Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Who wrote the Bible then?

135

Comments

  • #102
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Sounds a bit too far in the direction of linguistic pedantry for me I have to admit.
    The fact that the world lacks a reductive character is just "linguistic pedantry"?

    The point is what "stuff" in his head performs the functions you're speaking of?


  • #103
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    The fact that the world lacks a reductive character is just "linguistic pedantry"?

    Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....
    Fourier wrote: »
    The point is what "stuff" in his head performs the functions you're speaking of?

    .... because that is what I mean. Our knowledge of that is not complete. We simply have no knowledge as to how and why the "stuff" in our head is doing what it is doing.

    But when I referred to "100% of the evidence" I was pointing out to the user that whatever it is.... however it is doing it..... THAT it is the "stuff" doing it is so far where 100% of the evidence points.

    There is no evidence that anything external is at play.... such as these new agey ideas of a consciousness field for which our brain is only a receiver. And there is no evidence whatsoever at this time that consciousness and the brain can work independently of each other, let alone continues working somewhere somehow following the death of the brain which theists often believe.

    So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was. That while we are seeking to explain it, just like when we explore the question "Why is there something rather than nothing".... that we do well to explore our assumptions too when asking such questions. Why should there be nothing? Why should the stuff in our heads NOT give us the emergent properties we call consciousness?


  • #104
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....
    Well my point was to make you aware of what I think is the interesting fact that the scientific properties of objects do not wholly arise from their constituent parts. I think it is an amazing point and counter to at least my intuition and I thought by your use of "atoms" you might find it interesting to know, but fair enough if you find such details "linguistic pedantry".
    So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was.
    What's the content of this aside from "the thing causing consciousness causes consciousness"?

    Also you still might not get my point. The point is that in a two electron system for example there are properties that are not associated with either of the single electrons or both of them combined. And thus one cannot easily point to some "stuff" in which they are embodied. And that's at the simplest level of reality. This is not "linguistic pedantry" but to me makes what you're saying difficult to imagine.


  • #105
    kneemos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,450 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....



    .... because that is what I mean. Our knowledge of that is not complete. We simply have no knowledge as to how and why the "stuff" in our head is doing what it is doing.

    But when I referred to "100% of the evidence" I was pointing out to the user that whatever it is.... however it is doing it..... THAT it is the "stuff" doing it is so far where 100% of the evidence points.

    There is no evidence that anything external is at play.... such as these new agey ideas of a consciousness field for which our brain is only a receiver. And there is no evidence whatsoever at this time that consciousness and the brain can work independently of each other, let alone continues working somewhere somehow following the death of the brain which theists often believe.

    So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was. That while we are seeking to explain it, just like when we explore the question "Why is there something rather than nothing".... that we do well to explore our assumptions too when asking such questions. Why should there be nothing? Why should the stuff in our heads NOT give us the emergent properties we call consciousness?


    The conscious mind is only a bit of what the mind gets up to.
    Even that is not wholly in our control.


  • #106
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    Well my point was to make you aware of what

    I already am aware of those things and the points you are making which I am getting just fine, though I appreciate your intent all the same! I just do not think it is a distinction that is required to carry the point I was making to the other user. They are both interesting things to discuss, I just see a distinction between them.

    I see a distinction between discussing the "stuff" in our head and what it appears to be doing, which I was doing with the user, and discussing what that stuff actually is and how it is doing what it is doing.

    The only issue I am pointing out to the user is that when seeking an explanation for why consciousness arises as it does.... or why there is something rather than nothing.... that we should be doing that while also considering the reverse question. Why do we expect it NOT to be that way? Why should there be nothing rather than something? Why should the constituent parts of our universe not produce consciousness.

    It is just good to focus a light on the assumptions behind how we question things sometimes, and that is the point of my response to the user.
    kneemos wrote: »
    The conscious mind is only a bit of what the mind gets up to.
    Even that is not wholly in our control.

    Indeed, and in fact some experiments on free will recently are suggesting to us that much of the control we even think we do have.... we actually don't. That many aspects of what we traditionally consider to be free will.... may be illusory. I find myself suspecting that many aspects of what we consider consciousness may be too!


  • #107
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I already am aware of those things and the points you are making which I am getting just fine
    I only learned it in graduate school so tend to assume it is not well known. Did you learn the mathematical formalism with it out of curiosity or just the bare facts? I'd just be interested to know how it is taught in other areas.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The only issue I am pointing out to the user is that when seeking an explanation for why consciousness arises as it does.... or why there is something rather than nothing.... that we should be doing that while also considering the reverse question. Why do we expect it NOT to be that way? Why should there be nothing rather than something? Why should the constituent parts of our universe not produce consciousness.
    The point though is there are already many known effects that "constituent parts" do not produce and exist only at the "higher level" of the system and not clearly located anywhere or embodied.

    Even ignoring that I don't think what you are saying is productive or the normal scientific approach. Little to no neurologists and neurochemists investigate the question "Why shouldn't the physical systems of the brain produce consciousness?" but rather "Why do the physical systems of the brain produce consciousness?" That is everybody actually approaches the question as a meaningful one not as a non-question resulting from incorrect human preconceptions.

    I think you have more of a point with the "something rather than nothing" question as opposed to the consciousness one.


  • #108
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ^ Most of what I learn in that area is self taught. So I can not tell you how it is taught in other areas to be honest.

    Again though the point core to what I am saying to the other user is about the assumptions we hold when we ask some of our questions as humans. Nothing more than that. I think you are making a much different set of points, no less interesting, than the one I am making therefore.

    By mentioning neurologists and neuro-chemists you are entirely correct about the scientific approach to the question. So I do not think I have more of a point with one and not the other. It is a valid way of thinking about both. Even if scientists on the ground have no utility to think that way in their day to day work.


  • #109
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    By mentioning neurologists and neuro-chemists you are entirely correct about the scientific approach to the question. So I do not think I have more of a point with one and not the other. It is a valid way of thinking about both. Even if scientists on the ground have no utility to think that way in their day to day work.
    So you're just making the very general point that the initial way one might intuitively phrase a question might have the wrong focus and not so much on whether that turns out to be the case for any given question?


  • #110
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    ^ Most of what I learn in that area is self taught. So I can not tell you how it is taught in other areas to be honest.
    Do you remember the texts? I'd just be interested to see how it is explained without the mathematics, might be handy for teaching purposes. No worries if not.


  • #111
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    So you're just making the very general point that the initial way one might intuitively phrase a question might have the wrong focus and not so much on whether that turns out to be the case for any given question?

    That would be the general point I was focused on yes. That it is useful when questioning how and why the universe, or some aspect of the universe, is the way it is.... it is also useful to question why would it not be so. Why does the contents of our skull produce consciousness? We do not know yet. But also why would or should it not do so? Is it really as remarkable as it seems to us, or is it just as mundane in a sense as any other fact about our universe.

    Why is there something rather than nothing? Good question and I hope we answer it! But why would there NOT be something and why do we intuitively expect nothing to be the default in this way? It is a valid assumption? Probably not!


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That would be the general point I was focused on yes. That it is useful when questioning how and why the universe, or some aspect of the universe, is the way it is.... it is also useful to question why would it not be so. Why does the contents of our skull produce consciousness? We do not know yet. But also why would or should it not do so? Is it really as remarkable as it seems to us, or is it just as mundane in a sense as any other fact about our universe.
    Okay of course one can make this general point. However to me in most questions it has little to no content and this is more important than just the general observation that one can do it.

    For instance take let's say "Why do superfluids flow so easily despite what the main elements composing them are?"

    Sure one could say "Well maybe that is just what the stuff of superfluids does", but what real content does that have? It is true in a trivial sense that "the stuff does it", but I'm not sure of the value of that observation.


  • #113
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    Sure one could say "Well maybe that is just what the stuff of superfluids does", but what real content does that have?

    From the perspective of a scientist on the ground actually working on answering that question I agree with you 100%. Probably absolutely no useful content at all.

    From the perspective of constantly questioning our assumptions as human beings, more philosophical than scientific, I think it is just a useful practice to maintain.

    I think as humans we WANT the ultimate explanations for certain things..... stuff existing, consciousness, and morality being the top three that tend to come up in religiously themes threads........ evolution being another common example..... to be as lofty and special as those things are to us. My feeling has always been that the general lay public, especially theists, do not want simple mundane science to answer those topics. Many people do not WANT Evolution Theory to be correct because the lofty hubris of human existence emotionally demands for us something lofty and magical to explain it. Like a god or gods.

    People may not WANT consciousness to have some simply explanation about how it is just emergent as a property when neurons reach a certain level of complexity in their structure and interaction. They want "soul" to exist, some consciousness field of which we are only a manifestation, or some godly plan.

    But maybe it is as simple as consciousness is just what a universe like ours does. And though it is special and wonderful TO US..... it is as mundane as any other fact about our universe.

    But who knows? Our knowledge is incomplete about consciousness, what it is, and how it works. Until that changes we are all, myself included, talking out of our hoops :) And I am good with that.


  • #114
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    People may not WANT consciousness to have some simply explanation about how it is just emergent as a property when neurons reach a certain level of complexity in their structure and interaction. They want "soul" to exist, some consciousness field of which we are only a manifestation, or some godly plan.
    Okay you're more making the point that things might not have the higher status we intuitively expect them to or more so to at least consider that.

    No problem there. I more just want to point out (which doesn't affect that point of yours) that we know there are things that exist at a higher level that do not emerge from anything at a lower level and that might be relevant to the mind.

    i.e. there are natural/physical alternatives to both supernaturalism and emergence which tend to be ignored in these kind of discussions.

    My point being it is not a dichotomy between things being emergent from lower "stuff" or a "soul".


  • #115
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,314 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Who wrote the bible leads to a discussion about the nature of consciousness :D

    Only in AH.


  • #116
    rock22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    Word of mouth... which we all know is prone to being altered by gross exaggeration, and in a time of ignorance people would believe.

    Hell, even now people believe what the mass media feeds them right off the bat...

    research on Homer and modern Balkan oral material strongly suggest that this is not the case.


  • #117
    Feisar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,698 ✭✭✭Feisar


    I more pertinent question would be who edited it.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • #118
    Badly Drunk Boy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,698 ✭✭✭Badly Drunk Boy


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Most of it was actually made up of retweets and .gifs from live streams.
    It's definitely funnier than most retweets and gifs!


  • #119
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    And Man Created God.


  • #120
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Possibly not John.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/everyones-favorite-gospel-the-gospel-of-john-is-a-forgery-according-to-new-research


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    snoopboggybog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 454 ✭✭snoopboggybog


    Its the equivalent of the Harry Potter books today.

    Probably a big fiction seller 2000 years ago.


  • #122
    The Tetrarch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭The Tetrarch


    M5 wrote: »
    A book that contradicts itself dozens of times, is incredibly vague and open to interpretation, makes dozens of demonstrably incorrect scientific and other claims...
    ....But written by an omnipotent, infallible God...
    Aye...
    Don't be shy. Give the detail.


  • #123
    iamstop
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭iamstop


    Interesting to note is that there was an estimated global population of 1 million people at the time of Jesus. 1AD.
    The current world population is 7.5 billion.

    https://open.spotify.com/album/69JKwCcZGdLqX4Upj3DwP7



  • #124
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    iamstop wrote: »
    Interesting to note is that there was an estimated global population of 1 million people at the time of Jesus. 1AD.
    The current world population is 7.5 billion.
    More like 200million with a quarter of that living in the Roman Empire.


    Rome had a population of about a million at it's peak.


  • #125
    LaFuton
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 784 ✭✭✭LaFuton


    the Holy Bible is class, lads. dont knock it just coz ur not into it,

    check out Psalm 18 and Psalm 91

    pretty awesome for 2day


  • #126
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29

    If a man rapes a virgin, he has to buy her from her father.

    The Word of God.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Another anti religion thread eh?
    How do you atheists get the time to do anything else? :pac:


  • #128
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    Another anti religion thread eh?
    How do you atheists get the time to do anything else? :pac:

    How do the religious nutjobs get time to post here when they are meant to be praying to their non-existent deity and helping the less fortunate?


  • #129
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    How do the religious nutjobs get time to post here when they are meant to be praying to their non-existent deity and helping the less fortunate?

    That doesn’t take up all their day, dude. Unlike you moaning and being angry on the internet. Almost puritanical in your misery to be honest.


  • #130
    Humberto Salazar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Humberto Salazar


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    Another anti religion thread eh?
    How do you atheists get the time to do anything else? :pac:

    Exactly. They have a severe hang up with anyone who has faith. I've met some nasty atheists in my time. Live and let live.


  • #131
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    That doesn’t take up all their day, dude. Unlike you moaning and being angry on the internet. Almost puritanical in your misery to be honest.

    Wow, one question really set you off.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    cj maxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,539 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    I'll always remember the line out of Red Dwarf years ago. They found the missing last page of the Bible.
    ' all characters are purely fictional and any resemblance to actual persons etc etc'


  • #133
    FanadMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,820 ✭✭✭FanadMan


    Best explanation ever via Red Dwarf

    NEWSREADER: Good evening. Here is the news on Friday, the 27th of Geldof. Archaeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.


  • #134
    FanadMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,820 ✭✭✭FanadMan


    cj maxx wrote: »
    I'll always remember the line out of Red Dwarf years ago. They found the missing last page of the Bible.
    ' all characters are purely fictional and any resemblance to actual persons etc etc'

    Dammit - I need to read before posting :D


  • #135
    LaFuton
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 784 ✭✭✭LaFuton


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    How do the religious nutjobs get time to post here when they are meant to be praying to their non-existent deity and helping the less fortunate?

    i bang out the full rosary in about 20 mins and thats with extra stringy bits between decades

    and sometimes I'll lash out an auld hail mary when working

    tis all good bud


  • #136
    An Ri rua
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭An Ri rua


    Wtf ? wrote: »
    They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

    Who wrote the Bible when??


  • #137
    rtron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 640 ✭✭✭rtron


    Its full of
    Plot holes
    Historical inaccuracies
    Characters arcs are all wrong
    Too much fantasy
    Battle strategies were shocking

    And Jamie Lanister should have won Game of thrones.

    Eh what was the question again? Oh the Bible, decent book a bit long. Some good stories and lessons but we shouldn't take it too seriously like game of thrones.


  • #138
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    The Bible is God's holy and inspired Word to us revealed through the prophets and the apostles and most clearly seen in God's Son Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1)

    Feel free to come have a chat on the Christianity forum or send a PM if you'd like to find out more we'd love to have you.


  • #139
    Shady Grady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭Shady Grady


    Usually when folks question the validity of the Bible and Christianity, is a two fold dilemma. They are these so called Atheist wanting to prove they are right, for whatever personal reason. Or the ones who are unsure about taking that leap of faith, by questioning it.And it's ok to question and seek answers, that is why God gave man free will.


    I'm not here to convince you of my beliefs in God. I think that it's a personal journey everyone goes through in their lifetime. Even the Atheists will still say Öh My God, when something tragic occurs. We all know of him, whether you believe in him or not, is a different matter.

    Again, this my opinion and outlook. And I don't expect most folks to agree to it.


  • #140
    Purple Mountain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,274 ✭✭✭✭Purple Mountain


    I'm currently reading The God Delusion if anyone fancies some 'light' reading during this crisis?

    To thine own self be true



  • #141
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,016 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    That doesn’t take up all their day, dude. Unlike you moaning and being angry on the internet. Almost puritanical in your misery to be honest.

    You strike me as the kind of man who would have spent a fair bit of time “studying” verses like Ezekiel 23:19-20, J.

    “19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Advertisement
  • #142
    cj maxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,539 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    FanadMan wrote: »
    Dammit - I need to read before posting :D

    Don't worry. I'd forgotten about the ' Dear Cindy' bit :)


  • #143
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Shady Grady wrote: »
    Usually when folks question the validity of the Bible and Christianity, is a two fold dilemma. They are these so called Atheist wanting to prove they are right, for whatever personal reason. Or the ones who are unsure about taking that leap of faith, by questioning it.And it's ok to question and seek answers, that is why God gave man free will.


    I'm not here to convince you of my beliefs in God. I think that it's a personal journey everyone goes through in their lifetime. Even the Atheists will still say Öh My God, when something tragic occurs. We all know of him, whether you believe in him or not, is a different matter.

    Again, this my opinion and outlook. And I don't expect most folks to agree to it.

    That's because most people are swayed by reason and logic.

    Religious headcases once wanted to burn people alive for saying the earth was round.

    They told us that the earth was flat. That heaven was up in the sky. That hell was under the earth.

    All proven wrong.

    Then the religious nutters changed the goalposts and heaven was in some sort of fourth dimension and hell was somewhere else. And now hell doesn't exist because the man in Rome said so.

    Whatever it takes to keep the money rolling in.

    And let's not forget about all the gulags that the "fallen women" were locked up in.

    Don't recall any religious groups campaigning for their freedom.

    Religion is on its' arse in this country and what a relief that is.


  • #144
    Deja Boo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,681 ✭✭✭✭Deja Boo


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    How do the religious nutjobs get time to post here when they are meant to be praying to praising their non-existent deity and helping preaching to the less fortunate?

    fyp


  • #145
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    How do the religious nutjobs get time to post here when they are meant to be praying to their non-existent deity and helping the less fortunate?

    How do you know someone is an atheist in this world? :p

    .... Oh you'll know. Trust me youll know :pac:


  • #146
    Deja Boo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,681 ✭✭✭✭Deja Boo


    An Ri rua wrote: »
    Who wrote the Bible when??
    It's clear that Theo wrote it.
    theological wrote: »
    The Bible is God's holy and inspired Word to us revealed through the prophets and the apostles and most clearly seen in God's Son Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1)

    Feel free to come have a chat on the Christianity forum or send a PM if you'd like to find out more we'd love to have you.

    ...and rewrites it.... for the benefit of all humanity.


  • #147
    Shady Grady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭Shady Grady


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    That's because most people are swayed by reason and logic.

    Religious headcases once wanted to burn people alive for saying the earth was round.

    They told us that the earth was flat. That heaven was up in the sky. That hell was under the earth.

    All proven wrong.

    Then the religious nutters changed the goalposts and heaven was in some sort of fourth dimension and hell was somewhere else. And now hell doesn't exist because the man in Rome said so.

    Whatever it takes to keep the money rolling in.

    And let's not forget about all the gulags that the "fallen women" were locked up in.

    Don't recall any religious groups campaigning for their freedom.

    Religion is on its' arse in this country and what a relief that is.

    No sir, your cherry-picking with the extremes and every religion has them. From Christianity, Islam ,and Judaism. And it is those groups of extremes that the actual faith is painted.

    Your going by one extreme to another argument which seems to be the norm in society. And I do agree with you that some have made a business of religion in this day. But it is far from the teachings. I am disgusted with all the tele-evangelists we now have.

    But They don't speak for God, not even your Pope who is elected by man, and not by God. And I am not trying to sway your own beliefs in anyway. Your own journey is just that, your own.


  • #148
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    Another anti religion thread eh?
    How do you atheists get the time to do anything else? :pac:

    Oh yeah, a single solitary nearly one year old thread randomly resurrected for no real reason. Man clearly inundated with the things we are :-p I do not know how you can move or think for all the threads you must be falling over :-p
    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    How do you know someone is an atheist in this world? :p .... Oh you'll know. Trust me youll know :pac:

    Problem with that statement is it is entirely self selecting. You can reverse it and say exactly the same thing about theists. Or you can lift it out of this thread and drop it into any other, and change the wording to "Vegan" or "Democrat" or "Republican" or "Anti Vaxxer" and so on.

    It is a vacuous catch all throw away phrase designed to say nothing at all while pretending to be saying something of note.


  • #149
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Problem with that statement is it is entirely self selecting. You can reverse it and say exactly the same thing about theists. Or you can lift it out of this thread and drop it into any other, and change the wording to "Vegan" or "Democrat" or "Republican" or "Anti Vaxxer" and so on.

    It is a vacuous catch all throw away phrase designed to say nothing at all while pretending to be saying something of note.

    Sorry. But I got a right smart arse vibe from your post. Like your entire point of your post was to blow yourself up.
    There for, I really don't care to be perfectly honest :)


  • #150
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Humberto Salazar wrote: »
    Exactly. They have a severe hang up with anyone who has faith. I've met some nasty atheists in my time.

    And I have met numerous nasty theists in my time too. I am not sure a pissing contest of anecdotes will get us anywhere though do you? Certainly you won't find me falsely generalising theists based on those anecdotes though in the "they" way you do above as if atheists are all some homogeneous group who think and act the same :)

    That said though, if you burned books by my Favorites authors I would do nothing more than think much much less of you as a person and as an intellect. Meanwhile while I was taking the freely given and freely offered Catholic Bread wafers to experiment on I got open death threats as well as people telling me by email they would kidnap my children because it is the same thing.

    I think there are nasty ass-wipes on both sides of any debate or position. However I am not so convinced both sides manifest that nastiness in the same way. The occasional mean word or open derision is not quite comparable to death threads and threats against children. While a member of the clergy say that atheists are not even fully human.
    Humberto Salazar wrote: »
    Live and let live.

    All that said however, I do so much enjoy any chance to post this link :) So ta for the platform. Actually with all my work with Atheist Ireland, Atheist Germany, Atheists America, the FFRF, and Atheist Alliance International I have rarely met ANY atheists who care if someone has faith as you suggest. It tends to solely be the manifestation of that faith in our halls of power, education and science that concerns them. And well it should.

    People going around having faith though? Few seem to actually care all that much. As the saying goes though "Theres always one".


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Shady Grady wrote: »
    I'm not here to convince you of my beliefs in God. I think that it's a personal journey everyone goes through in their lifetime. Even the Atheists will still say Öh My God, when something tragic occurs. We all know of him, whether you believe in him or not, is a different matter.

    I fear you read too much into that though. A knee jerk cultural turn of phrase does not hold any implication for what such people "know" in your mind. I am about as far from holding a belief in any god as anyone you are likely to meet. Yet the word "god" is also in my lexicon during expletives or sex or times of surprise or shock.

    Such use of the word holds no implications about my belief or knowledge of a god than the fact you call Thursday Thursday means you believe in Thor. Linguistic cultural memetics are not an implication about personal beliefs about the universe.

    As for my own personal journey with gods.... it has generally been made up of me asking people and books for any actual arguments, evidence, data and reasoning they might have to offer that even lends a modicum of credence to the idea there is such an entity. Only to find consistently that the answer is no. They have nothing.
    Shady Grady wrote: »
    I am disgusted with all the tele-evangelists we now have.

    Televangelists are indeed the extreme example of people openly profiting from religious nonsense. Or their faith healer on stage equivalents. However they are just the extreme. The Churches themselves are quite often essentially a business model too.

    And they turn a tidy profit at times too. The wealth in the Vatican alone is a testament to that. At best the Catholic Church appears to be in the business of being a charity broker. And they do quite well skimming off the top.

    They also appear to be in the profitable business of taking perfectly good ideas, ideas that hold utility and truth without any metaphysical or supernatural nonsense, and merely repackaging those ideas for re-sale.

    I have yet to come across any religious idea of any actual use, that loses a SHRED of it's utility when divested of the divisive and unsubstantiated nonsense the particular religion packaged it in.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement