Staredit Network

Not necessarily errors. Just questionables and ambiguity.

Which equate to errors when people can interpret something in completely different ways and base their entire lives on it.

Post one error from the bible and you will get a cookie.

People base their lives off the teachings, morals, lessons from religious texts like the Bible. The so called "errors" in the bibles has to do with things like the creation of the world, which people don't base their lifes off of.

When it comes to teaching things like Creationism, however, then yes there can be a problem.

ADDITION:
Useful link
And another one
And another one
Note how only the last two are/can be related/compared due to some discrepancies.

I would think many atheists would be satisfied if they proved that much.



SO? What's your point??! We can never prove that you don't exist, that this keyboard doesn't exist, that the word "blog" doesn't exist. I'm not here to disprove an abstract concept; I'm here to disprove sources! If you disprove the source, then the phrase that comes from it is meaningless!

Ex:
Source A claims God exists.
Person B reads Source A and decides God exists.
Person C comes along and examines source A.
Person C realizes that Source A is a lie and cannot be used as fact.
---
Person C converses with Person B
C: Hey, Person B, I examined Source A and realized it's faulty!
B: What do you mean?
C: It has all these errors and can't be trusted as fact.
B: Oh? But it said that God exists.
C: Well, Source A is wrong, so that claim isn't true?
B: What? But it has to be true!
C: Sorry, but Source A is faulty.
B: Well, you can't disprove that God doesn't exist!
C: But, why do you think God exists?
B: Because of Source A.
C: So you didn't think he existed before Source A?
B: No, the only source I have is Source A.
C: Well, if Source A is the only claim you have that God exists, and it's faulty, then you have no reason to believe God exists.
B: But why?!?
C: Because, you had no reason to believe it before you knew about the source. Doesn't it seem silly that before you read it, there was no God. But when you read the Source, you believe there is God even though it was wrong?
B: What exactly do you mean?
C: If I randomly went up to you and said, "Pigs are green" without any proof, would you believe it?
B: Of course not.
C: What makes me, Source B, any different than Source A?
B: That's a good point.

And thus Creationism vs. Evolutionism is ended during the days where chivalry, modesty, and common courtesy still existed

Except it's not only one source, it's multiple sources. There are five major religions, and then there are many sub-religions. This makes it very difficult to disprove anything. And most of it is interpretation, which I don't believe can really be disproven. Such as the days the Earth was created in the Bible can be interpretted as the progress of evolution. Also, your example brings the arguement of, "Why should 'B' listen to 'C' when 'C' claimed that 'source A' was faulty?" He represented it without any proof plus the faults of "source A" may not be faults to "B".

I don't remember exactly what they said but something about one matter collided with an anti-matter, something happened... energy, explosion... aw I can't really remember

I believe in god, but I don't think we should worship him, sacrifice for him or w/e. I don't see the point. If god is that nice and powerful, then we would never go to hell. God sends you to hell if he hated you, but if he hates you, he can just smite you now... can't he? Like, I believe that we should respect him, but I see no reason to worship him.

well, there is more proof in science than religion.... so ive always worship no one.
i still dont beleive in god or a jesus.... casting there miracles and powers like the X-men? i dont beleive that junk.

all i know is dont rely on religion... you should be relying on yourself and do the best you can threw life.

Right well I belive in god and DarKNighT god hates noone

And maybe god wants it to be so that you cant prove gods existence..

Not one real reply to this. That's hilarious.

What's there to disagree with it? If you're looking for a chorus of "I agree", then perhaps try again with a different post or different thread?

It's not that I'm looking for a chorus, it's that I'm looking for a response. I like to hear other people's opinions about things, cause I don't know everything.

But since you took a stance on what I said, I feel some what happy. Knowing that at least one person really read it.

Actually I was too busy looking at Holysin's post after it . I did read it though.

Anyways, it's not that hard to.

A fact you seemed to overlook about Ego defense mechanisms is that WHETHER OR NOT some position is backed by logic or evidence (as you imply atheists have but not christians), people usually want to believe what they think is right AS RIGHT!

So, when I disprove my opponent by showing his logic to be wrong, whether or not he's smart or stupid, will he agree or will we try to hold onto his following position?

It's not about beliefs. It's not about intellect. It's about pride and ego. I don't go to psychology and even I know that!
-----

And Holysin, you bring up a good point that there's many sources instead of one omni-source. However, I suppose i'm speaking more of "lackproving" than "disproving". Or as many atheists call it, Burden of Proof. I don't use Burden of Proof mainly because it gets too complicated as i've seen, but i've realized that I can come up with the conclusion of Burden of Proof without using it by definition.

Basically, it's this: What makes you trust a document as much as you would somebody's opinion? Source. It seems silly that if some hick one day randomly came up to you and says "9/11 IS A CONSIPRACY THEORY!", your mind would be changed different than if that never happened. But, we do know through psychology that it in fact does alter your mind, and thus propaganda was born!

My opinion on this is that the man's scream has no actual backing, as if the words have as much meaning as scribbles on a wall. Thus, to me, the phrase is meaningless, even though in every day life I would practically expect the guy had SOMETHING backing him up.

And to answer your question of interpretation, you need to use induction: What fits the evidence best. Science is the "ultimate" pragamtic tool. It works by making rules which apply to as general of things as possible, thus eliminating false pragmatics (such as bees spawning from a dead bear carcass).
-
Of course, in order to use science, you need evidence, so:
1) If there is evidence for a position of interpretation, you can use induction
2) If there's no evidence for either position, then you need to wait for evidence to surface
3) If the only evdience for the interpretation is inside the source, then you ignore it if the source is still not trustworthy.
-
Could you bring up more examples of "interpretation"? I need something to squash or be squashed by.

As I said before, the "creation of the earth" can be interpretted as evolution. If you look at the order, you can see how it follows the order of evolution. I'm not sure if this is a bit confusing, but that is an interpretation of the creation of earth. Both could be possible and most likely are possible, but the interpretation of the same thing is different. For instance, the religious look at it as a divine process while many aethiests look at it through a systematic approach, but it comes down to the same thing.

Another thing that can be interpretted, though quite minor, is a miracle and coincidence. A religious person will look at Neil Armstrong and say it's a miracle that he no longer has cancer and it's because of God, while an aethiest will say that he just got lucky and beat cancer for an unknown reason. Can you see where I'm getting at? Saying that religion is wrong is a bit faulty because it could be their way of explaining the same exact thing.

Nevertheless, even if a religion was "disproved", it doesn't mean people will stop following their faith.

Likewise, even if there was scientific evidence of a God, it doesn't stop people from being atheists.

Exactly, that is why it's very difficult to stop a religious vs. aethiest conflict because nobody is willing to give up their beliefs.

there are far worser conflicts Religion vs. Religion today.

Name one. We have Christians and Muslims killing eachother even though they believe in the same god. We have Muslims fueled by inexplicable religious hatred suicide-bombing Jews. We have the war in Iraq, which has a religious civil war going on, while our Christian president called the war a "crusade". We have Iran getting nukes partially due to religious tensions. We have oil prices starting to go up partially due to religious tensions in the middle east. We've hate crimes against jews and muslims in America.

You get the point?

Care to point these "errors" out?



Finally. Someone with a brain.



Ah, but I know people who base everything they do off of science. You can't claim that religion is the only thing people base their lives on. That's arrogent and ignorant.



He is a whitey. What do you expect?

Exactly, that's why I brought it up. This is the root of the entire problem, and it will go on and on and on and on.

That's why I'm done here. I've done countless debates and research to say that I am beyond certain there never was a God. I ran it through my head tens of thousands of times, and it keeps coming back as a way to deal with stress. As a way to deal with life.

I'd rather seem arrogant than waste one more hour of my life trying to undeniably prove there never was a God. But I fear I'll be drawn back into this obsessive thinking, and continue to waste my time.

So someone sum up what has been concluded here.

Nothing that new really at least for me, since I've participated in so many of these topics in the past. Not sure about the rest of you. Surprising how just about every God/religion topic in this forum exceeds 4 or 5 pages.

ADDITION:
Oh yes, and also, it seems like overtime, I seemed to have noticed that whenever people participate in these God/religion topics and when people are saying like "Prove/Disprove God exists!" and stuff, they really aren't asking for that stuff. Instead they're just indirectly trying to attack each other due to bitter hatred (more on the nonreligious side) or defensiveness (more from the religious side.) Even if one side was proven wrong one way or the other, the side that got disproved will not give in and just instead look for other reasons to attack the other side.

For example, if a hardcore atheist, who just absolutely hates religion above all else comes up to me and says "SHOW ME PROOF OF A GOD." And then I, lets say, do actually show him proof of God. But because of his bitter hatred towards religion, the atheist would most likely not admit defeat, and he'll be like "Well why did God let all sorts of bad things happen?!? Why is God such a bad guy?! I'm not going to worship him!" or something like that. And then even when it's counter, more questions will keep coming up and it's an endless cycle.

the whole part of religon is for people to believe. there is not gonna be no evidence or i think there never will be evidence tat proves people's religon is right or wrong. I believe in god and most of u peeps think "oh sure god is nice so he wont do harm to me" and tats wat you THINK but its not wat i think :-)

Religion is fake.

see u BELIEVE tat religon is fake and tats wat u believe