A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[ElishaElijah]

So written for people who already believe and thus aren't likely to go in looking for mistakes.

When my family gets together and tells the stories of us growing up etc. they aren’t said exactly the same every time, some details left out but everyone understands and knows how it all happened. If you weren’t part of the family it could look like the story is changing but it’s not. Also depends on who is telling the story, my brother, me, my sisters or parents.

 

[Tiberius]

For some people probably!

Yeah, but you don't really believe that, do you?

Do you really think a Christian Star Trek fan is going to get to Heaven and then God will send them to Hell for following two religions? Of course not.

So come on, stop playing games. You know what a religion is, and you know that atheism isn't a religion.

 

[Tiberius]

That was a bad example because their stories/accounts were consistent, Jesus rose from the dead. All the details are in the stories/accounts and like I said they compliment not contradict like your example.

Ah, okay, so how about if I say I went to see the movie with my girlfriend, my girlfriend says she went to see it with her best friend but not me, and the best friend says we went to see it together?

 

[Tiberius]

When my family gets together and tells the stories of us growing up etc. they aren’t said exactly the same every time, some details left out but everyone understands and knows how it all happened. If you weren’t part of the family it could look like the story is changing but it’s not. Also depends on who is telling the story, my brother, me, my sisters or parents.

And does your family tell the story of how you went to Disneyland, but your dad says it was just him and your mother, your mum says it was mum, dad, and you, but your brother says that he went with mum and dad but you were sick and had to stay home?

Of course not. Stop trying to get out of it. The inconsistencies in the Bible cast doubt on the accuracy of the claims made.

 

[Brian2]

Absolutely! The aggressive spread of Islam, the crusades, the religious wars of Europe, the Aztec and Inca genocides -- all done in the name of religion.
Atheism, on the other hand, has no doctrine or orthodox set of beliefs to promote. There were no wars in the name of Atheism.

You brought up the Godless Commies. Yes, atheism was the official stance on religion, but it was not for atheism that Lennin or Stalin killed millions.

I didn't bring up communism, I'm just butting into your discussion.
So you are saying that the aggressive spread of communism and the killing and suppression of millions in communist lands in the last century had nothing to do with the philosophy and worldview of communism (atheism being part of that) just because people did not say they were doing it in the specific name of atheism.
(and considering all the persecutions of religions by communism, atheism does seem to be a big part of why they were killing and suppressing)
Are you saying that killings etc by Christianity has something to do with Jesus just because someone said they were doing it in the name of Jesus? (even though what they did went against the teaching of Jesus)

If you think it's some sort of religion then obviously you don't.
So what, in your opinion, is atheism?

I did not say I think it is some sort of religion. As I said, I'm just butting in to your discussion.
Atheism is not believing in god/s and basing any morals on what people decide is right or wrong and because of the atheism atheists have corollary beliefs about the naturalistic origins of life and the universe and the origins of religions and anything else that may have god/s behind them.

 

[Brian2]

The fact remains, you are defending genocide and taking girls as spoils of war. There's really nothing else to say.

That would be a defence of God's righteous judgement on a society that killed children by cooking them in statues of their god.
Are you saying that in that war it would have been better to kill the girls also instead of letting them live as wives and servants amongst the Israelites?

 

[Tiberius]

That would be a defence of God's righteous judgement on a society that killed children by cooking them in statues of their god.
Are you saying that in that war it would have been better to kill the girls also instead of letting them live as wives and servants amongst the Israelites?

So it's basically, "Kidnap the girls and keep them as slaves, treat them as property to be used for making babies, because, hey, it's still better than what those other guys were gonna do to them, amiright?"

 

[Brian2]

However, much of the "Biblical Morality" is not safe from being discredited by rational, civilized human beings.

Opposed is not the same as discredited. Morality without God telling us is anything that we decide and there is nothing there that tells us it is better than God's morality.

We have also seen believers try desperately to defend and rationalize the immorality of acts ordered by and perpetrated in the name of the Biblical God.

In most cases it is easy to defend what God did and ordered in the OT times. It is a matter of looking at the context of who God is and was in relation to the Israelites and to the nations that God was judging and kicking out of their land in most cases and giving to the Israelites.
In reality it is non believers accusing God of things that God is not guilty of just because non believers don't seem to want to consider the context.

 

[Brian2]

So it's basically, "Kidnap the girls and keep them as slaves, treat them as property to be used for making babies, because, hey, it's still better than what those other guys were gonna do to them, amiright?"

I said nothing about it being better than being cooked in a statue. That is just one reason that God had judged the Canaanites and was kicking them out and giving the land to Israel.
But yes there may have been a lack of women or something for the men, but in the Israelite society the females were treated a lot better than in other societies of the time I hear and there were no multiple wives as baby producing machines (except with kings who were disobeying the law of Moses).
But are you saying that Israel should have killed the girls instead of letting them live and become wives of the Israelites?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Of course not. Stop trying to get out of it. The inconsistencies in the Bible cast doubt on the accuracy of the claims made.

Im not trying to get out of anything but explaining something, you don’t understand or agree is fine. It’s my family and our story so it all makes sense and I see no problems with accuracy.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And does your family tell the story of how you went to Disneyland, but your dad says it was just him and your mother, your mum says it was mum, dad, and you, but your brother says that he went with mum and dad but you were sick and had to stay home?

My Mom might say remember when your Dad was driving to Disneyland and when we got there he told the guy at the ticket counter he drove all the way from Texas.

 

[ElishaElijah]

amiright?"

No you’re not right

 

[ElishaElijah]

Ah, okay, so how about if I say I went to see the movie with my girlfriend, my girlfriend says she went to see it with her best friend but not me, and the best friend says we went to see it together?

Nope try again

 

[Tiberius]

I said nothing about it being better than being cooked in a statue. That is just one reason that God had judged the Canaanites and was kicking them out and giving the land to Israel.

So what? How does that justify taking the girls as slaves? And why just the virgins?

But yes there may have been a lack of women or something for the men, but in the Israelite society the females were treated a lot better than in other societies of the time I hear and there were no multiple wives as baby producing machines (except with kings who were disobeying the law of Moses).
But are you saying that Israel should have killed the girls instead of letting them live and become wives of the Israelites?

Letting them? I think the word you're looking for is FORCING them. In any case, you are essentially presenting their options as "Marry these invaders or die." That's hardly a fair choice, is it?

 

[Tiberius]

Nope try again

Why do you disagree?

 

[Brian2]

So what? How does that justify taking the girls as slaves? And why just the virgins?

It does not justify it and I did not say it did.
Why just the virgins? Even the girls of Israel were supposed to be virgins before marriage.

Letting them? I think the word you're looking for is FORCING them. In any case, you are essentially presenting their options as "Marry these invaders or die." That's hardly a fair choice, is it?

So are you saying they should have just been killed?
If not, what are you saying should have happened to them?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Why do you disagree?

“Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.””
‭‭John‬ ‭20:1-2‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Where does it say Mary is alone by herself with no one else?
When she runs to tell Peter she says we do not know where they laid Him. So she wasn’t alone.
There was a lot going on that day from morning to evening, I would think when they found out Jesus body was missing, then they found out He had risen, people were pretty excited.

 

[rational experiences]

Belief is first a theory.

Natural exists in any form present as itself existing.

Science theists are the only liars.

They theoried about God and had life attacked. As they said knowing God meant I could change God. God proved by status the theory you never should have changed God.

Religion was the status taught. Owned a reason for its original healing practices. Overtaken by civilization elite in a human want lied as a need to organise monetary benefits.

First science human law is to observe first. What we observe first is any form in its natural status...existing and present.

If you say what form is now left. Then it is only the form you look at and observe. If you claim once it was living you own no proof and it is just a thought.

The argument once it was living. Observation presence says present it is not living.

We only own life not death or what is dead the science teaching for a theist. As in natural life we know we die. Yet did any of you subject scrutinize a human lying?

 

[Valjean]

I didn't bring up communism, I'm just butting into your discussion.
So you are saying that the aggressive spread of communism and the killing and suppression of millions in communist lands in the last century had nothing to do with the philosophy and worldview of communism (atheism being part of that) just because people did not say they were doing it in the specific name of atheism.
(and considering all the persecutions of religions by communism, atheism does seem to be a big part of why they were killing and suppressing)

I'm saying that revolutions are often motivated by Marxist ideology, but that they tend to be hijacked by totalitarian dictatorships. The carnage, totalitarianism, suppression and disdain for human rights is a artifact of the right, not the left.

Are you saying that killings etc by Christianity has something to do with Jesus just because someone said they were doing it in the name of Jesus? (even though what they did went against the teaching of Jesus)

Exactly. Jesus' message of peace and love was hijacked by authoritarian opportunists, who went on to exploit and war on their neighbors.

I did not say I think it is some sort of religion. As I said, I'm just butting in to your discussion.
Atheism is not believing in god/s and basing any morals on what people decide is right or wrong and because of the atheism atheists have corollary beliefs about the naturalistic origins of life and the universe and the origins of religions and anything else that may have god/s behind them.

Butt away. That's what talkboards are for.
Atheism is not believing in gods, but it's not an ethical system.
In re: ethical systems, though, religion has never acquitted itself well in this regard. It's ethics always support whatever the status quo is at the moment, and, in practice, believers never seem to conform even to these.

 

[Jose Fly]

It was a ridiculous hypothetical question and I did answer it

That you chose to dodge the point of the question shows that at least on some level, you appreciate the horror of what you're defending.