Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
khakibanana

Debunk Atheism

Recommended Posts

That's fascinating. What evidence have we been ignoring? :P

 

You are grouping all of atheists together; I'm not saying you in particular were, but other atheists have been. Miraculous phenomenons could be seen as evidence of divine intervention. Now I know you are probably going to say "that's just a coincidence" or what have you, but can you honestly explain using scientific method that a certain event happened at a certain time in a certain situation when it was needed most? The answer is that no, you can not. Can you explain it through religion? In theory, you could, but it would require you to have faith. So really, there is no materialistic way to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

 

But here is one way I see it. The sheer fact that no one can disprove the existence of God outweighs the fact that no one can prove the existence of God just because if you think for a second, if God exists, then by all means faith would be a core foundation. (^^I know what I just said is kind of confusing, but it's because it's 1:00 AM and I'm tired, I'll try and re-word that later). Also to add on to that, the fact that the core foundation of most atheists is the theory of the 'Big Bang' does not explain the creation of matter, out of which everything is made, then really it only leads someone to think; "Maybe there's more to the creation of the cosmos than just science."

 

I've read a book called The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel (which was, graciously sent to me by Emanick. Thanks! ;)), which outlines plenty of scientific evidence for belief in God. I can't say I was swayed by Strobel's arguments, but I'm certainly not ignoring them. :D

 

I'm not exactly suprised that you were not persuaded, Strobel doesn't exactly provide the greatest evidence for God (I have not read the book personally, but I read several summaries and was in some discussions over the book with my cousin and a friend, and from what they told me, the book wasn't exactly great with evidence.) But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

 

^_^ ~Sgt.Pepper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are grouping all of atheists together; I'm not saying you in particular were, but other atheists have been.

Well, plenty of people ignore plenty of things. I, personally, like to keep an open mind, usually.

 

Miraculous phenomenons could be seen as evidence of divine intervention. Now I know you are probably going to say "that's just a coincidence" or what have you, but can you honestly explain using scientific method that a certain event happened at a certain time in a certain situation when it was needed most? The answer is that no, you can not.

The problem with that is, certain events sometimes don't happen at a certain time in a certain situation when it was needed most. Sometimes things happen that appear miraculous, other times they don't. If they happen to you, it's a miracle. If they don't, it's a tragedy, but part of God's divine plan nevertheless. To point at something good and say, "it's a miracle," and to point at something bad and say, "God is mysterious" isn't sufficient for me.

 

So really, there is no materialistic way to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

I have come to realise that only wanting materialistic explanations for things is closed-minded. So, I've opened up to the supernatural. But I haven't been able to believe in it, so far.

 

But here is one way I see it. The sheer fact that no one can disprove the existence of God outweighs the fact that no one can prove the existence of God just because if you think for a second, if God exists, then by all means faith would be a core foundation. (^^I know what I just said is kind of confusing, but it's because it's 1:00 AM and I'm tired, I'll try and re-word that later).

I don't understand. I'm looking forward to your not-late-at-night explanation. :P

 

Also to add on to that, the fact that the core foundation of most atheists is the theory of the 'Big Bang' does not explain the creation of matter, out of which everything is made, then really it only leads someone to think; "Maybe there's more to the creation of the cosmos than just science."

Oh, the Big Bang theory was never meant to address what caused the universe's creation - only the means by which it was created. Yes, I think science has a long way to go if it ever discovers the "why".

 

I'm not exactly suprised that you were not persuaded, Strobel doesn't exactly provide the greatest evidence for God (I have not read the book personally, but I read several summaries and was in some discussions over the book with my cousin and a friend, and from what they told me, the book wasn't exactly great with evidence.) But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

No, he did a pretty convincing job. Seeing his evidence made me atleast feel better about pursuing belief in the first place. But I think actually going out and believing is about more than just facts. It's about faith - and faith is something I haven't been able to muster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally, am a Catholic, but I'm not going to argue with someone who I know is going to doggedly disagree with me.

Who says Atheists are dogged? At least, no more dogged than theists are. :)

I admit, I would equally as doggedly going to disagree with anyone who tells me God doesn't exsist. But both sides have only got completely abstract evidence. It's not like we're arguing over the exsistence of cookies, in which case the side who said that yes, they do exsist could easily prove that they are right. Nothing however, can be proved in this case and I see no point in arguing over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with that is, certain events sometimes don't happen at a certain time in a certain situation when it was needed most. Sometimes things happen that appear miraculous, other times they don't. If they happen to you, it's a miracle. If they don't, it's a tragedy, but part of God's divine plan nevertheless. To point at something good and say, "it's a miracle," and to point at something bad and say, "God is mysterious" isn't sufficient for me.

 

I don't see things not happening for me as a tragedy. But yes, I guess it is somewhat lacking to say that God moves in mysterious ways, even though I believe he does and it is up to us humans to determine what is good and what is bad/evil. That's why when we see certain events, we see them as good and some other events we see as bad.

 

 

I don't understand. I'm looking forward to your not-late-at-night explanation. :closedeyes:

 

Well, what I was trying to get across was that if you think about it, it is harder to disprove the existence of God than it is to prove the existence of God, because you can not disprove faith and if God exists, then indeed faith would be a key way in which we interact with God. I guess acknowledging a higher form of being outweighs trying to stamp out the idea of a higher form of being, because there is more ammunition in believing in God, such as faith in him.

 

Wow, even at a decent hour of the day, it is still kind of confusing :band:

 

Oh, the Big Bang theory was never meant to address what caused the universe's creation - only the means by which it was created. Yes, I think science has a long way to go if it ever discovers the "why".

 

I never expected or asked the theory to prove "why" the cosmos came to being, but hell, it doesn't even explain "How" the cosmos came into being in the first place. One of the fundamental foundations of the theory is saying that all the matter of the cosmos was already here, which does not explain how the cosmos came into being if there was already matter lying around; that means that there was something already "here" before the Big Bang. Thus, the theory does not prove how the cosmos came into being.

 

 

No, he did a pretty convincing job. Seeing his evidence made me atleast feel better about pursuing belief in the first place. But I think actually going out and believing is about more than just facts. It's about faith - and faith is something I haven't been able to muster.

 

Indeed, faith is quite a hard thing to grasp and understand, I don't claim to know everything about it either.

 

~Sgt.Pepper

Edited by Sgt.Pepper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never expected or asked the theory to prove "why" the cosmos came to being, but hell, it doesn't even explain "How" the cosmos came into being in the first place. One of the fundamental foundations of the theory is saying that all the matter of the cosmos was already here, which does not explain how the cosmos came into being if there was already matter lying around; that means that there was something already "here" before the Big Bang. Thus, the theory does not prove how the cosmos came into being.

The Big Bang theory is about how our universe came to be in the state that it's in, its origins as a universe. All the matter in it existed before, but the Big Bang theory explains how it became a universe, instead of just a singularity of matter.

 

Indeed, faith is quite a hard thing to grasp and understand, I don't claim to know everything about it either.

Oh, I understand it just fine. I'm having trouble developing it. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I understand it just fine. I'm having trouble developing it. :o

 

:)

 

Well, once you start to develop a sense of faith, it gets harder and harder to understand.

 

The Big Bang theory is about how our universe came to be in the state that it's in, its origins as a universe. All the matter in it existed before, but the Big Bang theory explains how it became a universe, instead of just a singularity of matter.

 

Well, look at the theory logically; do you honestly think that everything came from one single point? :) Also, the creation of the matter itself is really what the origins of the cosmos are, not whether or not they made a little explosion :D

 

~Sgt.Pepper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Big Bang was the moment that it was created.

The Big Bang was the moment the already existing matter started to expand, not the moment all that matter was created.

But what does matter exist from? Neutrons, electrons and protons? Those are all three forms of energy, and energy is not really something that you can hold on to, basically, it's only a bunch of quarks that indicate it's energy. It goes deeper than that, with all quantum physics and what not, but you can basically say matter is energy, which consits of nothing but data of some kind. And data is not something by itself, like on a hard disk, it's a property of something bigger.

 

My point is, you can say matter is a gateway between nothing and how nothing can be something.

 

I'm sorry if I sound confusing :o

 

My point is simply put, matter can exist from nothing. Like a bunch of bricks + nothing can be a wall.

Edited by Toungy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Big Bang was the moment that it was created.

The Big Bang was the moment the already existing matter started to expand, not the moment all that matter was created.

But what does matter exist from? Neutrons, positrons and protons? Those are all three forms of energy, and energy is not really something that you can hold on to, basically, it's only a bunch of quarks that indicate it's energy. It goes deeper than that, with all quantum physics and what not, but you can basically say matter is energy, which consits of nothing but data of some kind. And data is not something by itself, like on a hard disk, it's a property of something bigger.

Neutrons, Protons, and Electrons. Positron is a type of nuclear decay.

 

(And as far as I can remember, electrons are the only ones with wave like properties... But I could be wrong)

Woops, typo, sorry :o A proton is a package of light, and electrons are the negative counterpart of positrons, right? (neutrons are neutral, I know that) And anti-matter exists of positrons, antiprotons and neutrons, for as far as I know. :)

Edited by Toungy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You cannot debunk athiesm, as you cannot debunk any religion. Prove to me God doesn't exist. Have fun. :closedeyes:

 

You can't prove something dosen't exist when you can't prove that it does.

 

Lets say that we all believe that dragons are real, however we've never seen one. Another person disbelieves in dragons. We are all telling him they are real even though we have never seen one and even if we had seen one we can't take him to see it. How is the nonbeliever supposed to disprove that dragons are real when we have given him no evidence that dragons are real.

 

So until god actually speaks or answers a prayer then I'm not going to believe in him. And don't say that he has answered your prayer and that is evidence because I guarantee you that there are tons more prayers of yours that he hasent answered.

 

Really all religions are a scam - they need you to BELIEVE and have FAITH however they can't prove that their god is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bible is proved to be historicaly correct and the storys take place over a period of 5000 years and also the predictations made in the bible have came true, and are still coming true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the bible is proved to be historicaly correct and the storys take place over a period of 5000 years and also the predictations made in the bible have came true, and are still coming true

 

These predictions are not predictions. You probably saw that history channel special about the predictions in the bible where they had all sorts of random patterns that had names of people who are currently in the news. It's completley ridiculus to think that the book is true when it is that thick and has only a few of the names of people who are making headlines. It's just coincidence.

 

Even if that's not what you saw there are any number of explanations that could happen. I know of one that says "two mountains of fire will precede the end of the world" and people think the mountains are the twin towers but that could mean anything. The predictions aren't coming true and if you can show a list please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So until god actually speaks or answers a prayer then I'm not going to believe in him. And don't say that he has answered your prayer and that is evidence because I guarantee you that there are tons more prayers of yours that he hasent answered.

 

Really all religions are a scam - they need you to BELIEVE and have FAITH however they can't prove that their god is real.

It is quite apparent that you have little to no understanding of religion.

 

the bible is proved to be historicaly correct and the storys take place over a period of 5000 years and also the predictations made in the bible have came true, and are still coming true

 

These predictions are not predictions. You probably saw that history channel special about the predictions in the bible where they had all sorts of random patterns that had names of people who are currently in the news. It's completley ridiculus to think that the book is true when it is that thick and has only a few of the names of people who are making headlines. It's just coincidence.

 

Even if that's not what you saw there are any number of explanations that could happen. I know of one that says "two mountains of fire will precede the end of the world" and people think the mountains are the twin towers but that could mean anything. The predictions aren't coming true and if you can show a list please do.

The Bible predicted where Jesus would be born, how he would die, and when he would die - correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So until god actually speaks or answers a prayer then I'm not going to believe in him. And don't say that he has answered your prayer and that is evidence because I guarantee you that there are tons more prayers of yours that he hasent answered.

 

Really all religions are a scam - they need you to BELIEVE and have FAITH however they can't prove that their god is real.

It is quite apparent that you have little to no understanding of religion.

Please explain what part of what he said makes you say that he has no understanding of religion?

 

He said that he won't believe until God speaks to him. I feel along those lines too...I think it's pretty common for people who's lives are based in simple logic and who don't believe in magic.

 

He also said that it would be silly for people to use an "answered prayer" as evidence. I don't know if many people really would believe in God for that reason, but if they did, it certainly would be silly because, as Headshot said, if you pray for a hundred things, some of them will come true.

 

Was it his comment that all religions are a scam? While I don't agree with his comment, I wouldn't think it shows a total lack of understanding or religion. I think a lot of non-religious people feel that way. And his comment that you need to believe with faith rather than logical proof is true too. That type of thing is for some people, but not others.

 

But really that comment "It is quite apparent that you have little to no understanding of religion." seems very dismissive and condescending towards someone who you disagree with.

 

The Bible predicted where Jesus would be born, how he would die, and when he would die - correctly.
From just skimming through here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus there's a lot of "scholars believe" type of language that seems pretty strongly to indicate no one knows the historical facts for a certainty...which isn't at all strange considering Christ lived 2000 years ago and the four gospels are thought to have been written not just years after Jesus died, but decades. My point being simply that if Biblical scholars don't know the dates/times/exact happenings, how on earth can anyone say the predictions were accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it his comment that all religions are a scam? While I don't agree with his comment, I wouldn't think it shows a total lack of understanding or religion. I think a lot of non-religious people feel that way.

Absolutely. I am aware that a lot of non-religious people feel that way because I used to be one of them. Little did I realize how offensive and inconsiderate it was for me to tell others that their belief was a scam. I do not think that saying someone has little to no understanding of religion is either dismissive or condescending; it is a mere statement of fact. I am not insinuating that he is stupid. However, if someone believes that religions are a scam, then that person has little to no understanding of religion.

 

And his comment that you need to believe with faith rather than logical proof is true too.

That is true, but I think you misunderstood him. What he said was that religions expect you to believe things that they themselves can't prove. Which brings me to another point: If a religion could prove their faith, why would you need to believe in it? Do you need to have faith that 1 plus 1 equals 2? No, because that is proven. Faith is central to all religions.

 

From just skimming through here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus there's a lot of "scholars believe" type of language that seems pretty strongly to indicate no one knows the historical facts for a certainty...which isn't at all strange considering Christ lived 2000 years ago and the four gospels are thought to have been written not just years after Jesus died, but decades. My point being simply that if Biblical scholars don't know the dates/times/exact happenings, how on earth can anyone say the predictions were accurate?

I am not able to respond to that because I lack the knowledge to do so. I'll keep that in mind though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how no matter what a belief is, people will fight for it. Atheism is a religion, even if it pretends not to be. It requires faith, because there is little proof that there isn't a god, even if they declare there is little proof for a god. Atheists can call themselves men who believe only in science - but I don't see how science has anything to do with disproving god. To believe in Jesus, you must have faith, for evidence alone will never satisfy nor get you into heaven. The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man who merely has an argument - "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you" (Acts 1:8), "When the Gospel came not unto you in word only, but in power, in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance" (1 Thessalonians 1:5), "You will know that you have passed from death unto life..." (1 John 3:14).

 

the bible is proved to be historicaly correct

Not all of it.

 

...Thats it? I'd like to hear your reasons.

Edited by Sir Ajacobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please explain your reasons
Little of Bible has been proven to be historicaly accurate, there is no historical proof of Genesis the existance of Moses, and little of Christ. No the bible is not "proved" to be historicaly correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please explain your reasons
Little of Bible has been proven to be historicaly accurate, there is no historical proof of Genesis the existance of Moses, and little of Christ. No the bible is not "proved" to be historicaly correct

 

Are you implying about first or second sources? Because there are none for Evolution or any other religion either. You can only draw conclusions from built-up evidence like all the first and second sources in the Bible, if your willing to say that doesn't count then it is impossible to win for either side.

Edited by Sir Ajacobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you implying about first or second sources? Because there are none for Evolution or any other religion either. You can only draw conclusions from built-up evidence like all the first and second sources in the Bible, if your willing to say that doesn't count then it is impossible to win for either side.
I would call the Bible a secondary source, most like most other ancient documents, on many occasions the Bible is the only evidence of an event so its certainly not historical proof in those cases.

 

Keeping in mind this is about the Bible, not evolution or anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the bible is proved to be historicaly correct and the storys take place over a period of 5000 years and also the predictations made in the bible have came true, and are still coming true

You mean it's proven that the whole galaxy is 7000 years old? Can you post me a link to scientific proof that is valid and correct with all other theories, including those that say the galaxy is over a few billion years old? I think not. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't pretend to know the bible, the torah, or the quaran, or any of the other scriptures people believe in. All I have are questions. As far as I understand christianity it hinges for a large part in the never erring bible, the origins, Diss tells us, lie somewhere in the past and it was written with god as the instigator, inspirator, and editor. And that is where christian religion rubs me the wrong way. In the bible there are four gospels, those by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Now it seems to be proven these gospels, as they are shown in the bible, were written after the fact. Basically it is a collection of stories attribited to the forementioned people.

 

It strikes me as odd only four of the original deciples went around and tell people stories about their life and times with Jesus. It seems to me that, if Jesus had such a large impact on their lives, a few more would go out and tell the world. That in effect would mean there were more stories around to draw from when putting together that bible. Yet, apparently none of those seem to be added to that scripture.

 

In recent years there seem to have been a new development in this all (I watched NGC yesterday). In 2005, in Switzerland, what is called 'the gospel of Judas" was restored. The same Judas who is condemned for all eternity by christians as the one who betrayed Jesus. Taking into consideration the poor fella committed suicide after Jesus was arrested you could surmise what was written in these particular scrolls are his thoughts while being alive, lest he returned to this earth.

 

You could surmise the bible is a collection of stories, written after the fact, with carefull editing by those who put it together. Now that spawns another question: Who was the editor of it? Who was trusted enough by your god to be spokes person for a whole religion? And if you don't know: Why isn't someone who was responsible for collecting these stories not considered important enough to be named? Is that because of divine inspiration?

 

Oh, before you start answering the above: I know Irenaeus was the one who 'forced' four gospels to be added to it. I also am familiar with the fact that before that was accomplished early christians only used one gospel (mostly Marcion's version of Luke). What seems to be an undisputed fact is this: All gospels were written after the death of those which they are named for. (and that includes the Judas one)

 

In all you can safely say "You don't understand our religion" and I won't be offended by it. At the end of the day I cannot understand why, with all that is known, people adhere to believing something that was written eons ago, which is nothing more than world of mouth, and proclaim that to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What is more: I think it is somewhat belittling to those who follow a different version of what you believe in. Go by numbers only and christians (all denominations put together) are outnumbered by believers in islam. Seems that is a problem in itself: What to believe and how to defend that when confronted with another set of beliefs. Who are you to say they are wrong and you are right? Your faith? But that is exactly what the other guy has: Faith in his beliefs. Ah well, nothing more than a big mess I can't make heads or tails of.

 

--Simple--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't pretend to know the bible, the torah, or the quaran, or any of the other scriptures people believe in. All I have are questions. As far as I understand christianity it hinges for a large part in the never erring bible, the origins, Diss tells us, lie somewhere in the past and it was written with god as the instigator, inspirator, and editor. And that is where christian religion rubs me the wrong way. In the bible there are four gospels, those by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Now it seems to be proven these gospels, as they are shown in the bible, were written after the fact. Basically it is a collection of stories attribited to the forementioned people.

 

Good start - it's nice for someone to admit their not an expert at the Bible. But no, the stories are told from the perspective and knowledge of those four diciples - Jesus had to have witnesses to witness God to other people, and the twelve men he chose were those people.

 

It strikes me as odd only four of the original deciples went around and tell people stories about their life and times with Jesus. It seems to me that, if Jesus had such a large impact on their lives, a few more would go out and tell the world. That in effect would mean there were more stories around to draw from when putting together that bible. Yet, apparently none of those seem to be added to that scripture.

 

The Bible is a reference for every Christian to god. It teaches his teachings, meanings and view of the world. It is also built on faith, and the Bible itself does not condone too much science as it is a reference for every person, as science is a special kind of study where you make a prediction and then gather physical evidence for it. The Bible is history, prophecy, poems, and letters on how to live like a Christian. It was not written to make scientific claims or predictions. But sciences like archeology and biology have confirmed many things in the Bible. All people at all times in history must understand the Bible, that is why Jesus tout with analogies.

 

In recent years there seem to have been a new development in this all (I watched NGC yesterday). In 2005, in Switzerland, what is called 'the gospel of Judas" was restored. The same Judas who is condemned for all eternity by christians as the one who betrayed Jesus. Taking into consideration the poor fella committed suicide after Jesus was arrested you could surmise what was written in these particular scrolls are his thoughts while being alive, lest he returned to this earth.

 

The Bible says nothing of Judas after his betrayal because Judas did not witness for the Bible ^_^ From what I gather though, he hanged himself in a field brought with the money the wicked priests offered him.

 

You could surmise the bible is a collection of stories, written after the fact, with carefull editing by those who put it together. Now that spawns another question: Who was the editor of it? Who was trusted enough by your god to be spokes person for a whole religion? And if you don't know: Why isn't someone who was responsible for collecting these stories not considered important enough to be named? Is that because of divine inspiration?

 

All of the stories chronicle different points in time or view. I would understand that God is also the editor of the Bible - after all, the disciples were the first witnesses and creators of the Christian bible, so must have been inspired by the Lord to compile certain texts.

 

Oh, before you start answering the above: I know Irenaeus was the one who 'forced' four gospels to be added to it. I also am familiar with the fact that before that was accomplished early christians only used one gospel (mostly Marcion's version of Luke). What seems to be an undisputed fact is this: All gospels were written after the death of those which they are named for. (and that includes the Judas one)

 

Gospels were written by the disciples while they were still alive - they name themselves 'his good friend' ect. in their respective books/letters.

 

In all you can safely say "You don't understand our religion" and I won't be offended by it. At the end of the day I cannot understand why, with all that is known, people adhere to believing something that was written eons ago, which is nothing more than world of mouth, and proclaim that to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What is more: I think it is somewhat belittling to those who follow a different version of what you believe in. Go by numbers only and christians (all denominations put together) are outnumbered by believers in islam. Seems that is a problem in itself: What to believe and how to defend that when confronted with another set of beliefs. Who are you to say they are wrong and you are right? Your faith? But that is exactly what the other guy has: Faith in his beliefs. Ah well, nothing more than a big mess I can't make heads or tails of.

 

--Simple--

 

All god asks us to do is to have faith in him. The bible is a living word - it is never outdated. And when debating other religion, it is not wise to do so because the existence of a God in the first place is the most important thing to understand. I cannot begin to comprehend what God will do to the other religions (although I tend to think he will test them for their sins as they were never forgiven... I just don't know).

Edited by Sir Ajacobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't pretend to know the bible, the torah, or the quaran, or any of the other scriptures people believe in. All I have are questions. As far as I understand christianity it hinges for a large part in the never erring bible, the origins, Diss tells us, lie somewhere in the past and it was written with god as the instigator, inspirator, and editor. And that is where christian religion rubs me the wrong way. In the bible there are four gospels, those by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Now it seems to be proven these gospels, as they are shown in the bible, were written after the fact. Basically it is a collection of stories attribited to the forementioned people.

Good start - it's nice for someone to admit their not an expert at the Bible. But no, the stories are told from the perspective and knowledge of those four diciples - Jesus had to have witnesses to witness God to other people, and the twelve men he chose were those people.

It seems to me you miss my point here: Why only four of them are lored to have recollected the gospels when the total number of deciples is twelve? Are the other eight not note-worthy?
It strikes me as odd only four of the original deciples went around and tell people stories about their life and times with Jesus. It seems to me that, if Jesus had such a large impact on their lives, a few more would go out and tell the world. That in effect would mean there were more stories around to draw from when putting together that bible. Yet, apparently none of those seem to be added to that scripture.

The Bible is a reference for every Christian to god. It teaches his teachings, meanings and view of the world. It is also built on faith, and the Bible itself does not condone too much science as it is a reference for every person, as science is a special kind of study where you make a prediction and then gather physical evidence for it. The Bible is history, prophecy, poems, and letters on how to live like a Christian. It was not written to make scientific claims or predictions. But sciences like archeology and biology have confirmed many things in the Bible. All people at all times in history must understand the Bible, that is why Jesus tout with analogies.

Sadly I don't understand this: How is it you can willingly dismiss science? The fact it is not part of the bible makes it, apparently, possible to disregard any evolution in science. Christianity has a perfect example of that, or rather caused a perfect example: Gallieo Gallilei proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the earth was not at the center of the, then known, universe. Yet the church kept denying this.
In recent years there seem to have been a new development in this all (I watched NGC yesterday). In 2005, in Switzerland, what is called 'the gospel of Judas" was restored. The same Judas who is condemned for all eternity by christians as the one who betrayed Jesus. Taking into consideration the poor fella committed suicide after Jesus was arrested you could surmise what was written in these particular scrolls are his thoughts while being alive, lest he returned to this earth.

The Bible says nothing of Judas after his betrayal because Judas did not witness for the Bible :P From what I gather though, he hanged himself in a field brought with the money the wicked priests offered him.

Maybe that is exactly what I am saying: Who kept it out of the bible? It seems to me the mere fact someone was killed because of the actions of one of his deciples, at least warrant some explanation. Yet that is not given. Compare it to the present day and you would be amazed at how much is know about the assasination of JFK, Martin Luther King, the Sjah of Persia or any other influential person. Granted, they are not (yet?) examples to be followed like Jesus apparently is. Maybe wait another 2k years for that to change???
You could surmise the bible is a collection of stories, written after the fact, with carefull editing by those who put it together. Now that spawns another question: Who was the editor of it? Who was trusted enough by your god to be spokes person for a whole religion? And if you don't know: Why isn't someone who was responsible for collecting these stories not considered important enough to be named? Is that because of divine inspiration?

All of the stories chronicle different points in time or view. I would understand that God is also the editor of the Bible - after all, the disciples were the first witnesses and creators of the Christian bible, so must have been inspired by the Lord to compile certain texts.

Sorry to be blunt: No, they were NOT the creators of the Christian bible. It has been proven the gospels were written long after Jesus' death (even christian churches aknowledge this).
Oh, before you start answering the above: I know Irenaeus was the one who 'forced' four gospels to be added to it. I also am familiar with the fact that before that was accomplished early christians only used one gospel (mostly Marcion's version of Luke). What seems to be an undisputed fact is this: All gospels were written after the death of those which they are named for. (and that includes the Judas one)

Gospels were written by the disciples while they were still alive - they name themselves 'his good friend' ect. in their respective books/letters.

Sorry to repeat my self but you are wrong here: The gospels were NOT written when the diciples were alive, again, christian scientists agree on this. Carbon dating of the "Judas gospel" has dated it to around 230 AD plus/minus 50 years. Apparently, again I am only sure of what I read, the earliest possible scriptures that could be seen as part of any of the four added gospels are from 60 AD plus or minus 30 years. It would be impossible for them to have written them themselves.
In all you can safely say "You don't understand our religion" and I won't be offended by it. At the end of the day I cannot understand why, with all that is known, people adhere to believing something that was written eons ago, which is nothing more than world of mouth, and proclaim that to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What is more: I think it is somewhat belittling to those who follow a different version of what you believe in. Go by numbers only and christians (all denominations put together) are outnumbered by believers in islam. Seems that is a problem in itself: What to believe and how to defend that when confronted with another set of beliefs. Who are you to say they are wrong and you are right? Your faith? But that is exactly what the other guy has: Faith in his beliefs. Ah well, nothing more than a big mess I can't make heads or tails of.

 

--Simple--

 

All god asks us to do is to have faith in him. The bible is a living word - it is never outdated. And when debating other religion, it is not wise to do so because the existence of a God in the first place is the most important thing to understand. I cannot begin to comprehend what God will do to the other religions (although I tend to think he will test them for their sins as they were never forgiven... I just don't know).

I beg to differ with the outdated part. The torah, bible and quaran make perfect sence as a sociologial essay. It seems commonplace to not look at the geographical area these originated. It makes perfect sense, in a hot, arid, climate to prevent people from eating pork. It makes perfect sense to wash your feet when entering church as hygene was next to unknown. Still, that is sociological. Not religious...

 

--Simple--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gospels were written by the disciples while they were still alive - they name themselves 'his good friend' ect. in their respective books/letters.

I thought they weren't. I thought they were written in 66AD, during the Diaspora. (Not by the people in which the gospels derive their name)

It seems far fetched to me that the people who wrote the gospels were the same ones who were alive and hanging out with Jesus before he died. They were written anywhere from 30-70 years after Jesus died...so at best the people would have been very old - and so even if it was the same people, how much would the stories have changed throughout time?

Info on the dates of the gospels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mat...#Date_of_gospel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Date

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Date

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date

I've read that there were many gospels written at the time but the early church chose the ones they liked/agreed with the most/thought they would best show their religion/etc. If that's true, it certainly makes it sound like they just picked the message they wanted to get across, not necessarily the closest to the truth. Which isn't a big deal from a marketing perspective, but it is a problem when you're peddling Ultimate Truth and All Knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of topic is this? It should be closed down immediately.In addition, this is a horrible offence to Athiests as well. Everyone has their rights and beliefs; it's not like ordering me to "Debunk Islam" wouldn't be offensive.

Edited by Ameer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of topic is this? It should be closed down immediately.In addition, this is a horrible offence to Athiests as well. Everyone has their rights and beliefs; it's not like ordering me to "Debunk Islam" wouldn't be offensive.

I don't see why it should be closed, and it's far from offensive. All it's asking is for people to try and disprove Atheism.

 

It's essentially God vs. Atheism pt II

 

I guess so. Sorry but I thought in an Athiest's point of view this topic would really be offensive. Carry on then; no trouble with that.

Edited by Ameer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.