Originally Posted By X-san MRK, you think you are revealing the truth (as you see it). I get that. The truth that I see is more along the lines of the power of present thought, and universal understanding. It is absolute proof "FOR ME", and I get it and understand it and can physically feel it...but I wouldn't try and convince you of it unless you really wanted to have a constructive conversation (I won't hold my breath). The thing is, *I'm* not trying to convince *you* to believe what I believe. I'm just mentioning what *I* believe...I'm not out to convince anyone that I am right (even though in my soul I feel that I do understand some things). Perhaps you should try something similar, next time. Just sort of express your ideas, without the "I know the truth, the rest is lies!" garbage. Heck, even an evangelical type was asking you to simmer down. How pathetic is that? (no offense, Josh ) ***The Bible, by the way, can be used as legitimate evidence, because it has been attested by figures of credibility and authority.*** No. Not "legitimate evidence", but if you are trying to say it is endorsed by may authoritative and credible people, the same could be said for many other holy books in many other religions. No evidence at all, just endorsement. And endorsement goes only so far as to speak to the credibility of the endorsee. In other words, when you say THAT, you are also saying that many other religious books are credible. In fact, by saying that, you are in fact acknowledging that many other religious books are also "legitimate evidence", even though you previously called them "lies". ***Just the same as the US Constitution. It can be equally recognized as legitimate because it as well has been attested by figures of credibility and authority.*** You have a weird fetish for trying to compare the constitution to the bible, but I'll play along. As far as rules and regulations, the constitution spells out a method of governing. If you don't like it, the best advice would be to vote for someone who wants to amend the rules and regulations to your liking. As far as the "truths" in the constitution are concerned, it is certainly correct that they make some assumptions. And you are free to disagree. If you disagree with the phrase "we find these truths to be self-evident", then you are certainly welcomed to disagree with the constitution. Nowhere in the document does it say "you are compelled to agree with this". Only to abide by it. I suppose the same could be said for the bible in a sense, but then again the bible can't arrest me or put me on death row. If I reject the bible, what can you do about it? Nothing. IF there is some god out there, I suppose I'll be punished someday. Anything short of that is simple conjecture. Not so with the constitution of the U.S.A., it is a document of philosophy and law, something to structure the government of the country. NOT an otherworldly guide to some undefined and likely fictional afterlife. There you have it, in a nutshell. Entirely different issues, but you have this really bizarre desire to try and connect the two (they are completely separate in terms of categorization). ***The Declaration of Independence can be recognized as legimitate because it has been attested by figures of credibility and authority.*** No. Totally wrong. It is legitimate ONLY so long as the government in power abides by it. It could disappear in a heartbeat given the right circumstances. One circumstance, just to offer an example, would be if some world power were to invent a super weapon capable of simultaneously defusing all of our nuclear capabilities as well as the ability to destroy America piece by piece, one state (or more) at a time. Said power destroys several states, America (and allies) attempt to retaliate with nukes, fail...said power destroys a few more states...America surrenders unconditionally. Constitution rendered invalid. It's not a holy document, mrk. It's just a system of governing (one I consider to be outstanding, probably the best ever conceived, but still...). Your argument is a false one. ***Why the legimacy of the Consitution document be any different than that of the Bible?*** See above. ***So what you're really doing is questioning the credibility and authority of those attestment figures.*** Nope. Just explaining why your argument makes no sense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No evidence at all, just endorsement. And endorsement goes only so far as to speak to the credibility of the endorsee. In other words, when you say THAT, you are also saying that many other religious books are credible. In fact, by saying that, you are in fact acknowledging that many other religious books are also "legitimate evidence", even though you previously called them "lies".> Correct. Every major religion has scads of "figures of credibility and authority" who have believed in it. Look at it this way: Socrates. Plato. Aristotle. Aeschylus. Euripides. Euclid. Awfully impressive list of people. And they all believed in Zeus.
Originally Posted By X-san Please tell me you had to research that. If that list was off the top of your head, you're scary.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Full disclosure: I just thought of a bunch of famous ancient Greeks. I have no idea if they actually believed in Zeus or not, or if they perhaps had "freethinking" ideas for their day. But certainly plenty of the ancient Greeks believed in Zeus.
Originally Posted By X-san Didn't mean to put you on the spot there. By the way, if you find any writings from any of those guys mentioning a guy named "Jesus", I would convert on the spot.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm not demonstrating proof. I'm simply reveal the truth.<< And of course, anyone could claim exactly the same thing. It offers nothing, contributes nothing, and doesn't further any discussion in the search for truth.
Originally Posted By X-san <===jots down yet another inspired quote to add to upcoming "book of ecdc" religion founding project. So, EC, how's that martyrdom thing coming along? Let's not wait for the grass to grow, eh?
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <In other words, when you say THAT, you are also saying that many other religious books are credible.> Other religion books are not credible, because the people who attest to them have no credibility when measure to the truth. <As far as rules and regulations, the constitution spells out a method of governing. If you don't like it, the best advice would be to vote for someone who wants to amend the rules and regulations to your liking> It is reasonable to compare to the Constitution. The Bible spells out a method for living, and for single method of entering Heaven. If you don't like it, you will not enter Heaven. And by the way, the Constitution doesn't "spell out methods". It exposes requirements, each using the word "shall". The Constitutional Convention spelled out the methods. The Constitution converted those methods into "shalls". <And you are free to disagree. If you disagree with the phrase "we find these truths to be self-evident", then you are certainly welcomed to disagree with the constitution. Nowhere in the document does it say "you are compelled to agree with this". Only to abide by it. I suppose the same could be said for the bible in a sense, but then again the bible can't arrest me or put me on death row.> God put you on death row. There you will remain, unless you choose to agree with the Bible and accept it's spoken truth.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Other religion books are not credible, because the people who attest to them have no credibility when measure to the truth.*** Enough. Name names, on the side of "no credibility" as well as those you claim to be credible (any names are fine so long as they are NOT names from the bible or other ancient textbooks). Can you?
Originally Posted By X-san ***God put you on death row. There you will remain, unless you choose to agree with the Bible and accept it's spoken truth.*** That would mean that "god" is an unscrupulous asshole. I reject such a creature, and hope to never, ever meet it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So, EC, how's that martyrdom thing coming along? Let's not wait for the grass to grow, eh?<< LOL. I know I sound like a broken record, but beyond saying that mrkthompsn's posts are without substance, there's really nothing more to add. I love discussing religion and will always offer my perspective and try and explain why I'm a non-believer. But if someone just keeps saying that their way is truth, the end, then there's not much to respond to. My response would be the same if someone came on these boards and said, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" repeatedly. You can say Jesus is truth and all other ways are lies all you want - but you can't be surprised when people call nonsense on you if you can't offer them anything else. It's no different than me saying space aliens inhabit my TV and that it's truth. Accept it or you're doomed! As for using the Constitution as a comparison, it's a false and problematic analogy for two key reasons. First, is the appeal to authority logical fallacy, which we already saw plano bring up. If I said, "well Einstein believed in evolution, so that must make it true" it would be the same kind of fallacy. You can't just cite the fact that prominent, intelligent people believe something as evidence for its truthfulness. Second, the authority of the Constitution is not claiming to rest in God, does not claim miracles, etc. The Constitution only has as much authority as the Supreme Court says it has. While the Founders believed that there were certain "inalienable" rights humans possessed, it's just as easy to believe we possess those rights if you're an atheist. Furthermore, we can pretty accurately trace the history of the Declaration if Independence and the Constitution. We have the papers of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, etc. While not perfect, we have far more corroborative evidence for how these documents came about, who wrote them, the compromises, etc., than we do with the Bible. In fact, we have significant conflicting information about much of the Bible. We have conflicting stories within it, and conflicting stories from other sources.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Other religion books are not credible, because the people who attest to them have no credibility when measure to the truth.> You're going against your own logic there, since you originally said the Bible could be believed because credible people believed it. But credible people have believed in other books and religions as well. Except to you, those religions aren't credible, so those people aren't credible. It's a circular argument. You believe the Bible is the truth, period, and the others are not. But person A believes the same about the Koran, or whatever. It's fine for each of you to believe that, per se. But to claim that your respective arguments are not essentially identical won't wash. It ultimately IS belief. You can't seem to wrap your head around this one. <It exposes requirements, each using the word "shall". > The requirements are for the government, no for individuals. The Bible's "shalls" are for individuals, not governments. ("Render to Caesar what is due Caesar" and all that). So the comparison is not a good one.
Originally Posted By Tiggirl <<God put you on death row. >> Woah... my dad was a pastor and I NEVER heard anything like that. I think maybe you need to take a step back and re-examine your faith. That doesn't sound anything like the God I was taught about when I was little. And if I did still attend church... I'd never go to one that had that as its message. ~Beth
Originally Posted By mele Well, Tiggirl, you and your father just don't know the "truth" and instead are liars. Duh. ;-)
Originally Posted By Tiggirl LOL! Mele, I'll let my dad know that he was teaching it wrong all those years ago. Good thing he's not out there still preaching that God is kind and loving or anything. Whew! Catastrophy averted! ~Beth
Originally Posted By jdub >>>Was this just put here to start a storm of, uhmm... "civil conversation?"<<< LOL, you said it! Whoever started this thread is indeed a master baiter!
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <The requirements are for the government, no for individuals. The Bible's "shalls" are for individuals, not governments. ("Render to Caesar what is due Caesar" and all that). So the comparison is not a good one.> That's a fair point. The Constitution makes "shalls" for the government. Derived from that, the government is then empowered to make other "shalls" to you in the form of US Code. But you're right about the Bible's "shalls". They are indeed directed to you. Some, in fact, are indeed directed to nations en masse.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Some, in fact, are indeed directed to nations en masse.> Such as?? (Except for "Israel" taken to mean the Jewish people, that is.)
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <Woah... my dad was a pastor and I NEVER heard anything like that. I think maybe you need to take a step back and re-examine your faith. That doesn't sound anything like the God I was taught about when I was little. And if I did still attend church... I'd never go to one that had that as its message.> That's the very basic premise of the Gospel. After Adam had commited the first sin in the Garden of Eden, God said "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." This means God placed a death sentence on Adam. It has been applied to all humankind ever since. Jesus absorbed your death sentence onto Himself so that you could enter Heaven, but only if you believe the truth.
