Science Negates All of Abrahamic Religions

@kellyjay said
Exactly they were all copies of the same thing, they were copies found from different times and places in different languages leading back to a single source the originals. We have far few copies of Homer's Iliad the books of the NT and you trust the copies of that work to be authentic?

You making the claim that the eyewitness were not the ones writing the new testament ...[text shortened]... the authenticity of the scriptures' writers, the only reason not to is you don't want it to be true.

The main reason you accept it appears to be that you want it to be true.

If there were no promise of personal immortality, would you believe all the rest of it?

@moonbus said
The main reason you accept it appears to be that you want it to be true.

If there were no promise of personal immortality, would you believe all the rest of it?

The truth is true not because I or anyone gets something out of it, it is true completely independent of how I feel about it. You suggesting it is not because you get something out it?

@kellyjay said
The truth is true not because I or anyone gets something out of it, it is true completely independent of how I feel about it. You suggesting it is not because you get something out it?

He asked a good question which you sidestepped. If there were no promise of personal immortality, would you believe all the rest of it?

@kellyjay said
The truth is true not because I or anyone gets something out of it, it is true completely independent of how I feel about it. You suggesting it is not because you get something out it?

Hypothetically, suppose God appeared to you and you had no doubt whatsoever that it was really God, and suppose He said, "Kelly, I'm really sorry, but there is no eternal life for you; you will live only this one life, die, and stay dead. But I still want you to follow the Ten Commandments." Would you do that? Would you follow the Ten Commandments, knowing there would be no eternal consequences?

@moonbus said
Hypothetically, suppose God appeared to you and you had no doubt whatsoever that it was really God, and suppose He said, "Kelly, I'm really sorry, but there is no eternal life for you; you will live only this one life, die, and stay dead. But I still want you to follow the Ten Commandments." Would you do that? Would you follow the Ten Commandments, knowing there would be no eternal consequences?

He wouldn’t; just as long as he didn’t lose face and could still double down on all the Jesus burning non Christians in hell absurdity.

@divegeester said
He wouldn’t; just as long as he didn’t lose face and could still double down on all the Jesus burning non Christians in hell absurdity.

Give him time, he may yet answer.

@moonbus said
Hypothetically, suppose God appeared to you and you had no doubt whatsoever that it was really God, and suppose He said, "Kelly, I'm really sorry, but there is no eternal life for you; you will live only this one life, die, and stay dead. But I still want you to follow the Ten Commandments." Would you do that? Would you follow the Ten Commandments, knowing there would be no eternal consequences?

Hypothetically, seriously why don't you just stick to those things that have a place in reality? Every religious text can be wrong, but they cannot all be right! How do we know? You are passing judgment that they are relative, they are all just religious words that do not align with reality. Your reasoning I hope has more to do with looking at these things critically consistently than just your "feelings."

@kellyjay said
Every religious text can be wrong, but they cannot all be right! How do we know?

Excellent question.

How do you personally know?

@kellyjay said
Hypothetically, seriously why don't you just stick to those things that have a place in reality? Every religious text can be wrong, but they cannot all be right! How do we know? You are passing judgment that they are relative, they are all just religious words that do not align with reality. Your reasoning I hope has more to do with looking at these things critically consistently than just your "feelings."

What is your faith or belief other than just feelings? You have never witnessed your god, you have never seen a talking snake, the Bible is 'just religious words that do not align with reality.' Everyone here aside from you is looking at your religion critically.

Finally you understand.

@indonesia-phil said
What is your faith or belief other than just feelings? You have never witnessed your god, you have never seen a talking snake, the Bible is 'just religious words that do not align with reality.' Everyone here aside from you is looking at your religion critically.

Finally you understand.

You think what you believe is better, seriously, have you seen everything spring from nothing, or how an indifferent, mindless, goalless process could put together everything we see taking place in life, today? The thing is, depending on our worldview narratives which one best describes what we see today? I have no problem saying that the spiritual activities done by God and Satan are credible when the narrative is taken seriously as true. What you don't have is a narrative that describes what we see in the here and now, which I have to say should be of greater concern to you than a singular event involving spiritual beings. The story of scripture does explain the world as it is, you got what?

@kellyjay said
What you don't have is a narrative that describes what we see in the here and now.

The people you are talking to here [or petulantly not talking to, for that matter] mostly don't believe that YOU have a narrative that "describes what we see in the here and now" either. So there we have it.

@kellyjay said
The thing is, depending on our worldview narratives which one best describes what we see today?

Your "worldview narrative" that the world is only 6,000 years old doesn't measure up against "what we see today" at all. You have zero evidence, in fact. Your insistence that Genesis is "the best explanation" is not evidence of anything other than what your personal mindset just so happens to be.

@kellyjay said
You think what you believe is better, seriously, have you seen everything spring from nothing, or how an indifferent, mindless, goalless process could put together everything we see taking place in life, today? The thing is, depending on our worldview narratives which one best describes what we see today? I have no problem saying that the spiritual activities done by God a ...[text shortened]... t involving spiritual beings. The story of scripture does explain the world as it is, you got what?

There are no narratives in nature. Häsnel und Gretl is a narrative. Through the Looking Glass is a narrative. The Bible is a narrative. Narratives are stories. Nature tells no stories; stories are made up by humans, for humans.

@moonbus said
There are no narratives in nature. Häsnel und Gretl is a narrative. Through the Looking Glass is a narrative. The Bible is a narrative. Narratives are stories. Nature tells no stories; stories are made up by humans, for humans.

You tell a lot of them.

@moonbus said
There are no narratives in nature. Häsnel und Gretl is a narrative. Through the Looking Glass is a narrative. The Bible is a narrative. Narratives are stories. Nature tells no stories; stories are made up by humans, for humans.

We are the ones that use narratives to describe things, nature as the topic is simply the governing laws that all the material and immaterial things in the world run on. So when any one of us starts telling another about how they think what is going on in the universe, what is true or false in the universe, both sides of any discussion are presenting explanations that come from our explanatory abilities. Highlighting we are saying what we think is true, is avoiding the discussion, turning it into something more about us, than the universe itself, in other words, you are dodging.