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.

[NoSex]

[quote=mipadi]
I don't see how your mentality is any different from that of evangelical Christians.
[/quote]

As a rationalist I try my best to be as dispassionate and reasonable as I can when examining any kind of proposition. Many atheists do this, many do not. Many theists do this as well, while others do not.

You continue to jump to hasty generalizations.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
Both are a mentality that basically says, "I'm right, you're wrong, now I must convert you to save you from yourself."
[/quote]

I never said that. Infact, quite the contrary:

[QUOTE]However, it isn't so much important that an individual become an atheist. That is not exactly my goal. Such a goal would be rather naive. As you said, it is not that likely that a man can change another's religious convictions. My main goal is to cause individuals to think. Just to ask questions, probe away at their religion and the religion of others. Rationalism isn't so much about conclusions as it is about how one reaches and holds those conclusions. So long as you honestly think about what you believe, and examine those beliefs, I would be very pleased.[/QUOTE]

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
Neither seems to approach the issue with an open mind.
[/quote]

Another sweeping generalization. I have met many on both sides that do, and many on both sides that do not.


[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
By noting how you have converted numerous people to your viewpoint, I think you emphasize my assertion that you're not so much finding [i]the truth as asserting your "truth", which I find as elitist as the attitudes of Christian evangelists.[/I]
[/quote]

Way to pull a straw man and dangle it infront of everyone. I was simply responding to your comment about how unlikely it is to change someones religious convictions. Allthough it is not common, it is not as rare as you made it out to be. I have never militantly roamed about church parking lots searching for "victims." Most of my converts arrived after casual and civil discussion between friends.


[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
I don't like the religious debate because there is no way to prove one view or another "right" or "wrong".
[/quote]

That's not so. The negative existential proposition can be proven. It isn't an impossibility.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
A search for truth--not really. How are you ever going to find the truth to religious perspective?
[/quote]

It seems that I may have been at fault by throwing out the word "truth" so lightly. It was not my intent to trivialize the complexities of religious debate. I don't mean to. However, my own personal opinion is that of rationalism.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
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.).
[/quote]

I don't need to convert others. I'm very comfortable with my religious convictions. I do happily coexist with people who hold different beliefs. Are you implying that since I think the debate is important, and enjoy participating in it that I must be insecure with my convictions?

If so, it seems highly fallacious, not to mention unnecessary.

This is a debate, why not share your religious convictions? Why do you have to enter into the thread to declare how worthless the debate is?

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
I think that a need to evangelize others to whatever belief one holds is more elitist (and more insecure) than I prefer to be.
[/quote]

At this very moment you seem the most insecure and elitist. You enter the thread only to declare how worthless it is. How futile and naive we are to even discuss such a topic. I'm not so sure anyone has a need to evangelize others. But, why do you feel the need to note that your absence of relevant and substantial posts somehow denotes your comfortability with your religious convictions while our open dialouge on the matter somehow denotes our insecurities?

This thread seems to mainly revolve around the historical accuracy of the Bible. Something that can definately be intelligently debated. How about you join in? I'm sure you have plenty to contribute. If not, don't bother it. Be constructive.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
A search for "the truth" need not involve the conversion of others.
[/quote]

Yeah. We know.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
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".
[/quote]

Ok. This is a mess of an epistemological stance.

Even if religion could not be proven, there would still be a truth value behind any ontological statement.

X either exists, or X does not exist.

The truth of either of the above statments is not a subjective matter. Just because the experiences and perspectives of people differ, does not mean that the truth of a given proposition can be swayed by such experience or perspective. To put it simply, what people believe has nothing to do with what is.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
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.
[/quote]

I'm happy with my own discoveries. I don't feel the need to convert others to my personal beliefs. I still enjoy debate.


[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
Basically, few religious debates are about a search for truth.
[/quote]

And others debates are? You seem to imagine that most people all have secret alterior motives when coming into a religious debate. Alterior motives that are blaringly different than any other?

As you have presented your argument, it seems rather nonspecific. I could apply it to nearly any philosophical debate. Somehow, I don't think you are against all such debates. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So, what exactly do you have against religious debate? Why do you feel the need to voice such feelings in active threads, when they are blaringly counter-productive?

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
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.
[/quote]

If anyone seems elitist here, it's you. Somehow, you know that no search for "real" truth and meaning are present in religious debate. However, you seem to imply that there are other philosophical debates which do have such a search. How can you tell? How are you so wise to differentiate those debates which are honest searches, and those that are psuedointellectual flexing?

And, why do you feel the need to point it out? Why is it so important to disrupt the "phony" search? Maybe you're doing some of that flexing yourself.