The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Stamp collectors, tuners, trekkies, biologists, etc. don't unify based on theological beliefs.
Atheists do.

not having a theological belief is a theological belief?

If someone does not believe that dragons exist in no way means they study the nature of dragons!

Even if some atheists consider themselves to be atheistic theologians then that is their own personal "theology" since there is no doctrine or dogma for them to follow other than one they choose to create.

slartibartfast said "If the story of Adam and Eve is true then we are all inbred." Which deductively means that he believes the Adam and Eve story is not literally true and we are not all from a common ancestor (contrary to human evolution theory).

technically all of life on earth shares common ancestry. The most recent common ancestors to humans today would not have been a single individual or couple walking around with no others like them though. They would have been part of a population that would have evolved from their ancestors and this couple's genes would carry forward - the other gene structures would eventually become extinct. That is different from inbreeding.

example: the world has many different races, however if over the next 100 thousand years the Asian genes were the only ones progressing then eventually all of humanity will be Asian. That does not mean Asians did not have kids with other races of people; it means that when they did, the kids carried on the Asian genes only (perhaps because they were the stronger genes). The first Asian to start this dominant gene would effective then be the most recent common ancestor to an earth with only humans. You are being myopic; you need to stop thinking of evolution in the same way as the biblical account.

However for the Christian, incest is morally wrong because Paul reaffirms the Old Testament principle against incest in 1 Corinthians 5:1 which points back to Leviticus 20:11-12,19-21 and 18:6. However, this law of the Jews is thousands of years after Adam and Eve where God allowed inbreeding for the sake of population and dispersal. When this was sufficient, God outlawed it. That is why incest is immoral.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make more humans to start off the population rather than having to suspend a law.

Having grown up in the West, whose laws have been influenced by Christianity, we see incest as taboo. So it is condescending to stand on the basis for why you see incest as taboo, the Bible, and ridicule the Bible.

you were the one who mentioned morals.

slartibartfast may have made the point based on genetic mutations common with inbreeding.

[Habit7]

It's definitely not true. However "common ancestor" in terms of the bible means Adam and Eve but in terms of human evolution means "Common Species" which could be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of beings that are able to pro-create with one another.

Source?
Actually Darwin first propounded the Out-of-Africa hypothesis which was later developed to point where it proposed that all of human population descended from migrants from a limited population of homo sapiens out of Africa.

Darwins book just too boring for me to get past the first couple chapters.

So guess you just take the rest as by faith.
However I encourage you to read past Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2. But read about Noah from Genesis 6-10 which more actually represents human ancestry as a result of Noah and his family, not from Adam and Eve.

[Habit7]

Stamp collectors, tuners, trekkies, biologists, etc. don't unify based on theological beliefs.
Atheists do.

not having a theological belief is a theological belief?

An atheist's theological belief is that there is absolutely no God.

a-theo; no god
theo-logical; of the study of god

You could choose to define atheism however you want, but the etymology says something totally different

Wouldn't it make more sense to make more humans to start off the population rather than having to suspend a law.

The law wasn't suspended, it was enacted in Leviticus.

[Slartibartfast]

Source? Actually Darwin first propounded the Out-of-Africa hypothesis which was later developed to point where it proposed that all of human population descended from migrants from a limited population of homo sapiens out of Africa.

Seems like you know the source better than me. What did he mean by limited population. Did he mean a limited population of two? Btw, just for the record I find what he thinks sounds plausible. But again, I didn't read the entire book so don't take my as an authoritative figure on this.

So guess you just take the rest as by faith.
However I encourage you to read past Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2. But read about Noah from Genesis 6-10 which more actually represents human ancestry as a result of Noah and his family, not from Adam and Eve.

Faith in all of the software developers at google and website designers, illustrators and authors all around the world I guess. Keep in mind what separates what my "faith" in this is that I will be the first to say "I am wrong" if someone were to show me something with better evidence to suggest the contrary.

Now to Noah and his family... why does it always come down to incest in the bible. Also, where did all of the water from the flood go? The skies can't hold that much water and it could not recede into the oceans because a global flood can only take place if the oceans are already full.

Btw, in Genesis 9:20-27... did Noah's son rape him. WTF dude! Not cool!

[Habit7]

Dude I respect your position but I would just encourage you to challenge your own beliefs with their counterpoints before you emphatically state them. Maybe then, you will have less chance of having to say "I am wrong."

But Genesis 9:20-27 Noah's son raped him? Please explained how you deduced that?

[Slartibartfast]

I challenge every belief that I have as much as I can possibly challenge it. Isn't that why atheist and theist will never stop arguing. It's a chance for each to see the other side of the argument so that they may educate themselves of the opposing point of view. This would serve to either strengthen the person's belief (or lack of it) of give the person the opportunity to change their point of view.

You think I would talk this much about the bible with atheists? The conversation would be way too on sided and end up with everyone just agreeing with each other in the end. Where is the fun in that.

At the same time, just know that I don't make certain comments to certain individuals. For example it would be insensitive and serve no greater good to convince your grandmother that her husband is gone forever and they would not be reunited in heaven after sharing 50 wonderful years of marriage together. Last time she make hot cocoa for your rude little ass!

Summary- I have only reached where I have through intense questioning of my faith (I used to go to church every Sunday for the first couple decades of my life) and in the end I saw that faith in God makes no sense. However, I will rather discuss my views with people better versed than me in matter of the bible (I throwing you some respect here Habit7).

In the end if after all of this your faith grows stronger then that's great for you, if somehow you lose your faith I'll just show you how that can be great for you to. No hard feelins here bro

Btw that I get the Noah thing of Wikipedia somewhere. Apparently Noah got drunk and naked (true pirate style) and there are different interpretations for what his son did to him. Me chookin fire and bein as ass that's all

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Stamp collectors, tuners, trekkies, biologists, etc. don't unify based on theological beliefs.
Atheists do.

not having a theological belief is a theological belief?

An atheist's theological belief is that there is absolutely no God.

a-theo; no god
theo-logical; of the study of god

You could choose to define atheism however you want, but the etymology says something totally different

now you are just mixing and matching

the term atheist is someone who does not believe there is a God or Gods. No belief is not the same as a system of beliefs.

etymology here is irrelevant since the word atheist has changed usage and meaning over time:
"During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic … The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."
Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God" - Wikipedia

I'm not sure what your fascination with the term is about though. If someone does not believe in something his disbelief is not considered a religion.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make more humans to start off the population rather than having to suspend a law.

The law wasn't suspended, it was enacted in Leviticus.

God must have had the law before enacting it, him being eternal and all knowing, unless you are saying God's morals change over time?

[Habit7]

the term atheist is someone who does not believe there is a God or Gods. No belief is not the same as a system of beliefs.

etymology here is irrelevant since the word atheist has changed usage and meaning over time

The etymology has to be important because otherwise we are not talking about the same thing. Nevertheless if you are using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology to back up your point all it is showing that the word moved from denying the gods for the Ancient Greeks, to denying the Abrahamic God, back to denying the existence of all deities in mordern day english. (as accurate as Wikipedia might be since a man just said it told him Noah was raped by his sons )

Believing that no deity exists in not a lack of theological beliefs, it is one. It requires proof outside of one's own intellect, proof you say is not necessary but apparently should be taken by faith.

God must have had the law before enacting it, him being eternal and all knowing, unless you are saying God's morals change over time?

Well you could presume how God felt about incest but based on the Scripture it wont be accurate to say that he had an aversion familial intermarriage.

As perfect man and woman, Adam and Eve's genetic make up and of their offspring would not have needed to be countered by totally dissimilar genes in order to reduce the possibility of dominate genetic errors. As the human gene pool degraded over time God saw it necessary to restrict offspring from close relatives in order to allow for fewer genetic mistakes (not too shabby for an archaic deity of agrarian ppl). His morals didn't change, God wanted to ensure the successful reproduction of human beings of which through the bloodline of the Jews He would send His Son as a man to die for the sin of those who trust in Him. So God's moral values for the successful continuation of the race saw it necessary at that point to begin to restrict familiar intermarriage. His morals have always been consistent.

[Slartibartfast]

Btw just to clear the record. I genuinely curious about this.

[url]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%209:20-9:27&version=KJV
[/url]
verse 24 "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."

What did Noah's son do to him exactly?

Also what is your source for that whole Adam and Eve explanation. Does it have any evidence supporting it? It seems impossible to deduce that from the bible alone.

[GRIM]

Btw just to clear the record. I genuinely curious about this.

[url]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%209:20-9:27&version=KJV
[/url]
verse 24 "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."

What did Noah's son do to him exactly?

Also what is your source for that whole Adam and Eve explanation. Does it have any evidence supporting it? It seems impossible to deduce that from the bible alone.

The bible itself is is full of "holes" in its story-telling.One of which that I've wondered about was where did cane go after he killed able and who were the other people he met.

[AdamB]

http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Stories ... Kathir.pdf

The First Four Children

The pinnacle of earthly bliss was reached when Adam and Eve witnessed the birth of their first children, a set of twins. Adam was a devoted father and Eve a contented mother. The twins were Cain (Qabil) and his sister. Later Eve gave birth to a second set of twins, Abel (Habil) and his sister. The family enjoyed the bounties and fruits of the earth provided by their Lord. The children grew up to be strong and healthy young adults. Cain tilled the land while Abel raised cattle.

Cain's Disobedience

The time arrived when the two young men desired life partners. This was part of Allah’s plan for mankind, to multiply and form nations with different cultures and colors. Allah revealed to Adam that he should marry each son to the twin sister of the other. Adam instructed his children according to Allah's command, but Cain was displeased with the partner chosen for him, for Abel's twin sister was not as beautiful as his own.

Commentary: Cain's Disobedience

It appears that since the beginning of time, physical beauty has been a factor in the attraction between man and women. This attraction caused Cain to envy his brother Abel. He rebelled
against Allah's command by refusing to accept his father's advice.
At first glance Cain's rebellion might appear strange, but we should remember that although man has a pure nature, the potential for dichotomy exists. In other words, he had both good and bad qualities. He can become greedy, covetous, possessive, selfish and even destructive. Man is, therefore capable of seeking self-satisfaction even if it leads to failure in this life and in the hereafter. The path to goodness lies in harnessing the enemy within him, his baser self by
controlling evil thoughts and deeds and practicing moderation in his desires and actions. His reward then will be the delights of this world and the hereafter. Thus Allah tests us through our
divided nature.

Cain's Jealousy of Abel
Adam was in a dilemma. He wanted peace and harmony in his family, so he invoked Allah for help. Allah commanded that each son offer a sacrifice, and he whose offering was accepted would have right on his side. Abel offered his best camel while Cain offered his worst grain. His sacrifice was not accepted by Allah because of his disobedience to his father and the insincerity in his offering. This enraged Cain even further. Realizing that his hopes marrying his own beautiful sister
were fading, he threatened his brother. "I will kill you! I refuse to see you happy while I remain unhappy!"
Abel feeling sorry for his brother, replied, "It would be more proper for you, my brother to search for the cause of your unhappiness and then walk in the way of peace. Allah accepts the deeds only from those who serve and fear Him, not from those who reject His Commands."

[RBphoto]

Allah accepts the deeds only from those who serve and fear Him, not from those who reject His Commands."

I humbly reject him as there is no proof of him....lol.

Anyway.. had a good Eid buddy? Here are some pictures that might resonate with you.... I put a shout out in the Eid thread to see if anyone wanted to meet me at the mosque that day. Thought I would have finally met you.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 276&type=1

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 276&type=1

[megadoc1]

just passing by and saying hello to all
oh yeah heh

[Habit7]

Btw just to clear the record. I genuinely curious about this.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
verse 24 "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."
What did Noah's son do to him exactly?

verse 23
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

Also what is your source for that whole Adam and Eve explanation. Does it have any evidence supporting it? It seems impossible to deduce that from the bible alone.

Well I never claimed to deduce that from the Bible alone. The Bible says that Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The reason for God's commandment against incest was not initially given, but through empirical science we can see the wisdom against interbreeding within a limited genetic pool.

The bible itself is is full of "holes" in its story-telling.One of which that I've wondered about was where did cane go after he killed able and who were the other people he met.

Well if that is your example of a "hole" it is a poor one. Cain and Abel were one of Adam and Eve's many children as they lived for hundreds of years with no tv Genesis 5:4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.

The Guinness World Book's record for most births from one woman is 69 within a 40 year time span. Factor in the perfect man and woman, living for hundreds of years and their children doing likewise, and the place populated really quickly.

[Slartibartfast]

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."
What did Noah's son do to him exactly?

verse 23
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

I meant Canaan. He is the one that was cursed

Also, a serious question on the bible. You seem to base a lot of your arguments on it. Do you believe that everything in the bible literally happened? And how do you know that what the bible says is true?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

just passing by and saying hello to all
oh yeah heh

the only stupid thing there is the gross misunderstanding of how evolution works

[Habit7]

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."
What did Noah's son do to him exactly?

verse 23
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

I meant Canaan. He is the one that was cursed

Also, a serious question on the bible. You seem to base a lot of your arguments on it. Do you believe that everything in the bible literally happened? And how do you know that what the bible says is true?

Ham saw Noah naked and went to tell his brothers. Perhaps he was glad to see his father in a humiliated state. As a result, Noah subsequently cursed Ham's son, Canaan.



Well what does the Bible say about itself. Among other things it says 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

When we read the Bible, like any other book, we attempt to discover what the author intended to communicate. The literary styles of the Bible are historical narrative, poetry and prophetic literature (foretelling and forth-telling). The Jewish historical narrative contains their theocratic laws, genealogies and historical recounts. The authors, especially Moses the author of the Pentateuch, clearly intended for it to be taken literally because it contains these factual information for the running of their state and for one to be knowledgeable about God, side by side. Furthermore Jesus took the Old Testament literally (Mark 10:6, Luke 11:50–51, Matthew 24:38–39, John 3:14, John 6:32–33, 49, Luke 17:28–32, Matthew 10:15, Luke 4:25–27, Matthew 12:40– 41). So we have the authors intent, a divine plus contemporary interpretation through Jesus and finally we have external corroboration. The Old Testament proves to be the most reliable archaeological document of the Palestine area. Time and time again the ancient geography and civilizations mentioned in the Bible are corroborated by archaeology, sometimes ever after years of disbelief.

The poetic style in Bible exemplified in Psalms, Proverbs, Songs, and Ecclesiastes use flowery and interpretive language in which the context would prove whether or not it is literal or allegorical. Likewise prophetic styles which are from the books Isaiah to Malachi feature historical narratives but along with prophetic and apocalyptic language which is a little more tricky to interpret. For instance the prophecies about Jesus are fulfilled in literal, figurative and 'not as yet' senses.

That being said, there is obvious idioms and figures of speech that just like in modern day literal literature we don't take literally (metaphors, similes, hyperbole, etc) that the context clearly demonstratse the it is not literal.

So to argue for a none literal view of the Bible it would mean that you will be disagreeing with what the Bible says of itself, disagreeing with it authors intentions, disagreeing with Jesus: God incarnate, and believing that its corroboration with archaeology was a random shot in the dark that hit the bulls-eye. That would not be honest.

[Slartibartfast]

Ham saw Noah naked and went to tell his brothers. Perhaps he was glad to see his father in a humiliated state. As a result, Noah subsequently cursed Ham's son, Canaan

So Noah cursed this guys son because the guy saw him naked? What do you think of Noah's response to that offence? Would you do the same to your friend/brother if you could in that situation and why?

Among other things it says 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

And how do you know that that part of the bible in true? Let's say for the sake of argument there was another book (Let's call it the Booble - a mockery of the Bible with completely false*). You know that mockery of scripture is a serious offence in the eyes of God. But what if the Booble had a scripture that said it was indeed the one true scripture, "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." and that the Bible was the mockery.

How would you prove the Bible to be correct and the Booble to be the mockery?

*Assume the Booble reads similarly to the Bible in structure and contenct. Eg. Instead of Adam and Eve there were Adam, Eve, and Jennifer and all the scriptures pointed to polygamy as the norm. Or instead of Noah's ark there was a great earthquake that swallowed all but the righteous and thus the mountains were born when the lands swallowed their bones (hence fossils)

[Habit7]

Well then will have competing truth claims. So just as with the Bible where I didn't just rely on what it said about itself but I also looked at its content for consistency, I also looked at the accuracy of its prophecies and I looked at its corroboration with empirical/verifiable fact.

I haven't met a '"booble" that has superseded the Bible in these parameters.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

the term atheist is someone who does not believe there is a God or Gods. No belief is not the same as a system of beliefs.

etymology here is irrelevant since the word atheist has changed usage and meaning over time

The etymology has to be important because otherwise we are not talking about the same thing. Nevertheless if you are using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology to back up your point all it is showing that the word moved from denying the gods for the Ancient Greeks, to denying the Abrahamic God, back to denying the existence of all deities in mordern day english. (as accurate as Wikipedia might be since a man just said it told him Noah was raped by his sons )

where did wikipedia say Noah was raped by his sons?

you word it as "denying", suggesting that atheists refuse to admit the truth, but that is not the case. How can you state something as fact / truth without evidence?

it is YOUR word usage that is errant. Myopia does not aid any discussion.

Believing that no deity exists in not a lack of theological beliefs, it is one. It requires proof outside of one's own intellect, proof you say is not necessary but apparently should be taken by faith.

it is not a belief based on faith, it is a belief based on the lack of evidence. The same reason you do not believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Many atheists have admitted that if evidence is shown then they will change their lack of belief. That cannot be considered faith. Faith is belief IN something without evidence for it. If there is no evidence, we cannot assume it exists. You cannot say "you can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore we must believe it does exist". If we did that then we'd state as fact that dragons, unicorns, bridge trolls, elves, fairies etc existed. that has nothing to do with faith, only evidence.

God must have had the law before enacting it, him being eternal and all knowing, unless you are saying God's morals change over time?

Well you could presume how God felt about incest but based on the Scripture it wont be accurate to say that he had an aversion familial intermarriage.

As perfect man and woman, Adam and Eve's genetic make up and of their offspring would not have needed to be countered by totally dissimilar genes in order to reduce the possibility of dominate genetic errors. As the human gene pool degraded over time God saw it necessary to restrict offspring from close relatives in order to allow for fewer genetic mistakes (not too shabby for an archaic deity of agrarian ppl). His morals didn't change, God wanted to ensure the successful reproduction of human beings of which through the bloodline of the Jews He would send His Son as a man to die for the sin of those who trust in Him. So God's moral values for the successful continuation of the race saw it necessary at that point to begin to restrict familiar intermarriage. His morals have always been consistent.

a true apologetics response.

I often wonder why apologetics are needed anyway? Why does a holy book need apologizing for?

why did the human gene pool degrade over time? Was this another "effect" of the fall of man?
If so then God made it so that the human gene pool degraded over time but then created a law to prevent it from degrading. That really makes sense to you?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

So Noah cursed this guys son because the guy saw him naked? What do you think of Noah's response to that offence? Would you do the same to your friend/brother if you could in that situation and why?

Canaan was an entire nation that was cursed into slavery by Noah.

But did Joshua ever conquer the Canaanites and all the lands promised to him?

The Old Testament proves to be the most reliable archaeological document of the Palestine area. Time and time again the ancient geography and civilizations mentioned in the Bible are corroborated by archaeology, sometimes ever after years of disbelief.

Archaeological evidence found in Jericho show that the city fell long before and was actually more or less deserted at the time of Joshua's arrival. This evidence was later corroborated by scientific dating methods in 1995. The evidence found contradicts the biblical account of the Battle at Jericho.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Ham saw Noah naked and went to tell his brothers. Perhaps he was glad to see his father in a humiliated state. As a result, Noah subsequently cursed Ham's son, Canaan

So Noah cursed this guys son because the guy saw him naked? What do you think of Noah's response to that offence? Would you do the same to your friend/brother if you could in that situation and why?

The Canaanites were an entire nation that was cursed into slavery by Noah to be the slave of slaves, supposedly because Canaan's father saw Noah drunk and naked.

Habit7, did Joshua ever conquer the Canaanites and all the lands promised to him?

The Old Testament proves to be the most reliable archaeological document of the Palestine area. Time and time again the ancient geography and civilizations mentioned in the Bible are corroborated by archaeology, sometimes ever after years of disbelief.

Archaeological evidence found in Jericho show that the city fell long before and was actually more or less deserted at the time of Joshua's arrival. This evidence was later corroborated by scientific dating methods in 1995. The evidence found contradicts the biblical account of the Battle at Jericho.

Habit7 you also claim the earth is only 6,000-12,000 years old and dinosaurs and man walked the earth together. There is no archaeological evidence of this. Instead there is archaeological evidence showing the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs like T Rex and man lived 65 million years apart. I'm repeating this so slartibartfast can see where you are coming from.

[Slartibartfast]

Well then will have competing truth claims. So just as with the Bible where I didn't just rely on what it said about itself but I also looked at its content for consistency, I also looked at the accuracy of its prophecies and I looked at its corroboration with empirical/verifiable fact.

I haven't met a '"booble" that has superseded the Bible in these parameters.

Consistency - The bible is inconsistent with itself in lots of areas (I can quote if you like)
Accuracy of Prophecies - Any specifics that can be proven as opposed to generalised speculations? (this is how horoscopes work btw)
Corroboration of empirical/verifiable fact - I don't think you get to use this one when talking about the bible. The bibe literally starts off by being wrong.

Habit7 you also claim the earth is only 6,000-12,000 years old and dinosaurs and man walked the earth together. There is no archaeological evidence of this. Instead there is archaeological evidence showing the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs like T Rex and man lived 65 million years apart. I'm repeating this so slartibartfast can see where you are coming from.

Habit7 please tell me this is not true.

[megadoc1]

just passing by and saying hello to all
oh yeah heh

the only stupid thing there is the gross misunderstanding of how evolution works

not as stupid as the lack of observable evidence to prove how some claim it really works

[Habit7]

you word it as "denying", suggesting that atheists refuse to admit the truth, but that is not the case. How can you state something as fact / truth without evidence?

it is YOUR word usage that is errant. Myopia does not aid any discussion.

Ask Slartibartfast about that rape thing

It is your source Wikipedia that uses the "denying." Are you saying that you source is errant?
I have given you the etymology of the word, an atheist claiming that they "proselytise," the US gov't affirming that atheism is a theological view/group http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ax-exempt/ and even here is the "world most famous atheist" describing himself as an agnostic because atheists believe no gods exist. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... exist.html

You have given your understanding that atheism is "a lack of beliefs" and that might be your view, but we English speakers prefer to call that agnosticism, not atheism.

I often wonder why apologetics are needed anyway? Why does a holy book need apologizing for?

If you ask an accusatory question about the Bible you will get an apologetic response. 1 Peter 3:15 is the reason why some Christians engage in apologetics, in fact the Greek word in that verse "apologia" which is translated "answer" is where we get the word apologetics from. So apologetics, aside from general revelation, ensures that you are without excuse for disbelief in the God of the Bible.


Please cite your source about Jericho before I attempt to refute it.


My age of the Earth theory challenges your age of the Earth theory. There is no empirical way to ascertain the age of the Earth. The Bible doesnt give the age of the Earth, so while you might choose to engage in ad hominem attacks against me, my view of the age of the Earth don't disprove the Bible as much as your continual error of believing that archaeology studies dinosaurs disproves an old Earth. Speaking of which, concerning dinosaurs I told you:

And how is Dr. Lisle bias any more different than yours when you ask for proof that man coexisted with dinosaurs and I referenced dinosaur lagerstatten in which we have bone and tissue of dinosaurs that existed no less than 66 million years ago. And you amount that to just the soil type and some nondescript circumstance in which the fossils were preserved. When we have mummies that were entombed in Egypt (one of the best environments in the world for preservation), in near anaerobic conditions, with preservatives and embalming, for a few thousand years, that struggle to maintain that level of preservation we see in lagerstatten. Arent you also biased of your theory despite the contrary facts?

Well that is my palaeontological evidence. There is archaeological evidence like dinosaur cave drawings and similar 'dragon' depictions across various disconnected cultures, but I like to mostly refer dinosaur lagerstatten.

Consistency - The bible is inconsistent with itself in lots of areas (I can quote if you like)
Accuracy of Prophecies - Any specifics that can be proven as opposed to generalised speculations? (this is how horoscopes work btw)
Corroboration of empirical/verifiable fact - I don't think you get to use this one when talking about the bible. The bibe literally starts off by being wrong.

Consistency - please do quote
Accuracy of Prophecies - viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=13530#p6985364
Corroboration of empirical/verifiable fact - there is no subject that is quantifiable by empirical or verifiable fact the Bible is wrong on, none. The origins of homo sapiens has many theories, to deny the Bible's account would mean that you have to stand of something even less sure.

I know that you are new to the discussion and most of what you have brought up have been hammered out earlier in the thread. But as I told you, challenge your beliefs with counterpoints first. Don't do like what others in thread have done and pull down the first thing you see on a skeptic's websites only to have with crushed by a simple reading on the verse's context.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

just passing by and saying hello to all
oh yeah heh

the only stupid thing there is the gross misunderstanding of how evolution works

not as stupid as the lack of observable evidence to prove how some claim it really works

how do you expect to observe a process that takes place over tens of millions of years?

Evidence from research in biology, chemistry, geology, archeology and every other science agree with each other on evolution of species and how it works. None of them agree with a 6 day creation other than "creation science" which cannot be verified and has never been peer reviewed in scientific journals.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

you word it as "denying", suggesting that atheists refuse to admit the truth, but that is not the case. How can you state something as fact / truth without evidence?

it is YOUR word usage that is errant. Myopia does not aid any discussion.

Ask Slartibartfast about that rape thing

It is your source Wikipedia that uses the "denying." Are you saying that you source is errant?
I have given you the etymology of the word, an atheist claiming that they "proselytise," the US gov't affirming that atheism is a theological view/group http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ax-exempt/ and even here is the "world most famous atheist" describing himself as an agnostic because atheists believe no gods exist. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... exist.html

You have given your understanding that atheism is "a lack of beliefs" and that might be your view, but we English speakers prefer to call that agnosticism, not atheism.

my point is you can call it "pumpernickel", a lack of belief in something or even claiming something does not exist because there is no evidence of it is not a religion.

I often wonder why apologetics are needed anyway? Why does a holy book need apologizing for?

If you ask an accusatory question about the Bible you will get an apologetic response. 1 Peter 3:15 is the reason why some Christians engage in apologetics, in fact the Greek word in that verse "apologia" which is translated "answer" is where we get the word apologetics from. So apologetics, aside from general revelation, ensures that you are without excuse for disbelief in the God of the Bible.


Please cite your source about Jericho before I attempt to refute it.

take a read of this book by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7927 ... up-jericho

My age of the Earth theory challenges your age of the Earth theory. There is no empirical way to ascertain the age of the Earth. The Bible doesnt give the age of the Earth, so while you might choose to engage in ad hominem attacks against me, my view of the age of the Earth don't disprove the Bible as much as your continual error of believing that archaeology studies dinosaurs disproves an old Earth. Speaking of which, concerning dinosaurs I told you:

And how is Dr. Lisle bias any more different than yours when you ask for proof that man coexisted with dinosaurs and I referenced dinosaur lagerstatten in which we have bone and tissue of dinosaurs that existed no less than 66 million years ago. And you amount that to just the soil type and some nondescript circumstance in which the fossils were preserved. When we have mummies that were entombed in Egypt (one of the best environments in the world for preservation), in near anaerobic conditions, with preservatives and embalming, for a few thousand years, that struggle to maintain that level of preservation we see in lagerstatten. Arent you also biased of your theory despite the contrary facts?

Well that is my palaeontological evidence. There is archaeological evidence like dinosaur cave drawings and similar 'dragon' depictions across various disconnected cultures, but I like to mostly refer dinosaur lagerstatten.

this is not a my theory vs your theory thing. I am stating that the scientific evidence shows the earth is billions of years old and you are stating the Bible is the literal account of Earth's history and so is 6000-12000 years old.

cave drawings of mythical creatures is not scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed with man. The only reason you chose to believe dinosaurs existed with man is because bones and fossils have been found which you cannot deny, so based on the 6 day creation and Noah's flood you have no choice but you have man and dinosaurs co-existing - however there is no scientific evidence for it.

Regarding lagerstatten: The Department of Earth Sciences at University of Bristol has a webpage here listing their Lagerstatten Catalogue from the Faculty of Paleobiology.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/lagerstatten/

Quote: "The Burgess Shale is probably the most spectacular and scientifically significant site of fossil preservation in the world. It is located in British Colombia, Canada, and dates from the Middle Cambrian approximately 505 million years ago,"

Regarding preserved bone and tissue of dinosaurs: Mary Schweitzer is the paleontologist who discovered a way to extract tissue from fossil bones. It is not preserved flesh just sitting there in a soft state, instead she had to use special acids that eat away at hard bone but leave the soft tissue behind, only then was she able to see the blood vessels and tissue.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... l=y&page=1

Mary Schweitzer herself said that creationists who want to use her research "twist her words and manipulate her data" to make it appear that she is supporting their claims. She states that the geology of the fossil site matches the bones buried there as being 68 million years old.

Regarding Dr. Lisle

In this video Dr. Lisle says: If we find an evidence that disagrees with the word of God, then we ignore the evidence and go with the word of God.

That is not science.
Please show me peer reviewed scientific evidence that the earth is 6000-12000 years old.

[Habit7]

how do you expect to observe a process that takes place over tens of millions of years?

Well how can you say that someone else's position is wrong if you can't offer observable evidence?

Whale evolution is one of the most glaring shortcomings of evolution theory:

my point is you can call it "pumpernickel", a lack of belief in something or even claiming something does not exist because there is no evidence of it is not a religion.

Well I call it atheism. Because one lacks evidence of something, you cannot absolutely say it doesn't exist. If one has insufficient evidence then at best they are an agnostic. One can say that a mythical creature doesnt exist by pointing to the evidence of the mythical source of its inception. But for atheist to say God doesnt exist it would require evidence, if they were to deny even divine claim, they have no source the eternal nature of matter, the fine tuning of the universe for life and the source or nature of energy in the universe.

Kathleen Kenyon who died in 1978 was challenged in 1990 Bryant Wood who provided several evidences including a C14 dating done by a British museum supporting his date which aligns with the Bible. The museum later retracted its dating due to a wrong calibration and now supports Kenyon.
Wood has said:

Despite my disagreements with Kenyon’s major conclusion, I nevertheless applaud her for her careful and painstaking field work. It was she who brought order to the confused stratigraphic picture at Jericho. Her thoroughgoing excavation methods and detailed reporting of her findings, however, did not carry over into her analytical work. When the evidence is critically examined there is no basis for her contention that City IV was destroyed by the Hyksos or Egyptians in the mid-16th century B.C.E. The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a Carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of Late Bronze I, about 1400 B.C.E. Garstang’s original date for this event appears to be the correct one!

Was this destruction at the hands of the Israelites? The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the Biblical narrative is substantial:

• The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20).
• The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10).
• The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1).
• The siege was short (Joshua 6:15).
• The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20).
• The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18).
• The city was burned (Joshua 6:20).

One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E. because of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200 years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period.

A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, which places the Israelite entry into Canaan in about 1400 B.C.E. The dispute between these two views is already well-known to BAR readers.**

But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was resident in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data emerge and as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in Canaan.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... dence.aspx

First of all I have never referenced Mary Schweitzer, so that is a strawman. The existence of dinosaur lagerstatten outside of the good lady's area of study continues to stun those who believe 66 million year old preservation animal soft body parts

Again my view of the age of the earth is rabbit hole that I have happily gone down the road before and have giving you some of these same answers.
However the Bible doesnt give the age of the Earth. At most I am wrong or you are wrong, but either doesnt disprove the Bible.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

how do you expect to observe a process that takes place over tens of millions of years?

Well how can you say that someone else's position is wrong if you can't offer observable evidence?

YOur logic is flawed Are you going to accept that there is a distant planet made of cheese because you cannot observe that it does not exist? Or are you going to use the observable data that you do have, scientific research and calculations to determine the composition of far off planets?

Whale evolution is one of the most glaring shortcomings of evolution theory:
can you quote actual scientists?
These people you are quoting like Dr Lisle, Dr Berlinski and Bryant Wood are all pseudo scientists attached to privately owned and funded organisations that support creationism and intelligent design. NONE of their work on the 6 day creation and claims against evolution is peer reviewed by the scientific community.

This video you posted is hilarious. Cows do not go to live in water over night to become whales. His statements show his ignorance of the science. Evolution happens very slowly over tens of millions of years, it is happening all now. Berlinski in another video stated his conspiracy theory that science is out to fool the world.

my point is you can call it "pumpernickel", a lack of belief in something or even claiming something does not exist because there is no evidence of it is not a religion.

Well I call it atheism. Because one lacks evidence of something, you cannot absolutely say it doesn't exist. If one has insufficient evidence then at best they are an agnostic. One can say that a mythical creature doesnt exist by pointing to the evidence of the mythical source of its inception. But for atheist to say God doesnt exist it would require evidence, if they were to deny even divine claim, they have no source the eternal nature of matter, the fine tuning of the universe for life and the source or nature of energy in the universe.

it is ok to say "I do not know" instead of "God did it". I can't help but bring up my lightning / Zeus analogy here, but we know now that lightning does not come from the staff of the god Zeus as religious Greeks once believed.

Kathleen Kenyon who died in 1978 was challenged in 1990 Bryant Wood who provided several evidences including a C14 dating done by a British museum supporting his date which aligns with the Bible. The museum later retracted its dating due to a wrong calibration and now supports Kenyon.
Wood has said:

Despite my disagreements with Kenyon’s major conclusion, I nevertheless applaud her for her careful and painstaking field work. It was she who brought order to the confused stratigraphic picture at Jericho. Her thoroughgoing excavation methods and detailed reporting of her findings, however, did not carry over into her analytical work. When the evidence is critically examined there is no basis for her contention that City IV was destroyed by the Hyksos or Egyptians in the mid-16th century B.C.E. The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a Carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of Late Bronze I, about 1400 B.C.E. Garstang’s original date for this event appears to be the correct one!

Was this destruction at the hands of the Israelites? The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the Biblical narrative is substantial:

• The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20).
• The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10).
• The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1).
• The siege was short (Joshua 6:15).
• The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20).
• The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18).
• The city was burned (Joshua 6:20).

One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E. because of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200 years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period.

A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, which places the Israelite entry into Canaan in about 1400 B.C.E. The dispute between these two views is already well-known to BAR readers.**

But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was resident in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data emerge and as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in Canaan.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... dence.aspx

First of all I have never referenced Mary Schweitzer, so that is a strawman. The existence of dinosaur lagerstatten outside of the good lady's area of study continues to stun those who believe 66 million year old preservation animal soft body parts

Again my view of the age of the earth is rabbit hole that I have happily gone down the road before and have giving you some of these same answers.
However the Bible doesnt give the age of the Earth. At most I am wrong or you are wrong, but either doesnt disprove the Bible.

lol @ bible archaeology / this is different from regular archaeology because they force evidence they find to fit with the bible?

can you show me where the museum retracted the findings by Kenyon?

Radio Carbon dating done in 1995 of charred cereal grains from the Jericho site corroborated Kenyons findings, though Wood rejected it, all he could do was claim he is sticking to his beliefs (a la Dr. Lisle).

Mary Schweitzer was the first paleontologist to extract soft tissue from fossils so she should be mentioned when discussing soft tissue as a claim to a young earth. She disagrees with the young earth theory. She did NOT find soft tissue in that state in the dinosaur bone, that has never been found. She had to put the fossil through an acid process to extract the tissue, it was NOT soft when they found the fossil!!!

take off those blinders!

[Slartibartfast]

The main problem with the bible is that you assume it is correct before you ask a question about it. That is where I think that religious folk are blinded by faith and belief. You cannot start with an answer before you ask a question (my personal view, feel free to correct me).

This is the main difference between looking at the bible and at science for facts. Science, by definition (via the scientific method) is self correcting. Questions are asked, experiments done and observations made. Hypothesis are then bases upon these observations. In your case you first consult the bible and then make your observations, and then through the assumption that the bible is correct you skew your results to fit in with the bible. This incurs an error of bias on any conclusion you come to.

Here is a quick list off of the top of my head of things that prove the earth is at least 10 times older than that concluded by the bible.

Geology. All you need is a basic idea of plate tectonics
- Continental drift
- Fold mountains (eg. Swiss Alps)
- Carbon Dating (where contamination of samples cause the samples to seem younger than they really are, and yet a lot of carbon dated specimens are older than the world God created)
- Rock dating (specifically dating of meteorites as these would have been formed when the solar system was)


Wait I forgot we are not just talking about the Earth here. In that case take a look to cosmology.
The Universe is expanding at an accelerating pace which suggests that it must have had a beginning (about 13 billion years before God got the idea to start a Universe)



BTW a look back at inconsistencies in the Bible
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible- ... encies.pdf
There are 700 there to keep you busy. Happy Reading