Act of God.

Wo3Dan

Alan', if re. Quirinius you have no sufficient historical data, do not despair!
You said there are many contradictions in the Bible, so, come with a new well founded one!
Eventually ‘Marian’ can help you ...

Sure he (Marian) can help. Isn't it time for you to open your eyes and to see what is really going on around you in this world? With you it's more or less like putting in a coin into a machine and another quote pops out of the boxes. It's like you never question anything. I can see that the bible is the only thing for you. That would be okay if you didn't try to force it through our throats. Unlike you I like to think for myself, question things, read what others think and evaluate. By now I do know where you stand. Just for once, watch that documentary that Marian linked to. Pay extra attention to (time) 1:22:58 through 1:23:12. *“…and perhaps the reason why so many of these writings have been lost to us altogether is because it is inevitably the winners who write history, The losers of that process drift from our memory into obscurity."*It summarizes what's always going throughout history, people fighting for/holding on to influence and power where the winner, in this case a/your version of the bible is the result, to ensure that influence and power.

Thank’s Marian, I enjoyed watching “The lost gospels”.

Marian

@wo3dan said:

Thank’s Marian, I enjoyed watching “The lost gospels”.

You're most welcome. I also found it enjoyable and interesting.

To people who might have some qualms and are not sure what that documantary is, the presenter is a Christian, an Anglican priest, also the rest of the scholars seem to be christians also, so it's not "atheistic propaganda".

irwanwr

it wouldn't need to be considered as atheistic propaganda.
some people, in this case "muslim" may already know about those things before they've made such video or any other presentation.
for me, when i see the video, i think there's nothing really new on their presentation.
for others, i.e. atheist, that video might still have a crossroads ahead.
for me and any other unitarian people, that video is just another confirmation for what they've known.

Marian

@irwanwr said:

for me and any other unitarian people, that video is just another confirmation for what they've known.

True, but don't feel safe in your faith that that means the quran or other "holy" books are right.
The quran also borrows heavily from christian writings, ones that have not been included in the bible. That only goes to show, that one religion's junk is another's treasure.
The quran is as tainted with blood and atrocities in the same measure as the bible.

irwanwr

@marian said:

The quran also borrows heavily from christian writings,..

first of all Marian, it might be good if you have adequate knowledge on the matter and your statement. might be even better if you can prove it. since muslim believe that the quran was sent mostly because the rest of earlier scriptures were either vanished or corrupted.

who do you think wrote it? and how do you know he/she borrowed anything from earlier scriptures?

@unknownuser said:

The quran is as tainted with blood and atrocities in the same measure as the bible.

so the atheist don't have any kind of issue regarding blood and atrocities?

Marian

@irwanwr said:

muslim believe that the quran was sent mostly because the rest of earlier scriptures were either vanished or corrupted.

Exactly, it preserves some writings which in the beginning were popular with christians. For example it has a more elaborate and detailed story about the lives of Adam and Eve which most likely was one of the texts abandoned by the christian church.

@irwanwr said:

who do you think wrote it? and how do you know he/she borrowed anything from earlier scriptures?

Probably it is true that it was compiled and edited mostly my Mohammed. I know he barrowed and adapted because Islam is considered one of the 3 Abrahamic religions. It wouldn't have had any relation with Judaism and Christianity if it didn't barrow anything. I seriously doubt Mohammed could have invented all of it and please don't tell me it was dictated by allah.
Also this religion sprung up in the same general geographical area as the previous 2, highly likely and possible that Mohammed made contact with Jews and Christians. It would have been amazing if it had been created in China or Japan in the 6th century. You would have had a serious argument if that were the case.

@irwanwr said:

so the atheist don't have any kind of issue regarding blood and atrocities?

What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.

Wo3Dan

@irwanwr said:

it wouldn't need to be considered as atheistic propaganda.
some people, .......

I wasn't considering it (the documentary) anything else than interesting plausible historical information. Pieces of the puzzles in life. Information that might even help Cornel to reconsider his view on what is true. I'm not trying to prove anything to him. To quote Cornel (to him): "it's your choice".

I'm not sure what to believe. Going to church or the like, once a week or at christmas (for christians) doesn't mean much to me other than maybe meeting friends and family. To believe in god is so personal and much better expresses itself in how you stand in life. I'm more inclined towards what (for instance) Solo and Rich said earlier, (maybe in the other/parallel thread): Don't do to others what you wouldn't like others to do to you. Live and let live.

To enjoy, see:
Some interesting images of god's work? recorded by Yann Arthus-Bertrand:
http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/

Starling75

@marian said:

What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.

Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".

solo

@starling75 said:

@marian said:

What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.

Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".

What?! really?

That's a really silly thing to say, if you had an idea what atheism is you would never say that.

Let's start with a definition:

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Which part of that is religion?

Lets new define religion:

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed, traditions

I cannot see how you can possibly call atheism a religion, that's just silly.

Marian

@starling75 said:

Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".

No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.

Though I do grant you that some atheists are as obtuse and hardheaded as the bible thumpers. That only shows humans are humans irrespective of ideology, doctrine or philosophy.

Starling75

@marian said:

@starling75 said:

Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".

No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.

Though I do grant you that some atheists are as obtuse and hardheaded as the bible thumpers. That only shows humans are humans irrespective of ideology, doctrine or philosophy.

non-theist is agnostic = someone who claims: Gd's existence is uknown and probably unknowable ( ...certainly uncertaint )
a-theist is someone who claims - Gd doesn't exist, because ... Lenin said that, because there is no scientific proof of Gd etcetc

Marian

It's not that simple. Here's a better thought out explanation.http://youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ

TIG

Agnostism - quite simply means 'you don't know for sure...'

Solo, I'm on your side !
BUT your definitions need redefining.
Atheism IS a belief... just like any 'religion' is a belief.
AND it's also based on an UNprovable proposition, because you can't ever prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt.
So the atheists', 'God does NOT exist', is NOT provable, no matter how good your logical arguments.
BUT 'God exists' IS provable - even if the logic of the pro-camp IS flawed and they only prove it to their own satisfaction !
SO, please recast the atheists' position as follows:
'The universe exists without God - both for its initial creation and its continuance.'
Then that is 'provable' by argument.
OR perhaps even better, to partially side-step the very existence of God...
'If God exists, then God totally ignores our universe.'
Again provable by logical argument, and avoids the 'existence' argument...
Logically, if God doesn't existence then God couldn't do anything at all [stop!], but that remains an unprovable proposition... But IF you accept that God might exist, it's immediately followed by a denial of any possible influence that God might have, which is far less problematical. All non-believers aren't concerned with the second part, but any believers must then prove that God does interact with the universe... which is far from easy to do.
Recourse to saying that God's word is the Bible [or other holy book] is simply a circular argument that proves nothing. I know of no direct evidence of a real certified God-made intervention otherwise... it's all unprovable personal opinion, hearsay, allegory etc...

irwanwr

@marian said:

Exactly, it preserves some writings which in the beginning were popular with christians. For example it has a more elaborate and detailed story about the lives of Adam and Eve which most likely was one of the texts abandoned by the christian church.

that's also goes to christian. if they're considered did the same thing to jewish sources.

@marian said:

Probably it is true that it was compiled and edited mostly my Mohammed.

ah, a good statement.
well, that proves you have no knowledge at all about what you are talking about. since Muhammad was indeed illiterate. he wasn't well known for his ability to read or write.
let alone compiling and editing stuffs as comprehensively and integrally structured like that.

@marian said:

Also this religion sprung up in the same general geographical area as the previous 2, highly likely and possible that Mohammed made contact with Jews and Christians. It would have been amazing if it had been created in China or Japan in the 6th century. You would have had a serious argument if that were the case.

something must start from somewhere. he never did made intended contact regarding the belief with either jewish or christian. his world were only of those old pagans. he traveled only for trading. the first contact happened when he already have some revelation.

@marian said:

What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.

i see. i accept that as your personal point of view.
well, actually my most concerns personally is about how to make myself do best according the teachings.
for your issue with any "holy scriptures", you can always question each of them. one at a time. and i think, you can always test them including quran if you'd like to. scientifically, empirically, or whatever method you'd like to implement on. for Qur'an, it's still there if you want to test it. i do believe it comes from god. so, i'll let you and qur'an to have whatever inquiries you'd want to have.
as for now, i'll go downstairs for more coffee

cheers.

cornel

'Wo3Dan' wrote:
"[I'm more inclined towards what (for instance) Solo and Rich said earlier, (maybe in the other/parallel thread): Don't do to others what you wouldn't like others to do to you. Live and let live.]"

OK but this 'philosophy' is taken from the Bible... See Luke6:31:

"Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."

cornel

Marian wrote: "[No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.]"

How about so-called 'romanian gypsy', aren't they a "separate ethnic group"?!

Starling75

And of course .. one of the core problems of all of us = a,non,para(or whatever else)...theists is : "Who/What exactly is the Gd we are talking about?"

Starling75

@marian said:

It's not that simple. Here's a better thought out explanation.http://youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ

You know, I was living for 14 years in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and so called "scientific atheism" was part of my school education and ideological indoctrination.

It was (para)religion based on twisted facts, poor reasoning and prejudices. It had its priests, prophets and holy scriptures... and of course the other religions were archenemies.

For me - atheist is someone who BELIEVE in nonexistence of Gd ..
.. on the other hand, this word has really broad palette of meanings ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I am agnostic. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Marian

@irwanwr said:

well, that proves you have no knowledge at all about what you are talking about. since Muhammad was indeed illiterate. he wasn't well known for his ability to read or write.
let alone compiling and editing stuffs as comprehensively and integrally structured like that.

Oh yeah, I forgot he was illiterate....so that's even better for my case.
I admit I'm not as familiar with the quran as i am with the bible for obvious geographical reasons but it still has many of the same flaws as the bible, at least in general terms.

@irwanwr said:

something must start from somewhere. he never did made intended contact regarding the belief with either jewish or christian. his world were only of those old pagans. he traveled only for trading. the first contact happened when he already have some revelation.

He did live in the 6-7th century right? By then Christianity had spread quite a bit so he may have been influenced indirectly even before unintentially meeting Christians and Jews. No man is/was an island even then.

@unknownuser said:

Marian wrote: "[No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.]"

How about so-called 'romanian gypsy', aren't they a "separate ethnic group"?!

You didn't get my argument at all.
For the sake of explaining:

Romanians = Christians
Non-Romanians = Atheists
Result?
A very broad term that is not very useful if you wish to understand a group or a person.
Since Non-Romanians would include all the other ethnicities in the world except Romanians it would not be very useful in defining it as an ethnicity. It's the same way with Atheism being considered a religion.

Another thing, Gypsies are Gypsies, mixed or not. Romanian gypsies are not a separate ethnical group, it just means the gypsies that live or come from Romania. The same goes for Bulgarian Gypsies, Serbian Gypsies, etc.

@starling75 said:

You know, I was living for 14 years in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and so called "scientific atheism" was part of my school education and ideological indoctrination.

It was (para)religion based on twisted facts, poor reasoning and prejudices. It had its priests, prophets and holy scriptures... and of course the other religions were archenemies.

For me - atheist is someone who BELIEVE in nonexistence of Gd ..

I understand where you are coming from, maybe better than most here, but you have to understand that what communists proclaimed as atheism wasn't atheism. They in fact made a religion out of worshipping the ruler. It was done in various degrees of lunacy, but that was a religion disguised as atheism. Look up North Korea and you'll get the picture. You can't say that that's an atheistic society.

Also I as an atheist I can tell you that for me belief has little to do with anything. I don't claim to know in absolute terms that some kind of being isn't out here it is just highly unlikely considering the facts. What I do reject and i'm not open to accepting is that the Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Krishna etc exist and govern our destinies.

solo

Aaargh! This is getting frustrating.

I am not great with words, never had any good writing skills so getting my point across can sometimes be frustrating.

Atheism seems to be defined differently by so many groups and individuals, I really cannot understand what is so complicated in the simple explanation.

Is it because people with faith and belief cannot fathom a person not believing in anything?
Let me try and explain it in a simple way.

I do not believe in God, do I need to prove he does not exist before my non belief is justified? I do not believe in the Loch Ness monster either, but does that mean I need to prove it does not exist before my non belief in it is justified? or is the onus of proof with the folks that claim it exists and not me that does not? So instead of being a person that does not believe because there is not enough proof besides some silly stories, a few grainy photo's and a fake looking video I am now called a skeptic...NO! it does not exist end of story, I'm not a skeptic I'm a realist, a skeptic is in doubt very much like an agnostic.

I am an atheist and I do not believe, do not care to believe, do not even want be convinced to believe, unless there is real evidence that I can confirm but that can and will never happen.