Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not [W:775]

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

LOL Based on a several rather questionable premises including that this God exists, that this God has a sense of morality, that this God cared enough to communicate it all to us, and that this God did so through this Bible that described it, and that God did not communicate other possibly relevant or contradictory forms of this morality elsewhere and that you understand this complete and objective morality correctly and that objectivity in morality is an absolute to which we ought to aspire or that God wants us to aspire to. That is quite a series of reaches for me, that I might label as 'wishful thinking' or some really grandiose hubris in Christianity.


I think doubt and a little humility are very healthy attributes when deciding whether one's version or source of morality is superior than any other. I encourage it in both theists and atheists or agnostics. Maybe 'God' in whatever form, likes people who doubt and question any truths of the sort you advocate, a lot more than people who do not. Maybe He likes how I think more than how you think.

Here. Bone up on the historical Jesus.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Here. Bone up on the historical Jesus.

View attachment 67234957

I don't need to. My view is above and it has nothing to do with any assertion that a historical figure existed resembling Jesus of Nazareth . Nothing about the 'historical Jesus' is relevant to broader concerns about whether God exists at all or whether He is anything like the diety you want to discuss. Lots of faiths can come up with evidence of a historical figure and some coincidences. They have more trouble proving the existence of any omniscient God, let alone their favorite divinity or quasi-divinity or any objective morality with a nifty little tome describing it in detail. Respond using your intellect, not Mr. Habermas's 'research' lets start with Premise one and work our way through each and every one I mentioned.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

@ Logicman: You know, forget it. I don't want to be 'that kind' of atheist. Its too easy and it just proves that religion is based on faith. Christians deserve respect for their faith. Christians who assert they have a more perfect set of moral values than non-Christians or atheists, not so much!. But I won't toy with a mouse. Its unpleasant to watch and lacks class.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I don't need to.

You should. It will cave in that idea in your head that Christianity isn't real. And it will provide good arguments about the deity of Christ.

You need to do your homework. I did and so did a number of former atheists.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

@ Logicman: You know, forget it. I don't want to be 'that kind' of atheist. Its too easy and it just proves that religion is based on faith.

No, it's also based on tons of evidence that you are not aware of because you haven't done your homework.

So read up and then you won't be so quick to say it's just about faith. It's also about the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

No, it's also based on tons of evidence that you are not aware of because you haven't done your homework.

So read up and then you won't be so quick to say it's just about faith. It's also about the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

View attachment 67234963

Take comfort in your faith and your God. its good to believe in something greater and more profound than yourself and your needs on this earth.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

No, it's also based on tons of evidence that you are not aware of because you haven't done your homework.

So read up and then you won't be so quick to say it's just about faith. It's also about the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

THat book does not reach the critical point of 'preponderance of evidence.'. It is a rehash of very tenuous evidence that is exaggerated, including forgeries.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

THat book does not reach the critical point of 'preponderance of evidence.'. It is a rehash of very tenuous evidence that is exaggerated, including forgeries.

That's just more of your usual Dr. No nonsense. This is the updated and revised edition, which you haven't even read.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

That's just more of your usual Dr. No nonsense.

Ah, so you didn't read the book. Thank you very much for admitting it, because otherwise you would be able to show what you thought what convincing, and what part didn't meet the criteria I put forth.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Ah, so you didn't read the book. Thank you very much for admitting it, because otherwise you would be able to show what you thought what convincing, and what part didn't meet the criteria I put forth.

Quit your lying.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Quit your lying.

For you to show that I am 'lying', you would have to discuss the contents of the book, in your own words, rather than a cut/paste job from someplace.

I eagerly await for your attempt to actually show I am lying.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

For you to show...

Ramoss, don't bother me with your nonsense.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Ramoss, don't bother me with your nonsense.

The diversionary tactics you are attempting to employ show that my points are not nonsense. Now, if you could only actually discuss the contents of the books whose covers you keep on posting. I am expecting that to happen, since in some cases, previous behavior is evidence of future performance

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

The diversionary tactics....

More nonsense.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

More nonsense.

I see you love quoting out of context too. You can't even quote a full sentence. That also is a diversionary tactic.

Now, can you show that what you agree with in that book, and why you argree with it? Let's see you provide evidence you actually read it.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I see you love quoting out of context too....

You know, Ramoss, I don't know anyone who buys into your anti-Jesus nonsense, except the other Biblically-confused pundits who hang around here to play kibbitzer.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

You know, Ramoss, I don't know anyone who buys into your anti-Jesus nonsense, except the other Biblically-confused pundits who hang around here to play kibbitzer.

Despite your bluster, you are not able to show that you actually read the books whose covers you spam the forum with, nor have you shown you understand the information in them, or the criticisms of it.

Now, if you can actually discuss the contents of the books, that would be something.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Despite your bluster, you are not able to show that you actually read the books whose covers you spam the forum with, nor have you shown you understand the information in them, or the criticisms of it.

Now, if you can actually discuss the contents of the books, that would be something.

Ramoss, get a new dog. That one has fleas and won't hunt.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Ramoss, get a new dog. That one has fleas and won't hunt.

You do have a tendency not to be very original with your one line avoidance quips.

Would you care to actually show you read the book instead, and give what you think is convincing?

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Ramoss, don't bother me with your nonsense.

The diversionary tactics you are attempting to employ show that my points are not nonsense. Now, if you could only actually discuss the contents of the books whose covers you keep on posting. I am expecting that to happen, since in some cases, previous behavior is evidence of future performance

Maybe Logicman needs to be informed of the logical fallacy that he is committing... I'm sure there's gotta be at least ONE on that long list of fallacies that you keep open on a different tab of your preferred internet browser...

 

[Daisy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Maybe Logicman needs to be informed of the logical fallacy that he is committing... I'm sure there's gotta be at least ONE on that long list of fallacies that you keep open on a different tab of your preferred internet browser...

:funny

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Maybe Logicman needs to be informed of the logical fallacy that he is committing... I'm sure there's gotta be at least ONE on that long list of fallacies that you keep open on a different tab of your preferred internet browser...

You mean, other than the fact of unsupported claims, the shifting of the burden of proof, and ad hominenin?? Yes, there is more.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

You should. It will cave in that idea in your head that Christianity isn't real. And it will provide good arguments about the deity of Christ.

You need to do your homework. I did and so did a number of former atheists.

Who said christianity isn't real? We all know it exists. It's the basis of it that is questionable. Arguments don't make something real. They either are or they aren't. God isn't real, except as a human created concept.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Who said christianity isn't real? We all know it exists. It's the basis of it that is questionable. Arguments don't make something real. They either are or they aren't. God isn't real, except as a human created concept.

Why don't you go bother somebody else? I don't take you seriously.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

You mean, other than the fact of unsupported claims, the shifting of the burden of proof, and ad hominenin?? Yes, there is more.

Ramoss, can we expect a post on subject again or are you going to continue with your nonsense?