Are you an atheist?

[Galaxiom]

theory definition. In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

I believe the Bible at the very least fits this description, don't you?

No. As I have already shown, the Bible is not consistent with observations of the real world.

 

[Bladerunner]

Wrong again Blade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty,
The sea and land were not even separated from each other until the third day.(Genesis 1:9)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.(2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I am not sure where you were going here except that I stated he created the Heaven and the Earth. When I said he created everything, I was referring to our conversation about the sun, moon and stars specifically LIGHT. He then is subsequent days went about creating all forms of life on Earth including Man and Woman.

The sea and land were not even separated from each other until the third day.(Genesis 1:9)

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.(10) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Let and Creation are clearly on the same day.
For example on the fifth day:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 1:20
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it,

Using your version, explains itself and does not need help. God decided that there would be living creatures in the waters and on the land and in verse 21 He CREATED them.

My (KJV) version is: Genesis 1: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 121) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

We can use your version of Genesis 1:2 if you prefer.

"Without form and void". Does that sound like everything had already been created?

OK, it was what I thought. see the previous post I made. Maybe that will clear it up. Not trying to trip you up here, just trying to be on the same page.


Blade\

 

[Bladerunner]

Science, through the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics accurately describes the Universe from immediately after the first pixel of pure formless energy appears about 13.8 billon years ago.

Currently the only place left for creation is prior to that first pixel at a time of 10^-43 seconds after the beginning when the Universe was 10^-35 metres across.

The notion of personal hands-on detailed creation of each aspect of reality by a deity is dead. Indeed even the church finally acknowledged Evolution. It only took them 150 years. It was 400 years before they accepted heliocentricity.

WIll look into the HYpothesis and THeory definition of yours.

Until then, Genesis does not give a time period other than day. It is evident that it is not our day nor was it the Greek day nor was it the Roman day, etc..

He created the heaven: is that not the universe and then he created the earth in that order. According to science it is in the same order. Why would he have not had time to modify and create all things on earth (in due time that is). Rem man did not come along until the sixth day.

Blade




darwinism (evolution) is false and has been shown to be false. Whether the church accepted darwonism (evolution) does not really matter. I can give you thousands of examples (facts) where evolution is not present.

 

[Libre]

Libre, I don't really know how to respond? The last two pages have been about those that did not even believe Jesus existed and if he did he was not the one in the Bible.?????????????????????????????//

more later.
Blade

I can't speak for anyone except myself - but - if the discussion is about whether a man known as Jesus Christ ever existed, that's one conversation. Maybe some dispute it - that's their prerogative I suppose. That discussion is on the same order as a discussion about whether a guy named William Shakespeare wrote the plays that are credited to him - which some people also dispute. A similar debate could be held about whether Mozart was poisoned or if he died of natural causes - probably consumption. These are conversations about some points of history, whether the books and accounts are accurate. It has some importance to some, as an academic quandary, but little beyond. Settling these questions would mean very little, in the scope of things - to the Big Picture.

Then there is another discussion - whether a man named Jesus Christ is actually the son of God, creator of the universe, and if so was he immaculately conceived, and later resurrected from the dead. Did this deity ascend to heaven, where he rules the universe jointly with his Dad and some other dude known as the "Holy Ghost" (I'm Jewish and understand little about all this, I admit). Now then, if THIS is the discussion, it's an entirely different conversation than the other one about history. This discussion, unlike the other, totally redefines the existence of every human, no, every organism on the face of the earth, where we came from, where we are going, and in short, impacts the world and its creatures in such a way as to be absolutely profound. It doesn't merely impact the Big Picture, it IS the Big Picture.

How these two conversations can be interwoven, confused, or interchanged, is beyond my comprehension.

To the first question, I say maybe, but so what? I could get interested, in an offhand way, as an intellectual diversion.

As to the second conjecture, that Christ worked miracles and is the actual son of the actual Creator of the universe, I can only say, it's sheer fantasy.

And that's my take on the subject.

 

[Bladerunner]

I can't speak for anyone except myself - but - if the discussion is about whether a man known as Jesus Christ ever existed, that's one conversation. Maybe some dispute it - that's their prerogative I suppose. That discussion is on the same order as a discussion about whether a guy named William Shakespeare wrote the plays that are credited to him - which some people also dispute. A similar debate could be held about whether Mozart was poisoned or if he died of natural causes - probably consumption. These are conversations about some points of history, whether the books and accounts are accurate. It has some importance to some, as an academic quandary, but little beyond. Settling these questions would mean very little, in the scope of things - to the Big Picture.

Then there is another discussion - whether a man named Jesus Christ is actually the son of God, creator of the universe, and if so was he immaculately conceived, and later resurrected from the dead. Did this deity ascend to heaven, where he rules the universe jointly with his Dad and some other dude known as the "Holy Ghost" (I'm Jewish and understand little about all this, I admit). Now then, if THIS is the discussion, it's an entirely different conversation than the other one about history. This discussion, unlike the other, totally redefines the existence of every human, no, every organism on the face of the earth, where we came from, where we are going, and in short, impacts the world and its creatures in such a way as to be absolutely profound. It doesn't merely impact the Big Picture, it IS the Big Picture.

How these two conversations can be interwoven, confused, or interchanged, is beyond my comprehension.

To the first question, I say maybe, but so what? I could get interested, in an offhand way, as an intellectual diversion.

As to the second conjecture, that Christ worked miracles and is the actual son of the actual Creator of the universe, I can only say, it's sheer fantasy.

And that's my take on the subject.

Well, while these two discussions are the different they are the same. As far as the history of Jesus, whether the books and accounts are accurate do matter and have a big impact on the big picture. We have a disagreement of whether he actually lived or not and if so does history coincide with the Bible (another history book that has been designated as being false). I have found out here, in most all cases, If the history book does backup the Bible, like the Bible, it becomes immediately false.

Your second paragraph actually means nothing if the man named Jesus did not exist. Even though there are a few historical writings (non-Biblical), written by non-believers, that show Jesus did perform miracles is of no use with the mindset of this thread. The Atheist here do not want to know nor do they want to hear any info that just might punch holes in their atheism. My Mistake........... The following is two of those historical accounts........


*Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome and great foe of Christianity, describes Jesus as one having done nothing in his lifetime worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal lame and blind people and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany. 7. McDowell, Josh 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict' Here's Life 1979 p.125

*from the Babylonian Talmud 43a. Babylonian Talmud (late first or second century AD) Babylonian Sanhedrin43a-b “On the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshu and the herald went before him for forty days saying [Yeshu] is going forth to be stoned in that he hate practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel Here Jesus is accused of sorcery, in obvious parallel with the charge leveled in Matthew 12:22-23. The writer of the Talmud does not agree that Jesus worked bona fide miracles, but he reports that he did things which, to the enemy of Jesus could only be written off as sorcery. Also, in Babylonian Sanhedrin107b it is claimed that Jesus practiced magic. In tHul2:22-23 it is reported that healings were done in the name of Jesus. So we have indirect confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus and of his working of public miracles-only charging that the miracles were worked by Satan, not God. (p.s. the indirect confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus was another part that is not here.)

Lets just close this thread down, since it is a repeat of itself.......there is no use to continue.

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

care to drop a link for that. will save me some time EH!

Is physical evidence Facts? then it would be a Law then not a Theory. The Bible Has God's word in it. Is it not physical evidence... Oh, you don't agree with it so it cannot be used. It is all there in front of you and yet you make a choice not to see it.

Blade

Google isn't too tricky - try the book in google and look at a few reviews.

I think Galaxiom cleared this one up for you, just some posts back.

I'll quote it for you - to save time EH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladerunner
THe theory of Relativity is the same,,,,,,,,no without fact it is an opinion.

No. Relativity is backed up by vast numbers of observations. Moreover it predicted what had yet to be observed. The accuracy of such predictions are what elevates a hypothesis to a theory.

Quote:
Therefore the creation by God should at least be a theory and not a false hood.

No. God is a hypothesis. Moreover it is a failed hypothesis because it does not accurately describe that which is observed. Matching what is observed is the first requirement on the road to becoming a theory so the God hypothesis falls at the first hurdle.

Science, through the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics accurately describes the Universe from immediately after the first pixel of pure formless energy appears about 13.8 billon years ago.

Currently the only place left for creation is prior to that first pixel at a time of 10^-43 seconds after the beginning when the Universe was 10^-35 metres across.

The notion of personal hands-on detailed creation of each aspect of reality by a deity is dead. Indeed even the church finally acknowledged Evolution. It only took them 150 years. It was 400 years before they accepted heliocentricity.

 

[ConnorGiles]

theory definition. In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

I believe the Bible at the very least fits this description, don't you?

Blade

Actually I withdraw my statement on religion being a theory.

It more fits a Hypothesis.

"Definition of hypothesis in English:
noun (plural hypotheses hʌɪˈpɒθɪsiːz)

1A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:"

 

[ConnorGiles]

Hundreds,,,,back then there were not hundreds of people that were literate. Most of the time it was a scribe (single) that was charged with the job of copying word for word the bible or other manuscripts. They did a good job. The link I gave you about
the witness was just that. I have not researched it and had only come upon it when I link it to the post. However, is not the researcher credible. Evidently not---al least in you minds eye.

Blade

He may have been credible but with his background of religion it would have to be one of your miracles to make sure his opinion wasn't swayed into his "research".

 

[ConnorGiles]

The Atheist here do not want to know nor do they want to hear any info that just might punch holes in their atheism. My Mistake........... The following is two of those historical accounts........

Think you have that the wrong way around bud.

We are open to well thought hypothesis, but you do tend to ramble the same stuff over and over.

again, one more time - because more than one person wrote about him, doesn't in any way show evidence as much as any other book does.

I shall just wait until the day of "Judgement".

See ya down there bud.

 

[Galaxiom]

The following is two of those historical accounts........

Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome

Born c 331 AD, (about 300 years after the crucifixion).

Babylonian Talmud (late first or second century AD)

Is the pattern becoming clearer?

So we have indirect confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus and of his working of public miracles-

No. We have hearsay reported by people who lived several generations after the claimed events. There are no contemporary accounts of Christ whatsoever.

The first mention of Christ is in "The Antiquities of the Jews" by Flavius Josephus in about 94 AD where he mentions the object of the Christians' worship. Josephus was born 37 AD so was obviously not a witness to any of it.

He writes in Greek. The New Testament (also in Greek) appears later still. The New Testament is nothing more than an early attempt to back up the Christian myth.

Lets just close this thread down, since it is a repeat of itself.......there is no use to continue.

You are conceding your position is lost then?

 

[Bladerunner]

He may have been credible but with his background of religion it would have to be one of your miracles to make sure his opinion wasn't swayed into his "research".

I guess all those scientist do not have a background in 'science' OOPS sorry buddy but you are talking about a double standard. Kind of like global warming...a double standard for the biggest scam ever.

Did you know that scientist cannot even figure out if there was a Big Bang or the Universe has just been here forever. Go figure....At least in the Bible what was written is the same today and has not changed since the beginning. I know you would like it to and you can mince words and get it mean something else like the Genesis discussion when read word for word it is as accurate today as it was yesterday.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

He may have been credible but with his background of religion it would have to be one of your miracles to make sure his opinion wasn't swayed into his "research".

Like the two other examples from non-believers in a previous post, all you had to do was read it. What do we have a fake from 2000 years ago? Rem, back then was not like today, you actually had to work to eat., there was no communications except by ASS and when it got to you more than likely it was already 6 months to 1 year old..

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

I guess all those scientist do not have a background in 'science' OOPS sorry buddy but you are talking about a double standard. Kind of like global warming...a double standard for the biggest scam ever.

Scientists don't claim that Science is a Deity and worship it. I thought Global warming has been observed on a major scale (Poor Polar Bears )

I think you are trying to put your point of view across as a fact.

Did you know that scientist cannot even figure out if there was a Big Bang or the Universe has just been here forever. Go figure....At least in the Bible what was written is the same today and has not changed since the beginning. I know you would like it to and you can mince words and get it mean something else like the Genesis discussion when read word for word it is as accurate today as it was yesterday.

Blade

Another one of your opinions I see, The bible has been changed so much that it had to be re-written in the new testament. It has been seen on numerous occasions that religious people have changed their views around what evidence has been found to support a scientific theory.

If it hadn't been changed I'm pretty sure the death rate now would be dramatically higher.

By the way, We can never know how the universe started - Due to the fact they are theories, Rather than believing someone big and magical poof'd us into existence.

By the way if Adam and Eve were the only 2. In your beliefs are we all related in some way?

 

[ConnorGiles]

Like the two other examples from non-believers in a previous post, all you had to do was read it. What do we have a fake from 2000 years ago? Rem, back then was not like today, you actually had to work to eat., there was no communications except by ASS and when it got to you more than likely it was already 6 months to 1 year old..

Blade

And what would stop them from lying? I was lead to believe that mistrust and lies were more than common in those days.

I mean the Bible (or any other religious book) is full of them

 

[Bladerunner]

Think you have that the wrong way around bud.

We are open to well thought hypothesis, but you do tend to ramble the same stuff over and over.

again, one more time - because more than one person wrote about him, doesn't in any way show evidence as much as any other book does.

I shall just wait until the day of "Judgement".

See ya down there bud.

See you do not know the Bible and I bet you can re-site word for word the Atheist books like "The God Delusion". Yes, I just got through reading it and could punch holes in it from beginning to the end. However, it is of no use. You are deciding your fate as we speak.

You and I will be long dead before the day of Judgement gets here. If we started today with the tribulations, (7 years of hell on earth), judgement day would still be 1000 years plus into the future. As an atheist ( a non-believer) you will not survive the tribulations unless you happen to fall in a fox hole (i.e. they say there are no atheist in a fox hole). As a believer, I will not be here thru the tribulations even if it did start today.

Having said that, tribulations are not here yet, and since the Israel Prime Minister won re-election the beginning of tribulations will not be here for the next few years.

So, my friend , we have time to live our lives and die as others have done for thousands of years.

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

See you do not know the Bible and I bet you can re-site word for word the Atheist books like "The God Delusion". Yes, I just got through reading it and could punch holes in it from beginning to the end. However, it is of no use. You are deciding your fate as we speak.

You and I will be long dead before the day of Judgement gets here. If we started today with the tribulations, (7 years of hell on earth), judgement day would still be 1000 years plus into the future. As an atheist ( a non-believer) you will not survive the tribulations unless you happen to fall in a fox hole (i.e. they say there are no atheist in a fox hole). As a believer, I will not be here thru the tribulations even if it did start today.

Having said that, tribulations are not here yet, and since the Israel Prime Minister won re-election the beginning of tribulations will not be here for the next few years.

So, my friend , we have time to live our lives and die as others have done for thousands of years.

Blade

That is where you are wrong again! I couldn't re-site any book word for word as my memory is way to bad to even try!

Pretty sure Mayans tried to predict judgement day once.

Bet they feel silly now!

I wonder how you will feel or believers like you in the future when your "Judgement Day" comes and nothing happens.

Who knows maybe the Mayans got it right! 3 years on I feel no different, just a little older!

 

[Bladerunner]

Born c 331 AD, (about 300 years after the crucifixion).
Is the pattern becoming clearer?
No. We have hearsay reported by people who lived several generations after the claimed events. There are no contemporary accounts of Christ whatsoever.
The first mention of Christ is in "The Antiquities of the Jews" by Flavius Josephus in about 94 AD where he mentions the object of the Christians' worship. Josephus was born 37 AD so was obviously not a witness to any of it.He writes in Greek. The New Testament (also in Greek) appears later still. The New Testament is nothing more than an early attempt to back up the Christian myth.

At least your are reading up on it?

You are conceding your position is lost then?[/

No, but it is a lost cause from the start for no matter what I say or produce it (is/will be) false or not good enough.



Have a good day my friend.

Blade

 

[Frothingslosh]

Pretty sure Mayans tried to predict judgement day once.

Bet they feel silly now!

I wonder how you will feel or believers like you in the future when your "Judgement Day" comes and nothing happens.

Who knows maybe the Mayans got it right! 3 years on I feel no different, just a little older!

Actually, that's a complete misconception. 12/21/12 was simply the end of the 13th b'ak'tun on the Mayan Long Count calendar and the start of the 14th. (That's 12.~ and 13.~ on the calendar, much like 2015 is the 21st Century.) While the Mayans believed that the current world began in the previous 13th b'ak'tun, they really thought of changes of b'ak'tun as indications of change and an excuse to celebrate, much like we did in 2000 (even though the 21st Century actually started 1/1/2001). They did NOT predict the end of the world on 12/21/12, for the simple reason that a b'ak'tun was just under 400 years, and even they didn't think the world would end every four centuries. At most, they would have expected 'great change'.

 

[ConnorGiles]

No, but it is a lost cause from the start for no matter what I say or produce it (is/will be) false or not good enough.

Not at all, Just give me some cold hard facts and proof that any god exists.