Are you religious?

[Michael McAllister]

Well the only written account to my knowledge is the bible. Is there scientific proof, I haven't looked into that. I do know however that various cultures around the world who have nothing to do with the bible or the God of the bible have stories they have passed down through generations of a great flood that was brought about by a God in the sky. There are even ancient paintings and drawings. Again these cultures worshiped there own god's like the sun and moon and animals, they didn't worship the God of the bible and had nothing to do with bible teaching.

 

Do you believe the account in the Bible?

[Lyons]

Was I able answer your question? That compilation of scripture is far to great for me to sit down and look into in the time I have. I could well answer it for you, but I'd have to do alot of research into those scriptures and at the moment that's something I'm can't do but If you like I can sit down and look into later for you.

 

Take a look at this list of ~700 while you're at it

 

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf

[MzCatieB]

Im Buddhist

[Michael McAllister]

Was I able answer your question? That compilation of scripture is far to great for me to sit down and look into in the time I have. I could well answer it for you, but I'd have to do alot of research into those scriptures and at the moment that's something I'm can't do but If you like I can sit down and look into later for you.

 

Sure.  My only retort is that it is not clearly stated.

[Michael McAllister]

People who think they have found inconsistency, have found them simply because they don't want or cannot understand the bible. If one sets out to prove the bible false or wrong, than ofcourse he will find them, simply because he want's to. The bible says itself that it reveals understanding of the scriptures only to someone who's heart is inclined to know the true God and desiring to benefit from bible teachings.

 

Check this out:

[Lyons]

People who think they have found inconsistency, have found them simply because they don't want or cannot understand the bible. If one sets out to prove the bible false or wrong, than ofcourse he will find them, simply because he want's to. The bible says itself that it reveals understanding of the scriptures only to someone who's heart is inclined to know the true God and desiring to benefit from bible teachings.

 

@Lyons. Also its important to note the bible wasn't written by one author, nor was it written in ne period of time. It was written by different men over thousands of years, yet the biggest consistency of them all is that the bible maintains a consistent message about God, his purpose for man and his Heavenly Kingdom. That's a pretty remarkable thing.

 

So defending the Bible is just one huge cop-out because by nature it's a huge, self-contained fallacy. Cool

 

edit, probably a bit slack

[Michael McAllister]

Fair enough, @cartdog.  

[beebskadoo]

@Lyons. Also its important to note the bible wasn't written by one author, nor was it written in ne period of time. It was written by different men over thousands of years, yet the biggest consistency of them all is that the bible maintains a consistent message about God, his purpose for man and his Heavenly Kingdom. That's a pretty remarkable thing.

 

 

Throughout the bible, the character and nature of God changes, I had mentioned earlier that his transition form a scary volcano God (i.e. Mt. Sainai) to an omnipotent omnipresent god is a pretty profound one. The God of the OT is clearly different than the one of the NT. God had stated in the 10 commandments that you should have no other gods before me, yet Jesus places himself before god. Well traditionally Jesus and god were one. the whole trinity thing, well how can that be? If he was one and was god why does he always talk to god as if he is talking to someone different, in the garden when he is praying 'if it is possible, take this cup from me. not my will but yours be done.' his will is the same as god, or at least it should be.

[1funnygame]

sorry If your feelings got hurt. The truth does hurt sometimes...

I wasn't debating anything, I was just speaking the truth.

if you seriously cant see whats wrong with what you just said your a fucking bigot through and through

[1funnygame]

Bravo, LTT forums.  Seriously, considering the subject matter, I'm extremely surprised at how civil this thread is.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Just throwing this out there.  Agnosticism is not a neutral category.

atheism vs agnosticism graph.png

i dont think that covers everything it certainly doesn't cover me

[beebskadoo]

if you seriously cant see whats wrong with what you just said your a fucking bigot through and through

fucking bigot through and through? Please enlighten as to what I had said wrong? There has been a lot of conversation on this thread, please be specific. If I am in the wrong, I want to know.

[R4STABAN]

Just curious if you thought up this theory yourself or a friend of yours. It obviously doesn't come from any legimate historical source. Or you could prove me wrong and I'll eat my words :lol:

 

The very point of creating a religion to control a populace would be that there won't be a source to discredit it.

 

It was convenient for Rome that 'Jesus' was, again miraculously, born on a date which coincides with the winter solstice and yule, important religious festivals of the 'barbarians' and 'pagans' that they needed to control with minimal force.

 

Empires don't too well when the subjugated don't feel like they belong in it. Are you from the USA? I'm from Britain, we both know something about that .

[beebskadoo]

The very point of creating a religion to control a populace would be that there won't be a source to discredit it.

 

It was convenient for Rome that 'Jesus' was, again miraculously, born on a date which coincides with the winter solstice and yule, important religious festivals of the 'barbarians' and 'pagans' that they needed to control with minimal force.

 

Empires don't too well when the subjugated don't feel like they belong in it. Are you from the USA? I'm from Britain, we both know something about that .

Many ancient religious figures share similar traits to Jesus, the fact that anyone actually buys into the myth is absolutely astonishing to me. No one believes in Dionysus/Bacchus, but the idea of the Jesus figure was directly copied from them. and before someone tells me I'm wrong or calls me a bigot, look it up.

[Michael McAllister]

i dont think that covers everything it certainly doesn't cover me

 

Okay.  How would you describe you on this subject?

[1funnygame]

Okay.  How would you describe you on this subject?

i'm agnostic and i don't believe we know if a god exists its not a matter of i believe one exist or one doesn't i think its certainly a possibility a god or gods exist and certainly a possibility one does not exist in any way its no firm ground for me as that picture seems to state

 

any choice on whether one exists or not would be faith either way because of how little our knowledge is on the matter

 

i don't know if you will understand what i mean because its hard to put across in text but for me it really is neutral ground though i could understand if most other atheists are not on neutral ground

[Michael McAllister]

I'm not sure if you have read my explanation of this, but it is possible to not know the answer to something and still have an opinion.  You're correct in saying you're agnostic because it would be impossible to know for sure.  Where I think our opinions differ, is that you believe agnosticism is neutral.  Agnosticism and atheism, or theism for that matter, don't have to be mutually exclusive.  You can be agnostic and still believe in a god.  Theism/atheism = the opinion of whether or not a god exists.  Gnosticism/agnosticism = refers to whether or not the existence of a god can be known or is noable.

I understand the desire to remain neutral on a hot button issue like this in the interest of not upsetting people.  Normally, I would not put so much effort into the definitions of words and whatnot.  At the end of the day, however, it's this common misconception that seems to be a major dividing point between many religious and nonreligious people.

[beebskadoo]

I'm not sure if you have read my explanation of this, but it is possible to not know the answer to something and still have an opinion.  You're correct in saying you're agnostic because it would be impossible to know for sure.  Where I think our opinions differ, is that you believe agnosticism is neutral.  Agnosticism and atheism, or theism for that matter, don't have to be mutually exclusive.  You can be agnostic and still believe in a god.  Theism/atheism = the opinion of whether or not a god exists.  Gnosticism/agnosticism = refers to whether or not the existence of a god can be known or is noable.

I understand the desire to remain neutral on a hot button issue like this in the interest of not upsetting people.  Normally, I would not put so much effort into the definitions of words and whatnot.  At the end of the day, however, it's this common misconception that seems to be a major dividing point between many religious and nonreligious people.

I have explained that Atheism and Agnosticism are essentially the same thing, otherwise it would be a dishonest position. The deciding factor is reason to believe i.e. evidence, there is no evidence to prove or disprove a Deity however we have no reason to believe there is. hope that makes sense.

[Michael McAllister]

I have explained that Atheism and Agnosticism are essentially the same thing, otherwise it would be a dishonest position. The deciding factor is reason to believe i.e. evidence, there is no evidence to prove or disprove a Deity however we have no reason to believe there is. hope that makes sense.

 

I would say for the intellectually honest atheist, yes, you're correct.  The agnostic qualifier is usually not necessary as it is generally implied.  Technically, however, they answer two different questions. 

[beebskadoo]

I would say for the intellectually honest atheist, yes, you're correct.  The agnostic qualifier is usually not necessary as it is generally implied.  Technically, however, they answer two different questions. 

which 2 questions? 

is it 1. whether god exists and 2. whether we have sufficient evidence to prove/disprove God or Gods?

[Michael McAllister]

Yes, the question of belief (opinion) versus knowledge (evidence and science).

[beebskadoo]

Yes, the question of belief (opinion) versus knowledge (evidence and science).

 Any claim should be made on evidence, otherwise it can be discarded. Claims made on faith don't require evidence in, in fact they can be defended against actual evidence/reason without question. it's the nature and dishonesty of faith. That is why science and religion/faith are not compatible. 

[Michael McAllister]

 Any claim should be made on evidence, otherwise it can be discarded. Claims made on faith don't require evidence in, in fact they can be defended against actual evidence/reason without question. it's the nature and dishonesty of faith. That is why science and religion/faith are not compatible. 

 

Agreed.  The best way I can describe the reasoning for having such a distinction is through this metaphor:

Imagine you have someone on trial.  If convicted, they will be sent to death row.  Three out of the 12 jurors could be convinced of the defendant's guilt.  Just because they believe the defendant is guilty, doesn't mean that they necessarily have the evidence to support that theory.  In this instance, they would be theists but they would also be agnostic.

I do not disagree with you at all.  Agnosticism should be implied, but given the common misconceptions thrown about, it is unfortunately necessary to create such a distinction.  I hope my scenario helped clarify that a little bit.

[beebskadoo]

 

The bible never gave a specific date of Jesus birth.

“The true birth date of Christ is unknown.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

“The exact date of Christ’s birth is not known.”—Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.

Why is wasn't in winter (Late December)

1. The registration. Shortly before Jesus was born, Caesar Augustus issued a decree ordering “all the inhabited earth to be registered.” Everyone had to register in “his own city,” which might have required a journey of a week or more. (Luke 2:1-3) That order—probably made to support taxation and military conscription—would have been unpopular at any time of year, but it is unlikely that Augustus would have provoked his subjects further by forcing many of them to make long trips during the cold winter.

2. The sheep. Shepherds were “living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks.” (Luke 2:8) The book Daily Life in the Time of Jesus notes that flocks lived in the open air from “the week before the Passover [late March]” through mid-November. It then adds: “They passed the winter under cover; and from this alone it may be seen that the traditional date for Christmas, in the winter, is unlikely to be right, since the Gospel says that the shepherds were in the fields.”
3. Likely in early fall. We can estimate when Jesus was born by counting backward from his death on Passover, Nisan 14 in the spring of the year 33 C.E. (John 19:14-16) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his three-and-a-half-year ministry, so he was born in the early fall of 2 B.C.E.—Luke 3:23.
4. The Encyclopædia Britannica says that church leaders probably chose it “to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun,’” at the time of the winter solstice. According to The Encyclopedia Americana, many scholars believe that this was done “in order to make Christianity more meaningful to pagan converts.”

 

See that is all fine and dandy, but that is only relevant if the bible is correct and accurate. Most secular scholars will concede that Jesus was a real person, I am on the fence. The date of Jesus' birth was altered roughly 100 years after  the supposed events leading up to his crucifixion. In fact the gospels were written 30-80 years after his death, so anyone alive at that point to detail his birth and death would be a statistical anomaly.  

[Beskamir]

I would consider that I have more of a friendship/relationship with God than being super religious.

 

[Skreedles]

If moderators are mice, this topic is cheese... Even without reports it's like "OMG MUST INVESTIGATE"

It's nice seeing mods overarching a topic like this, I don't think it should be talked about on the forums since some people take the topic very personally.

 

On a similar topic, did anyone see the Evolutionary debate that went on the other day?