JustCurious, you need to do far more research on who wrote what in the Bible my friend! Your information is all wrong. This is what bothers me about Christians, so many either haven’t read the whole Bible or haven’t done the proper research on it’s origin and history. I’ve consulted the works of not only atheists, but also religious scholars and clergymen turned atheist who know the Bible far better than any of us, myself included. But from everything I’ve studied, there are solid reasons for being a disbeliever.
1 Like
Sorry, I stopped reading there, @JustCurious has done no research, will do no research, has no interest in any research, he / she is as closed minded as it’s possible to be. @JustCurious ‘s responses demonstrate this unequivocally, just read his / her posts.
I am happy to cut anyone any amount of slack, being a middling intellect with a mediocre formal education myself, as long as they’re prepared to show any propensity towards an open mind, but @JustCurious is as closed minded a theist as I’ve encountered, and wants to pretend it’s the other way around, a not uncommon tactic among religious apologists…
He/she, can’t even be bothered to explain why he/she thinks a deity exists, beyond pointing at reality, and blithely stating “why isn’t this enough?”.
Then sulking when anyone asks why?
1 Like
Gads. Injured me self again with that ROLMAOWF.
Do you know not what contradiction means?
Franklin
All I see is letters on a monitor screen. Not proof you are real.
Franklin
I would surmise, that if this is a person, they are a delusional, bat-shit crazy, Troll.
If a person, it is a complete, as we would say where I was raised, moronic Religitard.
Secrets Exposed.
Franklin
Good afternoon, MrDawn:
Thanks for asking me a personal question instead of just lambasting me and my beliefs. So, I’ll do my best to answer your question: trusting that you were sincere in asking it.
First, my two sisters and I were abandoned by our biological parents while still quite young. Then, we were adopted into a very dysfunctional home where the adoptive mom constantly beat us with broom handles, the buckle end of a belt, etc.–in addition to continual emotional and mental abuse.
Needless to say, by age seven I’d been abandoned and abused–and felt that no one cared about me. But, it was at a little country church in a revival where I heard the story of Jesus dying for me on the cross: and I was so overwhelmed by such great Love that I gave my heart to Him. Now, some 66 years later. . .after so many years of reading the Bible through annually. . .receiving a bachelor’s and master’s degree in theology. . .studying Hebrew and Greek. . .serving overseas as a missionary for 10 years. . .and retiring with 27+ years as an Air Force chaplain. . .I’m more convinced of God’s existence now than I was at age seven.
That’s why I’ve found it hard to understand why some believe He doesn’t exist or it’s impossible for us to have a personal relationship with Him. Again, after almost 58 years of preaching and 30+ years of reading the Bible through annually, my Faith is strong and deeply grounded in God’s Word, the Bible.
Throughout all these years–particularly as a missionary and chaplain–I’ve realized my job is not to convince or “convert” someone that what I’m saying is true. That’s the work of God’s Spirit. I’m simply to tell others what He’s done for me and what the Bible has to say about Him, His Plan for our lives, Who Jesus is, etc.
Anyway, that’s probably a longer answer than you wanted, but hopefully it helps you better understand why I believe the way I do. Thanks for asking.
Except you have not done that at all, but instead made an endless string of unevidenced assertions for evidence of a deity.
FYI, it’s a mistake many apologists and theists make, but atheism is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. The impossibility of having a “relationship” with something you don’t believe exists, should be self explanatory.
I’ve read nothing in it that comes close to objective evidence for a deity, the tragic story of your upbringing, sounds more like the belief is an emotional one, rather than one based on any objective evidence, which I have found is generally the case.
For those who wish to read the bible objectively, rather through biased emotion, this site list errors in the bible and koran:
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/outline.html
Here’s a little taster from the Genesis creation myth in the bible:
“In the beginning (1:1-2:3)
Compare with Gen 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.
The earth and “heaven” are created together “in the beginning,” whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.8 billion years old, respectively.
Also in the first creation account, the earth is created before light, sun and stars; birds and whales before reptiles and insects; and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.”
2 Likes
Good morning, Sheldon.
As I read your comments and taking issue with most everything I said, my heart ached within me: for you so easily (and readily) sought to discredit my statements and beliefs. But, that doesn’t disprove them or cause me to react negatively toward you; if anything, I feel deep sorrow: because I have personally experienced God’s Love and transforming Power–as have millions of others down through the centuries.
Contrary to your opinions (and beliefs), my beliefs aren’t emotional ones; instead, they are transformative ones that have helped me to better understand life, what’s real and what’s not. Consequently, I have inward hope and peace, which the world can’t give or take away.
Yes, my worth as an individual isn’t dependent upon others’ opinions (yours or others’); neither is it rooted in my attainments and acquisitions–for those are temporary, soon forgotten and always susceptible to “rust, rot and robbers” (even as yours are).
Instead of approaching matters of Faith, the Bible, etc., as a small child would–with an open mind and teachable spirit–you’ve chosen to try and continually find fault with them. It’s like the professor who walked up to the white board and drew a tiny, black dot in the center–and then asked the students “What do you see??” And, almost everyone of them said “A black dot” instead of focusing on all the white space surrounding it.
Such is the nature we’re born with: for it was no accident that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden came from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Yes, by nature, we’re cynical fault-finders who “want to be as God:” believing the devil’s lie and sitting in the “seat of the scornful.”
But, that still doesn’t disprove or negate Truth: for it isn’t affected by our beliefs or unbelief. So, I can only hope that you’ll trust in the One Who created you so He can open your eyes that have been “blinded by the god of this world.”
Ive watched your replies with interest…you claim to have ‘qualifications’ in biblical studies…but I note that you dont claim to have researched the actual history of whichever collection of texts you think is inerrant.
My question is: Why do think that your chosen version of the bible ( collected texts) is the one that contains your chosen truth?
1 Like
You know this is a public debate forum right?
Since you have entirely ignored all of the objections to your claims, I am dubious, but others can decide if your claims stand up to objective scrutiny. Some of them demonstrably have not. The important point that escapes you, is that rationally no one has to disprove your claims, the onus is entirely on you to demonstrate sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence for them, and everyone can see that can’t, even you know this, which is why you’ve not tried.
Again this bare unevidenced claim is disbelieved in the same fashion it is offered, Hitchen’s razor applied. I can post identical claims from people who believe in entirely different religions and deities, or for people claiming they have seen a mermaid, do you believe their claims for personal experience? I am guessing not, and that is of course bias, and not an open minded rationale.
Your post above suggests they are, and since none of your posts contain any objective evidence this again suggests they are, they’re certainly not based on any evidentiary standard, all you have offered is question begging and circular reason.
Another entirely unevidenced claim.
Obviously this does not evidence a deity, since one can have hope and inner peace without theistic belief. Also those are clearly some of the emotions you are basing those beliefs on, which you just denied?
I am not a small child, so it would be silly to base my beliefs on childish reasoning, nor have I shown any bias for or against any claims or beliefs, I set the same evidentiary standard for them all without bias or favour, which is the definition of an open mind. You of course do not, and base your beliefs on claims for personal subjective experience, as do many others who believe in wildly different deities and religions, without any objective evidence this is simply bias. “Teachable spirit” there just sounds like someone who accepts ideas uncritically, so no I have no use for such bias, as my concern is the truth, and bias is not an efficacious way to establish truth, sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence is far more reliable way to validate claims.
I have no idea what this analogy is meant to achieve, but I can only address the claims you make, and have done so, and they are all unsupported by any objective evidence and not to be unkind, but it is clear from some of your posts that you don’t seem to understand the difference between a bare subjective claim, such as “the intricacy in nature is evidence for a deity”, and objective evidence for an extant deity.
So you’re preaching, I don’t care for that, and the Genesis creation myth is filled with erroneous claims, and is at odds with scientific facts, some have been explained, and I provided a link to a site that offered a list and posted some, but you just ignored them and quoted the myth to me, I am curious what you think this will achieve in a debate forum? More importantly you have offered no objective evidence any deity exists or created anything. FWIW I don’t believe in supernatural demons either, and for the same reason.
Truth
definition:
“Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.”
You have not offered any fact or anything about objective reality that evidences a deity, just endless circular reasoning, and unevidenced claims. So it’s amusing to see you try and pretend that you alone here are seeking the truth. Especially as you set the lowest possible bar, personal subjective emotional experience. You already know this fails as well, as we can see the countless deities and religions humans have imagined using personal experience that you don’t believe are real, indeed must believe do not exist if you think the deity you imagine is the only one that exists. Christianity alone has over 45k different sects and denominations globally, that does not suggest it is a reliable method for ascertaining truth now does it.
Ah, it seems @Old_man_shouts_at_cl beat me to this point. The answer is likely going to be subjective bias, I’d bet my house on it, as it always is.
1 Like
@JustCurious, serious question…why are you posting here? What is your purpose in doing so?
Good question, CyberLN. The purpose has been to hopefully shed some light into the willful darkness that exists in here; but, it seems such is both futile and foolish when hearts are hardened against the very One you all say doesn’t exist.
So, it seems my time would be better spent talking with those who are seekers of Truth, not deniers of it. However, I’d still encourage all those who frequent this forum to check out books like A Case for God by Lee Strobel, Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace and I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek. And, of course, there are all the writings of C.S. Lewis, who was also a hardened atheist before he was “surprised by joy” and became an ardent follower of the very One he previously denied and despised.
Here’s hoping that you all, like the above-cited authors, will one day come to realize that the universe doesn’t revolve around you–and one of these days you will stand before the One Who created you and is the Final Judge of us all: and realize you were wrong and “without excuse” (Rom. 1:18-32; Rev. 20:11-15).
Farewell once again.
What an arrogant piece of self aggrandizing, and you had the bare faced cheek to claim I was being condescending, just because I asked you to evidence your endless vapid claims.
I am not sure anyone made that claim in this exchange, I am certain we haven’t all said it. It seems your degree in theology failed to help you understand what atheism means, or how to use a dictionary, or the difference between disbelieving a claim and making a contrary claim.
More arrogance, more dishonesty, and the random capital T is simply hilarious.
Now that is proselytising, it seems all pretence of debate has gone.
Another tedious straw man. You’re the one who believes the genesis fairy tale, that your magic sky daddy created the entire universe with you in mind after all, so another irony overload in this latest lie.
I didn’t believe that before you came here, and since your posts are some of the poorest apologetics I’ve ever encountered, I am hardly likely to have changed my mind. Though I would have bet my house again, that you’d eventually get around to this tired old vapid threat, apologists usually do when their sermons get no purchase here, I am as scared of hell as I am of fire breathing dragons, and for the same reason.
That’s easily the third time you’ve pretended to flounce, at this point you’ve been so dishonest I wouldn’t believe any claim you made. I do hope you didn’t pay for the degree you claim to have in theology, if you did and this showing reflects the level of apologetics you were taught, I think you might have a strong case in asking for a refund, but then you are selling a product you can’t demonstrate exists in any remotely objective way.
Well, it’s good this poster is leaving voluntarily. They didn’t seem to understand that this is a debate forum, not a pulpit.
@JustCurious, in case you’re actually lurking instead of departed, preaching is not allowed or appreciated here. Folks who want to have debate style conversations without proselytizing are encouraged to stay. If, in the future, you choose to return, please understand that you will be escorted to the door if you engage in preaching rather than debate.
1 Like
Although to make this distinct from, e.g., some conspiracy theorist saying “do your own research, people” we mean actual, literal research – the gathering of facts and evidence rather than cherry picking to feed confirmation bias. We’re talking about critical, skeptical investigation. Actual facts can stand up to that. If Christians have actual facts, they should not fear it. And yet they do fear it. They have to treat religious faith like the fragile tender flower that it is – it is killed by the slightest whiff of rational inquiry. Curious, that.
1 Like
Also includes the Book of Mormon and Bhagavad Gita.
Almost shows religious texts as a whole ARE self-contradictory.
Franklin
JustCurious,
I am guessing you know nothing of the scientific method? Even top dog apologists freely admit that the scientific method is the only method which determines truth. Truth as close as us primitive apes can get. And truth always has objective hard empirical evidence. For what is ANY claim not backed by evidence other than a false statement? A lie, by any other word.
You have offered absolutely no evidence other than some rather rotten word salad.
Without any vinaigrette to hide the bad taste.
“Where IS Your evidence?”
That question alone completely debunks any claim.
Franklin
Always amazes me that many of the proselytising faith merchants are so reluctant to confess exactly which version/translation/edition of the collected texts misleadingly labelled as ‘the’ bible they claim as their inspiration.
They redirect, avoid and even just ignore the question…almost as if they have no confidence in the texts they espouse…anyone have any light to shed on this?
1 Like
I think their belief is an emotional one, and at its core requires them to be uncritical of the source material, to accept it is ultimately true, even where it deviates from, or is directly contradicted by objective facts. That’s certainly what we have seen from @JustCurious in this thread.
Just look at the way he has reacted to critical examinations of the text.
See how he evades the point entirely, and offers just a vague unevidenced claim, and an equally vague reference to an author / book. This is little more than handwaving.
Again @JustCurious completely ignored the point being made, just offered a bare denial and redirection.
NB If you follow the link, you will notice that despite this dishonesty, I carefully answered his questions, and then he just entirely ignored the answers, so he had no real interest in the answers, only in evading the original point that the authorship of the canonical gospel myths is unknown, and the names were assigned by early church leaders almost 200 years after the events they purport to describe.
If you scroll down from there you will see he never even attempted to address this honestly.
That was his response, he just moved right along and evaded the point entirely with vague speculation about his own personal feeling / emotions of a godless universe.
There aren’t significant differences between the various English translations, or at least those with credible scholarship – so that would exclude the New World Translation commissioned by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has made a few select tweaks to suit their non-Trinitarian and annihilationist teachings which diverge from mainstream Christianity. Other than that however I would guess most Christians would just not understand the question. What differences are you getting at?
Another thing I see a lot of in atheists critiques is the confusion between “different translations” and differences in original manuscripts. But all translations are based on what are considered the best / oldest manuscripts and fragments available at the time. The Textus Receptus in the case of the KJV, Hort & Westcott for more recent translations, etc.
IMO the only time this really becomes an actual issue is with situations like the last “chapter” of the Gospel of Mark, which even literalist./ inerrantist scholars admit was a much later addition that probably should be ignored, and the splinter groups that accept that addition produces your snake handlers and poison-drinkers, etc.
It’s my view that there is so much fabulist nonsense in the Bible to have a field day with that I would not be invested in critiquing their translations. And besides, the REAL divergence isn’t in translations, it is in their varied interpretational systems. A hundred Christians read the same passage and get at lest 35 substantively different takes on it. They spend time arguing amongst themselves about it. Calvinism vs Arminianism, pre-, mid- and post-tribulationists, standard and hyper-dispensationalists, free will vs the divine soverignty, etc. These mutually exclusive teachings don’t come from different translations; they come from different teachers / proponents.
Some are even invented out of whole cloth. The “age of accountability” is just a hack to avoid a huge practical problem of what to tell grieving parents of dead children. The concept of the rapture was invented in the 1830s based on abusing and torturing various scriptures. Etc etc. Oh and how about speaking in tongues! (The irony in these examples is rich: many fundamentalist / inerrantist / literalist Christians subscribe to all three notions, and none are in the Bible, they are all concocted and then retrconned back onto scripture).
And you might ask the Jews about Christians abusing the Torah to produce “messianic prophecies” from passages that aren’t even claiming to make predictions or in some cases were referring to contemporary figures or events.
1 Like