of his populations evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, something E. coli cannot do by definition.
We have many MANY transitional fossils for each homo genus.
While Java man is fictitious and Piltdown man is a fraud. Peking man might be best described as pure fantasy. Like Nebraska man, Peking man was based originally on a dusty old tooth. It was conveniently discovered in China, just as Canadian physician Davidson Black was about to run out of funds for his evolutionary explorations in 1927.
The Rockefeller Foundation rewarded this discovery with a generous grant, permitting Black to continue digging. Two years later, he discovered what he fervently believed was Peking man's brain case, and he estimated Peking man to be half a million years old. Unfortunately, Black's fame was fleeting for at age 49, he died of a heart attack.
Black's death, however did not end his dreams. By the time WWII broke out, the evolutionary community had "discovered" 14 skulls and an interesting collection of tools and teeth. All 14 skulls were "missing in action" by war's end, yet the pretense persisted.
The photographs and plaster casts that remained had some interesting similarities. Apart from the fact that the lower skeletons were missing, the skulls had all been bashed at the base. As Ian Taylor points out, Teilhard de Chardin of Piltdown fame made his former professor, Marcellin Boule, angry "at having traveled halfway around the world to see a battered monkey skull. He pointed out that all the evidence indicated that true man was in charge of some sort of 'industry' and that the skulls found were merely those of monkeys"
Boule was not far from the truth. As Gish has pointed out in debates against evolutionists, it now seems likely that the tools found with Peking man were used on him. It is now clear to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind that Peking man was not a distant relative but rather dinner.
To say that "hominids" like Peking man and his partners are closely related to humans because both can walk is akin to saying that a hummingbird and a helicopter are closely related because both can fly.
In reality, the distance between an ape who cannot read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send a person to the moon is the distance of infinity.
All the evidence in the world, however, is not sufficient to convince those who who do want to be confused with facts. Walter Cronkite, in the TV premiere of Ape Man: The Story of Human Evolution, declared that monkeys were his "new found cousins." Cronkite went on to say, "If you go back far enough, we and the chimps share a common ancestor. My father's father's father's father going back maybe a half million generations - about five million years - was an ape."
In fairness it should be pointed out that not all evolutionists believe humans evolved from monkeys. Some, in fact, believe quite the opposite - that monkeys evolved from humans. Geoffrey Bourne, former director of the Yerkes Primate Research Center of Emory University in Atlanta, GA, is a classic case in point. An article in Modern People points out that Bourne, who "is considered one of the world's leading experts on primates", believes that "monkeys, apes, and all other lower primate species are really the offspring of man."
Bourne's beliefs are bolstered by an article in New Scientist in which John Gribbin (sp?) and Jeremy Cherfas say they "think that the chimp is descended from man." Their theory is that "the genetic changes that produced early man from an ape were cleanly reversed to produce early chimps and gorillas from man." The truth, however, is that evolutionosts who believe humans evolved from chimps over millions of years, as well as those who believe chimps evolved from humans, are dead wrong.
No matter how many years the evolutionist postulates, chance operating on natural processes can no more create a chimp than it could create a cell. Sorry for the rant, but so much can be said.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 7:48:05 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5732
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
All were written decades after his death.
Decades, not much time for fabrications that could have been refuted by those presently living at the time of the writ. What's interesting is that you more than likely accept as true historical facts those accounts which were written centuries upon centuries after their supposed taking place, that is a bias that can't be ignored.
The Bible is accurate historically based on archeology and ancient history written by the Jews and Greeks...the cities mentioned in it have been historically proven to be actual cities and areas.
There is more historical evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus existed and even died on the cross then there is that George Washington was born and died.
If the Bible is totally historically accurate about cities, histories of ancient civilizations, and the authors of the gospels have been proven accurate in non-canonical writings (not in the Bible) then why would they lie about God and Jesus and their theology? Why would the disciples die brutal deaths for something they knew was a lie? the truth is, they wouldn't and they didn't.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 7:50:00 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5732
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
The universe could have always been.
You can't be serious, that has not been believed by the scientific community since the 70's.
If critics of the Bible would read it with an open mind, if they would pay attention to genre, grammar, syntax, semantics and context many would recognize that their faith is placed in their own dogmatic assertions rather than in a substantive defensible argument.
Many atheist's problems, at the end of the day, is that they're closed minded. Many believe that the entire universe can only be explained through naturalistic phenomena. In other words, you look at philosophical naturalism and you say, "there we have the holy grail.." Where a truly open minded person will account for both natural and supernatural explanations for what they encounter in this world.
For example, you look at the universe and say, "well.. logic tells me that every effect has to have a cause that is equal to or greater than itself. Perhaps I should at least open my mind widely enough so I can countenance the idea that there is a possibility of the supernatural."
They don't have to accept it, but they should have at least that much of an open mind. But most do not and that is the great irony of the situation. Many are closed minded bigots. Pure and simple.
Someone asked me today if people like Bill Maher, Oprah, Eckhart Tolle, etc are a real problem for Christianity.
The real problem are Christians who have objecated their responsibility to be salt and light. We haven't been transforming agents. If you take the salt out of the mix, then everything ends up being putrid.
We're supposed to be a light on the hill. But if you take a cover to that light what is going to happen?
The point is that we do not want to create a we-they siege mentality. What we want to do is reach out.
Even those who profess Christ have little ability to counter many sophomoric arguments.
An atheist like Bill Maher is constantly looking for new forums to spout his idiosyncratic fundamentalism. He has done it many times on Larry King Live - where he last time said we believe in fairy tales and are dumb for having faith.
We don't believe in fairy tales, that's the whole issue with Christianity - it is historic and evidential.
You start with the premise that God created the universe, we're not functions of random chance. This is something that you can assert philosophically, you don't even have to go to the Bible for this nugget of truth. Because there is no plausible philosophical explanation for the universe apart from an uncaused first cause.
You can postulate that it's a figment of our imagination, but those people who adhere to that belief still look both ways before crossing a street.
You can suppose that the universe sprang out of nothing, but that's absurd. Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. It flies in the face of not only common sense but basic laws of science, like the law of conservationism.
You can suppose that the universe has eternally existed but most scientists have given up on that implausible idea by the late 70's. They no longer think that because it is ridiculous, it flies in the face of fundamental generalizations of the universe.
Therefore the only plausible explanation for the universe is that when you have an effect that is grand and glorious like the universe - that is complex.. you eventually say there has to be a cause for that effect.
If you see a baseball.. and I will be watching the Cubs and Sox tomorrow night.. they will have plain old baseballs in play, nothing particular special about it. But even that baseball no one would suppose that is just sprang into existence out of nothing, you suppose that there was a cause for that baseball.
Someone made it, it's an effect that has a cause equal to or greater than itself.
If you just look philosophically and plausibly at these things at least you're not going to say it's a fairy tale.
There are basis for us saying something complex had a Maker. A bang had a banger. We also can say beyond that God has condescended to reveal Himself. He is not merely transcended and He did that through the person of Jesus Christ, the resurrection is something we believe not because we have some odd predilection in that direction but because there is a compelling case to be made that Jesus died and rose again, the tomb was empty. Christianity cannot survive with an identifiable tomb containing the corpse of Jesus Christ.
And beyond that we have a plausible explanation for saying the Bible is divine rather than merely human in origin.
Someone like Bill Maher wants to be a fundamentalist for atheism, but a fundamentalist nonetheless. He loves to make these dogmatic assertions without defensible arguments. He says the whole Bible is a parable.
But anyone that knows anything about literature would never make a statement like that. Not even the most ardent atheist that reads instead of running off at the mouth on television would say that it is all parabolic.
That's just absurd. You can believe it or disbelieve it, but you cannot say it is all parabolic.. that is displaying an ignorance in an age of scientific and literary enlighentment that boggles the mind.
And what boggles my mind is that a guy like Bill Maher can get on television to applause and hoots and people think, "man this guy is really smart.." He is not smart at all. He may be capricious and clever in some sense but he's certainly not very bright when he takes the Bible, which whatever you say about it, is the best selling book in the history of humanity. It has been translated into more languages, it's been printed in more copies, it's been read by more people and then to simply brush it off as merely parabolic.. it displays a fundamentalism that is breathtaking.
And what is more breathtaking is that he gets away with it. And the reason is.. and we have to point back on ourselves as believers.. we haven't been able to give credible answers to honest and good questions. So someone like him who hasn't taken time, obviously to read the Bible, because if he has he would know it is not all parabolic. Doesn't know that his own arguments bordering on insanity
earthless, you're verging on being rude. Please repost that and take out the snide remarks and I'll gladly reply.
If you don't want to respond to it, no problem. I am not going to edit it and re-post it, sorry. It is what it is and is an open rant from me to any and all readers, not just aimed at any one individual.
I notice you like posting from talkorigins.com, which is so passe and rude. But I digress.
< Message edited by earthless -- 6/27/2008 7:56:12 AM >
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 7:57:27 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5732
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: offline
|
Something else I want to say regarding the topic of biblical reliability - which was one of the cruxes for me to have to face or outright dishonestly ignore when I was an atheist seeking to disprove the Bible.
The Bible is a historical document. Interestingly enough, if you subject it to the same tests that
you subject other historical documents to, you’ll discover that the Bible proves itself to be far
superior to any other ancient writing.
First, let’s look at the New Testament which, incidentally, was originally written in the Greek language between 50 and 100 A.D. Although we don’t have the original autographs, there are presently some 5,000 Greek manuscripts in existence, with as many as 25,000 more copies.
Just as amazing is the fact that the earliest manuscripts can be dated back as far as 120 A.D. This is tremendous when you consider that only seven of Plato’s manuscripts are in existence today - and there’s a 1,300-year gap which separates the earliest copy from the original writing!
Equally amazing is another fact; and that is, that the New Testament has been virtually unaltered. This has been demonstrated by scholars who have compared the earliest written manuscripts with manuscripts written centuries later.
And remember, the accounts in the New Testament were recorded directly by eyewitnesses, (or by those who were associated with them) and in fact had close contact with the events themselves.
But what about the Old Testament? Let’s take a quick look at one of the most incredible finds of the century - the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the discovery of these manuscripts at Qumran in 1946, texts were found that were about 1,000 years older than any previously-known Old Testament manuscript. And when compared with the later texts, these writings proved to be virtually identical.
With every turn of the archaeologist’s spade, we see further evidence of Scripture’s trustworthiness.
Such renowned and historical scholars as William Albright and Sir Frederick Kenyon have clearly testified that the findings of archaeology have served to underscore the authenticity of the Bible.
Well, is the Bible reliable? I believe the evidence speaks for itself. And with that, I rest my case.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 8:20:46 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
I appologize for this post being a bit lengthy, but Dr. Adrian Rogers really helps to point out that the Bible really is God's Word - and of course the Bible itself proves God's existence...
Monday, September 18, 2006
What evidence is there that the Bible is in fact God's Word?
I want to give you five reasons to affirm the Bible is the Word of God. First, I believe the Bible is the Word of God because of its scientific accuracy. The Truth of the Word of God tells us that God “hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). How did Job know that the earth hung in space before the age of modern astronomy and space travel? The Holy Spirit told him. The scientists of Isaiah’s day didn’t know the topography of the earth, but Isaiah said, “It is [God] that sitteth upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). The word for “circle” here means a globe or sphere. How did Isaiah know that God say upon the circle of the earth? By divine inspiration.
Secondly, the Bible is affirmed through historical accuracy. Do you remember the story about the handwriting on the wall that is found in the fifth chapter of Daniel? Belshazzar hosted a feast with a thousand of his lords and ladies. Suddenly, a gruesome hand appeared out of nowhere and began to write on a wall. The king was disturbed and asked for someone to interpret the writing. Daniel was found and gave the interpretation. After the interpretation, “Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.” (Daniel 5:29). Basing their opinion on Babylonian records, the historians claim this never happened. According to the records, the last king of Babylon was not Belshazzar, but a man named Nabonidas. And so, they said, the Bible is in error. There wasn’t a record of a king named Belshazzar. Well, the spades of archeologists continued to do their work. In 1853, an inscription was found on a cornerstone of a temple built by Nabonidas, to the god Ur, which read: “May I, Nabonidas, king of Babylon, not sin against thee. And may reverence for thee dwell in the heart of Belshazzar, my first-born favorite son.” From other inscriptions, it was learned that Belshazzar and Nabonidas were co-regents. Nabonidas traveled while Belshazzar stayed home to run the kingdom. Now that we know that Belshazzar and Nabonidas were co-regents, it makes sense that Belshazzar would say that Daniel would be the third ruler. What a marvelous nugget of truth tucked away in the Word of God!
Third, from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible reads as one book. And there is incredible unity to the Bible. The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on three different continents. It was written in at least three different languages by people in all professions. The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.
Fourth, did you know the Bible is the only book in the world that has accurate prophecy? When you read the prophecies of the Bible, you simply have to stand back in awe. There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament. To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility.
Finally, the Bible is not a book of the month, but the Book of the ages. First Peter 1:25 says: “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” No book has ever had as much opposition as the Bible. Men have laughed at it, scorned it, burned it, ridiculed it, and made laws against it. But the Word of God has survived. And it is applicable today as much as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow.
It’s so majestically deep that scholars could swim and never touch the bottom. Yet so wonderfully shallow that a little child could come and get a drink of water without fear of drowning. That is God’s precious, holy Word. The Word of God. Know it. Believe it. It is True.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 10:12:24 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
Without the answers the Bible so readily supplies, there's a wonderful sense of inspiration to go out and discover. I look at the stars and feel at awe of the unknown. But, that's so circumstantial. Not every atheist feels that and not every theist doesn't feel that... that's why I'm so hesitant to give an answer to that question.
So what I am getting from your post is that in other words, you look at the stars and wonder how they get there and why are there 8 other planets and etc?
No, I wonder why there is something rather than nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 10:17:56 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
Saying there is a God is no less illogical than saying there isn't one.
Then why take the extra step? Where's the necessity of it? The evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/27/2008 10:26:03 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gazingstock
quote:
PrexicKehdaki: technically, no, I don't think it's possible to know for a fact that God is real.
Then you presume to know the experiences of others. I accept that you have not experienced intimacy with God, but you can not accept that I have, and do. This is a double standard.
It's not about knowing the experiences of others. It's about the philosophy of "knowing". Knowing for certain, like everyone in this thread seems to reiterate, would require absolute knowledge of everything ever. Knowledge that you, for 100% certainty, aren't hallucinating. Knowledge that every other believer in other religions is delusional in his or her OWN similar experiences or intimacies with their god. If you quoted everything I said without cropping out half, I clearly stated I don't doubt people can be 100% convinced of something.
quote:
Also, by the expectations laid out in your YouTube video, you would believe if God spoke to you out loud with a witness present or told you exactly about a future event. These are the exact experiences of the prophets. But since it did not happen to you, you will not accept them. -Many elements of science were disbelieved because they were invisible as well.
Exactly. And if these things happened to me, I wouldn't expect that to be enough for everyone else to believe too. Why? Because no one would have any reason to believe me. It's anecdotal evidence.
quote:
1) Have you ever asked God to reveal himself to you?
Yes, I used to be a Christian.
quote:
2) Which do you think came first, the adult or the infant?
Human adults and infants?
There is no exact time when our species became human.. It's not a matter of bifurcation. Thus, your question is nonsensical.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
What have you found for yourself that does not add up in the scriptures?
