Posts: 455
Threads: 14
Joined: December 2, 2014
Reputation:
21
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 4, 2015 at 11:46 pm
Here are the choices as I see them.
You can accept a scientific theory (evolution) that has been scrutinized and tested for more than 150 years now and is supported by the irrefutable fact that genetic change takes place within organisms over generations. Or, you can opt to accept a story from a 3,000-year-old book which features a rib-clone, a talking serpent, a worldwide flood for which no evidence exists whatsoever, an ark that is an engineering impossibility, and a world that was created in six days (but billions upon billions of stars almost as an afterthought).
I'll throw my lot in with science, thanks.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 12:49 am
(March 4, 2015 at 11:46 pm)Strider Wrote: Here are the choices as I see them.
You can accept a scientific theory (evolution) that has been scrutinized and tested for more than 150 years now and is supported by the irrefutable fact that genetic change takes place within organisms over generations. Or, you can opt to accept a story from a 3,000-year-old book which features a rib-clone, a talking serpent, a worldwide flood for which no evidence exists whatsoever, an ark that is an engineering impossibility, and a world that was created in six days (but billions upon billions of stars almost as an afterthought).
I'll throw my lot in with science, thanks.
The key problem with humanity with the majority is ignorance. They need to overcome that first then they will accept evolution.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 1:04 am
(March 4, 2015 at 11:46 pm)Strider Wrote: Here are the choices as I see them.
You can accept a scientific theory (evolution) that has been scrutinized and tested for more than 150 years now and is supported by the irrefutable fact that genetic change takes place within organisms over generations. Or, you can opt to accept a story from a 3,000-year-old book which features a rib-clone, a talking serpent, a worldwide flood for which no evidence exists whatsoever, an ark that is an engineering impossibility, and a world that was created in six days (but billions upon billions of stars almost as an afterthought).
I'll throw my lot in with science, thanks.
Yeah, if my choices are to either accept 150 years of peer reviewed science, with evidence that I can look up in all of five seconds, or accept the opinions of a pair of uneducated randos whose argument is just pointing to the first choice and saying "that's wrong," over and over, I know where my money is going.
Now, let's see whether it's Tweedledee or Tweedledum who's going to pop up first and use my money turn of phrase to launch into an oblique reference to Pascal's Wager, shall we?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 1:49 am
1 Corinthians 15:44-49
"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”f ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall weg bear the image of the heavenly man."
1 Timothy 2:13-15
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
See, some of that is metaphorical, some of it is literal. Like obviously.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 5:04 am
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2015 at 5:06 am by robvalue.)
Yes, it's a very strong argument. Sadly, theists don't apply any sort of logic to their beliefs. They don't start with reality and work forwards, they start with their conclusions, and work backwards. And when, inevitably, this doesn't work, they convince themselves that they have drawn a straight line instead of incoherent squiggles.
I've put this topic forward before, including many similar ones such as:
Why trust the creation account? Whose word do we have that God did any of it? God? Why can we trust him when he lies in his own book?
Why should we read the bible as being intended to be non-fiction? It begins as any story does, right into the narrative. No explanatory pages at the start highlighting the purpose.
And my personal favourite:
What the fuck is wrong with you? I mean.. Argh!
I would sum up the position of most theists as, "Reality is a conspiracy to try and trick me away from my childhood fantasies."
Posts: 2281
Threads: 16
Joined: January 17, 2010
Reputation:
69
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 6:31 am
(March 4, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Norman Humann Wrote: (March 4, 2015 at 4:20 pm)comet Wrote: the book is not meant to be literal. so any literal interpretation is wrong.
Called it. First 
Sum ergo sum
Posts: 3620
Threads: 22
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 7:47 am
(March 5, 2015 at 6:31 am)Ben Davis Wrote: First
Damn it 
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 8:14 am
The entire bible is bunk, but Genesis alone is full of scientific absurdities. But even without that the two most important stories to Christians are the birth and death stories attributed to their magic man. There are no such things as magic babies, and humans don't survive rigor mortis. So I'd say go after the quarterback rather than focus on the other players. Not that they have evidence of a team owner(God) for that matter.
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 8:31 am
(March 4, 2015 at 4:40 pm)Drich Wrote: Eitherway, the fact of the matter is you still have sinned, and owe a debt because of it.
Trying the "believe because of internal guilt" card?
I don't agree or recognize your "sin" definition. ALL of the evil I have done has been to my fellow apes. My lack of worship to a maniacal imaginary skygod is not an evil and is not a sin.
Using the "Golden Rule," I would not be injured in the least by disbelief in me from people I have not given sufficient evidence of my existence and your god shouldn't be either. Trying to pull an emotional guilt card is pathetic.
Hoe much of a debt do you owe Horus? Don't you feel guilty that you have sinned against him for not worshiping him? That's what your tripe sounds like to us.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?
March 5, 2015 at 8:45 am
(March 5, 2015 at 8:31 am)Brakeman Wrote: (March 4, 2015 at 4:40 pm)Drich Wrote: Eitherway, the fact of the matter is you still have sinned, and owe a debt because of it.
Trying the "believe because of internal guilt" card?
I don't agree or recognize your "sin" definition. ALL of the evil I have done has been to my fellow apes. My lack of worship to a maniacal imaginary skygod is not an evil and is not a sin.
Using the "Golden Rule," I would not be injured in the least by disbelief in me from people I have not given sufficient evidence of my existence and your god shouldn't be either. Trying to pull an emotional guilt card is pathetic.
Hoe much of a debt do you owe Horus? Don't you feel guilty that you have sinned against him for not worshiping him? That's what your tripe sounds like to us.
I think believers of all religions have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that atheist is not the evil slur they want it to be. "Atheist" although is not a moral code, and wont automatically make a person good, at the same time, that does not mean atheists can break the law, steal others property, get violent with others. "Atheist" does not mean baby eater or lawlessness. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in us. Atheists simply don't assign any good or bad humans do to a comic book.
|
