- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Muslims are muslim because their fathers were muslim. Interesting!
Strawman: Atheists have become atheist because they believe in science and technology.
Lie: The big bang is mentioned in the koran.
Strawman: The atheist will say the 'mention of the big bang' is a fluke. No Fluke. The koran does not actually say that the universe began as the expansion of space-time.
Lie: No one knew about Moonlight being reflected sunlight. Aristotle knew 1000 years before the writing of the koran.
Lie: We did not know before 1597 that the earth was spherical. Pythagoras decided it was in the 6th Century BC, and it was Aristotle again who provided the evidence, again 1000 years before the koran.
Lie: The koran says that the earth is ostrich egg-shaped.
The earth is 'spread out':
Sura 79:30 And after that He spread the earth
Sura 88:17-20 And the earth, how it is spread ?Lie: The koran says that the sun rotates on its own axis. No mention of axial rotation here:
21:33 And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.
Lie: The koran says that the universe is expanding. No mention of expanding!
Sura 51:47 We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
Lie: The koran describes the water cycle.
Sura 39:21 Hast thou not seen how Allah hath sent down water from the sky and hath caused it to penetrate the earth as watersprings, and afterward thereby produceth crops of divers hues; and afterward they wither and thou seest them turn yellow; then He maketh them chaff. Lo! herein verily is a reminder for men of understanding.
Sura 30:24 And of His signs is this: He showeth you the lightning for a fear and for a hope, and sendeth down water from the sky, and thereby quickeneth the earth after her death. Lo! herein indeed are portents for folk who understand.
15:22 And We send the winds fertilising, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof.
23:18 And we send down from the sky water in measure, and We give it lodging in the earth, and lo! We are Able to withdraw it.
24:43 Hast thou not seen how Allah wafteth the clouds, then gathereth them, then maketh them layers, and thou seest the rain come forth from between them; He sendeth down from the heaven mountains wherein is hail, and smiteth therewith whom He will, and averteth it from whom He will. The flashing of His lightning all but snatcheth away the sight.
30:48 Allah is He Who sendeth the winds so that they raise clouds, and spreadeth them along the sky as pleaseth Him, and causeth them to break and thou seest the rain downpouring from within them. And when He maketh it to fall on whom He will of His bondmen, lo! they rejoice;
7:17 Then I shall come upon them from before them and from behind them and from their right hands and from their left hands, and Thou wilt not find most of them beholden (unto Thee).
—Looks like his memory failed him with that one—
25:48 And He it is Who sendeth the winds, glad tidings heralding His mercy, and We send down purifying water from the sky,
25:49 That We may give life thereby to a dead land, and We give many beasts and men that We have created to drink thereof.35:9 And Allah it is Who sendeth the winds and they raise a cloud; then We lead it unto a dead land and revive therewith the earth after its death. Such is the Resurrection.
36:34 And We have placed therein gardens of the date-palm and grapes, and We have caused springs of water to gush forth therein,
67:30 Say: Have ye thought: If (all) your water were to disappear into the earth, who then could bring you gushing water ?
86:11 By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,
Most of these sura mention clouds and rain! Two mention groundwater. NONE mentions evaporation, the only really invisible aspect of the water cycle. The koran says that WINDS bring clouds, which is WRONG! It knows nothing special about the water cycle at all.
Lie: There are two types of water: Sweet and salty. What about brackish water??
Some people use the word 'sweet' to mean fresh, but really, is the koran the first place we learn of saltwater?? Is it the first dramatic realisation that there are estuaries? Please.
Lie: The mountains prevent the earth from shaking.
Lie: Biology says we have created every living thing from water.
Lie: The koran talks about embryology. Don't see the word embryo here:
96:1 In the name of thy Lord Who createth,
96:2 Createth man from a clotThis is not the usual scientific description of conception, more like a load of poetic mythology:
23:12 Verily We created man from a product of wet earth;
23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging;
23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!Lie: the only reply an atheist can give you is 'the creator'.
Twelve lies. That is more than one a minute.
Islam: a religion built on lies and strawmen.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 18 2010,12:39) Muslims are muslim because their fathers were muslim. Interesting! Strawman: Atheists have become atheist because they believe in science and technology.
Lie: The big bang is mentioned in the koran.
Strawman: The atheist will say the 'mention of the big bang' is a fluke. No Fluke. The koran does not actually say that the universe began as the expansion of space-time.
Lie: No one knew about Moonlight being reflected sunlight. Aristotle knew 1000 years before the writing of the koran.
Lie: We did not know before 1597 that the earth was spherical. Pythagoras decided it was in the 6th Century BC, and it was Aristotle again who provided the evidence, again 1000 years before the koran.
Lie: The koran says that the earth is ostrich egg-shaped.
The earth is 'spread out':
Sura 79:30 And after that He spread the earth
Sura 88:17-20 And the earth, how it is spread ?Lie: The koran says that the sun rotates on its own axis. No mention of axial rotation here:
21:33 And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.
Lie: The koran says that the universe is expanding. No mention of expanding!
Sura 51:47 We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
Lie: The koran describes the water cycle.
Sura 39:21 Hast thou not seen how Allah hath sent down water from the sky and hath caused it to penetrate the earth as watersprings, and afterward thereby produceth crops of divers hues; and afterward they wither and thou seest them turn yellow; then He maketh them chaff. Lo! herein verily is a reminder for men of understanding.
Sura 30:24 And of His signs is this: He showeth you the lightning for a fear and for a hope, and sendeth down water from the sky, and thereby quickeneth the earth after her death. Lo! herein indeed are portents for folk who understand.
15:22 And We send the winds fertilising, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof.
23:18 And we send down from the sky water in measure, and We give it lodging in the earth, and lo! We are Able to withdraw it.
24:43 Hast thou not seen how Allah wafteth the clouds, then gathereth them, then maketh them layers, and thou seest the rain come forth from between them; He sendeth down from the heaven mountains wherein is hail, and smiteth therewith whom He will, and averteth it from whom He will. The flashing of His lightning all but snatcheth away the sight.
30:48 Allah is He Who sendeth the winds so that they raise clouds, and spreadeth them along the sky as pleaseth Him, and causeth them to break and thou seest the rain downpouring from within them. And when He maketh it to fall on whom He will of His bondmen, lo! they rejoice;
7:17 Then I shall come upon them from before them and from behind them and from their right hands and from their left hands, and Thou wilt not find most of them beholden (unto Thee).
—Looks like his memory failed him with that one—
25:48 And He it is Who sendeth the winds, glad tidings heralding His mercy, and We send down purifying water from the sky,
25:49 That We may give life thereby to a dead land, and We give many beasts and men that We have created to drink thereof.35:9 And Allah it is Who sendeth the winds and they raise a cloud; then We lead it unto a dead land and revive therewith the earth after its death. Such is the Resurrection.
36:34 And We have placed therein gardens of the date-palm and grapes, and We have caused springs of water to gush forth therein,
67:30 Say: Have ye thought: If (all) your water were to disappear into the earth, who then could bring you gushing water ?
86:11 By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,
Most of these sura mention clouds and rain! Two mention groundwater. NONE mentions evaporation, the only really invisible aspect of the water cycle. The koran says that WINDS bring clouds, which is WRONG! It knows nothing special about the water cycle at all.
Lie: There are two types of water: Sweet and salty. What about brackish water??
Some people use the word 'sweet' to mean fresh, but really, is the koran the first place we learn of saltwater?? Is it the first dramatic realisation that there are estuaries? Please.
Lie: The mountains prevent the earth from shaking.
Lie: Biology says we have created every living thing from water.
Lie: The koran talks about embryology. Don't see the word embryo here:
96:1 In the name of thy Lord Who createth,
96:2 Createth man from a clotThis is not the usual scientific description of conception, more like a load of poetic mythology:
23:12 Verily We created man from a product of wet earth;
23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging;
23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!Lie: the only reply an atheist can give you is 'the creator'.
Twelve lies. That is more than one a minute.
Islam: a religion built on lies and strawmen.
Stuart
You have the atheist disease: No evidence of God is valid to you.You really have a serious sickness, how do you know what Aristotle said or did? You see how sick you are you believe anything unless it is evidence of God.
You could in no way no anything about Aristotle except what you have read and amazingly when you read that you believe it, How Sick!
However, Aristotle believed in God therefore you should believe that God exists.
Pythagoras also believed in God
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
Try this out STU
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 19 2010,14:23) You know you are losing the debate when you have to start insulting.
Actually I wasn't insulting anyone, but if stating my opinion in an objective way is insulting than I apologize.If you felt I was insulting you why didn't you report me yourself? Or ask me what I meant yourself, I didn't say anything to you that I had not already said to you and you know that.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 18 2010,22:28) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 19 2010,14:23) You know you are losing the debate when you have to start insulting.
Actually I wasn't insulting anyone, but if stating my opinion in an objective way is insulting than I apologize.If you felt I was insulting you why didn't you report me yourself? Or ask me what I meant yourself, I didn't say anything to you that I had not already said to you and you know that.
I do not report people unless I think they are committing a crime worthy of punishment. Insulting is not such a crime. But here ya go:Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 18 2010,18:15) You have the atheist disease: No evidence of God is valid to you. You really have a serious sickness, how do you know what Aristotle said or did? You see how sick you are you believe anything unless it is evidence of God.
You could in no way no anything about Aristotle except what you have read and amazingly when you read that you believe it, How Sick!
However, Aristotle believed in God therefore you should believe that God exists.
Pythagoras also believed in God
You could have responded to Stu without telling him he was sick.
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 20 2010,00:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 18 2010,22:28) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 19 2010,14:23) You know you are losing the debate when you have to start insulting.
Actually I wasn't insulting anyone, but if stating my opinion in an objective way is insulting than I apologize.If you felt I was insulting you why didn't you report me yourself? Or ask me what I meant yourself, I didn't say anything to you that I had not already said to you and you know that.
I do not report people unless I think they are committing a crime worthy of punishment. Insulting is not such a crime. But here ya go:Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 18 2010,18:15) You have the atheist disease: No evidence of God is valid to you. You really have a serious sickness, how do you know what Aristotle said or did? You see how sick you are you believe anything unless it is evidence of God.
You could in no way no anything about Aristotle except what you have read and amazingly when you read that you believe it, How Sick!
However, Aristotle believed in God therefore you should believe that God exists.
Pythagoras also believed in God
You could have responded to Stu without telling him he was sick.
Why is that he tells everyone here that we are halucinating all the time if that's the case he is calling believers sick.Atheism is a Disease and God says it is a condition of fools so if someone does not like me calling atheists fools then they reject the authority of God Himself because God Said:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 53:1-3Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 20 2010,22:25) “Atheism is a disease”. I wonder if a doctor can treat atheism?
It can be cured simply by applying a uniform way of thinking.For instance the same standard one uses to accept other historical information should be applied across the board.
Consider for instance that the Old Testament is a collection of books written by Jews about Jews and their relationship with God. Now, consider the negative information reported by these writers.
Would Jews independently write negative damning evidence against themselves such as their own continued disobedience of GOD If it were not true or did not happen?
If so, can you show me a comparable text that has done this?
Furthermore in the NT once again you have admission by Jews of killing Christ, this has caused them as a people to suffer untold misery. Would it make any sense whatsoever to sabotage your future interactions with others for no reason?
Even the Quran is a book that if not true would be perilous to present to the people of that day, alienating Jews on one hand by accepting Christ and the Virgin birth but on the other hand alienating Christians by stating that Christ was not killed or Crucified. Who would subject themselves to opposition and possible death and misery to come up with a book sure to not be accepted by any of that day.
These 3 examples are not writings seeking popularity but are written rather objectively in most cases.
Now if someone reads a book about Socrates or one of the greek philosophers how would they have any greater credibility?
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 20 2010,22:25) “Atheism is a disease”. I wonder if a doctor can treat atheism?
Maybe their practices are located on the same street as those who claim to treat homosexuality?Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 19 2010,11:22) http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Try this out STU
I clicked on “absolute truth does not exist”, then it asked me“Absolute Truth Does Not Exist…
Absolutely true —OR— False”
Neither of which reflects my opinion.
So was there a point to the link? Did you actually have a proof worth reading?
No, you don't actually know what you are writing about.
Stuart
BD
Quote It can be cured simply by applying a uniform way of thinking.
That is too sadly and obviously true, when you consider the intellectual brutality of islam.Quote For instance the same standard one uses to accept other historical information should be applied across the board.
Very happy to see you write it. I don’t expect you to do more than give lip service to it though, because you don’t actually understand what those standards are.Quote Consider for instance that the Old Testament is a collection of books written by Jews about Jews and their relationship with God.
Why would you do that? There is an unsubstantiated assertion here that there is a god with which a relationship is possible.Quote Now, consider the negative information reported by these writers. Would Jews independently write negative damning evidence against themselves such as their own continued disobedience of GOD If it were not true or did not happen?
WHAT GOD? This is the logical fallacy of circular logic. It assumes the god it is making a case for.[quolte]Furthermore in the NT once again you have admission by Jews of killing Christ, this has caused them as a people to suffer untold misery. Would it make any sense whatsoever to sabotage your future interactions with others for no reason?[/quote]
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good mythology, will you.Quote Even the Quran is a book that if not true would be perilous to present to the people of that day, alienating Jews on one hand by accepting Christ and the Virgin birth but on the other hand alienating Christians by stating that Christ was not killed or Crucified. Who would subject themselves to opposition and possible death and misery to come up with a book sure to not be accepted by any of that day.
Who indeed. And has it been perilous? Yes. Untold muslims have died because of the writings of their violent pedophilic prophet. Does that demonstrate that it is NOT TRUE? You should be careful with the falsifiable claims you do make.Quote These 3 examples are not writings seeking popularity but are written rather objectively in most cases.
Or are the writings of the deluded…Quote Now if someone reads a book about Socrates or one of the greek philosophers how would they have any greater credibility?
BECAUSE, there is a fundamental standard one uses to accept historical information[/b that requires CORROBORATION. If we use this in the way historians do, then the existence of Jesus should be taken with a grain of salt, and the existence of an angel talking to a religious prophet should be ignored as ridiculous. On the other hand, with Socrates you have Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes, writing independently and with no barrows to push! Now I like to think that we might be able to know things about history, but I am happy that there is always some uncertainty in these things, as there is with virtually everything (except mathematics). I am just as content if it turns out that Socrates did not exist (although you cannot prove a negative).Are you happy with uncertainty about the existence of Jesus? I am. What is the problem with the uncertainty about ancient figures?
Are you prepared to apply the standards of historical probity you proclaim here to your own beliefs? Or are we dealing with another example of hypocrisy?
You wrote this concerning your claim that ‘atheism is a disease’. Was there meant to be a justification? Where was it? Is this just another assertion on your part, followed by a random trip around all the apologist houses, littering logical fallacies behind you as you go?
Funny kind of disease if it leads atheists to a better standard of thinking and reasoning.
Stuart
Dear oh dear…attempt two:
Quote It can be cured simply by applying a uniform way of thinking.
That is too sadly and obviously true, when you consider the intellectual brutality of islam.Quote For instance the same standard one uses to accept other historical information should be applied across the board.
Very happy to see you write it. I don’t expect you to do more than give lip service to it though, because you don’t actually understand what those standards are.Quote Consider for instance that the Old Testament is a collection of books written by Jews about Jews and their relationship with God.
Why would you do that? There is an unsubstantiated assertion here that there is a god with which a relationship is possible.Quote Now, consider the negative information reported by these writers. Would Jews independently write negative damning evidence against themselves such as their own continued disobedience of GOD If it were not true or did not happen?
WHAT GOD? This is the logical fallacy of circular logic. It assumes the god it is making a case for.Quote Furthermore in the NT once again you have admission by Jews of killing Christ, this has caused them as a people to suffer untold misery. Would it make any sense whatsoever to sabotage your future interactions with others for no reason?
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good mythology, will you.Quote Even the Quran is a book that if not true would be perilous to present to the people of that day, alienating Jews on one hand by accepting Christ and the Virgin birth but on the other hand alienating Christians by stating that Christ was not killed or Crucified. Who would subject themselves to opposition and possible death and misery to come up with a book sure to not be accepted by any of that day.
Who indeed. And has it been perilous? Yes. Untold muslims have died because of the writings of their violent pedophilic prophet. Does that demonstrate that it is NOT TRUE? You should be careful with the falsifiable claims you do make.Quote These 3 examples are not writings seeking popularity but are written rather objectively in most cases.
Or are the writings of the deluded…Quote Now if someone reads a book about Socrates or one of the greek philosophers how would they have any greater credibility?
BECAUSE, there is a fundamental standard one uses to accept historical information that requires CORROBORATION. If we use this in the way historians do, then the existence of Jesus should be taken with a grain of salt, and the existence of an angel talking to a religious prophet should be ignored as ridiculous. On the other hand, with Socrates you have Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes, writing independently and with no barrows to push! Now I like to think that we might be able to know things about history, but I am happy that there is always some uncertainty in these things, as there is with virtually everything (except mathematics). I am just as content if it turns out that Socrates did not exist (although you cannot prove a negative).Are you happy with uncertainty about the existence of Jesus? I am. What is the problem with the uncertainty about ancient figures?
Are you prepared to apply the standards of historical probity you proclaim here to your own beliefs? Or are we dealing with another example of hypocrisy?
You wrote this concerning your claim that ‘atheism is a disease’. Was there meant to be a justification? Where was it? Is this just another assertion on your part, followed by a random trip around all the apologist houses, littering logical fallacies behind you as you go?
Funny kind of disease if it leads atheists to a better standard of thinking and reasoning.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 22 2010,17:09) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 19 2010,11:22) http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Try this out STU
I clicked on “absolute truth does not exist”, then it asked me“Absolute Truth Does Not Exist…
Absolutely true —OR— False”
Neither of which reflects my opinion.
So was there a point to the link? Did you actually have a proof worth reading?
No, you don't actually know what you are writing about.
Stuart
What do you mean neither reflects your opinion?Can Absolute truth not exist, sorta?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 22 2010,17:37) Dear oh dear…attempt two: Quote It can be cured simply by applying a uniform way of thinking.
That is too sadly and obviously true, when you consider the intellectual brutality of islam.Quote For instance the same standard one uses to accept other historical information should be applied across the board.
Very happy to see you write it. I don’t expect you to do more than give lip service to it though, because you don’t actually understand what those standards are.Quote Consider for instance that the Old Testament is a collection of books written by Jews about Jews and their relationship with God.
Why would you do that? There is an unsubstantiated assertion here that there is a god with which a relationship is possible.Quote Now, consider the negative information reported by these writers. Would Jews independently write negative damning evidence against themselves such as their own continued disobedience of GOD If it were not true or did not happen?
WHAT GOD? This is the logical fallacy of circular logic. It assumes the god it is making a case for.Quote Furthermore in the NT once again you have admission by Jews of killing Christ, this has caused them as a people to suffer untold misery. Would it make any sense whatsoever to sabotage your future interactions with others for no reason?
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good mythology, will you.Quote Even the Quran is a book that if not true would be perilous to present to the people of that day, alienating Jews on one hand by accepting Christ and the Virgin birth but on the other hand alienating Christians by stating that Christ was not killed or Crucified. Who would subject themselves to opposition and possible death and misery to come up with a book sure to not be accepted by any of that day.
Who indeed. And has it been perilous? Yes. Untold muslims have died because of the writings of their violent pedophilic prophet. Does that demonstrate that it is NOT TRUE? You should be careful with the falsifiable claims you do make.Quote These 3 examples are not writings seeking popularity but are written rather objectively in most cases.
Or are the writings of the deluded…Quote Now if someone reads a book about Socrates or one of the greek philosophers how would they have any greater credibility?
BECAUSE, there is a fundamental standard one uses to accept historical information that requires CORROBORATION. If we use this in the way historians do, then the existence of Jesus should be taken with a grain of salt, and the existence of an angel talking to a religious prophet should be ignored as ridiculous. On the other hand, with Socrates you have Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes, writing independently and with no barrows to push! Now I like to think that we might be able to know things about history, but I am happy that there is always some uncertainty in these things, as there is with virtually everything (except mathematics). I am just as content if it turns out that Socrates did not exist (although you cannot prove a negative).Are you happy with uncertainty about the existence of Jesus? I am. What is the problem with the uncertainty about ancient figures?
Are you prepared to apply the standards of historical probity you proclaim here to your own beliefs? Or are we dealing with another example of hypocrisy?
You wrote this concerning your claim that ‘atheism is a disease’. Was there meant to be a justification? Where was it? Is this just another assertion on your part, followed by a random trip around all the apologist houses, littering logical fallacies behind you as you go?
Funny kind of disease if it leads atheists to a better standard of thinking and reasoning.
Stuart
STU,The Bible is a collection of books written by several writers before they were compiled they were independent sources that corroborated with one another.
Your logic would suggest that if I read a collected work of Greek philosophers they would not be acceptable on corroborating views.
By the way, why didn't you finish the proof with that link.
If you believe that nothing is absolute you would have to believe in Absolute uncertainty, is that what you believe in?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 22 2010,19:40) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 22 2010,17:09) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 19 2010,11:22) http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Try this out STU
I clicked on “absolute truth does not exist”, then it asked me“Absolute Truth Does Not Exist…
Absolutely true —OR— False”
Neither of which reflects my opinion.
So was there a point to the link? Did you actually have a proof worth reading?
No, you don't actually know what you are writing about.
Stuart
What do you mean neither reflects your opinion?Can Absolute truth not exist, sorta?
If you cannot see why this is a nonsense, then I am afraid I cannot think of a way of putting it more simply, and therefore will not be able to help you with it.Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 22 2010,19:48) STU, The Bible is a collection of books written by several writers before they were compiled they were independent sources that corroborated with one another.
Your logic would suggest that if I read a collected work of Greek philosophers they would not be acceptable on corroborating views.
By the way, why didn't you finish the proof with that link.
If you believe that nothing is absolute you would have to believe in Absolute uncertainty, is that what you believe in?
You forget two things in your attempts to make out that scripture bears the hallmarks of reliable history.Firstly, you have not analysed the workings of the Council of Nicaea, or the islamic equivalent of a group of followers producing the koran some years after the death of he who dictated it, with additional hadith material that you appear to reject, in the same manner as the decisions of the Council of Nicaea.
Secondly, the books most certainly are not independent. Most of the new testament is written in the name of just two people, even though a lot of it is done by associates under those names. The gospels are anonymous, but bear all the marks of co-copying (if you will pardon the pun).
I don't get your point about philosophy. Are philosophy books meant to contain historical accounts?
Regarding certainty, I am a materialist, and an important principle of that view is Heisenberg's principle, which is a literal statement about the most fundamental particles and the uncertainty in knowing about them. So, is the question truth exists, but we will never know it, or that there is no such thing as truth? Well I think it is obvious that we cannot know it, so therefore asking whether it exists is as absurd as asking for proof of gods.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,08:16) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 22 2010,19:48) STU, The Bible is a collection of books written by several writers before they were compiled they were independent sources that corroborated with one another.
Your logic would suggest that if I read a collected work of Greek philosophers they would not be acceptable on corroborating views.
By the way, why didn't you finish the proof with that link.
If you believe that nothing is absolute you would have to believe in Absolute uncertainty, is that what you believe in?
You forget two things in your attempts to make out that scripture bears the hallmarks of reliable history.Firstly, you have not analysed the workings of the Council of Nicaea, or the islamic equivalent of a group of followers producing the koran some years after the death of he who dictated it, with additional hadith material that you appear to reject, in the same manner as the decisions of the Council of Nicaea.
Secondly, the books most certainly are not independent. Most of the new testament is written in the name of just two people, even though a lot of it is done by associates under those names. The gospels are anonymous, but bear all the marks of co-copying (if you will pardon the pun).
I don't get your point about philosophy. Are philosophy books meant to contain historical accounts?
Regarding certainty, I am a materialist, and an important principle of that view is Heisenberg's principle, which is a literal statement about the most fundamental particles and the uncertainty in knowing about them. So, is the question truth exists, but we will never know it, or that there is no such thing as truth? Well I think it is obvious that we cannot know it, so therefore asking whether it exists is as absurd as asking for proof of gods.
Stuart
So are you absolutely sure we cannot know absolute truth?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
