CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
The story of Noah's Ark in the Old Testement asserts that 'Noah' built a ship of gopher wood, 300 cubits (or 440 feet) long, that would eventually house two of every of the millions of species of animals that inhabit the earth today. These animals were apperently compelled to travel to noah, (flying over or swimming though oceans?), board the ship willingly, and not eat one another for the duration of the trip. These are the remenants of life on earth that god apparently spared during a flood which was sent due to mankinds evil deeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahs_Ark
Jonah son ofappears in 2 Kings in the Old Testament as a prophet from Gath-Hepher (a few miles north of Nazareth) active during the reign of Jeroboam II (c.786-746 BC), where he predicts that Jeroboam will recover certain lost territories. Jonah is purposely thrown overboard by his shipmates and is eaten by a "great fish". Jonah spends 3 days and 3 nights apparently living without water or oxygen inside of the stomach of the fish before he preys to God and God makes the fish vomit him out.
In the story of Adam and Eve in genesis, Adam is created by God from a handful of dirt. Eve is created by god from a rib taken from Adams chest. This apparently occurs on the 6th day of creation. Adam and Eve are then commanded to name the various animals who exist in the exact form that they do today. Evolution is not implied or mentioned at all.
I believe that Noah's ark, Jonah and the Whale and Adam and Eve actually happened. Adam and Eve were the first human beings on this earth and that's how we got populated because through male and female.
Jonah and the whale symbolizes that if Jonah was in the whale 3 days and 3 nights so was the Son of Man (Jesus) would lay in His tomb for three days to the resurrection.
Okay so please explain how, on 'Noah's Ark', the lions didn't eat the zebras? How did two of EVERY living species get on that ark? How did the flies get on, the bacteria? It's impossible. Where did all the wood come from to make it, the Amazon? Cause believe you me to make a boat that size requires A LOT of material.
Adam and Eve...the Genesis story right? Oh wait.. the SECOND Genesis story.. don't you find that just a tad suspicious that the OT tells of a fiery, war-like warrior God and then the NT describes how 'loving and forgiving' God is...? Contradictory? I think so.
Okay so please explain how, on 'Noah's Ark', the lions didn't eat the zebras? How did two of EVERY living species get on that ark? How did the flies get on, the bacteria? It's impossible. Where did all the wood come from to make it, the Amazon? Cause believe you me to make a boat that size requires A LOT of material.
I don't know what happened inside the ark. It never says in the Bible what happened in the ark. What I can predict is that God probably tamed the animals to not fight or to not do thing to each other.
The wood? Isn't it obvious? Trees? And it worked the ark they actually built a replica of it.
Adam and Eve...the Genesis story right? Oh wait.. the SECOND Genesis story.. don't you find that just a tad suspicious that the OT tells of a fiery, war-like warrior God and then the NT describes how 'loving and forgiving' God is...? Contradictory? I think so.
I can point out that back when Adam and Eve were created the snakes has arms and legs but then once the serpent tempted Eve and then they sinned God said from now on you will crawl on your belly for the rest of your life and we have snakes crawl on their bellies.
and i can point out that God lied and the serpent told the truth!
God told Adam that the day he eats the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will die.
the serpent said No you won't die, you will learn the difference between good and evil
Eve and Adam ate the fruit
THEY DID NOT DIE! Adam lived 930 more years - they learned the difference between good and evil - just like the serpent said (and like the name of the tree would suggest)
Just to cut it of at the pass for those who try to say that after eating the fruit they became destined to die, keep reading - there was also a tree of eternal life in the garden (the reason they were kicked out) which would not be necessary if they were going to live forever from the beginning.
If God exists (which he doesn't), isn't it just as likely that he is bad and just says he is good as it is that he is actually good? what evidence outside his own word (supposedly) is their for his character?
Holy shit, where did this guy come from? His genius is staggering.
What I can predict is that God probably tamed the animals to not fight or to not do thing to each other.
I have a few questions to ask since you seem so well informed. We're there aquariums on the ark to hold the freshwater fish? Because without aquariums how do you explain the existence of freshwater fish like trout here in this post-flood world. They would certainly die when saltwater flooded the earth.
The wood? Isn't it obvious? Trees? And it worked the ark they actually built a replica of it.
Yeah where did they get that wood? Noah lived in the desert didn't he? That replica must be made out of desert-wood right? Where is it? Can you link a picture? I'd like to see if it has aquariums and if it is big enough to hold tens of millions of species of animals, fish, plants and insects. I'm sure it is though. It must have had quite an impressive climate control system to recreate tens of millions of unique habitats. I would really like to see that.
I can point out that back when Adam and Eve were created the snakes has arms and legs but then once the serpent tempted Eve and then they sinned God said from now on you will crawl on your belly for the rest of your life and we have snakes crawl on their bellies.
I have to say I'm quite impressed. I'm glad god took away their arms and legs. Those snakes were getting all uppity.
Are you asking me about the Holy Bible of fairy tales? Pick one.
It is completely unfair to put it into one question implying that the holy bible is untrue without question. Which is funny because one who is mocking Christianity is usually an atheist who claims to rely on science.
So tell me how scientific is it to assume Christianity to be false without question?? It's laughable how unscientific atheists tend to be when poking fun at Christians.
Tell me how scientific it is to assume Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc are fiction. It can be safely assumed that the stories in the bible are no more valid than the stories in the books I just referenced.
They're quite loaded with physically impossible things, according to the current laws of physics. Oh and please don't try appealing to future evidence regarding the laws of physics. That would be a logical fallacy.
"Tell me how scientific it is to assume Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc are fiction."
That's not an assumption. We know J.K. Rowling is a person who admittedly wrote fiction as did Tolkien. We have their birth records. Comments on what inspired their writing etc.
The bible however is inspired of God. Yes written by prophets who are men. So it's a different ballgame.
But even if you don't believe that, it still doesn't make sense to directly compare the two ideas as you did.
The idea I was referencing was the fact that the Bible was written by mortal humans. I apologize for exaggerating a bit and not being so clear. I do not doubt that the Bible was inspired by the idea of God, that doesn't mean God is real.
Actually it can't be. The Bible matches up pretty accurately with archaeological findings from that period of time.
I don't know. I found some evidence to the contrary, regarding the Bible's supposed spectacular track record for being accurate. So I believe my initial statement still stands.
Even the website Troy8 linked is bullshit. Even though it is from a Christian website it does not support his claim. Allow me provide a few quotes from it.
Although archaeology cannot prove that the Bible's accounts are true, it certainly does not disprove them,
For much of the New Testament, we do not have any independent evidence one way or the other.
Is there any specific archaeological evidence you'd like to point to? For instance, can you provide any evidence at all that the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt? Is there any evidence for the garden, or the Ark or anything that happened in the old testament that you'd like us to consider?
No actually, we don't even need science in this case. We only need logic and freaking common sense. Also, atheists are extremely scientific when disproving christianity what the hell are you talking about? We don't even need science half the time. There's also logic, reason, common sense, historical fact, and lack of such for god. And rarely do we "poke fun". Mainly we give very detailed supported evidence that you either make excuses for or deny altogether. And actually it is fair to question the factuality of the bible as a whole. Historically and Scientifically it has been proven absolutely non factual. Save for a handfull of people and places.
Pick up a dictionary or do an internet search on your terminology. To know something is to have direct and certain cognitive knowledge based upon factuality. You do not believe what you "know" is truth; you believe what you believe is truth. You have faith, but you do not actually know.
No, I do not and I think the semantics are important. Your argument for why they are not myths is that you are "believing in what you know is the truth." However, if you do not actually know if it is the truth and only believe it, then you have done nothing to prove that the Bible is not a collection of myths because you have not given any actual reason beyond faith to believe it is true.
A story can make you a better person even though it isn't true.
Once there was boy who lied to his mother. Then he had to be punished, because he disobeyed his parents. His punishment was, that he would take care of the pigs in the pigpen. It was very gross in there, and he did not like this job.
He begged his mother to let him go, he promised that he would never ever lie again.
So the mother let him go, and since then the little boy never told another lie.
What did we learn from that really boring story I just wrote? You shouldn't lie.
Therefore you just made yourself a better person by reading a story which wasn't real.
They create moral guidlenes for people to follow, they also encourage us to help one another and make a better society. Unlike the atheistic "Survival of the Fittest" which infers that you should do everything for yourself.
Religion offers moral guidelines the same way a dog school trains pets; through reward and punishment. If you're a good dog, you get the treat, if you're a bad dog, you get the whip; if you're a good Christian you get the heaven, if you're not a Christian you get the hell. The morals religion imparts are always imparted under threat of eternal punishment. So really this isn't sound morality so much as social conditioning. You don't abstain from lying, stealing, raping, and killing because you know these are shitty things to do to your fellow man, you abstain because you're afraid of the wrath of an intangible, supposedly divine entity. I would rather be surrounded by people who are genuinely good people, not people who have been frightened into being good by some imagined celestial thug. Would you be comfortable sitting next to someone on the bus if you knew the only thing holding that person back from immoral and potentially harmful actions were the voices in that someone's head?
Also while it's true that some religious organizations do encourage helping one another to improve society, the idea of religion has done more to further separate the human race into "us" and "them." It has imposed another barrier, like culture, language, ethnicity, or nationality, only this barrier is completely unnecessary. Because of religion, you can be sure that people in the world hate you for your religious beliefs (even if you don't have any), because of their religious beliefs. So in this sense religion cultivates separation, segregation, competition and division in society as a whole, not makes society better.
Also, if some of the fairy tales in the Bible had attached morals the way "The Tortise and the Hare" teaches "slow and steady wins the race," the Bible would teach some pretty fucked up shit. For example, the myth of the Tower of Babel teaches us that working together to achieve something great is a punishable insult to god. The story of the flood teaches us, "if at first you don't succeed, kill everyone and start over." The fable of the Plagues in Egypt teach that if you can't get someone to do what you want, hurt them and make them miserable and frightened until they do what you want.
if you're a good Christian you get the heaven, if you're not a Christian you get the hell.
NZ: Not quite. Not all good Christians will go to heaven. A whole lot of them will live on a cleansed earth forever. See Psalm 37:11, 29, Proverbs 2:21, Matthew 5:5. "The meek shall inherit the EARTH."
Only a few among men are chosen for heaven. (Revelation 7:14; 14:1-4)
Also, you don't go to hell as an eternal conscious pain process. Hell is the grave. People in graves are dead, and there is no thought or feeling or planning or anything going on when you're dead. (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10; Revelation 20:13, 14)
I was speaking in general terms. Either way it's a reward/punishment method involving threats and coersion, and that's what I dislike about it, not the specific semantics.
Speaking of specifics, why all the verses about a lake of fire if Hell is really just the grave? If when our life force is snuffed out we are unable to think, feel, plan, or do anything, and this is your rational for asserting that Hell doesn't exist in the classical sense, how would anyone be able to get into heaven? It is, after all, a reward you can only reap by dying.
For evidence of hell in the classical sense, as a place of physical, mental, and spiritual suffering, see the books of Mark, Luke, Jude, Revelations, Thessalonians, and, well, most of the NT.
"Religion offers moral guidelines the same way a dog school trains pets; through reward and punishment. If you're a good dog, you get the treat, if you're a bad dog, you get the whip; if you're a good Christian you get the heaven, if you're not a Christian you get the hell."
At least religion offers moral guidelines, as opposed to the evolutionary thinking that if you cannot survive alone or your existence doesn't benefit others you deserve to die.
"You don't abstain from lying, stealing, raping, and killing because you know these are shitty things to do to your fellow man, you abstain because you're afraid of the wrath of an intangible, supposedly divine entity."
We also don't do those things because their bad things to do, if religion didn't tell us not to commit those acts where would we learn it from?
"I would rather be surrounded by people who are genuinely good people, not people who have been frightened into being good by some imagined celestial thug."
I think you'll find the teachings of Jesus, such as "Do unto others as you would have do unto you", don't threaten people with eternal damnation.
"Would you be comfortable sitting next to someone on the bus if you knew the only thing holding that person back from immoral and potentially harmful actions were the voices in that someone's head?"
Would you rather sit next to someone on the bus who's thinking "the only thing stopping me mugging you is the law".
" It has imposed another barrier, like culture, language, ethnicity, or nationality, only this barrier is completely unnecessary. Because of religion, you can be sure that people in the world hate you for your religious beliefs (even if you don't have any), because of their religious beliefs. So in this sense religion cultivates separation, segregation, competition and division in society as a whole, not makes society better."
That's ridiculous, you're saying religion intentionally caused "separation, segregation, competition and division" because it makes people think something else to other people? Likewise I could say atheism causes separation, segregation, competition and division" for the same reasons. In fact atheists are worse because they feel a moral right to insult people with religious beliefs because they are "curing" them of "stupidity".
"For example, the myth of the Tower of Babel teaches us that working together to achieve something great is a punishable insult to god."
Tower of Babel teaches us humility, how do you know it was the whole population "working together" and not some megalomaniac of a dictator who saw himself as God? Either way, the real moral lesson of the Tower of Babel is dont idolise yourself.
"The story of the flood teaches us, "if at first you don't succeed, kill everyone and start over."
The Great Flood says, only good people deserve to live (to put it bluntly).
"The fable of the Plagues in Egypt teach that if you can't get someone to do what you want, hurt them and make them miserable and frightened until they do what you want."
I think it's more of don't make people into slaves.
I don't really see crude coercion as moral guidelines.
We also don't do those things because their bad things to do, if religion didn't tell us not to commit those acts where would we learn it from?
Religion didn't come up with the idea that killing is bad, society did. And then society came up with religion. It should be pretty obvious that for any society to function well there cannot be indiscriminate rape, theft, murder, and such.
I think you'll find the teachings of Jesus, such as "Do unto others as you would have do unto you", don't threaten people with eternal damnation.
Comparatively Jesus was a much better kind of guy than god is, but he was the one who pushed the idea of eternal damnation in the first place. Understandable, as he was trying to civilize a bunch of savages, but still his message wasn't all light and love and forgiveness; he had a dark side.
Would you rather sit next to someone on the bus who's thinking "the only thing stopping me mugging you is the law
I don't think the atheist ideology has a lot of concern for the law. If an atheist is or isn't mugging you it probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with his atheism. So I don't think your example works, here. But if it did, I would rather have someone withhold a mugging for the sake of the law (because that's actually based on something real) and not for the sake of religious law.
That's ridiculous, you're saying religion intentionally caused "separation, segregation, competition and division" because it makes people think something else to other people?
Yes I am. I think. I don't really understand the bit about thinking something to others.
Likewise I could say atheism causes separation, segregation, competition and division" for the same reasons.
Atheism is the default state of being. Religion was created and imposed and used for discrimination, whereas a lack of religion has existed since the dawn of man.
In fact atheists are worse because they feel a moral right to insult people with religious beliefs because they are "curing" them of "stupidity".
I can't speak for all atheists and all religions, but generally I give as much respect to someone/something as it does to me. Religions like Christianity and Islam do not respect me, in fact they make a point of insulting people like me, so I should not be required to respect them. I feel a moral right to insult someone who insults me, yes, and i think this is more valid than a religious person claiming the moral right to insult someone because a book written by some long-dead desert nomads tells them they have that right.
how do you know it was the whole population "working together" and not some megalomaniac of a dictator who saw himself as God?
Because god responded to this "insult" by destroying our language, shattering and fragmenting it so that it would be next to impossible for people to work together. If people hadn't been working together, making people unable to communicate with one another would have been a pretty useless response on gods part.
But also, it's in the Bible: "1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."
Either way, the real moral lesson of the Tower of Babel is dont idolise yourself.
What? The Tower of Babel was constructed for the purpose of uniting and empowering humanity, as well as to scope out Heaven. God saw what was going on, and was afraid of what they might have achieved, working together as they were. According to Genisis, he said: "5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city."
Dick move, man! This might have been about teaching humility the same way a mob boss beating the shit out of one of his thugs is about teaching humility, but I don't see how working together for the greater good is "idolizing" ourselves, and I don't see why God felt the need to be such a prick about it.
The Great Flood says, only good people deserve to live (to put it bluntly).
And if you followed that moral model you would quickly find yourself in prison for life without the chance for parole. Which was kind of my point.
I think it's more of don't make people into slaves.
A fair point, but my own point about how god went about getting what he wanted in this regard goes undisputed; suffering, violence, and threats are god's tools of the trade.
If god made us in his image, that might explain why we're such a violent species; if we made god in our image, which i think is more likely, that explains why he is burdened with all of our fatal flaws as humans; pride, anger, cruelty, and violence. It all makes sense, when you think about it. God is such a savage, violent entity because he was created by uncivilized barbarians.
"I don't really see crude coercion as moral guidelines."
My point is that atheism doesn't offer moral guidelines.
"Religion didn't come up with the idea that killing is bad, society did. And then society came up with religion. It should be pretty obvious that for any society to function well there cannot be indiscriminate rape, theft, murder, and such."
Why should people care for society when all that matters is their personal survival. If it is so "obvious" to each individual that rape, theft and murder are a threat to their wellbeing, why does it still happen?
"Comparatively Jesus was a much better kind of guy than god is, but he was the one who pushed the idea of eternal damnation in the first place. Understandable, as he was trying to civilize a bunch of savages, but still his message wasn't all light and love and forgiveness; he had a dark side."
What dark side?
"I don't think the atheist ideology has a lot of concern for the law. If an atheist is or isn't mugging you it probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with his atheism. So I don't think your example works, here. But if it did, I would rather have someone withhold a mugging for the sake of the law (because that's actually based on something real) and not for the sake of religious law."
Really? I would rather have someone following his own set of personal rules than for them to feel as if their forced to obey the laws of government which were set by someone they consider their equal.
"Yes I am. I think. I don't really understand the bit about thinking something to others."
You said religion causes barriers in society, this is because it makes people believe different things.
"Atheism is the default state of being. Religion was created and imposed and used for discrimination, whereas a lack of religion has existed since the dawn of man."
That's besides the point, atheism still causes barriers because it causes people to think differently to others.
"I can't speak for all atheists and all religions, but generally I give as much respect to someone/something as it does to me. Religions like Christianity and Islam do not respect me, in fact they make a point of insulting people like me, so I should not be required to respect them."
How do religions not respect you?
"I feel a moral right to insult someone who insults me, yes, and i think this is more valid than a religious person claiming the moral right to insult someone because a book written by some long-dead desert nomads tells them they have that right."
How does the Bible give Christians the moral right to insult people?
"Because god responded to this "insult" by destroying our language, shattering and fragmenting it so that it would be next to impossible for people to work together. If people hadn't been working together, making people unable to communicate with one another would have been a pretty useless response on gods part."
Making people speak different languages is hardly a punishment.
"What? The Tower of Babel was constructed for the purpose of uniting and empowering humanity, as well as to scope out Heaven. God saw what was going on, and was afraid of what they might have achieved, working together as they were."
The people of Babel, saw themselves equal to God. Hence they wanted to build a tower to the heavens to show that they're all-powerful. Thus, God teaches them humility by showing them that they're not all powerful.
"Dick move, man! This might have been about teaching humility the same way a mob boss beating the shit out of one of his thugs is about teaching humility, but I don't see how working together for the greater good is "idolizing" ourselves, and I don't see why God felt the need to be such a prick about it."
A strange comparision, making a civilization speak different languages can hardly be compared to "a mob boss beating the shit out of one of his thugs".
"And if you followed that moral model you would quickly find yourself in prison for life without the chance for parole. Which was kind of my point."
It doesn't states, kill bad people. The moral is that only good people deserve to live and also that only God should have the power to kill.
"A fair point, but my own point about how god went about getting what he wanted in this regard goes undisputed; suffering, violence, and threats are god's tools of the trade.
If god made us in his image, that might explain why we're such a violent species; if we made god in our image, which i think is more likely, that explains why he is burdened with all of our fatal flaws as humans; pride, anger, cruelty, and violence. It all makes sense, when you think about it. God is such a savage, violent entity because he was created by uncivilized barbarians."
I'm not going to quote hundreds of scriptures about God showing his love to humanity and all that because you should have seen them when you were picking out those previous scriptures.
My point is that atheism doesn't offer moral guidelines.
My point is, neither does Christianity. You wouldn't call teaching a dog not to eat off the table by whipping him teaching the dog moral guidelines, you would call that training.
Why should people care for society when all that matters is their personal survival. If it is so "obvious" to each individual that rape, theft and murder are a threat to their wellbeing, why does it still happen?
Because society benefits personal survival. You scratch societies back and it scratches yours. I don't think that this is evident to everyone; there is a small minority (not an exclusively atheist minority, either) that will still perpetuate crimes against society.
What dark side?
Most of the frightful and coercive verses about hellfire and eternal damnation come from the NT, from Jesus.
Really? I would rather have someone following his own set of personal rules
So would I, but that's not a description of religious morals.
That's besides the point, atheism still causes barriers because it causes people to think differently to others.
Okay. Fair enough. But there is no generally accepted atheist dogma that preaches hatred, separation, and discrimination against another group of people, in any small or large way. This is not true of religion. So atheism might "cause" inevitable barriers in society by "causing" people to think how they would without the influence of religion, but religion oftentimes takes this to a whole different and altogether more extreme level, and that's what I was getting at by saying religion imposes needless barriers in society.
How do religions not respect you?
By frequently labeling me as a blaspheming infidel swine, a heretical kafir non-believer, a worthless, wretched sinner, and a god-less, hedonistic heathen. I am these things as defined by religious texts and religious dogma. And, again, I see telling someone they'll fry forever for being true to who they are as a person as a sick form a psychological assault, not to mention disrespectful.
How does the Bible give Christians the moral right to insult people?
"Sinner" is an insult, and there is a common misconception with Christians that their religion is for the purpose of converting and "saving" people, which inevitably leads them to labeling people as sinners and then attempting to convince them that they are in fact sinful.
Making people speak different languages is hardly a punishment.
If you woke up tomorrow and found that the language of Great Britain had been fragmented and shattered, and almost everyone you know (and many more you don't) now are unable to communicate with you in any meaningful way, save for a small handful of people you can still talk to, you wouldn't be a little upset about that?
The people of Babel, saw themselves equal to God. Hence they wanted to build a tower to the heavens to show that they're all-powerful. Thus, God teaches them humility by showing them that they're not all powerful.
Seems to me if they weren't all powerful god wouldn't have had to intervene, preventing them from reaching heaven. And again, if you read the verse god seems to acknowledge that hen humanity works together as one they can do whatever they put their minds to, which is in keeping with some later verses from Jesus about the kingdom of heaven being within, and anyone being able to do what he did. So god responded to this awesome display of human will by shattering humanity's unity. Egotistical prick. Dick move.
A strange comparision, making a civilization speak different languages can hardly be compared to "a mob boss beating the shit out of one of his thugs".
Perhaps not, but it's not like god impressed us with his powers of diplomacy or reason to get us to back off, he just kicked humanity down a rung. The Tower of Babel is the primitive myth to explain why there are so many different languages and cultures and people; if god is responsible for humanity's change from a unified people to the warring, clashing nations we are today, that's a major blow to human kind. And Babel aside, there are plenty of other instances where god shows us who is boss in a very brutal and fairly sinister way.
I'm not going to quote hundreds of scriptures about God showing his love to humanity and all that because you should have seen them when you were picking out those previous scriptures.
I'm sure you can find those scriptures. I'm equally certain I can find scriptures of an altogether more cruel, merciless god. Scripture is just a tool; more often than not it reads how you want it to read. You can find Biblical support for almost any idea, for almost any opinion. Because the Bible contains both of these elements, rage and love, vengeance and mercy, I conclude that gods love for us is similar to that of an abusive husbands love for his wife. There's clearly some connection or attachment, but it's perverted and twisted by violence and cruelty.
Congrats. You got me to post scripture to support my argument. I never do that. I loathe doing that, mainly because scripture is a tool to be interpreted and used as the whim of the reader, but I think the verses I chose were fairly unambiguous and to the point.
I tend not to include scripture in religious debates as most atheists would moan at me for it. But so far I've rather enjoyed arguing with you, as you're one of the few atheists whos arguments aren't based on "Christianity is stupid, ergo you are stupid, ergo I win".
I don't really mind small, specific bits of scripture used to support theist/atheist arguments, it's when people post verse after verse to support their cliche notions of god that annoys me.
And I enjoy debating you because you're one of the few theists whos arguments aren't based on "It's in the Bible so it must be true because the Bible is the word of God because it says so and the Bible is true because it's the word of god because... etc."
As if this person invented "survival of the fittest"?
Nature's law of "survival of the fittest" applies to us all whether we like it or not. It is the way of the world that we live in and is neither 'good' or bad'.... like gravity.
It also happens to be something that can be proven, unlike this silly book of fairly tales. There is a mountain of evidence to support "survival of the fittest" and not a shred of evidence that shows a magic man in the clouds made everything.
You are more than welcome to believe it, but don't try to call yourself rational at the same time, don't pretend this is a logical conclusion. You have faith, and so you believe in unprovable stories that defy science and reason. That's how it works.
"Nature's law of "survival of the fittest" applies to us all whether we like it or not. It is the way of the world that we live in and is neither 'good' or bad'.... like gravity."
So if I kill my neighbour because his garden hedge "invades my territory" that's just nature and "is the way of the world that we live in and is neither 'good' or bad'.... like gravity".
"It also happens to be something that can be proven, unlike this silly book of fairly tales. There is a mountain of evidence to support "survival of the fittest" and not a shred of evidence that shows a magic man in the clouds made everything."
If so, why do you feel the need to insult the other side so much? It only goes to show how close-minded you are.
"You are more than welcome to believe it, but don't try to call yourself rational at the same time, don't pretend this is a logical conclusion. You have faith, and so you believe in unprovable stories that defy science and reason. That's how it works."
Gravity, no-one can see it, no-one actually knows what it is. All we know is what it does, the only evidence for gravity is seeing what it causes. Are all the believers of "gravity" irrational as well?
"So if I kill my neighbour because his garden hedge "invades my territory" that's just nature and "is the way of the world that we live in and is neither 'good' or bad'.... like gravity"."
No that's not what I'm saying. But I don't think it is bad, anymore than it is bad for a ram to butt heads with another ram or a lion to kill a competitor lion. I certainly don't think, if your neighbor kills you, that it was the work of some Satan sowing evil throughout the world.
"why do you feel the need to insult the other side so much?"
Because I think it's funny... and really what is this box on my desk for if not to entertain me.... but really, it encourages people to post their thoughts if they feel their silly little beliefs are being attacked. As if their beliefs are so righteous. Christians need to know, and believe in their heart, (like the rest of us) that no one on this earth knows what the deal is here. No person knows for a fact what will happen when they die. Not one person. And yet we have this huge group of people walking around looking down at us and telling us they know, and can personally communicate with god. That's the problem.
Gravity has been tested scientifically since newton (a christian I know). It would be pretty silly to put up gravity against the Noahs ark theory in terms of evidence offered to support them. Science has proven mountains of concepts that backup newtons ideas of gravity. We know about terminal velocity, and how gravity effects mass, not volume, and how gravity not only holds us to the planet, it keeps us rotating around the sun, and the sun around the galaxy, and so on.
What science is there to back up one guy building a boat big enough for millions of species of animals to live in for 40 days?
"No that's not what I'm saying. But I don't think it is bad, anymore than it is bad for a ram to butt heads with another ram or a lion to kill a competitor lion. I certainly don't think, if your neighbor kills you, that it was the work of some Satan sowing evil throughout the world."
If a man goes around raping and killing innocent woman, would you consider it evil or "survival of the fittest"?
"Because I think it's funny... and really what is this box on my desk for if not to entertain me.... but really, it encourages people to post their thoughts if they feel their silly little beliefs are being attacked. As if their beliefs are so righteous. Christians need to know, and believe in their heart, (like the rest of us) that no one on this earth knows what the deal is here. No person knows for a fact what will happen when they die. Not one person. And yet we have this huge group of people walking around looking down at us and telling us they know, and can personally communicate with god. That's the problem."
Clearly you haven't met the several atheists on this site (you included) who act as if they are superior to others because science supposedly supports them and not religion, as you said "no person knows for a fact what will happen when they die", but you act as if religion is automatically false.
"Gravity has been tested scientifically since newton (a christian I know). It would be pretty silly to put up gravity against the Noahs ark theory in terms of evidence offered to support them. Science has proven mountains of concepts that backup newtons ideas of gravity. We know about terminal velocity, and how gravity effects mass, not volume, and how gravity not only holds us to the planet, it keeps us rotating around the sun, and the sun around the galaxy, and so on."
Yes, you've explained what gravity does. Now what actually is gravity?
Anyway, there is evidence to support Noah's Ark (mass fossil graveyards, amphibious fossils on mountains).
"What science is there to back up one guy building a boat big enough for millions of species of animals to live in for 40 days?"
Life wasn't as diverse then. We have several cross breeds of cats and canines (thousands of species of those) when all Noah wouldhave needed is a few of them.
What a messy, confused outlook on life you have. On your first point. I'm sorry, but that's what it is. Survival of the fittest explains the situation much better than Satan or a mysterious evil that permeates everything.
So no, when I look at the millions murdered in the name of god, and the ongoing child rape that goes on regularly in the catholic church and is defended by the pope, I do not think these things are a work of evil devils. I think murder and rape are quite commonplace in this animal kingdom of which we are a part.
"Clearly you haven't met the several atheists on this site (you included)"
Clearly I am not included in that group. You find me on this very page supporting the idea of god as a creator. So I not an atheist. I am agnostic, I preach the gospel of I don't know, as everyone should.
"Yes, you've explained what gravity does. Now what actually is gravity? Anyway, there is evidence to support Noah's Ark (mass fossil graveyards, amphibious fossils on mountains)."
Gravity is a force of physics that applies to things with mass. It is a bi-product of the big bang. So that's exactly what gravity has been proven to be. What evidence have you? Where are the links to all this scientific evidence that supports the bible?
Let me enlighten you on something, since you are so disconnected with the truth of things.
"amphibious fossils on mountains"
Well this actually is evidence for the secular theory. One problem with this idea is that you used the plural 'mountains' which actually makes no sense at all if there was but one ark and one mount Ararat. Also, finding amphibious fossils on mountains slaps the Adam and eve-garden of Eden hypothesis in the face. Any fossil over 6-8 thousand years is a huge problem for you. Adam and Eve couldn't very well have named all the animals in a garden less that 10,000 years ago if we are looking at a fossil of an animal that lived 300,000 years ago. Modern science has answered the question of sea life on mountain tops and fish fossils in the desert.
Sorry to say, the evidence doesn't point to your silly biblical account that was written 1500 years ago after a 1000 year old game of telephone before it was ever written down. Why would it? These MEN knew nothing of science.
"What science is there to back up one guy building a boat big enough for millions of species of animals to live in for 40 days?"
"Life wasn't as diverse then. We have several cross breeds of cats and canines (thousands of species of those) when all Noah wouldhave needed is a few of them."
So you are reporting to us that you know this. "life wasn't as diverse then". I'm sorry if I don't take your silly, religious, uneducated, word for it. I think I'd rather trust Harvard and Oxford and the encyclopedia and Charles Darwin and my history teacher, and my natural sciences teacher and geology and anthropology and palaeontology and the mountains of PROOF that they offer. I think that's more reliable that a very uninformed guy with a religious book. What do you think?
You are more than welcome to believe it, but don't try to call yourself rational at the same time, don't pretend this is a logical conclusion. You have faith, and so you believe in unprovable stories that defy science and reason. That's how it works.
See, I don't agree with this. The existence of God is perfectly compatible with reason. What makes it so unreasonable?
Not all atheists follow that guide line although that tends to be true some (like myself) are good people although we don't believe in the biblical stories. Truthfully if you think about it, the theory of god doesn't make too much sense, where did he come from? Oh ya the imagination of a man named Abraham.
Actually, it was full of assumptions. The phrase "let us assume" (or other versions of it) appears over 200 times in his books The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man.
Anyway, it's nice of you to enter a debate with a completly closed-mind, how scientific of you.
I do not have a closed mind in any way. I see how I may have come across that way but i am not I try to believe and see peoples views in their religion. However, these stories to me make no sense to me. For example, people today, if they inbreed (which Adam and Eve had to do) children tend to be born with genetic defects such as down-syndrome and others, explain to me why that is a parent today but not then? Also Isn't it a sin to have intercourse with a family member? Another thing, when the first thoughts of evolution not much was known but today we have scientific evidence connecting us with animals that are nothing like us today! So, The tale of Adam and Eve was created to help people understand how we came to be (due to the fact we didn't know at the time) but has now been turned into a lesson. I didn't even come to that conclusion, to me it was just a story, but to all my Christan friends its a lesson that i didn't care enough to figure out lol. Nevertheless, people no longer believe in these stories they are now just life lesson stories to keep faith in what you believe which in my opinion, in most cases, is a positive thing, But these stories are not something of fact but life lesson, so if you expand you mind a little more you might see that. (btw that last sentence wasn't meant to be taken as an insult but opinion.)
(1) Biblical scripture provides a subjective moral framework, and while this can sometimes encourage individuals to help one another and contribute to society it has also been one of the foremost (if not the greatest) causes of human strife and conflict. It has been and continues to be used to justify discrimination and inequity within society, and has been used at least as often to reinforce personal prejudices as it has been to direct individuals towards "enlightenment."
(2) Not all atheists adhere to the simplistic "survival of the fittest" perspective you presented. As an atheist, I am of the strong opinion that individuals cannot act purely out of self-interest. I derive this not from a subjective faith, but from practical consideration of the facts and evidence available to me. Humans are biologically evolved to be sociable creatures, and our personal well-being is reliant upon the well-being of those with whom we share emotional attachments as well as the condition of our society at large.
....or else god will massacre thousands of innocent men, women, and children who never in their life enslaved anybody and the do absolutely nothing for every injustice after that.
Is that the lesson really? Don't make other people into slaves?
An early rule regarding slaves is found in Exodus 20:21 which stipulates that a slave owner must be punished if a slave dies after being beaten. Beating slaves was not forbidden in itself. Owning slaves was not forbidden but encouraged. The law books of the Bible also address the treatment of slaves. Leviticus 19:20 regulates sexual relations with slaves. Leviticus 22:11 concerns the possession of slaves by priests. Leviticus 25:42-44 forbids the sale of fellow Hebrews as slaves and stipulates that Jews had to buy slaves from the surrounding gentile nations.
So Axmeister, the Bible obviously endorses slave ownership. It even offers guidelines for managing one's human property. You'd think as a devout follower of the faith you would know that.
Anyway, as I was saying previously in the argument you said was a spam; do you literally believe it as true? I mean, any story could have a moral to make you a better person. ^_^
The purpose of the Bible isn't to be believable but is a vehicle for God to deliver His Word to His children. The Bible doesn't bare the burden of believability or to prove itself out to those that oppose it. Even more, it is clear from scripture that it is Gods intent to hide His truth from those that refuse to believe.
Yet, it can be said that the Bible is consistent to itself and to the intent of its God. Odd it is that no one challenges Jesus turning water into wine, which implies a concession that some miracles are easier for God than others.
God Himself says that His Gospel is foolishness and the Creation stories bare this out from our perspective.
"Gods intent to hide His truth from those that refuse to believe"
Does god intend to exclude the critical thinkers from his kingdom? Does god only want the gullible dummies that believe whatever they are told?
I don't refuse to believe anything. If your god stood out at all from the hundreds of other religions and value systems I would know what to do. Apparently god has made me so damaged that I cannot understand. I guess I deserve to be set on fire...and burned for eternity. My bad.
The words were written by men. God supposedly even gave us some hand written documents, (the ten commandments) but he did not include the Bible. Clearly a work of man.
To what effect are you making the clarification? In my opinion, debate rather demands arguments rather than assertions. Why should I be swayed because you believe something? How is that proof? It is not a debate if everyone just goes back and forth saying: "I believe this. Well I believe this. But I believe this." There needs to be a "because" in there somewhere.
Because I didn't want atheists reasoning under the wrong pretense.
In my opinion, debate rather demands arguments rather than assertions.
I would agree. Then why bother participating in a debate in which neither side can make more than an assertion? I find this ridiculous.
Why should I be swayed because you believe something?
I'm by no means saying you should or will be. Your perceptions are a bit off, I suggest visiting a debate on politics or another subject. That way, you won't have to partake in these discussions that you provoke yet find absurd.
How is that proof?
Again, it is not proof. If you're expecting to find proof in a debate concerning the existence of God, you've come to the wrong place. Not that any place would have it, anyway.
It is not a debate if everyone just goes back and forth saying: "I believe this. Well I believe this. But I believe this." There needs to be a "because" in there somewhere.
Haha you really are a newbie here. Everyone knows God debates cannot and never do have that element you desire.
Your perceptions are a bit off, I suggest growing up and not believing in fairy tales anymore.
"In my opinion, debate rather demands arguments rather than assertions.
I would agree. Then why bother participating in a debate in which neither side can make more than an assertion? I find this ridiculous."
Hey, Troy. watch this. I'm going to make more than an assertion here. Watch close.
I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve BECAUSE two people could never breed a healthy population, evolution contradicts the story, and the worlds animals that the couple supposedly named personally could never all live at the same time, in the same climate. I don't believe in this evil character that god created to torture us, I don't believe in talking snakes and I don't believe in magic fruit. There is good reason not to believe these things because there is no basis in science for their existence.
Now it's your turn, Troy. Go ahead....
"I believe in the story of Adam and Eve BECAUSE...."
There are many, many works claiming to be "of divine inspiration". I'm sure you believe they are all wrong like I do, except this one book, The Bible, which for some reason cannot be questioned, right?
Does anyone on your side of the argument have any evidence to point to?
I point to the laws of biology and physics that say that it's impossible to live inside a fish for 3 days, or get millions of species of animals on a 460 ft. ship that was built by one guy.
You are the one's that believe these extraordinary claims so you should have to actually defend them. What happened? Did Moses part the red sea for real? Why should we believe this?
I'm not saying I know it didn't happen. I'm saying people lie, and that's a silly story. Why would any rational person believe this?
I think it was Sam Harris who I first heard make this point, but it goes something along the lines of this:
Why is (insert Holy Book here) considered a work of the divine? Is it merely because it is so profound that it could not have been the work of men? If so, here is something to consider.
Isaac Newton spent the period between the summer of 1665 and the spring of 1667, working in isolation during an outbreak of plague in England. When he emerged from solitude, he had invented the differential and integral calculus, established the field of optics, and discovered the laws of motion and universal gravitation. Many consider this to be the most awe-inspiring display of human intelligence in the history of mankind.
Even now, over 300 years later, one must be exceptionally well-educated to fully appreciate the depth of Newton's achievements. Yet, no one doubts Newton's work was the product of human effort.
It took over 200 years of continued ingenuity by some of the most brilliant minds who ever lived to improve upon Newton's work. How difficult would it be to improve the Bible? It would be trivially easy for even the layman to improve upon it scientifically, historically, ethically, and even spiritually.
Considering the Bible or Qur'an to be so profound as to rule out the possibility of human authorship seems silly when compared to Newton's work - a work accepted as being of human authorship.
Well said. I certainly agree with you and Sam Harris.
I'd like to point out that the book's many contradictions and historical errors also speak to the humanity of the work. People make mistakes. Does god make mistakes? Would god be unaware of physics and geography? I think no.
For instance, a great flood in the middle east is believable and quite possible. If a person were living in that area during a massive flash flood, (which occurred regularly due to glacier melt at the end of the last ice age) that uniformed person might write about the event as a world wide event, being unaware of how big the world actually is.
But the bible asserts that the entire world flooded, killing everyone but Noah and his family. This becomes a problem today when people know how big the earth is, and how much water that kind of flood would take. A worldwide flood of the magnitude that it would take to kill every person is simply not possible for that time period or any other.
You'd think god would know that and if he/she wrote a book it would be more accurate than that.
Talking snakes and donkeys. A flood covering the whole Earth, yet no trace of the extra water. Fantastical beasts and people being turned into, of all things, salt. They pretty much checked off every number on "Fairy Tale Writing for Dummies".
In the beginning there was nothing, then nothing happened to nothing. This consequently caused a huge explosion from which the universe appeared! This lead to lot's of rocks floating around in nothing smashing into each other, which then caused life!
However this lifeform was only tiny and wanted to gain an advantage over the other lifeforms (if there were any) it had to change and evolve. This led to life appearing in all it's forms and the world becoming what it is today.
It's very easy to ridicule something if you ignore all the explanations.
In the beginning there was a singularity, then it had a quantum fluctuation. This consequently caused the Big Bang, from which all of the energy of the singularity now began to experience Space and Time and the Laws of physics, leading to the potential for the universe to form as we know it. The simplest elements, hydrogen and helium formed, and in certain gravitational regions, formed stars. These stars created the remaining elements through fusion. When the first generation of stars died, the matter within them was spewed throughout the universe, creating rocks, dust and gas. Sometimes gravitation or the effects of nearby supernovas would cause these regions to condense and coalesce, forming solar systems. In most cases, planets and often entire solar systems are probably not in the position to form life, but since water and organic materials are both very common throughout the cosmos, it stands to reason that, once in a great while, the features of a new solar system would be able to eventually foster life, once the planet in question has cooled down.
Combining organic compounds with other chemicals and heat can create self-replicating "bubbles". If one of the bubbles happens to develop a method of using the outside heat energy we already discussed, this process can go on for quite some time, and with more time, bigger bubbles and more elements and molecules being added, we increase the possibility of internal metabolism and nucleic sequences that propagate themselves and the molecules riding along with them. Then we get simple life. Not yet locked into a complex DNA code and only needing a few relatively simple structures, this may have been the most versatile life ever known. It could have taken on countless forms, most of which were failures, but a few managed to be well suited to the environment, and some of those became suited to surrounding environments. The increasing range of life combined with opening up new environments created a smorgasbord of possibilities for natural selection to sculpt them even further. Huge events like some life releasing oxygen when they metabolize and later life forms becoming predators made huge changes in the course of evolution for most organisms, and the radiation to land also opened up many possibilities. This led to life appearing in all it's forms and the world becoming what it is today.
It's very easy to ridicule something if you ignore all the explanations.
You've misinterpreted the meaning of my argument. I was stating how you ignored the explanations and meanings of the Bible, in an attempt to poke fun at it.
Me, I poke fun at everything. This world takes itself too damned seriously. Especially when it comes to religion.
Most religions have something worth listening to. Most religions can be used in deep and spiritually nurturing philosophical discussions.
The problem is, most religions don't stop there. They try to tell history too. And they so often do it by depicting a land that is so far removed from what we can observe that it becomes pretty difficult to take it as fact.
I can watch a Disney film and get the moral they are trying to teach. But the Bible is not going to convince me that animals can speak English any more than Disney could.
Wow, spectacularly well said. Not only do they try to tell history, they try to interfere in the politics of the world as well. There are so many laws in the U.S. that are based entirely on religions. No alcohol to be sold on sundays, homosexuals cannot marry, etc. It's nonsense! Get religion out of politics.
Nah- It's the big crunch: that is the best theory out there. Evolution- it's all to do with radiation knocking away atoms in dna causing mutations... pretty simple stuff really.
Its not like I'm saying he could not do these things. I'm saying I do not find the Bible convincing. If these sorts of things were going on today and had better historical support, I might be singing a different tune. Everybody from the ancient Greeks, to the Brothers Grimm to Disney has conjured up similar kinds of tales, and we don't give them credence.
The discovery of evolution and dinosaurs and carbon dating are all evidence that there was no garden of eden in the beginning or couple that named all the animals and talked to snakes. I can provide plenty of evidence that snakes do not talk if you'd like. I can provide evidence that you cannot start a healthy population from two individuals.
The now known world of millions of species of animals is very good evidence that they did not all get on the boat before this worldwide flood of Noah. Did kangaroos hop over oceans to get to Noah in the middle east? How is it that the kangaroos survived the flood? I can provide plenty of evidence that kangaroos cannot hop over oceans.
There is nothing but evidence to support the claim that these are all silly stories. It's quite easy to explain why a human being could not live in a fishes stomach for 3 days, or why Noah's Ark is not likely, or why there was no garden of eden.
Is there any real evidence to the contrary besides this silly book?
It is absolutely true, guy. I require evidence to believe it happened. That's a fact.
No claim can be made without evidence. No claim. Darwin didn't just come out and say "its true because god said its true!" No, he showed evidence to support his claim of the evolutionary process and survival of the fittest.
The huge flaw in reasoning would be believing something of which you have no evidence.
I require evidence to believe it happened. That's a fact.
Well, there is no scientific evidence, so I guess you can't be helped.
No claim can be made without evidence. No claim.
Sure it can. Maybe in your eyes, but many people have plenty of reasons to believe in this claim, scientific evidence is inconsequential to the existence of God.
Darwin didn't just come out and say "its true because god said its true!"
Good for Darwin, but this is not even related.
The huge flaw in reasoning would be believing something of which you have no evidence.
Again, you may believe this is a flaw, but hundreds of millions would disagree.
You must believe that right? Because "scientific evidence is inconsequential".
You cant argue with a guy that does not value science or evidence.
You must be a strong believer in Sasquatch, lock-ness, fairies, aliens, genies, trolls, vampires, goblins, elves, and santa clause. Because there is no evidence to support these things being real either and " scientific evidence is inconsequential" right?
Evidence is all we have to protect us from lies. The justice system understands that. The academic community understands that. Science understands that. Every single section of society follows this principal, except for the the religious community.
In the religious community, evidence is ignored. With religion, people can believe that detonating a bomb in a marketplace will reward them with 72 virgins, they can believe a ritual bath will cleanse them of sin, they can believe they are eating the body and blood of a man that lived 2000 years, in crackers and juice. ANYTHING can be believed though religion, ANYTHING.
Without evidence, one can believe that 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. And now we need to buy their thetan meter to get these souls out of us.
That is a messy path to be on my friend. I'd like the take the clear, logical path in my thinking and my life.
Spectacularly well said. I'll quote Thomas Paine "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead".
Troy8 seems to be of the opinion that because it has not been disproven, that it is likely that it could be true. This is a logical fallacy. One does not need to disprove a claim, in order to be reasonably certain of its unlikeliness.
You seem to have a huge flaw in your reasoning. You think that God's past miracles require surviving evidence. Why would this be true?
So you're saying that God erased all of the evidence for his past miracles, and is intentionally preventing the discovery of anything that would definitively prove his existence scientifically?
I sense a logical fallacy here, for this is an unfalsifiable theory. An unfalsifiable theory is meaningless, as there is no way to be certain of its truth or falsehoods, rendering it irrelevant and pointless to discussion.
God is a supernatural being, thus he does not physically reside within the universe.
You must believe that right? Because "scientific evidence is inconsequential".
You're completely misunderstanding my point. I'm saying I'm not going to dismiss the existence of God just because there is no scientific evidence.
You cant argue with a guy that does not value science or evidence.
I do value science and evidence, God and science are not totally mutually exclusive. This is a common misconception.
You must be a strong believer in Sasquatch, lock-ness, fairies, aliens, genies, trolls, vampires, goblins, elves, and santa clause. Because there is no evidence to support these things being real either and " scientific evidence is inconsequential" right?
Actually I don't believe in any of those things. This is a classic atheist argument, unfortunately these two are completely different beliefs. Everything that you've suggested is just a result of the human imagination, not of actual experience. None of these things explain anything about the natural world. People just claim to have 'seen' them, and as these myths spread, more people expect to see them, so they think they see them. But this is just foolishness, these creatures have no explanatory value. Actually, the comparison is very ignorant and stupid.
God however, is a legitimate attempt to explain the origin of the universe. There's a lot of things that do point to the existence of an intelligent designer. Just a take a couple examples: The fine-tuning of the universe and the digital code in the DNA molecule. There's complexity and some people find it ridiculous that this complexity just appeared over a vast amount of time. Also, lots of people experience God in many ways. This is something you might be able to dismiss, but those that have a personal relationship with God have no reason whatsoever to believe he does not exist. It's more than just a belief in fairy creatures.
Obviously you have never experienced this, and I respect that. But don't demean other people's beliefs because you really are pretty clueless when it comes to reasons people choose to be Christians in the first place. Sure, its not scientific, but don't assume that you know all the reasons people believe in God for. It only makes you look like the unintelligent one.
It's not really about what I look like, its about destroying false information and replacing it with truth. I actually think some kind of god to explain the origin of the universe is not that bad of an idea, so I'm not an atheist, but that is not what we are debating about. We are talking about these three silly-ass stories that defy all science and believability.
Actually, Troy, I come from a very Christian family and have 2 brothers that are very involved in the church, as I was for 20 some years. I never assume to know why anyone believes this garbage because people believe it for all kinds of different reasons, Troy.
My background means that I'm very well versed in this silly ass book so I'll have no problem pointing out the ridiculousness of it's contents. I've read it and studied various chapters intensely. I was a confused kid.
Now, as a grown up, If someone claims to have a personal relationship with god, I think they are lying to themselves. They do so because that is what is necessary to hold on to these comfortable believes they have always grown up with. It's a wonderful idea that we could all have our family and friends and live in paradise forever when we die, unfortunately the evidence does not point to that.
So personally, after over 20 years of believing horseshit and being very well versed in said horseshit, I think for you to believe these 3 stories as fact is "very ignorant and stupid", and "it only makes you look like the unintelligent one."
Alright, let me say I am sorry for your experience. I apologize for anything I've said that might have offended you. I'm not going to continue this silly argument because clearly we have no common ground.
All I say is that you really have it in for Christianity. It shows in most of your arguments and even your choice of username. But we don't need to be patronizing each other like this.
"The discovery of evolution and dinosaurs and carbon dating are all evidence that there was no garden of eden in the beginning or couple that named all the animals and talked to snakes. I can provide plenty of evidence that snakes do not talk if you'd like. I can provide evidence that you cannot start a healthy population from two individuals."
Where in the Bible does it state that snakes talk and the entire population of the world came from Adam and Eve?
Its says so in Genesis 3 in the king james version:
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden
"So the great dragon was cast out, othat serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Revelation 12:9
Yup, it's pretty clear to me. "serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who decieves the whole world".
That is clear? A snake called the Devil and Satan. Does that seem clear to anyone? Why a snake? Why not the humpback whale of old? Or the old lizard? Does god hate snakes? Why are there snakes if God hates snakes? Why did god create something to hate on? Is the devil a powerful being or a snake? If Satan is just a snake I don't see what we all have to worry about guys.
All the snakes I've ever been around do not talk anyway. I'm pretty sure snakes have never talked. I'm not sure how a snake would deceive anyone unless it could talk, and I'm sure it would have a pretty limited vocabulary considering a snakes tiny brain size. Don't you think?
It seems like your answers do not answer anything and they actually create a lot of silly questions.
When I read them, they lower my opinion of God. Here's a guy who can sit upon the Infinite and say "Let there be light" and THEN 'THERE'S LIGHT". But when it comes to saving the world from a flood, he's gotta go to the desert and tell an old man to build a boat, a really HUGE fucking boat. But wait! There's more. Now, we need you together two species of every kind ---even though scientist would later prove that the ark could have even come close to holding all of them--- and then they gotta wait for it to rain. That just seems like an awful lot of work for both Noah and God. It seems that if I were God I may want to... I dont' know.... DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE RAIN!!! And that makes me think that this God that everyone worships isn't all that bright.
How is God not smart? He created the cell that has a "tail" that spins at 100,000 rpms... not even our smartest scientists can create anything like that let alone from nothing!
I did. You don't think violence indicates a definite lack of intelligence and imagination? There are so much more subtle methods of getting what you want - and not coming across like a thug in the process. Based on his track record in the Bible, he is the kind of guy that if you were to play, say, chess with, the second he loses his first piece he kicks over the table and punches you in the face.
I don't think god would ever be inclined to even play a game of chess, but theoretically he would win, yes. This doesn't mean he wouldn't loose a few pieces, though.
But god isn't infallible; look at his reaction to his failing to create perfect human beings back in Genesis. He doesn't work to bring about change, he doesn't attempt to positively influence the outcome, and he doesn't approach his needs and wants regarding humanity with diplomacy; he just kills 99% of the people on the planet and starts over. Instead of offering treatment or sympathy to those he deems sinful, he condemns, destroys, punishes them for it, as illustrated by his famous destruction of two sinful cities and by the concept of hell, itself.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Can humans create it? Nature tends to go to simplicity not complexity. Everything we see in today's world except nature is said to have a creator... why doesn't nature? It would appear logical to make the judgement that since nothing can be here unless created it would require a creator. What doesn't have something come before it? The fact that something cannot come nothing is a scientific fact along with nature has a beginning and an end. Therefore, what could have created the cell? No scientists knows.
If you're referring to the second law of thermodynamics, I believe several people have now pointed out why this is wrong. But a quote that I recently stumbled across seems relevant here:
The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen - PZ Myers
Everything we see in today's world except nature is said to have a creator... why doesn't nature?
Nature is not a physical thing, it is a state of being. In the same way personality is not a physical thing.
Secondly, who said creation necessitates a creator? Unless you can prove that creation necessitates a creator, your argument is based on an unproven premise.
Thirdly, that would form an ad poulum, which is fallacious.
Finally, it is no more likely that being is the Judeo Christian God than it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It would appear logical to make the judgement that since nothing can be here unless created it would require a creator.
See above.
Also, virtual particles. Observable phenomena that prove creation ex nihilo is possible.
What doesn't have something come before it
Eternity, which the universe could possibly possess.
The fact that something cannot come nothing is a scientific fact along with nature has a beginning and an end.
None of these things are facts, I suggest you read some science, or at the very least, my attempts at explaining it.
Virtual particles are observable examples of something from nothing. And nature having a beginning and an end is not fact either. Because energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus has no beginning or end. How can this be?
Simple: this universe is merely a manifestation of energy that has existed for eternity.
Therefore, what could have created the cell? No scientists knows.
Apart from the Nobel Prize winners that dedicated their lives to finding that the cell could have arisen via abiogenesis.
I think that the second law of thermodynamics and increased entropy in completely valid.
Increased entropy is something that has been proven. Brian Cox made a demonstration of it with a sandcastle, and the fact that our universe is always loosing energy and never gaining it is a large point for that. There may be people who do not consider it to be correct in it's purest form - it's more complex than that - but the principle that everything will eventually deteriorate still stands.
Your example of how a child will grow is irrelevant as a child may grow, but, through the arrow-of-time theory, that child will also eventually wither and die. Proving that the second law of thermodynamics is still valid.
Oh boy, you appear to have misunderstood quite massively.
Of course I believe the second law of thermodynamics is true, all I'm saying is that it has been misapplied by creationists. The quote is showing how the creationist application is retarded, and isn't what PZ Myers actually believes.
Basically, it shows that the human population could not have originated from a single breeding pair, nor has the breeding population ever been below a few thousand, based on 3 different genetic studies.
It seems to me that, if the Adam and Eve story must be relegated to being an analogy or myth, not to be taken literally, than the entire foundation of Christianity is on very shaky ground. It would appear, based on the evidence, that this is exactly the case.
It is also interesting to note this article is found on the Biologos website- an Evangelical Christian apologetics site, dedicated to reconciling scientific discoveries with Christian scripture. Of course, they have yet to make an official stance on the matter.
Any citations from Christian organizations that are reconciling creation to science can be pretty much thrown in the trash. Most learned Christians are embarrassed by these oddballs.
Yeah, I think I can agree with this sentiment. This doesn't invalidate the actual research however, which is published in scientifically peer-reviewed papers.
"Basically, it shows that the human population could not have originated from a single breeding pair, nor has the breeding population ever been below a few thousand, based on 3 different genetic studies."
Doesn't that also destroy the theory of Evolution? For a species to maintain a breeding population, thousands of creatures from another species would have had to evolve at the same to do it?
Hahaha upvote for you! Believe in FAIRY TALES Nice. No, no i don't! I would explain but am currently in the middle of a religious dispute with someone else, an quite busy! Check it out!
Ok really? How stupid do you have to be to believe this garbage? I could see arguments if these things were just improbable, but they are 100% IMPOSSIBLE in every way. 2 of every species CANNOT fit on a boat 300c long. Its not possible. There's also absolutely no evidence for a flood of the world. The whole story is so ridiculous that its honestly just plain retarded. Johah and the whale, again IMPOSSIBLE, not just unlikely, NOT POSSIBLE, i shouldn't need to explain why. Adam and Eve, ok really? God created a man out of dirt and a wife for him out of a rib in a magical garden? It sounds straight out of a fairytale book because it IS. This is downright impossible and also doesn't make sense. Why can god poof the universe into existence including dirt but needed substance to make man? Also mans entire structure cannot be found in a handful of dirt. Its impossible. A wife from a rib bone is even more impossible. If you sincerely believe this you are delusional. There is 0 evidence to support this scientifically, historically, and physically. It did not happen.
Now i know people say "oh well there just stories to teach morals". There are two things wrong with this argument. 1, the bible says over and over that everything in it is true and should be believed, so therefore if you believe in god and jesus you have to believe in these stories. You cant pick and choose just to not look crazy, even though you do already because you believe in a magical sky daddy but that's besides the point. 2, what morals? A Moral by dictionary standards is defined as: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. Right and wrong, knowing this now lets look at these stories. Noah's Ark, what the hell does it teach us about right and wrong, just behavior? Believe god and do what he says otherwise you'll die like the rest of the world...or even more simply, do what god says. This isn't moral teaching, you cant apply this to real life in any way and it most certainly has nothing to do with distinguishing from right and wrong. Unless of course "right" is doing what god says, and if you do otherwise ("wrong") then you perish. Its just more brainwashing. Believe in god, do what he says. These things are repeated HUNDREDS of times in the bible. If god is real and we should believe in him WHY is it so hard to? And why does it need to be drilled into our heads over and over and over and over? So you don't question it. Anyway moving on. Jonah and the Whale. What does this teach us? What morals are to be found? None! Pray to god and he'll save you from danger. Believe in god. Again, this isn't moral. Just more drills. Adam and Eve. What morals?! And if by moral you mean do what god says is right, this is a twisted way of looking at moral behavior. The bible says do what is "right" (in this case obey god) because if you don't you'll be killed and sent to hell to suffer for eternity... But if you ask a normal person, they would say do what is right because it is the right thing to do and the right way to behave. Not for fear of hell or just to get into this happy place in the sky. Do what god says or you'll be punished. God has no morals. What do we consider to be right? Treat others well, don't kill, don't steal, ect ect. We know these things. We don't need a storybook to teach these to us. Were practically born with them in this day and age. Also, god is a hypocrite because he defies these morals he lays out for everyone else. He tells everyone these things, then floods the earth, commands genocide (thus making others into hypocrites), and more and more immoral things. I guess you just gotta look at it yourself and determine, do i do what is right because i am a good, just, and moral person fit for today's world? Or, do i do what is "right" because god told me to and if i don't ill burn in hell for eternity? The second option is basically saying that you're a weak, horribly immoral animal with no sense of right or wrong and need this infallible word of god as well as scare tactics and threats to make you do what is "right"? I for one, don't believe this is how humans are. I have faith in HUMANITY. In my fellow MAN. Not some evil sky daddy. I strongly believe that if Christainity just disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn't revert back to cavemen. Society would carry on as it always has.
Nobody joins a debate if they even agree a little with what the other side says. Its the whole point of a debate. One side who is 100% convinced they're right VS another who thinks the same. Debates aren't for the debaters. Its for the people who are undecided reading each side to make their own choice based on which side presented the best argument. Best arguments which only arise when the debater is 100% committed to his or her side. Also in this case, the other side IS completely false and wrong. Its not like one presidential candidate vs another. In that debate both could be right on things and wrong on other things. It varies greatly. In this one, there's indisputable FACT, reason, logic, science and history VS a few ridiculous fairy tales. This debate shouldn't even exist.
I'm quite sure scientists have already disproved Adam and eve. Found that Noah's arch told the story of the black sea over flowing and I'm pretty sure that if you were in a fishes stomach then the stomach acid would deteriorate your body.
You do not know where it came from. do not believe others sweet talking. I guessed the person who came up with those stories had a big mouth. Adam and Eve? Who would be alive? Adam and Eve only. Who will know that?