Jump to content

GOD of the BIBLE, is The CREATOR


betsy

Recommended Posts

No...I hit it on the head. You already have your conclusion and now seek "evidence" to support it. You reject everything that doesn't support it. Bad science. It's the ONLY way your myth can survive in the modern world where magic is getting to be very rare, indeed.

Believe what you want to believe, DOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Believe what you want to believe, DOP.

Oh, is that the point of this thread?

Hardly. You're here to clash swords...but your incredulity won't allow you to lose gracefully.

I can provide MUCH evidence of star formation if you don't believe it occurs.

You can't provide me anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From ?Impact: "I hope betsy gets back from purgatory soon, I am afraid I am not doing a good job holding up the Creationist side of the argument."

DAMN, I hate when this ALWAYS seems to happen with the evangelical. And I wasted a post that I really WOULD like to see challenged! Maybe you could advocate on what I wrote, if at least for fun?

Problem (1): Any source asserting the authority of its written content is begging. If I wrote a book and began with, "What you are about to read is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Myself, because I'm 'God', and thus I would not lie to you."

Problem (2): The term, "God" originates not from the Bible but from Northern European sources for the very word, "good", that itself derives from a common term to "pour" and is that which pours, especially of things like wine, representing 'good' fortune, etc. The original term(s) are El, and in respect to Genesis, Elohim, which is plural for "the gods" unspecified. "El" also meant "The(e)" when granted significance, meant "the ultimate 'thee' or the One". (Arabian evolution of this becomes, Al- or "Al-lah" (the One). Example, "Ba'al" or "Ba'el", meant "Father (or Best) of One" and often represented the most luxurious of things, as in the cow.

"YHWY", "Ye- owey",..."Je- ova", all come from all the Middle East concept, meaning literally, "I, (the) ova", the egg, or generically, the 'source' derived from what was understood then as the most universal a 'perfect' shape, the circle, as represented by the literal Sun in the sky. From Egypt, the concept of 'shape' is aten (subjective) and atum (objective). The Aten, represented the SHAPE of the most perfect source, the Sun. The Atum, is the Earth and anything formed of solids of it. Thus this is where "Adam" also comes from. It was intended to mean by those back then as us beings made of the very Earth, just as is also indicated in the story of Adam being "Shaped from the Earth".

"Eden" (or Eten) is the source where Aten rises each day, the Eastern Sun on the horizon. Thus why the 'Garden of Eden' is assumed to have derived from and another non-literal interpretation to signify our birth, youth, and naivete prior to becoming wise.

"Eve", while represented as a female, just as Eve, as male, also meant ALL men/womenkind that FOLLOWED. Reference etymological links are to "even" and "ever". Note that "odd" is also a term that "God" is later applied to in Europe, where Oden, likely coming from Aten too, was commonly understood as the same.

I'll leave it at this because this is most significant to start off with. If you need to appropriately investigate the Bible, you have to understand its roots within context of the times. Originally, Genesis had a mixture of common wisdom of many societies and the story(ies) had multiple meanings as in very clever cartoons intent on helping people remember key secular ideals and purposes.

Though it's an eye-roller........what is there that you've posted that has to be challenged?

You didn't address the point of the OP at all. Your rebuttal is out of whack! It's irrelevant! :)

You missed the whole point.

Cite me an ancient book that contains at least 10 claims/declarations that were later proven by science. Be specific.

Then, we'll talk.

Right now, we're still with science since I'm showing that the Creator has intimate knowledge about His creation.

Having said that, the evidences I was hoping to give are not limited to science-related facts. But like I've said before....I don't have any inclination to make an effort in formulating a new way of stating them.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My imaginary evidences are better than scientists rational hypothesis.

It's like arguing with a brick wall.

Denying star formation is a pretty wild hypothesis. But, I can see why one would have to deny stars are both dying and being born if one wants to subscribe to Bronze Age creation myths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Bill Nye debated Ken Ham they were asked, what would change your mind? Their summarized responses were:

Bill Nye: Evidence

Ken Ham: Nothing

That's what is going on here in very slow motion. We have members who are providing evidence and rationale arguments versus one who will reject any message that clashes with her preset beliefs. Logic, reason and reality are not important to people like this. Their conclusion is set in stone and nothing will change it.

I can see trying to save a good friend or family member from embarrassing ignorance, but why waste your time on an internet forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Bill Nye debated Ken Ham they were asked, what would change your mind? Their summarized responses were:

Bill Nye: Evidence

Ken Ham: Nothing

That's what is going on here in very slow motion. We have members who are providing evidence and rationale arguments versus one who will reject any message that clashes with her preset beliefs. Logic, reason and reality are not important to people like this. Their conclusion is set in stone and nothing will change it.

I can see trying to save a good friend or family member from embarrassing ignorance, but why waste your time on an internet forum?

I am an atheist, but I don't see all Christians or Deists as being embarrassing or ignorant. In many cases, they are far more tolerant than people of my ilk.

Most believers are calm, not evangelical or pushy, and have strong and personally legitimate reasons for their faith. Who am I to deny them the comfort, security and fellowship they enjoy through their beliefs? If a belief in God allows them a way to get through the day or their lives with less despair, who am I to judge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an atheist, but I don't see all Christians or Deists as being embarrassing or ignorant. In many cases, they are far more tolerant than people of my ilk.

Most believers are calm, not evangelical or pushy, and have strong and personally legitimate reasons for their faith. Who am I to deny them the comfort, security and fellowship they enjoy through their beliefs? If a belief in God allows them a way to get through the day or their lives with less despair, who am I to judge?

I think most of us are tolerant of people practicing their own religion. The issue is when they begin to preach it publicly, want 'creation' to be taught in schools as if it were a science or push creation in public pretending they have 'evidences'. I support freedom of religion, but when you bring religion into a public forum it will be debated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is deeper when supernatural belief finds legal expression as it does in citations of Papal Bulls and Doctrines of Discovery or in the preambles to otherwise secular constitutions and institutions - it confers a basis for reality and credibility that simple respect on it's own doesn't nor should deliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most believers are calm, not evangelical or pushy, and have strong and personally legitimate reasons for their faith. Who am I to deny them the comfort, security and fellowship they enjoy through their beliefs?

Agreed. My comment isn't addressed at most benign followers of non-evidential beliefs. However, this thread is debating creationism, a more extreme religious position, and is led by a member who denies evolution; there is a distinct difference. For example, if a friend or family member believed in feng shui, fate or karma, I would secretly roll my eyes, but say nothing; however, if they were anti-vaxxers I would do my best to intervene and convince them to reevaluate their position and act according to the evidence. Both cases involve false beliefs, but one is benign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of us are tolerant of people practicing their own religion. The issue is when they begin to preach it publicly, want 'creation' to be taught in schools as if it were a science or push creation in public pretending they have 'evidences'. I support freedom of religion, but when you bring religion into a public forum it will be debated.

No, you fail to support freedom of religion or freedom of expression when you try to control what people say in public. Unless what they say is some kind of danger to public order, persons of every persuasion are free to say anything they want.

I agree that schools funded by taxpayers have the duty to be generally secular, but you are wrong to believe they are public places. The sidewalk on a street is public, but there are no 'public schools' where strangers are permitted to leave that sidewalk and drift around the hallways of a 'public school'. What is said and done in those schools can and is controlled by school authorities.

There is no issue at with anybody preaching anything publicly(other than things that are dangerous and illlegal), and I find it abhorrent that you think otherwise. 'Pushing creation' at the top of your lungs on a street corner is a right that all of us should defended strongly. It is disappointing that you do not understand how important that is to all of us.

Agreed. My comment isn't addressed at most benign followers of non-evidential beliefs. However, this thread is debating creationism, a more extreme religious position, and is led by a member who denies evolution; there is a distinct difference. For example, if a friend or family member believed in feng shui, fate or karma, I would secretly roll my eyes, but say nothing; however, if they were anti-vaxxers I would do my best to intervene and convince them to reevaluate their position and act according to the evidence. Both cases involve false beliefs, but one is benign.

You do not explain how a belief in creationism threatens anything except contributing to an evaluation of somebody as being less than intelligent. Creationism is hardly extreme. Chopping off somebodys head, or enslaving them because they are not of your religion is dangerous.

But how does a belief in the fantasy of creation harm you? Are you afraid of Betsy for some reason because she accepts a literal interpretation of Genesis as truth? Has she threatened to kill you because you disagree?

Your example of anti-vaxxers is a false analogy in this context. Creationism is an argument of faith vs science. Anti vaxxers believe that science demonstrates that vaccinations are dangerous to children. There arguments are -to them- based on science, not faith. They won't accept that their science has been thoroughly discredited, but it is not a matter of faith like creation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you fail to support freedom of religion or freedom of expression when you try to control what people say in public.

Where am I trying to control what people say in public? I very clearly stated that if betsy wants to make her creationist arguments, then they will be debated. That is not control. It is disappointing that you would make up stories about what I said.

If you are talking about schools, what I said is don't tell fairy tales in science class and call them science. Do you think we should allow our schools to teach 2+2=5 just because someone with an agenda wants it that way? Science is science, and fairy tails don't belong there.

Edited by ?Impact
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not explain how a belief in creationism threatens anything except contributing to an evaluation of somebody as being less than intelligent. Creationism is hardly extreme.

Creationism is subtle. As I pointed out above the respect that is afforded supernatural thinking lends it a credibility it does not deserve. The rhetorical and politicized blurring of distinction between belief and theory acts like a film over a societies ability to see or think clearly which cannot be a good thing. Ignorance is only blissful until reality bites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post 158, where you say "The issue is when they begin to preach it publicly, " and "push creation in public pretending they have 'evidences'.".

Was your handle hijacked?

You didn't finish reading the post. The suggested response to such behaviour was not to "control what they say" but to debate with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationism is subtle. As I pointed out above the respect that is afforded supernatural thinking lends it a credibility it does not deserve. The rhetorical and politicized blurring of distinction between belief and theory acts like a film over a societies ability to see or think clearly which cannot be a good thing. Ignorance is only blissful until reality bites.

Creationism is quite linear actually.

What is required to validate creationism is a single act of faith. The Old Testament begins with "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". If you accept that as fact, or on faith, then all the rest is quite logical and linear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cite me an ancient book that contains at least 10 claims/declarations that were later proven by science. Be specific.

Then, we'll talk.

The Urantia Book (Okay, 1930s isn't ancient, but still...).

http://www.urantiabook.org/index_science.htm

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cite me an ancient book that contains at least 10 claims/declarations that were later proven by science. Be specific.

Then, we'll talk.

The Vedas.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion/colony-earth-science-vedas-part-1-00568

http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/scientific-verif-vedas

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post 158, where you say "The issue is when they begin to preach it publicly, " and "push creation in public pretending they have 'evidences'.".

Was your handle hijacked?

Yes, I have an issue with them preaching in public - that is why I debate what they say. I am not advocating throwing them in jail or anything, just making sure that their ill conceived ideas get proper opposition. Do you have a problem with my right to free speech? I will expose their 'evidences' as the BS they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah...they do have some funny ones.

Splitting the Moon in two is one of my favs.

I believe the fallacy is informally called 'Counting the hits and forgetting the misses.' Not to mention the use of hindsight to arrive at these stunning conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how does a belief in the fantasy of creation harm you? Are you afraid of Betsy for some reason because she accepts a literal interpretation of Genesis as truth?

Aside from creationist groups pushing to insert their beliefs into science classrooms and typically pushing to restrict the rights of humans they see as less than equal, the beliefs of fundamentalist strangers don't harm me.

I'm not afraid of, or interested in Betsy's beliefs. My post actually listed the practice of debating with her on an online forum as a waste of time. Now if Betsy was a friend or family member I cared about, I would feel obligated to persuade her to use critical thinking skills and skeptical reasoning when examining her beliefs. In the case of a loved one, I feel that letting them deny evidence and reality in favour of a belief system that typically encourages bigotry, would be neglectful on my part.

Your example of anti-vaxxers is a false analogy in this context. Creationism is an argument of faith vs science. Anti vaxxers believe that science demonstrates that vaccinations are dangerous to children. There arguments are -to them- based on science, not faith. They won't accept that their science has been thoroughly discredited, but it is not a matter of faith like creation..

The analogy compared two non-religious, but non-scientific positions; one being false and benign, one being false and harmful. I'm saying that the unscientific beliefs of anti-vaxxers or hard core naturopaths goes beyond being make believe to actually being harmful.

Similarly, I feel that the more fundamentalist type believers, like Creationists, who are willing to deny scientific evidence, use their religion to discriminate against classes of people like homosexuals and women, and politically attempt to insert their beliefs into the public sphere cross the line from being simply ignorant or farcical to being harmful to society, themselves and their children.

I'm not familiar with the member Betsy's actual views on homosexuals, women, education, abortion, research, etc. I am talking in generalities about the more fundamentalist end of the religious spectrum that typically encompasses those who would call themselves creationists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationism is quite linear actually.

What is required to validate creationism is a single act of faith. The Old Testament begins with "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". If you accept that as fact, or on faith, then all the rest is quite logical and linear.

Whatever else it is, its a pattern for clouded thinking especially when its reinforced by official credulity. You asked how a belief in creationism 'threatens' anything. Maintaining ignorance in a world awash with so much deluded thinking seems a little threatening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever else it is, its a pattern for clouded thinking especially when its reinforced by official credulity. You asked how a belief in creationism 'threatens' anything. Maintaining ignorance in a world awash with so much deluded thinking seems a little threatening.

But how are you threatened by the idea or the people, being an advanced thinker immersed in the scientific method? Instead of intolerance for the foolishness of others, how about a little love brother? I think that is a better investment of my time and energy, rather than attacking what I acknowledge is quite silly.

The whole 'act of faith' serves a major purpose for believers. Their belief system provides them so many benefits and costs me nothing. I know folks who are comforted at times of grief, who feel they belong to something with people that truly care about them, that gain confidence in themselves thinking that the unanswerable has been answered. Who am I to squat over all that helps them and go out of my way to take a giant shit on their world? It costs me nothing to just let them go, and join me in exercising choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,767
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    rosebella
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...