Calling All Atheists - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #61 08-18-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

It's only a logical possibility if they could also be true. My argument is that traditional religious beliefs are inherently unverifiable hence can be neither true or false. They must be judged by other methods, namely usefulness. E.g: Jesus is the Son of God. How could that possibly be verified using standard methods of verification and falsification used in the modern world?

You don't verify Jesus as the Son of God. You do verify what is verifiable. At least in the case of the Bible, is it trustworthy where it touches events that can be independently verified. If you find that it is trustworthy where it can be verified, then you might be prepared to value what it says in areas that cannot be verified.

HuskyMan · #62 08-18-2009, 02:38 PM

religions and philosophies tend to compete and vilify each other. Protestants don't like the Catholics, the Catholics don't like the Protestants type of thing. it goes on and on and it seems most wars are fought in the name of religion. My god is better than yours so I am going to kill you for your own good. crazy.

DieselAddict · #63 08-18-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You don't verify Jesus as the Son of God. You do verify what is verifiable. At least in the case of the Bible, is it trustworthy where it touches events that can be independently verified. If you find that it is trustworthy where it can be verified, then you might be prepared to value what it says in areas that cannot be verified.

You mean trustworthy things like we were all created without any evolution, and the Earth is flat and a few thousand years old? What specifically can be verified in the Bible? Maybe that Jesus was a real person on this Earth, I'll give you that.

MS Fowler · #64 08-18-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

You mean trustworthy things like we were all created without any evolution, and the Earth is flat and a few thousand years old? What specifically can be verified in the Bible? Maybe that Jesus was a real person on this Earth, I'll give you that.

Well, the first thing you need to do is separate what the Bible actually says, from what people say it says. Its tough enough w/o the misconceptions you quote. NOWHERE does the Bible say that the earth is a few thousand years old. That is an interpretation based on a faulty understanding of Jewish culture. The flat earth, likewise--it's poetic language--not intended to have been understood in a scientific way. Same for the 4 pillars of the earth etc

But this is an atheist thread--lets not hijack it to an apologetic for Christianity.

tankdriver · #65 08-18-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You don't verify Jesus as the Son of God. You do verify what is verifiable. At least in the case of the Bible, is it trustworthy where it touches events that can be independently verified. If you find that it is trustworthy where it can be verified, then you might be prepared to value what it says in areas that cannot be verified.

I don't think that is at all effective. Any decently researched novel of any field is going to have some fact based writing.

Religion is about Truth, not the truth. As such, IMO, it is pointless to argue what is the thing that actually occurred. The words convey a meaning. It is the meaning that is important, not the words. Religious texts are written with poetic license. Poetic license is a tool to guide the reader to the meaning, not to be examined for verifiable veracity.

A264172 · #66 08-18-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Well, the first thing you need to do is separate what the Bible actually says, from what people say it says. ...

Is it therein that lies the difference between personal belief and religion? Religion by definition as an organization, being more closely aligned with "what people say it says" than the way a page is parsed in the mind of a reader.

MS Fowler · #67 08-18-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I don't think that is at all effective. Any decently researched novel of any field is going to have some fact based writing.

Religion is about Truth, not the truth. As such, IMO, it is pointless to argue what is the thing that actually occurred. The words convey a meaning. It is the meaning that is important, not the words. Religious texts are written with poetic license. Poetic license is a tool to guide the reader to the meaning, not to be examined for verifiable veracity.

In my view, there can be no Truth without truth, to use your words.
As I have posted many times before, if there was no resurrection i.e. physical life back into a dead body, on Easter morning, then Christianity joins the list of false religions. The apostle, Paul, said as much in his writings. The resurrection is critical to Christianity.
Karl Barth, and his followers say that you can believe the Easter message apart from the Easter fact. I say BS to that.

To me, that event is verifiable history. Many would dispute that. I'm OK with that. I hope you are, as well.

kerry · #68 08-18-2009, 06:00 PM

Even if there were a verifiable resurrection that we all personally witnessed it gets you nowhere in theology. Someone was resurrected. So what? Unusual things happen. How does that show anything about the deity? How does it bear on whatever message the resurrected was preaching? Died for our sins? How can that be verified? Reports of a resurrection written down years after it is alleged to have occurred?

DieselAddict · #69 08-18-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

In my view, there can be no Truth without truth, to use your words.
As I have posted many times before, if there was no resurrection i.e. physical life back into a dead body, on Easter morning, then Christianity joins the list of false religions. The apostle, Paul, said as much in his writings. The resurrection is critical to Christianity.
Karl Barth, and his followers say that you can believe the Easter message apart from the Easter fact. I say BS to that.

To me, that event is verifiable history. Many would dispute that. I'm OK with that. I hope you are, as well.

David Copperfield could have probably made it look even more spectacular. Doesn't mean it really happened. Believe it if you want, just don't go around tearing down pro-atheist advertising (I don't mean you specifically).

MS Fowler · #70 08-18-2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

David Copperfield could have probably made it look even more spectacular. Doesn't mean it really happened. Believe it if you want, just don't go around tearing down pro-atheist advertising (I don't mean you specifically).

In this country, ( at least for now) we still have freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion. Although I disagree with you, I must support your rights, or none of us will have any rights.

DieselAddict · #71 08-18-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

In this country, ( at least for now) we still have freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion. Although I disagree with you, I must support your rights, or none of us will have any rights.

So you oppose the tearing down of atheist advertising? As I've said I have no problem with Jesus billboards, and I'd expect the same attitude from everyone regardless of whether it's a pro or anti-Jesus billboard.

MS Fowler · #72 08-18-2009, 08:58 PM

I support everyone's freedom of speech--especially those with whom I disagree. I wish others had as much respect for that right.

Matt SD300 · #73 08-19-2009, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I support everyone's freedom of speech--especially those with whom I disagree. I wish others had as much respect for that right.

Yep....I did my job.... I presented the Gospel......

What they do with it.... is their own accord........

The Word says...Every knee shall bow..............

280EZRider · #74 08-19-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I don't think that is at all effective. Any decently researched novel of any field is going to have some fact based writing.

Religion is about Truth, not the truth. As such, IMO, it is pointless to argue what is the thing that actually occurred. The words convey a meaning. It is the meaning that is important, not the words. Religious texts are written with poetic license. Poetic license is a tool to guide the reader to the meaning, not to be examined for verifiable veracity.

Poetic license is precisely why most religions are nosense. This is not a tool to guide the reader to anywhere but obscurity.

Relationships with our fellow human beings is the single most important aspect of communication. Where would we be in this world if we were to attempt to communicate the way religious writings do?

kerry · #75 08-19-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 280EZRider

Where would we be in this world if we were to attempt to communicate the way religious writings do?

Luv ya bro.