A Book?

[chatpilot]

nature worship lol

[Tiberius]

And before that?

Technically speaking atheism was around in the world long before any form of theism

[chatpilot]

Agreed,adrian and even today we all start as atheists since a child has no concept of religion or God till he is indoctrinated by society and his parents into a belief system.

[fr0d0]

Science is simply the discipline used to examine the universe and find out how it works. Although scientists may get things wrong from time to time, science itself only ever reveals the truth about the world.

The reason that people like fr0d0 seem so against science simply seems to me because it contradicts practically every aspect of their belief.

The Bible suggests the world is only a few thousand years old. This is clearly wrong.

The Bible states that all humans derive from Adam and Eve. Again, wrong.

Noah's Ark and the global flood. Clearly a fairy story.

And the list goes on and on.

The trouble is that when you fall in love, either with a person or in this case, a book, then anything that by its very nature contradicts and disagrees with your love will always be a target. This isn't the fault of science as it exists in its own right but more the fault of those who do not have the necessary ability to realise that just because you want to believe something is true does not make it so.

Sorry, I haven't caught up on the rest of the thread, I just wanted to comment on this straight away.

I love science. Science is awesome and amazing. Nothing is wrong with science that I can see. I'm no scientist, but that doesn't prevent me appreciating the wonders of it.


Secondly, I disagree with ALL of your contradictions. Let me fix them...


The Bible suggests the world is only a few thousand years old. This is clearly misinterpreted.

The Bible states that all humans derive from Adam and Eve. Again, misinterpretation.

Noah's Ark and the global flood. Clearly an allegory.


And the list goes on and on ...please... gimme more!

[Edwardo Piet]

Couldn't you tell us what the correct representation (according to you) of the first 2 is then? Rather than just saying they are misinterpreted?

And could you show why you believe that the Ark and the Flood is necessarily an allegory?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well science finds the truth about reality and gets results..religion doesn't...all power to science over religion I say.

I agree with Dawkins there certainly:

"Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not." - Dawkins

EvF

Yeah... Religion ISN'T Science. Science is great. Religion is a different discipline. I guess I'm covering this in debate now so... no giving me ideas k?

---

Couldn't you tell us what the correct representation (according to you) of the first 2 is then? Rather than just saying they are misinterpreted?

And could you show why you believe that the Ark and the Flood is necessarily an allegory?

EvF

Well Darwinian didn't qualify further so I didn't think I needed to. No problem obliging tho' of course..

1. It says nowhere in the bible about dates. Presumably it's derived from the genealogy of Christ. Personally I fall off my chair in incredulity at people who think this is literal. The genealogical chain could (read should) be read in some cases as significant players and not complete. The leap from Adam (the analogical person) to assumed real characters for instance is obvious.

2. Adam & Eve are obviously (to me) characters in an allegorical story. I very much get & appreciate the story. To want to literalize this again temps me rotfl.

[g-mark]

Technically speaking atheism was around in the world long before any form of theism

How could anyone possibly know this for sure?

[Giff]

Technically speaking atheism was around in the world long before any form of theism

How could anyone possibly know this for sure?

Animals and monkeys dont believe in a god, so the first types of humans didn't either.

[chatpilot]

I think that gods were created by man in this order but this is just what I beleive to be a logical progression of thought,this is purely theoretical.I beleive that the first religions were the worship of nature and natural phenomena during a pre-scientific age.As is evidenced in tribal and more recent greek mythology these natural forces of nature were assigned names according to their manisfestations.There still exist tribes that are near extinction in the Amazon and in some parts of Africa that still worship nature today.

The next natural step was the worship of ancestors to try and explain the mysteries of death.The belief that your ancestors watch over you and your tribe came next.Then naturally those ancestors were able to reintroduce themselves into the tribe via reincarnation thus the worship of animals.Also,animals were worshipped as well as being gods reincarnated form dwelling among the believers.

As mans knowledge about nature and the world around him began to grow he began to worship himself.Thus the worshipping of kings and emperors of human origin.And finally man worshipped gods in heavenly places due to their lack of understanding of astronomy.Eventually man wanted to equate himself with his God and thus the Judaism makes man in the image of God.But in actuality if you think about it the biblical God is nothing more than a representation of man.This is evident in that he has all the characteristics of man both good and evil.I might be wrong but for what it's worth that is my view in a nutshell.

[Tiberius]

The Bible suggests the world is only a few thousand years old. This is clearly misinterpreted.

The Bible states that all humans derive from Adam and Eve. Again, misinterpretation.

Noah's Ark and the global flood. Clearly an allegory.


And the list goes on and on ...please... gimme more!

Well as much as you seem to like following the "god of the gaps" argument, it doesn't impress me. This is a clear case of:

Bible claimed X.
People believed X because Bible claimed X.
Science claimed Y.
People fight over X and Y and split into two groups, A and B.
People in A believe Y and say Bible was simply "misinterpreted" to seem like it was claiming X.
People in B believe X and say that science is all bullshit.

Luckily you aren't a member of group B fr0d0, but group A isn't anything to be proud of either. I prefer group C:

People in C accept Y because science > bible and people in groups A and B are just crazy.