Is there a god?

[PLAYER57832]

So the entire bible is allegory?

No.

[natty dread]

So parts of it are literal, and parts are allegory?

So how can you tell which is which? Who gets to decide, and why isn't it specified anywhere?

[PLAYER57832]

So parts of it are literal, and parts are allegory?

So how can you tell which is which? Who gets to decide, and why isn't it specified anywhere?

We have been through this plenty of times before. Its the Bible, not a chemistry formula.

[natty dread]

That doesn't answer my question.

[PLAYER57832]

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it does. As does the previous multiple posts on the matter, which I don't care to repeat at the moment.

The Bible is not written how YOU would prefer. Too bad. It is what it is. That doesn't mean its stupid or just wrong or anything else.

Read it or don't, but belittling it and people who do read it is in appropriate.

[comic boy]

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it does. As does the previous multiple posts on the matter, which I don't care to repeat at the moment.

The Bible is not written how YOU would prefer. Too bad. It is what it is. That doesn't mean its stupid or just wrong or anything else.

Read it or don't, but belittling it and people who do read it is in appropriate.

I agree that belittling people is poor form , nowhere near as bad though as using text interpretations to scare/ control/torture/ murder people.

[PLAYER57832]

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it does. As does the previous multiple posts on the matter, which I don't care to repeat at the moment.

The Bible is not written how YOU would prefer. Too bad. It is what it is. That doesn't mean its stupid or just wrong or anything else.

Read it or don't, but belittling it and people who do read it is in appropriate.

I agree that belittling people is poor form , nowhere near as bad though as using text interpretations to scare/ control/torture/ murder people.

Of course, but don't try to claim only those claiming Christianity have done that.

[natty dread]

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it does. As does the previous multiple posts on the matter, which I don't care to repeat at the moment.

The Bible is not written how YOU would prefer. Too bad. It is what it is. That doesn't mean its stupid or just wrong or anything else.

Read it or don't, but belittling it and people who do read it is in appropriate.

You're getting defensive and dodging the question.

1. you make the claim that bible is neither all literal, nor all allegorical.
2. therefore, parts of it must be literal and parts allegorical.
3. therefore, there must exist some kind of distinction that allows one to know which parts are literal and which are allegorical.

Yet, when I try to ask you how you can tell which parts are to be taken literally and which are not, you get extremely defensive, angry, and accuse me of "belittlling" and what else.

Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that you don't have an answer to the question? Or could it be that you don't want to clearly define which parts are supposed to be literal, because then the accuracy of those parts could be called to question?

[PLAYER57832]

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it does. As does the previous multiple posts on the matter, which I don't care to repeat at the moment.

The Bible is not written how YOU would prefer. Too bad. It is what it is. That doesn't mean its stupid or just wrong or anything else.

Read it or don't, but belittling it and people who do read it is in appropriate.

You're getting defensive and dodging the question.
?

Dodging?
I speant HOURS answering your posts, "questions" already. I am saying to back and read what I already wrote. I can recite almost all of what you said, by heart. You, apparently cannot even remember one word of what I said.

So don't talk to me about "respect". You have no interest in any honest debate.

Disdain for religion IS prejudice, plain and simple. At least people with belief admit they have a specific set of ideas. You try to play games, utterly disrespect anyone who disagrees with your narrow views and then, if someone decides not to play YOUR game.. trounce off as if you "won" something.

[natty dread]

We HAVE been through this EXACT debate earlier in this thread, even. Do you think my answer will somehow change or that somehow asking it again will somehow make your "arguments" more sensible? Read back if you really care.

No, I don't think we have. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. I've never had a straight answer to this question.

And you haven't shown why my arguments are not "sensible", you're just angrily shouting "those are stupid questions, I've already answered them before, now stop belittling my beliefs!"

and the reason I get frustrated is because I HAVE said the EXACT same thing over and over and over. Yet, rather than simply saying "OK, we just disagree here". YOU must continue to try and insist that you are better, more intelligent and that not just I, but anyone who actually reads the Bible and pays attentions is basically a backwards idiot.

Those are your words, not mine.

So, yes, I am getting not just "defensive", but plain angry. Prejudice AGAINST religion is still prejudice. At least those with religion acknowledge they have a specific belief.

I haven't even talked about your religion. I'm just honestly curious, how do you determine what parts of bible are literal and what parts are allegory?

Or is it that everyone gets to interpret the bible whatever way they please, and decide for themselves which parts are literal and which aren't? Is it all just a matter of faith?

Come on, there must be some answer to this.

[john9blue]

so what was wrong with what i said? do atheists have evidence of their beliefs, or even acknowledge that they need evidence?

"Atheists" are not a homogenous group with the same opinions and ideas. See, there's no patriarch telling atheists what to think. The only thing in common to all atheists is that they do not believe in the existence of any gods.

yes they are. every atheist has the same idea about god by definition. plus the modern atheist movement has a great deal of dogma. you would notice this if you argued against atheists often. 95% of them use the exact same arguments, even boiling down to the same metaphors (pink unicorn, FSM, etc.) and the same quotes by the same admired atheist leaders. if anything this "groupthink" mentality by the modern atheist movement should be a clue that they function similarly to a religion and that maybe it's not as "logical" as you'd like to believe.

[natty dread]

yes they are. every atheist has the same idea about god by definition.

Nope, the only common factor is that atheists don't believe in the existence of one. Some atheists make a positive claim that no god exists, and others don't make that claim but don't believe that one does.

plus the modern atheist movement has a great deal of dogma.

Such as?

you would notice this if you argued against atheists often. 95% of them use the exact same arguments, even boiling down to the same metaphors (pink unicorn, FSM, etc.) and the same quotes by the same admired atheist leaders.

Oh boy, you're really grasping straws here. Using the same argument or metaphor as someone else doesn't count as dogma. There's no one on this earth who can claim to have 100% original thoughts. Everyone has to build their thoughts on previous ideas, because that's the only way we can learn. To use this as an argument that "atheists engage in groupthink" is simply disingenious and only serves to show your bias against people whose viewpoints you disagree with.

Furthermore, there are no "atheist leaders". There is no one who's in a position of authority to all atheists - certainly, many people can look up to and admire some atheists who have accomplished a lot, but even that is usually based on their merits, not some arbitrary organizational hierarchy.

if anything this "groupthink" mentality by the modern atheist movement should be a clue that they function similarly to a religion and that maybe it's not as "logical" as you'd like to believe.

Oh yeah, it's much more logical to just sit on the sidelines and feel smugly superior to everyone else, going "duhhh, you people use the same words than those other people! why don't you make up your own words, you unoriginal sheeples!"

[john9blue]

Nope, the only common factor is that atheists don't believe in the existence of one.

so i'm right, then.

Oh boy, you're really grasping straws here. Using the same argument or metaphor as someone else doesn't count as dogma. There's no one on this earth who can claim to have 100% original thoughts. Everyone has to build their thoughts on previous ideas, because that's the only way we can learn. To use this as an argument that "atheists engage in groupthink" is simply disingenious and only serves to show your bias against people whose viewpoints you disagree with.

everyone in the world uses groupthink in some manner. but not all of them pretend to be "logical freethinkers" who can think rationally and individually (lol). that is a misconception spread by atheists to make themselves feel smarter.

Furthermore, there are no "atheist leaders". There is no one who's in a position of authority to all atheists - certainly, many people can look up to and admire some atheists who have accomplished a lot, but even that is usually based on their merits, not some arbitrary organizational hierarchy.

Furthermore, there are no "Christian leaders". There is no one who's in a position of authority to all Christians - certainly, many people can look up to and admire some Christians who have accomplished a lot, but even that is usually based on their merits, not some arbitrary organizational hierarchy.

[natty dread]

so i'm right, then.

Well, I know you're going to keep pretending that you are, so whatever.

everyone in the world uses groupthink in some manner. but not all of them pretend to be "logical freethinkers" who can think rationally and individually (lol). that is a misconception spread by atheists to make themselves feel smarter.

Another straw-argument against straw-atheists. No atheists I know pretend that their every thought is rational and individual.

Also, just because someone doesn't have 100% original views and ideas, doesn't mean that someone cannot think critically and rationally about things. You're confusing concepts here: The originality of the idea itself doesn't matter, what matters is how you came to that conclusion. If you came to it by applying critical thinking and rationality, then you're being much more rational than if you simply blindly believed what someone else told you.

Furthermore, there are no "Christian leaders". There is no one who's in a position of authority to all Christians - certainly, many people can look up to and admire some Christians who have accomplished a lot, but even that is usually based on their merits, not some arbitrary organizational hierarchy.

So I guess the office of Pope is purely ceremonial and has no effect on any catholics' lives, then.

[john9blue]

Well, I know you're going to keep pretending that you are, so whatever.

so i'm right, then.

Another straw-argument against straw-atheists. No atheists I know pretend that their every thought is rational and individual.

Also, just because someone doesn't have 100% original views and ideas, doesn't mean that someone cannot think critically and rationally about things. You're confusing concepts here: The originality of the idea itself doesn't matter, what matters is how you came to that conclusion. If you came to it by applying critical thinking and rationality, then you're being much more rational than if you simply blindly believed what someone else told you.

i never said they did and i never said they couldn't. you're taking what i say and rewording it in an extreme way, then disproving the extreme statement. sign of desperation?

So I guess the office of Pope is purely ceremonial and has no effect on any catholics' lives, then.

i like how you went from "christian" to "catholic". i wonder if it was an effort to dodge my point, or if you are genuinely ignorant of the difference between the two.

[comic boy]

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it does. As does the previous multiple posts on the matter, which I don't care to repeat at the moment.

The Bible is not written how YOU would prefer. Too bad. It is what it is. That doesn't mean its stupid or just wrong or anything else.

Read it or don't, but belittling it and people who do read it is in appropriate.

I agree that belittling people is poor form , nowhere near as bad though as using text interpretations to scare/ control/torture/ murder people.

Of course, but don't try to claim only those claiming Christianity have done that.

Why would I do that , Gods and religious texts are not exclusive to one religion.

[pmchugh]

Christian, Protestant since I don't accept the Pope (or other tenets of the Roman Catholic faith). Beyond that my beliefs don't necessarily match any particular church exactly, though I am a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregation.

Do you believe the bible is the word of God?

oh BROTHER...
Of course I do, but written for a people without our current knowledge of science.

Jews, well before Christ, never mind Christians have NEVER had one, single idea about what those words mean. Anyone claiming to be the sole interpreter of the Bible is simply arrogant.

The Bible makes absolutely clear there is a God who created all, including humanity. But, it is not a scientific text and does not answer all scientific questions or provide what it does in a scientific way. The point of the creation story is that God is in charge, not a specific timeline or process by which God might or might not have made all.

While I understand that you don't have the ability to understand the bible perfectly can I ask how you satisfy your scientific mind concerning certain passages. How do you explain either metaphorically or otherwise passages that:

1. Advocate or give advice on slavery.
2. Say that women are to be silent in the church.
3. Advocate capital and corporal punishment, ranging from cutting peoples hands off to stoning them to death.
4. Say that the ultimate morally correct way to deal with blasphemers such as myself is eternal punishment.
5. Ask for God to be praised... why is he so selfish?
6. Talk of God taking revenge on millions of people via murder (e.g. the great flood, plagues, taking sides in wars etc.)

You also state that the Bible was written for people who had no idea about science, well now we have an idea about science and a lot of it contradicts what God has told us before. Why does he not come forth and give us all a helping hand to deal with his message?

P.S i highlighted your post nicely for you.

[Woodruff]

i agree that there is a possibility that the initial mass has always existed. that doesn't mean i believe it.
to justify your belief in that proposition, you need some kind of evidence.

How have you entirely missed the exact point I've been making for several posts now? Although since you snipped away the context, I suspect that you didn't miss it at all...

You are stating that in order to justify my belief in the initial mass always existing, I need some kind of evidence. AND YET, you have no evidence at all for justifying the belief that there is just as much a possibility of God. Why must I be required to show evidence for my belief yet you are not required to show evidence for your belief?

where did i ever say that my beliefs didn't require evidence? you either don't read my posts or you drastically misinterpret them

Well, you haven't PROVIDED any evidence while simultaneously requiring it of others...the obvious conclusion being that you either don't have any or didn't intend to provide any. Do you?

[pmchugh]

Leave john alone, he is an athiest too he is just shit scared of offending anyone

[Woodruff]

So parts of it are literal, and parts are allegory?

So how can you tell which is which? Who gets to decide, and why isn't it specified anywhere?

My mom always said that it was up to the individual to determine that, because religion should be a personal thing, not something someone else tells you about. I feel that's a reasonable position.

[natty dread]

natty dread wrote:Well, I know you're going to keep pretending that you are, so whatever.

so i'm right, then.

Wow, I must have precognition.

i never said they did and i never said they couldn't. you're taking what i say and rewording it in an extreme way, then disproving the extreme statement. sign of desperation?

Oh, look who's backpedaling already.

but not all of them pretend to be "logical freethinkers" who can think rationally and individually (lol). that is a misconception spread by atheists to make themselves feel smarter.

So, care to enlighten me what you were actually trying to say with this statement?

i like how you went from "christian" to "catholic". i wonder if it was an effort to dodge my point, or if you are genuinely ignorant of the difference between the two.

Catholics are a subset of Christians. Do you dispute this?

[Woodruff]

so what was wrong with what i said? do atheists have evidence of their beliefs, or even acknowledge that they need evidence?

"Atheists" are not a homogenous group with the same opinions and ideas. See, there's no patriarch telling atheists what to think. The only thing in common to all atheists is that they do not believe in the existence of any gods.

yes they are. every atheist has the same idea about god by definition.

Your definition sucks, because that's absolutely not true.

plus the modern atheist movement has a great deal of dogma. you would notice this if you argued against atheists often. 95% of them use the exact same arguments, even boiling down to the same metaphors (pink unicorn, FSM, etc.) and the same quotes by the same admired atheist leaders. if anything this "groupthink" mentality by the modern atheist movement should be a clue that they function similarly to a religion and that maybe it's not as "logical" as you'd like to believe.

So then you believe that all of the scientists that talk about the Theory of Relativity (for instance) are just full of the same dogma, "groupthink" and lacking in logic because they all talk about it the same way? You're not being very rational here.

[john9blue]

i agree that there is a possibility that the initial mass has always existed. that doesn't mean i believe it.
to justify your belief in that proposition, you need some kind of evidence.

How have you entirely missed the exact point I've been making for several posts now? Although since you snipped away the context, I suspect that you didn't miss it at all...

You are stating that in order to justify my belief in the initial mass always existing, I need some kind of evidence. AND YET, you have no evidence at all for justifying the belief that there is just as much a possibility of God. Why must I be required to show evidence for my belief yet you are not required to show evidence for your belief?

where did i ever say that my beliefs didn't require evidence? you either don't read my posts or you drastically misinterpret them

Well, you haven't PROVIDED any evidence while simultaneously requiring it of others...the obvious conclusion being that you either don't have any or didn't intend to provide any. Do you?

are you talking about my "belief" that the odds of god/no god are 50/50? that's not a belief, that's the actual default position that people should take on the god question until relevant evidence is provided by either side.

[Woodruff]

Well, I know you're going to keep pretending that you are, so whatever.

so i'm right, then.

You cut out a significant portion of his answer and then claim that he agrees with you? How fucking dishonest ARE you, John?

[Woodruff]

i agree that there is a possibility that the initial mass has always existed. that doesn't mean i believe it.
to justify your belief in that proposition, you need some kind of evidence.

How have you entirely missed the exact point I've been making for several posts now? Although since you snipped away the context, I suspect that you didn't miss it at all...

You are stating that in order to justify my belief in the initial mass always existing, I need some kind of evidence. AND YET, you have no evidence at all for justifying the belief that there is just as much a possibility of God. Why must I be required to show evidence for my belief yet you are not required to show evidence for your belief?

where did i ever say that my beliefs didn't require evidence? you either don't read my posts or you drastically misinterpret them

Well, you haven't PROVIDED any evidence while simultaneously requiring it of others...the obvious conclusion being that you either don't have any or didn't intend to provide any. Do you?

are you talking about my "belief" that the odds of god/no god are 50/50? that's not a belief, that's the actual default position that people should take on the god question until relevant evidence is provided by either side.

"the default position that people should take"...do you even pay attention to your own words? So provide evidence WHY that "should be" the default position. I maintain that "the default position" should be that there is no God until I can be shown that there very likely is one.