The bible - fact or fiction???

[AUTaxMan]

Not so much whether he thought there was a higher power. It is only logical to make that assumption. My contention is he never says he thinks that higher power manifests itself as your God.

You are correct. I think that Einstein believed in a higher power, but not a personal God.

I am talking about believers within the same denominations having differing explanations of various Bible passages.

Chalk that up to the uneducated.

Not necessarily, but way above my pay grade. I just don't believe the justification for the obvious incestual relationships that God sanctioned. Would it not have been better to "create" more people in His image to avoid this?

I am no biblical scholar, but I am certain that there is an important answer to this question. I will have to do a little more research on it.

As with all "history". I will explain it with an old adage, the author of which I do not know. "History is written by the victors" Who knows what opposition there was to it? Christianity obviously prevailed enough to carve out a following.

The persecution of Christians in the early church is well-documented. I would certainly not call them victors in the sense of that expression.

[habsheaven]

Chalk that up to the uneducated.

For the most part, yes. But there appear to be many educated believers with differing explanations. To put it bluntly, most of the uneducated believers don't give a damn about the questions I ponder.

I am no biblical scholar, but I am certain that there is an important answer to this question. I will have to do a little more research on it.

I would be interested in hearing the reasoning behind this. It may make perfect sense in it's own context.

The persecution of Christians in the early church is well-documented. I would certainly not call them victors in the sense of that expression.

I was thinking more about the "information" battle between Christianity and the Pagan? customs in claiming victors.

[sanfran22]

Thought about this on the drive home. She would have to reveal herself to the world. Then she would have to CREATE a new Mother Earth and place it next to us for all to see.

Shouldn't be too hard. Think of all the new recruits!

Something along this line will happen in the no so distant future...HE will reveal Himself and will set off a whole lot off not so fun things. By that point though, it will be too late for those left behind.....

[habsheaven]

Something along this line will happen in the no so distant future...HE will reveal Himself and will set off a whole lot off not so fun things. By that point though, it will be too late for those left behind.....

I think this group will include me. Where are the rest of you going? Roadtrip?

[gatorboymike]

No, they're going to live up in the clouds with their wings and halos and white robes and harps and...oh, excuse me, "outside of space and time."

[karnivore]

Can you explain that? I don't follow the correlation between the two.

The reason we are human is because we get to choose exactly what to do when to do it. If we know for a fact, 100% there is a God people will go against their free will to follow him, and in fact take out free will.

Not so much whether he thought there was a higher power. It is only logical to make that assumption. My contention is he never says he thinks that higher power manifests itself as your God.



I am talking about believers within the same denominations having differing explanations of various Bible passages.




Sounds like a reasonable assumption.



Not necessarily, but way above my pay grade. I just don't believe the justification for the obvious incestual relationships that God sanctioned. Would it not have been better to "create" more people in His image to avoid this?



No, life expectancy has been increasing. I believe the "party line" is that our current lifespans started after the Flood. I do not take issue with the occurrence of a flood. My issue is with the improbablity of a craft large enough to achieve what is claimed. I have heard the explanations on this as well, and they just aren't plausible.




As with all "history". I will explain it with an old adage, the author of which I do not know. "History is written by the victors" Who knows what opposition there was to it? Christianity obviously prevailed enough to carve out a following.

1. I never said Einstein followed my God. I just said he believed in a Higher Power.

2. Uneducated believers. Just because you call yourself a Christian and say the nice things doesn't mean you know what your talking about. Old foot in the mouth syndrome. (I do that sometimes too)

3. Thank ya :)

4. Well I really don't know Gods way of thinking. So I won't throw out a reason when I can't explain it.

5. He gave the exact demensions for the craft, and I don't know if anyone ever tried it, but it shouldn't have been too hard to recreate. Keep in mind alot of animals that exist now wasn't there back then, for example there wasn't poodles and cocker spaniel dogs, there was just one kind. So if the animals went down to the origin animals, it doesn't seem as outlandish.

6. But how was the Christians "victors" when they were hunted out and killed for their beliefs? The early christians took the ways of the Bible very strictly, so its not like they went out and murdered people. It wasn't until Constantine that being a Christian was considered a good thing. Also well-known historians of the time, Christian and Non-Christians alike, talked about Jesus and what was happening.

Thanks for the debate man, its fun to know others opinions!

Burden of proof shifting is one of the most common fallacies employed by religionists. "Can you prove there's no god? No? Well then I guess you're just an idiot and you need to shut up and agree with me, don't you?" In fact, half the time, that's the first thing out of their mouths. And it seems to me that "you can't prove me wrong" is the last, desperate attempt at defending one's position by an intellectually dishonest scoundrel who has nothing to support their position and they darn well know it.

To use a common example to illustrate how inane this is, take Bigfoot. Do you believe the claim that Bigfoot exists until it's proven false, or do you disbelieve it until it's proven true? If you ran into someone who believed in Bigfoot, and when you asked him how he knew there was a Bigfoot, and he said "Can you prove there's no Bigfoot?" would that in any way convince you that there was a Bigfoot? Or would you think to yourself that this guy isn't being very fair or mature?

It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. In order to do that, you would have to know the entire contents of the entire universe, and know that the thing in question was not among them. And since no one possesses such knowledge, no one can do any such thing. You can prove something does exist, or you can fail to prove something does exist, but you can't prove something doesn't exist. Unless you're talking about something confined to a space that is searchable in its entirity. Staying with cryptozoology, the Loch Ness Monster, for example. People say there's an aquatic dinosaur living in this lake? Well, we've looked through the entire lake and never found any aquatic dinosaur. Of course, Loch Ness Monster apologists might just say Nessie lives outside of space and time...

It's not atheists' job to prove there is no god. It's theists' job to prove there is one. An assertion with no evidence to back it up is worthy of dismissal until such time as there is sufficiently convincing evidence to back it up. This will probably lead you to dismiss ideas which, despite being poorly supported, may happen to be true. But the point is that you have no reason to accept that they are true at the time. Once support is built up for them, then it's time to revise your position. That's how the scientific method works. The problem is that as the Abrahamic god is traditionally described, it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In other words, an idea specifically formulated so that nobody will ever be able to prove it wrong...so that people's inability to prove it wrong will somehow be construed as evidence of its truth by adherents. Of course, you know what else is an unfalsifiable hypothesis? The Matrix. "Hey, what if we're all stuck inside a computer program wired into our brains, which is so sophisticated that it mimics real life 100% and is impossible to identify as a computer program?" Can you PROVE we're NOT in the Matrix? No? Well then I guess we must be, mustn't we? Are you convinced? Surely not. So why are you convinced by "Hey, what if there's a supernatural being who created the universe and cares about the day-to-day goings-on in our lives, who uses his powers to keep himself and his actions completely undetectable?"

Theists are the ones who say "I'm 100%, absolutely certain that there is a god, and I know what his nature is, and I know what he wants, what he doesn't want, what he loves, what he hates, how he works, when he works, and what he's going to do in the future. I have complete, unwavering, ironclad, inassailable and permanent faith in this. There's absolutely nothing anyone can ever do or say, and absolutely nothing that can ever happen, to make me change my mind even the tineist bit about anything, in any part, in any way, for any reason, under any circumstances, at any time, ever, period, end of story." And because they recognize how intellectually dishonest that assertion is, they want to try to make atheists out to be exactly the same as they are, or even worse, claiming we say the exact same thing about there not being a god. Well, that's a lie, and a strawman argument. Atheists say, "We don't believe you." And to try to claim that "We don't believe you" is equivalent to "I have 100% faith that there is no god and I'll never change my mind or admit I'm wrong" is an absolute LIE. It's a diversionary ploy on the part of those who have nothing to support their position and they know it. And that's usually the second thing out of their mouths, right on the heels of "You can't prove there's no god."

P.S. - For those who say they do have evidence that there's a god, they can go ahead and state their claims. But I've heard a lot of such so-called evidences and all the ones I've ever heard, I've found to be lacking.

I can boil down your whole thing to one sentence. "I came across "Christians" and they didn't know much about their religion, so they got mad and started gettting defensive."

But why do we need to prove the existance of our God when their has never been something about the Bible debunked? If you wanna go against the "Head" of our religion (i.e. That Jesus/God doesn't exist), shouldn't you work your way up to that and try to disprove the smaller things?

[AUTaxMan]

I think this group will include me. Where are the rest of you going? Roadtrip?

You may not agree with it, but don't be disrespectful.

[tutall]

Not all science is faith. If I let go of a ball as I sit at my computer it will drop to the ground. I don't trust that it will drop. I know that it will drop 100% of the time. It's not blind faith in a book that one thinks men wrote through a link to a creator.

Again, everyone is left to believe what they would like. My major issue with religion is that people want to use it to govern everyone regardless of belief.

You keep saying that but I would like to know what you mean by it... I asked earlier but I am sure that post is buried by now....

[mrveggieman]

Here's another question for you that anyone can chime in on. If you are muslim, jewish, or another religion I really want to hear what you think. Christians can answer too along with anyone else. Here's the situation. There is a guy who has raped, tourted and killed people. One day he wakes up and has a change of heart. He wants salvation. He dosen't really know anything about any particular religion but he does believe in a higher power and wants to find God. Someone tells him that he can find salvation at the top of the hill. On the way up there one of his victim's father sees him and shoots and kills him. My question is since the killer had every intention on getting salvation but died before he had the chance to recieve salvation, does he get into heaven?

[karnivore]

Here's another question for you that anyone can chime in on. If you are muslim, jewish, or another religion I really want to hear what you think. Christians can answer too along with anyone else. Here's the situation. There is a guy who has raped, tourted and killed people. One day he wakes up and has a change of heart. He wants salvation. He dosen't really know anything about any particular religion but he does believe in a higher power and wants to find God. Someone tells him that he can find salvation at the top of the hill. On the way up there one of his victim's father sees him and shoots and kills him. My question is since the killer had ever intention on getting salvation but died before he had the chance to recieve salvation, does he get into heaven?

Most Christians believe that since he did not believe in his heart that Jesus died for him (yet), then no he does not make it to Heaven.

I personally cannot condemn anyone, so for me to say that person is, its not of my nature to say it :/