An Atheist Reads the Bible - 1 - Lot's Daughters

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

That sounds very much like the ideology of an Irish "Catholic" Group B.A.S.I.C brothers and sisters in christ who have their own women priests.

Its an issue for a different thread.

Warning! The above post contains high amounts of gibberish.

Keep a safe distance at all times.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Warning! The above post contains high amounts of gibberish.

Keep a safe distance at all times.

Typed quickly - what I meant to post was that the content of midlandmissus post is very similar to that of an organisation called BASIC- will edit .

Sorry Flamed Diving I cant see you promoting a Catholic splinter group:)

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Typed quickly - what I meant to post was that the content of midlandmissus post is very similar to that of an organisation called BASIC- will edit .

Sorry Flamed Diving I cant see you promoting a Catholic splinter group:)

I'm always keeping my eyes open, CDfm-y. You don't have to worry.

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

There I was meandering along in my atheist life .....when ...I saw a face. This glowing face of Jesus just appeared to me while I was doing a very banal thing. I knew it was him because the word Jesus just popped into my mind. And a million other feelings entered my body. And so many other things have happened to me since.

How do you know it wasn't Satan? Or a demon doing his biding? Maybe the dark lord seen you had an incorrect view of the Bible and believed it to be fallible, so he thought if he contacted you, you would continue to spread these words, undermining the very fabric of the perfection of Gods word.

It's possible. This Jesus character you envisioned could of been a demon in disguise. I mean he's done it before to perfect people right, and I mean that Satan fellow has to be up to something, I mean what has he been doing since he was banished from heaven, other than possessing the children of South Americans.

If you think it is less likely that it was a demon lying to you and more likely that it was an actual apparition of Jesus, ask yourself how you are so sure.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst becomes Devils Advocate of the A+A forum

dvpower

CDfm wrote: »

Goduznt Xzst becomes Devils Advocate of the A+A forum

Is that a promotion?

CDfm

dvpower wrote: »

Is that a promotion?

No -its a premonition:)

(for those of non catholic backgrounds A Devils Advocate is a Church Investigator who assesses miracles and Saints)

Phototoxin

Originally Posted by Overblood
Says who? Maybe she just looked back because she wanted to look back? People look back at things all the time. I looked back at a nice girls arse in town the other day. Is that a metaphor?

cant resist sorry ; no its a meta-whore? me ta her? meat her? Is my mind somewhat bizzare. It is highly tired now.

How do you know it wasn't Satan? Or a demon doing his biding? Maybe the dark lord seen you had an incorrect view of the Bible and believed it to be fallible, so he thought if he contacted you, you would continue to spread these words, undermining the very fabric of the perfection of Gods word.

she doesn't an I've often pondered this. What if 'satan' as we know it, the rebel, is actualyl God and is good and is fighitng against the evil opressive thing which we think is god but is really Satan?

It's possible. This Jesus character you envisioned could of been a demon in disguise. I mean he's done it before to perfect people right, and I mean that Satan fellow has to be up to something, I mean what has he been doing since he was banished from heaven, other than possessing the children of South Americans.

If you think it is less likely that it was a demon lying to you and more likely that it was an actual apparition of Jesus, ask yourself how you are so sure.

Do the Padre Pio Approrach(TM) order it to kneel and worship God. A real demon wouldnt dare do that. Apparantly.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8Qxi2mjFk

togster

And?

I think it's really well done by the way.

All this proves is that Jesus had the same bloodline as two prostitutes and a petty king. Or is that the point?

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw

Most important of all.

I love it

CDfm

Well Judge Judy never believes witnesses when they give exactly the same account.

So I think the jury is still out.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well Judge Judy never believes witnesses when they give exactly the same account.

So I think the jury is still out.

/facepalm

You'd think more than one of them would have noticed zombie saints roaming the town no?

The chances that a resurrection actually happened are infinitesimally small simply because it breaks the laws of nature. The only indication that we have that this event took place is these four accounts so their validity is crucial. Even if they matched exactly they would come nowhere near being strong enough evidence to confidently assert that the laws of nature were broken but as we have seen, they differ greatly.

To bring in the topic of the other thread, this is why religious belief is harmful. If this was describing any event in human history other than your closely held religious beliefs you would instantly acknowledge that the fact that the stories differ greatly severely diminishes their authority but, for no reason other than you really really really want the resurrection to have taken place you refuse to acknowledge this fact. Rationality goes out the fookin window because it doesn't fit with what you want to be true

Personally I think there are some people who will only accept that the resurrection didn't happen when we invent a time machine to go back and actually show them that it didn't. No other standard of evidence will ever be good enough to trump these four 2000 year old completely unsubstantiated stories that can't even agree on what happened. And for some people, even the time machine wouldn't be good enough.

Sam Vimes

For example: take a look at this post (sorry for using you as an example in a thread you haven't posted in Jakkass :P)

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60789256&postcount=138

Jakkass wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote:

The book your friend gave you was an older version of the book.
Unlike the Bible the Mormons update their scripture in accordance with scientific evidence.

So God helped Joseph Smith to translate what was a lie? If one part of the Book of Mormon is considered to be false, then how can we be sure that any of it is true?

Well we have four differing accounts of the resurrection so at least three of them must be false to some extent. But do you think he'll apply the same reasoning to his own beliefs? He will in his arse

I'm sure we'll get a wonderfully long spiel about how only Mary Magdelane was there and the rest of the people were metaphorical or something like that

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For example: take a look at this post (sorry for using you as an example in a thread you haven't posted in Jakkass :P)

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60789256&postcount=138


Well we have four differing accounts of the resurrection so at least three of them must be false to some extent. But do you think he'll apply the same reasoning to his own beliefs? He will in his arse

I'm sure we'll get a wonderfully long spiel about how only Mary Magdelane was there and the rest of the people were metaphorical or something like that

/facepalm

You have four different people recounting their recollection of an event each from their own perspective.

You could equally say that there wasnt collusion in presenting the case for resurrection.

Its up to you whether or not you accept it.

You choose not too. Fair enough.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

/facepalm

You have four different people recounting their recollection of an event each from their own perspective.

You could equally say that there wasnt collusion in presenting the case for resurrection.

Its up to you whether or not you accept it.

You choose not too. Fair enough.

As Jakkass says, if any part can be shown to be false, how can we be sure any of it is true? These stories cannot be independently verified and so must stand on their own merits. Their perspective does not change the number of people that were there or whether an angel moved the rock or not. Since they're shaky on so many details surrounding the empty tomb, maybe the part about the tomb being empty was remembered wrong and he didn't actually raise from the dead at all


As for "no collusion", when the police have two suspected accomplices they immediately separate them before they can get their stories straight. If they differ significantly then they fail the test and their story is discounted. I'm afraid your apostles failed the test

togster

It's funny how everyone is so passionate about the bible, regardless of their point of view on it!

DublinWriter

CDfm wrote: »

I suppose the question is do atheists want to believe in a Santa Claus and get disillusioned when its not so?

The difference is atheists come out of childhood losing their belief in magical beings in the sky that can bestow gifts. Christians, on the other hand...

CDfm

DublinWriter wrote: »

The difference is atheists come out of childhood losing their belief in magical beings in the sky that can bestow gifts. Christians, on the other hand...

Who does that and what gifts? I need to know cos Im Christian and want to know if Im being short changed?

Dades

By "magical beings in the sky", I assume DublinWriter means your God; and the gift he is offering is 'eternal life'.

You won't know if you're being short-changed till it's too late though!

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

You won't know if you're being short-changed till it's too late though!

No Maserati this week then;)

Genghiz Cohen

CDfm wrote: »

No Maserati this week then;)

Obviously you're not praying hard enough.

CDfm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Obviously you're not praying hard enough.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I need to know cos Im Christian and want to know if Im being short changed?

Never put your money in a trust that pays you when you're dead.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Never put your money in a trust that pays you when you're dead.

So you are against life assurance too. I didnt know that.It must be an atheist thing -but arent Muslims against it too.

Just one Question - how do you deal with the whole Acts of God issue in your House Insurance if there is a flood?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

So you are against life assurance too.

Note the word in bold:

robindch wrote:

Never put your money in a trust that pays you when you're dead.

CDfm wrote: »

how do you deal with the whole Acts of God issue in your House Insurance if there is a flood?

Well, god hasn't sent me any floods and in any case, all the buildings insurance details for my place are handled by a management company which is far more concerned about money than they are about the existence or otherwise of an invisible skybunny who fell into a sudden, pouting silence 2,000 years ago.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Note the word in bold:Well, god hasn't sent me any floods and in any case, all the buildings insurance details for my place are handled by a management company .

Thank God for management Companies - OOPS;)

DublinWriter

Dades wrote: »

By "magical beings in the sky", I assume DublinWriter means your God; and the gift he is offering is 'eternal life'.

You won't know if you're being short-changed till it's too late though!

Yes, I meant his God, but not eternal life, my little brother made out like a bandit on his confirmation last month!

Flamed Diving

DublinWriter wrote: »

my little brother made out like a bandit on his confirmation last month!

Nice to cash in from this nonsense before the age of reason kicks in.

CDfm

DublinWriter wrote: »

my little brother made out like a bandit on his confirmation last month!

But does he believe?