(October 30, 2017 at 2:20 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Wouldn't it be so much more curious if they came from the dead? 

Unfortunately most people when they see a body they think that the bloke is really dead.
Their imagination stop there.
They never imagine that the body and the consciousness are two different thing.
They obviously can not see the consciousness which is in an abstract form invisible and impossible to perceive with the physical senses so they come to the wrong conclusion that the bloke is 100% dead.

Fools only learn after they themselves go through the physical death process but at the end everybody will learn.  

(October 12, 2017 at 8:55 am)RayOfLight Wrote: The first, being the guy of "hypothetical situations" which I'm known to family and friends, I wonder if the theory of Evolution was ever "proven" wrong, even though so far barely any of that happened, but considering that science demands that any hypothesis be falsifiable, there is a small chance that the theory of Evolution may be turned upside down, but as I said, this is just a hypothetical situation.

Frankly, that is not really possible. Among other reasons, because the theory has been falsified and corrected rather often, as one would expect.

At this point it would take an actual supernatural event - a major one - to put the ToE into any significant doubt.

Quote:So, based on that, does it follow that the creation story in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is true?

Can't think of any reason why it would.

Or rather, to the extent that it can conceivably ever be true, it is not really hindered by the ToE. Its chances of "being true" are as high as they are ever likely to.

Quote:Would your atheism be "shaken" if such far stretching hypothetical situation ever became a reality? And why?

No, of course not. Unless you are asking whether I would no longer be an atheist if God materialized in front of me or something? Then, no idea.

Quote:The second issue regarding Christ's existence.  I'm less enthusiastic to accept the claim that Jesus never existed. A good number of historians agree that he lived, also considering what I learned so far about history at university, we can't be 100% sure, after all, history is subjective. History is based on records from people who have their own agendas and biases, and it is a fact that they chose what or include and not include in their writings, it doesn't follow that something didn't happen or a person didn't exist just because some writings don't include such event or person. Also, there are chances that in the future we may find a good and reliable evidence for people that believed never to have existed. Therefore, it is safe not to be so "sure." What do you think of such argument?

I don't think there is a good case for the literal existence of the Jesus of the Bible. Far too much about him seems to be either tentative or all-out fable-like.

(October 12, 2017 at 9:30 am)Joods Wrote: Well - according to the Abrahamic religions, the earth is approximately 6000 years old. We have evidence to contradict this claim. Evidence in the form of archaeological findings - artifacts that go back hundreds of thousands of years. These artifacts have been carbon dated and prove that the earth is much, much older than 6000 years.

So, you can look at facts based on scientific and archaeological data, or you can keep looking in a book of literary works, which has supposedly been translated from copies of copies of copies of manuscripts for which there is no evidence even exists, and decide for yourself.

1. Show in the Bible where it states the earth is 6000 years old.

2. Carbon dating is only reliable up to around 50,000 years.

(October 31, 2017 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 12, 2017 at 9:30 am)Joods Wrote: Well - according to the Abrahamic religions, the earth is approximately 6000 years old. We have evidence to contradict this claim. Evidence in the form of archaeological findings - artifacts that go back hundreds of thousands of years. These artifacts have been carbon dated and prove that the earth is much, much older than 6000 years.

So, you can look at facts based on scientific and archaeological data, or you can keep looking in a book of literary works, which has supposedly been translated from copies of copies of copies of manuscripts for which there is no evidence even exists, and decide for yourself.

1. Show in the Bible where it states the earth is 6000 years old.

2. Carbon dating is only reliable up to around 50,000 years.

Obviously the it's not going to say that in the bible, considering when it was supposedly written.

Even if that's the case with carbon dating, there are other scientific methods that go beyond carbon dating. I just wasn't aware of what they were at the time I wrote that.

(October 31, 2017 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: 1. Show in the Bible where it states the earth is 6000 years old.

2. Carbon dating is only reliable up to around 50,000 years.

1) It does not state the Earth is 6,000 years old, but if we can believe the bible it's around that from the fall, and the first children which is just as incomprehensible given what we do know of the earth.

2) Carbon Dating is not used to determine the age of the earth, as you say it's only good for 50,000 or so years, but what it can do is place objects from other civilisations pre fall, again making nonsense of biblical claims that Adam and Eve and co were the only people about.

(October 31, 2017 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: ...1. Show in the Bible where it states the earth is 6000 years old...

It doesn't. So why do bible literalists believe it is?

(October 31, 2017 at 5:31 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(October 31, 2017 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: ...1. Show in the Bible where it states the earth is 6000 years old...

It doesn't. So why do bible literalists believe it is?

Misinterpretation.

Genesis 1:1 states:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is simply stating that God created the universe and the earth PERIOD. There is no mention of how long it took...

The 7 day period only relates to God making the earth habitable and seeding it with life, so In order to interpret the earth as being 6000 years old, you'd have to believe the bible is speaking of that 7 day period as literally 7 days (which is most likely why you referred to them as literalists), except the Bible makes it clear that God measures time differently than we do (which makes sense because time is relative).

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. - Psalm 90:4

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Peter 3:8

So without taking anything else into account and going by just the numbers of the bible it's at THE LEAST 13,000 years from the beginning of the 7 day period till now.

This means Adam was hanging around for what could've been just under 2000 years before the 7 day period was over, seeing how he was created sometime during the 6th day (keep in mind this is a thousand year period) and Eve wasn't formed time sometime AFTER the seventh day.

What we DON'T KNOW is:

1. How long was Adam hanging out by himself when God decided to create Eve.

2. How long Adam and Eve were together before the fall.

(October 31, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 31, 2017 at 5:31 pm)Succubus Wrote: It doesn't. So why do bible literalists believe it is?

Misinterpretation.

Genesis 1:1 states:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is simply stating that God created the universe and the earth PERIOD. There is no mention of how long it took...

The 7 day period only relates to God making the earth habitable and seeding it with life, so In order to interpret the earth as being 6000 years old, you'd have to believe the bible is speaking of that 7 day period as literally 7 days (which is most likely why you referred to them as literalists), except the Bible makes it clear that God measures time differently than we do (which makes sense because time is relative).

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. - Psalm 90:4

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Peter 3:8

So without taking anything else into account and going by just the numbers of the bible it's at THE LEAST 13,000 years from the beginning of the 7 day period till now.

This means Adam was hanging around for what could've been just under 2000 years before the 7 day period was over, seeing how he was created sometime during the 6th day (keep in mind this is a thousand year period) and Eve wasn't formed time sometime AFTER the seventh day.

What we DON'T KNOW is:

1. How long was Adam hanging out by himself when God decided to create Eve.

2. How long Adam and Eve were together before the fall.

Well, Huggy, you're becoming desperate as fuck because Bible seems to be specific as though there were some chance that the word "day" might be misinterpreted, the verse carefully states "the evening and the morning," as though to emphasize that it was one twenty-four-hour period and no more. The day referred to in this verse is still taken to be the familiar twenty-four-hour day and nothing more by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists today:

Genesis 1:5 - And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Indeed, until the 19th century, there was never any question about this. It was universally assumed that the days referred to were literally days-twenty-four-hour periods. In the 19th century, however, it became more and more clear that Earth was millions of years old, and in almost the first retreat from the literal acceptance of the Bible, there began to be some hesitancy about those "days."

And what's even worse is that this 24 hour and 7 day system is now known to be taken from the Babylonian system to which he writers of the Genesis were influenced by this Babylonian custom and adopted it. The story begins before Babylonians with the people of the Tigris-Euphrates who had developed a lunar calendar probably before 2000 B.C. The appearance of each new moon, signifying the start of a new month, was the occasion of a religious festival, and eventually other phases of the moon were celebrated. It was the full moon that was first called "sabbath" (sabbatu to the Akkadians, who dominated the Tigris-Euphrates valley in the third millennium B.C.).

Then Babylonians started celebrating the intermediate phases of the moon. Each phase comes at an interval of not quite 7.4 days, so that in order to keep the week in time with the lunar months, the week should be sometimes seven days long and sometimes eight in some set pattern. So the Babylonians chose to make the week an unvarying seven days long, even though this meant that the week lost all connection with the lunar month. The reason for this was that there happened to be seven "planets" in the sky that changed position regularly against the background of the fixed stars: the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. And indeed we still have these names in our names for the day: Sunday - Sun Day; Saturday - Saturn day; Monday - Moon day; Thursday - Thor's day etc.

To the Babylonians, it seemed to make astrological sense to suppose that each planet was in charge of a particular day (since each planet was in turn the province of a particular god). An eighth day in a week would be a day without a planet-god in charge, and this was unthinkable. The Jews in Babylonian exile naturally observed the weekly day of rest, but could not accept the polytheistic religious justification and had to evolve one of their own. So Jews only celebrated one day (Saturday), then Christians came and celebrated Sunday; then Muslims came and celebrate Friday. You see how still people celebrate days as some sort of deities? The writers of the Genesis therefore grounded it in the week of creation-six days of divine labor and one day of divine rest. It was a case of the labors of God himself being made to fit the Babylonian week. That is why Creation took six days rather than any other number of days.

(November 1, 2017 at 12:58 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(October 31, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Misinterpretation.

Genesis 1:1 states:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is simply stating that God created the universe and the earth PERIOD. There is no mention of how long it took...

The 7 day period only relates to God making the earth habitable and seeding it with life, so In order to interpret the earth as being 6000 years old, you'd have to believe the bible is speaking of that 7 day period as literally 7 days (which is most likely why you referred to them as literalists), except the Bible makes it clear that God measures time differently than we do (which makes sense because time is relative).

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. - Psalm 90:4

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Peter 3:8

So without taking anything else into account and going by just the numbers of the bible it's at THE LEAST 13,000 years from the beginning of the 7 day period till now.

This means Adam was hanging around for what could've been just under 2000 years before the 7 day period was over, seeing how he was created sometime during the 6th day (keep in mind this is a thousand year period) and Eve wasn't formed time sometime AFTER the seventh day.

What we DON'T KNOW is:

1. How long was Adam hanging out by himself when God decided to create Eve.

2. How long Adam and Eve were together before the fall.

Well, Huggy, you're becoming desperate as fuck because Bible seems to be specific as though there were some chance that the word "day" might be misinterpreted, the verse carefully states "the evening and the morning," as though to emphasize that it was one twenty-four-hour period and no more. The day referred to in this verse is still taken to be the familiar twenty-four-hour day and nothing more by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists today:

Genesis 1:5 - And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Indeed, until the 19th century, there was never any question about this. It was universally assumed that the days referred to were literally days-twenty-four-hour periods. In the 19th century, however, it became more and more clear that Earth was millions of years old, and in almost the first retreat from the literal acceptance of the Bible, there began to be some hesitancy about those "days."

You're conflating two different things. In the scripture you posted, there is a period marking the end of a sentence. "morning" and "evening" don't necessarily describe a 24 hour period they simply mark the start and end of a day.

It's like you think the writer of Genesis caught amnesia somewhere between the 2nd and 5th chapters of Genesis where It's CLEARLY states:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. - Genesis 5:5

The above proves that the Bible is measuring 1000 years as one day as it relates to God. God said Adam would die the day he partook of the tree, and he died at age 930... which falls within the 1000 year day.

(November 1, 2017 at 10:52 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(November 1, 2017 at 12:58 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Well, Huggy, you're becoming desperate as fuck because Bible seems to be specific as though there were some chance that the word "day" might be misinterpreted, the verse carefully states "the evening and the morning," as though to emphasize that it was one twenty-four-hour period and no more. The day referred to in this verse is still taken to be the familiar twenty-four-hour day and nothing more by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists today:

Genesis 1:5 - And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Indeed, until the 19th century, there was never any question about this. It was universally assumed that the days referred to were literally days-twenty-four-hour periods. In the 19th century, however, it became more and more clear that Earth was millions of years old, and in almost the first retreat from the literal acceptance of the Bible, there began to be some hesitancy about those "days."

You're conflating two different things. In the scripture you posted, there is a period marking the end of a sentence. "morning" and "evening" don't necessarily describe a 24 hour period they simply mark the start and end of a day.

It's like you think the writer of Genesis caught amnesia somewhere between the 2nd and 5th chapters of Genesis where It's CLEARLY states:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. - Genesis 5:5

The above proves that the Bible is measuring 1000 years as one day as it relates to God. God said Adam would die the day he partook of the tree, and he died at age 930... which falls within the 1000 year day.

So Genesis lied when it used the term "days", as Adam only lived one day?  How does any of this prove that 1 day equals 1000 years?  Do you know what "prove"means?  What is Martinizing and why does it take one hour?

Inquisitive minds want to know.