Atheists - If the Bible isn't true, why is it so remarkable?

[Revolutionarily]

There is much much evidence of supernatural occurrences whether it be a healing performed or even "ghost" encounters. The supernatural definitely exists. Why is it wrong of me to point out that there was no real intelligent counter argument made?

Well there's a definite oxymoron. If it was demonstrable, it would be natural.

Also, you notice how your question does not in any way comment upon my post at all? I've noticed this before in my conversations with a certain type of dogmatist (usually religious, though in at least one instance a UFO junkie): Their words are slippery... they are made as though they are in response to something, but they somehow avoid body contact with any of your points, and thusly evade body contact when you set upon them.

Which is not to say that you are such a person, merely that you demonstrate the Ontos of one.

How has this pseudo elaborate psychoanalysis of my reply been any different?

[NMaa949]

Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this “sect.” No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as “fairy tales.”

No, Rome stamped out the original Christianity and replaced it with the New Testament.

[Xathranaar]

Well there's a definite oxymoron. If it was demonstrable, it would be natural.

Also, you notice how your question does not in any way comment upon my post at all? I've noticed this before in my conversations with a certain type of dogmatist (usually religious, though in at least one instance a UFO junkie): Their words are slippery... they are made as though they are in response to something, but they somehow avoid body contact with any of your points, and thusly evade body contact when you set upon them.

Which is not to say that you are such a person, merely that you demonstrate the Ontos of one.

How has this pseudo elaborate psychoanalysis of my reply been any different?

Well, you notice how the first two sentences directly refute your central point?

Yeah, that would be how.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Well there's a definite oxymoron. If it was demonstrable, it would be natural.

Also, you notice how your question does not in any way comment upon my post at all? I've noticed this before in my conversations with a certain type of dogmatist (usually religious, though in at least one instance a UFO junkie): Their words are slippery... they are made as though they are in response to something, but they somehow avoid body contact with any of your points, and thusly evade body contact when you set upon them.

Which is not to say that you are such a person, merely that you demonstrate the Ontos of one.

How has this pseudo elaborate psychoanalysis of my reply been any different?

Because your original assertion was so vague it was impossible to directly respond to it in a meaningful way. Saying "the supernatural exists" is literally impossible by definition - as said above, all things that exist are natural.
Also, again, empirical evidence is your friend. Get me a ghost in a controlled environment. Get some proof of measurable psychic powers. Get some proof of actual, verifiable miracles in front of your eyes, objectively verified.
There are a billion disproved psychics in the history of the world. There are a few dozen "probably fake, but good enough to make you wonder" psychics. There have been NO proven psychics.

[Revolutionarily]

I know that, i think it makes it more valid. To have many well educated and respected people from all of Christianity from many places having a very very very long decision making process with various pieces of scripture from it taking the scripture that was common belief in all the various different beliefs of Christians as well as scripture which was accurately written at a time that would make sense. I think that makes it much more valid than one man pouring out all of his thoughts into a book.

I don't think it makes it any more valid. You got a group of men who decided what was cannon and what wasn't out of many texts. It seems arbitrary, to me, because they discarded so many other texts circulating at the time in what seemed like an attempt to stamp out other branches of Christian belief.

They were trying to find core beliefs and popular scriptures among all groups who at the time were all so different. They just needed a unification basically. They took the scriptures which had the beliefs common among all groups and the threw out those which did not seem valid based upon when it was written in relation to the event and other things alike. The non-popular scriptures were not thrown away they just did not make it. They can actually be seen influencing some "christian" communities such as the roman catholic church.

[Revolutionarily]

How has this pseudo elaborate psychoanalysis of my reply been any different?

Well, you notice how the first two sentences directly refute your central point?

Yeah, that would be how.

I'll agree with that

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't think it makes it any more valid. You got a group of men who decided what was cannon and what wasn't out of many texts. It seems arbitrary, to me, because they discarded so many other texts circulating at the time in what seemed like an attempt to stamp out other branches of Christian belief.

They were trying to find core beliefs and popular scriptures among all groups who at the time were all so different. They jsut needed a unification basically. They took the scriptures which had the beliefs common among all groups and the threw out those which did not seem valid based upon when it was written in relation to the event and other things alike. The non-popular scriptures were not thrown away they just did not make it. They can actually be seen influencing some "christian" communities such as the roman catholic church.

What made the one they chose more valid than those discarded? For all you know, the 'core belief' you allude to could've been invented on the spot by the factions in power.

Or what prevented them from corrupting the meaning or the texts themselves?

[Katyuscha]

I don't think it makes it any more valid. You got a group of men who decided what was cannon and what wasn't out of many texts. It seems arbitrary, to me, because they discarded so many other texts circulating at the time in what seemed like an attempt to stamp out other branches of Christian belief.

They were trying to find core beliefs and popular scriptures among all groups who at the time were all so different. They just needed a unification basically. They took the scriptures which had the beliefs common among all groups and the threw out those which did not seem valid based upon when it was written in relation to the event and other things alike. The non-popular scriptures were not thrown away they just did not make it. They can actually be seen influencing some "christian" communities such as the roman catholic church.

Ghey picked the core beliefs that appealed to the most people in order to solidify the illusion that the Bible is true.

[Revolutionarily]

They were trying to find core beliefs and popular scriptures among all groups who at the time were all so different. They jsut needed a unification basically. They took the scriptures which had the beliefs common among all groups and the threw out those which did not seem valid based upon when it was written in relation to the event and other things alike. The non-popular scriptures were not thrown away they just did not make it. They can actually be seen influencing some "christian" communities such as the roman catholic church.

What made the one they chose more valid than those discarded? For all you know, the 'core belief' you allude to could've been invented on the spot by the factions in power.

Or what prevented them from corrupting the meaning or the texts themselves?

I assume that when the public sees the final product and it is different from their original core beliefs than it would have been rejected.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What made the one they chose more valid than those discarded? For all you know, the 'core belief' you allude to could've been invented on the spot by the factions in power.

Or what prevented them from corrupting the meaning or the texts themselves?

I assume that when the public sees the final product and it is different from their original core beliefs than it would have been rejected.

There were a lot of illiterate people at the time. What makes you think they knew anything was different?

And you still haven't answered my last question: what prevented them (church authorities) from corrupting the meaning or the texts themselves?

[CTALNH]

Christians, if Twilight isn't true, why is it so remarkable?

Christianity just got pwned!

[Katyuscha]

... so, do Atheists win?

[Aethyopea]

Exactly what did it predict.

It predicted perfectly everything Jesus Christ did, for one thing.

So the bible predicted everything Jesus did after he did them?
If you think that's exciting wait until I predict the results of yesterday's lottery!

[Divair]

... so, do Atheists win?

We always win.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

... so, do Atheists win?

We always win.

I'm an agnostic. Do I win too?

[Katyuscha]

We always win.

I'm an agnostic. Do I win too?

Only if you believe hard enough.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm an agnostic. Do I win too?

Only if you believe hard enough.

So, should I knock my heels 3 times and say "There's no place like home"?

[ReVaQ]

Both are pieces of fiction. At least Twilight hasn't caused death and scientific regression for the last 2000 years or so.

While I diagree with it being fiction, the entire reason it's called a faith is because you have to have faith in it. There's no way to prove that it is true.

Are you a wizard..? One does not simply say that without wits. O_O

[Melas]

Before we go into what bible sais and if its real lets mention one thing,the writer believes his race is the only blessed one by God.Nothing else to say

[The USOT]

One of my main issues with the bible is actually that its followers are often inclined to call it as inspired from god, but dont follow half of what it says. Its probably the only religion im aware of where people seem to have a double think of "im following gods words" but choose not to obey them at the same time.

What do I mean by this?
How many people can claim to follow all of this?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

If not and you pick and choose areas of the bible based on what appears right to you, then why pick at all and just live how you want to live?

[Genivaria]

While I diagree with it being fiction, the entire reason it's called a faith is because you have to have faith in it. There's no way to prove that it is true.

Are you a wizard..? One does not simply say that without wits. O_O

[Katyuscha]

Only if you believe hard enough.

So, should I knock my heels 3 times and say "There's no place like home"?

If that is what you believe, then do it and see what happens.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So, should I knock my heels 3 times and say "There's no place like home"?

If that is what you believe, then do it and see what happens.

*knocks her heels together 3 times*

Ah... nothing. Didn't expect anything to change though.

[Unilisia]

Christians, if Twilight isn't true, why is it so remarkable?

Overexposure to the public?

That's ka-blammo!

[Sebastia-Zachistan]

I always love when these so-called Christians try to appear superior to others by way of their faith when they apparently don't know anything about their faith.

First off, assuming the Bible is a reliable source (highly debatable, but let's say it is to make things easier), the reason it predicts what Jesus did perfectly is because it was kind of, y'know, written after he did all that stuff. Really, think about it for a sec; if the New Testament existed before Jesus was born, and then Jesus went on to do exactly what was described in the New Testament, do you really think the Jews would've stayed Jewish?

Secondly, proving that what the Bible says is true by using the Bible is kind of...I don't know. I don't think there's a word for how dumb I find that.