This sorta reminds me of what happened when I went to get new brakes for my car using a certain chain’s coupon, which read"Front disc brakes-$49.99", with the small print reading"most models". It seems that, no matter what car I brought in, it wasn’t on this supposed list of “most models”. Finally, I got tired of this crap and called ahead about the promotion. The dealer said,“Well what kind of car are we talking about?” and I replied,“NO-tell me what cars are not covered by your offer.”
He hung up on me.
Now, I know that it would be almost impossible to find two Christians with the same list, but why don’t you give us an example of which stories in the Bible are allegorical and which are factual to you, and we won’t have to waste time playing the game of “This proves that the story isn’t true!” “Well, that story is allegorical and doesn’t count!” over and over and over again.
O.K.?
Speak for yourself. I have a Nestle-Aland Greek New testament. I don’t need a translation (well at least for the NT).
There are reliable translations of the Hebrew Bible out there as well. The many, many errors in the Bible were there long before they were translated.
Tons and tons of physical evidence.
How do you know which parts are allegorical and which parts are literal? How about the stuff that contradicts the other stuff? How do you know which stuff is correct?
I thought we talked about this earlier. I think there is evidence for God, just not empirical evidence. We can’t do scientific experiments and studies and tests and prove one way or the other about God.
…and lots of people think if God were to show himself, it would remove all reason for people having faith in God.
Hmm?
Lots of people think the “six days” thing is allegorical.
Suppose there was a great flood and it washed away all kinds of stuff. How would we know, thousands of years later, that it didn’t happen?
And how do we know there wasn’t a Moses, who went up on Mt. Sinai and took down fifteen, I mean, ten commandments?
I mean, I’m not going to put my neck out there and say “YES THEY DID HAPPEN HOW CAN YOU SAY THEY DIDN’T YOU DAMN HEATHEN YOU’RE GOING TO HELL”, because I honestly don’t know. But I think it’s possible many (if not all) of these things may have happened and, for one reason or another, we might not be able to verify them.
Woild you have more “faith’” that a plane was safe to fly if it were inspected by trained professionals, or less? Would you have more “faith” that a public bus was going to stop a a certain point if there was a physical bus stop there, people who had ridden it before were waiting for it there, and the bus schedule in your hand said that the bus stops there, or less?
I have faith that my Beloved loves me-she shows me and tells me almost every day. Do you think I would have more faith in that if she ignored me, never talked to me and wandered off never to be seen again?
I got my Hebrew-English Tanakh and a Greek-English Septuagint in Borders; my Arabic-English Qur’an in the Coop at MIT (as did my father before me, apparently). My Greek-English New Testament I got in a specialty Christian bookstore, but that was because I wanted a very specific translator for the English portions. I picked up the Budge translation of the Papyrus of Ani in a used bookstore for nostalgia reasons, and the superior Faulkner translation (with full-colour images of the document accompanying the text) in Barnes and Noble. I don’t recall where I got my Sanskrit-English Bhagavad Gita; it was probably also a used bookstore acquisition.
I think that’s actually it for original language plus translation religion-related texts I have. Huh. Not feeling like going and checking right now, though. But they’re not terribly hard to find, in my experience.
I don’t have a definite opinion on the bible in general, let alone most of the books within. I like your story about brakes, though. 
Yes, and yes, to the first two questions, no to the last one.
This isn’t necessarily my opinion, but many people believe God does communicate with us. I personally am not sure if I believe that, but I suppose it’s possible. I see your point, and it’s a good one; I’m just trying to respond like the fellow debater (holding the position converse to yours) you’d expect would, and I’m probably doing a piss-poor job of it since I’m not nearly as educated in matters theological as most professionals, and I’m also not representing the exact position that I hold.
This is a waste of time. You’re just arguing from ignorance. If there was a worldwide flood, there would be geological evidence. There is a profound lack of evidence of that flood, nevermind all the obvious questions it brings up.
Something I just read on the news:
That’s the guy who’s accused of murdering two Jewish and one black guys. Because they weren’t ‘white’.
I’d hate to think what would have happened if gobear [for example] followed that road to Killen’s house.
Someone asked for respect for religious people.
I do respect people like Polycarp, Siege, Faithfool and other people of good will.
I can’t respect the results of any religion, though.
As long as homo-sexuals are treated as second rate citizens by Christians,
As long as women are stoned to death by muslims,
As long as ‘infidels’ are beheaded,
I’ll spit on any religion.
I’m not sure if I believe it happened or not.
But, operating under the assumption that God’s omnipotent, he probably could have caused a great flood to cover the earth, and then erase all evidence that it happened. Those are both things an omnipotent being could do.
Yes. You do realize you’ve just totally invalidated your claim to evidence, right?
Ah, that’s nice. There’s nothing like the threat of hell to make believers out of non-believers. I know if I were a staunch atheist seeing that sign, I’d immediately park my car, get out, kneel down, and pray to God to forgive me for denying him for so long.
Well, rats. I appear to have been owned. I thought it was more difficult than that to find better translations of the old documents.
I think I’ll go crawl in a hole and die now. :smack:
Heh. What evidence? God got rid of it all. 
Wha? Sorry, I may have missed something. Anyway if god can fake or disappear any evidence he chooses, there’s no point in looking for it since you can’t know if it’s real. And you certainly can’t prove that god didn’t fake it all in the first place.
Nope, I’m pretty sure that’s right. I don’t think you missed anything.
If God wanted to fake or disappear evidence, he easily could. Makes you wonder 'bout them dinosaurs, eh?
No.
These posts both evidence symptoms of the same disease. God (amongst his many roles) both is, and is in, a basket into which you can put things you don’t want to look into any further or be questioned about, and don’t have to think about.
As a believer you can demand that non-believers explain how, in the absence of a divine creator, the universe is, where we came from etc.
But you don’t have to explain anything meaningfully. Why not? Because your explanation is just “god”, which sounds good but is just a word, really, because you don’t actually know anything about what a god is or where it comes from or how it created the world, because your god, and all explanations of everything about him is in the “don’t ask, don’t have to explain” basket, and has been in that basket for so long as to be perceived by you as unremarkable no matter how weird he may be.
To the extent that when there are two competing explanations for a particular subjective experience of a supernatural being, namely:
1/ a mental problem (DtC’s explanation), something we know for a fact to happen to people from time to time, or
2 the existence of an all powerful all knowing creator being, beside whom the powers of such nonsensical fictional characters as superman, the tooth fairy and Mary Poppins pale into utter insignificance,
you, Tracy Lord, say, in all seriousness, that by proposing a slight mental delusion (as opposed to a fucking god fer cryin’ out loud!) DtC is the one infringing Occam’s razor. Just stand back and think about who is multiplying entities unnecessarily here.
The problem is that religions are cultures and they are inculcated practically from birth, and those who are part of them become comfortable with the key points to an extent that they just don’t see how absolutely incredible those key points can be. They are just in that good ole’ basket and no thought about them is necessary.
Think about this, Tracy: if I started telling anyone who’d listen, in all seriousness, that I had experienced green monsters with TV’s for heads and skyscraper buildings for legs, and which continuously spouted football scores for the local soccer competition in Manila, would you actually, seriously, propose that the existence of such monsters was a simpler explanation than that I was nuts? (Occam’s Razor, and all that).
Of course you wouldn’t. And yet my monsters are a millionth as complex or weird as an infinitely powerful etc god.
You point to the complexities of ecology and biology and you say they are evidence of a divine presence. What is a divine presence? Ever seen one? How does one of those work, huh? Define it for me. Can you define it in any other way than simply as “this term I mouth when I’m looking for a non-explanation for things I don’t understand”?
Of course, you don’t have to be able to explain a “divine presence” because yes, you guessed it, it’s in that magical basket where we don’t go.
As a guy who is studying “world religions” and “philosophy”, I have been interested in this very topic for some time.
Rather than write a long winded response, I’ll post a link to the same subject on another board I visit.
I share the same views / opinions as “AnarchsitSuperstar”
This will save me 20 minutes of typing by posting this link.
It’s a good thread, just like this one is.
I’ve seen lots of those arguments before. Most of them are logically fallible, inane, and have been seen and refuted by many people.
I’m not nearly as well-educated in theological matters as I’d like to be, but this much I do know: you don’t know God doesn’t exist, and you can’t prove it either way. Shouting and pontificating and urging your audience to “WAKE UP” isn’t any better and won’t win you any converts. It’s just like the fire-and-brimstone preacher berating the atheist and threatening him with going to hell - it won’t work, either.