The Bible

[Sleipnir]

I find it interesting that so many atheists are seemingly obsessed with the Bible.

I think its a matter of accuracy, not the bible itself.

I do think it's great because the more that people are exposed to it I like to think that some of the word of God will seep into them.

The bible isn't the word of God lol.....

Perhaps this is Gods way of exposing non believers to his word.

Which Gods? Allah? Zeus? Thor? Shiva? Jehovah?

Edited October 31, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mr.Canada]

I think its a matter of accuracy, not the bible itself.

The Atheists are obsessed with Christianity but have no criticism of Islam which has far worse practices in today's world....very strange.

The bible isn't the word of God lol...

Sure is. You see God gives vision and wisdom to people on Earth. People wrote the Bible through faith and God given wisdom.

Which Gods? Allah? Zeus? Thor? Shiva? Jehovah?

There is only one God.

[cybercoma]

The Atheists ... have no criticism of Islam

Yeah. Yeah they do.

[Mr.Canada]

Yeah. Yeah they do.

The threads on Christianity on this forum greatly outnumber those critical of Islam started by non believers. islam is executing homosexuals and stoning women everyday yet not a peep from the left wing atheists about it.

[cybercoma]

The threads on Christianity on this forum greatly outnumber those critical of Islam started by non believers. islam is executing homosexuals and stoning women everyday yet not a peep from the left wing atheists about it.

Most people don't create very many threads, except betsy and Peeves.

[Mr.Canada]

Most people don't create very many threads, except betsy and Peeves.

great, so there is a whole segment of society who are happy doing nothing about it. That doesn't speak well for a society that likes to protest everything under the sun. Oh that's right, a non white, non Christian might be criticized. That's against the handbook.

[Sleipnir]

The Atheists are obsessed with Christianity but have no criticism of Islam which has far worse practices in today's world....very strange.

maybe that's because we 'atheist' are more familiar with Christianity than Islam?

Sure is. You see God gives vision and wisdom to people on Earth. People wrote the Bible through faith and God given wisdom.

Well technically the bible was created by a council...it was voted on which story would make the bible. Some parts were accepted, others were rejected. So in a way, the bible was created by a vote...

There is only one God.

There are thousands of Gods and Goddesses lol

[Moonlight Graham]

Sure is. You see God gives vision and wisdom to people on Earth. People wrote the Bible through faith and God given wisdom.

Says who? Please prove this with any evidence whatsoever.

I could write a book that said that through God-given wisdom and faith, God has given me the ultimate power to lead to the earth and control all human governments in order to lead humanity to salvation and all must bow before me and bring me delicious baked goods as I am the voice and will of God. Would you believe it? Why not? I'm appealing to your fool-proof logic of faith & "god-given wisdom" aren't I?

[kimmy]

I find it interesting that so many atheists are seemingly obsessed with the Bible. I do think it's great because the more that people are exposed to it I like to think that some of the word of God will seep into them. Perhaps this is Gods way of exposing non believers to his word. Thank you Jesus.

I have to point out that Betsy started this thread, not atheists. Betsy started this thread to publicize her loony belief that the Bible is a science book and present her ridiculous "facts", and of course people responded.

As for talking about the Bible, I think that people should consider the whole thing when they're trying to decide whether it's an awesome source of wisdom. The whole thing, not just the sanitized little book the Gideons like to hand out. Because if you're not talking about the slaughter and genocide and raping and murdering and incest and slaves and chopping people's foreskins off and all that other Biblical stuff, you're just not looking at the whole picture.

-k

[kimmy]

I posted that last fact, with a source to back my claims. The opposition don't agree with it and yet can't support their claims

I addressed your message. I'm sure you just missed it. I'll repost:

This chicken "revelation" is just another typical example of Betsy's general mode of operation. Take a scientific statement that she doesn't even actually understand, and proclaim that it supports the Bible as a factual source of scientific knowledge.

Researchers have found that a protein called ovocleidin (OC-17) is crucial in the formulation of eggshells, and it is produced in the pregnant hen's ovaries, the Daily Express reports.

Therefore, the answer to the conundrum must be that the chicken came first.

Using a high-tech computer to look at the molecular structure of a shell, the team of scientists from the Universities of Sheffield and Warwick found that OC-17 acts as a catalyst, kick-starting the conversion of calcium carbonate in the chicken's body into calcite crystals.

UK scientists: Ovocleidin-17 is key to crack chicken-egg riddle

They protein they're discussing is the one that gives chickens the ability to form calcium carbonate into the crystals that form hard-shelled eggs.

The first hard-shelled chicken-egg was laid by a chicken that wasn't born from a hard-shelled egg.

But where did that chicken come from?!

Betsy's answer is, one assumes, that God must have created it as an adult creature from the dust of the earth.

A biologist will tell you that it hatched from a soft-shelled egg.

Not actually anything to support a Biblical account of creation here.

-k

[Sleipnir]

I have to point out that Betsy started this thread, not atheists. Betsy started this thread to publicize her loony belief that the Bible is a science book and present her ridiculous "facts", and of course people responded.

-k

Any chance she'll reasonably address the issue being raised against her?

[betsy]

Any chance she'll reasonably address the issue being raised against her?

It's been addressed so many times....scroll way, way back, Johnny-come-lately. What you're reading now from the same-old same-olds are just the same-old same-olds.

<yawn>

Edited October 31, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

It's been addressed so many times....scroll way, way back, Johnny-come-lately. What you're reading now from the same-old same-olds are just the same-old same-olds.

<yawn>

So in other words, no.

[Mighty AC]

Young earth creationists and evolution deniers completely baffle me. How do you deny something that is testable and observable?

[GostHacked]

It's been addressed so many times....scroll way, way back, Johnny-come-lately. What you're reading now from the same-old same-olds are just the same-old same-olds.

<yawn>

Something about a pot and a kettle being the same colour ..something something something whatever.

[Mighty AC]

great, so there is a whole segment of society who are happy doing nothing about it. That doesn't speak well for a society that likes to protest everything under the sun. Oh that's right, a non white, non Christian might be criticized. That's against the handbook.

If there were more Islamic posters here you would see more criticism from atheists. In my opinion, at this point in time, Muslims are more dangerous than Christians. It seems that Muslims are truer to their holy books than Christians and as a result carry out more of the evil acts commanded of them. Christianity was far more brutal in the past, but to their credit have mellowed over time allowing morality to temper their scripture. Society has forced Christians to make excuses for, or to pretend that, many evil and immoral passages do not exist.

Recently, the seemingly endless stream of immorality being spouted by Republicans in the name of the Bible has made it even more clear that Christianity has a long way to go. However, you are right that Islam is still far behind.

[Sleipnir]

Young earth creationists and evolution deniers completely baffle me. How do you deny something that is testable and observable?

Ask betsy and TimG

[WIP]

WIP, I don't think you fully understood what I was proposing in my statement.

What if we are ALL wrong?

And by that I mean, no heaven, no hell, bible/creationism is not true and at the same time evolution is not true. Agnostics by default would be wrong as well because there may not even be an argument to begin with in order to take a neutral position.

I guess you're right there! Evolution has nothing to do with beliefs in a designer of the Universe, or life-after-death concepts. We could go back to the Brain In A Vat example that everything we see, hear, touch and feel is an illusion generated to fool the senses; but what is the point of that....or the modern day version - The Matrix?

Since there are patterns in nature, and phenomena that can have reliably predicted results, I would rather categorize what is likely true from what is highly unlikely.....and I can't think of anything more highly unlikely than some creationist theory explaining the fossil record or the correlations in DNA found by comparing human and animal genomes.

Heaven and hell depend on us having an inner essence that is the real source of our mental experiences and lives on after we die. The growing body of knowledge on brain function leaves no room for a soul to function or to be necessary, regardless of some who claim to have left their bodies (which is actually an illusion created when visual and touch senses provide conflicting information), so that is highly unlikely.

When it comes to living in a designed universe: I haven't seen anything beyond appeals to the mysteries and gaps in our present knowledge....so I have doubt. Whereas those who believe in God of some sort, do not have anything conclusive to show me as objective evidence, but they still believe anyway....so they have faith. My objection is to the use of this issue as some sort of litmus test by the religionists to judge the moral character of unbelievers, and those trying to create a secular religion based on humanism for judging the intellectual capabilities of the believers.

So, we don't have anything conclusive to determine what this universe is, how many other universes exist, how they come into existence, and that ultimate decision which way to lean on the God question is a personal question based on faith or doubt. That doesn't seem like something that should be used for a dividing line....but many people use whatever they think will be useful.

[WIP]

If there were more Islamic posters here you would see more criticism from atheists.

Some atheists, not all! I for one, will continue to refuse to take the bait from religious fanatics like Mr. Nationalist, and join his little rally against the Muslims. If anything, I will extend to them greater benefit of doubt than I do for his brand of Christian theocrats because I can clearly see that our homegrown religious extremists are far more powerful, and have greater access to power, than the other competing brand over there...mostly in third world countries that we try to control through proxy dictators and extract their oil and other natural resources.....any chance that could be the wellspring of angry, anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists?

In my opinion, at this point in time, Muslims are more dangerous than Christians. It seems that Muslims are truer to their holy books than Christians and as a result carry out more of the evil acts commanded of them. Christianity was far more brutal in the past, but to their credit have mellowed over time allowing morality to temper their scripture. Society has forced Christians to make excuses for, or to pretend that, many evil and immoral passages do not exist.

Do you have any evidence....for any of this?? Seems like you are putting too much credence in agency of ideas and concepts as the sole motivating factors. The recent phenomena of Muslim suicide bombers is just that - a recent manifestation! The first instances of suicide attacks started with Tamil rebels against the Sinhalese Buddhist majority in Sri Lanka....not Hamas or Al Qaeda etc.

I've heard a few psychologists offer up the observation that the desire to commit suicide attacks is motivated by personal desires for revenge combined with feelings of powerlessness....sort of like the suicide attacker feels their own personal lives have been destroyed and their futures obliterated, so a final act of revenge looks extremely enticing.....check out the "Black Widows" - the Chechnyan women who lost their husbands when the Russians slaughtered whatever all of the resistance forces that were fighting a guerilla war against Russian Occupation. And if I can learn about this, why the hell can't Sam Harris figure it out? Since he has his doctorate in neuroscience now. Instead, he makes stupid statements connecting Muslims with desiring death, and almost half of all Christians in America looking forward to an atomic bomb going off in the Holy Land, because he read a poll that 44% of Americans believe Jesus's 2nd Coming will occur in the near future.

[Mighty AC]

I am by no means stating that Christianity is somehow moral or good. However, at this point in time the Muslim world is leading the league in dangerous, violent acts being committed. I didn't even mention suicide bombings, but state sanctioned killing for blasphemy, witchcraft or stepping out of line as a woman, proposed farewell sex laws, etc. are clearly a tier above current Christian douchebaggery. Granted Islam will likely never catch up to the volume of sheer evil committed by Christians over the years but at this moment in time it is more dangerous. The fact that both religions (or groups of religions) are evil does not mean they are equally evil right now.

That being said Christians make themselves feel better by arguing that Muslims are worse, are clearly deluded. In my opinion, those that know about the history of Christianity and still wear the cross are akin to modern day Nazi or Klan supporters. Most don't make the conscious connection though. Most are indoctrinated as children to a specific sect and rarely question or analyze their beliefs as adults.

You mentioned Sam Harris; I hope that one day we can achieve the universal humanist morality he speaks about.

[WIP]

I am by no means stating that Christianity is somehow moral or good. However, at this point in time the Muslim world is leading the league in dangerous, violent acts being committed. I didn't even mention suicide bombings, but state sanctioned killing for blasphemy, witchcraft or stepping out of line as a woman, proposed farewell sex laws, etc. are clearly a tier above current Christian douchebaggery. Granted Islam will likely never catch up to the volume of sheer evil committed by Christians over the years but at this moment in time it is more dangerous. The fact that both religions (or groups of religions) are evil does not mean they are equally evil right now.

Even the other points you mentioned about the decline into fundamentalism in much of the Muslim World cannot be separated from the effects of Western occupation and continued economic colonization. On the cultural front, the retreat into fundamentalism cannot be separated from prurient aspects of western capitalism -- they are subjected to the same tactics advertisers use over here to turn us into impulsive, neurotic consumers by using images of sex and danger to motivate us to buy. But, they make no distinction between us and our corporate class that use the mind manipulators on Madison Avenue to screw us up. It's all lumped together in the category of western, foreign degenerates.

But, I have heard and read from a number of Islamic scholars who point out that today's Salafists, Wahabbis and similar movements to turn the clock back to the golden age when their prophet walked the Earth, are also going back to a myth that never existed, just like today's fundamentalist Christians have created a new kind of Christianity that did not exist in the 1st century.....or until about 150 years ago for that matter!

That being said Christians make themselves feel better by arguing that Muslims are worse, are clearly deluded. In my opinion, those that know about the history of Christianity and still wear the cross are akin to modern day Nazi or Klan supporters. Most don't make the conscious connection though. Most are indoctrinated as children to a specific sect and rarely question or analyze their beliefs as adults.

I think there is a new mythological interpretation of history being created now, based on the idea that The Enlightenment ushered in a golden age for humanity and freed us from religious oppression of the past. Even if we go back to the inquisitions and purges of Jews in Europe, and the wars between the Catholics and new protestant religions that started, we can see that the motivations were not all based on religious creed. Why did it take until the time of Martin Luther before Germans in the Holy Roman Empire felt the need to burn down all of the synagogues and expel the Jews from Europe?

If you're going to blame Christianity for the Nazis and the Klan, how do you feel about fundamentalist apologists like Dennis Prager or William Lane Craig blaming the genocides of Stalin and Mao on being atheists? Atheist apologists like Christopher Hitchens used to argue up and down that they weren't motivated by their atheism; so how does the argument that the religious tyrant committed genocide because of his religion actually work?

You mentioned Sam Harris; I hope that one day we can achieve the universal humanist morality he speaks about.

Seems like he has created his own religion apparently!

[Mighty AC]

If you're going to blame Christianity for the Nazis and the Klan, how do you feel about fundamentalist apologists like Dennis Prager or William Lane Craig blaming the genocides of Stalin and Mao on being atheists? Atheist apologists like Christopher Hitchens used to argue up and down that they weren't motivated by their atheism; so how does the argument that the religious tyrant committed genocide because of his religion actually work?

I wasn't blaming Christianity for the Nazis or the Klan. Sure Hitler was apparently Catholic but I doubt that influenced his little genocide. What I was trying to get across is that choosing to be a member of an organization with such a past pardons or endorses the actions of said organization to some extent.

Today someone wearing a swastika or a pillow case on their head would be knowingly justifying the acts of the Nazis or KKK. I'm saying the religious are doing the same thing.

Seems like he has created his own religion apparently!

Really? Why do you say that? Do you not believe that morality can be universal and ultimately lies in the advancement of human well being?

Edited October 31, 2012 by Mighty AC

[betsy]

I addressed your message. I'm sure you just missed it. I'll repost:

This chicken "revelation" is just another typical example of Betsy's general mode of operation. Take a scientific statement that she doesn't even actually understand, and proclaim that it supports the Bible as a factual source of scientific knowledge.

UK scientists: Ovocleidin-17 is key to crack chicken-egg riddle

They protein they're discussing is the one that gives chickens the ability to form calcium carbonate into the crystals that form hard-shelled eggs.

I've checked out your source above. You must've missed this part:

]But the researchers have not yet managed to answer how the protein-producing chicken existed in the first place.[/b]

http://www.whatsonxi...om/tech259.html

So in your article, they don't know squat how the chicken existed in the first place!

Kimmy:

The first hard-shelled chicken-egg was laid by a chicken that wasn't born from a hard-shelled egg.

Whether it's hard or soft-shelled egg - it's still an egg. They're saying the chicken came first!

Kimmy:

But where did that chicken come from?!

Betsy's answer is, one assumes, that God must have created it as an adult creature from the dust of the earth.

Why shouldn't I tell you? It's right there on Genesis - clearly stated!

A biologist will tell you that it hatched from a soft-shelled egg.

In other words, your source is saying the egg came first. Give us your source.

Kimmy:

Not actually anything to support a Biblical account of creation here.

-k

Well the Bible explained that dilemma - and according to the article I gave, science supports what was explained in the Bible! Again, you'd rather believe in a series of accidents and luck as the answer for existence - and yet refuse to acknowledge the several claims in the Bible that are being supported by modern science.

What's being made clear is the fact that because of your atheistic faith - you are forced to be biased in your views. An objective, unbiased person would at least somehow acknowledge that yes, there seems to be such a "coincidence" - and not outright dimiss it in such a knee-jerk fashion!

After all, if your faith is pinned on accidents, and coincidences, and luck - surely you'd also see the uncanny coincidences that are being claimed in the Bible and being supported by modern science. But you don't. Because acknowledging it goes against your belief.

Hence, atheism is nothing more than just another religion.

Edited November 1, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

So in your article, they don't know squat how the chicken existed in the first place!

Did you know that a chicken is a bird?

Whether it's hard or soft-shelled egg - it's still an egg. They're saying the chicken came first!

You really can't think for yourself? Lord the child is hopeless.

Why shouldn't I tell you? It's right there on Genesis - clearly stated!

lol using the bible as a source...lol I should make a meme with that quote.

In other words, your source is saying the egg came first. Give us your source.

Which was already given sheesh.

Well the Bible explained that dilemma - and according to the article I gave, science supports what was explained in the Bible! Again, you'd rather believe in a series of accidents and luck as the answer for existence - and yet refuse to acknowledge the several claims in the Bible that are being supported by modern science.

Not really...

What's being made clear is the fact that because of your atheistic faith - you are forced to be biased in your views.

You? Yes you are biased against anything that remotely goes against your mythological belief in flying dragons and living zombies.

An objective, unbiased person would at least somehow acknowledge that yes, there seems to be such a "coincidence" - and not outright dimiss it in such a knee-jerk fashion!

......why don't you follow your own advice?

After all, if your faith is pinned on accidents, and coincidences, and luck - surely you'd also see the uncanny coincidences that are being claimed in the Bible and being supported by modern science. But you don't. Because acknowledging it goes against your belief. Hence, atheism is nothing more than just another religion.

Atheism is lack of a religion. You need to show explicit passage from the bible that is supported by science - nothing vague or suggestive is allowed as it can mean anything.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Sleipnir

[kimmy]

I've checked out your source above. You must've missed this part:

http://www.whatsonxi...om/tech259.html

So in your article, they don't know squat how the chicken existed in the first place!

Perhaps it was created across the road.

Whether it's hard or soft-shelled egg - it's still an egg. They're saying the chicken came first!

They're only talking about the protein that makes egg-shells hard. Eggs came along far before chickens or any other species of bird. Dinosaurs were hatching from soft-shelled eggs eons before birds even existed. That's common knowledge, even for you.

Why shouldn't I tell you? It's right there on Genesis - clearly stated!

Genesis also says that plants came before the sun and stars, so clearly it is not a reliable source of information.

In other words, your source is saying the egg came first. Give us your source.

Ok. Here's University of Minnesota evolutionary biology professor P.Z. Myers discussing the "chicken or egg" article.

The species ancestral to Gallus gallus laid eggs, the last common ancestor of all birds laid eggs, the reptiles that preceded the birds laid eggs…the appearance of egg laying was not coincident with the evolution of ovocleidin. The first chicken that acquired the protein we call ovocleidin now by mutation of a prior protein also hatched from an egg.

He says it's a bad article that doesn't accurately reflect the science being discussed:

You simply can’t make the conclusion the reporter was making here.

-k