Well, instead of posting this in separate threads, I'll just open a new topic to let everyone know, I think it deserves a thread of its own, it's something never done before on a mainstream TV station, and I'm sure it will be interesting to talk about this show after we've seen it! There has been some minor talk about atheists in the news, but this is gonna be the full thing.
Christians and Atheists to Debate the Existence of God on ABC
Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort of the Way of the Master will debate Brian Sapient and Kelly of the Rational Response Squad in the first "Nightline Face Off"!!!
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3130360&page=1
The discussion is set to be recorded on Saturday May 5th at 7:30 pm est. The discussion was supposed to air on ABC's website starting at 2pm est on Wednesday May 9th, but now it looks they changed their mind. Later that same night at 11:35 in your local timezone you can tune in to ABC TV to watch Nightline and you will see a recap of the discussion.
The Rational Response Squad will retain a copy of the recording and be able to distribute it to you for free viewing at some point, so check out thier site, too.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/
In case you haven't heard of them, The Rational Response Squad became famous for their BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE
And they've been on Nightline before. Check thier site and their videos on YouTube.
I don't know much about these guys Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, Way of the Master, but from what I've seen they seem to be very irrational Christian fundamentalists, they go around the streets trying to save people from hell. Also, they seem to think a banana is proof for God's existance!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk
Make sure not to miss this show!
| Quote: |
| I don't know much about these guys Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, Way of the Master, but from what I've seen they seem to be very irrational Christian fundamentalists |
Nice!
[joke]I don't know much about you, but I'll bet you'd strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a building in the name of atheism[/joke] | Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | I don't know much about these guys Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, Way of the Master, but from what I've seen they seem to be very irrational Christian fundamentalists |
Nice!
[joke]I don't know much about you, but I'll bet you'd strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a building in the name of atheism[/joke] |
I prefer helping people in the name of atheism.
For those interested, you can watch the full video here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940
The fundies got their asses whooped.
It was funny to see their faces when they didn't know how to respond when the RRS exposed their irrationality.
aw, man i missed this, i am just going to have to watch the video online, if it is still there, was it good?
| gangsterr wrote: |
| aw, man i missed this, i am just going to have to watch the video online, if it is still there, was it good? |
Yes, it's online, and no, it wasn't really good.
The Rational Response Squad wasn't really that hot. At the start they stood their ground, but they slowly let themselves be dragged down to the other party's level of ignorance. You can see it in their eyes, too. In fact, at one point, Kirk Cameron starts showing ridiculous visual aids and the two RRS people just groan (into the microphones) "Oh my god...." The whole thing degenerated into lunacy and the RRS people let themselves get carried along.
Did Comfort and Cameron get their "asses whooped"? Kinda. No doubt they lost the debate - in fact, as the RRS people pointed out, it was already over before the first RRS member even spoke - but that was a done deal before it started. The Way of the Master is hardly a rational organization. In fact, the RRS people had a harder time debating the audience.
Honestly, they were such an easy mark, RRS should have wiped the floor with them. Had it been me, i would have torn them a pair of matching new orifices. They were really no real challenge. But the RRS people let the WotM control the direction of the debate, and it cost them.I was also not that impressed with the Rational Response Squad. They looked uncomfortable on the podium and didn't speak well. They also missed some pretty big points that I thought they should've made. I couldn't watch more than 10 minutes or so. I've seen more convincing high-school debates, for sure.
there should be no need for a debate because there is no god.
Marys family (as did most back then) saw sex before marrige as being immoral....she went one night got really drunk and screwed her boy friend. she got pregnant and her family began to notice and said something about it to her. She was put on the spot and came up with the best excuse she could "ummm....well...uhhh...er.....oh...god got me pregnant..yup....thats what happen....and an angel came to me and told me god wanted it to be named jesus....yes....hmmm....thats what happened" and people believed her cause she was the good girl....100 years from now modern day religion will go the same way as old greek religions and such went....people in the future will look back and laugh at you all
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| I was also not that impressed with the Rational Response Squad. They looked uncomfortable on the podium and didn't speak well. They also missed some pretty big points that I thought they should've made. I couldn't watch more than 10 minutes or so. I've seen more convincing high-school debates, for sure. |
Heh, well, i was trying to be diplomatic, but yes. ^_^;
The debate wasn't what it was advertised to be. It looks like the topic was changed at some point before airing, and someone forgot to tell the Rational Response Squad. But they adapted... poorly, but they adapted. Gotta give them credit for that at least.
The Way of the Master - those guys were all over the map. One minute they were presenting scientific arguments (as they were supposed to), next they were mocking science (when the point was that they were supposed to be using to prove their case), then they were making testimonials, then they were quoting bible verses... there was just no coherent form to their presentation. As i said, the audience was better at the debate than they were. ^_^; | Rational Response Squad wrote: |
| Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. |
I admit that Kelly from the RRS wasn't a good public preformer that day... She seemed nervous or something... I watched the RRS in in thier video chatroom a few times and she speaks very well usually and you can see that she is very intelligent.
Anyway, if anyone's interested, here's a full video debate between Reverand Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens, author of the new best-seller "god Is Not Great".
http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=1007I was very disappointed with both parties in this case. It didn't take long for the debate to deteriorate into the same type of highschool hallway exchanges I orchestrate daily between several Christian friends and various atheists. The so called evangelists were very quick to make a huge mistake, attempt to use science to prove the existence of God. The basis of Christianity is faith. What role does faith play for a scientifically proven matter? There is no evidence one way or the other in this debate, and both sides are so quick to try and create proof for their theories. We know from history that a guy by the name of Jesus got nailed to a cross and died. We know the universe started somewhere, and we have a book that far surpasses anything else written in that time period in terms of both historical accuracy and the foresight with which it bears of future occurrences. The very theory of God is illogical, which is why faith is required for salvation. As soon as christians will be content with this, the sooner they will stop appearing like idiots on public television.
| JJGY wrote: |
| we have a book that far surpasses anything else written in that time period in terms of both historical accuracy and the foresight with which it bears of future occurrences. |
We have several such books, actually. Collectively, they're called school books. | Indi wrote: |
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: | | I was also not that impressed with the Rational Response Squad. They looked uncomfortable on the podium and didn't speak well. They also missed some pretty big points that I thought they should've made. I couldn't watch more than 10 minutes or so. I've seen more convincing high-school debates, for sure. |
Heh, well, i was trying to be diplomatic, but yes. ^_^;
The debate wasn't what it was advertised to be. It looks like the topic was changed at some point before airing, and someone forgot to tell the Rational Response Squad. But they adapted... poorly, but they adapted. Gotta give them credit for that at least.
The Way of the Master - those guys were all over the map. One minute they were presenting scientific arguments (as they were supposed to), next they were mocking science (when the point was that they were supposed to be using to prove their case), then they were making testimonials, then they were quoting bible verses... there was just no coherent form to their presentation. As i said, the audience was better at the debate than they were. ^_^; |
As soon as the Way of the Master guy started going off topic, I was thinking that it opened up a huge opportunity for the RSS. I was expecting the RSS people to rip them a new one. They could've deconstructed everything the WotM dude said in a couple minutes and spent the next 8 minutes hammering home all the failures in the attempts to use pseudoscience to combat evolution. They could've anticipated all of the WotM's arguments and comletely undermined them. Instead, the first guy came off like someone in way over his head in an intellectual discussion, and the girl just kept trying to get her hair out of her face and stammering about the same things over and over again.
Not that I could've done any better; I would've been super-nervous and I would've looked like an idiot up there. But they could've found somebody smart and camera savvy, I think.The WotM guy is not exactly a brilliant ontological mastermind of the school of apologetics. These are all rigged for ratings and personality profiling on all sides to avoid honest and educated debate. Since most Americans have 8th grade comprehension and think that Budweiser is a "King of Beers", it should surprise no one here that this is the type of banter they get.
Ask a monkey a question, get a monkey's answer.
The existance of you is the proof of God. I can't accept a belief in nothing that teaches worthlessness and all around negativity. I mean think about it... whether your right or wrong, id rather die a chrisrian and be wrong then to die an atheist and be wrong. Plus, who would want to go through life with nothing to look forward to afterwards.
| e-wrecked wrote: |
| The existance of you is the proof of God. I can't accept a belief in nothing that teaches worthlessness and all around negativity. I mean think about it... whether your right or wrong, id rather die a chrisrian and be wrong then to die an atheist and be wrong. Plus, who would want to go through life with nothing to look forward to afterwards. |
1. The thread is a discussion of a debate and the stupid mistakes both sides made.
2. You know nothing about atheism. Atheism dose not teach anything, it is merely a category of belief (if you believe in a god or god you are atheist, if you don't believe in a god or gods than you are an atheist) thats it! Atheism doesn't teach anything and certainly not worthlessness and negativity. And in many ways realising that there is no life after death is liberating, you wouldn't wast your life preparing for a life that doesn't exist!you poor, poor atheists. i just returned from a VERY long mission trip to east africa and our team saved thousands (praise the Lord!) (side note - i recently converted from judaism to christianity)
i feel no hate for any people, but there are two possible outcomes for all atheists: a) they are witnessed to and saved and become good Christian people by the Bible or b) they continue atheism and end up in hell, where they will realized their mistakes and wallow in their regret and sorrow for all eternity
that's just how it is
no matter what logic, the existence of God cannot be disproved.
i have learned in africa that people need God - and God needs us. the people i witnessed to in Darfur had no hope - they were scared and had no where to turn. they accepted God, and they now feel ever-protected and free of fear because they know God is a loving God.
in the Name of Jesus, i forever proclaim as my life's mission to save as many people as possible. many have strayed from God's path and need to be put back on it. - there is no getting lost on the Straight Road
Now it shall come to pass, if thou diligently obey the Voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. - Duteronomy 28:1
Whats so "pore: about us?
| Quote: |
| i feel no hate for any people, but there are two possible outcomes for all atheists: a) they are witnessed to and saved and become good Christian people by the Bible or b) they continue atheism and end up in hell, where they will realized their mistakes and wallow in their regret and sorrow for all eternity |
or 3: your wrong
| Quote: |
| no matter what logic, the existence of God cannot be disproved. |
I can disprove your god but not a god but thats not evidence for the existence of any god.
| Quote: |
| i have learned in africa that people need God - and God needs us. the people i witnessed to in Darfur had no hope - they were scared and had no where to turn. they accepted God, and they now feel ever-protected and free of fear because they know God is a loving God. |
Right. Believing in a god that would not only allow them to suffer so greatly but will makes countless suffer even more for all eternity for not believing. Yeah, that gives hope.
| Quote: |
| Now it shall come to pass, if thou diligently obey the Voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. - Duteronomy 28:1 |
As long as your offtopic and quoting the bible, read these.
| Quote: |
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. |
| Quote: |
1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. |
| Quote: |
Matthew 10:34-37
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. |
| Quote: |
Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. |
I don't see the point in discussing the existence of God, as it cannot be proved or disproved... and is nothing more than a matter of faith.
And as such, a Christian will always believe in a God, and an atheist will never believe in a God, by pure definition. What's the point in the debate? it's set to stalemate before it's even begun.
I'm personally agnostic, leaning more towards the non-existence of a devine entity. So I've personally thought it through and decided the existence of a God is a little too far out for me. But that doesn't mean I'm right.
And hey, I reckon if there is a God he wouldn't send you to hell for not worshipping him... or at least if he does then I wouldn't be interested in joining the private party anyway.
| Tyler wrote: |
| you poor, poor atheists. i just returned from a VERY long mission trip to east africa and our team saved thousands (praise the Lord!) (side note - i recently converted from judaism to christianity) |
Good for you. My team went to West/central Africa a couple years back. But instead of bringing them our religion, we brought them our food and doctors and let them keep their own religions.
| Tyler wrote: |
i feel no hate for any people, but there are two possible outcomes for all atheists: a) they are witnessed to and saved and become good Christian people by the Bible or b) they continue atheism and end up in hell, where they will realized their mistakes and wallow in their regret and sorrow for all eternity
that's just how it is |
Ya? Those are the only two possible outcomes for atheists? There is no possible way they could convert to Judaism, or Hinduism, or Sikhism? There is no possible way they could start believing in the IKT or Hahgwehdiyu?
i didn't realize my options were so limited.
| blackheart wrote: |
| I don't see the point in discussing the existence of God, as it cannot be proved or disproved... and is nothing more than a matter of faith. |
That is what you believe. It is not what everyone believes. The debate happened because the Way of the Master representatives not only claimed they could prove the existence of their god, but that they could do so scientifically. And a huge number of people believe them (not necessarily them personally or their organization, but their ideas are quite popular in some places), so it's hardly true that there's no point to debating it.
| blackheart wrote: |
| And as such, a Christian will always believe in a God, and an atheist will never believe in a God, by pure definition. |
But will a person always be a Christian or atheist? | Indi wrote: |
That is what you believe. It is not what everyone believes. The debate happened because the Way of the Master representatives not only claimed they could prove the existence of their god, but that they could do so scientifically. And a huge number of people believe them (not necessarily them personally or their organization, but their ideas are quite popular in some places), so it's hardly true that there's no point to debating it.
|
Although I take your point that people's beliefs may shift, in that instance the discussion is not (or should not be) wether God exists, but wether the Way of the Master had actually proved so scientifically. In that even if they haven't proved His existence, that's no slant on wether God exists, and proves nothing other than that the group are mis-informed.
People are capable of deciding for themselves the existance of God, and if idle minds choose not to question - on part of the atheist or the religious - then they will never have their own opinion, force fed or not.
And besides, it wouldn't really bother me if the whole world bar me believed in God, that faith in itself isn't hurting anyone. The only part of religion that bothers me are the xenophobic/homophobic zealots... how-ever as far as I can tell religion is more their excuse than their guide - so if you took it away they'd just find something else.
[/end ramble] | blackheart wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | That is what you believe. It is not what everyone believes. The debate happened because the Way of the Master representatives not only claimed they could prove the existence of their god, but that they could do so scientifically. And a huge number of people believe them (not necessarily them personally or their organization, but their ideas are quite popular in some places), so it's hardly true that there's no point to debating it.
|
Although I take your point that people's beliefs may shift, in that instance the discussion is not (or should not be) wether God exists, but wether the Way of the Master had actually proved so scientifically. In that even if they haven't proved His existence, that's no slant on wether God exists, and proves nothing other than that the group are mis-informed.
|
What has the Way of the idiot “Masters” got to do with the fact that after the dissolution of the universe, even all the idiots submit to the common sense that we must all agree? God, at this early idiotic stage of the universe, is the final realizations of all spirits, that after there is nothing left worth left fighting for, after the universe, full of Dark Matter, has blown itself apart, there is nothing left fighting worth for and we might as well all agree to just get along.
| blackheart wrote: |
| People are capable of deciding for themselves the existance of God |
As if the existence of God were a matter of opinion.
| blackheart wrote: |
| and if idle minds choose not to question |
Or may choose to deny the inevitable that time must bring.
| blackheart wrote: |
- on part of the atheist or the religious - then they will never have their own opinion, force fed or not.
|
Atheist are just as force fed as facile religionists, you seem to acknowledge, in circuitous manner.
| blackheart wrote: |
And besides, it wouldn't really bother me if the whole world bar me believed in God, that faith in itself isn't hurting anyone. The only part of religion that bothers me are the xenophobic/homophobic zealots...
|
As you kiss Indi’s buttocks.
| blackheart wrote: |
how-ever as far as I can tell religion is more their excuse than their guide - so if you took it away they'd just find something else.
|
As if your form of evil needed no God for it’s excuse. My mistresses of a black heart, I know you too well to buy your blatant nonsense.
Perhaps the Incarnation of God shall enter the Time Gate again, and forsake this timestream against to total Annihilation. After all the timestreams have compressed, as God contracts them all and destroys every universe but the one He started with, you will come to understand the words of the Bhagavad Gita:
“Know, oh Arjuna, that I am the destroyer of universes.”
-Lord Krishna, falsely believing that he was Me. | blackheart wrote: |
| Although I take your point that people's beliefs may shift, in that instance the discussion is not (or should not be) wether God exists, but wether the Way of the Master had actually proved so scientifically. In that even if they haven't proved His existence, that's no slant on wether God exists, and proves nothing other than that the group are mis-informed. |
Oh yes. Did you watch the video? Apparently the original agreement for the discussion was that the WotM claimed they could prove scientifically that God exists - and not just "a god", but God, the Christian god, their god - and the Rational Response Squad took that challenge up and said they would debate it. The ground rules were apparently that WotM had to use science and science only, and not just quote bible verses (which you would think would be obvious, because using the bible as evidence to prove the bible is fallacious).
The debate started with the WotM presenting their case. By the time the RRS got up to rebut, the first words out of the guy's mouth were along the lines of, "Well this is already over and done, so we could just go home. Not only didn't they do anything towards proving God scientifically, one of their points was literally just using bible verses as 'proof' of the biblical god." And they were right, and frankly they should have just stopped it there (if it weren't for the fact that it was being filmed before a live audience, i would have if i were them). The WotM did nothing of what they claimed and certainly did nothing towards scientifically proving God. Game over. But of course the RRS couldn't just end it there, so they had to slog on... and unfortunately, they did so rather poorly and ended up getting dragged down.
Nevertheless, i strongly disagree with your original assertion: "... it cannot be proved or disproved... and is nothing more than a matter of faith". That is what you believe, and that's fine. It's what i believe, too. But that doesn't make it necessarily true. What would you have people do when someone claims that they can use science... or logic... or anything to prove the existence of God? Just call them nuts and ignore them? Because any discussion on the topic is pointless (as you put it)? i don't think so. The RRS did the right thing by engaging the WotM on their claim. There's always the possibility that WotM (or some other future group making the same claim) could be right! Maybe they have scientifically proven God. i don't believe that such a thing is possible, and apparently neither do you... but i don't know everything. Maybe i'm wrong? Maybe someone can do it. The correct thing to do, then, is to listen to the claims of WotM (and any others of their stripe), and evaluate them. And that's what RRS agreed to do. And it's what they tried to do... but things just got out of hand. Had it not been a staged event, it would have probably been prudent to walk out once the WotM presented their "case" (or lack thereof). But they couldn't, and so they got dragged down into the muck to their opponents' level.
So it didn't go so well in that debate for two reasons: 1.) The WotM's claims were idiotic. You can't rationally debate lunacy, and their "evidence" turned lunatic fast. 2.) The RRS were trapped there until the time ran out, even though the debate was over within the first quarter of the time. The rest of that time was just spent rolling their eyes and groaning at the increasing wackiness and decreasing scientific relevance of the claims. Neither of those reasons is reason enough not to engage future proponents of that claim - and neither of those reasons made the debate pointless. They made debating WotM on the claim pointless, but not debating the claim in general. At any rate, WotM has been sent packing on the issue (although they probably don't think so), so we don't need to bother with their claims again... until they come up with some new ones (and because they were found so lacking this time, no one could be blamed for not taking them seriously next time without some serious proof of the competence of the claims beforehand). The debate may not have closed the issue, but it closed the issue as far as WotM's claims are concerned. That's a step.
If the issue is closed for you to the point that you think any debate on the topic is pointless, that's fine for you, but not everyone. For others, every debate on the topic has a chance of bringing new knowledge up, and maybe teaching someone something new. As i said, people are not set to be atheist or Christian all their lives.@Indi
I'm sorry if you missed my point, how-ever it rests at that even if science triumphs over religion this time, it still doesn't disprove the existence of God. It only disproves the provability of the existence of God, through one set of ideas/concept/method.
| blackheart wrote: |
| I'm sorry if you missed my point |
Your point was that you think it is a waste of time to discuss whether or not God exists because you think it can never be proven or disproven. What did i miss?
| blackheart wrote: |
| how-ever it rests at that even if science triumphs over religion this time, it still doesn't disprove the existence of God. |
No one except you has even mentioned that as a possibility.
What i said was that this discussion was not pointless because the possibility exists that maybe WotM could have found scientific proof for God. It's unlikely, but possible. Had they succeeded, they would have revolutionized modern thought. And even though they failed, the discussion was still not pointless, because their claims were dismissed... and every time a possibility is ruled out, knowledge increases. Besides, now that we've seen WotM's claims and how ridiculous they are, we are now justified in completely ignoring them as crackpots - something that would not be right to do without at least hearing them out.
| blackheart wrote: |
| It only disproves the provability of the existence of God, through one set of ideas/concept/method. |
No it does not. All it does is show that WotM's claims had no basis. It does not prove nor disprove anything else. Another group could step up tomorrow with a scientific proof for God that actually works (or perhaps one that proves God does not exist). | The Conspirator wrote: |
As long as your offtopic and quoting the bible, read these.
| Quote: | Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. |
| Quote: | 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. |
| Quote: | Matthew 10:34-37
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. |
| Quote: | Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. |
|
Either you're just pretending, or you're seriously mentally challenged. Grabbin single verses out of context from the Bible is the method all the cults and sects use. It's funny how you guys try to picture christians as the crazy fundamentalists that are brainwashed, and still you are using the technique that the brainwashing cults do.
If that was too deep for you to understand, Ill summarize it; Taking single verses out of context may look like it's "crazy" for the person who doesnt know the Bible. But if you study the context and the background, the Bible never contradicts itself. It's just a question about lookin into it.
Blessings | LimpFish wrote: |
| Either you're just pretending, or you're seriously mentally challenged. |
I do believe that qualifies as a flame.
That post basically is an attack on me cause you can't beat the argument. If you can't beat the argument, you concede, not attack the person.
Why is it that people like you not only attack people for criticising your beliefs but accuse them of saying things that is not even close to what we say? Why do you people fear criticism so much?
Those are not taken out of context, those are the context. If you say those only;y people who could fallow you are those who hate there family, the context is clear, if you say "go out and kill these people, men woman and children and spare no one" that is the context, if you say you have come to bring war and to set the family against itself, that is the context, if you make a prophecy that dose not come true no one can say "your taking it out of context" when you point out that it did not happen.Isn't there a pity that so many religion performers really read the bible word by word? Even God gets upset about that I presume... Or am I wrong?
| Indi wrote: |
| blackheart wrote: | | It only disproves the provability of the existence of God, through one set of ideas/concept/method. |
No it does not. All it does is show that WotM's claims had no basis. It does not prove nor disprove anything else. Another group could step up tomorrow with a scientific proof for God that actually works (or perhaps one that proves God does not exist). |
That's what I said.
"through one set of ideas/concept/method..."
that set of ideas/concept/method in this instance being wotm's claims. | blackheart wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| blackheart wrote: | | It only disproves the provability of the existence of God, through one set of ideas/concept/method. |
No it does not. All it does is show that WotM's claims had no basis. It does not prove nor disprove anything else. Another group could step up tomorrow with a scientific proof for God that actually works (or perhaps one that proves God does not exist). |
That's what I said.
"through one set of ideas/concept/method..."
that set of ideas/concept/method in this instance being wotm's claims. |
Oooook... so... you don't see the point in the discussion with WotM because their claims were lame (they couldn't prove the existence of God)... but how were we to know that their claims were lame without discussing them?
And even if there was no point in talking to WotM, how does it follow from that there is no point in discussing the question at all? (Other than that you believe you already know that the question cannot be answered, which is something you believe, not a fact.) | The Conspirator wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | Either you're just pretending, or you're seriously mentally challenged. |
I do believe that qualifies as a flame.
That post basically is an attack on me cause you can't beat the argument. If you can't beat the argument, you concede, not attack the person.
Why is it that people like you not only attack people for criticising your beliefs but accuse them of saying things that is not even close to what we say? Why do you people fear criticism so much?
Those are not taken out of context, those are the context. If you say those only;y people who could fallow you are those who hate there family, the context is clear, if you say "go out and kill these people, men woman and children and spare no one" that is the context, if you say you have come to bring war and to set the family against itself, that is the context, if you make a prophecy that dose not come true no one can say "your taking it out of context" when you point out that it did not happen. |
I apologize if you feel offended, and I admit that it was a bad way to put it. I just got very upset about what you wrote and got carried away, it's not an excuse for it, but an explanation, I'm not more than human. What I really wanted to do was criticize your post and not you as a person. I'm sorry.
I dont move a fraction of an inch though in my opinion about that those are taken out of context. I admit those sound weird just putting them alone like that. But if you read the context they're in, and also have some basic understandings about that time, situation, etc. you can always make sense of it.
To show you that what I say is true, I will demonstrate on the example you gave.
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
- Sounds very strong yes, did Jesus mean that we have to hate our family to be a disciple of his? If you read the chapter in its whole you will see that it is about the cost of being a disciple. So is the cost then that you have to hate your family? Answer: no. Why not? Isn't that what the text says? Yes and no. If you're familiar with the Bible, you will get the feeling that this verse is contradicting the message the rest of the new testament is delivering. So is the Bible contradicting itself? No, it's not. And yes, I'll tell you a few reasons why:
- The Bible is translated from Greek as you probably know. The greek word here used for hate is 'miseo'. Miseo has a wider meaning than the english word hate does. Even though the greeks usually used it somewhat similarly to our word 'hate', the semitic use of that word (the writer, Luke, was jewish) has a way broader meaning, also including meanings such as leaving aside and loving less than.
- Other verses in the bible uses hate in the same way. Genesis 29:30-31 is an example: "30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated". Stating relative comparsions as opposites is a way of semitic writing.
- Since we have four gospels, that complete eachother, we can go look at the other ones if we need to shed some more light unto something. Matthew has a parallell passage, lets look at it:
Matthew 10.37: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Clearly it is a matter of not loving mothers, fathers, etc MORE than Jesus, if it somehow comes to a point where one has to make a choice between those two. Since this doesnt contradict Lukes verse, given the background above, but the interpretation to hate one's family does contradict the view given by Matthew, we can easily see what this verse is meaning
I don't have more time right now so that one example will have to do
And by the way, I dont fear critizism a bit, I welcome it, because then I can correct misbeliefs about me and my brothers and sisters and our beliefs.
God BlessCould you actually prove that by actually quoting from the bible?
I can quote the bible and prove my point about the bible. For instance the bible is a extremely immoral book
Such as its views on rape.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Numbers 31:15-18
Religus toerence
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
2 Chronicles 15:13
Homosexuality
Lev.18:22
Lev.20:13
Rom.1:26-27
And many, many, many more bad things. And I can prove that the bible is a horrid, evil, immoral, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic document. Can you prove you statements about the bible by quoting it? Cause I'm tired of Christens saying "bible this" and "Bible that" and never actually quoting the bible. | spinout wrote: |
| Isn't there a pity that so many religion performers really read the bible word by word? Even God gets upset about that I presume... Or am I wrong? |
wow I quoted myself!!! I'm sure 100% God is upset about the Bible 
When would as in Matthew 10.37 someone not be worthy god/jesus? That's just stupid mathematically.the conspirator:
If you read my post above you will probably understand what Im trying to say. What seems to make no sense or be totally immoral, stupid or just bad behavior, makes sense if you look at it in its context. And that is just not ONLY in its context as in what the verses before and after say, but also who this was written for, and by whom, in what time and situation.
If I had more time I could look at those verses you mentioned and give you an example of how I mean like I did with the verse from Luke in my post above, but as much as I'd want to, I just don't have the time right now, I'm gettin ready to go on a missions trip to Indonesia, and I have a lot more to get done before departure than I have time, but when I have more time I'd glady come back and help you out
God Bless! | LimpFish wrote: |
the conspirator:
If you read my post above you will probably understand what Im trying to say. What seems to make no sense or be totally immoral, stupid or just bad behavior, makes sense if you look at it in its context. And that is just not ONLY in its context as in what the verses before and after say, but also who this was written for, and by whom, in what time and situation.
If I had more time I could look at those verses you mentioned and give you an example of how I mean like I did with the verse from Luke in my post above, but as much as I'd want to, I just don't have the time right now, I'm gettin ready to go on a missions trip to Indonesia, and I have a lot more to get done before departure than I have time, but when I have more time I'd glady come back and help you out
God Bless! |
There context is the same weather you read them or the whole chapter or the whole book. Read them. I find it hard to believe that you have time to come to a forum yet don't have time to read the links I posted.
And again you have not backed up what you said. Back it up.Give up LimpFish, Con refuses to change his mind about anything. Simple concepts such as THE BIBLE WASN’T WRITEN IN ENGLISH are far beyond his acceptance. If the bible says to hate your mother, God wants you to hate your mother, regardless of the meaning or the actual Greek word, context, who it was written for, or how the writer’s culture used it.
People with his stubbornness might interpret our news paper headline of “Man gets what he deserves for awful murder” as thinking our society awarded people for committing murder full of awe, rather that understand our current meaning. Likewise the word tough, hard, and smooth.
I had a hard time sleeping last night because of the heat. “Well there’s a contradiction, did he have trouble sleeping because the bed was hard or because is was hot?”
The trip went smooth and uneventful to the end of the bumpy road, we returned with what we went for. “So how can a trip be successful AND uneventful?” “How can it be smooth on a bumpy road?”
Silly surface logic by the insincere unwilling to apply the diligence. And by silly, I don’t mean funny, my meaning is more…. useless. That will be a dewsy in a couple thousand years….
Oh so you attack me when you can't beat my argument.
First of all, if some one uses a particular translation and that translation say something bad, the point remains, pointing out mistranslations only goes to show the bible is not the word of God
Second, try looking those up in in Young's Literal Translation. Its easy, click the links in my posts, go to the drop down box and find "Young's Literal Translation" click that than click update. The reason I point these out in the King James or New International versions is cause thats what most people are using.
Yeah Con, I'm attacking you because I can't beat your argument....
I forgot how unreasonable you can be. Young's literal trans is straight from Greek, in the New Testament. I have one right over there on my book shelve. Bringing that us just shows how unwilling you are to accept that you totally misunderstand language and the translation of language.
I swear I tried beating this into your head months ago….
Listen:
Language; words, have no universal definition, especially over the span of 2000 years. To understand the Bible, or any text as old as it is, you must understand the culture and its use of a language.
Take my example above. It is an example of confusion inevitable when you make LITERAL translations without understanding context or cultural use of words.
Look at the past 100 years in English. Initially awful meant only ‘full of awe.’ Then it was use to mean both ‘full of awe’ and ‘really bad.’ Now, it only means ‘really bad.’
That’s only one word and one hundred years. Can you understand and accept that? Your argument would have merit except that dose not work for much of the bible. I understand that feel the need to defend the bible but guess what, it says allot of evil things. It says "hate your family" it says "If a virgin is rapes in a city and she dose not scream, she has to marrrie her rapist and he can never divorce her" it says "homosexuals are to be put to death and there blood is on there hands" it says theses evil things nd many more. These are not metaphors, these are not mistranslations, that is what it says. Yes there are mistranslations, additions, and metaphors but the majority of the bible is translated accurately in any translation. Take those I've used and look at any translation, they say the same things even the one translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek. Go here and look.
You call me unreasonable you call me stubborn, you only say that cause you can't beat my arguments. Your arguments don't work, mine do. You don't like that so you go after my character. Which says nothing about me and allot about you and none good. I'd just like to point out that Deuteronomy 16:23 is about a woman willingly cheating on her promised husband - and not about rape. As other people have already pointed out, it's both obvious from the context and from the fact that it says the woman does not resist.
The Bible says that love of a husband for his wife, and the wife for her husband is more important than the temporary fix of sleeping with someone else's. Having sex in a loving relationship is the opposite of rape. Perhaps if you disagree with these morals, Con, you can tell us why you think it's okay to sleep with someone else's virgin bride just before she is married - or for a girl why it's okay to cheat on your future husband.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| I'd just like to point out that Deuteronomy 16:23 is about a woman willingly cheating on her promised husband - and not about rape. |
Oh, is that what Deuteronomy 16:23 is about?My apologies. I was referring to Con's verses in 22:23, not 16:23.
Indi wrote:
| Quote: |
We have several such books, actually. Collectively, they're called school books.
|
Is there any school textbook which has contents that need not be updated for 4,000 years?
Is there any school textbook that are written in parts by different authors, and many have no chance of meeting one another, as they lived thousands of years apart?
Is it possible for such a school textbook with such time frame and number of authors still hold coherently from page 1 to the very last page?
The Bible is not a school textbook, it is written by God (inspiring many authors) revealing Himself to humanity, that we might seek and know Him. It is the official textbook in the School of Life.
Like the very natural we see everyday, there are unwritten laws, that nature obeyed. Mankind is simply discovering those laws and have them written in school textbooks.
Like the very fallen natural of sinful humanity, the Bible was given that humanity may discover ourselves, our sinfulness, AND the solution to our woes. Salvation into eternal life. These are recorded as the God given textbook for life, that those who finds the truth within may have a hope into eternity.
I do hope I have given a fair treatment on what the Bible is. Cons wrote:
| Quote: |
| Your argument would have merit except that dose not work for much of the bible. I understand that feel the need to defend the bible but guess what, it says allot of evil things. It says "hate your family" it says "If a virgin is rapes in a city and she dose not scream, she has to marrrie her rapist and he can never divorce her" it says "homosexuals are to be put to death and there blood is on there hands" it says theses evil things nd many more. |
Yes, the Bible is frank about EVIL and SIN, it is only when we sees that these same sins happen before and we are also doing it, that we may see that God calls them SIN.
God HATES sins, but God also loves us sinners, that He seeks us out to receive His gift of redeeming us from the penalty of sin.
Thus, the Bible records, even the greatest saints in the Bible has sin, and at the same time the Bible shows the way out of this mess.
Don't expect a Life Saving Book to tell you only what to do, without all the warnings and revealing the consequenses of wrong doing.
Hope this help, it is not a "feel good book", it contains truth of sins and truth of salvation. Wow ^_^; Where to even begin?
| shenyl wrote: |
| Is there any school textbook which has contents that need not be updated for 4,000 years? |
No. But... ^_^; You are aware that there is no text in the entire world that is still in current use that has not been updated in the last 4000 years, right? ^_^; Right?
Ya, that would include the Christian bible. i mean... you are aware that Jesus only allegedly lived 2000 years ago, right? ^_^;
| shenyl wrote: |
| Is there any school textbook that are written in parts by different authors, and many have no chance of meeting one another, as they lived thousands of years apart? |
Yes. ^_^; (FYI, that book contains entries written by people as far apart as Plato to currently working philosophers. That's 2400 years for those keeping score.)
| shenyl wrote: |
| Is it possible for such a school textbook with such time frame and number of authors still hold coherently from page 1 to the very last page? |
It's possible. But it's never happened. Nope, not even with the Christian bible. (Figure Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 for a quick and easy example. Or, you know, you could read up on all the stuff about slavery and the way women should be treated and try to argue with a straight face that they still apply. Good luck.) Thanks for the candid reply.
Firstly, Jesus Christ never wrote any part of the Bible Himself.
The Bible first started with the Books from Moses - about 3,000 years before Jesus Christ appears in History timeline. More parts of the Bible was added by other authors (judges, prophets, kings).
When Jesus Christ appears in History, there was only the Old Testament portion of the Bible. He reference to them as He teaches, He points to them as the prophecies of Himself were fulfilled, he pointed to his listeners that the OT refers to Him in no uncertain terms.
Jesus' disciples then added the New Testament part of the Bible (approximately finished in AD 100).
No further addition to the Bible was made.
That is how the approximate 4,000 years and the many authors came about.
Coherent from page 1 to the last page - I dare not defend the Bible myself, if you care to read it and study it, it will proof itself that it is coherent from page 1 to the last page. There are difficult passages in the Bible, which some twisted them, but over 99% of the Bible is simple and direct to our undeerstanding, which can be seen how the Bible revealed God and His solution to save humanity.
I do hope, I have managed to provide a clear explanation to my earlier points.
| shenyl wrote: |
| Firstly, Jesus Christ never wrote any part of the Bible Himself. |
No, really? -_-
My point was that, barring time travel or precognition, any book describing the biography of a person who lived 2,000 years ago cannot have gone 4,000 years without needing to be updated.
| shenyl wrote: |
The Bible first started with the Books from Moses - about 3,000 years before Jesus Christ appears in History timeline. More parts of the Bible was added by other authors (judges, prophets, kings).
When Jesus Christ appears in History, there was only the Old Testament portion of the Bible. He reference to them as He teaches, He points to them as the prophecies of Himself were fulfilled, he pointed to his listeners that the OT refers to Him in no uncertain terms.
Jesus' disciples then added the New Testament part of the Bible (approximately finished in AD 100).
No further addition to the Bible was made.
That is how the approximate 4,000 years and the many authors came about. |
Uh huh. And how do you reckon that makes the Bible a book that has not needed its contents updated for 4,000 years... when its contents weren't even completed (hell, they probably weren't even started) 4,000 years ago?
For the record, Job is probably the oldest book in the Bible, and it was only "finished" a couple hundred years before Christ. Most people believe that it first appeared between 3,500 and 4,000 years ago (which would put it at most 2,000 years before Christ, not 3,000)... but saying that makes Job 4,000 years old is patently dishonest - and implying that that makes the whole of the Bible 4,000 years old is just a plain old-fashioned lie.
And even if you do believe that all of the old testament is 5,000-4,000 years old (which can't even be close to true, because it describes events up to only a few hundred years before Christ), the fact that new testament wasn't even started until ~2,000 years ago means that it is completely dishonest to try to claim that the bible is 4,000 years old.
| shenyl wrote: |
| Coherent from page 1 to the last page - I dare not defend the Bible myself, if you care to read it and study it, it will proof itself that it is coherent from page 1 to the last page. There are difficult passages in the Bible, which some twisted them, but over 99% of the Bible is simple and direct to our undeerstanding, which can be seen how the Bible revealed God and His solution to save humanity. |
i have studied the Bible, quite thoroughly, thank you, and i can assert quite certainly that it is definitely not coherent. It is not a matter of translation. It is not a matter of "difficult" passages. There are very plain and easy to spot factual contradictions - both with itself and with what we know of history. Apologists often acknowledge many of these contradictions, and bizarrely cite them as "proof" of the Bible's authenticity (for example, they say that the inconsistencies between the 4 gospels is proof that they were written by 4 independent witnesses to the events). i'm not going to comment on that, other than to point out the fact that contradictions exist.
A thing cannot be coherent if it is internally contradictory. Therefore, without even mentioning the vagueness and mysticism, i can show the Bible is not coherent. ∎
| shenyl wrote: |
| I do hope, I have managed to provide a clear explanation to my earlier points. |
You have explained your reasoning. That does not make it any less dishonest. Believe what you want about the Bible, but unless you think what the Bible says is false, it cannot have been completed 4,000 years ago... because it says it wasn't right in there.
If you were aware of those facts, then your claims were lies... which seems to be a rather peculiar thing to do in light of what the Bible actually says, but to each their own, i suppose.
If you were not aware of those facts, then perhaps you shouldn't have shot your mouth off dictating facts as if you knew them with absolute authority without researching them a little first. In future, when your planning on mocking someone else's points, that might be a wise course of action to take.
So no, you did not give "fair treatment on what the Bible is".It seem you are very uptight in the way of your reply.
I do not wish to be seem in the same light as you are.
There are many evidence from history - for example the people of Israel in Egypt - recorded in non-biblical historical events of the "great deliverance" out of Egypt. This alone is recorded more than 1,400 BC (Before Christ).
Other events recorded in the Bible before this will put them before 2,000 BC.
Yes, I have empathetically indicated that NONE of the authors lived till the completion of the Bible, and that is the wonder of it all.
None of the latter books of the Bible nullify the earlier books - this is evidence of the coherency of the content of the Bible.
I dare not claim to be an expert in the content of the Bible, but I truly have yet to find ANY incoherency, which I will gladly try to examine.
I am glad you felt challenged, but do not wish to put us all in heated dialogue.
With best regards.
