responding to common objections to bible

thats not what i meant.

first and foremost atheism is the rejection of the belief in god or the existence of god. there are weaker versions that define atheism as lacking such a belief at all but imo such a position is so close to agnosticism or just plain indifference that its (almost) impossible to distinguish them.

now that being said, if IA and KAV claim their position is no a rejection of the belief but a lack of such belief (regardless of how the rightfully or wrongfully name that position) then it can be pointless indeed to ask for reasons for the lack of that belief. Its kind of hard to give your motivation for something that does not exist (within you). while its meaningful to ask someone what are your reasons for saying no to a certain proposition, it may not be meaningful to ask why someone does not have any judgment at all of such a proposition.

Why should anyone have to justify himself whether he believes in God or not?

Whether you believe in the teachings of a certain religion and wish to follow it or not, is something very personal and a matter of choice (unfortunately, this isn't always the case in some environments), which is why, in my humble opinion, discussing such questions is rather pointless. You have faith or you haven't and that's something each side (the religious folks vs. the non-religious folks) should respect.

Live and let live :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Why should anyone have to justify himself whether he believes in God or not?

Whether you believe in the teachings of a certain religion and wish to follow it or not, is something very personal and a matter of choice (unfortunately, this isn't always the case in some environments), which is why, in my humble opinion, discussing such questions is rather pointless. You have faith or you haven't and that's something each side (the religious folks vs. the non-religious folks) should respect.

Live and let live :shrug:

---

But if you let sinners live like that, you watch them go to hell.
It's the task of every single Christian to save souls from the devil.

Just few translations available for 3 different passages: as you can see, it can lead to various guidelines…

Proverbs 18:24
- A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
- A man of many friends comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
- A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
- There are "friends" who destroy each other, but a real friend sticks closer than a brother.
Friends come and friends go, but a true friend sticks by you like family.

Romans 3:25
- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
- Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
- Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
- God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
-For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,
God sacrificed Jesus on the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us in the clear. God decided on this course of action in full view of the public--to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured.

Colossians 2:9-10
- For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
- For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
- For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
- For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
- Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him.
When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything.

“i dont follow”: No, you don’t read. The Sumerian text is BEFORE the Bible. The Bible is NOT the oldest book known, even in the Western World.

“I said the original bible written, we have today in full.” You do, but you are making a mistake. No ORIGINAL text from the Bible is available, and if it was, you couldn’t read it as it would be in the Archaic Hebrew.
Just for anecdote, when the Israelis decided the revive Hebrew (and to train the Haganah) , they had to ask the few old Religious Rabin to create a vocabulary for it in pretending to write a new Hebrew Dictionary in order to have the weaponry parts in modern vocabulary. I don’t know if this story is authentic, but I like it. Before this, the most common vocabulary in the Jews Community was the Yiddish (German roots).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

thats not what i meant.

first and foremost atheism is the rejection of the belief in god or the existence of god. there are weaker versions that define atheism as lacking such a belief at all but imo such a position is so close to agnosticism or just plain indifference that its (almost) impossible to distinguish them.

now that being said, if IA and KAV claim their position is no a rejection of the belief but a lack of such belief (regardless of how the rightfully or wrongfully name that position) then it can be pointless indeed to ask for reasons for the lack of that belief. Its kind of hard to give your motivation for something that does not exist (within you). while its meaningful to ask someone what are your reasons for saying no to a certain proposition, it may not be meaningful to ask why someone does not have any judgment at all of such a proposition.

---

agnostic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Just few translations available for 3 different passages: as you can see, it can lead to various guidelines…

Proverbs 18:24
- A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
- A man of many friends comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
- A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
- There are "friends" who destroy each other, but a real friend sticks closer than a brother.
Friends come and friends go, but a true friend sticks by you like family.

Romans 3:25
- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
- Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
- Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
- God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
-For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,
God sacrificed Jesus on the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us in the clear. God decided on this course of action in full view of the public--to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured.

Colossians 2:9-10
- For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
- For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
- For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
- For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
- Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him.
When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything.

“i dont follow”: No, you don’t read. The Sumerian text is BEFORE the Bible. The Bible is NOT the oldest book known, even in the Western World.

“I said the original bible written, we have today in full.” You do, but you are making a mistake. No ORIGINAL text from the Bible is available, and if it was, you couldn’t read it as it would be in the Archaic Hebrew.
Just for anecdote, when the Israelis decided the revive Hebrew (and to train the Haganah) , they had to ask the few old Religious Rabin to create a vocabulary for it in pretending to write a new Hebrew Dictionary in order to have the weaponry parts in modern vocabulary. I don’t know if this story is authentic, but I like it. Before this, the most common vocabulary in the Jews Community was the Yiddish (German roots).

---

I think were talking past each other,i never said any version/translation is inspired. There are many ways to say each verse in diffident languages though time,even the change in same language, king james to today for example. I thnik you need to actually read my op, than come back if you have any objections.


future thread.



original text
please read my op on how we do have original bible [not text] this could all be cleared up if you would be willing to read my op. No idea what your saying with Israelite reviving hebrew, as you admit its just a story you "like".

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.
Proverbs -14.15

sorry

I've been thinking it was a bot all along to be honest..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It's roots are the term 'gnosticism' (belief in the separation of physical and spiritual, usually with the rejection of the physical in favor of the latter). and 'ab' meaning "away" or "not."

Thus, in its original form, the term meant someone who rejected the idea that the spiritual completely trumped the physical in value. From there the term grew to include those who doubted the spiritual while not out-and-out rejecting it. Today the term is also applied to those who believe in a higher power but reject religion.

---

While you are correct about the Gnostic Creed- you've misunderstood the meaning of the word.

To expand upon The Stranger's Point: The Gnostics believed it was possible to have "Gnosis", as in actual spiritual knowledge, in this life while mainstream Christianity maintains that true knowledge remains obscured while we are alive and is only revealed when we ascend at the point of death and become one with God.

Historically the word "atheist" applied to what we today call "agnostics", it encompassed those who did no believe - but today it has become confined to those who believe there is not.

Quote:

---

it encompassed those who did no believe - but today it has become confined to those who believe there is not.

---

What is it with you lot?

Atheists have no belief. An absence of it. There's the clue.

It's as though you just cannot comprehend that anyone may not have any belief at all.

Brainwashing is extraordinary.

dp.

Good grief.

I fucking give up.

I describe myself as an atheist, although I don't deny the extreme outside possibility of a god...

To give you a better idea my belief there could be a god is as strong as my belief that

1) We all live in the Matrix
2) I am the star of my very own Truman show (you guys would tell me right?)
3) 9/11 was an inside job.

I have very little belief in any of them (in fact 3 seems the most realistic to me but I am not at all a truther or believe that) in fact my belief in god and the matrix is about as close to 0 as you can get...

I would even say number 2 is more likely to me, in fact in thinking on it I even find number 1 a more realistic possibility than a God figure.

Would I really be defined as anything but an Atheist with such a small small window of possibility I am leaving open, I can't know for sure that I am not going to spread my wings and turn into an Eagle (through some kind of magic I assume) but I would also take the Atheism (Atheism = can't Agnostic = possibly Believer = will in this example) position on my ability to turn into an Eagle... that basically it isn't going to happen though if pressed there is no way I can 100% say I am not going to turn into an Eagle..

So I have always thought Atheist, would that be accurate in your eyes?

Is it so hard to wrap your head around the idea that believing in God is a rational, normal, human thing to do?
................................................................

In the most polite and respectful way, no from me.

Human and normal I wouldn't disagree with though, seen as most humans do it so it is pretty normal for a human.

I will never be able to see belief in a god as any more rational than somebody telling me we all live in the matrix.

Your belief aside you have no more proof for your god than the above man has for his matrix, yet I am sure you would have no trouble in also identifying that Matrix believer as someone who is not rational...

At least not in that one belief.

I believe religious people are perfectly capable of rationality outside of their religion.

If I was about to die the last thing I would do is pray.

I might think 'oh shit this is it'.

It'd be much more pleasant in bed rather than a foxhole though.

As an aside.

I had an heart attack four years ago. It hurt. A lot.

The last thing on my mind was some great sky pixie.

I just wanted the pain to stop.

Praying wouldn't have helped, the morphine did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

What's that old saying... "There's no Atheists in a Foxhole." Or a car crash, or a school shooting, or a tsunami, or whatever. When your life is directly threatened, and death is imminent, you'll probably pray. That's not scientific and you're right its probably not rational, but it is very human.

---

It is because you really wish in those situations there was a god or higher power to believe in (or even lower power, sell soul and stuffs), and like some fairytale mystery, you are magically saved. Unfortunately, reality is a cruel mistress and end up failing regardless. Been certain times in my past I were on my knees in prayer begging, there was no guiding hand or saving light. If there were, I would probably have been one of the most devout members of this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

What's that old saying... "There's no Atheists in a Foxhole." Or a car crash, or a school shooting, or a tsunami, or whatever. When your life is directly threatened, and death is imminent, you'll probably pray. That's not scientific and you're right its probably not rational, but it is very human.

In my opinion though, we live in a beautiful and complicated universe that just begs further investigation and understanding. Every new discovery is another inkling of God's intent. Every new challenge is another test. But that is very much a choice and a belief. Just as flat-out rejecting the possibility would also be a belief.

---

There are plenty of atheists in foxholes.

You are however right that people grown up with, but refused, religion at times pray in extreme situations. Logic dictates it's cause they see no other way out, and desperately hope for something, no matter how far fetched it is.

I have been in situations where I truly feared for my life, praying to some God was the last thing I thought of.

But to try and use the fact that people do extreme or crazy things in extreme or crazy situations - as some "proof" that there is a God?

Rubbish.

Contracts signed under duress are not enforceable.

Likewise prayers...

I am atheist. I went in foxholes. I am still atheist. However, when I occasionally hit a finger with a hammer, I really swear, using the name of God in vain that’s it (main one being “vain dieu”, normally followed by “M…e”. It can be translated a useless God. No need to translate the second one). That is tradition, and nothing to do with belief..

sorry dp

The scientific way to look at it would be: "Might be a god, might not be -- But the odds of the religion You adhere to having it right is laughable."

Superstition is to many degrees logic. Your knock on wood example can also be seen as a cultural meme, not to get too comfortable in Your own ability...

Skier 1: I haven't fell all day!
Skier 2: ... Knock on wood.
Skier 1: *knocks wood*

Is this two superstitious guys, or one guy getting too comfortable in his ability, and the other one reminding him not to do anything stupid?

Don't put keys on the table... They are important, don't lose them, mind where You put them.




The list can go on.

What You see as superstition I see as cultural memes... And I completely fail to see Your reasoning when You try to use cultural memes as a "proof" of human religiosity. :shrug:

I am the definition of agnostic. If you disagree with this, you are either a theist or an atheist.

OMG @LittleGrizzly. Loooooong time no see. How are you m8?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm not trying to give you proof of anything. Why am I even in this thread? I hate these threads. :bomb2:

---

yup. some people can only see the scientific method and jargon of proof as the only way to talk about things in the "world". but ye its hard to get out of your box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

What is it with you lot?

Atheists have no belief. An absence of it. There's the clue.

It's as though you just cannot comprehend that anyone may not have any belief at all.

Brainwashing is extraordinary.

---

LOL what is it with you? you just take a definition of a word and completely twist it. look it up, it is a REJECTION of belief, first and foremost. read my post. Then read up about SKEPTICISM, and the fact that REJECTING TRUTH is just as DOGMATIC and as much a BELIEF as ACCEPTING TRUTH. Having no belief is SKEPTICISM.

Do not confuse the neutral use of belief, with the more coloured and day to day use of belief, which is better defined as religious faith or a religious wordlview.

Yes, it seems brainwashing is almost as extraordinary as stubbornly walking through life making up things as you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I describe myself as an atheist, although I don't deny the extreme outside possibility of a god...

To give you a better idea my belief there could be a god is as strong as my belief that

1) We all live in the Matrix
2) I am the star of my very own Truman show (you guys would tell me right?)
3) 9/11 was an inside job.

I have very little belief in any of them (in fact 3 seems the most realistic to me but I am not at all a truther or believe that) in fact my belief in god and the matrix is about as close to 0 as you can get...

I would even say number 2 is more likely to me, in fact in thinking on it I even find number 1 a more realistic possibility than a God figure.

Would I really be defined as anything but an Atheist with such a small small window of possibility I am leaving open, I can't know for sure that I am not going to spread my wings and turn into an Eagle (through some kind of magic I assume) but I would also take the Atheism (Atheism = can't Agnostic = possibly Believer = will in this example) position on my ability to turn into an Eagle... that basically it isn't going to happen though if pressed there is no way I can 100% say I am not going to turn into an Eagle..

So I have always thought Atheist, would that be accurate in your eyes?

---

my first thought would be Agnost. But after rereading its probably a very very weak position of Atheism (because you are just playing a trick on yourself, you don't actually have real doubt and thus you do not really believe in the possibility of turning into an eagle or there being a god, you are pretending, whether to yourself or to other people i dont know). In general, rejection = atheism, acceptance = theism, postponing judgment = agnosticism and there is another one, indifference = apatheism

in the end the debate about whether or not god exists is mostly an epistemological problem, so all the problems about justification, skepticism, induction and deduction apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

LOL what is it with you?

---

LOL What is it with you asking what it is to be is it? Belief is the opposite of atheism man. Go read God Delusion and 420 blaze it every day if you want to know what enlightenment actually is. Go live in your Dark Age mentality bro, the only brainwashed are the theists who think that Jesus actually existed. :daisy: the free world, science can explain everything cuz Carl Sagan did just that on Cosmos. Maybe there is no tv besides Bible TV Channel in your house?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

LOL What is it with you asking what it is to be is it? Belief is the opposite of atheism man. Go read God Delusion and 420 blaze it every day if you want to know what enlightenment actually is. Go live in your Dark Age mentality bro, the only brainwashed are the theists who think that Jesus actually existed. :daisy: the free world, science can explain everything cuz Carl Sagan did just that on Cosmos. Maybe there is no tv besides Bible TV Channel in your house?

---

read my post please? There is a neutral version of the word belief, that is the word i am using. Atheism is not "not having a belief that there is a god" it is "having the belief that there is no god".

I'm not even a theist, so I do not know what dark age mentality you are talking about, except what you are showing now, denouncing other people as heretics and ignorants basically because they say something you havent heard of. And jumping to conclusions you know nothing about. I'm an atheist in the strict sense of the word, though it doesnt matter in this discussion what my personal convictions are.

I'm writing a thesis on this subject, i know what i am talking about. Instead of being a jerk, maybe you should read some stuff, i can recommend wikipedia to start with, its easy and clear and you dont need to read past the first chapter to see you are wrong. Then if you are still interested I can give you some more advanced lecture.

"I'm writing a thesis on this subject, i know what i am talking about."

If everyone writing a thesis would have a clue, the world would look very different.

That was just a horribly bad argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

"I'm writing a thesis on this subject, i know what i am talking about."

If everyone writing a thesis would have a clue, the world would look very different.

That was just a horribly bad argument.

---

it would be if this was not a matter of definitions. but yes, i agree that the knowing part does not follow from the writing part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

read my post please? There is a neutral version of the word belief, that is the word i am using. Atheism is not "not having a belief that there is a god" it is "having the belief that there is no god".

I'm not even a theist, so I do not know what dark age mentality you are talking about, except what you are showing now, denouncing other people as heretics and ignorants basically because they say something you havent heard of. And jumping to conclusions you know nothing about. I'm an atheist in the strict sense of the word, though it doesnt matter in this discussion what my personal convictions are.

I'm writing a thesis on this subject, i know what i am talking about. Instead of being a jerk, maybe you should read some stuff, i can recommend wikipedia to start with, its easy and clear and you dont need to read past the first chapter to see you are wrong. Then if you are still interested I can give you some more advanced lecture.

---

Dude, I'm so sorry but I was just joking with you. My post was so over the top, I thought it was obvious.

Yeah, science is just another opinion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Dude, I'm so sorry but I was just joking with you. My post was so over the top, I thought it was obvious.

---

lol i had a feeling when i reread it that it might be a joke, but in my defense ive heard similar responses before so i wasnt too surprised. i dont visit the backroom too often so i dont really know what many peoples views are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

lol i had a feeling when i reread it that it might be a joke, but in my defense ive heard similar responses before so i wasnt too surprised. i dont visit the backroom too often so i dont really know what many peoples views are.

---

Other people have legitimately told you that Jesus wasn't real and to smoke pot every day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Other people have legitimately told you that Jesus wasn't real and to smoke pot every day?

---

when did you tell me to smoke pot :O i missed that part. and i dont care if jesus was real or not, just don't fk up your definitions is all i ask for :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

when did you tell me to smoke pot :O i missed that part. and i dont care if jesus was real or not, just don't fk up your definitions is all i ask for :P

---

420 blazer ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

I am the definition of agnostic. If you disagree with this, you are either a theist or an atheist.

OMG @LittleGrizzly. Loooooong time no see. How are you m8?

---

Well at this very moment terrible, the ravages of man flu are taking me down. This combined with having a new carpet fitted from this morning, which involves far too much hitting of things with heavy objects for me liking means I have a lovely headache as well...

In the long run okay though, still alive and all my limbs are fully functional. How about you?

my first thought would be Agnost. But after rereading its probably a very very weak position of Atheism (because you are just playing a trick on yourself, you don't actually have real doubt and thus you do not really believe in the possibility of turning into an eagle or there being a god, you are pretending, whether to yourself or to other people i dont know).
...........................................................................

The Eagle one is possibly to extreme to get my point across, if I were to change it to a football (soccer) one then for example San Marino winning the world cup. Nobody can say with 100% certainty that San Marino will never win the world cup but with the possibility remaining so slim that you would almost call it a certainty..

i guess ur in a grey area, but probably closer to a weak version of atheism than to agnosticism, so you would be an agnostic atheist and leave open the possibility that if we could find out more about the matter than you or others could be proven wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i guess ur in a grey area, but probably closer to a weak version of atheism than to agnosticism, so you would be an agnostic atheist and leave open the possibility that if we could find out more about the matter than you or others could be proven wrong.

---

You actually spend brain power on this non-issue? If You go back a load of posts You will see me writing something along the lines of "I am probably technically agnostic, but for all intents and purposes You might as well view me as atheist".

Kind of summed it up AGES ago.

Why are we spending brain power on this absolute NON-issue? I don't think ANYONE here say that there are absolutely no possibility for some sort of god. The worst You will find on this forum is people asking You to prove the existence of YOUR god before trying to change their lives and thinking in his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

You actually spend brain power on this non-issue? If You go back a load of posts You will see me writing something along the lines of "I am probably technically agnostic, but for all intents and purposes You might as well view me as atheist".

Kind of summed it up AGES ago.

Why are we spending brain power on this absolute NON-issue? I don't think ANYONE here say that there are absolutely no possibility for some sort of god. The worst You will find on this forum is people asking You to prove the existence of YOUR god before trying to change their lives and thinking in his name.

---

was it a response to you? no. littlegrizzley actually asked a serious question, so he got a serious answer. and Insane Apache just used the entire wrong definition of atheism so if you are so clever that you can read a dictionary and use the words atheism and agnosticism correct, then good for you, here is a cookie.

This is just like a discussion of who is the true communist; Stalin, Mao or Trotskij.

Thank you for bringing up bad memories from my radical days.

Bastards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This is just like a discussion of who is the true communist; Stalin, Mao or Trotskij.

Thank you for bringing up bad memories from my radical days.

Bastards.

---

Result: They were all less communist than You?

Thanks for the answer, I kind of imagined my position as a weak atheist one just wanted to know what others would class it as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Result: They were all less communist than You?

---

When did we start capitalizing the word "you"?

Also, leftist discussions have no result, they never end. No true leftie will ever admit to agreeing with a fellow leftie. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When did we start capitalizing the word "you"?

Also, leftist discussions have no result, they never end. No true leftie will ever admit to agreeing with a fellow leftie. Ever.

---

Good question....

Lets face it. English is a stupid language.

There is no egg in the eggplant
No ham in the hamburger
And neither pine nor apple in the pineapple.
English muffins were not invented in England
French fries were not invented in France.

We sometimes take English for granted,
But if we examine its paradoxes we find that:
Quicksand takes you down slowly
Boxing rings are square
And a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

If writers write, how come fingers don't fing.
If the plural of tooth is teeth
Shouldn't the plural of phone booth be phone beeth
If the teacher taught,
Why didn't the preacher praught.

If a vegetarian eats vegetables
What the heck does a humanitarian eat!?
Why do people recite at a play
Yet play at a recital?
Park on driveways and
Drive on parkways
How can the weather be as hot as hell on one day
And as cold as hell on another

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy
Of a language where a house can burn up as
It burns down
And in which you fill in a form
By filling it out
And a bell is only heard once it goes!

English was invented by people, not computers
And it reflects the creativity of the human race
(Which of course isn't a race at all)

That is why:
When the stars are out they are visible
But when the lights are out they are invisible
And why it is that when I wind up my watch
It starts
But when I wind up this poem
It ends.

This last discussion reminded me of something we did back in the good old days... about 10 years ago. (Damn I have been on these boards a long time)
Also, did you notice that we discussed these things in the entrance hall?

The thread is gone from the backroom.. as the link in my post is dead. We quite exhaustedly debated theism vs atheism vs agnosticism and would be a great source for you Stranger.
Maybe it could be salvaged from some old backup? its way back in 2003.

what was the link with communism? :P

"No true leftie will ever admit to agreeing with a fellow leftie. Ever." Part of the job description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Do not expect to get an answer on these boards, as the more religious patrons seem to avoid these topics.
IMO there are too many heavy guns on one side.
But hey, you never know. One full blood believer might wander unawares into this Lion’s den, where BIG dark figures armed to the teeth with heavy calibre weaponry lurks, waiting for the perfect prey.

---

I was going to make a quip about failing to see the value in a topic on atheism/theism I hadn't contributed to.

Seems the Backroom was waiting for me even then.

(I jest, but it says something about the change in make up of the forum).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Do not expect to get an answer on these boards, as the more religious patrons seem to avoid these topics.
IMO there are too many heavy guns on one side.
But hey, you never know. One full blood believer might wander unawares into this Lion’s den, where BIG dark figures armed to the teeth with heavy calibre weaponry lurks, waiting for the perfect prey.

---

I was going to make a quip about failing to see the value in a topic on atheism/theism I hadn't contributed to.

Seems the Backroom was waiting for me even then.

(I jest, but it says something about the change in make up of the forum).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I was going to make a quip about failing to see the value in a topic on atheism/theism I hadn't contributed to.

Seems the Backroom was waiting for me even then.

(I jest, but it says something about the change in make up of the civilized world).

---

FIFY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

what was the link with communism? :P

---

Yeah.. you guys moves too fast over to other topics...

I did however find the Entrance Hall version of the What are your Beliefs? thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

what was the link with communism? :P

---

As a faith system, along with Milton Friedman economics (or most "pure" economic theories) it belongs in any discussion of theism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Yeah.. you guys moves too fast over to other topics...

I did however find the Entrance Hall version of the What are your Beliefs? thread.

---

Wow, we have come a long way. Today a poll like that would be seen as retarded, with the underlying assumption of everyone having a stake in the Jewish God.

With that said, we need more buddhists on here... PRETTY PLEASE CA, make a Asian set game, so we can get some actual THINKERS in here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Wow, we have come a long way.

---

Actually...

IMO the debates were of better quality 10 years back.

What makes you think Buddhism isn't as prone to prejudiced and knee-jerk thinking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

What makes you think Buddhism isn't as prone to prejudiced and knee-jerk thinking?

---

Nothing.

However, the basics of the Asian religions I read up on are way more based on thinking, and not dogma. And I honestly believe their memes would create a better world than the monotheistic memes we in the west transfer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Not hardly. That's just the language/cultural barrier making you think its more cerebral. Buddhism was twisted to suit the purposes of the authorities all over Asia for centuries and centuries. Any philosophy can be twisted. Even the practical philosophy of science can be twisted by hubris without even the aid of government, as when people presume to know how the universe works beyond what we've already discovered.

---

I'm not so sure you are right. Remember that Swedish is what I read the majority of texts in, so it's as much a language barrier between the different religions original texts.

I would say Daoism is the official religion that most touched my soul.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Daoist by any means. However, going through their texts and tales brings a peace to my heart that no other scripture has.

For each his own? I'm just saying I wish we had more of those thinkers around here :shrug:


EDIT: As to your edit, my reply about "might be a god.... ... ..." I was solely answering the topic. Thus, nah, no bias towards it.
And I don't "believe" in Daoism, I have just said that those are the religious texts that touch my heart and mind the most, and make me think about my life choices the most :book2:

see edit :)

Buddhists have their moments. Look at what's going on in Sri Lanka these days.

Attacking Muslims with stones, calling for racial purity and a boycott of Muslim businesses...

And I have to agree the quality of the debate here looks poorer than what it was 10 years ago, though I wasn't around then. I mean, consider the OP and his following posts in this thread...

I guess what I mean is:

I have read ALL of the bigger scriptures, and Daoism is the closest I could find that both enlightened me and gave me peace of mind.

I don't care about how the religions have been USED, the practical implications, or anything like that. I am just saying that Daoism is what make me read the texts with a smile on my face and sunshine in my heart.

It sure as **** beat reading about the walls of Jericho, or gang rapes - that is the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

And what I mean is that all of these texts are out of context, re-translated, and only as good as you make them. :wall:

---

... And what I mean is that you are wrong.

A text is created in symbiosis between the text and the reader. I am not saying the reader is unimportant, but to hear you say the text is unimportant is laughable.

However, time for me to go... "Last day of skiing" party... I will get roaring drunk and quite possibly have sexual intercourse with a girl or two :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I didn't say the text was unimportant, I said your understanding of the text is false.

---

And I said that a text is made in symbiosis between reader and writer, so how can my understanding of it be false?

It's my understanding, aaaiiiight?

dont let the pope hear you :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Your understanding of your understanding is just fine. Your understanding of Daoism is another thing entirely. :bounce:

---

I guess you have deeper insights than me, then :bow:

I'm just a stupid ski instructor living on the mountain I love, spending my days doing the things I like. Speaking of that, I am REALLY late for a night of fun.

Have a nice evening, I sure intend to :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I did. You missed my mark. English to Swedish doesn't work too well either, I guess.

You're familiar with the Scientific Method right? Surely nobody needs a lesson in that? The practical language of science has no bias. Thus the purely scientific approach to God is "Might be, Might not Be, can't prove it either way." That isn't my opinion, that's fact. My opinion (or, better yet, my Beliefs) are something else entirely.

---

The scientific approach is also to reject everything that can't be proven either way. "Can't be proven either way, yet" works though.

That's because can't be proven either way puts God at the same position as the Lord of Nightmares, the Flying Spagetti Monster or an invisible garden gnome guardian. And it has to be rejected that way, since you can never prove or disprove that the laws of physics suddenly act differently when you aren't watching for no reason.

So the scientific answer is that the god-hypothesis has to be rejectd due to lack of correlating data. Come back when new data has been found.

nvrmind. misread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's right. Scientifically. And Science is just a proven method of observing the universe and drawing conclusions from your observations. We all have beliefs that go beyond what we've measured and observed. If you say otherwise you're a liar or a robot. Worst of all are those who use Science as a belief system and don't even realize they are doing it; for they ruin both belief systems and science in the process.

---

**** yes, it is right SCIENTIFICALLY.

That is the tool we humans have to separate facts from madness, ill founded ideas from well founded ideas. In ANY manner I might add.

If, oh pretty pretty PRETTY PRETTY please (with sugar on top) one of the multitude of religions come forthright and explain and SOMEWHAT prove why the rest of the world should adhere to their version, I would be the first one to :hail:

As it is, I just go :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

**** yes, it is right SCIENTIFICALLY.

That is the tool we humans have to separate facts from madness, ill founded ideas from well founded ideas. In ANY manner I might add.

If, oh pretty pretty PRETTY PRETTY please (with sugar on top) one of the multitude of religions come forthright and explain and SOMEWHAT prove why the rest of the world should adhere to their version, I would be the first one to :hail:

As it is, I just go :rolleyes:

---

Agnostics don't have to go to church.

Welcome to the fold, maybe, brother

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Where in any of my posts did you get the idea that I was trying to convert you Kad?

---

I didn't.

I just met your arguments on a forum, with my own way of reasoning :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Maybe we have a language barrier somehow, but for me, the first three do not show any difference on whether salvation would be an event or a process.

The last three though, I will grant.

---

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

---

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups. Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.


I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups.

---

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

Quote:

---

Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.

---

I can link the post.

Quote:

---

I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

---

Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

I can link the post.


Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

---

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.



I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.


acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.


romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.


translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.


jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.


yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

Quote:

---

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.

---

This explains so much​.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

This explains so much​.

---

Pah, I can post coherent theology drunk - it's no excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Pah, I can post coherent theology drunk - it's no excuse.

---

Coherent while drunk is possible. Much like playing pool after a couple of drinks.

Coherent theology on the other hand ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Coherent while drunk is possible. Much like playing pool after a couple of drinks.

Coherent theology on the other hand ...

---

Yeah, you can't come into my shop and tell me how to run it when I'm a grocer and you're a butcher.

For obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.

---

*cough* :sneaky:

Quote:

---

I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.

---

Right... I guess one of those debates with your pastor goes along the dogma of baptism. Since you was baptised as an infant and not the proper way (according to them). They don't believe in infant baptism and that a baptism must be done by immersion.

Quote:

---

acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.

romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.

---

I don't think you understand the subtleties in the differences of dogma that I am pointing to. Question: Do you consider yourself saved?

Quote:

---

translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.

jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.

---

Not saying that you have bias... just saying that evangelists have bias against any bible not supporting their dogma. I have encountered this many times. Even here when I pulled verses from the New World Translation in a discussion.
I do like the KJV because of its beautiful English.
About the JW and Mormons being christian or not. I don't think you qualify to make any judgement on this. I do know the Mormons claim to be christian but I am unsure if the JW do so.

Quote:

---

yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

---

Right... so how are we to be inspired or enlightened by the original bible - if it does exist, but is not available to us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well you'll never understand my point of view on religion if you think I'm trying to convert you.

---

I don't.

Doesn't make you a very good christian though ;)

In this thread: non-religious people telling religious people how their religion works.