• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible, Not As Original As You'd Think

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I do not need to be a mind reader to know when I am speaking with an ideologue. Your posts so encapsulate the internet atheist stereotype that I sometimes wonder if I should invoke Poe's law..

If I sound repetative? Could it be that my arguments are valid, and NO thiest-- espeicallyl not you-- has ever managed to refute even one of them?

Hmmm... if everyone you meet seems to be a "ideologue"? Maybe the problem is YOU. Not everyone you meet....


No you wouldn't. Because the day your heart stops beating you will be forced to give an account for every single unrepentant sin you have committed since the age of reason..

LMAO! The same old IDEOLOGUE empty threats that I hear from all the other non-thinkers I have run into, of late.

Dude! If I was afraid of your Infinte Torture Terror God? Do you think I'd still be an atheist?

Your Torturing Terror God is 100%, absolutely a MYTH. Proof? Your bible describes a being which cannot exist: it is Infinitely Good-- but created Infinite Evil.

That cannot be! Therefore? MYTH.

LMAO! you are so cute.
And those men who though their terrible acts have sacrilegiously dragged the priesthood though the reputational mud are in a terrifying position before God. Because without serious lifelong repentance those men (as per Catholic teaching) are facing the very real possibility of eternal damnation. Matthew 7:22-23.

LMAO! Your use of an Immoral Book to "threaten" me is laughable.

The authors of your stupid book were SO IGNORANT, that they didn't know what happened to the SUN at NIGHT.
Rocks in glass houses..

Irony duly noted: obviously, that was a self-referent comment.

I admit that I can be prone to verbosity when I'm not being careful about it, nevertheless what I posted wasn't particularly complicated. Augustus is the user to whom the previously quoted was addressed. And unlike you he seems to not have had much trouble in understanding what was posted.
LMAO!

Still a cache of Word Salad to me. What do I care about someone else's posts, that I have never read?

And, obviously, you were too lazy to post a LINK to the character in question. Typical of a theist: too lazy to work the system properly

After all: "God Did It" is the most intellectually lazy thing ever invented, in all history.

"God Did It" explains nothing.

"God Did It" requires not a single additional thought.

"God Did It" ends further inquiry-- usually upon pain of death from those making the claim.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
IF there was a magic flood, though, let us see

No magic needed for the great flood.

"God" is a mass murderer, of a most ssdistic sort.

God has given life and therefore has also right to decide how long life He gives. If people use life for evil, I don’t see why God should give eternal life to them.

Never mind trillions of innocent animals.

I don’t see any reason to think they were innocent. Bible tells all life on earth was corrupted and violent.

Flood sign should be everywhere, in many forms but there is none. Why?

There is lot of:
1. Oil and gas fields, results of vast amount of dead organic material, as there should be, if the flood happened.
2. Current continents, result of the collapsed original continent that was broken and sunk.
3. Vast sediment formations, orogenic mountains as a result of flooding water carrying stuff and result of movements of the broken continent parts.
4. Marine fossils on high mountains.
5. Also all stories about great flood in ancient history are a sign that perhaps it really happened. After all, it is not just Biblical story.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No magic needed for the great flood.



God has given life and therefore has also right to decide how long life He gives. If people use life for evil, I don’t see why God should give eternal life to them.



I don’t see any reason to think they were innocent. Bible tells all life on earth was corrupted and violent.



There is lot of:
1. Oil and gas fields, results of vast amount of dead organic material, as there should be, if the flood happened.
2. Current continents, result of the collapsed original continent that was broken and sunk.
3. Vast sediment formations, orogenic mountains as a result of flooding water carrying stuff and result of movements of the broken continent parts.
4. Marine fossils on high mountains.
5. Also all stories about great flood in ancient history are a sign that perhaps it really happened. After all, it is not just Biblical story.

Ok we will leave it at that, then,
You have not the faintest clue about geology,
and would not care to learn anything.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
If I sound repetative? Could it be that my arguments are valid, and NO thiest-- espeicallyl not you-- has ever managed to refute even one of them?
You haven't made any arguments. An argument begins with premises, and using either deduction or induction comes to a conclusion. All you have done is rant and level accusations.

LMAO! The same old IDEOLOGUE empty threats that I hear from all the other non-thinkers I have run into, of late.
I threatened you with nothing. You claimed that you would like God to exist, but clearly you don't because as I point out the implication of such a wish is eternal accountability for your actions. Something I notice strident atheists generally don't like to consider.

Dude! If I was afraid of your Infinte Torture Terror God? Do you think I'd still be an atheist?
Yep. Your tone betrays it. If you were truly a detached, disinterested truth seeker simply unconvinced of the claims of Christianity your tone would not be so consistently strident. It is obvious that there is an emotional component behind your views because every post you make is drenched in it.

Your Torturing Terror God is 100%, absolutely a MYTH. Proof? Your bible describes a being which cannot exist: it is Infinitely Good-- but created Infinite Evil.
This at least approaches being an actual argument. It's not a very good one but it approaches form.

Still a cache of Word Salad to me. What do I care about someone else's posts, that I have never read?
You don't have to care about anything, but if you are going to reply to something then make sure you know what it is you are replying to.

And, obviously, you were too lazy to post a LINK to the character in question. Typical of a theist: too lazy to work the system properly
Let's try again. That part of post you replied to was not addressed to you, it was addressed to Augustus. That your use of the ignore function has limited your ability to see who is talking to whom is entirely on you. You are blaming me that you can't see content that you have chosen to ignore. Temporally take Augustus off of your ignore list and re-read the post in question and hopefully things will start to make sense to you.

It is not my responsibly to link you posts you have blocked your own ability to see. How am I even meant to know that you have any given person on ignore? Good grief. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I threatened you with nothing. You claimed that you would like God to exist, but clearly you don't because as I point out the implication of such a wish is eternal accountability for your actions. Something I notice strident atheists generally don't like to consider.
This is wrong on multiple levels. First it appears that you conflated your version of god with all versions of god. He explained why the evil version of God that you worship does not exist. You do not seem to realize that atheism causes one to be much more accountable for one's actions than Christianity does. If we wrong someone it is up to us to make it right. Many Christians seem to think that all they have to do is to acknowledge their wrongs and say "I'm sorry" to god. That is hardly what I would call being accountable. You are accusing atheists of the "sins" of Christians.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
You do not seem to realize that atheism causes one to be much more accountable for one's actions than Christianity does. If we wrong someone it is up to us to make it right.
Nonsense. Atheism if taken to its logical end is a denial that wrong can even exist beyond subjective opinion. You may feel that you can wrong someone but so what?

There is no such thing as inherent value, therefore I can no more wrong a human being than I can wrong an insect. The cold, unconscious universe does not care that X person is a murderer or that Y person runs the local soup kitchen. The same eternal oblivion awaits them both. Under materialism, human rights are nothing more, can be nothing more, than pious fictions granted by governments. Because human worth is not a valid empirical category.

Many Christians seem to think that all they have to do is to acknowledge their wrongs and say "I'm sorry" to god. That is hardly what I would call being accountable.
You have to do far more than say sorry. You have to walk though the narrow gate; to live by strict principles of virtue, self-denial and the love of God. Striving to live a virtuous life where the moral law is followed isn't optional. Your very eternity is riding on it. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is very clear about it. If certain Christians are under the impression that they need not strive for a holy life and to overcome sin then said Christians will be in for a shock when the judge informs them that they are guilty of unrepentant mortal sin.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nonsense. Atheism if taken to its logical end is a denial that wrong can even exist beyond subjective opinion. You may feel that you can wrong someone but so what?

Sorry, that is a ridiculous claim. Please support it. It tells us that you appear to be reasoning emotionally and not logically,.

There is no such thing as inherent value, therefore I can no more wrong a human being than I can wrong an insect. The cold, unconscious universe does not care that X person is a murderer or that Y person runs the local soup kitchen. The same eternal oblivion awaits them both. Under materialism, human rights are nothing more, can be nothing more, than pious fictions granted by governments. Because human worth is not a valid empirical category.

That has nothing to do with the discussion. It tells us that your moral reasoning is flawed. There is no "inherent value" in your moral system either. The problem is that your fictions are less moral than my lack of fictions.

You have to do far more than say sorry. You have to walk though the narrow gate; to live by strict principles of virtue, self-denial and the love of God. Striving to live a virtuous life where the moral law is followed isn't optional. Your very eternity is riding on it. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is very clear about it. If certain Christians are under the impression that they need not strive for a holy life and to overcome sin then said Christians will be in for a shock when the judge informs them that they are guilty of unrepentant mortal sin.

The Bible does not really say that. That is mere Catholic interpolation. One can cherry pick the Bible to support almost any position. And the verse that you picked is not the best of verses. It paints your God as being an immoral monster again. Though the morals of the God of the Bible are far worse than most secular morals.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Sorry, that is a ridiculous claim. Please support it. It tells us that you appear to be reasoning emotionally and not logically,.
Nihilism is simply the materialist worldview taken to its logical conclusion. If there is no reality beyond the deterministic interactions of matter then any account of morality and human worth is intelligible only to the degree that it can be demonstrated as a material reality. Now, on a purely material account of it, I find it far from self-evident that human life holds intrinsic worth. I find it far from self-evident that morality exists as anything more than a shared subjective experience of a particular species of primate within a particular cultural setting.

Of course, being a member of a social species it may be in my self-interest to treat others with a level of consideration. But that is no augment for the existence of right and wrong, the existence of human worth as real objective realities.

That has nothing to do with the discussion. It tells us that your moral reasoning is flawed. There is no "inherent value" in your moral system either. The problem is that your fictions are less moral than my lack of fictions.
The text in bold is a contradiction. You cannot simultaneously deny the means of judging a moral system and then turn around and just declare yours to be better than mine. On what basis?

And if you want to talk about fictions (given materialism) then the notion that human life is meaningful and deserves moral consideration is itself a fiction. It may be a useful fiction but a fiction it is nonetheless. People such as yourself tell me with all dogmatic certitude that my Christian worldview is a mere fiction all the while being oblivious to the reality that much of their own worldview is intelligible only given a historical Christian moral framework. Were you to go back in time and tell the Aztecs that it is wrong to sacrifice their own children to Tlaloc they would look at you as if you were deranged. Would you rather everyone starve due to a lack of rain? Or were you to tell the ancient Greeks that slavery is immoral you would again be derided for failing to see the self-evident reality of the natural order, which places the inferior in servitude to the superior.

If my worldview is a fiction, then so is yours.

Though the morals of the God of the Bible are far worse than most secular morals.
Secular morals are little more than what is politically correct at any given time. For example, not that long ago secular progressives absolutely believed in the moral legitimacy of eugenics. Today they believe in the murderous worship of sex without consequences. (Just how many millions have been snuffed out these decades past?)

So no, I don't find your 'secular morality' to be at all impressive.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nihilism is simply the materialist worldview taken to its logical conclusion. If there is no reality beyond the deterministic interactions of matter then any account of morality and human worth is intelligible only to the degree that it can be demonstrated as a material reality. Now, on a purely material account of it, I find it far from self-evident that human life holds intrinsic worth. I find it far from self-evident that morality exists as anything more than a shared subjective experience of a particular species of primate within a particular cultural setting.

That is more unsupported nonsense. Try again. Your problem may be that you may be over generalizing. What you do not seem to realize is that life has value to the individual. There is no need for a false and undefined "intrinsic worth". Your claim is negated by the fact that I value my life.

Of course, being a member of a social species it may be in my self-interest to treat others with a level of consideration. But that is no augment for the existence of right and wrong, the existence of human worth as real objective realities.

And by the same standards there is no objective right and wrong in your beliefs. You cannot win that way.

The text in bold is a contradiction. You cannot simultaneously deny the means of judging a moral system and then turn around and just declare yours to be better than mine. On what basis?

No, it is not a self contradiction. You should have only asked on "what basis". And the basis would be of fewer internal self contradictions.

And if you want to talk about fictions (given materialism) then the notion that human life is meaningful and deserves moral consideration is itself a fiction. It may be a useful fiction but a fiction it is nonetheless. People such as yourself tell me with all dogmatic certitude that my Christian worldview is a mere fiction all the while being oblivious to the reality that much of their own worldview is intelligible only given a historical Christian moral framework. Were you to go back in time and tell the Aztecs that it is wrong to sacrifice their own children to Tlaloc they would look at you as if you were deranged. Would you rather everyone starve due to a lack of rain? Or were you to tell the ancient Greeks that slavery is immoral you would again be derided for failing to see the self-evident reality of the natural order, which places the inferior in servitude to the superior.

First off let's not project our own weaknesses on others. Dogma is your weakness. When reality goes contrary to the dogma of theists they cannot accept it. For example the inability of theists that interpret the Bible literally to accept the fact that Genesis is mythical. If reality shows that I am wrong I change my mind. And the reason that slavery is immoral is rather clear If one goes by a simple understanding of the world. Going in one has no control over the circumstances one is born into. By valuing one's own life I can tell you that I would not want to be a slave. To be consistent then I cannot support slavery.

If my worldview is a fiction, then so is yours.

That is a non sequitur, a logical fallacy.

Secular morals are little more than what is politically correct at any given time. For example, not that long ago secular progressives absolutely believed in the moral legitimacy of eugenics. Today they believe in the murderous worship of sex without consequences. (Just how many millions have been snuffed out these decades past?)

So no, I don't find your 'secular morality' to be at all impressive.

That is only because you are consistently wrong and tend to rely on strawman arguments. As you did in your little rant. Secular morality tends to lead theistic morality. Theists reinterpret their holy books after their society improves their morals. For example the Bible supports slavery, it does not oppose it. The best you can show I is that it opposes slavery of Hebrews. One has to cherry pick the Bible to make an argument against it.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
No magic needed for the great flood..

Absolutely false claim. Geology absolutely destroys any claim of a world wide, single-event flood.

It never happened.

Worse: in order for the bible flood to occur, as written? Someone needed to magically transport penguins from the Middle East, back to Antarctica. Someone else needed to magically transport Koala Bears and Sloths, back to the South-West Pacific. And yet someone else needed to take all--no stragglers-- all the Lemurs back to Madagascar.

MAGIC--MAGIC and MAGIC.



God has given life and therefore has also right to decide how long life He gives. If people use life for evil, I don’t see why God should give eternal life to them..

Might Makes Right? That is a failed moral philosophy.

I don’t see any reason to think they were innocent. Bible tells all life on earth was corrupted and violent..

So. Babies are not innocent according to your god? Wow.

That is so beyond messed up I don't know how to begin... !


There is lot of:
1. Oil and gas fields, results of vast amount of dead organic material, as there should be, if the flood happened..

False assumption: these deposits occurred millions of years apart.

2. Current continents, result of the collapsed original continent that was broken and sunk..

Bogus. Junk "science".
3. Vast sediment formations, orogenic mountains as a result of flooding water carrying stuff and result of movements of the broken continent parts..

Bogus. False.
4. Marine fossils on high mountains..

Because those mountains-- millions of years ago-- were not mountains, but deep sea beds.

5. Also all stories about great flood in ancient history are a sign that perhaps it really happened. After all, it is not just Biblical story.

What'ya know? People who lived near large bodies of water-- that flooded-- created Magical Flood Survival Myths.

Who would have thought that was possible?

Notebook: There are NO flood survival myths among peoples who never lived next to large bodies of flood-prone waters...

... Coincidence?
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
You haven't made any arguments. An argument begins with premises, and using either deduction or induction comes to a conclusion. All you have done is rant and level accusations..

I did way-way before your absuive and very denigrating posts came onto the scene.

And? Your very first (abusive) post whined about my argument as being repetitive!

So right off the bat? Either this post of yours is a lie, or your first post was a lie? Which is it?

I threatened you with nothing. .

Absolutely false. But you likely cannot see the implied threats in your position.

You claimed that you would like God to exist, .
Correct. I also outlined WHY, and for WHAT REASON.
but clearly you don't because as I point out the implication of such a wish is eternal accountability for your actions. .
And there you go, threats again. And that's a Straw Man of yours.

Who said I wanted YOUR beast-god, anyway? Your monster-of-a-terrorist would be the worst thing ever-- proof?

You.
Something I notice strident atheists generally don't like to consider.
.

LMAO! More threats from you. Cute.
Yep. Your tone betrays it. .

Projection. Strawman.

If you were truly a detached, disinterested truth seeker simply unconvinced of the claims of Christianity your tone would not be so consistently strident..

Straw Man. Have you SEEN what you "christians" do and did to people like me? Murder is the least that you people did, and not that long ago either...
It is obvious that there is an emotional component behind your views because every post you make is drenched in it..

See above. Abuse from you "christians" is still rampant. Just look at your abusive posts in this Social Media...



This at least approaches being an actual argument. It's not a very good one but it approaches form..

I note that you don't even make an attempt at addressing it, though. Typical.

In fact? YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ONE SINGLE COUNTER-ARGUMENT.

100% of your stuff is pure ABUSE. Ain't you cute?

You don't have to care about anything, but if you are going to reply to something then make sure you know what it is you are replying to..

LMAO! irony.

Let's try again. That part of post you replied to was not addressed to you, it was addressed to Augustus. .
LMAO! What part of Public Forum exceeds your feeble ability to think?

That your use of the ignore function has limited your ability to see who is talking to whom is entirely on you. You are blaming me that you can't see content that you have chosen to ignore. .
Again? you assume I care what you think... that's cute.
... hopefully things will start to make sense to you..

Oh, I understand your seething hate for anything Atheist. It's evident enough, in your post to me and others. That doesn't take a Rocket Scientist.
 
Top