One Verse At A Time...

[mmccaskill]

Hi. I'm a poster at The AN. I've reading this thread by sub_zer0. He actually started a thread over here under the same title and it proceeded the same way. He presented his subjective interpretation of the bible as absolute truth and inerrant.

 

Worse is this is more than likely just an experiment, not a sincere attempt at answering atheists' questions. He has a website wherein he admits to his visit at The AN as an experiment.

 

His original site had twisted versions of his conversations with atheists. He also originally claimed that after only a few days he was banned which was incorrect. It was almost a month later. Futhermore he was banned because when asked if he wanted to be banned, he said "Ban me if you want". Our forum rules state if banning is suggested or asked it will be done. He failed to mention this forum rule. Next he registered a second account just to come on and spread more crap, which violated another forum rule.

 

In case anyone is interested, here is proof of his dishonesty.. Scroll down to 1/22/06 "New Article: Inside the Mind of Athest's". Check out the "6 feebacks" link before clicking the link to the actual story. Keep in mind he edited some stuff after I responded.

 

I commend those who have shown patience and diligence with him. I had enough of him at The AN so I thought I'd let all of you here in on his dishonesty.

[thunderbolt]

Hey mmccaskill, welcome here, and thanks for the heads up. After posting what he had said on his website, all I can say is: he just a fucking dishonest asshole who loves to hear his own voice. He only validated the bullshit in his own mind, he did not bring a single solid argument to the table.

[Antlerman]

Sub!!! Lying is straight shot ticket to eternal blazing hell by the God you worship!!! Poor sub, too bad I won't see you there, because God only saves atheists because they are the only ones it seems who are sincere in their views, unlike you. You're a strange young head case you are! BTW - you just invalidated the bible by your actions.

[mmccaskill]

Sub!!! Lying is straight shot ticket to eternal blazing hell by the God you worship!!!

Exactly. He presents his intentions as genuine to help the unbelievers who NEED saving. Yet as his website says, his visits to The AN were just an experiment. Sub, you're going to hell. Way to go asshat.

[Ouroboros]

Welcome Mmccaskill, I hope you will stay and contribute to our site, and not just a temporary visit.

[Guest sub_zer0]

In your above post you said the following:

 

How can it be compared to the Biblical account when it is older than it

 

So... to summarize: We have now established that archeaology can legitimately be used to put a timeline on the use of the word "Canaan". Archeaology also legitimately establishes that the Sumerian flood myth pre-dates the Noah myth by several hundred years. So... now we are going to look at Sumerian mythology as it relates to the Bible in general.

 

Also... since you have now accepted archeaology's ability to date both the use of the word "Canaan" and the Sumerian flood myth ... this opens up another area of discussion. Specificially how valid are the dating methodologies used by literalists to determine (among other things) when Moses supposedly wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, when the Exodus happened, etc..

 

Sub... this is our new bench mark of discussion on Sumerian mythology and the Bible. I look forward to discussing this in more depth with you when you do come back to the board.

 

I do not see how, because the Sumerian myth speaks of a flood and that it predates Noah's Ark, that it can be viewed as invalidating the Noah's Ark story. There could of been many floods, it is important to remember that the story in the Bible is a global flood.

 

Are you saying that the Biblical depiction of the global flood is borrowed from the Sumerian myth? If so, list a verse in the Bible and something from the Sumerian myth and we will see if they match up. I am sure that the contrasts will outweigh the comparisons.

 

That is a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. If the Bible cannot be validated 100% then it isn't 100% true, it's that simple. If you present it as truth before even verifying it as truth, then you are dishonest.

 

You can believe your bullshit religion as much as you want, but you're not doing yourself any favours by actually admitting that you cannot prove that your bible is 100% true.

 

I am not admitting that the bible isn't 100% true.

 

No it doesn't, you're speaking as if this should apply to us. We don't care what you believe. If you present it as objectively verified truth, and then shift your goalposts to say "well I accept it", nobody is going to listen to you.

 

Your bible is then not objectively true, but subjectively true....by applying what you subjectively believe to be true as if it is objective is also dishonest.

 

What the Bible speaks about it is true.

 

Exactly. He presents his intentions as genuine to help the unbelievers who NEED saving. Yet as his website says, his visits to The AN were just an experiment. Sub, you're going to hell. Way to go asshat.

 

It became an expirement to see how you guys would react. The goal is always the same, to share the word of God.

[Asimov]

There could of been many floods, it is important to remember that the story in the Bible is a global flood.

 

No it wasn't.

 

I am not admitting that the bible isn't 100% true.

 

Then provide objective verification of the bible's 100% truth. Truth's have to be verified logically using an epistemic system, by definition.

 

What the Bible speaks about it is true.

 

Speaks about what? How is it true? Can you provide objective verification? No? Then dispense with your frivolous sentiments about your belief.

 

Nobody cares what you believe, sub_zer0, but since you present your belief as absolute truth then it is going to require absolute verification.

[Guest sub_zer0]

No it wasn't.

 

Yes it was Asimov, how wasn't Noahs' Ark story a global flood?

 

Then provide objective verification of the bible's 100% truth. Truth's have to be verified logically using an epistemic system, by definition.

 

That is impossible because you cannot actually verify God 100% in the first place. That is the need for faith.

 

Speaks about what? How is it true? Can you provide objective verification? No? Then dispense with your frivolous sentiments about your belief.

 

Nobody cares what you believe, sub_zer0, but since you present your belief as absolute truth then it is going to require absolute verification.

 

Speaks about, the world, humans, our existence, history, spiritual matters, etc.

[Asimov]

No it wasn't.

 

Yes it was Asimov, how wasn't Noahs' Ark story a global flood?

 

The fact that it didn't happen is a good indication.

 

That is impossible because you cannot actually verify God 100% in the first place. That is the need for faith.

 

Then you cannot claim the bible to be 100% true, if you do you're dishonest.

 

Speaks about, the world, humans, our existence, history, spiritual matters, etc.

 

So does the Iliad...that doesn't make it true.

[Guest bdp]

 

That is impossible because you cannot actually verify God 100% in the first place.

 

If you can't verify 'god' one hundred percent, then how can you verify something that is supposed to be 'god's word' one hundred percent? If you can't verify 'god' one hundred percent then you can't verify 'the god of the bible' as the one and only true god.

 

bdp, glad to be free...

[thunderbolt]

That is impossible because you cannot actually verify God 100% in the first place. That is the need for faith.

If your God can only be validated by “faith” then your god can be no more true™ or the only one than the god of any other religion. That’s what it is, your god is a matter of “faith” to you that cannot be validated, so to claim that he is true is not only dishonest, but it also causes you to invalidate your own holy book as being inerrant.

 

In other words subby, you have shot yourself in the foot … Thanks for making such a brilliant argument against your own god - I couldn't have done it better myself.

 

[Guest sub_zer0]

If your God can only be validated by “faith” then your god can be no more true™ or the only one than the god of any other religion. That’s what it is, your god is a matter of “faith” to you that cannot be validated, so to claim that he is true is not only dishonest, but it also causes you to invalidate your own holy book as being inerrant.

 

In other words subby, you have shot yourself in the foot … Thanks for making such a brilliant argument against your own god - I couldn't have done it better myself.

 

 

 

But His word, the Bible, can be verefied to a certain extent, that is what you are ignoring it seems like. Which is why I keep saying that what it can be verefied in leads me personally to believe what it says in all other areas. Faith is only needed when proof cannot be attained through the current level of the world's knowledge.

 

It's as if you think the Bible doesn't teach the idea of faith is believing in the unseen. And that one should not live by what the world has to say but to stay likewise faithful to His word as well as Himself.

[Taphophilia]

In the Epic of Gligamesh Utnapishtim’s flood is told in the 11th tablet of the Epic.

 

The council of the gods decided to flood the whole earth to destroy mankind. But Ea, the god who made man, warned Utnapishtim, from Shuruppak, a city on the banks of the Euphrates, and told him to build an enormous boat:

 

‘O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:

Tear down the house and build a boat!

Abandon wealth and seek living beings!

Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!

Make all living beings go up into the boat.

The boat which you are to build,

its dimensions must measure equal to each other:

its length must correspond to its width.’

 

Utnapishtim obeyed:

 

‘One (whole) acre was her floor space, (660’ X 660’)

Ten dozen cubits the height of each of her walls,

Ten dozen cubits each edge of the square deck.

I laid out the shape of her sides and joined her together.

I provided her with six decks,

Dividing her (thus) into seven parts.’

 

Utnapishtim sealed his ark with pitch, took all the kinds of vertebrate animals, and his family members, plus some other humans. Shamash the sun god showered down loaves of bread and rained down wheat. Then the flood came, so fierce that:

 

‘The gods were frightened by the flood,

and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.

The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.

Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,

the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:

“The olden days have alas turned to clay,

because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!

How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,

ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!!

No sooner have I given birth to my dear people

than they fill the sea like so many fish!”

The gods—those of the Anunnaki—were weeping with her,

the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?),

their lips burning, parched with thirst.’

 

However, the flood was relatively short:

 

‘Six days and seven nights

came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.

When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,

the flood was a war—struggling with itself like a woman

writhing (in labor).’

 

Then the ark lodged on Mt Nisir (or Nimush), almost 500 km (300 miles) from Mt Ararat. Utnapishtim sent out a dove then a swallow, but neither could find land, so returned. Then he sent out a raven, which didn’t return. So he released the animals and sacrificed a sheep. This was not too soon, because the poor gods were starving:

 

‘The gods smelled the savor,

the gods smelled the sweet savor,

and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice.’

 

Then Enlil saw the ark and was enraged that some humans had survived. But Ea sternly rebuked Enlil for overkill in bringing the flood. Whereupon Enlil granted immortality to Utnapishtim and his wife, and sent them to live far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.

 

Here is where Gilgamesh found him, and heard the remarkable story.

 

 

 

Comparison of Biblical flood and Gilgamesh flood:

 

Extent of flood: Global, Global

 

Cause: Man’s wickedness; Man’s sins

 

Intended for whom? All mankind; One city & all mankind

 

Sender: Yahweh; Assembly of “gods”

 

Name of hero: Noah; Utnapishtim

 

Hero’s character: Righteous; Righteous

 

Means of announcement: Direct from God; In a dream

 

Ordered to build boat? Yes; Yes

 

Did hero complain? No; Yes

 

Height of boat: Three stories; Seven stories

 

Compartments inside? Many; Many

 

Doors: One; One

 

Windows: At least one; At least one

 

Outside coating: Pitch; Pitch

 

Shape of boat: Oblong box; Cube

 

Human passengers: Family members only; Family & few others

 

Other passengers: All kinds of land animals; All kinds of land animals

 

Means of flood: Underground water & heavy rain; Heavy rain

 

Duration of flood: Long (40 days & nights plus); Short (6 days & nights)

 

Test to find land: Release of birds; Release of birds

 

Types of birds: Raven & three doves; Dove, swallow, raven

 

Ark landing spot: Mountains—of Ararat; Mountains—Mt Nisir

 

Sacrificed after flood? Yes, by Noah; Yes, by Utnapishtim

 

Blessed after flood? Yes; Yes

 

Was God/s sorry they caused flood? Yes; Yes

[Guest sub_zer0]

In the Epic of Gligamesh Utnapishtim’s flood is told in the 11th tablet of the Epi

 

 

Clipped and snipped a FULLY QUOTED lengthy post that was ONE GODDAMN POST ABOVE.

 

Subby, learn, read, comply.

 

Fully quoting the whole enchilda of the post for a SINGLE LINE REPLY is not necessary. Pull cranium from rectum as needed to allow for oxygen to freely circulate and recharge red blood cells in carotid arteries.

 

kL

 

Was God/s sorry they caused flood? Yes; Yes

 

 

and the date of this sumerian myth is what again?

[thunderbolt]

But His word, the Bible, can be verefied to a certain extent, that is what you are ignoring it seems like.

It is very interesting that you are now shifting your position from "100% true" to "can be verified to a certain extent." Again subby, by your own actions you are invalidating anything your book says, or what you assert about it as truth.

 

And I believe you are ignoring the fact that we have asked you to either backup your claims or backoff from your claims. You CANNOT have it both ways, and as you must have seen by now, we don’t let fallacious arguments fly.

 

Which is why I keep saying that what it can be verefied in leads me personally to believe what it says in all other areas. Faith is only needed when proof cannot be attained through the current level of the world's knowledge.

I honestly don't care what it "personally" lead YOU to believe, but I do care if you march in here and start making fallacious statements without backing it up. Your book is like ALL other religious books - written and compiled by men, not any god.

 

Faith is only needed when proof cannot be attained through the current level of the world's knowledge.

Faith is not void of substance - even your book states that.

 

It's as if you think the Bible doesn't teach the idea of faith is believing in the unseen. And that one should not live by what the world has to say but to stay likewise faithful to His word as well as Himself.

You can be faithful to whatever unseen entity floats your boat - it's only YOUR truth and it applies to YOU alone. I on the other hand am free to dismiss it as unworthy to follow.

[Taphophilia]

 

and the date of this sumerian myth is what again?

 

The tablets which contain the full story of the flood have been dated circa 650 BCE. However, portions of the story have been found on tablets from about 2000 BCE. A study of the language used in the tablets indicates that the story originated much earlier than 2000 BCE. 3 Variations of the original story have been found translated into other ancient languages.

[Asimov]

But His word, the Bible, can be verefied to a certain extent, that is what you are ignoring it seems like. Which is why I keep saying that what it can be verefied in leads me personally to believe what it says in all other areas. Faith is only needed when proof cannot be attained through the current level of the world's knowledge.

 

No, faith is never needed. Your insistence on it is irrelevant. Faith is belief in something despite evidence or logic. Your belief isn't justified.

 

If you can't even verify the God parts of the Bible, then you have nothing. You have a "This is based on a true story"-esque book....a "Million Little Pieces" so to speak.

 

I've already stated, SubZ, that I don't care what you believe. But you have just admitted that the Bible is not true 100%, since you admit that the bible cannot be verified 100%.

 

It's as if you think the Bible doesn't teach the idea of faith is believing in the unseen.

 

Irrelevant, a book telling me to accept blindly that which is not verified is like a compulsive liar telling me to trust him.

 

And that one should not live by what the world has to say but to stay likewise faithful to His word as well as Himself.

 

Again irrelevant. Since your book presupposes a difference between worldly and spiritual without actually providing verification of anything of the sort, I have no reason to think that the Bible is anything but what part of the world has to say.

 

Regardless, you are part of the world, and you are saying things. The message of the "world" is not consistent, so overly generalizing something like that is pretty damn retarded.

 

Since you've conceded that the Bible is not 100% true, I think that this debate is over.

[Guest sub_zer0]

If you can't even verify the God parts of the Bible, then you have nothing. You have a "This is based on a true story"-esque book....a "Million Little Pieces" so to speak.

 

I've already stated, SubZ, that I don't care what you believe. But you have just admitted that the Bible is not true 100%, since you admit that the bible cannot be verified 100%.[/b]

 

No, the Bible is 100% true despite it not being able to be verefied 100%.

 

Irrelevant, a book telling me to accept blindly that which is not verified is like a compulsive liar telling me to trust him.

 

I do not accept anything blindly in the first place as the created world is my proof in the general sense.

 

Faith arises when the current world's knowledge cannot find the proof to answer something stated in the Bible. Unlike you, I do not need proof as I have faith.

 

Again irrelevant. Since your book presupposes a difference between worldly and spiritual without actually providing verification of anything of the sort, I have no reason to think that the Bible is anything but what part of the world has to say.

 

Exactly my point, following the world and not what the Bible says. What is this difference? How on earth can you understand the Bible when your base is on the world? Why must it have verify everything it states? Isn't that for the world to do?

 

Regardless, you are part of the world, and you are saying things. The message of the "world" is not consistent, so overly generalizing something like that is pretty damn retarded.

 

How is the message of the world not consistent?

 

 

 

It is very interesting that you are now shifting your position from "100% true" to "can be verified to a certain extent." Again subby, by your own actions you are invalidating anything your book says, or what you assert about it as truth.

 

I have maintained that position the whole time. I know the Bible cannot be verified 100%, because you cannot prove God exists, that is why I keep saying faith!

 

And I believe you are ignoring the fact that we have asked you to either backup your claims or backoff from your claims. You CANNOT have it both ways, and as you must have seen by now, we don’t let fallacious arguments fly.

 

What do you want from me, what evidence do you need?

 

I honestly don't care what it "personally" lead YOU to believe, but I do care if you march in here and start making fallacious statements without backing it up. Your book is like ALL other religious books - written and compiled by men, not any god.

 

Prove it.

 

You can be faithful to whatever unseen entity floats your boat - it's only YOUR truth and it applies to YOU alone. I on the other hand am free to dismiss it as unworthy to follow.

 

I am free to dismiss it as well, nobody has given me a good reason yet.

[thunderbolt]

No, the Bible is 100% true despite it not being able to be verefied 100%.

Can you say logical contradiction?

 

I have maintained that position the whole time. I know the Bible cannot be verified 100%, because you cannot prove God exists, that is why I keep saying faith!

Then please stop saying it’s a 100% true, and please put your faith in a pipe and smoke it as much as you like.

 

What do you want from me, what evidence do you need?.

Anything, you pick!

 

Prove it.

I don’t have to, you are the one making the statement that it’s 100% true – and as it was explained to you before – the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU.

 

I am free to dismiss it as well, nobody has given me a good reason yet.

No, because you are to deaf to be able to drown out the religious chatter humming around in your head. You on the other hand have proven to us that it's false by your actions.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Can you say logical contradiction?

 

No, just because the worls current knowledge cannot explain something is not a logical contradiction.

 

I don’t have to, you are the one making the statement that it’s 100% true – and as it was explained to you before – the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU.

 

No it isn't, in case you forgot:

 

Your book is like ALL other religious books - written and compiled by men, not any god.

 

The burden of proof is on you this time...

 

No, because you are to deaf to be able to drown out the religious chatter humming around in your head. You on the other hand have proven to us that it's false by your actions.

 

What actions of mine have proven that it is false?

[thunderbolt]

No, just because the worls current knowledge cannot explain something is not a logical contradiction.

Then the ONLY honest discourse for you is to admit the obvious by saying “I cannot prove it’s 100% true, but it’s my personal belief.” Making a blanket statement that it IS while saying in the same breath you cannot prove it makes you a liar and dishonest. Hell is reserved for you.

 

No it isn't, in case you forgot:

 

Your book is like ALL other religious books - written and compiled by men, not any god.

 

The burden of proof is on you this time...

Nope, you still not understand the work. The statement is based on your original statement. If any other religion asserts that position, then they are welcome to come in here and debate it. But right now we are dealing with YOUR fallacious arguments. Get it?

 

What actions of mine have proven that it is false?

Your blatant lies subby. Get a clue.

 

 

 

So, how about picking anything that validates your truth? Anyting subby, anyting. Why did you ignore that? Don't have anything?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Then the ONLY honest discourse for you is to admit the obvious by saying “I cannot prove it’s 100% true, but it’s my personal belief.” Making a blanket statement that it IS while saying in the same breath you cannot prove it makes you a liar and dishonest. Hell is reserved for you.

 

I have never said I can prove it 100%, so no need to admit anything.

 

I have said that everybody has a choice. I have also said that since what can be validated as 100%, logic tells me that when it speaks on things that cannot be validated, it is 100%. I have said that I believe in that personally already and once said got shot down with, "we dont' care if you believe in that personally...", same old story. What a great forum!

 

Your blatant lies subby. Get a clue.

 

Again, what "lies" of mine have proven it false?

[Asimov]

No, the Bible is 100% true despite it not being able to be verefied 100%.

 

False. Everything regarded as true or false must be verified to be true or false before one can claim it as such.

 

I do not accept anything blindly in the first place as the created world is my proof in the general sense.

 

Yes you do, your blindly accept that the unverified portions of the Bible are true regardless of evidence or logic.

 

Faith arises when the current world's knowledge cannot find the proof to answer something stated in the Bible. Unlike you, I do not need proof as I have faith.

 

You act as if that's a good thing. I'm not retarded, so I don't use faith and feelings as confirmation of whether or not something is right despite the evidence or logic. I accept what is.

 

Exactly my point, following the world and not what the Bible says. What is this difference? How on earth can you understand the Bible when your base is on the world? Why must it have verify everything it states? Isn't that for the world to do?

 

No, it's for whoever claims something. Since you claim that the Bible is true 100%, it is up to you to verify that claim.

 

I don't follow what the Bible says because I disagree with what it says, some of the factual content, and the inconsistencies with reality that it has. Even if it's all poetic jargon, that doesn't make it more true, it just makes it an artistic piece of crap.

 

My "base" isn't on the world, it's on reality.

 

How is the message of the world not consistent?

 

Because different people say different things regarding religion. The only consistency is what is shown in epistemic systems like science and logic.

 

 

I have maintained that position the whole time. I know the Bible cannot be verified 100%, because you cannot prove God exists, that is why I keep saying faith!

 

Thus you are utterly useless.

 

I honestly don't care what it "personally" lead YOU to believe, but I do care if you march in here and start making fallacious statements without backing it up. Your book is like ALL other religious books - written and compiled by men, not any god.

 

Prove it.

 

Ok...

 

P1) Books are written by either Gods or Humans.

P2) It is impossible to prove that God exists.

 

C1) Therefore it is impossible to prove that the Bible was written by God.

C2) Therefore the Bible was written by Men.

 

I am free to dismiss it as well, nobody has given me a good reason yet.

 

Why should we? Who cares what you believe? I certainly don't. I already know that you have absolutely nothing of value to bring to the table.

[Taphophilia]

nevermind

[Asimov]

 

No, the Bible is 100% true despite it not being able to be verefied 100%.

 

and

 

I am not admitting that the Bible is 100% true

from: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=141799

 

 

 

He said isn't.