People with a religion, has any partof you religion make you step back and just ask "what the fuck?"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

keiskay:

pyrate:
You guys can argue over the details all you want, but the fact is there is considerable overlap between the Bible and previous mythology. There are many striking similarities in Greek mythology in creation for example. As it has already been mentioned, the story of Noah is a retelling of Babylonian flood myth.

To deny that the stories of Christianity were not in any way influenced by previous mythology is just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU".

yes well considering there are over 118 known ancient flood stories its not hard to draw that comparison.

@reonhato well i am going by the egyptian book of the dead and many modern egyptian pagan revival standards.

do you think its possible the writers of the bible maybe were going by different sources other than the book of the dead? like i have said there are multiple stories surrounding horus. hell sometimes he was born to hathor

I don't even think you guys are talking about the same Horus. There are several forms of Horus throughout Egyptian history.

Cakes:

reonhato:

keiskay:
and again you are wrong my good sir, isis had physical sex with horus father, she is not considered a virgin by any one other then the poor people who believe the zeitgeist film.

here is a step by step page that disproves your silly arguments http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

also would like to let you know reo that i cant quote you since i put you on ignore since you dont seem to want to engage in a genuine debate ever.

and again you are ignoring that there are multiple stories for horus, just because the most known today does not include a virgin birth does not mean that was always the case. of course i have already said this, but seeing as you dont actually want to debate because you couldnt possible be wrong you ignored

Give sources to back up your claims or STFU and admit most of your 'facts' are completely made up (since when was Horus baptised? Was that even a thing in Ancient Egypt?)

i will freely admit the baptising link is iffy at best, the main argument being a mistranslation, it still does not change the fact that the similarities between not just jesus and horus but jesus and numerous other mythological figures is far to great to be mere coincidence, especially combined with all the other copied material.

anyway, even if you want to ignore that the bible plagiarised it does not give the bible any more credence, it does not change the fact that the bible is filled with horse shit, false claims, unprovable claims and so on.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Polarity27:

That is, actually, an incredibly deep concept, if you think about how often leadership in modern times uses an "eating shit" metaphor. (Not that I won't evangelize it at the drop of a hat anyway, but you really need to see The Wire with a patron goddess like that. I think you'd get a lot out of it.) You can also go into how those on the bottom have to deal with *literal* shit, caring for the dead, caring for the elderly, cleaning our homes, shoveling the shit that the rest of us don't touch.

Doesn't make it any less weird :P

True. I just find that to be a particularly compelling weird. And that she would be a good goddess for politicians. :)

Polarity27:

BTW, the Romans had a similar goddess. Cloaca? Maybe?

Yeah. I've entertained the possibility that they are one and the same, but there isn't much evidence. [/quote]

No, that's not what I meant at all! You'll never hear me suggest that various gods are the same as other gods-- while there are instances of that which I find persuasive (Frau Holle as Frigga, for instance), I'm not qualified to make those claims, and I deeply detest the New Age tendency to see connections where none exist and to assert that gods are interchangeable based on their portfolios, as if culture matters not one whit.

I mainly brought it up in the sense that it can be illuminating to look at the cultural context and worship of gods who have similar qualities to the ones you follow-- not because they're the same, but because it can deepen your understanding of the one you follow and raise questions to ponder.

reonhato:

anyway, even if you want to ignore that the bible plagiarised it does not give the bible any more credence, it does not change the fact that the bible is filled with horse shit, false claims, unprovable claims and so on.

But it does expose your argument about the authenticity about Jesus for what it is, complete bullshit. Seriously come back when you have regimental claims that Jesus's story is a fabrication.

Volf:

reonhato:

anyway, even if you want to ignore that the bible plagiarised it does not give the bible any more credence, it does not change the fact that the bible is filled with horse shit, false claims, unprovable claims and so on.

But it does expose your argument about the authenticity about Jesus for what it is, complete bullshit. Seriously come back when you have regimental claims that Jesus's story is a fabrication.

its not my job to find evidence that the story of jesus is a fabrication, it is those who claim it is a real stories job to do that. even after centuries of an unimaginable amount of people trying no one has been able to prove jesus was even a real person yet alone he did was what said in the bible. my job with the claims i made was to show that some stories in the bible were similar to those from earlier mythology, something that is very easy to prove and has been done in the past.

reonhato:

Volf:

reonhato:

anyway, even if you want to ignore that the bible plagiarised it does not give the bible any more credence, it does not change the fact that the bible is filled with horse shit, false claims, unprovable claims and so on.

But it does expose your argument about the authenticity about Jesus for what it is, complete bullshit. Seriously come back when you have regimental claims that Jesus's story is a fabrication.

its not my job to find evidence that the story of jesus is a fabrication, it is those who claim it is a real stories job to do that. even after centuries of an unimaginable amount of people trying no one has been able to prove jesus was even a real person yet alone he did was what said in the bible. my job with the claims i made was to show that some stories in the bible were similar to those from earlier mythology, something that is very easy to prove and has been done in the past.

When you start saying that Jesus is really the story of Horus, then yeah it is your "job" to back that up.

Polarity27:

No, that's not what I meant at all! You'll never hear me suggest that various gods are the same as other gods-- while there are instances of that which I find persuasive (Frau Holle as Frigga, for instance), I'm not qualified to make those claims, and I deeply detest the New Age tendency to see connections where none exist and to assert that gods are interchangeable based on their portfolios, as if culture matters not one whit.

I mainly brought it up in the sense that it can be illuminating to look at the cultural context and worship of gods who have similar qualities to the ones you follow-- not because they're the same, but because it can deepen your understanding of the one you follow and raise questions to ponder.

Oh, I think culture is very important! Have you ever read The Sandman? In it, the main character, Morpheus, usually viewed as a pale man with black, scraggly hair, is seen as a black guy by a black woman, a panther by a cat, and a Martian god when seen by Martian Manhunter. Basically, his appearance and clothing changes depending on who is viewing him. It's a common idea in comics, and the same is true for Galactus. Anyway, I think the Gods are like that, but on a conscious level. If you were to talk to them today, I would suspect that they could speak every language and fit in just as well at land.

reonhato:

Volf:

reonhato:

anyway, even if you want to ignore that the bible plagiarised it does not give the bible any more credence, it does not change the fact that the bible is filled with horse shit, false claims, unprovable claims and so on.

But it does expose your argument about the authenticity about Jesus for what it is, complete bullshit. Seriously come back when you have regimental claims that Jesus's story is a fabrication.

its not my job to find evidence that the story of jesus is a fabrication, it is those who claim it is a real stories job to do that. even after centuries of an unimaginable amount of people trying no one has been able to prove jesus was even a real person yet alone he did was what said in the bible. my job with the claims i made was to show that some stories in the bible were similar to those from earlier mythology, something that is very easy to prove and has been done in the past.

And you just completely ruined the point of debate. The whole idea of debate is to find information about your side and argue your points. It is not the job of one person to prove their own side wrong in a debate. That is not how it works whatsoever. The person who makes the accusation that he doesn't exist has to bring good answers and not just say that the other person has to.

reonhato:

Frozen Fox:
Fairly straight forward, if you adhere to a religion has any part of it came off as utterly unbelievable? If so do you still follow you religion and why.

if religious people actually studied their religion they are either no longer going to be religious or they choose to be consciously ignorant. those who choose to ignore all the evil, contradictory and plain false claims of the bible choose to be ignorant, those who study the history of the bible, its origins and its blatant plagiarism and still choose to believe it are choosing to be ignorant. i think i have less respect for those people then i do for the crazy nuts who dont know any better.

In defense of both the bible and my own religion you do realize how old and changed the bible is correct?

It is a book written by men, translated by men, held onto by men and in certain eras and times in history completely controlled by men. That being said of course it's going to sound weird. It was written by normal people who have had different experiences and stories. Anyone besides me remember when the corrupt Church (I believe it was the one Pope Leo X was in.) was lying to the people to get money?

reonhato:

replace bible with koran, the vedas, tanakh, kojiki, dianetics, book of shadows

because i'm sure you've read all of these. that would explain how you know that a book of shadows is a book written specifically by a single witch for him/herself. clearly the book they wrote for themselves outlining their favorite spells and their experiences is so much like the bible.

reonhato:

i figured i would type out more then the usual obvious burden of proof answer

i'm pretty sure at this point the burden of proof lies at your feet. you're the one that has made the specific claim in the argument that all religions, which i'm sure you've studied them all, are wrong. where is your proof of this? you've made the statement, but nothing to hold it up, so if you ask me you're being nothing more than a hypocrite at this point.

klaynexas3:

reonhato:

replace bible with koran, the vedas, tanakh, kojiki, dianetics, book of shadows

because i'm sure you've read all of these. that would explain how you know that a book of shadows is a book written specifically by a single witch for him/herself. clearly the book they wrote for themselves outlining their favorite spells and their experiences is so much like the bible.

reonhato:

i figured i would type out more then the usual obvious burden of proof answer

i'm pretty sure at this point the burden of proof lies at your feet. you're the one that has made the specific claim in the argument that all religions, which i'm sure you've studied them all, are wrong. where is your proof of this? you've made the statement, but nothing to hold it up, so if you ask me you're being nothing more than a hypocrite at this point.

if a religion did not contain false information, unprovable claims and so on it would not be called religion. there is a reason ancient religion is called mythology, the exact same reason one day islam, christianity, judaism will be taught to children in school as mythology.

In the bible it claims if a woman isn't a virgin when she marries, she is to be stoned to death, but not for a man...double standard much, I was pretty confused, what kind of book says a woman should die for having sex outside of wedlock?

Also the child sexual abuse scandals and how the church desperately wants to cover it up to keep face...fuck the Catholic Church. I have a personal reason to hate the church as well.

Also, they are still allowed to run catholic schools...what the actual fuck?

Look up Brendan Smyth, basically, he raped kids and when he was caught, he was sent to another parish to rape more kids while the church covered it up. Gardai were fucking useless as always and did nothing back then and are doing nothing now.

TizzytheTormentor:
In the bible it claims if a woman isn't a virgin when she marries, she is to be stoned to death, but not for a man...double standard much, I was pretty confused, what kind of book says a woman should die for having sex outside of wedlock?

Also the child sexual abuse scandals and how the church desperately wants to cover it up to keep face...fuck the Catholic Church. I have a personal reason to hate the church as well.

Also, they are still allowed to run catholic schools...what the actual fuck?

Look up Brendan Smyth, basically, he raped kids and when he was caught, he was sent to another parish to rape more kids while the church covered it up. Gardai were fucking useless as always and did nothing back then and are doing nothing now.

The whole idea back then for the virgin rule was that men could live through multiple marriages because women could die in childbirth so the man could no longer be a virgin when he marries. Also, there was also the idea that women were supposed to be pure and clean for their husband.

In the moderate religions topic, one guy mentions how many punishments were severe back then. Go check it out, he clears some things up.

Yeah the sex abuse... yeah, they are on their own for that.

What is wrong with parochial schools? Yeah, the education sucks but there is nothing illegal or unethical about it.

reonhato:

klaynexas3:

reonhato:

replace bible with koran, the vedas, tanakh, kojiki, dianetics, book of shadows

because i'm sure you've read all of these. that would explain how you know that a book of shadows is a book written specifically by a single witch for him/herself. clearly the book they wrote for themselves outlining their favorite spells and their experiences is so much like the bible.

reonhato:

i figured i would type out more then the usual obvious burden of proof answer

i'm pretty sure at this point the burden of proof lies at your feet. you're the one that has made the specific claim in the argument that all religions, which i'm sure you've studied them all, are wrong. where is your proof of this? you've made the statement, but nothing to hold it up, so if you ask me you're being nothing more than a hypocrite at this point.

if a religion did not contain false information, unprovable claims and so on it would not be called religion. there is a reason ancient religion is called mythology, the exact same reason one day islam, christianity, judaism will be taught to children in school as mythology.

granted, religions do claim things that are unprovable, and that is a reason to not believe in them if you so choose, but that does not disprove it either. i will admit some religions have been proven false, such as gods living up on mount olympus or that the earth is about 4,000 years old, and the proof has been presented, but for other ones where it is only unprovable claims, while i might not believe it, the lack of proof is not evidence that it is 100% bull. that's like saying that a man being convicted of a crime where there is no proof that he committed it, but none to say he didn't either.

TizzytheTormentor:
Also, they are still allowed to run catholic schools...what the actual fuck?

Wait, what's wrong with Catholic schools?

recruit00:
What is wrong with parochial schools? Yeah, the education sucks but there is nothing illegal or unethical about it.

I don't see why that would be the case. My little sister went to a Catholic elementary school and as far as I can tell it was just about the same as any other, except they had a Religion class and the little kids coloured in pictures of Mary instead of Winnie the Pooh or whatever.

Helmholtz Watson:
lol give me the prof that existence was created by something other tan a divine entity.

Since you ask! I'll give you a leading theory! Here it is in simple form!

The Big Bang is the leading theory that >>almost all astrophysicists<< believe explains the origin of the universe. This is because all observations so far made support the Big Bang theory; there are four main lines of evidence that are most-often used.

The first was discussed above: The expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding now, so in the past it must have been smaller. If it were smaller in the past, then there probably was a time when it was infinitesimally small. One could ask why don't we think that it might be expanding now but it could have been shrinking before and we just don't know about it. The answer is that there is simply no mechanism that we know about that could accomplish this transition on a universal scale.

The second line of evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from Bell Labs. They were working with a microwave receiver, but were getting noise from every direction they pointed the receiver. It was coming from all over the sky at what seemed to be exactly the same frequency. This was the first evidence for the CMB, and they later shared a Nobel Prize for this discovery.

The CMB is an "echo" left over from when the universe was approximately 300,000 years old, as predicted by the Big Bang model. As something becomes compressed, as matter was when the universe was young, it becomes hot. The actual "heat" comes from particles' movements - the faster they move, the more energetic they are, and so the more heat we see. The universe was so hot before it was 300,000 years old that atoms could not form. Because of this, photons - particles of light - could not move around, for they kept reacting with electrons.

Therefore, during this period, the universe was effectively opaque. Once the universe had reached 300,000 years old, atoms could form, and electrons were now bound to a nucleus. Once this happened, photons could move about freely. This "first light" is the CMB, and its existence is a very strong indication that the Big Bang occurred.

The third major pillar of the Big Bang theory lies in the abundance of the different elements of the universe. The theory predicts that certain amounts of hydrogen, helium, and other elements should be made. Observations have shown almost exactly the amounts that are predicted.

The fourth piece is that the Big Bang theory is the only one that comprehensively lays down a framework for the eventual evolution of the universe as we observe it today.

Source http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/cosmos_bigbang.html

Here is more. have at it http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid

But you will most likely not read any of this.

I am just going to add the Global Noah flood, Granted i have I have questioned any sort of flood no matter how local in recent times but a world wide flood is something even a 10yoarold me thought was insane.

As growing up as a child of faith it was one of those moments that makes you ask what someone did wrong, it does not even have a good bull shit answer other than "well the whole word was evil as fuck!" at least things like they 10 plagues had an obvious cause like an evil pharaoh who enslaved people.

Rastelin:

Helmholtz Watson:
lol give me the prof that existence was created by something other tan a divine entity.

Since you ask! I'll give you a leading theory! Here it is in simple form!

The Big Bang is the leading theory that >>almost all astrophysicists<< believe explains the origin of the universe. This is because all observations so far made support the Big Bang theory; there are four main lines of evidence that are most-often used.

The first was discussed above: The expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding now, so in the past it must have been smaller. If it were smaller in the past, then there probably was a time when it was infinitesimally small. One could ask why don't we think that it might be expanding now but it could have been shrinking before and we just don't know about it. The answer is that there is simply no mechanism that we know about that could accomplish this transition on a universal scale.

The second line of evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from Bell Labs. They were working with a microwave receiver, but were getting noise from every direction they pointed the receiver. It was coming from all over the sky at what seemed to be exactly the same frequency. This was the first evidence for the CMB, and they later shared a Nobel Prize for this discovery.

The CMB is an "echo" left over from when the universe was approximately 300,000 years old, as predicted by the Big Bang model. As something becomes compressed, as matter was when the universe was young, it becomes hot. The actual "heat" comes from particles' movements - the faster they move, the more energetic they are, and so the more heat we see. The universe was so hot before it was 300,000 years old that atoms could not form. Because of this, photons - particles of light - could not move around, for they kept reacting with electrons.

Therefore, during this period, the universe was effectively opaque. Once the universe had reached 300,000 years old, atoms could form, and electrons were now bound to a nucleus. Once this happened, photons could move about freely. This "first light" is the CMB, and its existence is a very strong indication that the Big Bang occurred.

The third major pillar of the Big Bang theory lies in the abundance of the different elements of the universe. The theory predicts that certain amounts of hydrogen, helium, and other elements should be made. Observations have shown almost exactly the amounts that are predicted.

The fourth piece is that the Big Bang theory is the only one that comprehensively lays down a framework for the eventual evolution of the universe as we observe it today.

Source http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/cosmos_bigbang.html

Here is more. have at it http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid

But you will most likely not read any of this.

and yet you refuse to touch on the fact that there are problems in the big bang theory, such as the horizon and flatness problems.

Cakes:

TizzytheTormentor:
Also, they are still allowed to run catholic schools...what the actual fuck?

Wait, what's wrong with Catholic schools?

recruit00:
What is wrong with parochial schools? Yeah, the education sucks but there is nothing illegal or unethical about it.

I don't see why that would be the case. My little sister went to a Catholic elementary school and as far as I can tell it was just about the same as any other, except they had a Religion class and the little kids coloured in pictures of Mary instead of Winnie the Pooh or whatever.

May just be my venting but given the churches reputation of molesting children and covering it up, you think the last thing these people want is to have their kids anywhere near a catholic run school. I went to a catholic school, I was refused to be admitted until I became baptized (a fucking useless rule) so my parent baptized me even though it was against their wishes, just to let me go to school, same scenario with my sister.

We will not go into those abominations they called orphanages back when they were still running.

keiskay:
and yet you refuse to touch on the fact that there are problems in the big bang theory, such as the horizon and flatness problems.

No I don't. Stop guessing what I think. Of course there are questions to be solved and answers to be had. That is not the point. This is science. It is always discovering and improving. And I did say theory if you didn't notice.

Finding a religious claim that is a fraction as believable as the scientific approach is not possible as science works with hypotheses that are tested, tested and tested again. Then a third party is doing the same to see if the results is conclusive. "God dunnit" doesn't measure to that.

Major religions and their leaders though from a early time they knew everything and got it all wrong. However, the scientific track record gives me little reason to doubt the end result. It will keep digging and not be satisfied until we understand.

Rastelin:

keiskay:
and yet you refuse to touch on the fact that there are problems in the big bang theory, such as the horizon and flatness problems.

Major religions and their leaders though from a early time they knew everything and got it all wrong. However, the scientific track record gives me little reason to doubt the end result. It will keep digging and not be satisfied until we understand.

some major religions did, some did not. yes and with science we will never what will happen though, sometimes shit happens out of the fucking blue and comes out the exact opposite as expected. but we still learn more.

Tirunus:
You seem to be under the impression that things like, for example the talking snake from genesis is faith shattering, by most christian circles it is just passed off as allegory.

What about the whole "invisible superbeing" thing? Is that allegory?

reonhato:
if a religion did not contain false information, unprovable claims and so on it would not be called religion.

...and another potentially interesting thread on The Escapist devolves into attacks on religion as a whole, because some posters can't stomach the fact that a discussion about religion is even taking place. Carry on you angry, angry kids.

Sure there have been some wars in the past, but other than that I can't think of a single reason as to why I should drop my religion. I keep my religion because I'm a romantic, humans are special and the greatest species of all time and all that.

Frozen Fox:
Fairly straight forward, if you adhere to a religion has any part of it came off as utterly unbelievable? If so do you still follow you religion and why.

Pretty much Christianity as a whole for me. Not only is it a spin off of older beliefs, particularly this one. http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm However thanks to the personal agenda's of the leaders of the religion over the ages it has been twisted and warped ti suit the needs of the time instead of holding true to itself.

This has happened to me plenty of times I'm Christian and during my trek to read the Bible cover to cover there were a lot of times, particularly in the Old Testament when I paused and said to myself, "What the hell?"
Of course each time this happened a little digging to get the context and culture at the time the passage is talking about has cleared things up for me every time. ^^;

reonhato:
one has not emerged for the last several thousand years, what makes you think one would appear now?

image
You're assuming that of the billions upon billions of people who have lived in the last several thousand years, not one was an intelligent theist. I don't know if you've heard of a little thing called theology, but basically it is the study at a very high academic level of faith, usually from a religious standpoint. Basically, the fact that it exists proves that you are wrong.

Adam and Eve. Even though it's only a folk tale, it still believed by religious nutcases that don't know the history of the story, ad being just spthat, a story.

Polarity27:
Since the Gods themselves are said to be basically exceptionally big/powerful wights, you'd think they'd kind of have to on some level.

Did you read Pratchett's "Small Gods"? The idea of entities feeding off belief isn't a new one, of course, but he packages it very well (and also puts a great spin on it with the worshippers of a god beginning to worship the institution, organization, construct around the god rather than the god itself, causing that god to lose its power). Just thought I'd bring it up because it really fits with that notion. Highly recommended novel.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked