English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I agree.

According to the late Dr. Bruce M Metzger, one of the
translators for RSV and NRSV Bibles, the New Testament is
trustworthy. For instance, the first century Josephus is
considered a trustworthy source for Jewish history. His
widely accepted work The Jewish War has about nine
manuscripts written in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth
centuries. There’s one Latin manuscript in the fourth
century. On another example, Homer’s popular work Iliad
has about 650 Greek manuscripts.

The New Testament in contrast, has over 5,000 Greek
manuscripts catalogued. Quite a few predate the Nicene
Council. There are about 8,000 to 10,000 Latin
manuscripts, 8,000 in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian.
All of which combined are about 99.5% pure – more so
than any work in antiquity. His statement about the NT,
“We can have great confidence in the fidelity with which
this material has come down to us, especially compared
with any other ancient literary work.” Dr. Metzger
taught at Princeton University for 46 years and died
February 13, 2007 of natural causes.

Now let's talk about faith, which is essentially what we have hope for in Christianity. People reject faith because the evidence stops at a certain point and you start believing because you cannot see, touch, or hear biblical accounts.

But atheists have double standards... Let me explain.

We have faith that math and alphabets exist, yet truly
they have no mass, they cannot be seen, they cannot
be heard, nor can they be touched. If we have a belief
system that looks at things untouchable, unhearable and
we base our entire lives on it (ie: we need numbers
to dial, we need the alphabet to talk and write)...how
big of a stretch is it to have faith in God?

Did you know there hasn't been a single time where we
noticed random chemicals form a cell? Not a SINGLE time.
So why is it that atheists believe that we all started from
chemical pools and out of it came living organisms?

Did you know that atoms always remain in their element
and specific organization? An oxygen will always be
oxygen, a helium atom will always have properties of
a helium atom. You see these elements and atoms have
LAWS, they are pre-made. They do not evolve, they do
not transfer properties. They maintain a constant mode
of programming. If this doesn't prove God exist, it
at least surely proves that there are constants in the
universe, and these 'constants' have been setup somehow,
someway.

The formality of atoms and how they interact is incredible.
Imagine clouds in the sky forming specific shapes and
having specific functions rather than just random cloud
vapors being moved by the wind. If you started seeing
clouds in the sky making formations and reacting to each
other, you're going to ask yourself -- what in the world
makes them do that? Who setup the rules?

The answer? God. It certainly isn't evolution.

Source(s):

"Kippur - the Final Judgment" by Dr. Diego Sausa
[isbn 0978834615] -- Learn about what historical facts the
Bible predicted correctly in history and who Jesus truly is and when He is coming back.

2007-05-25 08:48:07 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

30 answers

You still have not provided any empirical evidence of a god. More word of man.

2007-05-25 08:51:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 11 1

Those are certainly very fine idiotic ramblings.

Even if the bible were completely unchanged thru time, that does not change the fact that it is full of errors and contradictions. However, the bible has be rewritten and edited and changed over time.

Next up, you attack the alphabet because it cannot be measured? What is that about? The alphabet is nothing more than a system devised by man to help us communicate. It does not prove that a god exists. There is nothing that shows that a god exists.

No one has seen a cell formed from chemicals. Do some research and learn that it is not a spontaneous event. It takes time. More years than have been spent researching it. You have never seen a mountain formed, but here they are. Geology can tell you how they were formed by shifting plates.

I guess you know nothing of nuclear physics. Elements can change from one type to another in a nuclear reaction. Helium used to be hydrogen. Uranium can change into lead. It is possible to change the elements. We can even make gold if we really wanted to (of course the price of doing so is much more than what the gold is worth).

You are just showing off how little you know about science. Don't beg the world to join you in ignorance just because you believe in fairy tales.

2007-05-25 15:58:44 · answer #2 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 3 0

I am an atheist. If I am wrong, and I agree with the statement that atheists are wrong that would mean that the statement was incorrect. If that statement was incorrect, then atheists are correct. If that is so, then I am correct in agreeing with the statement that we are wrong. This puts us back at the beginning.

Your question / statement contradicts itself in a paradoxical manner.

Further, different atheists feel differently about different subjects. Some don't believe in evolution, some do. Some don't believe Jesus ever existed, some feel he did (they just don't think he was god). If we are all wrong, then those who believe in evolution, and those who don't are both wrong. This is not possible.

I have not read any of the details to your question because you presented your argument in such an uneducated manner that I know the details are not worth reading.

2007-05-25 15:54:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

Imagine clouds in the sky forming specific shapes and
having specific functions rather than just random cloud
vapors being moved by the wind. If you started seeing
clouds in the sky making formations and reacting to each
other, you're going to ask yourself -- what in the world
makes them do that? Who setup the rules?

WHAT? Your copy and paste uses the word imagine, and you use it as proof of God anyway? Wow.

Nice try. Next time, put it in your own words if you can. Oh and BTW - we don't care if you think we're wrong.

2007-05-25 15:54:04 · answer #4 · answered by ReeRee 6 · 7 0

You are going through all those words to say atheist are all wrong because based on a translator and instructor of a version of bible the New Testament said it is trustworthy?

You could had just said because on what a poet think is true, shakespeare is a god and what he had written actually happened.

2007-05-25 16:07:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Just because Casablanca is set in a real city doesn't make its characters real, nor its events.

Regardless, all you have to do is prove that a god or gods performed any of the miracles in the Bible, with objective, verifiable evidence, and you will 'win over' the vast majority of atheists, myself included. Not asking for proof of all of them--just one (argument from ignorance doesn't count--if one (or everyone) doesn't understand something, that doesn't make "God did it" the default explanation--that's patently absurd).

Can you do that?

2007-05-25 15:54:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I didn't see anything in that information that proves the existence of a god. Also, scientists HAVE used random chemicals in order to create amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. It is very possible that amino acids in some warm pool of water on early earth created a single cell organism.

2007-05-25 15:54:27 · answer #7 · answered by Ethan 3 · 7 0

So essentially you're saying: "I don't really understand how the world works, it's all a bit mysterious to me. Therefore, God must exist." If you want to know about the laws of the universe, and about atoms and how they work, do a science course. Finding the answers to your questions is really that easy.

2007-05-25 15:53:44 · answer #8 · answered by murnip 6 · 5 0

sorry, I started lmao at your Josephus statement, which clearly shows your ignorance in this area of study. It's a well known fact that the Josephus reference to "Jesus" was written in by Eusibus who blatantly admitted to having done it.. from there, I just couldn't go on.. your argument is an obvious cut and paste attempt at trying to look knowledgeable, and it's a violation of the community guidelines.

2007-05-25 15:58:29 · answer #9 · answered by Kallan 7 · 6 0

Dr. Bruce M Metzger is a complete idiot, just like anyone who reads and believes in the bible;

Here's the Solution for the bible and religion:

Create a Private, Personal, Direct, Divine Relationship with Our Creator and save Your Soul from religion's and atheist's beliefs.

Love and Believe in Our Creator;
Love and Believe in Yourself.

Only with Our Creator's Love and Peace will we be Truly Free!

Without God, there is No Love; Without religion, there are No Wars!

"religion is Spiritual fraud"; "religion is the Worse invention of humanity" - Jesus Christ, Buddha and any one else with Spiritual intelligence.

atheists = all the people in religion = all the ignorant fundamentalists = all the cults/superstitions = paganism

2007-05-25 15:53:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

God is just a superstition.

The NT was written decades after Jesus died, if he existed at all. Josephus is not a trustworthy source. There are three supposed references to Jesus in his writings. The first is definitely a forgery and the other two are debatable.

Your analogy of math and alphabets is a poor one. The symbols used have no inherent meaning. They only really exist as concepts in our mind. Now, if you are saying that God is only a man-made concept, then I agree. Otherwise, your analogy fails.

As for the rest, your knowledge of science is appalling. Of course there are no new cells being formed, because it tooks millions of years in nature. You won't see it happening in a lab experiment. In nature, you have too much competition from existing flora and fauna for new cells to evolve. The only reason they did in the first place was that there were already replicating strings of RNA and DNA around that gave rise to cell walls. We have seen those primitive strings of RNA and DNA form in nature and in the lab.

2007-05-25 15:51:56 · answer #11 · answered by nondescript 7 · 10 2

fedest.com, questions and answers