reply to post by iwilliam
I haven't misrepresented your answer at all. What I recounted is a direct quote from your post
right here. It's the very last sentence of your reply to question 6, and
it does fairly sum up your opinion on the validity of that question.
You think that atheism, the lack-of-belief, is a religion which subsists on faith; you also think that questioning Christianity through atheism is a
pseudo-intellectual pursuit. Both of these stances are patently false.
Atheism is not "having faith that God does not exist" as you seem to believe; it is lacking all belief, or faith, in a higher power, a set of
spiritual rituals and ceremonies, and alternate essences (like spirit, soul, etc). Since you clearly demonstrate a biased opinion of atheism, I can
safely assume your opinions about the questions atheists pose will also be similarly biased. You do not fail to disappoint.
Now then, the reason that the question of how many women went is important is because the Bible is supposed to be the infallible, divinely inspired
word of God. If God cannot count, and if God tells a different story to different people than it makes God an unreliable witness. In a court of law
this is akin to lying, and the testimony of an exposed liar is discarded.
The Bible is a flawed document; whatever pseudo-intellectual babble you dress it up in: it is inconsistent, contradictory, historically and
scientifically inaccurate, and should not be taken as anything more than religious myth, superstition, and a product of a bygone age.
Sorry if my direct quotations of your work offend you. If you don't want people quoting exactly what you say, then don't say it.
~ Wandering Scribe
Has Intelligent Thought Become A Lost Art at ATS ?, page 5
reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 12:52 PM by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by charles1952
The real question is: where do my bluebirds fly?
Second.
~ Wandering Scribe
The real question is: where do my bluebirds fly?
Second.
~ Wandering Scribe
reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 01:00 PM by thetiler
Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Deetermined
Sorry to jump in on this one, but, if you're looking for inaccuracy in the Bible, it's not hard to find. Consider some of these...
After Jesus has cursed the fig tree, does it wither immediately, or overnight?
- Mark 11:13-23 says the tree withered overnight
- Matthew 21:19-20 says the tree withered while the disciples watched
How many demon-possessed men emerge from tombs in Gergesenes?
- Matthew 8:28 says two possessed men emerged
- Mark 5:02 says only one possessed man emerged
When Jesus commands his disciples to spread the Gospel to Israel, does he tell them to take a staff?
- Matthew 10:10 states Jesus said to take no staff
- Mark 6:8 states Jesus commanded them to take only a staff
Who carries Jesus' cross on the way to Golgotha?
- Matthew 27:32 says that Simon of Cyrene did it
- John 19:17 says Jesus did it himself
How many women went to Jesus' tomb on Sunday morning?
- Matthew 28:01 says Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary went to the tomb
- Mark 16:01 says that Mary Magdalene; Mary, mother of James; and Salome went
- Luke 23:55-55 & 24:1 & 24:10 all say more than three women went
- John 20:01 says that only Mary Magdalene went
How many men were in Jesus' tomb when the women arrived?
- Luke 24:4 says there were two men in shining garments
- Mark 16:5 says there was only one man in a white garment
I could go on. There's even an awesome online quiz which I could point you to, that features all of the above material, and numerous other contradictions. The Bible is chuck full of inconsistencies, contradictions, inaccurate history and science, and many other short-comings.
In fact, why is it that the virgin birth of Christ is only covered in the gospel of Matthew, and of Luke; but not Mark, or John. You would think that, regardless of the intent of the gospel, such a miracle would be worthy of retelling in all four.
Anyway, all of these are just things for any open-minded individual to take into consideration when contemplating the validity and authenticity of their faith.
~ Wandering Scribe
edit on 21/11/12 by Wandering Scribe because: added link
Then when I read James Padgett (a medium) automatic writing (if true)
Jesus states that about half of the bible is false. Your references seem spot on. If what James Padgett states, in his communications with Jesus in the early 1900's. James was a practicing Lawyer in the Washington DC area that received no money for his communications with Jesus. (if true).
reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 07:29 PM by Maigret
reply to post by charles1952
'Religion and politics, in one form or another, go back thousands of years. They have been discussed and experimented with by some of the most intelligent men in the world in discussions which have, in some cases, continued over centuries. Are you suggesting we throw all that out and restart the process on our own?'
This is the whole point of the exercise of using some intelligent thinking and discussion. You presume that religion and politics are right and correct as they are; but it should be apparent that the current political system does NOT work and religion, as we have it, is a spiritual waste of time.
Democracy, with all that is supposed to mean, is actually non-existent. The head of the country is elected by a porcess which means I only have two candidates to choose from for the top job. Neither of them knows me and I don't know them. So it is a case of 'enie-meanie-minei-moe'... because I know they will tell me anything to get my vote and it's all just political spin, spun by advertisers and advisors. Intelligent thinkers should look at this problem and seek a working solution, instead of blindly accepting the status quo.
Our current religious ideas are a joke, no matter what your religious ideology is. When we make direct contact with our Creator, then we will know we have true religion! People used to have this all the time in the Old Testament, but since the time of the Messiah, there has been complete spiritual silence. Intelligent thinking would require that we recognise and address the problem until we have the proper solution.
'Religion and politics, in one form or another, go back thousands of years. They have been discussed and experimented with by some of the most intelligent men in the world in discussions which have, in some cases, continued over centuries. Are you suggesting we throw all that out and restart the process on our own?'
This is the whole point of the exercise of using some intelligent thinking and discussion. You presume that religion and politics are right and correct as they are; but it should be apparent that the current political system does NOT work and religion, as we have it, is a spiritual waste of time.
Democracy, with all that is supposed to mean, is actually non-existent. The head of the country is elected by a porcess which means I only have two candidates to choose from for the top job. Neither of them knows me and I don't know them. So it is a case of 'enie-meanie-minei-moe'... because I know they will tell me anything to get my vote and it's all just political spin, spun by advertisers and advisors. Intelligent thinkers should look at this problem and seek a working solution, instead of blindly accepting the status quo.
Our current religious ideas are a joke, no matter what your religious ideology is. When we make direct contact with our Creator, then we will know we have true religion! People used to have this all the time in the Old Testament, but since the time of the Messiah, there has been complete spiritual silence. Intelligent thinking would require that we recognise and address the problem until we have the proper solution.
reply posted on 23-11-2012 @ 01:48 PM by iwilliam
Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by iwilliam
I haven't misrepresented your answer at all. What I recounted is a direct quote from your post right here. It's the very last sentence of your reply to question 6, and it does fairly sum up your opinion on the validity of that question.
You think that atheism, the lack-of-belief, is a religion which subsists on faith; you also think that questioning Christianity through atheism is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit. Both of these stances are patently false.
Atheism is not "having faith that God does not exist" as you seem to believe; it is lacking all belief, or faith, in a higher power, a set of spiritual rituals and ceremonies, and alternate essences (like spirit, soul, etc). Since you clearly demonstrate a biased opinion of atheism, I can safely assume your opinions about the questions atheists pose will also be similarly biased. You do not fail to disappoint.
Now then, the reason that the question of how many women went is important is because the Bible is supposed to be the infallible, divinely inspired word of God. If God cannot count, and if God tells a different story to different people than it makes God an unreliable witness. In a court of law this is akin to lying, and the testimony of an exposed liar is discarded.
The Bible is a flawed document; whatever pseudo-intellectual babble you dress it up in: it is inconsistent, contradictory, historically and scientifically inaccurate, and should not be taken as anything more than religious myth, superstition, and a product of a bygone age.
Sorry if my direct quotations of your work offend you. If you don't want people quoting exactly what you say, then don't say it.
~ Wandering Scribe
You most certainly did misrepresent my answer, as you posted one line from me, and ignored my directly addressing biblical inconsistencies. But maybe you enjoy "spin" as much as you seem to abhor logic. Your viewpoint does not upset me. Your misrepresenting mine does. This is the same as when an interviewer takes one small line out of context and spins it differently than it was intended. If you truly represented my words, it would be apparent I actually agree with your view that the bible is an inconsistent document. But that is no longer what I care most about. I'd like to focus on your denials of logic:
So your belief that god does not exist is not based on faith? Then please provide me with the conclusive proof that your ideas are based on -- conclusive proof that god does not exist. If you can not do this, I will accept this as an admission that your belief in "no god" is, in fact, a form of unprovable faith.
Either you have conclusive, indisputable proof of something, or you have to admit that your unwavering belief is an article of faith. You can not have it both ways.
I'll be waiting (though admittedly not with my breath held)
edit on 23-11-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-11-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 23-11-2012 @ 02:52 PM by TKDRL
reply to post by iwilliam
Do you have conclusive proof leprechauns don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof dragons don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof vampires don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? I could go on, but you get the point.
Do you have conclusive proof leprechauns don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof dragons don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof vampires don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? I could go on, but you get the point.
edit on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:53:57 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 23-11-2012 @ 04:12 PM by iwilliam
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by iwilliam
Do you have conclusive proof leprechauns don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof dragons don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof vampires don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? I could go on, but you get the point.edit on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:53:57 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)
I assume your point is that no one needs proof that those things don't exist, because to believe in them is stupid, or something to that effect?
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. That is highly irrelevant to the point I put forth. If you believe that something does not exist without conclusive proof that what you believe is true, and you believe it unwaveringly, that is a matter of FAITH. It fits the very definition.
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
If you can not prove it, but you believe it, especially strongly and unwaveringly, that is FAITH, pure and simple. I would further suggest that if one believes there is no god so deeply and fervently that they are willing to insult and / or argue with others who think differently, that most definitely indicates a strong faith more than a casual belief or speculation.
Generally speaking, I believe there is a god. I can not prove this, so it is a matter of faith. I find it endlessly amusing that many atheists are so smug and egotistical they can't even admit that their own belief (which lacks proof) is a matter of faith which makes them little different than most of the blind religious followers they look down on. It would be a bit sickening if it weren't hilarious. If you're on the fence, you're agnostic, not atheist. If they're an intelligent and respectful atheist who follows logic and truly respects that above their own petty ego, they typically aren't found wasting their time mocking believers for having faith in something else.
Faith is faith is faith. You can't paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra.
Well, you could... you would just be an idiot and a liar if you did.
edit on 23-11-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 12:20 AM by TKDRL
reply to post by iwilliam
No, you got it assbackwards actually. I do not hold belief in things I see no tangible proof of. There is no proof of dragons being real, so I hold no belief in dragons. I see no evidence of unicorns, so I hold no belief in unicorns. I see no proof in the biblical god, so I hold no belief in it. No faith needed. It's not belief, or faith, but lack of it.
No, you got it assbackwards actually. I do not hold belief in things I see no tangible proof of. There is no proof of dragons being real, so I hold no belief in dragons. I see no evidence of unicorns, so I hold no belief in unicorns. I see no proof in the biblical god, so I hold no belief in it. No faith needed. It's not belief, or faith, but lack of it.
reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 02:25 AM by charles1952
reply to post by Maigret
Dear Maigret,
I'm sorry I created such confusion, my writing isn't the best.
I mentioned religion and politics only because it seemed those were the areas the OP appeared primarily interested in.
I must maintain, however, that the past is invaluable for us. I can't believe that any one of us could invent every form of government there ever was, then pick the one that will work best. But, we can go back through history, get a list of dozens of forms of governments, and see how they played out in practice. I don't say we have to choose one from the past, but I insist we can learn from, and make a better decision by considering, the earlier forms of government.
With respect,
Charles1952
Dear Maigret,
I'm sorry I created such confusion, my writing isn't the best.
I mentioned religion and politics only because it seemed those were the areas the OP appeared primarily interested in.
You presume that religion and politics are right and correct as they are; but it should be apparent that the current political system does NOT work and religion, as we have it, is a spiritual waste of time.I didn't mean my words to be taken that way. I agree that our politics are not the most efficient. Your religion comment is a little too broad for me to accept as is, but politics first.
I must maintain, however, that the past is invaluable for us. I can't believe that any one of us could invent every form of government there ever was, then pick the one that will work best. But, we can go back through history, get a list of dozens of forms of governments, and see how they played out in practice. I don't say we have to choose one from the past, but I insist we can learn from, and make a better decision by considering, the earlier forms of government.
Our current religious ideas are a joke, no matter what your religious ideology is. When we make direct contact with our Creator, then we will know we have true religion! Intelligent thinking would require that we recognise and address the problem until we have the proper solution.The reason I have a little difficulty understanding this position is that it is so incredibly impractical. Intelligent thinking requires us to ignore the question of religion until we have all the facts, which will be when we are face to face with the Creator? Do I misunderstand? That's going to be a little late, don't you think? It's not going to happen while we're alive, and after that a useful discussion becomes nearly impossible unless you're thinking of Ouija boards.
People used to have this all the time in the Old Testament, but since the time of the Messiah, there has been complete spiritual silence.This is not a universally recognized truth. (In fact, most of the world's religions would reject it.)
With respect,
Charles1952
reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 01:08 PM by iwilliam
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by iwilliam
No, you got it assbackwards actually. I do not hold belief in things I see no tangible proof of. There is no proof of dragons being real, so I hold no belief in dragons. I see no evidence of unicorns, so I hold no belief in unicorns. I see no proof in the biblical god, so I hold no belief in it. No faith needed. It's not belief, or faith, but lack of it.
I disagree. You are playing a semantics game because doubt is dressed up in the verbal clothing of opposites but it still means "belief with no proof," just in a negative sense-- belief that something does not exist. Dance around the words all you like, but you still believe things with no reason to believe them... just in a negative sense. Why is it so valid to doubt or disBELIEVE something for which you have not personally seen proof? What makes that so much better than accepting something based on circumstantial evidence, or the words of others? And don't get me wrong -- I'm not talking about throwing reason entirely out the window and believing any old notion that enters your head, or which someone claims. Critical thinking is required. But I feel a lot of "skeptics" of your variety like to do away with critical thinking as well, even though you delude yourself into believing otherwise. I say this because when you run into a limitation of your own thinking, and can no longer understand the points of others, you discredit them.
Once upon a time there was no proof that the earth was round. And people like you mocked and laughed at anyone who thought differently. Have you ever SEEN EVIDENCE, I mean with your own eyes, that oxygen molecules exist? Have you seen evidence that the air around us is not truly "empty?" Or do you just take someone else' word for it? What about space-time? Have you seen proof of that one? Believe it? Or was that Einstein joker just plain wrong?
Enjoy your mockery and laughter.
:
:
edit on 24-11-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
Muslim group, Ansar al-Sunna, demand breakaway Islamic nation in Norway or another 9/11 threatened
Posted 4 days ago with 41 member flags
Posted 4 days ago with 41 member flags
Who Are The "Synagogue of Satan", The "Jews" Who Are Not Jews", Mentioned In Revelation?
Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags
The Star of David is not a Jewish symbol. The seal of Solomon is a tool of Jinn control.
Posted 7 days ago with 23 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 23 member flags
Pastor who "kicked" Holy Spirit into woman banned from UK! Religious discrimination?
Posted 18 days ago with 8 member flags
Posted 18 days ago with 8 member flags
Catholic TV Star, the Rev. Benedict Groeschel, Defends Child Sex Abusers
Posted 12 days ago with 8 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 8 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
29 New Jersey Resteraunts caught selling rubbing alcohol
Breaking Alternative News: 9 hours ago, 23 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 9 hours ago, 23 flags
Police swoop on the homeless taking sleeping bags and food parcels in co-ordinated raids in Redbridg
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 23 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 23 flags
BBC: RAF jets scrambled after 'incident' (possibly hijack?)
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 11 flags
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Woolwich attack: Muslim cleric Anjem Choudray claims he knew murder suspect - video
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 43 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 43 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.329 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.329 seconds
