[Religion] "I want my kids to decide for themselves"

Togowack said:

It is impossible to know everything about how the text came about, there is a point where you have to believe in it, or at least offer a shadow of a doubt.

Click to expand...

actually it is quite possible through simple deduction or otherwise common knowledge. but you won't dare take that path because it will open your mind to reality, an action which any successful religion forbids, including yours.

you believe because you want to believe.... its that simple

HaPpY said:

actually it is quite possible through simple deduction or otherwise common knowledge. but you won't dare take that path because it will open your mind to reality, an action which any successful religion forbids, including yours.

you believe because you want to believe.... its that simple

Click to expand...

No, it is actually impossible. A basic property of knowledge is that it be based solely on facts and not assumptions.

High Fidelity said:

No, it is actually impossible. A basic property of knowledge is that it be based solely on facts and not assumptions.

Click to expand...

take noah's arc for example. theres plenty of evidence of its origin, but the further back you go the more you realize its just an exaggerated tale (like nearly every story back then) of the black sea flooding event.

the same goes for the rest of the miraculous events of the bible which have been mostly explained away. its why many christians dismiss them as parables rather than truth now.

then you have those like togo who take it literally.

HaPpY said:

take noah's arc for example. theres plenty of evidence of its origin, but the further back you go the more you realize its just an exaggerated tale (like nearly every story back then) of the black sea flooding event.

the same goes for the rest of the miraculous events of the bible which have been mostly explained away. its why many christians dismiss them as parables rather than truth now.

then you have those like togo who take it literally.

Click to expand...

Black sea event? sorry not familiar with it.

Many miraculous events could be explained, but you still have to chalk it up to coincidence, as in, some were physically possible within what we think is reasonable chance.

Obviously, this leaves room for the supernatural because technically the bible can't be proved wrong by calling them miracles, since you can't prove that they would have happened anyways due to chance. It requires a foreknowlege.

But besides this stupid argument, the majority of miracles that happened especially with Jesus are clearly out of the realm of chance and coincidence.

HaPpY said:

take noah's arc for example. theres plenty of evidence of its origin, but the further back you go the more you realize its just an exaggerated tale (like nearly every story back then) of the black sea flooding event.

Click to expand...

You can deduce, very simply, that there is no God by implying a little logic and reasoning. All that is is, all that is said to be isn't. All of those things that can be perceived and are said to be exist, and all of those things that can't be perceived but are said to be do no exist. Therefore, I can not prove that God exists, and I can not prove that he doesn't exist, so he doesn't exist.

But, it becomes impossible to reason that the Bible is all a lie because you can't account for everything in the Bible, only parts. And even then, you weren't around for any of those things. For this reason, it isn't important to question and refute the Bible. What is important is that you look at life as it is now, objectively, and come to conclusions based on logic and reason: All that is is. All that isn't isn't. Alternatively "A is A".

High Fidelity said:

You wear this like a badge. As though, because you believe in more Gods than I do you are some authority on all that which is theistic. You're arrogant.

Click to expand...

In the sense that I have experience in both monotheism, atheism, and polytheism, yeah, I pretty much have the ability to speak with some authority on this particular subject, since my description implies I once held to monotheism and then rejected it.

For the record, I believe in no Gods. Way to see what you want to see. Wait... seeing what you want to see... this is important somehow. Hrrmmm... you're so smart, I'll let you figure that out.

Click to expand...

Then why use Christian catchphrases and only use God/no God? It seems to be you who are trapped in that false dichotomy, not me.

Translations: I perceive this to be bullshit, therefore everyone must.

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I imply that everyone must see things my way.

This paragraph here is an incredible example of how self-centered and arrogant you are. To assume that you are some sort of measure of everyone else. Tsk tsk. One could even read into it and say that both characteristics are a result of the fear and insecurity you are filled with.

Click to expand...

I am not afraid, nor and I insecure. That is the clarion response of the loser; good show. Though I am arrogant, sure. read whatever you want into it to make you feel less inferior.

"Nobody" is "I". By assumption, you aren't fooled by the black/white of Christianity. If this were true, what would be the purpose of deflecting your "ideals" onto everyone else? This is a case of "I'M SAYING SOMETHING UNORTHODOX! You're with me... right guys?..... Right?"

Click to expand...

You have misunderstood my position. I don't care to be edgy among you all, since most of you are subhuman. Nor do I need group approval since there is probably nobody like me here at TW. I am simply pointing out what errors in reasoning you've made, because I find it gratifying and one of you may find it useful. If you find it safer to assume I am wrong because I disagree with you rather than examining why you might be wrong, go for it; I see it everyday among the rest of you chimps.

Togowack said:

Black sea event? sorry not familiar with it.

Many miraculous events could be explained, but you still have to chalk it up to coincidence, as in, some were physically possible within what we think is reasonable chance.

Obviously, this leaves room for the supernatural because technically the bible can't be proved wrong by calling them miracles, since you can't prove that they would have happened anyways due to chance. It requires a foreknowlege.

But besides this stupid argument, the majority of miracles that happened especially with Jesus are clearly out of the realm of chance and coincidence.

Click to expand...

No, clearly the 'miracles' didn't actually happen.

if YOU say so.

Togowack said:

Black sea event? sorry not familiar with it.

Many miraculous events could be explained, but you still have to chalk it up to coincidence, as in, some were physically possible within what we think is reasonable chance.

Obviously, this leaves room for the supernatural because technically the bible can't be proved wrong by calling them miracles, since you can't prove that they would have happened anyways due to chance. It requires a foreknowlege.

But besides this stupid argument, the majority of miracles that happened especially with Jesus are clearly out of the realm of chance and coincidence.

Click to expand...

of course you havent... and none of them were "coincidence", whatever that means, rather hyped up legends like nearly all stories since the dawn of humanity including the present.

and i like how you're perhaps willing to dismiss the rest but protect the jesus miracles.... so rich

I like cheese doodles.

Togowack said:

if YOU say so.

Click to expand...

You keep operating on the assumption that the Bible speaks the truth and breaks all sorts of laws of physics. Next time, try looking at it as myth and recognize that the laws of physics don't go breaking now that we're past the Planke epoch.

Patronize me all you like, but you're still the fundie idiot.

High Fidelity said:

... What is important is that you look at life as it is now, objectively, and come to conclusions based on logic and reason: All that is is. All that isn't isn't. Alternatively "A is A".

Click to expand...

that'd be great if i didn't care for my society and the disease of delusion steering it back toward the dark ages.

HaPpY said:

that'd be great if i didn't care for my society and the disease of delusion steering it back toward the dark ages.

Click to expand...

It's obvious that you are pretty passionate about the topic. Instead of being so matter-of-fact with your denial of those things that people hold most dear, reason with them. You care, but that matters not if your method of communicating is completely ineffective.

I'm using theoretical arguments to try establish what your line of reasoning is, because it makes no sense to me. First off, you have to either discount them all or allow them all.

Simply put - some miracles are easier to attribute to chance than others. This has to do with what people believe is possible first of all. Some miracles are very difficult to attribute to what we call chance in the way the word is used.

The bible reduces the factor down to nothing. Take the healing of the blind man. Was it chance that when Jesus touched his eyes, he was healed?

But when Moses touched the rock and water came out, people say that he probably already knew there was water in there, and that it was a natural spring. This is well and good, but it was God that brought him there, and God that showed him what to do.

These aren't hyped up arguments. The bible has been substantially backed up by carefully scribed books kept safe for centuries, and affirmed by dead sea scrolls, to a high degree.

High Fidelity said:

It's obvious that you are pretty passionate about the topic. Instead of being so matter-of-fact with your denial of those things that people hold most dear, reason with them. You care, but that matters not if your method of communicating is completely ineffective.

Click to expand...

my method is pointing out evidence, facts, and basic reason. which has little impact on the unreasonable whose own religion and bible forbids them from listening to or even pondering such an alternative to their world view... yes im referring to that clause in any successful religion that suggests punishment for alternative thought.

Togowack said:

I'm using theoretical arguments to try establish what your line of reasoning is, because it makes no sense to me. First off, you have to either discount them all or allow them all.

Simply put - some miracles are easier to attribute to chance than others. This has to do with what people believe is possible first of all. Some miracles are very difficult to attribute to what we call chance in the way the word is used.

The bible reduces the factor down to nothing. Take the healing of the blind man. Was it chance that when Jesus touched his eyes, he was healed?

But when Moses touched the rock and water came out, people say that he probably already knew there was water in there, and that it was a natural spring. This is well and good, but it was God that brought him there, and God that showed him what to do.

These aren't hyped up arguments. The bible has been substantially backed up by carefully scribed books kept safe for centuries, and affirmed by dead sea scrolls, to a high degree.

Click to expand...

Again, begging the question.

You are again, assuming a mythology text speaks of real events.

And no, actually, the Bible has not been substantiated by anything other than self-serving copies of itself. The DSS merely are copies of earlier versions and the ONLY thing they substantiate are the segments they contain are close to earlier publications of the same texts.

A copy of a book printed now, of something written in 1850, does not automatically prove the 1850 book tells the truth, it simply proves a continuity in the publishing of that book.

Since the Bible purports, of its own volition mind you, to be 100% truth written by God, ANY piece that is false nullifies the entire thing. Not our rules, the Bible's rules. And since it is not 100% accurate, you can choose , it's all discountable.

There are 2 kinds of people in the world. Those who believe, and those who do not.


Of the first, there are those who's actions demonstrate that they believe (even when their statements do not). Then there are those whose statements communicate that they believe (even though their actions may or do not).

Of the second, there are those who can not believe because their perceptions of the world (as they've come to know it) tells them they can not believe (and so they don't). Then there are those who do not believe because they choose not to believe, (regardless of what they perceive the world to be demonstrating).

Some people are Christians, but they do not know it.
Some people are not Christians, but they think so.
Some people are justified in their disbelief
Some people have no excuse.

I shall be pleasantly surprised by all those who end up at the LORDs table that I did not think would be there.
I shall be disheartened and mourn those who are turned away in shock for their genuine confusion at not being recognized
I shall be gracious and empathize with those who say they did not understand and could not comprehend of their own free will.
I shall give no regard for the above towards those who made their choice and now suffer a fate borne of themselves.


I should think that God will pour out his grace and acceptance of the first of each group while offering the second, very little in turn.

Togowack said:

I'm using theoretical arguments to try establish what your line of reasoning is, because it makes no sense to me. First off, you have to either discount them all or allow them all.

Simply put - some miracles are easier to attribute to chance than others. This has to do with what people believe is possible first of all. Some miracles are very difficult to attribute to what we call chance in the way the word is used.

The bible reduces the factor down to nothing. Take the healing of the blind man. Was it chance that when Jesus touched his eyes, he was healed?

But when Moses touched the rock and water came out, people say that he probably already knew there was water in there, and that it was a natural spring. This is well and good, but it was God that brought him there, and God that showed him what to do.

These aren't hyped up arguments. The bible has been substantially backed up by carefully scribed books kept safe for centuries, and affirmed by dead sea scrolls, to a high degree.

Click to expand...

um ok, first of all you're still assuming these events really actually occured. then you're arguing chance. im telling you there is evidence and even proof they did not occur at all (such as the great flood). therefore you're argument of chance/coincidence is completely moot.

furthermore no one here is arguing that the bible may have been altered after its "publication" as you seem to think by bringing up the dead sea scrolls.

Mabelrode said:

You keep operating on the assumption that the Bible speaks the truth and breaks all sorts of laws of physics. Next time, try looking at it as myth and recognize that the laws of physics don't go breaking now that we're past the Planke epoch.

Patronize me all you like, but you're still the fundie idiot.

Click to expand...

The Bible is the only law worth knowing. If you claim to know everything about physics, or believe that the law of physics is the final and end all, then answer me this. Why is there so much money going into the Hadron Collider? If we needed Einstein to bring us the basis for our laws of Physics, how do we know he was right?

Even he admits he didn't know everything.

What we call the law of physics is what the bible calls the law of sin and death, that is entropy, the law that says that matter degrades and deforms and degenerates. This law is at work in every atom of matter in creation.