The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[MrsKent26]

The hate is the approach that many take here. The way they don't like the manner in which God works (at least as per the Bible) which translates to the way or manner in which some deal with me (insulting, etc...)... but that's okay in the fact that I expect it.

It doesn't have anything to do with hating God for a true atheist. It's not that they hate how god works. They just notice the implausibilities inherent in many claims made about what is or isn't "god's work." They simply do not believe in god.

Well, remember when you had nightmares as a kid and your parents blamed it on the TV? Telling you things like "If you spent your time reading books instead, you wouldn't have them"? If you never had that happen to you, I'm sure you knew someone as a kid who heard that speech. For me, 1984 is the book that completely exposed that belief as a misconception. That book scared me more than anything I ever saw on TV as a kid. In my teen years, nevertheless.

That's too bad. I loved that book. It is eerie and affecting though. Some of the things said by the Party and its supporters in the book remind me of how some religious supporters speak.

 

[KevanG]

If I could have any provable concrete evidence that there is a god I would totally be willing to hear you out but as it stands right now there isn't anything that we have that can be used on a scientific basis to prove OR disprove a creator god. It's all neutral.

As it stands there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, micro and macro, over the previous several billion years. So after looking at the evidence provided in conjunction with other information, I have chosen to believe that is true. That is the difference I am trying to convey here. There are very few people here who will be convinced by your statements that the bible is totally true and that it's all just a matter of interpretation so without more supporting evidence then all there is is conjecture and presumption.

You've left links to various websites to attempt to sway us while myself and others have left some to show alternate interpretations or various information that would lead to other lines of thought when used in conjunction with it. As it is it's all relative to your viewpoint and information you have at your disposal. You attempt to give us some of yours and we attempt the same for you.

It's not a matter of convincing the others, it's a matter of information exchange to get a better idea of both sides.

 

[rodhulk]

It doesn't agree OR disagree...it has nothing to do with it. Forget picking apart...the problem is projecting and accrediting it erroneously.

I'm not saying don't value what the Bible says...just don't make it out to be what actually happened when it comes to the universe. Just like you wouldn't read a book of poetry to figure out how to perform surgery or replace a car's exhaust.

Why wouldn't I? I don't see the Bible as a type of poetry or something. Pages ago, I listed several other things (along with some science things) like prophecies that are/have occurred such as in Israel and it's remarkable ability on fulfillment of these prophecies. In terms of science, at least many if not all cases, it's (the bible) saying things thousands of years ago before science ever concluded it. I'm amazed and I invite other people to taste the goodness of God and see if they can be amazed themselves to the extent of knowing that God is real and alive and that they can find him and his Messiah (Jesus) in the Bible.

 

[rodhulk]

It doesn't have anything to do with hating God for a true atheist. It's not that they hate how god works. They just notice the implausibilities inherent in many claims made about what is or isn't "god's work." They simply do not believe in god.

I'm not necessarily saying everybody hates the Christian, at least not all the time. The Bible actually says a couple of times "if" the world hates you, it's because the world hated Christ. Many posts have indeed shown this "hate." The Bible in some other passages does say that the world will hate the Christian but this might mean more often than not that the world doesn't accept God and Jesus and their ways so the world won't accept the Christian and their ways since the Christians ways should be Jesus' way (God's way).

 

[KevanG]

Pages ago I linked a page that used those same prophecies in the past for any number of things over the centuries which all were interpreted to come true in their near future which didn't happen. Since those have been made they've been attributed to any number of things and signs that say they've been fulfilled.

 

[Shikamaru]

It doesn't have anything to do with hating God for a true atheist. It's not that they hate how god works. They just notice the implausibilities inherent in many claims made about what is or isn't "god's work." They simply do not believe in god.



That's too bad. I loved that book. It is eerie and affecting though. Some of the things said by the Party and its supporters in the book remind me of how some religious supporters speak.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I love that book as well. I'm just saying it gave me nightmares. lol

It is absolutely horrifying, but that's the point.

 

[rodhulk]

If I could have any provable concrete evidence that there is a god I would totally be willing to hear you out but as it stands right now there isn't anything that we have that can be used on a scientific basis to prove OR disprove a creator god. It's all neutral.

As it stands there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, micro and macro, over the previous several billion years. So after looking at the evidence provided in conjunction with other information, I have chosen to believe that is true. That is the difference I am trying to convey here. There are very few people here who will be convinced by your statements that the bible is totally true and that it's all just a matter of interpretation so without more supporting evidence then all there is is conjecture and presumption.

You've left links to various websites to attempt to sway us while myself and others have left some to show alternate interpretations or various information that would lead to other lines of thought when used in conjunction with it. As it is it's all relative to your viewpoint and information you have at your disposal. You attempt to give us some of yours and we attempt the same for you.

It's not a matter of convincing the others, it's a matter of information exchange to get a better idea of both sides.

Briefly before the heart of the message, I feel that a lot of links that back up my position have been unanswered, especially when I responded to the links used against my position here. But that's my opinion, too, and that's why I invite the seeker of the truth to search these many past pages and see for themselves where the truth may lie.

I think there's enough provided, there are sound answers to so much that has been asked of me (all glory to God), and yes, it is my viewpoint but just as you are here mentioning why you believe what you do in the last several pages, so am I. I think I've been respectful to the thread in that I have been attempting to address many things that you guys talk about here like science and evolution. I agree with what you said about getting the better idea of both sides but because I see a future different than you (the next life), I believe it's important to convince others and so I make the attempt to show why I believe the Bible has got the right way about it all and that anybody who is hungry and thirsty, I invite them to test what I've shown over the last 10-20 pages or so to see if they can find the God of the Bible that I believe is alive and well, even his son who is the Messiah Jesus. But I cannot force anybody and it really is up to each individual to make their own choices in the end. With that all said, my message is really done now and once the questions end, I will move on.

 

[rodhulk]

Pages ago I linked a page that used those same prophecies in the past for any number of things over the centuries which all were interpreted to come true in their near future which didn't happen. Since those have been made they've been attributed to any number of things and signs that say they've been fulfilled.

I do remember but I also mentioned that Israel was not a country back then. Israel needs to be a nation for the end times which many people perhaps didn't understand before. For example, in Matthew 24, it's mentioned the abomination that causes desolation in verse 15, this is from the book of Daniel and it talks about a temple in Israel needing to be there for the end times or last days. That means Israel would also have to be a nation to have their temple. Israel was not a nation until 1948. And there is still no temple. All the end time events of Matthew 24 are supposed to happen in a single generation (verse 34) including verse 15 and even Jesus' return in verses 29-31. Example of what I am saying, some actually thought Hitler was the antichrist because of his exterminating of the Jews (part of last days prophecies) and that Jesus would soon return. But some Christians said Hitler was not the antichrist because Israel was not a nation and there was no temple. And as it happened, the last days and Jesus return and Hitler being the antichrist did not happen. But now it's all possible.

I will say that perhaps the last days are not yet and that this one aspect of the post may end up not being correct. Maybe it was wrong for me to use that. But if we are in the last days and as you may or may not know, I believe we are, I thought it important to have this mentioned so that if a seeker of the truth doesn't believe yet, perhaps as the last days prophecies continue to increase even more, the signs of the times may be what causes a person to realize what is happening and to search the scriptures more and hopefully accept Jesus as their Messiah. So, I thought it was important to use this. Even if this ends up being wrong, the other points in that post that I copied/pasted often are not wrong, IMO, of course.

 

[Lighthouse]

Don't know if this has been talked about here, but I thought Noah was a great movie. Anyone else see it?

 

[SV Fan]

Not really. They kept "heresies" well documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

There are some early sects we know very little about, but that's mainly because they were small and short lived.

How come we can't find full versions of most books that were not used in the bible(Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, etc etc)? Infact the RC Chruch basically made it a punishment of death if anybody had such works in their possession. Th RC church basically did everything in their power to make sure any literature that didn't line up with their beliefs was banned and burned basically. The only documentation we have for some books was somebody was smart enough to hide the gospels in a jar and they found it like 1500 years after the fact, but even then it's not full texts because wear and tear on the scrolls has destroyed some parts of it.

As I said modern christianity since the first Ecumenical Council is just a collection of people creating a religion putting bits and pieces of many different christian cults together with parts from other religions to try drive up the membership. So even if protestant Churches though they raging against the machine when they split from the Roman Catholic Church, they basically using the handbook the RC Church felt would fit their needs the best

 

[rodhulk]

No. And frankly, I pity you for thinking that. All due respect to your faith and what it does for you, which I respect and appreciate, but just from conversation you should possess the sensibility to recognize how it is clearly not a literal account of scientific or naturally historical fact, and I find that saddening. It's saddening that in this is still believed by otherwise sensible people, sadder still that it's indoctrinated to children. Again, I'm glad that your faith works for you and brings you happiness, but it's a shame that you can't separate it from science and sensibility. I still wish you luck and happiness.

Again, I disagree. I mean, the Bible is not meant to be a science book but I believe when it mentions things "science," it gets it right which I find remarkable. I do understand your point that this is my choice on this (I think you mean that) but I can't help but see more than what you do. And I say this respectably to you. And I appreciate your kind words in much of your post.

 

[KevanG]

Don't know if this has been talked about here, but I thought Noah was a great movie. Anyone else see it?

Nah but it's not really interesting to me. I don't like theaters and I don't watch many movies since my TV broke a few months back. I heard it was decent though.

 

[Lighthouse]

It's really good. There is a pretty amazing stop action scene where Noah tells the "In the Beginning" story, but it's all done evolutionary. Light is the big bang, "days" are millions of years, and Noah's journey is very compelling.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

How come we can't find full versions of most books that were not used in the bible(Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, etc etc)? Infact the RC Chruch basically made it a punishment of death if anybody had such works in their possession. Th RC church basically did everything in their power to make sure any literature that didn't line up with their beliefs was banned and burned basically. The only documentation we have for some books was somebody was smart enough to hide the gospels in a jar and they found it like 1500 years after the fact, but even then it's not full texts because wear and tear on the scrolls has destroyed some parts of it.

As I said modern christianity since the first Ecumenical Council is just a collection of people creating a religion putting bits and pieces of many different christian cults together with parts from other religions to try drive up the membership. So even if protestant Churches though they raging against the machine when they split from the Roman Catholic Church, they basically using the handbook the RC Church felt would fit their needs the best

The hot doctrinal debates of the first few centuries were brought to the forefront in the EC, and made public knowledge.

We may lack most their scrolls, but we have a good idea what they believed.

 

[MrsKent26]

I'm not necessarily saying everybody hates the Christian, at least not all the time. The Bible actually says a couple of times "if" the world hates you, it's because the world hated Christ. Many posts have indeed shown this "hate." The Bible in some other passages does say that the world will hate the Christian but this might mean more often than not that the world doesn't accept God and Jesus and their ways so the world won't accept the Christian and their ways since the Christians ways should be Jesus' way (God's way).

While I'm sure some people do hate Christians, I think you're confusing people simply not believing in God with hatred at times. It's the beliefs that are targeted, rather than individuals. The beliefs are illogical to some. Also, I think there are some atheists (me included sometimes) that don't take religion and "evidence" in favour of it seriously because it seems like make-believe to them. This can lead to some mockery of the beliefs.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I love that book as well. I'm just saying it gave me nightmares. lol

It is absolutely horrifying, but that's the point.

Indeed. It is very effective.

 

[The End]

Rodhulk...

I don't really feel like you're listening to any body at all.

Let's go through a simple example so you can understand why people think you're 'stretching out metaphors to the breaking point'.

It would be cool if you could acknowledge that you're doing this with at least this one passage. I feel if I can get you to acknowledge this is a stretch, then we'll have made some progress.

"Job 9:8 God stretches out the heavens. Think the big bang here."


Job 9:8

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

It's a big leap to get from a passage like that, to say that this passage describes the big bang. It's an absolutely massive leap.

Here's what even the ancient people of several thousands of years ago would be able to see when looking up at the night sky.

Think about it for a moment, I don't just want to hand the answers to you.

....


....

....


Okay. Isn't it likely that the passage is based on simple observation?

Isn't it MORE likely, that this is the case, than it is that the passage describes something as complex as the big bang?

This is the thing I've noticed with you, Rodhulk. Again and again and again and again, you choose the more complex interpretations over the more simple, obvious interpretations. You choose the interpretation that contains more assumptions. There's a term for this mistake in thinking in philosophy and its called Occam's Razor.

The passage simply isn't sufficient for describing the big bang. I was gonna write out a description in my own words, but I might as well just copy and paste the description from wikipedia.

the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and was expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms that were produced by the Big Bang are hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

If you think to yourself, "obviously that's what 'stretching out the heavens' is supposed to describe", you're allowing some very serious biases to cloud your judgement. Think about Occam's Razor.

Prior to Job 9:8,

9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not.

The Earth rests on pillars, and the Sun moves around the Earth.

The sun rising is based on simple observation, but they had no way of knowing that its the Earth that's moving around the sun, which is why there's no mention of it in the bible.

Some sort of acknowledgement Rodhulk that you could be wrong, and progress will have been made.

 

[The End]

The Earth doesn't move. The sun revolves around the Earth.

1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


Galileo and heresy against the bible...

"Dr. Boscaglia had talked to Madame [Christina] for a while, and though he conceded all the things you have discovered in the sky, he said that the motion of the earth was incredible and could not be, particularly since Holy Scripture obviously was contrary to such motion."

"...to check unbridled spirits, [the Holy Council] decrees that no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the holy mother Church... has held or holds..."

"All our Fathers of the devout Convent of St. Mark feel that the letter contains many statements which seem presumptuous or suspect, as when it states that the words of Holy Scripture do not mean what they say; that in discussions about natural phenomena the authority of Scripture should rank last... [the followers of Galileo] were taking it upon themselves to expound the Holy Scripture according to their private lights and in a manner different from the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church..."

Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered,

"to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I'm not necessarily saying everybody hates the Christian, at least not all the time. The Bible actually says a couple of times "if" the world hates you, it's because the world hated Christ. Many posts have indeed shown this "hate." The Bible in some other passages does say that the world will hate the Christian but this might mean more often than not that the world doesn't accept God and Jesus and their ways so the world won't accept the Christian and their ways since the Christians ways should be Jesus' way (God's way).

I don't hate Christ at all. I'm sure he was a great guy who spread some great messages. It's the people who mutilate his philosophies to their own ends that piss me off.

 

[DarkSentinel]

I don't hate Christ at all. I'm sure he was a great guy who spread some great messages. It's the people who mutilate his philosophies to their own ends that piss me off.

As a Christian, this.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

While I'm sure some people do hate Christians, I think you're confusing people simply not believing in God with hatred at times. It's the beliefs that are targeted, rather than individuals. The beliefs are illogical to some. Also, I think there are some atheists (me included sometimes) that don't take religion and "evidence" in favour of it seriously because it seems like make-believe to them. This can lead to some mockery of the beliefs.

Ah yes, the built in persecution complex. Surely anyone who might disagree with you, hates you. How convenient. That way you don't even have to entertain their dissenting ideas!

 

[squeekness]

As a Christian, this.

Seriously. All it does is make me cry.

 

[rodhulk]

Rodhulk...

I don't really feel like you're listening to any body at all.

Let's go through a simple example so you can understand why people think you're 'stretching out metaphors to the breaking point'.

It would be cool if you could acknowledge that you're doing this with at least this one passage. I feel if I can get you to acknowledge this is a stretch, then we'll have made some progress.

"Job 9:8 God stretches out the heavens. Think the big bang here."


Job 9:8

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

It's a big leap to get from a passage like that, to say that this passage describes the big bang. It's an absolutely massive leap.

Here's what even the ancient people of several thousands of years ago would be able to see when looking up at the night sky.

Think about it for a moment, I don't just want to hand the answers to you.

....


....

....


Okay. Isn't it likely that the passage is based on simple observation?

Isn't it MORE likely, that this is the case, than it is that the passage describes something as complex as the big bang?

This is the thing I've noticed with you, Rodhulk. Again and again and again and again, you choose the more complex interpretations over the more simple, obvious interpretations. You choose the interpretation that contains more assumptions. There's a term for this mistake in thinking in philosophy and its called Occam's Razor.

The passage simply isn't sufficient for describing the big bang. I was gonna write out a description in my own words, but I might as well just copy and paste the description from wikipedia.



If you think to yourself, "obviously that's what 'stretching out the heavens' is supposed to describe", you're allowing some very serious biases to cloud your judgement. Think about Occam's Razor.

Prior to Job 9:8,

9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not.

The Earth rests on pillars, and the Sun moves around the Earth.

The sun rising is based on simple observation, but they had no way of knowing that its the Earth that's moving around the sun, which is why there's no mention of it in the bible.

Some sort of acknowledgement Rodhulk that you could be wrong, and progress will have been made.

I will ask you the same question, have you ever thought you were wrong? You speak like you have all the answers when you've only given me "your" understanding of it all. And your understanding has been to repeatedly be the "fool" scripture speaks of who denies there is a God. Have you ever wondered if you are the bias one... are you not trying to just find and post here, things that pick apart the Bible because anybody can really do this to anything, whether the Bible or evolution/science.

First of all, the pillar stuff was talked about before. Secondly (and I can provide a link), the Bible does not say that the sun actually rises as if the earth does not move. Simply, it speaks of the sun as appearing. I can show you a link where the idea is that the sun "appears."

I will repeat and stand by what I said, the Bible does not teach the big bang completely in any way, but the very basic idea of the big bang, that there was an "expansion," is exactly what the word of God, the Bible, speaks of, that God did indeed spread out the heavens. If you know anything about the Genesis account of how God created it all, you will see that things were not all created in their respective places at the initial part of creation. God did indeed move things around, spreading things out.

And I will continue to say this only to those who are hungry rather than full as the quoted above poster has shown of himself repeatedly, check the scriptures to what I have said, if it is all true. Check the prophecies I mentioned previously on Israel. Check the supposed contradictions and the answers that are provided in the links I gave. If you do, you may be surprised at just how accurate the Bible is. Amen.


EDIT: Here, something on the sun that is interesting:

Psalm 19:6 is a passage that often is cited as another example of Scripture teaching pre-Copernican astronomy. In this verse, the Sun is said to move, rather than the Earth, and therefore is said by some to imply that the Sun revolves around the Earth. There are many other verses in the Bible that talk about the Sun “going down” or “rising up.” This hardly should be surprising, however, since events in the Bible often are written in accommodative or “phenomenal” language—i.e., the language used to express phenomena as man sees them. Even today we teach our children that “the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west,” and astronomers and navigators use the Earth as a fixed point for purposes of simple observation, expressing distances and directions in relation to it. The weatherman on the evening news often will state that the Sun is going to “rise” at a certain time the following morning and “set” at a certain time the following evening. Why does no one accuse him of scientific error? Because we all are perfectly aware of, and understand, the Copernican view of the solar system, and because we likewise understand that our weatherman is using “phenomenal” language.
In addition, scientific foreknowledge could be claimed from Psalm 19:6 if a more literal interpretation was applied in the following way. Astronomers now know that the Sun moves in a gigantic orbit around the center of the Milky Way galaxy; traveling at 600,000 miles an hour it would take the Sun 230 million years to make just one orbit! It also is believed that our galaxy is moving with respect to other galaxies in the Universe. The Sun’s going forth is indeed from one end of the heavens to the other. In any case, there is no way to substantiate the claims that the Bible teaches geocentricity, or that it promotes any other anti-scientific concept.

 

[regwec]

Forming opinions based on the weight of evidence is not "bias", unless it is bias in favour of evidence, which is no bad thing.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I will ask you the same question, have you ever thought you were wrong? You speak like you have all the answers when you've only given me "your" understanding of it all. And your understanding has been to repeatedly be the "fool" scripture speaks of who denies there is a God. Have you ever wondered if you are the bias one... are you not trying to just find and post here, things that pick apart the Bible because anybody can really do this to anything, whether the Bible or evolution/science.

First of all, the pillar stuff was talked about before. Secondly (and I can provide a link), the Bible does not say that the sun actually rises as if the earth does not move. Simply, it speaks of the sun as appearing. I can show you a link where the idea is that the sun "appears."

I will repeat and stand by what I said, the Bible does not teach the big bang completely in any way, but the very basic idea of the big bang, that there was an "expansion," is exactly what the word of God, the Bible, speaks of, that God did indeed spread out the heavens. If you know anything about the Genesis account of how God created it all, you will see that things were not all created in their respective places at the initial part of creation. God did indeed move things around, spreading things out.

And I will continue to say this only to those who are hungry rather than full as the quoted above poster has shown of himself repeatedly, check the scriptures to what I have said, if it is all true. Check the prophecies I mentioned previously on Israel. Check the supposed contradictions and the answers that are provided in the links I gave. If you do, you may be surprised at just how accurate the Bible is. Amen.

If the bible is accurate, than your god is one insane *****.

 

[rodhulk]

You can have all the evidence you want on something but unless you truly examine the other side in an open, "non-full" way, then all the evidence somebody gives on the other side will never be good enough for you. This is why I repeatedly say, my message is for those who are hungry, I invite them to come and taste the goodness of God.