<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Sep 25 2004, 11:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 25 2004, 11:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The process of evolution has been stopped in humans becuase the process of natural selection has been undermined by the fact that we build environments for ourselfs that are safe for all (thus none are selected out), thus natural selection must be a prerequisite for evolution, and thus evolution must be selected. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever heard of the <a href='http://www.darwinawards.com/' target='_blank'>Darwin Awards?</a> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Or maybe, as it is oft-said, we should just take warning labels off everything and let the problem solve itself...
2 Chronicles 4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
we know that c = (pi)d If d = 10 and c = 30.... pi = 3?
NICE!
God inconsistent? Let's see: Jer.3:12 "I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." Jer.17:4 "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."
I can get a million more of these if you want... But even 1 inconsistency should be enough to prove it's not God right? God is perfect ffs!
Saying "something can't come from nothing!" is a pretty lame copout for religion. Just because science hasn't explained or figured something out yet doesn't mean that it's automatically God. To quote someone who plays TFC: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a question to the anti-big bangers:
Why does what came before the big bang have to be God?
It's honestly no different from how people used to worship the sun and the moon (which are perfectly explainable objects) because they didn't understand how they worked or what they were good for. It's no different from how people used to justify lightning (a perfectly explainable event) as the wrath of God. Same goes for any number of more complicated geological and astronomical events like stars, meteors, comets, and solar/lunar eclipses, volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc.
At what point does one draw the line between what can be explained with science, and simply becomes the traditional excuse of "It must be God because we don't know how?"
It's a line that's always changing, because Christianity is literally forced to change and cope with what science proves.
I think religion, in a responsible and mature method of practice, serves the important purpose of uniting strangers' hands and enouraging generosity and kindness.
But the purpose of using it as the end-all-be-all excuse for easily explaining to the masses what science doesn't have an answer for yet is the wrong one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I totally agree with him. Think about it, try to be open minded.
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Sep 23 2004, 10:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Sep 23 2004, 10:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But what people aren't understanding is that atheists have faith that they are right, they are the deviant from the norm and they have no proof of their beliefs. So they have the biggest leap of faith of all. Faith that there is truely nothing whereas there is no proof, but rather much against such according to many religions. They suddenly create a group on non-believers and call themselves right. Well where is their proof, I just find it amazing that atheists are the only group that can make so many ballsy statements and get away with it simply because we cant disprove them because they have no facts. What any atheist has yet to answer is how was the Earth created. When they answer that with evidence then I'll be happy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you kidding me? How does being atheist take more 'faith' than believing in God?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Sep 26 2004, 12:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 12:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Sep 25 2004, 07:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 25 2004, 07:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why should I have to prove that God exists? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ha. ha. You're not serious are you? Go ahead and have blind faith in some religion that's been forged by MAN, but I'll stick to my science with cold hard facts, at least science admits when they are wrong.
There are so many inconsistencies between numbers, historical errors, scientific impossibilities, and things that are just plain wrong in the Bible that it's absolutely ludicrous to think that it's the book of God. In the bible it says that Pi = 3. Wow my calculator is more powerful than God himself. Go figure. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well you go on beliving that you are a little point in a sea of nothing. All you can prove is that you think and therefore you are, so I see no reason to attemt to draw lines to a proof that I know I can't make. However, if you give me a set of presuppositions... For instance, I belive without a doubt that what I can sence is a representation of a realitly that acctually exists to some degree the way I see it. I belive that other human beings exist the way they look like they exist, and I belive that most people spend thier lives working for the betterment of mankind, and due to that, science and history are a reasonable reflection of the way things acctually are, and what things acctually happened. Based on these presuppositions and personal experiances filtered through my set of presuppositions, I have come to belive that there is a God in the universe. If you had read the rest of this thread you would know why I belive that the God that exists in the universe is the God of the christians, so I'm not going to explain that one. I don't think you really understand what is going on here, since by pulling the quote you did out of the post it was made in, you obviously totally missed the whole point of the post, and the probably most of the thread as well since you seem to have ignored all the explinations and evidences that we have posted to argue the existance of God so far. FYI, the bible contains no known scientific inconsistancies, infact there are parts in the bible that discribed things about the nature of the world that were not scientificly discovered for several thousand years after they were written in the text. All the percieved scientific innomalies come from violent overliteration of the text, and frankly, the inability for most christians to read a story without confusing fact and value. The bible really doesn't make too many conclusive scientific claims... at least not in literal language.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Sep 26 2004, 05:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> God inconsistent? Let's see: Jer.3:12 "I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." Jer.17:4 "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."
I can get a million more of these if you want... But even 1 inconsistency should be enough to prove it's not God right? God is perfect ffs! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know why there is a million - because too many people go through without heed for context or understanding of Greek and Hebrew. Yet they dont care, in their desperation to find errors, about little things like truth and accuracy, which is why they present stupid things like
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jer.3:12 "I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." Jer.17:4 "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and pretend its an inconsistancy.
Jer 3:12-13 "Go, proclaim this message towards the north: "Return, faithless <b>Israel</b>, declares the Lord, I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful, declares the Lord, I will not be angry forever. Only acknowledge your guilt - you have rebelled against the Lord your God, you have scattered your favours to foreign gods under every spreading tree, and have not obeyed me declares the Lord"
Jeremiah 17 1 "<b>Judah's</b> sin is engraved with an iron tool, inscribed with a flint point, on the tablets of their hearts and on the horns of their altars. 2 Even their children remember their altars and Asherah poles [1] beside the spreading trees and on the high hills. 3 My mountain in the land and your [2] wealth and all your treasures I will give away as plunder, together with your high places, because of sin throughout your country. 4 Through your own fault you will lose the inheritance I gave you. I will enslave you to your enemies in a land you do not know, for you have kindled my anger, and it will burn forever."
So not only was God talking to Israel in the first, and Judah (a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLACE) in the second, but he qualified the first, saying his anger wouldnt last forever if only you'd repent. Even if both passages had been aimed at Israel it STILL wouldnt be an inconsistency.
Please, dont insult our intelligence - when posting alleged contradictions, can you PLEASE look up the surrounding verses and avoid making a fool of yourself. <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/' target='_blank'>Its only a click away</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Sep 25 2004, 11:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 25 2004, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> FYI, the bible contains no known scientific inconsistancies, infact there are parts in the bible that discribed things about the nature of the world that were not scientificly discovered for several thousand years after they were written in the text. All the percieved scientific innomalies come from violent overliteration of the text, and frankly, the inability for most christians to read a story without confusing fact and value. The bible really doesn't make too many conclusive scientific claims... at least not in literal language. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Spoken like a true bible humper...
I can link you ALL DAY LONG to inconsistencies and scientific errors in the bible. First though, please explain why God would think Pi = 3?
Marine: I admit I should've looked up the full passage... you got me there. It still doesn't really matter... there are plenty of other errors... please explain to me why God thinks Pi = 3 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Besides... he's still saying that he will not hate anyone forever, then he says that he hates this person/whatever he's talking about forever.... Even if you qualify the statement of not hating someone forever... it's still a contradiction imo (he never says that the 2nd guys can repent and be not hated forever)
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Sep 26 2004, 01:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 26 2004, 01:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> FYI, the bible contains no known scientific inconsistancies, infact there are parts in the bible that discribed things about the nature of the world that were not scientificly discovered for several thousand years after they were written in the text. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Jonah and the whale, 7 day creation, etc. etc.
Are you honestly contending that these don't violate scientific law? Or is everything that is blatantly false just being taken too literally?
I can link you ALL DAY LONG to inconsistencies and scientific errors in the bible. First though, please explain why God would think Pi = 3? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp' target='_blank'>Pi=3?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Does the Bible say pi equals 3.0? by Russell Grigg
First published in Creation Ex Nihilo 17(2):24–25 March–May 1995 SUBSCRIBE TODAY
In 1 Kings 7:23 there is an intriguing statement:
‘And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.’
A similar account is given in the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 4:2.
From time to time, sceptics have used these verses to ridicule the accuracy of the Bible by claiming that, if one uses the figures stated, the circumference of the vessel divided by its diameter gives 3.0, instead of pi (p), which is 3.14159 …1
Closer examination shows there are at least two possible explanations.
1. The first concerns the meaning of the word ‘cubit’, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man’s forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements.2 It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit.
From 1 Kings 7:23 (‘a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about’), it appears that the circumference was measured with ‘a line’, i.e. a piece of string or cord on which the distance was marked, and this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer, using his own or someone else’s forearm, or possibly a cubit-long rod. Similarly the diameter would have been marked on a line and ‘cubitized’ in the same way.
If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits, for example, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumference would then have been 30.32 cubits. This would have been reckoned as 30 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would then have been 30.32 ¸ 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for p, even though the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 ¸ 10 = 3.
While the above seems reasonable, we have no way of knowing for certain whether the measurements were approximated in this way. However, even if it is assumed that the measurements given were precisely 10 and 30 cubits, the following appears to provide a definitive answer.
2. Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies’ (KJV), or a rim ‘like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom’ (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily.3 It is believed by Bible scholars to have looked like the drawing below.4
Brass sea with brim
Let us consider the details given in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. These are:
1. The diameter of 10 cubits was measured ‘from brim to brim’ (v. 23), i.e. from the topmost point of the brim on one side to the topmost point of the brim on the other side (points A and B in the diagram).
2. The circumference of 30 cubits was measured with a line, ‘round about’ (v. 23), i.e. the most natural meaning of these words is that they refer to the circumference of the outside of the main body of the tank, measured by a string pulled tightly around the vessel below the brim. It is very obvious that the diameter of the main body of the tank was less than the diameter of the top of the brim. And it is also obvious that the circumference of 30 cubits could have been measured at any point down the vertical sides of the vessel, below the brim. For a measured circumference of 30 cubits, we can calculate what the external diameter of the vessel would have been at that point from the formula:
diameter = circumference ¸ p
= 30 cubits ¸ 3.14
= 9.55 cubits.
Thus the external diameter of the vessel at the point where the circumference was measured must have been 9.55 cubits.5
It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of p, and in particular it does not say that p = 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination. [See also Does the Bible Give a Wrong Value for Pi? from Tekton Apologetics Ministry.] References and Footnotes
1.
p, or the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is what has been known as an irrational number or infinite non-repeating decimal, of which the first digits are 3.1415926536 …. A value of 3.14 is close enough for our purposes. Return to text. 2.
Abingdon’s Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Return to text. 3.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 4:368, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1988. Return to text. 4.
Adapted from reference 3. An NIV footnote (not part of the inspired text) to 1 Kings 7:26 suggests that the vessel had a greater volume than the above figures allow. This could indicate that the vessel may have been shaped more like a lily than imagined (i.e. part of it may have been bulbous), or that the conversion factor used by the NIV commentator was incorrect. Return to text. 5.
Some have suggested that there is one other explanation that fits all the dimensions given in the biblical text, if the circumference measured refers to the inside of the vessel. (This is a possibility, although, as already stated, it was most likely the external circumference which was measured.) The diameter was 10 cubits or 4.50 metres, the circumference was 30 cubits or 13.50 metres, and the walls were ‘a hand breadth thick’ (verse 26) or 10 centimetres (to the nearest centimetre).6 If the diameter of 4.50 metres was the outside measurement, we subtract 10 centimetres x 2 (to allow for the thickness of the wall on either side) to arrive at a figure of 4.30 metres for the internal diameter of the vessel, and we can now calculate the internal circumference using the formula:
circumference = diameter x p
= 4.3 metres x 3.14
= 13.50 metres
= 30 cubits
which is exactly the figure given in 1 Kings 7:23. But as shown, there is no need to resort to this solution.Return to text. 6.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 5:677, 1992. Return to text. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Might I suggest, Nadagast, that you tone things down so you look like less of a fool when I post rebuttal. Bear in mind that attacks on Christianity have been occuring for over 2000 years, so Christians are very used to this, and spend a lot of time on apologetics.
EDIT
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Omnipotence is impossible? Can God create a spherical triangle? Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it? Can God think of a time when He was not omnipotent? Atheists claim that any answer to any of these questions means that God cannot be omnipotent and, therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist. On the surface, the questions sound convincing. However, we will find that these questions are a form of the kind of question such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The topic of omnipotence (the ability of God to do anything, i.e., God is all-powerful) is frequently cited by atheists as proof that the God of the Bible cannot exist. The claim has been made that if there is anything that God cannot do, then God cannot be omnipotent and, therefore, does not exist. Is the God of the Bible omnipotent?
The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty."1 However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin.2 God cannot lie.3 Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do. Specific arguments against omnipotence
Some of the arguments against omnipotence are plain silly and stupid. Can God create a spherical triangle? Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid. God cannot turn truth into a lie. If humans define a triangle as a two dimensional object formed by the intersection of three lines, it makes no sense to ask if God could make one that was spherical. When one says that God is all-powerful, one means that God is able to accomplish all that He desires to do. Even an all-powerful being cannot do what is impossible by definition. God can do many things that are humanly impossible. However, there are some things that even an all-powerful being cannot do.
Can God create a rock He cannot lift? Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The above atheistic argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything - even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.
Could God think of a time when He was not omnipotent? If He can't think of it, He isn't omnipotent, but if He does think of it then there was a time when He wasn't omnipotent? This question is quite similar to the rock question above. The answer, of course, is that God can never think of a time when He wasn't omnipotent. God has always been omnipotent. His inability to contradict His divine character does not mean that He isn't omnipotent. Conclusions
The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail.
These kinds of arguments are clearly illogical and even silly, although they are commonly used by inexperienced atheists. Most intelligent atheists have dropped these kinds of arguments long ago.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can link you ALL DAY LONG to inconsistencies and scientific errors in the bible. First though, please explain why God would think Pi = 3? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp' target='_blank'>Pi=3?</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry it's GOD. GOD HIMSELF does not need a 3 page document explaining something that would be so easy to just make right the first time, if he had the knowledge (the MEN that wrote the bible didn't).
Look seriously, explain to me how the world is flat. Explain to me how Noah fit every single species of animal on his small ark. Explain how the world was created in 7 days. Explain how the Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun rotates around it. Please, I'm all ears. It's BS. How could you believe that it's the word of god?
hence "natural selection". I think you have two very different concepts confused.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WTH? Did you fail freshman year biology or something? Evolution is random? If evolution is carried out by a selective process, then could you explain just how the hell it's random? Do you have any clue just what evolution is? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> you must have been the one not paying attention, since i've taken college level bio courses. anyway, evolution is random. natural selection is not. natural selection cannot, in and of itself, produce a separate species. natural selection is merely a genetic selection of *already existing* traits. evolution creates new traits by genetic mutation - point mutations or shift mutations, or possibly intron/exon interaction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're bickering over the definition of evolution. Thinking about it twice I think acctually Camo is right here, evolution is the end result of all the evolutionary processes, one of which is natural selection (there are three more, but I can't remember them). The random factor is mutation, which is the first step to the whole process. Wheee, you are stating that evolution = mutation, I'm pretty sure that evolution is the entire end result process. The process of evolution has been stopped in humans becuase the process of natural selection has been undermined by the fact that we build environments for ourselfs that are safe for all (thus none are selected out), thus natural selection must be a prerequisite for evolution, and thus evolution must be selected.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, he has a point. Evolution is carried out by chance, and is not a predefined process. Another example of such would be cancer - while there is no code in our body that purposely bring about cancer, many people are afflicted with the disease - by chance manipulation of their genes through radiation and or long term chemical exposure. The evolution of humanity really is at full stop - unless you count immunity to certain diseases. Generally, our genes are nearly identical, give or take some minor inconsistencies. This of course, is an entirely different subject, and would fall under nature vs nurture, but I believe personally that the "stupid" or "ignorant" people are the result of a poor upbringing and education, not their genes.
However, that's completely irrelevant to the point being discussed - which mainly involves the creationists claiming the improbability of life-from-nonlife as 1 in 10^40000 as support for their claims.
Nadagast: Biblical citations were analyzed around the first half of this debate, and really don't prove anything. The bible has been revised several times throughout history - and its original conception involved in the "purification" of several then politically-incorrect chapters.
To claim that the Bible is perfectly consistent takes, well, an enormous leap of faith. Modern publications are fraught with mistakes and inconsistencies in themselves, and to say that the Bible, a work of at least fourty different men, is conclusive in its meaning and factual information is quite impossible to believe. The bible is a book of anecdotes, and to take the story of Jonah or Moses literally would mean to take everything in the story literally - including the part about being swallowed by a whale.
Anyway, I don't like where this debate is going. Let's focus on evidence for and against both sides, rather than this abstract struggle over faith. Bible citations prove nothing, and bitching about them one way or the other isn't going to prove your point.
P.S. Shutup Nadagast. Read the thread, do some research, think a little. Marine01, there's no point in refuting his arguments if there's nothing to them. Can we get back to where the discussion was before this crap started coming out?
Cam if the bible is the work of God, wouldn't it be consistent? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh and I'm so sorry for not reading 12 pages of this. ::ROLLEYES::
Here's more: 2 Sam.21:12 "the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa" 1 Sam.31:4-6 "so Saul took his own sword and fell on it."
Straight from your website, Marine. CMON <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Explain this one
Oh and pro job linking me to some random bible humper websites that don't prove anything. When you get your link from such a polarized source it means nothing. I wouldn't link you to a Fox News (and they aren't near as polarized right as bible humping websites are polarized towards the bible) page if I were trying to show how republicans are right would I? Well I could but it wouldnt be very credible <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Another? (from your website)
Gen 46:21 The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Beker, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard. 1 Chron 7:6 Three sons of Benjamin: Bela, Beker and Jediael.
I guess you could sorta explain this away to the bible being incredibly vague... but that's a pretty weak argument since it's the book of God.
more...
Acts 7:14 After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. (Egypt) Exodus 1:5 The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.
more......
Mark 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." Judges 1:19 The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.
God can do anything but move iron chariots? Heh...
oops, accidently edited out my last post instead of replying -.-
You honestly had me stumped Nadagast. But then, the answer is simple.
"IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE."
God only influenced the authors of said book, it does not neccessarily imply that he was speaking for them. Their philosophies were inherent, yet the means by which they taught their philosophy differed. The bible, as I've already said, is a book of anecdotes, many of them folk stories passed from storyteller to storyteller, taking on a life of its own, until someone finally decided to jot them down. Others, like Ecclestiastes, are essentially a philosophical essay, whose basic philosophy may have been a product of religious insight, but is ultimately the result of human direction. Being human, they are prone to mistakes. You are right, if God himself had been solely responsible for the Bible, there would be no inconsistencies, no scientific anomalies. You err only in that the Bible was indeed a work of human effort, if not driven by divine experience.
well if the bible isn't created and error checked if you will, by God, then it isn's his word is it? Plus it really brings its credibility into question. It seems a whole lot more likely to me that it's just written by a bunch of men (who may have claimed divine inspiration).
I don't really have a problem with parts of the bible being used as moral guidelines and bringing people together and whatnot, but believing in God and the whole mythology thing is pretty tough for me...
Also I dunno but does the bible condone slavery? I'm literally asking, I just saw this browsing around: Leviticus 25:44-46 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Also how do you know that Christianity is right as opposed to all the other religions? To quote: If faith is conviction without evidence, then isn't proof irrelevant? In which case, why is your religion right and everyone else's wrong?
There are three ways to interpret God's word: literal, symbolic, and indirect.
I believe most religious fundamentalists (and some not so fundamental) would have us intrepret the Bible word for word - refuting modern science in the process. By this <i>literal</i> translation of the Bible, every word of the Bible is accepted as fact, and no amount of historical, archaelogical, physical, or biological evidence may refute this knowledge because quite simply, the Bible says it isn't so. Circular reasoning at its best.
Symbolically, you would need to emphasize with the original authors, whom I have defined above as being mere carriers of religious philosophy under the (pretense) of some divine intervention. These men would then have to explain this philosophy using their view of the world at the time - which may have seen PI as 3 or folk tales of the time.
Indirectly, the authors of the Bible were mere philosophers whose words were later combined and then misintrepreted as the "words of god." They were doubtlessly religious, but they did not neccessarily have to be under some form of divine stimulation.
The word of god in the Bible could be either symbolic or literal, depending on how far you wish to take it. Atheists would have to, by definition, intrepret the bible indirectly, much as someone would absorb the philosophy in a modern work of literature.
Yes, the Bible condones slavery. Do a search on these forums for more info: <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php</a>?
EDIT:
Skulkbait: So it breaks a few freaking rules, shutup already. This entire concept of "religious discussion is flawed" is annoying. There are entire forums devoted to this topic of discussion, and these forums can't have even one? If anything, it is not a reflection of the inherent inconclusiveness of the topic itself, but of the people who are unwilling to come to a conclusion.
It only goes to show that the Bible should not be viewed literally, but for its philosophical and symbolic content. Nowhere in the Bible does it attempt to justify slavery, it merely treats it as commonplace.
2 Chronicles 4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
we know that c = (pi)d If d = 10 and c = 30.... pi = 3?
NICE!
God inconsistent? Let's see: Jer.3:12 "I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." Jer.17:4 "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."
I can get a million more of these if you want... But even 1 inconsistency should be enough to prove it's not God right? God is perfect ffs!
Saying "something can't come from nothing!" is a pretty lame copout for religion. Just because science hasn't explained or figured something out yet doesn't mean that it's automatically God. To quote someone who plays TFC: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a question to the anti-big bangers:
Why does what came before the big bang have to be God?
It's honestly no different from how people used to worship the sun and the moon (which are perfectly explainable objects) because they didn't understand how they worked or what they were good for. It's no different from how people used to justify lightning (a perfectly explainable event) as the wrath of God. Same goes for any number of more complicated geological and astronomical events like stars, meteors, comets, and solar/lunar eclipses, volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc.
At what point does one draw the line between what can be explained with science, and simply becomes the traditional excuse of "It must be God because we don't know how?"
It's a line that's always changing, because Christianity is literally forced to change and cope with what science proves.
I think religion, in a responsible and mature method of practice, serves the important purpose of uniting strangers' hands and enouraging generosity and kindness.
But the purpose of using it as the end-all-be-all excuse for easily explaining to the masses what science doesn't have an answer for yet is the wrong one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I totally agree with him. Think about it, try to be open minded. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I will be open-minded. I must say as a Chrstian your inconsistencies are pretty neat. (Though I didn't bother to look them up, I took your word for it.)
I don't really have an answer for you. An answer other than, it seems to me Christianity is the longest-standing religion. (If you include before the Christ as Christianity, the God of the Hebrew people.)
There are one hundred ways to prove God exists and one hundred more to prove he does not. So that whole thing is one big incosistent subjective matter.
Me personally? I've seen God work in my life. (I could go on about that for awhile.)
I know God is real, like I know nothing else.
I ask the same of you, to be open-minded. The bible says, anyone who asks recieves and he who seeks finds. [Matthew 7:7-12] It also says to be weary of those that are not seeking truth but only trying to increase how intelligent they appear. [1 Tim. 6:3-5] Which type are you? Seek after truth and I know you'll find what I have; that God is real and alive today!
but surely a God that is outside of time and is a loving God would realize that in the future (near future I might add, 2000 years is *nothing* considering the universe is 15 billion years old) slavery would be considered very immoral, right?
DarkATi you say that you know God exists, I assume that means you have experienced what you feel is very rare thing and it must've been the work of God? Would it at all surprise you at all if 7 New Yorkers experience one-in-a-million chance events today? Statistically it makes plenty of sense... Now would it surprise you if tomorrow, out of the 6 billion people on Earth, 6000 of them had a one-in-a-million experience? You seem reasonable you should be able to figure it out <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 26 2004, 02:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 02:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I will be open-minded. I must say as a Chrstian your inconsistencies are pretty neat. (Though I didn't bother to look them up, I took your word for it.)
I don't really have an answer for you. An answer other than, it seems to me Christianity is the longest-standing religion. (If you include before the Christ as Christianity, the God of the Hebrew people.)
There are one hundred ways to prove God exists and one hundred more to prove he does not. So that whole thing is one big incosistent subjective matter.
Me personally? I've seen God work in my life. (I could go on about that for awhile.)
I know God is real, like I know nothing else.
I ask the same of you, to be open-minded. The bible says, anyone who asks recieves and he who seeks finds. [Matthew 7:7-12] It also says to be weary of those that are not seeking truth but only trying to increase how intelligent they appear. [1 Tim. 6:3-5] Which type are you? Seek after truth and I know you'll find what I have; that God is real and alive today!
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh by <i>GOD</i>, I ask that you please stop this subjective I know / I don't nonsense. You're not providing anything to the debate, just useless introspective. Swiftspear, wheeee, and all the other theists so far have managed to provide trains of logical reasoning or (questionable) scientific evidence in support of their arguments, and I ask you to do the same. Purely subjective content has no place in debate.
I also enjoy how you managed to call all Atheists unintelligent through scripture. That was clean cut and smooth, I'd be proud of it myself.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Sep 26 2004, 02:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 02:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but surely a God that is outside of time and is a loving God would realize that in the future (near future I might add, 2000 years is *nothing* considering the universe is 15 billion years old) slavery would be considered very immoral, right?
DarkATi you say that you know God exists, I assume that means you have experienced what you feel is very rare thing and it must've been the work of God? Would it at all surprise you at all if 7 New Yorkers experience one-in-a-million chance events today? Statistically it makes plenty of sense... Now would it surprise you if tomorrow, out of the 6 billion people on Earth, 6000 of them had a one-in-a-million experience? You seem reasonable you should be able to figure it out <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I don't feel I've experienced something very rare,
I know I've experienced my Heavenly Father at work in my life. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
I'm not here to argue. Just read 1 Tim. 6:3-5 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Might I also suggest that you stop hiding behind scripture when you are clearly unable to amass the mental energy required to formulate a sustainable argument against atheism. Calling atheism stupid helps not at all, btw.
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 26 2004, 02:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 26 2004, 02:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then why post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because my heart breaks for those who don't know the real living God.
I never called atheists stupid, on the contrary, atheists are some of the most intelligent people alive today. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Don't put words in my mouth, please.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 26 2004, 02:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 02:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 26 2004, 02:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 26 2004, 02:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then why post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because my heart breaks for those who don't know the real living God.
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know, I've been offended plenty of times on these forums. I've been outright **** off and shamed from some of the posts on here, but this is the first time I've been utterly shocked. I talked with the preacher of the local church about the subject once, and we were able to hold a reasonable debate without him shedding tears for my lack of undying love for Mr. G O D. He wasn't even afraid what my "atheist influence" would have on the kids I was helping out at Sunday school. So far, there've been two people I've known in my lifetime that have expressed sympathy at my lack of religious faith, but you're the only one I've met that manages to do just that, and insult me at the same time.
God made you to be creative, didn't he?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It also says to be weary of those that are not seeking truth but only trying to increase how intelligent they appear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If that wasn't meant to insult, then my name is John Kerry, and it isn't.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How in the nine hells is this thread still alive? Seriously, is there a rule we <i>havent</i> violated? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually yes there is, b1atch
oh wait, now there isnt <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 26 2004, 02:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 26 2004, 02:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 26 2004, 02:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 02:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 26 2004, 02:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 26 2004, 02:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then why post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because my heart breaks for those who don't know the real living God.
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know, I've been offended plenty of times on these forums. I've been outright **** off and shamed from some of the posts on here, but this is the first time I've been utterly shocked. I talked with the preacher of the local church about the subject once, and we were able to hold a reasonable debate without him shedding tears for my lack of undying love for Mr. G O D. He wasn't even afraid what my "atheist influence" would have on the kids I was helping out at Sunday school. So far, there've been two people I've known in my lifetime that have expressed sympathy at my lack of religious faith, but you're the only one I've met that manages to do just that, and insult me at the same time.
God made you to be creative, didn't he? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're taking my words at more than face value and face value is all they are offered at or meant to be taken at. I do care about you, I don't know you and I love you and my heart does break not in sympathy like, "Oh that poor fool." but with compassion for you.
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 26 2004, 02:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 26 2004, 02:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 26 2004, 02:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 02:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I will be open-minded. I must say as a Chrstian your inconsistencies are pretty neat. (Though I didn't bother to look them up, I took your word for it.)
I don't really have an answer for you. An answer other than, it seems to me Christianity is the longest-standing religion. (If you include before the Christ as Christianity, the God of the Hebrew people.)
There are one hundred ways to prove God exists and one hundred more to prove he does not. So that whole thing is one big incosistent subjective matter.
Me personally? I've seen God work in my life. (I could go on about that for awhile.)
I know God is real, like I know nothing else.
I ask the same of you, to be open-minded. The bible says, anyone who asks recieves and he who seeks finds. [Matthew 7:7-12] It also says to be weary of those that are not seeking truth but only trying to increase how intelligent they appear. [1 Tim. 6:3-5] Which type are you? Seek after truth and I know you'll find what I have; that God is real and alive today!
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh by <i>GOD</i>, I ask that you please stop this subjective I know / I don't nonsense. You're not providing anything to the debate, just useless introspective. Swiftspear, wheeee, and all the other theists so far have managed to provide trains of logical reasoning or (questionable) scientific evidence in support of their arguments, and I ask you to do the same. Purely subjective content has no place in debate.
I also enjoy how you managed to call all Atheists unintelligent through scripture. That was clean cut and smooth, I'd be proud of it myself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To be fair, I really haven't given any real scientific info other than a few statistics that aren't particularily biased one way or another. I know a fair bit (most of it I couldn't sourse, but it's stuff I have picked up from one place or another) and I used to base my faith alot on the science of God, but if you really look at so called "christian science" there are just as many disputes of rhyme and reason within it, as there are between the secular science comunity and the christian science comunity. So a while back I just dumped it all and honestly started searching. To date I have seen things and heard things with my own eyes that I just cannot deny. In my mind there is no doubt whatsoever there is a creator, and that he is at least still to some degree around and doing stuff today. Come sometime and sit down with me and discuss it for a while, there is really too much to keep together in written from and I will just lose my train of thought 30 seconds into writing it. I have seen miracals, I have felt God's overwhelming love, and I have heard his voice. Nadagast pointed out some great examples of why the bible can't be read literally, it isn't in any way written to be read literally, it is full of oversimlifications and contradictions when read in the converstional prospective, it can't be the work of a perfect God. Every writer writes a different genre, and every writer writes in a different style from a different point of view, God's words are written as much between the lines as on them. But if you assume that God exists, which I have no choice but to do through experiancing him on my own journy, it is the book with vastly the most evidence that he has worked in, and the most encouraging prospective on him I can find anywhere.
Look for the truth and you will find it. Never stop until there is no doubt in your mind that the other prospectives can not be right. God will show himself to you. If you can prove that God does not exist, then why not try?
very interesting read <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess I'm not a very good christian, I questioned absoultly everything every step of the way <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Acctually I quite liked the whole thing, it picks apart alot of issues in the church that I have seen as problematic for a while. Now that obviously took alot of recearch and time for whoever wrote it to come up with, so I hope you don't mind that I don't have a response to everything there off the top of my head. I have to find time to live for God every now and then, I can't really spend 24-7 mulling every concievable theological issue over in my head, but I promise you it will remain at the top of my head. I might even print off a copy and give it to my theology professor to see what he thinks.
Anyways, I think it goes without saying, just because a tool can be used for ill intent, doesn't mean it is. Otherwize knifes and axes and probably even forks would be outlawed by now. I'll definately keep it on the top of my mind however, I like my thinking privilages, and I don't intend to give them up any time soon.
Comments
Ever heard of the <a href='http://www.darwinawards.com/' target='_blank'>Darwin Awards?</a> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Or maybe, as it is oft-said, we should just take warning labels off everything and let the problem solve itself...
2 Chronicles 4:2
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
we know that c = (pi)d
If d = 10
and c = 30....
pi = 3?
NICE!
God inconsistent? Let's see:
Jer.3:12
"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever."
Jer.17:4
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."
I can get a million more of these if you want... But even 1 inconsistency should be enough to prove it's not God right? God is perfect ffs!
Saying "something can't come from nothing!" is a pretty lame copout for religion. Just because science hasn't explained or figured something out yet doesn't mean that it's automatically God.
To quote someone who plays TFC:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a question to the anti-big bangers:
Why does what came before the big bang have to be God?
It's honestly no different from how people used to worship the sun and the moon (which are perfectly explainable objects) because they didn't understand how they worked or what they were good for. It's no different from how people used to justify lightning (a perfectly explainable event) as the wrath of God. Same goes for any number of more complicated geological and astronomical events like stars, meteors, comets, and solar/lunar eclipses, volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc.
At what point does one draw the line between what can be explained with science, and simply becomes the traditional excuse of "It must be God because we don't know how?"
It's a line that's always changing, because Christianity is literally forced to change and cope with what science proves.
I think religion, in a responsible and mature method of practice, serves the important purpose of uniting strangers' hands and enouraging generosity and kindness.
But the purpose of using it as the end-all-be-all excuse for easily explaining to the masses what science doesn't have an answer for yet is the wrong one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with him. Think about it, try to be open minded.
Are you kidding me? How does being atheist take more 'faith' than believing in God?
ha. ha. You're not serious are you? Go ahead and have blind faith in some religion that's been forged by MAN, but I'll stick to my science with cold hard facts, at least science admits when they are wrong.
There are so many inconsistencies between numbers, historical errors, scientific impossibilities, and things that are just plain wrong in the Bible that it's absolutely ludicrous to think that it's the book of God. In the bible it says that Pi = 3. Wow my calculator is more powerful than God himself. Go figure. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you go on beliving that you are a little point in a sea of nothing. All you can prove is that you think and therefore you are, so I see no reason to attemt to draw lines to a proof that I know I can't make. However, if you give me a set of presuppositions... For instance, I belive without a doubt that what I can sence is a representation of a realitly that acctually exists to some degree the way I see it. I belive that other human beings exist the way they look like they exist, and I belive that most people spend thier lives working for the betterment of mankind, and due to that, science and history are a reasonable reflection of the way things acctually are, and what things acctually happened. Based on these presuppositions and personal experiances filtered through my set of presuppositions, I have come to belive that there is a God in the universe. If you had read the rest of this thread you would know why I belive that the God that exists in the universe is the God of the christians, so I'm not going to explain that one. I don't think you really understand what is going on here, since by pulling the quote you did out of the post it was made in, you obviously totally missed the whole point of the post, and the probably most of the thread as well since you seem to have ignored all the explinations and evidences that we have posted to argue the existance of God so far. FYI, the bible contains no known scientific inconsistancies, infact there are parts in the bible that discribed things about the nature of the world that were not scientificly discovered for several thousand years after they were written in the text. All the percieved scientific innomalies come from violent overliteration of the text, and frankly, the inability for most christians to read a story without confusing fact and value. The bible really doesn't make too many conclusive scientific claims... at least not in literal language.
Jer.3:12
"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever."
Jer.17:4
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."
I can get a million more of these if you want... But even 1 inconsistency should be enough to prove it's not God right? God is perfect ffs! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know why there is a million - because too many people go through without heed for context or understanding of Greek and Hebrew. Yet they dont care, in their desperation to find errors, about little things like truth and accuracy, which is why they present stupid things like
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jer.3:12
"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever."
Jer.17:4
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and pretend its an inconsistancy.
Jer 3:12-13
"Go, proclaim this message towards the north: "Return, faithless <b>Israel</b>, declares the Lord, I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful, declares the Lord, I will not be angry forever. Only acknowledge your guilt - you have rebelled against the Lord your God, you have scattered your favours to foreign gods under every spreading tree, and have not obeyed me declares the Lord"
Jeremiah 17
1 "<b>Judah's</b> sin is engraved with an iron tool,
inscribed with a flint point,
on the tablets of their hearts
and on the horns of their altars.
2 Even their children remember
their altars and Asherah poles [1]
beside the spreading trees
and on the high hills.
3 My mountain in the land
and your [2] wealth and all your treasures
I will give away as plunder,
together with your high places,
because of sin throughout your country.
4 Through your own fault you will lose
the inheritance I gave you.
I will enslave you to your enemies
in a land you do not know,
for you have kindled my anger,
and it will burn forever."
So not only was God talking to Israel in the first, and Judah (a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLACE) in the second, but he qualified the first, saying his anger wouldnt last forever if only you'd repent. Even if both passages had been aimed at Israel it STILL wouldnt be an inconsistency.
Please, dont insult our intelligence - when posting alleged contradictions, can you PLEASE look up the surrounding verses and avoid making a fool of yourself. <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/' target='_blank'>Its only a click away</a>
Spoken like a true bible humper...
I can link you ALL DAY LONG to inconsistencies and scientific errors in the bible. First though, please explain why God would think Pi = 3?
Marine: I admit I should've looked up the full passage... you got me there. It still doesn't really matter... there are plenty of other errors... please explain to me why God thinks Pi = 3 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Besides... he's still saying that he will not hate anyone forever, then he says that he hates this person/whatever he's talking about forever.... Even if you qualify the statement of not hating someone forever... it's still a contradiction imo (he never says that the 2nd guys can repent and be not hated forever)
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Jonah and the whale, 7 day creation, etc. etc.
Are you honestly contending that these don't violate scientific law?
Or is everything that is blatantly false just being taken too literally?
I can link you ALL DAY LONG to inconsistencies and scientific errors in the bible. First though, please explain why God would think Pi = 3? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp' target='_blank'>Pi=3?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Does the Bible say pi equals 3.0?
by Russell Grigg
First published in
Creation Ex Nihilo 17(2):24–25
March–May 1995
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
In 1 Kings 7:23 there is an intriguing statement:
‘And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.’
A similar account is given in the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 4:2.
From time to time, sceptics have used these verses to ridicule the accuracy of the Bible by claiming that, if one uses the figures stated, the circumference of the vessel divided by its diameter gives 3.0, instead of pi (p), which is 3.14159 …1
Closer examination shows there are at least two possible explanations.
1. The first concerns the meaning of the word ‘cubit’, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man’s forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements.2 It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit.
From 1 Kings 7:23 (‘a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about’), it appears that the circumference was measured with ‘a line’, i.e. a piece of string or cord on which the distance was marked, and this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer, using his own or someone else’s forearm, or possibly a cubit-long rod. Similarly the diameter would have been marked on a line and ‘cubitized’ in the same way.
If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits, for example, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumference would then have been 30.32 cubits. This would have been reckoned as 30 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would then have been 30.32 ¸ 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for p, even though the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 ¸ 10 = 3.
While the above seems reasonable, we have no way of knowing for certain whether the measurements were approximated in this way. However, even if it is assumed that the measurements given were precisely 10 and 30 cubits, the following appears to provide a definitive answer.
2. Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies’ (KJV), or a rim ‘like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom’ (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily.3 It is believed by Bible scholars to have looked like the drawing below.4
Brass sea with brim
Let us consider the details given in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. These are:
1. The diameter of 10 cubits was measured ‘from brim to brim’ (v. 23), i.e. from the topmost point of the brim on one side to the topmost point of the brim on the other side (points A and B in the diagram).
2. The circumference of 30 cubits was measured with a line, ‘round about’ (v. 23), i.e. the most natural meaning of these words is that they refer to the circumference of the outside of the main body of the tank, measured by a string pulled tightly around the vessel below the brim. It is very obvious that the diameter of the main body of the tank was less than the diameter of the top of the brim. And it is also obvious that the circumference of 30 cubits could have been measured at any point down the vertical sides of the vessel, below the brim. For a measured circumference of 30 cubits, we can calculate what the external diameter of the vessel would have been at that point from the formula:
diameter = circumference ¸ p
= 30 cubits ¸ 3.14
= 9.55 cubits.
Thus the external diameter of the vessel at the point where the circumference was measured must have been 9.55 cubits.5
It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of p, and in particular it does not say that p = 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination. [See also Does the Bible Give a Wrong Value for Pi? from Tekton Apologetics Ministry.]
References and Footnotes
1.
p, or the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is what has been known as an irrational number or infinite non-repeating decimal, of which the first digits are 3.1415926536 …. A value of 3.14 is close enough for our purposes. Return to text.
2.
Abingdon’s Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Return to text.
3.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 4:368, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1988. Return to text.
4.
Adapted from reference 3. An NIV footnote (not part of the inspired text) to 1 Kings 7:26 suggests that the vessel had a greater volume than the above figures allow. This could indicate that the vessel may have been shaped more like a lily than imagined (i.e. part of it may have been bulbous), or that the conversion factor used by the NIV commentator was incorrect. Return to text.
5.
Some have suggested that there is one other explanation that fits all the dimensions given in the biblical text, if the circumference measured refers to the inside of the vessel. (This is a possibility, although, as already stated, it was most likely the external circumference which was measured.) The diameter was 10 cubits or 4.50 metres, the circumference was 30 cubits or 13.50 metres, and the walls were ‘a hand breadth thick’ (verse 26) or 10 centimetres (to the nearest centimetre).6 If the diameter of 4.50 metres was the outside measurement, we subtract 10 centimetres x 2 (to allow for the thickness of the wall on either side) to arrive at a figure of 4.30 metres for the internal diameter of the vessel, and we can now calculate the internal circumference using the formula:
circumference = diameter x p
= 4.3 metres x 3.14
= 13.50 metres
= 30 cubits
which is exactly the figure given in 1 Kings 7:23. But as shown, there is no need to resort to this solution.Return to text.
6.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 5:677, 1992. Return to text.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Might I suggest, Nadagast, that you tone things down so you look like less of a fool when I post rebuttal. Bear in mind that attacks on Christianity have been occuring for over 2000 years, so Christians are very used to this, and spend a lot of time on apologetics.
EDIT
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Omnipotence is impossible?
Can God create a spherical triangle? Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it? Can God think of a time when He was not omnipotent? Atheists claim that any answer to any of these questions means that God cannot be omnipotent and, therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist. On the surface, the questions sound convincing. However, we will find that these questions are a form of the kind of question such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The topic of omnipotence (the ability of God to do anything, i.e., God is all-powerful) is frequently cited by atheists as proof that the God of the Bible cannot exist. The claim has been made that if there is anything that God cannot do, then God cannot be omnipotent and, therefore, does not exist.
Is the God of the Bible omnipotent?
The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty."1 However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin.2 God cannot lie.3 Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.
Specific arguments against omnipotence
Some of the arguments against omnipotence are plain silly and stupid. Can God create a spherical triangle? Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid. God cannot turn truth into a lie. If humans define a triangle as a two dimensional object formed by the intersection of three lines, it makes no sense to ask if God could make one that was spherical. When one says that God is all-powerful, one means that God is able to accomplish all that He desires to do. Even an all-powerful being cannot do what is impossible by definition. God can do many things that are humanly impossible. However, there are some things that even an all-powerful being cannot do.
Can God create a rock He cannot lift? Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The above atheistic argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything - even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.
Could God think of a time when He was not omnipotent? If He can't think of it, He isn't omnipotent, but if He does think of it then there was a time when He wasn't omnipotent? This question is quite similar to the rock question above. The answer, of course, is that God can never think of a time when He wasn't omnipotent. God has always been omnipotent. His inability to contradict His divine character does not mean that He isn't omnipotent.
Conclusions
The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail.
These kinds of arguments are clearly illogical and even silly, although they are commonly used by inexperienced atheists. Most intelligent atheists have dropped these kinds of arguments long ago.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can link you ALL DAY LONG to inconsistencies and scientific errors in the bible. First though, please explain why God would think Pi = 3? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp' target='_blank'>Pi=3?</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry it's GOD. GOD HIMSELF does not need a 3 page document explaining something that would be so easy to just make right the first time, if he had the knowledge (the MEN that wrote the bible didn't).
Look seriously, explain to me how the world is flat. Explain to me how Noah fit every single species of animal on his small ark. Explain how the world was created in 7 days. Explain how the Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun rotates around it. Please, I'm all ears. It's BS. How could you believe that it's the word of god?
hence "natural selection". I think you have two very different concepts confused.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WTH? Did you fail freshman year biology or something? Evolution is random? If evolution is carried out by a selective process, then could you explain just how the hell it's random? Do you have any clue just what evolution is? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you must have been the one not paying attention, since i've taken college level bio courses. anyway, evolution is random. natural selection is not. natural selection cannot, in and of itself, produce a separate species. natural selection is merely a genetic selection of *already existing* traits. evolution creates new traits by genetic mutation - point mutations or shift mutations, or possibly intron/exon interaction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're bickering over the definition of evolution. Thinking about it twice I think acctually Camo is right here, evolution is the end result of all the evolutionary processes, one of which is natural selection (there are three more, but I can't remember them). The random factor is mutation, which is the first step to the whole process. Wheee, you are stating that evolution = mutation, I'm pretty sure that evolution is the entire end result process. The process of evolution has been stopped in humans becuase the process of natural selection has been undermined by the fact that we build environments for ourselfs that are safe for all (thus none are selected out), thus natural selection must be a prerequisite for evolution, and thus evolution must be selected.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he has a point. Evolution is carried out by chance, and is not a predefined process. Another example of such would be cancer - while there is no code in our body that purposely bring about cancer, many people are afflicted with the disease - by chance manipulation of their genes through radiation and or long term chemical exposure. The evolution of humanity really is at full stop - unless you count immunity to certain diseases. Generally, our genes are nearly identical, give or take some minor inconsistencies. This of course, is an entirely different subject, and would fall under nature vs nurture, but I believe personally that the "stupid" or "ignorant" people are the result of a poor upbringing and education, not their genes.
However, that's completely irrelevant to the point being discussed - which mainly involves the creationists claiming the improbability of life-from-nonlife as 1 in 10^40000 as support for their claims.
Nadagast: Biblical citations were analyzed around the first half of this debate, and really don't prove anything. The bible has been revised several times throughout history - and its original conception involved in the "purification" of several then politically-incorrect chapters.
To claim that the Bible is perfectly consistent takes, well, an enormous leap of faith. Modern publications are fraught with mistakes and inconsistencies in themselves, and to say that the Bible, a work of at least fourty different men, is conclusive in its meaning and factual information is quite impossible to believe. The bible is a book of anecdotes, and to take the story of Jonah or Moses literally would mean to take everything in the story literally - including the part about being swallowed by a whale.
Anyway, I don't like where this debate is going. Let's focus on evidence for and against both sides, rather than this abstract struggle over faith. Bible citations prove nothing, and bitching about them one way or the other isn't going to prove your point.
P.S. Shutup Nadagast. Read the thread, do some research, think a little. Marine01, there's no point in refuting his arguments if there's nothing to them. Can we get back to where the discussion was before this crap started coming out?
Oh and I'm so sorry for not reading 12 pages of this. ::ROLLEYES::
Here's more:
2 Sam.21:12
"the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa"
1 Sam.31:4-6
"so Saul took his own sword and fell on it."
Straight from your website, Marine. CMON <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Explain this one
Oh and pro job linking me to some random bible humper websites that don't prove anything. When you get your link from such a polarized source it means nothing. I wouldn't link you to a Fox News (and they aren't near as polarized right as bible humping websites are polarized towards the bible) page if I were trying to show how republicans are right would I? Well I could but it wouldnt be very credible <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Another? (from your website)
Gen 46:21
The sons of Benjamin:
Bela, Beker, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard.
1 Chron 7:6
Three sons of Benjamin:
Bela, Beker and Jediael.
I guess you could sorta explain this away to the bible being incredibly vague... but that's a pretty weak argument since it's the book of God.
more...
Acts 7:14
After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. (Egypt)
Exodus 1:5
The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.
more......
Mark 10:27
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
Judges 1:19
The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.
God can do anything but move iron chariots? Heh...
You honestly had me stumped Nadagast. But then, the answer is simple.
"IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE."
God only influenced the authors of said book, it does not neccessarily imply that he was speaking for them. Their philosophies were inherent, yet the means by which they taught their philosophy differed. The bible, as I've already said, is a book of anecdotes, many of them folk stories passed from storyteller to storyteller, taking on a life of its own, until someone finally decided to jot them down. Others, like Ecclestiastes, are essentially a philosophical essay, whose basic philosophy may have been a product of religious insight, but is ultimately the result of human direction. Being human, they are prone to mistakes. You are right, if God himself had been solely responsible for the Bible, there would be no inconsistencies, no scientific anomalies. You err only in that the Bible was indeed a work of human effort, if not driven by divine experience.
I don't really have a problem with parts of the bible being used as moral guidelines and bringing people together and whatnot, but believing in God and the whole mythology thing is pretty tough for me...
Also I dunno but does the bible condone slavery? I'm literally asking, I just saw this browsing around:
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Also how do you know that Christianity is right as opposed to all the other religions? To quote: If faith is conviction without evidence, then isn't proof irrelevant? In which case, why is your religion right and everyone else's wrong?
I believe most religious fundamentalists (and some not so fundamental) would have us intrepret the Bible word for word - refuting modern science in the process. By this <i>literal</i> translation of the Bible, every word of the Bible is accepted as fact, and no amount of historical, archaelogical, physical, or biological evidence may refute this knowledge because quite simply, the Bible says it isn't so. Circular reasoning at its best.
Symbolically, you would need to emphasize with the original authors, whom I have defined above as being mere carriers of religious philosophy under the (pretense) of some divine intervention. These men would then have to explain this philosophy using their view of the world at the time - which may have seen PI as 3 or folk tales of the time.
Indirectly, the authors of the Bible were mere philosophers whose words were later combined and then misintrepreted as the "words of god." They were doubtlessly religious, but they did not neccessarily have to be under some form of divine stimulation.
The word of god in the Bible could be either symbolic or literal, depending on how far you wish to take it. Atheists would have to, by definition, intrepret the bible indirectly, much as someone would absorb the philosophy in a modern work of literature.
Yes, the Bible condones slavery. Do a search on these forums for more info: <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php</a>?
EDIT:
Skulkbait: So it breaks a few freaking rules, shutup already. This entire concept of "religious discussion is flawed" is annoying. There are entire forums devoted to this topic of discussion, and these forums can't have even one? If anything, it is not a reflection of the inherent inconclusiveness of the topic itself, but of the people who are unwilling to come to a conclusion.
- also removed my outline on the top, oops
God is more mercyful than I thought!
2 Chronicles 4:2
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
we know that c = (pi)d
If d = 10
and c = 30....
pi = 3?
NICE!
God inconsistent? Let's see:
Jer.3:12
"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever."
Jer.17:4
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."
I can get a million more of these if you want... But even 1 inconsistency should be enough to prove it's not God right? God is perfect ffs!
Saying "something can't come from nothing!" is a pretty lame copout for religion. Just because science hasn't explained or figured something out yet doesn't mean that it's automatically God.
To quote someone who plays TFC:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a question to the anti-big bangers:
Why does what came before the big bang have to be God?
It's honestly no different from how people used to worship the sun and the moon (which are perfectly explainable objects) because they didn't understand how they worked or what they were good for. It's no different from how people used to justify lightning (a perfectly explainable event) as the wrath of God. Same goes for any number of more complicated geological and astronomical events like stars, meteors, comets, and solar/lunar eclipses, volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc.
At what point does one draw the line between what can be explained with science, and simply becomes the traditional excuse of "It must be God because we don't know how?"
It's a line that's always changing, because Christianity is literally forced to change and cope with what science proves.
I think religion, in a responsible and mature method of practice, serves the important purpose of uniting strangers' hands and enouraging generosity and kindness.
But the purpose of using it as the end-all-be-all excuse for easily explaining to the masses what science doesn't have an answer for yet is the wrong one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with him. Think about it, try to be open minded. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will be open-minded. I must say as a Chrstian your inconsistencies are pretty neat. (Though I didn't bother to look them up, I took your word for it.)
I don't really have an answer for you. An answer other than, it seems to me Christianity is the longest-standing religion. (If you include before the Christ as Christianity, the God of the Hebrew people.)
There are one hundred ways to prove God exists and one hundred more to prove he does not. So that whole thing is one big incosistent subjective matter.
Me personally? I've seen God work in my life. (I could go on about that for awhile.)
I know God is real, like I know nothing else.
I ask the same of you, to be open-minded. The bible says, anyone who asks recieves and he who seeks finds. [Matthew 7:7-12] It also says to be weary of those that are not seeking truth but only trying to increase how intelligent they appear. [1 Tim. 6:3-5] Which type are you? Seek after truth and I know you'll find what I have; that God is real and alive today!
~ DarkATi
DarkATi you say that you know God exists, I assume that means you have experienced what you feel is very rare thing and it must've been the work of God? Would it at all surprise you at all if 7 New Yorkers experience one-in-a-million chance events today? Statistically it makes plenty of sense... Now would it surprise you if tomorrow, out of the 6 billion people on Earth, 6000 of them had a one-in-a-million experience? You seem reasonable you should be able to figure it out <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I will be open-minded. I must say as a Chrstian your inconsistencies are pretty neat. (Though I didn't bother to look them up, I took your word for it.)
I don't really have an answer for you. An answer other than, it seems to me Christianity is the longest-standing religion. (If you include before the Christ as Christianity, the God of the Hebrew people.)
There are one hundred ways to prove God exists and one hundred more to prove he does not. So that whole thing is one big incosistent subjective matter.
Me personally? I've seen God work in my life. (I could go on about that for awhile.)
I know God is real, like I know nothing else.
I ask the same of you, to be open-minded. The bible says, anyone who asks recieves and he who seeks finds. [Matthew 7:7-12] It also says to be weary of those that are not seeking truth but only trying to increase how intelligent they appear. [1 Tim. 6:3-5] Which type are you? Seek after truth and I know you'll find what I have; that God is real and alive today!
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh by <i>GOD</i>, I ask that you please stop this subjective I know / I don't nonsense. You're not providing anything to the debate, just useless introspective. Swiftspear, wheeee, and all the other theists so far have managed to provide trains of logical reasoning or (questionable) scientific evidence in support of their arguments, and I ask you to do the same. Purely subjective content has no place in debate.
I also enjoy how you managed to call all Atheists unintelligent through scripture. That was clean cut and smooth, I'd be proud of it myself.
DarkATi you say that you know God exists, I assume that means you have experienced what you feel is very rare thing and it must've been the work of God? Would it at all surprise you at all if 7 New Yorkers experience one-in-a-million chance events today? Statistically it makes plenty of sense... Now would it surprise you if tomorrow, out of the 6 billion people on Earth, 6000 of them had a one-in-a-million experience? You seem reasonable you should be able to figure it out <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I don't feel I've experienced something very rare,
I know I've experienced my Heavenly Father at work in my life. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
I'm not here to argue. Just read 1 Tim. 6:3-5 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Might I also suggest that you stop hiding behind scripture when you are clearly unable to amass the mental energy required to formulate a sustainable argument against atheism. Calling atheism stupid helps not at all, btw.
Because my heart breaks for those who don't know the real living God.
I never called atheists stupid, on the contrary, atheists are some of the most intelligent people alive today. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Don't put words in my mouth, please.
~ DarkATi
And I also agree that personal experiences dont really stand up on a forum...
Because my heart breaks for those who don't know the real living God.
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, I've been offended plenty of times on these forums. I've been outright **** off and shamed from some of the posts on here, but this is the first time I've been utterly shocked. I talked with the preacher of the local church about the subject once, and we were able to hold a reasonable debate without him shedding tears for my lack of undying love for Mr. G O D. He wasn't even afraid what my "atheist influence" would have on the kids I was helping out at Sunday school. So far, there've been two people I've known in my lifetime that have expressed sympathy at my lack of religious faith, but you're the only one I've met that manages to do just that, and insult me at the same time.
God made you to be creative, didn't he?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It also says to be weary of those that are not seeking truth but only trying to increase how intelligent they appear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that wasn't meant to insult, then my name is John Kerry, and it isn't.
Actually yes there is, b1atch
oh wait, now there isnt <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Because my heart breaks for those who don't know the real living God.
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, I've been offended plenty of times on these forums. I've been outright **** off and shamed from some of the posts on here, but this is the first time I've been utterly shocked. I talked with the preacher of the local church about the subject once, and we were able to hold a reasonable debate without him shedding tears for my lack of undying love for Mr. G O D. He wasn't even afraid what my "atheist influence" would have on the kids I was helping out at Sunday school. So far, there've been two people I've known in my lifetime that have expressed sympathy at my lack of religious faith, but you're the only one I've met that manages to do just that, and insult me at the same time.
God made you to be creative, didn't he? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're taking my words at more than face value and face value is all they are offered at or meant to be taken at. I do care about you, I don't know you and I love you and my heart does break not in sympathy like, "Oh that poor fool." but with compassion for you.
~ DarkATi
very interesting read <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I will be open-minded. I must say as a Chrstian your inconsistencies are pretty neat. (Though I didn't bother to look them up, I took your word for it.)
I don't really have an answer for you. An answer other than, it seems to me Christianity is the longest-standing religion. (If you include before the Christ as Christianity, the God of the Hebrew people.)
There are one hundred ways to prove God exists and one hundred more to prove he does not. So that whole thing is one big incosistent subjective matter.
Me personally? I've seen God work in my life. (I could go on about that for awhile.)
I know God is real, like I know nothing else.
I ask the same of you, to be open-minded. The bible says, anyone who asks recieves and he who seeks finds. [Matthew 7:7-12] It also says to be weary of those that are not seeking truth but only trying to increase how intelligent they appear. [1 Tim. 6:3-5] Which type are you? Seek after truth and I know you'll find what I have; that God is real and alive today!
~ DarkATi<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh by <i>GOD</i>, I ask that you please stop this subjective I know / I don't nonsense. You're not providing anything to the debate, just useless introspective. Swiftspear, wheeee, and all the other theists so far have managed to provide trains of logical reasoning or (questionable) scientific evidence in support of their arguments, and I ask you to do the same. Purely subjective content has no place in debate.
I also enjoy how you managed to call all Atheists unintelligent through scripture. That was clean cut and smooth, I'd be proud of it myself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be fair, I really haven't given any real scientific info other than a few statistics that aren't particularily biased one way or another. I know a fair bit (most of it I couldn't sourse, but it's stuff I have picked up from one place or another) and I used to base my faith alot on the science of God, but if you really look at so called "christian science" there are just as many disputes of rhyme and reason within it, as there are between the secular science comunity and the christian science comunity. So a while back I just dumped it all and honestly started searching. To date I have seen things and heard things with my own eyes that I just cannot deny. In my mind there is no doubt whatsoever there is a creator, and that he is at least still to some degree around and doing stuff today. Come sometime and sit down with me and discuss it for a while, there is really too much to keep together in written from and I will just lose my train of thought 30 seconds into writing it. I have seen miracals, I have felt God's overwhelming love, and I have heard his voice. Nadagast pointed out some great examples of why the bible can't be read literally, it isn't in any way written to be read literally, it is full of oversimlifications and contradictions when read in the converstional prospective, it can't be the work of a perfect God. Every writer writes a different genre, and every writer writes in a different style from a different point of view, God's words are written as much between the lines as on them. But if you assume that God exists, which I have no choice but to do through experiancing him on my own journy, it is the book with vastly the most evidence that he has worked in, and the most encouraging prospective on him I can find anywhere.
Look for the truth and you will find it. Never stop until there is no doubt in your mind that the other prospectives can not be right. God will show himself to you. If you can prove that God does not exist, then why not try?
very interesting read <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I'm not a very good christian, I questioned absoultly everything every step of the way <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Acctually I quite liked the whole thing, it picks apart alot of issues in the church that I have seen as problematic for a while. Now that obviously took alot of recearch and time for whoever wrote it to come up with, so I hope you don't mind that I don't have a response to everything there off the top of my head. I have to find time to live for God every now and then, I can't really spend 24-7 mulling every concievable theological issue over in my head, but I promise you it will remain at the top of my head. I might even print off a copy and give it to my theology professor to see what he thinks.
Anyways, I think it goes without saying, just because a tool can be used for ill intent, doesn't mean it is. Otherwize knifes and axes and probably even forks would be outlawed by now. I'll definately keep it on the top of my mind however, I like my thinking privilages, and I don't intend to give them up any time soon.