Hey Guys,

So I'm just looking to brush up on my knowledge regarding Christian beliefs so that I'm better prepared to explain my position of disbelief when the discussion arises (it has been a much more common topic around the house than I'd like, especially being the sole atheist of the family). I have some general questions mainly concerning timelines, tailored beliefs and context of things relating to the Bible. Any insight or helpful links would be greatly appreciated. Alright, so here's what I'd like more info on:

1) Does the Bible condone slavery? Every Christian that's confronted with this seems to flat out deny that it does, stating that those "slaves" were people who volunteered themselves to serve.

2) Over what period of time was the Bible written?

3) What's the story of Abraham killing his son?

4) Who are Cain and Abel?

5) What misogynist things does the Bible say about women?

6) Why don't Christians like to follow the Old Testament?

7) What has the Bible "predicted"?

8) Does the Bible have any racist implications?

9) Who was Mary Magdalene and what was so special about her?

10) What other religions does the Bible "borrow" from?

Thanks in advance! <3

Tags: abraham, atheism, bible, context, debate, god, jesus, misogyny, questions, racism, More…women

Views: 2872

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No, Greg, he's just removing his invisible sky fairy from the arena of things-that-require-evidence.

Damn...and I thought he had had an epiphany...back to the drawing board. :)

Oh my... I first read that as, "God is a prostitute."  I was wondering what kind of a discussion we had going on here.

Me too Diane... had to rub mine eyes there, twice, then I discovered "God is a postulate"

LOL Well he is sort of a whore, he gives pleasure for prayers. LOL

PrayerPrayer is the active effort to communicate with a deity or higher being.

RE: "he'd end up looking too superior" - that has always been a big concern for Bob.

@Gallup's Mirror;

"Good thing he restrained himself."

Thank doG....ROFLMAO

Theists routinely assert that God is an evidence-based claim.

Yes, it's somewhat silly.  The reality is that almost no theist believes in God because of any evidence - based claim.  The entire notion of "faith" for the most part precludes that.  Theists get this way when they try too hard to talk to atheists in their own language.  Or when they're just having fun with speculative theology.

One may "postulate" bigfoot, leprechauns, astrology, cold fusion, and cosmic beings with supernatural powers.

Well, those aren't good examples because none would really be foundational assumptions for a philosophy/way of looking at the world or a discipline.  I suspect they would tend more to be theories within a different discipline; cold fusion certainly would fit that bill.

Again, we distinguish between philosophies that are based on different postulates not by evidence, but by utility.  There's no proof of the axioms of geometry or mathematics, we accept geometry or mathematics because we find them useful.  We disregard lots of other things because we don't find them useful.

But until there's evidence,

No, there can never be evidence of postulates.  That's why they are postulates and not theorems.

it's perfectly reasonable to be an a-bigfootist, a-leprechaunist, a-astrologist, a-cold-fusion-ist, and a-theist. So I am.

I agree completely that there's nothing irrational or unreasonable about being an atheist.  I certainly have never made that claim.  I think the people here are generally quite reasonable.

For me personally, I don't find atheism useful as a philosophy.  It doesn't seem to contribute any substantive knowledge or insight, doesn't help answer any questions, doesn't help societies or individuals improve. In fact, some here insist that it's only not believing in god(s).

OK, but that doesn't seem to me to be very worthwhile as a construct.  Indeed, for the most part the atheists here couldn't really come up with very good reasons why pedophilia was "wrong" without relying on a Christian cultural context. 

That parallel lines will never meet, is something that doesn't require even geometric proof, in that by their very definition, in order to remain parallel, they must remain equidistant from one another. If any two lines violate that description, even infinitesimally, they cease to be parallel with one another.

False.  Review your geometry.

parallel |ˈparəˌlel; -ləl|
(of lines, planes, surfaces, or objects) side by side and having the same distance continuously between them

Review your English.

Nope, try again.  The colloquial definition of "energy" is that people are lively or have drunk lots of coffee.  That's not the same things as the scientific definition of energy.  For that, you need to go beyond Merriam-Webster.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service