Atheism: The fool's philosophy

[Hollie]

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

Obviously false. That's the same nonsensical claim made by Moslems. Their propaganda is no different than yours.

Your ignorance is appealing. There is plenty of evidence for the accuracy of Scripture. You simply ignore it. It's called willful ignorance. In fact, the New Testament has more manuscript support than any other ancient document. There are thousands of copies from the first and second century, and they all say the same thing. Nothing was altered.

Actually, the errors, omissions and contradictions in the various bibles refute your attempts at partisan apologetics.

Give me one example.

There are lots. Search for them on the web.

 

[Lutroo]

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

Obviously false. That's the same nonsensical claim made by Moslems. Their propaganda is no different than yours.

Your ignorance is appealing. There is plenty of evidence for the accuracy of Scripture. You simply ignore it. It's called willful ignorance. In fact, the New Testament has more manuscript support than any other ancient document. There are thousands of copies from the first and second century, and they all say the same thing. Nothing was altered.

Actually, the errors, omissions and contradictions in the various bibles refute your attempts at partisan apologetics.

Give me one example.

There are lots. Search for them on the web.

I asked you for one. Do you have any? You made the claim. Back it up.

 

[Hollie]

Obviously false. That's the same nonsensical claim made by Moslems. Their propaganda is no different than yours.

Your ignorance is appealing. There is plenty of evidence for the accuracy of Scripture. You simply ignore it. It's called willful ignorance. In fact, the New Testament has more manuscript support than any other ancient document. There are thousands of copies from the first and second century, and they all say the same thing. Nothing was altered.

Actually, the errors, omissions and contradictions in the various bibles refute your attempts at partisan apologetics.

Give me one example.

There are lots. Search for them on the web.

I asked you for one. Do you have any? You made the claim. Back it up.

I did back it up. I gave you a homework assignment.

 

[Lutroo]

There is only one Bible.

Except for all the other bibles.

There is one Bible. There may be several translations, but they are all translated from the same manuscripts. There is also something called a comparative study Bible. You may have heard of it. It has three of the most popular translations, plus the original language it was written in.

There are many different bibles. You acknowledge that.

I said that there are different translations of the Bible. I also noted that we can read it in the original languages it was written in.

I can read lots of books translated from their original source language. Those books are written and translated by men just as the various bibles have been.

I notice that you ignored what I said about being able to read the original manuscripts. I don't care how many translations there are. We have the original. That means we can compare any translation against it for accuracy. Some translations are better than others. Some deliberately change things, like the gay bible. The fact remains, we have the Bible in it's original languages.

 

[Lutroo]

Your ignorance is appealing. There is plenty of evidence for the accuracy of Scripture. You simply ignore it. It's called willful ignorance. In fact, the New Testament has more manuscript support than any other ancient document. There are thousands of copies from the first and second century, and they all say the same thing. Nothing was altered.

Actually, the errors, omissions and contradictions in the various bibles refute your attempts at partisan apologetics.

Give me one example.

There are lots. Search for them on the web.

I asked you for one. Do you have any? You made the claim. Back it up.

I did back it up. I gave you a homework assignment.

Bye bye.

 

[Hollie]

Except for all the other bibles.

There is one Bible. There may be several translations, but they are all translated from the same manuscripts. There is also something called a comparative study Bible. You may have heard of it. It has three of the most popular translations, plus the original language it was written in.

There are many different bibles. You acknowledge that.

I said that there are different translations of the Bible. I also noted that we can read it in the original languages it was written in.

I can read lots of books translated from their original source language. Those books are written and translated by men just as the various bibles have been.

I notice that you ignored what I said about being able to read the original manuscripts. I don't care how many translations there are. We have the original. That means we can compare any translation against it for accuracy. Some translations are better than others. Some deliberately change things, like the gay bible. The fact remains, we have the Bible in it's original languages.

Actually, that's silly. There is no original manuscript.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, the errors, omissions and contradictions in the various bibles refute your attempts at partisan apologetics.

Give me one example.

There are lots. Search for them on the web.

I asked you for one. Do you have any? You made the claim. Back it up.

I did back it up. I gave you a homework assignment.

Bye bye.

Waving the flag of surrender.

 

[Syriusly]

Funny how atheists feel the need to convince others that their religion has greater benefits than all others.

Funny how Weatherman lies about atheists.

Funny in a sick demented way.

Fact is fact. I don't believe in a flat earth and I think men walked on the moon, so I feel no urge to post in those threads. Their beliefs are beyond reason to me. Atheists on the other hand fill this religion forum with their views every day. Atheists post in the religion forum for one reason - they know deep down there really is a God and are struggling on how to rationalize that fact for themselves.

Fact is fact.

This thread is an attack on 'atheism' by a Christian.

This thread is about a Christian telling others that he is right and atheists are wrong.

Christians post about atheism for only one reason- down deep they doubt their own faith in their fairy tale.

Me- I post only to refute people like you and the OP who lie about me.

And the flat earthers and man never walked on the moon cultists.

You do have a lot in common with the Flat Earthers and Moon Landing deniers

Fact is fact.

This thread is an attack on 'atheism' by a Christian.

This thread is about a Christian telling others that he is right and atheists are wrong.

Christians post about atheism for only one reason- down deep they doubt their own faith in their fairy tale.

Me- I post only to refute people like you and the OP who lie about me.

 

[Syriusly]

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

I believe I've answered this before. I believe in God because of fulfilled prophecy. The Bible is the only religious text that contains not just a few, or even a few dozen, but Thousands of prophecies. These prophecies are specific and detailed. They have a 100 percent track record of accuracy. How do you explain that?

I can't explain your false agumentation for the various bibles being used for cheap parlor tricks.

There is only one Bible.

Except for all the other bibles.

There is one Bible. There may be several translations, but they are all translated from the same manuscripts. There is also something called a comparative study Bible. You may have heard of it. It has three of the most popular translations, plus the original language it was written in.

Really?

I mean I am sure every Christian would agree with you- they would just disagree about what is the 'one Bible'.

For instance is it the Catholic Bible- or one of the Protestant versions? Or the Orthodox version?

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

What Is the Difference Between Protestant and Catholic Bibles?

Then there are the Coptic Bibles- which have slight variations.

And of course there is the Codex Sinaiticus- a fascinating document- with numerous variations from either the Catholic or Protestant Bibles
Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Including content which is not in any other texts, and others found in only a few.

Now- quick quiz: do you know why there is one approved version of the New Testament that is the accepted version in Christendom- now?

 

[Syriusly]

You boil your entire argument down to exactly what I noted.

You believe your opinion is just as valid and refutes all the revealed truths science has uncovered over the last 2,000 years and you reject the reality.

Fine you are free to reject it as it interferes with your worship of myth. But don't pretend you have a coherent logical argument that there was in fact a talking snake and magic is real. These are the things of children's stories and adults ought to outgrow them.

Just want to point out the simple fact that science has no clue about how, or even why, the universe exists. They have proven nothing. So my myth is just as valid as yours. Isn't it?

You need a crutch, feel free to believe in whatever crutch makes you feel safe.

It wouldn't matter what reality is revealed through study, you will always need the crutch. So grip it tight and hobble on your way.

It's hardly a crutch. It is a belief, based on evidence. I could say that you reject it, simply because it interferes with your life of sin. Hold tight to YOUR crutch. LOL!

Frankly I could care less what you believe whether it is flying pigs, or unicorns or whatever.

But what you believe is not based upon objective evidence- and I find it odd that any Christian would even care to believe that a matter of faith is- or must be based upon evidence.

 

[Syriusly]

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

Obviously false. That's the same nonsensical claim made by Moslems. Their propaganda is no different than yours.

Your ignorance is appealing. There is plenty of evidence for the accuracy of Scripture. You simply ignore it. It's called willful ignorance. In fact, the New Testament has more manuscript support than any other ancient document. There are thousands of copies from the first and second century, and they all say the same thing. Nothing was altered.

Actually, the errors, omissions and contradictions in the various bibles refute your attempts at partisan apologetics.

Give me one example.

One?

The Catholic Bible contains Old Testament books that the Protestant Bible does not.

Another?

Codex Sinaiticus- one of the two oldest surviving manuscripts and there are hundreds of variances from your 'Bible'
This is just a small example
In John 1:1–8:38 Codex Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus and all other Alexandrian manuscripts. It is in closer agreement with Codex Bezae in support of the Western text-type. For example, in John 1:4 Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae are the only Greek manuscripts with textual variant ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἐστίν (in him is life) instead of ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ᾓν (in him was life). This variant is supported by Vetus Latina and some Sahidic manuscripts. This portion has a large number of corrections.[56] There are a number of differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; Hoskier enumerated 3036 differences:


Matt–656
Mark–567
Luke–791
John–1022
Total—3036.[5

 

[Syriusly]

Simple facts for simpletons.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

Can you tell us how and why the universe exists? NO! You cannot. So what makes you the expert? There may well have been a big bang. No one knows for sure. But even if there was was, you have no idea how or why it happened. God is just as valid a theory as anything science can come up with. Tell me I'm wrong.

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

Obviously false. That's the same nonsensical claim made by Moslems. Their propaganda is no different than yours.

Your ignorance is appealing. There is plenty of evidence for the accuracy of Scripture. You simply ignore it. It's called willful ignorance. In fact, the New Testament has more manuscript support than any other ancient document. There are thousands of copies from the first and second century, and they all say the same thing. Nothing was altered.

There are no copies of the New Testament from the First or Second century. And yes- there are differences between the Bibles.

You frankly are just ignorant about the Bible.

Only four great codices have survived to the present day: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus.[1] Although discovered at different times and places, they share many similarities. They are written in a certain uncial style of calligraphy using only capital letters, written in scriptio continua (meaning without regular gaps between words).[1][2] Though not entirely absent, there are very few divisions between words in these manuscripts. Words do not necessarily end on the same line on which they start. All these manuscripts were made at great expense of material and labour, written on vellum by professional scribes.[3] They seem to have been based on the most accurate texts in their time.[citation needed]


All of the great uncials were written on fine vellum, with the leaves arranged in quarto form.[4] The size of the leaves is much bigger than in papyri codices:[5][6]

• Sinaiticus – 38.1 × 34.5 cm (15.0 × 13.6 in); written ca. 330–360
• Vaticanus – 27 × 27 cm (10.6 × 10.6 in); ca. 325–350
• Alexandrinus – 32 × 26 cm (12.6 × 10.4 in); ca. 400–440
• Ephraemi – 33 × 27 cm (13.0 × 10.6 in); ca. 450

Codex Vaticanus uses the most ancient system of text's division in the Gospels. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi have the Ammonian Sections with references to the Eusebian Canons. Codex Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus use also a division according to the larger sections – κεφάλαια (chapters). Alexandrinus is the earliest manuscript which uses κεφάλαια.[7] Vaticanus has a more archaic style of writing than the other manuscripts. There is no ornamentation or any larger initial letters in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but there is in Alexandrinus. Vaticanus has no introduction to the Book of Psalms, which became a standard after 325 AD, whereas Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus do. They have different order of books.[8]

If you think that there was one 'perfect knowledge'- why was there the First Council of Nicene?

Why did some Christians believe in 'Arianism' and others didn't?

 

[Syriusly]

You boil your entire argument down to exactly what I noted.

You believe your opinion is just as valid and refutes all the revealed truths science has uncovered over the last 2,000 years and you reject the reality.

Fine you are free to reject it as it interferes with your worship of myth. But don't pretend you have a coherent logical argument that there was in fact a talking snake and magic is real. These are the things of children's stories and adults ought to outgrow them.

Just want to point out the simple fact that science has no clue about how, or even why, the universe exists. They have proven nothing. So my myth is just as valid as yours. Isn't it?

Simple facts for simpletons.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

Can you tell us how and why the universe exists? NO! You cannot. So what makes you the expert? There may well have been a big bang. No one knows for sure. But even if there was was, you have no idea how or why it happened. God is just as valid a theory as anything science can come up with. Tell me I'm wrong.

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

False.

There are no 2,000 year old copies. Not of the New Testament.

And the Old Testament? The Protestant and Catholic Bibles differ. As does the Jewish- compare the 10 commandments for example

Protestant

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God gives thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Jewish

1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honor of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

 

[Syriusly]

You boil your entire argument down to exactly what I noted.

You believe your opinion is just as valid and refutes all the revealed truths science has uncovered over the last 2,000 years and you reject the reality.

Fine you are free to reject it as it interferes with your worship of myth. But don't pretend you have a coherent logical argument that there was in fact a talking snake and magic is real. These are the things of children's stories and adults ought to outgrow them.

Just want to point out the simple fact that science has no clue about how, or even why, the universe exists. They have proven nothing. So my myth is just as valid as yours. Isn't it?

Simple facts for simpletons.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

Can you tell us how and why the universe exists? NO! You cannot. So what makes you the expert? There may well have been a big bang. No one knows for sure. But even if there was was, you have no idea how or why it happened. God is just as valid a theory as anything science can come up with. Tell me I'm wrong.

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

I believe I've answered this before. I believe in God because of fulfilled prophecy. The Bible is the only religious text that contains not just a few, or even a few dozen, but Thousands of prophecies. These prophecies are specific and detailed. They have a 100 percent track record of accuracy. How do you explain that?

I explain you believe what you want to believe.

That Christians have been claiming those prophecies match up to current events for 2,000 years- the same prophecies- different events.

Feel free to show us 2 absolutely accurate and verified prophecies that you believe that there is historical record of happening.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You boil your entire argument down to exactly what I noted.

You believe your opinion is just as valid and refutes all the revealed truths science has uncovered over the last 2,000 years and you reject the reality.

Fine you are free to reject it as it interferes with your worship of myth. But don't pretend you have a coherent logical argument that there was in fact a talking snake and magic is real. These are the things of children's stories and adults ought to outgrow them.

Just want to point out the simple fact that science has no clue about how, or even why, the universe exists. They have proven nothing. So my myth is just as valid as yours. Isn't it?

Simple facts for simpletons.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

Can you tell us how and why the universe exists? NO! You cannot. So what makes you the expert? There may well have been a big bang. No one knows for sure. But even if there was was, you have no idea how or why it happened. God is just as valid a theory as anything science can come up with. Tell me I'm wrong.

Your answer is it was magic performed by a flying grandpa.

Stick with that if it makes you feel good.

No. My answer is that it was created by Someone who is greater than the creation. You believe it just happened for no reason at all.

That is correct.

And I usually don't like discussing any religion with people who are a member of a religion. I don't have a problem with anyone believing what gets them through life. If it helps you through your life and helps you be kind to others and you don't want to force it on anyone else then go for it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just want to point out the simple fact that science has no clue about how, or even why, the universe exists. They have proven nothing. So my myth is just as valid as yours. Isn't it?

Simple facts for simpletons.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

Can you tell us how and why the universe exists? NO! You cannot. So what makes you the expert? There may well have been a big bang. No one knows for sure. But even if there was was, you have no idea how or why it happened. God is just as valid a theory as anything science can come up with. Tell me I'm wrong.

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

Obviously false. That's the same nonsensical claim made by Moslems. Their propaganda is no different than yours.

Your evidence of alteration - zero
My evidence - the discovery of the 2,000 year old Dead Scrolls - zero changes found.

Pure science.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny how atheists feel the need to convince others that their religion has greater benefits than all others.

Funny how Weatherman lies about atheists.

Funny in a sick demented way.

Fact is fact. I don't believe in a flat earth and I think men walked on the moon, so I feel no urge to post in those threads. Their beliefs are beyond reason to me. Atheists on the other hand fill this religion forum with their views every day. Atheists post in the religion forum for one reason - they know deep down there really is a God and are struggling on how to rationalize that fact for themselves.

Fact is fact.

This thread is an attack on 'atheism' by a Christian.

This thread is about a Christian telling others that he is right and atheists are wrong.

Christians post about atheism for only one reason- down deep they doubt their own faith in their fairy tale.

Me- I post only to refute people like you and the OP who lie about me.

And the flat earthers and man never walked on the moon cultists.

You do have a lot in common with the Flat Earthers and Moon Landing deniers

Fact is fact.

This thread is an attack on 'atheism' by a Christian.

This thread is about a Christian telling others that he is right and atheists are wrong.

Christians post about atheism for only one reason- down deep they doubt their own faith in their fairy tale.

Me- I post only to refute people like you and the OP who lie about me.

And all the other religion topics you post on?

You're terrified you can't figure out God you know exists. Don't worry, you will.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

Obviously false. That's the same nonsensical claim made by Moslems. Their propaganda is no different than yours.

Your ignorance is appealing. There is plenty of evidence for the accuracy of Scripture. You simply ignore it. It's called willful ignorance. In fact, the New Testament has more manuscript support than any other ancient document. There are thousands of copies from the first and second century, and they all say the same thing. Nothing was altered.

Actually, the errors, omissions and contradictions in the various bibles refute your attempts at partisan apologetics.

Give me one example.

One?

The Catholic Bible contains Old Testament books that the Protestant Bible does not.

Another?

Codex Sinaiticus- one of the two oldest surviving manuscripts and there are hundreds of variances from your 'Bible'
This is just a small example
In John 1:1–8:38 Codex Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus and all other Alexandrian manuscripts. It is in closer agreement with Codex Bezae in support of the Western text-type. For example, in John 1:4 Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae are the only Greek manuscripts with textual variant ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἐστίν (in him is life) instead of ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ᾓν (in him was life). This variant is supported by Vetus Latina and some Sahidic manuscripts. This portion has a large number of corrections.[56] There are a number of differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; Hoskier enumerated 3036 differences:


Matt–656
Mark–567
Luke–791
John–1022
Total—3036.[5

OMG. In him is life vs in him was life. How can anyone overcome this chasm of translation difficulty?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just want to point out the simple fact that science has no clue about how, or even why, the universe exists. They have proven nothing. So my myth is just as valid as yours. Isn't it?

Simple facts for simpletons.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

Can you tell us how and why the universe exists? NO! You cannot. So what makes you the expert? There may well have been a big bang. No one knows for sure. But even if there was was, you have no idea how or why it happened. God is just as valid a theory as anything science can come up with. Tell me I'm wrong.

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

False.

There are no 2,000 year old copies. Not of the New Testament.

And the Old Testament? The Protestant and Catholic Bibles differ. As does the Jewish- compare the 10 commandments for example

Protestant

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God gives thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Jewish

1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honor of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Honestly, what's this website you copy from? I want to read it for a great laugh.

 

[Syriusly]

Simple facts for simpletons.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

Can you tell us how and why the universe exists? NO! You cannot. So what makes you the expert? There may well have been a big bang. No one knows for sure. But even if there was was, you have no idea how or why it happened. God is just as valid a theory as anything science can come up with. Tell me I'm wrong.

It is exactly the "how" questions that science addresses.

Can you tell us why the Christian gawds allowed their bibles to be altered by the corruptible hand of man?

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have invented countless elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

There has been no alteration, the secretaries were accurate. 2,000 year old copies match what we have today.

Obviously false. That's the same nonsensical claim made by Moslems. Their propaganda is no different than yours.

Your evidence of alteration - zero
My evidence - the discovery of the 2,000 year old Dead Scrolls - zero changes found.

Pure science.

The Dead Sea Scrolls? Seriously. The Jewish Tanakh doesn't even agree with the Protestant Old Testament.

The Dead Sea Scrolls noted some of those difficulties.

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.[121

And of course this is the Old Testament- not the New Testament- the Dead Sea Scrolls doesn't have any of the New Testament.