Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I always care when an oppressive organisation brainwashes a large group of people into wilful ignorance, and stupidity. Especially when those people then are able to influence the secular government of the nation.And I should care why?
If so why are you accept the brainwashing of your education.
Scientifically, no one knows for sure that what would happen after death. So as long as it concerns your life,
either you believe with faith that nothing serious could happen after death
or you believe with faith that something serious could happen after death
Either of the above is a religion, that is, a common belief shared by a large group of humans.
It has been my observation that when one does not have facts or logic on his side, he usually gets emotional and begins making irrational arguments
I know that black holes exist ... I was told that.
I know that dinosaurs existed ... I was told that.
I know that there is life after death ... I was told that, too.
I believe all three of them.
You don't have a direct quote, just somewhere in the Bible it may say? I can't respond to that, it makes no sense if not read in context. Would you not agree.
I know black holes exist, because I have seen objective evidence of their existence. Where is this objective evidence of your God?I always care when an oppressive organisation brainwashes a large group of people into wilful ignorance, and stupidity. Especially when those people then are able to influence the secular government of the nation.And I should care why?
If so why are you accept the brainwashing of your education.
Scientifically, no one knows for sure that what would happen after death. So as long as it concerns your life,
either you believe with faith that nothing serious could happen after death
or you believe with faith that something serious could happen after death
Either of the above is a religion, that is, a common belief shared by a large group of humans.
Oops, you made a mistake ...
I know that black holes exist ... I was told that.
I know that dinosaurs existed, because I have seen their remains. Where are the remains of your Jesus? Or Moses? Or Abraham? Of Noah? Or any of your other mythical characters?I know that dinosaurs existed ... I was told that.
I know that there is life after death ... I was told that, too.
I believe all three of them.
The word in Hebrew is "world to come" (Olam Habah) aka future and we (in their future) already have a few methods of resurrecting the vessel, with mind transfer being just 20-50 years away says Google & IBM. Technically since head transplants have been sucessful we are already proven validated in vision of these things including revealing in the OT the bone which marrow carries the most entact dna.There's no more thought, memory until you place that back in a new fresh vessel.
And "what" exactly do you place back, if it does not exist?
The word in Hebrew is "world to come" (Olam Habah) aka future and we (in their future) already have a few methods of resurrecting the vessel, with mind transfer being just 20-50 years away says Google & IBM. Technically since head transplants have been sucessful we are already proven validated in vision of these things including revealing in the OT the bone which marrow carries the most entact dna.There's no more thought, memory until you place that back in a new fresh vessel.
And "what" exactly do you place back, if it does not exist?
that is confirmation bias. They are absolutely basing their findings, and their results on their faith. They read their bibles, and want to "prove" their fairy tales as "real", so when they go digging, they find what they expect to find, even the only evidence to support the claims of their "finds" is the Bible.Your proof that they exist is the pseudoscience? How about some archaeological evidence that does not come from a group already practising confirmation bias?Yes, I have, it is a psuedoscience that relies on confirmation bias to justify its "findings". For example, an archaeologist might discover the remains of a few buildings from the first century near the assumed location of Nazareth, and then suddenly, from the Christian community of scholars, there is a claim that Nazareth actually existed! This is a confirmation bias specifically because such scholars are ignoring all the evidence which shows the contrary, that there wasn’t any Nazareth during Jesus time, is actually much more likely to be the case. Rene Salm, for example, has collected all the archaeological and historical data on Nazareth he could find, and his conclusion is that there was no such place during the time of Jesus. And the same is true of nearly all of the "findings" of "Biblical archaeologists". Their finding ;proove nothing but their own desires to confirm what they already believed. As you pointed out, there is not a single reference to "The Philistines" as an ancient world empire. They simply did not exist.Two points. First, just because someone is able to quote the Bible, you presume that equates to "praise" for the Bible? Really? let's be clear, I have never suggestred that the Bible does not contain some positive suggestions for how to behave ethically. Guess what? I have also read the Quran, the Satanic Bible, The Book of Mormon, and many others. Most of them contain some positive suggestions for how to live one's life.. "The Prince" includes useful ideas. Tsun Tsu has some fantastic advice for political leaders. However, I do not believe that any of them were written, or even "inspired" by some mythical magical skyman. They were written by men. Their narratives were imagined, and written by men. They were, every one of them, the creation of men. Which is why everyone of them also include portions that are absolutely contrary to healthy living. In the case of the religious texts, it is why almost all of them also include narratives, and stories of events for which there is not a single shred of independent corroboration - and let us be clear; theists keep insisting that, because the places spoken of in the Bible have been discovered to have actually existed, that is proof that the people, and events occurred; it's not - and many of which defy the laws of physics. It is also important to note that theists - particularly Christians - have, throughout history, constantly moved the bar for acceptance of the Bible as reliable. From the time that the bible was written, it was considered to be the literal truth, and every single event recorded in the Bible was considered to be unquestionably accurate, and true. Over the last few centuries, any Christian that expects to be taken seriously has consistently, as science has been proving that the events of the Bible were actually impossible, relegated the bible to "Allegory, hyperbole, and metaphor". Were any science book, or any other work so consistently disproved, they would be discarded as works of fiction, and completely unreliable, yet Theists, in their need to continue to believe in a magical skyman, repeatedly redefine the nature of the narrative of their holy books in order to justify continuing to accept them as "accurate", and relevant. It rather begs the question, just how much of these books need to be demonstrated to be inaccurate, and impossible, before Theists give up on their holy books, and admit that they are works of fiction - works of fiction with some very good philosophical ideas, to be sure, but works of fiction, nonetheless.
Second, you mock my use of Denmark, and Sweden as if I mentioned them as the only modern atheist societies; they aren't. I only use them as representative of modern organic atheist societies, as opposed to the authoritarian societies that all attempted to force atheism on their societies by use of force, and law. Allow me to be clear; authoritarian atheism is just as wrong, dangerous, reprehensible as are forced theocracies. Neither I, nor any rational atheist I know, would ever advocate forcing atheism on a nation's citizens as a matter of law, any more than we do forcing theism on its citizens as a matter of law. Look at the clashes between atheists, and theists in our nation - particularly in the courts. Name a single case where the ath3eists are demanding that some atheist position be dictated to the people? Are we demanding that "One nation under God" be replaced with "One nation under logic"? No, we are just advocating that the religious indoctrination be removed from the pledge. Are we demanding that "In God We Trust" be replaced on our currency with "In Reason We Trust"? No, we just want the religious indoctrination be removed from the currency. And this is true in every case. In not a single instance do atheists want atheist dogma (such as it exists) to replace religious dogma. We just want religion to stay out of the public arena, and allow citizens to decide for themselves how religious, if at all, they wish to be. That being said, Denmark, and Germany is far from the only modern examples - almost all of them positive - to embrace atheists. There is the Czech Republic, Austria, France, Norway, Australia, even Japan, just to name a few. Now, am I suggesting that any of these nations is a utopia that is devoid of any problems? Of course not. Does any rational person actually believe that it would actually be possible to find such a Utopia in the real world? I would hope not; to believe that would make one criminally naïve. However, many of the issues facing those nations is certainly not endemic of atheism. For instance, the problem of violence against women was brought up, as if that is only a problem created by atheism. I would suggest that there are many religious nations - those in the Middle East come screaming to mind - to see that this is simply not the case. However, what these nations do demonstrate is that religion is absolutely not necessary to create a positive, ethical society.
Where did the weekend come from? The Industrial revolution. The typical work week was actually six to seven days, right up until the 1920's. It wasn't a biblical principal that brought about the two-day weekend; it was economics. As farms began failing during the early 20th century, and factories began huge hiring drives to accommodate mass production, and the increase in demand that came with it, farmers began moving to the cities, and going to work for the factories. Unfortunately, these farmers were used to setting their own hours, and resented the factories demanding the long (sometimes as long as 18 hours) days, and the seven day work weeks. A prominent factory owner — Henry Ford — also played a big role. Even though the federal government didn't begin to limit companies to a 40-hour workweek until 1938, Ford began to give his factory workers a two-day weekend in the early 1900s.
Why did he do this? He wanted to sell the cars his workers were making. He realised that his own workers were some of his best customers. If he wanted to sell more cars, he decided that his workers needed time off to be able to drive and enjoy them.
So the next time the weekend rolls around and you want to thank someone, thank the labour movement, including labour unions, that existed in the late 1800s. And thank Henry Ford, who recognised that the economy gets a boost if workers have a couple of days off each week to purchase goods and enjoy using them! And you can thank the Christian tradition - not to be confused with the religion - as well as Jewish tradition, but don't thank the Bible, because it had nothing to do with it.
Sorry, to disappoint, but I not only read your opinions, but pointed out where you were mistaken. No memes necessary. The storm of memes was for dingdong's benefit. When I decided that he was incapable of original thought, and therefore not worthy of real discussion, the memes were all he deserved until I go bored, and blocked him.
Have you ever heard of Biblical Archeology? It is the only scientific field based upon a religious book that I'm aware of. In case you did not know, these are not religious zealots. Instead, these are people who recognize the Bible as a valuable historical source to help unlock mysteries of the past. Case in point is the existence of the Philistine people There is no historical record of them existing EXCEPT in the Bible. Essentially they just read about the account and tried to determine about where they should have lived according to the Bible and started digging and found them. It still goes on today and has reaped incredible archeological finds.
Sure. It should be respected for what it is - a book of stories written by men, dictating rules, devised by men, on how one should live in their opinions, no different than the Edda, the Quran, or The Art of War.Does this prove that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate? No. In fact, not all Biblical Archeologists agree that it is all accurate. There are some controversial accounts where not all of them agree. What it does show, however, is that the Bible should be a book that is respected for what it is. The Bible tells us the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to the men and women of the Bible. Religious texts that paint their religious heroes as perfect don't interest me in the least. In fact, Moses, one of the biggest Patriarchs in the Bible was a murderer who stuttered so bad he begged God to have his brother speak for him and a temper so bad God kept him from entering the Promised Land. Does this prove that the Bible is accurate, no, but it is much more believable than say the Koran that paints Mohammad as perfect.
Or the story is complete, and utter bullshit. OAre there references to the historical personage of Jesus? Sure. However, they are limited, at best. All they mention is that he was crucified, and he engendered a cult that believed outlandish things about him. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the accuracy of the religious texts written about him.Of course, the Bible does paint one man as perfect, and that is Jesus. The only way this is believable is that he was actually God in the flesh. For the first time, we have God speaking to us directly without the use of prophets and writers. Like it or not Christ has become the most influential man on the face of the earth despite never having wealth or a position of power and was killed at an early age to boot. I don't think many really even question if he existed or not since there are other historical references to him outside the Bible.
If the Bible is not the flawless word of God, then it is useless. After all, who gets to be the arbiter of which parts are accurate, which pars are allegorical, and which parts are just plain wrong? And, by what authority? Sorry, your suggestion that the Bible is wrong, but should still be given the authority of divine source is simply not logical.As for the Bible being 100% accurate, the Bible simply does not make this claim, rather, this has been the claim of many who believe it to be the inspired word of God. The thinking is that if it is the inspired word of God then there must be no flaws whatsoever, but not all of faith agree with that assessment since men who are flawed are often those who give the account.
Who says he didn't? You do realize that there are som 400+ texts from the same period as the four Gospels that the Nicean Council chose not to include in the Bible? Many of them are runmoured to still be housed in the archives of the Vatican. We only know that Jesus did not write about himself in the texts that the religious overlords, when they decided which books they wanted the masses to have access to, chose to include in the "Official" version of the Bible.So why then did Jesus not write about himself?
You get that most of the pre-christian gods are no longer worshipped, not because no one wanted to worship them, but because Christian "soldiers" put them to death, if they did, right?In conclusion, considering all of these facts and the fact that the Bible has survived thousands of years of theological rigor and criticism I dare say there is nothing that can be done to silence those who believe. Consider the many religions that have come and gone. The gods of the Greeks are no longer worshipped, nor of the Romans, nor of the Aztecs, etc. In fact, ancient religions are few and far between. Off the top of my head there is the God of the Bible and Hinduism, a very short list. Today, the world is dominated by the God of the Bible in many branches and sects and divisions of religion. In fact, other than Hinduism, it is the only ancient religion left. Now if God is real, I would think that such a God would be a God of the ancients as well as those of today, don't you?
Look up the actual history of Patricuis (St. Patrick) sometime. He is not the peaceful, loving priest, who helpfully "drove out the snakes" from Ireland. He was a warrior priest, and the "snakes" were the pagan druids, which he "ran out" bu wholesale slaughter. It was genocide. The Irish were given a choice, convert to Christianity, or Patrick would come, with his holy army, and would wipe them out of existence. And this was the common practice of Christians whenever they encountered followers of pagan religions. I'm not entirely certain that is such a great endorsement of Christianity.
I would submit that there are many factors that are responsible for the social issues facing us that have nothing to do with atheism, or secularism.As for your nonsupport of authoritarian rule, I applaud this. It is refreshing to hear someone who is an atheist not insist that the state intrude on our lives to make everything fair and moral, which has essentially become a socialist religion without the worship of a super natural God. What I do know though is that the less moral a society becomes the more incapable it is of being free. After all, if society had the morality of a prison full of convicts the only way to maintain a civil society would be to build a wall around them and hire a warden. I've often joked that prison is actually a liberal utopia. There are no guns, housing is free, food is free, everyone dresses the same, medical care is free, and everyday is gay pride day.
In terms of the moral fiber of society, I can only speak for the country in which I live because I'm a witness, and that witness is that as I see the US become increasingly secular, morality has waned considerably. No longer can we not lock our doors at night. Every day you hear of a mass shooting. Children that have been denied prayer in school or even the most basic teaching of morality are now taking guns to school and killing for the first time in US history. Why? Is it all because of religion? If so, how?
Know this, with every law and regulation passed freedom wanes. In the US alone, they pass about 40,000 a year. Are we any better for it? Moreover, are they really needed? Is society so far gone that we need hundreds of thousands of new laws and regulations to keep us in line every decade or so? Must the state take our guns away because we are no longer moral enough to own them? Must the free market be wiped out because we are not moral enough to handle economic freedom? Perhaps. Ben Franklin aptly said that the Constitution will last as long as the moral fiber of society will allow it to survive. He recognized that only a moral people are responsible enough to have freedom. Those who cannot regulate their own lives in a moral fashion, will have the state try to do it for them by force.
As for your Henry Ford story, sorry. Moses predates Henry Ford. Try again.
And, Moses never existed. Period.
No, the Philistines did, in fact, exist.
Where Did the Philistines Come From? - Biblical Archaeology Society
Confirmation bias? Again, these are not religious zealots. They simply read the Bible and go digging. It is not based on their faith.
I know that black holes exist ... I was told that.
I know that dinosaurs existed ... I was told that.
I know that there is life after death ... I was told that, too.
I believe all three of them.
Believing scientific claims because a book says so is superior to believing religious claims because a book says so. The double standard makes me giggle often.
why is there no reference to these mythical Philistines anywhere outside of the religious texts, and the fake archaeologists basing their claims off of those religious texts?
I know that black holes exist ... I was told that.
I know that dinosaurs existed ... I was told that.
I know that there is life after death ... I was told that, too.
I believe all three of them.
Believing scientific claims because a book says so is superior to believing religious claims because a book says so. The double standard makes me giggle often.
LOL --- got any idea how silly that sounds?
I know that black holes exist ... I was told that.
I know that dinosaurs existed ... I was told that.
I know that there is life after death ... I was told that, too.
I believe all three of them.
Believing scientific claims because a book says so is superior to believing religious claims because a book says so. The double standard makes me giggle often.
LOL --- got any idea how silly that sounds?
