The Bible

g_bambino · November 22, 2012

"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the Mountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”
Translation: The sky has windows.

Reality: The sky is nothing but a vacuum. It does not have windows. But the holy bible states that the windows of the sky were opened.

That's the first thing that strikes you upon reading that passage?..... Not the part about a six hundred year old man?

Moonlight Graham · November 22, 2012

So, you'll shower your hypothetical kids with books by Dawkins?

If I were someone who thinks like you, and would really want my kids to choose whatever they want, I'd defintely show my kids this particular thread and show them how foolish this thread is by refuting each and every facts listed here.

What happens if your kid happen to stumble on an old mapleleaf forum and saw this in the archive? I can see it now...the hypothetical conversation between father and son.

Son: Hey Dad, take a look at this! Look at all the facts listed here. This looney is saying no one really refuted her listed facts! I kinda read....she seems to be right.

Moonlight: Oh....that's baloney, son. It can't be true. That poster was grasping....she's a fanatic. The Bible is written by primitive dessert dwellers who had nothing better to do.

Son: I know....but they did seem to get quite a few right. Weird.

Moonlight: That's all gibberish, son.

Son: She provided links to her sources....her sources looks credible. A lot of them comes from universities, and scientists.

Moonlight: That's all nonsense, Son.

Son: Okay....take a look at this fact she listed: The Bible and Science are into Agreement.

Moonlight: That's not true, son.

Son: How is it not true? Explain it to me Dad. Why is it not true?

Moonlight: Because it's not true. I know it's not true.

Son: How do you know?

Moonlight: because....I know. And I'm telling you.

Son: Don't tell me. Explain it to me!

Moonlight: I'm your Dad. I'm telling you....you got to believe me, not some moronic fanatic who trolled Mapleleaf!

Son: How do you know she was a troll?

Moonlight: Because she wrote stuff that I don't agree with! That's a troll! Never believe a troll, son!

Son: Let me get this straight.....you don't agree with her but you can't prove to me why you're right and she's wrong?

Moonlight: Go talk to your mother! I'm busy!

---------------------------------------------------

Can you please not put hypothetical words in my mouth that aren't even close to representing things I've actually said or would say. It's really offensive & it pisses me off.

Daughter: Mom, I love Jesus. He's a great guy, do you agree?

Betsy: No, Jesus is a fool! Satan is the master we worship in this house. All hail sweet Satan, 666!

How does it feel?

Edited November 22, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

Sleipnir · November 22, 2012

That's the first thing that strikes you upon reading that passage?..... Not the part about a six hundred year old man?

LOL I knew I forgot to mention something.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Sleipnir

Mighty AC · November 22, 2012

meh, that's just how long people lived before trans fats and high fructose corn syrup.

Sleipnir · November 23, 2012

meh, that's just how long people lived before trans fats and high fructose corn syrup.

With exception of high fructose corn syrup - trans fats do occur in nature

msj · November 23, 2012

This is why I don't see the point of trying to discuss religion with Betsy:

Nothing personal Betsy but this Venn diagram does fit.

Edited November 23, 2012 by msj

dre · November 23, 2012

No matter how much evidence is thrown at you, you have made up your own mind long time ago, and these threads have become nothing more than an exercise in futility.

I totally disagree. See... for something to BECOME an excercise in futility, you would have to assume that it previously was NOT one.

Mighty AC · November 23, 2012

It does seem futile at times but I think Betsy has made some progress.

1) She has admitted that scientific proof can cause her to label biblical passages as allegories instead of truth. Granted, requiring no evidence for belief and proof to disbelieve is the opposite of reasonable behaviour, but it is still a positive step. Some believers completely deny any evidence that contradicts their belief systems.

2) She accepts evolution. Well almost anyway. Like the term atheist, Betsy's understanding of what the theory of evolution entails is incorrect. Evolution just refers to the change in inherited characteristics or genetic drift over time. Many people have been deliberately led to believe that the theory of evolution is built on concepts like the universal common ancestor, when in fact, the reverse is true. Eventually, she will learn that there is no "microevolution". Microevolution, is just evolution.

This thread has taught me that, at least with those willing to examine their beliefs, we are fighting misconceptions as much as we are fighting dogma. Unfortunately, the forum format is not the best for clearing up misconceptions. For example, how many times have posters like Cybercoma patiently tried to clarify simple terms like theism, atheism, gnosticism and agnosticism?

betsy · November 24, 2012

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, science, politics, sex, drugs or rock & roll. It is simply a lack of belief.

Simply lack of belief? You don't believe in anything at all???

You can say you don't believe in faith..... or God.... or fairies.... or the big bang.... or Oprah's diet......or cholesterol is bad for you....but.........you can't say you simply lack belief!

Talk about desperate damage-control maneuver....you even go so far to suggest that all atheists are....psychologically impaired?

I say you're trying to distance yourself from the true meaning of atheism! Twisting it so.....because you know you're bonked.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

betsy · November 24, 2012

name='Mighty AC' timestamp='1353536083' post='855329']
1) We have observed populations evolve to the point that can no longer interbreed. The starting, ending and intermediate populations all still exist. I posted a video about salamanders several posts back but here is another link: http://evolution.ber...

Well you can observe all you want right now, Mighty AC....but that is not proof of macro-evolution.

It still all ends up in the same bottom line: ASSUMPTION.

Here's what Berkely U has to say.

]A plausible model:[/b] We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments. As an example, we’ll examine some evidence relevant to the allopatric speciation model.

http://evolution.ber...peciation.shtml

And from Berkeley Labs:

The Ensatina eschscholtzii complex is a textbook example

of a ring species that illustrates the role of geography in species

formation (Dobzhansky 1958; Futuyma 1998; Dawkins 2004).

The ancestor is hypothesized to have expanded from northern

California around the inhospitable habitat that currently constitutes

the Central Valley, gradually diverging along each arm of

expansion (Stebbins 1949; Wake and Yanev 1986).

http://ib.berkeley.e...ra-and-Wake.pdf

hy·poth·e·sis

Noun:

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

betsy · November 24, 2012

Like what?

"Expanding" universe - more accurately described as, "stretching."

It was listed as fact.

http://www.mapleleaf...pic=18914&st=90

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

betsy · November 24, 2012

Can you please not put hypothetical words in my mouth that aren't even close to representing things I've actually said or would say. It's really offensive & it pisses me off.

Daughter: Mom, I love Jesus. He's a great guy, do you agree?

Betsy: No, Jesus is a fool! Satan is the master we worship in this house. All hail sweet Satan, 666!

How does it feel?

Uh....I responded to this comment you made about this thread:

Moonlight Graham, on 15 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:
My gf is Catholic, but not the regular church-going type. I was raised Catholic but am not religious anymore and am more agnostic. I asked her if she wants our hypothetical future kids to be Catholic - she said yes. I said I don't. She said "what, you want them to be atheist?". I said "No, I'll let them choose whatever religion they want or not want". This almost started a fight LOL so we dropped the subject for now, to be continued...

One this is certain, I won't be showing my future hypothetical kids this thread.

Taking cue from the Berkeley speciation hypothesis:

I've made a plausible account of how the bull****ing will occur ....but of course, it’s hard for me to get an eye-witness account of that special event between you and your son since it's still not happened yet....and may/may not happen (at all) in the distant or not so distant future.

However, I can use your attitude as a model to make predictions and then check these predictions against my observations of the natural world of children and teens, and hypothesize on this possible drama from the outcomes of those experience(s).

I used to run a daycare.

Don't dish out what you can't take, you silly goose.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

betsy · November 24, 2012

It does seem futile at times but I think Betsy has made some progress.

1) She has admitted that scientific proof can cause her to label biblical passages as allegories instead of truth. Granted, requiring no evidence for belief and proof to disbelieve is the opposite of reasonable behaviour, but it is still a positive step. Some believers completely deny any evidence that contradicts their belief systems.

2) She accepts evolution. Well almost anyway. Like the term atheist, Betsy's understanding of what the theory of evolution entails is incorrect. Evolution just refers to the change in inherited characteristics or genetic drift over time. Many people have been deliberately led to believe that the theory of evolution is built on concepts like the universal common ancestor, when in fact, the reverse is true. Eventually, she will learn that there is no "microevolution". Microevolution, is just evolution.

This thread has taught me that, at least with those willing to examine their beliefs, we are fighting misconceptions as much as we are fighting dogma. Unfortunately, the forum format is not the best for clearing up misconceptions. For example, how many times have posters like Cybercoma patiently tried to clarify simple terms like theism, atheism, gnosticism and agnosticism?

I've always maintained this position.....from the start!

You've checked out Cyber's other posts? If you want to make progress - you gotta read, and understand what you read - AND tackle the issue directly! Pointing to Cybercoma as your authoritative source is a very, very, very BIG MISTAKE!

So far you seem to be like most regular evolutionists I've encountered. You all seem to be reading from the same "How-to- debate-with-a-creationist" guidebook published, and sold by The Coward.

Now that Dawkins twisted the meaning of atheism - for self-preservation when he tackles creationists - you're all adapting the same twisted definition.

One thing sure, I must've stepped on a nerve (again)! After a lengthy silence, the doo-wap choir suddenly sprouted in full force!

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

betsy · November 24, 2012

Bible quotes

Genesis, 7:11

"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the Mountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Translation: The sky has windows.

Reality: The sky is nothing but a vacuum. It does not have windows. But the holy bible states that the windows of the sky were opened.

Joshua 10:13

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

Translation: The sun, not the Earth, moves.

Reality: The Earth rotates around the Sun, not the other way around.

Lake 4:33

"And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice.”

Mark 1:34

"And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.”

Translation: diseases are caused by the devil.

Reality: diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses.

In short, the bible is really a fairytale. You can believe it if you want, but if you try and justify it with science - you'll look silly.

EH?

SHOW ME WHERE I TRIED TO JUSTIFY THOSE SPECIFIC QUOTED PASSAGES WITH SCIENCE?

Btw, have you checked out to see if you are a NEW ATHEIST? Here, check it out and see how many fits you.

I could swear you're starting to sound very much like one.....

http://www.mapleleaf...showtopic=19376

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

betsy · November 24, 2012

This simply isn't true Betsy, speaking for myself anyway, if there was some proof, ANY proof that there was a "designer" the rational person in me would say ok...

Until then though, lets just use the stories of all religions as guides to be good to one another. You know, as they were intended to be before they were perverted.

But that very same "rationality" you speak of is being questioned, isn't it? We're talking mathematical probability - comparison between your version of origin (based on accidents) and The Bible!

And definitely, I'm not talking about all religions! I'm specifically talking about Christianity!

Read this again!

If atheists believe the astronomical mathematical probability of evolutionists' preferred version of origin, as possible- without any single proof to support it - they don't make sense when they throw out the Bible despite the astronomical mathematical probability of its listed facts - not to mention the 300 or so Jesus Prophecies that have all come true!

Can you imagine that just with the Jesus Prophecies alone - it's multiplying the astronomical mathematical probability x 300 (minimum)!

Therefore - your belief is purely based on faith! If you are an atheist - you cannot step out of that box - otherwise you'd no longer be an atheist.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

betsy · November 24, 2012

What is evolution? What is an evolutionist? What is the evolutionist's preferred version of origin?

So how do you think it all started? The universe? Earth? You tell me...I can't guess what you believe.

betsy · November 24, 2012

Bible quotes

Genesis, 7:11

"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the Mountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Translation: The sky has windows.

Reality: The sky is nothing but a vacuum. It does not have windows. But the holy bible states that the windows of the sky were opened.

Joshua 10:13

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

Translation: The sun, not the Earth, moves.

Reality: The Earth rotates around the Sun, not the other way around.

Lake 4:33

"And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice.”

Mark 1:34

"And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.”

Translation: diseases are caused by the devil.

Reality: diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses.

In short, the bible is really a fairytale. You can believe it if you want, but if you try and justify it with science - you'll look silly.

You're missing the whole point, and since you're new on the board, perhaps you haven't read my earlier statement(s) in this topic:

THE BIBLE IS NOT TRYING TO PROVE SCIENCE.....BUT SCIENCE HAPPENS TO GIVE SUPPORT TO THE BIBLE.

It is difficult for atheists (who rely on science) to wrap their heads around this. But it is the undeniable truth.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

betsy · November 24, 2012

Bible quotes

Lake 4:33

"And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice.”

Mark 1:34

"And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.”

Translation: diseases are caused by the devil.

Reality: diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses.

In short, the bible is really a fairytale. You can believe it if you want, but if you try and justify it with science - you'll look silly.

Here are the right passages that address Public Health - given THOUSANDS of years BEFORE your quotes from the New Testament:

FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WOUND, SKIN and DISCHARGE PRECAUTIONS

FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WASTE DISPOSAL

FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health [/size]

DIAGNOSIS and ISOLATION

FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

CORPSES and BURIAL PRECAUTIONS

FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

FOOD and DRINKING WATER SAFETY

FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

PROMISCUITY, UNLAWFUL LIFESTYLES and DISEASE

http://www.mapleleaf...ic=18914&st=150

You wanna read a fairytale.....ask Dawkins to read you the Frog Prince.

You wanna read Mythology....read 15 Evolutionary Gems

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

Sleipnir · November 24, 2012

It is difficult for atheists (who rely on science) to wrap their heads around this. But it is the undeniable truth.

I'm not an atheist.

Sleipnir · November 24, 2012

http://www.mapleleaf...ic=18914&st=150

Leviticus 15:1-33 was not clear regarding sanitary cleaning. It was a broad simple statement which seems to display no apprehension that sanitary is important to combat disease.

Deuteronomy 23:12:14, Leviticus 13:47-58, 11:33, 15:12 makes no mention of waste disposal.

Leviticus: 13:1-14:57, Number: 5: 2-4, Leviticus 13:45-46 was very vague and displayed almost no apprehension to what was going on.

ETC...

So much for science in 'supporting' the bible lol

Edited November 24, 2012 by Sleipnir

betsy · November 24, 2012

Leviticus 15:1-33 was not clear regarding sanitary cleaning. It was a broad simple statement which seems to display no apprehension that sanitary is important to combat disease.

Deuteronomy 23:12:14, Leviticus 13:47-58, 11:33, 15:12 makes no mention of waste disposal.

Leviticus: 13:1-14:57, Number: 5: 2-4, Leviticus 13:45-46 was very vague and displayed almost no apprehension to what was going on.

ETC...

So much for science in 'supporting' the bible lol

I guess you either don't know much about sanitation, precaution etc (which explains why you failed to see the connection).....or you've decided to keep your blinders firmly in placed. Your short statement with no effort to expand or explain suggests you refuse to discuss any further. I'll oblige and won't impose.

Edited November 24, 2012 by betsy

Sleipnir · November 24, 2012

I guess you either don't know much about sanitation, precaution etc (which explains why you failed to see the connection).....or you've decided to keep your blinders firmly in placed. Your short statement with no effort to expand or explain suggests you refuse to discuss any further. I'll oblige and won't impose.

The statements in the bible tells you what to do, not why you should do it. Which is why I said the quotes seem to lack apprehension.

betsy · November 24, 2012

The statements in the bible tells you what to do, not why you should do it. Which is why I said the quotes seem to lack apprehension.

You're still not getting it.

What you just said supports my statement: The Bible is not trying to prove science.....but Science happens to give support to the Bible.

God gave instructions. He does not have to explain why!

Science - thousands of years later - gave the explanation!

cybercoma · November 24, 2012

betsy, don't be fatuous. This thread is 117 pages long. Earlier, kimmy soundly demolished your claim that the Bible is proven by science. There are many instances that have been brought up here over and over again where the Bible was disproven by science.