None of it is true - Does this bother anyone?

[Riverwolf]

You've never been in a debate class, have you?

I presented the premise of the religion

I demonstrated from within the confines of that religion how it is false.

I demonstrated from within the confines of the physical universe how it is false.

Personal opinion does not enter into it.

Why not?

I had been under the impression that debates carried out here have been about defending one's position on things, a.k.a., their PERSONAL OPINION. I can see the logic in using the above format, which I had previously been ignorant of. (I admit I have not taken a debate class, nor do I have any intention of doing so at this time.)

Besides, isn't a thesis to an essay primarily an OPINION?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Your first mistake is assuming then definiation of sin hasn't change for 6,000 years. Your second is using the phrase "the Christian faith".

Really?

Then do tell us, Oh wise One, what act(s) were once sins as defined by the bible and NOW are not and vice versa?

And do please explain to we the unenlightened (as of yet, unlightened. I am sure you are about to correct that failing.) Do explain what is incorrect about the phrase "the Christan faith"?

 

[Riverwolf]

My third is engaging in conversation with someone who refuses to understand the premise of the argument or speak to the merits of the argument rather than attempting to sidestep the issues with attempting to discredit me.

(I think you mean to say "and instead attempts" in place of "rather than attempting")

I will admit that using the premise you have provided, your argument is valid, and makes sense.

It's just not a premise that I'm all that familiar with, as I rarely see it in a debate here.

 

[Diederick]

The Creation story puts Adam and Eve at anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (particularly when we take into account the details about Adam's age and the age of those after him).

All of the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that homo sapiens have been around for some 200,000 years, this in stark contrast to the Garden of Eden story. Indeed, all the physical evidence supports evolution on every level whether biological, geological, or astronomical. The only rational conclusion is that the Adam and Eve story is, well, a story.

And this is the first problem: If it is just a story then there never was a singular event called "the fall of man" and therefore all this business of killing bulls or a virgin human sacrifice on a cross is entirely baseless.

The second problem is this: If we assume that the Garden/fall of man story is true, the conclusion that we draw is that the God of the Bible is not, in fact, very good at all. There is not one human being who would kick his/her toddler child out of the house for disobeying them (certainly not on a first offense!) or (if they had the power) alter that child's core being so that every one of her descendants would be born "in sin" and under a curse. This would be akin to a prisoner conceiving a child during a conjugal visit and then the powers that be taking steps to ensure that the child was raised in prison since the parent had committed an offense.

Moreover, the very nature of forgiveness is such that it does not require sacrifice. If your child steals from you, you don't tell them that they have to sacrifice Rover before they can be at peace with you. And if your neighbor offends you, you do not reconcile to them by allowing them to kill your infant son. Either you forgive or you don't.

The entire thing is not only irrational but if any one of us behaved in a similar fashion, we'd be imprisoned. And rightly so.

Therefore, on the one hand the physical universe screams that the Bible story is not true and on the other hand everything that we understand about the words "good" and "loving" scream that the Bible story cannot be the story of a loving God. How then can anyone actually believe this stuff?

I smell friendship.

They can't, well we can't. I've debated many people in the meager three years that I've had an internet connection (I first got e-mail, then porn, then a blogspot); and one thing I've learned is that no one can believe in anything supernatural without a good amount of ignorance. I'm not sure there is no God (if there were I wouldn't like it, but put that aside), but I've established that is most unlikely. It is very probable that what we can perceive is reality, and that's what I'm buying in with. Reality is incompatible with surreality - which largest enterprise is spirituality. I like reality, because it is fair, and because it is logical - besides it doesn't send down sons of Reality to die for things I did wrong. If I do something wrong, I believe I need to pay the penalty, and no one else.

God cannot exist in what is universally accepted as real.

God is a *****, for making me gay and making me pay for it. It's like pulling off the wings of a fly and making fun of it because it can't fly anymore.

You are absolutely right in terms of reality. I guess I won't need to tell you that religious people will bite you for that. :bow: Don't bow to anyone, unless you are being praised.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Slave4six and Madhair,

You are actually overlooking the emerging discussion on the origins of secularization and modernity. I am myself am just venturing out in that area of study, but before you shake your head at me I suggest at least picking up Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age".

 

[Willamena]

Reality is incompatible with surreality...

Is surreality really surreal? Perhaps not so incompatible as one might think.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Slave4six and Madhair,

You are actually overlooking the emerging discussion on the origins of secularization and modernity. I am myself am just venturing out in that area of study, but before you shake your head at me I suggest at least picking up Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age".

Even if we accept your assertion that the entire progress of Man is due to the belief in your version of god (a totally unmerited concession) even so, it only says your faith has served its purpose and can now be retired to the dustbin of history.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Really?

Then do tell us, Oh wise One, what act(s) were once sins as defined by the bible and NOW are not and vice versa?

Having a period is a good example.

And do please explain to we the unenlightened (as of yet, unlightened. I am sure you are about to correct that failing.) Do explain what is incorrect about the phrase "the Christan faith"?

It asserts by the nature of being singular that there's is one singular view on Christianity, when in fact there are not. The practices of certain Christians wildly diverge from those of others in modern day, and when compaired to old times can become disturbing perverted. (Like how orginal Christians views indoctrinating children as sinful and wasteful.)

 

[AlsoAnima]

Even if we accept your assertion that the entire progress of Man is due to the belief in your version of god (a totally unmerited concession) even so, it only says your faith has served its purpose and can now be retired to the dustbin of history.

Or we could say that due to infinite complexability of the world it's impossible to attribute progress and digression to any one religion, but rather the fault lies on the motives and actions of the people who put them in place. And that those motivations and actions were created by many facets of society and genetic code that can't be simple defined as "Religion did it." or "Nonreligion did it."

 

[Riverwolf]

Having a period is a good example.It asserts by the nature of being singular that there's is one singular view on Christianity, when in fact there are not. The practices of certain Christians wildly diverge from those of others in modern day, and when compaired to old times can become disturbing perverted. (Like how orginal Christians views indoctrinating children as sinful and wasteful.)

That's not something I've ever heard, and I do know that Jesus once said: "Suffer little children, and do not prevent them from coming to me, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Do you have any corroborations?

 

[AlsoAnima]

That's not something I've ever heard, and I do know that Jesus once said: "Suffer little children, and do not prevent them from coming to me, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Do you have any corroborations?

There is a difference in teaching children the lessons of the bible and indoctrinating them. (One involve teaching them good mroals and the other involves ironcasting young minds to a faith) However, I appear to have used the wrong term, I didn't mean orginal Christians, I meant Early Christians. Second Generation I suppose.

 

[Riverwolf]

I smell friendship.

They can't, well we can't. I've debated many people in the meager three years that I've had an internet connection (I first got e-mail, then porn, then a blogspot); and one thing I've learned is that no one can believe in anything supernatural without a good amount of ignorance. I'm not sure there is no God (if there were I wouldn't like it, but put that aside), but I've established that is most unlikely. It is very probable that what we can perceive is reality, and that's what I'm buying in with. Reality is incompatible with surreality - which largest enterprise is spirituality. I like reality, because it is fair, and because it is logical - besides it doesn't send down sons of Reality to die for things I did wrong. If I do something wrong, I believe I need to pay the penalty, and no one else.

Reality is hardly fair, nor is it always logical. I've seen nothing to tell me otherwise.

God cannot exist in what is universally accepted as real.

Except what is universally accepted as real contains a God. 85% of the human population has a belief in some form of Supreme Being.

God is a *****, for making me gay and making me pay for it. It's like pulling off the wings of a fly and making fun of it because it can't fly anymore.

It's certain Christians who say things like that, not God.

You are absolutely right in terms of reality. I guess I won't need to tell you that religious people will bite you for that. :bow: Don't bow to anyone, unless you are being praised.

So don't bow to anyone unless they're bowing to you first? Then who's to say who should bow first?

 

[Riverwolf]

There is a difference in teaching children the lessons of the bible and indoctrinating them. (One involve teaching them good mroals and the other involves ironcasting young minds to a faith) However, I appear to have used the wrong term, I didn't mean orginal Christians, I meant Early Christians. Second Generation I suppose.

I still see no corroboration. Do you have any?

I mean citations, if you're unclear as to what I mean.

 

[AlsoAnima]

I still see no corroboration. Do you have any?

I mean citations, if you're unclear as to what I mean.

The location I'm at doesn't allow me to access my information. I apologize for the inconvience.

 

[Riverwolf]

The location I'm at doesn't allow me to access my information. I apologize for the inconvience.

That's okay. I've been in similar situations, as well.

Just give citations as soon as you can.

 

[AlsoAnima]

God is a *****, for making me gay and making me pay for it. It's like pulling off the wings of a fly and making fun of it because it can't fly anymore.

God is a wonderful person for making me a homosexual. It's a extremely mind opening experience.

Hmm... we have complete opposite view on the same thing!

 

[Alceste]

The main problem with your reply is that it completely ignores that the entire Jewish nation was built upon the divine revelations in the Torah, that they offered sacrifices in keeping with the law, and that every time they were exiled they were blamed for being "unfaithful to God." These are literal, historical facts. The Illiad and whatnot were known to be works of fiction and never presented or accepted as anything more. The Torah was never considered fiction. Those people took it so seriously that they were willing to kill their own children if they walked away from the faith or rebelled in any way.

Well then thank god those days are done is all I can say. But why do you think (assuming this is true) it has anything to do with modern Christianity? Yeah, there are some hardcore fundamentalists, but they're a tiny minority.

 

[slave2six]

(I think you mean to say "and instead attempts" in place of "rather than attempting")

I will admit that using the premise you have provided, your argument is valid, and makes sense.

It's just not a premise that I'm all that familiar with, as I rarely see it in a debate here.

I appreciate your candor. I am new to this forum and so have little experience with other discussions but after a lifetime within the religious community I would hazard a guess that most discussions here are based on the idea that the participants accept the basic premise of the particular religion and like to talk about the nuances thereof. I am more interested in exposing the fallacy of the Christian religion at its most basic levels if for no other reason than to cause those within it to stop and think about what they believe.

 

[slave2six]

They can't, well we can't. I've debated many people in the meager three years that I've had an internet connection (I first got e-mail, then porn, then a blogspot); and one thing I've learned is that no one can believe in anything supernatural without a good amount of ignorance.

Have you read anything by Terry Pratchett? If not, you'll love his work. Here's one of my favorite blurbs:

"71-hour Ahmed was not superstitious. He was substitious, which put him in a minority among humans. He didn’t believe in the things everyone believed in but which nevertheless weren’t true. He believed instead in the things that were true in which no one else believed. There are many such substitions, ranging from 'It’ll get better if you don’t pick at it' all the way up to 'Sometimes things just happen.'" - Terry Pratchett, Jingo, pg 238

 

[Riverwolf]

I appreciate your candor. I am new to this forum and so have little experience with other discussions but after a lifetime within the religious community I would hazard a guess that most discussions here are based on the idea that the participants accept the basic premise of the particular religion and like to talk about the nuances thereof. I am more interested in exposing the fallacy of the Christian religion at its most basic levels if for no other reason than to cause those within it to stop and think about what they believe.

Believe it or not, most believers here do just that and more: not only do they stop and think about what they believe, they question it, too. To them, questioning their religion only makes their belief in it stronger.