Poll of the Day > Have you read the bible?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gave it a shot and couldn't get into it. Doesn't help that I had already made up my mind about religion before I cracked it open.
---

CaptainStrong posted...

wolfy42 posted...

With FEEEEEEEEELINGS of a most SUSPICIOUS nature!!!!!!!

Dun, Dun, Dun!!!!!!

None of you people are making any fucking sense.

Woot, I was worried I had gotten too old, absentminded and started to make sense. The horror of that......would be too much to bear.
---

What's that? Reading a book I mean
---

It's been years since, and I read the books kind of out of order, but yeah, I read the Douay-Rheims translation.

I didn't vote in the poll, though. The choices are kind of lolwut to me.

Sonicplys posted...

What's that? Reading a book I mean

Books are like youtube videos but you can't see anything but the subtitles; but they make the subtitles more descriptive to compensate. Oh. And they're rather heavy for what you get and are physically printed on white rectangles of a substance called 'paper'. Unfortunately they also have to be read in a very specific way or else things come out of order really easily. The upside is that they tend to be fairly cheap to produce and have an amazing longevity. Seriously, a book can keep for centuries fairly easily if you take care of it and you don't ever have to worry about the internet dropping. Still not as good as stone tablets for data preservation but few things are.
---

Yes I've read my autobiography
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

it's irrational to think some magical being there is no proof of exists

I agree. I'm not sure what this has to do with believing the bible? The bible itself constitutes proof of god's existence

---

Roman Niucumir posted...

The choices are kind of lolwut to me.

god damn america -- that's in the bible -- for killing innocent people

---

I've been slowly slogging my way through it, on and off, for the last 7 months. The last book I finished was Jeremiah before I had to take another break from it.

I'm in no way a very religious person but I do read a lot, and I read a lot of classics, so I figured I'd read it. It's a boring read but if I can get through Uylsses I can get through anything

---

OniRonin posted...

god damn america -- that's in the bible -- for killing innocent people

People afflicted with religiosity haven't read their holy book either, they have a distorted memory of the simplified My Weekly Reader version paraphrased by their equally illiterate sunday school teacher.

---

The words printed in red are the ones you want to pay attention to.

---

captpackrat posted...

The words printed in red are the ones you want to pay attention to.

Those are the Jesus words.

---

Yes

---

Unbridled9 posted...

wolfy42 posted...

OniRonin posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

Prove it.

it is the only possible basis for rational thought. all others are fundamentally flawed

I can prove there is no god.
There is a slight problem though.
If I prove there is no god, I invalidate the beliefs of many humans.
Existence is based on belief/thought/awareness.
Doing so could easily cause the universe to cease to exist.
Therefore, logically, we must not disprove the existence of god, in order to continuing existing ourselves.

No. You can't. It's impossible to prove a negative. You can prove, say, that society, culture, and rational thought can exist without the Bible as a moral framework but you can not prove that God does not exist. It would be like trying to prove someone doesn't exist by calling their cell number, getting no answer, and using that as proof that they don't exist. This is especially true since disproving the judeo-christian god does *not* disprove the existence of a deity or deities; especially since said deities may not even be concerned with Earth on the whole and may be the pantheon of a species located sixty galaxies away.

Not saying it's wrong to be atheist; but saying that there is no such thing as a deity or divine being is just as dogmatic and religious a statement as saying that there is.

Also, seriously? The Bible being the opposite of the basis for rational thought? Yea. You're an idiot with no knowledge of reality and probably think you are, somehow, smarter and more intellectual simply due to your lack of belief despite being little more than an edge high-school/college graduate.

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?
---

OniRonin posted...

captpackrat posted...

The words printed in red are the ones you want to pay attention to.

Those are the Jesus words.

Actually, no. Pretty much everything Jesus is claimed to have said is from second or third hand accounts or even written centuries after he supposedly lived. Even his supposed birth date of December 25 was only first recorded around 334AD.
---

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

Because you decided to associate 'no longer believes in' with 'disproven'. The Greek Gods got effectively warped into the Roman pantheon and both the Roman and Egyptian pantheons got bodied HARD by Christianity and Islam (edit: likely the Roman pantheon as well but I'm not an expert on Roman attitudes towards religion in occupied Egypt during that time) respectively. The reason no one believes in them isn't because of science disproving them but because new religions came in and displaced them. If you look hard enough you might even still be able to find believers in those pantheons but they won't be a large number. And it's not like those were the only three pantheons and religions to exist either. You'll still find plenty of people believing in stuff like Hinduism and you can even find some Zoroastrians if you know where to look. So I don't really see what your 'point' here is.
---

Not in its entirety.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

Because you decided to associate 'no longer believes in' with 'disproven'. The Greek Gods got effectively warped into the Roman pantheon and both the Roman and Egyptian pantheons got bodied HARD by Christianity and Islam respectively. The reason no one believes in them isn't because of science disproving them but because new religions came in and displaced them. If you look hard enough you might even still be able to find believers in those pantheons but they won't be a large number. And it's not like those were the only three pantheons and religions to exist either. You'll still find plenty of people believing in stuff like Hinduism and you can even find some Zoroastrians if you know where to look. So I don't really see what your 'point' here is.

People claimed the Greek gods lived on Mount Olympus and had a huge table there where they ate ambrosia. Funny enough, nobody thought to just run up there and check for themselves. If they had, they'd see that there's NOTHING ON MOUNT OLYMPUS that proves the existence of any gods. Same with the Roman gods. A lot of stories, but zero physical or scientific evidence to back up the claims.
Same with the god of the bible. A lot of stories and a lot of claims, but zero evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the god exists.
It is amusing how people of a particular faith will always handwave away any discussion or logical reasoning against the existence of their chosen deity.
---

I read it once. I disliked the insane number of times it contradicted itself, how much it tooted its own horn (and how much its readers and followers did the same without question), and more I am unable to recall decades later. That is also to say nothing of how many stories within it ripped off older faiths or texts (eg., Noah's Arc being torn from a tale within the "Epic of Gilgamesh," which itself hailed from older stories).
---

I hate when religious people shove their beliefs down my throat

Religion is FAKE and STUPID. You actually believe in god? LMAO
---

Entity13 posted...

I read it once. I disliked the insane number of times it contradicted itself, how much it tooted its own horn (and how much its readers and followers did the same without question), and more I am unable to recall decades later. That is also to say nothing of how many stories within it ripped off older faiths or texts (eg., Noah's Arc being torn from a tale within the "Epic of Gilgamesh," which itself hailed from older stories).

And there is evidence that Jesus is based on the Egyptian god Horus.
Also the Code of Hammurabi preceded the Bible by over 1,000 years and the Bible seems to have taken quite a bit from the Code in terms of rules and laws.
---

"No, because it's not true" is the dumbest answer
---

SpaceBear_ posted...

"No, because it's not true" is the dumbest answer

Should it be yes because it's not true?
---

Not all the way through.
---

TyVulpine posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. They've been disproven.
People used to think gravity followed newtonian laws. They've been disproven.
People used to think insects emerged spontaneously from rotting meat. They've been disproven.
People used to believe in the luminferous aether. They've been disproven.
Why does modern day science (e.g., evolution) get a free pass?

---

TyVulpine posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

Sorry to double post, but I'm honestly dumbfounded by how stupid this argument is. It applies even more to scientism than it does to religion, as scientism is definitionally based on proving old theories false. I've debated religion for decades on the internet and I'm pretty sure this is the worst argument I've seen the whole time.

---

OniRonin posted...

TyVulpine posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

Sorry to double post, but I'm honestly dumbfounded by how stupid this argument is. It applies even more to scientism than it does to religion, as scientism is definitionally based on proving old theories false. I've debated religion for decades on the internet and I'm pretty sure this is the worst argument I've seen the whole time.

And yet why do you think those religions and more fall under that category of MYTHOLOGY? You do know what a myth is, right?
---

OniRonin posted...

TyVulpine posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. They've been disproven.
People used to think gravity followed newtonian laws. They've been disproven.
People used to think insects emerged spontaneously from rotting meat. They've been disproven.
People used to believe in the luminferous aether. They've been disproven.
Why does modern day science (e.g., evolution) get a free pass?

Science doesnt get a free pass, as science relies on theories and then either proving or disproving that theory through tests and evidence.
Religion only requires blind acceptance and faith
---

OniRonin posted...

TyVulpine posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. They've been disproven.
People used to think gravity followed newtonian laws. They've been disproven.
People used to think insects emerged spontaneously from rotting meat. They've been disproven.
People used to believe in the luminferous aether. They've been disproven.
Why does modern day science (e.g., evolution) get a free pass?

Evolution actually has been proven.

Also the Bible says the sun revolves around Earth and that Earth is flat.

People claimed the Greek gods lived on Mount Olympus and had a huge table there where they ate ambrosia. Funny enough, nobody thought to just run up there and check for themselves. If they had, they'd see that there's NOTHING ON MOUNT OLYMPUS that proves the existence of any gods. Same with the Roman gods. A lot of stories, but zero physical or scientific evidence to back up the claims.
Same with the god of the bible. A lot of stories and a lot of claims, but zero evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the god exists.
It is amusing how people of a particular faith will always handwave away any discussion or logical reasoning against the existence of their chosen deity.

That applies to science too. What? You didn't think people being illogical happened because of RELIGION did you? I mean, how many times have you seen someone either accept or reject something simply because it agreed/disagreed with their viewpoints? Like, you trust astronomers when they talk about exoplanets but you personally likely have no way to prove that they exist. You choose to believe it because it aligns with your beliefs and ideals. For all you know those scientists could be blowing the cash on hookers and drugs and seeing how long they can string along people with the exoplanet theory. Now, I'm not saying exoplanets don't exist. What I am saying is that claiming that following a faith blindly is illogical when, at the same time, you have no choice but to put blind faith in science (unless you are an actual expert in that one field) is just as illogical and the illogical aspect comes not from religion or science but a failure of the human nature.

After all, for a long time a lot of things were considered 'scientific' that have long-since been disproven (just look at mental health wards and medicines) and it's not like these were wild fringe beliefs at the time.

Also, your counter didn't actually deal with the point I made. Namely that the thing that did in the greek/roman gods was not science or them being 'disproven' but, rather, Christianity displacing the Greco-roman beliefs. As to what they believed or claimed was happening when they climbed Mt. Olympus and found nothing there I have no clue. In an odd sort of way the Greco-Roman pantheon in still sort of at least acknowledged today as parts of it were absorbed into the Christian faith (EX: Fortuna managed to eek out an existance for herself going from a goddess to an angel or something like that... And is now worshiped by FE players in the form of Anna as they beg for good level ups) or directly inspired other parts (the classic 'image' of God being based on Zeus and Dante's version of hell being heavily inspired by the Underworld).

Science doesnt get a free pass, as science relies on theories and then either proving or disproving that theory through tests and evidence.
Religion only requires blind acceptance and faith

So you think people like Issac Newton, Ben Franklin, and Archimedes were dumb; yet the anti-vaxxer who blindly followed an article she found on the internet is 'scientific'? That someone like Plato or Descartes or Paine is intellectually inferior to a flat-earther whom spends time and money to conduct and test their theories to 'prove' that the earth is flat because the former three were religious and despite the latter engaging in the scientific method (to prove their own, incorrect and biased, beliefs; yes)? That someone like Ghandi should be mocked and belitted for their faith yet Stalin or Mao lauded for their atheism? That people don't believe just as fanatically in things like political ideology or 'sciences' such as eugenics, if not more-so, than religion? Or warp/co-opt science for their political positions? Do you SERIOUSLY believe that blind acceptance and faith comes only from religion yet anyone who believes in science is inherently smart/wise/etc? Such an attitude and belief is the start of true ignorance.
---

TyVulpine posted...

And yet why do you think those religions and more fall under that category of MYTHOLOGY? You do know what a myth is, right?

"uhhhh, somebody told me that religion is a myth. that means it's bad"

Is this really your fucking argument?

---

TyVulpine posted...

Science doesnt get a free pass, as science relies on theories and then either proving or disproving that theory through tests and evidence.
Religion only requires blind acceptance and faith

Wrong. The bible makes testable predictions. Unlike science (frequently wrong as I demonstrated earlier), it has always proven right

---

CaptainStrong posted...

Evolution actually has been proven.

Also the Bible says the sun revolves around Earth and that Earth is flat.

You haven't addressed my prior question - how can one base their rationality on science when observations are prior to science?

---

CaptainStrong posted...

zebatov posted...

CaptainStrong posted...

There's no way in hell I'm wasting my time reading almost 1,200 pages of shitty bullshit stories.

So youve never read any book then.

I guess you missed the words "shitty" and "bullshit". The Bible is a shitty boring book and it's presented as a nonfiction book, when it clearly is fictitious.

No, I incorporated those in my reply. Sounds like you just have a problem with that one book. If its just a story then you should have no problem reading it like any other book. How can you say its boring if you havent read it?

Unbridled9 posted...

Nope. It's your attitude that says that.

Looks like Im not the only one who picked up on this. Hes got a real problem for no reason. Can tell hes even getting angry about it.
---

I won a Thomas Cranmer Award certificate of merit for memorising and reciting collects and psalms when I was ten, and yes, I've read the whole thing, though I'm not actually a Christian (pagan UU). I think if I could say I had any "favourite" part of that book, it's probably the Song of Solomon.

I'm not exactly fond of most of the rest. Though the Gnostic gospels are an interesting read, and investigating all the books that used to be a part of the Judeo-Christian holy text but were later removed...
---

god is unveridical
---

CaptainStrong posted...

OniRonin posted...

TyVulpine posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. They've been disproven.
People used to think gravity followed newtonian laws. They've been disproven.
People used to think insects emerged spontaneously from rotting meat. They've been disproven.
People used to believe in the luminferous aether. They've been disproven.
Why does modern day science (e.g., evolution) get a free pass?

Evolution actually has been proven.

Also the Bible says the sun revolves around Earth and that Earth is flat.

Where in the bible does it say this?
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

god is unveridical

Well, I believe that's true for the anthropomorphisation, at least. I have never felt anything like deity in organised religion. I guess you'd call me more of a Gaia theorist, since that's where I feel it.
---

yutterh posted...

CaptainStrong posted...

OniRonin posted...

TyVulpine posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. They've been disproven.
People used to think gravity followed newtonian laws. They've been disproven.
People used to think insects emerged spontaneously from rotting meat. They've been disproven.
People used to believe in the luminferous aether. They've been disproven.
Why does modern day science (e.g., evolution) get a free pass?

Evolution actually has been proven.

Also the Bible says the sun revolves around Earth and that Earth is flat.

Where in the bible does it say this?

The Bible doesn't say that. In fact the Bible says the opposite. It says that the world is round (Isaiah 40:22 IIRC). The reality is that ancient people knew the world was round but, outside of a select minor few groups, it was useless knowledge. I mean, they could see eclipses of the moon, ships going over horizons, and conducted actual experiments to prove it. But to a farmer intent on getting the crops in before their lords taxes them such knowledge is pointless. IIRC the 'flat earth' thing was more of an insult than reality. I.E. 'You're people are so dumb they believe the world is flat'. Even for Columbus the issue wasn't a belief of the world being round or not (they knew it was) but, rather, Columbus was basically advocating what was believed to be a suicide journey to cross what was believed to be empty ocean. He believed that the world was both pear-shaped and much smaller than it actually was which lead him to think the journey could be done while science, at the time, said he would starve. Had America not been there science would have been right and Columbus would be remembered only as probably the first to attempt such a foolish crossing.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

yutterh posted...

CaptainStrong posted...

OniRonin posted...

TyVulpine posted...

People used to think the Roman gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Egyptian gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
People used to think the Greek gods existed. Theyve been disproven.
Why does the god of the Bible get a free pass?

People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. They've been disproven.
People used to think gravity followed newtonian laws. They've been disproven.
People used to think insects emerged spontaneously from rotting meat. They've been disproven.
People used to believe in the luminferous aether. They've been disproven.
Why does modern day science (e.g., evolution) get a free pass?

Evolution actually has been proven.

Also the Bible says the sun revolves around Earth and that Earth is flat.

Where in the bible does it say this?

The Bible doesn't say that. In fact the Bible says the opposite. It says that the world is round (Isaiah 40:22 IIRC). The reality is that ancient people knew the world was round but, outside of a select minor few groups, it was useless knowledge. I mean, they could see eclipses of the moon, ships going over horizons, and conducted actual experiments to prove it. But to a farmer intent on getting the crops in before their lords taxes them such knowledge is pointless. IIRC the 'flat earth' thing was more of an insult than reality. I.E. 'You're people are so dumb they believe the world is flat'. Even for Columbus the issue wasn't a belief of the world being round or not (they knew it was) but, rather, Columbus was basically advocating what was believed to be a suicide journey to cross what was believed to be empty ocean. He believed that the world was both pear-shaped and much smaller than it actually was which lead him to think the journey could be done while science, at the time, said he would starve. Had America not been there science would have been right and Columbus would be remembered only as probably the first to attempt such a foolish crossing.

Interesting fact, the world is actually slightly oval.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

Best article I could find but I heard of it through a youtube video. At work so not searching for it right now. Will post the video later.

Side note
for anyone wondering how the bible came to be and why some "books" aren't included in the bible

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/who-decided-what-went-into-the-bible.html

Side note 2
Also here is some science that we get from the bible

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
---

I do so wish this site wouldn't give notifications saying a thread has been updated when it's by someone on one's ignore or block list. It gets frustrating. No new posts since my own that I can see!
---

Wow. I wonder why I'm blocked lol
---

yutterh posted...

Wow. I wonder why I'm blocked lol

Apparently you're not, because I can see this post but I still can't see your previous one. That's weird. And I still see nothing between my #88 & #91.
---

Trialia posted...

yutterh posted...

Wow. I wonder why I'm blocked lol

Apparently you're not, because I can see this post but I still can't see your previous one. That's weird. And I still see nothing between my #88 & #91.

Maybe cause someone I quoted is on your blocked or ignore list. Ill just repost what I said.

post 89 Unbridled9

The Bible doesn't say that. In fact the Bible says the opposite. It says that the world is round (Isaiah 40:22 IIRC). The reality is that ancient people knew the world was round but, outside of a select minor few groups, it was useless knowledge. I mean, they could see eclipses of the moon, ships going over horizons, and conducted actual experiments to prove it. But to a farmer intent on getting the crops in before their lords taxes them such knowledge is pointless. IIRC the 'flat earth' thing was more of an insult than reality. I.E. 'You're people are so dumb they believe the world is flat'. Even for Columbus the issue wasn't a belief of the world being round or not (they knew it was) but, rather, Columbus was basically advocating what was believed to be a suicide journey to cross what was believed to be empty ocean. He believed that the world was both pear-shaped and much smaller than it actually was which lead him to think the journey could be done while science, at the time, said he would starve. Had America not been there science would have been right and Columbus would be remembered only as probably the first to attempt such a foolish crossing.

Post 90 my post

Interesting fact, the world is actually slightly oval.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

Best article I could find but I heard of it through a youtube video. At work so not searching for it right now. Will post the video later.

Side note
for anyone wondering how the bible came to be and why some "books" aren't included in the bible

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/who-decided-what-went-into-the-bible.html

Side note 2
Also here is some science that we get from the bible

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

---

Went to Christian junior high and high schools, so yeah. Maybe 2-3 times. Interesting in many places. Overall I liked the OT better than the NT even though God is pretty much a jerk throughout the OT.
---

God no. The bits and pieces that I was force fed as a child were bland enough. I have no desire to stuff myself with the rest of it.


---

brestugo posted...

Went to Christian junior high and high schools, so yeah. Maybe 2-3 times. Interesting in many places. Overall I liked the OT better than the NT even though God is pretty much a jerk throughout the OT.

Is it weird that I read NT and OT as new trilogy and old trilogy XD I think I've been on the movie and star wars boards too much lmao
---