Do you think by writing books about god not existing religious people reconsider about their ideas?

Manami,
“Do you think by writing books about god not existing religious people reconsider about their ideas?”

Books have been written on this subject. One of them is called “The Mistakes of Jesus” by William Floyd. Floyd actually uses the Bible to deny itself.

You can read the entire book online here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/william_floyd/mistakes_of_jesus.html

Here are some excepts:

Excerpt 1:
“The original evidence for the virgin birth is found only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, two unknown historians, and both these evangelists implicitly deny their own tale when they trace the descent of Jesus from David through Joseph.”

Here Floyd shows that the authors (Matthew and Luke) contradict themselves by first claiming that Jesus was born of a virgin, and then proclaiming Jesus inherited right to be the King of Israel by tracing the lineage of King David to Joseph. But they just got done saying that Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father! They contradict their own story.

Excerpt 2:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come ... Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." [Matt. xxiv, 74-34; Luke xxi, 32.] "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." [Mark i, 15.] "So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." ["Mark xiii, 29-30.]”

Mark and Matthew both have Jesus declaring that the end of the world will occur before their generation has passed. But that never happened. Yet people are still waiting for it some 2000 years later. Obviously Jesus was wrong.

On Belief In Prayer:

There is also a small section on “BELIEF IN PRAYER” in which Floyd points out undeniable proof that Jesus lied. What Jesus claimed to be true is quite obviously not true. Pure and simple.

Excerpt 3:
“After enumerating the many hardships that must be endured by his followers, Jesus contradicted himself by saying, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." [Matt xi, 30.]”

Jesus contradicting himself. His followers must endure heavy hardships, but his yoke is easy and his burden is light?

Other contradictions are also given in Floyd’s book.

I haven’t read the book in it’s entirety, and I’m not the least bit interested in discussing it. I’ve rejected the biblical picture of God as being completely contradictive and inconsistent from reading just the Old Testament alone. I personally have no need for any further evidence of it’s inconsistencies.

All I can say is evolution does exist and there is proof of it everywhere you look. When people are born with deformitys that they got form nowhere in their family line what is that called. Why would monkeys still exist if humans evolved from them? Because different types of the same species split off when evolution occurs. The lesser of the spilt still has the means of survival so why would they die off?

I don't believe in evolution theory, I believe in the big bang theory. God spoke and BANG it happened.

ghostoftruth,

==============================================================
Why would monkeys still exist if humans evolved from them? Because different types of the same species split off when evolution occurs. The lesser of the spilt still has the means of survival so why would they die off?
==============================================================

Actually, according to the Theory of Evolution, humans evolved from a common ancestor of the great apes. Monkeys have nothing to do with human evolution, according to accepted Evolution theory. If you really support Evolution, then you should do some reading up on it, so that you know what you beleive. Not trying to be rude, but it seems strange that someone would support Evolution and not know understand the theory.

>When people are born with deformitys that they got form nowhere in their family line what is that called.

Well ghostoftruth I am the parent of one of those children born with deformities...

Over the past few years I had people tell me to my face in front of her that it happened because of my sins.

Is that christian like?? Nah that is pure ignornace....

It is a genetic anomaly with no known carrier for us, but most cal it just genetic anomaly... I won't go into specifics due to the thread topic, but since when has that stopped anyone LOL

Honestly would I take a magic wand and reverse it all? The doctors, the surgeries, the fricking heartache and consequences of her life and those around her?? No. Everything has happened for a reason. So while they call it a genetic anomally, I call it a Blessing... damn near close to a Miracle, but I think you gots to clear that through the Catholic church to be recognized as such and all the parents of children touched with this, a children born with a genetic anomally, might turn the Catholic church for a loop....and history thus re-written....

And the Theory of Evolution:

Facts and theories are different things. We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution(the genome project)(biological evolution) that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

mutation, gene flow, genetic drifting and natural selection

+

3.8 billion years

=

macroevoltion

based on history of life of geology, fossils, and living organisms....

and the BIG BANG Theory....

Can you imagine God sitting in the dark thinking all this shyt up and decide hhhmmmmm there needs to be light and BANG there it was?????

Do I still believe there is one source? yes..... and I raise my glass of wine and toast him.... and grateful for awesome grapes of Australia...lol

ive always wondered y people dont just think that god made evolution happen the way we r figuring it out

lizardking19,

Evolution doesn't change my belief in God. There are many Christians who are "Old Earth" creationists, who believe that God created the universe and allowed Evolution to create humankind. To be honest, the support isn't there for evolution. Every peice of evidence for evolution is also evidence of creation, it just depends on how you look at the evidence. But the opposite cannot be said of an athiest evolutionist. If creation did happen, then it destroys everything they believe in.

If I made add my 2 cents (which has recently dropped to 1.5 cents with the decline of the dollar)....

I don't think we came from either. If I remember correctly, man did not evolve from monkeys. Ugh, I wish I could remember exactly but monkeys and humans actually split from the same ancestor such that humans and monkeys evolved down separate paths. But if you go backwards they arrive at the same point with a common primate ancestor.

P.S. Mmmm, bananas.

LOL on currency decline

You are correct on genetics for spilt of monkey vs man.

The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence, but the chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced thus no real comparisons have been made...

Goes back to intelligent design... I really see evolution happening even among the homo sapien branch.... proof?

Read the posts....sheessssssshhh LOL JK

Spider wrote:
”Actually, according to the Theory of Evolution, humans evolved from a common ancestor of the great apes. Monkeys have nothing to do with human evolution, according to accepted Evolution theory. If you really support Evolution, then you should do some reading up on it, so that you know what you beleive. Not trying to be rude, but it seems strange that someone would support Evolution and not know understand the theory.”

GhostofTruth did not say that we evolved from monkey Spider. He simply responded to someone else’s question asking why monkeys are still here. His explanation was quite valid and true, and did not imply that man evolved from monkeys.

Secondly, many people refer to the great apes as monkeys. It may not be technically correct, but that’s no big deal, people KNOW what is meant. Only you pick on insignificant details like that because you have nothing to offer the real topic. You’re always trying to hide in the details which you get wrong 99% of the time anyway.

If you’re religious faith requires that you don’t believe in evolution I can only say that I feel sorry for you because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and will never be overturned.

However, I’m sure that you would like to side track the whole issue into the stupid technicality that all of the evidence for evolution doesn’t “prove” evolution. All it does is provide a myriad of evidence that supports that conclusion. This is true, this is precisely what it does, and there doesn’t seem to be any other conclusion to draw.

You said yourself that if death occurred before Adam and Eve then the whole of the Bible would be false. That was your own proclamation. Well, you don’t even need to believe in evolution to know that death occurred before man arrived on the scene. We do have undisputable evidence that lower life forms and animals did indeed live and DIE before man came onto the scene.

So there you have it. The Bible’s story is wrong by your own proclamation. Death did occur before mankind was on the scene, and therefore Adam and Eve could not have been created in a ‘perfect’ world that they screwed up by they ‘sin’.

By your very own criteria you’ve shown that the book you are trying to support is bogus. And this conclusion doesn't even depend on whether evolution has occurred or not.

EVERYBODY knows that dinosaur fossils are really just old pig bones...but on the other hand, bananas really are the breakfast of champion primates!

An essential quality of debating, is the essential openness to the aspects of deliberation and consideration.

As such, a topic that is debatable, is by definition 'open to question', given that the all topics sit on a legitimate fondation of some doubt.

The purpose of the debate IS NOT to eliminate the doubt, but to take it in consideration, through open minded deliberations, such that, in spite of the doubt, it becomes possible to weigh the pros and cons, and reflect about a decision, or choice to be made.

If one of the 'debators' has 'no doubts' about his position, the position is then said top be 'undebatable'.

While convictions can be debated, as long as they are not dogmatic, dogmas cannot. They hold no doubt whatsoever, which is the essential ingredient of the deliberative and debating process.

'Debating with fundamentalists' is an oxymoron! There is no possibility for a debate. Fundementalism doesn't give any lattitude to its adherents to sway form the dogma:

"THE BIBLE IS TO BE ACCEPTED LITERALLY AS AN INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE SPIRITUAL AND HISTORICAL DOCUMENT". Fundamentalism originates in a very strong early 20th century, and still persistent US Protestant movement, that invented, and keeps stressing this belief.

Given this dogmatic 'truth', in which fundamentalists believe, they cannot debate most any subjects, since most all subjects and topics are treated by their dogma, and 'cleansed' of any doubt.

No doubts = no questions = no deliberative discussion or open exchange = no debate!!! It's that simple.

It only takes one side, with the pretense of 'owning the truth' (no doubt), to turn a debate into propaganda slamming.

I personnally don't have any difficulty with people chosing to entertain dogma for their personnal life. I have problem though when these people pretend to engage in a debate, and refuse to check their fundamentalistic and doubtless dogma at the door. It is consciously or unconsiously dishonest.

If one wishes to evangilize or pontificate, which is essentially a need to tell others what his truths are, one should simply annouce it in his opening post: 'this is a pontificating or evangelical thread: no questions raised, only answers. DEBATORS NEED NOT APPLY!'.

IMO, one can have interests, convictions and beliefs in certain religious tenants, while maintaining freedom of thought and conscience, and debate open mindedly about all topics.

It is unfortunately not the case with 'fundamentalists', whom invariably exchange freedom of thought and conscience for religious dogmatic truths.

Evolution is not based on belief, or dogma, or faith, or 'abosulte answers'. The Bible is!

And the Bible is not based on fact, science, or raising strings of rational questions, providing powerful understanding and insights (more questions). Science and evolution are.

Although it is hard to fathom, IMO asking a fundamentalist to consider the overwhleming presence of evolution, would be a bit like asking him to consider living wihtout breathing. Evolution contradicts his 'litteral-bible-breathing-truth', and leaves no freedom to consider or juggle with, much less accept any form of contradictions, or doubts about his dogma.

No debate possible!








I don't have a problem with people's beliefs.

There is a wonderful paradox that is essential to all successful debates.

One needs to appear positional: defend a position: one side of the debate, with unconditionnal conviction, while being totally open to his opponents arguments, such that the two sides combined, provide a 'third' dimension which becoms the rich result of all successful debates.

A failed debate, would be the result of only one of the two debators whom would have no interest in the topic itself: the two sides of the debate, and would forcefully intend to impose his view as the only 'worthy' side of te topic. A systematic unwillingness to integrate and acknowledge his opponent's side of the argument, and build on it with his counter arguments, is an obvious sign of a pontifical, rather than a debating exercise.

The converstaion takes the form of a sclerosed argument between two or more parties. Regardless of the opinions, infomation, arguments made, only the static positions are prevalent.

In the instance of this thread, if we called it a propaganda thread, we would be closer to the truth. Anyhow, calling it a 'debate' is a gross perversion. There is no exchange going on. There is only ONE position: one must accept that the bible is the source of all thruths. That's it. There is no debate such 'do you accept the bible as the sort of all thruths,

attempting to impose a the bible a the source of all 'facts', and couter arguments which claim that it is not

there was a big explosion and thats how life started in this universe and that is it.

Sorry!

Everything AFTER:

"... No debate possible!..."

was a first draft wich I failed in deleting. Hope this explains that!

S1owhand wrote:
“EVERYBODY knows that dinosaur fossils are really just old pig bones...but on the other hand, bananas really are the breakfast of champion primates!”

Everyone knows that bananas evolved from pregnant grapes!

Pigs were created by a divine roll in the hay by Ms. Piggy and Mr. Bones. They never married and that’s why Hell was created. Even though it turns out that to marry is actually more Hell than to not marry, but that’s an inconsistency that theologians are still working on and hoping to resolve.

Observations made by realists are irrelevant because everyone who makes observations is obviously stupid and doesn’t know what they are talking about. I can prove this unequivocally because it is my opinion and I won’t consider any other opinions. (end of proof)

So there!

Bless your little piggies and have a nice banana.

well if jesus has a genealogy then why does he not have dna?

He took his DNA to heaven with him to be used as evidence against those who thought he was a banana.

Hey,... at least that makes as much sense as the rest of the story.

Darwin himself accepted Christ into his heart tuwards the end of his life. we don't hear that much. He wrote about his changed life as well. So much for heavy burdens being lifted... he found the easy yoke and light burden.

Abra, the lineage is thought the mother!! and the generation of man is the issue. See Genesis...in hebrew..."and the earth was without form and void"

here's to endless debate

spider.. i guess you and i know a TRUE RELIGION (like evolution) when we see it. The fossil record, the scientific evidence and common sense all agree we didnt come from the aomeba. Its the intelectualls that cannot see the truth sometimes. The types who write a book for an answer to a post. ( kinda makes me wonder why they have so much time)
To compare these two theories, we must admit that creationism has stood for millinea, constantly challenged and never disproved and evolution has itself evolved,been subject to fraud, misconceptions and more. Its based on a flawed premise and bad math, so any conclusions drawn can only be faulty. one of the largest movements in the scientific community right now is away from evolutionism, which doesent stand up to the scientific method when examined objectivly.