Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

[newpolitics]

Happily, God is much smarter than Jefferson was. If only Jefferson was alive to day to see the prophesy of Revelation come to pass.
Can you tell me something about Israel 2000 years from now?
Neither could Jefferson, a creation of the Creator.

I was a Christian 30 years ago and I kept hearing the "any day now" crap then as well. So when is this going to happen? Personally I think the Christian churches have been trying their best to bring about their self-fulfilling prophesy because of this ridiculous Apocalyptic interpretation of a book that was most likely nothing more than symbolic anti-Roman observations of the time.

Then the fact that Israel became a nation 2000 years later on the exact day predicted was a symbolic anti Roman thing?

How about the prophesy that once gathered, they would go back to speaking Hebrew?
No one that has been displaced for 2,000 years ever went back to their original language.
But they did.

30 years ago, Israel was not surrounded by her enemies. They are now.

The Ethiopian Jews had not yet returned to Israel. They have now.

We now have armies over 200 million men. Impossible in John's time.

Also impossible until now was the ability to hear the gospel world wide.

There has been no red heifer to sacrifice for 2,000 years. Now there is.
In May 1997 the first Red Heifer was born in 2000 years. Another red Heifer was born in Israel in March of 2002.

Russia could not have invaded Israel at the time John wrote Revelation. On the other hand do you see them choosing their allies as we speak?

I can do this 2,000 times.

Give me a mere mortal that can tell me what to expect next year, let alone 2,000 years into the future.
You had the wrong people telling you things 30 years ago.
Don't consider God fallible, just because man is.

Prophecy in the bible is entirely vague. There are many prophecies in the bible that did not come true, evidenced by such things as:

The Destruction of Tyre- God states that Nebuchadnezzar would Destroy Tyre, but he doesn't. Tyre flourishes for 240 years, until Alexander the Great gets rid of it.

The Destruction of Egypt- " Egypt has never been a desolate waste, there has never been a time when people have not walked through it, there has never been a period of forty years when Egypt was uninhabited, and it has never been surrounded by other desolate countries.[5]" (rationalwiki)

Nile Will Dry up (Ezekiel 30:20)- There is no evidence of this ever happening in recorded history.

These are only a FEW examples of inerrancy in the bible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh my. Okay, so are we getting into law definitions now? Is this what the discussion has come to?

Okay, so, if you want to know what I think material evidence is, it is evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a hypothesis. No, I am not talking about strictly "physical" evidence, although that is what most commonly fits the bill, at least in a legal sense.

That said, faith is still perfectly possible independent of material evidence. If I hold to a belief in a thing, be it a God, idea, UFOs, ghosts, etc. in the presence of material evidence that contradicts it, I am operating on faith. You cannot possibly be so thick as to continue to refuse to acknowledge this, can you?

If you want to continue to see me as an enemy, that is your business. In my opinion, you are so blinded by fighting me over semantics that you probably assume I am an atheist or agnostic, even though I have never indicated at any time my beliefs, other than not being a Christian. You are so blinded by trying to prove me wrong that you will take me to task on anything, including the simple concept of what faith is. I'm not criticizing that you have faith, nor trying to dissuade you from it. You are the first person I have run into in over 40 years of life that has ever refused to acknowledge that basic idea of faith. So, in that respect, hats off I guess for being original.

You used a term, why shouldn't I apply the proper definition to it? By the way, legally, material evidence is any evidence at all, including testimony, not just physical evidence. That means you are still using it wrong.

Since material evidence can go either to prove, or disprove, something, how can you possibly say there is no material evidence in a discussion about religion? If you believe in something despite the existence of evidence to disprove it you are not operating on faith, you are delusional. Faith is not delusion.

I don't see you as an enemy, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs, just your insistence that faith is not based on facts despite the evidence I provided that directly contradicts your belief. I see you as a fool who is operating on the delusion that your interpretation of reality supersedes the history of the human race.

The Bible actually tells me to be ready to give a reason for my faith. I can't do that if my faith is not based on reason, so your insistence on using the wrong definition of faith just proves you do not understand faith. The fact that I am the first person you have run into in 40 years that understands that does not make me wrong, it just means you haven't run into anyone that understands it.

At least we're finally getting somewhere. I gotta get going in a few minutes for the day. Let me say this. If you re-read my post, I said that material evidence is not strictly physical. Please, please, please do me the favor of representing what I actually said. I'm trying to show you the same respect, and if I get it wrong, I expect you to correct me on it. However, physical evidence makes up the bulk of material evidence in most cases.

And again, at no point did I call faith "delusion." You're being defensive and assuming that's what I mean. I think we may have run the course of this diversion, but I still can't see how you can continue to refute that faith is independent of material evidence or logical proof. After all, it IS one of the primary senses of the word, is it not? I don't think that can be ignored. And, yes, faith CAN be delusional, it simply is not a given. Regardless, faith is perfectly possible without any material or logical justification. I think we would both agree that it is pretty blind faith, but blind faith is faith too.

Whatever branding you want to place on faith, I wish you well. I simply cannot accompany you.

I am using what you really said, you just think you said something else.

You keep telling me something I already know.

The Bible contains written testimony, that makes it material evidence of the claims made by the writers. Some of those writers claim to be eyewitnesses of the events they describe. One of them claims to have gathered written evidence and interviewed people who saw the events, he then attempted to write an honest and historical description of the events they witnessed.

You said that faith does not rely on material evidence. Even if all a person does is read the Bible they are relying on material evidence for their faith. That proves my point, Christians do not believe without evidence, and that proves your assertion that faith means that there is no material evidence is wrong.

Your continued insistence on your definition, despite the fact that actual evidence exists that you can pick up and read for yourself, makes you, by your definition, delusional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You used a term, why shouldn't I apply the proper definition to it? By the way, legally, material evidence is any evidence at all, including testimony, not just physical evidence. That means you are still using it wrong.

Since material evidence can go either to prove, or disprove, something, how can you possibly say there is no material evidence in a discussion about religion? If you believe in something despite the existence of evidence to disprove it you are not operating on faith, you are delusional. Faith is not delusion.

I don't see you as an enemy, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs, just your insistence that faith is not based on facts despite the evidence I provided that directly contradicts your belief. I see you as a fool who is operating on the delusion that your interpretation of reality supersedes the history of the human race.

The Bible actually tells me to be ready to give a reason for my faith. I can't do that if my faith is not based on reason, so your insistence on using the wrong definition of faith just proves you do not understand faith. The fact that I am the first person you have run into in 40 years that understands that does not make me wrong, it just means you haven't run into anyone that understands it.

At least we're finally getting somewhere. I gotta get going in a few minutes for the day. Let me say this. If you re-read my post, I said that material evidence is not strictly physical. Please, please, please do me the favor of representing what I actually said. I'm trying to show you the same respect, and if I get it wrong, I expect you to correct me on it. However, physical evidence makes up the bulk of material evidence in most cases.

And again, at no point did I call faith "delusion." You're being defensive and assuming that's what I mean. I think we may have run the course of this diversion, but I still can't see how you can continue to refute that faith is independent of material evidence or logical proof. After all, it IS one of the primary senses of the word, is it not? I don't think that can be ignored. And, yes, faith CAN be delusional, it simply is not a given. Regardless, faith is perfectly possible without any material or logical justification. I think we would both agree that it is pretty blind faith, but blind faith is faith too.

Whatever branding you want to place on faith, I wish you well. I simply cannot accompany you.

a) Testimony not based on real facts is inadmissible in court, you can't just go into court and say "god told me to" or else you'll actually be declared insane.

b) Faith IS a delusion, basing your beliefs on an invisible superbeing from another dimension that no one has ever gone to is, if not a delusion, then what?

1. Wrong on all counts. Testimony is always admissible even if it is based on an outright lie. It is illegal to lie in court, but it is still admissible.
2. Faith is only a delusion to people who deny the fact that the Bible exists. To everyone else, they are the ones that are deluded.

 

[ima]

At least we're finally getting somewhere. I gotta get going in a few minutes for the day. Let me say this. If you re-read my post, I said that material evidence is not strictly physical. Please, please, please do me the favor of representing what I actually said. I'm trying to show you the same respect, and if I get it wrong, I expect you to correct me on it. However, physical evidence makes up the bulk of material evidence in most cases.

And again, at no point did I call faith "delusion." You're being defensive and assuming that's what I mean. I think we may have run the course of this diversion, but I still can't see how you can continue to refute that faith is independent of material evidence or logical proof. After all, it IS one of the primary senses of the word, is it not? I don't think that can be ignored. And, yes, faith CAN be delusional, it simply is not a given. Regardless, faith is perfectly possible without any material or logical justification. I think we would both agree that it is pretty blind faith, but blind faith is faith too.

Whatever branding you want to place on faith, I wish you well. I simply cannot accompany you.

a) Testimony not based on real facts is inadmissible in court, you can't just go into court and say "god told me to" or else you'll actually be declared insane.

b) Faith IS a delusion, basing your beliefs on an invisible superbeing from another dimension that no one has ever gone to is, if not a delusion, then what?

1. Wrong on all counts. Testimony is always admissible even if it is based on an outright lie. It is illegal to lie in court, but it is still admissible.
2. Faith is only a delusion to people who deny the fact that the Bible exists. To everyone else, they are the ones that are deluded.

1)lying in court isn't admissible.
2) It's hard to deny that the bible exists, you can buy it anywhere. Too bad your invisible god isn't held to the same standard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

a) Testimony not based on real facts is inadmissible in court, you can't just go into court and say "god told me to" or else you'll actually be declared insane.

b) Faith IS a delusion, basing your beliefs on an invisible superbeing from another dimension that no one has ever gone to is, if not a delusion, then what?

1. Wrong on all counts. Testimony is always admissible even if it is based on an outright lie. It is illegal to lie in court, but it is still admissible.
2. Faith is only a delusion to people who deny the fact that the Bible exists. To everyone else, they are the ones that are deluded.

1)lying in court isn't admissible.
2) It's hard to deny that the bible exists, you can buy it anywhere. Too bad your invisible god isn't held to the same standard.

1. It isn't legal, but it is certainly admissible. If it wasn't, most police would be barred from courtrooms.
2. What makes you think God is invisible?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You used a term, why shouldn't I apply the proper definition to it? By the way, legally, material evidence is any evidence at all, including testimony, not just physical evidence. That means you are still using it wrong.

Since material evidence can go either to prove, or disprove, something, how can you possibly say there is no material evidence in a discussion about religion? If you believe in something despite the existence of evidence to disprove it you are not operating on faith, you are delusional. Faith is not delusion.

I don't see you as an enemy, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs, just your insistence that faith is not based on facts despite the evidence I provided that directly contradicts your belief. I see you as a fool who is operating on the delusion that your interpretation of reality supersedes the history of the human race.

The Bible actually tells me to be ready to give a reason for my faith. I can't do that if my faith is not based on reason, so your insistence on using the wrong definition of faith just proves you do not understand faith. The fact that I am the first person you have run into in 40 years that understands that does not make me wrong, it just means you haven't run into anyone that understands it.

At least we're finally getting somewhere. I gotta get going in a few minutes for the day. Let me say this. If you re-read my post, I said that material evidence is not strictly physical. Please, please, please do me the favor of representing what I actually said. I'm trying to show you the same respect, and if I get it wrong, I expect you to correct me on it. However, physical evidence makes up the bulk of material evidence in most cases.

And again, at no point did I call faith "delusion." You're being defensive and assuming that's what I mean. I think we may have run the course of this diversion, but I still can't see how you can continue to refute that faith is independent of material evidence or logical proof. After all, it IS one of the primary senses of the word, is it not? I don't think that can be ignored. And, yes, faith CAN be delusional, it simply is not a given. Regardless, faith is perfectly possible without any material or logical justification. I think we would both agree that it is pretty blind faith, but blind faith is faith too.

Whatever branding you want to place on faith, I wish you well. I simply cannot accompany you.

I am using what you really said, you just think you said something else.

You keep telling me something I already know.

The Bible contains written testimony, that makes it material evidence of the claims made by the writers. Some of those writers claim to be eyewitnesses of the events they describe. One of them claims to have gathered written evidence and interviewed people who saw the events, he then attempted to write an honest and historical description of the events they witnessed.

You said that faith does not rely on material evidence. Even if all a person does is read the Bible they are relying on material evidence for their faith. That proves my point, Christians do not believe without evidence, and that proves your assertion that faith means that there is no material evidence is wrong.

Your continued insistence on your definition, despite the fact that actual evidence exists that you can pick up and read for yourself, makes you, by your definition, delusional.

Such anger. I thought Christians were supposed to be loving.

Now you're just resorting to name calling. I presume you are calling me delusional because you perceive that I called you delusional, which I never did. I'm simply trying to have a conversation with you, for the purposes of enriching my knowledge and understanding of the world and the people who inhabit it. I spoke of what I see as potentially delusional thinking. You simply took it as an accusation, possibly out of defensiveness.

And don't tell me that Christians don't believe without evidence. Many of them do. If you're not one of them, then good for you. I appreciate your efforts to show solidarity to your flock, but let's not get hasty. Depending on which version of the resurrection passages you choose to read, the one that sticks out in my mind is that of Mark. A man appeared to Mary and the disciples who didn't even resemble Jesus. They, behaving as rational beings, doubted it was Jesus. I would do the same thing. It was only after he admonished them that they gave in. Now, if we assume for a moment that those passages are a depiction of true events, is that an example of the kind of material evidence you speak of?

I know you see me as a vile, disgusting enemy. That's sad but I understand. I'm not the nicest guy in the world, and some of the things I say are unsavory. I love to debate, and I love a good tangle with somebody I disagree with. So, in that light, you should take it as a compliment that I want to spend this much effort with you. I myself am VERY flattered in return.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At least we're finally getting somewhere. I gotta get going in a few minutes for the day. Let me say this. If you re-read my post, I said that material evidence is not strictly physical. Please, please, please do me the favor of representing what I actually said. I'm trying to show you the same respect, and if I get it wrong, I expect you to correct me on it. However, physical evidence makes up the bulk of material evidence in most cases.

And again, at no point did I call faith "delusion." You're being defensive and assuming that's what I mean. I think we may have run the course of this diversion, but I still can't see how you can continue to refute that faith is independent of material evidence or logical proof. After all, it IS one of the primary senses of the word, is it not? I don't think that can be ignored. And, yes, faith CAN be delusional, it simply is not a given. Regardless, faith is perfectly possible without any material or logical justification. I think we would both agree that it is pretty blind faith, but blind faith is faith too.

Whatever branding you want to place on faith, I wish you well. I simply cannot accompany you.

I am using what you really said, you just think you said something else.

You keep telling me something I already know.

The Bible contains written testimony, that makes it material evidence of the claims made by the writers. Some of those writers claim to be eyewitnesses of the events they describe. One of them claims to have gathered written evidence and interviewed people who saw the events, he then attempted to write an honest and historical description of the events they witnessed.

You said that faith does not rely on material evidence. Even if all a person does is read the Bible they are relying on material evidence for their faith. That proves my point, Christians do not believe without evidence, and that proves your assertion that faith means that there is no material evidence is wrong.

Your continued insistence on your definition, despite the fact that actual evidence exists that you can pick up and read for yourself, makes you, by your definition, delusional.

Such anger. I thought Christians were supposed to be loving.

Now you're just resorting to name calling. I presume you are calling me delusional because you perceive that I called you delusional, which I never did. I'm simply trying to have a conversation with you, for the purposes of enriching my knowledge and understanding of the world and the people who inhabit it. I spoke of what I see as potentially delusional thinking. You simply took it as an accusation, possibly out of defensiveness.

And don't tell me that Christians don't believe without evidence. Many of them do. If you're not one of them, then good for you. I appreciate your efforts to show solidarity to your flock, but let's not get hasty. Depending on which version of the resurrection passages you choose to read, the one that sticks out in my mind is that of Mark. A man appeared to Mary and the disciples who didn't even resemble Jesus. They, behaving as rational beings, doubted it was Jesus. I would do the same thing. It was only after he admonished them that they gave in. Now, if we assume for a moment that those passages are a depiction of true events, is that an example of the kind of material evidence you speak of?

I know you see me as a vile, disgusting enemy. That's sad but I understand. I'm not the nicest guy in the world, and some of the things I say are unsavory. I love to debate, and I love a good tangle with somebody I disagree with. So, in that light, you should take it as a compliment that I want to spend this much effort with you. I myself am VERY flattered in return.

Trust me on this Jimmy, if you think I am posting angry you really don't want to see me angry. Pointing out that you are delusional is not calling you names, calling you a stupid asswipe would be calling you a name. Maybe you should go home until you get tough enough to take a little criticism.

There are a lot of people who claim to be Christian in the world, that doesn't make it true. I stick to my guns in insisting that Christians do not believe without evidence. How can they when every Christian is baptized in the Spirit and in fire? Maybe the problem is you haven't actually talked to Christians. Once again, your personal experience in life does not refute mine.

Tell me something, if we are discussing the resurrection of Jesus, how would eyewitness testimony of that event not be material evidence?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I am using what you really said, you just think you said something else.

You keep telling me something I already know.

The Bible contains written testimony, that makes it material evidence of the claims made by the writers. Some of those writers claim to be eyewitnesses of the events they describe. One of them claims to have gathered written evidence and interviewed people who saw the events, he then attempted to write an honest and historical description of the events they witnessed.

You said that faith does not rely on material evidence. Even if all a person does is read the Bible they are relying on material evidence for their faith. That proves my point, Christians do not believe without evidence, and that proves your assertion that faith means that there is no material evidence is wrong.

Your continued insistence on your definition, despite the fact that actual evidence exists that you can pick up and read for yourself, makes you, by your definition, delusional.

Such anger. I thought Christians were supposed to be loving.

Now you're just resorting to name calling. I presume you are calling me delusional because you perceive that I called you delusional, which I never did. I'm simply trying to have a conversation with you, for the purposes of enriching my knowledge and understanding of the world and the people who inhabit it. I spoke of what I see as potentially delusional thinking. You simply took it as an accusation, possibly out of defensiveness.

And don't tell me that Christians don't believe without evidence. Many of them do. If you're not one of them, then good for you. I appreciate your efforts to show solidarity to your flock, but let's not get hasty. Depending on which version of the resurrection passages you choose to read, the one that sticks out in my mind is that of Mark. A man appeared to Mary and the disciples who didn't even resemble Jesus. They, behaving as rational beings, doubted it was Jesus. I would do the same thing. It was only after he admonished them that they gave in. Now, if we assume for a moment that those passages are a depiction of true events, is that an example of the kind of material evidence you speak of?

I know you see me as a vile, disgusting enemy. That's sad but I understand. I'm not the nicest guy in the world, and some of the things I say are unsavory. I love to debate, and I love a good tangle with somebody I disagree with. So, in that light, you should take it as a compliment that I want to spend this much effort with you. I myself am VERY flattered in return.

Trust me on this Jimmy, if you think I am posting angry you really don't want to see me angry. Pointing out that you are delusional is not calling you names, calling you a stupid asswipe would be calling you a name. Maybe you should go home until you get tough enough to take a little criticism.

There are a lot of people who claim to be Christian in the world, that doesn't make it true. I stick to my guns in insisting that Christians do not believe without evidence. How can they when every Christian is baptized in the Spirit and in fire? Maybe the problem is you haven't actually talked to Christians. Once again, your personal experience in life does not refute mine.

Tell me something, if we are discussing the resurrection of Jesus, how would eyewitness testimony of that event not be material evidence?

It would be, providing it is true. However, assuming it were true, a man who does not resemble Jesus saying that he is and then yelling at somebody who doesn't believe it is not material evidence FOR it being Jesus but against it.

Why are we getting into talking about toughness now? Goodness. Most rational people are going to take being called delusional as insulting. Six years in the Navy spent in more intense verbal lashing than most people come across in life, believe me, I'm fine. I appreciate your concern though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Such anger. I thought Christians were supposed to be loving.

Now you're just resorting to name calling. I presume you are calling me delusional because you perceive that I called you delusional, which I never did. I'm simply trying to have a conversation with you, for the purposes of enriching my knowledge and understanding of the world and the people who inhabit it. I spoke of what I see as potentially delusional thinking. You simply took it as an accusation, possibly out of defensiveness.

And don't tell me that Christians don't believe without evidence. Many of them do. If you're not one of them, then good for you. I appreciate your efforts to show solidarity to your flock, but let's not get hasty. Depending on which version of the resurrection passages you choose to read, the one that sticks out in my mind is that of Mark. A man appeared to Mary and the disciples who didn't even resemble Jesus. They, behaving as rational beings, doubted it was Jesus. I would do the same thing. It was only after he admonished them that they gave in. Now, if we assume for a moment that those passages are a depiction of true events, is that an example of the kind of material evidence you speak of?

I know you see me as a vile, disgusting enemy. That's sad but I understand. I'm not the nicest guy in the world, and some of the things I say are unsavory. I love to debate, and I love a good tangle with somebody I disagree with. So, in that light, you should take it as a compliment that I want to spend this much effort with you. I myself am VERY flattered in return.

Trust me on this Jimmy, if you think I am posting angry you really don't want to see me angry. Pointing out that you are delusional is not calling you names, calling you a stupid asswipe would be calling you a name. Maybe you should go home until you get tough enough to take a little criticism.

There are a lot of people who claim to be Christian in the world, that doesn't make it true. I stick to my guns in insisting that Christians do not believe without evidence. How can they when every Christian is baptized in the Spirit and in fire? Maybe the problem is you haven't actually talked to Christians. Once again, your personal experience in life does not refute mine.

Tell me something, if we are discussing the resurrection of Jesus, how would eyewitness testimony of that event not be material evidence?

It would be, providing it is true. However, assuming it were true, a man who does not resemble Jesus saying that he is and then yelling at somebody who doesn't believe it is not material evidence FOR it being Jesus but against it.

Why are we getting into talking about toughness now? Goodness. Most rational people are going to take being called delusional as insulting. Six years in the Navy spent in more intense verbal lashing than most people come across in life, believe me, I'm fine. I appreciate your concern though.

Are you calling them liars? What proof do you have, other than your arrogance?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Trust me on this Jimmy, if you think I am posting angry you really don't want to see me angry. Pointing out that you are delusional is not calling you names, calling you a stupid asswipe would be calling you a name. Maybe you should go home until you get tough enough to take a little criticism.

There are a lot of people who claim to be Christian in the world, that doesn't make it true. I stick to my guns in insisting that Christians do not believe without evidence. How can they when every Christian is baptized in the Spirit and in fire? Maybe the problem is you haven't actually talked to Christians. Once again, your personal experience in life does not refute mine.

Tell me something, if we are discussing the resurrection of Jesus, how would eyewitness testimony of that event not be material evidence?

It would be, providing it is true. However, assuming it were true, a man who does not resemble Jesus saying that he is and then yelling at somebody who doesn't believe it is not material evidence FOR it being Jesus but against it.

Why are we getting into talking about toughness now? Goodness. Most rational people are going to take being called delusional as insulting. Six years in the Navy spent in more intense verbal lashing than most people come across in life, believe me, I'm fine. I appreciate your concern though.

Are you calling them liars? What proof do you have, other than your arrogance?

I did not call it a lie. I am suggesting that it is more than a little questionable. If one gospel says that a "man" was in the tomb saying Jesus is risen, and in another is it says an angel shimmering like lightning, I would call that questionable. If one gospel says Jesus appeared to the disciples in another form, they questioned it, and he admonished them as his only means of proof, while other accounts are more flashy, I would call that questionable.

I don't claim to be right about the gospels, what in them are true, what in them are false due to historic shading, omissions, additions, or even outright lies. Anything that is passed down from generation to generation is prone to change. Why would the Bible be any different? Are the people passing it down not people? Hell, the Book of Mormon has undergone editorial changes over the years and it is less than 200 years old.

So, I am willing to concede and allow for the possibility that you use material evidence in your faith. My experience, AND my research, have told me, to the best of my ability, that most people of faith rely more on feelings and instincts and supernatural inclinations than on verifiable information. That is the best that I can do. I suppose you are saying that your beliefs are NOT based in part on your personal experiences? I would find that hard to believe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did not call it a lie. I am suggesting that it is more than a little questionable. If one gospel says that a "man" was in the tomb saying Jesus is risen, and in another is it says an angel shimmering like lightning, I would call that questionable. If one gospel says Jesus appeared to the disciples in another form, they questioned it, and he admonished them as his only means of proof, while other accounts are more flashy, I would call that questionable.

You don't know much about eyewitness testimony, do you? If one witness to an accident says the car was dark blue and another says it was silver does that mean the accident didn't happen?

I don't claim to be right about the gospels, what in them are true, what in them are false due to historic shading, omissions, additions, or even outright lies. Anything that is passed down from generation to generation is prone to change. Why would the Bible be any different? Are the people passing it down not people? Hell, the Book of Mormon has undergone editorial changes over the years and it is less than 200 years old.

The Bible was written, and has survived unchanged for centuries. Anyone that knows anything about the Bible would tell you the same thing, there is documentation that proves it. I don't actually know enough about the Book of Mormon to comment on its textual accuracy, feel free to challenge a Mormon about it if you want answers.

So, I am willing to concede and allow for the possibility that you use material evidence in your faith. My experience, AND my research, have told me, to the best of my ability, that most people of faith rely more on feelings and instincts and supernatural inclinations than on verifiable information. That is the best that I can do. I suppose you are saying that your beliefs are NOT based in part on your personal experiences? I would find that hard to believe.

Why do you keep going back to your experience like it means something? Does the fact that you have never seen the surface of Pluto somehow serve as evidence that Pluto has no surface? The difference between an intelligent man and a fool is a fool thinks he knows everything, and an intelligent man knows he doesn't know anything.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I was a Christian 30 years ago and I kept hearing the "any day now" crap then as well. So when is this going to happen? Personally I think the Christian churches have been trying their best to bring about their self-fulfilling prophesy because of this ridiculous Apocalyptic interpretation of a book that was most likely nothing more than symbolic anti-Roman observations of the time.

Then the fact that Israel became a nation 2000 years later on the exact day predicted was a symbolic anti Roman thing?

How about the prophesy that once gathered, they would go back to speaking Hebrew?
No one that has been displaced for 2,000 years ever went back to their original language.
But they did.

30 years ago, Israel was not surrounded by her enemies. They are now.

The Ethiopian Jews had not yet returned to Israel. They have now.

We now have armies over 200 million men. Impossible in John's time.

Also impossible until now was the ability to hear the gospel world wide.

There has been no red heifer to sacrifice for 2,000 years. Now there is.
In May 1997 the first Red Heifer was born in 2000 years. Another red Heifer was born in Israel in March of 2002.

Russia could not have invaded Israel at the time John wrote Revelation. On the other hand do you see them choosing their allies as we speak?

I can do this 2,000 times.

Give me a mere mortal that can tell me what to expect next year, let alone 2,000 years into the future.
You had the wrong people telling you things 30 years ago.
Don't consider God fallible, just because man is.

Prophecy in the bible is entirely vague. There are many prophecies in the bible that did not come true, evidenced by such things as:

The Destruction of Tyre- God states that Nebuchadnezzar would Destroy Tyre, but he doesn't. Tyre flourishes for 240 years, until Alexander the Great gets rid of it.

The Destruction of Egypt- " Egypt has never been a desolate waste, there has never been a time when people have not walked through it, there has never been a period of forty years when Egypt was uninhabited, and it has never been surrounded by other desolate countries.[5]" (rationalwiki)

Nile Will Dry up (Ezekiel 30:20)- There is no evidence of this ever happening in recorded history.

These are only a FEW examples of inerrancy in the bible.

You couldn't be more wrong. Prophecy is the opposite of vague. It is much more precise than your argument against it:

There were two Tyres and two parts to God's prediction. You missed that.
One participant in the destruction was Nebuchadnezzar.
The other was an "other nation". Ezek. 26:3

For the prophesy to be 100% fulfilled, it had to be fulfilled by more than Nebuchadnezzar.
Neb destroyed the mainland Tyrus, never to be rebuilt, and another nation destroyed the island sister city using the rubble Neb left of mainland Tryre to build a bridge to the island metropolis. Neither have ever been restored.

The other prophecies you mentioned are end time prophesies. There are 2,500 end time prophesies. All but 500 have been fulfilled. One to look for in the near future is that Damascus will be leveled, never to be rebuilt.

As for precision:
483 years into the future Daniel (9:25) and Zechariah (9:9) predicted the exact day that Jesus would enter Jerusalem and his exact mode of transportation. And the correct sex of his transportation, and His transportation's degree of training.
It can't be more precise.
Can you do that?

 

[ima]

As for precision:
483 years into the future Daniel (9:25) and Zechariah (9:9) predicted the exact day that Jesus would enter Jerusalem and his exact mode of transportation. And the correct sex of his transportation, and His transportation's degree of training.
It can't be more precise.
Can you do that?

Jesus rode a donkey that I doubt had much training.

 

[ima]

I did not call it a lie. I am suggesting that it is more than a little questionable. If one gospel says that a "man" was in the tomb saying Jesus is risen, and in another is it says an angel shimmering like lightning, I would call that questionable. If one gospel says Jesus appeared to the disciples in another form, they questioned it, and he admonished them as his only means of proof, while other accounts are more flashy, I would call that questionable.

You don't know much about eyewitness testimony, do you? If one witness to an accident says the car was dark blue and another says it was silver does that mean the accident didn't happen?

I don't claim to be right about the gospels, what in them are true, what in them are false due to historic shading, omissions, additions, or even outright lies. Anything that is passed down from generation to generation is prone to change. Why would the Bible be any different? Are the people passing it down not people? Hell, the Book of Mormon has undergone editorial changes over the years and it is less than 200 years old.

The Bible was written, and has survived unchanged for centuries. Anyone that knows anything about the Bible would tell you the same thing, there is documentation that proves it. I don't actually know enough about the Book of Mormon to comment on its textual accuracy, feel free to challenge a Mormon about it if you want answers.

So, I am willing to concede and allow for the possibility that you use material evidence in your faith. My experience, AND my research, have told me, to the best of my ability, that most people of faith rely more on feelings and instincts and supernatural inclinations than on verifiable information. That is the best that I can do. I suppose you are saying that your beliefs are NOT based in part on your personal experiences? I would find that hard to believe.

Why do you keep going back to your experience like it means something? Does the fact that you have never seen the surface of Pluto somehow serve as evidence that Pluto has no surface? The difference between an intelligent man and a fool is a fool thinks he knows everything, and an intelligent man knows he doesn't know anything.

The earliest fragment of one of the scripts that the bible was based on has been dated to around 350AD, so most of it is made up. Gee, imagine that, a story about an invisible superbeing that rules over us from another dimension is all made up fairy tales. Who woulda thunk it?

 

[editec]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869[12] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Thomas Henry Huxley said:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.​

[11]
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxleyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley


A (without) gnosis (knowledge of GOD)


One can be a believer of something while acknowledging that one has no concept of what that something is.

THAT is what agnosticism, means.

I am an agnostic Christian in the sense that I believe the dictates and teachings of JC are worthy of following but I do not know (nor do I believe anybody does know, not EVEN Jesus) what GOD actually means.

I am an agnostic Buddhist, in the sense that I believe the dictates and teachings of The Buddha were worthy of following but I do not know (nor do I believe anybody does know, not EVEN JBuddha) what GOD actually means.

Does that seem a tad confused?

WEll it is, which is why the term agnostic is the fitting term to describe the state where one AGKNOWLEDGES THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW.

 

[ima]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869[12] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Thomas Henry Huxley said:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.​

[11]
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxleyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley


A (without) gnosis (knowledge of GOD)


One can be a believer of something while acknowledging that one has no concept of what that something is.

THAT is what agnosticism, means.

I am an agnostic Christian in the sense that I believe the dictates and teachings of JC are worthy of following but I do not know (nor do I believe anybody does know, not EVEN Jesus) what GOD actually means.

I am an agnostic Buddhist, in the sense that I believe the dictates and teachings of The Buddha were worthy of following but I do not know (nor do I believe anybody does know, not EVEN JBuddha) what GOD actually means.

Does that seem a tad confused?

WEll it is, which is why the term agnostic is the fitting term to describe the state where one AGKNOWLEDGES THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW.

Ok girls, listen up. You can't be agnostic if you think that a god exists. Being agnostic means that you don't know whether a god exists or doesn't exist because no proof has been given either way. So if you don't know, you can't say it exists. You contradict yourself.
And you aren't a follower of JC if you don't believe in god and his kingdom as JC describes it...
Simple.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did not call it a lie. I am suggesting that it is more than a little questionable. If one gospel says that a "man" was in the tomb saying Jesus is risen, and in another is it says an angel shimmering like lightning, I would call that questionable. If one gospel says Jesus appeared to the disciples in another form, they questioned it, and he admonished them as his only means of proof, while other accounts are more flashy, I would call that questionable.

You don't know much about eyewitness testimony, do you? If one witness to an accident says the car was dark blue and another says it was silver does that mean the accident didn't happen?



The Bible was written, and has survived unchanged for centuries. Anyone that knows anything about the Bible would tell you the same thing, there is documentation that proves it. I don't actually know enough about the Book of Mormon to comment on its textual accuracy, feel free to challenge a Mormon about it if you want answers.

So, I am willing to concede and allow for the possibility that you use material evidence in your faith. My experience, AND my research, have told me, to the best of my ability, that most people of faith rely more on feelings and instincts and supernatural inclinations than on verifiable information. That is the best that I can do. I suppose you are saying that your beliefs are NOT based in part on your personal experiences? I would find that hard to believe.

Why do you keep going back to your experience like it means something? Does the fact that you have never seen the surface of Pluto somehow serve as evidence that Pluto has no surface? The difference between an intelligent man and a fool is a fool thinks he knows everything, and an intelligent man knows he doesn't know anything.

The earliest fragment of one of the scripts that the bible was based on has been dated to around 350AD, so most of it is made up. Gee, imagine that, a story about an invisible superbeing that rules over us from another dimension is all made up fairy tales. Who woulda thunk it?

Wrong.

The earliest known fragment of the New Testament is dated to the 1st century and there are numerous fragments of the New Testament that date to the 2nd century. That puts your dating off by about 200 years.

The Septuagint dates to 250 AD, 100 years before your date, and contains a Greek translation of the entire Old Testament that is similar to the NLT, yet it agrees with the Old Testament remarkably well.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 100 BC, a full 450 years before your date. Prior to the discovery of those scrolls the oldest known copies of the Old Testament were from about 900 AD, a full 1000 years later, yet there are no significant differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the copies that were made a millenia later.

 

[ima]

You don't know much about eyewitness testimony, do you? If one witness to an accident says the car was dark blue and another says it was silver does that mean the accident didn't happen?

The Bible was written, and has survived unchanged for centuries. Anyone that knows anything about the Bible would tell you the same thing, there is documentation that proves it. I don't actually know enough about the Book of Mormon to comment on its textual accuracy, feel free to challenge a Mormon about it if you want answers.



Why do you keep going back to your experience like it means something? Does the fact that you have never seen the surface of Pluto somehow serve as evidence that Pluto has no surface? The difference between an intelligent man and a fool is a fool thinks he knows everything, and an intelligent man knows he doesn't know anything.

The earliest fragment of one of the scripts that the bible was based on has been dated to around 350AD, so most of it is made up. Gee, imagine that, a story about an invisible superbeing that rules over us from another dimension is all made up fairy tales. Who woulda thunk it?

Wrong.

The earliest known fragment of the New Testament is dated to the 1st century and there are numerous fragments of the New Testament that date to the 2nd century. That puts your dating off by about 200 years.

The Septuagint dates to 250 AD, 100 years before your date, and contains a Greek translation of the entire Old Testament that is similar to the NLT, yet it agrees with the Old Testament remarkably well.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 100 BC, a full 450 years before your date. Prior to the discovery of those scrolls the oldest known copies of the Old Testament were from about 900 AD, a full 1000 years later, yet there are no significant differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the copies that were made a millenia later.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, I was off, earliest New Testament fragment is around 125AD, with most pieces around year 175 to 250. And it's only a fragment, so no one really knows what that gospel said. If that's what it even was. So my conclusion stands, it's all a bunch of hearsay and fairy tales, written way after the facts happened, which means that Jesus could be a totally made up person.

 

[amrchaos]

Agnosticism is not the right choice.

Agnosticism is the doubtful choice!

 

[ima]

Agnosticism is not the right choice.

Agnosticism is the doubtful choice!

So is it that dinosaurs didn't believe in god so He wiped them out?