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: 2889

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Not at all, both are forms of energy.

Coffee is a form of energy?  LOL.  Well, I suppose right now it's powering me and several grad students in the vicinity. ;-)

There you go again, Bob, smugly sitting back, pretending unawareness of things about which you are likely quite knowledgeable - caffeine in coffee stimulates the body to produce more epinephrine, which in turn, causes the body to produce more energy.

Of course there is. One can look at two parallel lines and see they do not meet. We have empirical evidence to support the claim.

Ah, are we now disbelieving all of mathematics?  An a-mathematician?

I'm sorry, @Gallup, I was counting on you doing the necessary homework to realize that the question of parallel lines never meeting arises from the 5th Axiom of Euclidean Geometry.  Within the discipline of mathematical geometry, it is well established that this is axiomatic and cannot be "proven".  It must be accepted as a postulate in order for Euclidean Geometry to exist/function.

As pointed out by others, one can substitute a different axiom in this case, one that allows parallel lines to meet.   That creates an entirely different Geometry.  In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the Geometry that describes the physical universe is Riemannian.  That is to say, according to General Relativity, the universe/space-time is a realm where parallel lines do, in fact, converge.

So in terms of actual "evidence" in terms of being able to model the physical world with mathematics, your claim above would be false.

"This is just your latest (and probably cheapest) attempt at an excuse for the God claim's lack of evidence. Paste God into a new category, the abstract concept, and then it's lookee here everyone, I'm a-postulatin' God, no evidence needed!"

I mentioned this last Sunday. As the calls for evidence mount, he retreats further and further into that nebulous house of mirrors, where one must keep guessing as to what he believes to be the truth.

Now, his god is a postulate, but if actually cornered, I've no doubt that that "postulate" will turn out to have been a metaphor for yet another unprovable concept.

Does one pray to a postulate? Does one expect a postulate to effect changes in the physical environment, if not, why pray? Does one love a postulate? Does one expect to be loved by a postulate? Can a postulate have a son by a flesh-and-blood woman, or is Yeshua a postulate as well? If Bob believes his god to be a postulate, and if he believes in the Trinity, which his own church established and is part of their creed, then Yeshua and the holy spook must be postulates as well. We know what a postulate is, but what does a postulate mean to him, because that's the key to good obfuscation, to choose a word with more than one possible definition - if his premise is demolished, he's left with a save - "Oh, I didn't mean THAT definition --"

Bob so carefully guards what his true beliefs are, that the arguments for them must be very weak and indefensible indeed.

My claim was that one can look at two parallel lines and see they do not meet.

This would be a lack of understanding of mathematics and geometry, and an incorrect understanding of science.

I haven't given that one a number yet.  Perhaps #7: atheists who put religious-like faith in science but don't haven't yet developed a deep understanding of the science they are putting their faith in.

The claim: One can look at two parallel lines and see they do not meet. The empirical evidence is posted in the image below. Case closed.

This would be naive, as I describe in detail here.

@Dr Bob;

"an equivalent in the scientific realm would be to say "I reject the claim that quarks exist because I don't believe in invisible strange things or in charms".

Bobbie...Bobbie...Bobbie, this would indicate that either you don't believe in the concepts of up, down, top and bottom...or that you only believe in only 4 of the 6 quarks in the Standard Model.

Referring to this as a "lame analogy" is apropos to say the least.

A good question that I'd like to add is, Why are Jack and the Beanstalk, or the 3 little pigs considered fairy tails, but Johna and the whale and Noah and the Arc are considered real? How can you possibly not see that they're the same thing?

Besides, if we are going to be all picky about things, to reject a theory we must falsify it or decide it is not useful.   In order to do that, I expect we first have to take the time to actually understand the theory.

I disagree with the part about us having to falsify a theory before we can reject it.  I do not have to falsify Scientology's absolute bull#$@! story about Zenu and body thetans to reject it.  I think it is safe to say that any reasonable person would reject that story without feeling the need to falsify it.  Do you disagree?  

Who has the time or interest to reject every theory people come up with?  I don't.  I have devoted a lot of time to at least reading the Bible and trying to understand it enough to satisfy people who, like you, challenge atheists to investigate the Bible before rejecting it and/or Christianity.  I reject it on the grounds of common sense and disgust.  

The Bible is disturbing to me.  It hurts.  I am sure there is some useful information in it but my psyche cannot handle it.  To be fair, I try to avoid other stimuli that has that impact on me.  

Prepare for obfuscation --


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service