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: 2747

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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?

Gallup: Of course there is [evidence that parallel lines will never meet]. One can look at two parallel lines and see they do not meet. We have empirical evidence to support the claim.

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

Not at all, Bob. You're just being ridiculously obtuse. And this after dishonestly attributing this stance to me (twice).

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.

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 #6.

My claim was that one can look at two parallel lines and see they do not meet. Don't tell me the claim is false because I can see for myself that it is true. Such is the value of empirical evidence.

Moving into the abstract, which includes two lines which "never" meet, and purely abstract mathematics: yes you can model the physical world, which is empirical reality, with purely abstract mathematics.

This is irrelevant unless of course you mean that God exists entirely as an abstract concept, like Harry Potter, or the two lines which "never" meet.

I have never known a theist to mean that God exists only in abstract, only in the imagination, only conceptually. If he does mean this, then how is he not an atheist or an agnostic?

I don't think that's what you really mean either, Bob. 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!

Well, let's plug that into the standard four step progression.

Crackpot: God exists! But only as an abstract concept.
Me: Agreed. God is imaginary. Glad to meet you, fellow atheist!
Crackpot: No, God exists outside of the imagination too.
Me: Evidence, please?
Crackpot: There is none.
Me: I don't believe you.

Back to the drawing board (again), Bob.

"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.

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

Professor Doctor Robert Bob: 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.

This would be Bob being entertainingly (and likely deliberately) obtuse.

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.

Mathematics are not required until or unless one crosses over from the lines "not" meeting to the lines "never" meeting. Then we cross over from the empirical to the abstract, from that which exists in reality to that which exists in the imagination.

If you claim your God exists exclusively in the realm of Harry Potter and the two lines that "never" meet, then no evidence is required. But how does an imaginary God originate the universe, father a Messiah, and answer prayers? He doesn't. You're just off your rocker.

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?

RSS

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 5 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service