Since Vector7 has apparently succeeded in creating a forum thread forbidding anyone who wishes to disagree with the topic to post--some posts have been removed already-- i thought I'd try and do the same here. Here's his thread:
If you agree with the Holy Bible, please don't spam this thread. If you do you are being rude and I will report the poster and will report the issue for Hubpages to decide whether it violates the forum rules or not.
This thread it to show how primitive and completely ridiculous the old book of myths is in in today's modern word. This thread is for questioning the authenticity, origins, truth, purpose, or statement it proclaims within its pages.
This thread is for denying the the existence of god, Jesus Christ, or the deity Christians see Him to be. This thread is not for Christians who accept Jesus Christ as God, their Saviour, and in being so the author of every word in the Bible's pages.
This thread is for anti-Christian remarks or agendas, and not for disrespectful or disagreeing statements in regard to atheistic or agnostic beliefs and faith.
Anyone is welcomed to join so long as their inquires or statements adhere to the agreement that the The Holy Bible is not the truth as agreed by all unbelievers. The argument that "the Bible is truth" in any form or fashion will be considered spam and will be referred to HubPages for discernment.
The sole purpose for this thread is a peaceful and agreeable environment for atheists and agnostics to study and learn how the supposed Word of God, The Holy Bible, is bogus and untruth.
If you disagree with anything stated above in this OP, please do not post your disagreements as the preceeding agreements for the thread are outlined clearly. Therefore, if a post in disagreement by a believer is posted, it will be considered disruption and will be reported promptly.
Why are there so many contradictions in the old book if the bible is really a dependable reference book for sinners. And how do those relying on its contents rationalize the ridiculous claims and scenarios which seem to have no basis in fact?
These and other such questions will be discussed thoroughly to the abilities the thread it is restricted to. Any believer who go against this discussion attempting to use the bible as an example of how it is right and holy will be reported to the mods and if they are truly fair, will remove then as they did in Vectr7's thread.
Feel free to pull no punches while discussing the obvious faulty teaching in the old book wit no interference from the Christians.
I shall be watching to see if Vector replies.
Of course he won't! And if he does I will have to ask the mods to remove his post as he has done for others on his forum. It should be fun to discuss how outdated the old tome really is without having to see the old "god dunnit" excuse appearing here for an explanation to some biblical fiasco.
More tomorrow as I'm tired now!
Let us start then. Why Mr. God chose to impregnate another person's betrothed(or as per Elijah, vector's twin brother, wife) to bring his son, in spite of his commandment against adultery?
Was their nobody to give Mr.god a wife?
I assume he would have no problem simply making his won concubine if he so desired without cuckolding that of a common man. this never made sense at all to me either. Gotta crash now, more tomorrow. And if anyone ca christian here while I am sleeping, then please report them for me.
If God created Adam and Eve from the dust of the earth, why couldn't God create his son the same way without endangering a young girl"s life. The Hebrew word for "young girl" is the same word in Greek for "virgin" - or the other way around. Back in the good ole Biblical days, an unmarried pregnant woman can be stoned to death.
This reminds me long long long ago when my parents forced me to attend catechism and someone in my class asked if Mary and Joseph ever had sex. The teacher was quite adamant that they did not rub their naughty bits together ever and that was why she was still called the Virgin Mary. So seeing as how the marriage was unconsummated I guess God got a free pass. This was not the same Sunday school teacher who told us that God answers prayers in exactly 30 years.
And that is why my kids are not in Sunday school.
I think that most women would regard a spontaneously regenerating hymen (which she must have had if she was still a virgin after giving birth) as a total nightmare, and you can't blame Mary if she wasn't too keen on having a conjugal relationship with Joseph if this happened every time?
Yeah, but did anyone check under the skirts? I mean, once you've managed to sell everyone on the idea that you're a virgin giving birth, would anything you said ever be seriously questioned again?
For myself, if the virgin birth was indeed accepted at the time, I'd tend to think it was because Joseph was doing the selling to either save face or save Mary from stoning, and he was bigger and badder than anyone else. So if he said something was true, people just said, "That's right, man! That's right! Let's write that down!"
Sunday School was originally for farm folks whose kids worked in the field so they could only get an education while their parents attended church, eventually they started teaching God in Sunday school.... I am always afraid that those devious little Christians/Creationists/I.D.ers will succeed one day in getting religion taught in public school.... mostly because I remember some crap I was told in my Sunday school growing up... never want that crap taught to my kids... or very soon grand kids.
I find it more disturbing that she was 15 or so when she gave birth. There are a great many reasons, both moral and practical, to be opposed to 15 year olds giving birth.
An omnipotent, omniscient God, even if he could guarantee that Mary herself would be fine, should have had a little more consideration for the millions of teenage girls who have suffered and died in childbirth because of premature marriages justified by Mary's youth.
I have the same objection to Mohammed's stupid, stupid decision to marry Aisha, which is used even more directly to justify the appalling abuse of child brides.
Haven't you often called these people from that time period just a bunch of Goat Herders?
And from what I remember about being a goat herder; 15 was considered to be an Old Maid, by normal standards. Would it have been right to have made Mary wait too many years before allowing her to marry?
And from a purely biological point of view; I thought that just a few cycles after reaching puberty was when the woman was most fertile and in tip top physical shape to survive child birth and give birth to the healthiest of babys.
That is unless they are living on the streats and not eating right and such.
And it was a different world back then.
No. The best child bearing age is between 20 and 35. But you are right in that it was a different time then. What was ok morally then isn't now, and a lot of ways it's vice versa. That's what happens/ Society progresses. Holding on to ancient ideas often retards progress.
Indeed I have. The people of that time were "just a bunch of goat herders". However, an omnipotent, omniscient God should know a) that teenage girls are at higher risk for many complications during pregnancy and childbirth (complications which threaten the health and life of both mother and baby) and b) that humans are dumb enough to conclude that a 15 year old giving birth to the savior makes it perfectly okay to marry/marry off 15 year olds themselves. The ignorant human culture of that time should not affect the choices of an omniscient God.
As for not being "fair" to Mary to prevent her from getting married off at 15, that is exactly the attitude that causes these backwards customs to be perpetuated. One of my husband's relatives got dragged back to their native country at 19 to be married off to her first cousin. My husband said we shouldn't interfere because people would say we were "ruining her life" and "destroying her chance for happiness" by not letting her go. (Unmarried 21 year olds are considered old maids in their country.) Less than two months later, she fled back to the US, having been abused by her in-laws (her own aunt and uncle!) and her husband. Delaying marriage sure would have been unfair to her, all right!
, I love it! Christians and the like, have a stupid point of view. Nobody ever taught them any different though, their bible robots and have a terminal cases of indoctrinosis.
You are correct, of course, MM. Most have been indoctrinated at a very early age with very little chance they will ever be able to think for themselves concerning religious matters because of it. Of course, it is obvious to anyone who has ever tried to have a conversation with them about the old book.
May I ask what the atheistic point of view is without being reported as spam? I want to know what atheists think of the beginning of the universe. I recently wrote a hub on the topic and could not find any decent atheist views on the subject. I honestly would like to hear some.
I started a thread on that very topic last week. Look for it in the religion forums, its an interesting and insightful read!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZV … re=mh_lolz
This is the most in depth yet simplified explanation of Atheist's point of view on how the universe began... and why atheism....
I keep breaking that rule about posting links.
Randy, let me know if you want me to remove it.
No problem, Art. I don't censor anyone's views, despite the joking attitude I took to start this thread. And yes, it was in response to the silly dude who started the other thread.
I believe he learned his lesson as others told him how ridiculous his thread was. Thanks for the video link!
The Old Testament is a collection of Jewish mythology. The New Testament is a reproduction of legends that originally were passed along orally.
The only thing that makes the book holy is belief in its holiness. There is no difference among Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and Christians when it comes to accepting belief claims for which there is no objective verification, and which knowledge has shown to be ludicrous.
Hope and fear are powerful motivators.
Hope and fear IS the main catalyst for humans to look towards religion as an answer for the unknown when study and common sense is lacking and too much trouble to research.
So true a statement about hope and fear: This is one of the reasons you find similar tales in all mythology. People didn't want to get on the wrong side of their gods, and they were looking out for their own well-being.
But the funny thing is, is that I think it boils down to a concept the scholar Joseph Campbell wrote about: These tales are ingrained in our brain through evolution, which means it's difficult to override an evolutionary instinct.
Not a big Campbell fan, but I like his soup!
"These tales are ingrained in our brain through evolution, which means it's difficult to override an evolutionary instinct."
The tales ingrained in our brain? Evolution has nothing to do with this, it's a social ingraining brought on by passing the ignorant fears of the previous generation. Humans are born ignorant of all but over time learn fear, the real fear ends in our ignorance of what is unknown. If we are never taught fear and are raised by scholars then these stories would never formulate because knowledge of reality, animals eat animals, we have the ability to make tools to stop or fight becoming food. We have the ability to discover how the universe works. The ignorance that drives the fear that these stories instill dies with knowledge. The only drive evolution gives is to strive for survival and to better ones "tribe"/family, friends, society so as to better survive and have success in living this life happily. This also drives the fight against those we deem propagators of ignorance, even if our knowledge is based on ignorance... We as science based people strive to discover what it is that is true and what it is that be false in the face of not just survival but betterment of mankind. Evidence shows that religion drives unnecessary hatred for those that do not harm and deny their mythology as the ultimate truth.
before i think it was 1865 or some such date, the unicorn was mentioned 9 times in the holy bible. when 2 dutch scientists proved the horns that were said to come from unicorn were actually from norwalk whales(not sure about the spelling) the tern unicorn was removed. pretty convenient to be able to remove or add what ever suits your fancy.
I sure wish I could creatively edit reality in much the same way, life sure would be sweet
isn't that the truth. the catholic holy bible has been edited to the point that i think only the thing still the same is the book titles
Um, the full-length Bible was being used by the Catholic church for over 1000 years before it was edited by the Protestant movement. The RC church has altered nothing about the Bible. You will find the original texts are still at the Vatican. There are volumes of it.
The Catholic Bible isn't full length to begin with. There are many manuscripts that were missing from it, that were found just within the last 300 years or so. It also has been edited, many times, by many hands. Every scribe that's re-penned it to keep it up to date has added and taken away from it, unless you honestly believe that it made of papyrus paper that lasted 1700 years and many many climate changes with out any problems what so ever. Blaming other people for supposed "changes" in the bible, especially considering it consists of stolen plays (the new testament) just shows how little research has actually been done into the subject.
To be clear, there isn't a 'Catholic Bible' but a Christian Bible which has been substantially trimmed down since the Reformation. Yes it has.
Also, I think you might be surprised to learn that a phenomenal amount of research has been done on the subject. Pop over to the Vatican and see for yourself.
Growing up a Catholic and a Christian, I think it depends on the Bible you are refering to because there are several versions, not just the "Christian" or "Catholic" version... THERE ARE 48 different versions of the same Bible. Why so many different versions? Whose version do you believe to be most accurate? (obviously yours?) When you say it's been trimmed down, that's putting it all too simply because the reality is that different versions were written for different reasons and different teaching emphasis. There is the Robert Young version which was written 1862 which set out to make a literal translation to correct for any errors in King James. Later versions were written for more simplified teachings of what are considered Christian Moral and Historical values, and not for accuracy of translation.
You're talking about Protestant Bibles again.
What difference does that make to an atheist? We don't hold one Christian sect higher or lower than another or another bible higher and lower than any other. They are all equally works of fiction.
We're not talking about higher or lower, just the facts man. I don't give a monkey's about all the versions since the King James'.
Do you care about the actual words King James omits or mistranslates?
More to the point do you care about whether or not there is any truth to the claims made in the Bible, whether or not it's relevant to our world, whether or not propaganda of the church changes the meaning to suit their agenda?
I don't use the King James Bible, although it is beautifully written. I use stuff from the old translations. Not that you would care either way, being an atheist and all.
Since I couldn't reply to your comment I decided to reply to my own. I care about what was actually written, and just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I don't care about the Bible itself as a work of folklore and mythology.... history is important, even the beliefs of the people from history, it teaches us about what we were like back in the day. I don't take the Bible to be truth but I do care about accuracy. If it's not a literal translation then it's just a lie.... even if it is about a mythology.
I'm not going to waste time looking into the Vatican. Most of the biggest mass murders in history as well as much of the hate and bigotry in the world can be laid at their feet. I wouldn't trust them if Jesus himself were standing right beside them saying it's all true. As for extensive research, people like Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy have done research as well, and they have shown the bible to be nothing more than a rip off.
Well, you've made yourself nice and clear, thank you.
Sorry I don't support killing people just because the believe differently then you. I also don't support people who think that being gay is "unnatural" just because they themselves aren't gay. I don't support a group of people who think women don't deserve equal rights with men because they believe that they are descendants of israel and women from israel are meant to be nothing more then servants to a man's sexual desires. I don't support people who think it's ok to molest children as long as you don't get caught...should I really go on?
not true. for instance, in 1785 the pope had the bible edited to remove the unicorn as being a real animal. it was proven that the horns thought to be from unicorns were actually from norwalk whales (not sure about the spelling) .they were mentioned 9 times. the king james version i was told still mentions them i think .
My copy of the bible still mentions unicorns. I don't remember the verse but I know it's there because I used it to trip up a christian coworker several years ago. She said she didn't believe in unicorns, but she believed that "every word in the bible was true." When I gave her the verse about unicorns, she gave me a funny look and said, "then I guess I believe in unicorns."
That is as if to say ... as long as it says bible on the front of it, I believe every word of it regardless of who translated it or interpreted it.
I didn't intend that to be funny ... because that is a SAD thing.
Sad but all too often, true.
Once upon a time ... this wasn't true.
That's okay. It doesn't matter whether your intention was to be funny. It was.
i'm guessing you have the king james version.
Deleting posts? Wow, that's FREE SPEECH huh? Some Christians act ridiculous. I have never denied a comment on any of my hubs, nor have I deleted anything off of a forum I started.
I am sure he won't delete posts from believers who say constructive things but if you had viewed posts by vector7 you'd understand what this forum is a response to. It may seem hypocritical. However, though it's not something I myself condone or would do. Most of us have deleted spam and offensive or not constructive style comments.
So this is thread only for people who agree wholeheartedly with the OP.
Not really a discussion then.
Whatever happened to a good, old-fashioned two-sided debate?
Kinda like : Revenge of the Bible:
Is there more than one way or more than one side to Yahweh?
Most of them bible thumpers hate it when we go there to debate them on the bible but they do it to us with no thought as to the hypocrisy. So why can't we as atheists create our own thread to discuss why we think the bible is ridiculous without interference from believers?
Problem with Atheist forums is they are 2/3 about Religion. You see being against something only joins the problem. My approach is to reason Religion to point of stinking them down to a healthy level. For the main evil in the world is the absence of reason. We will never get rid of Religion, yet we can take away much of the unreasonable powers.
I disagree to a point. The only reason I use the word atheism to describe myself is to tell the religion that I don't believe in their god and I am here to tell them to stop shoving their religion down our nations throat. Otherwise I could use the various other words that describe me and never once say the word atheism.... It's like being know as a nongolfer. The only reason you'd want to be known as that is if you were protecting a golf course being built in your neighborhood with your tax dollars.... Someone used that golfing thing against me now I am using it for me.
I am an atheist but only in context of being against the fantasy known as god. I could probably be called an anti potter, against being into harry potter because it's not reality and I won't base my life on it.
Just a faction of the spaces of Golf course could house all the homeless people
I thought that hub should be a platform where members are freely allowed to participate in any discussion, without limitation or restriction, as long as the discussion flows within or around the content view-point. Having said that, your statement sounds a little bit more rigid and seclusive. I do not think that, you saying members who believe in the Bible should not participate in this discussion. this forum, I believe, should be a learning ground, for everyone to debate on a diverse view issue, in this way, everyone will be learning from everyone. Saying you will report to hub someone who believe in the Bible posting in this forum, don't you think it is not a fair thing to say. By saying a member who posted on this forum and a supporter of the Bible being truth should be considered a spammer, don't you see that as harsh and uncanny statement. I was truly disappointed from that tune of voice in your writing. This form should be for everyone to be part of and serve as a medium of idea exchange.
He was copying a forum made by someone else. All he did was change a few words since the original forum was only for bible believers. He was trying to make a point. You posted on the wrong thread.
I haven't been on that forum much and didn't know he was doing that.
Obviously I tread dangerously in this forum since my beliefs are so well known, and I certainly don't condone the practice that Vector7 is supposed to be doing, but if he is and then we start segregating all forums by belief, then the extremists on both sides have won.
It's why I like to hold conversation and always feel terrible after and try to avoid shouting matches.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions unfortunately.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions unfortunately.
I do not understand this saying,
The source of good intentions is the ultimate place we seek. How do we gain higher energy paving with Bad Intention,? unless your a lawyer.
Also don't get - You can have your cake, but you can't eat it too. Why?
You can't have your cake and eat it to, is one saying that I don't think many people understand. It's actually backwards which I think is why. It's suppose to read "You can't eat your cake and have it to." The reasoning being that if you eat your cake, then you don't have your cake anymore.
The road to hell being paved with good intentions is a lot simpler. You can have all the good intentions in the world, in everything you do. But just because something stems from a good intention, it doesn't make it a good action. Just because you do something with good intentions, doesn't make the action itself good.
I can see the sense that the you can;t eat your cake, because it's a better Idea to share it,or you get too fat anyways
When your heart is leading and your mind shortly follows your good intention ,it is highly likely it will work or make adjustment along the way. What else would you replace your good intention with?
I'm not saying it should be replaced. I'm a firm believer in following your heart and seeing where it leads you. The statement itself is made though because people generally don't weigh the consequences of the actions they take. Be it an action of mind or body, most people don't consider the consequences and possible repercussions of what they do first. A good intention, no matter how good it is, can still harm you or others. Thus the saying.
I can not imagine that good intention truly led by the heart is harmful, at least through my experience.
On the other hand
Good intention led by the mind can be in error and can be harmful, because the mind is also the source of all our problems.
Heart or mind have nothing to do with it. Good intentions with lack of foresight or common sense lead to harm and only if you are lucky enough to have made the right decision and follow through with holding yourself responsible for all the decisions you make will good come of it.
Well thought out action. Of course the good intentions are important, but it's possible to have unintended bad consequences. That's why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I must be one of these old stubbornness fool who has a high production and have no record of harming anyone. You are what you think, I heard too many politician and lawyers use the that line of :The road to hell is paved with good intentions: I think at first they had good intentionS, but in time they dishonesty try to please everyone and ended up with too many bad results due to trying to solve too many things with their mind. Good sense make good intention foresight, which comes from your imagination and from your heart
If you truly are then you are unique and my hat's off to you.
Anything that goes on long enough will have dishonest people attach themselves to it, whether church or state or private business. But many things that were started with good intentions, no matter what we might think of those intentions now, didn't consider the "blowback," the unintended consequences.
Some people call me a know it all, which is silly statement because 99% of the World and Universe is unknown to all
Yet I do things in a knowing way by experience with steps small enough to handle and big enough that matters while loving the work, Occasionally I am wrong , yet not wrong enough to break my number one rule, o not harm:, then simply adjust the mistake, no sin involved
99%? That's impossible to say, since you can't quantify something that is not actually known.
I know what I know and know what I don't know, that is the simply truth.
About 1% crust of the surface of the earth is 6 km, underneath our feet and still know little about our sea. The 99% dark matter mass of our Earth is unknown to us. We know 99.999999999999999999999999999999 give or take much less than 1% about the Universe too.
Going about life in the best way you can is all that any of us can do. There are affects from our actions however that won't we can't see the consequences of. Some of our actions won't have affects until we are gone from this world. Thus everything we do, will have an affect, all we can do is try to make sure it has the best affect possible at the time we do it.
You make a similar remark on the prophet of Islam; and those people with exerggerated goatee from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, northern Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia; would go on rampage!
They would go on a rampage, because people for the most part haven't evolved. We still act like uncivilized baboons, when we run accross something we don't like... Cry me a river human race, because until we change... I'm gonna call us out on it. "Jesus is my savior", "No only Muhamed is right"... Bunch of f'n children.
The Bible is a book of stories. Living your life according to the Bible is as ridiculous as centering your faith around Anna Karenina or The Hobbit.
Well, all I can say is "Godd for Vector7 for having "beat you to the punch".
perhaps both sides of the faith divide can have a happy discussion without the other "butting in" and derailing their discussion.
10 out of ten to Vector7 for the success in doing it first!
10 out of 10 for you Randy for copying the idea!
I will happily observe the wonderful pearls of wisdom that come from you camp.
Don't you know this response has nothing to do with the OP, hence violation of forum rules? Your transgression is not going to be tolerated hence you will be reported.
"Forum Rules: Stick to the topic. Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread. Thank you for your suggestion. If you don't like
the thread, there are plenty of others. Also, I
referred your post as it is not on-topic. I'm glad HubPages is willing to review posts
themselves and they can determine what they
will. They do an excellent job. Please don't disrupt the discussion with off topic
God bless." and let you have a 'virgin' child.
It has everything to do with it.
The main thing it shows is that I'm not arguing, nor derailing the thread merely commenting on the intent, and the topic focus.
I respect it enough to not argue the point, as per the OP's request.
Nice to see you following me around.
I have a bug-a-boo about a bible story that should fit in on this here thread just dandy. I have read/heard that it takes 60 breeding pairs for humanity to survive and for human genetic material to remain healthy enough to keep us from going extinct. In the bible there is more then once case of humanity surviving without eve half the number of breeding pairs to maintain genetic viability of the species.
I wont go to much into the Adam and Eve story as some make claims that God made other humans never in the garden of eden which of course begs all sorts of other questions. Like maybe I am not descended from them at all and am thus not bound by original sin or the supposed 'fall from grace' scapegoat used to explain why life is hard somethings. As a song lyric I love says "In the garden I did no crime"
It's the story of Noah that just doesn't wash with any real understanding of genetics. In the story all of humanity is wiped out for being sinful, except Noah and his family. The story goes that there were 8 survivors, four breeding pairs. This simply is not enough for a species to remain viable and does not even touch on how few pairs of animals actually were saved (even if you assume the bible is totally wrong on the numbers ONLY and there were more breeding pairs of animals then it records, making for one damn big ark, something the size of Texas and Alaska combined, many animal species would have gone extinct due to lack of genetic variety to account for weak genetics, genetic illnesses etc.). The next genetic point to make is that if we were to assume the bible is WRONG AGAIN and has stated things which are blatantly NOT TRUE (the definition of a lie) and are to say that Noah had more then the 3 sons with their wives to maintain the genetic viability of the species the further problem remains, these are not distinctive pairs, they are genetically far to closely related, only the wives are introducing proper fresh genetic material to the species gene pool.
If God really did send a flood to wipe out all of mankind then we alive today are not the same species as the mankind of the bible. God in his 2 year old temper tantrum rendered the species nonviable due to lack of genetic variety as well as that of the animal kingdom of the time. Maybe Noah was a dinosaur? Or maybe the people who wrote the bible were talking out of their metaphorical asses. Wouldn't be the first time people have whored themselves out for fame. Frankly no one has ever had the level of fame these charlatans had.
Noah and the Ark does not float my boat; there are too many things that would appear to contradict it.
- What did the animals eat afterwards? All the vegetation has been destroyed; either washed away with the top soil or the soil is destroyed by the salt water. The carcasses of the drowned have been eaten by fish or washed back into the fountains of the deep. What stopped the two lions eating the two zebras?
- Where are the dinosaurs? Assuming a young Earth creationist view, even if Noah took baby dinos, why did they not survive post flood?
- why are kangeroos unique to Australia? If Skippy's great great grandparents left Mt Ararat in Turkey, how did they migrate to Australia? Never mind that Australia is an island, how did the ever breeding colonies decide not to stop off in India and China along the way, thus leaving populations there today?
- Assuming that the fountains of the deep burst forth and mixed with the Oceans, why are there huge underground Aquifiers of fresh water under virtually the whole of Africa today? Why was this water not contaminated with the oceans leaving at best brackish water today?
- if it never rained before the flood as creationists suppose, how did antidiluvian plants get their moisture. Water must sink through the soil to supply their roots and even at 100% humidity this is not possible. Water must condense, thus we have rain.
Thus the account must be allegory or based on folklore.
Your questions are nonsense, and any good bible thumper already knows the answers.
The vegetarians ate manna provided by God after the flood. The animal carcasses weren't eaten by fish - very few fish (either salt or fresh water) can survive months of brackish water, which was all there was throughout the world. God provided a force field to prevent bacterial action during the flood and the world was covered by carcasses all rotting at once when the waters receded.
Dinosaur bones were put on earth by God to fool mankind into not believing; they are a test of faith or fraudulent plaster artwork created by Satan's minions here on earth. Actual living dinosaurs never existed.
Kangaroos are unique to the land down under because God returned them the same way they were brought to the ark. Certainly Noah didn't visit Australia to get them; God magically transported them to the near east and took them back when finished.
Good removed all the salt from the water when the water returned to the deep, just the same as he did for the water that he took back into the heavens. Otherwise oceans would be far less salty; a few thousand years isn't enough time to create the ocean salinity we see today by any but God's direct intervention.
Plants lived by the direct hand of God providing water to the roots of each and every plant prior to the flood. He probably got tired of doing that and now it rains every little while as a poor substitute. We can see this in the deserts of the world that no longer get water directly transported to the ground and thus no longer have plants.
Not allegory nor folklore; Goddunit with His magic.
There is also the obvious problem that if we are all descended from Noah and his Middle Eastern/Caucasian family where did the Black African/Oriental/Polynesian/Australian Aborigini/Eskimos come from?
That would be a scary thought if there's people out there who believed what wilderness just posted. I want to know how I can contact these people because I have a couple of bridges to sell along with some waterfront property! :LOL:
But of course, it is merely an old tale stolen from The Epic of Gilgamesh as anyone realizes if they do a bit of research on their own instead of listening to those who have never learned anything about either history, geology, meteorology, archaeology, and the list goes on.
The anonymous author of Genesis apparently took centuries of old fables and myths which were told around the campfires of nomads and goat herders, claiming he wrote them himself while claiming god related them personally. As did the unknown writers of the rest of the old tome.
Some great points to add here! The story of the great flood doesn't seem to hold any water does it?
No-ah, it surely does not! (cymbals crashing)
You are right, Kristen. There is some very interesting data concerning the cheetah which proves the flood was only a fairy tale. Not enough genetic variation in them to reproduce from only onw pair of the beautiful animals. national Geographic ran an article abut this not too long ago.
Genetic diversity among many of today's animals disprove the old myth beyond a shadow of a doubt if things happened as reported in the old novel.
Still a lot more studies on early American man to do,
I'm doing my controversial part in 2 months
Doing a sandsculpture World Record in a Bible belt Town of Creston BC
One of the display is an Neanderthal man puppeting a skull of a Raptor Dinosaurs and a skull of modern man skull in his other hand, with the background of an erupting volcano
What do you think?
A new study shows all non Africans are part Neandethal man, genetic confirm
It sounds like you may tick off a few believers with your exhibit, CP! Good luck!
Maaaan! Many Christians you can't even ask them a question without them being tick off,
I won't put a date on to it, the Neanderthal could be just 6000 years ago, that should fool them.
I bet I.ll get more likes than dislike
Lab coat,John, had 7 dislike for everyone 1 like on his you tube video
I'll bet you do too, CP! Lab Coat John is an idiot, as anyone can see. A 6000 year old neanderthal would get a few laughs though!
How about giving two dates and two views?
Atheist or Agnostic studies report which most professional Scientist are.
Their studies show Homo sapiens interbreeded with Neanderthal man Approx 65,000 to 90,000 yearsagree)
Christian Creationist scientist studies show Adam incest family inbred with Neanderthal, other other mix breeding were Angel and 16 foot Giants which evolve to hicks, hillbillies, and some branched off to rednecks and a few claiming they are super human being today.
It's Yahweh forever or no way to God.
Would that make a healthy middle grounds or would that cause more wars?
It is somewhat of a trend on youtube. You can visit religious videos and anti religious videos and the likes and dislikes are always in favour of atheists.
In my experience, most people on the internet are from america, so that says quite a lot about the percentage of theists and atheists.
I know the figures for the UK are over 50% atheist but America always perpetuates the figure of only 15% atheists.
I think the youtube like/dislike button tells a different story.
Well good morning, Randy. I guess you won't be going to church today either....
Create a clone with all of our intelligence and knowledge but non of our preconditioning and tell him that there is a magical being in the sky who is everywhere at once and who made the earth in 7 days and that we can't do this or that or the other because he doesn't want us too and that if we do we get punished and go to hell. Oh an by the way, the evidence is this book that a group of romans put together over 1500 years ago... he would laugh his head off!
“And Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, himself and our fathers; and they were carried over unto Shechem, and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem” (Acts 7:15-16)
Unfortunately Jacob was buried(Genesis 49:29-30) in "The Cave of Machpelah" in Hebron and it was Jacob who bought the cave(Genesis 23:16-18; 33:18-19; 50:13; Joshua 24:32).
Contradictions and contradictions, yet they say it is part A and B of the same book.
At this rate, if you give them a book and say it is written by god and even if it say America is in Uganda, they would believe.
Does anyone else think that "God" and "good" are so close in spelling that a person subconsciously associates them? Could that be considered subliminal brainwashing, laced directly in the English language? I think so.
I've thought about that..then I wondered if the word God came from the word Good...I mean all you have to do is drop a letter
And "evil" was derived from "devil" or D' evil? Makes sense to some!
And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.Acts 19:10
Bible does not even know who are Asians?
I wrote a hub on this subject and instead of a dialogue about the issues that I raised about the bibles, one hubber went on a rant trying to get HP to ban me.
The bibles are about events from two thousand years ago to the beginning of our universe. There have been no updates in the last two thousand years. All the people depicted in those events are long dead.
The usefulness of a two thousand year old journal today is not useful at all. It speaks of a God that no one has seen, even Moses only heard God. No one in the New Testament actually saw God. So a God that doesn't appear to his creation is not really a God, but more like the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.
I think that the old testament is mostly if not all allegory.. None should be taken literally as most people do. The religion's contradictions bind the believers mind into a subliminal prison. They are presented with a Good God who is also tyrannical, jealous, murderous, and abusive. One hell of a mind job if you ask me. Sounds like a massive case of Stockholm Syndrome.
I have contrary view of most of things posted here...but it surely good for a laugh.....please dont report me.....
I would really like to post my opinion on this thread. However it seems that free thought and free speech are both things you are trying to limit. I suppose I will have to resort silence in fear of you reporting the defense of my beliefs. I find it slightly ironic. I hope some of you understand why.
This thread was created because someone created the exact opposite thread. They posted it in the wrong spot, but still. They also limited the freedom to talk about the bible in the opposing point of view.
I saw that after I posted, I have posted on their thread as well. I think both threads are distasteful.
Victor started this with his thread and with having posts removed first. I simply wanted to see if the moderators were fair minded enough to do the same for this one. Religion is always distasteful when spouted from the mouths of the self righteous.
Religion is not distasteful, people's honest beliefs are not distasteful. It is when their beliefs inspire negative thoughts and feelings about other groups that they become distasteful. Christianity is supposed to be about love, which means their thread was not very Christian. Atheism is supposed to be about free thought which means that this thread is not holding true to atheistic beliefs as well.
There is another forum thread just for you which denies atheists and agnostics from posting anything contrary to what the thread wants. They began this and this thread is only an answer to THEIR thread. Go there amongst your own kind and post your asp off.
Both seem to be inspiring hate don't you think? Do two wrongs make a right? The three year olds I teach even know better than this. Atheism is supposed to be about free thinking isn't it? Futhermore this is supposed to be a positive writing community. I visited the other thread and commented similarily. They are acting unchristian and I don't even know what to say about this thread. Both are disappointing and do not inspire intellectual conversations, instead both threads are becoming what each group conveys the other as. Ironic, and childish don't you think?
I think what they intend to point out is the childishness of what Vector7 did. I doubt that anyone would actually be reported if they tried to defend the Bible on this forum. I could be wrong. But, honestly it is nice to discuss things without the trolls. I don't mind a Christian or anyone else having differing viewpoints from my own, but it's annoying when people come in acting like robots, spouting out the same stuff without thinking anything through or ever considering that they might be wrong.
I agree that trolls are rough on conversation. They be ingnored though couldn't they? I think it is just sad when differing opinions are discouraged by any group of people. That inhibits learning and growth of any kind. A community where everybody agrees with you is not healthy, and a community where everybody agrees with you on the foundation of a thread hating on another group is just pathetic. It does not encourage free thought, critical thinking or require any real knowlege. I agree that both threads are childish however.
Wow I am tired, they could be ignored couldn't they* sorry :s
Do christians not try to convert people to their way of thinking? Do they not indoctrinate their young with that same way of thinking? I mean honestly, it's all well and good to say that "diverse and free thinking" is good, but trying to get people to be Christian and forcing it upon your kids instead of letting them choose when they are able to, shows a complete lack of diverse and free thinking.
Christianity teaches the exact opposite actually. Christians are supposed to spread the Gospel, they are not supposed to try and convert people. They are supposed to share what they believe, not force it upon other people. Children are taught what the parents believe the same way a child in any family of any belief would be raised. Do you know what your parents believe? The children are then free to choose their belief based on reason. The Bible commands Christians to reason. To try and understand the world, to encourage individuality and critical thought. Do not judge an entire faith based upon the actions of a few people who ascribe to a belief system. Judge a faith according to what the faith teaches.
What doctrine says that? All most every christians I've ever talked to has said otherwise. The bible says otherwise. Even leaving that out, My wife and I have our own belief system, and we agreed that we would not subject our child to it. Our daughter is now 5 years old and knows nothing of any belief system. It's definitely not that any child is raised into a belief system just because it's their parents, it's that their parents don't want them to have the freedom to choose anything else. No matter what belief system is doing it, it's wrong to do. No kid should ever be subject to a belief system. When they hit the age of reason and can figure things out for themselves, what ever system they choose to ascribe to should be there choice. They should also be encouraged to study all the belief systems so they can make a valid choice for themselves. Thus does indoctrination come into play.
I've never read in the Bible where it was encouraged to do anything but follow God. Even in the apocrypha that's all it does.
I'm not judging the entire belief system (faith and beliefs are two completely different things, if you'd like a definition I can gladly provide them). What I'm weighing Judgment on is the actions taken by most every person of the belief system that I have come across. Very few and far between is the Christian willing to say that they may be wrong, very few and far between are the ones who are willing to discuss their beliefs without trying to convert you to them.
Then you are meeting some interesting Christians. I challenge you to read Isaiah and John and then tell me that Christianity does not teach people to reason and think critically. I agree with you that kids should be encouraged to study all types of faiths, and read the different Books. That's what I am currently doing. It is the only way to be make an informed decision. When I have kids they will have the different books available to them. I think the issue is that many Christians, and many non Christians do not understand what they are reading, or just don't read the Bible at all. Give it a read, I suggest the ESV version and find out what the faith is really about. Then make the judgement. (NOTE I am not trying to convert you! I am trying to tell you to make informed decisions)
I have made an informed decision. Your Bible is nonsense. The bible does not stand up to critical thinking or reason. Sorry.
Many people hold that view. Could you give me some issues that particularily concern you? The atheistic viewpoint is as poorly represented as the Christian viewpoint. I would like to hear from atheists what they believe.
What I believe about what? The bible?
I already expressed my opinion. What did you not understand about the word I used?
No I want you to be specific. Do you not believe there is anything in the Bible that is not nonsense? Have you examined each individual document and decided every one of them was nonsense? Or are there particular stories and documents that you find bothersome?
OK - lets go with the irrational assumption of a god for starters. Virgin birth can be #2 and Jesus coming back from 3 days dead can be #3.
Suppose you read in a history book the twin towers were in Africa and the towers were destroyed on 9/11, what will you think about the book?
Okay why do you believe that the concept of God is irrational? May I ask what your definition of God is Mark? I just want to avoid definitional conflicts before starting to try and explain my understanding of God
Also sorry about the late reply and the reply on the wrong post. I just got this notification I didn't know you had responded.
Personally, and to start with, I find that Genesis is completely vague and doesn't meet with actual events that occurred "In the Beginning", the Bible has many sick events where God either does or commands someone to do something I find immoral or just plain evil. The idea that God came down to be a human (as his own son) and have himself (or son) sacrificed so that he could rise again (which nullifies sacrifice) to save people from a sin he himself created (original sin) as well as all other things he hypocritically condemns (because he's God he can break his own rules and not be held accountable) is completely ridiculous. Not to mention the mere fact that God is a completely ridiculous idea to hold onto in these modern times (he has been proven, at least to the science minded, to not exist).... of course you can disagree with my opinion in the latter, mostly because people find comfort in believing in such an absurd concept due to fear of the unknown and the prospect of death.
I have a hub about atheism that explains most of this.
Thanks for seriously answering. It seems that I cannot reply to some of these posts and I dunno why so I may not replying to some of these points on the correct post. Sorry :s
I want to start with the absurdity of the existance of God. I can only respond to one qualm at a time cus it is a little overwhelming :p
May I ask how his existance has been disproven?
Oh you can believe that EinderDarkwolf, and most of the people on this thread, either were Christians and/or read the bible, and studied it thoroughly.
You are correct, A Thousand Words.
I'm one of those ex-Christians.
I've read the entire Bible approximately once a year for about 35 years. I usually skip the begats, which comprise most of Genesis 5, Genesis 10-11, HUGE swatches of 1 Chronicles, and most of Matthew 1.
I am especially fond of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs.
The Bible -- assuming the Protestant canon -- is sixty-six books written over hundreds of years by many hands. It has no "main point," outside of that which various readers at sundry times have chosen to discover in it.
Good answer I am sorry for my trick question :p I am getting a little frazzled by the ignorance on this thread and it seems to be hurting my faith in people :p
I also love Ecclesiastes. Beautiful book!
I cannot believe that actually, I do not know any of the people on this thread, their study habits or their research skills. I need evidence of these skills before I can trust the things they say as truth.
That's perfectly fine, if you want to come to dinner and meet my mother (who is still Christian) I invite you, not sure how she would feel about meeting a perfect stranger, but she is a gracious host. She can take you to her church and also explain to you how she raised me and how at an early age I questioned everything that I found.... silly. She actually started out Catholic but converted to Methodist because she was offended by something her priest here in Albuquerque said.... she met my father in New York, she is Dominican by birth. My Father grew up Christian and was a very outspoken Right Wing conservative.... over the years he has become completely opposite this and is now a Socialist Atheist. The rest is explained in another hub I wrote.
As far as believing me otherwise, I could care less, I have no reason to lie to anyone, and would be much happier had I never been raised a Christian. I know people you can talk to who weren't but the majority of all atheists were raised as Christian. This is just a fact, you can look up stats if you like, you can do research (I wish you would before believing ANYTHING ANYONE TELLS YOU).
This was not directed at you :s I was commenting on someone telling me I can believe what somebody else posted. Thanks for sharing about yourself though. I find it interesting that your mother was catholic, do you know the differences between catholic and protestant beliefs? Just curious
My Bible is King James Version, but if you want to through out challenges, I challenge you to explain Jeremiah 33:17-22. Explain to me why God told Jeremiah that only Levite Priests would give his ministry, and would kindle meat, perform burnt offerings, and perform sacrifices for ALL TIME. Then explain to me why Jesus was not a Levite Priest (making his ministry a lie according to God). Why did Jesus not perform burnt offerings, kindle meat, or perform sacrifices? And No, God changed his mind, or the Holy Spirit did it are not answers. Isaiah which came before Jeremiah, and Hebrews which came after Jesus's resurrection don't count either.
I have the bible, and I do study and read it. But I quit taking it literally a long time ago. I also have a copy of all the Apocrypha currently known. The Bible as only allegory tends to make some sense. As a fact? Never has to me. There's too many things that lay unexplained.
I love the King James, though it does have some translation issues I will admit. That is an interesting point, I now have a new topic to dig into Thanks. I do not have an answer to your question, and that is exactly what I wanted. I am gonna go have a read through of Jerimiah haha If I can answer your question I will, if I can't then maybe I have some research to do. Thanks for giving me a real answer instead of an insult.
I have not actually read the apocrypha yet, I have heard interesting things about the books though haha. I do own them an hope to get to them some day :s
I agree with you that there are aspects that do not make sense. At least not to me at this time, and not literally. I do think that there are facts contained within the documents however, and that those facts are just as important as the problems.
All I have been trying to do in pushing people to ask serious questions was to try and get past the insults and understand why they think the beliefs are ridiculous. I am not trying to tell people they are ignorant or need to do more reading, I am just trying to understand why they think what they think. I now have something to go off of.
I want a more solid understanding of different beliefs and I need the help of people who hold different beliefs.
Of course I do! I never wanted any thread to be censored, and this is simply making fun of the other thread. Believe me, I'm not afraid of anything anyone wishes to say about a truly ridiculous old myth book which has caused so much pain and suffering because of the narrow minded view of Christians throughout history.
They have bullied and even killed those who disagreed with them for centuries. Ever hear of the Crusades? Those on the other thread would have no qualms about having another such debacle if their preachers told them to do so.
Post what you wish, there will be no repercussions from me, even though I began the thread. I certainly do not want to be considered as frightened as they are of open discussion. Besides, I already know their weaknesses from past experience. Not being able to deal with reality is one of them. Believing things which we know are impossible is another.
In that case I would love to discuss with you the beliefs of atheists. I used to be an atheist and I found life rather depressing. I really want to know what other atheists believe.
Do you have an opinion on the beginning of the Universe is both logical and takes scientific discovery into account?
Not an atheist. I simply have not found any gods yet, especially yours. And in fact if there are gods, I would hope yours was at the bottom of the list if I had to choose one. Too much misery, death, and pure contradictions for my taste.
I had rather choose a happy god who laughed once in a while, and chose representatives I could admire, not feel sorry for. But perhaps they are his idea of a joke and does indeed find humor in their attempts to explain the bible.
Maybe not, but taking it at face value certainly is.
Not if one has been told this from an early age. How old were you when you were told this and by whom?
Get a grip Randy...you know I don't care.
This gets easier every time.
Most of the older Atheists on here would never have jumped on the bait so eagerly.
Wish I had more time.
So you two agree with Randy that the Bible is not the truth then?
Those are the rules of the post afterall.
Of course it's not the truth, you have to be illiterate and dumb to think it is.
Have you read the entirety of the Bible? I am just curious.
You might want to reconsider that question. It's already been proven on a Global scale that those who are not religious know about the religions of the world better than those who practice said religions.
Really? Interesting. I used to be atheist and then I started reading more about Christianity and Islam. Where does this place me? I was raised atheist.
I do not think it matters what religion you claim to believe in or not believe in. People are individuals. The question remains. Have you read the entirety of the Bible.
How am I supposed to know where that places you? You said you used to be atheist, which would mean you are not now. If you read about Christianity and Islam, and believe them, then you would be part of that religious sect.
Then welcome to your own dishonesty. Any claim is spoken or written, or communicated in any other way is an action. Whether or not that action is honest or not is completely dependent upon that person's individual ability of being honest with self. If they are not truly being honest with themselves, then they are not going to be honest with other people. This has been proven. Just like you speak of Love. Love must come from loving self. If you don't love yourself, then you never truly love anything in life.
Yes, people are individuals. And, it is our responsibility to understand our own life, so that we(each of us) can live peacefully together. This is an individual goal most people do not see because they possess no worldview.
The entirety of the bible. Yes, I have read it several times. 3 times be exact...cover to cover. This is not to mention, the number of years I researched religion and world history(this includes many other topics as well).
Religion is a business. It's product is the Bible(or any other book). It is a one-of-kind product with a specific purpose. It is to teach people to serve a higher power. It demonstrates hypocrisy, as in "do as I say, not as I do".
People can be religious(ritualistic) in their every day life. Religion itself and those who perpetuate the beliefs are doing so without being completely aware of the fact that they are not being honest with themselves.
The cold hard fact is no one knows anything at all on whether or not there's a G/god. It's all belief and beliefs are not always true.
If someone lies to you and you believe that lie, and then you speak that same lie to someone else, are you not then being dishonest? Ignorance is never justified.
If someone lies to you and you don't believe it, but tell someone else that that person had lied to you, is this a right course of action? It wise to tell other people when someone else is being dishonest? It's actually your duty to tell other people, because to do nothing is wrong.
Understanding what is right for the sake of it being right is where many people fail. This is why religion continues to exist and more specifically why governments exist.
From a level of pure logic, you are of course right. There's only one problem with your base assumption.
Unless I'm wrong, that there is no God.
I don't think you assume it, I'm sure you've looked into it and from what you can see, there isn't a God. No, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious. But God still exists.
It's not an assumption. I said there is NO requirement for any knowledge of any G/god to be lived or understood. Both don't require any knowledge(including any pathetic belief that could arise from those who have false rationale).
In your mind only and in the mind of others who fail in their responsibility in living life.
On the contrary, knowing God requires that you take full responsibility for living your life, in ways that you can't possibly imagine before you become a believer.
I try not to make assumptions, and I'm sorry if I've done that with you.
Wow - you mean you understand things we can't possibly imagine? How very cool for you. Not condescending at all.
You see, once one dispenses with the god myth, the world appears far more real and full. In ways - frankly - you would not comprehend, because your sight is so blinkered and limited. It's a shame really how limited you are.
Yes Mark, quite a shame! But it lets you be condescending, so I can't see that you really think it's all that bad!
Just reflecting back at ya.
Little wonder your religion has caused so many conflicts is it?
Did god tell you into your head to behave like this? Because you are validating my opinion of religionists all over again.
I pity you - missing out as you are the things that are simply beyond your ability to comprehend.
Okay do youthink somebody has to be religious to believe in God?
Religion is defined as the belief and reverence if a supreme being.
Uh, I don't want to start an argument, especially since I am a religious conservative, but...
No, one doesn't need to be "religious" to believe in God. I'm not a fan, but the modern argument both inside and outside the church is whether someone is "religious" or "spiritual." The difference in practical terms can be difficult to discern, but the short answer is that you don't need to be a member of a local church to believe in God. So in that respect you don't need tp be "religous."
Dictionary.com defines religions this way:
Although religions certainly does almost always pertain to the belief in a Supreme Being/beings, it's not necessarily the case that you need to believe in God to be religious.
My objection to blurring the distinction between religion and atheism isn't primarily one of semantics, but of intent. In my experience, most of those arguing for this type of obfuscation are doing so because they hope to gain some sort of (disingenuous) rhetorical advantage.
Yes, atheism can be considered a "religion," by certain definitions of the word. So can art, and so can literature. However, when an atheist distinguishes between atheism and religion, the important distinction that he is making concerns the existence of things supernatural, which most atheists reject and the adherents of most religions accept.
Instead of labeling atheism as a "religion," why not use a better word which already exists, namely, worldview?
A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world
We can agree that atheism and religion are both worldviews, without any of the attendant ruckus.
This is a result of the cognitive dissonance most believers suffer from.
They are well aware that they have faith without proof, but at the same time wish to be seen to be reasonable and logical.
Reason and logic cannot be applied to faith without proof, so rather than accept that they have no reasonable explanation for their beliefs, they attempt to bring atheism down to that same level. If a believer can convince themselves that atheists believe without reason or logic, it puts "belief in atheism" down on the same logical level as their own beliefs.
This is why their religion causes so many fights. I used to think this was a subconscious event, but now I am starting to think they are willfully disingenuous and simply revel in the resulting conflict which they call "persecution."
This self fulfilling prophecy of "persecution," brings them closer to what they perceive as "Christ-like."
It goes something like this (prophecy fulfilled):
1. Go around causing a ruckus and claiming nonsense to be true.
2. God says you will be "persecuted for loving Christ."
3. People tell to stop preaching nonsense.
4. Voila! You are being persecuted and the prophecy (2) is fulfilled.
No Mark, it truly is subconscious for most.
In my experience, this is an accurate representation, one of which I wrote about in one of my earlier hubs. The only thing I would change is the word "atheists", as the devout seem to attempt to use their belief as a common denominator for all opposing ideas - the very reason one sees so many ignorance-based claims that evolution is "a theory", just like creationism is "a theory".
Using only bumper-sticker mentality, it may appear that because we are compaing "theory" to "theory" that the comparison is valid, but it takes no more than an additional second of thinking to realize that there is a substantial difference between a theory based on rational possibility and one which relies solely on miraculous irrationality. In this regard it is as if one were comparing the "chances of getting hurt" when comparing a lightning strike to an invisible death ray for planet KaNon. Sure, they are both "chances of getting hurt", but to think of them as equals is dumb.
I'm going strictly on what I know here, so if my info is out of date I appreciate an update.
Evolution is taught as a "theory." I've been told it's a "scientific theory" but this tends to get lost in translation. The facts as I understand them are that "scientific theory" means there is enough evidence that most scientists are satisfied that it is only a matter of time until it is proven as fact. What this tends to work out to in the real world is people treating it as fact, a done deal and that only the willfully ignorant would refuse to see what's right in front of their face, as if all the necessary evidence were on display in some public forum easily accessible. It's not, but what you do with that fact is a matter of worldview.
As for your second point, I need to point out that for many of us, the existence of God is not theoretical. I know you and many others disagree, but at this point I am explaining the thinking. I do plenty of defending other places. I am one of those who claim to have experienced the presence of God, I wrote a hub about it. However, my point is that people who understand they have faith see the fact that the theory is just that, not a fully proven fact, as proof that many people have faith in the Theory of Evolution. Now, at this point there is usually a, um, well vociferous reaction, depending on who is voicing it.
I am an atheist who does not have faith in the theory of evolution.
When I say "evolution," I am using the word as it is understood by most (?) Christians, as involving abiogenesis, and focused on macroevolution.
I lack belief in God or gods, meaning that I lack belief in Yahweh and in deities generally. Further, I lack the supernatural beliefs which usually accompany theistic beliefs. Obviously, then, I also lack belief in the supernatural origin of life -- on Earth, or elsewhere -- and I lack belief in the supernatural origin of Homo sapiens.
However, it doesn't logically follow that I have faith in theories of abiogenesis as an explanation for the origin of life, nor that I have faith in the theory of macroevolution. They are useful scientific theories, yes, but, although I am a proponent of scientism, I have no deep philosophical need to accept what are merely provisional answers. If a theist demands that I provide some sort of alternative explanation of our origins, then I can point to the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean that I am advocating it. I am filling their need, not my own.
People are going to accuse me of brown-nosing before too long...
Hey, I want you to know, if I haven't already expressed it -- and my bad if I haven't -- that your contributions are beautiful and deep, and one of the reasons that I enjoy coming to these forums.
If that's brown-nosing, then amen.
That's fair. The only downside to your statement is the undeniable fact that (and this is true for both sides) there are many who will see any statement made about something contrary to what they believe as not only a wholesale endorsement of that position, but also a vicious repudiation of their own beliefs. I experienced this recently when I said that ID is not religion, and immediately got one poster who kept yelling at me that I needed to provide scientific evidence for it. I didn't claim that we should be teaching it in school, in fact I said that I don't think ID goes far enough, but that was not what that poster heard in his head when reading my words.
ID is a religious concept. Obviously your study of biology is as in-depth as it is of history. But - at least you admit ID has so little basis in fact that it should not be taught in schools. Odd you give it any credence at all in fact. Why do you?
First, I understand that not everyone develops critical thinking skills. I do my best to take those people into account. However, if those skills are left undeveloped -- for whatever reason -- offense is almost guaranteed. If this problem has a solution, I have never found it.
As far as ID, it obviously isn't a religion. Still, as a teleological argument, it is also obviously "religious." I favor teaching it in High School, in a philosophy or religious studies class.
Critical thinking skills are an essential part of life, really. As a Christian, I believe that God has given us the ability to think critically and that learning how best to do so isn't contrary to belief in God.
As for ID, it's a touchy subject with a lot of people, and I should probably have thought twice before using it as an example.
You're not getting the point... Christians don't criticize the bible, just outward opinions toward it and the people with the opinion.
No, YOU are not getting the point. The number of Christians who simply accept unquestioningly what they're taught is roughly equal to the number of atheist who do the same. The fact that there are a variety of opinions about the actual Bible and many teachers seems to have escaped your notice. That's fine, but for you to say I'm not getting it is more based on your perceptions than my actions.
I wouldn't call critical thinking skills essential, as most people seem to survive fine without them. I'm not even sure that they provide those who develop them much happiness. Still, I don't know anyone who possesses them who would give them up.
I do think they're essential, but as for the rest I agree. Except that some who have developed them seem to glory in them as if they were an end to themselves and something to be held over other people as proof that they aren't as good. Which is sad.
Although I've done it myself a couple of times (and you wouldn't believe the pushback you get when you do!) I agree that defining atheism as a religion is "disingenuous" in that it seems counterintuitive. Most people are exposed to religion when people talk about church, so that's what most people automatically think of.
Atheism does, however, require faith. The faith is that God does not exist and that science will one day explain everything. I have never met (personally or through forums) an atheist who will say any different, while denying that it is in any way an act of faith (and the language that often accompanies it in forums can curdle your ears!) But at this point there are too many things that science cannot explain and too many holes in some of the things that it supposedly does.
Yes, that's very true.
You and I can, but I think the point that others were trying to make is valid.
I agree, in part. All beliefs are expressions of faith by degree, and atheism, despite the protestations of some atheists, is a belief. However, I would argue that not all expressions of faith are expressions of _religious_ faith, atheism being a case in point. Atheism, at least in modern times, is invariably supported by its proponents with scientism, which specifically and explicitly disavows the supernatural explanations that religion embraces. The two are not compatible paradigms, considering that one rejects the other, hence I see no legitimate grounds for them to be logically equated.
How is a lack of belief a belief? Not believing something is not a belief - despite the protestations of many ex-theists.
Belief entails accepting a thing as true. Accepting a thing as true doesn't mean that we know that it is true. It expresses a level of confidence rather than absolute certainty. Knowledge is a continuum that we never quite reach either end of.
Therefore, when an atheist declares, "I lack belief in the existence of God," he is in actually saying, "I lack confidence in the claim for the existence of God," because it is the most that logically _can_ be said.
Lacking confidence in the claimed existence of a thing is still acknowledging the possibility, however slight, that such a thing exists. In other words, any expression of atheism is really the declaration, "Conditionally, I accept the possible existence of God, but the chance of that condition or conditions being logically met is so remote as to be nonexistent."
Great wording. That is an idea I've wanted to get across but couldn't efficiently articulate it.
If you happen to make it to South Korea within the next two years or so, look me up. I'm sure that you, the wife and I would have great time chatting and exploring Buddhist temples.
That sounds like it would be a great time! Unfortunately, I'm poor as dirt. LoL.
If you have a B.A., it is fairly easy to get a job teaching overseas, and it usually doesn't make difference in what subject you have majored.
Truthfully, travel is the best reason to get a degree, I'm my opinion.
I'm in the process of getting one, actually. I changed my major this year (my senior year), so I've got 1 1/2 more years to go. That would be a pretty ideal situation, however. I actually wanted to teach English in Japan for the longest. I study Japanese on my own time, and love it! South Korea I never considered though! But Korean and Japanese are similar in nature, so I could probably give it a whirl. LoL.
If you have cable and get HGTV (one of the few channels here at the nursing home that we watch much of) watch "House Hunters International." It gives you some idea of how difficult it is when you move to a foreign country. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying if you do it, do it with eyes wide open.
It's easy moving to a foreign country, as long as you decide to enjoy it before you arrive -- yes, I'm advocating faith -- and as long you truly appreciate diversity in almost any way that you find it. A sense of adventure (culinary and otherwise) is important, too.
After watching that show, I would absolutely have to agree. I don't know if I could go to a foreign land anymore, even if I didn't have children. My wife and I used to talk about foreign countries we'd like to go to, and although I used to talk about England (I have relatives) and Scotland and Italy (ah, the food!) the only country she was interested in was Israel (should be no surprise.)
I actually watch that show all the time. LoL
What kind of idiot believes the polls? When did all this surveying go on? Was I on vacation in the Bahamas? No one ever tok my vote...probably would have told them to bugger off! And I would remember having done so. Did they only let atheists vote? Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
Good story on NPR yesterday about an Minister who was a closet atheist until she came out - http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248 … sing-faith
I wasn't advocating anything in my previous post .. just saying.
And it is not true that a set of laws could have been established which could stand for ever; under any and all contingencies.
As my children grew more mature some of my rules had to grow with them.
And some of them were discarded all together. NOW, 40 years later they are allowed to cross the street all by themselves.
Is this a response to my post? Disregard if not.
I'm not asking for a set of universal laws set in stone for all time - I agree that this is unrealistic. I am suggesting that God made a personal choice (to impregnate a young teenage girl) that was culturally sensitive, but immoral, impractical, and inconsiderate of long-term consequences, implying that God is either less omniscient than supposed or that Rick Santorum and countless other fundamentalists of all stripes are correct and God really doesn't give a rat's a** about the happiness and well-being of women. Either way, it doesn't pain God in a great light.
sorry about that I thought I hit reply button
There is not a 20 or even 50 words or less answer to your question.
To understand only half of any concept is to not understand it at all.
Depending upon which parts of the bible that we want to focus upon. there is a multitude of conclusions we can arrive at. None of which are complete concepts. The following is a poor description of my concept.
Beginning in Genesis, God said "Let Us make man in our image". Who is "US"
This word "US" should be interpreted to mean ... us! … You and me!
I understand that this is a difficult style of interpretation to comprehend, but bear with me for a minute.
We were spiritual beings before we chose to enter into this physical realm.
Before we chose to encase ourselves into this human condition we knew the rules that everyone was supposed to be playing by.
We either chose the condition that we were born into or we deserved to be placed into it for some reason or another. ???
After all, "IF" there is life after we leave these bodies there was life before we entered into them.
It is written in Rev.4:11 that the only purpose the earth was created was for his (our) pleasure.
And the Human condition has chosen to do with it as we so chose.
This may not have answered your question in your mind,...but it does in mine.
Well, certainly not Western idea of such an anthropomorphic God.
I wonder if as many people could still worship Him realizing that He's not some omni-benevolent, only good, no bad God? It seems people try to paint Him in some wonderful light as if He's all that, conveniently skipping over the scriptures that make them uncomfortable, or finding excuse after excuse to justify some of the things that He did, and parts of His "nature" that are wrong, and/or strongly resemble self-centered, emotionally needy and insecure humans with an addiction to power.
Most theists, mainly western theists, believe God is all good and refuse to see "His" shortcomings. You'll find in many Eastern religions, who/what they "worship," and I use that term loosely, is not solely good or evil, and their "belief systems" often do not exclude different walks of life. There is a serious lack of Dogma, and black/white, even though there is the idea of yin and yang, but it isn't as simple as many make it out to be. Honestly the whole idea of "God" is quite different. I especially like certain ideas in Taoism. (I am a naturalistic pantheist, which is only a degree away from secular humanism).
"The great Tao is like a flood
It can flow to the left or to the right
The myriad things depend on it for life, but it never stops
It achieves its work, but does not take credit
It clothes and feeds myriad things, but does not rule over them
Ever desiring nothing
It can be named insignificant
Myriad things return to it but it does not rule over them
It can be named great
Even in the end, it does not regard itself as great
That is how it can achieve its greatness"
Shortcomings? Indeed. God, of the O.T. reflects and displays all of the shortcomings and emotional sweep of the created Man. If, as is written, God is the author of all things, good,or evil, then man, male and female are a direct reflection of God, which, in truth, is the inner self. Even discussions concerning the female's 'place' as it were, in the scheme of things. When God created Man, male and female created he them, and he made them in his image, so, God's image includes the female aspect. Do you know why Eve ate of the apple before Adam? Because he was boosting her up. He already had his hands full!
God is created by man, he is a reflection of everything man wishes he could be or live up to, whether it be the OT God or the NT Jesus.... but this is on the moral side of things. Mohammad is on the side where men get all the chicks and they are all virgins.... but anyway. Every story on God shows that God does things that man wishes would happen. When they find a city like San Francisco (or their modern day version of Sodom and Gomorrah) they wish God would destroy it. When they see the world as amoral and full of crime and murder and gays and nonChristians, they wish God would flood it. This is not new to this era it has always been. It's almost human nature. I am sure we all have watched TV and saw some jerk doing something bad and getting away with it and we wish someone if not us would do something.... hence, God, Jesus, Superman, Hulk, V for Vendetta. or any other movie character or comic book character that does what we would like to see. God and Jesus are just bronze age comic book characters... and since they couldn't distinguish reality from fantasy back then of course they still think these are real beings.
It is convenient that a group of dust-eating nomadic herdsmen who sacrificed animals to appease the many gods they followed discovered that there was only one god, that they were his chosen people, and that he required bloody sacrifices - and they had all those goats and sheep! Talk about coincidence.
And then came the silliest expression ever used in argument - well, how do you explain x,y,z?
It's like seeing something you've never seen before or having to explain something that has no explanation. Like rain, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, solar eclipses. If you don't know how they happen believing a god did them is awefully convenient. Who makes up these gods? Some guy. So depending on the guy the god could come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, genders, amounts.... Etc.
What Eve partook of was the lie - the tree of knowledge of good AND evil. Well, if the tree of life was in the Garden, was if not a tree of GOOD? So I assert, what Even did, DID NOT involve mastication.... What she partook of was a Tree of deceit. Christ is called the tree of life in Revelation - last chapter. It was in the Garden, that is, HE was in the Garden. When Eve digested what she partook of, it was the partaking of Satan's myth that they would be more like God. Well, he'd already made them male and female, but the serpent wanted to misconstrue the WORD of God - nothing more. "Did God really say that in the day that you eat the fruit (take him (Serpent) at his word) you would die. For what God knows is that in the day that you eat of it, you will be as God, knowing Good, AND Evil... Evil, when read carefully, was something that Adam and Eve were oblivious to. In fact, Eve added to what God only told Adam - she was not even present yet when God told him not to partake of the Tree of Evil. READ IT CAREFULLY. Ergo, Adam must have reiterated God's Word to Eve, and went even one more step, and added that she should not even touch it, which when you READ IT CAREFULLY, you find that when the Serpent got her to touch it, her natural deduction would be that if she could touch it, then she could go a step further. She ate NOTHING.... NOTHING. What she did was see that the Serpent had insights that could make one wise, that what he offered was beautiful to the eyes - and last of all... that his word was good for food...an inversion on the idea that "man should not live by bread alone, but by every word that precedes from the mouth of God." She involved herself with the lie due to Adam's , dulier de touche' (fear of touching), and when he saw that she could do even that, so did he EAT THE LIE. Everything in Genesis 1-3 points to the next statement. "I shall put enmity between thy seed, and the seed of the woman." But who or what was the devils seed? It was Cain. Cain is a fraternal twin brother to Abel, and he is the Son of the Serpent. READ IT CAREFULLY. If you want to know more, then get on youtube and follow the video links of Dr. CHUCK MISSLER. But if you want to know something just to wet your appetite, then hear this. Angels have been breeding with man since the beginning. Satan was merely the first, and that "enmity between his and woman's seed," is Christ. IT IS SO WEIRD, but there is reason to believe that the goal has always been to spoil human breeding by breeding in. Christ said, "as in the days of Noah, so shall the days of the coming of the Son of man be." Well - in the days of Noah (Gen. Ch. 6) angels were coming down and breeding with women -- why? The plan has changed, but if you want an answer as to what the supposed "aliens" are today, then you need only reconstitute the initial plan to interbreed, and then, answer why, since Satan was unsuccessful at his goal to breed the Christ out of the line of Adam and Eve to Mary. I know why that is, and it has everything to do with Satan's statement in Isaiah, " I will ascend above the stars of the heavens, I will exalt myself above the throne of God, I will be like the Most High." And that, my friends, is where you can consult with Daniel, and on to the Book of Revelation. BUT THE FRUIT is an interpretation that needs to have the seeds of that misconception, aborted immediately... Look up, people, the heavens are full of signs.... and the time is close... just sayin.
Wow, talk about reading into things! Interesting interpretation. It doesnt really hold water. But the great thing about it is it doesn't have to.... Do you realize what the bible is??? An exquisite corpse... Basically an EC is a form of art or story written by more than one person in sections, every time a new person adds to the story the meaning of the story changes. Or you could just take pieces of the story you like, by chapter, and ridiculously live your life by it, like the Christians do. Either way it's ridiculous. To live your life by a bronze age, or any, book of ancient mytholoy... Or modern mythology for that matter.
I'm beginning to wonder if Randy posted that warning at the beginning of the forum just to see how many believers he could bait into coming in...
Actually, I was referring to the fact that Randy posted that dire, dire warning at the start of teh forum (as is his right here) but I'm seeing the conversations ever so slowly veer toward being the same as most of the other religious/atheist forums. I came in treading softly but others not so much and I'm seeing arguments erupting.
We could get back on track if you like by going verse by verse in the bible and talking about why it's ridiculous? Who wants to go first?
Actually you made my point for me. I mentioned that I see arguments erupting and now you want to start one? Because I assume you know that I'm a believer and therefor would disagree with you.
Um, you have seen the title of this forum I assume? What I said has nothing to do with what kind of person i think you are, it was a response to your observation of veering off. What you believe is meaningless to the ultimate testable reality. I realize nothing i say will change what you wish to believe no matter what evidence I give for the invalidity of your belief. What we are doing here is talking about how ridiculous the bible is. It could be merely about you finding out what our "opinion" on it is and why we think it is ridiculous, then you can righteously correct our "misunderstanding" of it. Nothing personal.
I wonder how many posts Randy will get, before Randy returns back to his thread, 4 weeks from now
Not taken that way either. Been a tough couple of months and sometimes I'm a little dense. Sorry.
Someone banned Randy for this thread, how lame heh.
Seriously? All the stuff that goes on in these forums?
I have to agree. Someone can get banned for calling someone a liar even if they can prove that the person told a lie while people who cleverly word everything they say to taunt and provoke others get free reign to say whatever they want.
I don't think it is right for people to ban others. If anything, it tells me that one side of the argument felt that they were fighting a losing battle.
@ Bradon Tart,
I concord to what you said. However, understanding the true concept of what the Book of Genesis was saying about Adam and Eve requires thorough indepth observation. The Tree of Life and The Tree of Knowledge and Evil mentioned in the Book of Genesis are actually referring to knowing what is bad from what is wrong. It is written that the Serpent deceived Eve with an apple, and Eve later gave that to Adam and deceived him into eating it, and then, the disobeyed God and their sin was passed on from generation to generation. In reality, the only thing a man and a woman can do and pass that unto their children will be engaging in physical contact activity such like sex or intercourse. A man eating from a woman will not cause the situation to linger unto something either of their children will inherit. In real fact, what Serpent and Evil did was they had an intercourse, where blood was exchanged. Evil felt different after that, just like any woman today will feel when she have sex for the very first time and from there on her life will indeed change. So, by Evil going to Adam and talking him into having intercourse with him, which God forbidden, until the time is right for them to do that, Evil passed along unto Adam the blood line she inherited from having an intercourse with serpent. Mind you, at that time, serpent is a man just like Adam. Also, you should ask yourself why did Adam and Eve covered their private parts and hide from God's sight after having intercourse. When God ask why they are hiding, Adam said they are naked. The Tree of Knowledge of good and Evil is sexual intercourse. The other Tree, which is the Tree of Life represents living forever, which is something Adam and Eve could have achieved if serpent had not messed up the entire process for God. We, as humans today, supposed to live for eternity, just like you have the spirits that never die. God guided the Tree of Life to prevent Adam and Eve from inheriting that, since they then carry the blood line of Lucifer in them. This is why the Earth is filled with a mixture of good and evil. Humans are fighting to retain their place in God's abode, through Christianity, and Lucifer is angry and ensuring that humans or Christians do not achieve that, since they are part of his blood lineage.
Whilst debating semantics about god did done it or not and whether them christian folk know the bible is truth - lets get to the REAL heart of this debate about atheism and Christian religion -
DID ANYONE BRING COFFEE????
The very definition of religious fascism is to censor or ignore those that disagree with you. If someone truly wants to convince you that they are right then they will listen to why you think they are wrong and consider your arguments. That way you can assert to both yourself and the perso you are trying to convince that either of you might be right or wrong and that it's a contest to prove the others case. That is what a debate is. If you are unwilling to do this then you will probably lose out on the people who will listen because who wants to listen to some jerk laughing at everyone else's point of view, being a hypocrite and a self righteous clown troll.
If someone disagrees with you then it is their obligation to say why and make a case opposite rather than be a useless troll contradicting you with pointless ad hominem attacks and mocking... like the clown troll this thread is a response to.
The very definition of religious fascism is to censor or ignore those that disagree with you.
I think I will use ignore a little more from now on because I tend to mock too many things that are nonsense to me. I'm not the kind who enjoys arguments and debates. only do want to express an opinion
The best way to mock someone without resorting to childish ad hominen attacks is to confront them with facts and evidence that shows they are mocking themselves by speaking. If they continue with their childishness then I believe you are correct in ignoring them.
Yes, limit time with nonsense or bs or ignore very negative people all together
I read Nietzsche, but I cannot say that I agree with his every word. In spite of my inability to do so, I still gather insight from his respective discourses. Some of his writings about women are themselves, quite stupid, but that is really a matter of cultural history. Some of his words are relevant to all, perhaps timeless, for instance --- "The Sage as Astronomer: One has yet to become a man of understanding as long as he continues to see the stars as something - ABOVE HIM!" But Nietzsche, son of a Lutheran priest, god-less for to be sure, actually pronounced a great reverence for Christ, less Christianity/Christians. Like Friedrich, I have to express the same sentiment. Not to argue either way - I'm not an Atheist - not by definition, at least -- and I'm not satisfied saying that there is not enough evidence either way. Neither Christians nor Atheists are a threat to one another - and the Bible is, mildly put, another book that commands interpretation. I won't mock it, but I will implore judgments to its textual basis in a manner befitting of one who sees that it is not "above me," light that it may be, and distant from my human virtue - to be sure! Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, etc... We all could learn to love our neighbor, that is, in spite of our differences. I agree with this forum for one reason alone, primarily, or, namely, that many Christians feel threatened by Atheists' sentiments, as they are deemed idiotic for their beliefs. But even Einstein, who many of us revere, even if only for his wit, charm and childlike bent, expressed that "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." Personally, I maintain that we are all stars with light worthy of witnessing, able to light the way for one another - NO MATTER HOW FAR WE ARE APART - 'relative' to that conjecture, I stand firm in saying that neither Atheists, nor Christians can be placed above one another, as it stands in the GOOD BOOK, that "God is no respecter of persons." Atheists and Christians really should support one another. And yes, negativity - ignore it: from both camps. If we are evolving, and I am aware of the trend of nature, then I choose to be fit to survive the "squaring off between" the two bodies, communicate (Maynard) and be brothers and lovers in spite of our beliefs, or - lack thereof. Light is Light, no matter where it comes from - but where there is no light, how will any of us survive our selves?
Diplomacy cannot but reify our need to manufacture anything other than to grant consent to see one another as having much, much more to offer than either faith, or knowledge. One without the other constitutes an aftermath that is survived only by ignorance.
I prefer to reach to thrive in life rather than just survive. Most people dislike their jobs, as it is most waking hours time spent in our lives.
Love is work made visual ,
Each one of us has two choices, and many ways to those two choice with or without Religiousness politics
1. Work with enlightenment
2. Work without enlightenment
Castlepalomaposted 111 minutes ago in reply to this
I prefer to reach to thrive in life rather than just survive. Most people dislike their jobs, as it is most waking hours time spent in our lives.
Love is work made visual ,
Each one of us has two choices, and many ways to those two choice with or without Religiousness politics
1. Work with enlightenment
2. Work without enlightenment...
Though I agree, atheists and Christians should support each other because we are all humans trying to find our place in the world that can find us both or all humans of any belief as neighbors. Christians rules state to love they neighbor yet I have yet to see any love spoken through their words of righteous morality. They contradict the teachings of their own Christ. What we are as atheists are merely people standing up against that which is basically forced upon us. I don't believe in any sort of god and see no reason to continue such a superstition. And though I contradict the words of Einstein, religion is worthless in this modern age. A reverence in a higher power? What is a higher power? Stars are not above us, they are what makes us. They are us. We are them. Different states of matter and energy and so the concept of "higher power" is nonsense. I hold no respect for any belief that refuses to accept or respect that not everyone believes or will believe as they do. Another Christian rule, "do unto others..." But do they accept the same in kind? Not at all.
Words are meaningless - I would agree... talk is cheep. CHEEP INDEED... But so are words like religion, when used in a modern context. The modern church/mosque/temple are the new semiotic codes for these belief systems, and the image of religion, that is, in the modern world. I agree, religion as we have come to know it is obsolete. But the etymology of "religion," from the Latin, "religare" means "to bind together." Morality teachings will not lead us there, on that, I agree. Love and morality are near to being mutually exclusive. But being moral, on occasion, is a symptom of love for your fellow man and woman. But science, as the Atheist camp puts forth often, is Latin at its root origin, too. It means, "knowledge." There is a wealth of knowledge that stems from scientific observation, and many elements from that community that purports things that are equally as obsolete. When Christians contradict themselves, it is because of a lack of knowledge from a lack of spiritual study within the written codes which are the basis for their faith. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Hence, knowing about the Bible, versus knowing it, are polar opposites. Just like religion and religare are - science/knowledge is indeed a reality worthy of community developing all the more moral from, and indeed, all the more loving... but that is why the Einstein quote was added when I wrote that statement... More or less to reveal that the universe is alive, awake, conscious and without a doubt - concerned enough about our involvement in it to offer both scientific, observable (a posteriori), object based knowledge (physical), and metaphysical (a priori) insights through which we do not isolate ourselves from humanity, but fuse the physical with the metaphysical and grow in understanding. I understand atheists' assertions, and I have grown to respect them, as from my own mouth I have said even to the universe that I don't believe, when in fact, I find that it won't allow me to escape the involvement it has in directing my paths. And no, Christians are not always in the know regarding their treasured words of faith - THEY JUST DON'T KNOW THEM... WHAT'S MORE, MANY CHRISTIANS REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE. The evidence is in their reliance upon morality as a way of justifying both themselves to others as believers, and their converts so as to allow them into their company. Remember though -- Jesus ate, and drank wine with sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. I am ashamed of Christianity, and I love the Word of God. I never tell people that I am a Christian, but I never say that I don't believe the word either. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, they shall be called sons of God." Hence, I seek common ground with the Atheists... reason being, because I think they respect knowledge, and reason, LOGIC (in the beginning was the "Word" - Translates LOGOS --- Logic) --- what's more - atheists make the best believers... why??? Because in the end, they know the difference between believing that there is a God, and taking that same God at HIS WORD!!!!! Finally, don't let hypocrites dissuade you from discovering why they are what they are.... Faith means letting God be the one to save you, not asserting one's morality back into the face of God and man so that they can boast that they believe -- and they must, right.... for they showed us that they believed by trying to fulfill the LAW that Christ fulfilled... What a slap in his face.... on both f***ing sides, too. I understand you man.
For the most part I agree, however, the concept of god is completely meaningless to me. I understand it, I know what god is and Jesus as well, but they are no more than comic book characters, super heroes no more real than superman and batman. The moral teachings of any religion are fine. The source however is unnecessary and often times silly or insulting to the human condition. This is another reason I dislike religion of any sort. Buddhism, though as completely silly as it might be is one of the few I have great respect for. Hinduism is even sillier but flamboyantly entertaining.
"What is a higher power? Stars are not above us, they are what makes us. They are us. We are them. Different states of matter and energy and so the concept of "higher power" is nonsense."
Man, This is like a blast of fresh cool air on a sticky hot day. Your view on energy being the underlying basis of all is the key to this argument I think. If ALL is energy, Man included, then we all are indeed God, man being IT in the highest form. We shall do ourselves, fellow man, and planet good to act accordingly. Do unto others..Love conquers all. Speak to some people who have experienced the power of Love. There is an energy in that feeling that nothing else can compare to. Kindness, empathy, respect, go a long way. They can heal even the most broken of souls and light up the darkest corners inside their hearts. I am firm believer that at the center of each Man, lays purity, innocence, love, and GREAT strength. I have come to know this knowledge as the pathway to the root of all, creation, and it is knowable if one truly seeks it. The journey is inward to the light at the end of the tunnel.
God is not man he is three spirits Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. We are also a spirit and matter put together since were on earth but not just one or the other. While atheists believe in no supernatural existence, then how can there be any spirit at all, but atheists do say there's one spirit in one with the universe. Well the conclusion is that there must be something else out there other than the universe. Why can't that spirit be a God, universe, or whatever else. Anyways the point is no one really knows 100% but all that matters is what you believe. So why don't we just all agree to disagree because the topic on religion will NEVER END! THAT'S THE ONLY TRUTH.
I don't say anything about spirits. I don't believe in them. And why should there be an afterlife? Because we want more life? How cruel the world and universe are to not care what us humans want. Get over it. It doesn't care. What we should do is be greatful for the life we have and to make life on earth for all life a good and happy one, because it's all we will get. And wishing for or speculating about a god won't make him exist either. God doesn't exist. The universe doesn't need god (whatever form you pretend him to be) to exist. As for why this topic exists or why it continues, why even though I would love it of we could agree to disagree, we don't. I talk about that in one of my hubs. We are fighting back against religious tyranny... At least I am. If you tell me I have to live a certain way so as not to offend a certain other group's sense of religious upbringing, I say f u. I live to be me and I defend all people's right to be themselves as long as it doesn't actually harm anyone I could care less who it offends. So as long as someone voices their sense of "truth" if it's something I don't agree with I will voice mine and not care that it offends... I think the concept of a god is childish and stupid.... But you can believe what you like. I will believe what is true.
Oh goodness it looks as if hubpages is turning into facebook drama
Oh no,!!! I can't use anymore unknown friends.
Huh? What? Oh, this thread you mean? Lady, there was drama before social networks, the Internet, or even telecommunication. That's life! If you have a group of people together in a room there is gonna be someone causing drama. Ha ha.
Yea i know but if you use facebook then you know it's the worst. lol
That depends on who your friends with, I don't surround myself with drama queens.
Not judging you by any means, so far I have no opinion of you, I am sure you are a very nice person....surrounded by drama queens....on facebook.
"Since Vector7 has apparently succeeded in creating a forum thread forbidding anyone who wishes to disagree"
No I didn't..
You call that success???
I'm glad you posted a link to give way to my evidence. I'd like to hear a single, "you shove your Christianity down other peoples.... blah, and blah" now...
Hey Randy, thanks for the publicity brother. lol
When we going squirrel hunting anyway? After your vector bashing is done?
And I thought you were bringing that snake over for supper?
This is definitely proof of everything I have ever said about you.
Why, because the laughy face looks insulting to you?
Are you insulted because I was joking with Randy about previously held conversations?
I guess you better get to explaining how evil I am so they can hang me.
Seriously? If I'm so awful why do you keep showing up underneath me and not vice versa?
Have a good one Art. Rhetorical. I know why.
Why do I respond? Courtesy response, I respond to all comments directed towards myself or for the purposes of intelligent debate. I don't remember the first time I commented on you and which of those reasons it was, however, I promise to never respond to any more of your troll type comments again if you promise to never comment or post anything in response to myself. Starting now. I don't think you're evil. Just a joke with nothing intelligent to say. Goodbye troll clown.
Randy is banned for 4 weeks, I don't know who did that. All it shows is how Christian punish others worst than the crime. These lame actions is another sign that Christians can not handle a challenge of their own faith. Surely their faith and Religion will continue to shrink in the future like all religious wars.
Once a christian war vet tried to banned me for pointing out that American have killed one million Iraqi on Iraq's soil and Americans have not any proof that even one Iraqi has killed a single American person on American soil.
There is another million of examples of Hypocrites, got millions more
Randy action is just temporary, to demonstrate how bible thumpers behavior act like much of the time and more likely Fundies will act like this for the rest of their unnatural lives
The Holy Bible (also known as The Holy Bile), is a wholly ghost-written anthology of children's fairy tales, although it is also enjoyed by adults. It is one of the best selling fiction works of all time and encompasses various genres, including drama, mystery, musical, action, mythology, tragedy, poetry, thriller, adventure, fantasy, horror, historical fiction, pornography, and snuff.
The Bible is a collaboration of various authors, first being published by Stone Tablets Press around 6000 BC. The Bible is separated into two volumes: Volume One (The Old Testament) and Volume Two (Bible II: The New Testament). Volume One is centered on the mysterious figure, "The Father", whose actions are only described vicariously. Volume Two focuses on the progeny of The Father, dubbed "The Son".
Besides having an epic and dramatic storyline, The Bible includes various themes that some consider to be controversial, such as war, slavery, racism, murder, alcoholism, magic, genocide, rape, incest, masochism, bestiality, pedophilia, cannibalism, homophobia, and neoconservatism. Despite these controversies, The Bible is commonly and freely read to children. The Bible also employs various literary devices, such as symbolism, breaking the Fourth Wall, deus ex machina, McGuffins, Tom Swiftys, foreshadowing, magical realism, poetic justice, and anti-heroism. Interestingly, The Bible refrains from using some more familiar literary devices, such as parody, frame story, in media res, back story, romance, and love, which according to many literary experts could have improved the drama of the stories.
As a kid reading the entirety of the bible, this and their behavior (just look at vector 7's thread) alway repulsed me. When ever I look at the more hard core of Christians I can't help but think "there's a potential serial killer".
Every deluded Christian fundamentalist is a potential next David Koresh.
It's possible. They've always found excuses in the bible to further ambition, hate, and bigotry after all.
Sorry, just like the photo and thought to share it lol
interesting to know the wars are still going on in the forums! Well what can I say!
Thank you, EinderDarkwolf. Love the photo!
Hey HattieMattieMae, nice to see you in the forums. Been a while. Hope things are well.
I like this photo. My only comment must be on what type of love does Jesus mean? Of course you continue to love people if they are gay and/or worship other gods. But does love condone everything?
I love my brother, I show him that love. But I do not agree with his lifestyle as he dates multiple guys and girls at the same time. I think it is detrimental to him and the other people involved. Trying to show love should I say nothing and just support his actions good or bad? Or should I express my concern and explain why I am concerned?
This would be the same with people who are gay or worship other gods. I would love them just the same, but if their behavior was worrisome then I would have to express that worry out of love. Ignoring a friends detrimental (or what you think is detrimental) behavior is not loving.
Love does not look like letting people do whatever they want whenever they want. Just look at parent child relationships :p
I didn't say that. Read what I said carefully. I said IF their behavior is detrimental. I didn't say what behaviors or my views on this particular subject.
You brought being gay into it. Twice. What gay behaviours are detrimental?
Because I was responding to the picture above. The picture comments about homosexuality and worshiping other gods. Those were the examples I was commenting on.
Well I feel Caly that you can disagree with someone's gender preference, but if society said it abnormal for you to be straight the roles would be reversed. Think the thing is it harmful or harmless to you whether someone that has a relationship that your not involved in. I don't see how it can harm you. You're not in it.
This is true but I do not see how it is relevant. Nothing was said about gender preference or sexual preferences being harmful or harmless.
I'm going to be honest, I think that your comment was innocuous, but that sometimes "public" environments inspire the sort of hyper-sensitivity that you have encountered here.
Nothing that you have said implies homophobia, nor can it be reasonably inferred. That's the issue that people have been dancing around.
If you were homophobic, I trust that it would have been revealed in your numerous responses.
Thanks I am happy to know that I did not come across as a complete jerk haha I was not expecting such negative responses, I thought I had worded it carefully enough. Apparently I was wrong.
Just to avoid this going on any longer, I am not homophobic. I did not make any homophobic comments. I was simply commenting on love. I hope that clears things up for anyone I may have inadvertantly upset.
What makes a behavior detrimental is if you have direct knowledge "I know someone or I am someone who once did..." of it's detriment. Having hear say knowledge of detrimental nature of a behavior is now actual knowledge, unless what you have is an evidential study of said behaviors detrimental nature. Being gay has no more a detrimental nature than being straight. Having multiple partners of a sexual nature can, if not properly protected, be detrimental to anyone of any orientation only if one or more said partners have a sexual transmitted disease. Having sex with one person can be detrimental only if said person is promiscuous and precautions, like being tested or not using protection, are not taken. If said brother is regularly promiscuous, all I would ask of him is, are you using protection, if answer is yes then conversation is over and you can high five him. If answer is no then a lecture on his behavior is in order.
Being gay means nothing.
I agree with you artblack. I am not sure if people understood what I said about the picture. I said I agree with it, I did not say that being gay is detrimental. I said that love does not look like ignoring what may be detrimental behavior. So if somebody does believe that somebody's behavior (no matter their sexuality) is detrimental then they should say something.
I was only commenting on the way this picture is often taken. I was not commenting on the issues mentioned by the picture. The only part I was concerned with was the definition of love being used.
If you have a problem with the picture, just say that you have a problem with it. I personally find it hilarious, and others seemed to have liked it. If you don't that's fine, but trying to analyze a picture for nothing? It's kinda pointless.
I do not see in the Bible where hatred and despite were mentioned or discussed or encouraged. The Bible is simple a book of doctrine that try to teach you and I the philosophy of love, brotherliness and sisterliness in life. The Bible preached positive things all through, encouraging you and I to do to others the same thing we would like the same others to do unto us, in return.
If you haven't seen the hate and bigotry shown clearly in the bible, mostly by those who use it to support their own hate and bigotry, then you obviously haven't read it.
Glad I could bring some smiles and such to a few faces
How is this, by the OP
"Anyone is welcomed to join so long as their inquires or statements adhere to the agreement that the The Holy Bible is not the truth as agreed by all unbelievers. The argument that "the Bible is truth" in any form or fashion will be considered spam and will be referred to HubPages for discernment."....
allowed on a free speech site? Or, am I reading that wrong, you can't be serious Randy, are you? Why would you limit what people can say on a public thread?
Why don't you read the OP in it's entirety. I think you missed some key points.
I got the gist of it, and thank you for that.
Is there any reason however, to be allowed to do that, all the same? I don't think its possible, and I get that he is trying to make a point.
So my question is, is he accusing HubPages basically of moderating unfairly, especially on a site that leans so heavily anti christian and anti theist?
I don't think Vector can demand (although he should be allowed to try to have a peaceful place to discuss, as most of the things here are opposite of that), that people's posts be removed and get away with it, unless they are over the top posts.
So bear with me, what am I missing? Randy's OP is inviting people to a Christian and Bible bashing party, when the other page isn't doing the same from what I just read in its OP, but wants a peaceful place to discuss. I guess the biggest question I have is, is Vector able to remove any post there, if it doesn't comply 100% to his requests? I would have to think no.. That is how this thread is almost making it look, however. Where is the truth in all of that?
He is taking the mick out of vectors hub. It is a joke.
Ahhh, ok. Well, with all the seriousness around here, and the tone of his OP, I didn't catch that. I don't normally participate much in the forums, but I know Randy Godwin fairly well from my observations of him over the years.
I don't think Randy would set any church on fire, he was mocking Ventor for fun, then someone could not handle a joke.
by vector75 years ago
If you disagree with the Bible, please do not spam this thread.If you do you are being rude and I will quote the OP and report the issue for hupages to decide whether it violates forum rules or not.This thread is to...
by Rabgix4 years ago
Obviously if i'm an atheist and I don't believe in your God, why would I take your scriptures as evidence? That doesn't make any sense.Not to mention the bible has this nasty ideal that everything in it is true because...
by Irfan6 years ago
I'm interested to know more about the Holy Ghost ... I have nothing against the Holy Ghost but once i know more i may have extra questions... please try to reply with quality not quantity.thanks.
by PrettyPanther2 years ago
I have often heard it said that everyone deserves respect. I agree that everyone deserves a certain level of respect, unless they do something to "un-earn" it. In these forums, we only know what we...
by Paul2 years ago
While flipping through the channels, I ran across a commercial that was very disturbing to me.A man named Ron Reagan stated he was an unabashed atheist and was not afraid of burning in hell.May God have mercy on him! I...
by Julie Grimes6 years ago
Has these titles, which are often used to describe Christ's relationship with God, been taken out of context? Or do you honestly believe that Jesus Christ is God's son? I wonder, can a person still be a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.