Heres my truth....Tell me yours.......

J

jusmeig

Registered Senior Member
Right,

This constant debate and petty bickering is really annoying me. Christians slating Muslims and vice versa. The only objective opinions to be found are from Atheists! This should piss alot of you off.....but that is my goal. Perhaps some of you will see the light.

Religion is shite (this applies to religions that worship an all powerful "GOD"). This is a fact....this is why:

Religion is primarily based on verbal accounts from 2000 years ago. This is not good enough. In 2000 years this post will probably be interpreted by historials as a discussion about pot plants.

Religion was created by man, and man is falible.

Religion only exists as man is the only being intelligent enough to create it. Hence: Man created religion.

There is nothing in any holy book that is divine.

Lets grow up and drop the Dungeons and Dragons stuff, and unite in the fact that:

"No person, religion, faith, cult or book is going to give you a full and frank explanation as to why you are here."

Look to the present day for answers, not to old wineo's from the dark ages!!!!!!!! OPEN YOU EYES!!!!!!!!!!!
 
1 reply

Your desire to shock has weaken your substance. I heir only petty atheists remarks that you must have found on the internet.

Religion was created by man, and man is falible.
Click to expand...

-Ok. Man created religion, but what created man or to the very least made him possible?
-This does not rule out the fact that God may exist outside of religion.
-If you don't know, I should go and ask another person then.


Religion only exists as man is the only being intelligent enough to create it. Hence: Man created religion.
Click to expand...

What's your point? Your just repeating yourself.
And what would happen in a world where nobody would be intelligent, but there would still be a God?
Man doesn't need to creat the periodical table in order for the chemicals to work.
Can you show me when and how man created God? I don't see anything around me that would hint me on his existence nor this necessary deduction?

"No person, religion, faith, cult or book is going to give you a full and frank explanation as to why you are here." OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
Click to expand...

Again, you offer me no alternative. My eyes are open, and I do not see what you expect me to see. I am forced to maintain my old convictions since nothing that was said compells me to change my beliefs or behavior.
 
I agree with the prior statements.
I would not consider myself an atheist but I do not believe in God. I am a Buddist. I do not believe in an Almighty One. I believe in the power of the human Soul and Spirit. Those who do not see the value of belief (whether real or imagined, doesn`t really matter), the power and force is still there. Believing is an essential part of humanity. Those who seek to destroy religion, only resolve to separate themselves from Inner Peace.
 
"Religion is primarily based on verbal accounts from 2000 years ago. This is not good enough. In 2000 years this post will probably be interpreted by historials as a discussion about pot plants."

If you're going to give a religion rant, at least get your first fact straight. Religion started well before Christ. Religions first recorded history that we know of was in Mesopotamia, around 7000 years ago (I think, dont quote me). Fuck, the Jewish religion started over 5000 years ago and that's what lead to the Christian.

I'm just saying, don't embarass yourself on your first sentance.
 
Praise to Dionysus!!!

You are totally right Dionysus!
*Cheers from a winning home team arena*

Atheists that only seek to alieniate themselves from anything that is greater than themselves.. (and theirs a lot of such things in this world) deprave themselves of much riches that belong to all humans.

I would even go as far as saying that the high rate of atheism in the Western world is primarily caused by social factors.

-The fall of the church from the state
Ever since the reform that seperated christians with portestants, religion has been losing its grasp to the political powers.
(ex.: King of England started his own religion in which he could divorce.)

In addition, our individualistic style of life puts epistemological obstacles to faith in general.
ex.: A society that puts emphasis on the value and strenght of he individual as in Americanized society does, it becomes less and less interesting to have a spiritual presence in your life:

-That may be greater than you
-That may dictate certain things in your life
-That may hold you accountable in the long run for you actions...

These are all ideas that oppose our radical individualism as we are seing in our societies.

I am convinced that their are more people that do not believe in anything not because it is the most logical or scientific approach, but simply because it would compromise the fundamental values they have structured their lives around; and that consciously and unconsciously.

Praise to the man who can affirm his spirituality in a logical way!


P.S. to the atheists
Any sucker can bitch, it takes a man to affirm something.
 
Last edited:
Re: Praise to Dionysus!!!

Originally posted by Prisme
You are totally right Dionysus!

yeh like totally dude, right on!

*Cheers from a winning home team arena*

What is this debate about softball or baseball or something?

Atheists that only seek to alieniate themselves from anything that is greater than themselves.. (and theirs a lot of such things in this world) deprave themselves of much riches that belong to all humans.

sounds like you have a life so boring that you need a god to make it seem more interesting, cos' truly without it you would be lost(not in a religous sense).

I would even go as far as saying that the high rate of atheism in the Western world is primarily caused by social factors.

Sure and what social factors would these be? not enough puting women into their place? i'm assuming your a Schovanist right(from you last message)

-The fall of the church from the state
Ever since the reform that seperated christians with portestants, religion has been losing its grasp to the political powers.

um christians are protestants(not portestants either)


In addition, our individualistic style of life puts epistemological obstacles to faith in general.
ex.: A society that puts emphasis on the value and strenght of he individual as in Americanized society does, it becomes less and less interesting to have a spiritual presence in your life:

-That may be greater than you
-That may dictate certain things in your life
-That may hold you accountable in the long run for you actions...

These are all ideas that oppose our radical individualism as we are seing in our societies.

I am convinced that their are more people that do not believe in anything not because it is the most logical or scientific approach, but simply because it would compromise the fundamental values they have structured their lives around; and that consciously and unconsciously.

YOU(not everyone) need god because you have no structure.

Praise to the man who can affirm his spirituality in a logical way!

faith is not logical, that's a fact my friend.


P.S. to the atheists
Any woman can bitch, it takes a man to affirm something.

and we have intellectual debate right their with that statement!!! yeh real smart down with women, up with men, oogga boogga
Click to expand...

i question everything you say pisme-off(haha)

look forward to your reply.:eek:
 
Here`s an interesting quote from Einstein.

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would
be expected in a cosmic religion for the future:
it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and
theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual,
and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from
the experience of all things, natural and spiritual,
as a meaningful unity."

It`s worth thinking about.
Perhaps Buddhism could be seen as an alternative for atheists with a spiritual desire.
 
Originally posted by Tyler
"Religion is primarily based on verbal accounts from 2000 years ago. This is not good enough. In 2000 years this post will probably be interpreted by historials as a discussion about pot plants."

If you're going to give a religion rant, at least get your first fact straight. Religion started well before Christ. Religions first recorded history that we know of was in Mesopotamia, around 7000 years ago (I think, dont quote me). Fuck, the Jewish religion started over 5000 years ago and that's what lead to the Christian.

I'm just saying, don't embarass yourself on your first sentance.
Click to expand...

Our oldest religious artifacts date to around 6700 BCE. And there is question on some that appear older even. All of the abrahamic religions developed from either zoraster or krishna lines of religion, which came from other religions in the valley. The oldest occurance of the jewish faith is only 500BCE, the old testament dating to roughly 100BCE, and the new testament was written over many years from 150 AD to 400 AD. I always find it amusing that the gospels are taken as holy, when they were anonymous writers who attributed the stories to specific apostles. And this after they had already been dead long. Basically biographies. Even worse, they often contradict one another, and the whole yeshua al bin character is a rip off of a much older character in the krishna faith, whereby a man, born of a virgin(by a holy spirit) had to flee with with his family because an evil tyrant was slaying all of the male children 2 years and under to kill the messiah. Three wisemen were led to his birth by a star, and gave him gold, frankencense and myrh. He became a teacher, led a devout life, died and was seen after this to ascend to heaven in a light. That is the story of krishna, take it for what you will.
 
Originally posted by williamwbishop
All of the abrahamic religions developed from either zoraster or krishna lines of religion, which came from other religions in the valley. The oldest occurance of the jewish faith is only 500BCE, the old testament dating to roughly 100BCE, and the new testament was written over many years from 150 AD to 400 AD.
Click to expand...
I suggest that you're fitting your 'data' to your bias.
  • Your reference to krishna is, at best, a weak rendition of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
  • You ignore Sumerian/Babylonian influence on paleojudiasm.
  • You adopt an absurdly minimalist date for "the earliest occurrence of the jewish faith".
  • You date the "old testament" such that you must rewrite the history of the Septuagint, throw out all of the calibrated C14 dates for the Isaiah Scroll, and reject all but the most extreme paleographic estimates for that scroll.
  • You likewise anchor the New Testament to "150 AD" despite wide spread concensus dating gMk and the epistles to the 1st century CE.
And, as one would expect, you do all this without evidence.

[edited for grammar and to remove unnecessary sarcasm - CA]
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I suggest that you're fitting your 'data' to your bias.
  • Your reference to krishna is, at best, a weak rendition of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
  • You ignore Sumerian/Babylonian influence on paleojudiasm.
  • You adopt an absurdly minimalist date for "the earliest occurrence of the jewish faith".
  • You date the "old testament" such that you must rewrite the history of the Septuagint, throw out all of the calibrated C14 dates for the Isaiah Scroll, and reject all but the most extreme paleographic estimates for that scroll.
  • You likewise anchor the New Testament to "150 AD" despite wide spread concensus dating gMk and the epistles to the 1st century CE.
And, as one would expect, you do all this without evidence.

[edited for grammar and to remove unnecessary sarcasm - CA]
Click to expand...

So you think I'm off by 50 years on the apostles huh? Well, that is up for grabs by even the archaeologists and theologians. And yes I throw out the dates for the isaiah scroll(although it dates 120BCE) because the other texts date later. You know as well as I do about the problems with carbon dating. Is the story of krishna not accurate? Does it not resemble anything to you? Saying I'm wrong, because you THINK I'm off by 20 or 50 years out of millenia is a little bit pathetic.
 
And if you don't like my numbers I would suggest taking it up with some of the archaeology sites, including the biblical ones.
 
Originally posted by williamwbishop
So you think I'm off by 50 years on the apostles huh? Well, that is up for grabs by even the archaeologists and theologians.
Click to expand...
You assert thet "the new testament was written over many years from 150 AD to 400 AD.", now noting that possible earlier dates are "up for grabs by even the archaeologists and theologians". Perhaps you would like to substantiate this claim. I would be interested to see any archaeological and/or theological scholarship dating the Pauline epistles to much later than 60 CE. and similar scholarship dating gMk to later than 80CE.

Originally posted by williamwbishop
And yes I throw out the dates for the isaiah scroll(although it dates 120BCE) because the other texts date later.
Click to expand...
You again make assertions without substantiation.
According to the generally accepted explanation of the testimony of the Epistle of Aristeas, the translation of the Torah was carried out in Egypt in the third century BCE. This assumption is compatible with the early date of several fragments of the Torah from Qumran and Egypt, some of which have been ascribed to the middle or end of the second century BCE (4QLXXLev(a), 4QLXXNum, Pap. Fouad 266, Pap. Rylands Gk. 458).

The translation of the books of the Prophets, Hagiographa, and the apocryphal books came after the Torah, for most of these translations use its vocabulary, and quotations from the translation of the Toorah appear in the Greek translations of the Latter Prophets, Psalms, Ben Sira, etc. Since the Prophets and several of the books of the Hagiographa were known in their Greek version to the grandson of Ben Sira at the end of the second century BCE, we may infer that most of the books of the Prophets and Hagiographa were translated in the beginning of that century or somewhat earlier.

- Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanual Tov, 2nd Revised Edition, pp136-137
Click to expand...
Parenthetically, the Isaiah Scroll was radiocarbon dated to between 335 BCE and 122 BCE, and dated paleographically to between 150 and 125 BCE - see New Radiocarbon Age Dates for Dead Sea Scrolls Agree With Paleographic Dates

So, you "... throw out the dates for the isaiah scroll(although it dates 120BCE) because the other texts date later." Would you be willing to share which texts, what dates, and on what authority?
Originally posted by williamwbishop
You know as well as I do about the problems with carbon dating.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but I never considered such problems sufficient warrant to go off and arbitrarily select dates to fit a particular point of view. Again, where is your substantiation?
Originally posted by williamwbishop
Is the story of krishna not accurate?
Click to expand...
What story is that?
Originally posted by williamwbishop
Saying I'm wrong, because you THINK I'm off by 20 or 50 years out of millenia is a little bit pathetic.
Click to expand...
As you wish.

I, in turn, think you're biased, sloppy, and wedded to a simplistic and unsubstantiated view of the developement of Jewish and Christian Canon. I dislike these traits when demonstrated by theists, and I like them even less when paraded by others.
 
Originally posted by williamwbishop
And if you don't like my numbers I would suggest taking it up with some of the archaeology sites, including the biblical ones.
Click to expand...
So, you would rather I go away than substantiate your position? :)
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
So, you would rather I go away than substantiate your position? :)
Click to expand...

Hey, I'll be the first to admit the numbers are fuzzy. The people who put out the numbers themselves change their minds weekly it seems. But since you want to use the isaiah scrolls from, would you like to discuss the fact that it is the only book they want to admit to? That it is the only one that substantially backs the newer texts? What about cave 4?

And before you charge me with being sloppy, remember, you can go from one archaeological group to another and find widely varying dates of creation for all of these things(well, I don't think you are going to find anyone that agrees with humans only being here for 6,000 years when history totally trashes that concept).
 
Originally posted by williamwbishop
Hey, I'll be the first to admit the numbers are fuzzy.
Click to expand...
The numbers are fuzzy. Your numbers are selective.

Originally posted by williamwbishop
The people who put out the numbers themselves change their minds weekly it seems.
Click to expand...
Could you supply a couple of examples? Forgive me, but you sound exactly like a YEC ridiculing debate among paleontologists.

Originally posted by williamwbishop
But since you want to use the isaiah scrolls from, would you like to discuss the fact that it is the only book they want to admit to? That it is the only one that substantially backs the newer texts?
Click to expand...
I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Who's they and what's the intent of this grand conspiracy that you've found? I sure hope that it has nothing to do with Roswell.

Originally posted by williamwbishop
What about cave 4?
Click to expand...
You tell me. I suppose it's next to cave 3. Don't just sit there - substantiate something. :(


Originally posted by williamwbishop
And before you charge me with being sloppy, remember, you can go from one archaeological group to another and find widely varying dates of creation for all of these things ...
Click to expand...
Great. Please substantiate yours.
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
The numbers are fuzzy. Your numbers are selective.

Could you supply a couple of examples? Forgive me, but you sound exactly like a YEC ridiculing debate among paleontologists.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Who's they and what's the intent of this grand conspiracy that you've found? I sure hope that it has nothing to do with Roswell.

You tell me. I suppose it's next to cave 3. Don't just sit there - substantiate something. :(


Great. Please substantiate yours.
Click to expand...

In cave 4 alone, nearly 160 texts were found(the entire hebrew canon). These indicated, if I am not mistaken(it's been a while) it showed that a palestinian effort had been taken to rework these texts. And thus they differed from the masortetic texts. That is what offended the church in my opinion(who tried to repress the discovery, and the inside story was that they thought that someone had spoken out of turn, as the only text that supported the newer texts was the book of Isaiah. See, you only speak of Isaiah, but you don't mention the 160 books in one cave alone, out of 4, that don't support your theory that the book maintained historical integrity.
 
Generally, questions asked about these other qumram texts recieves a response of "there are other fragmented texts"...from the church. They neglect to mention that some of them were in far BETTER shape than the book of Is. But unfortunately, the book they lay claim to is the only one of the 4 caves worth of scrolls and jars of fragments that come even remotely close to the newer books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top