[Centraal] Religie/Atheisme bash topic. Round #3 Fight!

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 november 2011 15:04 schreef SingleCoil het volgende:

[..]
Neem je dat niet aan dan verliest de bijbel z'n betekenis, en is iedere discussie bij voorbaat zinloos.

quote:

It takes a certain kind of person to believe what no one else believes. To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly there is sanity in numbers.

Jesus Christwho, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavenscan now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible?

And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window.

And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 november 2011 15:08 schreef TerryStone het volgende:

[..]

Zinloos... misschien.
Maar dat maakt de argumenten niet ineens ongeldig.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 november 2011 15:20 schreef GrumpyFish het volgende:
Hoe weten we dat god almachtig en ondoorgrondelijk is? Welk mechanisme is gebruikt om te geloven dat (welke?) god bestaat?

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 november 2011 15:20 schreef TerryStone het volgende:

[..]

Dat kan, maar verwacht met een dergelijke, kinderlijke redenatie dan ook niet dat mensen jou en je standpunten serieus nemen en dat is precies wat de gelovigen eisen in de discussies hier.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 november 2011 16:09 schreef falling_away het volgende:

[..]
Een van de redenen die ik vaker hoor zijn de profetieën die in de bijbel staan die zijn uitgekomen in het verleden en die voorspeld zijn voor nu (Beeld van David, de Openbaring etc.).

Dat de profetieën veelal self fulfilling binnen de bijbel zijn gebleken en de profetieën voor de toekomst zo vaag zijn dat ieder er een andere uitleg voor heeft doet er dan niet zo veel toe (want god's wegen zijn ondoorgrondelijk)

quote:

Prophecies to Identify the Messiah, Which Jesus Does Not Fulfill:

1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.

Prophecies Christians Use to Verify Jesus as the Messiah, Yet Clearly Fail:

4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

5) Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.

6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.

7) "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1. Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").

8) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.

A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 november 2011 18:00 schreef TerryStone het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk is het kinderlijk.
Gelovigen proberen vaak met rede en rationele argumenten te komen om hun geloof te onderbouwen en op die manier tegenstanders te overtuigen van hun gelijk, maar zodra dit faalt dan schakelt men over op argumenten die gebaseerd zijn op emotie of non argumenten" zoals "god is almachtig en ondoorgrondelijk" ,dat is geen echt antwoord op wat voor vraag dan ook.
Binnen een constructieve discussie is er geen ruimte voor dat soort non argumenten, ik vermoed dat gelovigen het ook niet zouden accepteren wanneer critici zich bedienen van zulke nonsens.

Creationist: Hoe is het universum onstaan?
Atheist: Het universum werkt ondoorgrondelijk!

quote:

Respecting religion, religious beliefs, and religious believers does not and cannot include treating them with kid gloves. If believers want respect, then they must be treated as adults who are responsible and culpable for what they assert — for better and for worse. This means that their claims should be treated seriously with substantive responses and critiques, if criticism is warranted. If believers are willing to present their position in a rational, coherent manner, then they deserve a rational and coherent response — including critical responses. If they are unwilling or unable to present their views in a rational and coherent manner, then they should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 november 2011 19:15 schreef ATON het volgende:

[..]
Jij doet de hele tijd aan ratiobashing en toch gebruik ik deze benaming niet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 november 2011 09:46 schreef Elzies het volgende:
God heeft niet de mens naar zijn evenbeeld gemaakt, maar eerder andersom. De mens maakte God naar zijn evenbeeld.

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 november 2011 13:21 schreef Molurus het volgende:

[..]
Nou mag iedereen in zo'n God geloven natuurlijk, maar die YECs zouden volgens mij geen van allen toegeven dat ze werkelijk geloven in een misleidende God.