Conviction or Repetition

[sdelsolray]

History is always a lie ... secular or sacred.  Pure propaganda.

Quite profound.  Do you have evidence to support your claim that "history is always a lie" (your words).  Of course you don't.  Care to retract?

[Blackleaf]

If you're not serious about finding the truth of God, you're wasting your time. Only the serious will find Him, though He is within reach of us all.

Bullshit. My first 25 years of my life were spent seeking God. I fully devoted myself at around the age of 18. Despite my life getting continually harder from that point on, I continued in my faith, believing that the hardships I faced were to help me grow. Instead, my faith grew more and more weak as time went on, and it became increasingly obvious that there was no god looking out for me, and no one listening to my prayers. Your god is unreachable, most likely because he doesn't exist.

[Baruch]

Quite profound.  Do you have evidence to support your claim that "history is always a lie" (your words).  Of course you don't.  Care to retract?

I never retract ... except if I misspoke ... in that I didn't clearly say what I meant, and did it in an inappropriate fashion.  Nobody, needs to deny who they are and what they think or feel.  And it is out of that ... that I post.

If you can cross-examine some historical person, who is still alive ... you still have all the problems that police have interrogating a witness.  All you get is that witness X claimed such and such happened to them or they witnessed such and such ... if it is factual or not is debatable.  If the witness is dead (as is usually the case) all you have is made up stories.  People make up stories all the time, it is how we apply meaning to our own lives and label the lives of others favorably or unfavorably.  And this is fiction, your own identity is a fiction (the one you apply to yourself and the one that is applied to you) ... but it serves a psychological and social purpose to think that something is true (in the conventional sense).  Now I love history, because I love stories, but I don't love them because I think they are true.  Truth isn't ... that George Washington did or did not chop down a cherry tree as a child, and then when caught, didn't lie to his father.  That story was created by Bishop Weames as a patriotic fable, in early America, to help describe, no less than Mark Train did about Tom Sawyer ... what it means to be an American.  The stories in the Bible aren't journalism, they are stories to be told by Jews to other Jews, to reinforce what Jews think it means to be Jewish.  American stories are no different.

[Hydra009]

I assume you can prove Adam didn't live 930 years? If you can, you must be a God yourself!

I know you've had your posting restricted due to being a troll/idiot, but I'd just like to say that this right here is proof positive that your "challenge" to point out a lie in the Bible was completely insincere.

Religion has so robbed you of rationality that you're willing to claim that it's plausible for someone to live to be 930 years old (newsflash: that's not plausible) and demanding me to prove it wrong, a demand that you know is beyond my capability (I also can't prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it a plausible claim)

Once again, this is a naked attempt at shifting the burden of proof because you know that you can't support any of these claims and therefore insist that the skeptic has to prove it wrong, which would either be impossible or would require godlike powers on my part.  Sorry to disappoint you there.

You've exhibited an unreasonable level of credulity towards your religion and put up impossible hurdles to advance any sort of skepticism.  This is dishonest.  And I know it's dishonest because I guarantee you that if I challenged the claim that Mohammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse, you wouldn't retort that I have to prove that he didn't.

[sdelsolray]

I never retract ... except if I misspoke ... in that I didn't clearly say what I meant, and did it in an inappropriate fashion.  Nobody, needs to deny who they are and what they think or feel.  And it is out of that ... that I post.

If you can cross-examine some historical person, who is still alive ... you still have all the problems that police have interrogating a witness.  All you get is that witness X claimed such and such happened to them or they witnessed such and such ... if it is factual or not is debatable.  If the witness is dead (as is usually the case) all you have is made up stories.  People make up stories all the time, it is how we apply meaning to our own lives and label the lives of others favorably or unfavorably.  And this is fiction, your own identity is a fiction (the one you apply to yourself and the one that is applied to you) ... but it serves a psychological and social purpose to think that something is true (in the conventional sense).  Now I love history, because I love stories, but I don't love them because I think they are true.  Truth isn't ... that George Washington did or did not chop down a cherry tree as a child, and then when caught, didn't lie to his father.  That story was created by Bishop Weames as a patriotic fable, in early America, to help describe, no less than Mark Train did about Tom Sawyer ... what it means to be an American.  The stories in the Bible aren't journalism, they are stories to be told by Jews to other Jews, to reinforce what Jews think it means to be Jewish.  American stories are no different.

Please demonstrate how the fact that historical Post #105 above was posted on this forum at 03:09:45 PM is a lie.

[Baruch]

Please demonstrate how the fact that historical Post #105 above was posted on this forum at 03:09:45 PM is a lie.

Lie doesn't equal falsehood.  Truth doesn't equal fact.  Don't confuse nouns.  Lie and Truth have to do with personal intention.  It may be a fact ... that the post was X on X date/time.  A fact isn't true or false.  If you were to state that X was on X date/time and you knew it wasn't a fact, then you are lying.  Otherwise you are telling the truth ... though often enough, people are mistaken, not lying.  In fact, the vast majority of statements by the vast majority of people are mistaken ... they simply are unaware.  So a true believer that says Jesus did X ... isn't lying, if they are sincere.  If they know that Jesus didn't do X ... and still claim it, then they are lying.

So you aren't lying ... as far as I care to investigate.  But we can always bring out the bright light and the rubber truncheon if you are into that ;-0

[Mike Cl]

How about you give me documented proof that any historical event, place, or person, recorded in the Holy Bible is false.

There are over 1600 pages in my Bible, surly you can find one sentence that bears an outright lie.

Moses is not an actual person.  I think there are several sentences in the bible that are supposed to have been penned by him. 

Also, can you point out where the so called 10 commandments can be found?

[Baruch]

Moses is not an actual person.  I think there are several sentences in the bible that are supposed to have been penned by him. 

Also, can you point out where the so called 10 commandments can be found?

Correct, Moses is a Jewish fiction ... one of many fables we created, mostly for ourselves.  It was never intended that Gentiles would take it up.  It would be like a Russian reading Tom Sawyer, and be so fascinated by it, that he wouldn't read any Russian literature, just read Tom Sawyer.

[sdelsolray]

Lie doesn't equal falsehood.  Truth doesn't equal fact.  Don't confuse nouns.  Lie and Truth have to do with personal intention.  It may be a fact ... that the post was X on X date/time.  A fact isn't true or false.  If you were to state that X was on X date/time and you knew it wasn't a fact, then you are lying.  Otherwise you are telling the truth ... though often enough, people are mistaken, not lying.  In fact, the vast majority of statements by the vast majority of people are mistaken ... they simply are unaware.  So a true believer that says Jesus did X ... isn't lying, if they are sincere.  If they know that Jesus didn't do X ... and still claim it, then they are lying.

So you aren't lying ... as far as I care to investigate.  But we can always bring out the bright light and the rubber truncheon if you are into that ;-0

You can't even retract your hyperbolic statement, which is restated again below. 

Quote from: Baruch

"History is always a lie ... secular or sacred.  Pure propaganda."

You are a pretentious coward.

[Baruch]

You can use whatever language you like (ad hominem) and you can misuse English (most of us do).  But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

So a sincere Muslim, Christian etc .. isn't lying.  They are mistaken (in most cases).  A sincere secularist isn't lying.  Most believers are ignorant of their own religion.  Most people are ignorant of the sea of propaganda they swim in.  Seculars usually have a better grasp of objective reality.  But history isn't a Star Date entry by Capt Kirk.  Star Trek isn't real.  There isn't some big videotape camera somewhere recording the objective facts, let alone the truth, that historians have special Platonic organs to consult from.  Hi(story) is anything but objective aka it is fiction.  I argue this with the most historian oriented guy here "Gawdzilla Sama" (though we agree on some narratives, we disagree on others).  So in this case, it wasn't hyperbole ... you can take whatever red/blue pill you want.  I prefer one flavor of propaganda over another, because of my individual psychology ... I see no reason to get angry over it.  Any more than I will be offended if you prefer French food over Japanese.

[pr126]

I mean, Allah just means god in Arabic, so I don't see what the big fuss about this is about.

Eh, no. Ilah is god in Arabic. Allah is a name of a god, like Zeus, Thor, etc.

The sahada says ā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadur-rasūlu-llāh

You are told a lie.
Just like the lie that Allah is also the god of the Christians and the Jews.
That Islam is an Abrahamic faith. That we all pray to the same god.

All lies to fool the infidel.
And the infidels want to be fooled.

The origin of Allah.

Pagan Origins of Islam

The pagan sources of Islam

None of the pagan / muslim rituals were ever practiced by Jews or Christians.
All rituals practised by  Muslim today are of pagan origins and hundreds  of years before Muhammad's Islam.

He kept those to attract new converts.

See also Jahilliyyah

[Unbeliever]

[joseph_]

So many people go to church today because their mama did it and mama made them do it. and the reason mama did it was because grandma did it and she made mama do it.

On the other hand there are people who grow up in a Muslim or a Budhist family. Then they have some kind of experience that convinces them that Christianity is the way to go.

I am curious to know how many people are Christian because they actually sat down and looked at all the information, thought about it, and were convinced to believe the dogma vs how many people are Christians because they are repeating what their parents did without ever asking about the authenticity of what they believe.

It is elitist to denigrate the common experience of religion. People are rational beings and their actions are driven by rational criteria, even if they are taught a certain way the faith is still confirmed to them through experience. People raised in a religious home can have a spiritual experience that grounds their faith in the realm of experience, the realm of the rational. Many people have similar religious views to their parents. But like science, which is continually reconfirmed through experimentation, the evidence of faith is reconfirmed through spirituality. People have experiences that confirm the teachings that they have received. These experiences are sufficiently powerful to shape the destinies of nations, as they have for thousands of years. Religious faith is much more nuanced and deep then mere childhood indoctrination.

[Blackleaf]

It is elitist to denigrate the common experience of religion. People are rational beings and their actions are driven by rational criteria, even if they are taught a certain way the faith is still confirmed to them through experience. People raised in a religious home can have a spiritual experience that grounds their faith in the realm of experience, the realm of the rational. Many people have similar religious views to their parents. But like science, which is continually reconfirmed through experimentation, the evidence of faith is reconfirmed through spirituality. People have experiences that confirm the teachings that they have received. These experiences are sufficiently powerful to shape the destinies of nations, as they have for thousands of years. Religious faith is much more nuanced and deep then mere childhood indoctrination.

Well, I'll give you this. You at least have a better vocabulary than most Christians who come here. To a certain extent, people are motivated by rationality, such as with the drive to avoid cognitive dissonance. However, people are much more motivated by emotion. If you expect me to believe that Christianity is driven by rationality, you're going to have to give some seriously strong arguments and scientific data, because everything in my experience with the religion says otherwise. Would a religion of rational people claim that the earth is 6000 years old because some ancient book says so?

Faith itself is by nature irrational. It accepts something as fact when lacking evidence of its validity, even denying evidence to the contrary. That is why the Bible says that Christians are supposed to live "by faith, not by sight;" because no experiences in the natural world, which can be perceived with any of the human senses, support belief in God. You cannot see, touch, hear, taste, or smell God. But according to many Christians, they can "feel his presence." That is emotion.

[Baruch]

And that is why i am not a Christian, I see G-d by sight, not by heart.