Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Total Power]

Let me tell you again. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD.
That's language you use.
But the point is there.

With all due respect, if you are not going to use any of your intellect and parrot the same old debunked lines, please refrain from wasting my time, i have been patient with you and made an incredible effort in explaining the Bible and why it's full of **** , errors, stolen stuff , moral hazards etc etc, none of which been refuted by you (and i doubt even read by you), outside of , 'it's true cause i said so'.. If you are going to patronize me in every post that you type, i will politely ask you to **** off and find your ilk in your echo chambers only.

I call you an idiot for this reason, cause you are not willing to engage in a half intelligent discussion with me about your own Holy Book, the source of your faith. You simply do not care if its stolen, made up or corrupted. I get it, cause it's a mere belief, but don't expect me to engage with you or your ilk.

Do not waste my time, if you are not going to type anything half intelligible which i don't think you are capable of.

 

[Total Power]

I view atheism as the absence of belief in deities, so it's consistent with agnosticism and ignosticism. It's also rational in it's most pure form.

The burden of proof lies with theists.

Is it so though? These are 'mere words' and 'definitions. It's upto us to explain but you will fall into the same claptrap as our mate VD here.

I have an active disbelief in the gods of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and any other organized religion you care to name. But a more general idea of a god, an intelligent universe, (like a Deistic god who doesn't interfere at all like Einstein or pantheism) I can't say I actively disbelieve, but I still don't have any belief that it exists.

Look at me, i have been slammed by both and theists alike, so what am i? Words don't have inherent meanings. People decide what they mean, and sometimes they mean different things to different people. When that happens, it's important that they understand what each other mean by the word.

But if you HAVE to use a word.......I prefer "Agnostic" because I simply do not know if God exists or not. But I would argue, IF you are agnostic (i.e you either have no knowledge or do not know enough) then, by default, you are not justified in "believing" it either. So, regarding the claim "God exists" I assert that I do know know or have enough information and I am not convinced by the evidence and arguments offered for "God" so thus, I am simply not convinced and thus do not believe their claim is true, for now.

Where i will side with SBD Gonzalez is that the claims people have made about god's have not been shown to be true and have not convinced me, that is all. This bullshit about not investigating the claims and not applying critical thoughts and applying the same standards on other religion and belief system that they apply to theirs is all very true. This is what annoys me, as i said to VD above, what is the actual evidence that Genesis was not stolen? the answer i get is either adhoms or '2 billuion people said so.

Hence i called him a muppet and i standby it.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

There is enough of the truly unexplainable stuff that people fill the gap with religious belief.
IMO filling the gap with religious belief is no different to filling the gap with belief/hope/whatever you want to call it in science/logic/reason eventually providing an explanation.

I think there is the world of difference.

Rationalists do not make any claims to have found the meaning of life.

Rationalists do not aggressively proselytise their cause.

Rationalists do not gather every week; every day even, to sing the praises of rationalism.

Rationalists certainly do not tell people they are evil and only rationalism will save them from a ludicrous unproven fate.

Rationalists do not aggressively try to get their hands on their (non-existent) followers’ money.

When the French constitution more emphatically separates church and state than ours does, it’s not a quasi religious statement of “belief”, it’s a consequence of the simple fact that the secular domain is the province solely of secular thought.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Let me tell you again. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD.

Billions of Hindus kinda disagree with you on that.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Once you go Atheist there is no turning back

That’s nonsense.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Atheists are alright, mostly. It's good that they want to explore things. Knowledge is good.
But we all know that when push comes to shove they're praying as hard as anyone for divine intervention.

More tosh. Where are you getting this from?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It's human nature, and absolutely true. Note- when push comes to shove.

Can you point us to the research please?

 

[Gethelred]

When you disrespectfully can't even spell the person of discussion properly, you certainly don't deserve any debate. Jesus is real. I lose absolutely nothing by having faith in Him. You lose everything if He is. Your choice. No need to feel threatened by that, it is only the truth from my pov, and in your eyes, I am nothing.

I have never misspelled any of your words. You refuse to debate me.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Jesus is real. I lose absolutely nothing by having faith in Him.

Um, you sure do.

 

[Gethelred]

Atheists are alright, mostly. It's good that they want to explore things. Knowledge is good.
But we all know that when push comes to shove they're praying as hard as anyone for divine intervention.

'No atheists in foxholes'. Demonstrably false.

Try again.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

'No atheists in foxholes'. Demonstrably false.

Try again.

My very religious uncle came back from 3 and a half years of Japanese POW hell and never set foot in a church again.

 

[Vdubs]

With all due respect, if you are not going to use any of your intellect and parrot the same old debunked lines, please refrain from wasting my time, i have been patient with you and made an incredible effort in explaining the Bible and why it's full of **** , errors, stolen stuff , moral hazards etc etc, none of which been refuted by you (and i doubt even read by you), outside of , 'it's true cause i said so'.. If you are going to patronize me in every post that you type, i will politely ask you to **** off and find your ilk in your echo chambers only.

I call you an idiot for this reason, cause you are not willing to engage in a half intelligent discussion with me about your own Holy Book, the source of your faith. You simply do not care if its stolen, made up or corrupted. I get it, cause it's a mere belief, but don't expect me to engage with you or your ilk.

Do not waste my time, if you are not going to type anything half intelligible which i don't think you are capable of.

If I come back in 12m time, you'll still be wasting your time on this thread spewing your haughty views, whether I am here, or anyone else who cares to read your dogma. Nobody requests or needs YOUR EXPLANATION of the Bible. The sooner that sinks in, the better for you. Don't ask questions assuming you already know the answer. You are not God. At least you admit you are agnostic.

 

[Total Power]

If I come back in 12m time, you'll still be wasting your time on this thread spewing your haughty views, whether I am here, or anyone else who cares to read your dogma. Nobody requests or needs YOUR EXPLANATION of the Bible. The sooner that sinks in, the better for you. Don't ask questions assuming you already know the answer. You are not God. At least you admit you are agnostic.

Oh the irony, 'just because i am incapable of answering his questions, it means no one else can too'. LOL

There are people WELL capable of holding a theological debate, like indo, eastfreo,mikey who unfortunately don't come here often enough and all we are left with, is you. Funny that you out of all people blame others of 'dogma'. hahaha!

The irony meter is broken. As i said * off go waste someone else's time. I'll be happily talking to people here capable of holding a discussion, unlike programmed parrots. If you can reply and discuss to the point then please be my guest, orelse, my patience has run out, after 200 pages of listening to a parrot. Talk about theology and hold a discussion like an adult. That can only start when you read someones post first.

As i said, you are just a dud.

 

[Vdubs]

Oh the irony, 'just because i am incapable of answering his questions, it means no one else can too'. LOL

There are people WELL capable of holding a theological debate, like indo, eastfreo,mikey who unfortunately don't come here often enough and all we are left with, is you. Funny that you out of all people blame others of 'dogma'. hahaha!

The irony meter is broken. As i said fu** off go waste someone else's time. I'll be happily talking to people here capable of holding a discussion, unlike programmed parrots. If you can reply and discuss to the point then please be my guest, orelse, my patience has run out, after 200 pages of listening to a parrot. Talk about theology and hold a discussion like an adult. That can only start when you read someones post first.

As i said, you are just a dud.

Funny that, why would you reckon?
And btw, it was you who goaded me back here after a good period of abstinence.
Tbh, I'd rather talk footy with some of you. Common ground.
Your wish is my command.

 

[Total Power]

Funny that, why would you reckon?
And btw, it was you who goaded me back here after a good period of abstinence.
Tbh, I'd rather talk footy with some of you. Common ground.
Your wish is my command.

Indo and i had plenty of discussions, indo doesn't log in often, he is busy with something else he said but when he logs in we usually have brilliant exchanges, 5 pages ago, we had a brilliant exchange with Roylion, unlike you he doesn't start crying when he gets owned in a conversation.

I also participate in plenty of other forums, catholic and Islamic, no one here cries foul like you do. Knowledge is often exchanged through discussion, if you don;t know something own up to it, that's how i learned.

No discussion is the best with you, i am very sound theologically, you can squirm all you wish, but you have NO substance as everyone can see in the past 200 pages.

Adios

 

[Vdubs]

Indo and i had plenty of discussions, indo doesn't log in often, he is busy with something else he said but when he logs in we usually have brilliant exchanges, 5 pages ago, we had a brilliant exchange with Roylion, unlike you he doesn't start crying when he gets owned in a conversation.

I also participate in plenty of other forums, catholic and Islamic, no one here cries foul like you do. Knowledge is often exchanged through discussion, if you don;t know something own up to it, that's how i learned.

No discussion is the best with you, i am very sound theologically, you can squirm all you wish, but you have NO substance as everyone can see in the past 200 pages.

Adios

I often wonder how old you really are when you engage like that- the highlighted- very puerile comments. I'm not here to win a debate with you. Apologies again for getting your ire up.

 

[Total Power]

I often wonder how old you really are when you engage like that- the highlighted- very puerile comments. I'm not here to win a debate with you. Apologies again for getting your ire up.

Discussion is not debate, i had a long discussion with indo about Original Sin and he told me 'i will do further reading into this' when i posted evidences. That;s how grown ups handle a discussion. Parrots like you scream foul when they don't have answers. It's not necessary that you have to know everything, that's why i go to other forums to learn their pov and read the scriptures and the contexts and the historicity.

My gripe with you is you never actual answer any questions, you do not read my posts but yet you feel compelled to quote me without reading anything.

Disrespectful and like they say empty vessel sounds much.

 

[Roylion]

Let me tell you again. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD.

That is matter of opinion based on nothing more than faith. It certainly has not been proved as fact.

 

[Evolved1]

Is it so though? These are 'mere words' and 'definitions. It's upto us to explain but you will fall into the same claptrap as our mate VD here.

I have an active disbelief in the gods of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and any other organized religion you care to name. But a more general idea of a god, an intelligent universe, (like a Deistic god who doesn't interfere at all like Einstein or pantheism) I can't say I actively disbelieve, but I still don't have any belief that it exists.

Look at me, i have been slammed by both and theists alike, so what am i? Words don't have inherent meanings. People decide what they mean, and sometimes they mean different things to different people. When that happens, it's important that they understand what each other mean by the word.

But if you HAVE to use a word.......I prefer "Agnostic" because I simply do not know if God exists or not. But I would argue, IF you are agnostic (i.e you either have no knowledge or do not know enough) then, by default, you are not justified in "believing" it either. So, regarding the claim "God exists" I assert that I do know know or have enough information and I am not convinced by the evidence and arguments offered for "God" so thus, I am simply not convinced and thus do not believe their claim is true, for now.

Where i will side with SBD Gonzalez is that the claims people have made about god's have not been shown to be true and have not convinced me, that is all. This bullshit about not investigating the claims and not applying critical thoughts and applying the same standards on other religion and belief system that they apply to theirs is all very true. This is what annoys me, as i said to VD above, what is the actual evidence that Genesis was not stolen? the answer i get is either adhoms or '2 billuion people said so.

Hence i called him a muppet and i standby it.

I don't subscribe to the idea that atheists and theists are on one end of a spectrum holding certainty about their positions while agnostics are in the middle undecided. Theism and atheism are about belief while gnosticism/agnosticism are about knowledge.

Most honest believers will admit that they believe god exists though they don't know it. In that case they're agnostic theists.




The issue with agnosticism as a separate position is that you're forced to hold the same view about anything that you can't disprove if you want to be consistent. Since we don't know for sure whether Bill Gates is putting mind-control nanoparticles in covid vaccine, should we be agnostic about the claim? It can lead to a lot of silliness.

It's far easier to dismiss claims until adequate supporting evidence is provided and call yourself a disbeliever in hypothesis xyz. That's how most atheists see religion. As much as I loathe organised religion, I'd be forced to believe if adherents could provide enough supporting evidence for their claims.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don't subscribe to the idea that atheists and theists are on one end of a spectrum holding certainty about their positions while agnostics are in the middle undecided. Theism and atheism are about belief while gnosticism/agnosticism are about knowledge.

Most honest believers will admit that they believe god exists though they don't know it. In that case they're agnostic theists.

View attachment 1265513


The issue with agnosticism as a separate position is that you're forced to hold the same view about anything that you can't disprove if you want to be consistent. Since we don't know for sure whether Bill Gates is putting mind-control nanoparticles in covid vaccine, should we be agnostic about the claim? It can lead to a lot of silliness.

It's far easier to dismiss claims until adequate supporting evidence is provided and call yourself a disbeliever in hypothesis xyz. That's how most atheists see religion. As much as I loathe organised religion, I'd be forced to believe if adherents could provide enough supporting evidence for their claims.

Some words of sanity.

 

[Total Power]

I don't subscribe to the idea that atheists and theists are on one end of a spectrum holding certainty about their positions while agnostics are in the middle undecided. Theism and atheism are about belief while gnosticism/agnosticism are about knowledge.

Most honest believers will admit that they believe god exists though they don't know it. In that case they're agnostic theists.

View attachment 1265513


The issue with agnosticism as a separate position is that you're forced to hold the same view about anything that you can't disprove if you want to be consistent. Since we don't know for sure whether Bill Gates is putting mind-control nanoparticles in covid vaccine, should we be agnostic about the claim? It can lead to a lot of silliness.

It's far easier to dismiss claims until adequate supporting evidence is provided and call yourself a disbeliever in hypothesis xyz. That's how most atheists see religion. As much as I loathe organised religion, I'd be forced to believe if adherents could provide enough supporting evidence for their claims.

I somewhat agree but a classical atheist like most in this thread are pretty much 9 on a Dawkins scale.

To be truly "agnostic" is a disingenuous position. All people when pushed can be pushed beyond agnosticism.

To be agnostic, is to comment on the actual evidence at hand, and make a claim of inconclusiveness.

To be a theist/atheist is to subscribe to the belief that a God(s) exist, or don't exist. beliefs need not be moderated by conclusive factual evidence. Deductive evidence is not objectivity, which is why maths is not rational, never will be.

Well vaccines can be tested for chemical composition, if you find a weird substance you dive deeper into it. It may as well be mind controlling substance if i find a chemical which related to controlling hormones. Possible but no evidence yet.

 

[dusty1234!]

Atheism is a belief.
Baldness is a fact.
Christianity is Life. Meaning. Purpose. The Way.

My athiesm is not a belief. It is only rejecting what you cannot prove.
You don't not-believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy.

 

[Roylion]

Atheism as a religion is no different to any other religion... Belief in something that explains stuff.

Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

I myself am agnostic. I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or gods or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena.

I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the originator/creator and ruler of the universe and exists outside time and space definitely doesn't exist. How could I?

What I do argue is that I or anyone else (despite their claims to knowledge of deities suich as Yahweh/Allah/Jesus or whatever) cannot know the existance of such phenomena, beyond pure faith. With faith, any imagined phenomena can be claimed as true.

Until robust, repeated supporting evidence for such a claim is presented, then I cannot ascertain its truthfulness and therefore see no reason to believe that it is true.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the claimed premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe (by whatever name they are called by their followers) by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than reacting with skepticism when others invoke / claim said being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency through proselytizing. Vdubs being one such example.

 

[indoistriku]

Noah was plagiarized from the Sumerian Utnapishtim - fairly common knowledge.


The entire **** is a fraud, but they needed a saviour then.

What are the exact similarities? A quick Google indicates that these are the primary similarities:

COMPARISON OF GENESIS AND GILGAMESH​
	GENESIS​	GILGAMESH​
Extent of flood	Global	Global
Cause	Man's wickedness	Man's sins
Intended for whom?	All mankind	One city & all mankind
Sender	Yahweh	Assembly of "gods"
Name of hero	Noah	Utnapishtim
Hero's character	Righteous	Righteous
Means of announcement	Direct from God	In a dream
Ordered to build boat?	Yes	Yes
Did hero complain?	Yes	Yes
Height of boat	Several stories (3)	Several stories (6)
Compartments inside?	Many	Many
Doors	One	One
Windows	At least one	At least one
Outside coating	Pitch	Pitch
Shape of boat	Rectangular	Square
Human passengers	Family members only	Family & few others
Other passengers	All species of animals	All species of animals
Means of flood	Ground water & heavy rain	Heavy rain
Duration of flood	Long (40 days & nights plus)	Short (6 days & nights)
Test to find land	Release of birds	Release of birds
Types of birds	Raven & three doves	Dove, swallow, raven
Ark landing spot	Mountain -- Mt. Ararat	Mountain -- Mt. Nisir
Sacrificed after flood?	Yes, by Noah	Yes, by Utnapishtim
Blessed after flood?	Yes	Yes

The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh

Background The Epic of Gilgamesh has been of interest to Christians ever since its discovery in the mid-nineteenth century in the ruins of the great library at Nineveh, with its account of a universal flood with significant parallels to the Flood of Noah's day.1, 2 The rest of the Epic, which...

www.icr.org

If you agree, then we can go from there. If there's anything that you'd like to add, please do so.

 

[Total Power]

What are the exact similarities? A quick Google indicates that these are the primary similarities:

The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh

Background The Epic of Gilgamesh has been of interest to Christians ever since its discovery in the mid-nineteenth century in the ruins of the great library at Nineveh, with its account of a universal flood with significant parallels to the Flood of Noah's day.1, 2 The rest of the Epic, which...

www.icr.org

If you agree, then we can go from there. If there's anything that you'd like to add, please do so.

Inspired by, is not exactly translated as 'copied'. Your table you posted above shows remarkable similarities. Of course it can never be the same. One is monotheistic and the other is polytheistic. Different context, and about 1,500 years later. BUT Gilgamesh is one of 9,000 flood stories that predates Genesis but Genesis writers most probably read Gilgamesh or heard about it orally, considering they were from the same region.


There's a lot more that Gilgamesh shares with Genesis:

• trickster snake and the "tree" (both have trickster snakes and while the epic of Gilgamesh has the tree of eternal youth, Genesis has the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil)
• Enkidu loses his innocence through sex and starts wearing clothes, with certain shame for nakedness, the same way it happened with Adam and Eve after they supposedly had sex
• Both the epic and Genesis have clear instructions on how to built a boat along with the specific measurements
• Both the epic and Genesis have the main character of the flood being responsible for building the boat and rescuing 2 of each animal.

Many serious scholars agree that Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh have many intersections. Not just when it comes to the flood but especially when it comes to the 'fall' narrative.

The Influence of Gilgamesh on the Bible | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

Genesis has no hero king on a quest and it reflects a monotheistic world rather than a polytheistic council of the gods. Yet most tantalizing, is that naughty serpent in Gilgamesh who takes the life-giving plant away from Gilgamesh, much like the fast-talking serpent in Genesis.

Yet both stories make a similar important point in each of their cultures. Immortality is not for men, and death cannot be escaped. The sorrows of this life, be they floods or other disasters, must be met with resolve.

Perhaps the most important message, as Noah and Utnapishtim would advise us, is that the wise will listen to their creators if they wish to find hope in the uncertain future.

I mean Noah's ark is obviously a copy. The dove with the olive branch pretty much cinches it. The chances of that detail being invented independently are, realistically speaking, non-existent.

Best is you have a read yourself instead of depending on other narratives. I will appreciate that.