Do you have a Bible at home and What version is it?

apeZ said:
Got a children's Bible around somewhere, but I have never read it. Like a normal Bible, but with less violence and more pretty pictures.

The plot is inconsistent, the authors are biased and delusional, and it is too long. Lord of the Rings makes more sense, and for that reason, I do not want to read it =]
Click to expand...

You can't just say they were delusional because you don't share there beliefs, not that we know an awful lot about the Bibles authors. And it's not a story book, and there isn't an overall plot, just an account, written by many different people over a long period oof time, of course the plot isn't going to be consistent
 
AJUK said:
It is those that believe in a god that think atheists have a strong disbelief, no faith is involved at all. 'God doesn't exist' is a statement of fact at this present time and will remain so forever. No faith is required.

This is the problem, the requirement for 'faith' is a manifestation of the inherent weakness of a person that they require a belief in a god in the first place. It is also a defence mechanism of those in power against awkward questions that undermine their position.
Click to expand...

No it's not, it seems your on the defensive, I don't particularly have a strong position to defend, I'm fairly open minded.

A fact is something that is proven, how is God's non existance proven in anyway? Show me one piece of evidence at least.

Anyway this will be my last post if you don't show me some evidence on this thread, because this topic bores me to death now, it's been done so many times before.
 
Some atheists say that when you view the world scientifically we can't find a god, therefore there isn't one.

But to echo Dolph, science is based on observation and analysis. We take what we observe and make conclusions, hypotheses or theories based on data. When it comes to god or anything such as the supernatural, we have no way of effectively collecting data. It can not be scientifically tested - no scientific conclusion can be made one way or another.

So I too wait for evidence that there is a god, but I am not quick to dismiss the idea that there is one because at present, we have no way of observing otherwise.
 
Guzzidom said:
I am a committed atheist ( a Catholic upbringing will do that for you lol), however I couldn't agree more, Dawkins can be a little shrill especially to someone with faith, interestingly he can fail even in face to face arguments with people with very bizarre views because he gets all huffy puffy and ends up looking like Elmer Fudd having a heart attack.
Click to expand...

My major problem with Dawkins isn't what he believes, it is the way he presents it as he shows many of the traits that he professes to despise in the religious when he is ranting. I'm not someone of faith but he irritates me as he gives ammunition to anyone who thinks that atheists/agnostics etc are the same and do not give the religious a fair chance to practice their beliefs.

yantorsen said:
Well your clearly misguided here since Dolph isn't religious. It's also important to remember that how religious people act on the web and in the media is often not representative of the majority.
Click to expand...

Dolph has faith though, it isn't of a mainstream variety I suppose but he does claim belief - if he wants to expand on that then that is his choice but I'll correct you that far. :)

Combat squirrel said:
I think there is a lot of word picking going on here, and dolph all due respect matey you have gone out of your way to 'prove' subtle differences in the meaning of the words of athiesm and agnostic, but not really getting at the point, what there all about, words are just words.

Can you go out of your way as thoroughly to prove god exists? Id guess not...

This is what intrigues me about religious followers, they will go on an almighty word hunt for things such as the above, in some attempt.....well to look like they have read up properly, to be scientific you might say ?......why not just say something and say its the truth 'just because I say so' in a similar vane to religion ?
Click to expand...

Some religious people will just say that they believe because they feel it is right. Some atheists deny all gods because they feel it is just right. Where is the difference between the two in essence?

Using science to support atheism is fundamentally misunderstanding what science is designed to do. If atheists are going to claim that word X means what they say then why should someone else not come along and use tools they (mis)appropriate as their own to disprove their claims?

Combat squirrel said:
Oh and forget specific wording and the history of it, any half intelligent person knows what athiests and agnostics are, and saying athiests are the product of rational logical thought, no matter how flawed in your opinion is still a mindset of thinking with a lot more consideration of the actual world around us than just saying god exists, no matter how 'jumping to conclusion' in your opinion an athiest is.
Click to expand...

Do they? I'd say too many people are confused about the definitions which isn't helped by 'professional atheists' like Dawkins claiming the broadest possible definition for atheism when it is much narrower than including everyone who doesn't actively believe in a god.

You're also on pretty shaky ground when claiming that atheists have thought more about the World than people who believe in religion, you seem to assume that their thought process is different (inferior perhaps) to that of you - they might have taken exactly the same information and interpreted it differently, that doesn't make them wrong and to say it does would be sheer arrogance.
 
yantorsen said:
A fact is something that is proven, how is God's non existance proven in anyway? Show me one piece of evidence at least.

Anyway this will be my last post if you don't show me some evidence on this thread, because this topic bores me to death now, it's been done so many times before.
Click to expand...


Awww, don't go. I am just collecting a whole bunch of evidence that god doesn't exist just for you. :p

:rolleyes:
 
Combat squirrel said:
I think there is a lot of word picking going on here, and dolph all due respect matey you have gone out of your way to 'prove' subtle differences in the meaning of the words of athiesm and agnostic, but not really getting at the point, what there all about, words are just words.
Click to expand...

And in a discussion, it's important that everyone is on the same wavelength when using words to describe either their views or views of other people, otherwise you end up arguing cross purposes.

Can you go out of your way as thoroughly to prove god exists? Id guess not...
Click to expand...

Why would I, I don't claim to know, nor do I claim that atheist views (or theist views) are wrong, just that they are equivilent. I freely admit that my own religious beliefs are unprovable, but then I don't expect anyone to share them either, they are a personal thing to me. All I ask is that most people remember that their beliefs (whether theistic or atheistic) are no more or less strange than mine, and they are all equally (un)provable. The thing is, most people with theistic beliefs don't require the same kind of analysis, because they understand their views (although there were a couple in SC recently who got very similar treatment and analysis... That lead to some interesting statements)

This is what intrigues me about religious followers, they will go on an almighty word hunt for things such as the above, in some attempt.....well to look like they have read up properly, to be scientific you might say ?......why not just say something and say its the truth 'just because I say so' in a similar vane to religion ?
Click to expand...

Because statements do not promote critical thinking or analysis, whereas a considered statement does.

Just a few thoughts there.

Oh and forget specific wording and the history of it, any half intelligent person knows what athiests and agnostics are, and saying athiests are the product of rational logical thought, no matter how flawed in your opinion is still a mindset of thinking with a lot more consideration of the actual world around us than just saying god exists, no matter how 'jumping to conclusion' in your opinion an athiest is.
Click to expand...

I don't think either atheist or theistic thought is flawed, generally people form their beliefs around a combination of experience, indocrination and assumptions that seem sensible to them. The mistake you make above is in assuming that, somehow, a theist has put less thought into their position than an atheist, that's something I disagree with. Sure, there are kneejerk Christians (or insert any other organised religion) who believe blindly, but there are also atheists who believe blindly, who don't have the understanding of the assumptions and processes they believe they use to reach their goal any more than a christian who has never really read the bible does. Any atheist who claims that science supports their position, for example, being one of them. Just because a theist hasn't reached the same conclusion as you, or has chosen different assumptions, it doesn't follow that they've thought about it, or considered it, any less.

Take a look at this statement made by another member in this thread.

AJUK said:
'God doesn't exist' is a statement of fact at this present time and will remain so forever. No faith is required.
Click to expand...

Perhaps AJUK would like to elaborate on this, explain his evidence, clarify his assumptions, because to me, it looks exactly like a statement of faith, it's an unprovable statement that, stripped of unprovable assumptions, has absolutely no more validity than 'God exists', and is equally faith based.
 
maybe everyone should stick to the OP....do you have a bible at home? rather than beating on their HE-Man chests and spouting nothing but self opinionated diatribe.
 
We have several bibles, including a KJV and a new international transalation. We also have scriptures for several other religions, and books on spirituality, secularism and atheism.
 
The Deuce said:
maybe everyone should stick to the OP....do you have a bible at home? rather than beating on their HE-Man chests and spouting nothing but self opinionated diatribe.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it's always going to descend into this as soon as anything remotely religious is brought up, everyone just jumps on the bandwagon.
 
You cannot prove something doesn't exist if there is no evidence of it existing in the first place, a book isn't enough evidence to say that God exists, you cannot prove it either way if there is no suitable evidence.

People who say there is a God are foolish and its the same for people who say there isn't, we do not know and you cannot argue that point (all though im sure you will try to, and fail miserably).

We will never as a society, unless this God makes its presence known. A book is not enough evidence to say God exists.

It is like my saying, invisible elephants that you cannot detect with any methods fly through the sky, prove me wrong.

Edit: Sorry to derail it more than it already has but people who try and argue about God like they have facts just annoy me.
 
OliP said:
You cannot prove something doesn't exist if there is no evidence of it existing in the first place, a book isn't enough evidence to say that God exists, you cannot prove it either way if there is no suitable evidence.
Click to expand...

Fundamental flaw here, a book isn't enough evidence for you. Just because it isn't sufficient for you doesn't mean it is not evidence or that it can not be sufficient for other people.

A simpler way of making your point above is that is is almost impossible to prove the absence of something that you cannot test for.

OliP said:
People who say there is a God are foolish and its the same for people who say there isn't, we do not know and you cannot argue that point (all though im sure you will try to, and fail miserably).
Click to expand...

Perhaps both sides are foolish but it passes the time if nothing else.

OliP said:
We will never as a society, unless this God makes its presence known. A book is not enough evidence to say God exists.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with the first sentence but not with the second as I state above.

OliP said:
It is like my saying, invisible elephants that you cannot detect with any methods fly through the sky, prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I can't prove they don't but as I'm entirely agnostic to the idea of invisible elephants flying through the air it doesn't matter a jot to me. If pressed the likelihood of yon elephants is not high but since they don't impact on my life in any way I can remain undecided on the issue and it won't matter in the least.
 
Dolph said:
We have several bibles, including a KJV and a new international transalation. We also have scriptures for several other religions, and books on spirituality, secularism and atheism.
Click to expand...

likewise so do we, but I just said about our bibles since that was what was asked.
 
Last edited:
Guzzidom said:
The only difference between an Atheist and the Pope is out of the 396 registered religions on the UN site the pope disbelieves 395 of them whilst the atheist disbelieves 396 of them, that's a difference of about a quarter of one percent, doesn't sound so insurmountable when you put it like that does it?.
Click to expand...

Cute but....the Pope says 'Don't wear condoms it's against our relegion' and an atheist says 'Wear condoms they'll stop unwanted pregnancy and disease' who do the masses in certain countries believe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom