responding to common objections to bible

[Ironside]

Remind me, why do we care so much about the so-called plagiarism in Christianity? Every​ religion does this.

Because if you claim that the Bible is the word of God, then it's a problem if the demon/devil/whatever idolatry had access to the information long before the true believers. If nothing else, it's a bit embarrasing for God to lose the initiative that much.

If you consider the Bible as a divinely inspired collection of myths, then it's a much smaller matter.

Edit: In relation to Brenus.
Don't forget the importance if the flesh of Christ is leavened or not.

[Kadagar_AV]

Is that a compliment?

I can't tell.

Regardless,

Many of the things that have been said about Christians are so much chaff - from the allegations of baby-eating onwards the Cultic nature of Christianity has left it open to ridicule by people on the outside.

I don't believe it's ever been an official doctrine of the Catholic (wider historical) Church that women are without souls - there have been various riffs on the theme of them being natural temptresses, because they not only fall into Sin but because of Eve's curse they naturally lead others to it.

A bit of both, I'd say...

It's like watching that 64000 dollar quiz show... You are impressed with their knowledge about something truly redundant, but a part of Your brain still go "Why bother?"

[total relism]

I was going to reply again, but then I read:


Attachment 9009

and decided some people are just too dumb and consistently illogical that it's a waste of precious time.

EDIT: Just something I'll do for my own research, and maybe you guys can point me in the right direction: Is there any provable historical supernatural phenomenon that is not inside a religious book, and cannot be explained or theorized upon by use of science, physics and logic, and can easily be explained by any religion?

you said
" consistently illogical that it's a waste of precious time."

yet you want evidence for christian/god [ i agree] to believe in it, yet none for your faith? than call me the illogical one. reasons like these i think you know would not go well in a debate, the reason you refuse me.

For all the abuse that total relism gets, the stuff some other people are coming up with here is comedy gold.

Everybody is rubbishing his (admittedly rubbish) sources, and then with a straight face they come out and quote Landover Baptist Church as a reliable source on Christian doctrine.

For those not aware, Landover Baptist Church is a troll website parodying hardcore Evangelical Protestants.

But don't let me get in the way of the circle-jerk...

just wondering witch of my sources do you see as rubbish in regards to the topic? and why?.

“[B]
Still, the place of women in the middle Age by the church is developed by the theologian Thomas Aquinas: males are the perfect form and female children are simply defective males. Or Read St Augustin.

could you start supporting any of you claims? also woman in bible is topic i will do in future. I recemend diversifying your reading, to not just what you want to hear.
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-M.../dp/0801072751
http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-B.../dp/0830838260

“The fact that you couldn't tell that it was a rather outrageous parody site sums up how much you know about Christian doctrine.” I know enough of the “Christian” doctrine to know that there is more than one. You, on contrary, seem to think there is only one. The place of women in the history of the multiple aspect of this generic religious movement can be easily seen, without even a careful and long attention.
And to be really open about it, the stupidity of this text that matched what I can watch on Evangelist TV (the rare time when I by chance listen -shortly-) so I didn't doubt it was an authentic site, a little bit like the one from the guy who wanted to burn some samples of the Koran. This will teach me a lesson.

“btw you also never delived when I asked you for those quotes earlier. You seemed quite confident with the rhetoric but if this is the quality of your sources I think it was a bit misplaced.” I am confident as I studied Religions. I didn’t felt the need to answer as, as I said before, you do not need careful, long and painful studies to acknowledge the place of the women in societies under “Christian” rules, whatever the “doctrine” says. The opinion and statement of the Religious Politicians as Tertullien (using St Paul), St Augustin (Who has a woman turns away from God) and Thomas Aquinos do not need vast exegeses. Remember Eve…
She was the temptation to which the man who finds it difficult to resist. She, herself, is tempted by the devil in the form of snake, serpent associated with sex and demonized by the Church. The woman is worthy of hell for the Church that does not forgive her to succumb to the temptation of the forbidden fruit consumption and so to have result in loss of the garden of Eden.

You want reference: In French
« saint Paul, le théologien favori du Vatican (surtout aujourd'hui ), d'écrire que « la femme est un corps sans tête », et à saint Jérôme de dire que « la volupté avec une femme est un crime à classer juste après l'homicide ». Même au cours du XIXe siècle, pourtant plus éclairé, le prêtre catholique Lamennais a affirmé que « la femme est une statue vivante de la stupidité parce qu'en la faisant d'un reste de limon, Dieu en a oublié l'intelligence »
St Jerome : Rien n'est plus infâme que le mari qui aime sa femme comme une maîtresse : il commet le péché d'adultère »
In English:
Saint Paul, favorite theologian of the Vatican (especially today), to write that "the woman is a body without a head", and St. Jerome said that ' the voluptuousness with a woman is a crime to classify just after the killing. Even during the 19th century, yet more enlightened, the Catholic priest Lamennais stated that "the woman is a living statue of stupidity because by of a rest of silt, God have forgotten intelligence". St Jerome: nothing is more infamous than the husband who loves his wife as a mistress: he commits the sin of adultery. Women take from God the love of her husband…

Now, you can say that these people who spoke and wrote Latin, and most of them Greek, were not as good as you are to define the real meaning of Christianity…
You might be right.
But the fact is the reason why during the Council of Trent the Catholic Dogma reinforced and imposed the Single Status of the priests, the fact that Women couldn’t give the Holly Sacraments and couldn’t be priest was based on their opinion and their analyse on the texts they were able (most of them) to read in the original copy in Greek or Latin.

We do know now that the Eve and the Snake story is a copy of a Sumerian Legend, Enki and Ninhursag, 1500 before the Bible. We do know now that Yahweh’s actions looked very similar to the one of the Goddess Ninhursag.
From the Encyclopedia Encarta, used by thousands students in France:
"The biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve differs only in a few details of many other similar myths of the ancient Middle East and elsewhere. Similar themes also appear in ancient Mesopotamian sources such as the epic of Gilgamesh, dating from about 1800-1700 BC.”

But they didn't.

you claim to have studied "religion" but even if true, what you got was a liberal atheist teaching clearly, not biblical or based on true history. I love claims like these

"aint Paul, favorite theologian of the Vatican (especially today), to write that "the woman is a body without a head","

and

"copy of a Sumerian Legend, Enki and Ninhursag, 1500 before the Bible. We do know now that Yahweh’s actions looked very similar to the one of the Goddess Ninhursag.
From the Encyclopedia Encarta, used by thousands students in France:
"The biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve differs only in a few details of many other similar myths of the ancient Middle East and elsewhere. Similar themes also appear in ancient Mesopotamian sources such as the epic of Gilgamesh, dating from about 1800-1700 BC.”


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

The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17


the rest is not supported by original sources and shows you have been clearly taught wrong, but i have know decided to do another thread on the supposed biblical parallel with other ane stories.

TR question is about the Bible. If the Bible appears to be more and more as a collection of Myths and Legends (and it is more and more likely) for the Mesopotamian Region and surroundings, with so-called Prophets who just put together a digest of all they could find in order to sustain their own beliefs, the question of the legitimacy of the Religions derived from it is on the table.

The bases of the Bible are de facto Pagan Myths, as later the annexation of Pagan Myths of the Medieval Ages Europe will be added to the liturgy. Nothing wrong with that until you claim that was the words of a God.

i agree with the conclusions above 100%, i just disagree and will show future thread, that the claims are true.

[Brenus]

"The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. " Says the guy who believe the Bible is true
You should try this method.

[total relism]

"The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. " Says the guy who believe the Bible is true
You should try this method.

lets assume i dont take this biblical demand and apply it. That does not make it any less true you dont.But i feel I have for many years, for example, i will let you take your best 2 reasons why the bible is false, why if i apply this to the bible it would prove it false. Than i will add both to my future thread topics, that will show it is not me, but your lack of getting the other side and applying this principle that you are guilty of,deal?, you can chose any 2.

[InsaneApache]

Brainwashing really is a remarkable thing.

[total relism]

Brainwashing really is a remarkable thing.

agreed

[Kadagar_AV]

Good, I guess we reached some kind of consensus then..

[total relism]

Good, I guess we reached some kind of consensus then..

lol,finally we agree.

[Beskar]

*Summary of what arguing with TotalRealism on these subjects feel like.

[Brenus]

“lets assume i dont take this biblical demand and apply it. That does not make it any less true you dont.But i feel I have for many years, for example, i will let you take your best 2 reasons why the bible is false, why if i apply this to the bible it would prove it false. Than i will add both to my future thread topics, that will show it is not me, but your lack of getting the other side and applying this principle that you are guilty of,deal?, you can chose any 2.”
Sorry, I really don’t understand your quest/ question.
The Bible as a book exists so t is a true object. Sometimes nice stories with plenty of sex, blood, and betraying and most of the time painfully boring…
A little bit like Tolkien.
It is the base of the 3 monotheistic religions, so that makes these 3 religions a little bit fairy tales if not in the application but in the “spirit”.

The stories in the Bible were (for some) just copied and adapted from others, some were just the story for the Jews by the Jews to celebrate their victories on others populations they either enslaved either slaughtered. Julius Caesar did the same. Or Napoleon…
Now, that doesn’t make the stories wrong, you know. A little bit of exaggeration, Hollywood style: God told me….

“you claim to have studied "religion" but even if true, what you got was a liberal atheist teaching clearly, not biblical or based on true history.” Ahhh, the good old methods: I am a liar, and even if not, deny the validity of the study… By the way, Biblical is antinomy of True Stories.
And yes, I got “a liberal atheist teaching”. We call the buildings where it is taught Universities. The difference is you can be a believer in Universities, but I still wait to see an atheist in Churches…

Quotes you ask for: St Paul: 1 Tim 2:9-15: “A woman [or, wife] should learn in silence with all submissiveness. I do not allow a woman [or, wife] to teach or to have authority over [or, dictate to] a man [or, her husband], but to keep quiet. Wives must be subject to their husbands (Col 3:18); Paul preference for Celibacy is that it avoids “distraction” (1 Cor 7:35): If this doesn’t make women a body without head…

I know you brush the following away, but I can’t resist:
Do note that the Sumerians were extinct when the Bible was written (and they have as well Flooding a Uruk's kings, a legendary figure in Sumerian literature, was warned about the flood by god and built an arch) so they were the first about Paradise, Creation from ribs and natural catastrophe…
About the warning before floding: Wrath of Enlil-Clamor, Warning- Utnapishtim, -Flood- 6 days & 6, nights,-Survivors- Utnapishtim and his wife, Covenant-Sacrifices and Ishtar's speech/immortality: remind you something? No? It should: Both stories have sacrifices at the end, flood is to destroy mankind, rain cover the land, gods tell the heroes beforehand, they are given specific dimensions, takes family and animals, releases three birds.
Sources: Gilgamesh, the Book.

[Kadagar_AV]

I lean more and more towards TR being more of a belieber than a believer.

*YES, I just did that*

[Sigurd]

I know you brush the following away, but I can’t resist:
Do note that the Sumerians were extinct when the Bible was written (and they have as well Flooding a Uruk's kings, a legendary figure in Sumerian literature, was warned about the flood by god and built an arch) so they were the first about Paradise, Creation from ribs and natural catastrophe…
About the warning before floding: Wrath of Enlil-Clamor, Warning- Utnapishtim, -Flood- 6 days & 6, nights,-Survivors- Utnapishtim and his wife, Covenant-Sacrifices and Ishtar's speech/immortality: remind you something? No? It should: Both stories have sacrifices at the end, flood is to destroy mankind, rain cover the land, gods tell the heroes beforehand, they are given specific dimensions, takes family and animals, releases three birds.
Sources: Gilgamesh, the Book.

You can't use those arguments against a religion claiming originality. The only thing you accomplish is to give them more "evidence". Aha.. they say. This proves that the stuff in the bible really happened. By the voice of two or three witnesses shall truth be established.
And their logic isn't far fetched - and I have repeatedly mentioned this, IF we should assume that Adam was the original man, that Enoch and Noah were instruments of God, then naturally you would have accounts of these events in other literature than the Bible, the bible being texts that supposedly originated with Moses - several thousands of years after those events happened.
You have the son of Noah who is the originator of the Egyptians via his wife Egyptus and son Pharaoh. Pharaoh being a righteous man fashioned the Egyptian religion after the manner of Adam (so the lore states).

I have listened to a particular professor showing Mormonism to be true by referring to similarity in ancient Sumerian and Egyptian religious practices. "... See? this is what they did and we do it just the same. The same God who revealed religion to them is the same God who revealed religion in the latter days".

[total relism]

*Summary of what arguing with TotalRealism on these subjects feel like.

would you be willing to debate me 1v1 on "is there any scientific evidence for evolution" I will let you say give your best 5-10 evidences.
are you signed up at twc? i have debate offer their in fight club
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forum...r-s-Fight-Club


I dont wish to get into creation/evolution here yet, as that is future topic.


"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it was happening."
Richard Dawkins in an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS, Dec. 3, 2004

“lets assume i dont take this biblical demand and apply it. That does not make it any less true you dont.But i feel I have for many years, for example, i will let you take your best 2 reasons why the bible is false, why if i apply this to the bible it would prove it false. Than i will add both to my future thread topics, that will show it is not me, but your lack of getting the other side and applying this principle that you are guilty of,deal?, you can chose any 2.”
Sorry, I really don’t understand your quest/ question.
The Bible as a book exists so t is a true object. Sometimes nice stories with plenty of sex, blood, and betraying and most of the time painfully boring…
A little bit like Tolkien.
It is the base of the 3 monotheistic religions, so that makes these 3 religions a little bit fairy tales if not in the application but in the “spirit”.

The stories in the Bible were (for some) just copied and adapted from others, some were just the story for the Jews by the Jews to celebrate their victories on others populations they either enslaved either slaughtered. Julius Caesar did the same. Or Napoleon…
Now, that doesn’t make the stories wrong, you know. A little bit of exaggeration, Hollywood style: God told me….

“you claim to have studied "religion" but even if true, what you got was a liberal atheist teaching clearly, not biblical or based on true history.” Ahhh, the good old methods: I am a liar, and even if not, deny the validity of the study… By the way, Biblical is antinomy of True Stories.
And yes, I got “a liberal atheist teaching”. We call the buildings where it is taught Universities. The difference is you can be a believer in Universities, but I still wait to see an atheist in Churches…

Quotes you ask for: St Paul: 1 Tim 2:9-15: “A woman [or, wife] should learn in silence with all submissiveness. I do not allow a woman [or, wife] to teach or to have authority over [or, dictate to] a man [or, her husband], but to keep quiet. Wives must be subject to their husbands (Col 3:18); Paul preference for Celibacy is that it avoids “distraction” (1 Cor 7:35): If this doesn’t make women a body without head…

I know you brush the following away, but I can’t resist:
Do note that the Sumerians were extinct when the Bible was written (and they have as well Flooding a Uruk's kings, a legendary figure in Sumerian literature, was warned about the flood by god and built an arch) so they were the first about Paradise, Creation from ribs and natural catastrophe…
About the warning before floding: Wrath of Enlil-Clamor, Warning- Utnapishtim, -Flood- 6 days & 6, nights,-Survivors- Utnapishtim and his wife, Covenant-Sacrifices and Ishtar's speech/immortality: remind you something? No? It should: Both stories have sacrifices at the end, flood is to destroy mankind, rain cover the land, gods tell the heroes beforehand, they are given specific dimensions, takes family and animals, releases three birds.
Sources: Gilgamesh, the Book.

first part

i offered you to be able to back up your claim that i did not apply these passages to bible or i would not believe it

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

The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17


i said you can bring up any two reasons to prove me wrong, the offer still stands.




second
woman no mind?
as i said a liberal teaching of "religion" means take quotes out of context to make your own idol of the bible, than to reject it. First you did not even quote the right passages, than the very passages refute your earlier claim of no souls in woman.. Than it says nothing of what you claim to back up, it goes against the rest of the entire bible,including pauls own letters showing how liberals take out of context to create what they want from bible.


first these are specific letters to specific churches, if they applied to all, they would be in form to all believers. This does teach men are to be the head of the church/house. Does that mean woman are less than? not according to bible, difernt roles after fallen sin cursed state of world.

so how are men to have authority over woman?

42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
mark 10.

This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.
So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
gen 1.27
Every person in the church has a role, and as is stated in 1 Corinthians 12, all positions become equally important to the mission of glorifying Christ and doing His will.

Read more: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/...#ixzz2QdLDhw4g
http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp





than notice what paul says elsewhere, can woman teach?

The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).



as far as woman being helpers

Eve
she was created in the image of god 100%, created in the image and likeness of god gen 1 26-28 child birth was not punishment but gift,pain in childbirth was punishment#just as adam was punished. That eve was created second means nothing to importance, what is more important NT or OT?. When eve is called a helper, that word is only ever used of god in OT, this in no way means inferior to man, but godlike. God is not inferior to man neither is woman. Sutible helper means "like opisite him" a mirror image.


for more on "keep quiet"
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).




near east similarities
I am going to do thread on this in future, so keep an eye out, all i can can say is add a little skepticism to what you here before you believe my friend.

[InsaneApache]

You just don't get it do you?

We (atheists) don't have to prove anything as we are not espousing anything. Look up the definition of atheism.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

You are the one making a claim and so therefore it is incumbent on you to prove the point. As there is no possible way to prove,(or disprove), a living god, then all your claims are null and void.

[total relism]

You just don't get it do you?

We (atheists) don't have to prove anything as we are not espousing anything. Look up the definition of atheism.



You are the one making a claim and so therefore it is incumbent on you to prove the point. As there is no possible way to prove,(or disprove), a living god, then all your claims are null and void.

this is not part of thread, i have debated this and atheism meaning for probably 50 pages of thread with atheist it comes to no end. I was just saying people aspect evidence to believe in god [i agree] yet are just fine accepting without any proof or evidence that atheism is true. If atheism is lack of faith in god, than my belief in god, is lack of belief in the evidence in atheism.

[InsaneApache]

You still don't get it. Atheism is neither true nor false.

It is a lack of belief.

Truth-hood or falsehood doesn't come into it.

[Brenus]

“You can't use those arguments against a religion claiming originality.” That was not the purpose. The purpose was to show that the Bible is for a good part a copy and paste, so not the word of God…

“ take out of context” So, you do acknowledge that he said/wrote it… Good start...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).

The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).

Stop copy/pasting and think about what people are saying. How can you expect us to take the time to read your very lengthy posts when you obviously don't even read them yourself?

btw Brenus, I asked you for scriptural examples of manipulated doctrines, not whatever medieval Catholics thought.

[Brenus]

“I asked you for scriptural examples of manipulated doctrines, not whatever medieval Catholics thought.” I know what you asked, but that is not important. What was (is) important was what they did with it.

I am a little tired of the XXI Century “Christians” thinking they know better than their predecessors about the Bible and the Holly Writings. Most of the Clergy (Middle-Ages, Renaissance and Modern Ages) had huge debates about texts they were able to read in the original text in Latin or Greeks. Yes, they were as well children of their Period, but the writers of the Gospel as well.

Did you ever heard of the Anabaptists? Catharism? Gnomist? Montanism? Arianism? And I can carry on like this. All are interpretation of the Gospels; all were crushed by the Christians, by iron and fire. Is it enough as examples for “scriptural examples of manipulated doctrines”, or should I add some more? But the way, I picked the list in a Catholic site that considered Protestantism as Heresy.
The article ends on: Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
You will burn...

[Rhyfelwyr]

“I asked you for scriptural examples of manipulated doctrines, not whatever medieval Catholics thought.” I know what you asked, but that is not important. What was (is) important was what they did with it.

No, we were talking about the reliability of scripture - you are pulling off a classic total relism move here, and trying to completely switch topic.

Medieval interpretations of scripture are irrelevant to the reliability of the scripture itself. You gave a lot of rhetoric about the impact of murder, lust etc on manipulating scripture, as well as the less malicious things like grammar or punctuation errors.

But it was all rhetoric, and no examples.

You also seem to like naming different branches of Christianity, for some reason. And yes I am aware of the ones you listed, really Cathars were Gnostics btw, Gnostic is more an overall term that would also apply to the Eastern European Bogomil sects that the Cathars took their inspiration from. As I said above, varying interepretations of scripture can't always be necessarily ascribed to poor translations - indeed, the greatest variation comes from within Protestantism, where thousands of churches all use the exact same KJV!

[Beskar]

Job 38:11

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You still don't get it. Atheism is neither true nor false.

It is a lack of belief.

Truth-hood or falsehood doesn't come into it.

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

[InsaneApache]

Here we go again.

The World isn't round.

he shape of the Earth approximates an oblate spheroid

If you religious lot can't even get the basics right......

Hopeless the lot of you.

[InsaneApache]

The brainwashing is very effective.

[Kadagar_AV]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

Nope.

You have to balance the evidence presented Yourself.

With that said, You might come off as rather, well, stupid if You go completely against the norm in the more developed theories.


TR, I honestly don't think You got how science work. Shame on Your teachers.

[jirisys]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

That analogy doesn't work. The world has to be a shape. Whether that be a triangle or a square or a tesseract, it must be something, you can't say the world has no shape.

~Jirisys ()

[Ironside]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

To expand on what Jirisys are talking about. An equivalent question to yours would be: "Since god exist, what is his nature?" Rather than "Does god exist?".

[Papewaio]

I thought atheist don't believe in a higher power whilst agnostics are the ones rejecting god on the basis of a lack of tangible credible evidence.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's a bit of a blurr, Pape... I am agnostic, but for most purposes, I am atheist.