(January 6, 2014 at 12:04 pm)themonkeyman Wrote: Ok I am going to take the christian line on this and say how can you know that the Genesis accounts did not happen? You must understand that back then Oral Tradition was the medium of sharing knowledge. So if you are looking for a scientific answer then please present the test that we need to determine weather or not two humans named Adam and Eve existed.

No, we don't. The existence of Adam and Eve is not as likely as it is unlikely.

Quote:Making the argument that the Bible provides circular reasoning is incorrect as the bible is just the compilation of different texts found at different times in history. Which were at there time independent of other texts. Its the equivalent of trying to say science cannot support science as its circular.

Again incorrect. Science can support science because science is the result of experimentation, observation and independently-verified data. The Bible cannot support the Bible because the Bible is a naked assertion. It is based upon nothing verifiably-factual.

Quote:Sure fossils are scattered around but this gives no more proof than the texts of the bible being scattered around. As ultimately we are relying on a computer to say it happened when we have no other way of knowing.

Extremely ignorant. It insults the efforts of scientists to say that their methods are no better than a bunch of crazy and ignorant savages whose bizarre opinions would mean nothing if they weren't spread across the world like a virus.

Quote:You're shifting the burden of proof.

Possibilities are not the same as reality is it? There are infinite possibilities, I'm not about to treat them all as realities. You are claiming that what, Genesis could be real? So could leprechauns. And thousands of other creation stories. Try treating those as reality. I'm being extremely generous here, Genesis literally isn't possible at all.

I am not shifting the burden of proof I am simply asking why you believe Genesis is a myth. To be defined as a myth you must have read it and then came to a conclusion over your findings that it was a myth so I am intrested to hear your findings.

The reason we know Lebracons are fake is because no one has once tried to say that they were real and existed where as the bible there are people who believe it so the question lies why do you not?

@Min

I am not saying provide me with evidence that something did not happen as you cannot provide something from nothing Null Hypothesis. What I am saying is that most Athiests here are strong in their belief that Genesis did not happen but what makes you take that view point?

@Ryantology

I see your point but what I am saying is that from my perspective a Computer Scientist (Developer) is that Computers give results as we expect them to give results. If we tell a computer 1 + 1 = 3 and then proceed to base calculations that means the (+ implies add 1 to the left sum) the computer would obviously say 1 + 2 = 4.

So how do we know that the computer is indeed accurate as all it is going by is the observable Universe as we know it right now. What it looks like is scientists these days look to shoe horn the answer into the computers output. E.g. work with the result to find the equation which is the wrong way.

Because Genesis is a story. Just like all other stories. I think it is a story because it violates the laws of physics and biology with the creation and Noah's ark and talking snake and I really could go on. But I think you get the idea.

So the level of evidence you require for something to be true is that someone has to say it's true? Then why isn't it sufficient that I say Genesis is a myth? You are shifting the burden of proof, you think it happened, so why not prove that? If you say it's a possibility, like I said, that's not the same as reality, that's almost saying nothing at all.

No what I am trying to work out is how Athiests who do not have a belief in aspects of the bible stand up to why they do not believe aspects of the Bible. I am not asking you to prove that its wrong I am asking you to prove your argument that says its wrong

(January 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Because Genesis is a story.

The standard of evidence that validates a story is vastly improved from those days.

However, the inherent value of a story is subjective. I feel that an atheist does not place inherent value upon a single story...

Other than his own, of course.

(January 6, 2014 at 2:01 pm)themonkeyman Wrote: No what I am trying to work out is how Athiests who do not have a belief in aspects of the bible stand up to why they do not believe aspects of the Bible. I am not asking you to prove that its wrong I am asking you to prove your argument that says its wrong

What?

(January 6, 2014 at 12:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do I even have to remind you that Adam was a pre-fall man, and hence under your own definition not responsible for his sin?

So either you're wrong, or your definitions are wrong, or god is wrong.

Adam knew what death was. God told him if he ate from the tree of knoweledge he would die. knoweledge of sin is not required for knoweledge of death. My nephew is 4 my dog got sick and died, because she got cancer. He knows my dog is gone/dead because cancer killed her. yet he has no real understanding of sin.

Quote:So would Adam have been able to kill Eve and gotten away with it if he hadn't eaten the fruit? And if you're going to dodge by saying death came after the fall, let me broaden the scope: could Adam have committed any sin, sans fruit, and gone on scot-free?

no because it would not be sin.

you assume that our acts/deeds have an intrinsic value.(that the intintional death of another is always wrong) They don't, even in our soceity. (per my example of the 3 year old and 30 year killing his brother)
Without knoweledge of sin, the acts loose the sin value.

(January 6, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Drich Wrote: Adam knew what death was. God told him if he ate from the tree of knoweledge he would die.

Did anyone else just lol? Cause I lol'd.

(January 6, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Drich Wrote: Adam knew what death was. God told him if he ate from the tree of knoweledge he would die. knoweledge of sin is not required for knoweledge of death. My nephew is 4 my dog got sick and died, because she got cancer. He knows my dog is gone/dead because cancer killed her. yet he has no real understanding of sin.

Irrelevant: you said earlier that without knowledge of sin one could not be responsible for sin, and now you've confirmed that Adam had no knowledge of sin, therefore he could not be responsible for the fall.

Someone is still wrong here, and it ain't me.

Quote:no because it would not be sin.

you assume that our acts/deeds have an intrinsic value.(that the intintional death of another is always wrong) They don't, even in our soceity. (per my example of the 3 year old and 30 year killing his brother)
Without knoweledge of sin, the acts loose the sin value.

So what you're saying is that Adam could have been a murdering, raping, arsonist pedophile, but as long as he kept away from that fruit, god wouldn't have seen anything actionable in any of that?

Your moral god would have looked upon that and been like, "hey, fine by me."?

The Fall is a good thing, it stands between summer and winter, the time to plow the fields and... Oh wait, you were talking about fantasy, nevermind then