responding to common objections to bible

[jirisys]

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.

Oversimplifying:

Atheism = There is no evidence that any gods exist, so it is likely that no god exists.
Agnosticism = It is impossible to know or prove that any gods exist.

You can be an agnostic and still believe in a god (or many).

~Jirisys ()

[The Stranger]

Partly true.

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

its not partly true its completely wrong. the lack of belief is agnosticism (basically skeptical position in the religious debate). an absence of belief results in no answer to the question does god exist. to answer yes is "to have the belief that god exists", to answer no is "to have belief that god does not exist", its not, "not having the belief that god exists".

you have the position of the believer and the non-believer and then there is the third position of postponing judgment. for my part you can name these positions whatever you want.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[The Stranger]

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.

wikipedia has a different etymology and its more in line with what ive learned at uni as well.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. [...] an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.

Etymology
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869[10] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[11]
Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[12]
In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[13] In technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" often has a meaning close to "independent"—for example, "platform agnostic" or "hardware agnostic."[14]

you are talking about Gnosticism it seems, but the term is not really related to it.

[total relism]

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.

first i never said of it being true or not, i just asked for evidence to show it to be true or a reason why to believe it.

“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...

so because man copied and translated the orginal inspired bible, that makes it not from god? i dont follow. That is like me making copy of lotr and making a few mistakes,than claiming there is no jrr tolkien, there is no lotr. I never said any translation/version is the word of god, i said the original bible written, we have today in full.

[Kadagar_AV]

first i never said of it being true or not, i just asked for evidence to show it to be true or a reason why to believe it.

???

Again, we seriously don't think You get what science, NOR atheism is.

Atheism: Lack of belief.

Science: Making theories on observable phenomena, and to test these theories repeatedly.



You seem to mix up atheism and science, and You seem to have zero understanding for either.

*Can we please switch from 13 to 18 yo to access the political part of the forum?*

[The Stranger]

???

Again, we seriously don't think You get what science, NOR atheism is.

Atheism: Lack of belief.

Science: Making theories on observable phenomena, and to test these theories repeatedly.



You seem to mix up atheism and science, and You seem to have zero understanding for either.

*Can we please switch from 13 to 18 yo to access the political part of the forum?*

it seems you do not know what atheism is...

[total relism]

???

Again, we seriously don't think You get what science, NOR atheism is.

Atheism: Lack of belief.

Science: Making theories on observable phenomena, and to test these theories repeatedly.



You seem to mix up atheism and science, and You seem to have zero understanding for either.

*Can we please switch from 13 to 18 yo to access the political part of the forum?*

dont care to argue what people define atheism as, when i believe in god it just means than lack of faith in atheism. All i did was ask someone to debate me 1v1 and ask them why they ask for evidence in support of god and not of their own beliefs, oh sorry trier own lack of beliefs.


why science has come into play i have no idea?please show me were i have somehow mixed them up?.

[The Stranger]

dont care to argue what people define atheism as, when i believe in god it just means than lack of faith in atheism. All i did was ask someone to debate me 1v1 and ask them why they ask for evidence in support of god and not of their own beliefs, oh sorry trier own lack of beliefs.


why science has come into play i have no idea?please show me were i have somehow mixed them up?.

please try to distinguish between rejection of something and a lack of something.

[total relism]

please try to distinguish between rejection of something and a lack of something.

lol, i agree 100%, i am just using what they say to claim same for me. Really i reject atheism,not just lack faith in it.

[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.

[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

[Husar]

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

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.

[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).

[total relism]

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

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

[total relism]

sorry

[Kadagar_AV]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[InsaneApache]

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.

[InsaneApache]

dp.

[InsaneApache]

Good grief.

I fucking give up.

[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?

[LittleGrizzly]

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.

[InsaneApache]

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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[Papewaio]

Contracts signed under duress are not enforceable.

Likewise prayers...

[Brenus]

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..

[Brenus]

sorry dp

[Kadagar_AV]

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.