If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Krimsin]

Originally Posted by Pycoba_rng [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The funny thing is. You don't believe in god... Thefore anything you say about him and the bible means jack shit. Usually before you argue on a subject matter , you should probably have a background in it. How long have you studied the bible or religon for that matter? What books have you read?

I do believe in god, just not the one in anyone's silly book.

I was very religious when I was younger. But once you realize that the bible decouples from reality in so many ways you'll quickly find that study of it is useless if you seek to find the true nature of god. The bible, clearly written by man, exposes god as carrying the same backward mindedness of man. Where a study of nature will clearly show that the construction of the universe is one of precise functions. Starting off with seeming nothingness and building to massive expanses.

Originally Posted by Pycoba_rng [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your telling me you base your entire belief system on science or modern logic? Don't argue with those that know god or the bible. When you know nuthing about it. You don't even have a relationship with god. Your arguments and words are meaningless. Clearly you thought this through and questioned god way to many times. You should find the courage to put your money where you mouth is. Attend a church study the bible for a couple years. Maybe then you could have a say in a argument. For now your talk is cheap and meaningless to anyone who disagrees with you. The only people you will find that agree are ignorant people who have yet to discover any good that comes from bibles and religon.

Can you be all over the place more often? First off you claim my mindset is meaningless and proclaim I don't have a relationship with god because I've never attended church (which I have numerous times, of numerous denominations and faiths). Then you go on to say I've thought this through and questioned the nature of god, which I obviously have. But wouldn't that lend some semblance of meaning and credence to my views?

Regardless. I hope you are able to lose the rigidity of your belief structure and can come to fully understand the brilliant expanse that is the world around you.

[mitic]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gukag]

Originally Posted by Kassel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Becouse they are the only people currently engaged in on the pro religion side of the debate.

Completely false. You're all limited by your perspectives. Obviously someone living in the US or Western Europe will be way more familiar with christianity than any other religion. If you look at atheists from, say, Turkey, they overwhelmingly bash the crap out of Islam. Atheism in China as spread out in the cultural revolution had almost nothing to do with christianity and focused almost exclusively on buddhism and confucianism. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out why.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Originally Posted by Kassel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The old Testament doesn't count.
The new Testament doesn't count.

Both written by men for power well after the supposed events had passed.

So we should ignore most every history book or book written about past events unless they are written by someone who was actually there huh? Makes sense to me...NOT!

(You do realize that thousands of History scholars even agree that many of the events in the bible are historically accurate and coincide with accepted historical teachings.)

[soup]

Originally Posted by Gukag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Completely false. You're all limited by your perspectives. Obviously someone living in the US or Western Europe will be way more familiar with christianity than any other religion. If you look at atheists from, say, Turkey, they overwhelmingly bash the crap out of Islam. Atheism in China as spread out in the cultural revolution had almost nothing to do with christianity and focused almost exclusively on buddhism and confucianism. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out why.

Uhh, I think you're confused.

He's saying Christianity is the only one represented on the pro-religion side in this thread.

[soup]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(You do realize that thousands of History scholars even agree that many of the events in the bible are historically accurate and coincide with accepted historical teachings.)

Care to backup this horribly inaccurate and misleading claim?

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(You do realize that thousands of History scholars even agree that many of the events in the bible are historically accurate and coincide with accepted historical teachings.)

Please enlighten us.

[Kassel]

So we should ignore most every history book or book written about past events unless they are written by someone who was actually there huh? Makes sense to me...NOT!

Would you try to navigate the world with a map of a flat earth? How about a 2000 year old medical journal to save your young childs life?

Completely false. You're all limited by your perspectives

There is no prespectives here ...read the fucking thread and please pass what you are smoking

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Originally Posted by soup [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Care to backup this horribly inaccurate and misleading claim?

Here are some examples:

* Clay Tablet, Ebla. Photo copyrighted.The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

* The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

* Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

* It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

* Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

[Massive Marc]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here are some examples:

* Clay Tablet, Ebla. Photo copyrighted.The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

* The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

* Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

* It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

* Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

Lol@christananswers.com