What do u think:, is the bible all bullsh!t? Options

[add1cted2f1re]

Ok, we read this story called Gilgamesh if you haven't read it, google it. But basically its about this guy who wants to be immortal, and his dad tells him that one of the gods told him that a giant flood was coming to wipe out humanity.
(sound familiar?)
well... guess what he did? yep, he made a boat, filled it with his family and animals. then, when they grounded, he set out a bird to find land. blah blah blah, he repopulates the earth.

ok... now tell me that doesnt sound familiar.

I think the bible is full of crap. Whoever wrote it (probably a group of ppl) just got ideas from old stories. and dont say that the bible was written before Gilgamesh because Gilgamesh was written in early the BC's (like 2000bc)

anyone care to argue

i dont want to hear all you all calling athesiest and crap... cuz im not .

i believe in... a higher power, but i just think the bible is a bunch of nonsense

[*mipadi*]

I don't see how your mentality is any different from that of evangelical Christians. Both are a mentality that basically says, "I'm right, you're wrong, now I must convert you to save you from yourself." Neither seems to approach the issue with an open mind. By noting how you have converted numerous people to your viewpoint, I think you emphasize my assertion that you're not so much finding the truth as asserting your "truth", which I find as elitist as the attitudes of Christian evangelists.

I don't like the religious debate because there is no way to prove one view or another "right" or "wrong". A search for truth--not really. How are you ever going to find the truth to religious perspective?

I'm comfortable enough in my religious convictions (or lack thereof) that I don't need to convert others; I can coexist with people of a different mindset quite happily, as long as their beliefs don't intrude upon my own (through government policy, etc.). I think that a need to evangelize others to whatever belief one holds is more elitist (and more insecure) than I prefer to be. A search for "the truth" need not involve the conversion of others. Something as abstract as "the truth" as it applies to a religious debate cannot exist; it differs from person to person based on their experiences and perspectives, because religion cannot be "proven". One can use discussion with others to shape their own "truth", but I think if one is truly interested in finding "the truth", one will be happy with their own enlightenment, and should not feel a need to convert others to their own personal beliefs.

Basically, few religious debates are about a search for truth. As you have shown, most participants in such a debate already believe themselves to be correct--and more often than not, they only engage in debate to elevate themselves intellectually above the "competition". To that I say no thanks. When there is an intelligent discussion with a search for real truth and meaning, I'll take it seriously.