What makes the bible true

[stephen4785]

Stephen I have been enjoying reading your posts. Something I found helped me quite a bit is the book "Case for Christ." Good book.

I have heard of it but haven't read it yet. I think I might pick it up this week since this thread has come up. Atheists are all the same. You mound piles of evidence on them and all they can say is "Nope doesn't count" even though for every other non religious subject it's acceptable. They can produce no actual evidence for their belief, they can only try and disprove mine. It's easy to keep typing that I'm wrong but that's only their opinion. Let's see them produce evidence the bible isn't true/ the manuscripts aren't real. Then I point them to people much more learned than me to get even more evidence and they say no and make up excuses (Very typical). Anyone interested in looking into Christian apologetics can go to carm.org which is a site I get a lot of resources from. Both Christians and Atheists get on there and debate or post threads on these same topics. And I'm telling you the book, "Learn the bible in 24 hours" is very, very good. I have been a Christian for 15 years and learned things I never knew. Anyways, I pretty much done with this discussion unless someone can produce evidence of their belief. Otherwise this will be the longest thread in history.

[racrguy]

You must be an even bigger idiot than the king. Do you have any evidence supporting your lack of belief in big foot, or Zeus perhaps? It's already been explained to you how carm.org is a failure of a site to pull any real information from, other than what's written in the bible. We do not have to prove that your belief is wrong, as you have yet to provide any real evidence that it is right. You quote the bible, then you cite writings that happened after anyone that was alive during jesus' could have written them. And do I need to show you how genesis is wrong, again? It's on the first page of this thread, that by all accounts you haven't read, and continue not to read.

[Maddhattter]

I have heard of it but haven't read it yet. I think I might pick it up this week since this thread has come up.

So, you recommended a book you haven’t read? You have managed to be blatantly dishonest in every post you’ve made in this thread. I’ve not had to lie or misrepresent the demonstrable truth at all. You haven’t even defended anything you’ve said. I bring up points, give demonstrations, and you just ignore. So, you’re both dishonest and willfully ignorant. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? You can’t even respond to challenges to your demonstrable false assertions.

Atheists are all the same. You mound piles of evidence on them and all they can say is "Nope doesn't count" even though for every other non religious subject it's acceptable.

Again, you’re blatantly lying. I’ve demonstrated how you’ve both shown no valid evidence, and how it would not count for any other subject, regardless of what I believe or not. You have failed in every way, and are still continuing to lie.

They can produce no actual evidence for their belief, they can only try and disprove mine.

Your right. As explained before, atheists don’t have to. There is no burden of proof on the atheist, until the atheist makes a positive claim. The fact that you’re not competent enough to see that is no one’s fault but your own, as it’s been explained to you already.

It's easy to keep typing that I'm wrong but that's only their opinion.

Wrong again, I’ve demonstrated and explained how your sources could not be valid evidence. They never had to be rejected, as they were never contenders.

Let's see them produce evidence the bible isn't true/ the manuscripts aren't real.

Again, no one has to. You’ve yet to show that they are. You’ve yet to actually demonstrate anything you intended to. Unless, that is, you intended to demonstrate your inability to perform anything close to legitimate research.

Then I point them to people much more learned than me to get even more evidence and they say no and make up excuses (Very typical).

You’ve pointed us to a load of people and sources that don’t have the education to understand the science and logic behind what they are saying. Just because they have a degree it doesn’t make them valid sources for everything. Again, this has been demonstrated to you. I also point out that you have demonstrated that you understand this concept, and have just moved the goalpost to allow the ignorant ramblings you’ve presented to be called sources.

Anyone interested in looking into Christian apologetics can go to carm.org which is a site I get a lot of resources from.

Right. Going to a single website, especially one with clear admitted bias and policy of dishonesty, is a good way to research anything. So, you’ve successfully gone from just being dishonest yourself, to recommending open liars. Kind of sad, really.

Both Christians and Atheists get on there and debate or post threads on these same topics. And I'm telling you the book, "Learn the bible in 24 hours" is very, very good. I have been a Christian for 15 years and learned things I never knew. Anyways, I pretty much done with this discussion unless someone can produce evidence of their belief. Otherwise this will be the longest thread in history.

So, you jump in, make a bunch of unsupported claims, throw a bunch of invalid references, support and recommend both liars and thieves, then run off claiming that you can tell what is a good book, or what is a good anything is for that matter? I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point, I have to assume that you’ve not bothered to read anything I’ve had to say, as you’ve never responded to any of it with any integrity.

I’ll state again, that I refuse to believe that you are a good representative of the theistic position, on this board or not. You come in here, calling everyone on your side of the fence uneducated, and then proceed to show yourself as the idiot. Surely there is someone here who can defend their faith without the lack of integrity and deceit demonstrated by Stephen4785 in this thread. If you’re out there, I’d welcome an intellectual debate on the topic.

[The King]

You must be an even bigger idiot than the king. Do you have any evidence supporting your lack of belief in big foot, or Zeus perhaps? It's already been explained to you how carm.org is a failure of a site to pull any real information from, other than what's written in the bible. We do not have to prove that your belief is wrong, as you have yet to provide any real evidence that it is right. You quote the bible, then you cite writings that happened after anyone that was alive during jesus' could have written them. And do I need to show you how genesis is wrong, again? It's on the first page of this thread, that by all accounts you haven't read, and continue not to read.

There goes our boy reverting to name-calling yet again, LOL. It's still comical though that he falls into such predictable behavior right on cue every time he gets upset and flustered.

[CWO]

There goes our boy reverting to name-calling yet again, LOL. It's still comical though that he falls into such predictable behavior right on cue every time he gets upset and flustered.

You have GOT to be kidding me right now. If you are the king of anything it is name calling. Hypocrite.

[The King]

You have GOT to be kidding me right now. If you are the king of anything it is name calling. Hypocrite.

Not in this thread, or is reality something you choose to ignore when convenient (very likely).

LOL at hypocrite, the most common word of choice for those who have failed in every way to present themselves as relevant to theological topics.

[CWO]

Not in this thread, or is reality something you choose to ignore when convenient (very likely).

LOL at hypocrite, the most common word of choice for those who have failed in every way to present themselves as relevant to theological topics.

You calling out someone for name-calling is hypocritical when you have done it countless times before. You probably hear that word more than most, wonder why.

I can be satanic, christian, buddhist, or whatever and you're still a hypocrite, just because it didn't happen in this thread doesn't change facts. I'm not trying to prove anything, you've done a fine job.

[The King]

You certainly are trying, and failing, to prove something. You're here aren't you, or is that another example of reality you are attempting, and failing, to ignore?

[CWO]

Fuck. Just fuck.

[jdgregory84]

My point was people can be presented with all the evidence possible but still they won't believe. It's not just an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual one.

This is probably the best post in the entire thread...for both sides. I think the only reason these "debates" even exist is because we like to argue. I hope that everybody in here realizes that nobody will be convinced of the other persons beliefs.

I can't say that I'm any different than anybody here though. For the most part I don't care, but every once in a while, I feel the need to argue. Sometimes I lose the battle, sometimes I don't. However, I never felt that I won. I think that's good though. Nobody should ever get set in their ways. It leaves the mind closed to other options.

[4.6coupe]

Take charles darwin, did you know he came from a christian family background...
Up until the death of annie, his oldest and dearest 10 yr old. She ended up dying from tuberculosis... at that point he was angry at God for not saving her daughter. Well the rest is history... then comes about his writings.

[racrguy]

You calling out someone for name-calling is hypocritical when you have done it countless times before. You probably hear that word more than most, wonder why.

I can be satanic, christian, buddhist, or whatever and you're still a hypocrite, just because it didn't happen in this thread doesn't change facts. I'm not trying to prove anything, you've done a fine job.

He just doesn't know what it means. He does fit the dictionary definition though.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective

Examples of HYPOCRITE

1. the hypocrites who criticize other people for not voting but who don't always vote themselves

[Maddhattter]

My point was people can be presented with all the evidence possible but still they won't believe. It's not just an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual one.

This is probably the best post in the entire thread...for both sides.

I disagree with this. On either side, once a truth claim is made, the problem moved right into the exclusivity of the intellectual. Claiming something does exist requires evidence.

Not believing something exists does not require evidence. Having faith in something, by definition, requires no evidence. The faith that theists have in their particular god/gods is beyond my concern. In other words, I don't care if they believe in god/gods or not. I've made no attempt to tell them that there is no god/gods, nor have I attempted to convince them that their god/gods don't exists.

I will, however, always respond to truth claims. These can be examined by science and verified or falsified. When someone comes in and starts spreading disinformation, as stephen4785 has done in nearly every post he's made in this thread, all they do is mislead others. Again, I'm not referring to his belief in a god or gods. I'm talking about his invalid sources, bullshit criteria, and incorrect validation techniques.

Science has always been the most reliable way to determine the details of the world around us. To misrepresent how science determines things is to undermine everything that we currently know and to insult everyone who practices science. If you remove methodological naturalism the only bias I can be claimed to have, from the equation we can't know anything because methodological naturalism is the scientific method.

I think the only reason these "debates" even exist is because we like to argue. I hope that everybody in here realizes that nobody will be convinced of the other persons beliefs.

I pretty much agree. It just seems that, in the context of my back and forth with stephen4785, you are conflating beliefs with scientific and historic validation techniques and source validation, or what would constitute as evidence in a research paper. If that is what you are referring to when you talk about person's beliefs, then I disagree with that. If not, I misread, and I can't disagree with you on that point, as you would be right.

I can't say that I'm any different than anybody here though. For the most part I don't care, but every once in a while, I feel the need to argue. Sometimes I lose the battle, sometimes I don't. However, I never felt that I won. I think that's good though. Nobody should ever get set in their ways. It leaves the mind closed to other options.

Agreed, with similar conditions as above.

[The King]

He just doesn't know what it means. He does fit the dictionary definition though.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective

Examples of HYPOCRITE

1. the hypocrites who criticize other people for not voting but who don't always vote themselves

Good to see you've gotten yourself sidetracked from your original premise for this thread. Wasn't going very well for you, was it LOL. At least you're not all upset and mad any more....that's progress.

[Parasite Eva]

Take charles darwin, did you know he came from a christian family background...
Up until the death of annie, his oldest and dearest 10 yr old. She ended up dying from tuberculosis... at that point he was angry at God for not saving her daughter. Well the rest is history... then comes about his writings.

I actually dug myself out of lurk mode due to this post alone.

Please, do your research before passing off misinformation as fact.

Annie Darwin died of unknown causes(some say Scarlet Fever, some say Tuberculosis) in the year 1851. Charles Darwin began to work on his theory of evolution, worded as transmutation, in 1837. That is 14 years before the death of his daughter.

I'm assuming you're referring to Origin of Species in your mentioning of writings. The death of Annie was not the catalyst for his work on evolution. His voyage on the Beagle, from 1832 to 1836, actually got the ball rolling. Yes, Origin of Species was published 1859, but only after two decades worth of research. Per Darwin himself, "In July 1(1837) I opened my first note-book for fact in relation to the Origin of Species, about which I had long reflected, and never ceased working for the next twenty years."

Also, in Darwin's own words: "But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,-is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible."

Notice, once again, that his doubt in God and faith occurred close to two decades before Annie's death. Annie was not this be-all-end-all catalyst that you claim her to be.

Sources: Timeline of the Life of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin: His Life Told in Autobiographical Chapter and in a Selected Series of His Published Letters