Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Thief]

What's your unique way of reading the creation story? I would think you would say creation "fact" instead of story.

So do you believe God is black or white? Not to start any racial debate. This a question that must be asked, because if many believe God is white, then there is the possibility that he has racists tendencies. I believe evolution is much richer, makes more sense, and will eventually be proved fully. Some scientists believe they are very close to solving the mystery.

is it not written....?

God does not judge after the flesh

 

[robocop (actually)]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.

I believe the principle of faith can be applied to science as well. Faith allows you to get to greater science as you search for it. I can explain this better.

I am an atheist though and I also believe faith in atheism can give evidence for it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Yes there is.

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them." 22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.​

One of the many things I have trouble with here is the assumption that the earth is flat, which is innate in the whole rain in-rain out idea.

Who do you suppose those are in
Genesis 6:19--"And of every living thing, of all flesh, two of every sort shalt you bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you, They shall be male and female"
Ok, so who do you suppose these are. Two of every sort, male and female, who are they?

Now if you notice in Verse 20, you will find what animals Noah was to take in the ark.

So who are these in Verse 19. Two of every sort, male and female, who do you suppose these are ?

 

[blü 2]

Who do you suppose those are in
Genesis 6:19--"And of every living thing, of all flesh, two of every sort shalt you bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you, They shall be male and female"
Ok, so who do you suppose these are. Two of every sort, male and female, who are they?

Now if you notice in Verse 20, you will find what animals Noah was to take in the ark.

So who are these in Verse 19. Two of every sort, male and female, who do you suppose these are ?

We're talking about your erroneous claim that the bible says nothing about Noah feeding the animals.

How about acknowledging that you were wrong? Or wouldn't that be what Christians do, in your view?

 

[Faithofchristian]

We're talking about your erroneous claim that the bible says nothing about Noah feeding the animals.

How about acknowledging that you were wrong? Or wouldn't that be what Christians do, in your view?

Well that got by me.Ok,

But can you explain who these are in
Verse 19 two of every sort, male and female.
But notice in Verse 20, Noah was given what animals to take, So who are these in
Verse 19 two of every sort male and female.

 

[Cary Cook]

the Exodus can be definitively shown to be fictional,

I'm no Bibliophile, but I don't know of any evidence that proved the Exodus fictional. I've just heard that there has been no evidence discovered to support it.

 

[blü 2]

Well that got by me.Ok,

But can you explain who these are in
Verse 19 two of every sort, male and female.
But notice in Verse 20, Noah was given what animals to take, So who are these in
Verse 19 two of every sort male and female.

The likely explanation is that the story, whose biblical version may date from around 1000 BCE, is an editing together of different versions of the Flood tale, which is itself from the (Semitic) Babylonians, who got it from the (Semitic) Akkadians, who before 2000 BCE got it from the (non-Semitic) Sumerians (3rd millennium BCE, some say possibly earlier).

There's a particularly fine translation of The Epic of Gilgamesh by Andrew George in Penguin, which contains the somewhat polished Akkadian version.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The likely explanation is that the story, whose biblical version may date from around 1000 BCE, is an editing together of different versions of the Flood tale, which is itself from the (Semitic) Babylonians, who got it from the (Semitic) Akkadians, who before 2000 BCE got it from the (non-Semitic) Sumerians (3rd millennium BCE, some say possibly earlier).

There's a particularly fine translation of The Epic of Gilgamesh by Andrew George in Penguin, which contains the somewhat polished Akkadian version.

I didn't ask you all that, I ask you, can you explain who these are, two of every sort male and female in Verse 19.

 

[sayak83]

Well that got by me.Ok,

But can you explain who these are in
Verse 19 two of every sort, male and female.
But notice in Verse 20, Noah was given what animals to take, So who are these in
Verse 19 two of every sort male and female.

Oh please! I can't bear the suspense! Spill the beans already now.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Still, I think apatheism is far superior to either theism or atheism.

Hmm...I can never work out if I'm more apatheist or atheist. I'm super interested in religion, so tend to go with atheist, but my attitude towards creation are very much apatheistic.

 

[David T]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.

Rabid atheist larry krauss has been accused of sexual harassment. Since I already know that such nonsense goes on in science and religion I have to wonder what the hell are these people really that clueless about themselves? APPARENTLY.

Lawrence Krauss: The Wall of Silence Falls

 

[blü 2]

I didn't ask you all that, I ask you, can you explain who these are, two of every sort male and female in Verse 19.

Yes, you did, but that's not a question that interests me at the moment.

I did however sketch the background to your problems for you. Now the baton's in your hand, run!

 

[Deeje]

I still believe science has a much stronger argument than religion.

If you believe that science has a much stronger argument for our existence, then perhaps science would like to tell us how life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, and then proceeded to morph itself (again for no apparent reason) into all that lives and breathes on this planet.

The evidence science has shown far outweighs writings in a book and the interpretations of humans who have read that book.

Science too has writings in books and interpretations of evidence that humans want to promote.

As far as I can see, science has no high ground when it comes to a provable hypothesis. If you read their data, all you see is educated guesswork couched in scientific jargon to make what they believe sound convincing to themselves and a gullible public who believe them.

Please show us real substantiated evidence for macro-evolution that isn't simply 'adaptation'....suggestion...conjecture....or wishful thinking. I haven't seen any yet.

After watching Benny Hinn and his smite jacket, the entertainment in religion has gone to new levels.

If you think televangelism is Christianity, then believe me God is laughing right alongside you. Its a pathetic excuse to line their own pockets.
Anyone with half a brain can see what their agenda is....

Did Jesus ever ask for money?

 

[SomeRandom]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.

That's not a very useful dichotomy there.

For starters many religions are hard to separate from culture.
For myself it's hard to know where my cultural heritage ends and my religious beliefs really begin.
I have my own interpretations, my own spirituality and my own way of doing things.
But I also have to honour my family heritage, engage in my own culture and much of that is observance of religious rituals.

One should not, however, discount science IMO.

Also only the fundementalist/literalist movement really takes the Bible entirely literally. That's like what? Two small sects of a religion with like thousands of other branches?

And not all religions are based on Holy Books. Many Dharmics stress experiential spirituality rather than just blindly following scripture, for example. Many Hindus focus on the experiential in order to find God or inner peace or whatever you wish to define religion as, I guess. Scriptures are often used as tools, a guideline but excepting a few sects I don't think anyone really takes every single piece of their scripture literally.

 

[Kenny]

I will always find it more correct to state that all we know is that the universe exists, and it exists with employment of the specific "laws" of functioning that we can/have discerned. Beyond that in this particular arena, we know nothing.

We may nothing about Him but, as I view it, the laws determine that there is a law giver even if we don't know anything about Him. We know HOW these laws or discover the laws that are working that we still don't know about but we have no ability to create these laws. Only the Creator can be the law-giver

 

[Faithofchristian]

Yes, you did, but that's not a question that interests me at the moment.

I did however sketch the background to your problems for you. Now the baton's in your hand, run!

Of course it doesn't interests you, when you don't know the answer to it. That's obvious.

So since you don't want to answer the question at hand, then that takes me back to my orginal question, If you notice in
Genesis 6:19, that Noah was to take two of every sort male and female.

So who's the two male and female that Noah was to take on board with him and his family.
Of course you say like everyone else, well that's the animals, Are you absolutely sure about this that the animals were the only ones ?

Now notice in
Genesis 6:21-- "And take you unto you of all food that is eaten, and you shalt gather it to you, and for them"

Who exactly is ( them ) Of course you will say like about everyone else, that's the animals, Are you absolutely sure that the animals were the only ones that Noah taken on board with him and his family ?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.

The question isn't does God exist, at least not directly. The question is what caused the universe. We don't have the first shred of evidence for that, so what are the options and their odds:

1. God did it.
2. Spontaneous creation.

There's no evidence for either, at all. Both seem ridiculously beyond the realm of possibility. That leaves the odds at 50/50, with no end in sight. The only difference then, is hope.

 

[blü 2]

Of course it doesn't interests you, when you don't know the answer to it. That's obvious.

But, apparently unlike you, if I wanted to, I could.

 

[Faithofchristian]

But, apparently unlike you, if I wanted to, I could.

I confess, that I should haved went and look before I said anything. But at lease I man up and confess. But now the shoe is on the other foot, it's seems that you are now having trouble in confessing up.
You know it is said, What goes around comes around.

How many times have I heard that one, if I was given a dollar for every time I was told that one, I would be rich.

It's seems it's always the exuse,
( if I wanted to, I could) why don't you just man up and say you don't know, rather than beat around the bush about it.

 

[blü 2]

I confess, that I should haved went and look before I said anything. But at lease I man up and confess. But now the shoe is on the other foot, it's seems that you are now having trouble in confessing up.
You know it is said, What goes around comes around.

How many times have I heard that one, if I was given a dollar for every time I was told that one, I would be rich.

It's seems it's always the exuse,
( if I wanted to, I could) why don't you just man up and say you don't know, rather than beat around the bush about it.

Be well.