• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like the Morrow quote.

And that's another truth.

But I'm not arguing against atheism, ataraxia. I'm arguing for religion. For the importance of religion in the lives of perfectly rational human beings. Indeed for the human need for religion. :)

Is it religion that is needed, but a connection to the community, and to a sense of purpose?
 
Is it religion that is needed, but a connection to the community, and to a sense of purpose?
Religion contributes to both a sense of community and a sense of purpose. But religion provides something deeper and more personal, a connection to the cosmos. :)
 
Religion contributes to both a sense of community and a sense of purpose. But religion provides something deeper and more personal, a connection to the cosmos. :)

Does it?? Can you prove this?? IT seems that 'provides something deeper and more personal, a connection to the cosmos' is a subjective opinion. I would say that you can speak for yourself, and I am sure many will agree. However, it seems to me that many atheists also have that sense of awe and connectiion to the cosmos, they just don't call it religion. It is an emotional reaction, to be sure, but it does not to have the implications that religion does.
 
Does it?? Can you prove this?? IT seems that 'provides something deeper and more personal, a connection to the cosmos' is a subjective opinion. I would say that you can speak for yourself, and I am sure many will agree. However, it seems to me that many atheists also have that sense of awe and connectiion to the cosmos, they just don't call it religion. It is an emotional reaction, to be sure, but it does not to have the implications that religion does.
Again with the Prove business! First you prove to me that you exist, yes?

In this post you dismiss my subjective opinion about religion, and then proceed to give your subjective opinion about atheism. Should yours be dismissed as well? :)
 
Again with the Prove business! First you prove to me that you exist, yes?

In this post you dismiss my subjective opinion about religion, and then proceed to give your subjective opinion about atheism. Should yours be dismissed as well? :)

Well, I am typing to you, and you are reading my words, therefore that is evidence. As for my subjective opinion about atheism, I can only go by what some atheists have said about their 'connection to the universe', and their using such phrases as 'we are bits of the universe that have become self aware', and other emotional comments that reflect the same kind of emotional connection that people who claim 'spirituality' have. Because of this, I can only conclude while religion gives the emotional connection structure, as well as giving the community and purpose structure, and I have observed that people who are atheists quite often have the same kind of emotional reactions, as well as a community connection and a sense of purpose that religion is helpful for many, but not required for all.
 
I would do the same, and then say my prayers alone at home. :)

Urban Legend perhaps, but a truth about human nature nevertheless, your counterexample to the contrary notwithstanding.

Not truth at all. Just wishful thinking for believers that atheism is so weak. Do the people in foxholes behave as if they are expecting eternal bliss and happiness to arrive any minute?
 
Not truth at all. Just wishful thinking for believers that atheism is so weak. Do the people in foxholes behave as if they are expecting eternal bliss and happiness to arrive any minute?
Facing imminent death, it is only human, except in Southern England, to pray. ;)
 
Of course, this is a one-way street for me. I'm showing The Abrahamic/Christian God exists!
I've got many evidences to back it up.

If this 'god' exist he or it or whatever is a very very evil god by human standard and that is a conclusion I came to at roughly ten or eleven years of age after reading the family King Jame Bible.
 
Facing imminent death, it is only human, except in Southern England, to pray. ;)

Not so. As many atheist and agnostic veterans from around the world including the USA will tell anyone who asks. Believers never ask, only assume to comfort themselves.

These people who pray in foxholes, what are they praying for at the time? Life or death?
 
Facing imminent death, it is only human, except in Southern England, to pray. ;)

Not really. It seems more cultural than just human. Here is an account of one of David Hume's friends, a fellow by the name of James Boswell, at Hume's bedside a few days before his death (this is back in the 18th century):

I [James] asked him if it was not possible that there might be a future state. He answered it was possible that a piece of coal put upon the fire would not burn; and he added that it was a most unreasonable, but understandable, fancy that we should exist for ever. That immortality, if it were at all, must be general; that a great proportion of the human race has hardly any intellectual qualities; that a great proportion dies in infancy before being possessed of reason; yet all these must be immortal; that a porter who gets drunk by ten o'clock with gin must be immortal; that the trash of every age must be preserved, and that new universes must be created to contain such infinite numbers. This appeared to me an unphilosophical objection...


I [James] asked him if the thought of annihilation never gave him any uneasiness. He said not the least; no more than the thought that he had not been, as Lucretius observes.
Hume's death bed confession ~ Ravings and Ranting
 
Last edited:
Religion contributes to both a sense of community and a sense of purpose. But religion provides something deeper and more personal, a connection to the cosmos. :)

Here is a poem by Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in physics, and atheist. Reading the poem, I definitely sense that he feels that personal connection to the cosmos:

I stand at the seashore, alone, and start to think.
There are the rushing waves
mountains of molecules
each stupidly minding its own business
trillions apart
yet forming white surf in unison.
Ages on ages
before any eyes could see
year after year
thunderously pounding the shore as now.
For whom, for what?
On a dead planet
with no life to entertain.

Never at rest
tortured by energy
wasted prodigiously by the sun
poured into space.
A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea
all molecules repeat
the patterns of one another
till complex new ones are formed.
They make others like themselves
and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity
living things
masses of atoms
DNA, protein
dancing a pattern ever more intricate.

Out of the cradle
onto dry land
here it is
standing:
atoms with consciousness;
matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea,
wonders at wondering: I
a universe of atoms
an atom in the universe.
-Richard Feynman
 
The Bible.
[...]

Written by goat herders 2,500 years ago that knew nothing about anything. And then, it was edited countless times by religious powerful leaders that had a definite interest in keeping the rest of the people under their command.

All religion is false by definition. They never want to prove their claims, therefore all religions are false by definition.

It's as simple as that! :)
 
This video addresses the arguments usually given by non-believers.

For those who want to discuss, please watch and we'll discuss the points given in this video on why we should trust the Bible.



Honesty test.

Telephone Test.

Corroboration test.







I've heard them all before. They don't really prove that Christianity is the one true religion, or that the Bible was written by God (using man). We can accept that Jesus lived and was thought of as a savior by those who became his disciples. That the Bible is a compilation of things written by more than a few people over many hundreds of years.

What is missing, but critical?
For me: Proof of the virgin birth. Proof of the resurrection of Jesus. Proof of creation as described in the Bible. Proof that we all descend from Adam. Without that last one, there can be no inheritance of "original sin" or need for God to create a savior.

I know Christians who argue that it all falls apart if you don't believe the "young earth" thing. They think that if you don't accept the universe being about 6,000 years old, you can't take the rest of the Bible literally. They don't want to question the literal truth of a single word of it.
 
This video addresses the arguments usually given by non-believers.

For those who want to discuss, please watch and we'll discuss the points given in this video on why we should trust the Bible.



Honesty test.

Telephone Test.

Corroboration test.







Harry Potter has embarrassing moments for the protagonist, so it passes the Honesty Test. There was only a year between the 1st and 2nd editions, so it passes the Telephone Test. And on top of the original books, there are also 9 movies, 7 other novels, a website and a play, so it passes the Corroboration Test. Harry Potter must be true! All us muggles were simply subject to a memory spell so we don't remember the events as they happened.
 
Yet... it can not be shown to be true. As a matter of fact, I bet you can find that there were plenty of atheists that were in fox holes.

Your taking the quote to literally. It's not the being in the fox hole that is the point. It is that your facing almost certain death that is the point. It is not even a conversion to a belief in a god. it is more of a stress release mechanism. It is that moment the bombs are falling all around you and you are sitting there repeating to yourself, "Oh! god!, Oh! ****! I am going to die. " When you think it is the end and nothing you can do to stop it, Then it helps release the stress to call out to mom or god. Neither are going to actually help you out of the situation but any straw will do at that moment.

It's the same as when your screwing a woman and she is shouting out "Oh! God , yes don't stop." It's not actually god she is referring to.
 
Not so. As many atheist and agnostic veterans from around the world including the USA will tell anyone who asks. Believers never ask, only assume to comfort themselves.

These people who pray in foxholes, what are they praying for at the time? Life or death?
I'm afraid most people aren't as brave as atheists, lad. Be charitable with us. :)

Not really. It seems more cultural than just human. Here is an account of one of David Hume's friends, a fellow by the name of James Boswell, at Hume's bedside a few days before his death (this is back in the 18th century):
Hume was extraordinary, wasn't he? One of my heroes! :)

Here is a poem by Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in physics, and atheist. Reading the poem, I definitely sense that he feels that personal connection to the cosmos:
Personal? I don't see that. Connected, yes; but personal, no. The poetic persona goes from "I" to "it" in the course of the poem. That sounds distinctly impersonal to me. :)
Your taking the quote to literally. It's not the being in the fox hole that is the point. It is that your facing almost certain death that is the point. It is not even a conversion to a belief in a god. it is more of a stress release mechanism. It is that moment the bombs are falling all around you and you are sitting there repeating to yourself, "Oh! god!, Oh! ****! I am going to die. " When you think it is the end and nothing you can do to stop it, Then it helps release the stress to call out to mom or god. Neither are going to actually help you out of the situation but any straw will do at that moment.

It's the same as when your screwing a woman and she is shouting out "Oh! God , yes don't stop." It's not actually god she is referring to.
And you're taking the quote too figuratively, it seems to me. Want to try for some point midway between the two, yes? :)
 
OK. Tell you what. Next time we need to fly across the country, I will take the plane built on scientific principles. You can say a prayer and jump off a cliff. We'll see who gets there first. Deal?

And I am sure you have faith that the plane will not crash before you get to where you are going.
 
I am not sure humans have a need for religion any more than they have a need for alcohol or tobacco. There are certainly some benefits, but also some drawbacks to religious belief. Yes, alcohol has been almost a universal thing and provided comfort in hard times for many- among all cultures and societies throughout the world, throughout history. But are we fated to have it forever, or do we have more choice in the matter than we think? Could its drawbacks outweigh its benefits?

Perhaps in ancient times, you are right and the benefits were much higher: attributing cultural values and opinions to otherworldly entities gave them social sanction and authority. And there were no other explanations for bizarre events, from lightning to earthquakes. So saying some deity or other musta done it because they were angry with you for something or other sounded like a good enough explanation to keep people quiet. But these were pre-scientific societies that would not change, nor need to change, over centuries or even millennia. Religion certainly filled a need for them.

The modern age, on the other hand, starting probably since around the end of the 17th century, has been a time of rapid advances in knowledge and technology. Old belief systems cannot continue to hold as new knowledge, new ways of seeing and doing things, constantly come up. It's dangerous to ascribe any cultural tradition or knowledge to any immutable, eternal truths anymore. This just augments the effect of what sociologists call "cultural lag". When people ascribe their cultural values to the eternal laws of otherworldly entities, their eyes, ears, and brains shut down. Why learn new things if your religion already gives you insight into ultimate truth and a God's-eye view already? It may give you comfort, but that's just the comfort of an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Consider the effect of religion on modern democracy as well: why compromise and negotiate with others, or be open to new ways of doing things, when you already know ultimate morality and what God wants for all eternity? So whether it was the Catholic Church refusing to believe that the Earth is not the center of the universe for centuries after it was shown scientifically, or Muslims refusing to give women equal rights in their societies, this sort of mindset appears to be anathema to the modern world and modern democracies.
If epistemologically it all comes down to pragmata, how can we get so excited about progress, ataraxia? And why not take a more charitable view of religion as the First Pragma, which it was and still is. That's how I view religion at any rate. :)
 
Your taking the quote to literally. It's not the being in the fox hole that is the point. It is that your facing almost certain death that is the point. It is not even a conversion to a belief in a god. it is more of a stress release mechanism. It is that moment the bombs are falling all around you and you are sitting there repeating to yourself, "Oh! god!, Oh! ****! I am going to die. " When you think it is the end and nothing you can do to stop it, Then it helps release the stress to call out to mom or god. Neither are going to actually help you out of the situation but any straw will do at that moment.

It's the same as when your screwing a woman and she is shouting out "Oh! God , yes don't stop." It's not actually god she is referring to.

Weather the fox hole is literally or metaphoric, you can still find atheists who faced death, and didn't gain faith. (although, it might have been tempting of that woman was a fox).
 
I'm afraid most people aren't as brave as atheists, lad. Be charitable with us. :) ...

It's not about bravery, (and "most people" are not Christians) but presumption. The meme goes that atheists under stress will pray, somehow proving that they secretly believed your god existed all along. It's simply a lie Christians tell themselves for reassurance.
 
The Bible.

Is the God of the Bible, the Creator?
Is the Bible, reliable? Can we trust the Bible?
Is it truly God-inspired? How do you know it came from God?

Those are some of the common questions asked about the Bible. This thread aims to give answers to those questions (and maybe more).

It is also the most scrutinized book that’s ever written. Scrutiny comes not only from Christians cementing their faith or skeptics seeking truth, but most intense scrutiny comes from those with hostile intentions.
It's very much relevant, even today.


The Bible is written by over forty authors from every walk of life.
There are kings writing in this book. There are military leaders, and there are peasants, there are philosophers, there are fishermen, there are tax collectors, there are poets, there are musicians, there's a harpist, and a drummer. A drummer wrote two psalms. His name was Asaph. There are scholars who write this book, there are shepherds who write this book, and there was a cowman who wrote part of this book. His job was looking after cattle. This has come from a huge variety of human sources.

It was written over a period of at least fifteen hundred years. That means if the last book was being written now, the first book would have been written in the closing days of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire finally was disbanded in 476 A.D. That's just over fifteen hundred years ago. That's a huge time span. During that fifteen hundred years, cultures changed, outlooks changed.


It was written in three completely different languages: Hebrew and Greek are the primary languages, but parts of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic, which also would have been the mother tongue of Jesus, so the original speaking of Jesus would have been in Aramaic, though written in Greek, which had become the international language. That was the legacy of the Greek Empire was they left an international language, a bit like the way the British Empire left English as a kind of language of international communication. Well, the Greeks did that; that's why its written in Greek, but Aramaic is the origin and some of the Old Testament Scriptures parts of Ezra in particular, parts of Daniel, and the language of Jesus.

It was written in numerous styles; in fact, almost every literary style you'll probably find in this book.
There's history, there's poetry, and songs, there is law, there is biography, there is autobiography, there is prophecy, there is parable, there is allegory, and idioms and other figures of speech...... and probably other things that I haven't thought of.


It was written on three continents in a day when people didn't travel very much: Asia, Europe, and a little bit of it was written in Africa, Jeremiah down in Egypt.

Now if you tried to put that together humanly, with a very smart editor, though no editor survives fifteen hundred years....you wouldn't get this kind of unity and harmony.[/COLOR]
Well, first thing is to define "The Bible." Following are Old Testament books accepted by various Christian traditions. Additionally, many of the books have different versions...either additions or deletions, depending on your point of view.
  • Genesis
  • Exodus
  • Leviticus
  • Numbers
  • Deuteronomy
  • Joshua
  • Judges
  • Ruth
  • 1 and 2 Samuel
  • 1 and 2 Kings
  • 1 and 2 Chronicles
  • Prayer of Manasseh
  • Ezra
  • 1 Esdras
  • Nehemiah
  • 2 Esdras
  • 3 Esdras
  • 4 Esdras
  • Esther
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • 1 Maccabees
  • 2 Maccabees
  • 3 Maccabees
  • 4 Maccabees
  • Jubilees
  • Enoch
  • 1 Meqabyan
  • 2 and 3 Meqabyan
  • Book of Job
  • Psalms
  • Proverbs
  • Ecclesiastes
  • Song of Songs
  • Book of Wisdom
  • Sirach
  • Isaiah
  • Jeremiah
  • Lamentations
  • Ethiopic Lamentations
  • Baruch
  • Letter of Jeremiah
  • Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch
  • Letter of Baruch
  • Ezekiel
  • Daniel
  • Hosea
  • Joel
  • Amos
  • Obadiah
  • Jonah
  • Micah
  • Nahum
  • Habakkuk
  • Zephaniah
  • Haggai
  • Zechariah
  • Malachi


And the Ethiopic Orthodox Church includes the following in the New Testament:
  • Ser`atä Seyon
  • Te'ezaz
  • Gessew
  • Abtelis
  • Book of the Covenant 1
  • Book of the Covenant 2
  • Ethiopic Clement
  • Ethiopic Didescalia
And then we can add on the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Nicodemus (aka The Acts of Pilate), The Gospel of Peter, etc, etc. And many purported scriptures in Arabic.

So how can you talk about the reliability of the Bible when there any dispute about what constitutes the Bible?
 
And I am sure you have faith that the plane will not crash before you get to where you are going.

No faith. Just reasonable expectations based on observations and experience.
 
Tosca1's religious arsenal paraphrased into a few simple bullet points:

#1) God exists.
#2) The Bible says so.
#3) I will use the Bible to prove it.
#4) Since the Bible says it's so, it must be so.
#5) Therefore, God exists.
 
If epistemologically it all comes down to pragmata, how can we get so excited about progress, ataraxia? And why not take a more charitable view of religion as the First Pragma, which it was and still is. That's how I view religion at any rate. :)

I think you are thinking of something like William James' famous book "The Varieties of Religious Experience", talking about the pragmatic benefits of religious faith. Yes, there are some benefits. But I still think that, especially in the modern world, the negatives of the mindset outweight the postives. It seems to me that the religious mindset, creates a spurious "comfort of faith" which is anathema to two of the most important foundations of the modern institutions: Democracy, and science. Here are two ways which immediately come to mind:

1) Promises of special access to ultimate truth- short circuits people's openness to new ideas, new ways of seeing and doing things. Although it may provide comfort to an often bewildered humanity, the ensuing closed-mindedness is not worth it. This is just the comfort of an ostrich with its head in the sand. If you want progress, if you want people to get moving, you have to get them uncomfortable. After all, if you think you already know Ultimate Truth and the will of God, or have some special access to it, why be open to entirely new ideas, to paradigm shifts, to really listening to people with very different views and opinions? That mindset seems to shut down both the scientific mindset and the mindset required for living in pluralistic modern democracies. In democracies, if you need to be able to really listen to others, to be willing to negotiate, to compromise. But if you see your view as the will of God, and others as misguided heathens, what does that do your ability to negotiate or compromise? How do you compromise on the word of God? How do you even negotiate it or think about it critically? See the Richard Feynman quote below.

2) Feelings of privilege- whether it makes people think they are "the Chosen Ones" of God (Jews), or they are the only ones who are saved (Christians), or that they have the final and most complete book of God's revelation with the most complete instructions from Him (Muslims), religion tends to create a sort of smug ethnocentricism and closed-mindedness which seems anathema to modern pluralistic democracies.

Here is Richard Feynman on the importance of feeling uncomfortable, of realizing you don't have access to ultimate truth, of always being restless- to both the progress of science, and to democracy:

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained...

If we take everything into account — not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn't know — then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know. But, in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel. This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas brought in — a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar.
-Richard Feynman
 
Last edited:
one of my favorite verses from the Bible is from Isaiah chp. 45, v. 7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.



I was brought up to believe The Almighty is a loving God but they never told me about God creating evil, which is pretty evil IMO ...........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom