Atheism is necessarily ignorance (no hate)

Summer of Love > Allah, God, Jehovah, Yahweh, What have you.

 

Unlike some people, I won't get my panties in a bunch if someone questions the existence of my invisible friends.

It's "embarrass". Normally when trying to appear intelligent, you spell words correctly.

 

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." - Arthur C. Clarke 1917 – 19 March 2008

 

LOL that's a kneeslapper...Considering the only one I see getting their panties in a bunch in here is you... While you might be a crusader of logic, this certainly doesn't exclude you from making plenty of illogical statements.

There is truth to that.

 

Eagerly awaiting you to show me each illogical statement I made, debunk it with sources cited. Before you start, "because I said so" is not a reason, nor a truth and the bible isn't a source. Ready? Go.

I suppose you can continue to say "Cool" or "Ok sure..." or even just paste an image each time you fail at debating.

 

Why would the Bible not be a source? If you are going to discredit it, then all other sources are discredited. Leaving you with hearsay and nothing more.

 

Nope, your wrong, I already checked. But you are funny so I will forgive you.
Ps, yes I checked out the stuff I learned through gnosis, its already out there, from euclidian geometry, to superstring theory and everything in between, through the magic of group/universal conciousness.
Einstein had the theory of relativity come to him through the same means, Archimedes figured out Archimedes principle through the same fashion.
This happens to smart people, you will just have to accept it.

 

what is the bible a source for?

some historical events, perhaps, if one can confidently distinguish facts from 'metaphors' and parables.

 

It has authors. It cites discussions, events and people. Not unlike billions of books around the world today that billions rely on.

 

Obviously you can cite it for some things, but when I ask how do YOU know that god always existed, obviously, the bible cannot be a source. That's like me citing a bed time story as proof of the big bang.

You don't see them for any number of reasons.

1. The elves aren't made of matter per say, but pixy dust. I know this because it's in MY bible.
2. You have to actually believe in Them for Them to show proof.
3. We as humans don't have a sense to see these said elves. These elves are on such a higher level than us, it's like trying to smell the color blue.

Ahh how I wish I was religious and could just make shit up like that all the time to answer anything I don't know.

 

Of course it can be a source. The reasons for why God exists is mentioned all over the Bible and a lot of the things we see around us reminds us of that. Not just things we see either. The Bible discusses what people will be like "in the last days" and even mentions the governmental powers and other world organisations that operate.

Citing a source is just a reference. It is very different to say "the Bible says this and says it is true" than it is to say "the Bible says this and it is true". Can you see the difference? One is citing a reference and the other is making an assumption or opinion based on citing.

 

Old Testament = Rehashed stories from Babylon and plagiarized stories from Gilgamesh. Hail Ur. Hail Babylon. Too bad that area has been skull****ed by everyone else after them.

 

You can phrase it however you want, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still just an opinion of a person that lived 2,000 years ago. If we could cite the bible as an accurate source, than that makes Noah's Arch and all the other ridiculous things absolutely true? I can afterall cite the bible as a source suggesting it happened..

 

I'd like a dollar for every time I have heard that story about rehashed and plagiarized stories from Gilgamesh. It's just that. A story. I guess it's the same way you look at the Bible huh?

 

A person? Try 40 people from all different backgrounds and cultures and over 1600 years. Let's not change the subject of discussion here. We were talking about citing as a source, not so much the actual content of that source.

Here's an example:

Bob quote's Jim's comments on the News about "Blah blah blah!" and cites the source at http://www.citedsource.com.com.com.

Here's the facts about this source. It is a reference point for what Jim commented and it is cited by Bob. This does not mean the content of the source is to be agreed or not if it is factual or not. It's just a source. Got it?

Now apply that logic to how the Bible is a source to be cited for spiritual matters. It is no different, regardless if you think the content of the Bible is wrong or right.

The Bible's accuracy is quite good though. Go look up details about Cyrus when the city of Babylon was overthrown and who was ruling Babylon at that time. Is it not accurate? Is it not backed up by other historical evidence? That's just one event. There are many other's just like this. The Bible's credibility can only be seen by those willing to spend the time analysing everything written in it to find out if these things are so.

Just because Professor Must Speak says the Bible is not credible because of this, this and that, does in no way mean what he says is true.

 

That's totally fine, and I agree with you. However, when I ask for you to prove something, it needs to be a factual reference. I guess it's a pointless argument really since there's obviously none (which I guess is my point across this thread heh).

Vista had to have been written by around 1600 people with all different backgrounds and cultures over around 6 years. Doesn't make it absolute truth, nor is it relevant.

 

I have to disagree that agnosticism is more advanced than atheism. Agnosticism is a philosophical viewpoint. One can be both an atheist and an agnostic (or a theist and agnostic) at the same time. If I say that I do not know there is a god but I believe there is no god then I am both an atheist and an agnostic.

As far as this last bit, I will say one thing about the Bible....

 

All Hail the Paper Cup God.

 

[*]The elves aren't made of matter per say, but pixy dust. I know this because it's in MY bible.[*]
Well I dont believe that because my gnostic instinct tells me your lying..

[*]You have to actually believe in Them for Them to show proof.[*]
Plausable, although im actually fairly sure they would be more likely to be in my sock drawer as my socks keep going missing.


[*]We as humans don't have a sense to see these said elves. These elves are on such a higher level than us, it's like trying to smell the color blue.[*]
Well retranslated that could be "10 dimensional superstring theory dictates that our universe exists in parallell and overlapping an infinate possible ammount of universes, and probabliliy dictates that at some level there are actually elves in my fridge.
Hang on thats weird, I can now hear something in my kitchen.
Oh my god, I bow to your intuitive abilities, no matter how latent, its like shouthpark with its hidden spiritual meanings.

"the trick is tho have hidden meaning in the stuff you spout so that those who are aware will understand, and those that dont will just think your joking"

 

All the Athiests out there, how many of you have rejected the idea of a higher power because you see through the bull that is religion. And do you really think its smart rejecting the concept of a higher power because some mildly evolved monkeys cant come up with a decent explanation/understanding of this power in a way that can be spoon fed to the masses