Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Long Legged Mack Daddy

Corkfeen wrote: »

Hey there Malpaisan.... Still rambling on with the same old nonsense, I see....

arkWen.

Long Legged Mack Daddy

Pushtrak wrote: »

Luckily, most religionists aren't this daft:

Fcukgin Malls Midden bailTrims!

hiphopapotamus

Damn it, 67 pages and when I finally post Opticom's quit?? That's a good argument for atheism right there. God wouldn't be such a cheat..

In all seriousness, I'm glad that the standard-bearers for God have returned in people like philologos so hopefully an, as it began, interesting discussion can continue. One thing I think theists miss, IMHO, and at least for myself, is that people who don't 'believe' in God aren't 'rooting' against the idea. It would be great if this miserable world made sense. I just don't see why people who are unsure, or unconvinced, god exists deserve to spend an ETERNITY in the Lake of Fire for it. The punishment doesn't fit the 'crime'. Belief (ie. 'not based on evidence' which is 'faith'), to me, is like love - you either feel it, or you don't, and not much you can do to control it.

Thanks to Pushtrak for posting the link on 'Misquoting Jesus'. Been wanting to read that for a while. I find the reality of what the bible is very interesting. Read a book called the Gospel of Q a few years ago which identified, by comparing the 4 Gospels, what the earliest (that we can determine) 'gospel' must have been - essentially a collection of Jesus 'sayings'. Also shows how the 'Christianity' (not an insult, but it bears little resemblance to the theology of today) of the early Church (c. 30s-60s AD) didn't become 'apocalyptic' (and Jesus didn't become 'messianic') until the time when the Romans crushed the revolt of Judea in the First Jewish War. Completely changed the essence of the new religion in ways that still impact the world today.

Anyway, great thread and appreciate the input from all perspectives. No hate for the theists. Well, most of them..

PS. Still looking for evidence, or a good argument, for atheism.

philologos

You can not use the document you wish to prove by using the document. I know Philologos probably got a bit upset there.

No I didn't

However, I think you're deeply wrong. We can use the New Testament to determine it wasn't written as fiction. Paul's writings predate the Gospels, so they are abundantly useful in determining what was Christian belief prior to the Gospels being written particularly as a convert.

People haven't presented a decent response to the points that have been listed there, other than you saying that it can't be used. That's quite silly. Particularly when we look and see that there is more manuscript evidence for the New Testament being authentic than any other ancient text, as I've said quite a few times.

Also, there is external evidence in that post for the New Testament being reliable.

I think you're ignoring the distinction between the document being authentic (as it was at first writing) to being true.

I believe the Bible is abundantly true, and have given numerous reasons for why I believe that since I started posting on boards.ie. The reason why I posted the post that is linked in my signature is to show that the Bible was not cobbled together as some people claim, but was written very clearly with the intention of being non-fiction.

Badly Drunk Boy

I think I dislike theists and atheists.

I got my degree in Biblical Studies, going in as a non-believer and leaving the same, but knowing more of the background. I prefer the historical element of those times.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

No I didn't

However, I think you're deeply wrong. We can use the New Testament to determine it wasn't written as fiction. Paul's writings predate the Gospels, so they are abundantly useful in determining what was Christian belief prior to the Gospels being written particularly as a convert.

People haven't presented a decent response to the points that have been listed there, other than you saying that it can't be used. That's quite silly. Particularly when we look and see that there is more manuscript evidence for the New Testament being authentic than any other ancient text, as I've said quite a few times.

Also, there is external evidence in that post for the New Testament being reliable.

I think you're ignoring the distinction between the document being authentic (as it was at first writing) to being true.

I believe the Bible is abundantly true, and have given numerous reasons for why I believe that since I started posting on boards.ie. The reason why I posted the post that is linked in my signature is to show that the Bible was not cobbled together as some people claim, but was written very clearly with the intention of being non-fiction.

you keep peddling this argument, a book must be true because it says its true? thats nonsense.

philologos

No. That wasn't my argument.

My argument is that the New Testament was not written intentionally as fiction. There's also good reason to believe that it wasn't simply contrived from just looking within the text. This is advantageous for rejecting atheist arguments that the New Testament is like Beano or Harry Potter :pac:. Or rejecting arguments that the New Testament is like Chinese whispers.

To determine truth we need to examine the claims that are contained within the New Testament. I'm more than happy to do that.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

No. That wasn't my argument.

My argument is that the New Testament was not written intentionally as fiction. There's also good reason to believe that it wasn't simply contrived from just looking within the text. This is advantageous for rejecting atheist arguments that the New Testament is like Beano or Harry Potter :pac:. Or rejecting arguments that the New Testament is like Chinese whispers.

To determine truth we need to examine the claims that are contained within the New Testament. I'm more than happy to do that.

just the new testament? what about the old? or is that just nonense, men living in whales, talking snakes, all that jazz.

MagicSean

Can you imagine if you were God and you were trying to convince the world you existed. You'd only have Jesus to talk to about it, who is really you anyway so it'd be like talking to a mirror.

"I've tried everything Jesus. I tried giving them freedom and they forgot about me. So i went all vengeful on their asses, volcanoes, tsunamis, nuclear disaster. They blamed Global warming and pollution. I sent them the dreaded Bush and Bieber and they made them rich and famous, worshipped them even. Then I do some good works and ****ing Bono takes all the credit. I can't win."

I imagine it'd be a lonely, unfulfilling existence.

Bannasidhe

MagicSean wrote: »

Can you imagine if you were God and you were trying to convince the world you existed. You'd only have Jesus to talk to about it, who is really you anyway so it'd be like talking to a mirror.

"I've tried everything Jesus. I tried giving them freedom and they forgot about me. So i went all vengeful on their asses, volcanoes, tsunamis, nuclear disaster. They blamed Global warming and pollution. I sent them the dreaded Bush and Bieber and they made them rich and famous, worshipped them even. Then I do some good works and ****ing Bono takes all the credit. I can't win."

I imagine it'd be a lonely, unfulfilling existence.

You'd think being omnipotent he would have seen that coming. Just saying like...