Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

afungusamongus's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. Well if you have read the Bible you might have come across quotes like... 2 Peter 1;16 You could have read the first three words in the Bible. In the beginning.. funny how this Religion that has no basis in fact predates a finite universe by what three thousand years. Some people received the Nobel prize for such a discovery. They should have just read their Bibles. Rather a radical claim for the time. (1000 odd years BC) Really not in tune with the views of the time. How would you explain these claims?
  2. http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=110025 For the part about religion. Is pop not just short for popular?
  3. witty username dude...

  4. If anyone here actually read anything on the now defunct forums on Richard Dawkins website then you would know why Christian fear oppression. I have no doubt that nothing good would come if any of the pop atheist where given any actual power.
  5. You say decades after event like we should not trust it then. Decades after the event is still very early in a historical context. If you cannot believe the first and second well attested accounts in the ancient world then their is a host of less well attested events that you would have to retroactively deny as well. Here is a good link for you http://debate.org.uk...qur/bibmanu.htm
  6. Kinda ironic then that the Sunni and Shia do not have the same Hadith. Through the process of translating from one language to another, how likely is it that the Bible maintained it's original meaning entirely to how they were in Hebrew (as is the case with the Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament)? Why would translating a work make it less likely to be accurate? Bible translators go to great lengths to give us accurate Bibles. No the Bible does not change. Updating translations does not change the message. What could the scientific community possibly have to say about the historicity of the Bible. Why is their opinion on the Bible more important to you than New Testament scholars?
  7. None of the above. The historical basis is also pretty convincing. If you really are such a champion for reason you should then and try and educate yourself to what Christianity claims. How does the eye witness testimony in the Bible factor into your lack of evidence.
  8. The scientific method main limitation is that it is fulled with people who either through their own hubris or just a lack of knowledge refuse to believe the validity of other fields of study. Philosophy and Theology are the fields who bear the brunt of this prejudice. Not to mention some of the opinions of scientist towards things like Geology, Psychology and Engineering. This idea is purported in the popular conscience by such well known (although fictional) characters like Dr. Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory and Doctor Temperance Brennan from the popular show Bones. The Cooper character famously called engineers the "Oompa-Lumpas" of science. He even went so bold as tell the Engineer character that his job is not worth doing. His feelings towards Geologist is equally demeaning calling them "Gravel Monkeys" and telling us all that "Geology is not a real science" Doctor Brennan on the other hand makes her disdain for Psychology equally clear. Telling us it is a soft science. These sentiments are echoed when a Japanese Anthropologist joins the her team for a episode. You may say that this is often done for comedic effect but it would not surprise me if these views where not echoed in real life.
  9. I was told to read this in one of the other threads and thought I would write a response here so as not to derail that thread. Mods here seem to be put a emphasis on people staying on topic. Here is the link http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=affirmations&section=main What makes people think that certain Christians do not do the same? Why is this deplorable? Are Christians not allowed to posit reason for why the think the universe began? Why are Secular Humanist afforded the opportunity to posit theories but the religious folk who do the same efforts are now deemed deplorable. It can do good off course, but it can do great evil as well. Philosophical understanding can also contribute to the betterment of human life. Almost every field can do this. Hard to hear for those who have science as their only saviour but it remains true. The next few points I think Christians would think are admirable qualities and I think would be something a lot of Christians agree with. The question remains how do we attain what is morally excellent in this plural society? So the right to die with dignity would be a veiled way to promote euthanasia. Giving the right to doctors to take human life as long as the doctor has permission or the patient is ill enough. How would this count for those who strive for "moral excellence"? Does the exercising of reproductive freedom also include abortion? Then murder would only be bad if you get caught and have some consequence to your murder? Sounds morally excellent to me. Why would you think religious people do not do the same? This is a gross characterization of what religion really is.
  10. This famous physicist would agree with the beginning part. Not with the created part off course that is hotly contested but the beginning part seems to be true. What is then so unreasonable for people to posit the hand of some supernatural agent as the basis of such a claim? How would you explain such a prediction? It was written in the Old Testament so what is that three thousand odd years ago? It certainly was not with regards to the thought about the cosmos at the time the accepted doctrine. You might disagree which is fine. It is after all just one hypothesis among many. I give it just as a rebuttal to those in this thread who claim that the Bible does not predict anything. http://www.hawking.o...ng-of-time.html
  11. You may want to to read up on what Moral relativism means because pointing out that their are other atheist with another type of morality does not make it more absolute.
  12. Just for reference I meant that this is not what Christians claim and I do not see how this is any bearing on what Atheist claim. The first part was a bunch of good questions, but this seems rather not what Christians claim and not very good at responding to what atheist claim Also it holds a incomplete view of what Christians hold faith to be. If anyone is interested we can discuss that in another thread. Also reviewing this part again hogwash may have been a bit strong.
  13. It is clear. Christianity gives us clear guidelines on how to live. How do we define what right is if we don't have some transcendent law giver? That is the question. If you take a Nazi doctor like Joseph Mengele. He was a scientist just like many on this forum. He discarded ideas of Gods just like many scientist here also. He also was thinking he was doing what was right. I have even heard that some of his experiments where precursors to modern cancer treatments and that some of the things he did had some scientific merit. His blind quest for progress made him able to justify horrible actions. Should some human benefit alone be enough to justify the science we do?, or should we hold our scientist not just accountable for their actions but their consequences as well? Seeing as we are in the age of the atom bomb I think we need to be certain that the scientist now more than ever have a clear understanding of what is right objectively not just what they think is right. Who knows what horrors the future may entail if scientist are given the right to do as the please purely in the name of progress.
  14. condescending ? What's condescending about asking that. I'm sorry if that is how you feel I really did not mean it that way.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.