 |
|
|
|
|
July 21st, 2014
08:14 AM ET
ISIS to Christians in Mosul: convert, pay or dieBaghdad, Iraq (CNN) - Just days after the militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria said they killed hundreds of Syrians, dozens of Iraqi Christian families are now fleeing the ISIS-controlled city of Mosul, hoping to avoid a similar fate. On Friday, the al Qaeda splinter group issued an ultimatum to Iraqi Christians living in Mosul - by Saturday they must convert to Islam, pay a fine or face "death by the sword." A total of 52 Christian families left the city of Mosul early Saturday morning, with an armed group prohibiting some of them from taking anything but the clothes on their backs. "They told us, 'You to leave all of your money, gold, jewelry and go out with only the clothes on you,'" Wadie Salim told CNN. Images obtained exclusively by CNN show that the phrase "property of ISIS" scrawled in black paint on a number of the homes that were abandoned. Some of the families headed for Irbil - which is currently controlled by Kurdish forces - and others toward the Dohuk province. The majority went to Dohuk, which is 140 kilometers (87 miles) north of Mosul. "We did not know how to act," said another Mosul resident, Um Nazik. "Are we going to get killed?" ISIS was able to take over large swaths of land due to the lack of centralized authority in both Iraq and war-torn Syria. The Sunni militants hope to establish an Islamic state throughout the region it currently controls. FULL STORY
« Previous entryWorld Cup final: It's Pope versus Pope
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Creationist Ken Ham Says Aliens Will Go To Hell So Let's Stop Looking For Them
(Huffington Post, 7/22/2014 by Ed Mazza)
======
Creationist Ken Ham, who recently debated Bill Nye the Science Guy over the origins of the universe, is calling for an end to the search for extraterrestrial life because aliens probably don't exist - and if they do, they're going to Hell anyway.
"You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe," Ham wrote on his blog on Sunday. "This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation."
The post was driven in part by NASA experts saying that they expect to find evidence of alien life within the next 20 years.
"It's highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said last week.
But Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., said we probably are alone. He wrote "earth was specially created," and the entire hunt for extraterrestrials is "really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!"
If aliens do exist, however, Ham said even Jesus can't save them:
'Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word). To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong.'
Sorry, Worf.
======
Ken Ham has obviously not read the Klingon Bible.
So the Jews were not only the chosen people but the chosen universal life form. Just when you think Christian apologetics and creationism can't get any crazier they outdo themselves.
which is why I laugh when Christians say that atheists are conceited because they don't believe in a god. Oh the irony!
Christians believe that their imaginary sky daddy created this entire universe just for them. It's the ultimate conceited, narcissistic, self absorbed view!
Atheists believe in all that is proven and visible and factual. We know that we are just beings that inhabit this tiny part of the universe and make up a tiny blip in time and space. We know our place, without all the Christians' delusions of grandeur!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/opinion/timothy-egan-faith-based-fanatics.html?emc=edit_th_20140719&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=9890152&_r=1
Ken Ham....lol
Who is sponsoring the ISIS? And will other Muslims deal with them effectively before the USA, NATO and/or the UN has to step in to eliminate another mess caused by the idiocy of the Koran?
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, it is forbidden because it is harmful. God extends an offer of salvation from a second death but it must be redeemed in this lifetime. Procrastination is in most cases not deadly, but in this case there is a chasm fixed that will not be crossed once the first death arrives and the gift is not accepted. There is no recovery from the second death and a separation from God will be the eternal torment.
Is your name a euphemism?
what is a name?
I don't think it is, but there is a lot going on with it. The lords word is the bible. The word of God is described as a two edged sword. The Word of God is also equated with Jesus.
Now all you need to do to prove you're not lying and gullible is prove your god had anything to do with writing the book instead of just going by what the book says.
Here is how you can obtain proof,
Romans 10:
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
RB
The bible is not proof the bible was inspired by "god".
Look up the word "proof" and try again.
There is just as much evidence Satan inspired or wrote your book as any "god"...but you already knew that.
RB: So the one book that speaks of your god is proof that your god exists??? And this somehow makes sense to you?? Care to share what you're smoking??
RB
What difference is there in saying that Zeus and Dionysus are gods because it says so in the Theogony compared to your trinity of gods because it says so in the bible? Of course the trinity is highly suspect while Dionysus always had very fine wine.
I didn't mean that Romans 10 is the proof. It is the recipe to obtain the proof.
Religion is similar to poker.
For some, jacks are wild, and for others, not.
It's not a "gift" it is an ultimatum.
"..and this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (John 3:19-21)
Men condemn themselves.
sword swallower...
Next time quote "Green eggs and ham"....it's a better book.
"Men condemn themselves."
You are correct, lordssword. The people who authored John condemned themselves. Perhaps to make things fair for those that didn't have a hand in John's rules, the authors felt it necessary the give themselves a negative handicap.
"Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; nor is there any who can deliver from My hand. (Deuteronomy32:39)
Most religions of that day had a pantheon, a divine assembly that ruled the realm of the gods, the supernatural and, ultimately, the human world. There would typically be a deity who was designated head of the pantheon, and he, like the other gods, would have at least one consort (female partner). The first commandment forbids Israel to think in these terms. YHWH is not the head of a pantheon, and he does not have a consort—there are no gods in his presence. This verse goes further to insist that there is no other god exercising power or competing for jurisdiction and authority. Just as blessing and prosperity is not the result of a benevolent deity's managing to hold back demonic forces and chaos, so punishment is not the surge of malevolent power to overwhelm the protector. All happens within YHWH's plan—an impossible concept in the pagan polytheism of the rest of the world.
"All happens within YHWH's plan"
Some play according to Hoyle. But it's not necessary for a good game as long as there is agreement.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)
Those other sons of God have him as their creator, but they are not spiritual sons of God as are those who are peacemakers. It is the peacemakers who bring those at war with God into reconciliation with Him, saving them from divine wrath. It is not a game when the stakes are eternal life or eternal death. The divine attribute of love has preeminence but the divine attributes of justice and wrath are not precluded. Seek Him while He may yet be found.
"It is not a game when the stakes are eternal life or eternal death. "
It is not wise to play deadly games for any reason, whether it be money or other prizes that have not been shown to exist (the latter indicating "sham" games).
I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me, that they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is none besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:5-6)
Just to be perfectly clear, there are no other gods besides Him, only fallen angels proclaiming themselves god to man.
'For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. (Exodus 12:12)
it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God and those fallen angels were not spared.
and
He cast on them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, indignation, and trouble, by sending angels of destruction among them. (Psalm 78:49)
His sovereignty includes using fallen angels to pour out His wrath upon those who worship these angels (demons).
you know what this is the reason why i have a hard time following what Amaterasu tells me to, my goddess are not your "demons"
and under the definition of the word deamon, even your god is considered a deamon
my goddess is no your definition of demon nor are the fallen angels, what gives you the right to say such inflammatory things. if anything the only "Demon" is your god, he is the only god calling the others this.
3 out o 100 world religions agree, there is one god, mine!
give me a second their sword let me ask my shield,...nope Athena disagrees,
let me ask my Matriarch,....looks like Morrigan Agrees,.. with athena, i shall askith the world,... she think monotheism bat shit two oh and Yahweh definitely did not create her,
i got it Lilith, she knows Yahweh personally, wait she tells me that her Mother Asherah and brother Baal are Yahwehs parents.
let me ask the one god i know to be totally impartial about all of this nonsense, she tells me to stop talking about all this i should not ridicule your for your faith but support you as a fellow living being, that i should not be agree with you for the wrongs people have committed in the name of Christ, and although my body was wrecked i should not blame all Christians for the action of the few; that it is not you or your traditions that led to violence but the misunderstanding and fear of those who directly wronged me.... fucken deep as usual Amaterasu.
"I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together " – Lennon/McCartney
Coo Coo Ca Choo.
interesting and i say death is the separation of life,.. life is Gaia, Gaia is this world
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.1 John 2:15
so Christian have separated them selves from the world, OMG your deadits.
And once again returning to the 21st century:
The Apostles' Creed 2014 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(References used are available upon request.)
pure cult-speak.
So your point is that the ISIS ought not kill Christians?
How is masturbation harmful?
Myth has it you can go blind or get harry palms ?
The definition of secular: not spiritual; not religious. The definition of humanism: a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good and that problems can be solved using reason instead of religion. Atheists may not consider themselves secular. Atheists may even not consider themselves humanists. But to claim they are not secular humanists defies reason. Take for example President Obama. The president can claim that he is not white. The president can even claim that he is not black. But he can no less claim he is not mixed than atheists can claim they are not secular humanists. Thus the FACT that atheist can not say there is ABSOLUTELY no God and hold to the secular humanist mantra that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. It goes to the heart of why atheism is untenable – its foundation is built on a house of cards. All it takes is a little logic to cause it to come crashing down.
"Thus the FACT that atheist can not say there is ABSOLUTELY no God"
I can say it anytime or anywhere. The problem is YOU can't prove there is a god. I can say god sucks, blows and takes it up the azz without any fear of retribution In other words NOTHING will happen. If you praise god, the same thing will hapen to you. NOTHING.
If god existed, don't you think he'd give you a little appreciation for the belief?
You can no more prove that God does not exist. Give me evidence that He doesn't. Based on your own statements it is illogical for anyone to call themselves atheists. To do so you must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God ABSOLUTELY does not God. This is an impossibility. To put it In more simpler, direct terms – there is no such thing as an atheist. The term means nothing because the words required to give it measurable reality do not exist.
You're the one making the claim of a god so you are the one that needs to provide the evidence. All evidence that we have shows that the creation myths are incorrect and therefore the gods of religions do not exist. If you're talking pre-Big Bang then a god is one of many possibilities, but there is no more evidence for a god than for any of the other possibilities.
Where was your god on 9/11? When people needed him the most. HE FAILED. Not a peep. He stood by while planes took down the twin towers and did nothing. God is just like Allah. Allah is standing by while Israel is pounding Palistinians to pulp. All we ask is that god show his face, let us hear his voice and i'll then believe.
I'm sorry, aallen333, but your argument is nonsensical. Some people are superst.itious and some people are not. In the same way, some people believe in one or more deities and some people, atheists, do not believe in deities because of a lack of evidence shown for the existence of deities. Most atheists, unlike people who believe in deities, have no need for absolute claims about their belief – most likely because they, unlike people who believe in deities, are not trying to convince others of something that, to date, has only been very poorly demonstrated, if at all.
aallen: How old are you? 5 perhaps? I ask because any logical adult with an IQ level above 60 knows that you can't prove a negative and that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. You say Atheism is illogical but yet it doesn't posit a god that is believed upon strictly by faith (belief without evidence), so it is safe to say that theism is illogical. You need to buy a dictionary and get an education.
I have proof "beyond any reasonable doubt that God ABSOLUTELY does not God."...
Avoiding your flawed logic, an atheist says there is no evidence for a god. No one can say for sure but why believe in something for which there is no evidence.
aallen333,
"The definition of humanism: a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good and that problems can be solved using reason instead of religion. "
Who said people are good?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
aallen333, your statement "Thus the FACT that atheist can not say there is ABSOLUTELY no God and hold to the secular humanist mantra that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS" is flawed in that a secular humanist is not likely to claim that their belief that there are no absolute truths is, itself, an absolute truth. Your argument thus results in failure.
An Atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of gods. They may or may not be humanists. They are, by definition, secular.
Your logic fails right there. Not all atheists are secular humanists.
The problem is, you are starting with the conclusion you wish to reach and shaping your argument to get you there. A better approach would be to let go of the desired conclusion and talk to folks who believe differently than you, not in challenge or an attempt to change what they believe, but in an effort to understand them.
You may find in so doing something does change.
Ironically, there are plenty of rapture-ready Christians who believe that Jews will be offered a similar ultimatum when Jesus returns, either convert or die. I guess it's different when it might happen to you?
This should be the ultimate fight! Allah Vs. God. Let's see which prayer is answered first! Will god help the christians by slaying those that force them to flee or will allah prove again to be superior as he was on 9/11 when god did nothing while almost 3,000 people were slaughtered!
right hand v/s left hand
people who love Muhammed should google search "Rangeela Rasool".
comparing this to a man who fell in love with a whore, and had a "unique" relationship with 13 men. the thing Mohamed did were costumer in his culture and time, agreed that it does not make it right, but the culture that brought out the stranded of marriage at bleeding and woman being property was in fact the Abrahamic tradition
judging something about don't do it your your gunna get it
Just curious as to why you would make such a post.
because i actually googled and read the synapses of Rangeela Rasool and it seemed to be needed to put into greater context.
Sounds like propagandistic retaliatory bad fanfic to me.
a little lesser known miracle of Jesus
Thomas (114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
look at this kinky bastard changing his wife into a man
dudes if i could change my lovers gender i would not have some many ex's its not easy being Bi
so JC as a fellow Bisexual i must say your still an Asshole
I'm an asshole because I said that Rageela Rasool sounds like bad fanfic? Wow.
Although you did say you can't win arguments without name-calling, so there's that.
I don't care that you're bi. I fail to see why you even brought it up. Congrats; you have double the possibilities on your potential lover pool.
I just think people who bash other faiths to bolster their own are absurd. I don't care what one believes, as long as they are sincere about their belief and do not harm others with it.
Labella i was not directing any comment at you i was reaffirming my original comment, it was Jesus i called as asshole not you
Jesus is a vagrant, wino, who taught people to hate their family, to me this makes you(meaning Jesus) an asshole
Sam-
Oh, I see. Gotcha.
And Moses was a murderer, Abraham tried to pass his wife off as his sister, Noah got himself drunk and cursed his son for accidentally seeing him naked, Joshua committed genocide, David had a guy killed so that he could sleep with the widow, ...
And these are the "heroes" of the Bible.
And the retired pope kicked the angels out of the Nativity scene back in December 2012 .
You are making that up. God wouldn't associate with people like that. God only uses winners. People with defects and shortcoming need not apply to His kingdom. He is not a God of losers.
"You are making that up. God wouldn't associate with people like that. God only uses winners. People with defects and shortcoming need not apply to His kingdom. He is not a God of losers."
People with birth defects, diseases, and other "issues" are hated by god. Let me get this straight, you want people to worship that god?
Good evening, Dalahäst. I have a few questions regarding your recent reply.
You wrote: "God wouldn't associate with people like that."
If God is omniscient and omnipresent, how could he avoid association with anyone?
You wrote: "God only uses winners."
Aside from Charlie Sheen, who else would God use?
You wrote: "People with defects and shortcoming need not apply to His kingdom."
Would that mean, for instance, that someone with leprosy or someone with cancer should not apply?
dala
"You are making that up."
No, it's all in the bible
Dalahast,
wow...I can see your sarcasm is lost on the bunch .. hmmm
As Andrew Wommack would say, God has never had anyone qualified working for Him yet. These heroes of the Bible should be an inspiration for us all that there is nothing we can do to make God love us more, and likewise nothing we can do to make Him love us less.
We're all useful to Him in spite of our shortcomings.
Isn't our God Amazing and Awesome! God is Love!
@new..........It's tough to figure out sarcasm on the first message you read from the individual.
The Foolish to Shame the Wise
…27but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29so that no man may boast before God.…
I'm glad you got that Newman! A very basic understanding of Christian theology should have quickly revealed so much.
kudlak
This is a real breakthrough. You have grasped the human condition so vividly put on display in the "heroes" of the bible. They are there for all to see, in their unregal, degenerate splendor.
We're all in the same boat. And this is the dilemma.
Hey Dev – just for sh-its grins – evolution works !
Marmoset sequence sheds new light on primate biology and evolution
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140720204224.htm
Stop all the verbiage and cut to the truth:
What instigated the attack on the Twin Towers, Flight 93 and the Pentagon?
And what drives today's 24/7 mosque/imam-planned acts of terror and horror?
The koran, Mohammed's book of death for all infidels and Muslim domination of the world by any means.
Muslims must clean up this book removing said passages admitting that they are based on the Gabriel myth and therefore obviously the hallucinations and/or lies of Mohammed.
Then we can talk about the safety and location of mosques and what is taught therein.
Until then, no Muslim can be trusted anytime or anywhere !!!!!
And note that the OT and NT have been rewritten by many in the know:
Conservative Jews in the USA have rewritten the Torah to reflect the myths therein basically making it a doc-ument of peace.
Thomas Jefferson did an a-nalogous rewrite of the NT. Ditto for the rewrite of the NT by the Jesus Seminarians, Professor JD Crossan in his over 20 books on the historical Jesus and related subjects and Professor Gerd Ludeman in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 694-695.
" Thomas Jefferson omitted it (Revelation) along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he considered it (Revelation) as "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
Yours is the stuff of what Charlatans are made of. I don't care what Jefferson may have said or done. He was NOT a Biblical scholar. All he did was not a qualified scholarly work, neither was a translation of scriptures or a commentary of any value. Only the many Charlatans back then and of today will consider what he did worthy of any respect. Are you stupid?
I'm sorry, Salero21, but your statement "[Jefferson] did was not a qualified scholarly work, neither was a translation of scriptures or a commentary of any value" is little more than a waning opinion. As an enti.ty in the Belief Blog, I have already categorized you as a pathological liar, compulsive liar, and drive-by liar, but will now add you to the category "overly opinionated".
Yeah! I can trust an atheist as much as I can trust any evolutionists/idolaters/Muslim/cultist etc. They're extreme hypocrites and compulsive pathological Liars.
same can be said about Christians, They're extreme hypocrites and compulsive pathological Liars
That is certainly not true of most Christians that I know personally. It is certainly true of the majority that post here.
Christianity in itself is a Hypocrisy. whether it the belief in one god and the disbelief in all others, or worshiping the Idol Jesus (who is an avatar and a demigod) while saying Idle worship is the greatest of evil. i believe pinhead said it best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO1mmzIAz3k
Some Christians do fall into something that is or is like idol worship in regards to Jesus.
But not all. There is nothing inherently hypocritical in following Jesus, unless you say one thing and do the other.
or maybe it was Jefferson
No historical fact is better established than that the doctrine of one god, pure and uncompounded was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the antients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the supreme being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus with one body and three heads had it's birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith is it's restoration as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and it's eternal divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simply unity of the creator of the universe is now all but ascendant in the Eastern states; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United states. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestly's learned writings on it are, or should be in every hand. In fact the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one is so incomprehensible to the human mind that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea. He who thinks he does only decieves himself. He proves also that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullability which they call faith takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
following Jesus means turning your back on your gods law
I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
— Exodus 20:2-6 (WEB)
and yet you make an idle of an earthly man Jesus, and go so far as to call him god
following Jesus is a violation of the first Jews and Muslims get this but it goes right over the head of Christians
2/3 disagree what make you right and them wrong, you have been duped
Do you believe in God?
I'm a polytheist, i believe in all gods even your lie prick of one.
Sure you do.
I'm sorry? I'm not to good with English idioms, are you doubting my belief even after i profess it?
ddeevviinn
When you were atheist, were you as dogmatic (for lack of a better term) about your ideas of science and logic as some on here express? Or that you held the true understanding of science and logic – the atheist understanding, and all other attempts to approach those were wrong?
It reminds me of what Einstein observed:
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims."
Religious fanatics and atheist fanatics both really have a problem with me. And both groups are quick to rush to judgement and offer ridicule as a tool. But I generally do well with reasonable religious people and reasonable atheists.
What do you think of Einstein's quote?
Is there anything as dogmatic as a gnostic theist who has no evidence?
Yes, there probably is.
In that I was never an atheist I can't really answer your question. I have stated many times that if Christianity were not on the menu, both agnosticism and Deism would have an appeal. I simply could never embrace atheism, I find it too simplistic ( yes, I'm more than familiar with all the variations of atheism for all those ready to pounce) and at odds with everything from creation to the human condition.
I've never given much credence to Einstein's philosophy or theology, but I do agree with and appreciate that quote. That he was a stellar theoretical physicist goes without saying.
I'm not really a fan of fanatics of any persuasion ( except Baltimore Oriole fans, we are now in first place in the American League East, but that's another story) although many militant atheists would consider me to be fanatic. So, speaking of Einstein, I guess it really is all "relative".
Devin,
The Red Sox are the reigning World Champs until someone takes it away.
: )
" Until someone takes it away"
All in due time my friend.
Whoops! I guess I assumed some things about you, probably do to my experience. But thanks for your input!
I can imagine you really are not fans of Yankees or Red Sox fanatics. Here in Royals country they prove to be the most annoying fans, besides St Louis Cardinal fans, of course.
so how good are the Oriole firm, oh that's right they don't have one because baseball is for fat Little men who cant get off their asses.
For completeness, the sentence immediately preceding the one you started with:
"I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and supersti.tion for the benefit of those who profit from it."
Einstein was obviously a brilliant man. He believed in God. He had strong biases. Those biases limited him as a scientist.
He fought Quantum Theory and was wrong, due to his bias. He was certain the universe must be static (as it was created), so he added the cosmological constant to one of the most beautiful theories ever devised by man. He called that the worst mistake of his life. Then he turned out to wrong about that as we now need it (for other reasons, dark energy). Imagine what Einstein might have accomplished if he weren't as biases as he was. On the other hand, if he weren't so sure of himself, he may not have worked 24/7 for almost a decade to crack General Relativity.
Einstein, as any other scientist is an expert at his specialty. He is not an expert at other areas of physics, never mind biology, or chemistry. He certainly isn't any more an expert at God than anyone else.
Is anyone an expert at God? There are experts in science, history, economics, etc.
Uh, thanks.
Well reasoned boston. We'll never know what might have been but we can tell from his work how conflicted theism made him.
Couldn't you be one of those fanatical atheists Einstein talks about? It is easy to do "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" with a scientist from yesteryear and say how he should have done better. That is so easy to say. The hard thing to do is actually come up with your own scientific breakthroughs. Whether you hold pantheist, deist, theist, agnostic or atheist beliefs. It doesn't matter. The results matter. And there is nothing that suggests your atheists beliefs lead to better scientific breakthroughs. It is just speculation on your part.
Sea
" The fact that most people on the planet believe your beliefs are crazy."
Well, let's just disassemble that silly statement. One third of the world's population are Christians, the vast majority of those embracing the doctrine of the trinity. Contrast that with 2 to 3% of the world's population that are atheists. Looks like 97 to 98% of the world's population would actually consider your perspective as " crazy ." Just in case you were interested in factual information.
Disclaimer: I'm not making an argument from popularity here, just presenting the OP with the data.
Meant for previous post.
But Dev god created the earth – but they just figured what caused the bend in the Appalachian mountain chain – go figure.
Really? They should have come to me, I've known for decades it was plate tectonics.
Really Dev ?
The bend in the Appalachian mountain chain is finally explained
Date:
July 18, 2014
Source:
University of Rochester
Summary:
The 1,500-mile Appalachian mountain chain runs along a nearly straight line from Alabama to Newfoundland - except for a curious bend in Pennsylvania and New York State. Researchers now know what caused that bend - a dense, underground block of rigid, volcanic rock forced the chain to shift eastward as it was forming millions of years ago.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140718115628.htm
" really Dev"
Yes, really. Read the entire article, specifically the fourth paragraph. I think you got lost in the forest because of the trees on this one.
Oops should have included decades dev.
volcanic in origin
science
My bad. I was referencing a different article on the same current research by the same group. The 4th paragraph explains the formation as the result of the collision of continental plates. The underlying volcanic rock does not dismiss plate tectonics.
And Dev's reference ? (decades ago?)
Science
" And Dev's reference? ( decades ago) "
Not really sure what you're after or where you're going with this. Plate tectonics, it's what formed the Appalachian mountains. This information has been known for many decades and your referenced article is not contradicting that fact.
No reference dev ?
Or could this be Dev;s reference ?
Scripture and Geological Discovery by Douglas E Cox.
Or
A Biblical Ana-liysis of Theistic Evolution by John Beach
It was also an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy on SeaVik's part.
Ddeevviinn,
I don't know how it was used but technically the statement is reasonably accurate. You say yourself that only a third of the world is Christian. Doesn't that mean that 2/3, or most of the world, does think your beliefs are wrong?
Regardless of the nnumber of atheists.
Yes, in that sense you are correct. After I posted I thought perhaps it would be taken in that vein, but my intent was to show the irony of the OP's statement.
Again, you're right. I should have been more precise in my words.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Religion………………………… Adherents
Christianity ……………………..2.1 billion
Islam…………………………… 1.5 billion
Irreligious/agnostic/atheism…… 1.1 billion
Hinduism 900 million
Chinese traditional religion 394 million
Buddhism 376 million
Animist religions 300 million
African traditional/diasporic religions 100 million
Sikhism 23 million
Juche 19 million
Spiritism 15 million
Judaism…………………………………….. 14 million
Jehovah Witnesses 6.5-12 million ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_jeh_wit-religion-jehovahs-witnesses
depending on how you count
Baha'i 7 million
Jainism 4.2 million
Shinto 4 million
Cao Dai 4 million
Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
Tenrikyo 2 million
Neo-Paganism 1 million
Unitarian Universalism 800,000
Rastafari Movement 600,000
ok so here is the answer that all to many times Christians give to the Palestinian if you don't like it leave, the ISIS has every right to their "biblical" homeland.
http://www.gods-word-first.org/bible-maps/images/babylon-empire-map2.gif
the biblical lands of the ISIS's ancestors, the have a right to have their Islamic state on their forefathers lands.
im just using the same standards Christians hold Israel to.
what makes ISIS any different then the Israelis? their religion. does it justify their actions? no, no it does not.
A one trick scotish pony, what does your constant denials of evolution ever have to do with the topic of the article, any article? A fishy story indeed that is supposed to negate all the rest of the science, Christian apologetics at its most ludicrous.
Dalahäst
You rarely contribute anything positive to a deeper understanding of scientific topics. Not only on this blog, but probably in your life.
Dala, pot, meet kettle.
Dang posted in wrong spot.
Right back at you, snuffle.
More evidence that evolution is a fraud:
CERN built the LHC to open a Star Gate for Osiris.
Adam and Eve were actually intergalactic space travelers dropped of from a ship piloted by Noah.
Microwave radiation has poisoned the brains of scientists.
Kennedy was assassinated by scientists because he had discovered proof that evolution is a fraud.
The Sept 11 attacks were really the Govt sending remotely piloted vehicles into the buildings because they had proof evolution is a fraud.
AIDS was created in Govt labs to...you guessed it, get the people with proof that evolution is a fraud.
The moon landing actually happened, but it was to stash the evidence that evolution is a fraud.
Lots of things have been lost in the Bermuda Triangle because they have been destroying evidence that evolution is a fraud and sending it there.
The Govt uses subliminal advertising, flashing screens on TV that say, "Evolution is True".
-----
Now if that doesn't convince everyone, I don't know what will.
What are the odds that atheists who are no longer with us are no longer atheists?
Zero I'd say
Atheists on this blog are prohibited from saying 100 or 0 percent, because in either case you are making a declaration that there is or is not a God and this violates the 'Holy Grail' of secular humanism that there are NO ABSOLUTES. But reason dictates that the only two rational answers are 0 and 100 because any other answer is nonsensical. Which brings us to the logical conclusion that Atheism is illogical.
I just said 0 and 100 percent and nothing happened. Boy, that was the easiest post to disprove ever.
allen333
Reason does not dictate that there are only two rational answers. Check out deists and agnostics and quit jumping to absolutes it is unbecoming.
Aalen333,
You 100% incorrect because atheism and secular humanism ar ABSOLUTELY not the same thing.
You need to work on your logic and reasoning. What evidence do you have that there is an afterlife, and what evidence do you have that atheists would go to a place that proves anything?
I didn't say I know it is zero, just that based upon the lack of evidence I see no reason to expect those – if there were an afterlife I also would not expect to see yeti, unicorns, leprechauns, etc.
"Atheists on this blog are prohibited from saying 100 or 0 percent, because in either case you are making a declaration that there is or is not a God and this violates the 'Holy Grail' of secular humanism that there are NO ABSOLUTES."
Atheism and secular humanism are different things, but you will find a movement among some atheists that we should be more than just dictionary atheists and embrace attendant worldviews and life stances. It is called Atheism+ (or Atheism Plus).
I tend to agree with Voltaire when he said "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." So I do avoid 0% and 100% personally, unless we are talking mathematics.
Wrong. If there is a god, then they all know that, and that would be 100 %, and if they are all dead and gone, then it's zero. One or the other is not an absolute. An absolute would be ONE. So sad. Too bad. You lose today.
"Atheists on this blog are prohibited "
Who are you to say this exactly?
How about we tell you that you and your ilk are prohibited from lying about Atheists and Evolution?? Since you know nothing about either, you might be better off not commenting on either.
Midwestken The definition of secular: not spiritual; not religious. The definition of humanism: a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good and that problems can be solved using reason instead of religion. Atheists may not consider themselves secular. Atheists may even not consider themselves humanists. But to claim they are not secular humanists defies reason. Take for example President Obama. The president can claim that he is not white. The president can even claim that he is not black. But he can no less claim he is not mixed than atheists can claim they are not secular humanists. Thus the FACT that atheist can not say there is ABSOLUTELY no God and hold to the secular humanist mantra that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. It goes to the heart of why atheism is untenable – its foundation is built on a house of cards. All it takes is a little logic to cause it to come crashing down.
Good evening, aallen333. Your argument that "Thus the FACT that atheist can not say there is ABSOLUTELY no God and hold to the secular humanist mantra that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS" is flawed since just as the atheist does not claim absolutely that there is no God, so the secular humanist is also not likely to claim absolutely that there are no absolute truths. Both try not to make claims they cannot prove.
What President Obama can say is that he's both. Because he is.
Just as my sister can say she's both an atheist and a secular humanist. Because she is.
"What are the odds that atheists who are no longer with us are no longer atheists?"
If you ask an atheist the answer is clear, of course they are no longer atheists because they are no longer anything. Our energy is recycled just like every other bit of matter and energy in this universe. Now if the question is what are the odds that atheists are still alive somehow in a spirit realm after they die and thus change their belief system,, well those are some pretty long odds for sure seeing as how there is not a single shred of evidence supporting any sort of afterlife.
All I can do is try and figure it out the best I can in this life, the only one I'm sure of.
Pretty high. If there is no afterlife, they are dead gone and nothing. If there is an afterlife and a God, they will have thier proof. The only way they could still be an atheist after death is if there is an afterlife, but no God running the joint. How confusing would that last option be?
Pascal's Wager was shown to be flawed as soon as he made it.
What are the odds any theist can say when the idea of immortality entered Hebrew culture and why ?
Just as an FYI, I don't think he was espousing Pascal's Wager. In fact, I think he is a skeptic. I believe he was saying something like what Dyslexic doG said in response to the same question.
its $475 per family is very cheap to enjoy peace
What are the odds that any believer in any of the thousands of gods that are no longer with us were correct?
What are the odds that theists who are no longer with us are no longer theists? Fixed!! (See how silly it sounds? Once you're dead, that is it as far as we know)
Since it seems likely they no longer exist then it's likely 100% chance that they are no longer anything at all.
100%
When you are dead you cease to exist. No amount of you believing in a wonderful, magical, happy place in the sky will change this fact. Whatever they believed in life, they now no longer exist.
I find it amusing that certain individuals who emphasize the futility of trying to disprove God, spend so much time trying to disprove evolution.
1) Evolution disproves evolution
2) Only a fool tries to disprove God.
Lol. I don't think your hamster-wheel method for interpreting scripture works for disproving established theory. But you could make some wild claims, post outdated information, and misrepresent leading scientists by using half-quotes to help get around the evidence you don't have for your delusional suspi.cions. Oh wait, you've already done all that, Scotty....
Let's start with your post just below, Scotty. Maybe you could provide a link where we can find the credentials of your referenced source "A.Light". Based on your track record here, I highly suspect you will avoid this request and I'm confident that a good many of the comment readers understand why....
1) WHAT???? That is nonsensical but coming you, not surprising
2) So says your giant book of fables.
Evolution is Wrong
The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years.
It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs.
This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.
The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years, the fish still doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The 1.3m-long (4.3ft), 50kg (110lb) coelacanth is only the second ever to have been captured in Asia and has been described as a "significant find". An autopsy and genetic tests are now being carried out to determine more about the specimen. Coelacanths provide researchers with a window into the past; their fossil record dates back 350 million years.
– A.Light
Do you have any objective evidence for creationism yet?
Coelacanth. Evolved from what? It's funny how atheists/evolutionists begin to hurl pejoratives and insults when you bring facts to the table disproving their evolution gods. They won't and indeed can't backup their cult talking points with common sense and instead try throwing out 'scientific' mumbo jumbo and unproven speculation. Honest and decent people aren't fooled by these charlatans.
scot, you see yourself as an honest and decent person? How on earth did you reach that conclusion?
wandering,
What about my comment was pejorative or insulting?
You bring no facts to the table, as many other posters have pointed out.
You have not disproved evolution, as many other posters have pointed out.
I did point you to one of many places for education – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
You also have produced no evidence for creationism.
Scot, I'm starting to think there may be something to what you're saying. I have to admit, it does appear that evolution failed to work in your case.
Silly delusional child, we've been this path with you so many times now...when are you going to learn that you are entitled to your opinion (what you just spewed...okay you actually spewed another delusional man's opinion) but you're not entitled to your own facts?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html
It is really not complicated:
Again from my scrapbook of essential theology and religious history:
Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!! ( and hopefully making this blog obsolete)
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
• A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.
Added details previously presented.
Christians are polytheists that worship roman paganism ...
Atheists that troll religion blogs really are narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
"In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet trolls (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
and I won't even comment on the irony of you using the phrase " deeper understanding of scientific topics" ... LOLOL
You rarely contribute anything positive to a deeper understanding of scientific topics. Not only on this blog, but probably in your life.
"You rarely contribute anything positive to a deeper understanding of scientific topics."
... and yet I would say that I contribute a lot, while you with your talk of magical things and mystical things are actually detrimental to any true understanding of scientific topics. The religions of the world ret.ard science and attack its roots via your attempts to influence what is taught in schools and replace it with your cult's fairy tales.
"Not only on this blog, but probably in your life."
... given my work/career, you could not be more wrong. But then, making a statement like that without knowing any of the facts is typical of the religious mind. You can quite happily throw out a statement like that without knowing anything about me. Laughable.
Yet you turn around and do the exact same thing to me you accuse me of?
What work/career is it ok to spam hateful comments to groups of people you hate? What is the difference between you and Salero?
There are people in religion who do more to benefit science than you do.
I have never actually heard you say anything scientific. You just philosophize about how you are pro-science, and ALL of religion is anti-science. Which is just silly.
the problem is, Dala, that atheists can post something factual but if doesn't follow your cult's teachings, then you claim it's a hateful statement. You might believe that the earth is 6,000 years old but it factually is not. And me saying that it is 4.5 billion years old can't be considered a hateful statement.
I don't think that is a hateful statement.
Plenty of religious people believe in that statement. If you decided to further your education in a scientific field, there is a good chance a believer in God could be a teacher you learn from.
So, no. But when you say I worship Roman paganism – something you have stated before and never even attempted to back it up. That leads me to suggest you are just trolling.
"Plenty of religious people believe in that statement."
Dala, I don't know how many times I have to ask this before you provide an explanation, but here goes. If you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and you believe in evolution (as I believe you've stated you do), then you also must believe that the bible is a work of fiction since it clearly contradicts these positions. What I don't understand is why, knowing the bible is a work of fiction, you think there is enough truth in it to merrit a Christian belief.
I don't think the Bible is a work of fiction. And I don't think it clearly contradicts the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or in the theory of evolution.
A lot of our knowledge about the age of the Earth and the theory of evolution have come from believers in God who embrace the Bible. And they testify it takes them away, not toward, atheism.
"And I don't think it clearly contradicts the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or in the theory of evolution."
Well, perhaps you can argue that the timelines can be interpreted differently (although Theo would strongly disagree). But I fail to see how you can see evolution as being consistent with the bible's claim that god made Adam and Eve in his own image. If we evolved to be as we are today, how is that consistent?
It is not a science manual. It is an origin story. It attempts to explain things that a science manual can not explain.
dala
"It is not a science manual. It is an origin story. It attempts to explain things that a science manual can not explain."
What does it explain that science doesn't? As none of it is literally true, how could it?
"It is not a science manual. It is an origin story. It attempts to explain things that a science manual can not explain."
That's your explanation as to how the bible is consistent with evolution? Seriously? So it's not a work of fiction...it's an "origin story". That story is inconsistent with evolution, but you believe in evolution and don't think the story is fictional. Ok, I give up trying to get a rational explanation out of you.
SeaVik
Slow down. Back up.
What do you mean by "believing in evolution" or being "consistent with evolution"?
How did the founder of the Big Bang Theory – who didn't deny evolution – explain his belief in God? He was a Catholic priest. He founded a very important discovery about our world. And he has interesting things to say. I'll find some of his stuff for you.
SeaVik – I suggest reading this:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-plato-can-save-your-life/201106/the-scientific-atheism-fallacy-how-science-declares-god-is-
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
dala, So by Kardaras' logic we should believe in leprechauns, unicorns, yeti, etc. because we cannot disprove them. Those making the claim of a god or a yeti or a unicorn or a leprechaun are the ones that need to provide the evidence if they expect to convince others.
No, that is your logic. I
dala,
If Kardaras, and by inference you, are not saying that because a god cannot be disproven then it should be believed, what in fact are you saying? You presented that as support for believing in a god and all it says is – you can't disprove it so it must be true.
I'm not saying if something can't be dis-proven it should be believed.
There is nothing like that that I believe.
I didn't present that as support for believing in God. I provided that link in support of questioning whether science leads all intelligent people to atheism. Which it doesn't.
Ok Dala, I read your article. I'm sorry, but not surprised, to find that it is totally idiotic. Here's a real gem that epitomizes how unknowledgable this guy is:
"Think about it; if an atheist is so quick to invoke science as their guiding rationale in their belief in a random universe, then shouldn't they prove it?"
Uh, I'm sorry – do people have to prove that there are no invisible unicorns living on the moon to not believe in invisible unicorns living on the moon? And how exactly would one go about proving that there are no invisible unicorns living on the moon? And how much energy and money should we spend to try to prove that there are no invisible unicorns living on the moon? Suggesting that the burden of proof that fairies don't exist is on atheists is so SO stupid. You're better than that Dala...or at least you should try to be.
You missed the point.
"How did the founder of the Big Bang Theory – who didn't deny evolution – explain his belief in God?"
I don't know since I never met the guy, but he probably did what most intelligent people who believe in a god do. He decided that it was ok to ignore rational thought and logic when it came to the subject of god / religion. It's a sadly common thing.
No. Most believers in God do not think it is ok to ignore rational thought and logic to believe in God.
"Most believers in God do not think it is ok to ignore rational thought and logic to believe in God."
Ok, so they don't think it's ok to believe in a god, but they do it anyway? I've asked you many times to explain how you can rationalize believing that the bible is not a work of fiction and also believing in evolution. You haven't even attempted to reconcile those disparate views. I have never heard a single rational thought that suggests it's logical to believe in a god.
No. Belief in God is not necessarily counter to rational thought and logic. Just because you don't understand that, doesn't mean others can't. You are only the judge of what is rational and logical for yourself. What you explain is a rational conclusion for you, isn't for me. Sorry.
insulting the poster is a nice way to change the subject and dodge the point ...
No, you too often post the same, off-topic copied-pasted messages. You appear to be a spammer or a troll. Not a poster trying to add anything to the topic of the blog's posting.
But lets talk. What aspects of Roman paganism do I worship?
?
?
? This should be the easiest one for you to answer:
What aspects of Roman paganism do I worship?
Where did he go?
I can't find anything to support this claim.
Was he trolling? Or is there truth to that claim he made?
"Atheists that troll religion blogs really are narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic."
The article you posted is about internet trolls, not atheists. I know there have been a few atheist trolls here, but I can't remember the last one. The fast majority of the trolls here are Christians (see awanderingscot for the troll of the day).
Most atheists on here are not trolls.
But doG seems to be one.
His original post was a little bit trollish, but it could also be considered a true statement to incite conversation. IMO, a troll is one who tries to agitate without actually engaging in conversation and defending their statements with rational thought. Awanderingscot is a prime example. That Ranier guy is another.
merci.
Trolls do trollish things.
It is ok. There are atheists who are trolls. It doesn't mean you are one.
I'm waiting for him to answer a question of mine.
He avoided a similar one last week. I think I asked him about 5 times to show me how Christianity was a copycat of Mithrism.
I didn't see the word atheist used once in the article.
Huh.
I was, however, encouraged to see this:
Slate article:
So trolls are, as has often been suspected, a minority of online commenters, and an even smaller minority of overall Internet users.
And I found this interesting, from wiki:
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
Not all atheists are trolls.
But some trolls are atheists. And some troll religion blogs.
Just ones that spam the boards with the same copied-pasted phrases in attempt to get a rise out of the group that the poster hates.
" it can be used as an ad hominem attack"
Is SeaVik and others guilty of that by calling Scot a troll? Because I see that all the time.
"But some trolls are atheists. And some troll religion blogs."
If you consider this board to be a representative sample, you have to admit the vast majority of trolls are not atheists. Actually, it seems to me like the majority who post on this board are atheists, so the fact that you see so many Christian trolls and so few atheist trolls suggests even greater disproportion.
I DON'T consider this board to be a representative sample. I'm just saying I think doG is a troll.
In the same way you think Awanderingscot and That Ranier guy is.
I'm not calling you a troll.
You started your OP with the following statement:
"Atheists that troll religion blogs really are narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic."
Which, actually, misrepresented what the article said.
Of course not all atheists are not trolls.
And some Christians are.
I see Scot calling people names all the time; he started on this blog with ad hominems. Expecting no retribution is foolish.
This is the net, after all.
However, as the wiki reference pointed out, calling someone a troll is, it can be argued, trolling behavior in and of itself.
And almost every person on here, both of us included, have been known to engage in that; does that make you and I sadistic, narcissistic, etc? Nope. I'd posit it makes us human, though.
LaBella
Yes, some Christians are trolls. NO KIDDING. I've been the victim of them.
But I wasn't saying all atheists are trolls. But I do believe doG is a troll. He posts hateful comments meant to insult others.
I've tried to question him on things before, and he usually suggests I'm against science or just retarded/delusional.
Or, he is a troll who just happens to be an atheist.
If he was a troll who just happened to be a Christian, those atheists that do not happen to have a double standard, would hopefully call him out on his trollish ways.
I've seen other atheists call him trollish before. And nobody seemed to have a problem with that.
Dala,
I feel the same way about awanderingscot.
Do they cancel each other out?
Dala,
What do you think of the Christians who have a double standard and never call out Christian trolls?
Are t they guilty of duplicitous behavior as well?
I wouldn't be surprised if they are the same person.
– What do you think of the Christians who have a double standard and never call out Christian trolls?
They hold double standards, too.
– Are t they guilty of duplicitous behavior as well?
Yes.
"In the same way you think Awanderingscot and That Ranier guy is."
Really, the same way? Awanderingscot and Ranier copy and paste the same BS over and over without sticking around for the conversation. I think that's a lot different.
Anyway, my point was that I think we have enough evidence from this board to conclude that a much higher percentage of Christians are trolls than the percentage of atheists are trolls. Is there a causal relationship there? In other words, does having troll-like tendencies cause one to be more or less likely to be a Christian or an atheist?
Here's my hypothesis:
1) In order to believe in Christianity, you must be willing to suspend logical thinking at least when it comes to god, miracles, sprits, afterlife, etc. (Admitedly, you can turn your logic back on when you're thinking about other things.)
2) Since you don't require a satisfactory answer to "how" or "why" or any evidence whatsoever for what you believe when it comes to the above, you think it's reasonable to make claims without providing the how, why or evidence.
3) This type of thinking is consistent with the behavior of trolls.
I know this is probably offensive to Christians, but I think it's pretty sound logic and probably has some merit.
Uh.... wut?
doG copies and pastes the same BS over and over without sticking around for the conversation, too.
Listen. It is ok. There are atheists that are trolls. You seem to be trying to hard to justify bad behavior of others.
"I wouldn't be surprised if they were the same person."
Huh. Food for thought.
"Listen. It is ok. There are atheists that are trolls. You seem to be trying to hard to justify bad behavior of others."
I'm not trying to justify anyone's behavior. I just hadn't noticed him trolling as you describe and thought his original post was a reasonable conversation starter (and he did continue to comment on it, as opposed to awanderingscot).
You don't seem to want to touch the meaningful question here and I don't blame you: Are Christians more likely to be trolls than atheists? The answer seems to clearly be yes. The why seems to be pretty clear to me as well.
He trolls in a very similar manner that you accused others of trolling.
I don't give a f. who is more prone to trolling. I have no clue how you conclude it is overwhelming Christians that do that, but given your biases and lame attempts to form hypothesis my best guess is to question anything you say.
"I don't give a f. who is more prone to trolling. I have no clue how you conclude it is overwhelming Christians that do that, but given your biases and lame attempts to form hypothesis my best guess is to question anything you say."
From the guy who thinks creationism and evolution are consistent with each other.
I think I made it pretty clear why the evidence on this board suggests that Christians are more likely to be trolls than atheists. If you can't follow the reasoning I posted, feel free to ask questions and I will explain. I do have an advanced analytical graduate degree and work in a highly analytical field where I do this type of stuff, so I apologize if you couldn't follow and misinterpreted that as being "lame".
"Awanderingscot and Ranier copy and paste the same BS over and over without sticking around for the conversation."
I have seent them stick around for conversation. I see threads that go pages long with scot sticking around for conversation.
doG oftens copy and paste the same thing over and over without sticking around for the conversation. Even more so than them. He even will post the same thing on multiple pages, none of them have anything to do with the topic of the article.
That hypothesis was based on speculation. I disagree with all of it. You are attempting to rationalize your beliefs, not seeking the truth.
Aren't you the guy that thought that Onion article a few months was poking fun at Christians, not atheists? Remember how long it took for you to see that? I have serious doubts about your analytical skills.
@Dala
The reason I keep leaving these conversations is that I am off contributing positive things to a deeper understanding of scientific topics.
I have better things to do than sit on here all day arguing cultish inanities with you.
And again ... not an insulting statement. Christianity is for all intents and purposes a cult. And I do have better things to do.
Uh, you post your opinions, and some are just as nasty as what you profess to be better than? And then you claim you have better things to do than answer those who question you on your opinions expressed?
"That hypothesis was based on speculation. I disagree with all of it. You are attempting to rationalize your beliefs, not seeking the truth."
What do you disagree with? Here are the key observations:
1) There are more atheists who post here than Christians
2) Of the trolls who post here, more of them are Christians than atheists
"Aren't you the guy that thought that Onion article a few months was poking fun at Christians, not atheists? Remember how long it took for you to see that? I have serious doubts about your analytical skills."
Yes, I was. It could be interpreted either way and as a regular Onion reader, I read it in the tone that they usually write. After taking another look, I agreed with you that they went a different route with that one. You see, I am open-minded enough to change my views as new evidence presents itself, or as in this case, as I further evaluate evidence and re-interpret it. This is precisely the opposite of what Christians do. The bible doesn't evolve with new evidence.
You named 2 people as trolls. One doesn't even post here anymore as far as I can see.
1 named one, who does the same thing these 2 you named as trolls do. But one actually does stick around and talk.
doG just admitted he doesn't, because he has better things to do.
-
There have been people posing as Christians and atheists exposed for being the same person before – and they were neither an atheist or a Christian. Think about that.
– 1) In order to believe in Christianity, you must be willing to suspend logical thinking at least when it comes to god, miracles, sprits, afterlife, etc. (Admitedly, you can turn your logic back on when you're thinking about other things.)
No you don't. That is where your speculation is failing you.
"There have been people posing as Christians and atheists exposed for being the same person before – and they were neither an atheist or a Christian. Think about that."
Whoa, that's deep. Well, we could devise an experiement to see if there's a tendancy for trolls to be one or the other. We'd have to assume that posters believe the views the post, of course. I could be wrong and you may be correct that my bias has caused me to tune out the atheist trolls and only notice the Christian ones, but I'm pretty confident that there are 3 or 4 times more Christian trolls than atheist trolls.
"In order to believe in Christianity, you must be willing to suspend logical thinking at least when it comes to god, miracles, sprits, afterlife, etc. (Admitedly, you can turn your logic back on when you're thinking about other things.) No you don't. That is where your speculation is failing you."
Let's try not to be rude (myself included). Nothing is failing me.
Miracles, by definition, involve breaking the rules of nature. To believe that is possible, you have to believe that everything we observe ceases to be as we observe it when miracles happen. That's illogical. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god, spirits, souls, afterlifes, etc. To believe in these things, you must suspend logic. I have asked you repeatedly to explain how you can believe in evolution and still claim the bible is not a work of fiction and you have not been able to do so. That's because evolution is logical and the bible is not.
What if God doesn't have to follow the rules of nature like we do? So if a miracle occurs, it must be a divine act.
That doesn't mean it is inherently illogical.
And if you witness such a phenomenon it doesn't make you illogical.
There are logical explanations for belief in God.
Your beliefs are not completely logical. All human beings are imperfect, even their greatest attempts to remain logical fail. I've seen you do this before.
Instead of just writing up a hypothesis, and telling me it is correct, maybe you should test it out first? Or ask others what they think? It would be wise to ask people outside your peer group – like not your fellow atheists who hold the same views about atheism as you, don't you think?
It would certainly be more scientific to follow my suggestions than your method.
"What if God doesn't have to follow the rules of nature like we do?"
Considering that we have no evidence of anything that doesn't have to follow the rules of nature, it would be illogical to think that such a being exists.
"And if you witness such a phenomenon it doesn't make you illogical."
No, but there have been endless examples of people who were 100% convinced that they witnessed such a phenomenon and science / logic has been able to explain what actually happened. This doesn't prove that nothing supernatural has ever happened, it just proves that it's easy for natural phenomenon to appear supernatural hence, there's no reason to think all of these things don't have a natural explanation.
"There are logical explanations for belief in God."
For example?
"Your beliefs are not completely logical. All human beings are imperfect, even their greatest attempts to remain logical fail. I've seen you do this before."
Of course, we've all made mistakes. But at least I strive to be logical and when I'm not, I try to adjust my view or behavior.
"It would certainly be more scientific to follow my suggestions than your method."
Agreed. But honestly, there is enough evidence out there already to suggest that my hypothesis is correct. Smarter people have a higher tendancy towards atheism. Trolls don't seem very smart to me given they post spam and can't back up their views. So I think it's pretty obvious why there are fewer atheist trolls than Christian trolls. Frankly, it would be a surprise to see anything else, so the burden is on you to present evidence that contradicts what we would expect from what we know.
I have had more atheists troll me than Christians.
Since the board has switched to logging in that dropped dramatically. I once caught 1 atheist posting as 4 different people.
I could jump to all different conclusions based on that like you do.
If you want to prove that atheists are better than Christians somehow because of your hypothesis – I don't see it. And I'd be willing to guess only atheists like you would agree with that.
"If you want to prove that atheists are better than Christians somehow because of your hypothesis – I don't see it."
1) Fact: Atheists, on average, are more intelligent than Christians.
2) Opinion based on evidence: Those that fit the description of "trolls" seem to be idiots for the most part.
3) Conclusion: If you agree with #2, you should expect that Christians have a higher rate of trolls than atheists.
There are reasons I can think of that this wouldn't pan out, but it makes sense that it does seem to pan out.
"1) Fact: Atheists, on average, are more intelligent than Christians.
2) Opinion based on evidence: Those that fit the description of "trolls" seem to be idiots for the most part.
3) Conclusion: If you agree with #2, you should expect that Christians have a higher rate of trolls than atheists.
There are reasons I can think of that this wouldn't pan out, but it makes sense that it does seem to pan out."
Quite a stretch. But good luck proving that to others.
I'm not sure why you are pushing this so hard. I just noted that 1 atheist was trolling. It is not like I've never pointed out a Christian troll.
"I once caught 1 atheist posting as 4 different people."
Pot kettle black!
"Quite a stretch. But good luck proving that to others."
What part is a stretch? This is the 2nd or 3rd time you've claimed my logic is flawed. You have yet to point out what you find to be wrong or a "stretch".
"I'm not sure why you are pushing this so hard."
I'm pushing because like so many things, it is something that is obviously true and rather than admit it, you (like so many religious people) dig their heels in and deny deny deny just because you don't want to accept the obvious truth. By continuing to deny what I've observed without any rationale whatsoever, you provide a perfect example of one problem of the religious mindset.
Your opinions on trolls being idiots is subjective. It was also completely missing the point, that doG is a troll.
You actually proved doG is a troll, by the standards you set for Scot and Rainier. He fit that description.
I don't care who is the most trollish, Christians or atheists. I've seen both groups do it.
"Your opinions on trolls being idiots is subjective."
Ok, so now you don't think trolls are idiots? You're the one who posted the disparaging article about trolls. Is there any subject that you don't hold conflicting views on?
"It was also completely missing the point, that doG is a troll."
I don't care if he's a troll or not.
I posted that article for doG to read. He is trollish, like you admitted. He posts things and doesn't respond to my inquiries, like asking him to explain how I worship Roman paganism. After the umpteenth time of having him ignore my inquiry I decided to give him a taste of his own medicine. If he can make broad, general comments about Christians, I'll make a broad, general comment about him. He didn't like it. And for some reason you really didn't like it either. It was a joke. I don't know why you got so serious about it, and started rationalizing how there are more Christian trolls – and that I can't believe in evolution and Jesus – you started getting a little out there.
"I don't know why you got so serious about it, and started rationalizing how there are more Christian trolls"
I'm not "so serious" about it. I just find it interesting that I observe a much higher proportion of trolls who are Christians or pretend to be.
"and that I can't believe in evolution and Jesus – you started getting a little out there."
I'm not questioning whether or not you believe in both of those things – obviously you can and it seems you do. I am simply pointing out how irrational it seems. On one hand, you consider the majority of the bible to be a collection of various works of fiction, although you don't like using that term for some reason. On the other hand, you apparently believe some of the miraculous stuff that conflicts with what science tells us. It just seems strange that you are logical and intelligent enough to realize most of the bible is fiction, but then for some reason you suspend logic for the Jesus stuff.
There are 66 books, by 40 authors, in different languages, from different cultures, over the course of 1600 years. Some of it is fictional. I have never denied that. But not all of it is.
Some of The DaVinci Code is fiction...but not all of it is. I suppose it would be just a logical to base a religion off of that as the bible.
Go for it, dude.
That is not what I base my religion on. The Bible points to God. For me it represents the highs and the lows of the human struggle to understand God and what he expects of us. Other books do this, too. I don't worship the Bible, though. I find God outside of the Bible. I turned to the Bible after finding God.
Huh, and all this time I thought I simply wanted to love God, keep His commandments, and be a disciple of His Son.
you can love one or two or even all three of your Christian gods. Or even some of your Christian demigods like the devil or the angels or the saints. There is quite a selection.
You should also look at Hinduism. They have lots of gods for you to choose from and love.
Yeah, the history of a religion and its beliefs is often overlooked – christianity has often incorporated rituals and festivals of the religions it displaced. For relatively modern examples look at the Caribbean and Latin America.
Well, I'd be more than happy to introduce you to a little theological term we call the "Trinity" . You know, 3 in 1, the Godhead, distinct personalities and yet one in essence?
Perhaps you are more familiar with the term in the context of the " unholy trinity" : Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens ?
ahhhh, the trinity. A more desperate piece of mental gymnastics has never been conceived. So desperate ere Christians to try and cover up their polytheism that they came up with something so laughably foolish that they have to resort to inane analogies to try and explain it. (now sit back and watch the different analogies flow ...)
Are you under the impression that Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens are/were the same person?
Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that their religion is monotheistic is able to rationalize anything.
Santa
Yes, I am. It was finalized at the First Council at Nicaea.
No no no, we don't believe in three gods, we believe in one. You see, there are three different gods, but in this case, 3 = 1. Why is that so hard to understand? We call this math "The Trinity". Another unique thing about our math is that 4.54 billion = about 6 thousand. I don't know why people don't think we should be teaching this stuff in schools...
ddog
The fact that you can neither conceive of nor understand the doctrine of the Trinity has no relevance to its truthfulness
Sea
I see your point. I'll put my mind back in the box in order to prevent me from considering realities of existence other than that of my own human form.
"The fact that you can neither conceive of nor understand the doctrine of the Trinity has no relevance to its truthfulness"
It is not suprising that you think that, but it is a little surprising that you'd actually admit it. The fact that the things you believe in are inconceivable and not understandable to millions of highly intelligent adults should have a great deal of relevance to whether or not you think it's true.
If something is true, that absolutely has a causal relationship with that something being conceivable and understandable.
The concept of the Triune God is not exclusive to, nor did it originate with Christianity.
Hindus worship Brahman, the One True God in three persons, Barhma, Vishnu and Shiva (Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer) and were doing so for thousands of years before the Abrahamic religions cropped up.
From the Puranas (a Hindu holy book some 3,000 years old):
'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'
And then there are the non-trinitarian sects of Christianity....
"I'll put my mind back in the box"
By all means, keep it out and turn it on. Make sure the batteries are working too. If you continue to think 3 = 1, we might have to call techical support.
Sea
Perhaps you overlooked the use of the pronoun "YOU' ? Really does alter my reply.
"Perhaps you overlooked the use of the pronoun "YOU' ? Really does alter my reply."
No, I didn't overlook it. The fact that most people on the planet think your beliefs are completely crazy, and the fact that the smarter those people are, the more likely they are to think your beliefs are crazy, should be relevant to you. It clearly suggests that what you believe is not true. It should make you wonder why you're the one with weird views that don't make sense and aren't shared with people who are smarter than you.
ddeevviinn
that is true. My opinion does not make it true or not.
But that the doctrine of the Trinity is so laughably desperate in it's attempts to explain the unexplainable, is a big indication of its untruthfulness.
SeaVik
I don't see anyone saying your views or beliefs are intelligent, rational or desirable. Except for you.
You are stretching the truth if you imagine everyone thinks his beliefs are crazy, just because you do. Most people are not anti-theists who spend all day on religion blogs trying to talk people out of their beliefs in God. Maybe you are the crazy one.
"I don't see anyone saying your views or beliefs are intelligent, rational or desirable. Except for you."
We have been through this before. We know there is a direct correlation between intelligence and atheism. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist.. We know that the best scientists in the world are by a large majority, atheists. If you don't see that intelligence and atheism are related, you're not paying attention. The fact that there are some dumb atheists and some smart Christians does not negate this.
"You are stretching the truth if you imagine everyone thinks his beliefs are crazy, just because you do."
I didn't say everyone. But the vast majority of the world's population do not believe that the Christian god created adam and eve and that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So yes, the vast majority of the world's population thinks his beliefs are crazy.
And you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. He believes it is 6,000 years old or so. Considering you think he's 4,499,994,000 years off from reality, I would think you'd think he's crazy too.
Any idiot can be an atheist. Just because you are an atheist, doesn't mean you are smart.
Nope. Most scientists are not atheists. More are agnostic. And not many are anti-theists.
These are logical fallacies you are falling back on.
"Any idiot can be an atheist"
But they tend to believe in deities, the smarter the person, the less likely they are to believe in "god".
That means that if they are an idiot, they would tend to be a believer.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Neither is theism and agnosticism.
"Any idiot can be an atheist. Just because you are an atheist, doesn't mean you are smart."
Absolutely correct. In fact, I even included that possibility in my post. The fact is only that being smart increases the changes that you'll be an atheist. It doesn't guarentee it. Being an idiot increases the chances that you'll be a Christian, but that also is by no means guarenteed.
"Nope. Most scientists are not atheists. More are agnostic. And not many are anti-theists."
As I said, we have been through this. I'm not going to re-post all of the evidence I've already provided. If you want to continue to deny the fact that science and atheism are correlated, so be it. Clearly the evidence won't convince you.
I don't know what an anti-theist is. Sounds like a political view.
Anti-theists are atheists that try to convince believers that belief in God is inferior to atheism.
I would say agnosticism and science are closer linked. Not atheism at all. Why has science flourished in predominately Christian nations? I don't think atheists deserve all or even most of the credit.
Look at Nobel Prize winners – most are not atheists.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-plato-can-save-your-life/201106/the-scientific-atheism-fallacy-how-science-declares-god-is-
"Anti-theists are atheists that try to convince believers that belief in God is inferior to atheism."
How is that different than any other atheist? Or do you consider the standard atheist to be a closet atheist since that has been the historical standard due to the societal scrutiny from the religious? We all think the other views are inferior to our own – if we didn't, we'd change our view.
As I've said, I'm not going to get into it with you again about the fact that science and atheism are correlated. I've presented the evidence and you've ignored it. I'm convinced your mind will not be changed and would rather agree to disagree than waste my time.
Some atheists just don't believe in God. But they don't feel the need to insist atheism is better than theism. Or tell others that they are illogical and only atheism is logical.
Not all atheists are anti-theists. Try googling Anti-Theism vs. Secularism
dala
"Why has science flourished in predominately Christian nations?"
That wasn't always the case; admittedly the bigger advances have been but knowledge is cumulative in the scientific community. That doesn't prove a god or your god. For thousands, maybe millions, of years, supernatural was the only answer to questions like why does it rain, what does an eclipse mean, etc. We know that they have natural causes so supernatural is not required. That doesn't disprove a god, but you can't disprove leprechauns and you don't believe in them.
And some religious people just believe in their religion without persecuting others, committing genocide, brain-washing children or making laws that oppress those with different views. But the fact that there are so many who do is why I actively point out the problems with religion. If it didn't cause such issues, I would just laugh to myself at those who believe in those things.
I don't take issue with pointing out the problems with religion. There are problems that need to be pointed out. But being held as guilty by association is not fair. Especially when you seem so eager to label me as something I'm not.
"Especially when you seem so eager to label me as something I'm not."
I am not trying to accuse you of being responsible for those who fly planes into buildings in the name of religion. And I do think you're much more rational than some of the extremists like Theo, Topher and Devin who think the world is 6,000 years old. But you haven't been able to provide a logical explanation (in my view at least) as to how you can reconcile your claim that the bible is not a work of fiction with your belief in evolution. I view you as someone intelligent enough to realize that science has a lot more merit than the bible, but wants to believe in a god (for reasons I don't know) and so tries to figure out ways to reconcile disparate concepts. I think most Christians fall in the same boat.
But I don't think you are rational at all.
– That doesn't prove a god or your god.
I didn't say it did, you silly goose.
Not this time, but surely that's what this is about. Science isn't in conflict with belief – the implication being that your god exists and the fact that the bible is incorrect means nothing and doesn't really undermine the only evidence for your god.
No. You are just a silly goose that tries to turn everything into proving God doesn't exist. It seems to be all you think about.
So what are you saying and how does it pertain to evidence for a god?
I was asking a question of SeaVik, who said that science and atheism are correlated.
The fact that most Christian nations have been friendly to science is not the evidence that proves God to me.
Well as you never say what that evidence is – that's no surprise. You say that the creation myth of the bible explains what science cannot – without explaining what and how. Science shows that the creation myths are all incorrect. If you hypothesize that there was a god pre-Big Bang well that is one of a very large number of possibilities and science of course cannot disprove that.
"But I don't think you are rational at all."
No surprise there – you believe in a sky fairy. I think that's insane, so it makes sense that you don't find me to be rational. Perhaps if you can provide some information on what you find to be irrational, we can pin point where we disagree. So far, you haven't been able to explain how you reconcile the bible, which claims Adam and Eve were created by a supernatural being thousands of years ago, with evolution, which shows us that we as a species evolved over millions of years.
Don't feel guilty for not being able to answer the question. There is no good answer – you hold an illogical view. The sooner you realize it, the easier it will be for you to make sense.
What the Bible tells me and what evolution shows me isn't a contradiction. I don't know how science proves to you the creation myths are wrong. If that works for you, good for you. It doesn't for me.
"It’s hard to believe that any ancient writer would have penned the Genesis story for the sake of recording good science. If that was the author’s intent, he (or they) failed miserably. The early chapters of Genesis make for lousy empirical science. Not that this has kept numbers of Christians from trying to cram every dinosaur jawbone, distant galaxy and Grand Canyon formation into the span of the last 6,000 years.
The Genesis story was never meant to tell us how the world was created. It is rather a masterful treatise for informing us who created this floating orb in its magnificent universe. From the story, we learn that God appreciates beauty, design and order over ugliness, nonsense and chaos. One doesn’t have to tread far into Scripture before discovering that humans were created for relationship with God and one another. These convictions of faith are hardly at the heart of scientific inquiry."
That is along the guidelines of what they teach in my church. I have no issue with believing in evolution as the scientific explanation of human development and what Genesis teaches me about our relationship with our Creator.
Here is a viewpoint different from yours:
"Since evolutionism is not primarily a religious belief, try to leave religion out of it. Even if you are an atheist, do not use evolutionary theory in your attempts to disprove the existence of god(s), because evolution doesn't disprove God's existence. Evolution does show that the Biblical creation story is not to be taken literally, as well as the story of Noah's Ark. But there are alternative ways to interpret these stories. It is a logical fallacy to assert that because one interpretation is wrong they all must be. In the same vein, if a creationist asks you to explain the origin of the universe during a debate on evolution, say he's gone off topic. Biological evolution has nothing to say on the origin of the universe."
http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Evolutionism-Against-Creationism
Article on how a Christian can view evolution
http://www.bethinking.org/does-evolution-disprove-creation/is-it-possible-to-be-a-christian-and-believe-in-evolution
"Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the Fall. Not so. The Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed his image on representative H..mo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called H..mo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God, but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3:8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical Fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28:11-19)."
"Evolution does show that the Biblical creation story is not to be taken literally,"
Ok...so you admit the bible is a work of fiction, but continue to deny that the bible is a work of fiction. Perhaps you can see why I find your position to be full of contradictions.
Quit trying to put words in my mouth. Seriously. It wouldn't be hard for me to play your same kind of games. And I don't believe you would appreciate it being done to you.
I wouldn't simply refer to it as a work of fiction. First off, I'm just referring to the origin story with those quotes and references. It is like a fictional work, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. And I'm not certain what the story is, to be honest. It is the truth that it unveils that is important. The Bible is a collection of stories, histories, myths, parables, poetry, songs, laws, personal thoughts, letters, instructions, wise sayings, geneaologies, testimonies, opinions, etc. It is difficult for me to categorize it all.
Dala
Difficult to categorise for you indeed but you do have 2000 years of apologetics to fall back on. I assume you disagree with some of the Christian posters that the bible is the inerrant word of god what with all the personal thoughts and opinions of mere mortals that are included in the text.
Dalahast – " The Bible is a collection of stories, histories, myths, parables, poetry, songs, laws, personal thoughts, letters, instructions, wise sayings, geneaologies, testimonies, opinions, etc."
I think most atheists/agnostics would agree with that description–the main difference would involve not accepting the supernatural elements of the stories, myths, etc.
Without God, what many things the Bible describes are impossible. At least from my understanding of the world. I strive to remain open-minded on this. It tends to be the best approach in my experience.
"The Bible is a collection of stories, histories, myths, parables, poetry, songs, laws, personal thoughts, letters, instructions, wise sayings, geneaologies, testimonies, opinions, etc. It is difficult for me to categorize it all."
I am not intending to put words in your mouth. The majority of what you just described would be accurately described as a work of fiction. It's just a matter of semantics that you don't want to say it directly. Given the majority of what you described would be considered works of fiction, I have no idea why you or anyone else would conclude that the bible should be used as a source of factual information.
It can be a source of factual information. It is just not the only source of all factual information. If you want to talk about God and how He relates to His creation, I believe it is a good source to turn to. Anyway, when did I say it should be used as a source of factual information? I don't think there is any book, discipline, method or system that can be considered the only source of factual information. Only something like a God could be that kind of source.
"Anyway, when did I say it should be used as a source of factual information?"
You have repeatedly denied the claim that the bible is a work of fiction. If you think it's a non-fiction book, that implies that you think it is a source of factual information.
I didn't say it was non-fiction. I said it is a collection of different types of literature. Some of it is fiction, yes. Jesus used parables, which were obviously not meant to be taken literal. But those parables did reveal truths that are relevant. Sometimes matter-of-fact writings are not very helpful in discovering truths, values and meaning.
Ok, so the bible is a work of fiction. You have denied this in the past. Pretty much all fiction books have some truth in them for context, but they're still works of fiction.
No. It would be ignorant of me to say the Bible is a work of fiction. Or a work of non-fiction. It is a collection of different books. It contains different literary techniques. Some is clearly meant to be taken as fictional. But not all of it.
If you think the Bible is all fiction that is fine. But I don't.
ahhh ... the true essence of religion.
Oppress or kill all those who believe in a different imaginary sky daddy than you do.
That was my first thought. It could have been ti tled "Getting Back to Basics".