With that being said, I also believe in allowing others the right to believe as they wish freely and without persecution. One thing I hate is when people try to "convince" others that their path is wrong, whether that be religious or otherwise.
The only thing I'm strictly against religion-wise is it's use in politics as a crutch to forcibly instill it's hypocritical "American value" image, it's bullshit. But that's mostly carried by out-of-touch extremely corrupt political figures to try and poison the minds of the young and ignorant.
Since I tried writing this on my own and the fucking page refreshed 2 times already, I'll just post the pages from the book I've read, it explains everything:
I think it sums it up pretty well, if you want to read more, here's the link to his book, where he covers everything about God and more claims to his existence:
sigh I can see you don't understand what I'm saying - or maybe you simple don't like it?
A theory is just that; A theory. It's not logical till you have clear evidence as such to make it a believable one. You don't have that. No one does. As such, it falls back on to blind faith that's all it is.
That theory is nothing more then ideas, built on more ideas on how it all works. That's not logic. It's guess work.
So I guess you just won't agree with logical thinking?
You'd assume that if one would call something out for being illogical, he's be logical enough to explain why.
When I'm saying "theory" - that's because God didn't shout it into my ear, but it is still the most logical thing to assume, and if you want to tell me I'm wrong, you're going to have to tell me why.
This isn't blind faith, blind faith would be faith that one would keep even when proven wrong, I was not proven wrong.
There's a difference between guessing and being logical - if this isn't called being logical, you either show me what is or accept that it is.
I'm not "guessing" that this world has a divine origin, I'm inferring it does. And if you feel like there's some sort of fallacy in my pattern of thinking, by all means, go ahead and explain it.
sigh I can see you don't understand what I'm saying - or maybe you simple don't like it?
A theory is just that; A theory. It's not logica… morel till you have clear evidence as such to make it a believable one. You don't have that. No one does. As such, it falls back on to blind faith that's all it is.
That theory is nothing more then ideas, built on more ideas on how it all works. That's not logic. It's guess work.
...that doesn't really answer my question - lots of the above is contained in the Torah and the Qur'an.
The Ancient Roman gods predicted the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the destruction of Troy, the fate of the Alban kings, etc.
Also, in an incredibly long book, you're always going to get some things right by just pure chance. Those pictures ignore every single thing the Bible has got wrong, and every way it contradicts itself.
Also I'm not even going into the 'lots of famous americans think the bible is right' thing - how is that even an argument?!
It isn't, I know, it's just to show that not only stupid people believe that the Bible is divine
...that doesn't really answer my question - lots of the above is contained in the Torah and the Qur'an.
Of course, but the NT and the OT (which includes the Torah) do not contradict each other, they go hand-in-hand - and the Qur'an is nothing like the NT and the OT, it's like Mormonism - they veered away from everything written in the preceding scriptures.
Also, in an incredibly long book, you're always going to get some things right by just pure chance. Those pictures ignore every single thing the Bible has got wrong, and every way it contradicts itself.
But to get so many right? You sure need some faith to believe that is just random. Besides, how could they predict something like a geographic fault line in a specific piece of land by "chance"?
Can I see some contradictions you might have? I might be able to address some of them - or at least say what I think.
...that doesn't really answer my question - lots of the above is contained in the Torah and the Qur'an.
The Ancient Roman gods predicted … morethe rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the destruction of Troy, the fate of the Alban kings, etc.
Also, in an incredibly long book, you're always going to get some things right by just pure chance. Those pictures ignore every single thing the Bible has got wrong, and every way it contradicts itself.
Also I'm not even going into the 'lots of famous americans think the bible is right' thing - how is that even an argument?!
The romans and Greeks got lots of things right too. by following their religion. Such as predicting the future 1500 years in advance. How could that have happened by 'chance'?
It isn't, I know, it's just to show that not only stupid people believe that the Bible is divine
...that doesn't really answer my que… morestion - lots of the above is contained in the Torah and the Qur'an.
Of course, but the NT and the OT (which includes the Torah) do not contradict each other, they go hand-in-hand - and the Qur'an is nothing like the NT and the OT, it's like Mormonism - they veered away from everything written in the preceding scriptures.
Also, in an incredibly long book, you're always going to get some things right by just pure chance. Those pictures ignore every single thing the Bible has got wrong, and every way it contradicts itself.
But to get so many right? You sure need some faith to believe that is just random. Besides, how could they predict something like a geographic fault line in a specific piece of land by "chance"?
Can I see some contradictions you might have? I might be able to addre… [view original content]
You are correct.
It was originally stated as: "Thou shalt not murder."
Why King James puts it as "Thou shalt not kill," I'm not sure.
But I do want to thank you for being respectful, in your reply.
Religion is obviously a very sensitive issue nowadays, and I can understand why some might not want anything to do with it.
I've shared my beliefs before, and I've received many hate comment for it.
If you don't mind me asking, which version; or translation of the bible do you read?
I personally don't like the King James version of the bible, since they mistranslated some things, like the commandment "thou shalt not kill… more" - originally supposed to mean "thou shalt not murder" - a pretty big difference, since kill doesn't have to be intentional, and murder is.
No, it's not. It's the human mind trying to find reason in something beyond our control. You can't shout a theory out and say "prove me wrong". It's up to the theory to be proven right in the first place. It hasn't.
Yes, everything has a start, but that doesn't automatically mean it started with a god. Your theory doesn't stand up to any scrutiny as it's built from the ground up on bad logic. There's no proof where it starts is right nor where the theory ends.
A theory isn't logical till it's proven to be right. It's just an idea on how something works. If people put faith in it, then it's blind faith, as you don't know it's right or wrong.
When I'm saying "theory" - that's because God didn't shout it into my ear, but it is still the most logical thing to assume, and if you want… more to tell me I'm wrong, you're going to have to tell me why.
This isn't blind faith, blind faith would be faith that one would keep even when proven wrong, I was not proven wrong.
There's a difference between guessing and being logical - if this isn't called being logical, you either show me what is or accept that it is.
I'm not "guessing" that this world has a divine origin, I'm inferring it does. And if you feel like there's some sort of fallacy in my pattern of thinking, by all means, go ahead and explain it.
I'm not saying "God is real - prove me wrong!", I'm concluding that a divine power of sorts must be real, and if you can't prove it wrong by logic, then there's no reason to believe it's "unreasonable".
I'm not finding reason in someting unreasonable, don't you see that you can't just tell me I'm wrong without supplying some sort of actual arguments?
It has to be divine, who else could have started our existence? You might say "aliens" or something alike that, but that is illogical because they would have had to be created by someone too. Everything has a cause, that cause must derive from intent, by a power that is permanent and is able to create existence
A theory can be logical even if not proven right, as long as it follows basic logic. Everything in science that is the most accurate assumption to answer a certain question is called a "theory", it's not just a wild idea.
I do know if it's right or wrong, it has to be right, because there is no other option, unless you suggest another one.
No, it's not. It's the human mind trying to find reason in something beyond our control. You can't shout a theory out and say "prove me wron… moreg". It's up to the theory to be proven right in the first place. It hasn't.
Yes, everything has a start, but that doesn't automatically mean it started with a god. Your theory doesn't stand up to any scrutiny as it's built from the ground up on bad logic. There's no proof where it starts is right nor where the theory ends.
A theory isn't logical till it's proven to be right. It's just an idea on how something works. If people put faith in it, then it's blind faith, as you don't know it's right or wrong.
You don't seem to understand.
I'm not saying "God is real - prove me wrong!", I'm concluding that a divine power of sorts must be real, a… morend if you can't prove it wrong by logic, then there's no reason to believe it's "unreasonable".
I'm not finding reason in someting unreasonable, don't you see that you can't just tell me I'm wrong without supplying some sort of actual arguments?
It has to be divine, who else could have started our existence? You might say "aliens" or something alike that, but that is illogical because they would have had to be created by someone too. Everything has a cause, that cause must derive from intent, by a power that is permanent and is able to create existence
A theory can be logical even if not proven right, as long as it follows basic logic. Everything in science that is the most accurate assumption to answer a certain question is called a "theory", it's not just a wild idea.
I do know if it's right… [view original content]
I'm total agnostic for the moment, trying to find what I think. Pretty sure I'm approaching the atheist conclusion. If I am going to believe something, it'll probably be Christianity, but the gender stance, on top of the stance on homosexuality drive me away. I had a group that I could discuss this with for a while, but then it turned from a safe place to discuss into one that's, well... Not. Not to mention, I don't want to believe that a good majority of my idols and heroes are burning right now.
You are correct.
It was originally stated as: "Thou shalt not murder."
Why King James puts it as "Thou shalt not kill," I'm not sure.
B… moreut I do want to thank you for being respectful, in your reply.
Religion is obviously a very sensitive issue nowadays, and I can understand why some might not want anything to do with it.
I've shared my beliefs before, and I've received many hate comment for it.
If you don't mind me asking, which version; or translation of the bible do you read?
But it's not like we don't know, what I wrote is not just an idea, it is a conclusion of a logical process of inferring and elimination one that has so far been irrefutable by anyone who I showed it to.
Like you said, everything has a start, and everything that exists has to have some kind of creator: whether it was intelligent or not, conscious or unconscious, divine or not - and for the first things to have come from nothing (which they must have, since the universe has a beginning and does not go back in time infinitely - if it were infinite years for this universe to exist we would have never arrived to the current year), there must be a cause that is beyond science, beyond human abilities and beyond space and time.
Again, I'm not following anything blindly. I was brought up in a secular home, and for most of my life were confident that God is just an invention. But I found out that it isn't, a lot of things have convinced me - and still continue to. I chose to believe, and only after I knew for 100% that there must be a creator for this universe to be made from nothing to something.
Since this is pretty much going in circles, and I suck at explaining, I'll leave you to it and post this book, it's written by a lawyer who's been atheist for about 39 years and has concluded in the end that God does exist, he explained all of his points in great detail:
But it's not like we don't know, what I wrote is not just an idea, it is a conclusion of a logical process of inferring and elimination one … morethat has so far been irrefutable by anyone who I showed it to.
Like you said, everything has a start, and everything that exists has to have some kind of creator: whether it was intelligent or not, conscious or unconscious, divine or not - and for the first things to have come from nothing (which they must have, since the universe has a beginning and does not go back in time infinitely - if it were infinite years for this universe to exist we would have never arrived to the current year), there must be a cause that is beyond science, beyond human abilities and beyond space and time.
Again, I'm not following anything blindly. I was brought up in a secular home, and for most of my life were confident that God is just an invention. But I found out that it isn't, a lot of things have convinced me - and … [view original content]
Since there are so many of those, would it be ok if I asked you to bring a couple that you want answered, and I'll answer them? If not, I can just take a couple of them and answer to you, for example I see some contradictions that I can already "solve" which I picked at random (I'm taking them all from the same website):
Contradiction: Is it OK to kill?
Solution: The people who put this on their website clearly took it from the King James translation of the Bible, in which the word "murder" was supposed to be written in several places instead of the word "kill" - so it was supposed to be "thou shalt not murder". There is a big difference between the two words; Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought, and killing is either murder that is morally justified or without malice thought. For example, according to Exodus 21:12-13 and Numbers 35:22-25, accidental killing is not a sin. Another example would be a killing performed in self-defense (or in defense of one’s home), which does not count as murder (Exodus 22:2) or a killing performed in an attempt to save the life of an innocent person (Exodus 2:11-12 and Genesis 14:14-16)
Contradiction: Where was Jacob buried?
The Bible doesn't say in one place that Jacob was buried at Machpelah near Mamre, and in another that he was buried at Shechem; it says in one place that he was buried at Machpelah near Mamre and in another that that Stephen said that he was buried at Shechem. Jacob was indeed buried at Machpelah near Mamre, and the Bible accurately reports Stephen's statement to the council, so there is no error here. Stephen's statement was false, but inerrantists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, not in the inerrancy of Stephen, so this isn't a problem for biblical inerrancy.
Contradiction: Is it ok to laugh?
This one kinda shows how the makers of this website misinterpreted the verses they're bringing up, and make a big deal out of every little quote in it. There are no contradictions but the verses are misrepresented. It doesn't prohibit laughter. It's merely saying that sometimes sorrow is better because it softens the heart or teaches a deep lesson in life essential for maturity.
Contradiction: Where did Moses receive the Ten Commandments?
This one shows their lack of knowledge about the verses they're quoting and the context of the chapters they were brought from, as well.
"Horeb" and "Sinai" are the same mountain, "Horeb" is just another name to "Sinai".
Contradiction: How many sons did Abraham have?
Ishmael was Abraham's first son through Hagar his servant/slave. His second son was Isaac through his wife Sarah. This was the promised seed and why God refers to him as Abraham's only son. After offering his son Isaac to God on the mountains of Moriah/Jerusalem, he married again and had other sons (after this event and Sarah's death). Also Abraham had sent Ishmael and Hagar away before this event, so Isaac was the only son with him at the time of this event. This then becomes a picture of God offering his Son Jesus as a burnt offering for the world's sin on the same mountains (Although when Abraham did it, it was a trial to test his obedience and will to give everything to God, he stopped him from sacrificing Isaac at the last minute).
Contradiction: Who created the Heaven and the Earth?
Elohim is the Hebrew word for God used in Genesis 1:1. This is plural as is any word ending in 'im' in Hebrew. This can be considered a plural of majesty as some suggest, but it is the same word used for gods in other places in the bible. There is one father, one son and one holy spirit. These are One in unity. Jesus said "I and my father are one." (John 10:30)
Is that enough? Tell me any others you might want, and I'll do my best in explaining what I know.
The romans and Greeks got lots of things right too. by following their religion. Such as predicting the future 1500 years in advance. How co… moreuld that have happened by 'chance'?
Yeah you can see some contradictions, here ya go:
http://bibviz.com/
Hovering over each strand shows bible entries that completely contradict each other.
I read the original Masoretic Text; the one that was discovered by archeologists in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is the most historically and factually accurate one, after all
You are correct.
It was originally stated as: "Thou shalt not murder."
Why King James puts it as "Thou shalt not kill," I'm not sure.
B… moreut I do want to thank you for being respectful, in your reply.
Religion is obviously a very sensitive issue nowadays, and I can understand why some might not want anything to do with it.
I've shared my beliefs before, and I've received many hate comment for it.
If you don't mind me asking, which version; or translation of the bible do you read?
I guess that's fair, I was the same as you are right now, maybe we just have different standards for "evidence".
I still encourage you to read this book, it provides some insight in less then 150 pages and won't do you any harm if you're going to keep your stand. Just a recommendation
I'm total agnostic for the moment, trying to find what I think. Pretty sure I'm approaching the atheist conclusion. If I am going to believe… more something, it'll probably be Christianity, but the gender stance, on top of the stance on homosexuality drive me away. I had a group that I could discuss this with for a while, but then it turned from a safe place to discuss into one that's, well... Not. Not to mention, I don't want to believe that a good majority of my idols and heroes are burning right now.
I'm not blind, I just don't believe in what you believe. How is that bad? And you talk about entitlement- is everyone that believes differently than you blind because your belief is the one true belief?
Ugh. Disagreeing with someone's religious belifs does not make you 'blind'.
I've read every main depiction of the Ancient Greek gods. Cho… moreosing not to believe in them does not make me blind, it just means I've chosen not to follow the Ancient Greek religion.
Well, Hebrew didn't exist when Moses was alive, so its already been translated and interpreted a million times before that phrase was written in Hebrew.
(Hebrew was around 10th Century BCE until about 4th Century CE, whereas Moses is said to have lived in about 14th Century BCE according to the Bible).
I don't know what language it was written in at the particular time, I just know that the original phrase contains the word "murder" and not "kill" like in the King James bible. I guess it was translated accurately into the text I read from from another language.
Well, Hebrew didn't exist when Moses was alive, so its already been translated and interpreted a million times before that phrase was writte… moren in Hebrew.
(Hebrew was around 10th Century BCE until about 4th Century CE, whereas Moses is said to have lived in about 14th Century BCE according to the Bible).
I don't know what language it was written in at the particular time, I just know that the original phrase contains the word "murder" and not… more "kill" like in the King James bible. I guess it was translated accurately into the text I read from from another language.
Okay, I've read it and it's changed nothing. A lot of what he's wrote is cherry picking quotes and making connections from anything and everything. He then ends each argument with a conclusion that doesn't say much other then his own interpretation of what that all means.
Like I said originally, there's just no real evidence for me to believe in religion.
I guess that's fair, I was the same as you are right now, maybe we just have different standards for "evidence".
I still encourage you to… more read this book, it provides some insight in less then 150 pages and won't do you any harm if you're going to keep your stand. Just a recommendation
What I'm saying is that whatever the original text was, it said "murder", not "kill" - since "kill" was a translation error, but in the oldest copy that was found, it said "murder".
I find it hard to believe that you've read the whole book in 8 hours, but maybe I'm just a slow reader.
The quotes he put in weren't the meat of his arguments, how stupid would it be if the book only contained references to smart people who believe in God? You make it sound like it was his main argument while he actually provided pages filled with facts, arguments and archeological/philosophical/biological/cosmological evidence, and only then concluded with quotes of well-respected people in the world of science who agree with his stance, it was just to strengthen the claim by showing it isn't that impossible to come to grips with - even by professionals.
You can keep saying it's his interpretation, but it is beyond subjective interpretation, he isn't saying why he believes God is real, he says why God must be real, and if you can't accept and/or refute what's been said there, you are in no position to call it out for being illogical.
There's plenty of evidence, evidence doesn't have to be solid, it can be philosophical as well. The claim that this universe has a creator has been solidified enough to be called reality, but you don't have to believe it (even though it's not a matter of belief when something has been pretty much proven) - I just find it absurd that you keep saying what I said isn't solid enough while you've made near to zero effort to back your own belief (or lack thereof).
Okay, I've read it and it's changed nothing. A lot of what he's wrote is cherry picking quotes and making connections from anything and ever… moreything. He then ends each argument with a conclusion that doesn't say much other then his own interpretation of what that all means.
Like I said originally, there's just no real evidence for me to believe in religion.
Right, but the oldest text that's been found is still 700 years younger than the person it was reporting - as a result of this, we have no idea at all whether the commandment is supposed to say 'kill' or 'murder', only that it is according to the writings of some random person reporting things that happened nearly a millenia before him.
What I'm saying is that whatever the original text was, it said "murder", not "kill" - since "kill" was a translation error, but in the oldest copy that was found, it said "murder".
Well, it comes down to whether you believe Moses received the 5 books of the Torah in Mount Siani or not. I believe he did, and it isn't impossible that the oldest one we found was another copy someone wrote from the documents that were passed on throughout the generations - but that seems hard to prove or disprove, so it depends if you believe what is written in it or not.
Right, but the oldest text that's been found is still 700 years younger than the person it was reporting - as a result of this, we have no i… moredea at all whether the commandment is supposed to say 'kill' or 'murder', only that it is according to the writings of some random person reporting things that happened nearly a millenia before him.
If he received those books, they 100% weren't in Hebrew - Hebrew didn't exist when Moses was alive.
This means the text that says 'Thou shall not murder' is just a translation. Just as the King James is just a translation. It is also completely impossible for any translation to convey 100% intended meaning, let alone one from 700 years before it was written (which means tens of thousands of translations before it).
So, unfortunately, we have no idea whatsoever what those original books contained, if they did exist. Just as we have no idea what Homer the poet actually said to the people who came to listen to him.
Well, it comes down to whether you believe Moses received the 5 books of the Torah in Mount Siani or not. I believe he did, and it isn't imp… moreossible that the oldest one we found was another copy someone wrote from the documents that were passed on throughout the generations - but that seems hard to prove or disprove, so it depends if you believe what is written in it or not.
I don't have a argument about something starting creation - though the question then moves on to how did that start. It's ultimately an unanswerable question though.
My argument is about religion. I see no reason to follow them as none of them can back up their claims. If you or anyone else wish to follow their path, then go ahead. It's just not for me. I prefer to just accept our existence as it is and live.
I find it hard to believe that you've read the whole book in 8 hours, but maybe I'm just a slow reader.
The quotes he put in weren't the … moremeat of his arguments, how stupid would it be if the book only contained references to smart people who believe in God? You make it sound like it was his main argument while he actually provided pages filled with facts, arguments and archeological/philosophical/biological/cosmological evidence, and only then concluded with quotes of well-respected people in the world of science who agree with his stance, it was just to strengthen the claim by showing it isn't that impossible to come to grips with - even by professionals.
You can keep saying it's his interpretation, but it is beyond subjective interpretation, he isn't saying why he believes God is real, he says why God must be real, and if you can't accept and/or refute what's been said there, you are in no position to call it out for being illogical.
… [view original content]
I find it hard to believe that you've read the whole book in 8 hours, but maybe I'm just a slow reader.
The quotes he put in weren't the … moremeat of his arguments, how stupid would it be if the book only contained references to smart people who believe in God? You make it sound like it was his main argument while he actually provided pages filled with facts, arguments and archeological/philosophical/biological/cosmological evidence, and only then concluded with quotes of well-respected people in the world of science who agree with his stance, it was just to strengthen the claim by showing it isn't that impossible to come to grips with - even by professionals.
You can keep saying it's his interpretation, but it is beyond subjective interpretation, he isn't saying why he believes God is real, he says why God must be real, and if you can't accept and/or refute what's been said there, you are in no position to call it out for being illogical.
… [view original content]
Comments
A logical theory, the only one that is logical unless proven otherwise.
Not really. It's a theory with no substance or anything to build into a logical one.
I'm an Atheist.
With that being said, I also believe in allowing others the right to believe as they wish freely and without persecution. One thing I hate is when people try to "convince" others that their path is wrong, whether that be religious or otherwise.
The only thing I'm strictly against religion-wise is it's use in politics as a crutch to forcibly instill it's hypocritical "American value" image, it's bullshit. But that's mostly carried by out-of-touch extremely corrupt political figures to try and poison the minds of the young and ignorant.
Since I tried writing this on my own and the fucking page refreshed 2 times already, I'll just post the pages from the book I've read, it explains everything:
I think it sums it up pretty well, if you want to read more, here's the link to his book, where he covers everything about God and more claims to his existence:
http://prophecyrevealed.com/LawyersCaseForGod.pdf
So I guess you just won't agree with logical thinking?
You'd assume that if one would call something out for being illogical, he's be logical enough to explain why.
sigh I can see you don't understand what I'm saying - or maybe you simple don't like it?
A theory is just that; A theory. It's not logical till you have clear evidence as such to make it a believable one. You don't have that. No one does. As such, it falls back on to blind faith that's all it is.
That theory is nothing more then ideas, built on more ideas on how it all works. That's not logic. It's guess work.
When I'm saying "theory" - that's because God didn't shout it into my ear, but it is still the most logical thing to assume, and if you want to tell me I'm wrong, you're going to have to tell me why.
This isn't blind faith, blind faith would be faith that one would keep even when proven wrong, I was not proven wrong.
There's a difference between guessing and being logical - if this isn't called being logical, you either show me what is or accept that it is.
I'm not "guessing" that this world has a divine origin, I'm inferring it does. And if you feel like there's some sort of fallacy in my pattern of thinking, by all means, go ahead and explain it.
...that doesn't really answer my question - lots of the above is contained in the Torah and the Qur'an.
The Ancient Roman gods predicted the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the destruction of Troy, the fate of the Alban kings, etc.
Also, in an incredibly long book, you're always going to get some things right by just pure chance. Those pictures ignore every single thing the Bible has got wrong, and every way it contradicts itself.
Also I'm not even going into the 'lots of famous americans think the bible is right' thing - how is that even an argument?!
It isn't, I know, it's just to show that not only stupid people believe that the Bible is divine
Of course, but the NT and the OT (which includes the Torah) do not contradict each other, they go hand-in-hand - and the Qur'an is nothing like the NT and the OT, it's like Mormonism - they veered away from everything written in the preceding scriptures.
But to get so many right? You sure need some faith to believe that is just random. Besides, how could they predict something like a geographic fault line in a specific piece of land by "chance"?
Can I see some contradictions you might have? I might be able to address some of them - or at least say what I think.
Anyway, I gotta go now, I'll check back tomorrow.
The romans and Greeks got lots of things right too. by following their religion. Such as predicting the future 1500 years in advance. How could that have happened by 'chance'?
Yeah you can see some contradictions, here ya go:
http://bibviz.com/
Hovering over each strand shows bible entries that completely contradict each other.
You are correct.
It was originally stated as: "Thou shalt not murder."
Why King James puts it as "Thou shalt not kill," I'm not sure.
But I do want to thank you for being respectful, in your reply.
Religion is obviously a very sensitive issue nowadays, and I can understand why some might not want anything to do with it.
I've shared my beliefs before, and I've received many hate comment for it.
If you don't mind me asking, which version; or translation of the bible do you read?
No, it's not. It's the human mind trying to find reason in something beyond our control. You can't shout a theory out and say "prove me wrong". It's up to the theory to be proven right in the first place. It hasn't.
Yes, everything has a start, but that doesn't automatically mean it started with a god. Your theory doesn't stand up to any scrutiny as it's built from the ground up on bad logic. There's no proof where it starts is right nor where the theory ends.
A theory isn't logical till it's proven to be right. It's just an idea on how something works. If people put faith in it, then it's blind faith, as you don't know it's right or wrong.
You don't seem to understand.
I'm not saying "God is real - prove me wrong!", I'm concluding that a divine power of sorts must be real, and if you can't prove it wrong by logic, then there's no reason to believe it's "unreasonable".
I'm not finding reason in someting unreasonable, don't you see that you can't just tell me I'm wrong without supplying some sort of actual arguments?
It has to be divine, who else could have started our existence? You might say "aliens" or something alike that, but that is illogical because they would have had to be created by someone too. Everything has a cause, that cause must derive from intent, by a power that is permanent and is able to create existence
A theory can be logical even if not proven right, as long as it follows basic logic. Everything in science that is the most accurate assumption to answer a certain question is called a "theory", it's not just a wild idea.
I do know if it's right or wrong, it has to be right, because there is no other option, unless you suggest another one.
That's exactly my point. We don't know. All we have are ideas and theories. So following something blindly like a religion doesn't work for me.
I'm total agnostic for the moment, trying to find what I think. Pretty sure I'm approaching the atheist conclusion. If I am going to believe something, it'll probably be Christianity, but the gender stance, on top of the stance on homosexuality drive me away. I had a group that I could discuss this with for a while, but then it turned from a safe place to discuss into one that's, well... Not. Not to mention, I don't want to believe that a good majority of my idols and heroes are burning right now.
Basically what Chole in True Detetcive is talking about when he's explaining time, before he starts talking about death creating it.
In what language, out of interest?
But it's not like we don't know, what I wrote is not just an idea, it is a conclusion of a logical process of inferring and elimination one that has so far been irrefutable by anyone who I showed it to.
Like you said, everything has a start, and everything that exists has to have some kind of creator: whether it was intelligent or not, conscious or unconscious, divine or not - and for the first things to have come from nothing (which they must have, since the universe has a beginning and does not go back in time infinitely - if it were infinite years for this universe to exist we would have never arrived to the current year), there must be a cause that is beyond science, beyond human abilities and beyond space and time.
Again, I'm not following anything blindly. I was brought up in a secular home, and for most of my life were confident that God is just an invention. But I found out that it isn't, a lot of things have convinced me - and still continue to. I chose to believe, and only after I knew for 100% that there must be a creator for this universe to be made from nothing to something.
Since this is pretty much going in circles, and I suck at explaining, I'll leave you to it and post this book, it's written by a lawyer who's been atheist for about 39 years and has concluded in the end that God does exist, he explained all of his points in great detail:
http://prophecyrevealed.com/LawyersCaseForGod.pdf
Good for him I suppose. For me though, it's not enough. Unless there's a solid reason, I can't and won't follow the word of religion.
Since there are so many of those, would it be ok if I asked you to bring a couple that you want answered, and I'll answer them? If not, I can just take a couple of them and answer to you, for example I see some contradictions that I can already "solve" which I picked at random (I'm taking them all from the same website):
Contradiction: Is it OK to kill?
Solution: The people who put this on their website clearly took it from the King James translation of the Bible, in which the word "murder" was supposed to be written in several places instead of the word "kill" - so it was supposed to be "thou shalt not murder". There is a big difference between the two words; Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought, and killing is either murder that is morally justified or without malice thought. For example, according to Exodus 21:12-13 and Numbers 35:22-25, accidental killing is not a sin. Another example would be a killing performed in self-defense (or in defense of one’s home), which does not count as murder (Exodus 22:2) or a killing performed in an attempt to save the life of an innocent person (Exodus 2:11-12 and Genesis 14:14-16)
Contradiction: Where was Jacob buried?
The Bible doesn't say in one place that Jacob was buried at Machpelah near Mamre, and in another that he was buried at Shechem; it says in one place that he was buried at Machpelah near Mamre and in another that that Stephen said that he was buried at Shechem. Jacob was indeed buried at Machpelah near Mamre, and the Bible accurately reports Stephen's statement to the council, so there is no error here. Stephen's statement was false, but inerrantists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, not in the inerrancy of Stephen, so this isn't a problem for biblical inerrancy.
Contradiction: Is it ok to laugh?
This one kinda shows how the makers of this website misinterpreted the verses they're bringing up, and make a big deal out of every little quote in it. There are no contradictions but the verses are misrepresented. It doesn't prohibit laughter. It's merely saying that sometimes sorrow is better because it softens the heart or teaches a deep lesson in life essential for maturity.
Contradiction: Where did Moses receive the Ten Commandments?
This one shows their lack of knowledge about the verses they're quoting and the context of the chapters they were brought from, as well.
"Horeb" and "Sinai" are the same mountain, "Horeb" is just another name to "Sinai".
Contradiction: How many sons did Abraham have?
Ishmael was Abraham's first son through Hagar his servant/slave. His second son was Isaac through his wife Sarah. This was the promised seed and why God refers to him as Abraham's only son. After offering his son Isaac to God on the mountains of Moriah/Jerusalem, he married again and had other sons (after this event and Sarah's death). Also Abraham had sent Ishmael and Hagar away before this event, so Isaac was the only son with him at the time of this event. This then becomes a picture of God offering his Son Jesus as a burnt offering for the world's sin on the same mountains (Although when Abraham did it, it was a trial to test his obedience and will to give everything to God, he stopped him from sacrificing Isaac at the last minute).
Contradiction: Who created the Heaven and the Earth?
Elohim is the Hebrew word for God used in Genesis 1:1. This is plural as is any word ending in 'im' in Hebrew. This can be considered a plural of majesty as some suggest, but it is the same word used for gods in other places in the bible. There is one father, one son and one holy spirit. These are One in unity. Jesus said "I and my father are one." (John 10:30)
Is that enough? Tell me any others you might want, and I'll do my best in explaining what I know.
Hebrew, it's the raw translation to: "לא תרצח"
I read the original Masoretic Text; the one that was discovered by archeologists in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is the most historically and factually accurate one, after all
I guess that's fair, I was the same as you are right now, maybe we just have different standards for "evidence".
I still encourage you to read this book, it provides some insight in less then 150 pages and won't do you any harm if you're going to keep your stand. Just a recommendation
wait what was that? i'm just feel 'itchy' in my stomach...
over your head i assume.
I was talking about faith.
i was using it as a analogy, i thought you would see that.
Again i was talking about faith. Either you have faith in the lord or you do not. I can't explain the sound of a 357 to a deaf person now can i?
Well, Hebrew didn't exist when Moses was alive, so its already been translated and interpreted a million times before that phrase was written in Hebrew.
(Hebrew was around 10th Century BCE until about 4th Century CE, whereas Moses is said to have lived in about 14th Century BCE according to the Bible).
I don't know what language it was written in at the particular time, I just know that the original phrase contains the word "murder" and not "kill" like in the King James bible. I guess it was translated accurately into the text I read from from another language.
But you don't know that, because you have no idea what the original phrase was.
Okay, I've read it and it's changed nothing. A lot of what he's wrote is cherry picking quotes and making connections from anything and everything. He then ends each argument with a conclusion that doesn't say much other then his own interpretation of what that all means.
Like I said originally, there's just no real evidence for me to believe in religion.
What I'm saying is that whatever the original text was, it said "murder", not "kill" - since "kill" was a translation error, but in the oldest copy that was found, it said "murder".
I find it hard to believe that you've read the whole book in 8 hours, but maybe I'm just a slow reader.
The quotes he put in weren't the meat of his arguments, how stupid would it be if the book only contained references to smart people who believe in God? You make it sound like it was his main argument while he actually provided pages filled with facts, arguments and archeological/philosophical/biological/cosmological evidence, and only then concluded with quotes of well-respected people in the world of science who agree with his stance, it was just to strengthen the claim by showing it isn't that impossible to come to grips with - even by professionals.
You can keep saying it's his interpretation, but it is beyond subjective interpretation, he isn't saying why he believes God is real, he says why God must be real, and if you can't accept and/or refute what's been said there, you are in no position to call it out for being illogical.
There's plenty of evidence, evidence doesn't have to be solid, it can be philosophical as well. The claim that this universe has a creator has been solidified enough to be called reality, but you don't have to believe it (even though it's not a matter of belief when something has been pretty much proven) - I just find it absurd that you keep saying what I said isn't solid enough while you've made near to zero effort to back your own belief (or lack thereof).
Right, but the oldest text that's been found is still 700 years younger than the person it was reporting - as a result of this, we have no idea at all whether the commandment is supposed to say 'kill' or 'murder', only that it is according to the writings of some random person reporting things that happened nearly a millenia before him.
Well, it comes down to whether you believe Moses received the 5 books of the Torah in Mount Siani or not. I believe he did, and it isn't impossible that the oldest one we found was another copy someone wrote from the documents that were passed on throughout the generations - but that seems hard to prove or disprove, so it depends if you believe what is written in it or not.
No, but it isn't possible.
If he received those books, they 100% weren't in Hebrew - Hebrew didn't exist when Moses was alive.
This means the text that says 'Thou shall not murder' is just a translation. Just as the King James is just a translation. It is also completely impossible for any translation to convey 100% intended meaning, let alone one from 700 years before it was written (which means tens of thousands of translations before it).
So, unfortunately, we have no idea whatsoever what those original books contained, if they did exist. Just as we have no idea what Homer the poet actually said to the people who came to listen to him.
A lot of my idols, such as George Carlin, were pretty anti-religion. If Christianity is right, then Carlin is burning.
I'm a fast reader
I don't have a argument about something starting creation - though the question then moves on to how did that start. It's ultimately an unanswerable question though.
My argument is about religion. I see no reason to follow them as none of them can back up their claims. If you or anyone else wish to follow their path, then go ahead. It's just not for me. I prefer to just accept our existence as it is and live.
I can read 300+ page novels in about 6 hours, so I believe it.
Hail Odin.
Well, I didn't say he's lying. I guess I'm just a slow reader.