Argument of the week
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2010, 12:44 PM
RE: Argument of the week
Who pre-judged? I asked questions. You said yes to all of them, then went into Christian preacher mode.

So let's take the questions one-by-one. You've already answered them all "yes."

Was Christ born of a virgin? This would mean that the story of Mary and the angel is true and literal. But, that would have to mean that the story of Genesis is true and literal since that's where the idea of a creator and angels and mankind's separateness from the divine originates.

Was Christ God? If the story of Mary being impregnated by the holy spirit is true, then that again means God is separate from man; but if Jesus was also God, then that means the God who is separate from man became flesh for the purpose of bringing us salvation. The God who we are told did this is the God of the old testament. That God gets all of His authority from the tales of miracles, which rely on a literal interpretation of such stories as the burning bush, the Noah flood, Sodom and G., babel, and let's not forget the story of creation - which we have already acknowledged is BS.

Did Christ rise from the dead? Christian dogma hinges on the belief that Christ rose and ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father. That father, that heaven, and that spirit-realm all spring from the concepts of the OT, and they all rely on the truthfulness of Genesis, which we have already established is not true.

If there was no garden of Eden, does Christ's death still symbolize the forgiveness of original sin? This is where you chose to go into detail, to proselytize actually. You're argument, however, hinges on duality. There are clearly other ways to think about man's nature. Brahmic thought avoids dualism, and so does humanistic thought. At its roots, your entire argument is cyclic since it presupposes a sinful nature for which man needs salvation, and then supports that need with a ready-made savior.

So since we see that we cannot assume certain biblical stories to be metaphor and others literal without forcing a collapse of the basis for assuming the literalness of certain stories and not others, we see that the entire bible is useless as a teaching tool.

Either the Earth is 6000 years old and every word of the bible is true and factual, or the bible is entirely fiction. We know beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is several billion years old and the universe began over 13 billion years ago and all life evolved over millions of years. Therefore we are justified in rejecting Christianity in total - including the pretty parts. We are similarly justified in rejecting Judaism and Islam and Mormonism for similar cause. Additionally, the Vedas have a creation story which is scientifically falsifiable, and it fails, so we can reject Hinduism as well. Same goes for Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Roman and Greek paganism, Odinism, Egyptian polytheism, etc.

Additionally, since other religious ideas such as deism and pantheism which do not deal with revelation have no support other than wishful thinking, we can also reject them as cause to worship. This leaves only outright atheism as a sound (non) religious construct on which to hang one's proverbial hat.

You're welcome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 12:46 PM
RE: Argument of the week
I'm starting to think that fr0d0 is youtube's 'shockofgod' in disguise. They both have the same 'cover your ears and go lalala I can't hear you lalala, you still haven't answered my question, lalala' mentality.

But... every good forum must have an antagonist or else it's just a bunch of people agreeing with each other, so carry on, good sir.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 01:37 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(16-11-2010 12:10 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 05:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Mr Dodgemtastic? Wink
I've dodged nothing. Either present the question that I have dodged or stop saying it. I do not enjoy being lied about.
Ditto. Truce then?

Not a "truce" so much as a "cease-fire". I do not appreciate being lied about, but you have already demonstrated that you are not willing to go any further on this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2010 02:29 PM by fr0d0.)
RE: Argument of the week
gamutman

"Inquiring minds want to know how you reconcile all of this crap" <--- see the subtle bias in this statement?

I didn't go into preacher mode - I tried to explain something in plain english. No need to be so defensive.

I didn't answer 'yes' to all of the questions, the last one I disagreed with, and wrote why. Perhaps you didn't read my reply. Maybe you've gone into preacher mode?

Ok I've just read the rest of what you've written, and applaud you for your ability to write complete bollocks. Nice one Wink
Buddy

The same 'cover your ears and go lalala I can't hear you lalala, you still haven't answered my question, lalala' mentality.

Yeah I'm seeing that a lot here.
Unbeliever

I'm not lying about you at all. I'm speaking the truth. If you care to examine the source of the issue then I'll gladly discuss that with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 02:46 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(16-11-2010 02:26 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Unbeliever

I'm not lying about you at all. I'm speaking the truth.

Then show us. Show me the question that I refused to answer.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 03:56 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(16-11-2010 02:26 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  gamutman

"Inquiring minds want to know how you reconcile all of this crap" <--- see the subtle bias in this statement?

I didn't go into preacher mode - I tried to explain something in plain english. No need to be so defensive.

I didn't answer 'yes' to all of the questions, the last one I disagreed with, and wrote why. Perhaps you didn't read my reply. Maybe you've gone into preacher mode?

Ok I've just read the rest of what you've written, and applaud you for your ability to write complete bollocks. Nice one Wink

Would you have felt better if I'd called it stuff rather than crap?

OK, so let me ask this, which of these characters is fable like Adam, and which are real and divinely inspired humans like Jesus?

Noah
Job
Lot
Ezekiel
Abraham
Jephthah
Solomon
David
Moses
Jonah
Saul
Moab


And what about these biblical characters? Which of these is real and which is fake?

Satan
Gabriel
Michael
Leviathan
Pharaoh's magicians
Baal

I'm just asking because I can't know when I'm being silly quoting the bible verbatim and when I'm being blasphemous mocking the story of something historically accurate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 04:56 PM
RE: Argument of the week
@ Unbeliever - that isn't the source - the link you posted today is the source.

The point is gamutman that the whole bible is about God and his nature and his people and their relationship with him. It's never a science book. Treat is as such and you will always look a fool.

The stories represented by some of those characters are fantastic.. but then it depends on your acceptance of supernatural influence. More important than the events are the message that they convey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 05:02 PM
RE: Argument of the week
I could say that bout the Vedas, the I-Ching, and the Brothers Grimm. None of that is reason to believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus is God or in the ressurection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 05:40 PM
RE: Argument of the week
Indeed. Hopefully you learn different things from each! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 05:47 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(14-11-2010 05:52 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  If God showed up and proved himself to me I would know s/he/it didn't exist. Until such time I am a strong rational theist. 5,000 plus years of unrefuted claims is enough for me to know that God is a coherent construct. I am willing to admit I'm wrong, but only in the presence of verifiable proof.

I'm still very confused about which claims you think are unrefuted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: