JLHPROF Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 18 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Except this one has the proof in every was possible....that God never existed..... That is an impossible thing to prove. It is as fictional a concept as you believe God to be.
Atheist Mormon Posted June 10, 2016 Author Posted June 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Freedom said: You are the master of the false premise. so tell us, what is this knowledge. Where is your scientific evidence that there is no god. You keep making claims but you have no substance. Excuse me Freedom, I know for a fact there's no evidence , why do I need to discuss for a scientific evidence for a non existing God? It is your claim God exists. I know God DOES NOT EXIST, therefore we cannot see any parts of it.
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: I know God DOES NOT EXIST, therefore we cannot see any parts of it. I'm impressed by your faith, Atheist Mormon. Edited June 10, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Freedom Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 37 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Excuse me Freedom, I know for a fact there's no evidence , why do I need to discuss for a scientific evidence for a non existing God? It is your claim God exists. I know God DOES NOT EXIST, therefore we cannot see any parts of it. Excuse you? Why, did you fart? You do not seem to understand the difference between lack of evidence and evidence against. You are promoting arguments that make me question the validity of your belief system. 2
carbon dioxide Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 15 hours ago, snowflake said: Now the book of Mormon on the other hand cannot be verified with manuscripts, or archeology. I am not really sure what "manuscripts" prove. If people have hundreds of Harry Potter books 500 years from now, could they say Harry Potter occurred due to the manuscript evidence? 1
The Nehor Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: And Nobody said it would be an easy DISCOVERY. But it is a discovery everybody must encounter (hopefully sooner in their life)....Atheism is not a game of winning or losing. It is a discovery of a profound reality. (Not FAITH for sure) Actually many people never encounter your prophesied encounter. Why must they? Is there some physical law compelling it? I never had this encounter and there was one point in my life long ago where I really wanted to. As to profundity, yeah, not buying it. It is profound in the same way a stoner thinks he is profound; you have to impair your mental faculties to make it wondrous. Dismissing God is reaching for borrowed glory. The profundity comes from dismissing the divine, throwing it off, not accepting some brilliant new worldview. I see atheism as logical but clouding it in emotional language brings it further from your logical ideal. 4
Bernard Gui Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Benson is certifiable. There are very few evils he will not impute to religions even with no evidence. His faith in the evilness of religion is impressive. I really wish someone would let me in on our world domination schemes I am assured by our enemies that we have brewing. I feel out of the loop. I have been promised Eurasia. If you wish, I could share a bit of Mongolia.
mfbukowski Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) Nice to see that many are finally understanding that science and religion have nothing to do with each other. It's like asking for the chemical equation which explains how spilling Christ's blood forgives sin. Precisely which element was it in which quantity which forgave the sins of the world? These folks will argue all day against evolution as "Godless science" but when it comes time for evidence to "prove" religion- what do they do? Go right back looking for proof and scientific evidence. The difference between Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo was actually a scientific question the church had no business even bringing up. Bellarmine went with the Ptolemaic view, trying to prove religion with science, and today his arguments look absurd Quote I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bellarmine That is what happens when one thinks scripture agrees with science OR contradicts science. So now the argument is about evolution and Bible archaeology. It's the same absurd argument. Scripture and science are two different spheres (D&C 93:30) Edited June 10, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
3DOP Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Bon Giorno, (writing from Rome!) Mark, hey. We have been to St. Robert's beautiful church in Millan. I am glad you give me reason to write about him. I think you should be able to perceive, based on the quote you made attributed to him, that he does not dismiss the possibility of heliocentricity, only that he had "great doubts". When doubt is removed, we have the liberty, nay, the obligation to reassess the way the Fathers understood the Scriptures. It is not an attempt to define this question of Sun vs. Earth when prophets or apostles write about apparent movement of the Sun or stars. I think St. Bellarmine's principle requires this today, but not quite yet in his day. It is hard to write on my kindle. Maybe more next week? Probably no. Anyway...St. Bellarmine, ora pro bonus. Bye for now. Rory 3
Avatar4321 Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 8 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Atheist rely on nothing when belief is mentioned. They already know it is a bottomless pit / void. Edited to add; Would you entertain any faith in superbowl played last year? You know the result allready....Atheists know already; there's no god/ The believe it is a bottomless pit. They don't know it. They can't because they cannot get a witness of anything until after the trial of faith.
mnn727 Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 18 hours ago, snowflake said: http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript Here is a link to the Center for the Study of New Testament manuscripts. One of many places worldwide that protect and preserve ancient NT papyri. Looking at your website all I have to say is that If you call fragments from the 3-5th century (meaning 200+ years past the original writing date) as proof that nothing has been altered since it was written and that events happened as they were portrayed, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Atheist Mormon Posted June 10, 2016 Author Posted June 10, 2016 7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I'm impressed by your faith, Atheist Mormon. Well, Hamba, You might be right after all....Seeing is the believing perhaps....or the lack of it....
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 29 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Well, Hamba, You might be right after all....Seeing is the believing perhaps....or the lack of it.... Maybe. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=do+you+believe+in+ufos+tyson+&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
Robert F. Smith Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 4 hours ago, 3DOP said: Bon Giorno, (writing from Rome!) Mark, hey. We have been to St. Robert's beautiful church in Millan. I am glad you give me reason to write about him. I think you should be able to perceive, based on the quote you made attributed to him, that he does not dismiss the possibility of heliocentricity, only that he had "great doubts". When doubt is removed, we have the liberty, nay, the obligation to reassess the way the Fathers understood the Scriptures. It is not an attempt to define this question of Sun vs. Earth when prophets or apostles write about apparent movement of the Sun or stars. I think St. Bellarmine's principle requires this today, but not quite yet in his day. It is hard to write on my kindle. Maybe more next week? Probably no. Anyway...St. Bellarmine, ora pro bonus. Bye for now. Rory Did you mean ora pro nobis, Rory? You are right, and we can forgive Robert Bellarmine. He was merely adhering to the accepted science of his day, as mediated by Jesuit scholars.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 53 minutes ago, mnn727 said: Looking at your website all I have to say is that If you call fragments from the 3-5th century (meaning 200+ years past the original writing date) as proof that nothing has been altered since it was written and that events happened as they were portrayed, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. You mean the one in Brooklyn? Can you get me a good price?
snowflake Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: I am not really sure what "manuscripts" prove. If people have hundreds of Harry Potter books 500 years from now, could they say Harry Potter occurred due to the manuscript evidence? You could compare the 500 year old books to the one in your hand and see if they have been altered. That is my point, the old manuscripts show that the Bible has not been altered. It is true that we do not have the originals however when we compare the oldest manuscripts from different parts of the world over hundreds of years one can confidently say that the book we have to day is an accurate record of the original. There was not just one record, there are thousands to compare and check for errors/or inaccuracies. I am not testing the message of the book/miracles, exedous etc or truth of the book, but trying to show the text itself is accurate to the original and unchanged. If unchanged then the book can be compared to facts, people that existed, places, times, genealogies and people from it's own contemporary world. For example, if we take the original printer's manuscript (BOM) and compare it to the most recent B.O.M. is it exactly the same? Or are there textual variants? (We don't have the original plates, just like the bible) so we compare the earliest copies we have, which is the printer's manuscript and compare it word by word, line by line and see what has been changed from the earliest sources. Or do the earliest sources agree? LDS scholar Royal Skousen has done a ton of work on "textual criticism" of the BOM and biblical scholars do the same on the NT and OT. Then do the Same with the book of commandments and D & C and see what has "changed" more, the Bible or the B.O.M. or the other LDS scriptures.
snowflake Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 14 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Not even close, atheism requires no faith, it already states, the absence of god or belief. Atheism is not a belief system, it is a concept which stands alone...To say opposite is a mockery of the faith I know.... One would think that it takes much faith to "believe" the universe exploded out of nothing and created time, space, energy, matter, gravity and other laws of the universe. This "belief" is a complete violation of the first law of thermodynamics. So for it to happen by random chance it would have to break the most basic and consistently provable law in physics and chemistry. I would suggest it takes much more "faith" to believe it all happened by chance than by believing God created it. Atheism is a religion.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 26 minutes ago, snowflake said: You could compare the 500 year old books to the one in your hand and see if they have been altered. That is my point, the old manuscripts show that the Bible has not been altered. It is true that we do not have the originals however when we compare the oldest manuscripts from different parts of the world over hundreds of years one can confidently say that the book we have to day is an accurate record of the original. There was not just one record, there are thousands to compare and check for errors/or inaccuracies. I am not testing the message of the book/miracles, exedous etc or truth of the book, but trying to show the text itself is accurate to the original and unchanged. If unchanged then the book can be compared to facts, people that existed, places, times, genealogies and people from it's own contemporary world. For example, if we take the original printer's manuscript (BOM) and compare it to the most recent B.O.M. is it exactly the same? Or are there textual variants? (We don't have the original plates, just like the bible) so we compare the earliest copies we have, which is the printer's manuscript and compare it word by word, line by line and see what has been changed from the earliest sources. Or do the earliest sources agree? LDS scholar Royal Skousen has done a ton of work on "textual criticism" of the BOM and biblical scholars do the same on the NT and OT. Then do the Same with the book of commandments and D & C and see what has "changed" more, the Bible or the B.O.M. or the other LDS scriptures. Nonsense. There are literally thousands of variants of the Bible manuscripts. None of which totally agree. No knowledgeable LDS claims the BoM hasn't been altered. In fact we freely claim it has.
snowflake Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Nonsense. There are literally thousands of variants of the Bible manuscripts. None of which totally agree. No knowledgeable LDS claims the BoM hasn't been altered. In fact we freely claim it has. You completely miss the point, when you have thousands of copies to compare it is a good thing. Textual variants can be compared to ensure accuracy. You are correct in saying none of them totally agree however that is extremely misleading. So if we had a documents that agreed to 99.5% and then there was a spelling error we would have to throw both copes out because they didn't "totally" agree, this line of reasoning is "nonsense" sir. This is the sort of thing you seem to be claiming. Here is Dr. Daniel P. Wallce explaining your faulty argument and apparent lack of knowledge on Textual criticism. He is on the board of directors at http://www.csntm.org/About/BoardOfDirectors Here is a very brief description of how textual criticism works.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: They are no where even similar.
bluebell Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 15 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Did you do any tests that unicorns existed & flew? How can you do any tests against fantasy? Throughout history, there have been hundreds of things that earlier people considered fantasy which later people proved. A lot of times the difference between fantasy and reality is just time and knowledge. If, however, you know that God does not exist, then you should be able to share how you gained that knowledge. So far, you haven't been able to do so, and i'm not really understanding why. It should be fairly straight forward since it's not based on mere beliefs or faith (according to you). 2
bluebell Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 4 hours ago, snowflake said: You completely miss the point, when you have thousands of copies to compare it is a good thing. Textual variants can be compared to ensure accuracy. You are correct in saying none of them totally agree however that is extremely misleading. So if we had a documents that agreed to 99.5% and then there was a spelling error we would have to throw both copes out because they didn't "totally" agree, this line of reasoning is "nonsense" sir. This is the sort of thing you seem to be claiming. There aren't thousands of copies though, there are thousands of fragments (many of which contain a verse or two, or just a few words). Here's an exchange between John Tvedtnes and a non-LDS Christian concerning bible manuscripts and the Dead Sea Scrolls which, though not exactly what you are talking about, is related (this is curtesy of Jeff Lindsay's website). "Here is a related question that was posed to John Tvedtnes: How does the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls support the Mormon belief that the Bible was changed through the translations over the years? In my understanding, these scrolls, which were written before the apostasy, closely match the Masoretic Texts written during the apostasy, which closely match the scripture that we use today. Am I missing something? The Dead Sea Scrolls include portions of all of our Old Testament canon except Esther, along with many texts that were not included in the Bible as we know it, though some are known from other ancient manuscripts. There are, however, many variants and, in fact, different versions. For example, there are several different versions of Exodus and Samuel (1 and 2 Samuel were a single book at that time). One of the Samuel manuscripts has information found in no other Bible versions, while others have material found in the Greek Septuagint of the 3rd century B.C. but not found in the Hebrew texts from which English Bibles have been translated. The late Yehezkel Kutscher of the Hebrew University wrote an entire book on the variants between the larger Isaiah Scroll found in cave 1 and the Massoretic Hebrew text that has been used in synagogues for centuries and was the basis for our English Bibles. Fundamentalist Christians, believing that the Bible is complete and inerrant, take exception with Latter-day Saint views of the Bible, but the scholarly evidence suggests that there have always been problems of transmission of Bible texts. Some of the Isaiah variants from the Dead Sea Scrolls support the Book of Mormon quotes from Isaiah, while others support the Massoretic text and still others support neither. The same person had a related question: And for the New Testament, I've read that the 5,000+ manuscripts are in 99% agreement with each other, with the oldest copy dating to A.D. 130. (I'm not being very detailed because I'm assuming you've argued this before and already know the history) These seem like pretty good numbers...what is your view on why the New Testament is inaccurate? My friends were under the impression that the NT has been translated from language A to language B to language C, and so on, and that over the years, the original meaning of the scriptures was lost. But as far as I know, each time the Bible is written it is translated from one of the original texts. Comments? Here is John's reply: There are not 5,000+ manuscripts, since most are fragments rather than complete manuscripts. For example, the one you note from ca. A.D. 130 is one of the smallest fragments and contains only portions of two verses from John. (Another early fragment has a few words from Matthes.) To date, non-Latter-day Saint Bible scholars have catalogued more than half a million variants in the Greek texts of the New Testament. Many are, of course, scribal errors, but there is much evidence for manipulation of the text. See, for example, Bart Ehrman's book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. I should add that there are no Bible manuscripts from before the fourth century A.D. Prior to that time, each book was written on a separate scroll. Some of the first bound Bibles lack New Testament books like 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation, but include books no longer in our Bibles, such as Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement. >From the writings of the early Church Fathers, we know that many early Christians accepted other books that did not end up in the Bible. Indeed, even today, the Russian Orthodox, Abyssinian (Ethiopic), and other eastern churches have Bibles that contain books missing from our western Bible, which came via the Roman Catholic Church." 1
Atheist Mormon Posted June 10, 2016 Author Posted June 10, 2016 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: They are no where even similar. it would help if you leave the comment on.
UtahTexan Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 I always chuckle at the notion that there is no God. I think it far more unbelievable that we are accidents. 2
Recommended Posts