Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ever hear of Watergate? He was known as "Richard Nixon's Hatchet Man".
ad hominem: typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
First of all, which Bible are you talking about? The Bible was not even in English until the 16th century. There are many versions of the Bible, each with differences, so which of those is the "truth" and which is not?
At any rate, the endurance is not the Bible, but Christianity. It has endured largely because people were ignorant and easily spooked with stories of going to hell if they don't do what the church tells them to do. That and equally absurd tales of dying and then getting to hang around with all of your dead friends and relatives for eternity. People eat that stuff up but not because it is the truth but because they are indoctrinated from a young age and it is so deeply ingrained they cannot tell the difference between that and the truth. This is not unique to Christianity - all religions do the same thing.
I have had Christians, your normal garden variety, comment to me that Mormons are a bunch of kooks because they believe that Joseph Smith met with an angel that gave him sacred instructions engraved on a gold tablet in the woods of Vermont. It is ironic because that story is no more absurd than the one about the resurrection of Jesus. This just shows how indoctrinated people become - to them such nonsense is the truth.
ad hominem: typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Welcome to the main Religion forum. It's unofficially know as Atheist-B forum.
If you check out the Christianity subforum you will see they have managed to invade that as well. This whole Religion forum is corrupted by atheist bias. Apparently it started with the original forum rules which they love to remind us of.
First of all, which Bible are you talking about? The Bible was not even in English until the 16th century. There are many versions of the Bible, each with differences, so which of those is the "truth" and which is not?
At any rate, the endurance is not the Bible, but Christianity. It has endured largely because people were ignorant and easily spooked with stories of going to hell if they don't do what the church tells them to do. That and equally absurd tales of dying and then getting to hang around with all of your dead friends and relatives for eternity. People eat that stuff up but not because it is the truth but because they are indoctrinated from a young age and it is so deeply ingrained they cannot tell the difference between that and the truth. This is not unique to Christianity - all religions do the same thing.
I have had Christians, your normal garden variety, comment to me that Mormons are a bunch of kooks because they believe that Joseph Smith met with an angel that gave him sacred instructions engraved on a gold tablet in the woods of Vermont. It is ironic because that story is no more absurd than the one about the resurrection of Jesus. This just shows how indoctrinated people become - to them such nonsense is the truth.
Were you spooked by stories of going to hell when you were young? Are you over it, or is it so deeply ingrained that you're unable to know, for sure, if hell is real or not?
That is true for the amount of knowledge you are probably currently aware of. However, the recent findings in many fields have removed the supports from under the reductionist materialist philosophy derived from empirical science and pose serious questions about the nature and composition of our Reality.
Don't start. You will be jumped on if this gets into a discussion of science, let alone your 'Take' on it.
I am waiting to see "IwasmadeNew" select a particular poster to discuss the case for and against. We don't need a derail.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-31-2019 at 07:08 PM..
Welcome to the main Religion forum. It's unofficially know as Atheist-B forum.
Lol. Brilliant. I love it.
Quote:
If you check out the Christianity subforum you will see they have managed to invade that as well. This whole Religion forum is corrupted by atheist bias. Apparently it started with the original forum rules which they love to remind us of.
It's all done with Love, Ozzy. "Do to others as you have have them do unto you".
If I was a in a Theist's shoes, i'd want an atheist to come along and put me straight.
ad hominem: typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
It is, perhaps, invalid. It wouldn't matter if the video was made by Pol Pot so long as what it presented was valid and sound. So far it doesn't seem anything but trying to undermine confidence in evidence so as to make it easier to peddle unsupported faith-claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Have you made your own concerted effort to find truth? I'm asking because I suspect your request for "supporting evidence" is rhetorical. After all, you don't need me to do your research for you, and you'd probably say you've "heard it all before." If you leave it to others to convince you, it would rob you of the internal confidence that comes from the knowledge attained from doing your own search.
If your request is sincere, here's a video that might be a good next step...
A Wallet, A Dollar, the Existence of God - Pt.1 [06:30 min.]
This is evasive. You posted (instead of a case) a video, the relevance of which was questioned. 'Objective truth' is just a way of pump -priming the easily persuaded into rejecting any evidence that might get in the way of religious claims.
Rather than deal with that, you direct us to another video. This is not the way to present a case.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-31-2019 at 07:09 PM..
That is true for the amount of knowledge you are probably currently aware of. However, the recent findings in many fields have removed the supports from under the reductionist materialist philosophy derived from empirical science and pose serious questions about the nature and composition of our Reality.
If by "the recent findings in many fields have removed the supports from under the reductionist materialist philosophy derived from empirical science and pose serious questions about the nature and composition of our Reality," you are speaking of such concepts as quantum entanglement, then what these possibilities have done is make the nature of the questions even more fascinating and interesting. The concept of quantum entanglement is still not yet well understood. But the concept of quantum entanglement is hardly new. Einstein referred to the concept as "spooky action at a distance,"and Einstein has been dead for 64 years.
Like many who subscribe to metaphysical notions, you have taken up a position in the grey areas of that which represents current knowledge. As such you are able to prognosticate about concepts and possibilities which are outside of what is currently considered accepted scientific fact. You deal in speculation. I deal in speculation myself from time to time. But at least I make the effort to make it clear that I am speculating. Your speculation tends to involve assertions which are derived entirely from what might be true, and then you dare anyone to prove you wrong.
The grey areas are drying up, however. One example is the question of the existence of mountains, an old Earth objection that was popular among religious apologists well into the 1960's. It was pointed out that if the Earth is billions of years old, all of the mountain ranges should have long ago eroded away to nothing. And it was a valid objection... until plate tectonics filled in that particular blank in our understanding of how things work. And when plate tectonics came along, the religious apologists picked up their tents and moved on to occupy the next grey area.
Just as you do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
