1 2 3 4 5
Rome and Greek's rise to power and their existence are 2 different things.
As for "growing up" I cursed as a kid, then I grew up and learned how to speak properly.
You do not have to clean up your language for me but you will give an account to God for every word that comes out of your mouth, just trying to help you out.
3/27/2011 2:47:50 PM
"Rome and Greek's rise to power and their existence are 2 different things."
No. Your assertion is that there's magical prophetical revelation in the Bible knowing of these empires when they existed long before your Bible ever was compiled. Ever hear of Alexander? Circus Maximus is completed in 50 BCE, Rome was the empire then, mapping, conquering, living in excess and known to all in the middle east
No prophetic insight needed
Your God will not bother anyone about our language as he's merely a compilation of previous gods of myth
3/28/2011 7:48:21 AM
Ever heard of "Daniel"? God revealed to him that Greece was coming to power while Babylon was the dominant power. Then He revealed that Rome would defeat Greece. Do you know when Alexander the Great entered Jerusalem? Do you know when the book of Daniel was written? Do some research and learn a few things.
Just remember our conversation when you stand before Him.
3/28/2011 10:16:36 AM
Book of daniel(605 to 562 BC)
Alexander the great (20/21 July 356 – 10/11 June 323 BC)
Macedonia (7th to 8th century BC)
Are you saying Alexander raised that army from his fathers kingdom and that his fathers kingdom just became that power within a couple hundred years? While possible the fact that the Greeks had amassed such armies and other cultures had warred with them for many generations hardly makes them a new, unpredictable force.
How is it that Daniel missed the oncoming onslaught that was Alexander, sorry, I expect more from prophets then guesswork from known empires. Macedonia was a known empire in the 7th century BC and they warred with the Persians, that they could kick Hebrew ass was a given.
Stop reading Fundie history rewrites. The oldest books of the Bible came after many civilizations and conqueror empires.
Real Biblical scholars got over the literal concept long ago and actual historians are amazed at how little the Hebrews knew about or compared to their neighbors
3/29/2011 5:19:28 AM
"Asking another question is not answering the question that I posed to you"
And asking if criminals should be punished or set free has to do with the point - specifically in your quote (which is the whole point of this thread): Proof of the existence of a Judeo-Christian 'God'...
I was prepared to indulge your non-sequitur with my answering your question with a question:
The criminal act of killing/murdering unborn babies (under any & all circumstances, by anyone & via any method; no excuses): right or wrong?
Well, I was right, when I used your own words verbatim: "I figured you would run away from that question"
Where were you when Brazil needed you in last year's World Cup in South Africa? You're a veritable Pele reincarnated, the way you can skilfully dodge, skirt round and avoid the issue, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer. Like I say - or more to the point, you: "I figured you would run away from that question.
Shiny, shiny mirror, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer.
And you've yet to prove to the satisfaction of we Atheists the existence of your so-called 'God' - as per my previous post. Mayhaps the reason why you're not able to (and remember: the burden of proof is on you fundies) is down to one simple fact:
God doesn't exist.
BTW, don't bother trying to say 'It's the responsibility of you Atheists to prove he exists' (PROTIP: it's you fundies who assert that a 'God' exists, therefore the onus is on you fundies to prove such, to our satisfaction) and similar bullshit, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer. As the old saying goes:
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You haven't proved the existence of your 'God' to our satisfaction, and you haven't answered my question. But then...:
"I figured you would run away from that question."
Be extremely careful what you say to Atheists, especially here on FSTDT. Your own words may come back to haunt you.
3/29/2011 7:17:33 AM
Please answer the question, I did not ask you to bloviate. I asked you if you believe that criminals should be punished for their crimes (a simple yes or no will do).
3/29/2011 8:16:11 AM
So you admit that what Daniel wrote, predates the coming to power of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. Oddly enough, it happened in the order that he predicted. Thanks for proving the point.
3/29/2011 8:17:26 AM
Thought you might like this one.
3/29/2011 1:47:20 PM
Macedonia (7th to 8th century BC)
Book of daniel(605 to 562 BC)
You do know that the 7th to 8th centuries BC are BEFORE the sixth? You do know BC is counted down, don't you? Kingdoms don't appear overnight and war with other kingdoms that just appeared, if we can place a kingdom that far back it was tribally tied for centuries before.
It was a KNOWN EMPIRE AT DANIELS TIME AS WAS PERSIA. No prophetic revelation,they were the movers and shakers. The Romans are just as old, just hadn't pulled their Greek neighbors into the kingdom or pushed the Persians around back then. Isreal was eventually stragetic territory, not worth holding for any real reason otherwise but it was predictable that they would be overrun when Egypt was a factor.
Your Bible, despite being based on the five older books of the Torah is a golash of legend and rewrites. Book of daniel(605 to 562 BC),AFTER the noticable rise of warring Empires, After literature from more advanced societies that documented them.
Before Alexander but not the kingdoms or advisaries of his Empire. Not much before either, 200 and some years of knowing the enemy they repeatedly faced is what made Alexander a succesful conqueror, he was a good student, trained and geared to win.
Macedonia did not sit on it's ass from the 7th century to the sixth or from there to the forth, it was a major player and it's neighbors all knew it
3/29/2011 2:58:43 PM
Okay, let me be more specific since you want to play with semantics. Daniel predicted the rise of the great king who would rule the Greeks, that he would be broken and then 4 leaders would take his place. Who came first, Alexander the Great or Daniel?
The rise of the Greeks under the ONE great king, that was foretold by Daniel.
The fact that Daniel spoke of the specific order of the reign of the Medo-Persian Empire, Greek Empire (under their One leader and then 4), and the Roman Empire, again, all before Alexander came on the scene, came to power, conquered and then was conquered (his empire) by the Romans. All of this was foretold by God through Daniel. It was all in written form when Alexander the Great entered Jerusalem. Jewish history says that the Hebrew priests showed Alexander the Daniel text which spoke of him, very specifically.
3/29/2011 3:20:28 PM
I'm doing semantics when you think this order didn't go back and forth?
Rome got it's ass kicked by the Greeks, then the Greeks got their ass kicked by the Persians, then Rome kicked the greeks ass elsewhere then the greeks hit back but couldn't hold it as the Persians were still pushing. Three determined cultures wanting the riches and valued lands of the others. Eventually one became dominate and then failed. Then it happened again.
Daniels timeline would be any of the earlier times one gained over the other. As I said, these are established repeating patterns.
But it's worse. Your Bible makes no mention of Alexander, well covered by other cultures centuries before your holy book. The Torah and your Bible know nothing of northern Europe even though the Romans knew quite a bit about them and their land. The Torah and your Bible know nothing of China or the Americas whereas others of that time did (the natives for one)
Your prophets are lame, not a leg to stand on and yanking other peoples legs.
I'll say it again,I expect more from prophets, actual unknowable revelation with specifics. Your proof is no better then " there will be wars and rumours of war"
3/29/2011 4:18:51 PM
Ass isn't a badword
3/29/2011 4:30:55 PM
Just did a little research. Daniel was in the service of a king for literary matters, access to and understanding of writtings in Hebrew and Aramic. He was brought into this service as an analyzer, advisor and translator.
This is known as being in the loop, privy to information of the court.
Less prophecy then gathering of court knowledge in a kingdom that was keeping an eye on the other kingdoms movements
If anything he should have been more accurate.
3/30/2011 6:44:06 AM
"Please answer the question, I did not ask you to bloviate. I asked you if you believe that criminals should be punished for their crimes (a simple yes or no will do)."
I commented, re. your quote posted here in FSTDT ( http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=55197&Page=1
'"even though many atheists have tried to destroy them"
What's happening to Libya as part of a potential 'Reverse-Domino Effect' (Egypt, Tunisia) could actually help Israel (if all the Middle East countries were purely India-esque secular democracies). The vote in Parliament the other day to approve of UK armed forces' intervention to save Libyan civilians (almost unanimous too). Nick Clegg as one example. He's our Deputy Prime Minister. He's an Atheist.
"The over 300 Old Testament prophecies"
The bullshit levels in such are OVER 9000!
If such actually happened - because there's not one shred of physical evidence to back up such. There's nary a shred of evidence that an actual 'Jesus' ever existed, but was a conglomeration of earlier, similar myths (Mithras, for one).
Three rebuttals to your claims, Erik. Now go ahead and hit your knees before me in humility. Agree that - as far as you (and the rest of your fundie ilk) are concerned, we Atheists are God.
By the way, 'God' does not hear prayers, because he doesn't exist.
'"You guys are quite hostile toward a God whom you claim does not exist"
How can we be 'hostile' towards a being that doesn't exist? The game goes like this (for the hard of thinking such as ErikB(ullshit)Brewer):
Well, y'see, we're not the ones who put forward the notion that a 'God' exists. It's you Christians who do. Thus the onus is upon you to show us (to our satisfaction) this 'God' (and that's 'God' himself, not 'Jesus') in hard, solid, physical form that can be seen, heard & touched; also that he is who he says he is, via demonstrations of his power - again, to the satisfaction of we Atheists. And if that means he must do whatever I say in perpetuity, so be it. Them's the terms, they're not up for negotiation.
Therefore, it's up to you to show that this being you fundies claim 'created' this universe, this planet & all the life on it exists. Ergo, the Burden of Proof. Which is upon you. QED.
But to date, he hasn't been able to. Ergo, 'God doesn't exist. Q.E.D., bitch.
Your call, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer.'
All because of your
quote here, verbatim:
"You want proof for the existence of God, here are a few:
1. Israel - God said that they will always be a people once He brought them into existence and they have been. They are here today even though many atheists have tried to destroy them (Stalin as one example).
2. The over 300 Old Testament prophecies (some written 1500 years before His birth) of the first Advent of Jesus Christ. Could not be a coincidence because we do not have a number large enough to show the odds against all of them being fulfilled in One person.
3. The resurrection - yes the one with Christ Himself but also the one that I experienced. I was spiritually dead in my sins (a slave to sin) and God brought me to life (changed my life and set me free from slavery to sin).
Three real proofs, now go ahead and hit your knees in repentance (agree that God is right and you are wrong).
By the way God does not hear the prayers of non-Christians (with the exception of their first prayer of repentance)."
And, like I say, in commenting thusly, you
were asked to prove the existence of your 'God', to the satisfaction of we Atheists (as per my satisfactory - and only - method, in my comments).
Now care to show me in aforementioned quote the words 'Do you think criminals should be punished or should they be allowed to do what they want?' appear therein?
Now who's bloviating - and deviating?
Like I say, "I figured you would run away from that question."
, certainly the point in hand (and via asking an irrelevant question).
Now answer the point in hand, re your quote, and as per my comments: prove the existence of your 'God' - to the satisfaction of we Atheists.
If you can't, then it proves (what we Atheists have said all along) that a 'God' doesn't exist.
Now you tell me: what has criminals (and whether or not they should be punished) got to do with that? The issue was never mentioned in your original quote.
But then, not for nothing is your name ErikB(ullshit)
Brewer. Irrelevance, non-sequiturs and deviation from the point is the bullshit you're brewing, after all.
3/30/2011 7:33:02 AM
@ Anon-e-moose (aka, the bloviating king)
Should criminals be punished for their crimes, yes or no? Can you please answer that question without all the bloviating?
As to the rest, I will address shortly.
3/30/2011 9:05:12 AM
"Should criminals be punished for their crimes, yes or no?"
And I'll answer your irrelevant (to the point of your quote) question* with another question:
The brutal - certainly criminal - killing/murder of unborn babies. In any circumstances and/or situations whatsoever - certainly by anyone, using any method whatsoever, and without exception.
Right or wrong? No grey areas, or swerving/spinning of the issue. Killing/murder of unborn babies. Right? - yes or no?
If you don't answer that
question (which then answers your
question), ErikB(ullshit)Brewer, then as before (as per your words, verbatim)...:
"I figured you would run away from that question"
Your call. Otherwise, it's pointless debating with you. And you won't have proven the existence of your 'God' to our satisfaction (as you claim you can). Ergo your 'God' doesn't exist. QED.
*- Certainly keeping in mind this:
Especially my comment on the 2nd page.
Do the words 'Grey Areas' ring any bells, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer? Do they even exist in your fundie lexicon?
Why not just say 'tl;dr'? You're clearly too illiterate to read - and thus understand - what people are saying to you.
But then, deviating from the point in hand - your quote here in FSTDT - proves you're too illiterate to understand the definition of the word 'Argument
'. The fact you've deviated from said point - time and again - proves you're not even remotely interested in having a proper one.
Because if you did, then your argument would be completely annihilated.
Then you'd lose face, and we can't
be having that now, can we?! [/sarcasm]
3/30/2011 9:44:31 AM
So, should people who sacrifice their children to a pagan god over an open fire be punished?
Should people who rape without consequences be punished?
Should people who practice incest (fathers with daughters, sons with mothers, brothers and sisters) be punished? (clarification, when I say sons and daughters, I mean living in the home with them, minors)
Should a man who marries a woman and her mother be punished?
Should a man who has sex with his wife's daughter be punished?
Should a man who has sex with his grandchildren be punished?
These are all the practices of the land of Canaan (not just a few isolated cases but had permeated the country)
Should they have to pay for their crimes? (Do not forget all the pedophiles from the above list as well as the murderers).
Since you have said that the criminal should pay, what should happen in the above mentioned cases?
You call God a murderer (even though you claim He does not exist) yet you seem to confuse "crime and punishment". You asked me if I know how to read, maybe I could ask the same of you since you so easily confuse crime with punishment.
3/30/2011 2:27:22 PM
you wrote ""The over 300 Old Testament prophecies"
The bullshit levels in such are OVER 9000! "
I am mesmerized by your logic here, ha ha ha! Is that your final answer for a logical rebuttal?
3/30/2011 2:30:53 PM
You wrote "But it's worse. Your Bible makes no mention of Alexander, "
You must be reading the lame SAB. If you would open the real Bible, you would clearly see that Daniel speaks of Alexander the Great (he is described, not called by name)
Again, Daniel predicted who would defeat whom in proper order, then the fact that the Roman Empire would be split in 2 parts, then it would fall, and revitalize (after a period of time). History has proven the book of Daniel correct. One Empire, the last, was divided in 2 parts, then is seemed to disappear (fall) and then out of the ruins comes to power again. Open Daniel's book and read it for yourself instead of running to see what "others" say on the subject.
3/30/2011 2:35:07 PM
"I did not say that the Bible is true because the Bible is true. I gave you tangible proof that you will not refute. You just start with the foul language and name calling.
1) God said in the Old T. that He would cease to exist when the Jews did. Since He said that, they have not ceased to exist. Hitler tried. The Romans tried. The Greeks tried. Stalin tried..."
Coincedence, nothing more. And when did the Greeks try to destroy the Jews? Mind linking to a historical website that confirms this? And BTW, lots of ethnic minorities have survived attempted genocide; it doesn't prove that their gods were protecting them.
"2) The Old T. prophecies that were already written before Jesus was born (over 300 of them) and He fulfilled all of them. Also, the prophesies about the nations that would be powerful in human history (the Medo-Persian empire, Grecian Empire and Roman empire) all foretold in Daniel many years before they came into being (very detailed accounts like Greece would have one leader who would fall and 4 more would rise up in his place)"
The gospels were written approximately a century after Jesus' death by anonymous authors. Furthermore, none of the miracles they talked about happened. There are no historical records of them; so no, five hundred people did NOT see Jesus because the evidence that would exist if they had does not. Same with the so-called prophecies; it would've been extremely easy to write the gospels a hundred years later to make it look like jesus had fulfilled them. Without evidence, this is what happened.
"3) A person's changed character. The Bible says that a person who repents and accepts Christ as Lord (Master) will be transformed from the inside out. He will be changed from a person with a sinful character (enslaved by his sins) to a person who has the character of God and the power to say no to sin and temptation. That happened in my life. It is very tangible. I have seen it happen countless times. The Bible claims it and reality proves it."
Guess what? Lots of people have turned their lives around without becoming Xians. Some became Buddhists, others became atheists; one thing that's the same is their will power. Will, and will alone, changes people. Everything else is optional. Try educating yourself for once; lots of people have claimed personal revelations when converting to a different religion. It doesn't validate their beliefs.
3/30/2011 10:25:15 PM
"So, should people who sacrifice their children to a pagan god over an open fire be punished?"
"So, should your 'God' who orders the murder of unborn babies - who have, by definition, done absolutely nothing
to warrant such a punishment - not
be subject to the same laws he
imposed upon his own creation? (emphasis added):
Hosea 13:16: 'Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.
What 'crime' were they 'guilty' of? You tell me.
Your 'God' aborted the first child born to David via Bathsheba. And there must have been thousands of pregnant women in ancient Egypt who miscarried as a result of the plagues he wrought upon them. Then there's the little matter of that 'Flood'. How many millions of pregnant women drowned - and thus their unborn murdered - in that atrocity?
Like I say - if he existed - Your 'God' would've been up before a crimes against humanity trial before now, found guilty immediately (an open & shut case for the prosecution; the evidence is there in the Bible), and executed.
"Should people who rape without consequences be punished?"
You tell me.
"Should a man who has sex with his wife's daughter be punished?"
You tell me.
"Should a man who has sex with his grandchildren be punished?"
Or any other underage person, for that matter, eh?:
You tell me.
"These are all the practices of the land of Canaan"
And which happen to this day, it seems. All of which are committed by right-wing Fundamentalist Christians.
Funny that you hardly hear of any such scandals involving Atheists - certainly prominent, and famous ones (Richard Dawkins, George Clooney, Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie, Sir Terry Pratchett, Lance Armstrong, yours truly, every other Atheist here in FSTDT (certainly the non-fundie Christians who are commenters here too, the list goes on...) And not in a 'Funny-ha-ha' way, neither.
Now, I wonder why...?
...oh yes, that's right. We Atheists, by definition, have infinitely superior morals. Superior even to those of your so-called 'God', it seems:
And I've never killed anyone in my life, nor do I want to, ever. Ergo, I am superior to God. QED.
I think the above answers your question. Now answer mine: prove the existence of your 'God' to the satifaction of we Atheists, via the only possible method: making him appear before us in hard, solid, physical form that can be seen, heard and touched. Also he must prove he is wthat he says he is, via demonstrations of his power, again, to the satisfaction of we Atheists. And if that means he must do whatever I say in perpetuity, so be it.
Like I say, them's the terms, they're not up for negotiation.
I give you until this time tomorrow to do so. If you can't, then you
yourself will have proved that your 'God' doesn't exist.
And therefore this debate - as far as I'm
concerned - is over.
Remember: that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
BTW, that's another way in which I can prove I'm superior to 'God': it's something ultra-easy, and can be done, it seems, by not only yours truly, but everyone here in FSTDT, the rest of the world - even you
(unfortunately). What is it, you're asking yourself, that we mere mortals can do extremely easily, that even your supposedly 'omnipotent' so-called 'God' can't
3/31/2011 6:02:09 AM
Mol Biol Dr
To your first point, the continued existence of something as proof that what it says is correct is an example of survivors bias, as I belive has already been mentioned. People, regardless of their religious leanings, attempting to kill the Jews does not prove anything, although it is an appeal to emotion.
Your second point is interesting in that I can find no recorded evidence of the fulfilment of these prophecies outside of the bible. As a single source is not sufficient evidence (after all it could have been made up) and a secondary source, such as the bible, is not as good as a primary source could you please direct me to another secondary or, preferably, a primary account of these events?
Your third point has much the same problems as your second with regards to the purported physical ressurection of christ so I shan't repeat myself.
The second part of your third point addresses proof by personal conviction, simply put this is not a valid form of proof, however I will expand on that statement. You are not the only person to have turned their life around. Many others have done as you have and not all have done so by turning to Jesus, many have found the same comforts and salvation in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, meditation, self reflection, the birth of their children. Such an epiphany and change in one's life is not solely attributable to supernatural or spiritual forces, much less a deity and far less so to one in particular. The fact that belief in the Christian religion and the Abrahamic deity helped you does not neccessarily mean that he exists. Our minds are adept at finding patterns, even where none exists. Additonally we process much of what we understand through story and metaphor, that does not make those stories true.
3/31/2011 7:46:15 AM
Mol Biol Dr
Your mistake is saying that "I" turned my life around. I did not. Secondly, there is no other religion that would bother claiming that its can set people free from their slavery to sin. Christianity is the only one that claims it and then backs it up.
God spoke of the persecution that was coming to the Jews. He said that if they cease to exist then so would He. They are still around, even though many have tried to annihilate them. You cannot deny that proof, they are here today and thriving.
The Bible has been proven as a historical source (see how archeology has discovered the places that the Bible mentions). Jesus could not choose His parents or where He would be born yet He was born in the exact location that was prophesied in the Old T. Also, His death was not chosen by Him, or the way that He would be treated on the cross (no broken bones) yet all happened just as said. BTW, Luke was a Greek doc who researched the entire case and set it down based on the research that he did. (the Greeks were well educated during those days, as I am sure you would agree)
3/31/2011 12:08:17 PM
there is no other religion that would bother claiming that its can set people free from their slavery to sin. Christianity is the only one that claims it and then backs it up.
No wonder. The judeo-christian religion was the one which introduced the strange concept of "sin". No other religion or worldview has "sin" (whatever that is) as such a central tenet.
You introduce a problem, push its alleged significance to absurd levels, pressure everybody that he must address this problem urgently, ... and then you claim that you are the only one who can solve this problem.
Do you want what this reminds me of? In mundane words, this is a standard tactic of scammers. "Provide a solution for a problem that the scammer himself created".
The more I think about it, this whole Christianity looks like a scam of enourmous proportions to me.
3/31/2011 12:31:53 PM
@ The Duelist
“Coincedence, nothing more”
Extremely weak on your part.
“And when did the Greeks try to destroy the Jews?”
Have you ever heard of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes) Study up on him a bit and then we can talk.
It is not only the fact that they survived, but it is the fact that God spoke about it and said that they would never cease to exist. Plus, how many people groups have lived through so many attempted genocides (not just one)?
“The gospels were written approximately a century after Jesus' death by anonymous authors.”
Do some more homework. We know the names of the authors. Luke was a Greek doctor who was extremely well educated. Plus, the Gospel of John was written before 70 A.D. (which predicts the destruction of the temple that took place in 70 A.D., which Daniel also predicted).
500 people cannot have the same “vision” at the same time. It was an actual event.
“Same with the so-called prophecies; it would've been extremely easy to write the gospels a hundred years later to make it look like jesus had fulfilled them.”
Written by so many different people, it would impossible without one mistake, one contradiction.
3/31/2011 1:10:35 PM
1 2 3 4 5