[QUOTE="ItalyCanadian9"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

God does not exist.

...am I missing something here? Was that a trick question?

mrbojangles25

Trick question no, If you don't believe in God, They how did we & other surrounds get here?

and that is my main problem with religion.

Why do people need to know why and how we got here? Furthermore, why is that need so great that they can fabricate these stories and settle for them because they are pretty or make them feel good or make them live in fear, instead of being patient and listening to logic.

In short, why cant people just accept that we exist and leave it at that? Is it that hard to be at peace with being a somewhat randomly made part of the universe?

Logic? Do you think logic is determined by what someone believes?

Logic is a process. Logically, I could conclude the Earth is flat. Logically, I could argue that the world exists in a straw.

And Mister Drakorain, I'll take that as an 'I don't know'.

Funky_Llama

Where did I say I don't know? I said he would go to heaven, but in the real world, he will not. No "I don't know" about it.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingdre"][QUOTE="ItalyCanadian9"]

Muslims don't worship the ture God.

kingdre

Way to make Christians look bad.

Yeah, I know... the Christians here must be cringing at his every post.

You have no idea... :|

Read your Bibble.

[QUOTE="Drakorain"]

[QUOTE="chutup"]Just a question, if I'm a really good guy and nice to everyone, never commit any sins, but I don't believe in God, do I go to Hell?Funky_Llama

In that hypothetical, no, you would go to Heaven.

In the real world, where nobody is without sins, yes, you would.

So... yes?

Hypothetically, he would go to Heaven.

But nobody is without sin. So that leaves it in the realm of hypothetically.

Just a question, if I'm a really good guy and nice to everyone, never commit any sins, but I don't believe in God, do I go to Hell?chutup

In that hypothetical, no, you would go to Heaven.

In the real world, where nobody is without sins, yes, you would.

But think of the believability. The beliefs surrounding Alexander are feasible. But the claim that Jesus was the son of God, and that he performed miracles? I think that needs much more compelling proof. And I'm sure it was believable by the standards of its time, but the standards are no longer shared. Imposing my own empirical standards onto the Bible is entirely justified. Are you suggesting that I should be a gullible fool just because people were a few thousand years ago?

Funky_Llama

:lol: Man, you are confused. Standards back then were MUCH MORE STRICT than they are now. :lol:

And no, you cannot impose your modern standards on a text written thousand of years ago. That should be obvious.

[QUOTE="ItalyCanadian9"]People refuse to believe in Jesus. Truth!bsman00

You said the bible predicts the future...... what events have the bible predicted??

The Old Testament predicted the future, but not the New Testament. . . .

He's obviously a troll.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Eek! You're right. Touche! OK, let me revise that: How does a book that does not support its bold claims with solid evidence constitute proof?

WtFDragon

Firstly, it should be noted that evidence is not the only metric by which we can measure the veracity of the book.

Secondly, it has to be asked what standard of evidence you here refer to; ancient texts cannot be expected to conform to modern standards of empirical evidence presentation, as they were authored well in advance of e.g. the scientific method's formal articulation.

Thirdly, and here we come back to evidence, there is a difference between presenting evidence and having that evidence accepted. In a certain way, the only difference between you and I is that I accept as historical the narratives of the four Gospels and some of the books of the Old Testament. You do not. Arguably, by the standards of the ancients, the Gospels in particular, and many of the other books of the Bible as well, present as much evidence for the events they depict as do the historical narratives pertaining to e.g. Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar.

You and I (I assume) both accept that Alexander was a historical figure, yet there is less documentation of his life and deeds available than there is of Christ's life and deeds. By the standards of the time, then, the Bible does provide a considerable amount of evidence for its claims; the problem is that you are eisegetically attempting to impose your modern empirical standards onto a volume compiled well in advance of the development any formal scientific or archival methodolog -- a fundamentally irrational mistake.

Also, I might point out that even when there is much evidence for a thing, that is no assurance that people will believe in it. Fully a quarter of Britons believe that Winston Churchill was a mythical figure. How unsurprising, then, that even in the face of extant evidence, people refuse to believe in Jesus.

I knew you'd like it here.

[QUOTE="Drakorain"][QUOTE="fiscope"]

Then my Biology book is proof of Evolution.

Both are books written by people. The difference being my Bio book has facts, supported by research.

The Bible does too. . . .

The Bible was written by humans, to control other humans,

Uh, proof?

and promote a dstorted view of this world that is anti-learning.

:lol:

By attempting to explain everything ABSOLUTELY, the bible successfully kept the world in the dark ages for countless years.

Oh, so THAT's why Christians laid the foundation for modern science.

I guess you've forgotten how the church was anti-education. To say that the earth revolved around the sun was heresy.

Really? The way I remember it, Church officials stated things like this:

"The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go."

And this: "What man of sense will argue that the first, second and third days, which are labelled as morning and evening, occured without the sun, moon or stars?"

The way I also remember it, geocentricism was the scientific theory back then. . . .and the Church accepted it.

If I were you, I would not use the church to support any claim, or make any type of judgement. Look at their track record, and what they are doing to the world now.

Sending missionaries to dangerous countries with food?

Never have I seen so much religion-spawned hate. Hate of Homosexuals, hate of anything not written in that bible, and things may only be getting worse from here.

I suggest you go outside.

That book has succeeded in brainwashing generations of people, hard-wiring them to think narrow-mindedly, and not to accept other faiths.

Nobody has to accept other faiths. We have to accept they exist, but we don't have to partake in them. And lol, "brainwashing." Such a loose definition.

Funky_Llama

Whoo, I lot of mindless ranting and assumptions there.

The Bible is supported by research? Fascinating! Tell me all about it!

Archaeology. The Hittites? They were in the Bible first. Nobody believed they existed. Then we found their civilization.

Sodom and Gomorrah. See: Hittites.

King Solomon and his structures.

The existence of Jesus.

And much more.

is the Bible meant to explain everything? Or could it be as Galileo himself noted: the Bible teaches one how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

WtFDragon

Actually, that wasn't Galileo. I forgot the name, but it was a Cardinal who said that in Galileo's defense.