Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 6, 2013 at 12:01pm

Unfortunately, Kir Komrik led her away like a Pied Piper, with his much-touted "deconversion technique," which is regrettable, as it was an opportunity to watch a transition in progress.

Plus she was a sweet kid - it's rare for everyone here to actually like a theist, but everyone did like her. I think the difference was that she actually listened to what we had to say, which is a rare quality in a theist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 4, 2013 at 12:14am

RE: "And at this point only the first verse of the first chapter have been considered."

Do you mean the one that reads, "In the beginning, God --" Only four words in, and already  we have a problem - back to you, Gallup --

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Henson on January 4, 2013 at 1:22am

Right, Archy,

4 words into this examination and we have our conclusion. We've settled it. Now to the question of 42. Everyone go home. Turn the radio station and send your money elsewhere. Poor Sam Harris. What in the hell is he going to do now?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by onyango makagutu on January 4, 2013 at 1:35am

David, 

I think you miss the point Archy is making. Genesis 1:1 starts with a premise that there is god, before we go into the semantics of Hebrew or whatever language you want to show us you know, settle the question first of whether a god exists then the rest should be easy. That is the crux of the matter and that is what Gallup is asking, now can you provide evidence that a god, more so the Gen 1:1 exists?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Henson on January 4, 2013 at 2:01am

Onyango,

I understand the point Archy and Gallup are making. Is it possible my own point isn't being addressed or understood? I along with everyone else here have an opinion on the existence of God. The OP attempts to reexamine the evidence presented by the text itself.

Lets say scientist received some transmission from somewhere out in space claiming to originate from some extremely advanced beings. Should we listen to the skeptics who say those beings don't exist or proceed objectively?

I guess that is up to the individual, but do you see my point.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 4, 2013 at 4:38am

I'd say it was the responsibility of that scientist to present evidence that he did in fact receive a transmission, that it was indeed from "somewhere out in space," and that it originated from advanced beings, which would necessitate evidence that such beings exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by onyango makagutu on January 4, 2013 at 4:43am

You have maintained the said god in gen 1:1 exists, now this is the deal before we go into bible exegesis, show me the evidence this god exists.

I here when the bible was first written, if there is a first date, they didn't have vowels, spacing and so on, is this true? How does one make sense of something like that and then you have the audacity to tell us the god in question so desired to reveal something to us mortals. I don't buy it, I will not buy it, unless that god comes himself if he exists to show me what he meant

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gallup's Mirror on January 4, 2013 at 2:51pm

I along with everyone else here have an opinion on the existence of God.

Precisely. Your unsupported opinion that God exists is what supports my opinion that he does not. 

The OP attempts to reexamine the evidence presented by the text itself.

That too, assumes the unsupported premise that the text itself is evidence. We may by the same premise know that Rudolph has a red nose based on the eyewitness testimony of Dasher. 

Lets say scientist received some transmission from somewhere out in space claiming to originate from some extremely advanced beings. Should we listen to the skeptics who say those beings don't exist or proceed objectively?

A better analogy is that someone claims to have received such a signal from advanced aliens and insists a book he wrote about the experience counts as evidence. I would proceed just as objectively in that situation as well.

I guess that is up to the individual, but do you see my point.

Yes, I see your point. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your reasoning as to what qualifies as evidence.

I predict I'm going to put a period at the end of this sentence and thus prove that I can predict the future. See? It worked! I predicted it, and it came true. And the evidence is right here before your eyes!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on January 4, 2013 at 2:55pm

Gallup's Mirror created a period at the end of the sentence. Gallup's Mirror saw that it was good. Amen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Milos Cakovan on January 4, 2013 at 2:59pm

Lets say scientist received some transmission from somewhere out in space claiming to originate from some extremely advanced beings. Should we listen to the skeptics who say those beings don't exist or proceed objectively?

If that transmission contains information contradictory to the facts that science has thus far discovered, concerning our world and our species, then yes, we should dismiss it as false. If the scientist who received the message presents evidence of it's outer space origin, then it will be worth a second glance. If he presents further evidence that the species sending the message is advanced, then the claim and the message will be examined further.

The bible on the other hand, is not a transmission from space, David. It is a collection of writings penned by men. Random bronze age tales, edited and re-edited, slapped together in a hard cover during the Council of Nicaea (300 years after Jesus died), on the order of Emperor Constantine, in order to preserve his new-found empire and belief. Many, many texts were left out of the bible, for various reasons. Whether they were considered "heretical," too region oriented to be appreciated on a wider scale of believers, or just too far-fetched to be included in a book which contains talking snakes and a Jewish Lich.

You say you understand the point Archy and GM are making, but you refuse to answer it. Your point is understood as well, but is not being addressed because it holds no water. Your point fails in the first sentence of your holy book. The book begins with the assumption that god is real. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless the second sentence provides that evidence, which it does not, there is no point to be made.

Your post is titled "Debunking The Bible: The Atheist Challenge..." It has already been debunked, 4 words into the book. Round of high-fives for everybody!

If you expect us to go on this magical journey with you, and explore your holy book under the guise of "debunking it," you will need to provide some evidence for us to actually consider, in order to debunk anything.

Asking us to debunk an assumption that god is real, is like me asking you to debunk my belief that the ghost of Charlie Chaplin  tastes purple. Let's debunk that since we are here already. You start.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by onyango makagutu on January 4, 2013 at 3:45pm

Milos you don't make it any easy, do you?

Last I checked, there is a problem at word number 3, that is, beginning, so before he goes to number word number 4 he must explain that. This is getting interesting than I thought

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Milos Cakovan on January 4, 2013 at 3:55pm

Well the general consensus was a free pass on word 3. The book is about god, after all, not about the beginning. The beginning is only... well... in the beginning (no pun intended).

But, on the other hand, why should word 3 get a free pass. Good point, Onyango. Where is the evidence for a beginning, David?

I hereby move for a motion that the section of sentence 1, containing the words "In the beginning" be forever changed on this thread to "Once upon a time."

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 19
• Next ›
• Page