The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[SlowSpyder]

It is sad that in this day and age, in which so many people put their trust in science to travel, for medical needs, for their comfort, how they communicate, etc. that as soon as something is shown through science to be at odds with the bible, it isn't the thousands of years old book that is wrong that provides no evidence for the claims it makes, it has to be science that is wrong. Science isn't always right, but if you believe in creation and the garden of eden, adam & eve, then that's too bad. Don't mess with someone's security blankie, and this is precisely why it is just that.

 

[alkemyst]

Humans exist because of natural selection, not because of an ancient story in a random book.

Right, but that does not prove that there was an Adam and Eve that was the start of an ancestral tree.

It does not prove that there was or was not a place called the Garden of Eden.

 

[alkemyst]

what is sad, is that out of that 4% who claim to have read the Bible, maybe .000001% actually followed up and studied the Bible.

I personally am glad to took an additional course be it secular or religious. That shows IMO that at least you saw the need to study and understand what you read!!

Did I say secular.....opps...
YES, I did......I have friends who took a secular class on the Bible or Bible History and have a deeper understanding!!

Peace!!

I took a non-secular class in college as if one wants secular classes those are usually offered at every church.

I have taken secular courses as well, but not at an university.

 

[alkemyst]

Thus scripture is a form of history, with all the biases and distortions we usually expect.


Such agreements are usually transitory as Biblical and Koranic scholarship demonstrate. Galileo was right, bible scholars were wrong. Now most bible scholars accept Galileo, but the catch-up time was 250 years.


Actually they can. All evolutionary biologists know that modern hominids evolved over several million years. Neanderthals mated with modern humans in several places, most recently in Spain about 50,000 years ago. About 2% of your DNA is Neanderthal in origin, if you evolved in the northern hemisphere. Let me know if you want the full reference.

[/QUOTE]


True, and you made good points based on some of the things I mentioned. All the holy books out there describe things as best as they can with the knowledge at the time.

These books were meant to be for anyone to understand.

It's easy to describe building a bridge, but if one were to describe everything that went into building the actual Golden Gate Bridge including metalugy and the like; most would be lost even with years of education put in.

People don't seem to get that.

People don't seem to get that when the universe was made in 6 days, no one with intelligence into it takes that literally.

 

[JD50]

Scripture is simply the words man wrote sometimes long after events happened.

One cannot just interpret them as "anything they want", there is an educated and agreed upon translation/interpretation and those that other's figure out usually very incorrectly.

No one can disprove there was actually an Adam and Eve that ended up giving birth to Man as we know him. The Garden of Eden could have simply been the world at the time.

I don't think you really understand what you are arguing, just by the fact that you are adding tons of assumptions when responding to others usually that they never said nor stood up for.

I think you took my words too literally. Your interpretation of scripture doesn't change the fact that this

No one can disprove there was actually an Adam and Eve that ended up giving birth to Man as we know him.

is so wrong it hurts.

 

[jackstar7]

These books were meant to be for anyone to understand.

People don't seem to get that when the universe was made in 6 days, no one with intelligence into it takes that literally.

Don't these thoughts contradict each other?

 

[alkemyst]

Don't these thoughts contradict each other?

Translations.

 

[jackstar7]

Translations.

What?

 

[JD50]

Right, but that does not prove that there was an Adam and Eve that was the start of an ancestral tree.

It does not prove that there was or was not a place called the Garden of Eden.

How does that reconcile with what you just said?

According to the scriptures...Man never had to eat meat, never dealt with rain, always had everything he needed within grasp. God just wanted him and his woman to populate the earth and have a good time.

 

[alkemyst]

I think you took my words too literally. Your interpretation of scripture doesn't change the fact that this



is so wrong it hurts.

No it's not. It's quite possible Adam and Eve were not the only humans at the time. It's that they were the two that "God's" bloodline came from and everyone else was not.

Again, this is a problem that you are thinking far to narrowly and are taking too many things as full literal meanings.

It's just like most evolutionists do not believe everything came from a rock, yet many theologists will say they do.

Also many evolutionists do believe in God(s).

 

[alkemyst]

How does that reconcile with what you just said?

You aren't getting it. You really are not.

Because it was said God said something does not mean all Men followed it. Just the example of Eve eating the forbidden fruit proves that Man did not always obey.

I will say this again since you leave out what is relevant, their are many people today that have never eaten meat. They live off vegetables and fruits.

 

[soulcougher73]

actually they can`t!!

Well there we go folks. I dont know how you can counter this logical fact. I extend my hand to you, well played sir...well played.

 

[alkemyst]

What?

The Bibles we have are all translations of translations often, plus some knowledge was beyond man's understanding at the time.

It's well know most even religious people know the 6 days for creation of everything was more figurative than literal in meaning.

It's pointless to argue otherwise anymore than to go on arguing that the sky is green and grass is blue when you know it isn't.

 

[soulcougher73]

True, and you made good points based on some of the things I mentioned. All the holy books out there describe things as best as they can with the knowledge at the time.

These books were meant to be for anyone to understand.

It's easy to describe building a bridge, but if one were to describe everything that went into building the actual Golden Gate Bridge including metalugy and the like; most would be lost even with years of education put in.

People don't seem to get that.

People don't seem to get that when the universe was made in 6 days, no one with intelligence into it takes that literally.

So Chrisitans lack intelligence?

 

[soulcougher73]

Translations.

So its been mistranslated so many times it originally started as Harry Potter?

 

[alkemyst]

So Chrisitans lack intelligence?

Modern Christians may or may not, but most that are smart know it was figurative, know that the universe is not only 4000 years old and realize many other myths were just "best efforts" for Man at the time to explain certain events.

Some people explain sink holes as explosions when that is not true at all. It's the best they could come up with to explain what happened that they saw.

 

[soulcougher73]

Modern Christians may or may not, but most that are smart know it was figurative, know that the universe is not only 4000 years old and realize many other myths were just "best efforts" for Man at the time to explain certain events.

Some people explain sink holes as explosions when that is not true at all. It's the best they could come up with to explain what happened that they saw.

Are you sure you are debating from the Christian side of this discussion? A lot of what you just said is what an atheist would probably say about the bible. I know i have on many occasions.

 

[JD50]

Modern Christians may or may not, but most that are smart know it was figurative, know that the universe is not only 4000 years old and realize many other myths were just "best efforts" for Man at the time to explain certain events.

Some people explain sink holes as explosions when that is not true at all. It's the best they could come up with to explain what happened that they saw.

I agree with this. The problem is that you have many, many people like JEDI and Rob that think the story of Adam and Eve, Noah's ark and the global flood, etc... are all actual events that took place as it says in the bible.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Modern Christians may or may not, but most that are smart know it was figurative, know that the universe is not only 4000 years old and realize many other myths were just "best efforts" for Man at the time to explain certain events.

Some people explain sink holes as explosions when that is not true at all. It's the best they could come up with to explain what happened that they saw.

When I was a believing christian, this is how I reconciled the stories in the bible. The problem is, what is literal and what isn't?

I think it puts believers in a bit of a pickle. Take the bible literally and you have to try and suspend reality and twist things as we gain more and more information about how the universe really works and it's history. If they take the stories as lessons not to be taken literally, at least some of the more miraculous ones, then it really kind of waters down what god is and what god can do.

 

[Retro Rob]

I agree with this. The problem is that you have many, many people like JEDI and Rob that think the story of Adam and Eve, Noah's ark and the global flood, etc... are all actual events that took place as it says in the bible.

You're still here arguing the merits of something you "know" didn't happen.

 

[JD50]

You're still here arguing the merits of something you "know" didn't happen.

Is this where you pretend to be confused as to why people would discuss something that they don't believe in? As if this hasn't been explained to you dozens of times?

 

[Retro Rob]

Is this where you pretend to be confused as to why people would discuss something that they don't believe in? As if this hasn't been explained to you dozens of times?

I don't believe Harry Potter exists, yet, I'm going to argue about whether or not he actually rode a dragon.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing.

I just personally find it strange that you spend so much time on these threads debating about fiction.

That's all.

 

[JD50]

I don't believe Harry Potter exists, yet, I'm going to argue about whether or not he actually rode a dragon.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing.

I just personally find it strange that you spend so much time on these threads debating about fiction.

That's all.

So the answer is yes. You seem to do this in just about every one of these threads. Do you honestly not remember all of the times that this was explained to you?

 

[Retro Rob]

So the answer is yes. You seem to do this in just about every one of these threads. Do you honestly not remember all of the times that this was explained to you?

No, I understand why you're here -- but this isn't about "education", or "informing the public because these people vote", but if you compare the Bible to Harry Potter and you won't argue the merits of Harry Potter in a Harry Potter thread, then why argue the merits of the bible?

I'm quite serious, because the way these come off is that we're being evangelized to by atheists and convinced to covert.

I cannot find any other reason why an atheist who sees no reason to believe in god would start a thread about God, unprovoked, with the thread basically consisting of probably a couple believers and many atheists.

This is why to me, atheist = activist.

Seriously, though.

 

[Caravaggio]

actually they can`t!!

Actually they can.

Are you asking for the full, peer-reviewed scientific reference, or are you in denial?

As for your suffix on Palestine, it is a model of Zionist propaganda.
Tell me, which terrorist ordered the destruction of the King David Hotel?