and thats why he was einstein and im not.

"Einstein likely staked various and slightly different positions on God throughout his life, but, even if he was an "atheist", he certainly wasn't an arrogant atheist."

Bravo! Bravo! Well said ; for you would assume that Atheism would be content , and greatly comforted in knowing there is no God. Just as I am comforted by his Grace and loving kindness. Not even a Moabite in the wood pile get`s in his way!

I cannot teach anybody anything, i can only make them think. - Socrates



To bad your straw man does not think.
I think your just grabing at straws and you will sink like a stone,.


Even a river knows where to run.

mmmm resort to an ad hominom without any other comment....wow the song of a defeated faithful.

Questioning the reliability of the bible is one thing, to claim God does or does not exist is another. First there is the question of what you really mean when you speak of God, and until we are agreed on that the argument can go no further.

Many thinkers say God is the infinte, or everything, and perfect in every aspect. This is the idea of God is it not? Or is God something besides perfect, and not the infintity of the cosmos? If someone thinks otherwise please, speak up.

Some might claim God is more than this, in that God is intelligent, which could not be doubted if God is indeed purfect and infinite, God would be the apex of intelligence, but some might claim that he is the creator, an intelligent one. As I write this, it becomes hard for me to deny the possibility of such an intelligent creator, but also it becomes no easier for me to affirm it. And that is the problem isn't it.

If what we mean by God is the infinity, or everything, then we cannot deny its existence, but to say that the infinity must be a single operating entity, that created within itself the universe with an intelligent purpose, is to claim that we know the nature of God, or everything and all potential from the purspective of a one, singular entity. I do not think anyone will be able to back up such a claim.

Neither can we deny the existence of the universe, and potential. So neither can we deny the existence of God, the all of everything, because that too would be a claim of ignorance, one without proof. So it holds that, we can neither disprove the existance of God, or prove the existence of God.

With this in mind we can turn to the issue of the bible unfettered, with thoughts of the existant or nonexistant, God, knowing that we do not know that, and proceed to persue the question at hand, "Is the Bible Reliable"? It seem to follow that the Bible cannot be taken literally, because the existance/nonexistance of God is unproven, and the Bible makes many claims that directly refer to God. Hence, it is unreliable.

Peace

but just cause you cant disprove something doesnt mean it exists, there has to be a line we draw...i have said a million times, replace god with unicorn and its the same thing, and just pointless to even think there would be one....bertrand russell said

Quote:

---

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

---

and dawkins went further saying

Quote:

---

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

---

and just in case that was plagiarism, i got it from wiki.

but i agree the first problem would be to somewhat define the god we are all talking about...seeing as how I started this thread and its about the bible i am reffering to the god of abraham, jacob, and what not.....and that one is the most common in our society, and the one that everyone usually modifies to fit their beliefs...

the main idea before we define god because god is defined in the bible to some degree. but to define what we mean by reliable. reliable for what, in what way.? morality? guidance? wisdom? who knows. many ppl can read the bible but take different stuff from it.

yOU have no desire to understand anything but yourself.
A lost soul indeed .
Deaf ears fall hard in the way of truth.
It seems to be a loss for you and your knowledge of man,circle the planet and find any culture without a spirit world.Seek and you shall find many content souls with out coruption or adultered from mans wicked split tongue.
When you fell down i guess no one ever picked you up cause your still in a pile of shit and you see nothing but the shit that man made.
Sowing that tongue could cause an infection that could spead and destroy the whole host.

Quote:

---

but just cause you cant disprove something doesnt mean it exists, there has to be a line we draw...i have said a million times, replace god with unicorn and its the same thing, and just pointless to even think there would be one....bertrand russell said

---

That was part of my point, that we can not prove the existence more then we can disprove it, unless someone can, but I can't, so if you can prove either I implore you to do so. It would be a fallacy of ignorance to claim either position without an argument.

Go back and look at my argument, the line is drawn straight down the middle.

Quote:

---

but just cause you cant disprove something doesnt mean it exists, there has to be a line we draw...i have said a million times, replace god with unicorn and its the same thing, and just pointless to even think there would be one

---

Of course it is pointless. But Bertrand Russel misses the point too. Who really gives a damn if there's a teapot somewhere out in space or not, it does nothing for me.

That's the problem with a quest for proof and truth, the more you look for it the more elusive it becomes. Science has no proof, only what we have come to expect in our little bubble of temporary stability. So-called fundamental laws break down in relativistic regions of space, near the black holes, or when objects approach the speed of light, then 1+1 no longer equals two. We live in the world of Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle. We cannot know the real position and velocity of something, because the mere act of being an observer changes it. We can only make up rules that work for ourselves in the immediate here and now, at these velocities, at these energy levels but looking out with our telescopes we see things taking place that confound our proofs.

Same with the small objects.

We keep splitting the atom to try and find the god-particle, but it always shows new variations of the strangest quirk.

And now the language of quantum physicists sounds eerily familiar to what the hindus said some 5000 years ago, they who had no telescopes or atom-smashing machines. They have sat down with these yogis and compared notes.

They who had only the ganga, and with their yogic meditations divinated the origins of time and space. But it matters not, eventually they too fall by the wayside.


Seek the truth? Seek Naughts!

In your own language-
"The will to a system is a lack of integrity."

For the human of subjective experience there is no ultimate proof. No gold standard, no philosophers stone. There is only a quest for MEANING.

Neitzsche believed that whatever a person thought, that was what became reality for them and it is totalitarian oppression to say it must be otherwise, thus and thus. To force your beliefs by insisting they are one and all is to annihilate all culture, art, ethics, creativity, free thinking, freedom.

But eh. It's garbage night around here and as the wife says, that too is a reality I must face.