Reply With QuoteHe wouldn't dare.Originally Posted by JamesWales
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Look, I agree, but if it brings folk happiness then let them be. It’s when they try and spout the nonsense to non believer’s endlessly I have an issue. You like football, but I don’t rant on to my wife about it all the time, she just glazes over and agrees even though I know she hasn’t a clue what I said…..if truthpaste is on, the thread is over.
He wouldn't dare.
Interestingly Richard Dawkins, the atheists' Messiah, has recently declared himself to be a "cultural Christian".
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...hat-he-thinks/
What a delightful irony coming from the guy who wants to destroy Christianity! As TP says, you don't have to believe in Christianity but living in a world entirely without it has consequences. I'm sure Sludge can't wait for that day but good luck is all I can say, as I probably won't be around to say I told you so - I'll be in a better place!
You hope but I have as much chance of some after life as you
there is no evidence to back your belief , nobody has contacted us in 2000 years to tell us what a great place heaven is
I would rather listen to black sabbath than waste time hoping
All religion is bollocks
I hope that's clear
Have you forgotten about the crusades ?
You sure do. You can spend eternity in another place with like-minded individuals such as yourself - lovely!
Very true, people will get the choice they have made.
Not just a Black Sabbath, but a pitch black eternity...
..in 'outer darkness'
Not for one minute, but a half truth is never a fact, see this article on THE CRUSADES.
Oh, yes the Crusades. I know I get a lot of stick on here for being a Christian but whilst I am indeed an old timer, I am not that old that I can remember the Crusades! Joking aside, clearly that was a shameful period in history (and there are other examples of course) but can I ask once again, were those who took part in such events "Christians", supposedly acting in defence of Christ and Christianity?
By their fruits you shall know them. Say no more.
I don't follow the religious discussions much, but I would like to think you don't get stick on here merely for being a Christian?
First of all, atheists don't have Messiahs. That is simply a contradiction in terms. Those who are interested in science (and which means truth) do not seek to follow a deity or human being as being the source of all truth and knowledge. In fact, any scientist worth his salt enjoys being wrong about something - as it meas that his or her knowledge expands. It's the total opposite of clinging onto unproven myths from thousand of years ago and which can never be proven or corroborated to a satisfactory degree for most people.
As for Dawkins stating that he is a 'cultural Christian' I think you need to listen to his explanation rather than perceive it as 'a delightful irony'. I am an atheist but can appreciate some of the cultural aspects of Christianity that surrounds us i.e. churches, various hymns, religious paintings etc - and it's all very familiar to me. Some non-Christians even go to Midnight Mass at Christmas purely for the enjoyment of it.
Similarly, I have hosted numerous Japanese people (both at home and regarding my work) who visit both a Shinto shrine and Buddhist temple every New Year's Eve (and who exchange presents at Christmas time). They have not been believers but they enjoy the cultural backcloth of their country and history.
Dawkins is an intelligent chap and probably brighter than those who misinterpret what he is saying.
Dawkins is certainly intelligent. But there can be a chasm between knowledge and wisdom.
I don't have time (atm) to address all your points and will return to your comments when time allows, but I would ask why (apart from eternal convenience) you like to label the bible "unproven myths" - are you suggesting that none of it contains accurate science and history (as we understand both those disciplines today)?
Also, could you explain this statement >> "Those who are interested in science (and which means truth)" << in more detail please?
I don't really want to get into the religious stuff as it gets nowhere - as what believers consider to be proof does not pass the threshold of being proof as understood by the majority of educated people.
I merely wanted to comment on the misinterpretation of Dawkins' comment.
As far as the meaning of the word 'science', the etymological root comes from Latin ('Scientia' meaning 'knowledge/to know something) and came to English via Norman-French.
It's true that the modern usage has narrowed down to what the Oxford Languages Dictionary describes as 'the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.' - but it's still about knowledge and the search for it, albeit in certain fields.
We can park Dawkins until we have the opportunity to examine how he has done when faced with an intelligent theist. I look forward to that.
As for 'science' - it certainly did live up to it's definition of certain knowledge in those early days. Now in our generation, that verified knowledge has got all mixed in with speculation, with the inevitable apologies and corrections flowing out later on when further investigation proves that the former 'scientific' discovery is no more than fiction.
I noticed you've run a mile from testing the Bible re science & history, and so would I if I were placed in your position.
What does this mean ? Who wrote it ?
Say no more ?
No idea
Someone who lives a life based on factual evidence .....science.... is being put in a difficult position by a person who believes in something that has no evidence of existence ?
This has got to be a joke
Educated , enlightened people ......proof is for example if you don't put petrol in your car it won't work ......evidence......scientific
Religious types .......cannot provide any evidence of the omnipresent and omnipowerful presence of their God......nothing ......but can quote lots of stuff from a book ......
I haven't run a mile from anything - and I don't know why you choose to be so unpleasant with your unneccessary, sneering comments.
I responded to Gofer in the first instance and not about the existence or otherwise of your god.
I have found it fruitless debating the veracity of many Bible stories, the list below being a sample, with people who believe them lock, stock and barrel - and I recognise that I won't change believers regarding their belief in those stories and those believers have never produced sufficient evidence to me to prove their veracity. I therefore saw the situation as an en passe and took a step back. (I can be usually be tempted to engage in dialogue with posters who remain civil but you come over as quite nasty).
1. The virgin birth
2. Eve being created from Adam's rib
3. Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt.
4. The talking snake.
5. Water being turned into wine.
6. A talking donkey.
7. The existence of Nephilim.
8. Jonah being in the belly of a fish for three days.
9. Adam living for 930 years.
10. The existence of demon pigs.
Why is being direct suddenly being nasty?
What IS rude and nasty is dismissing a world view as the view of the uneducated, merely 'religious stuff' or mythical; particularly when that person throws their unfounded opinion at you and then says he would rather not discuss it just in case he can't back up his insults.
Your 1-10 objections are a selection of supernatural phenomenon that like evolution, cannot be proven or repeated in laboratory conditions. Yet you have ignored two key things:-
1. You place your faith in men who tell you evolution has happened in history and is still happening today despite not being able to prove it in the same way you want your 1-10 list proven.
2. The majority of things found in the Bible CAN be proven historically or scientifically, with some of those scientific discoveries appearing in the Bible thousands of years before man discovered and proved them to be a fact.
Can you provide convincing evidence of the list above?
As I've already told you that like evolution there is no scientific (within human boundry of understanding) for SOME of the supernatural events in the Bible. However when we listen to people who have done the 'legwork' we find, for example that on the key subjects such as Christ Jesus and the fact that He was raised from the dead:-
Respected historian, Neil Carter, who is a professed atheist, writes:
“I can’t believe I’m feeling the need to do this, but today I’d like to write a brief defence of the historicity of Jesus. When people in the sceptic community argue that Jesus never existed, they are dismissing a large body of work for which they have insufficient appreciation, most often due to the fact that they themselves have never formally studied the subject.”
(patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014)
Historians, even those who are atheists and sceptics, have corroborated the fact of the empty tomb. Dr. Jakob Kremer, an Austrian historian, states, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” (Jakob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien–Geschichten um Geschichte ,Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977, pp. 49-50.)
Similarly, Dr. D. H. van Daalen states, “It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.” (D. H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection(London: Collins, 1972), p. 41.)
No evidence then regarding every item on that list.
Can you answer the questions about the talking snake , people being turned into salt etc
The obfuscation in the responses is overwhelming - and I had no interest in getting involved in the God/Bible debate in the first place. However, truthpaste's comment about me 'running a mile from testing the Bible' was pretty pathetic and totally disingenuous.
As you've not been able to follow the dialogue to produce an appropriate response then I stand by my original 'running' analysis.
Didn't you understand the point re Evolution and your ten supernatural events in the Bible being equally unprovable?
You see you completely trust certain scientific men who regularly withdraw or amend their latest 'discoveries' and who offer no scientific proof for evolution that we can observe, yet a God who has never needed to once withdraw (from His Word, the Bible) one statement re history or science, you find utterly untrustworthy?
No wonder you have no interest in getting involved.
Posting Permissions