Politics and atheism

47 posts / 0 new

Fri, 10/13/2017 - 21:17

Flamenca

And please, @AJ, after you check what I wrote seems to be true, remember my question is still in the air, and enough with the twisting.

Fri, 10/13/2017 - 21:34

(Reply to #32) #33

AJ777

The first book of the Old

The first book of the Old Testament was written around 1400 BC. As to your question of the Bible’s accuracy. It’s a good question. I can refer you to either scholarly or more mainstream books on the subject if you like. The question is much more easily asked than fully answered. The short answer is there are no differences in any major doctrine in either of the two families of New Testament texts. There are apocryphal books or books that are fake, but found to be not inspired. Translation is done from the original language Greek or Hebrew to the new language. There are not translations of translations. There are only two ways to interpret a message. Correctly or incorrectly. The Bible we have today is unchanged in any significant way from when it was originally written.

Fri, 10/13/2017 - 22:22

(Reply to #33) #34

Flamenca

@AJ The first book of the Old

@AJ The first book of the Old Testament was written around 1400 BC.

I'll be happy if you can provide evidence against that its age wasn't simply decided in a Council.

But, no heart feelings. I still have a couple of aces up the sleeve... The most ancient burial ground (symbol of a religious belief in afterlife) was built in Spain at least 400,000 years ago. It's called "the Pit of Bones" in Atapuerca Mountains. You can search for yourself. You may be thinking: 400.000 years ago, but how is this possible? Wasn't the Bible supposed to be taken literally?

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 05:14

(Reply to #34) #35

AJ777

I don’t believe in a young

I don’t believe in a young earth. You might want to stop assuming all Christians are young earthers.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 05:36

(Reply to #35) #36

Keith Raye

@AJ777

You're evading the question again, as you always do. Whenever someone asks you for a logical answer to a logical question you shy away because you know that, if you answer logically and truthfully, you're going to lose the argument. When faced with logic, you're caught like a rat in a corner, squeaking and struggling to find a way out. That's why it's largely a waste of time and effort trying to debate with you.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 07:52

(Reply to #36) #37

AJ777

Keith, our past interactions

Keith, our past interactions suggest that you would not be willing to accept any evidence that doesn’t confirm your atheism. Maybe stop focusing on winning and losing, and instead on what is true.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 08:08

(Reply to #37) #38

Keith Raye

Our past 'interacions' prove

Our past 'interactions' show that I will not believe anything that can't be proven by the scientific method of logical enquiry. Neither will I accept the verdict of a jury in a court where the lawyers mislead the jurors with leading questions, and the judge has a pre-determined agenda. If you haven't got the point by now, I actually feel sorry for you, but I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 09:03

(Reply to #38) #39

AJ777

The scientific method is not

The scientific method is not the only way to know something Keith. The statement that you made something to the effect of the scientific method is the only way to find truth, is a pholosophical statement, thus not able to be tested by the scientific method. Do you disagree?

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 09:50

(Reply to #39) #40

Keith Raye

I've given you my answer.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 10:35

(Reply to #40) #41

Sheldon

"The statement that you made

"The statement that you made something to the effect of the scientific method is the only way to find truth, "

Not the way I read it to be honest. He set a criteria for his assessment of whether claims were true. He's entitled to decide which method he thinks is best for determining truth from errancy. Besides science may not be the only method, but it is quite demonstrable far and away the best.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 05:53

(Reply to #41) #42

Flamenca

I'm really glad you don't,

I'm really glad you don't, @AJ. I did the assumption they moment you claimed to take the words of the Bible literally.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 07:16

(Reply to #42) #43

CyberLN

Angie, Lee Berger and others

Angie, you mentioned the "Pit of Bones". Lee Berger and others are working a dig site in S. Africa of a previously unknown hominid species (he has now found two new species) dated to about two million years ago. This site shows what may be evidence of a burial area for this hominid species. Pretty exciting stuff!

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/books/features/lee-berger-hunts-for-th...

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 07:44

(Reply to #43) #44

Keith Raye

@CyberLN Wow!!

@CyberLN

Wow!! The fable of Adam and Eve blown out of the water. If Genesis is the word of God, then God is a liar.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 07:48

(Reply to #44) #45

CyberLN

There's a great NatGeo film

There's a great NatGeo film called, "The Two Million Year Old Boy." It is about another of Lee's digs. You can probably find the film on YouTube.

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 07:58

(Reply to #45) #46

Keith Raye

@CyberLN

Found it: www.natgeotv.com/za/the-two-million-year-old-boy-1

Sat, 10/14/2017 - 06:14

#47

Pitar

"There is nothing which I

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

- JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, Oct. 2, 1789

__________________________________________

I tend to view my politics as reclusive as I do my life. If I get involved, by some measure I'm stupid, by another I'm insightful, and by myriad others I'm scattered to the 4 winds of opinion. In all of it I'd be happier to remain quiet and be thought an idiot rather than speak out and expose my flank. Adams had it right, relatively speaking, when he observed the American political landscape taking shape from its rebellious infancy.

People cannot originate opinion. They can only parrot it. Independent thought at any level from any quarter can only claim itself to be independent. The reality is such thought has a preceding source, also preceded in itself, back through generations to the beginning of mankind's historicity. Men have adopted stances, surrendered them, fought themselves over them, re-embraced them and throughout their comedy of errors survived it all only to learn nothing new or resolve their ultimate peace. All of it is morality driven and ethically implemented - or not - and distinguishes a timeline of deeds good and bad, relative to our current perspective of them.

All of it is for naught if naught cannot be resolved with some purpose. Mankind issues itself a purpose from its imagination called god, and the worship thereof all in one book for ease and convenience, and then conspires to tarnish and polish that purpose without apology, having endowed itself with perpetual forgiveness. Spun off of that self-aggrandizing purposing of self, it then creates a secular version of it where forgiveness is forsaken and substituted with policed capital punishment.

This makes sense in what manner?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages