AtticaFlinch

Attica, the origin story is foundational to Christianity and the bible. If it is not true, many other parts of the bible are false and the faith is invalid.

I'm not going to argue with your conclusion as I do think the Bible is false and the faith is invalid, but out of curiosity, how do you figure everything about Christianity is invalidated if the Genesis is full of nothing more than antiquated mythology? Are the teachings of Jesus any less relevant because radiometric dating proves inexhaustibly that the Earth is over four billion years old as opposed to six thousand years old? I hardly think so. The teachings attributed to Jesus offer many valuable moral and ethical guidelines that hold true regardless of the age of the Earth or the processes involved in creating it.

But HEY, good news, you are gaining ground because in 2000 it was 96%, so maybe some people are warming up to your idea of no God.

It's not really my idea, and it's not where I sit with it. I'm comfortable not knowing if there is or isn't a god and not getting my knickers in a twist trying to find out. If you remember, this conversation started because you claimed creationism (and implicitly all it entails) is a rational alternative to the principles of natural selection. I don't dispute the possiblity of some sort of god or gods or whatever else, though I do highly doubt the existence of the God of Lockmat. What I dispute is the story of creationism as tenaciously expounded by Christian Fundamentalists. It's a goofy story intended for a less rational time, and I find it a bit strange that it's something we'd even debate in this day and age. It's no more believable than the creation mythology of literally thousands of other cultures, none of which have been lended any credence here (with the lone exception of the FSM).

¹⁴"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Now I know this is a lie.

Had this been true, this would never have happened.

They'd be embracing the same underlying principles as Atheism, which is outright implausible because Atheism denies even the possibility that the Christian God or any god (including FSM) exists in any form.

And this is the huge flaw with atheism. It requires as much faith to deny that possibility as it does to believe in the existence of a god. As best as I can tell, atheism appears little different to me than a religion, albeit with considerably less dogma.

Lockmat, I'm sure if you were to ask the God you know his opinion on the topic, he's be fairly astounded you were even concerning yourself with an origin story (especially considering the boatloads of evidence sets the Earth's age at 4.6 billion years old). God would probably wonder why his follwers weren't out in the world aiding the sick and the poor. He would probably wonder why wars were waged in his name. He'd probably wonder why his followers were so intent on accumulating material wealth when his son expressly condemned the wealthy to an afterlife outside of Heaven. He'd probably wonders why that Australian loon in Kentucky is devoting $30 million to that absurd creation "museum" and not devoting those funds to feeding and clothing the homeless. He probably wonders why every megachurch has a gift shop despite Jesus' one fit of anger that was mentioned in the Bible was due to a temple commercializing faith. He probably wonders why people who claim to be his followers don't actually follow him.

I don't consider skulls from humans and apes guessed to be missing links to be serious evidence.

This is because you don't understand it. And, as you've demonstrated, if you don't understand something, you've got to explain it with the most preposterous tale possible of ghosts and demons and invisible beings. Forget what makes sense, your fanciful though illogical tales are more entertaining.

And the fact that they find fossils of animals that don't exist anymore don't prove anything either. We all know there are animals that have gone extinct and are currently on their way to extinction.

Do you understand the process of fossilization? Do you know how slim the odds are that any organic matter will transmute into rock? Probably less than a millionth, a billionth even, of all possible life has survived with a fossil representative. Had all life that has ever existed been the same life that existed at the beginning of time, then the Earth wouldn't be big enough to hold everything.

We see variations...different kinds of tree, different kinds of dogs etc. We don't see dogs turning into trees or insects turning into lions.

You do realize you're arguing against something you have absolutely no understanding of? How can you argue against it if you've never taken the time to familiarize yourself with its most basic principles? The principles of natural selection would never lead to a dog turning into a tree or an insect turning into a lion. That's some sort of goofy alchemy more at home in the Bible (or an episode of Scooby Doo) than in the very real world as known by science.

When I think about it, if someone made us, the earth etc, then that means something had to make us. If something made the thing that made us, and on and on and on and on, that's just impossible; there has to be someone that created that was not created. Yes, it's not scientific, because all things in the world we live in has a beginning and an end. We have to think outside the means of science. Yes, it's beyond our understanding, but that does not negate the truth. If was not God who did it, what other things are suggesting it could be? Mud on a crystal turning into complex proteins is not possible outside of a miracle, which is not scientific.

I have no answers to this. I don't claim to have the answer to this. But, in the absence of an answer, I'm comfortable leaving the issue open. I don't feel some pressing need to fill the gap with a preposterous fairy tale simply because I don't understand it.

How is love and hate testable?

First, we're not animals. I know according to evolution says we are, but that just means I can eat the neighbors kid for dinner for a family bbq. I'm not saying love and hate is evidence for a higher being, I'm just questioning if it can be be proven through the scientific method.

Being an animal means we have to be cannibals?

The bible says it was fruit, not an apple. Like I said, even if sin was not passed on, we've committed our own sins. I don't understand how "don't eat from this tree" is vague.

As LTAWACS posited, why was the tree there in the first place? If God is omniscient, wouldn't he have known placing the tree in the reach of retard Adam and retard Eve going to lead to them breaking the rules and damn humanity for the rest of eternity? Again, either your God is a malevolent prick or what you worship is actually Loki and not Odin or the God you worship is a fabricated story intended to explain the universe utilizing the limited means available at the time of the fabrication.

He was specific and the consequence was cleaerly communicated.

Genesis 2:15-17

¹⁵Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. ¹⁶The LORD God ^(Q)commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; ¹⁷but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it ^(R)you will surely die."

They didn't die though. So... God's now a prick and a liar?

They were created perfect. What I'm saying is that nobody gets upset when a criminal is justly put in jail, because they broke the law. We did the same thing, we broke God's law; love.

I didn't. I never ate that fruit. Don't you think God's being unjust (and more than a tad bit of a prick) for punishing you and I for something we had nothing to do with?

The Bible is the same source but the ones prophesying died long before Christ came. God told Adam and Eve thousands of years ago he would bring a seed to crush the head of the serpent. The seed was Christ (see the lineage in Matthew 1) and the serpent was Satan and sin. The gospels were written by people who lived during Christ's time, they were not around hundreds of years before. Isaiah did not write a "letter to the future" to Matthew, Mark Luke etc to tell them to say this was the promised seed they had been waiting for.

There are so many fallacies here, I don't even know where to begin.

I'm fine with practicing science. What has religion tried to answer?

Really? Is this a serious question, or are you messing with me?

The Romans, Greeks, the history of Israel is not historical? A true Jew would not let you get away with that statement with the Old Testament. We don't have a long history like most countries, so I don't think we completely some nations' identity and understand of their own history.

On a long enough timeline, the line between history and mythology blurs. There may be some historical truth in the Bible, but probably not much.

It was the Jews screaming to crucify him. The roman government found no fault with him, even though they carried the act out. They said their hands were wiped clean of his blood.

Not good enough. The act itself was committed by the Romans. Rome was the law in Judea, and the Roman governor could have simply said no to the Jewish cries for blood. He didn't, and no amount of hand-wringing absolves them. Either way, Jesus' name isn't found on any of the existing death warrants signed in the region at the time. Perhaps there was no messiah on a cross, and even more, perhaps there wasn't a Jesus.

Why do you think that science does not deal with the super natural?

No kidding! It's like he's never heard of the Ghostbusters, amirite?

Edit: I ain't 'fraid of no holy ghost.

Behold! I couldn't possibly be a legitimate messiah without other people crafting art featuring naked men as a central theme.

Behold, monuments crafted in his image!

Cumberland County Courthouse in Crossville, Tennessee

He appears in food!

Coming soon to the back of your Miata!

He even has a sacred text!

Though its legitimacy is being questioned by splintering sects of the Pastafarian movement. (It's like the Catholic/Protestant schism.)

WWFSMD?

I'm not talking about different religions or "ways" to heaven. All I am saying is that the only logical sensible explanation for this universe is a God created it. Someone had to have created it.

But what created God? Seriously, how can God have always existed, but not whatever else that eventually became the universe? God is hardly a logical explanation. If you want to know the facts of it, as of right now, there is no logical explanation. Not one. Calling it God or whatever else is no more an uneducated guess than anything else. There is an absence of evidence, and even on the science end, there are only well developed hypotheses. You're just filling a void in your mind by calling it God. As you've said in defense of God, there are some things so far too difficult to comprehend. Perhaps the precursor to our universe as we know it is one of those things. But, that in no way means it has to be God that did it. God is only one of an infinite number of possibilities to explain existence. (And Niche may well probably argue that nothing actually exists and we're all figments of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's imagination intended only for his amusement.)

What about things like love and hate? Do they exist? Can science test them? Is it measurable? If not, do they truly exist?

Actually yes. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest emotions like love developed naturally as an evolutionary response to the need for the protection of young in placental mammals. Further, most of our (as humans) nascent development occurs post utero unlike most other mammals and certainly all other biological organisms on the planet. Without love, this development would be hindered, and it's likely the human species would have died off long ago when human babies were left on rocks to be eaten by vultures because the mother didn't have any emotional attachment. Further still, relationship bonding, either bonds of friendships or bonds which we consider to be love in the man/woman sense devloped genetically as a response to the need to protect the baby/baby's mother, the group and resources. Conversely, what we call hate developed as a response to help us identify those who pose a threat to baby/baby's mother, the group and resources.

Looking at the rest of the animal kingdom, these same emotions are evident, though in varying degrees. Placental mammals tend to display what we call love and hate to greater degrees than marsupials, which display it more than reptiles and birds, and on and on till you get to animals that have considerably less time risked in reproduction, and they seem to display no evidence of emotions whatsoever. Sorry to break it to you, but emotions are not evidence of a higher being. If anything, the existence of emotions strengthens the theory of natural selection.

Adam and Eve were not innocent. They had the ability to make their own decision. They did not trust God, that is why they sinned. And although sin is passed on to everyone, we are all guily regardless because since we have all be born, we have committed acts of sin, so we can't even blame them. We convicted ourselves.

They didn't gain the knowledge of good and evil till they ate the apple. They did not know what they were doing was wrong. They did not know disobeying God was wrong. They did not know the consequences of their actions prior to committing the crime. If your God punished all people for all eternity for a crime they didn't commit, that their earliest ancestors committed, and those earliest ancestors didn't even know was a crime or what the punishment would be (they had only a vague "don't do this"), then that God sounds like a bit of a prick. And oddly, that God doesn't sound like the loving God of Jesus at all. Either God is a bipolar prick or he doesn't exist.

And God told them what they could and could not do. He gave them an entire garden of things to eat and he told them not to eat of one tree. They knew what they were not supposed to do, they are without excuse.

The rule was too vague. It wouldn't hold up under appeal. God would be overturned long before it even reached the Supreme Court.

And you're right, God does hate sin. However, I see nothing wrong with that. He is perfect, holy and without sin. He has the right to be. His creation is committing acts against him.

Hey, it's his damn fault for creating us this way. He doesn't have the right to be angry with us for acting the very way we were created. Unless he's a petulent prick... which doesn't sound like any God that I'd want to worship.

Don't we get upset when someone breaks the law or committs wrongful acts against us? How much more of a right does he have to be angry since he is perfect?

None. I don't create imperfect criminals. I'm not responsible for their behavior therefore I can get upset when they've violated the clearly written laws especially since the punishments are clearly stated.

Creation shows he exists. The prophecies recorded hundreds/thousands of years about Jesus prove it.

Strange that the source of the prophecies is also the same source claiming the prophecies were fulfilled. Niche can claim he's the messiah of Pastafarianism, and by your logic, you'd have to accept his word on it as proof to his claim. Niche, are you the messiah? Can I get another confirmation of your divinity?

But my point is science is many people's religion. Science cannot explain it all. Do scientists believe in historical fact at all? Do they believe in Abraham Lincoln, the Magna Carta, the Edict of Milan, the War of Roses? The Bible was written within a historical context.

Also, the Bible is most definitely not a historical document.

Is an entire world of Jews really denying that they killed a make-believe person?

According to the Bible, Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. And outside the Bible, you won't find any other document so much as stating his existence.

I found a no-excuses guide to biking to work via Infrastucturist. Pretty much common sense pointers.

There's also an amazing time-lapse of "bicycle rush hour" in The Netherlands. Sadly, I can only provide a link, for my posting skills are n00bish, and I can't figure out how to embed a freaking YouTube vid onto my posts. A penny for your PM?

Outside the primary train station in Amsterdam, they have a parking garage strictly for bicycles. Not a bike rack, a parking garage. Their dedication to bicycles in that city is almost overwhelming.

My personal version is a cross between a brisket, pork shoulder, and bucket of fried chicken skin.

I like it. It lends itself well to listening to the blues and old country music.

There is no other option.

Says you. This list includes a lot of other options, and all are as equally valid as your assertion.

It's not for us to understand. Why must we understand it to believe it? Science knows a lot of things, but it cannot explain why. Who can explain gravity?

Scientists can.

We live in a fallen world. When God initially created, nothing had an end. There was no such thing as death. The result of sin is death, therefore all we know are things that have a beginning and and an end. Just because we are that way does not mean God is.

So.... since Adam and Eve, two completely innocent creatures who had no knowledge of good and evil are punished for doing something bad, which in turn punished everyone that followed? First, how is their badness anyone's fault but their own? Second, if they were innocent and they didn't know right from wrong, then why were they punished for doing something wrong? That's like swatting a newborn puppy the very first time it takes a leak on your carpet. It has no reference point to even comprehend it's done something wrong.

Your god sounds likes a malevolent sadist.

In order for something to be created from nothing, there has to be something eternal that created it. Or else it's like two mirrors facing each other, there is no beginning and you never find something that has no beginning which created. The only solution is something eternal.

Once, I looked so far down two mirrors facing each other, that about at the fifteenth of sixteenth mirror, I saw a guy waving at me. True story.

I started worshiping that guy the very next day.

Except the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no authority. God has creation attested to him. He has fulfilled prophecies. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was a something someone made up. They have no history to testify to it; no substantiation.

There's no evidence to substantiate God exists any further than The Flying Spaghetti Monster except for the fact people have been duped into belief for a longer period of time. And you know, by your logic, we can say the sun, the moon, the seasons and our ancestors are the true gods of the universe, since these were worshipped for many, many millenia longer than the god you worship.

From this definition, science seems to be more of a tool. It does not seem to claim to be the end-all be-all.

It is an institution developed by imperfect people; it is not perfect. It's only reliable as the people observing it, their tests and their understanding, none of which are 100% comprehensive and unbiased.

YEESSS!!! You finally got it! Science is not belief! It is not a substitute for belief!

This is what I've been trying to say from the get go. The existence of God is an entirely different subject than the validity of scientific principles, and likewise, trying to fit God into science is equally as pointless. However, the literal truth of the Bible is in stark opposition to scientific fact. That's why many scientists who also claim to be religious tend to view the Bible, or whatever other holy document, as a moral guidebook, not a literal historical fact.

He is not of this world, he created this world. He is not created, he is the creator. He's eternal.

How can you accept that priciple for God, but not for the universe?

Science is the clear answer...and God made science, so there.

Reasonable people who believe in mythical deities can't ever lose arguments. We aren't constrained by someone else's definition of what our mythical deity is/does/did, and anything you come back with I will say was put there by God in the first place. Thread done.

That's like when you questioned your parents as a child and their response was, "Because I said so."

Anyhow, Betrand Russell had a teapot and Niche has a Flying Spaghetti Monster that are as equally valid to plug into your reduction. And, if Niche is correct by saying The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and you're correct in saying God created the universe, and neither of these two beings are the same nor do they coexist, then what we have is a paradox. And, it's a paradox that can only be solved by blowing each other up. In other words, war/terrorism/genocide.

Or, we can all just realize calmly believing in something unproveable isn't either 1) worthy of our time due to the absurdity of it or 2) believe in it a little less fervently because as strongly as we may believe in some story with no evidence whatsoever, other people may be as equally stubborn and it's not worth fighting about.

Isn't science trying to figure out what god (if there was one) had in mind?

No, that's philosophy. Science doesn't account for the existence or non-existence of a god.

It is a fact that God exists. Nothing in this world comes from nothing.

If nothing comes from nothing, then where did God come from?

With this statement, your objectivity and credibility are now in the crapper.

How so? Should I respect the position of Neo-Nazis? Should I just accept that Republicans are bad people instead of my current thought that they're good people being duped by other truly unethical people?

I'm left to assume we should all think like you or risk being both ignorrant and wrong.

You know what happens when you assume...

Let's just agree we won't exchange Merry Christmas cards......opps, excuse me, you'd likely prefer Seasons Greetings based on your commentary above.

Actually, I'd prefer if you could find a card that makes mention of the astrological significance of the winter solstice and the birth of Yule. I'm old school like that. Christmas doesn't respect the traditions of our pagan ancestors. And, I'm not really the best at remembering to send cards for holidays. My wife handles those sorts of things. Perhaps you should ask her what she prefers for display on our fridge.

Well, I know it will come as a shock to some, but there is meant to be such a thing as "staying on topic" instead of seizing every thread as an opportunity to expound upon one's personal philosophies. That said, in the politics sub-forum it seems one might argue for a good bit more leeway and flexibility about topics.

I'd rather just make fart jokes, but nobody's setting me up well for them. I discuss my personal philosophies only as plan B.

Obviously your not about hip-hop and obviously hatin on what you really don't know about. Ever heard of NOLA bounce and it's influential resurgence of recent?

Great, you've defined what an artist is to you. You couldn't be more wrong from this artist's point of view. An artist can be infinitely Anything because artists just sell ideas, unconstrained by your logic or even alien logic, you just happen to pass on the ideas that hip hop conveys and sounds. It's a youth culture and your 2-D stereotyping is typical and I expect better from your posts.

Personally, I like it that hip hop scares the older crowd and is derided as a social evil and disposable music. How can that be? and what time/genre does that rhyme with?

I don't know about the "older crowd", but I grew up with hip-hop. I'm 32. I'm a product of the 80s and 90s. I don't fear it. I like quite a bit of it, in fact. There just came a point when it stopped being innovative and the message became irrelevant. It's pop music now. I've also said it isn't doomed for the future. There may be a movement that revolutionizes the genre in a way that I can't predict. But, based on what I see right now, I don't see that happening. As it is, I see hip-hop's audience slowly becoming more suburban and young. It doesn't speak for a people. It doesn't speak for a movement. It doesn't even speak for a lifestyle anymore. It doesn't speak for anything except record sales (or mp3 sales). As a genre, it's been almost entirely coopted by record companies who push bland, generic garbage because that's what the masses want. Most, though certainly not all, "artists" have the end goal of money in mind when they write and perform. The music itself has little value. Couple that with the fact it takes very little skill to create the "art" form, and it becomes just little more than noise. Sorry man, if one hasn't dedicated their life to understanding the medium in which they practice, I have no respect for the art. Give me a beat and a day and a half to string some words together, and I could put out a song... and I sound really white. If I can do it, anybody can do it. Artists suffer for their craft, and artists create what the common man doesn't have the talent or skill to create.

Umm...Moderators...topic? Or do threads in this arena not get pulled in?

Even though there have been disagreements, I believe the posts have been civil. What are you objecting to?

While it would be difficult to make any urban development NOT resemble something european, I would like to know if it would be possible to make distinctly american.

You can make it fat.

Attica, just because you claim to "believe in nothing" does not exempt you, your choice has made it easier for you to believe that evolution is the only logical answer for you. Sooooo, that is what you believe in. You don't have to believe in God, that's why he gave you freewill, you should thank Him for that at least. Seriously chief, you took one little statement and all the sudden you think I am a holy roller, ask some of the regulars around here, they can atest to the fact that I am no such animal. I love it when you get all bent out of shape because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs, thanks for the laugh.

Heh... Ok, whatever. I'll make sure to thank God for my free will in my prayers tonight. While I'm at it, I'll thank him for not allowing sea monsters to eat me when I kayak, and I'll ask him to let me have the pot of leprechaun gold at the end of the next rainbow I see. Oh, I'll also make sure to thank him for the rainbows and the promise it implies - not to destroy the Earth with a flood next time (it'll be a fire this time, thank God!). Thanks for the rainbows, God. Thanks for making prisms refract light, but only after Noah's flood. If there had been no flood, Pink Floyd probably wouldn't have been able to put out Dark Side of the Moon. I'll thank God for Dark Side of the Moon while I'm at it.

I would say "bless your soul", but I remembered that you don't believe you have one.

If it makes any difference to you, I don't believe you have a soul either.

"you sound white" is a contemporary slang colloquial for people who don't understand or care for the music. It's an insider joke that really is a sign of the music style's evolution past those kinds of structural racism.

Evolution isn't always progressive.

And I'll take your odds and bet that somethings (especially those that are truly soulful) cannot be defined; just as what makes one an artist/musician?

I'll define it. An artist has innate talent, acquired skill and a message. It takes all three.

You don't need respect to make irrelevant pop music.

Corrected.

I didn't want to argue for argument's sake. .

?

You just admitted that "natural selection" was a hypothesis, and not a FACT, make up your mind chief.

Well, chief... I was actually lending your insane fairy tale credence by equating it to a hypothesis (in order to remain fair and balanced). And, before you flail around impotently attempting to back me into a semantic corner, I'd like you first to define for me hypothesis, theory and law in scientific terms. I'd like to make sure we're speaking on a level playing field before I continue.

Yes, i am familiar with both sides of the coin though,

No. You aren't.

so your attempt to educate would have fallen on deaf ears.

Doubtless, which is why I deleted what I wrote. You don't want reason. You don't want logic. You just want a nice, cozy, warm plot of sand in which to bury your head.

Oh wait, I see, because "natural selection" is what YOU believe, then it MUST be true? True to you anyways.

The fact of natural selection doesn't require my belief. I hate to break it to you, chief, but it doesn't make a bit of difference to this planet or the universe what you or I believe. And for the record, I don't believe in anything. Evolution and it's biological trigger natural selection is a scientific fact. It makes more sense to me than a giant sky ghost blinking like I Dream of Genie and willing an entire universe into existence, and then while still very new, making it look very, very, very old, complete with fossils and radioactive time signatures. But hey, since you're so familiar with that side of the coin, won't you please explain to me how some ancient Judaic mythology makes more sense than decades, centuries even, of scientific development?

Kinda like the Global Warming hypothesis ? Scientific "evidence" skewed to fit a certain agenda and all.

Yes, it's a big vast conspiracy to steal your tax dollars and give all the jobs to illegal immigrants (the jobs we haven't shipped to India anyhow). Good going. It's amazing how easily you were able to dig right through a conspiracy this big and hit right to the heart of the matter.

If you'll notice, I haven't said I believe either way on the whole "How we got here." theories. Although, I DO believe Global Warming to not be "man-made".

I'd never have guessed. And, I'm sure you really do believe it with all your heart too. Again, it doesn't really matter what you believe, chief.

If one believes the Bible to be true, they cannot with intillectual integrity believe in evolution because sin would have to preceed death.

If one has intellectual integrity, one doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I care.

I was being sarcastic.

I forgot the sarcasm smiley to underscore my point.

God made humans with the ability to make their own decisions.

Did he?

If God is omniscient and knows the outcome of every possible action prior to it being made, isn't free will merely an illusion? Even if God doesn't force us to be bad, he still knows we will be, or that Satan will convince us to be, but he doesn't do anything about it. If God knows we'll sin, and that we'll go to Hell, prior to us even being born, it seems kinda pointless to live. If we're going to fail him, and he knows it anyhow, then what was the point of Jesus? Either we don't really have the choice to make our own decisions or God isn't really all-knowing. Enlightenment era protestants called the only possible conclusion predestination. Calvinists, as they were called, just did away with the whole concept of choice. They thought you were either damned or blessed prior to birth, and the whole point of life wasn't to choose or deny God, but rather to prove that you were chosen.

To me, that sounds like some sick game of a deity that is decidedly not benevolent.