The Bible

betsy · July 12, 2012

ummm... no. Not to an "open-minded thinker". It takes a fundamentalist Christian to believe that actually. Which is fine. But don't pretend that you are something else... you aren't fooling anyone.

I've not pretended to be something else. I've always worn my Christianity on my sleeves, and am a fundamentalist to boot! Where have you been all this time?

I'm referring to other people. Open-minded thinkers won't be too quick to dismiss something that's being backed up with sources. An atheist who would, is a....fundamentalist atheist! They are powered by their faith....just like me.

betsy · July 12, 2012

Job 9:8 says God stretches or spreads out the heavens, and Genesis 1:6-8 tells us that the heavens are a big ceiling that keeps the waters off our heads, so it sounds like they are talking about God stretching out a big canopy in the sky. Not the Big Bang.

Which scientists say this? As you're fond of saying, "Cite Your Sources"

-k

I'm not sure if this was the one I've read quite a while ago, but here is one...

God created the universe in six days. Science says it took 15 billion years. How to reconcile those numbers? If you're Gerald Schroeder, the answer is simple: Do the math.

The math, however, is not so simple.

Schroeder is a physicist and biblical scholar who teaches at the College of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. He's one of several scientists trying to reconcile the ancient writings of the Bible with science, starting with the big one: Did God create the universe in six days, resting on the seventh? Or was it born in a fiery "big bang" billions of years ago?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," reads the story of creation described in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Schroeder, who earned two Ph.D.s from MIT, says those opening chapters are descriptions of the big bang itself. They are, as he says, "identical realities."more....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/02/science-vs-bible-reconciling-genesis-big-bang/#ixzz20RP4XJVe

Edited July 12, 2012 by betsy

BubberMiley · July 12, 2012

They are powered by their faith....just like me.

What's wrong with that?

GostHacked · July 13, 2012

I've not pretended to be something else. I've always worn my Christianity on my sleeves, and am a fundamentalist to boot! Where have you been all this time?

I'm referring to other people. Open-minded thinkers won't be too quick to dismiss something that's being backed up with sources. An atheist who would, is a....fundamentalist atheist! They are powered by their faith....just like me.

Fundamentalists hardly equates to 'open-minded-thinkers'. And I have yet to meet a fundamentalist atheist. Not like anyone can actually define what that exactly means.

Peter F · July 13, 2012

I'm not sure if this was the one I've read quite a while ago, but here is one...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/02/science-vs-bible-reconciling-genesis-big-bang/#ixzz20RP4XJVe

the theory is silly. Since the passage of time is relative to the observer, the theory goes, then the six days of creation can be any length of time at all and so Genesis is squared with Big Bang.

If the '6 days' can be considered any length of time one desires the question is then why not say 1825000000000 days? or two? or one? or instananeous creation?

If '6 days' can mean anything we want then the phrase is meaningless and if its meaningless and the author/s of Genesis new it was meaningless why even mention it?

If the author/s said six days because they knew the audience would not comprehend the immense time involved for creation then 'six days' should have some sort of relevance in regards to the passage of time that the audience could grasp. So the authors said 'six days' and not '6 years' because 6 days was a more accurate reflection of the actual time that it took for creationto occur: That is to say 'about a week in your feeble terms' and not around a month or around a year.

I suspect the story of creation involved six days because those days were necessary in order to get to the seventh day - which is the important day after all. To keep the audience from lazing around all the time the six days were necessary filler.

And so the story of Genesis has absolutely dick-all to do with Physics and more to do with social control.

cybercoma · July 13, 2012

Fundamentalists hardly equates to 'open-minded-thinkers'. And I have yet to meet a fundamentalist atheist. Not like anyone can actually define what that exactly means.

I'm an atheist fundamentalist. I don't believe in God and I don't think anyone else, regardless of what they claim, actually believes in God either.

Canuckistani · July 13, 2012

Fundamentalists hardly equates to 'open-minded-thinkers'. And I have yet to meet a fundamentalist atheist. Not like anyone can actually define what that exactly means.

Richard Dawkins. Atheism (ie certainty there is no intelligence directing the universe) isn't really any a defensible position than certainty that there is. Fundamentalist applies to someone interpreting their scriptures in a literal way, so it doesn't really apply here.

July 14, 2012

Signs You May Be a Fundamental Atheist...

_{1. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.}

_{2. You think that the primary aim of an omni-benevolent God is for people to have FUN.}

_{3. Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.}

_{4. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.}

_{5. You spend hours arguing that atheism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god", as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.}

_{6. You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.}

_{7. You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."}

_{8. You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".}

_{9. You believe that priests are only in it for the money, despite the fact that they make less than almost anyone else with their level of education.}

_{10. Your only knowledge of The Bible comes from searching 'bible contradictions' in Google.}

_{11. You believe the movie Dogma gives the most accurate portrayal of Christian theology.}

_{12. You refuse to eat at Church's Chicken, and it's NOT because the chicken's too greasy.}

BubberMiley · July 14, 2012

I don't think anyone ever said priests are only in it for the money. Everyone knows what they're in it for.

kimmy · July 14, 2012

I am still looking for a church where athiests gather, so I can attend. Celebrate our 'religion' together.

Great news, Gost!

-k

Edited July 14, 2012 by kimmy

kimmy · July 14, 2012

I don't think anyone ever said priests are only in it for the money. Everyone knows what they're in it for.

Oh SNAP!

-k

July 14, 2012

Oh SNAP!

-k

Except people have said that they are in it for the money, whether you and Bubber think anyone has said it or not. The Catholic Church, the Pope, all rich, eh?

Anyway, I think my favorite is Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses ..... with You spend hours arguing that atheism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god", as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life and You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique being close seconds. Of course You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded" is pretty funny too ......

As I've often said, just the other side of the fundamentalist coin.

kimmy · July 14, 2012

Signs You May Be a Fundamental Atheist...

oooh, fun!

1. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.

Aren't they teaching kids the right ideas about God in Sunday School?

2. You think that the primary aim of an omni-benevolent God is for people to have FUN.

Well, not fun, exactly, but I'd think that one of the attributes of an omni-benevolent god would be ... omni-benevolence. One needn't look too far to see things that make one question the idea that the universe is ruled by an omni-benevolent entity.

3. Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.

Sadly, not aware of any proofs that God (or gods) don't exist.

4. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.

The astronomical size of the universe doesn't argue one way or the other for God's existence, but it makes it a little hard to swallow that this one tiny planet is the only place where he created beings in his own image, revealed himself to us, killed himself for your sins, etc.

Would the author of such an incomprehensibly vast universe really care if you eat shellfish or work on Sunday?

5. You spend hours arguing that atheism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god", as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.

I do make that argument, because there is a meaningful distinction in real-life (see point 8).

6. You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.

I can! I usually stick with leprechauns and orbiting teapots, but pink unicorns will work in a pinch.

7. You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."

An easy argument to mock when the alleged sufferer is a well-off first-world teen. Much more difficult to mock when the subject is child in an impoverished country who's wasting away.

8. You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".

This is the big straw-man that Christian apologists like to trot out, and this is why the distinction in point 5 matters.

Do you believe in pink unicorns? Have you ever seen a pink unicorn? Do you have any reason to believe pink unicorns exist? Of course not.

Can you prove pink unicorns do not exist? Can you claim with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as a pink unicorn? Of course not.

Disbelief in the existence of something isn't the same as certainty of its non-existence.

That's why the distinction in point 5 matters.

9. You believe that priests are only in it for the money, despite the fact that they make less than almost anyone else with their level of education.

Might be true of Catholic priests, but there are pastors who make way more money with way less education than a Catholic priest.

10. Your only knowledge of The Bible comes from searching 'bible contradictions' in Google.

The majority of atheists in North America were raised as Christians and know about The Bible for the same reason Christians do.

Interestingly enough, atheists seem to know more about religion than Christians...

11. You believe the movie Dogma gives the most accurate portrayal of Christian theology.

Haven't seen it...

12. You refuse to eat at Church's Chicken, and it's NOT because the chicken's too greasy.

I know that some atheists boycott Chick-Fil-A, and it's not because the chicken is too greasy, it's because Chick-Fil-A donates a lot of money to anti-gay groups.

-k

Edited July 14, 2012 by kimmy

cybercoma · July 14, 2012

I do make that argument, because there is a meaningful distinction in real-life (see point 8).

This is the big straw-man that Christian apologists like to trot out, and this is why the distinction in point 5 matters.

Do you believe in pink unicorns? Have you ever seen a pink unicorn? Do you have any reason to believe pink unicorns exist? Of course not.

Can you prove pink unicorns do not exist? Can you claim with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as a pink unicorn? Of course not.

Disbelief in the existence of something isn't the same as certainty of its non-existence.

That's why the distinction in point 5 matters.

-k

Theists like to conflate the questions "do you believe in God?" and "does God exist?" without even realizing they're doing so.

This is one way I've argued that all agnostics are atheists, whether they want to admit it or not.

The two questions above are different questions.

When you ask an agnostic if they believe in God, they will make some response about being unable to know whether or not God exists.

If you don't know whether or not something exists, then you cannot possibly believe in it. At least not in a rational or coherent way. People that believe in things that they're not even sure exist are usually suffering from some form of schizophrenia.

In this way, agnostics are just trying to be "polite" about the fact that they don't believe in God, God's rules, holy books, the superstition surrounding God, etc. They quite simply do not believe any of it because they simply have no idea whether God exists or not.

Therefore, by definition agnostics are atheists because they are "without belief" in God (or Gods).

Canuckistani · July 14, 2012

I'm an agnostic - I don't know if there is a God for sure. But experience and reading lead me to believe there is an overarching intelligence in the universe - I would call that God, tho it's certainly not the God of monotheism. So your argument goes too far - it's possible to think something might exist but lacking solid proof to also be open to the idea that I'm mistaken.

Many atheists on the other hand, are certain there is no God. To me that's as foolish as being certain there is one with no proof either way, in the way we usually understand proof. Agnosticism seems like the only rational position to take, IMO.

bleeding heart · July 14, 2012

I would like to add that the movie Dogma (which I detest, incidentally, for reasons totally irrelevant to Christianity) takes it as a given that God exists.

Indeed, God is a character, as is a Prophet or two.

It's not an atheist movie; it's a revisionist Christian movie (as all Christian films automatically are, thanks to the medium itself, among other reasons).

I understand the Atheists are Idiots bit was something of a joke...but also serious, in that it's satire.

Poor satire, sure, but satire.

So you'd think the author--my guess is he or she is a somewhat hostile-to-thought Catholic, thanks to the "priest" and "Dogma" remarks--would get the facts straight, before ruining his or her own little joke with factual inaccuracies.

bleeding heart · July 14, 2012

I'm an agnostic - I don't know if there is a God for sure. But experience and reading lead me to believe there is an overarching intelligence in the universe - I would call that God, tho it's certainly not the God of monotheism. So your argument goes too far - it's possible to think something might exist but lacking solid proof to also be open to the idea that I'm mistaken.

Many atheists on the other hand, are certain there is no God. To me that's as foolish as being certain there is one with no proof either way, in the way we usually understand proof. Agnosticism seems like the only rational position to take, IMO.

I disagree, and I don't totally agree with cybercoma, though I'm sympathetic to his view.

There's more than one type of agnostic; some who say "I don't know" are really talking about their own cultural tradition. Full stop. They sure as hell don't believe for one second in Hinduism...much less the Roman pantheon.

So...why not the Roman pantheon?

More to the point, atheists, generally speaking, are also agnostics. The two aren't mutually exclusive; one has to get into a discussion that appears almost a matter of irritating semantics, but I think the argument matters:

I am an "agnostic" in that I can offer zero evidence that a god or gods do not exist. I have no way to do this, not even circumstantially. (I could prove some religious people wrong, but not the very notion of god itself.)

Further, I could be convinced that god exists, were good proof to be offered to me. I'm not natively opposed to the very idea.

However, this is not about the culturally-relevant, contemporary religions; it has to be about all of them.

If not...why not?

So I'm equally "agnostic" about the homeric gods. I mean exactly to the same degree as the Christian God.

There is zero distinction. None, whatsoever. I'm not being coy; I'm 100% serious, as I think at bottom it's a serious discussion.

And the fact is, no one is "agnostic," in the sense we usually mean it, about the Homeric gods. People, virtually all of them, simply think that belief system is flatly untrue.

But technically, if I am to be slightly pedantic, I have to say that I don't know for sure.

And so atheism is the default position, that's all. I'm an agnostic, technically; but to make my opinion clear, I'd call myself an atheist.

Edited July 14, 2012 by bleeding heart

kimmy · July 14, 2012

Backtrack and read. Most, if not all of your rebutts have all been discussed. You're just rehashing.

Better yet, review Genesis. For all your talk about *studying,* it's amazing how you could've missed it.

I've read Genesis... it says God created the earth first (Gen 1:10), plants second (Gen 1:11-12), and the sun and stars later (Gen 1:16).

Where does that leave your idea that "science is proving the Bible right"?

I'm referring to other people. Open-minded thinkers won't be too quick to dismiss something that's being backed up with sources. An atheist who would, is a....fundamentalist atheist! They are powered by their faith....just like me.

Open-minded and gullible are not the same thing. The claims you have made are not worth a lot of consideration, and the sources you've cited... well, they're mostly cut-and-pasted from professional apologists, are they not?

I'm not sure if this was the one I've read quite a while ago, but here is one...

Peter F has addressed one of my complaints about that article: it really isn't a good explanation. It's as if the writer figured they could just say "Einstein" a bunch of times and people would be in awe: "oooh! Science! Einstein says the Bible is true!" but this is really an inane explanation.

If you're going to use relativity to explain why "days" could have actually been billions of years, then you've introduced the concept of an observer and two frames of reference with very rapid motion relative to each other. One frame of reference is obviously the earth, but what's the other frame of reference, and who is the observer keeping track of the time? Is God the observer in the second frame of reference that is moving rapidly relative to the earth? God must be the observer, because he's the only being who exists at this point. Schroeder's concept only makes sense if you suppose that God is an actual physical being who is at an actual physical place within this universe while the earth speeds away from him at very near the speed of light, as he continues to build it. But Christian apologists like William Lane Craig will tell you that God has to be a being who exists outside of the universe, not a finite physical being within this universe. God can't have the property of "maximal excellence" if he's a finite physical being. So Schroeder's idea just doesn't add up.

My second comment: it just addresses one issue, and a minor issue at that. He explains something that as far as I'm concerned didn't even need explaining. It's a nonsensical explanation of something that didn't actually need explaining. I like the mainstream explanation much better: the "days" of creation are not literal days, but rather ages. How could they be literal days when the earth and sun weren't even made until halfway through?

My third comment: I actually agree with Ken Ham about this. I mean, I think he's a moron, but at least there's some integrity to his position. Once you've accepted the idea that a magic sky wizard did everything, what need is there to reconcile that viewpoint with any other? It becomes an intellectually dishonest exercise, because as soon as you run into contradictions "sky wizard" becomes the answer.

-k

cybercoma · July 14, 2012

I'm an agnostic - I don't know if there is a God for sure. But experience and reading lead me to believe there is an overarching intelligence in the universe

In other words, you've come to a conclusion, which isn't very agnostic at all.

Canuckistani · July 14, 2012

I disagree, and I don't totally agree with cybercoma, though I'm sympathetic to his view.

There's more than one type of agnostic; some who say "I don't know" are really talking about their own cultural tradition. Full stop. They sure as hell don't believe for one second in Hinduism...much less the Roman pantheon.

So...why not the Roman pantheon?

More to the point, atheists, generally speaking, are also agnostics. The two aren't mutually exclusive; one has to get into a discussion that appears almost a matter of irritating semantics, but I think the argument matters:

I am an "agnostic" in that I can offer zero evidence that a god or gods do not exist. I have no way to do this, not even circumstantially. (I could prove some religious people wrong, but not the very notion of god itself.)

Further, I could be convinced that god exists, were good proof to be offered to me. I'm not natively opposed to the very idea.

However, this is not about the culturally-relevant, contemporary religions; it has to be about all of them.

If not...why not?

So I'm equally "agnostic" about the homeric gods. I mean exactly to the same degree as the Christian God.

There is zero distinction. None, whatsoever. I'm not being coy; I'm 100% serious, as I think at bottom it's a serious discussion.

And the fact is, no one is "agnostic," in the sense we usually mean it, about the Homeric gods. People, virtually all of them, simply think that belief system is flatly untrue.

But technically, if I am to be slightly pedantic, I have to say that I don't know for sure.

And so atheism is the default position, that's all. I'm an agnostic, technically; but to make my opinion clear, I'd call myself an atheist.

I'm pretty well an atheist as far as the monotheistic God is concerned - I really doubt His existence as I understand it. But I can't prove it, so I wouldn't get into an argument with somebody that He does not exist.

Really, before 2 people agree on a definition of God, any discussion about it is useless.

Canuckistani · July 14, 2012

In other words, you've come to a conclusion, which isn't very agnostic at all.

To me experience is primary validation - for myself, since nobody can share my experience. I'm also aware that this experience can be totally autistic - ie with no input from the outside world at all - so I have no idea if it generalizes to everybody. So I'm agnostic to that point. Also, what I call my experience of God may just be my own ego reflecting back at me, so I'm agnostic as to the existence of this overarching intelligence. I could just be kidding myself. But sages thru the ages seem to agree with me.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Canuckistani

cybercoma · July 14, 2012

So your belief would look like this.

Q: Does God exist?

A: I don't know and probably can't know.

Q: Do you believe in God?

A: Yes.

I just can't reconcile those two answers. How can you believe in something you don't know exists? If you believe in it, then logically you must believe that it exists.

Canuckistani · July 14, 2012

So your belief would look like this.

Q: Does God exist?

A: I don't know and probably can't know.

Q: Do you believe in God?

A: Yes.

I just can't reconcile those two answers. How can you believe in something you don't know exists? If you believe in it, then logically you must believe that it exists.

We do it all the time. I believe I have a liver, but certainly don't know for sure. And with liver at least we're both talking about the same thing. With God, my guess is we're not. I can't really know God because my consciousness is so much less than "his" and I can't really know if I'm just kidding myself about the whole deal.

I guess I'm an Epistemological solipsist.

GostHacked · July 14, 2012

We do it all the time. I believe I have a liver, but certainly don't know for sure.

You might have a brain too, but who knows if you really have one either. I mean, there is nothing we can do to find out if you really have a liver? Like some X-ray thingy? Did you learn anything about anatomy in high school?

And with liver at least we're both talking about the same thing.

No, no... not the same at all.

With God, my guess is we're not. I can't really know God because my consciousness is so much less than "his" and I can't really know if I'm just kidding myself about the whole deal.
I guess I'm an Epistemological solipsist.

How are you sure you even exist?

July 14, 2012

Is string theory "real"? We don't know, there is no evidence. But the concepts behind it do raise some useful ideas. We turn to theories like this when we want an explanation for some of the more obscure behaviours of the universe, and as a model it does seem to provide the right answers.

People plug in to religion for much the same reason, so they have something to help them deal with difficult problems. Unlike primitive animals our consciousness allows us to perceive the world around us in a more complex way. Complex meaning, psychological, emotional complexity. We are aware of so much more, and it is unsettling. Many people live their lives in great personal despair. To cover this some take pills, some smoke and drink, some go to see a therapist. Some, go see a priest.