[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZFf0pm0SE"]Stevie Wonder ~ Superstition - YouTube[/ame]
How to Make SURE to Not raise an Atheist
- Thread starter lukep
- Start date
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZFf0pm0SE"]Stevie Wonder ~ Superstition - YouTube[/ame]
Most die-hard Christians (think "Bible Belt") bow their head down at the mere mention of UFO's... not to mention ghosts! I can't say for sure if it's because of a Bible inference, or the church itself; but something has made these people fearful of believing in anything that's "other-worldly" -- with the exception of god.
^^this.
Spend money and time on educating you kids and they will soon realize that there is a God that runs this world, but gives man some control. Make of that what you wish!
If you still fucking believe in god and religion these days, open your stupid eyes.
Stop worshiping and believing in fairy tales you morons - christians, catholics, muslims, all of you are fucking idiots.
If you were born in the fucking jungle, in wilderness and nobody would told you something about god you wouldn't even consider him. You would fucking live your life, eat, hunt, reproduce and do all the simple things a human has to do.
WHY THE HECK THERE ARE 235792835 RELIGIONS. GOD CREATED MAN, SEPARATED THEM AND TOLD DIFFERENT STORIES OR WHAT ?
There is NOTHING TO BELIEVE IN, only in YOURSELF. STOP BEING A WEAK HUMAN AND SEARCHING FOR HELP IN SF BOOKS.
Stop worshiping and believing in fairy tales you morons - christians, catholics, muslims, all of you are fucking idiots.
If you were born in the fucking jungle, in wilderness and nobody would told you something about god you wouldn't even consider him. You would fucking live your life, eat, hunt, reproduce and do all the simple things a human has to do.
WHY THE HECK THERE ARE 235792835 RELIGIONS. GOD CREATED MAN, SEPARATED THEM AND TOLD DIFFERENT STORIES OR WHAT ?
There is NOTHING TO BELIEVE IN, only in YOURSELF. STOP BEING A WEAK HUMAN AND SEARCHING FOR HELP IN SF BOOKS.
1. I have not read where the Bible excludes aliens.
2. Ghosts would be considered spirits in the Bible and there are repeated instances of Spirits, Demons, Angels - these are all supernatural beings that are openly discussed in the Bible - how they can deny the existence of such entities is ludicrous.
3. The Bible does say to stay away from demons, spirits, spiritism, the occult, channeling, seances, etc because these things are dangerous.
Most educated Christians understand that the Bible is not "everything about everything" - To the Christian it is an absolute authority on what it speaks about, but it is far from an exhaustive explanation of the Universe, God, Other Dimensions and millions of other issues not directly addressed.
Are you certain that is what happened?
Maybe, when God was destroying the City she lingered too far behind Lot and was encompassed into the destruction.
That is an acceptable interpretation. The word "became" could be defined many ways included "come to pass" - in other words her Body may have been encrusted with salt from the destruction.
It is lackadaisical interpretation of the Bible by lazy Christians that makes the religion a joke.
> 1. I have not read where the Bible excludes aliens
Genesis contains a certain amount of pride; illustrating this deity's awesome power in great detail. I wonder why, then, that the bible (or tanakh or qu'ran) never mention that creation included billions of galaxies and exo-planets, and the possibility of other life, and instead only includes the four obvious, relatively unimpressive celestial items these ignorant sand monkeys knew about at the time - the earth, sun, moon and stars?
This is the third day:
-------------------
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
--------------------
So no explicit exclusion of alien life, but fairly implicit that stars are for helping us to see at night, not for providing energy to exo-planets for abiogenesis. Someone should have told this deity that he could have made the stars much smaller if he brought them a bit closer. Tsk... silly god.
Also there's some other needlessly ignorant shit in genesis. For instance, the use of the hebrew word 'circle' instead of 'sphere', when they knew fine well what a sphere was. Also, they knew light 'reflects' off of water, but used the word 'light' for the moon. Further, 'separating light from darkness' as though darkness was a tangible thing.
I mean, this shit is all the way through the bible. You can use outrageous, illogical, contradictory rationale to explain all these anomalies, or simple fall back on the old 'we can't know the mind of god' get out of jail card. Or you simply accept the simple, straightforward, obvious explanation that the fucking thing was written by ancient, ignorant people who had no special insight whatsoever into how the universe works.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI6D84ExvU"]a Ricky Gervais bible reading - YouTube[/ame]
Genesis contains a certain amount of pride; illustrating this deity's awesome power in great detail. I wonder why, then, that the bible (or tanakh or qu'ran) never mention that creation included billions of galaxies and exo-planets, and the possibility of other life, and instead only includes the four obvious, relatively unimpressive celestial items these ignorant sand monkeys knew about at the time - the earth, sun, moon and stars?
This is the third day:
-------------------
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
--------------------
So no explicit exclusion of alien life, but fairly implicit that stars are for helping us to see at night, not for providing energy to exo-planets for abiogenesis. Someone should have told this deity that he could have made the stars much smaller if he brought them a bit closer. Tsk... silly god.
Also there's some other needlessly ignorant shit in genesis. For instance, the use of the hebrew word 'circle' instead of 'sphere', when they knew fine well what a sphere was. Also, they knew light 'reflects' off of water, but used the word 'light' for the moon. Further, 'separating light from darkness' as though darkness was a tangible thing.
I mean, this shit is all the way through the bible. You can use outrageous, illogical, contradictory rationale to explain all these anomalies, or simple fall back on the old 'we can't know the mind of god' get out of jail card. Or you simply accept the simple, straightforward, obvious explanation that the fucking thing was written by ancient, ignorant people who had no special insight whatsoever into how the universe works.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI6D84ExvU"]a Ricky Gervais bible reading - YouTube[/ame]
It was meant to communicate to the people of that time. Why would God go into detail about these things when it was not relevant to what he was communicating? When you are trying to communicate do you oftentimes speak about irrelevant issues? Your point here is worthless.
How is that relevant to the conversation with the people of that day and age?
1. The hebrew word used, where you quoted the word "light", is more properly translated "a luminous body or luminary". Luminous according to merriam-webster is emitting or reflecting usually steady, suffused, or glowing light.
Luminous - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2. I cannot find your circle vs sphere reference in what you have quoted.
3. In reference to separating light from darkness it is a different Hebrew word. The word in that verse is translated as "daylight" and the word used for darkness in that verse can be translated as "night". You can look up the Hebrew on Bible.cc
You see, it is not as easy to topple centuries of vetted Christian Theology. Of course there are problems with the Bible, you simply have not brought them into the conversation.
My point is that even if we say the Bible is imperfect, though I am not conceding the point unless you figure it out for yourselves, it is not nearly as ludicrous as you have been told.
Christianity is a logical and rational religion that is practiced openly and welcomes constructive criticism and debate. There is no forced Christianity, in our time, like there is Islam.
If you claim to be an intellectual, then know what you are talking about when discounting Christianity because so far all of the points are amateur hour.
> It was meant to communicate to the people of that time.
Why waste an opportunity to prove beyond doubt that the book was divinely inspired, by including some new knowledge in it and increasing it's accuracy? It could have simply said 'God created uncountable stars and placed them at vast, uncountable distances'. Why wouldn't it say that? The OBVIOUS rationale is that they DID NOT HAVE A DIVINE EXPLANATION OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS AND THAT GENESIS IS JUST AN INACCURATE, INVENTED STORY.
Why would such an entity be very exact and detailed about the nonsense parts (like 6 days, man made from dirt and women from rib, talking snakes and knowledge trees, etc), yet not describe the physical universe fully or properly? This inconsistency is perfectly explained if you take god out of the equation. If you leave him in, you have to start making convoluted explanations and excuses for it.
> The hebrew word used, where you quoted the word "light", is more properly
> translated "a luminous body or luminary".
My point was that it doesn't mention that the light of the sun is reflected from the moon's surface. Why would a deity not want his creation described properly, and again miss an opportunity to prove that these stories contained divine knowledge and insight? You can't explain it without convoluted excuses, yet again it makes perfect sense if you take god out of the equation.
> I cannot find your circle vs sphere reference in what you have quoted.
Isaiah uses 'circle' twice for the shape of the earth. Eg.
He obviously meant to use 'circle', because he uses the word 'sphere' elsewhere:
Talking to people like you is a complete waste of time and energy - don't be suprised if I don't reply to any stupid retort, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks you may continue with.
Why waste an opportunity to prove beyond doubt that the book was divinely inspired, by including some new knowledge in it and increasing it's accuracy? It could have simply said 'God created uncountable stars and placed them at vast, uncountable distances'. Why wouldn't it say that? The OBVIOUS rationale is that they DID NOT HAVE A DIVINE EXPLANATION OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS AND THAT GENESIS IS JUST AN INACCURATE, INVENTED STORY.
Why would such an entity be very exact and detailed about the nonsense parts (like 6 days, man made from dirt and women from rib, talking snakes and knowledge trees, etc), yet not describe the physical universe fully or properly? This inconsistency is perfectly explained if you take god out of the equation. If you leave him in, you have to start making convoluted explanations and excuses for it.
> The hebrew word used, where you quoted the word "light", is more properly
> translated "a luminous body or luminary".
My point was that it doesn't mention that the light of the sun is reflected from the moon's surface. Why would a deity not want his creation described properly, and again miss an opportunity to prove that these stories contained divine knowledge and insight? You can't explain it without convoluted excuses, yet again it makes perfect sense if you take god out of the equation.
> I cannot find your circle vs sphere reference in what you have quoted.
Isaiah uses 'circle' twice for the shape of the earth. Eg.
He obviously meant to use 'circle', because he uses the word 'sphere' elsewhere:
He could've used 'sphere' to describe the earth, but he didn't. The obvious explanation is that he was not privy to accurate information from a divine source.
Talking to people like you is a complete waste of time and energy - don't be suprised if I don't reply to any stupid retort, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks you may continue with.
Yes because God wanted to make a 1 million volume written comunication to man to begin to describe the processes by which the earth and universe were made.
Once again he was communicating to people of the time in a way they could understand.
This is why I included the definition of luminous in a link in my post. Obviously you did not click it.
HEre it is - –adjective 1. radiating or reflecting light; shining; bright.
The word can mean "horizon" or "vault" or "circuit" - all of which make perfect sense. Seems to me you should be amazed he knew it was a circle and not a flat earth. But instead the text says he stretches over as if in an arch .
.
It seems to me you are being closed minded in thinking how right you are and yet it is clear that so far, what you think you know can be refuted by someone with even the simplest understanding of Christianity.
There are problems with Christianity, with the Bible, but they are simple issues and certainly not of Doctrine - and yet no one even knows them, All I ever see on this forum is Christian bashing and yet no one has any facts.
I'm probably going to regret jumping in here at all, but you've dug such an obvious hole on this one I can't let you out of it...
That 2000 years later all mankind would have a far better grasp of science and that most people would be unable to hold onto faith simply from all of the illogical shit that he said back then, since his whole story is so incongruent with science?
Puh-lease. If he were powerful enough to make planets and had any idea of what science is, it was obviously the smart thing to talk to mankind of all times, not just "that time."
Why the fuck would he ONLY care about people of "that time?" Are you accusing god of being extremely short sighted??
So what you're saying is that God, in all of his infinite wisdom, could NOT see that his words would still be around later?
That 2000 years later all mankind would have a far better grasp of science and that most people would be unable to hold onto faith simply from all of the illogical shit that he said back then, since his whole story is so incongruent with science?
Puh-lease. If he were powerful enough to make planets and had any idea of what science is, it was obviously the smart thing to talk to mankind of all times, not just "that time."
Why the fuck would he ONLY care about people of "that time?" Are you accusing god of being extremely short sighted??
And just for good measure:
Here is 100% of the facts that you need to understand how the universe works.
Here is 100% of the facts that you need to understand how the universe works.
That's the best you've got? I expected more from you.
God was speaking to the people of the time in order to communicate a specific set of points. Those points are still communicated to this day using the same words. Seems effective to me.
There is nothing more to it. He wanted to express something, and he did. You mentioned illogic - there is not any illogic in his words nor in what he said. The other poster was simply wondering why God did not communicate complex science in the Bible. Keep on target and your facts straight.
That proves nothing other than what you believe to be the simplest explanation. Why can't someone believe that a designer, a creator, made all of this? After all, look how the creation is organized. It is easy to assume a master designer in fact I would argue it is a much simpler explanation than saying everything is random - or that order was made from disorder.
Not to me. Not to anyone who can use reason & see a bigger picture, either.
LULZ!
My aim was true. Go back and read it again.
Because it's FAR easier to believe in evolution, which we have proven exists (don't you dare say we haven't!) than to believe that someone all-powerful popped in from nowhere without a creator of his own and started making tons of stupid, idiotic, fucked-up and frankly EVIL mistakes to cause us all to suffer so much meanwhile he supposedly 'loves us.'
Occham's razor, dude. It will set you free.
Such utter crap... Sounds like you don't understand evolution to me.
We don't know why our singularity exploded into the big bang and made us, nor if anything existed before or it has always been cycling bang/crunch/bang, but it doesn't take any faith in the supernatural at all to say "I haven't figured that out yet."
Meanwhile pretty much everything whatsover IS EXPLAINABLE from the big bang all the way to me typing these words. The laws of the universe are showing us what has happened and there is no need to make up fairies to explain any of it anymore...
Nor witches to explain the plague.
You are pushing the argument to the absurd. You can comprehend the words - at their face value - no need for interpretation. To say you cannot would mean that you cannot understand written language. This point is done - what is, is.
We can all agree there is some degree of evolution. Though I would like to understand how evolution does not form the foundation for racism. I mean this sincerely, I have not really looked into it beyond the surface.
But it sounds like you have a difficulty with God allowing suffering. For you it is easier to say there is no God, than to say there is a God and he allows suffering - is that it?
I probably do not understand evolution as much as you do - but that is OK because evolution does not negate Christianity nor does it negate God. The last time I looked into evolution seriously was back in the 1980's - at that time the fossil record was substantially lacking transitional proof - maybe that has changed since then, But even if it has, it does not hinder a belief in a creator nor in the God of Christianity.
You act like you have this miraculous answer in saying that the universe pulled itself together, on its own, created order, organized systems, and these systems evolved into everything we see today. You act like that does not take a bit of faith. Then you secondary fall back is that you do not know. So are you saying the Bible is not real - or that you do not know?
What would prove it to you? If the Bible had modern science laid out? Have you not studied history. Science constantly makes advancements. What scientists believe is true now may be proven false in the future with new discoveries. Therefore if the Bible said one thing in, say, 1950, science may disagree only to find out later that the Bible was correct all along - as science catches up.
If tomorrow an alien ship landed and showed you that we came from another planet and then explained everything to you, why the earth is as it is, the fossil record etc - you would believe it. I am certain you allow in your mind for that as a possibility. Then why not God?
Does it all come back to the question of suffering for you?
Because there's no good reason to believe in a god. There's no scientific evidence for it, at all.
You can't even define god without contradicting yourself, let alone prove the existence of it.
Do you believe in voodoo dolls REImkt? Why or why not?
Checkmate.