Staredit Network

Bible is wrong because it's by man?

How about science? Christians believe Bible was helped created by God, but science is ALL MAN. WHat do you think would have more flaws to it?

Some of them are afraid to know that science could be flawed because it was made by man. That's why they never bring it up.

Nice....

The Bible is baseless claims, but science is entirely provable, or things that are likely. You can't prove that God helped to make the Bible, but you can certainly see that if you drop something, it will fall. Now, the thing is, you can't be entirely certain that it would float in the air, but it's pretty obvious that it won't. Science is mostly things that you can logically prove to someone, in ways in which it is irrefutable. There is also theory, things that are likely. Also, the Bible has yet to be revised, or even proven to begin with, there is no evidence backing up it's claims of God and an afterlife, besides firsthand claims. Now, what you're saying is, well since none of you trust the Bible because it was written by people, then you can't believe 1+1=2 because man created math!

Well then, nobody can scientifically prove that God exists. But nobody can prove God doesen't exist.

So really people, this argument about the existence of God is completely pointless, because no matter what evidence EITHER side presents, the evidence isn't really evidence of anything.

If you want to go learn about the relgious side, pick up a book. For example, I heard that Christians have this really cool book out called "The Bible." try starting there...that's what the religon is based on

Except actual modern christianity differs greatly from the bible, so getting a real picture of christianty is harder than just reading the bible, you have to know about how corrupted the text is, how most sects of christianity put completly differnt meanings behind the words in the bible etc...

most, ahem 'modern christians' are all talk,,. Get to the root of the religon, then work your way out. That's the best way to learn about it in my opinion.

I agree. The best way to learn about any religion is to start with its texts, because the text is the foundation of the religion.

I guess he means he wants to learn about us, the people, not necessarily the religion itself.

Christianity is the only religion in my opinion that makes sense.

I see all you atheists as obstacles to going to heaven. But, rite now, I'm still going through those obstacles!

I think Islam is the way to go because normal Islam is promotive of religious and ethnic tolerance, while also promotive of new ideas in science.

And in my opinion, athiests aren't obstacles. This is what I think about athiests:
Athiests won't go to hell; they dont believe in God because they are skeptical of whether God exists or not, and since God won't show himself, the athiests can't really believe in God, can they? So the athiests won't go the hell for thinking logically. If your really religious, you can try all you want to convince them God exists, but words and books aren't proof, so the athiests can't go to hell for being "ignorant".

Actually, I think they can, I'm not sure though.

According to some peoples beliefs, athiests -will- go to hell because they don't believe in god.

I didn't want to give away the site, cause then everyone would become intelligent

ADDITION:


No offence, but the only obsticals I can see, is your ignorance.

Just because we don't believe in god, does not mean we are in your "Way to heaven", only if you percieve it that way.

We're simply expanding your knowledge, showing you that Christianity doesn't make the world go round.

I think those people would be regarded as agnostics. Agnostics are skeptics who are unsure of God's existence due to the lack of satisfying proof. Atheists on the other hand, simply do not believe in God not only because of lack of good proof but because they conclude that the Idea of God is unreasonable and is retarded.



What he meant by obstacles were Atheist discouragements of the Christian belief, not necessarily the people themselves.

I never implied I was talking about the actual people. He has discomfort from the beliefs of those that don't agree with the religon he believes in. It's normal though.

I grow tired of this constant tug of war game. This will perhaps be my last post in such a topic but I will try to address all issues posted and all issues that could result in my replies. I may have messed up with the copying and pasting within quotes and my replies so if there’s a mistake somewhere that I did not catch, please address it before you actually reply to it. It’s required that the whole must be understood before the parts are to be addressed.



I try not to assume anything I don't need to. Remember, being an atheist does not mean one is automatically in belief of something; instead, it's the exact opposite, the lack of belief in something. I don't know if the universe always existed; but the information for that to me is as important as my broken monitor. It does not affect my life in anyway nor will it.

Religion, however, changes all of this and places a burden on your brain that requires you to think in the way of their beliefs. Why would you want to see the world through one eye when you can see through it so fully?

I see it through all perspectives; I have been a theist before. However, the beliefs in such things after learning actual logic and understanding of the world allowed me to easily conclude that the foolishness of humanity is within this idea.



Yes, bring it as much as you want, because it does not hurt my arguments. Remember, simply because we don't understand it does not mean it cannot be understood. This concept is the foundation of my beliefs. Take it to heart when arguing against it; common arguments used will easily fail simply because my belief already ignores the problem!

I only ask that you don't see this as a "religious" type of thing, I still believe in a lack of god, this belief is simply my personal view on life: we are meant to learn and expand. When we die, our knowledge is passed on to generations to come and this must expand.



No. Simply because I said it one-way does not mean the opposite answers of the opposite assumption must also be true. To keep it simple, natural means anything that doesn't go omni-like. This might be too simple so don't try to attack it.

Getting more in depth:
Natural things should be able to be observed through evidence and experiments and not relied upon heavily in faith. You may say it requires faith to use the objects; certainly this is true. I have faith that by hitting my keyboard but this is definitely a different level of faith than believing in god.

I see often that people will use one word but it gets attacked simply because that word can have multiple definitions. I ask that you guys not do this but use the correct one through context. It's not difficult, but it raises the maturity of such threads.



Correct. But what about those we cannot explain? I believe it's stupid to use something we cannot explain to explain something that we cannot explain. This is why I asked that question. For some reason, I think you are avoiding it; you've said the answer already, now ask yourself why (god)?

Perhaps another example might help. The exact cause for tornadoes is still unknown today (it's true!). However, does that mean we should look toward god as the creator of these tornadoes, or should we look at the evidence or common trends among them?

Let's say we cannot find the exact cause within our lifetime. Shall we continue with our research or to create a deity to be the cause? Of course, my beliefs are to continue with the research until every last piece of information has been exhausted. Such things will probably never happen so I could even go as far as to conclude that the creating this deity would be unnecessary since we will always try to find a the "natural" cause.



How can you have more evidence for the universe having a cause? Does my game boy have a cause too? Does air? Does water? Also, how can the Big Bang Theory support an argument, which says the universe has a cause? If anything, it supports the exact opposite since it happened by random chance! Perhaps rather than saying something is supported by something, you should also say why and how. Everything I say, I try to link them together to show the connections between each argument. This way, not only would it be easier to understand, but also be presented in a stronger fashion.

I have never said I supported the Big Bang Theory. I prefer to be skeptic of that area. Something so complicated is not for me to answer; instead, we must follow standard procedures of science experiments by allowing the people who have an expertise of that field to do research.



Nothing caused evolution; it's a common process through the interactions between an organism and its environment. I don't think you understand evolution fully. Perhaps read something about it?

Actually, we have never observed live evolution; we have plenty of fossil records to show overwhelming evidence. Microevolution has been proved; however, I see the two as exactly the same since they require the exact same conditions.

But this is far off topic, as it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, unless you are trying to turn off topic into a creation verse evolution debate? (Which has been proven to go no where because we have already concluded that creation requires faith from past debates.)



Perfection does not require complexity. I will, however, admit that perfection will probably be attained from a complex organism (such as ourselves). However, perfection will not last long because environments easily change and the generations will once again try to adapt.

Also, how did you get Man from higher animals? Do not know that evolution the path of simple to complex? Among the most basic things, you misinterpret the easiest one; I am appalled. If you had another meaning, please restate it and perhaps another person will judge it.

One thing that bothers me from your posts is why do you state arbitrary things for my replies? Perhaps if you can connect the points together, it wouldn't seem so random.



Bible is wrong not because it's by man nor god but because the "miracles" and such things described all lack evidence. Not to mention many of the events that contrary to what is shown in reality. A website said: If it's logic verse reality, reality wins".

Remember, do not try to bend reality to fit your understand; instead, you must extend your understanding to fit reality. Reality has a pattern but understanding it requires an extreme amount of scrutiny; many of which have not been done.



In one of the rare cases where the opposite is correct; science, while created by man, requires evidence to back up it's claim. Unlike many religious beliefs, things in science are always wrong until proven otherwise. This is why scientists are extremely skeptical on new ideas and such. However, every single good science articles and publication’s findings have been analyzed and confirmed by many people. This is called “peer review” which asks the science community to recreate experiments to confirm the data. Such a process is not done in the “religious science” things because they must bend the truth in order to preserve the faith of people.

However, man did not create science. Science always existed, or rather, the idea was always there, but not until recently have we "discovered" or learned them. An example: If we were to go back in time millions of years, two plus two is still four; similarly, the properties of oxygen remain the same.

What is the point in finding if all of these already exist you may ask. The answer is simple, to convert these things into things that can help with daily life and possibly in the future, to expand to other planets. Fusion reactions has been observed and confirmed to be in the core of the sun. But we do not stop there; we try to reproduce this power in order for the greater good of humanity.



Man created the procedure used to confirm the data; however, I ignored science as being created by man because that is false and I assumed that people would know that many things within it are reproducible and, thus, would be proven already to be true. A simple way to prove something is false is do the experiment and show that the data does not match.

This shows that while we did create the procedure, it has been extremely reliable because any claim can easily be falsified if it were incorrect. Religion cannot because one would simply say, “God works in mysterious ways”. This is easily an ad hoc fallacy but then it would be the theists who try to hide and not science.



Yes, the people. If the people are as blinded as I make them out to be within these threads (and countless others through other forums), then it will simply further back up my idea of religion being useless.




Christianity is exactly like many other religions except with changed names. But how it makes sense is still something I have not figured out. Have many countless logical arguments done nothing to perhaps show you the true side of an atheist? Or do you still think I’m some kind of person who will be sent to hell and anything he says is simply wrong because it’s against my beliefs.



Why do you want to go to heaven? Why do you want eternal life so badly? I think one life is more than enough to live and understand the world. Exactly what do you do in heaven? Sing to god? I think that would be quite boring!

I think people who want to go to heaven by sacrificing themselves to the lord are foolish. My belief is like this: your allegiance lies within two groups; it doesn’t have to be so strict but it will always tip one favor. The two groups are humanity and god. If given a choice, I would let humanity live and god die while many of you would not!

Sure, you could let god live so he could create more humans, but that would be lying to yourself on where your true allegiances are. I don’t like this one bit. I acknowledge that this reply to it is somewhat harsh but it is what I feel.

Another reason I see for one people want to go to heaven is because they are afraid of death. This reason’s response is a lot less harsh but it attacks some key points in a person’s life. Death scares people; whether it is a lot or little, people are afraid. I think that people created a place called “heaven” so that they would be forever alive.

This is, once again, lying to your-self on the truth. However, many years have passed since then and the idea has been deeply implemented into the brains and teachings of religion; so much that it’s impossible to escape.

My response is accepting your destiny. Do everything to make your life worthwhile in this one. How much work required in getting the “worthwhile” is completely determined by you.

This also raises the question for the morality of atheists. I actually think atheists are more moral than religious folks because they are not limited to changing decisions based on beliefs.



If this is how you perceive me to be, then all of your arguments are in vain. I conclude the idea of religion is unreasonable and retarded but certainly not god! God is fabulous idea; but to make it real is unreasonable (not retarded). The idea of certainly sped up civilization as seen in history but in our current times, a person of logic can safely assume no god is there to guide us or anything of that such.

So ends my beliefs. In summary, the foundation for my beliefs in topic here:
-Simply because one does not understand something does not mean one must create a super natural cause.
My other one has to do with free will and fate. I can show it now but I will not discuss it now.

-Our actions are determined by current conditions (which cannot change).
Our actions change future conditions, which will become current conditions as time passes.
Thus, all actions we take already have a path because the current condition will never change.

This is simply a summary; I can go into it much more if such topic does arrive but I hope it does not because it would most likely lead to another topic like this.

is it nothing, or do you just not know?

Oh COME ON! If God can create the universe, miracles are nothing...


It's just eternal happiness with God. Hell is separation from God...



It's not sacrificing... and OMFG! How can you complain about going to church? God gives you 7 days a week but he only asks for one hour... ONE HOUR of your week to thank him by going to church...
And if you let God die and humanity live, humanity would fail anyways because God is the one who creates life. God is the only just one, the good one. Humans are the ones with sins. You're sounding very evil right now... and right now, we're talking as if you believe there IS a God, so don't say you don't believe in God...

God is fictional -_- he creates life, people... blah... in a book(Bible).

Is there PROOF that he's fictional? I can't imagine life coming out of nothing. The Big Bang was fictional. it created life, people... blah... from humans, who are "able to make mistakes"
How can you say the bible has mistakes when you haven't even read the whole thing and understood everything.

JESUS *UCKING CHIRST! I am sick of your pathetic attemps to try to prove god exists.

IS THERE ANY PROOF HE IS REAL!!!!? NO! AND NO, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT HE IS NOT REAL!

The big bang is not fictional, it is a f*cking theory you jackass! AND HUMANS CAME FROM EVOLUTION YOU IDIOT! DID YOU NOT READ MY POST THAT EXPLAINED ALL THAT STUPID *HIT!?

YOU CANNOT MAKE CLAIMS OF A "GOD" THAT EXISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE DOES. AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE DOESN'T!!

SO WHY DON'T WE ALL JUST STFU AND QUIT BICKERING ABOUT SOMETHING WE CANNOT *UCKING PROVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit by BeeR: Warned, no flaming in any forum.

Calm down...