Why I don't argue/debate Christians anymore

My question is which bible do you follow and why that one and not the other books (ex: gospel of Q)

 

I read the NIV because it is easy to read... but any Bible that sticks to the original text is okay by me.

 

I apologize.

I don't think I'm being clear enough with my questions.

let me try again:

which original texts?

why?

for example, why not The Epistle of Barnabas? Epistle of Jude? Gospel of Thomas? Victor I? Excerpt of Theodotus?

These texts were written around the same time period as the books of the modern New Testement.

Why are these not also considered to be the word of god?

 

They did not reach the qualifications of the canon... I will explain later but I g2g

 

you can't prove atheism, so theorhetically don't you need faith to believe that there is no god?

 

No need to.
The burden of proof is not on atheists.

How do you prove that something doesn't exist?

I could tell you that I traveled to Mars yesterday, how can you disprove it?

all you can do is ask your self it is reasonable for a 20 year old ohioan with no money no connections and no magic powers to make to mars and back in a day.

Reason says it's extremely unlikley.

that's what athiest do.

Atheism is "lack of belief in the supernatural"

Not "belief that there is no supernatural."

there is a difference.

Faith is not required to not believe.

 

lol. well, i guess the original post has been completely negated.

 

Doh!

 

"Therefore, being perfect is impossible, striving for perfection is not and by striving to follow God's commands He sees our sincerity and knows who His true followers are."

so we can be saved by works alone

 

JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU'RE OUT, THEY DRAG YOU BACK!!! lol.

 

We are saved by accepting Christ. But part of that acceptance is attepting to follow his commands. His commands altough impossible to follow perfectly God sees us sincerely trying and that is the key.

 

Have faith brother. True faith is freedom. It is not slavery or obediance.

 

God knows what is best for us... by following his commands we experience true freedom.

 

The Bible holds the key to a living life to the fullest. The laws of the Bible only hold us back from doing evil. God knows what is best for us, because He created us.

 

The Bible states that God was the author of this earth and not only do I trust the Bible as the true words of God but also see divine evidence throughout creation of God. God could have made the earth with no shape, no color, no creatures or anything. But He made the earth with shape, with color, and with creatures from this I know we have a loving God. But does that prove God--no, through the Bible is how I know there is a God.

 

Well that is what it comes down to... Is the Bible a book of lie or a book of truth?

I haven't found an error yet but there have been many "supposed" errors in efforts to discredit the Bible. But if one is to really take the time to look at the Bible with an open mind they would soon discover that it is flawless book and the true words of God.

 

Simply put, man alone did not write the Bible.

 

What I mean is that everybody uses faith. Take science for example: science taken as a whole, places the truthfulness of a theory in it’s ability to be tested. However the process itself is not testable and therefore fails by it’s own criteria. If it is science that reveals to us what is true, then we have no warrant in believing science to be true. Science must first be assumed to be true in order to work. Science also relies on induction, or reasoning from particular to universal. It’s like an old woman concluding that the only color a mouse can be is gray, simply because gray mice are all she’s seen in her life thus far. Now notice, the old lady’s conclusion is wrong because her method of reasoning is flawed. Just because gray is the only color she’s seen a mouse as (particular), doesn’t mean that every mouse is gray (universal). No, it only follows that all she’s seen were gray mice. If tomorrow the old woman sees a white mouse, she will need to change her conclusion to accommodate the new finding. Her current conclusions, then, are always falsifiable by future data, and she is in a constant state of flux. This is just the problem with induction, neither it nor anything it set's out to prove can be shown to be true with any certainty, and it is, in fact, a formal fallacy. But induction is just what science relies on. As the great skeptic David Hume pointed out, science relies on testing and retesting and so on, but the assumption is that A will always follow B. This assumption comes from the past experience of A following B, however this in no wise means that in the future A will always follow B, The underlining assumptions here is that the future will remain consistent with the past, however there is not way to prove or even show this to be true. It must be assumed--it must be taken on faith.

Anyway these are but a few examples (science - (1) faith in process which can’t be shown, (2) faith in induction with can’t be shown and (3) faith uniformity of the universe with regard to future events in relation to past ones). Sorry if any of this doesn’t make any sense I’m a little tired right now

God Bless

 

I agree with you about the faith thing, but not with you on science.

I have faith that my chair will hold me when I sit down. I don't all carefully sit down in my chair testing it first, I just plop down. Faith isn't just a belief in god or religion. Some more definitions of faith:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

Now for science, I will admit I have faith in science. But this faith rests on logical proof and material evidence. Where I disagree with you on your opinion of science: The scientific method is testable, the scientific method can be shown, repeated, and scrutinized. Science is the scientific method, and all things learned on account of it. The fact that it is in constant flux and it's "truths" change with the introduction of new information makes it all the more trustworty, especially over a book written millenia ago by people that claim to already have all the answers (and excuse the unknown as the mystery of god), but with less understanding of the world around them. Something that CAN change with knowledge gained is always going to be more accurate and truthful than some archaic belief system with all the rules set in stone.

 

Science is not a thing of faith.

1-faith in process - There are often tests to see if the experiment is accurate. One form is the control. Many links can be shown between the experiment and the result. Some have messed up this link, and some of those have been shown to be faulty experiments. By science. That's the wonderful thing, science is self-correcting.

2-faith in induction - If you see grey mice, or green grass, or blue sky, or pink skin only, then it's a reasonable conclusion that the rest are like that. It is, however, a huge generalization, which is frowned upon in science, as generalizations like that frequently run into walls when it's found that black and white mice also exist. That not science, it's ignorance. I once thought all chocolate was dark. It wasn't scientific.

3-faith uniformity of the universe with regard to future events in relation to past ones - Not faith. This is a reasonable and logical conclusion. If out of 1000 trials, A follows B every time, it's a logical conclusion that it will always happen that way. There is a thing called certainty which is measured in percent. In order for an experiment to be considered accurate, it must have 95% certainty. This means that if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on its edge once, that can be chalked up to a fluke, and be said to be insignificant. For a simple example.

You seem to confuse faith with logic and reason. These things take no faith. They are self-evident. To most people.