Debate me about the bible

Dibash Chhetri · 2011-06-09T19:31:32

First of all, I am a confused christian, and I am creating this thread to see if I can clear out some fog in my head. So lets start. Claim: The bible is false in the sense that it was not written with the guidance of "god" Reasons for my claim : Originally there was a lot of contradiction in the bible because it was written by humans These contradictions were refractor-ed by a humans, specifically some committee of who's name I can't recall If it wasn't for all of these refractor, more and more people will be aware of such contradiction and hence people will start to question and possible see the problems with the bible. Which could cause a tremendous loss in the business of selling bibles and spiritual objects There are things in the bible, still, that regular people find disturbing, such as the topic of homosexual, or parsing men more important than women. Really, if it was written by god's disciples, and were the words of god, then such discrimination shouldn't exist, because god is suppose to love everyone of every type. It also says that unless you follow him specifically, you will live eternity in hell? WTF!!! My family members are hindu, they are one of the best people that I know. My friend is not a believer in jesus, but possibly of a believer of there being a creator in general. He is one of the nicest and caring person that I know. Should he goto hell? For what? For some minuscule sins? So the bible is saying, I could kill thousands of people, and ask for forgiveness with all my heart and be truly sorry, and from there be the best person I can be, then I will goto heaven, but my friend who does nothing* wrong, tries to pleases people before him, will go to hell because he didn't believe in jesus in particular! Come on now, that does not sound like "god's words". There is no type of evidence that supports the bible and anything in the bible Most events declared in the bible are "fairy tale" like, and nothing supports their claims. Some events, were explained by science and thus was not a supernatural. It was an actual explainable event with some probability. In factual sense, the bible is no more true than the Quran( the religious text of Islam) . The reason why many people believe this book than others is because they were brought up by it. When they were little, they had no intelligence to rebuttal and question the content of the bible deductively. And thus the result is that they take it true for granted from day one. Honestly, imagine you were a christian brought up with parents who believes hinduism. You would most likely believe this hinduism, especially if you were never able to leave india( assuming thats where you were born) which in turn would cause you to never find christianity with a high probability, because of their strict culture. So in desperate help, I ask you to prove me false. I ask you to rebuttal each and everyone of these statements. My mind is going crazy these last few nights. The more I think about it rationally, the less I believe. regards, D.Chhetri

Hodgman

52,717

June 02, 2011 12:19 AM

[quote name='Amaz1ng' timestamp='1306942862' post='4818305']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1306941063' post='4818295']
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1306899314' post='4818144']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1306898296' post='4818141'][quote name='Roots' timestamp='1306872755' post='4818003']as many believers instinctively associative "atheist" with satanist and are prejudiced to think all sorts of horrible things about us.

Side point, but does anyone else think it's weird that a religion would name itself after the anti-diety of another religion and most branches of the it ask not to be associated with that deity?[/quote]Stanists like the character Satan... seems pretty straightforward to me -- isn't it the same as Christians who like the character Christ?
[/quote]

That's not what all satanists believe in though. The majority of satanists don't even believe in a deity, but that humans should embrace their more animalistic desires.
[/quote]
Only the uneducated or mentally ill took the stories as literal. So my point is that the satanism you describe is nothing unusual - it's much closer to actual religion than fundamentalist Christianity for example.
[/quote]
That's not the point I was making o.O
[/quote]
That's not the point I was making o.O

. 22 Racing Series .

Machaira

1,035

June 02, 2011 06:13 PM

Anybody who wants to know the truth needs to read the scriptures, ponder of them, then ask with a sincere heart if it is true. If done with faith the Holy Ghost will releal the truth of this directly to our minds. That is why I beleive.

What happens though when contradictory answers are received by different people? How do you determine which is true?

Former Microsoft XNA and Xbox MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on game development

Machaira

1,035

June 02, 2011 06:22 PM

Here's a hint: no such person exists.

...

it's quite telling that there isn't a single example of this changing, in anyone, ever.

The second sentence does not mean the first is true. Unless you've become omniscient I think you meant "there has been no evidence of such a person".

You're welcome.

Former Microsoft XNA and Xbox MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on game development

cowsarenotevil

3,015

June 02, 2011 06:40 PM

[quote name='cowsarenotevil' timestamp='1306655120' post='4817014']
Here's a hint: no such person exists.

...

it's quite telling that there isn't a single example of this changing, in anyone, ever.

The second sentence does not mean the first is true. Unless you've become omniscient I think you meant "there has been no evidence of such a person".

You're welcome.

[/quote]

It is, of course, impossible to prove non-existence. However, when I assert that, for instance, "dragons do not exist" the vast majority of people will know that I really mean "there is no reason to believe that dragons do exist" rather than "I am omniscient." But then, since you apparently knew that already, I'm not sure why there is any confusion.

Also note that, as written, the second sentence does imply the first one. I said "there isn't a single example" rather than "I have not observed/seen evidence of a single example." Obviously, the latter is what I meant, but you apparently knew that already too.

-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

Hodgman

52,717

June 03, 2011 03:49 AM

[quote name='HappyCoder' timestamp='1306950761' post='4818365']
Anybody who wants to know the truth needs to read the scriptures, ponder of them, then ask with a sincere heart if it is true. If done with faith the Holy Ghost will releal the truth of this directly to our minds. That is why I beleive.

What happens though when contradictory answers are received by different people? How do you determine which is true?[/quote]You have to un-ask that question. The question is based on the assumption that truth is something that exists external to yourself. If you instead assume that truth is internal, then the question makes no sense.

. 22 Racing Series .

Hedos

674

June 03, 2011 04:13 PM

The belief of athiesm is nothing new. [...]

I'd just like to make a small note here, because this is something that I've heard often lately and that I find irritating. The sentence "the belief of atheism" is a misrepresentation of what atheism is. Atheism is the lack or rejection of a belief in some form of a god (this is *not* agnosticism). The sentence "the belief of atheism" has implications, it is meant to suggest that atheism is an equivalent philosophical stance as is the belief in other religions, because it also requires a leap of faith. That is not the case, because the burden of proof is on religions. They make extraordinary claims, so they require extraordinary proofs. Atheism does not make any extraordinary claim.

This statement above is essentially the same as the statement that an atheist would need to "prove that atheism is true". Would you require me to prove to you that Santa Claus does not exist? Would you require me to give you proof that the Tooth Fairy or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist? Of course not. If you choose to believe in any such fairy tale, you are the one expected to provide very strong evidence.

This is probably not something you did on purpose, but I noticed some people constantly using this rhetoric and I thought this should be clarified.

frob

46,223

June 03, 2011 04:40 PM

[quote name='HappyCoder' timestamp='1306950761' post='4818365']
The belief of athiesm is nothing new. [...]

I'd just like to make a small note here, because this is something that I've heard often lately and that I find irritating. The sentence "the belief of atheism" is a misrepresentation of what atheism is. Atheism is the lack or rejection of a belief in some form of a god (this is *not* agnosticism). The sentence "the belief of atheism" has implications, it is meant to suggest that atheism is an equivalent philosophical stance as is the belief in other religions, because it also requires a leap of faith. That is not the case, because the burden of proof is on religions. They make extraordinary claims, so they require extraordinary proofs. Atheism does not make any extraordinary claim.

This statement above is essentially the same as the statement that an atheist would need to "prove that atheism is true". Would you require me to prove to you that Santa Claus does not exist? Would you require me to give you proof that the Tooth Fairy or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist? Of course not. If you choose to believe in any such fairy tale, you are the one expected to provide very strong evidence.
[/quote]

I think it is more like the Null Hypothesis.

That itself is a belief. It is just a negative belief.

Not having evidence of your test case does not necessarily prove the null hypothesis.

Hedos

674

June 03, 2011 04:52 PM

[quote name='Hedos' timestamp='1307117613' post='4819117']
[quote name='HappyCoder' timestamp='1306950761' post='4818365']
The belief of athiesm is nothing new. [...]

I'd just like to make a small note here, because this is something that I've heard often lately and that I find irritating. The sentence "the belief of atheism" is a misrepresentation of what atheism is. Atheism is the lack or rejection of a belief in some form of a god (this is *not* agnosticism). The sentence "the belief of atheism" has implications, it is meant to suggest that atheism is an equivalent philosophical stance as is the belief in other religions, because it also requires a leap of faith. That is not the case, because the burden of proof is on religions. They make extraordinary claims, so they require extraordinary proofs. Atheism does not make any extraordinary claim.

This statement above is essentially the same as the statement that an atheist would need to "prove that atheism is true". Would you require me to prove to you that Santa Claus does not exist? Would you require me to give you proof that the Tooth Fairy or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist? Of course not. If you choose to believe in any such fairy tale, you are the one expected to provide very strong evidence.
[/quote]

I think it is more like the Null Hypothesis.

That itself is a belief. It is just a negative belief.

Not having evidence of your test case does not necessarily prove the null hypothesis.

[/quote]

You might be interested in the wikipedia article on the Null Hypothesis. Quote: "It is important to understand that null hypothesis can never be proved." Thus, this is why I'm saying there is no such thing as a "belief in the Null Hypothesis". Is is a contradiction in itself, because the Null Hypothesis can't ever be proven.

This is a subtle issue, but the main point I am addressing is just that of terminology. Stop saying that "atheism must be proved", it's a contradiction. We just refuse to believe in gods because of the lack of evidence, and we can point to this lack of evidence or we can criticize the weakness of the evidence or we can show the contradictions in the proposed evidence, but we are not trying (and don't need to try) to prove atheism.

Amaz1ng

131

June 03, 2011 05:23 PM

Stop saying that "atheism must be proved", it's a contradiction. We just refuse to believe in gods because of the lack of evidence, and we can point to this lack of evidence or we can criticize the weakness of the evidence or we can show the contradictions in the proposed evidence, but we are not trying (and don't need to try) to prove atheism.

Checkmate.

[size="5"]http://innercirclegames.freeforums.org
Email me at: innercirclegames@hotmail.com

way2lazy2care

793

June 03, 2011 06:54 PM

I'd just like to make a small note here, because this is something that I've heard often lately and that I find irritating.\

Atheists believe that there is no god-like deity.

Agnostics are closer to not believing in anything, but that's not always the same either.

Believing in nothing is not the same as not believing in anything.

Debate me about the bible

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Debate me about the bible

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines