Atheism = Farce!

[9InchJezmo]

all religion does is allow bigoted dimwits to run round shouting about how much they love their own interpretation of the same fantasy.
I am not quite sure what you expect someone with a degree in the philosophy of religion to research.

 

[Drifterwood]

all religion does is allow bigoted dimwits to run round shouting about how much they love their own interpretation of the same fantasy.
I am not quite sure what you expect someone with a degree in the philosophy of religion to research.

Professor Karen Armstrong produces some very interesting work on the philosophies of religions.

Why does this subject get you so angry?

I think you should concentrate on the people who abuse the power of religion rather than the innocent people who are just looking for some answers and the god they use to help them.

 

[9InchJezmo]

because i dont appreciate being told what i dont understand by some three year old god botherer.

 

[NC_BBC]

Professor Karen Armstrong produces some very interesting work on the philosophies of religions.

Why does this subject get you so angry?

I think you should concentrate on the people who abuse the power of religion rather than the innocent people who are just looking for some answers and the god they use to help them.

I already told him that. He's not looking for answers or understanding. He just has a chip on his shoulder and wants someone to give him some attention while he rants on...

His insults don't even make sense :dunno:

 

[NC_BBC]

all religion does is allow bigoted dimwits to run round shouting about how much they love their own interpretation of the same fantasy.
I am not quite sure what you expect someone with a degree in the philosophy of religion to research.

I expect someone with a degree to act like an adult, instead of a scorned child. But...you're free to act as you please....carry on.

 

[NC_BBC]

What do you mean by "anything"?

Many people in the Bible are found in other sources. From Abraham onwards there's very little reasson to doubt the existence of almost anyone, and that they lived in the places and times set out. It would not be reasonable to doubt that Saul and David and Solomon were kings. For that matter it is not reasonable to doubt that the man Jesus lived, preached, was crucified.

For that matter I don't think it is reasonable to doubt the cultural contribution of the Bible. For example much is among the best literature ever produced (think The Psalms, or Isaiah).

The contribution to moral thinking is superb. The ten commandements remain at the root of our ethical system. The message of love and requirement to forgive promoted by the preacher Jesus has shaped our world.

That was too much logic for him to belittle. More than likely, your post will be ignored.

 

[NC_BBC]

Atheism a farce? I think one could argue god is a farce...

Welcome to the ring

 

[NC_BBC]

"From Abraham onwards"? Not by a long shot. From King David onwards, perhaps, but not before. Finkelstein and Silberman, in The Bible Unearthed, make what seems to me a compelling case that there is no evidence of the historical veracity of anything in the biblical narrative concerning events prior to the founding of the kingdom of Israel, and in many particulars good reason to regard it as completely fictitious.

The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



No. First of all, the first five of the ten commandments concern only proper comportment toward Yahweh, not ethics. Second, it didn't take the Bible to teach human beings that murder, theft, adultery, and false testimony are moral transgressions. That there is something wrong with coveting, maybe.

You REALLY don't see any viable use for the Bible?

 

[NC_BBC]

Oh noes its the god botherer again, listen sunshine, you keep bleating on about how youare accepting of other faiths, well sorry all Abrahamic faiths are all based on the same concept and they are all just as delusional.
Your friend god, whatever guise he takes, he doesn't exist, its man made fantasy.

That still doesn't excuse your (ironic) misuse of the term bigot...Nor does it say anything about Christianity. You're using your own ignorance to carry on acting like a prick towards people you don't know. You may know a few Christians...but you don't know them all. So to group them all into this "they all unjustly judge people" group....is pretty ignorant.

 

[NC_BBC]

because i dont appreciate being told what i dont understand by some three year old god botherer.

Smh...get it together man. At least debate like an adult or nobody is gonna take you seriously. The only reason I even bother to respond to you is cause I feel bad for you...:frown1:

 

[Calboner]

You REALLY don't see any viable use for the Bible?

Your capacity for misreading continues to impress me.

 

[NC_BBC]

Your capacity for misreading continues to impress me.

It was a question...

 

[Calboner]

It was a question...

It was a loaded question. I reject the assumption on which it is based (viz., the implication that I had said or implied that the Bible is of no use for anything), and therefore the question.

 

[NC_BBC]

It was a loaded question. I reject the assumption on which it is based (viz., the implication that I had said or implied that the Bible is of no use for anything), and therefore the question.

*Do you see any viable use for the Bible?

Better?

 

[Calboner]

*Do you see any viable use for the Bible?

Of course. It should be studied historically and critically as an essential part of Western civilization--none of which depends on attributing to it any authority or credibility. However, as I said before, some parts of it (excluding the narrative of times before the kingdom of Israel) have value as historical sources--subject to testing against other, independent sources of information, of course.

 

[NC_BBC]

Of course. It should be studied historically and critically as an essential part of Western civilization--none of which depends on attributing to it any authority or credibility. However, as I said before, some parts of it (excluding the narrative of times before the kingdom of Israel) have value as historical sources--subject to testing against other, independent sources of information, of course.

Can you subscribe to the idea that there are things out there that science can't test...that MAY be true?

 

[NC_BBC]

what deity would need or conceive the concept of worship.there is no debate. its nuts how people throw rationale out the window for obvious propaganda, control, politically correct bullshit

I miss your point here. Are you saying a "real" deity wouldn't want to be worshiped?

 

[NC_BBC]

some people do as they are told and some people think

Is there no way to balance the two?

 

[Calboner]

Can you subscribe to the idea that there are things out there that science can't test...that MAY be true?

Truths immune to scientific testing are a dime a dozen. Examples: propositions of pure mathematics (e.g., "2 + 2 = 4"); propositions of logic (e.g., "(((P v Q) & ~P) => Q); analytically true propositions (e.g., "No bachelor is married"); and of course interpretative and evaluative judgments. But I suspect that these are not the sort of thing that you had in mind.

 

[NC_BBC]

Truths immune to scientific testing are a dime a dozen. Examples: propositions of pure mathematics (e.g., "2 + 2 = 4"); propositions of logic (e.g., "(((P v Q) & ~P) => Q); analytically true propositions (e.g., "No bachelor is married"); and of course interpretative and evaluative judgments. But I suspect that these are not the sort of thing that you had in mind.

So what do you deem those truths that are immune to scientific testing? False, or just highly unlikely?