Open Christian Vs. Atheist Debate. With Special Guests...The Deflection Artist and The Post Deleter! (Page 3)

Crash: While yes natural disasters don't speak to the origins of the universe mike. We were specifically speaking to the point you made about how the earth is perfectly designed for us. It isn't...that's just factual.

If you believe an all knowing , god, deity designed the earth.
99% of our water is undrinkable
72% of the EARTH we can't live on
Natural disasters and disease destroy us constantly

these are just a few things.....that an intelligent , competent designer might want to leave out. JS

TheDoctor394: Crash says: "I personally dismiss the bible as evidence for the simple fact that it is unverifiable and written 2000 years ago by warring tribesmen that didn't even know the earth revolved around the sun."

I'll also reply to this.

I would like to ask what you mean by unverifiable. I would also point out that, while the OT was penned by those who were in the midst of regular war, I don't see how that means they cannot be trustworthy with what they write. That would dismiss anyone in any fighting force in history. Also, the NT was not penned by "warring tribesmen".

And I would also question why people who didn't know the earth revolved around the sun cannot be trusted in their writings. This is nonsense. If the Earth is still around in 2000 years time, there will be numerous discoveries made by then that we have no idea about now. Therefore, people from that time would be able to laugh at any writings today as not to be trusted because we didn't know this and that.

To look down on someone from history because of them having less knowledge that we have now is, unfortunately, a very common trait amongst humanity, and has probably always been so. It's not a very wise or respectful attitude to take.

shadowline: You're just restating the position in different words, Crash, and with the same purpose: to protect yourself. Asserting that there is not sufficient evidence to establish that there is a God is the same thing as asserting that there isn't one. All you need to do is consult a philosophical dictionary to see that.

The same thing is true of the opposite position, with the exception that theists seem to be willing to take on the responsibility of standing by what they say, rather than ducking and weaving with semantics.

Crash: Fair enough Doc. What I mean is ...the bible has yet to be verified by any external source. The writings of Josephus have been dismissed. The dead sea scrolls are but fragments. The Nag Hammadi Codices have yet to be fully translated as they are using a different dialect of ancient greek. The synoptic gospels and the Q gospels have been debunked. So my question is ...where is your external verification for the voracity of the bible.?

Crash: Sorry shadow...but you're just wrong there. Saying ... "I don't believe something because X" is absolutely NOT the same as saying " There is no something" ...That is just facile and incorrect logic.

Saying i don't believe in santa clause....and stating there is no santa clause aren't the same at all. and there is no ducking and weaving and it's not a semantic issue. It's just the way grammar and wordage works shadow. Really no getting around that.

I'm sorry if facts don't follow the narrative you want...but that's just the way it is.

Michael: How do you propose the Bible be verified by an external source?

Crash: "I don't believe in any God/s, because there is insufficient evidence for me to justify said belief." Is absolutely NOT the same as stating ....

"There is no God."

If you think those two Statements are the same or mean the same thing...or it's a "Semantic" duck and weave game.

You are illiterate.

Michael: I hope you find your evidence one day, Crash.

Crash: ty mike....and to answer your previous question.....

You would do that by having independent external verification that what the bible says is true...or at least can be trusted to a degree. That is just how science works. You can't just say "X is true because this book or I say so." Then expect people to believe you or take it seriously on your or a books word. That's just not how things work.

Which is why I consider religion a mass delusional state. Unfortunately.

Michael: Same could be said for any book by that logic. There are certain events that I didn't witness in history and the only way of knowing is the fact that some men or group of men wrote about it.

TheDoctor394: You're making very sweeping statements, Crash. The Dead Sea Scrolls are fragments. That's normal for documents going back that far. Written fragments of antiquity, either Biblical or otherwise, have been found throughout history, and continue to be found. That hardly means they cannot be trusted. Are you expecting them to be bound in book form?

And you say Josephus' writings have been dismissed, and the Synoptic Gospels have been debunked. I'm sure they have - by some. But there are plenty of others who have entirely different views. We need to read the arguments for and against.

Crash: Most ...yes NOT ALL...but most historical records can be verified by at least one other source. The bible cannot.

Crash: I agree doc....however there is no objective consensus on the matter. So until there is definitive verification, evidence ....and dare I say proof. I will reserve my blind belief. Sorry that's just how I feel.

Michael: Then this argument, as always, is circular and pointless. We all go away thinking the same as we did going into it.

Crash: Meh...I wouldn't say pointless. Nor Circular. There is always good points and discussion to be had. Even if neither sides position can be definitively proven.

TheDoctor394: Well yes, there are biases no matter who views this subject. But we have to decide one way or the other. We need to take into account those who are writing, as well as our own personal views, and keep them in consideration when studying such matters.

But you've just said these have been dismissed, those have been dismissed, which are just absurd sweeping statements, and go against mountains of scholarly work on the subject that has been going on for centuries. It's just not that simple.

Crash: Agreed....I should revise my statement to say...they have been dismissed by many in the Philosophical , Historical and Scientific realm. Also some Jewish and Christian Scholars dismiss their voracity. However yes, you are correct...not all do. So ....there's that.

Crash: Still though....most of these writings simply confirm the existence of a man called Jesus. Simply a man. None that I have perused speak to a divine nature. So there is also that. It could be conceded that a man named Jesus did in fact exist. However there is nothing other than the bible to back up claimed divinity. None that I am aware of anyways. Perhaps you know some. If so I would be interested in reading them.

Michael: Have you researched the Shroud of Turin? If not, give it a read when you get time. Just some interesting information.

Crash: The shroud has been thoroughly debunked Mike...of that I am positive.

Michael: By whom?

Crash: lol basically everyone ....google the shroud of turin ...you will see. seriously give it a google.

Michael: I accept that there is a possibility of fakes and hoaxes.

Crash: ok ...YES there are those that STILL believe it is genuine....however they are in the minority.

Michael: There's the discoveries of the giant bones that are discussed in the Bible. That can be debated if it's true or not. Also, the Bible doesn't dismiss dinosaurs. It just doesn't say the word dinosaurs. There's a possible discovery of Noah's ark. All sorts of good stuff to look into. Yes, they could be a hoax but worth looking into.