Religion: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huah!

[Gamer4Fire]

G4F, the point is, if nobody told you about gods you'd invent your own. Semantics are semantics; great spirits, revered ancestors, whatever, you'd come up with something to worship and attribute nature to.

Call them imaginary friends if you'd like. But with some basic knowledge you wouldn't invent them. As I said, if a child asked an adult why the cloud was "talking" to them, they would recieve an explanation on electricity and lightning. Supernatural occurances no longer exist and their explanations aren't necessary anymore.

See, it's snide little asides like this that I hate. Why do anti-theists always take an imaginary intellectual high ground? It's demeaning and in poor spirit.

You assume I'm an anti-theist, which is incorrect in the first place. And the comment was made to crazy blue dude to counter his remark, not to the entire board.

 

[Jammer]

you know Government controls what goes into those books and the gov. wants more money...the money religion is evolution(yes religion) so they put evolution in those books as fact(which it is obviously not) it is only a theory, no proff whatsoever for it and so on a so forth. even though we werent talking about Evolution, my example shows you how a nonchristian college can not be taken completely serious at all...

I gotta say, Krystal, that you seem to be a little uninformed here.

Evolution, while it's not a perfect theory (they're having some trouble explaining certain things) is by far the best scientific theory there is for how we're alive right now. And it fits the facts quite well.

I think you're one of the people who doesn't know the definition of a scientific theory, and you build a straw man with your own ignorance and attack it. The only thing "stronger" than a scientific theory is a scientific law. But that's not even completely true, because theories explain things and laws describe what things do, which are subtly different (it's complicated).

In other words, there is plenty of proof for evolution. It's a theory, which means it has been rigorously tested. If contradicting evidence of a significant nature is found, the theory is either expanded, to explain that evidence, or scrapped entirely. As evolution as a theory is still around and is still the biggest, we know that it fairly accurately describes what is going on.

And about the government wanting evolution in the books for money: You can't be serious. There was a big stink between people who wanted a non-scientific theory to be taught in science class, which makes no sense. It was the scientists versus the right wing Christians. The government was involved, but only for making the laws. The government wasn't getting any money from scientists for allowing evolution in the science curriculum and not having a religious explanation (which, by the way, a large amount of religious people don't believe) taught in a science curriculum.

And just so you know, I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution (I just think God started the Big Bang in just a certain way to make everything come out the way it did). There's no place in the Bible that says there can't be evolution, at least if you don't take the 6 days of creation literally.

And Krystal, your post that I quoted reeks of ignorance. I don't want to be mean, but maybe you should really stop listening to your parents and your church for just a little bit, to see what other information is out there. Remember, just because it's coming from a source you know and trust doesn't mean it's right. You should never blindly follow anything. The Bible says "seek and you shall find", and it praises some church (in Revelation--I forget which one) where the people look in their Bible to decide if what they are being taught is true.

You can't be "seeking" if you just sit in one place, soaking up information from a single source.

EDIT: And Zink, still no answer. Tomorrow it will be a week. They promised I'd get a response within a week, so I expect to get a response soon.

 

[AltF4]

Evolution is not a theory. It is an observation, a fact. Natural Selection is a theory, it explains how evolution occurs. Alternatively, Intelligent design is a rival theory. They both try to explain how Evolution occurs. But to deny that it even does occur is ignorant.

Do not take my word for it, nor Wikipedia's word for it. See it for yourself. Go to any major university (ASU down here in Az does it) and they give open demonstrations of species changing over time. That's what evolution is: species changing over time. It happens, get over it.

 

[Aesir]

Intelligent Design isn't even science. If I remember the basis of Intelligent Design it doesn't even remotely support evolution at all.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Intelligent design is an idea, not a scientific theory. To qualify as a scientific theory it has to be testable and falsifiable. The tenets of Evolution have been tested and proven within the lab as well as observed in nature. It is this point which makes Evolution a strong theory. Natural selection is a tenet of Evolutionary theory.

 

[Colino]

you know Government controls what goes into those books and the gov. wants more money...the money religion is evolution(yes religion) so they put evolution in those books as fact(which it is obviously not) it is only a theory, no proff whatsoever for it and so on a so forth. even though we werent talking about Evolution, my example shows you how a nonchristian college can not be taken completely serious at all...

you know your governemnt is profoundly anti atheist right? Because from what you're saying government biases college courses against religion..

No proof of evolution? The fact that you are walking on your own 2 legs is proof of evolution

 

[AltF4]

Intelligent Design is a theory, but not a scientific one. This is true. In order to be a scientific theory, it must be able to be proven false, otherwise it is a philosophy. But at the very least you can make the argument for Intelligent Design at some level. The point I'm trying to make is that no reasonable person denies evolution itself.


It's like gravity. When you drop an object it falls. That is an observation, it is a fact. Gravity is a theory that attempts to explain that observation. You can reasonably argue for or against theories like gravity, but to deny the fact that objects fall when you drop them is idiotic.

 

[Nicknyte]

Intelligent Design is always a touchy subject. When I was in the south, I was talking to one of my cousins in front of the dinner table about the Big Bang Theory. Suddenly, my Father's girlfriend told us to hush and that the Universe was created by God in 6 days (7th day, he rested lol). Now, I am a black man who's roots are from the South. Most of my family, Protestant (I am Catholic), are very religious and clam the 7 days as an Undeniable fact. I honestly think there is a possibility of both, but if there no Intelligent design, so be it, if there is, thats good too. I don't think it should be in schools though. Any design based off religion needs to stay with that respective religion, with science and fact taught in the class room.

This is a funny picture I found off 4chan. Its an obvious jab at Atheism, but I'm not saying I endorse the jab intended here.

 

[Aesir]

^ That picture is about as wrong as a pedophile on Halloween.

 

[AltF4]

It's from 4chan. It's worth a lul.

(Gotta have a sense of humor)

 

[Colino]

It's from 4chan. It's worth a lul.

(Gotta have a sense of humor)

I have alot of sense of humor, but that makes no sense at all.. XD

Or maybe I just didn't get it.. all in all it's not that wrong though (if I didn't misunderstand)

 

[fluffy1021]

Hope. Faith. Love. Life.

Am I weak minded for hoping for life after death? No, sir. You're weak minded for not being able to grasp such a concept.

exactly. i feel bad for the maker of this thread. keep stuff to yourself.

EDIT: actually, i think that the six day thing is not being literal. it is just putting it in a sense that humans can understand. if the big bang theory is correct, that doesn't mean there is no God. mabey thats just how God chose to make the world. science doesnt nessasarily need to make religion untrue. (this is from a catholic point of view).
god is the one that made things sound logical. he made science. if we just think logically, there is no way to believe. someday, we will understand. why don't we float around, or fly, or breath under water, or have the ability to teleport, etc. because thats just logic. but why cant we do these things? what is logic really? some things we cant understand. this stuff is wat i learned in religion class, lol, but to me it makes sense of why some of us dont understand how this stuff happened. because humans can only think logically, but if we were alot smarter, we would understand. but we are stupid. just because things arent scientifically testable doesnt mean they arent true. why are the laws of science the way they are? why arent they different? we can think about these questions, but cant fully answer them. just understand that god created science.

 

[Zink]

Call them imaginary friends if you'd like. But with some basic knowledge you wouldn't invent them. As I said, if a child asked an adult why the cloud was "talking" to them, they would recieve an explanation on electricity and lightning. Supernatural occurances no longer exist and their explanations aren't necessary anymore.

Google Padre Pio and San Genarro. There's plenty of others.

You assume I'm an anti-theist, which is incorrect in the first place. And the comment was made to crazy blue dude to counter his remark, not to the entire board.

Well, what was I to think? The comment certainly appeared to be a jab at religion to me. Meh.
Intelligent design is more like a subdivision or interpretation of specific aspects of evolution than anything else. Not important, anyway.
PS Bummer, Jammer. I really hope they reply.

 

[fluffy1021]

I, too, am Christian. I don't think I'm weak minded at all for believing in a higher power. I can grasp the theories of science and whatnot and understand their perspective but when it comes right down to it, faith truly is the only thing that you can rely on when believing in God. I'm not going to try and disprove the scientific theories or whatever or push the Bible on you like all these other people that don't understand what it TRULY means to be faithful. God wants us to teach those that will listen. Not frighten or kill those that won't.

I, for one, believe that Purgatory does exist. I just can't grasp why God would be so merciless as to d*** innocent people to hell or those that don't understand or want to accept it. But the majority of what else I believe in is mainly Protestant. I don't believe the Pope can talk to God and I don't believe a preach can forgive your sins. They're just men. What the hell are men going to do for me? Only God can tell you if you're saved or not.

As for crime and suffering in the world, common has a good point. Also, God gave us free will so the way the world is now is completely our faults. Those that don't want to admit it just want to point to God and blame him because they can't blame themselves. If you're atheist and say "Well if God exists, then why is there so much suffering in the world?" Alright then, let's assume for a moment that God doesn't exist. Why IS there so much suffering in the world? Mankind. That's why.

Man has polluted the world, killed others, destroyed land, tarnished every bit of good you can see. Do you know it's a proven fact that if all our nations didn't spend money on war and weapons we could feed every single person on this planet and world hunger would exist no more? That we would have enough money to find more cures to deadly diseases? That we could all be united?

I don't have too much faith in mankind. But I have plenty of faith in God.

God gave us free-will, meaning we can choose to believe or not. But just think...if everyone believed in God, would any of the thinks Uncle kenny listed be going on today? Of course, everyone sins. But would they're be wars, fighting, killing, etc. people wouldn't always get along. even christians fight with there brother. but the world would be united. and by the way, god is the fairest person in the world. not the priest, not the pope, not the holiest person in the world (not counting Jesus). god is the best judge.

i never thought id be talking about this on smash bros brawl forums.

 

[AltF4]

i never thought id be talking about this on smash bros brawl forums.

This thread is not in the brawl room, though I know it's hard to tell sometimes.

 

[Tryptomine]

This thread is not in the brawl room, though I know it's hard to tell sometimes.

Indeed, although it is a world of difference.

Also saw this today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/sherri-shepherd-doesnt-g_n_75292.html

I can't stand that dumb *****, why does she insist so hard on proving that the "ignorant brain-washed Christian" stereotype isn't always a stereotype?

 

[Zink]

Indeed, although it is a world of difference.

Also saw this today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/sherri-shepherd-doesnt-g_n_75292.html

I can't stand that dumb *****, why does she insist so hard on proving that the "ignorant brain-washed Christian" stereotype isn't always a stereotype?

wow, seriously. that's really poor education there. everyone knows viewtiful joe came first.

 

[Nicknyte]

No, Sonic confirmed for brawl came first.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Indeed, although it is a world of difference.

Also saw this today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/sherri-shepherd-doesnt-g_n_75292.html

I can't stand that dumb *****, why does she insist so hard on proving that the "ignorant brain-washed Christian" stereotype isn't always a stereotype?

Wow, that was painful to watch.

 

[Banjodorf]

Indeed, although it is a world of difference.

Also saw this today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/sherri-shepherd-doesnt-g_n_75292.html

I can't stand that dumb *****, why does she insist so hard on proving that the "ignorant brain-washed Christian" stereotype isn't always a stereotype?

wow. she is dumb...

That hurt my brain to watch that

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

That spiteful woman is an *******.

 

[The Kraken]

And I dont believe in God just because I want to go to heaven after I die. I look forward to it, but that's not why I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian because God is worth living for. That's the bottom line.

Then WHY is God worth living for? If God is worth living for (not that i'm saying God does exist, i'm just using this as an example), then is Satan worth dying for? If you lived just because there's a God, then what if there was no God?

 

[commonyoshi]

Would you really like me to list every single reason, or was that post just a jab and you dont care what reasons I give?

I really wouldn't mind saying why I believe God is good.

 

[Eor]

I have a better reason to Kraken: Why would you care?

 

[shadenexus18]

I have a challenge. I would like someone to tell me something good that has come out of religion that couldn't have been there anyway. I have been been thinking about this for a while and I can't think of any reason to believe in any kind of god, other than for weak minded people to latch onto something so that they won't feel like their life is out of control.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1

I can't speak for any other religion, but for me, this means that as long as I have faith in my lord and savior with all of my being & I am well rooted in being a true Christian, then in the afterlife, I shall be handsomely rewarded for trusting in my Lord and doing His work here on Earth, regardless of my trials, tribulation, and persecutions from other people.

In short, religion is a safety net for people that want to know what's going to happen when they die. That's my theory anyways.

Shade

 

[commonyoshi]

The problem I have with that mindset is that it seems kind of selfish to me. You basically serve God because you want to get into heaven. Maybe that's fine for early Christians who dont have a true relationship with their Savior, but wouldn't your relationship with God eventually transcend the whole heavenly rewards thing? I'm not saying you shouldn't be excited for heaven. Just be more excited about God.

But that's just my view on things.

 

[PukeTShirt]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1

I can't speak for any other religion, but for me, this means that as long as I have faith in my lord and savior with all of my being & I am well rooted in being a true Christian, then in the afterlife, I shall be handsomely rewarded for trusting in my Lord and doing His work here on Earth, regardless of my trials, tribulation, and persecutions from other people.

In short, religion is a safety net for people that want to know what's going to happen when they die. That's my theory anyways.

Shade

That's why I used to be a theist also, because I didn't like the idea of death being the end of things forever. However, I think this is a selfish reason to believe in God, and also trivializes the value of the life you KNOW you have right now. I think that if you are worried about what happens after you die, then you should try to live your life in a way that it makes a positive impact on others. I think that if people instead tried to live their lives for the benefit of others instead of being selfish and living only for the promise of a reward then the world would be a much better place. Just my 2 cents

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Btw, if you're a Christian, what's your opinion on these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

 

[KrystalRules]

Then WHY is God worth living for? If God is worth living for (not that i'm saying God does exist, i'm just using this as an example), then is Satan worth dying for? If you lived just because there's a God, then what if there was no God?

um that question is out of proportion because there is a God...
oh and i also believe what i do because of the overwelming evidence of the Bible's authenticity. and hardly no evidence against it(all the evidence against it is like statistics)

and for any of you evolutionist, unless you believe this world is perfect then evolution cant exist. evolution can only occur(by your theories)under perfect conditions, yet most scientist say it doesnt...weird huh. and the chances of evolution of happening is the equivalent to the whole state of texas being filled 2 feet high with silver coins and you drop a gold coin anywhere in those coins, and a blind guy walks around texas and the coin he picks up is the gold one. the chances of that happening are the same as one species evolving.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

um that question is out of proportion because there is a God...

No there isn't.

 

[KrystalRules]

No there isn't.

o0ok you'll know that im right when you die, or the apocalypse comes, which ever one comes first.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

o0ok you'll know that im right when you die, or the apocalypse comes, which ever one comes first.

And you'll know I'm right when you die, or the apocalypse comes, which ever one comes first.

 

[KrystalRules]

And you'll know I'm right when you die, or the apocalypse comes, which ever one comes first.

ok good luck with that...(try disproving the most accurate historical document first, the Bible)

 

[Pluvia's other account]

ok good luck with that...(try disproving the most accurate historical document first, the Bible)

Try proving it.

 

[Eor]

Try proving it

 

[Zink]

um that question is out of proportion because there is a God...
oh and i also believe what i do because of the overwelming evidence of the Bible's authenticity. and hardly no evidence against it(all the evidence against it is like statistics)

and for any of you evolutionist, unless you believe this world is perfect then evolution cant exist. evolution can only occur(by your theories)under perfect conditions, yet most scientist say it doesnt...weird huh. and the chances of evolution of happening is the equivalent to the whole state of texas being filled 2 feet high with silver coins and you drop a gold coin anywhere in those coins, and a blind guy walks around texas and the coin he picks up is the gold one. the chances of that happening are the same as one species evolving.

ok good luck with that...(try disproving the most accurate historical document first, the Bible)

are you ASKING to get eor-owned? Because if this isn't like flamebait, I will gladly join the party just to stop you making Christians look horrible.

 

[KrystalRules]

Try proving it

this isnt anywhere close to good but here.

The Bible is a book of many historical events. Some People say the Bible is nothing more then a religious book, and by others, the most accurate historical document on this planet. The Bible also has many significant scientific happenings that would change the way most scientists view our world. But most evidence seems to say the Bible is the most accurate historical document that can be used.

There are many people who say that the Bible’s validity cannot be trusted because they do not know if the copies are accurate to the originals. There are over 24,000 original copies of the New Testament, that is 23,357 more then the Iliad. The accuracy can also be measured by the amount of years between the first known manuscripts to when the document was authored. The New Testament is also in 15 different languages and they all correspond with each other. A lot of people say the Bible’s Old Testament is as accurate as any historical book. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology had this to say.

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate the many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say the names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”

Even with that, historicists and scientists still believe the Bible isn’t accurate enough to be used to even teach students in school. So Christian scientists propose archaeology as evidence. There are many inscriptions of simple phrases that help provide evidence for the validity of the Bible, like this one in Caesarea Martima reads “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea”. There are even some in Israel that mention King David’s dynasty.

There are even more archaeological finds proving the Bible. A big one is the Hittites. They were once thought to be a group of people that only existed in the Bible until their capital and all their records were found in Turkey. Historicists said there was no Assyrian king named Sargon until his palace was discovered. Even the capture of Ashdod was mentioned on the walls of the palace. Also the last king of Babylon was said to be Nabonidus, but in the Bible it was said to be Belshazzar. Later tablets were found explaining how Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who was the coregent of Babylon. Being at that position Belshazzar could offer Daniel the third highest position in Babylon.

There is a Sumerian tablet called “The Sumerian King List”. The tablet lists the kings of Sumeria and how long they reigned. They reigned for long periods of time until a gap of the same time span that the Bible mentions and then kings with shorter life spans then those above the gap. This parallels with what the Bible said about the flood. Before the flood people lived for great lengths of time and after the flood people lived for shorter lengths of time just like the kings. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions an ark with animals that survived a great flood and birds sent from it during the flood. There are Sumerian tablets that record the language changing into many different languages, as mentioned in the Bible at the Tower of Babel

Almost every tribe and nation in this world has or had a story about one man and his family surviving a world wide flood, and as we study these tribes family trees we find them leading back to the area of Mesopotamia all back to one family surviving the flood that they talk about. All the stories seem to be very similar to the one in the Bible! There is also geology that helps prove the flood, which proves the Bible. Over 70% of the Earth’s crust is sedimentary, which is formed almost entirely underwater. Sedimentary rock is formed by water moving over it, which means that all that rock was underwater at one time or another. There is also sedimentary rock on top of Mt. Everest, which means it was underwater at one time. Mt Ararat has pillow lava on the top of it. Pillow lava is formed by a volcano erupting underwater, so Mt Ararat had to be underwater at one point and that is where Noah’s ark landed.

There are so many fossils around the world and they are caused by a plant or animal being buried rapidly. All the fossils seem to be recorded around the same time, and that time is around the time that the flood occurred, about 2400 B.C. A flood would be the most likely way for a mass burial of all these fossils. Even fish were fossilized, which doesn’t happen under normal conditions, only under a rapid burial will they fossilize. There are even fossils of ammonites in the high places of the Himalayas. Ammonites are ocean dwelling creatures, which proves the ocean once covered the area. Not only the Himalayas is there marine animals but on top of every mountain range in the world. Fossilized trees can be found passing through multiple rock layers at every angle in every direction in places that clearly have not held a body of water for a long time.

this is no where close to what i want to post but i get to it later, this is a simple explination of very few things in no detail

 

[KrystalRules]

Try proving it

this isnt anywhere close to good but here.

The Bible is a book of many historical events. Some People say the Bible is nothing more then a religious book, and by others, the most accurate historical document on this planet. The Bible also has many significant scientific happenings that would change the way most scientists view our world. But most evidence seems to say the Bible is the most accurate historical document that can be used.

There are many people who say that the Bible’s validity cannot be trusted because they do not know if the copies are accurate to the originals. There are over 24,000 original copies of the New Testament, that is 23,357 more then the Iliad. The accuracy can also be measured by the amount of years between the first known manuscripts to when the document was authored. The New Testament is also in 15 different languages and they all correspond with each other. A lot of people say the Bible’s Old Testament is as accurate as any historical book. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology had this to say.

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate the many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say the names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”

Even with that, historicists and scientists still believe the Bible isn’t accurate enough to be used to even teach students in school. So Christian scientists propose archaeology as evidence. There are many inscriptions of simple phrases that help provide evidence for the validity of the Bible, like this one in Caesarea Martima reads “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea”. There are even some in Israel that mention King David’s dynasty.

There are even more archaeological finds proving the Bible. A big one is the Hittites. They were once thought to be a group of people that only existed in the Bible until their capital and all their records were found in Turkey. Historicists said there was no Assyrian king named Sargon until his palace was discovered. Even the capture of Ashdod was mentioned on the walls of the palace. Also the last king of Babylon was said to be Nabonidus, but in the Bible it was said to be Belshazzar. Later tablets were found explaining how Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who was the coregent of Babylon. Being at that position Belshazzar could offer Daniel the third highest position in Babylon.

There is a Sumerian tablet called “The Sumerian King List”. The tablet lists the kings of Sumeria and how long they reigned. They reigned for long periods of time until a gap of the same time span that the Bible mentions and then kings with shorter life spans then those above the gap. This parallels with what the Bible said about the flood. Before the flood people lived for great lengths of time and after the flood people lived for shorter lengths of time just like the kings. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions an ark with animals that survived a great flood and birds sent from it during the flood. There are Sumerian tablets that record the language changing into many different languages, as mentioned in the Bible at the Tower of Babel

Almost every tribe and nation in this world has or had a story about one man and his family surviving a world wide flood, and as we study these tribes family trees we find them leading back to the area of Mesopotamia all back to one family surviving the flood that they talk about. All the stories seem to be very similar to the one in the Bible! There is also geology that helps prove the flood, which proves the Bible. Over 70% of the Earth’s crust is sedimentary, which is formed almost entirely underwater. Sedimentary rock is formed by water moving over it, which means that all that rock was underwater at one time or another. There is also sedimentary rock on top of Mt. Everest, which means it was underwater at one time. Mt Ararat has pillow lava on the top of it. Pillow lava is formed by a volcano erupting underwater, so Mt Ararat had to be underwater at one point and that is where Noah’s ark landed.

There are so many fossils around the world and they are caused by a plant or animal being buried rapidly. All the fossils seem to be recorded around the same time, and that time is around the time that the flood occurred, about 2400 B.C. A flood would be the most likely way for a mass burial of all these fossils. Even fish were fossilized, which doesn’t happen under normal conditions, only under a rapid burial will they fossilize. There are even fossils of ammonites in the high places of the Himalayas. Ammonites are ocean dwelling creatures, which proves the ocean once covered the area. Not only the Himalayas is there marine animals but on top of every mountain range in the world. Fossilized trees can be found passing through multiple rock layers at every angle in every direction in places that clearly have not held a body of water for a long time.

this is no where close to what i want to post but i get to it later, this is a simple explination of very few things in no detail

are you ASKING to get eor-owned? Because if this isn't like flamebait, I will gladly join the party just to stop you making Christians look horrible.

wow, idk if you are a christian but i have read Eor's post and i debated someone much smarter then him...he had to stop posting because everything he had i could counter, of course it was more of a battle over evolution then Christianity. i dont "eor-owned" i may quit because i get bored of the lame attempt at countering mean but i wont let you know im bored so if im saying im quiting the debate you better start posing a better fight.

 

[KrystalRules]

Try proving it

this isnt anywhere close to good but here.

The Bible is a book of many historical events. Some People say the Bible is nothing more then a religious book, and by others, the most accurate historical document on this planet. The Bible also has many significant scientific happenings that would change the way most scientists view our world. But most evidence seems to say the Bible is the most accurate historical document that can be used.

There are many people who say that the Bible’s validity cannot be trusted because they do not know if the copies are accurate to the originals. There are over 24,000 original copies of the New Testament, that is 23,357 more then the Iliad. The accuracy can also be measured by the amount of years between the first known manuscripts to when the document was authored. The New Testament is also in 15 different languages and they all correspond with each other. A lot of people say the Bible’s Old Testament is as accurate as any historical book. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology had this to say.

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate the many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say the names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”

Even with that, historicists and scientists still believe the Bible isn’t accurate enough to be used to even teach students in school. So Christian scientists propose archaeology as evidence. There are many inscriptions of simple phrases that help provide evidence for the validity of the Bible, like this one in Caesarea Martima reads “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea”. There are even some in Israel that mention King David’s dynasty.

There are even more archaeological finds proving the Bible. A big one is the Hittites. They were once thought to be a group of people that only existed in the Bible until their capital and all their records were found in Turkey. Historicists said there was no Assyrian king named Sargon until his palace was discovered. Even the capture of Ashdod was mentioned on the walls of the palace. Also the last king of Babylon was said to be Nabonidus, but in the Bible it was said to be Belshazzar. Later tablets were found explaining how Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who was the coregent of Babylon. Being at that position Belshazzar could offer Daniel the third highest position in Babylon.

There is a Sumerian tablet called “The Sumerian King List”. The tablet lists the kings of Sumeria and how long they reigned. They reigned for long periods of time until a gap of the same time span that the Bible mentions and then kings with shorter life spans then those above the gap. This parallels with what the Bible said about the flood. Before the flood people lived for great lengths of time and after the flood people lived for shorter lengths of time just like the kings. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions an ark with animals that survived a great flood and birds sent from it during the flood. There are Sumerian tablets that record the language changing into many different languages, as mentioned in the Bible at the Tower of Babel

Almost every tribe and nation in this world has or had a story about one man and his family surviving a world wide flood, and as we study these tribes family trees we find them leading back to the area of Mesopotamia all back to one family surviving the flood that they talk about. All the stories seem to be very similar to the one in the Bible! There is also geology that helps prove the flood, which proves the Bible. Over 70% of the Earth’s crust is sedimentary, which is formed almost entirely underwater. Sedimentary rock is formed by water moving over it, which means that all that rock was underwater at one time or another. There is also sedimentary rock on top of Mt. Everest, which means it was underwater at one time. Mt Ararat has pillow lava on the top of it. Pillow lava is formed by a volcano erupting underwater, so Mt Ararat had to be underwater at one point and that is where Noah’s ark landed.

There are so many fossils around the world and they are caused by a plant or animal being buried rapidly. All the fossils seem to be recorded around the same time, and that time is around the time that the flood occurred, about 2400 B.C. A flood would be the most likely way for a mass burial of all these fossils. Even fish were fossilized, which doesn’t happen under normal conditions, only under a rapid burial will they fossilize. There are even fossils of ammonites in the high places of the Himalayas. Ammonites are ocean dwelling creatures, which proves the ocean once covered the area. Not only the Himalayas is there marine animals but on top of every mountain range in the world. Fossilized trees can be found passing through multiple rock layers at every angle in every direction in places that clearly have not held a body of water for a long time.

this is no where close to what i want to post but i get to it later, this is a simple explination of very few things in no detail

are you ASKING to get eor-owned? Because if this isn't like flamebait, I will gladly join the party just to stop you making Christians look horrible.

wow, idk if you are a christian but i have read Eor's post and i debated someone much smarter then him...he had to stop posting because everything he had i could counter, of course it was more of a battle over evolution then Christianity. i dont "eor-owned" i may quit because i get bored of the lame attempt at countering mean but i wont let you know im bored so if im saying im quiting the debate you better start posing a better fight. now disprove it

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Sorry, but that isn't proof. You deliberately avoided what we asked. Try proving your god, and your afterlife.

And mountains did exist under the sea once before you know. Also, state your sources.