Fallacies in Christianity

[JonaDiaper]

nope no sarcasm. im not trying to argue for it either.

all it comes down to is a choice and faith. no one can be forced to believe.

if i was trying to argue it, it would be like trying to force it to you.

i just like to share what i believe. and i believe that the Bible is God's word, and its true,

and it cannot contradict itself. the Bible to me, is like a guide to my life.

helps out alot. you should read it, maybe one day youll feel that thing inside you that i felt

that made me seriously think about my life.

oh Reaver, you talked about indoctrination on kids when the were little.

i was born and raised in church. all my life. it got to become a daily routine kind of thing.

but as you get older you start to realize not everyone is like you, not everyone goes to church.

you start to question, and once you question, thats you taking over. once you question

its your decision, i know i dont have to be a christian like i am, but i choose to.

everyone has a choice, and just becuase you were raised a certain way doesnt mean

you lost the ability to choose

 

[aeghrur]

The Bible is not God's words. It's words inspired by God, God did not write it down, he simply inspired people and people wrote it down.

 

[JonaDiaper]

you take the phrase to literally, and since Jesus is God, and the bible does have

words written down that Jesus spoke when he was on Earth, it is kinda literally God's word.

or the word of God.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

The Bible is not God's words. It's words inspired by God, God did not write it down, he simply inspired people and people wrote it down.

The Bible does give some good moral though, especially nowadays... it teaches to stop addiciton to oneself and to be aware that these kind of things are vital in a Christian's relationship with God.

 

[zrky]

It teaches good morals, but the ideas and stories it contains are pretty fake. To me one way to describe the authors of the bible is as follows: "the Bible was written by people with agreat imagination and no life."
What I don't get, is why people who strictly follow the Bible, tell atheists they are going to he'll for not believing in God, but when you point out that they sinned they deny it, and tell you to shut up and go f*** yourself, when that right there is almost a sin itself.

 

[aeghrur]

The Bible does give some good moral though, especially nowadays... it teaches to stop addiciton to oneself and to be aware that these kind of things are vital in a Christian's relationship with God.

It also teaches to not kill other Jews, but any other religion is fine.
However, you don't usually hear this because of mis-translations. =/
Seriously, the Thou shoult not murder originally meant you shall not kill other jews/christians. =/
Oh, and Jesus=God's son in some forms of christian religion, God in others, and just because he spoke a few words doesn't mean the bible is god's word. It means it contains god's words.

 

[JonaDiaper]

? in order to go to heaven you have to accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. thats why, it says that in the bible. well you do exactly have to accept him just believe in what he did (John 3:16)
which is basically accepting him.

@aeghrur

Jesus spoke a lot of times in the Bible. and Jesus is God's son.

ever hear God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? the Trinity?

yea that, he has 3 different forms i guess you could say, but he is still God.

 

[aeghrur]

Jesus kind of stopped speaking around the book of Acts didn't he? =/
Besides, he did not write those words down. He spoke them, people wrote them down, and it got mistranslated craploads of times. That's not the word of god. that's the mistranslation of the mistranslation of the mistranslation of the mistranslation of possibly the correct writing down of the word of god. Btw, timeline of books=/=when Jesus was supposedly on earth.

 

[JonaDiaper]

i dont know what to say, ive said all i can say and like ive said before, i cant force you to understand what i want to tell you, or to believe in it. but ive said the important parts and youve heard them.

what exaclty did you mean by


Btw, timeline of books=/=when Jesus was supposedly on earth. ?

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

It also teaches to not kill other Jews, but any other religion is fine.
However, you don't usually hear this because of mis-translations. =/
Seriously, the Thou shoult not murder originally meant you shall not kill other jews/christians. =/
Oh, and Jesus=God's son in some forms of christian religion, God in others, and just because he spoke a few words doesn't mean the bible is god's word. It means it contains god's words.

I explicitly did not say that The Bible is the word of God if your trying to prove something in my statment, actually nevermind about it mate.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

you take the phrase to literally, and since Jesus is God, and the bible does have

words written down that Jesus spoke when he was on Earth, it is kinda literally God's word.

or the word of God.

If your refering to me, there is no argument in my statment, you might as well support it. So please quote to what post your replying to so you don't leave me confused.

 

[JonaDiaper]

The Bible is not God's words. It's words inspired by God, God did not write it down, he simply inspired people and people wrote it down.

thats what i was replying to

 

[aeghrur]

i dont know what to say, ive said all i can say and like ive said before, i cant force you to understand what i want to tell you, or to believe in it. but ive said the important parts and youve heard them.

what exaclty did you mean by


Btw, timeline of books=/=when Jesus was supposedly on earth. ?

I meant, according to timelines, Jesus wasn't alive when the books were written/published.
It was either long before his time or like, 500+ years past.

Sorry fakeman, I was addressing Jonadiaper.

 

[Reaver197]

Unfortunately, I'd like to point out that there is the very real possibility that Jesus never actually existed. There is no substantial evidence, no reliable first-hand accounts, no mentions of him in Roman historical records during the time he was supposedly alive, and the lack of any physical evidence that can be attributed to him makes it quite possible he never actually existed. However, it's not a certain thing, as Roman historians at the time were more interested in whatever was happening back at Rome with the Emperor, so most wouldn't have bothered with reporting about a small cult that was sprouting up in Jerusalem, particularly because there were quite a few people who went there claiming to be "prophets" and "messiahs".

As for the Bible giving good morals, yes and no. Old Testament is a resounding "no". It most definitely does not teach anything that people nowadays would construe as being "moral". New Testament is a mixed bag, some things that are said are pretty good, but there is also some other things many people would also think is quite immoral. So, I would say, on the whole, the Bible is not a good source for morals.

As for humans coming up with the concept of a singular god, it is far from being one of the earliest forms and takes on a supernatural being. There are other conceptions of gods and deities that far predate the one from Judaism and Christianity. Also, no, monkeys do not have beliefs in supernatural deities of the kind that humans are prone to believing in.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

thats what i was replying to

Ok then, my mistake I thought you were refering to me.

 

[aeghrur]

Reaver, that reminds me of a joke, lol.
Animals don't have Gods because they're smart enough to live without them.
No offense to anyone, lol, just joking.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

I meant, according to timelines, Jesus wasn't alive when the books were written/published.
It was either long before his time or like, 500+ years past.

Sorry fakeman, I was addressing Jonadiaper.

Yes, people should be making the quote button more useful, as I believe it is important in debate threads. So that debaters don't get confused and chuck on irrelevant posts like this one (be sure to quote though )

 

[Reaver197]

Reaver, that reminds me of a joke, lol.
Animals don't have Gods because they're smart enough to live without them.
No offense to anyone, lol, just joking.

It's a fairly funny statement, but animals can also build up irrational actions or tendencies themselves. The only reason they don't believe in gods is because they can't just make that mental leap of an external, personified power. Granted, though, I've never seen an animal kill another animal because of differences in what they believed. Though it all comes back to the same thing in the end. It seems that despite our greater intelligence, it seems we are capable of doing things that are far dumber than any animal is capable of being, lol.

It reminds me of a quote from Horace Walpole. "Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

Since evolution claims that we first started as prime apes, does this mean modern day monkeys have Gods too?

I'd like to add to that on the above quote, because adam and eve were claimed the first two humans (possibly prime apes) in the world. Talk about Evolution mixed with Christianity

 

[RDK]

nope no sarcasm. im not trying to argue for it either.

all it comes down to is a choice and faith. no one can be forced to believe.

if i was trying to argue it, it would be like trying to force it to you.

i just like to share what i believe. and i believe that the Bible is God's word, and its true,

and it cannot contradict itself. the Bible to me, is like a guide to my life.

Let's have no allusions about the Bible not contradicting. Contradictions are strewn across the pages more than any other "historical" book in history.

helps out alot. you should read it, maybe one day youll feel that thing inside you that i felt

that made me seriously think about my life.

I'll take rationality, thank you.

oh Reaver, you talked about indoctrination on kids when the were little.

i was born and raised in church. all my life. it got to become a daily routine kind of thing.

but as you get older you start to realize not everyone is like you, not everyone goes to church.

you start to question, and once you question, thats you taking over. once you question

its your decision, i know i dont have to be a christian like i am, but i choose to.

everyone has a choice, and just becuase you were raised a certain way doesnt mean

you lost the ability to choose

Maybe not the ability to choose, but your answer is all but predetermined for you. It's like if I was told by my parents when I was raised that the moon is made of cheese. This was pounded into my head every day, and I even went to a building every week with other believers to have some guy stand at a pulpit and spew even more ridiculous things into my brain.

Let's say 30 years later, I get into a conversation with one of my friends, and the subject of the moon (oddly enough) comes up. I remark about how it's made of cheese in a sort of passing, philosophical way, and suddenly my friend bursts out in laughter at me. He tells me I'm a fool for believing the moon is made of cheese, and then proceeds to show me photos of the surface of the moon, and video clips of astronauts landing on the moon, but I refuse to believe him because I was brought up believing my whole life that the moon was made of cheese. I tell him that I just have faith, and that no amount of evidence can sway my decision.

I then use a string of vague and logically ridiculous pseudo-counters and half-arguments until he becomes sickened with my stubbornness and overall ignorance and leaves.

Hmmm...who does that sound like?

 

[Deleted member]

Let's say 30 years later, I get into a conversation with one of my friends, and the subject of the moon (oddly enough) comes up. I remark about how it's made of cheese in a sort of passing, philosophical way, and suddenly my friend bursts out in laughter at me. He tells me I'm a fool for believing the moon is made of cheese, and then proceeds to show me photos of the surface of the moon, and video clips of astronauts landing on the moon, but I refuse to believe him because I was brought up believing my whole life that the moon was made of cheese. I tell him that I just have faith, and that no amount of evidence can sway my decision.

Your analogy would work if the friend with all that definitive evidence existed

 

[aeghrur]

All that evidence does exist. You just have to find it. =/ It's not hard considering most of it is from the Bible itself. Of course, I'm not going to state all that because I'm not here to disprove a religion.

 

[urdailywater]

Let's say 30 years later, I get into a conversation with one of my friends, and the subject of the moon (oddly enough) comes up. I remark about how it's made of cheese in a sort of passing, philosophical way, and suddenly my friend bursts out in laughter at me. He tells me I'm a fool for believing the moon is made of cheese, and then proceeds to show me photos of the surface of the moon, and video clips of astronauts landing on the moon, but I refuse to believe him because I was brought up believing my whole life that the moon was made of cheese. I tell him that I just have faith, and that no amount of evidence can sway my decision.

I then use a string of vague and logically ridiculous pseudo-counters and half-arguments until he becomes sickened with my stubbornness and overall ignorance and leaves.

Hmmm...who does that sound like?

But what about the fact that evidence does exist from the Bible, while as the moon being made up of cheese does not? Christians and any other type of religious folk have a whole book dedicated to the subject of God - most of these people view this as historical fiction. You, no where in your analogy did you state there was a book dedicated to the topic of the moon being made up of cheese.

Where-as Christianity does. This is exactly why Christians are sometimes arrogant or stubborn, because some of them may have read this book and viewed it as fact. In fact, it may be harder for others because you could be talking to people who felt or have feeled God touch them, or basically make them cry out spontaneously, without even wanting to. This has actually happened to me one time - Was just in a revival, wanted to get prayed for, and within 4 seconds I fell on the ground crying without even knowing what happened, or why I was doing it.
Now something like this - I'd really LOVE to see evidence on how this could happen to me(NOT SARCASM). It got me confused, and now makes it harder for me to believe a God doesn't exist.

I know you're mainly pointing out the fact that Christians can be stubborn, but not everyone of them is this way. Theists are raised on a historical book from their perspective, and atheists on their historical books. That's what makes it difficult to convert both sides.

 

[RDK]

But what about the fact that evidence does exist from the Bible, while as the moon being made up of cheese does not? Christians and any other type of religious folk have a whole book dedicated to the subject of God - most of these people view this as historical fiction. You, no where in your analogy did you state there was a book dedicated to the topic of the moon being made up of cheese.

Where-as Christianity does. This is exactly why Christians are sometimes arrogant or stubborn, because some of them may have read this book and viewed it as fact. In fact, it may be harder for others because you could be talking to people who felt or have feeled God touch them, or basically make them cry out spontaneously, without even wanting to. This has actually happened to me one time - Was just in a revival, wanted to get prayed for, and within 4 seconds I fell on the ground crying without even knowing what happened, or why I was doing it.
Now something like this - I'd really LOVE to see evidence on how this could happen to me(NOT SARCASM). It got me confused, and now makes it harder for me to believe a God doesn't exist.

I know you're mainly pointing out the fact that Christians can be stubborn, but not everyone of them is this way. Theists are raised on a historical book from their perspective, and atheists on their historical books. That's what makes it difficult to convert both sides.

But it's not a historical book, not by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, there are historical facts in it, just like there are historical facts in The Da Vinci Code.

Let's say our ancestors 1,000 years from now dig up The Da Vinci Code and assume that the events in the book actually happened. See what I mean?

Most of the things in the Bible are so ridiculous, no intelligent person with any shred of historical knowledge would never believe them. Others are self-explanatory.

 

[urdailywater]

But it's not a historical book, not by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, there are historical facts in it, just like there are historical facts in The Da Vinci Code.

Let's say our ancestors 1,000 years from now dig up The Da Vinci Code and assume that the events in the book actually happened. See what I mean?

Most of the things in the Bible are so ridiculous, no intelligent person with any shred of historical knowledge would never believe them. Others are self-explanatory.

Have you considered that this is MEANT to be a historical book though?

A Christians mentality is that this is a historical book, whether they be intelligent or dumb. It's just how that person thinks. It's hard to change the way that person thinks.

If someone read The Da Vinci Code, and it never contradicted with their current beliefs, then of course they would take it in, and believe it possibly. Same way with Christianity, most of the nations are taught as children to believe the Bible actually happened, so in their mind it's historical fact. It doesn't matter if it's ridiculous, they are taught that and accept it. Even if they have historical knowledge, they can still accept the Bible, because some history books even accept that Jesus existed. Maybe they don't accept he died for our sins, but they still accept he died on a cross.

I've yet to see any type of history book that interferes with the year 0000 and the events.

 

[aeghrur]

It doesn't matter if it was MEANT to be a historical book or not.
A dictator is MEANT to be good, it's not.
Communism is MEANT for everyone to be equal, it's not.
Bible was MEANT to be a historical book, it's not.

 

[pockyD]

I don't understand the argument at hand here; this last page (and probably a few pages before too) seems to have no flow at all and feels like random semi-points thrown together

 

[Reaver197]

If the Bible was meant to be an historical book, it's an awful job of it.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

 

[urdailywater]

Okay, I guess I didn't really make it clear, didn't put things in the right words... or maybe I did and am missing something.


The Bible is a historical book in the minds of people, and it was meant to be that way.

Whether it's true or not, there will always be people who think it's true. I'm not trying to prove that it is historical, I was basically trying to answer the reason as to why people can be so ignorant and not listen to an atheists point of view, or just take it in. Why many people believe the events in the Bible occured. (I'm sure I brought up the way they were raised..)

That's it..

If the Bible was meant to be an historical book, it's an awful job of it.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Also, was the text taken from the NIV or the KJV?

 

[Reaver197]

King James Version.

From the FAQ.

Why do you use the King James Version?

For three reasons:

1. There are no copyright restrictions on the KJV.

2. It is still the most familiar version and some Christians consider it to be the only "authentic" version.

3. It has not been subjected to cosmetic editing, as have some of the more modern versions.

Most of the Bible's problems, though, are unrelated to the particular version that is read. Still, it is a good idea to compare the various versions, and to help with this I have provided links to some of the more common ones.

Here are those links he mentions.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/versions.html

 

[urdailywater]

King James Version.

From the FAQ.


Here are those links he mentions.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/versions.html

Okay, thanks. I've read through some of this and might compare and contrast to my version.

He is right, definitely. The King James Version is most accurate (IMO) of other Bible versions so I was just making sure it wasn't any other version. Even then I couldn't see much changing like very important events.

 

[Oracle]

But it's not a historical book, not by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, there are historical facts in it, just like there are historical facts in The Da Vinci Code.

Let's say our ancestors 1,000 years from now dig up The Da Vinci Code and assume that the events in the book actually happened. See what I mean?

Most of the things in the Bible are so ridiculous, no intelligent person with any shred of historical knowledge would never believe them. Others are self-explanatory.

But the da vinci code says in the beginning that it is a fictional book. The bible does not.
But the bible shouldn't all be taken completely literally.
I'm christian. Do I belive that God flooded the entire earth? No. Maybe they lived in a large basin, and the flood was only there, as a sign, and that huge basin was their "whole world"

 

[Aesir]

But the da vinci code says in the beginning that it is a fictional book. The bible does not.

You know what he meant.

It's people taking fiction as fact, it would be no different if someone picked up one of the harry potter books and thought of it as fact. In fact people today take words of fiction and regard it as fact. These are usually in the form of Urban Legends though.

But the bible shouldn't all be taken completely literally.
I'm christian. Do I belive that God flooded the entire earth? No. Maybe they lived in a large basin, and the flood was only there, as a sign, and that huge basin was their "whole world"

See the problem you run into when you start trying to rationalize the bible. You don't have evidence to back you up on it. Where are the passages that give the impression it's a basin? All you're doing is twisting the bible to fit to your own meanings.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I'm christian. Do I belive that God flooded the entire earth? No. Maybe they lived in a large basin, and the flood was only there, as a sign, and that huge basin was their "whole world"

Here's another interesting little tidbit for you to digest: Did you know that most other religions/cultures had a flood story of some kind? And did you know that the origins of these faiths pre-date Christianity?

Sieved information from the sediment of other cultures is probably one of the biggest reasons why the Bible should be viewed as a sort of "moral compass" and not as "divine law." The Bible was written by the hand of man; it borrows so many elements from other faiths that pre-date it.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Oracle]

You know what he meant.

It's people taking fiction as fact, it would be no different if someone picked up one of the harry potter books and thought of it as fact. In fact people today take words of fiction and regard it as fact. These are usually in the form of Urban Legends though.



See the problem you run into when you start trying to rationalize the bible. You don't have evidence to back you up on it. Where are the passages that give the impression it's a basin? All you're doing is twisting the bible to fit to your own meanings.

Not really, there isn't proof against all of the bible. Just most of it lol.

I don't have evidence, I'm just saying a more reasonable hypothesis about the "flood".

Here's another interesting little tidbit for you to digest: Did you know that most other religions/cultures had a flood story of some kind? And did you know that the origins of these faiths pre-date Christianity?

Sieved information from the sediment of other cultures is probably one of the biggest reasons why the Bible should be viewed as a sort of "moral compass" and not as "divine law." The Bible was written by the hand of man; it borrows so many elements from other faiths that pre-date it.

Smooth Criminal

You brought up a great point that I wanted to say. The bible was written by man, and man is imperfect. Therefore, the bible, even if all of that was true, is going to be flawed.

 

[Aesir]

Not really, there isn't proof against all of the bible. Just most of it lol.

Burden of Proof rests on you though, what parts of the bible are true then?

I don't have evidence, I'm just saying a more reasonable hypothesis about the "flood".

So what makes your point of view any more different from a radicals view of the same story?

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I don't have evidence, I'm just saying a more reasonable hypothesis about the "flood".

I have an even more reasonable one - It never happened.

 

[Mewter]

Not really, there isn't proof against all of the bible. Just most of it lol.
I don't have evidence, I'm just saying a more reasonable hypothesis about the "flood".
You brought up a great point that I wanted to say. The bible was written by man, and man is imperfect. Therefore, the bible, even if all of that was true, is going to be flawed.

Also, Noah's flood is a bit flawed, too. If there was all that water and rain, then why isn't there physical evidence of it? What happens to the rain, too? That much water is going to stay on Earth, and can't just evaporate into space.
Anyways, you admit that most of it is debunked. A book with almost no facts in it? Sounds as if it's a fiction book to me.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

There are 22 pages in this thread and I got into the Debate Hall yesterday, so I'm not sure if this link is new.

http://www.doesgodexist.tv/. Here's a quick link to the video related to Noah's Flood: (Click). This website is amazing. Though most of it is all nonsense, it's interesting to see people trying so hard to prove that the Bible makes complete scientific sense (which I'm sure most of us can agree it doesn't).

 

[urdailywater]

There are 22 pages in this thread and I got into the Debate Hall yesterday, so I'm not sure if this link is new.

http://www.doesgodexist.tv/. Here's a quick link to the video related to Noah's Flood: (Click). This website is amazing. Though most of it is all nonsense, it's interesting to see people trying so hard to prove that the Bible makes complete scientific sense (which I'm sure most of us can agree it doesn't).

My pastor at my church actually started teaching how Dinosaurs were more of Biblical proof of God rather than Scientifical proof of no God.

..I can't explain it off the top of my tounge, I might have to ask him, but he did mention many texts in the Bible that explain dinosaur - like creatures. He even brought up some information about a dinosaurs bones in the ground buried at the same level human bones were found.
I don't have the sources so I might have to ask him personally some day..