When the world comes to an end, either:
1) God exists, heaven and hell exists, and non-believers will say, "why didnt I listen?"
or
2) God doesn't exist and you die...
Notifications
Clear all
Small Talk
142
Posts
30
Users
0
Reactions
17.1 K
Views
Originally posted by Bendafatman
When the world comes to an end, either:1) God exists, heaven and hell exists, and non-believers will say, "why didnt I listen?"
or
2) God doesn't exist and you die...
The thing is there has been thousands of religions in human history; all can't be true but they all can be false.
As for the big bang theory I am no expert so I do not pose as one; however some facts I know behind it are:
- The universe (as in space) is expanding
- We can see into the past using telescopes (that see radiation) they can tell that at one point in the past the universe was very dense.
And no science is not a fairy tale unlike the bible it does not have a happy ending where all the "believers rise to the sky" well all the non believers burn.
Originally posted by Satanic4
- We can see into the past using telescopes (that see radiation) they can tell that at one point in the past the universe was very dense.
Yes, but where did that matter come from in the first place? Seeing that the universe was denser in the past does not actually prove anything. It's where that matter came from that's the issue, which happens a few aeons prior.
I mean, you can't claim that matter just appeared, that would be irrational right? And I understand now that your profession is hard fact and stone cold rationality.
Originally posted by Satanic4
And no science is not a fairy tale unlike the bible it does not have a happy ending where all the "believers rise to the sky" well all the non believers burn.
If you'd paid attention to any of my earlier posts you'd see that this is not what the bible teaches at all. That's what's so ironic about this entire discussion, you are trying to disprove a book you've never read or have any interest in reading.
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by ihufa
fact is we haven't figured that out yet. that's why we don't pretend to know.
I think that's better than just thinking of something out of a fairytale and sticking to it no matter what evidence we later find that it's completely wrong
Indeed, but which "fairy tale" has the most evidence?
Satanic is accusing me of being irrational and not sticking to the facts. So I'm just asking him to explain what the facts are.
our fairytale is solely based on things we know and can prove. the christian way is to believe in a book that has nothing proving it other than itself. i don't get what u mean
Originally posted by w34z3l
I mean, he wouldn't deem to tell me I was being irrational unless he knew for a FACT what I was saying was untrue right?Presumably he then knows for a fact what did happen? He wouldn't then pose some theory that wasn't 100% backed up by scientific proof right?
Right??
thing is you're claiming something that can never be disproved, so it's just like me saying there's an invisible spaghetti monster.
you'd think when we got airplanes and flew above the skies and saw there was no heaven that we'd have disproved heaven. but then it became a magical place that doesn't exist in the real world. Every time something disproves it you can just discard the evidence. Basicly if the carbon-14 dating method is correct then christianity should be disproved right?
Originally posted by ihufa
Originally posted by w34z3l
I mean, he wouldn't deem to tell me I was being irrational unless he knew for a FACT what I was saying was untrue right?Presumably he then knows for a fact what did happen? He wouldn't then pose some theory that wasn't 100% backed up by scientific proof right?
Right??
thing is you're claiming something that can never be disproved, so it's just like me saying there's an invisible spaghetti monster.
you'd think when we got airplanes and flew above the skies and saw there was no heaven that we'd have disproved heaven. but then it became a magical place that doesn't exist in the real world. Every time something disproves it you can just discard the evidence. Basicly if the carbon-14 dating method is correct then christianity should be disproved right?
+1, well said, but I am sure your wrong like everyone else who posts here is
Originally posted by brobz
+1, well said, but I am sure your wrong like everyone else who posts here is
Well not everyone:
Originally posted by w34z3l
I mean, you are definitely right. Now it's time for some hard facts about how we appeared out of nothing.Can't wait to be educated by someone as rational as yourself.
Unless that is sarcasm..
I'd also like to point out, that even if you were totally right and there are infact no flaws in the bible it doesn't make it any more true than the spiderman/starwars/lord of the rings books.
They're all stories written by men about real men that the story claims to have existed. The evidence of any of these stories being true is nonexistant, however we know that New York exists, and that's where spiderman is supposed to have lived. That adds some credibility to that story right? We also know the universe exists so that adds some credibility to star wars.
Originally posted by ihufa
I'd also like to point out, that even if you were totally right and there are infact no flaws in the bible it doesn't make it any more true than the spiderman/starwars/lord of the rings books.
Yes, but as we can demonstrate, a huge amount of the bible is demonstrably fact, which adds to legitimacy of the rest. Much of the specific prophecy would have been very difficult to forge as it has been fulfilled throughout the 20th century. Much of the history can also be shown to be factual, so to suggest the bible is a complete "fairy tale" would not even be remotely accurate.
The sections you want to argue are fiction, you have no real roof for. Despite this, Satanic calls me "irrational", for posing a theory in which everything adds up, and there is no proof to the contrary.
I'm surprised no-one in this thread can see how the idea of a "big-bang" is just as irrational, has far less evidence to support it, and requires even more faith than belief in the bible does. There are realms of further arguments to support the bible's authenticity, a mere fraction of which have been discussed in this thread.
Originally posted by ihufa
They're all stories written by men about real men that the story claims to have existed. The evidence of any of these stories being true is nonexistant
This is not true, we merely need to look at archaeology to realise that huge portions of the bible are fact.
Originally posted by ihufa
however we know that New York exists, and that's where spiderman is supposed to have lived. That adds some credibility to that story right? We also know the universe exists so that adds some credibility to star wars.
If you can't see the foolishness behind this logic, I don't know what to tell you.
If you scroll through this thread you will see that no-one has offered a legitimate argument against the authenticity of the bible aside from one that amounts to "it's not true because it's silly".
It's true Satanic did attempt to quote twice from scripture, but these were misquotes and demonstrate a deep mis-understanding of the book he is trying to disprove. No further objective arguments have been offered aside from the video on contradictions. Berzerger evidently felt this was so powerful it needed a requote. If you bother to read the scriptures quoted you will see that much of it is quite obviously not contradictory, if you have even have the most basic understanding of language.
Now, it's high time I took my leave of this thread. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise that the bible cannot be disproved. Nor can the big bang for that matter. Suggesting one argument is inherently less rational than the other is naive. It's a case of considering the evidence and reaching a logical conclusion; which is what I have done.
I'm not going to waste time arguing with (what is now an entire gang of) atheists, who don't appear to have an objective argument to string together between themselves, haven't read the book they are trying to disprove, and think the big bang theory is objective fact.
There is a lot of useful information in this thread that accurately represents (at least the very basics of) bible teaching.
If you would like to discuss with me further my skype is the same as my PS alias.
The difference is we're basing the big bang theory on logic and research, and we are more than ready to change that theory as fast as we gather new information. You on the other hand made your mind up already with a 2k yearold book that only supports itself.
archeology only supports the claim that there were towns where the bible mentions them etc. There's no proof that anything magical happened. In fact no writings from the time outside of the bible mentions Jesus?!?
And I'd like to know what prophecies you're talking about cus i've never heard about them before.
And If u have to be 100% honest and subjective; Don't you think it's wierd that God values blind belief as the number one deed?? It would seem to me that it'd be smarter to actually let us know he exists so we can do as he pleases (like he does in the biblical times). Somehow it's just a given that god will never give us any actual proof of his existance.
I can certainly understand if you think there's a huge hole in science's explanation for everything, but you have to agree that there's also a huge hole in the bibles. So why believe neither? If we didn't believe any of them we'd have to investigate it ourselves, which is what science does. It doesn't believe itself and that's the beauty.
Originally posted by ihufa
The difference is we're basing the big bang theory on logic and research
So I'm illogical, and lacking in research? My "lack of research" has at least led me to realise that Jesus is in fact mentioned in several secular historical accounts.
Like I said, I'm gone from this thread. Seeing as no-one values anything I have to say (or reads it apparently), I will leave you in peace to make your own decisions about the universe.
Im a chatolic and with all love for God (that I want believe as it is) Im struggle very badly to believe in a book wrote by human and put togheter by people that have use it as an excuse to terimate million of human life (see the wich hunting, etc.) where in comparison Hitler with his holocaust is almost a joke.
Please, do not take me wrong, I want believe strongly but it is very hard to get as pure true. As many already said (even in this thread0 there are too many contraddiction in the bibble and the proof of any fact happened in the Bbble is unfortunately not supported from any other historic documents outside the bibble itself.
One last thing, why other gospel are declare as agnostic?
Why we should get what criminal (the church in the middle eve) given?
Why God doesn't speack anymore with humans as He was doing in the Bibble so often?
Finally, how is possible that we should workship thoughts of people ignorant that believe that the earth was flat and the sun go around the earth?
Thanks for any contribute given so far! 
Also, the documents used for the bible are all translations of translations of translations and so on. Now, and Im say that for experience, when you translate a text from one language to another, the translation isn’t accurate 100% to the original. So, think how must be for documents that are fact heard from people that have hear from other people and has been translate 100s of the time. It is very scary, isn’t it?
Originally posted by w34z3l
If you scroll through this thread you will see that no-one has offered a legitimate argument against the authenticity of the bible aside from one that amounts to "it's not true because it's silly".
The bible is not accepted as either historically or scientifically accurate (let alone useful) by the respective communities, so people naturally assume it's up to you to validate your claims about the book rather than spending time reading through it just to try and prove them untrue.
Granted, this is an appeal to authority, but given the limited knowledge one is able to acquire during his lifespan we are pretty much forced to rely on the most trustworthy authority in the field, e.g. I don't know much about medicine but I still trust the doctors' advice on what's good and horrible for my body. The beauty of today's society is that ideas are open for discussion and critique, and certain theories haven't been refuted and hold fast despite some people attacking them all the time.
Therefore I'd rather believe Mr. Hawking when his robot voice tells me the Universe most likely started with a massive expansion which, if reversed, condenses into a singularity than a creationist claiming that his sky daddy made everything in existence to his liking so he can actively get involved with humans for a very, very brief period of history only to disappear again, leaving no trace of all the times he suspended the natural order of the world so that it would be more pleasing to him (something that doesn't happen nowadays for some reason) apart from a collection of ambiguous scriptures which isn't particularly convincing in and of itself.
Originally posted by kiromanAAKK
Also, the documents used for the bible are all translations of translations of translations and so on. Now, and Im say that for experience, when you translate a text from one language to another, the translation isn’t accurate 100% to the original. So, think how must be for documents that are fact heard from people that have hear from other people and has been translate 100s of the time. It is very scary, isn’t it?
Oh, the translation isn't even the biggest problem. The books were copied in the same language way more often than they were translated, but manually copying a book doesn't always give the same perfect results as ctrl+c ctrl+v, especially if the monk who's doing it doesn't understand the language he's copying. And even if he did and found a mistake from a previous copy, he was not allowed to correct it, everything had to be copied exactly.
I remember this fun little experiment our history teacher once did, I'm sure I already mentioned it somewhere but here goes. He wrote a latin proverb on a sheet of paper, told the first student to copy it on the line below, fold up the top line so that only her copy is visible, and tell the next student to do the same thing. When the sheet made it to the last student, the final copy barely even resembled the original. "But god must have prevented that from happening to the bible," he joked.
Originally posted by w34z3l
Yes, but as we can demonstrate, a huge amount of the bible is demonstrably fact, which adds to legitimacy of the rest. Much of the specific prophecy would have been very difficult to forge as it has been fulfilled throughout the 20th century. Much of the history can also be shown to be factual, so to suggest the bible is a complete "fairy tale" would not even be remotely accurate........ we merely need to look at archaeology to realise that huge portions of the bible are fact.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise that the bible cannot be disproved.
Please provide evidence ok? Thanks.
Except the last bit. Obviously anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise that the flying spaghetti monster cannot be disproved.
@Berzerger; A bit like What we used to call 'Chinese Whispers' in school?
@Alferg; Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows from kindergarden that the Spagetti Monster can't fly.
Originally posted by gadget51
@Berzerger; A bit like What we used to call 'Chinese Whispers' in school?@Alferg; Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows from kindergarden that the Spagetti Monster can't fly.
Photo evidence says otherwise:
