Atheism : Love it or Leave it?

[Moviefan2k4]

Genesis was recorded by Moses between 1420 and 1220 B.C. So, from a logical standpoint, I guess the question would be, "Which will you trust - an unreliable method that's only existed for a hundred years (if that), or God's teachings through Moses, which have been around for over 3,000 years? Has anyone considered the reason no one questioned it was possibly because there wasn't any need to do so? People generally trusted God above all else, until the turn of the 20th century, when some started wanting an excuse for thinking God was wrong.

 

[Addendum]

Again, that's the traditional view of authorship of genesis. The view held by biblical scholars is that genesis is a composition from a independent and similar sources, few if any of them earlier than the 10th century BCE, and that genesis took it's final form in the 5th century BCE

 

[Superhobo]

Genesis was recorded by Moses between 1420 and 1220 B.C. So, from a logical standpoint, I guess the question would be, "Which will you trust - an unreliable method that's only existed for a hundred years (if that), or God's teachings through Moses, which have been around for over 3,000 years? Has anyone considered the reason no one questioned it was possibly because there wasn't any need to do so? People generally trusted God above all else, until the turn of the 20th century, when some started wanting an excuse for thinking God was wrong.

So, by that train of thought, we should still believe in werewolves and vampires because people really thought they existed prior to the 20th century?

By the way, there have been atheists since, I believe, around the seventeenth century, and some of them have been extraordinarily vocal.

I'm starting to think you sound like this guy:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Hey guys, no one has disproven Judaism and that's OLDER than Christianity!
what are you going to trust your eternal soul to?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

hey guys, Paganism is even older!
so now we all have another reason to join a coven other than that Hot messed up girl we met at the concert last week.

oh, and I'm sure lesbianism is OLDER than Paganism, so YAY! I like girls also! my soul is saved!

 

[Tally Man]

Genesis was recorded by Moses between 1420 and 1220 B.C. So, from a logical standpoint, I guess the question would be, "Which will you trust - an unreliable method that's only existed for a hundred years (if that), or God's teachings through Moses, which have been around for over 3,000 years? Has anyone considered the reason no one questioned it was possibly because there wasn't any need to do so? People generally trusted God above all else, until the turn of the 20th century, when some started wanting an excuse for thinking God was wrong.

1. The method has been proven to be reliable. Its not perfect but then again no scientific process is. However it has been used and validated many times over as a reliable way to determine the age of something.

2. Just because something is new does not make it less valid then something that is older. There are many things which are brand new which definitely outdo their older predecessors (cars to horses, computers to paper, etc.).

 

[Bubonic]

So... The paint chips in Texas... Still have lead in them?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Just because something is new does not make it less valid then something that is older. There are many things which are brand new which definitely outdo their older predecessors (cars to horses, computers to paper, etc.).

I understand that, but what most don't seem to be grasping is that they're still trying to solve a spiritual puzzle with the intellect, and it doesn't work that way. Issues of a spiritual nature must be solved with the spirit, not exclusively the mind.

 

[Gilpesh]

I understand that, but what most don't seem to be grasping is that they're still trying to solve a spiritual puzzle with the intellect, and it doesn't work that way. Issues of a spiritual nature must be solved with the spirit, not exclusively the mind.

But yet you shove your spirit into problems of an intellectual nature. Like homosexuals, like how humans are as evolved as we are now, and so on and so forth.

 

[sithgoblin]

I understand that, but what most don't seem to be grasping is that they're still trying to solve a spiritual puzzle with the intellect, and it doesn't work that way. Issues of a spiritual nature must be solved with the spirit, not exclusively the mind.

But moviefan, the bible says the moon is a light and that snakes eat dust and that hares chew cud.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

But moviefan, the bible says the moon is a light and that snakes eat dust and that hares chew cud.

Serpents do feed on small animals which were created of the "dust of the Earth", so the Bible's not wrong on that point. The moon may reflect the light of the sun, but God did describe it as the "lesser light", which reigns during the night hours. As for rabbits, they actually do eat vegetables in the wild.

 

[Tally Man]

I understand that, but what most don't seem to be grasping is that they're still trying to solve a spiritual puzzle with the intellect, and it doesn't work that way. Issues of a spiritual nature must be solved with the spirit, not exclusively the mind.

These things are not exclusively spiritual puzzles. How man came to be, how the world works, etc are very much in the realm of science. Remember science isn't actively trying to disprove God. Instead they are seeking an explanation for how the natural world is. Just because evolution was brought about by science doesn't mean it immediately invalidates God. HOWEVER just because you have a book which says God made the world in 7 days and made two people out of clay that DOES NOT invalidate what science has come up with. If you cannot come up with proof to the contrary your interpretation is in trouble not science because there's some divine being being interjected into a claim.

 

[Tally Man]

As for rabbits, they actually do eat vegetables in the wild.

But they do not chew cud. Which would show that the bible is wrong on this aspect. If that is the case then its no longer 100% true as you've said.

 

[Superhobo]

Serpents do feed on small animals which were created of the "dust of the Earth", so the Bible's not wrong on that point. The moon may reflect the light of the sun, but God did describe it as the "lesser light", which reigns during the night hours. As for rabbits, they actually do eat vegetables in the wild.

So, why didn't it say they ate small animals "that came from the dust of the Earth" instead?

 

[Superhobo]

But they do not chew cud. Which would show that the bible is wrong on this aspect. If that is the case then its no longer 100% true as you've said.

And, btw, bats aren't birds.

 

[bullets]

Genesis was recorded by Moses between 1420 and 1220 B.C. So, from a logical standpoint, I guess the question would be, "Which will you trust - an unreliable method that's only existed for a hundred years (if that), or God's teachings through Moses, which have been around for over 3,000 years? Has anyone considered the reason no one questioned it was possibly because there wasn't any need to do so? People generally trusted God above all else, until the turn of the 20th century, when some started wanting an excuse for thinking God was wrong.

I think these problems have existed all throughout time . *cough*philosophy*cough*

 

[sithgoblin]

Serpents do feed on small animals which were created of the "dust of the Earth", so the Bible's not wrong on that point. The moon may reflect the light of the sun, but God did describe it as the "lesser light", which reigns during the night hours. As for rabbits, they actually do eat vegetables in the wild.

But eating the dust of the earth is the snake's curse. What did it eat before then? And a lot of other animals which are not cursed eat smaller creatures as well.

The moon is not a lesser light. It does not produce light, it reflects it. Which means God is wrong.

Cud is not a vegetable. Cud is soemthing that has already been eaten, then is regurgitated and eaten a second time. Again, the Bible is wrong.

 

[Obi-Ron]

The Bible contains many parables used to teach right and wrong, but there's no fiction anywhere in the Scriptures.

PARABLE: example; specifically : a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Care to rephrase?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

PARABLE: example; specifically : a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Care to rephrase?

Notice the word "usually" in that definition. Jesus, on the other hand, used truth in His parables to illustrate a moral point.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

The moon is not a lesser light. It does not produce light, it reflects it. Which means God is wrong.

The term "lesser light" could refer to the fact that moonlight is dimmer; in that context, the Scripture is accurate.

 

[Superhobo]

Notice the word "usually" in that definition. Jesus, on the other hand, used truth in His parables to illustrate a moral point.

Actually, I think the word 'usually' was referring to the word 'short.'

 

[sithgoblin]

The term "lesser light" could refer to the fact that moonlight is dimmer; in that context, the Scripture is accurate.

No it's not, because the moon is not a light! The passage says God made two great lights, a greater light for the day and a lesser light for the night. But the moon is not a light. It merely reflect the light from the sun. So the bible is wrong.

 

[LexCorp]

I was wathcing an episode of whos line is it anyway. They were doing an improve joke about Noah and his wife on the ark. They managed to get in the comandments in there too lol.

 

[C.F. Kane]

So... The paint chips in Texas... Still have lead in them?

After reading this thread, I'd say... most likely.

 

[sithgoblin]

Cud is not a vegetable. Cud is soemthing that has already been eaten, then is regurgitated and eaten a second time. Again, the Bible is wrong.

Also, moviefan.... ^