Not quite, W/V.

(July 9, 2013 at 9:28 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote: I am looking at the Holy Bible's chapter on Genesis, and I am quite bewildered by this opening paragraph:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The question I ask about this passage: How does this ancient writer know this? He most definitely does not know this by by field research and observations. Supposedly, only God was there before the heavens and the earth, and the Holy Bible's authors were not there with God, for they are human just like you and me. Genesis's authors were also supposedly born after Adam and Eve, and did not even meet them. It appears as though the Holy Bible's ancient writers were simply making all of this up.

This is one of the main reasons why I do not believe in God. As a rationalist/atheist/humanist, I do not accept what there is no evidence for. If god exists, then why has he/she/it left such scarce, unreliable evidence of his/her/its existence. You have probably heard a lot of atheists say this: Either God doesn't exist, or he doesn't care. I hear a lot of religious people criticize and reject evolution. Well, Darwin's works (Origin of Species, Voyage of the Beagle, etc.) are all based on eclectic, field research that he did. He did not hear voices one day while hanging around in the desert. The same goes with all science.

As many of you know, Christians claim the Holy Bible is God's word, when in point of fact it isn't. The Christian bible, just like the Koran and other religions' holy books, were written by mortal men who claimed to have been spoken to by (a) god. Maybe if I write a book, bury it, and go off and disappear, people will start calling me God, as well.

Any way, that is something to think about.

Friend, I think God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Well, he probably has the power to actually take the mind of someone to that time, so that they can perhaps observe as though they were there. Perhaps he has just stopped time, and opened up another dimension in which he performed the same thing with the writer being present, of course, by seeing God, he died, and then was resurrected and then woke up from it as though it was nothing but a heavenly vision in his own timescale.
Could have happened, yes?

(July 16, 2013 at 8:55 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Friend, I think God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Well, he probably has the power to actually take the mind of someone to that time, so that they can perhaps observe as though they were there. Perhaps he has just stopped time, and opened up another dimension in which he performed the same thing with the writer being present, of course, by seeing God, he died, and then was resurrected and then woke up from it as though it was nothing but a heavenly vision in his own timescale.
Could have happened, yes?

(July 16, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Dionysius Wrote: Miracle:
an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment


This is how I am describing the event of inspiration (whatever that may mean) which caused various individuals to develop a system of thinking and action which created tremendous change. For example, Buddha, Moses, Ghandi, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.

Ok, so we're going to ignore the primary definition given for the word miracle:

Quote:an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

I'm fine with that for the moment. Let's go with the secondary definition you chose. Does that mean that my winning the lottery, or finishing my novel and getting published to well-deserved critical acclaim, would also be a miracle? Or maybe something less dramatic but no less significant, such as overcoming some life changing disability against all the odds? How about surviving a fall from tremendous height after a parachute failure? This is what I meant by a bastardisation of the word until it becomes less miraculous and increasingly mundane.

However, since the actual existence of several of your roll-call cast is questionable at best, whether or not the term "miracle" can be applied to what you describe, using either definition, becomes decidedly moot.

Quote:In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Shit. I wonder where the goat fuckers in Canaan got that idea from?

Quote:Nu was the name of the dark, swirling chaos before the beginning of time.

Out of these waters rose Atum; he created himself using his thoughts and the sheer force of his will.

He created a hill, for there was nowhere he could stand.

Atum was alone in the world. He was neither male nor female, and he had one all-seeing eye that could roam the universe. He joined with his shadow to produce a son and a daughter.

Egyptian creation myth

Quote:Perhaps he has just stopped time, and opened up another dimension in which he performed the same thing with the writer being present, of course, by seeing God, he died, and then was resurrected and then woke up from it as though it was nothing but a heavenly vision in his own timescale.
Could have happened, yes?

And perhaps it is just bullshit written down by primitive men who didn't know what the fuck they were talking about?

Quote:Could have happened, yes?

Be serious.

(July 17, 2013 at 12:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: Ok, so we're going to ignore the primary definition given for the word

It seems like your beef is with the publishers.

(July 17, 2013 at 12:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: I'm fine with that for the moment. Let's go with the secondary definition you chose. Does that mean that my winning the lottery, or finishing my novel and getting published to well-deserved critical acclaim, would also be a miracle? Or maybe something less dramatic but no less significant, such as overcoming some life changing disability against all the odds? How about surviving a fall from tremendous height after a parachute failure? This is what I meant by a bastardisation of the word until it becomes less miraculous and increasingly mundane.

The hypotheticals you describe could certainly be considered, miraculous. In terms of your argumentation over the degradation of miraculous - well that certainly seems to fit with the big picture... entropy.

(July 17, 2013 at 12:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: However, since the actual existence of several of your roll-call cast is questionable at best, whether or not the term "miracle" can be applied to what you describe, using either definition, becomes decidedly moot.

That would be a matter of opinion. And since opinion and the minds which develop them also fall prey to the phenomena of degradation it would seem only natural that you feel as you do.

(July 9, 2013 at 10:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm always amused when idiot xtians claim that man cannot "know" about the big bang because no one was there.... and then in the next breath trot out this silly genesis shit.

We're just pointing out that you do the same things we do and so, by logic of Tu Quoque, justify our own faith.

You see, you believe in the conclusions of science. These are beliefs that result from observations followed by hypothesis to explain and predict these observations followed by the gathering of data and testing of the hypothesis followed by rigorous peer review designed to ferret out faulty reasoning and fraudulent claims in a self-correcting process that seeks to follow facts to whatever conclusions they may lead to.

We, on the other hand, believe in the sacred proclamations of ancient goat herders who claimed to speak for God and then we look for cherry picked data that could be interpreted to confirm their assertions and, when we can't find any, seek to re-interpret the passages as some kind of obtuse metaphor that coincides with modern science and then congratulate said ancient goat herders for knowing all along what science has only recently discovered.

You see. Same thing.

Glory!

(July 17, 2013 at 9:22 am)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote:

(July 9, 2013 at 10:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm always amused when idiot xtians claim that man cannot "know" about the big bang because no one was there.... and then in the next breath trot out this silly genesis shit.

We're just pointing out that you do the same things we do and so, by logic of Tu Quoque, justify our own faith.

You see, you believe in the conclusions of science. These are beliefs that result from observations followed by hypothesis to explain and predict these observations followed by the gathering of data and testing of the hypothesis followed by rigorous peer review designed to ferret out faulty reasoning and fraudulent claims in a self-correcting process that seeks to follow facts to whatever conclusions they may lead to.

We, on the other hand, believe in the sacred proclamations of ancient goat herders who claimed to speak for God and then we look for cherry picked data that could be interpreted to confirm their assertions and, when we can't find any, seek to re-interpret the passages as some kind of obtuse metaphor that coincides with modern science and then congratulate said ancient goat herders for knowing all along what science has only recently discovered.

You see. Same thing.

Glory!

YHWH is the way!

(July 17, 2013 at 9:25 am)Dionysius Wrote:

(July 17, 2013 at 9:22 am)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: We're just pointing out that you do the same things we do and so, by logic of Tu Quoque, justify our own faith.

You see, you believe in the conclusions of science. These are beliefs that result from observations followed by hypothesis to explain and predict these observations followed by the gathering of data and testing of the hypothesis followed by rigorous peer review designed to ferret out faulty reasoning and fraudulent claims in a self-correcting process that seeks to follow facts to whatever conclusions they may lead to.

We, on the other hand, believe in the sacred proclamations of ancient goat herders who claimed to speak for God and then we look for cherry picked data that could be interpreted to confirm their assertions and, when we can't find any, seek to re-interpret the passages as some kind of obtuse metaphor that coincides with modern science and then congratulate said ancient goat herders for knowing all along what science has only recently discovered.

You see. Same thing.

Glory!

YHWH is the way!

I call them ancient charlatans, lol.

(July 17, 2013 at 3:21 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote: I call them ancient charlatans, lol.

Any relation to the great composer by the same name? Indirect, obviously, since he never had any children I'm aware of from his bio.