The Atheist Thread

[LurkerNoMore]

Translation :  I'll do whatever the FUCK I want to do! BECAUSE THE bible TELLS ME So!

And then claim it was justified.

[LurkerNoMore]

Jesus, the cognitive dissonance you must experience writing something like this must be intense. If you tell your children not to steal yet you steal then you are a hypocrite. God can't forbid something he himself does, it completely negates any logic. Why should we abide by rules he himself cannot follow?

Oh ya divine purpose and all that bullshit. Doesn't god know the future? so he created all these people knowing he would later kill them? so fucked up.

Exactly x 2

[Man of Steel]

Hey that sounds familiar - isn't the ideology behind a DICTATORSHIP - DO WHAT YOUR TOLD WHEN YOUR TOLD AND IF WE DECIDE TO CHANGE OUR MINDS YOU ARE NO LONGER PERMITTED TO DO WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY TOLD YOU TO DO. DON'T BACKCHAT! JUST DO WHAT YOUR TOLD OR I WILL GET THE ROD FROM THE CUPBOARD.  Your poor children are going to grow up with the most skewed way of looking at the world, they will never understand Boundaries and will never be able to trust anyone as you have raised them in an inconsistent manner.  Looks like the Apple won't be falling far from the tree! One religious Nutjob raising another religious Nutjob! Oh Brother, is there any hope for humanity!

A dictator may make capricious changes or adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" approach, but there is certainly benefit for the dictator in doing so.  Sometimes that benefit is one sided (always favoring the dictator) and other times it may not be; regardless, there is always a benefit (either perceived and/or realized) for the dictator and that beneficial change is contingent on the community of folks subject to the dictator's rule.  

The difference here is God isn't dependent upon us for anything.....there is no benefit for God.   God graciously, lovingly works within the context of our lives in order to benefit and strengthen us and draw us closer to him...that's the missing purpose and perspective.  Doesn't mean we're going to follow his will or his law....we don't have to.  

LOL!  Again, if you fellas wanna bang your parents, siblings or cousins by all means go for it.  

[Man of Steel]

Translation :  I'll do whatever the FUCK I want to do! BECAUSE THE bible TELLS ME So!

[Radical Plato]

A dictator may make capricious changes or adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" approach, but there is certainly benefit for the dictator in doing so.  Sometimes that benefit is one sided (always favoring the dictator) and other times it may not be; regardless, there is always a benefit (either perceived and/or realized) for the dictator and that beneficial change is contingent on the community of folks subject to the dictator's rule.  

The difference here is God isn't dependent upon us for anything.....there is no benefit for God.   God graciously, lovingly works within the context of our lives in order to benefit and strengthen us and draw us closer to him...that's the missing purpose and perspective.  Doesn't mean we're going to follow his will or his law....we don't have to.  

LOL!  Again, if you fellas wanna bang your parents, siblings or cousins by all means go for it.  

Wow, I was waiting for you to flame on like a wrathful deity! but you kept your cool and responded well. Didn't Cain bang his mother though! He must have shagged Eve silly, otherwise we wouldn't be here right?

[Man of Steel]

Wow, I was waiting for you to flame on like a wrathful deity! but you kept your cool and responded well. Didn't Cain bang his mother though! He must have shagged Eve silly, otherwise we wouldn't be here right?

Well, unfortunately, I'm used to folks taking potshots online or trying to anger me by suggesting things about my family (I think I've read every vile comment there is to read in that regard).  Do I like the comments?  Of course not, but me lashing out in kind doesn't represent Christ or my family; plus, I know if we were in person sitting across from one another in discussion how different the tone would be.  With the internet comes unbridled chutzpah empowering most the freedom to unleash however they choose as oceans sometimes seperate those replying with one another.  

Online, people say what they really feel, but in person with me.....LOL......not so much.  In a strange way the online honesty is sometimes a good thing.

Oh yeah, Adam and Eve had many children so Cain's wife was one of the other kids.....his sister.
  

[Radical Plato]

Well, unfortunately, I'm used to folks taking potshots online or trying to anger me by suggesting things about my family (I think I've read every vile comment there is to read in that regard).  Do I like the comments?  Of course not, but me lashing out in kind doesn't represent Christ or my family; plus, I know if we were in person sitting across from one another in discussion how different the tone would be.  With the internet comes unbridled chutzpah empowering most the freedom to unleash however they choose as oceans sometimes seperate those replying with one another.  

Online, people say what they really feel, but in person with me.....LOL......not so much.  In a strange way the online honesty is sometimes a good thing.

Oh yeah, Adam and Eve had many children so Cain's wife was one of the other kids.....his sister.
  

Oh, Cain's wife was his sister, that's alright then, for a moment there I though Cain did something really perverse, Like Shag his Mother!  Thanks for clearing that up!  

[Man of Steel]

Oh, Cain's wife was his sister, that's alright then, for a moment there I though Cain did something really perverse, Like Shag his Mother!  Thanks for clearing that up! 

Today incest isn't permitted or treated as appropriate. We understand the genetic implications that can arise from incest today, but prior to God outlawing incest there technically was no concept of "incest"......you simply married a relative because...well....that's all there was to marry.  Once the generational lines had been expanded and the population strengthened God outlawed the "act of incest".  Again, when the situation called for an appropriate change guided by definite purpose (conceivably because of the negative genetic implications) the act was ended for the betterment of people. 

Yes, today the idea of incest is ridiculous and creepy because the standard has long been set concerning what appropriate relationships are and because we fully grasp the medical implications of incestuous relationships. 

[Necrosis]

Today incest isn't permitted or treated as appropriate. We understand the genetic implications that can arise from incest today, but prior to God outlawing incest there technically was no concept of "incest"......you simply married a relative because...well....that's all there was to marry.  Once the generational lines had been expanded and the population strengthened God outlawed the "act of incest".  Again, when the situation called for an appropriate change guided by definite purpose (conceivably because of the negative genetic implications) the act was ended for the betterment of people. 

Yes, today the idea of incest is ridiculous and creepy because the standard has long been set concerning what appropriate relationships are and because we fully grasp the medical implications of incestuous relationships. 

so as the genetic implications became less of a concern he outlawed it? wtf? it makes no sense, you know why something makes no sense, because it's not true. When what you are saying makes no sense, you are generally wrong.

[Man of Steel]

so as the genetic implications became less of a concern he outlawed it? wtf? it makes no sense, you know why something makes no sense, because it's not true. When what you are saying makes no sense, you are generally wrong.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  As the generational lines expanded the genetic implications became more of concern...the problem was escalated in essence. 

The early generations weren't as far removed from the fall of man as the later generations; hence, earlier generations were seemingly less sensitive to implications of incestuous relationships. 

This is how I've understood it.

[avxo]

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  As the generational lines expanded the genetic implications became more of concern...the problem was escalated in essence. 

The early generations weren't as far removed from the fall of man as the later generations; hence, earlier generations were seemingly less sensitive to implications of incestuous relationships. 

This is how I've understood it.

I'm sorry, I really don't follow. It was ok for a little while, while the genetic pool was not diverse, but then, as the genetic pool grew more diverse then it became a problem?

[OTHstrong]

I'm sorry, I really don't follow. It was ok for a little while, while the genetic pool was not diverse, but then, as the genetic pool grew more diverse then it became a problem?

Yes as our belief is that our seed was stronger with Adam and has been watered down after every single generation. Put it this way if Noah was the father of all nations he would have had to have all the exceptional skills and traits of Blacks, Chinese, Europeans, Natives etc, so as his seed is spread the strength is hindered per generation.

 Noah had 3 off-springs; 1. Shem, where we get the term Semitic, and he is the father of people with white skin, 2. Ham where we get the term Hamitic and he is the father of blacks, 3. Japheth where we get the term Japhatic race and he is the father of Orientals, however he did have a few off-spring who went to Europe and this is up for debate between Biblical scholars.  All races are a combination of these 3 men.

According to the Bible these 3 men lived over 500 years and several generations later Abraham's father Terah lived 205 years, while Araham lived for 180 years, Moses lived for 120 years, fast forward to King David, he lived for only 70 years. My point is that this pattern you see of the life span is one that is diminishing through out the ages and finally reaching an equilibrium with king David. So as the seed was strong enough to produce a human entity that lived for 200+ years it was also strong enough to produce a healthy off-spring from 2 close relatives. As the seed became weaker problems started arising in off-spring from 2 close relatives, hence it is no longer accepted.

Anyway as you believe in evolution and obviously do not consider this valid in any way. This is how a theologian that studies this matter perceives this issues, so this is an explanation from our perspective, not interested in debating between the lines  

[avxo]

Anyway as you believe in evolution and obviously do not consider this valid in any way.

What I don't consider valid is the absolute lack of any scientific evidence to substantiate a position on a topic that is purely scientific. What it boils down to, if we play that game, is that I'll have keep taking your word for any subject. Gravity? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Solar eclipses? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Etc.

This is how a theologian that studies this matter perceives this issues, so this is an explanation from our perspective, not interested in debating between the lines  

You'd imagine that the various religions (and their adherents) learned their lesson after being forced to eat crow about the whole Galileo snafu. But, apparently, you'd be wrong.

[OTHstrong]

What I don't consider valid is the absolute lack of any scientific evidence to substantiate a position on a topic that is purely scientific. What it boils down to, if we play that game, is that I'll have keep taking your word for any subject. Gravity? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Solar eclipses? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Etc.


You'd imagine that the various religions (and their adherents) learned their lesson after being forced to eat crow about the whole Galileo snafu. But, apparently, you'd be wrong.

There are 1000's of ancient documents of people who lived for well over 150+ years but the problem is anything outside of evolution is automatically BS.

[avxo]

There are 1000's of ancient documents of people who lived for well over 150+ years but the problem is anything outside of evolution is automatically BS.

The question isn't the number of available documents, but the veracity of this information. After all there are thousands of ancient documents staying that lightning was caused by Zeus, sitting like a Boss up on Mount Olympus, but I'm pretty sure that you don't put much stock in those documents. The simple fact is that you believe the documents that make claims consistent with your pre-existing beliefs and that you then use those claims to reinforce your beliefs.

The facts speak for themselves: The average life expectancy in classical Greece hovered around 30, give or take 5 years. The average life expectancy has been on a rising trend (modulo some periods involving major wars or events such as plagues). Note that this isn't really all that remarkable. If nothing else it can be attributed to our increased understanding of medicine has improved and the availability of quality care. What were once fatal injuries today can be minor inconveniences.

But when we take a look at places like Angola and Nigeria, where the standard of living isn't that far removed from what it was back a thousand years ago, the average life expectancy is decades below that in the Western World - hovering at around 40.

So stop taking everything you read in your religious book at face value and start using what you have between your head. After all, if your God exists, he didn't intend that you forego use of the rational faculty that he endowed  you with.

[OTHstrong]

Look who is talking, taking evolution at face value, now that is a joke, you should use what's inside the head of your 

[avxo]

Look who is talking, taking evolution at face value, now that is a joke, you should use what's inside the head of your 

I don't take evolution at face value, but even if I did are you suggesting that my actions justify your stupidity?

[OTHstrong]

I don't take evolution at face value, but even if I did are you suggesting that my actions justify your stupidity?

No I am suggesting you practice what you preach

[avxo]

No I am suggesting you practice what you preach

If by that you mean examine evolution with a critical eye then you'll be happy to know I already have. I rely on facts and science, and the facts and the science tell me that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits the observable facts and which best predicts outcomes we observe. Could something better come along? Sure. Could it be discredited completely? It's possible, albeit very highly unlikely; worse case scenario, the theory is improved and strengthened.

You see, unlike you, I don't have blind faith in anything.

[OTHstrong]

If by that you mean examine evolution with a critical eye then you'll be happy to know I already have. I rely on facts and science, and the facts and the science tell me that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits the observable facts and which best predicts outcomes we observe. Could something better come along? Sure. Could it be discredited completely? It's possible, albeit very highly unlikely; worse case scenario, the theory is improved and strengthened.

You see, unlike you, I don't have blind faith in anything.

But that is your view but to some one else it looks silly. You are so convince that what you believe is the truth that you say it is science and everything else is baloni. Nothing I believe in hinders science in the slightest but yet you say it does cause you have created this idea in your mind that evolution is science, when in fact evolution is a myth. That is not a statement made from a religious perspective it is simply very vague in certain areas and based on much assumption that in my opinion and many others is flawed. Are there some valid points in evolution, of course, many.

Now let me give you an example of your close minded mind set. We have read such Greek Mythology and folklore and we have read the epics of Gilgamesh, these are clearly exaggerated stories that the author intends for you to not take them literally. Now there is the book of Jasher and this book is very incredible and has documented warfare that has in fact been verified through Archaeology and is an extremely accurate account of what took place. Clearly the author has absolutely no intentions on being inaccurate in anyway he only wishes that he documents everything to a T. In one such story the author has Abraham dying at 180 years old.

Now just so you can win an argument on getbig you classify the 2 stories as one category and you compare the story of the Patriarch in Jasher to that of Zeus and Hercules, why, because one line in the entire story that tells you he lived to 180 years, instead of accepting the possibility that maybe he did live to 180 years. There are lots of scientist who believe that it is possible under certain atmospheric conditions and under certain circumstance the nature of life could be completely different then what we see today and they keep within the compounds of science, but to you oh the story says he lived to 180, it is now mythology.

Oh BTW I rely on facts and science as well.

[avxo]

But that is your view but to some one else it looks silly. You are so convince that what you believe is the truth that you say it is science and everything else is baloni. Nothing I believe in hinders science in the slightest but yet you say it does cause you have created this idea in your mind that evolution is science, when in fact evolution is a myth. That is not a statement made from a religious perspective it is simply very vague in certain areas and based on much assumption that in my opinion and many others is flawed. Are there some valid points in evolution, of course, many.

Evolution is a myth? Oh... your... god...  

Now let me give you an example of your close minded mind set. We have read such Greek Mythology and folklore and we have read the epics of Gilgamesh, these are clearly exaggerated stories that the author intends for you to not take them literally. Now there is the book of Jasher and this book is very incredible and has documented warfare that has in fact been verified through Archaeology and is an extremely accurate account of what took place. Clearly the author has absolutely no intentions on being inaccurate in anyway he only wishes that he documents everything to a T. In one such story the author has Abraham dying at 180 years old.

That a particular account bears some semblance to what actually occured doesn't mean that everything in that account is accurate. We know the Trojan War took place and that parts of the Iliad accurately reflect (according to the evidence we have uncovered) events that actually took place. But that is hardly evidence that Achilles was actually invulnerable everywhere except his heel, because that's where Thetis held onto him while dipping him into the river Styx.

Now just so you can win an argument on getbig you classify the 2 stories as one category and you compare the story of the Patriarch in Jasher to that of Zeus and Hercules, why, because one line in the entire story that tells you he lived to 180 years, instead of accepting the possibility that maybe he did live to 180 years. There are lots of scientist who believe that it is possible under certain atmospheric conditions and under certain circumstance the nature of life could be completely different then what we see today and they keep within the compounds of science, but to you oh the story says he lived to 180, it is now mythology.

No. I point out the absurdity of your position: namely that you assume that anything that is already congruent with and supports your world view and preexisting beliefs is ipso facto accurate. That's bullshit reasoning. To put it another way, you believe that we all originated from Adam and Eve, and that incest was OK then because, somehow, our DNA was more perfect. As evidence you use the fact that the Bible says that people lived a really long time, which you automatically assume to be true.

You have no idea about things like allele frequencies and genetic drift or genetics in general, but you have no qualms about making grand proclamations such as "evolution is a myth" or stating that somehow incest was OK and recessive alleles wouldn't have caused problems, until, well... it magically would.

Oh BTW I rely on facts and science as well.

Oh absolutely! I think, if nothing else, your last few posts have made that indisputable fact crystal clear.

[OTHstrong]

Sarcasm? is that how you chose to debate?

There you go again Comparing work of a manuscript that has every intentions of telling it how it is to a poem, Homer`s work is poetic, have you not read it?... it falls under folklore and not intended to be 100% accurate, unless you believe in Cyclops  ..... I don`t automatically believe anything like you claim, I like to keep an open mind but I would not disregard a text or in this case hundreds of them that state humans lived very long as untrue just cause I don`t believe humans can live long because I am restricted to that of a theory that`s states that it is not possible or just cause it is not possible today. Many scientist believe it was possible, so they are all delusional right?

Now coming from Adam is a personal belief I have I don`t claim it to be scientific or a fact of any sort as I am the first to admit that I have no evidence of this whatsoever so you using that against me is stupid as I freely admit I can not prove it. See I don`t play games or presume to know things like you. I state theories and reasons that theologians have and I don`t think anyone is crazy cause they believe something bizarre. We don`t have the answers and everything is still a puzzle to the scientific community, we haven`t even scratched the surface. You can not say 100% that anything I believe is untrue, you can`t and as soon as you admit that you won`t be so closed minded.

[avxo]

Sarcasm? is that how you chose to debate?

How else should I address someone who says, with a straight face, "in fact evolution is a myth."

There you go again Comparing work of a manuscript that has every intentions of telling it how it is to a poem, Homer`s work is poetic, have you not read it?... it falls under folklore and not intended to be 100% accurate, unless you believe in Cyclops  .....

On what grounds do you say that the manuscript in question has any intention of being accurate? The fact is that the text of Book of Jasher is widely believed to be lost and the texts purporting to be it are not believed to be so.

Besides, I see very little difference between the Iliad and the Bible (well, except for the fact that the Iliad doesn't purport to be the inerrant word of God, or to tell humans how to live, or to purport to have the answer to questions, etc.).

I don`t automatically believe anything like you claim, I like to keep an open mind but I would not disregard a text or in this case hundreds of them that state humans lived very long as untrue

Whether you disregard it or not is your business. The facts are that even some of the non-extreme ages reported are exceedingly unlikely to be true. Again, look at the average life span in Angola, where life today is not really all that different from a few hundred years ago: it hovers around 38. And this is despite massive efforts to raise the standard of living and provide clean drinking water and adequate sustenance.

You can believe that somehow, magically, people lived to be hundreds of years old, but don't pretend this belief is in any way rationally justified. That some references can be found to such ages doesn't constitute proof.

just cause I don`t believe humans can live long because I am restricted to that of a theory that`s states that it is not possible or just cause it is not possible today.

I don't know what theory you are referring to that states such a thing. Care to elaborate?

Many scientist believe it was possible, so they are all delusional right?

The question isn't what scientists believe. I'm sure that scientists believe many different things; some may even hold contradictory beliefs. But that's irrelevant. Because the question isn't what scientists believe. The question is what scientists can prove within the framework of science?

Now coming from Adam is a personal belief I have I don`t claim it to be scientific or a fact of any sort as I am the first to admit that I have no evidence of this whatsoever so you using that against me is stupid as I freely admit I can not prove it. See I don`t play games or presume to know things like you. I state theories and reasons that theologians have and I don`t think anyone is crazy cause they believe something bizarre. We don`t have the answers and everything is still a puzzle to the scientific community, we haven`t even scratched the surface. You can not say 100% that anything I believe is untrue, you can`t and as soon as you admit that you won`t be so closed minded.

I don't have to "say 100% that anything [you] believe is untrue." The onus isn't on me to disprove or discredit your beliefs. The onus is on you to prove them if you want them to merit serious consideration.

[OTHstrong]

 don't have to "say 100% that anything [you] believe is untrue." The onus isn't on me to disprove or discredit your beliefs. The onus is on you to prove them if you want them to merit serious consideration.

I keep hearing this but that is not my point. My point is that my belief, sense you can not prove it to be wrong or I can no prove it to be right, falls into the same category as your theory of evolution, as I can not prove it to be wrong and you can not prove it to be right.

On what grounds do you say that the manuscript in question has any intention of being accurate? The fact is that the text of Book of Jasher is widely believed to be lost and the texts purporting to be it are not believed to be so.


What? did you just google that, lmao..... trust me it is accepted by theologians, those are a bunch of trolls that have bombarded google with that crap, lol, nice try. Do you actually think if was not accepted that the jewish Rabbis would reference it?

Last point sense we are chasing a dogs tail here. If a texts says someone lived for 180 years does not make it so, duh, of course not. But it is a possibility regardless of how improbable it may sound and for you to say that I am not being rational for thinking that it is a possibility is ignorant and this ignorance is the result of your theory of evolution and it actually hinders science. Puts restrictions on what actually is possible.

 Like I said some scientist, yes they have Phds believe people could have lived longer then they do today and they give a perfectly sound explanation for their reasoning. What, you do not believe me, ya I am making that up  .... Cmon now do not be lazy I am sure you can google that too, it is not hard and you seem to be a google king. If you really can not find anything on this then I will dig something up for you later, I guess  

[avxo]

don't have to "say 100% that anything [you] believe is untrue." The onus isn't on me to disprove or discredit your beliefs. The onus is on you to prove them if you want them to merit serious consideration.

I keep hearing this but that is not my point. My point is that my belief, sense you can not prove it to be wrong or I can no prove it to be right, falls into the same category as your theory of evolution, as I can not prove it to be wrong and you can not prove it to be right.

No. They do not fall in the same category. One is a belief in the absence of (or even contrary to your evidence), and the other is a scientific theory, supported by a plethora of evidence.

On what grounds do you say that the manuscript in question has any intention of being accurate? The fact is that the text of Book of Jasher is widely believed to be lost and the texts purporting to be it are not believed to be so.


What? did you just google that, lmao..... trust me it is accepted by theologians, those are a bunch of trolls that have bombarded google with that crap, lol, nice try. Do you actually think if was not accepted that the jewish Rabbis would reference it?

Actually no, I didn't. I've read the Bible extensively and have read a lot about the apocryphal texts and their history. Google isn't necessary.

As for Jewish Rabbis referencing it, well, the fact is that they reference reference the collective writings of nomads and sheep-herders as the divine and inspired word of God, so their track record doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Also LOL... yeah, it's the trolls... Remember this bit, which I posted earlier: "you assume that anything that is already congruent with and supports your world view and preexisting beliefs is ipso facto accurate. That's bullshit reasoning." Well congratulations! You just leveled up. Now, on top of that, anything that isn't congruent with and supportive of your world view is ipso facto inaccurate and the work of trolls.

Last point sense we are chasing a dogs tail here. If a texts says someone lived for 180 years does not make it so, duh, of course not.

And yet, you believe that is so. And that the reason for this extraordinary longevity in the face of no preventative care or advanced medical science was magical DNA that was better than it is now...

But it is a possibility regardless of how improbable it may sound and for you to say that I am not being rational for thinking that it is a possibility is ignorant and this ignorance is the result of your theory of evolution and it actually hinders science. Puts restrictions on what actually is possible.

You're confused. The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the matter and I'm not sure why you dragged it into the discussion to begin with.

As for your little putting "restrictions" comment, I think that only reinforces the point that you don't know anything about what the theory of evolution actually says.

Like I said some scientist, yes they have Phds believe people could have lived longer then they do today and they give a perfectly sound explanation for their reasoning.

What scientists believe isn't my concern. The badge "scientist" doesn't magically make someone's beliefs true. That's why scientists don't rely on beliefs. They rely on the scientific method.

What, you do not believe me, ya I am making that up  .... Cmon now do not be lazy I am sure you can google that too, it is not hard and you seem to be a google king. If you really can not find anything on this then I will dig something up for you later, I guess  

You're making the assertions, feel free to do the research and produce the quotes, preferably from publications in peer-reviewed journals.