I can't take this brainwashing cult know as christianity no longer....

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]I had no problem with what you were saying until you said that if we were rid of religion the world would be less violent. Without religion, this world would be just as violent as it is without it. The conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States (like it or not, we were at war, albeit indirectly, since the 1950s) rings to mind, and that was politically fueled, not religiously. The problem isn't religion. Religion is simply the justification for the true problem, human nature. The beauty is that without religion, the justification will simply switch to something like government. Indeed, in today's environment, it has already started the switch. Countries are less pious than they were before the Renaissance, and politicians are appealing to emotions of nationalism more than religion, or at least most leaders are doing as such.Funky_Llama

Fascinating logic there. 'Some conflicts don't happen because of religion, therefore religion is blameless'.

Wrong decision...

I NEVER said religion was blameless. I said that religion is the JUSTIFICATION of the REAL problem, human nature. My argument is that people are too quick to blame religion not only when religion isn't the true problem, but forces such as nationalism and, like it or not, science, have caused just as many conflicts in human society as had religions.

Perhaps you should read my words more slowly before trying to put words in my mouth.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]I had no problem with what you were saying until you said that if we were rid of religion the world would be less violent. Without religion, this world would be just as violent as it is without it. The conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States (like it or not, we were at war, albeit indirectly, since the 1950s) rings to mind, and that was politically fueled, not religiously. The problem isn't religion. Religion is simply the justification for the true problem, human nature. The beauty is that without religion, the justification will simply switch to something like government. Indeed, in today's environment, it has already started the switch. Countries are less pious than they were before the Renaissance, and politicians are appealing to emotions of nationalism more than religion, or at least most leaders are doing as such.tycoonmike

Fascinating logic there. 'Some conflicts don't happen because of religion, therefore religion is blameless'.

Wrong decision...

I NEVER said religion was blameless. I said that religion is the JUSTIFICATION of the REAL problem, human nature. My argument is that people are too quick to blame religion not only when religion isn't the true problem, but forces such as nationalism and, like it or not, science, have caused just as many conflicts in human society as had religions.

Perhaps you should read my words more slowly before trying to put words in my mouth.

But if religion is being scapegoated as you imply, then it would be blameless. The implication is clearly that it's not religion's fault.

Without religion, birth rates will go down do to abortions and contraceptives and such. Look at secular countries like Japan and Russia, those countries birth rates are negative and soon will have problems economically. Atheist China with it's one-child policy does cause lots of problems especially the sex ratio imbalanced where der is more males less females.

Now look at the countries with lots of religious people such as Latin America, Africa, Southern-southeast asia; those countries have tons of people and still growing. India a hinduist country is soon to overpass china. Also, it can be argued that these poeple live happier becuz they believe in a personal God.

Now these things can be argued, but i think the end result, a society with religion will be the survival of the fittest, while a society without religion will degenerate and fail at the end.

The_Nintendawg

But birth rates are too high. :|

I think they are, at least.

Without religion, birth rates will go down do to abortions and contraceptives and such. Look at secular countries like Japan and Russia, those countries birth rates are negative and soon will have problems economically. Atheist China with it's one-child policy does cause lots of problems especially the sex ratio imbalanced where der is more males less females.

Now look at the countries with lots of religious people such as Latin America, Africa, Southern-southeast asia; those countries have tons of people and still growing. India a hinduist country is soon to overpass china. Also, it can be argued that these poeple live happier becuz they believe in a personal God.

Now these things can be argued, but i think the end result, a society with religion will be the survival of the fittest, while a society without religion will degenerate and fail at the end.

The_Nintendawg

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="SIapshot"]

[QUOTE="TheFlush"] that's not what I meant really. do you honestly believe you still would have been a christian if you were raised in a muslim family in a muslim country? Besides, I think 'spreading the gospel' is rude. I sometimes get christians at my door that want to tell me there story, I don't want them knocking on my door. If I have the desire I know where to find them. The way they handle makes me respect them even less than I do already.SIapshot

My question is, why is it OK to generalize, stereotype, and otherwise belittle Christians because of the "actions of a few" when it is wrong to do so based on the color of a person's skin?

Here's your answer: It's not OK to generalise and stereotype Christians, and it's not OK to do so based on the colour of a person's skin.

I don't really see much bigotry against Christians happening in the US. And even if it was, Christianity is very far fetched, so that might explain the "bigotry".

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Probably because being Christian is a willing, irrational choice.

Theokhoth

I've asked you this three times before, and thus far you have ignored me: What makes something rational, and why is Christianity exempt from this criteria, and how does atheism fit this criteria?

Actually, I answered you. Christianity is irrational because of its reliance on faith.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]I had no problem with what you were saying until you said that if we were rid of religion the world would be less violent. Without religion, this world would be just as violent as it is without it. The conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States (like it or not, we were at war, albeit indirectly, since the 1950s) rings to mind, and that was politically fueled, not religiously. The problem isn't religion. Religion is simply the justification for the true problem, human nature. The beauty is that without religion, the justification will simply switch to something like government. Indeed, in today's environment, it has already started the switch. Countries are less pious than they were before the Renaissance, and politicians are appealing to emotions of nationalism more than religion, or at least most leaders are doing as such.Theokhoth

Fascinating logic there. 'Some conflicts don't happen because of religion, therefore religion is blameless'.

Your logic isn't much better. "It caused one or two conflicts, therefore it's bad."

:roll: I suspect you mean, "Religion is responsible for many conflicts, supresses free thought and scientific endevour, corrupts rationality and leads to child indoctrination, racism and sexism therefore it's bad."

[QUOTE="The_Nintendawg"]

Without religion, birth rates will go down do to abortions and contraceptives and such. Look at secular countries like Japan and Russia, those countries birth rates are negative and soon will have problems economically. Atheist China with it's one-child policy does cause lots of problems especially the sex ratio imbalanced where der is more males less females.

Now look at the countries with lots of religious people such as Latin America, Africa, Southern-southeast asia; those countries have tons of people and still growing. India a hinduist country is soon to overpass china. Also, it can be argued that these poeple live happier becuz they believe in a personal God.

Now these things can be argued, but i think the end result, a society with religion will be the survival of the fittest, while a society without religion will degenerate and fail at the end.

DeeJayInphinity

Every one complains about China controlling brithrates. But I actually agree with it. It's way overpopulated. If they didn't do something about it, the situation would just be out of control.

:roll: I suspect you mean, "Religion is responsible for many conflicts, supresses free thought and scientific endevour, corrupts rationality and leads to child indoctrination, racism and sexism therefore it's bad."

Funky_Llama

Nice. Lumping all religions in one package. What were you talking about before, regarding rationality?

Religion does not suppress free thought (the fact religions even exist is proof of this; people freely choose to follow religions), and religion only opposes scientific endevour when it becomes immoral (such as ESCR, which has never been needed anyway and is obsolete now), and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what makes something rational, and religion had a big hand in ABOLISHING racism and sexism in America (look up Abe Lincoln's religious beliefs).

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:roll: I suspect you mean, "Religion is responsible for many conflicts, supresses free thought and scientific endevour, corrupts rationality and leads to child indoctrination, racism and sexism therefore it's bad."

Theokhoth

Nice. Lumping all religions in one package. What were you talking about before, regarding rationality?

Religion does not suppress free thought (the fact religions even exist is proof of this; people freely choose to follow religions),

Couldn't be further from the truth.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:roll: I suspect you mean, "Religion is responsible for many conflicts, supresses free thought and scientific endevour, corrupts rationality and leads to child indoctrination, racism and sexism therefore it's bad."

-Austin-

Nice. Lumping all religions in one package. What were you talking about before, regarding rationality?

Religion does not suppress free thought (the fact religions even exist is proof of this; people freely choose to follow religions),

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Really? How do you explain. . . . . . . . .me, then?

People force people to believe in religion in some cases, but religion can't force anybody to believe.

[QUOTE="SIapshot"]

Then WHY is there so much MORE resistence to racial bigotry than there is to bigotry against Christians?-Austin-

I don't really see much bigotry against Christians happening in the US. And even if it was, Christianity is very far fetched, so that might explain the "bigotry".

My brother (age 12) went to a Christian bible camp for a week not knowing anything about religion. He comes back and he tells me I am going to be turned into blood mush and sent to hell in the revolation because I'm a sinner.

Wtf?

fishingalex

*claps*

Well said.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="SIapshot"]

Then WHY is there so much MORE resistence to racial bigotry than there is to bigotry against Christians?SIapshot

I don't really see much bigotry against Christians happening in the US. And even if it was, Christianity is very far fetched, so that might explain the "bigotry".

So bigotry is OK if your beliefs don't follow a logical sequence?

U guys bash so much on Christianity, when you don't really know much about it, it is actually a very logical religion with a firm basis on the belief of God.The_Nintendawg

I'd still be a faithful Catholic if Christianity didn't contradict its self on every corner. a55assin

[QUOTE="a55assin"]I'd still be a faithful Catholic if Christianity didn't contradict its self on every corner. SIapshot

Well, the church is a contradiction in it's self. So is every cross, figurine, and money-grabbing priest.

But then...it's just my opinion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Probably because being Christian is a willing, irrational choice.

Funky_Llama

I've asked you this three times before, and thus far you have ignored me: What makes something rational, and why is Christianity exempt from this criteria, and how does atheism fit this criteria?

Actually, I answered you. Christianity is irrational because of its reliance on faith.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]I had no problem with what you were saying until you said that if we were rid of religion the world would be less violent. Without religion, this world would be just as violent as it is without it. The conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States (like it or not, we were at war, albeit indirectly, since the 1950s) rings to mind, and that was politically fueled, not religiously. The problem isn't religion. Religion is simply the justification for the true problem, human nature. The beauty is that without religion, the justification will simply switch to something like government. Indeed, in today's environment, it has already started the switch. Countries are less pious than they were before the Renaissance, and politicians are appealing to emotions of nationalism more than religion, or at least most leaders are doing as such.Theokhoth

Fascinating logic there. 'Some conflicts don't happen because of religion, therefore religion is blameless'.

Your logic isn't much better. "It caused one or two conflicts, therefore it's bad."

:roll: I suspect you mean, "Religion is responsible for many conflicts, supresses free thought and scientific endevour, corrupts rationality and leads to child indoctrination, racism and sexism therefore it's bad."

But no religion commands people to actually do wrong.

P.S. I sent you a PM, plz read it and tell me ur opinion on that.

Actually, I answered you. Christianity is irrational because of its reliance on faith.Funky_Llama

You didn't answer me, and you're wrong. Faith is not irrational. You still need to tell me what makes something rational (which you obviously cannot do) and then tell me how atheism meets this standard.

[QUOTE="SIapshot"][QUOTE="a55assin"]I'd still be a faithful Catholic if Christianity didn't contradict its self on every corner. a55assin

Well, the church is a contradiction in it's self. So is every cross, figurine, and money-grabbing priest.

But then...it's just my opinion.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Probably because being Christian is a willing, irrational choice.

MFaraz_Hayat

I've asked you this three times before, and thus far you have ignored me: What makes something rational, and why is Christianity exempt from this criteria, and how does atheism fit this criteria?

Actually, I answered you. Christianity is irrational because of its reliance on faith.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]I had no problem with what you were saying until you said that if we were rid of religion the world would be less violent. Without religion, this world would be just as violent as it is without it. The conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States (like it or not, we were at war, albeit indirectly, since the 1950s) rings to mind, and that was politically fueled, not religiously. The problem isn't religion. Religion is simply the justification for the true problem, human nature. The beauty is that without religion, the justification will simply switch to something like government. Indeed, in today's environment, it has already started the switch. Countries are less pious than they were before the Renaissance, and politicians are appealing to emotions of nationalism more than religion, or at least most leaders are doing as such.Theokhoth

Fascinating logic there. 'Some conflicts don't happen because of religion, therefore religion is blameless'.

Your logic isn't much better. "It caused one or two conflicts, therefore it's bad."

:roll: I suspect you mean, "Religion is responsible for many conflicts, supresses free thought and scientific endevour, corrupts rationality and leads to child indoctrination, racism and sexism therefore it's bad."

But no religion commands people to actually do wrong.

P.S. I sent you a PM, plz read it and tell me ur opinion on that.

What many religions command you to do is wrong. Obviously it's not explicitly identified as such, but it's still wrong.

U guys bash so much on Christianity, when you don't really know much about it, it is actually a very logical religion with a firm basis on the belief of God.The_Nintendawg

Yea that is the main problem with people's arguments, Christianity is very logical. And Christianity doesnt take away your ability to think it allows you to think outside the box of our little worlds.

What many religions command you to do is wrong. Obviously it's not explicitly identified as such, but it's still wrong.

Funky_Llama

Interesting how you have these standards of right and wrong that are objective.

So what commandments in Christianity are wrong? "Love thy neighbor as thyself." So wrong. "Do not murder." Evil, evil.

Ugh. It's like this...

Faith in it's self is a wonderful thing. It provides hope for all. Give people reasons to live good lives. Maybe even explains some unexplainable things. It just simply opens up a whole new world.

Any specific religion on the other hand, is a complete fictional creation of a human mind. It was made by people, for people, and brought in a lot of money and false hope in the wrong things.

The Bible states that it is by God's will alone that mortals may be forgiven for their sins and granted entrance into heaven. So then, who is a priest to assume he has the power to work as God's hand? Just a human being that has read "holy teachings" many times over and get sprinkled by water.

Why is the Pope the only one with the power to change the Bible. And you all know that it has been done. Christianity is a creation of humanity. By the hands of mortals. The words of simple creation of blood and flesh. Not shiny being in the clouds.

Though I myself do belive in a higher being. Just not...well, like the TC said, a very wide-spread cult.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Probably because being Christian is a willing, irrational choice.

Funky_Llama

I've asked you this three times before, and thus far you have ignored me: What makes something rational, and why is Christianity exempt from this criteria, and how does atheism fit this criteria?

Actually, I answered you. Christianity is irrational because of its reliance on faith.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]I had no problem with what you were saying until you said that if we were rid of religion the world would be less violent. Without religion, this world would be just as violent as it is without it. The conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States (like it or not, we were at war, albeit indirectly, since the 1950s) rings to mind, and that was politically fueled, not religiously. The problem isn't religion. Religion is simply the justification for the true problem, human nature. The beauty is that without religion, the justification will simply switch to something like government. Indeed, in today's environment, it has already started the switch. Countries are less pious than they were before the Renaissance, and politicians are appealing to emotions of nationalism more than religion, or at least most leaders are doing as such.Theokhoth

Fascinating logic there. 'Some conflicts don't happen because of religion, therefore religion is blameless'.

Your logic isn't much better. "It caused one or two conflicts, therefore it's bad."

:roll: I suspect you mean, "Religion is responsible for many conflicts, supresses free thought and scientific endevour, corrupts rationality and leads to child indoctrination, racism and sexism therefore it's bad."

But no religion commands people to actually do wrong.

P.S. I sent you a PM, plz read it and tell me ur opinion on that.

What many religions command you to do is wrong. Obviously it's not explicitly identified as such, but it's still wrong.

For instance, what do you find wrong? (it should be a religious command).

Ugh. It's like this...

Faith in it's self is a wonderful thing. It provides hope for all. Give people reasons to live good lives. Maybe even explains some unexplainable things. It just simply opens up a whole new world.

Any specific religion on the other hand, is a complete fictional creation of a human mind. It was made by people, for people, and brought in a lot of money and false hope in the wrong things.

The Bible states that it is by God's will alone that mortals may be forgiven for their sins and granted entrance into heaven. So then, who is a priest to assume he has the power to work as God's hand? Just a human being that has read "holy teachings" many times over and get sprinkled by water.

Why is the Pope the only one with the power to change the Bible. And you all know that it has been done. Christianity is a creation of humanity. By the hands of mortals. The words of simple creation of blood and flesh. Not shiny being in the clouds.

Though I myself do belive in a higher being. Just not...well, like the TC said, a very wide-spread cult.

a55assin

Priests strike me as therapists. They don't forgive you; they give the assurance that you have been forgiven. As for the Pope changing the Bible, there is no rule that says he can.:|

[QUOTE="a55assin"]

Ugh. It's like this...

Faith in it's self is a wonderful thing. It provides hope for all. Give people reasons to live good lives. Maybe even explains some unexplainable things. It just simply opens up a whole new world.

Any specific religion on the other hand, is a complete fictional creation of a human mind. It was made by people, for people, and brought in a lot of money and false hope in the wrong things.

The Bible states that it is by God's will alone that mortals may be forgiven for their sins and granted entrance into heaven. So then, who is a priest to assume he has the power to work as God's hand? Just a human being that has read "holy teachings" many times over and get sprinkled by water.

Why is the Pope the only one with the power to change the Bible. And you all know that it has been done. Christianity is a creation of humanity. By the hands of mortals. The words of simple creation of blood and flesh. Not shiny being in the clouds.

Though I myself do belive in a higher being. Just not...well, like the TC said, a very wide-spread cult.

Theokhoth

Priests strike me as therapists. They don't forgive you; they give the assurance that you have been forgiven. As for the Pope changing the Bible, there is no rule that says he can.:|

But in new versions some verses are removed.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Actually, I answered you. Christianity is irrational because of its reliance on faith.Theokhoth

You didn't answer me, and you're wrong. Faith is not irrational. You still need to tell me what makes something rational (which you obviously cannot do) and then tell me how atheism meets this standard.

:lol: Of course faith's irrational!

Rationality is defined as "belief based on reason and evidence". Faith is defined as "The belief in the trustworthyness of an idea that has not been proven". Behold! An incredibly obvious mutual exclusivity!

But in new versions some verses are removed.

MFaraz_Hayat

Yes, because some people have this idea that changing the Bible is perfectly okay (*cougharchibishopofcanterburycough*).

But there is no rule in Christianity that says they are allowed. It's a rule of the Printing Press.

Ugh. It's like this...

Faith in it's self is a wonderful thing. It provides hope for all. Give people reasons to live good lives. Maybe even explains some unexplainable things. It just simply opens up a whole new world.

Any specific religion on the other hand, is a complete fictional creation of a human mind. It was made by people, for people, and brought in a lot of money and false hope in the wrong things.

The Bible states that it is by God's will alone that mortals may be forgiven for their sins and granted entrance into heaven. So then, who is a priest to assume he has the power to work as God's hand? Just a human being that has read "holy teachings" many times over and get sprinkled by water.

Why is the Pope the only one with the power to change the Bible. And you all know that it has been done. Christianity is a creation of humanity. By the hands of mortals. The words of simple creation of blood and flesh. Not shiny being in the clouds.

Though I myself do belive in a higher being. Just not...well, like the TC said, a very wide-spread cult.

a55assin

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But in new versions some verses are removed.

Theokhoth

Yes, because some people have this idea that changing the Bible is perfectly okay (*cougharchibishopofcanterburycough*).

But there is no rule in Christianity that says they are allowed. It's a rule of the Printing Press.

But I have even seen christian sites such as Biblegateway proclaiming how some verses from chapters such as Mark, were not found in the authentic manuscripts.

I do agree that priests can provide great clerical therapy sessions. I think it's an official type of therapy in most states. The problem is that we're told priests are holier than any normal person, that they have some kind of connection with God. Well, that's complete bs imo.

The Pope thing...the Bible has been evolving with the times. It needs to stay current. Some things back in the day would make no sense at the present. So it has been changed. Even if only slightly...so even if you believe the letters in the bible came from God..or Christ, it wouldn't be completely unchanged and original.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Actually, I answered you. Christianity is irrational because of its reliance on faith.Funky_Llama

You didn't answer me, and you're wrong. Faith is not irrational. You still need to tell me what makes something rational (which you obviously cannot do) and then tell me how atheism meets this standard.

:lol: Of course faith's irrational!

Rationality is defined as "belief based on reason and evidence". Faith is defined as "The belief in the trustworthyness of an idea that has not been proven". Behold! An incredibly obvious mutual exclusivity!

:lol: Rationality is not "belief based on reason and evidence" in the empirical sense! You seem to have this idea that empiricism is all rationality is, but in reality, rationality is LOGIC, and as we have discussed in the past, logic can come to any conclusion, meaning by definition religion is not irrational!

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rational: consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rational: Characterized by truth or logic.

Oh, and faith? That definition is not irrational either!:lol:

People who try to limit rationality to empiricism are so funny. By the way, you still haven't explained how your atheism fits your definition (and that's all it is: YOUR definition).

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But in new versions some verses are removed.

MFaraz_Hayat

Yes, because some people have this idea that changing the Bible is perfectly okay (*cougharchibishopofcanterburycough*).

But there is no rule in Christianity that says they are allowed. It's a rule of the Printing Press.

But I have even seen christian sites such as Biblegateway proclaiming how some verses from chapters such as Mark, were not found in the authentic manuscripts.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But in new versions some verses are removed.

SIapshot

Yes, because some people have this idea that changing the Bible is perfectly okay (*cougharchibishopofcanterburycough*).

But there is no rule in Christianity that says they are allowed. It's a rule of the Printing Press.

But I have even seen christian sites such as Biblegateway proclaiming how some verses from chapters such as Mark, were not found in the authentic manuscripts.

Oh, I rather thought it was an authentic site. Because, all the footnotes there aexist in actual Bible themselves. That site contains most versions of Bible, together with footnotes of each. And this was a fotnote in the new international version, i think.

[QUOTE="SIapshot"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But in new versions some verses are removed.

MFaraz_Hayat

Yes, because some people have this idea that changing the Bible is perfectly okay (*cougharchibishopofcanterburycough*).

But there is no rule in Christianity that says they are allowed. It's a rule of the Printing Press.

But I have even seen christian sites such as Biblegateway proclaiming how some verses from chapters such as Mark, were not found in the authentic manuscripts.

Oh, I rather thought it was an authentic site. Because, all the footnotes there aexist in actual Bible themselves. That site contains most versions of Bible, together with footnotes of each. And this was a fotnote in the new international version, i think.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Actually, I answered you. Christianity is irrational because of its reliance on faith.Theokhoth

You didn't answer me, and you're wrong. Faith is not irrational. You still need to tell me what makes something rational (which you obviously cannot do) and then tell me how atheism meets this standard.

:lol: Of course faith's irrational!

Rationality is defined as "belief based on reason and evidence". Faith is defined as "The belief in the trustworthyness of an idea that has not been proven". Behold! An incredibly obvious mutual exclusivity!

:lol: Rationality is not "belief based on reason and evidence" in the empirical sense! You seem to have this idea that empiricism is all rationality is, but in reality, rationality is LOGIC, and as we have discussed in the past, logic can come to any conclusion, meaning by definition religion is not irrational!

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rational: consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rational: Characterized by truth or logic.

Oh, and faith? That definition is not irrational either!:lol:

People who try to limit rationality to empiricism are so funny.

I - or to be precise, Wikipedia - never said it was just empiricism. Note reason and evidence. Your straw man argument is... irrational. Another quote from Wikipedia, on the subject of faith: "In the rationalist view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or scientific evidence."

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="SIapshot"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But in new versions some verses are removed.

SIapshot

Yes, because some people have this idea that changing the Bible is perfectly okay (*cougharchibishopofcanterburycough*).

But there is no rule in Christianity that says they are allowed. It's a rule of the Printing Press.

But I have even seen christian sites such as Biblegateway proclaiming how some verses from chapters such as Mark, were not found in the authentic manuscripts.

Oh, I rather thought it was an authentic site. Because, all the footnotes there aexist in actual Bible themselves. That site contains most versions of Bible, together with footnotes of each. And this was a fotnote in the new international version, i think.

...So you're arguing against his claims of biblical inaccuracy by citing biblical inaccuracy.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="SIapshot"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But in new versions some verses are removed.

SIapshot

Yes, because some people have this idea that changing the Bible is perfectly okay (*cougharchibishopofcanterburycough*).

But there is no rule in Christianity that says they are allowed. It's a rule of the Printing Press.

But I have even seen christian sites such as Biblegateway proclaiming how some verses from chapters such as Mark, were not found in the authentic manuscripts.

Oh, I rather thought it was an authentic site. Because, all the footnotes there aexist in actual Bible themselves. That site contains most versions of Bible, together with footnotes of each. And this was a fotnote in the new international version, i think.

i am not saying that. I am just saying, that the site doesnot include it's own footnotes. It includes those footnotes that are in the original version. So if these footnotes are their on the site, they must be in the new international version too. And I do hope, that when the New International Version was being published the church or whomever responsible, did check those manuscripts.

[QUOTE="SIapshot"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="SIapshot"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But in new versions some verses are removed.

Funky_Llama

Yes, because some people have this idea that changing the Bible is perfectly okay (*cougharchibishopofcanterburycough*).

But there is no rule in Christianity that says they are allowed. It's a rule of the Printing Press.

But I have even seen christian sites such as Biblegateway proclaiming how some verses from chapters such as Mark, were not found in the authentic manuscripts.

Oh, I rather thought it was an authentic site. Because, all the footnotes there aexist in actual Bible themselves. That site contains most versions of Bible, together with footnotes of each. And this was a fotnote in the new international version, i think.

...So you're arguing against his claims of biblical inaccuracy by citing biblical inaccuracy.