Atheists Unite!

[SkyChief]

Why do you suppose that is? Many places in which atheists seem to get together are very hostile. The moment I started posting here, I was immediately attacked for having a slightly diverse view.

Honestly,  there is one attribute which ties all atheists together.  And that is, simply,  none of us believe in gods.  While there exists many different 'degrees'  of atheism, the fundamental ideology is common.

Theists, on the other hand, can rarely agree on anything. Even within their own sect. 

Take two x-tians for example.  Put 2 of them in separate rooms, and you will hear 2 entirely different beliefs/concepts  about  the christ/god/holy ghosts/etc.

I think this is the one thing that frustrates theists the most - their inability to come to a consensus with their beliefs. Some accept the (new testament) biblical text as wholesale, while others recognise it as simply a compilation of parables.

Its a sad thing to watch.

[Qchan]

Honestly,  there is one attribute which ties all atheists together.  And that is, simply,  none of us believe in gods.  While there exists many different 'degrees'  of atheism, the fundamental ideology is common.

Theists, on the other hand, can rarely agree on anything. Even within their own sect. 

Take two x-tians for example.  Put 2 of them in separate rooms, and you will hear 2 entirely different beliefs/concepts  about  the christ/god/holy ghosts/etc.

I think this is the one thing that frustrates theists the most - their inability to come to a consensus with their beliefs. Some accept the (new testament) biblical text as wholesale, while others recognise it as simply a compilation of parables.

Its a sad thing to watch.

1) I agree. Theists do not agree with people within their own sect. This includes Muslims, Christians and Jews. This is why they're all so fragmented.

2) I also agree with you on you second point. Theists are frustrated that they can' t come to a consensus. For example: Christians can't come to a unified consensus because many of them are so hung up on tradition that they completely forget what their religious text tells them with plain and simple verbiage. Take for example, KJV-onlyists. These are some of the most crazy people I've ever met. They don't use common sense when told that the KJV is a terrible translation of the original text of the Hebrew and Greek. Even when corrections are made based on the same terrible sources the KJV uses, they denounce them as heretical versions of _their_ bibles. Even bibles written before the KJV version are considered heretical to these people. They're crazy.

So, I agree 100% with everything you just said.

[Solitary]

They don't use common sense when told that the KJV is a terrible translation of the original text of the Hebrew and Greek.

How could you or anyone else know this when there is no original text in existence?  Solitary

[Qchan]

How could you or anyone else know this when there is no original text in existence?  Solitary

Were you aware that the original language of the bible was Hebrew and Greek? Scientists have found over 50,000 biblical manuscripts. The interesting thing about that is that they all say the same thing. Only differences would be human error (spelling and grammar mistakes). So, when you take those manuscripts and translate them, you'll get the bible you know today. Only difference is, the KJV is a second-hand (and even third-hand) translation of the original text. It's a terrible translation, but there are people who live and die by it. That is what's sad.

[Solitary]

Were you aware that the original language of the bible was Hebrew and Greek? Scientists have found over 50,000 biblical manuscripts. The interesting thing about that is that they all say the same thing. Only differences would be human error (spelling and grammar mistakes). So, when you take those manuscripts and translate them, you'll get the bible you know today. Only difference is, the KJV is a second-hand (and even third-hand) translation of the original text. It's a terrible translation, but there are people who live and die by it. That is what's sad.

I'm a religious scholar, want to try me? Like I said, there is no original bible or text period. Scientists have found? You are getting even more comical! Solitary

[Qchan]

I'm a religious scholar, want to try me? Like I said, there is no original bible or text period. Scientists have found? You are getting even more comical! Solitary

Umm...
Archaeologists are scientists, my friend.

Also, I never said, "original bible". I said "original text" and "biblical manuscripts". The original text is called original, because scientists (archaeologists) have examined the manuscripts and found that they are identical in text. So, we can safely conclude that the text is original.

[Solitary]

Also, I never said, "original bible". I said "original text" and "biblical manuscripts". The original text is called original, because scientists (archaeologists) have examined the manuscripts and found that they are identical in text. So, we can safely conclude that the text is origina



Also, I never said, "original bible". I said "original text" and "biblical manuscripts". The original text is called original, because scientists (archaeologists) have examined the manuscripts and found that they are identical in text. So, we can safely conclude that the text is original.

The original text is also not known, only the biblical manuscripts.



This is a matter of opinion.

Archeology is a branch of anthropology, thus a social science which is true. I see a lot of these social scientists or teachers have misinform you about this, possibly out of embarrassment for their discipline. " A man has got to know his limitations. " Unfortunately, social scientists have an inflated opinion of themselves.

The next time you see an archaeologist ask them why so few of their numbers have been elected to The National Academy of Sciences.

I have heard anthropology and it's many branches referred to as "soft science". Perhaps that's because it relies so much on interpretation, and the difficulty involved in providing observable data, particularly those areas concerning the past. We can't visit the past to see for ourselves if our hypotheses are correct about how people lived day to day. However, I'm not comfortable with that label and I don't agree necessarily with what it implies.

As an anthropology graduate I see many people think that archaeologist are true scientists that use the scientific method, give me a break. I have studied anthropology, archaeology, and ancient languages and never considered myself nor any of my professors as scientists. researchers, yes, but not scientists. anthropology and archaeology have far too many hypothesis to be called sciences. Solitary

[Qchan]

The original text is also not known, only the biblical manuscripts.



This is a matter of opinion.

Archeology is a branch of anthropology, thus a social science which is true. I see a lot of these social scientists or teachers have misinform you about this, possibly out of embarrassment for their discipline. " A man has got to know his limitations. " Unfortunately, social scientists have an inflated opinion of themselves.

The next time you see an archaeologist ask them why so few of their numbers have been elected to The National Academy of Sciences.

I have heard anthropology and it's many branches referred to as "soft science". Perhaps that's because it relies so much on interpretation, and the difficulty involved in providing observable data, particularly those areas concerning the past. We can't visit the past to see for ourselves if our hypotheses are correct about how people lived day to day. However, I'm not comfortable with that label and I don't agree necessarily with what it implies.

As an anthropology graduate I see many people think that archaeologist are true scientists that use the scientific method, give me a break. I have studied anthropology, archaeology, and ancient languages and never considered myself nor any of my professors as scientists. researchers, yes, but not scientists. anthropology and archaeology have far too many hypothesis to be called sciences. Solitary

Hate to break it to ya, but anthropology is a science. If you are a anthropological researcher, that still makes you a scientist. Not all scientists run around wearing lab coats.

Anyway, the original text refers to the text derived from the ancient biblical manuscripts archaeologists have unearthed. The data found is pretty compelling, and if you disagree, well, that just makes you 1 scientist vs hundreds who do not share your opinion.

[aitm]

Doesn't really matter much what the language was written in, when it says the sky is water it pretty much means its bullshit.

[Qchan]

Doesn't really matter much what the language was written in, when it says the sky is water it pretty much means its bullshit.

Hmm... Sounds like you've read the bible. How much of the bible do you actually know?

[Munch]

Hmm... Sounds like you've read the bible. How much of the bible do you actually know?

more then the average christian does I'll bet. most don't read it, they are read to.

[Qchan]

more then the average christian does I'll bet. most don't read it, they are read to.

Maybe... but he said "the sky is water", which isn't what it says at all. My assumption is that he's basing his opinion from the worst translated version of the bible - that being the KJV.

[Solomon Zorn]

I agree that the King James Version is a poor translation.
Here's a Jewish one:

ו  וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹ×"ִים, ×™Ö°×"Ö´×™ רָקִיעַ ×'ְּתוֹךְ ×"ַמָּיִם, וִי×"Ö´×™ מַ×'Ö°×"ִּיל, ×'ֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם.   6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'
×–  וַיַּעַש×, אֱלֹ×"ִים, אֶת-×"ָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּ×'Ö°×"ֵּל ×'ֵּין ×"ַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּ×'ֵין ×"ַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְ×"Ö´×™-כֵן.   7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
×—  וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹ×"ִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם; וַיְ×"Ö´×™-עֶרֶ×' וַיְ×"Ö´×™-×'ֹקֶר, יוֹם שֵׁנִי.  {פ}   8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}

If you want to discuss some kind of apologetics, I suggest a new thread, rather than continuing to sidetrack SkyChief's intro thread.

[Qchan]

I agree that the King James Version is a poor translation.
Here's a Jewish one:If you want to discuss some kind of apologetics, I suggest a new thread, rather than continuing to sidetrack SkyChief's intro thread.

What was the point of showing Hebrew and then giving the KJV translation right next to it, and then saying you suggest a new thread? You just further sidetracked his thread.

[Solomon Zorn]

It's not the KJV. It's the JPS - Jewish Publication Society 1917. And that little slap in the face, for suggesting we discuss apologetics on another thread, is exactly the kind of thing that just got you banned. You have a terrible attitude.