The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[Retro Rob]

Really? Then why haven't you changed your position on Noah's ark and the global flood, evolution, adam and eve, etc...?

I've found no real reason to.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok, that's fine. It just seems odd that you'd spend so much time trying to justify something that clearly can't be justified. Then when you get to the point where you realize it's completely indefensible, you fall back to "god doesn't play by our rules."

God doesnt play by our rules, for the reason(s) I mentioned.

My position is defensible for the reason that God doesn't have to play by the rules.

The issue is that there are nothing but atheists here. Among theists, God's actions are defensible.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps due to the subjective natrue of these sort of discussions.

 

[alkemyst]

This is easy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

At one point in time, there were NO extra-biblical confirmation, and the more people used that as evdience against the Bible, the more they were proven wrong.

Evidence has been piling in, and while everything isn't confirmed, in time, more will be. :thumbsup:

The same link mentioned:



Scholars will "debate" until the cows come home, so that really doesn't matter to me.

What many that are ignorant to all this don't get and will state as fact (yet they will claim to be well read and have done major research), is that Jesus never existed and he was a fabrication.

There is no denying that Jesus existed and that he was executed.

There are those that are Jewish and those Agnostic/Atheist that will state Jesus never was.

The main (and only debate) still is was Jesus the Messiah / Son of God.

 

[soulcougher73]

What many that are ignorant to all this don't get (yet they will claim to be well read and have done major research), is that Jesus never existed and he was a fabrication.

There is no denying that Jesus existed and that he was executed.

There are those that are Jewish and those Agnostic/Atheist that will state Jesus never was.

The main (and only debate) still is was Jesus the Messiah / Son of God.

I dont know hardly anyone who denies Jesus the man existed. It really isnt important though. What is important as you said was is he the son of god etc. and if there is a god.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I've found no real reason to.

Really? So then you don't give equal credence to science that is at odds with parts of the bible as you do science that confirms parts of the bible. You're only seeing what you want to see and using that to reaffirm yourself.

 

[alkemyst]

I dont know hardly anyone who denies Jesus the man existed. It really isnt important though. What is important as you said was is he the son of god etc. and if there is a god.

There are those that believe he simply never existed though. They also usually claim to be 'experts' on theology and history.

This is the root of my argument on these debates though, most have not even read the book(s) they are debating.

There is something like 4 bibles per household in America yet only 4% of those that own them have even read them cover to cover, but will profess they have multiple times.

Very few have ever taken a non-secular formal class on such books as well.

I have and it taught me a lot that a Rabbi or Priest or Pastor would not openly admit too.

 

[Retro Rob]

What many that are ignorant to all this don't get (yet they will claim to be well read and have done major research), is that Jesus never existed and he was a fabrication.

There is no denying that Jesus existed and that he was executed.

There are those that are Jewish and those Agnostic/Atheist that will state Jesus never was.

The main (and only debate) still is was Jesus the Messiah / Son of God.

Cannot agree more.

 

[JD50]

I've found no real reason to.

Then you're being disingenous.

 

[JD50]

There are those that believe he simply never existed though. They also usually claim to be 'experts' on theology and history.

This is the root of my argument on these debates though, most have not even read the book(s) they are debating.

There is something like 4 bibles per household in America yet only 4% of those that own them have even read them cover to cover, but will profess they have multiple times.

Very few have ever taken a non-secular formal class on such books as well.

I have and it taught me a lot that a Rabbi or Priest or Pastor would not openly admit too.

And yet, you still believe that there was a time in which humans didn't eat meat, didn't have to worry about rain (wtf?), and sat around eating fruit all day.

That is a bit confusing, to say the least.

 

[alzan]

This is easy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

At one point in time, there were NO extra-biblical confirmation, and the more people used that as evdience against the Bible, the more they were proven wrong.

Evidence has been piling in, and while everything isn't confirmed, in time, more will be. :thumbsup:

The same link mentioned:

Scholars will "debate" until the cows come home, so that really doesn't matter to me.

I'll accept that those are external sources that list some of those mentioned in the Bible. I will further point out that the authors of those sources had more and better access to primitive writings as do contemporary scholars, back during the time when it was less likely that the writings to which they refer would not have been lost or destroyed and thus were drawing upon that which was already in existence. Remember, the Bible as we know it today was not assembled and canonized until the 4th century CE.

That's an interesting attitude about Biblical scholars considering that you've cited links referring to those scholars as "evidence".

Just as non-believers are being subjective so are believers being subjective. Everyone's personal feelings and biases cloud their reasoning and therefore their conclusions.

 

[alkemyst]

And yet, you still believe that there was a time in which humans didn't eat meat, didn't have to worry about rain (wtf?), and sat around eating fruit all day.

That is a bit confusing, to say the least.

EDIT: I never stated what I believed or not believed on this topic. One should avoid making assumptions in this topic. There are things that one should take literally and those that one should take figuratively/explained as well as possible at the time.

Well, you are talking about man before real recorded history.

The old testament doesn't specifically rule out rain. It uses two different original words that have been translated to what was a Mist and what was Rain.

Scientifically, if we were dealing with Pangea and all the land mass was localized and the temperatures of the planet were all equalized, there could have been enough water in just the air to preclude the systems needed for rain to occur.

However; the scriptures don't really rule out rain...it's all interpretation.

Man didn't really sit around all day ever.

In regards to man and fruit only, this again as far as scriptures go was a suggestion by God. Adam and Eve (if one believes they existed) not to eat meat, but he also told them to avoid the Tree of Knowledge which they failed to do.

After this and as man grew, one could assume some man ate meat.

What the turning point was was that since man failed to follow the instructions that he put the desire into animals to also perhaps want to eat man.

Previously, supposedly the beasts of the world did not prey on man.

This all comes into the faith category though and interpretation of the original texts and if those people writing them had enough knowledge to know what really happened.

 

[JD50]

Well, you are talking about man before real recorded history.

The old testament doesn't specifically rule out rain. It uses two different original words that have been translated to what was a Mist and what was Rain.

Scientifically, if we were dealing with Pangea and all the land mass was localized and the temperatures of the planet were all equalized, there could have been enough water in just the air to preclude the systems needed for rain to occur.

However; the scriptures don't really rule out rain...it's all interpretation.

Man didn't really sit around all day ever.

In regards to man and fruit only, this again as far as scriptures go was a suggestion by God. Adam and Eve (if one believes they existed) not to eat meat, but he also told them to avoid the Tree of Knowledge which they failed to do.

After this and as man grew, one could assume some man ate meat.

What the turning point was was that since man failed to follow the instructions that he put the desire into animals to also perhaps want to eat man.

Previously, supposedly the beasts of the world did not prey on man.

This all comes into the faith category though and interpretation of the original texts and if those people writing them had enough knowledge to know what really happened.

I understand that's what scripture says and that's how someone might interpret it. But in reality we know that's all nonsense.

 

[alkemyst]

I understand that's what scripture says and that's how someone might interpret it. But in reality we know that's all nonsense.

Did you even read what I wrote?

1) there is no scripture that can indeed prove it never rained.

2) there is no scripture that proves man only ate fruit. The scripture only provides what was suggested by God. Post 'flood' scripture shows that God put Man on the animal's menu as well. There are many Men that only eat fruit and vegetables to this day and have never eaten meat.

However; for #2 to happen man would have had to develop tools/traps/etc as man is a very poor hunter without those things.

You are trying to troll is seems rather than have a logical discussion.

Basically, I was in agreement; yet you reply that it was nonsense.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'll accept that those are external sources that list some of those mentioned in the Bible. I will further point out that the authors of those sources had more and better access to primitive writings as do contemporary scholars, back during the time when it was less likely that the writings to which they refer would not have been lost or destroyed and thus were drawing upon that which was already in existence. Remember, the Bible as we know it today was not assembled and canonized until the 4th century CE.

I'm not gonna act like I know when the Bible was oifficially canonized, so I'll accept your date until I've done my own research, but I am familiar with the "Constantine" argument suggesting that our Bible was assembled by a pagan to unite his kingdom so that we don't have a Bible that really reflects what we accept as Christian truth -- instead, we have one simply "put together". Not saying you're making that argument, but its a common...particualry since the Apocrypha were rejected early on.

The facts are, that the canonicity was univerally agreed upon by 250 C.E, so whatever Constantine commissed, it wasn't tainted by his pagan bias and ambitions -- it was already established.

 

[JD50]

Did you even read what I wrote?

1) there is no scripture that can indeed prove it never rained.

2) there is no scripture that proves man only ate fruit. The scripture only provides what was suggested by God. Post 'flood' scripture shows that God put Man on the animal's menu as well. There are many Men that only eat fruit and vegetables to this day and have never eaten meat.

However; for #2 to happen man would have had to develop tools/traps/etc as man is a very poor hunter without those things.

You are trying to troll is seems rather than have a logical discussion.

Basically, I was in agreement; yet you reply that it was nonsense.

Did scripture say it or not? This is what you originally posted

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.

Regardless of whether scripture says it, suggests it, or says that god suggests it, we know that the entire story of Adam and Eve and the garden of eden is nonsense.

If you don't actually believe what scripture says, suggests, or however you want to phrase it, then great. But I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up in the first place.

Edit - I wasn't saying that what you wrote is nonsense. My point is that you can interpret it however you want, but it doesn't have anything to do with what actually happened.

 

[Retro Rob]

Regardless of whether scripture says it, suggests it, or says that god suggests it, we know that the entire story of Adam and Eve and the garden of eden is nonsense.

Well, why the hell are you here? He's right, you are trolling. You know its nonsense, yet you keep posting on the topic.

 

[alkemyst]

Did scripture say it or not? This is what you originally posted



Regardless of whether scripture says it, suggests it, or says that god suggests it, we know that the entire story of Adam and Eve and the garden of eden is nonsense.

If you don't actually believe what scripture says, suggests, or however you want to phrase it, then great. But I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up in the first place.

Edit - I wasn't saying that what you wrote is nonsense. My point is that you can interpret it however you want, but it doesn't have anything to do with what actually happened.

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.

 

[alzan]

I'm not gonna act like I know when the Bible was oifficially canonized, so I'll accept your date until I've done my own research, but I am familiar with the "Constantine" argument suggesting that our Bible was assembled by a pagan to unite his kingdom so that we don't have a Bible that really reflects what we accept as Christian truth -- instead, we have one simply "put together". Not saying you're making that argument, but its a common...particualry since the Apocrypha were rejected early on.

The facts are, that the canonicity was univerally agreed upon by 250 C.E, so whatever Constantine commissed, it wasn't tainted by his pagan bias and ambitions -- it was already established.

It's not my date; I posted it based on the average of several Wiki articles concerning the canonization of the Bible.

Considering the origins of the word "pagan", you might want to use a different word, e.g. polytheistic. We all have our biases.

 

[witeken]

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.

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

 

[Retro Rob]

It's not my date; I posted it based on the average of several Wiki articles concerning the canonization of the Bible.

Considering the origins of the word "pagan", you might want to use a different word, e.g. polytheistic. We all have our biases.

I know it wasn't "your" date, I was referring to your posting of it.

 

[Caravaggio]

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

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

One cannot just interpret them as "anything they want", there is an educated and agreed upon translation/interpretation.

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.

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.

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]

 

[JEDIYoda]

There is something like 4 bibles per household in America yet only 4% of those that own them have even read them cover to cover, but will profess they have multiple times.

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!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

But in reality we know that's all nonsense.

In reality we all know that`s nonsense......more Atheist talking points??
When you can`t defend your words, always play the well know that's nonsense card??hmmmm

 

[JEDIYoda]

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

really,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

actually they can`t!!