Atheism Rules !
Of course I am a creationist in the sense that I believe God is the creator. I have no criteria for accepting or rejecting anything in the Bible, as I have come to believe that every word of it is purposefully placed. I believe we read the Bible through the interpretive lens of others, not to mention our own, which can be problematic. I believe our view of the Bible is very narrow. As I have mentioned elsewhere (I don't specifically recall where, probably on this thread), I do not believe the original Hebrew in Genesis limits creation to 6 earth days. As I read Genesis, there were no earth days until "day" 4 anyway, or at the end of "day" 4 so "day" 5.
I think we borrow our concept of "day" from God, not the other way around. So, I believe creation took 6 days, but my concept of a day is not limited to one 24 hour cycle. If Christians, or anyone else for that matter, remain adamant about imposing this restriction on God, I believe they will be disappointed.
The Bible is much more, though, than the history of Israel and Christianity. It, as all of creation, is multi-dimensional. We have only begun to tap into it. Mathematicians have tapped into the Biblical gematria and numerics, very interesting topics, but I am not an expert. I do know enough to realize that they are indeed on to something. Besides, mathematics is universal (religion neutral), I do not know of anyone, Christian or atheist who will argue against mathematics. There is a mathematical structure to the original Hebrew and Greek texts which is (as far as I am concerned
) undeniable. But, don't take my word for it, just do a little Googling of Bible numerics or gematria. Obviously, as with everything, there is wheat and chaff, but those are readily discernable.
I, being a literary type, am fascinated by the symbolism, story, and the ancient Hebrew. There are literary structures which I do not know how else to describe other than to say they are supernatural. The lineages, for instance, something so seemingly boring to most, actually tell very elaborate stories when you research the meanings of everyone's name. Quite astonishing, actually. The complex literary structure, continuity, and internal reference and symbolism is something that should have been impossible for anyone (even today), much less a rural and nomadic people 4-2 thousand years ago.
I could go on and on, but me doing so would not be nearly as informative as you doing so. In this respect, I would issue a similar challenge to any one (atheist, Muslim, mathematician, etc.) to really spend some time kneading the scripture and the structure, symbolism, mathematics, whatever and see what conclusions you can come up with. In my opinion, it is a work that would have been impossible to have been written by man without the direction of God (or, if you like, some other extra-human assistance).What Thom said
What I said to Thom...
LOL
I will soon post the rules of atheism Peter, and I suspect they are the same as yours, but with a different conclusion LOL - Once we reach our target.
This is where Thom and I differ. I have spent considerable time looking for answers and have not only read, but studied the bible. Along with a variety of other texts, including the Egyptian book of the dead, the Tarot, Kundalini Yoga, the Martial arts, the Kaballah and others.
And guess what? - They all say the same thing. I won't say I have studied them in the depth that is needed to come to a total understanding of the text and it is fair to say, I only really studied them to the point where I understood they were saying the same thing. The other problem I encountered was a level of esoteric knowledge that required I belong to some organization or other.
Where they diverge drastically is the interpretation of a key point
Most mystics, Yogis, martial artists, Tarot card readers, etc, etc, etc, - Do not feel the need to say - "There is a God, and this is the one true way and you must adhere to this way because it is TRUE."
My "specialization," for want of a better word, is Aikido. Now, you might say - "how on earth can a martial art be the same as a religion?" But it is a philosophy.
Of course you can practice it for many years and completely not see this - as many people do.
The mathematics of the thing. Yes, there are mathematical patterns both in the bible, the Kaballah and in nature. Does that mean there is a God ? No - just that there are mathematical patterns in the bible and nature. It requires a leap of faith to see that this proves there is a God.
And people have been trying to unravel the mathematics in both the bible and nature for as long as there has been mathematics.
You could spend your whole life studying the potential messages in the bible and never understand it. Not ignoring the numerous translations and purposeful mis-informations surrounding the thing. And people do just that. What a waste of a life I say.
Also, there are mathematical patterns in any written piece of work. All of them. I could show you hidden mathematical patterns in William Shakespeare's writing. Translation them in to some sort of meaningful message ? - LOLI agree.
I agree.
I agree, and so would God by the way. It's not about exhausting it for all of the knowledge contained therein, that's impossible. It is about exhausting it for all of that it contains for you.
I'll be expecting the Shakespeare analysis directly...
But, I agree, and when you take a work of Shakespeare's and pass it along to John Doe to add his chapter, and he to Joe Smith to add his, and so on for 4000 years and the structure remains so precise, and John Doe predicts what Joe Smith will do, etc. then I will have to rethink Mr. Shakespeare indeed.I'll get right on that
Mark and Jenny-
I'm glad the comments about the flood sparked some discussion! And a good one, at that. I put those thoughts on here to do just that, since, hey, we're going for the longest thread, right?
On a more serious note, though, I wasn't suggesting that the flood caused fossils to decompose and create oil in 40 days. I do think, however, that water speeds up the decomposition process, wouldn't you agree? So whatever the time line was, (and I don't pretend to know it), the repercussions of a catastrophic, world-wide flood brought about a bunch of changes, big and small. You can get down to the molecular level and say that H2O bonds easily with other elements and other compounds, just as it does today.
But whether or not dinosaurs existed up until the flood, after the flood or all died of well before the writing of the Bible, I can guarantee you none of us in here will ever know in this lifetime
Good day to you to
Unfortunately - I do know. So does Jenny and Thom, and Peter (I think). As does the scientific community along with billions of others Perhaps not down to the exact 10 million years or so, but...
There wasn't a world wide flood. What gave you that idea?
There was much, much more likely a meteor strike that caused a rapid change in climate that caused the dinosaurs to die out and the mammals to eventually evolve into the humans that you see today. (see Jenny's post)
No flood. None. Didn't happen. Ice Age ? Yes - several as I understand it. Meteor strike - Probably. Flood - 40 days of rain and an ark with 2 of every animal - No, sorry. This didn't happen. It's a metaphor. But I don't want to get into interpretations of the bible LOL
LOL - Water cannot speed up the process. No. Not possible.
Whichever way you look at it - other than using blind faith - the earth is 4 billion years old (give or take) not 6,000. Nice try -
(In the never ending fight to stop the extra-long, eyesore posts, I'll simply write my thoughts rather than copy paste everyone's thoughts prior to that. Boy have I been guilty of that plenty on here! I wonder if we'll not only win the award for longest thread but also longest comment within a thread!)
Thom- You're right, I was going to ask "but where did that come from? and that? and that?..." But thanks for answering even though you didn't. You've got me curious about your three theories. Would you like to share?
Mark- That helps me understand where you're coming from. So you wouldn't say Atheism is the belief in nothing; you'd say Atheism is the non-belief in something? Same as Thom- thanks for responding. And I don't "need" to have an answer to that question...maybe it was one of those 9-lives, curiosity things. How many lives am I down to now?
I honestly asked that question of atheists on this thread because I wanted to have that "fleshed out" a little. In thinking of our past (and present) conversations, I (along with others) have been asked to sort of wear our beliefs on our sleeves, explaining everything out and then having that challenged and addressed. It's fine, and I've happened to enjoy it, but I was hoping to see the atheists start expanding on some thoughts. I realize, though, that a "speed bump" might have been hit when discussing evolution, but in my mind it brought everything full circle and now we're talking about the beginning of evolution- God or no God.
That's where I was coming from with that question. I wouldn't ask anyone to share or comment if they're not willing or don't want to open another can of worms, but I'm still curious! One could argue I evolved from a cat!LOL
I will not bother placing the links to the evidence again.
But - you have watched the video link you gave me. So you must be aware that your religion was cut and pasted from other sources. And quite honestly, the notion of aliens seeding the earth as a long term experiment is far more logical. Or at least on a par
I don't know how many times this needs to be explained, but I will have one more go
Evolution is a theory - backed up by a massive amount of facts, measurable data and, if you choose to read your book with anything other than blind obedience to the Word, references from religious sources - not just the bible.
The only reason you think evolution is impossible, is because you mistakenly feel it is a threat to your obviously tenuous faith. I understand that you see it as a threat, but this is a mistake. It happened, and there is no earthly reason why it could not fit into the Christian view of events.
Also, as I have repeatedly stated, my non-belief in god has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief that evolution is occurring.
And they are not my fossils. They are God's. (if you need to believe in that sort of thing.)Guess you are reading my posts with about as much attention as you read the "science Fiction,"
Quite right. I am "assuming," that you are a Christian because you believe that a creator spoke the world into being and are aggressively attacking the theory of evolution. Please enlighten me and I apologize for making an assumption.
And I do not not believe in god because of the theory of evolution
HUH? Where did the species come from? What is natural process? Read further down about the Law of Biogenesis.
Consider this - If someone loses an arm and still reproduces, the next human that is born will have an arm? So what you are saying about eyes is inconclusive and is only theory...People having poor vision does not mean that something else will happen or they will evolve into something different - Mutation in the eyes or skin will not affect the next cycle or multiple cycles of reproduction. Mutations have to happen at the reproductive level of any plant or animal for significant change to take place.
The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears.
I used dissolve in water instead of the scientific reference but I guess you want to read it for yourself:
The human genome, like other genomes, encodes information to protect its own integrity. DNA repair enzymes continuously monitor chromosomes to correct damaged nucleotide residues generated by exposure to carcinogens and cytotoxic compounds. The damage is partly a consequence of environmental agents such as ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun, inhaled cigarette smoke, or incompletely defined dietary factors. However, a large proportion of DNA alterations are caused unavoidably by endogenous weak mutagens including water, reactive oxygen species, and metabolites that can act as alkylating agents. Very slow turnover of DNA consequently occurs even in cells that do not proliferate. Genome instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair.
Where does DNA repair happen? Inside something that is living and that is the only place. IT cannot take place in water? or in the atmosphere or in a Closed or Open environment? Wouldn't you agree?
I am using logic, I use it in everyone one of my posts, you just fail to see it..........You treat me as a simpleton, an illogical person, someone who is ignorant. You think that I just decided to come in here and what? Play games? There are thousands of scientists that say natural selection could not have happened. I am not the only one that does not agree that evolution happened. I am just the lucky guy that gets to help you see the truth about creation. It is impossible what you are proposing. I have proven it several different ways. You seem to have a few points but you rarely get back to the basics of creation.
Here is a list of scientist that say they are skeptical of natural selection and the ability of random mutation.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … amp;id=660
SM
I have reserved judgment on you Thom until now because I have been intrigued by your interjections, and I have as of yet been unable to determine whether they are wise, pithy, attempts to end the conversation, or perhaps even some or all of the above.
However, I now violate one of my beliefs and I judge you WISE (not as wise as you could be with a little help from above, but wise indeed).
WC -
I have seen that site before. This is made up "science." I do not hold with people doing this. All the references at the bottom of the article which attempt to make it seem like a genuine scientific piece refute everything in the article.
If you choose to believe this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I don't really know what to say to you.
It's not just the laying down of fossils and fossil fuels you are questioning. It's how mountains erode, how rivers create their paths, whether or not there was an ice age, whether dinosaurs existed - everything. I don't think any one should have the right to intentionally spread this sort of thing. Our children have a tough enough time of deciding what is right without this. The people who wrote this website should be ashamed of themselves.
This is not an attack at you personally, and if you choose to believe the things that are written there, that is your decision. You didn't believe much of what you saw in that video, but much of it is a matter on historical record.
I suppose this is better than burning people at the stake, but not much. This is a deliberate attempt by a group of people to mislead people into believing an untrue version of the facts. Even you use the word "fact," when you talk about the earth being created in 6 days and a 40 day long flood. These are not facts - they are at best myths and not to be taken literally.
None of it makes sense. And it is very hard to look at this with an open mind to the truth, because this is a clear lie. I am not completely au-fait with the scientific "facts," - Jenny is much , much better than I am at that. But I studied geology and geography at college level, and I understand that the processes take much, much longer than 6,000 years.
I am really struggling as to what to say to you, but if I ever caught anyone trying to teach this to my child, I very much doubt they would attempt to teach it to any one else ever again.
And yes, I am angry that these websites are allowed to propagate this information and that somewhere like the IRC even exists.Well I don't want to re-quote you entire post, but it's worth bearing in mind that these things were only discovered in the last 200 years or so, at least in part, because to investigate them meant being burnt at the stake by the christian church for heresy
As you say - a "belief,"
Evidence is definitely the wrong word
I also have to point out that your argument for a flood catching dinosaurs in the act of fighting and giving birth really points to a meteor strike rather than a flood.
All I will do is leave you with this question, which you do not have to answer:
Can you honestly say that you believe the "evidence," for a flood because it makes sense, or because it fits your previous faith based beliefs?
LOL
Thom - as usual.....Bang on.
The other obvious question - What happened to all the water?
And have we reached the goal yet? So I can post the rules of atheism.- sandra rinckposted 17 years ago
0my rediculas theory about the water.
Maybe it is possible that there was a great Earth shattering flood, but way before Moses' time, way, way before that time.
But the land as we knew it or Pangea was weakend by the rain. Then the Great Earth shake occured and tore the land apart and the waters subsided into the depths of what we call the oceans.
Water was displaced by the rifts in the land mass, but the same amount of water that existed then, still exist now.
Plus my other out of world theory about the water is that because people are made up of 70-90 percent water, that the more people there are in the world, the less water there is for our consuption. That were it went. LOL.
sandra - it's as good as the original theory
It's a great question for everyone to ask. I would never say that I believe the evidence for a flood because it fits my previous faith based beliefs. That is like approaching something with pre-conceived notions, and I wouldn't do that. Of course you would say I am, which is where we respectfully disagree!
Thom, I've been quite impressed with the high level of dialogue you've brought to the table. Here's something I wouldn't expect you to be aware of as you admitted you haven't studied the Bible extensively. Here's a passage from Genesis 7:11-12:
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
To me, this says that water came from below and from above. You're right, that's some serious downfall required to flood the earth! Anyway, no harm, no foul. Just thought I'd draw attention to that point.We are close.
And you are correct, that's what I would say.
Only you know whether you are being honest with yourself.
Although, I do wonder why you think rivers do not carve a path for themselves and were "created," the way they are today. The only reason I ask, is that I love rivers, and it has always fascinated me that they cut a path through the earth, leaving anomalies behind.
Only 9 more pages before the truth outs LOLYou mean the Grand Canyon? LOL
That's the only reference I remember to a river. And there are more rivers than that. I was thinking of some other rivers LOL And thinking particularly of Oxbow lakes.
Truth? Or TRUTHIn that case - Goodnight
- sandra rinckposted 17 years ago0
LOL Jenny, I dub you the Goddess of Patience
(that's in addition to your current responsibilities
)- sandra rinckposted 17 years ago0
Jenny - If I hadn't already joined your fan club, I would do so.
Wedding Consultant -
You mentioned amazement at how passionately both sides argue their case, and this gave me pause for thought as to why I am arguing this case for evolution with you. To be honest, I do not care what anyone thinks of just about anything. But I find myself continuing to argue with you and wondered why this was the case. After much consideration I have come to a conclusion why that is.
I like you personally. Judging by your interactions here, you are considerate, thoughtful and capable of stringing a sentence together reasonably well.
But, and this is quite a big but - And I can only speak for myself in this matter, although I suspect that others feel the same way and you will continue to have heated arguments over this.
I am scared of you
And I don't mean scared physically. For all I know you are a 5 ft 4, 80 pound weakling in a wheelchair
This is why you frighten me:
I can argue 'till I'm blue in the face and am not going to change your mind. You have decided the bible is literal and think the earth was created in 6 days (our measurement) and there was a flood that wiped out the dinosaurs.
There is an awful lot of evidence that this is not the case. You have seen it, read it, looked at it digested it and dismissed it in favor of a very poorly written attempt by "Creation Scientists," (an oxymoron if ever there was one) to confuse the issue with fake facts.
Quite apart from my genuine disgust at these people, you have grasped the straws they are offering and offered them to me as truth and evidence of something I know to be false.
This is scary to some one like me. You will die for these beliefs. That makes me scared.
It doesn't matter how many pieces of information I or anyone else offers you, or how many facts and figures you are given - You will always dismiss them as rubbish if they do not fit with your beliefs. You can hold a fossil of a long extinct animal in your hand and say: "Yup. Just took a few years when the flood came." And believe it. Scares me in a way I have trouble explaining to you.
And people like you have gone to the trouble to create lies to back up the literal creationist story. I am not saying you have done this, but you apparently believe them - in spite of the fact they make no sense. It just doesn't make sense that the white cliffs of Dover were produced in the manner you suggested. It doesn't make sense that the Grand Canyon was formed in the way you suggest. It doesn't make sense that Noah was living side by side with dinosaurs. It doesn't make sense that fossils are formed in a few years because it rained a lot and speeded up the process magically. None of it makes sense.
Yet you believe them - whatever you may think of your motivation, it doesn't make sense to believe these lies - Unless it happens to fit your previous belief system.
I said before that at least this is better than burning people at the stake - but barely.
And you are apparently going to school to become a pastor so that you can continue to spread this message. You are planning on devoting your life to doing this. You would happily teach this to my child and back it up with "facts," such as the stuff you showed me.
This scares me.
You wish to teach this message to whoever will listen, and there are organizations attempting to do this via "schools," and the internet and presumably in churches. I wouldn't know, I don't go to churches any more. Frightening.
I cannot reason with you and I see this - It really doesn't matter what I say to you - You will continue to believe these stories as truths - and I am scared.
A ten year-old finding that website you pointed me to is unable to tell the difference between that and genuine scientific evidence, and this is scary to me. - Both from the point of view that there are still people who believe the bible as a literal truth, but more so because there are people prepared to fabricate "evidence," to suit the facts.
Now, I am not saying that there are not members of the government, corporations and scientific community who do not attempt the same sort of thing, but they are more easily spotted. And they don't Believe.
So, did I say it enough times yet?
You scare me the way a terrorist prepared to die in the name of Allah scares me. I cannot reason with you in any way. You will still believe.
I am scared of you.
Thom - nearly time for the rules - just a few more pages. nThom - Yes. These are the very, very scary people:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ … 504.column
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … ation.html
Still writing the rules
Fortunately - There only seems to be one LOLWhen you guys stop bickering and get back to the original substance of the thread, let me know.
Actually, I'm not sure exactly what the substance of the thread would be, but I will check back in when the whole creationists/evolutionists debate has run its course...if it ever does.
Well, I was rather hoping that would have run it's course by now. As you can see, it is unresolvable. I am certainly not interested in getting into it with sprinkler. LOL
I was hoping to post the rules of atheism when we had reached the longest thread, but I fear that will just spark the same discussion.
It is strange, I must admit. I have said repeatedly that my non-belief in God does not come from a belief in evolution, but it would seem there are some people who prefer to ignore that and argue that because there are some gaps in our knowledge base this automatically proves the existence of god. But this is typical of the way a conversation of this nature goes.
As I have probably said before, I respect the way you came to your belief system, and it would seem to wended a similar path to my own, and drew a different conclusion.
So here's a few reasons why I don't believe in god:
First off. Obvious really - lack of evidence. No matter which way you cut it, it is impossible to prove the existence of god. If it was possible, we would not be having this same discussion.
We would probably be arguing about the way god spells realised - or realized.
Second - None of the descriptions I have heard of the way god behaves or wants you to behave tally with either each other, or the behavior I see from people around me.
Third - The churches cannot agree. One says this, one says that and some of them even have a different god. They can't all be right, so logically - they are all wrong.
More to follow.
Comments welcome.
Thom, I'll give one example, and hold my breath that I'm not still doing this on page 93 (see above re proof):
1. As a Christian, my faith is in the life, death, resurrection and divine nature of Jesus Christ.
2. The historical figure Jesus of Nazareth is real. Jesus is mentioned not only in the gospels, but in the writings of Jesephus and in the Koran.
3. Jesus was crucified. I do not believe this to be in real dispute, even most Jewish scholars agree that the 1st century Rabbi Jesus the Nazarene was crucified.
4. Jesus died. Again, I do not believe there is real dispute that the historical figure Jesus died.
5. Jesus was resurrected. This is where our idea of evidence might differ, but given the passage of 2000+ years, it is what it is. The gospels acknowledge that the disciples of Jesus scattered and denied being his followers to avoid His fate.
6. That the tomb was empty and Jesus was raised is a scriptural assertion, and there is an assertion that there was scheming to cover up why the tomb was empty. (1) If it wasn't, there would be no Christianity today. It would have been simple enough to squash an upstart religious sect by simply producing the dead body. We would have never heard of this guy. (2) The cowards became adamant preachers of the resurrection leading most to horrific deaths. This is not referenced in scripture, but other historical writings attest to Peter's crucifixion, John's being boiled alive and surviving, others being killed in similarly heinous ways. I apologize that I do not have a bibliography at the ready, but if you want to I can provide one.
7. That Jesus was seen by many people in resurrected form. The Apostle Peter preaches a sermon where He tell everyone, even religious leaders, "You saw him too." Again, this would have been simple enough to squash. A simple, "no we didn't" or the production of the body would have sufficed.
8. The 1st century Jews and Romans were threatened by this new "cult" and could have easily put out the fire created by lies. The cowardly disciples who fled, now were so convinced of the resurrection that they proclaimed this belief to the death, which I do not believe would have happened for what they knew to be a lie. Jesus' brother James, who did not believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah before the death (and really thought his brother was a nut job) becomes the leader the church in Jerusalem.
9. One of the chief Jewish persecutors (actually killing) of the new Christians not only investigates the matter at length, but has his own encounter and becomes the most prolific of all apostles and the apostle to the gentiles, which would have been unthinkable of for a Pharisee of the day.
10. This new "religion" was essentially started by (excluding Jesus) 12-15 blue-collar guys who most people thought were nut jobs anyway.
This has nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate, but I happen to think that whole debate is useless anyway. But, it is one example that I WROTE AT YOUR REQUEST. Deliberate emphasis added. I'm not looking to devote the next month of my life going on and on about this because we will end up right back here if we all begin by drawing lines in the san. I will answer questions and answer as best I can.Peter,
I am not here trying to convince anyone to be a Christian. That would never happen in a million years. I have some good friends who just don't believe and that is fine with me, I don't try to convince them of anything.
But, if you are in a public forum talking about Atheism, What do you expect to happen?
I see Marks idea behind this, he knew what he was doing. He just wants the longest Thread.
So he comes up with something that he has probably debated on before in other forums to get others to come in and debate - evolution, creation or that even a higher being exists.
There is no proof of evolution that I have ever seen. I have seen the creation of life a hundred times and a hundred different ways though.
Again,
I am not trying to preach here. I am just stating facts from scientific evidence that evolution could not have happened. If I open one persons eyes here, that would be great but I really doubt I will.
I am just a pawn in Marks Game of make the longest thread.
Take care,Normally, I would ignore you sprinkler, but you have mentioned me directly, and seem to be missing the point.
Although I am flattered that you think you are a pawn in my game, you can choose to play - or not. As you wish. - Free will.
Also, I think you have me mixed up with some one else. This is the first time I have debated this issue on a forum.
Unlike yourself, this is my own name. Mark Knowles. I do not use a bunch of aliases, such as fxchief, or the like. Not even going to bother explaining how I know that particular alias.
This is me. Wherever I interact on the internet, I use my real name and leave a contactable address. Whether I respond all the time is another matter.
And you are saying to Peter that you are not trying to convince anyone to be christian. LOL
Maybe not, but you are still attempting to cast doubt on proven scientific theories using fake information. There are 2 possibilities here. Either you are too ignorant to see the difference between the two set of "facts," you are attempting to discuss. Or - You are genuinely trying to disseminate false information. Either one is not acceptable - If it is number one, for goodness' sake please allow yourself to be educated and read what Jenny has written for you. If it is number two, you will burn in the hell fires of your own making
Despite the fact that I asked you what you did believe and apologized for assuming you were a christian - you have not answered my question. For all I know, you do indeed believe in the spaghetti monster. In which case - all power to you. But you appear to be here to try and disprove a proven theory, and since you have repeatedly demonstrated you ignorance on the subject, it's rather hard to take seriously.
Unlike WC, I am not scared of you. I think it is unlikely you could persuade anyone of anything other than what you have managed here. I don't know what you believe, and don't particularly care. The only argument you have put forward that made any sense whatsoever was the fact that evolution is so unlikely that it could not have happened. I must admit to having had the same thought myself - Until I understood it. And if you think evolution is unlikely, try wondering how unlikely it is that there is an all-powerful being who spoke the world into existence in 6 days. LOL - And I use that in the same tone you do.
As to have seen the creation of life. So I have I, but I don't think my mother is God LOL
Think about this. There are a myriad universes. An infinite number, and they are infinite. Much like the monkey/shakespear analogy, eventually, life will arise from the primordial soup. As will there be a God who speaks the universe into being.
But not in this one
Misha - you are absolutely correct, but I was half way through this and couldn't leave it
Peter - I definitely have some more for you LOL - And I use that in a nice wayOh great, finally, the Shakespeare analysis, I assume. I have been holding my breath.
LOL
Of course, some one has beaten me to it. This is a pattern described by using the placing of the stops in Shakespeare's sonnets dedication poem. Which itself was written in code and has since been deciphered to read:
"Setting forth in the adventurer
By wishing well wisheth living ever
Our poet promised these sonnets
To the onlie and insuing eternitie
That begetter of all happinesse"
Once this is extrapolated, by reading the poems in their intended order you get these images:
If you are interested in discovering more "truths," about the matter, try this:
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/dawkinsl&s.htm
Although, interestingly enough, if you do a google search for - mathematical patterns william shakespeare - you will find our forum thread on the front page of the results, so I suspect there is not a big following for these particular interpretations, and I have decided to make it my life's work to study these and bring the truth to the world.
Funny that you mention this, because in my profession I have seen many imprisoned on less.
However, the proposition that I am suggesting is that it is more likely that there would have been concrete evidence that disproved the anecdotes, hearsay and myth. It would have been a priority of the 1st century Jews and Rome. Not that such evidence would still exist either, but nor would Christianity.Peter - I am not going to quote your entire passage, because I think we already have a bit too much of that, but I will make a couple of observations.
I think believers try because that is one interpretation you can make of certain passages of the bible. - Depending which version/translation you are reading.
I also think that if you believe the bible as a literal statement of fact, there are certain scientific advances that throw that into doubt. LOL Myself, I don't see proof of evolution as proof of the non-existence of God - But I can see how that would threaten a faith-based belief system that is not based on personal experiences. I have never seen the bible as a literal piece of work. Here's my personal (abbreviated version) take on the bible.
It was written by some very wise men who were seeking to explain the way things work, and knew they were not going to be able to explain it in a language that would be understood in their time. So - they used a collection of folk tales and borrowed existing fables that also attempted to explain the same thing and tried to re-write them into a book that would be understood by a broad section of the population - bearing in mind the political climate of the time.
It is not meant to be taken literally. And never was. They used the word God to describe the connection we all feel (if we choose to) to the rest of the living world we inhabit. This is not the same thing as having a god. There is no deeper message that needs to be understood other than the fact that we are part of something that is greater than ourselves. At that time, the only thing people were going to understand was that there was something in control that was more powerful than the Roman government. The Native American and other pagan "religions," understood this much better than we do. There is no denying that we are all connected. We all breathe the same air. We all eat fish from the same ocean. But we are unimportant individually. No more important than a grain of sand on the beach. And just as important as that grain of sand.
The bible has since been bastardized, changed and used by many unscrupulous churches to further their own ends.
There is no god in control, but this aspect is the most comforting, and also - gives you the most excuses - It is god's will/command etc. Takes away personal responsibility.
`
You are one of the few I have seen speak with humility and seem to have a good understanding of what the bible was for. With one exception LOL
You would make a great atheist
Sandra - there is only one rule And you seem to have defected LOL
Sandra -
This was taken from a website called Light of Truth
They have a good argument that William Shakespeare was, in fact, Sir Francis Bacon. And have found some mathematical "proofs," hidden in Shakespeare's sonnets. Pay them a visit
But the point I was making to Peter, after he bought up the fact that there are mathematical patterns in the bible, is that there are mathematical patterns in any piece of written work.
Which takes us to Jenny's last post. The fact of the existence of these patterns is different from the interpretation of those patternsI was looking at the link from your prior post last night. It was very interesing. I was a little lost when I looked because I was thinking it would be talking about Shakspear but was about Baconians. I am gonna keep reading.
I was actually thinking last night about Bible math patterns, not like Shakespear, (very cool), but I was fiddling around with the numbers a while back, and found a lot of logorhythems (spellings poor, I know ) One of the numbers that popped up was 21212121212, I was thinking about the Dooms day predictions before, but then I was watching about some scientist, I foret his name, who did a study on humans with T.B that were ready to kill over. He was trying to prove that a soul existed in the body.
So what he found after a human death was that a soul weighed 21 grams. And did the same study on a dog, and found a dog didn't lose any wieght after it died, but all the humans lost 21 grams right after death.
Not sure that it is anything like what you are talking about, but interesting at best.
Look foward to knowing more and what you have to offer on this.
Absolutely
Related Discussions
- 114
How can atheists improve their image?
How can atheists improve their image?For whatever reason, the mainstream theists in the U.S. have trouble separating average atheists from the extremists in the news. Not all atheists want to watch Christianity crumble or start their own dictatorship. But how can we spread the image of a more...
- 16
Religion and Atheism Jokes
The best way to get out aggression is through laughter.Post your jokes here.No getting offended. Remember they are jokes. Don't take it personal..Its not always about YOU!
- 135
Do you really know the difference between agnostic and atheist?
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not religion. Although ignorance and religion are good bedfellows.
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
- 424
Define atheism & its purpose
Well like religion, i think atheism too varies from atheist to atheist..what is the standard form of atheism, its purpose and strengths over religions??
- 81
Is Atheism really just another religion or faith based concept?
Is Atheism really just another religion or faith based concept?It seems like the notions that there is a God or there is not a God, are both founded in belief because there is not proof either way. Well there is proof, but not conclusive in either direction. So aren't organizations with set forth...