The Bible

Canuckistani · July 14, 2012

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?

Highschool was a long time ago, but I didn't see my liver at the time, I remember that much. There might have been some talk about livers, but they didn't show me my liver. You're a pretty credulous person, huh, just take livers on faith?

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

Really? We have different concepts of what a liver is?

How are you sure you even exist?

Who am I? What does exist mean? I'm not sure I even exist how you likely mean - didn't you watch the Matrix? All you really know is that what you think is you is having an experience reading this. But who is it that thinks he's you and is aware of you having the experience reading this? DID? Edited July 14, 2012 by Canuckistani

Canuckistani · 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.

Some sit and observe, don't cover anything but seek to uncover. Some say they've found the truth from that, but you'll never know unless you try it yourself.

betsy · July 18, 2012

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.

It's not important to me how old the earth is. So I wouldn't butt heads about it.

God isn't telling us to believe earth was created 6,000 or billions of years ago. He's telling us to believe He created everything.

And of course, as it is showing.....Creation is more palusible than the loooong series of various "accidents" that led to the establishment of a finely-tuned earth.

Ahhh...social control. You must mean, having to follow rules.

Edited July 18, 2012 by betsy

betsy · July 18, 2012

Fundamentalist applies to someone interpreting their scriptures in a literal way, so it doesn't really apply here.

Ooops. Then I guess I'm not a fundamentalist....since I don't take all interpretations of the scriptures literally.

Thank you for that clarification.

betsy · July 18, 2012

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

You might want to check this one. ATHEISTS UNITED. They need more parishioners.

Here in Los Angeles, every fourth Sunday at 11 am, there is a meeting of Atheists United. More than 50 people have shown up today, which is a very good turnout for atheism. Many are approaching retirement age. The speaker this morning, a younger activist named Clark Adams, encourages them with the idea that their numbers are growing. Look at South Park, Adams urges. Look at Howard Stern. Look at Penn & Teller. These are signs of an infidel upsurge.

Still, Adams admits some marketing concerns. Atheists are predominant among the "upper 5 percent," he says. "Where we're lagging is among the lower 95 percent."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=4&topic=atheism&topic_set=

Edited July 18, 2012 by betsy

betsy · July 18, 2012

Anthony Flew, one of the oldest atheist philospher had recanted and became a deist. Dawkins, the posterboy of evolution had conceded he isn't sure that there is no God. The several prominent atheists who converted to Christianity from the topic Rejoice. The arguments presented in this topic, and all the other related topics.

Agnostics you should be. That is the only sensible position to be for atheists.

Atheism is now dead for the simple fact that the possibility of creation or Design has been raised. To cling to atheism is to cling to faith - the faith in a non-God.

Peter F · July 18, 2012

It's not important to me how old the earth is. So I wouldn't butt heads about it.

God isn't telling us to believe earth was created 6,000 or billions of years ago. He's telling us to believe He created everything.

ah, I see. So squishing science into words like 'Stretched' or '6 day's is really a pointless exercise.

And of course, as it is showing.....Creation is more palusible than the loooong series of various "accidents" that led to the establishment of a finely-tuned earth.

I don't think instantaneous pop-pop-poping into existance of all plant and animal life by unexplainable means is anywhere near more plausible than billions of years of cnange as shown by geology or animal husbandry or chemistry or astronomy or quilting for that matter.

Ahhh...social control. You must mean, having to follow rules.

yes! exactly.

GostHacked · July 19, 2012

It's not important to me how old the earth is. So I wouldn't butt heads about it.

God isn't telling us to believe earth was created 6,000 or billions of years ago. He's telling us to believe He created everything.

How do you know he is a he?

And of course, as it is showing.....Creation is more palusible than the loooong series of various "accidents" that led to the establishment of a finely-tuned earth.

How is it less more plausible?

Ahhh...social control. You must mean, having to follow rules.

Like church rules. Which are the longest running examples of social control.

GostHacked · July 19, 2012

Anthony Flew, one of the oldest atheist philospher had recanted and became a deist. Dawkins, the posterboy of evolution had conceded he isn't sure that there is no God. The several prominent atheists who converted to Christianity from the topic Rejoice. The arguments presented in this topic, and all the other related topics.

Agnostics you should be. That is the only sensible position to be for atheists.

Atheism is now dead for the simple fact that the possibility of creation or Design has been raised. To cling to atheism is to cling to faith - the faith in a non-God.

So when are you coming over to the agnostic camp? It really is the only sensible position for humanity. The question cannot be answered with any kind of certainty.

kimmy · July 21, 2012

It's not important to me how old the earth is. So I wouldn't butt heads about it.

God isn't telling us to believe earth was created 6,000 or billions of years ago. He's telling us to believe He created everything.

And of course, as it is showing.....Creation is more palusible than the loooong series of various "accidents" that led to the establishment of a finely-tuned earth.

A pot-hole fills up with water. A man comes along and says "wow, this hole fits the water so perfectly that this hole simply must have been designed specifically for the water!" That man's name is Ken Ham, and that's the "finely tuned earth" argument for you.

"An invisible being created everything using magic!" is the simplest explanation in the same way that "it works by magic!" is the simplest explanation for how your computer works.

Ahhh...social control. You must mean, having to follow rules.

Christians like to float around this idea that people are rejecting religion because they don't like the "rules". But the fact is, the religious people don't follow the "rules" either.

The statistics tell us that the religious people get divorced just as much as the non-religious. They have premarital sex just as much. They have teenage pregnancies just as much. They commit crime just as much-- there's proportionately a lot fewer atheists in prison than religious people.

So what are all these rules that Christians are supposedly following? They're working on the Sabbath, they're wearing poly-cotton blends, they're eating shellfish... I mean, as far as I can tell they're really not following any rules that the rest of us aren't. Well, some of them go to church on Sunday, I guess, but a lot of supposed Christians aren't even doing that much.

Luckily for Christians, Jesus will forgive them for breaking all the rules anyway.

Anthony Flew, one of the oldest atheist philospher had recanted and became a deist. Dawkins, the posterboy of evolution had conceded he isn't sure that there is no God. The several prominent atheists who converted to Christianity from the topic Rejoice. The arguments presented in this topic, and all the other related topics.

Agnostics you should be. That is the only sensible position to be for atheists.

Atheism is now dead for the simple fact that the possibility of creation or Design has been raised. To cling to atheism is to cling to faith - the faith in a non-God.

God, leprechauns, whatever. I can't be sure that any of them don't exist, but I have no good reason to believe in any of them either.

-k

bleeding heart · July 22, 2012

Agnostics you should be. That is the only sensible position to be for atheists.

I agree, and I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist.

But as Kimmy said,

God, leprechauns, whatever. I can't be sure that any of them don't exist, but I have no good reason to believe in any of them either.

And that's just it.

This was Bertrand Russell's view as well: essentially (to paraphrase), "I am technically an agnostic...if we need be pedantic about it. But for all intents and purposes, I am an atheist."

That is to say, I cannot prove that the Homeric gods exist; therefore, maybe they do. That's agnosticism. And yet, I see no good reason to suppose that they do exist.

Edited July 22, 2012 by bleeding heart

Peter F · July 23, 2012

The problem seems to be that Betsy cannot allow the possibility that the athiests are right. To do so would be a loss of Faith and she must have absolute faith in Christ.

So she see's the fact that athiests allow for a possibility of being wrong as the athiest disavowing athiesm and vindication of her faith.

There is no maybe in good-christianland. To allow for maybe destroys the belief. Which is why she figures we are all stubborn mules.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Peter F

cybercoma · July 24, 2012

The problem seems to be that Betsy cannot allow the possibility that the athiests are right. To do so would be a loss of Faith and she must have absolute faith in Christ.

So she see's the fact that athiests allow for a possibility of being wrong as the athiest disavowing athiesm and vindication of her faith.

There is no maybe in good-christianland. To allow for maybe destroys the belief. Which is why she figures we are all stubborn mules.

This is an excellent analysis. Thanks for posting it because it reminds us why betsy posts the things she posts and acts the way she acts during debate. Cheers!

BubberMiley · July 24, 2012

And of course, as it is showing.....Creation is more palusible than the loooong series of various "accidents" that led to the establishment of a finely-tuned earth.

Why do you think God is not great enough to create an evolutionary earth? Why can't what you see as "accidents" be the magical hand of God guiding earth's forward progress to His vision? Don;t you think He resents you depicting him as puny and incapable of withstanding the real-world evidence of evolution? Wake up to His power and majesty! He is beyond even what your tiny human mind can imagine!

betsy · July 26, 2012

I agree, and I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist.

You are an agnostic. Or to be precise, a SKEPTIC.

As for Kimmy's leprechauns....well, that's no comparison at all with the possibility of a God or Designer. Possibility of God/Designer had caused quite a stir through the ages, and all the more so in the present time with the help of modern science.

Furthermore, evidences found in the Bible (whom a lot of men of science had relied on in the past) cannot be dismissed.

Kimmy is missing the point. She'll just have to review the topic from the start.....that's all I can do for her.

If she wants to compare something with leprechauns, the so-called "missing link" should be it.

This was Bertrand Russell's view as well: essentially (to paraphrase), "I am technically an agnostic...if we need be pedantic about it. But for all intents and purposes, I am an atheist."

A skeptic!

Technically - whatever that means - still boils down to the same thing. Skepticism.

He is confused, I think.

That is to say, I cannot prove that the Homeric gods exist; therefore, maybe they do. That's agnosticism. And yet, I see no good reason to suppose that they do exist.

But we're talking about the Designer. And the Judeo/Christian God. And the arguments and debates that's been going on for ages. Some of the arguments have been presented in the topics Rejoice On This Day, The Bible, Video/Debates/Interviews etc..,

But there are tons of info all the way back then to the present - even Darwin`s awe as he grappled with his findings is repeated by those who embrace and support the possibility of a Designer today.

As far as I know, (unlike the Christian God) no one is presenting any theory or argument that the Greek deities could possibly have anything to do with creation, or the universe....to even remotely suggest that they could be the Designer. So mythological gods are not the same. They belong with the leprechauns as far as comparison goes.

Edited July 26, 2012 by betsy

betsy · July 26, 2012

Bertrand Russell lived in an age when it was demanded of a Philosopher to be an atheist, reflecting the so-called "age of reason."

He couldn't acknolwedge his agnosticism, much less speak openly of even the possibility of the existence of God without losing his credentials as a philospher of his time.

Philosophers have always suffered with that dilemma unless they're willing to open their minds and stick out their necks.

Edited July 26, 2012 by betsy

msj · July 26, 2012

Bertrand Russell lived in an age when it was demanded of a Philosopher to be an atheist, reflecting the so-called "age of reason."

He couldn't acknolwedge his agnosticism, much less speak openly of even the possibility of the existence of God without losing his credentials as a philospher of his time.

Philosophers have always suffered with that dilemma unless they're willing to open their minds and stick out their necks.

Umm, Age of Reason or Enlightenment - 1650 to 1789 or 1815 (some say it ended either at the beginning of the French Revolution while others say at the end of the Napoleonic Wars).

Bertrand Russell - born 1872 and died 1970.

So, no, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Edited July 26, 2012 by msj

betsy · July 27, 2012

Umm, Age of Reason or Enlightenment - 1650 to 1789 or 1815 (some say it ended either at the beginning of the French Revolution while others say at the end of the Napoleonic Wars).

Bertrand Russell - born 1872 and died 1970.

So, no, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

"age of reason" - small letters - has never stopped. It is a change from a faith-based society to one based on so-called "reason."

Edited July 27, 2012 by betsy

betsy · July 27, 2012

The irony is from faith in God, it became faith in science.

The_Squid · July 27, 2012

The irony is from faith in God, it became faith in science.

Really? Should we have doubts about gravity and that the world is round(ish) and revolves around the sun?

cybercoma · July 27, 2012

I think I'll stick to reason-based medicine, rather than faith-based medicine.

betsy · July 27, 2012

I think I'll stick to reason-based medicine, rather than faith-based medicine.

But the thing is.....it's become all faith-based (for atheists).

betsy · July 27, 2012

The biggest irony is what's supposed to be based on "reason" is actually not based on reason anymore. How can it be when the almighty Dawkins (?) had declared, Philosophy is dead!

If reason is dead, what's left? That's a clear declaration of faith! Go figure.