I actually believe fairy tales and myths have value; they offer us lessons about who we are and the best way to live. But that's very different from how you use the term and the denigration you bestow on other religions.
Well, since you have been insisting you are going to post evidence for awhile now, it is time to do it or be quiet already. Personally, this need to prove or disprove any religion is just stupid to me. And that includes atheism. Because atheists can get just as dogmatic and "my way is the one right true way" as any religious extremist. And this is what is wrong with the world IMO. The need to push ones belief on another. If someone tries to push their way as the one right true way for others, that is disrespectful and wrong. Where various religions get people riled up is when they think their personal beliefs should dictate others rights in a political or civil rights sense. my right to get married should NOT be infringed upon because your God says they don't like GLBT people. Or that men in some societies control women due to what their religious text says to them. But other than that, it would be so nice if people could just respect that some people find evidence enough to guide their lives, without it having to be good enough for other people. Awhile back, someone posted asking about peoples religions on MAP. I and several others mentioned being Pagan. Some people started questioning why certain things in our belief system weren't being challenged scientifically and started doing so. My (and others) answer was "no, no proof will be provided. We found what we believe that works for us. we shared it because we were asked. We don't feel a need to proove it to others, you can believe it is rubbish or not true. We really don't care." And that was pretty much the end of that. Personal belief shouldn't have to be proven. Why can't people respect that others believe differently? Even if you think their belief is silly? And leave it at that? Now OP opened people up to question him with starting a whole thread like this, and with subsequent statements. And the insistence that his one true right way needs to be proven to others. But overall, these are the thoughts that this thread brings to me.
I'm totally down with someone saying that 'this is the conceptual schema that helps me get through the world.' What I have sincere problems with is someone saying 'this is what the natural world is,' or 'this is how the natural world works,' contrary to evidence. Even worse: 'If you pay me I will help you.'
And this is why agnosticism is the rational route even for skeptics and the one thing I disagree with atheists like Hitchens on. Because while there is no probability to the claims of religions there is still, however slight, a possibility. To discount even that slight possibility in a world of infinite possibility makes you ignorant as well and equally as unscientifically closed minded.
At that point, they aren't just sharing their views, they are trying to prove their "one right true way" that you have to also believe." Frankly, on MAP, I see both religious and adamant atheists do this. What if they say "this is how I believe the natural world is?" Let people have their beliefs unless it invades your way of living your life is what I believe in. If someone wants to pay someone for something I don't believe in, I don't care. If they are adults without a cognitive disability that gets in the way of decision making, well this is the age of the Internet. And there are other ways to do research too. (Like your local Library). They can do something I think stupid if they want. It is their money. For Example: I think people paying many televangelists tons of money, despite evidence of how they use it to live a life of luxury instead of pursuing Christian ideology of helping people is stupid. Particularly when people continue to pay them loads of money after they go to jail for various crimes. But if I knew someone who did that, I am not going to challenge how they spend their money. It is their money, I will keep my belief to myself and respect that it is THEIR money to do what they want with. I respect others have a right to do things and make choices I don't personally believe in. And I expect them to treat me the same way.
Can't say I agree with this. Agnosticism has its own set of problems. Also no rational Atheist is going to deny the slight chance that god exists. even Dawkins has famously said that he's a six point nine on a scale of seven, or something similar.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html Heres a list of contradictions found in the bible. Care to explain why you think its great eyewitness testimony?
Do you think the televangelists should still be tax exempt? What do you think of people who publically disbunk their lies, and hence inform the community?
I think there is a slight misunderstanding of the terms, which doesn't help. When you drill down into them, the apparently sliding scale from atheist to theist via agnostic falls apart. In fact, theist and atheist are a binary choice showing the number of theistic entities someone believes in, with gnostic and agnostic being a second binary choice overlaid on top of the first pair to denote the level of certainty someone has. As such, one can be both agnostic and atheist, or indeed agnostic and theist in nature. The simple acid test is to say "how many gods (or theistic entities...) do you believe in?" If the answer is 1 or more, the person is a theist. If it's zero, the person is an atheist. "I don't believe in gods" is the atheist (non-belief)position, not "I am absolutely certain that no gods exist", which would be a gnostic (knowledge) overlay on atheism. That said, there aren't many people on here who would identify as agnostic towards a the tooth fairy, santa claus, bigfoot, the flying spaghetti monster, etc. Gods appear to be one of the only places where so much distinction is made between lack of belief in existence and belief in non-existence, which seem to be philosophically almost indistinguishable.
I was actually on MAP answering peoples questions for hours upon hours on some days, I apologize for having a life outside of MAP. "I agree no one should be forced to hear about someone elses beliefs, if they don't want to. But no one is forcing you to view this thread." "I can agree with this. And I posted about the hypocrisy there in my original post. It seems many Christians not including myself seem to have a problem with their own rights being infringed upon, claiming some kind of imaginary persecution in America, while they hypocritically try to infringe on the rights of others." "I didn't insist anything. In fact I tried to avoid this debate. If you don't want to see the evidence that is fine, don't look at this thread. But now that I am about to post it, after people keep asking me for it, don't act like I am the bad guy. Trying to shove my beliefs down everyones throats. And I don't find anything wrong with people wanting to see evidence that supports my beliefs. But if this thread makes you mad, then why look at it? No one is making you. What is today, kick 8limbs in the groin day or something? Now that I am about to post the evidence everyone was asking for, everyone seems to be getting mad at me. Either I didn't do it soon enough, or I am shoving my religion down peoples throats, etc etc But overall, these are the thoughts that this thread brings to me".[/QUOTE]
I cant see what is your reply and what is aaradias reply. You need to only have Aaradia's words, inside the quote marks, otherwise your putting your own words into Aaradia's quote, which is misleading and confusing. See, misleading!
Interview with Craig Bloomberg. Doctorate of NT from Aberdeen school on Scotland Highly paraphrased Lee Strobel asks, Is it possible to be smart and believe the gospels were written by the people whose names were attached to them? Bllomberg: It's important to acknowledge that strictly speaking the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Mathew, also known as Levi ok this evidence on eyewitness testimony lasts about 15 pages long in the book. It would be counterproductive to leave some stuff out, Do yall really want me to type all this stuff out. Because I WILL if you are really interested in hearing about it. But it will take a while and I will practically be writing a book in this thread. It would be a lot easier on me though if you guys just went out and purchased the book if you are really interested. And if you disagree with the book, we could discuss it on here. And I could give my side and you could give yours.
My words are the ones in quotations. I do not know how to quote parts of a quote. Someone tried to explain it to me in another thread and it just confused me.
8limbs, unless you put some effort in to use the quote function you may find your posts being deleted. It's a train wreck to read. check out the FAQ regarding the quote function. Press quote on the post you want to use. It'll show in a new post box. From here I copy the entire text, then remove the bits I don't want to use. I then add my reply. If I want to use more of the quote I past it and again remove what I don't need. I then again add my own text. Have a few practice runs. It's not hard. Edit. And how to multi-quote. http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115256&highlight=multiquote
So your words are the ones you said weren't your words, Learn how to do it properly, misrepresenting your own words wont help you be taken seriously. You need to have [/QUOTEandyournameandsomenumbers] at the start, and [/QUOTE] at the end of every section your quoting. And then type your own words outside of the bracket. Does that make sense?
This guy? [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dHbVjhQdrI"]The Historical Reliability of the Gospels- Dr. Craig Blomberg - YouTube[/ame] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Blomberg http://www.theopedia.com/craig-blomberg Here are some wiki links that are maybe worth a read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible
Simon, the instructions are confusing to me. Can I just make my words bold or underlined so the post will be easier to read?