This is my first message here.
I already proved to myself that both Islam and Christianity are wrong. Can you help me find sufficient proofs that show that the Torah is not from "God" or that it has a mistake?
Well, the "promised land" is a thin strip of arid land in the worst neighborhood on the planet. That and bacon.
Why would God care about what you eat? Why does God care about cutting off part of a man's dick? Why does god care about a bush burning?
Why would God make 10 commandments that could be shrunken down to about two?
Finally, why do holy men have to have beards? is that some sort of proof of masculinity?
Plus...you know its God...a magical giant dude who wants us all to do exactly what he says for no reason other than to avoid being burned for all eternity. If he's real, then he's a dick,
"In the beginning god"
Wrong at the very start. There is no god.
The question is; do you have any proof that judaism is the truth?
So, do you have ample evidence?
God is divine and perfect right? Makes no mistakes and all that? He also created man in his image, yes? So why are men born with a foreskin? Does god have a foreskin? If he created man in his own image, then god must surely have a foreskin on his schmeckle. And if god makes no mistakes then why are we required to cut that foreskin off of new born male children?
Is god himself circumcised? If so, what mohel did god use? More importantly, did god get the fuck you I'm god you asshole so shut the fuck up and circumcise me discount or did god... gasp, pay full price for his mohel?
You're going about it wrong. It's not up to anyone to prove the Torah wrong. It's up to you to prove it right. Until then, it's just a book written by tribes of near-ignorant goat-herders, with all the accuracy that implies.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 21, 2015, 11:12:37 PM
Well, the "chosen land" is a thin strip of arid land in the worst neighborhood on the planet. That and bacon.
Can't go wrong with bacon. :rotflmao:
IF you cannot find ample evidence that the babble is bullshit in the very first chapter of Genesis, you need some science in your life.
Judaism began as a polytheistic religon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism
Exodus didn't happen
https://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/95-2/
Noah's Ark is a myth
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/
So basically the tenets of the religion are founded on fables.
Question: instead of coming on here, why don't you just look this up for yourself? Its called google.
I am aware of the scientific inaccuracies that are present in Genesis. But you can argue that these stories are symbolic, in that they are fables with a morale to be implied.
Or you can argue that God is a deceiver. In which case we are screwed.
Quote from: Helliscold on January 22, 2015, 12:25:49 PM
I am aware of the scientific inaccuracies that are present in Genesis. But you can argue that these stories are symbolic, in that they are fables with a morale to be implied.
Or you can argue that God is a deceiver. In which case we are screwed.
And you can't use that line of thinking on Christianity or Islam? Why not? If you can, than how have you 'proven to yourself that they are wrong'?
It's this line of reasoning that makes clear that the burden of proof should always be on the one making the claim. Judaïsm could hypothetically be true. But where's the proof? There are good reasons not to believe, but where are the reasons to actually believe? Evaluate those. Running into this jungle of 'ifs' and 'buts' and 'coulds' based on unfalsifiable claims leads you nowhere.
Quote from: Helliscold on January 22, 2015, 12:25:49 PM
Or you can argue that God is a deceiver. In which case we are screwed.
That Satan guy seems to be ok though. He sorted out humans with knowledge. And he's killed less people than God.
Quote from: Helliscold on January 22, 2015, 12:25:49 PM
But you can argue that these stories are symbolic, in that they are fables with a morale to be implied.
So, you think that when they wrote the OT babble 3000 years ago (supposedly) that the people who were told these stories didn't really believe them? What would suggest that? Is there any evidence that the people three thousand years ago had sufficient scientific knowledge to claim that the first chapter of Genesis was bullshit? No, you don't. Because they did indeed believe this was the case because that is why they wrote it that way. What contemporary believers believe them to be are quite irrelevant. The original believers believed every damn word as written.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis
This is the last one. Its called google. You type shit in and you get responses. Nowhere on the forum does it say we are a research firm. Stop being lazy and do your own research.
You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place. There isn't anything to disprove.
The real question is how often do god crap and fart?
I can't access rationalwiki.
(http://sayanythingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/double-facepalm.jpg)
Let me first reply how did I disprove Islam.
"And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. " Quran 2:23
So if one has doubts, one should try to do what is recommended in that verse. Well for the sake of argument let's say the challenge hasn't been met yet. Would this be a proof that the challenge will not be met later in the future? No. So how is that a clear miracle that would one believe in the Quran?
I will go further and claim that such challenge is unmeetable. How would this prove anything at all? Mozart's music is very beautiful but that doesn't make it inspired or "descended" from heavens. And if nobody can do like Mozart's music then that's because people have different brains. Beethoven also makes fantastic music but it is just dissimilar to that of Mozart.
Last and most importantly, if one doesn't speak Arabic then one has to spend 5 years of ones life learning Arabic to participate to a challenge which supposedly "nobody" has been able to meet, this is a lost investment for something which (by the first paragraph I wrote) cannot be proven.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis
QuoteQuoteGenesis is the first book of the Bible. It is considered to be an allegorical or mythological account by most rational people, though some Biblical literalists like to think that these events actually happened. Most biblical scholars think the book is a confused melding of three distinct sources and an editor, making it highly self-contradictory. If you are a biblical literalist, those contradictions magically disappear. When citing verses, Genesis is abbreviated as Gen.
"Genesis" comes from the Greek word Î"ÎνεσιÏ,, meaning something along the lines of "origin" or "birth". This came from the Hebrew word ×'ְּרֵ×שִ×ית (B'reshit, literally "in the beginning"). The title is in fact an incipit - i.e. it's the first word that appears in the document (Hebrew ×'ְּרֵ×שִ×ית, Greek Î"ÎνεσιÏ,). The Hebrew titles for the books of the Torah are all incipits, while the traditional Greek names (the ones used in English) deviate from this formula.
[edit]Authorship
Traditionally, Genesis and the other four Mosaic books were considered to have been written by Moses himself. Although a minority among conservative Christians still hold to this view, the greater part of modern scholarship believes that they were collected in the middle of the first millennium BCE from a number of older sources. Literary criticism and analysis suggests three sources for the original material which was then edited by a redactor. The fact that Moses' death is related in Deut. 34 has mysteriously changed few fundamentalist whackjobs' opinions.
See the article on the documentary hypothesis for details.
[edit]Jewish vs. Christian versions
It is worth noting that the Jewish and Christian versions of Genesis have quite a few differences (as do much of the Hebrew scriptures in general), including the order of sentences and passages, the structure of passages, emphasis on the importance of particular stories, and, in fact, word choice when translating into non-Hebrew languages which can drastically alter meanings of particular verses. It would be inaccurate for someone who is schooled only in one version of Genesis to suggest he or she understands the other point of view.
Origin of Genesis accounts
Genesis is typical of the contemporary Mesopotamian worldview, and likely has been strongly influenced by non-Abrahamic religions or myths.
Based on similarities in both the story itself as well as shared cultural worldviews, many scholars argue that the story of creation week in Genesis is strongly influenced by (if not based on) the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish.[1]
[edit] Similarities with Enuma Elish
Order of Creation
"Order" from "Chaos" (The Torah places more emphasis on the organization of things rather than the 'something from nothing' aspect of creation that is emphasized by the Christian Old Testament.)
6th day creation of "man" or of "savage god". In the Enuma Elish, man is to be slave to the gods. In modern American Christianity, apparently God is Slave to the wills of Conservatives.
Concept that man is created in God's image.
The strange idea of light being created before the sun.
Virtually nothing else.
[edit] Similarities with Sumerian myths
The Sumerian myth and the Eden story share some similar aspects.[2]
The setting: a garden paradise surrounded by desert.
Forbidden Fruits.
Expulsion from paradise and physical punishment for eating fruit.
Using a rib from a male to create womankind.
The meaning of the female names; Eve (life), Ti (lady of life)
[edit] Similarities with Greek mythology
In Genesis, Eve's curiosity makes everything go to s***. In Greek mythos, Pandora's curiosity makes everything go to s***. In other words, female curiosity screws everything up.
Both Deucalion and Noah are commissioned to build boats and dump animals on, ignoring plants and marine life, and also without any sense of scale.
Both Noah and Deucalion get free kids.
[edit]The two creation myths in Genesis
Most biblical scholars believe that the first two chapters of Genesis actually contain two creation myths spliced together, along with "editorial comments" from the compiler (which some believe to be the spiritual precursor of WikiEditors, since he or she adds meticulous details like lists of "begats", pages of cubit measurements for a boat, and repetitive, redundant, recurring language).
In the first myth, the stages of creation are separated into six days. The second myth does not mention any separation of time periods.
In Genesis 1:6-8, the earth is covered in water. God (Elohim) commands the waters covering the earth to separate, forming land and sea. In Genesis 2:5-6, the earth is dry. God (v.2 YHWH-Elohim) had not caused it to rain yet. He then causes water to spring up from beneath the earth.
In Genesis 1:27-28, God (Elohim) creates man and woman (both unnamed) together, then tells them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. In Genesis 2:7, the LORD (YHWH-Elohim) creates Adam, then creates Eve from Adam's rib in Genesis 2:21-22. Adam and Eve are not told to be fruitful and multiply.
In the first myth, God gives the man and woman dominion over the earth. In the second myth, the LORD does not.
The first myth contains no reference to a self-contained Garden of Eden where the man and woman must remain. The Garden of Eden first appears in the second myth.
The first myth lacks geographical references. In the second myth, the Editors inserted names of the rivers and lands near the Garden of Eden.
In the first myth, the animals of the sea and air were created on Thursday, while the animals of the land, including man, were created on Friday. In the second myth, man is created before any plants are even created, let alone any animals to eat them.
[edit]Genesis back bends
Because of the two scrolls and the additions of the Editors, Genesis contains many conflicts. The Noah story has many fun examples.
Genesis 6:11 repeats Genesis 6:1. Perfect gods need to state things 2 or more times.
Genesis 6:19 God commands Noah to bring 2 of every kind. Yet in Genesis 7:1 he is to take either 7 or 7 pairs of each clean animal, and 2 of all the rest.
Genesis 7:12, it rained for 40 days, and the waters abate after 150 days and the ark lands. Genesis 8:1-3, it rains for 150 days, and the waters abate after 10 months, the ark landing after 7 months (I know, 7 ≠10 in my math book, either.)
Genesis 8:7 Noah sends a raven to find land. Genesis 8:8 he sends a dove to do the same. Modern translations use "then" as a conjunction. But, the original Hebrew Torah makes no such correction for the sudden change in bird species.
Finally, the land dries up. Either on the first day of the first month, or the 27th day of the 2nd month. Clearly, conservative math is not a new concept!
[edit]The big bang
Many biblical literalists imagine they can use the Genesis story as proof against the big bang theory. However, Howard Smith shows in his book Let There Be Light that through actually studying the text and not just reading the translation, one can find an idea similar to the big bang in the root of the Hebrew word "b're'sheet" ("genesis" is a translation of "b're'sheet").
In more modern (and possibly more accurate) myths written by Douglas Adams there is no doubt about the universe's origin in the big bang.
[edit] More Genesis science
The external markings of calves can be controlled by having their mothers look at markings on sticks when they are conceived:
"And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted." (Genesis 30:37-39)
In my previous post I disproved Islam, now I will disprove Christianity:
Gospel of Matthew chapter 5:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Law here means the jewish law. So Jesus Christ approves every rule, commandment and belief of Judaism. So using Jesus' standards let's see whether he is the messiah prophesized about in the Torah or not. The Messiah according to the Torah should be "son David", which means that Jesus' is the son of the son of the son ... of king David. But Jesus has no father. Case is closed.
It is amazing how Matthew's gospel starts by a long enumeration of Joseph's genealogy as son of David to prove that Jesus is son of David, and than claim that Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus.
That's so fun.
Quote from: leo on January 22, 2015, 09:51:26 PM
The real question is how often do god crap and fart?
While this is hilarious, it is also true.
Quote from: Helliscold on January 22, 2015, 11:28:40 PM
In my previous post I disproved Islam, now I will disprove Christianity:
So... you start out saying that parts of the babble are not to be taken literally, then you say that parts of the babble need to be taken literally...see the problem here? Do you think this has never been attempted before? It doesn't matter what your argument is if the babble is not the absolute word of god. I demand that it is indeed the word, every single word and every single phrase is exactly as god meant it. Not one damn verse is allegorical. Now we have some real meat to argue and believers cannot argue against it as it is written that way by god hisself. This is why the babble is bullshit, because science has proven it to be bullshit.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 23, 2015, 12:04:08 AM
While this is hilarious, it is also true.
God has a penis because is a he. The god of the bible is a selfcentered killer and asshole. This god is also jealous. God must also crap and fart very often. This is why shit in the world happens.
Here, I'm feeling generous. 230+ reasons to doubt christianity. If you can't get this link, sorry about that
http://www.kyroot.com/
Now I get it.
The burden of proof is not on us to disprove the Abrahamic religions. I grant you that. But since, we are being threatened with spending the eternity in a lake of fire, which would be unimaginably painful, and since half of the planet believes in the Abrahamic God, it will set my conscience free that I disprove the Abrahamic religions.
The number of people that hold a belief doesn't imply anything about the truthfulness of the belief, but it might mean something about the probability of its truthfulness, especially when you hear that some reasonable people like highly educated men or even sometimes scientists believe.
Sometimes some claims are not even worth spending a minute examining them, like for instance if five people in Mozambique believe that flying spaghetti monsters exist. But sometimes one should have a look and spend a lot of time.
I hope you see my point.
But anyway I think it is reasonable for me to claim that all the Abrahamic religions are severly flawed.
Fuck their believers who wasted my time, and who want to impose on everybody how they should live their life.
Quote from: Helliscold on February 03, 2015, 01:12:07 AM
I hope you see my point.
Not really. I understand why it could be important to point out fallacies if a large amount of people believed them. Especially do when these ideas hold dangerous implications. But i fail to see how numbers ofpeoples opinions highten The probability of a factual claim that has no evidence to support it.
Quote
But anyway I think it is reasonable for me to claim that all the Abrahamic religions are severly flawed.
Fuck their believers who wasted my time, and who want to impose on everybody how they should live their life.
Now you're talking
I think setting out to disprove every religion is a waste of time, there are so many, when you can just disprove things such as the kalam argument, (and others) which will consequentially, disprove religions
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 19, 2015, 08:32:09 PM
I think setting out to disprove every religion is a waste of time, there are so many, when you can just disprove things such as the kalam argument, (and others) which will consequentially, disprove religions
Disproving religions is easy. The waste of time is trying to convince the believers to see the truth.
it maybe easy but there many individual religions and millions of sects
like beating a fundamentalist is easy but having to root out every subgroup is hard
Quote from: Helliscold on February 03, 2015, 01:12:07 AM
But since, we are being threatened with spending the eternity in a lake of fire, which would be unimaginably painful
You'd get used to it. Like a hot bath.
Quote from: stromboli on January 22, 2015, 08:35:52 AM
Judaism began as a polytheistic religon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism
Exodus didn't happen
https://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/95-2/
Noah's Ark is a myth
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/
So basically the tenets of the religion are founded on fables.
Question: instead of coming on here, why don't you just look this up for yourself? Its called google.
Also, in Genesis 1 it states " And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.†7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.†And there was evening, and there was morningâ€"the second day."
Since there is no dome of water above the Earths atmosphere, it's pretty safe to say that their source is falty