ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
creationalism and creation are two different things, creation took a lot longer than 10,000 years. the seven days mentioned in Genesis are not literal days as in 24 hours a day, but longer periods of time
please guys, atheist of christian lets not go on here and argue. trust me if you THINK that your delivering knock out blows that somehow prove the other people wrong, chances are somone much smarter than you will tear you apart. so please, lets leave it up to the craig lane's and christopher hitchens' to argue and not waist our time.
@KingOCleveland I partly agree. Christians can't win because their arguments lack any logic or evidence to support them. At the same time you can't prove that god doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative when it resides outside of natural law (which christians/muslims/jews claim god does). However, you can prove that evolution is true and that the earth is billions of years old.
You've picked bad examples though. Hitchens is dead and Lane is a complete idiot.
@jungsbodyguard Lack logic? Look up Aquina's cosmological argument. There are so many other examples of logical reasons. The question isn't why is someone believing something it's in fact why do you care that they do? I think you'll solve a lot more problems that way.
@bubsadoozy Aquinas' cosmological argument provides no logical reasoning that proves that the christian god exists. He states that there must be a first cause. Which doesn't mean that this cause was the christian god or even a conscious being. It could just as easily be an singular event. But even this isn't logically sound because it offers no reasoning how this 'first cause' was caused itself; it also works from the unsubstatiated claim that a first cause is even necessary.
@jungsbodyguard It's not arguing for the christian God. Just a monotheistic God. Don't be the normal pseudo-athiest who is just an anti-christian. I'll agree it doesn't offer much evidence or reasoning but it is just as logical as the big bang with the amount of material you're working with. It is a logical assumption. Denying that is ignorant. There are many many more logical arguments for god's existence. Come to the realization that an anti-god or pro-god argument is futile and subjective.
@HannahAPolster- If believing that makes you feel better then that is your choice. I choose to look at the same facts and determine a different answer. If the universe is laid out in a way that appears as if there is no supernatural being, then I have
NO reason to believe in a supernatural being. If there IS a god and he WANTS logical people to believe in him, he KNOWS exactly what evidence to present to make a scientist believe. So if he's there he DOES NOT want me to believe in him : )
Hey Cenk, I'm an Atheist and I just wanted to let you know that you are too. A "Theist" is someone who "Believes" in a god. An "Atheist" is someone who does not "Believe" in a god. Agnostic is kind of an anti-concept that people use to muddle the line. I think christians like to say that if you do not "know that there is no god" then you are an Agnostic but really all you need to do is "Not Believe" in a god and you are an Atheist. It's simple, I do not "believe" in supernatural beings=Atheist.
Noah was 600 years old when he built the ark, Adam lived to 930 years after eating the forbidden fruit, snakes and donkeys talk, axe heads float, demons cause mental illness, God speaks to people through visions and dreams, infanticide is acceptable, belief and servitude is superior to wisdom and knowledge.
This is the nonsense that fills the Bible cover to cover. Grow up and realize the Bible was written by men living in very ignorant times.
Is that a poll only among Christians? The Catholic church openly endorses the belief in evolution. I find it hard to belief that fundamentalist psychos make up 40% of our nation.
@RevolutionaryWordsTV "How do they date fossils? 1. Geologic Column" => wrong, we date fossils by radiometric dating. And we don't date one element either, we use multiple elements, and see if the results support each other. Also, the result contains error bars to show level of confidence. "How did all the elements from the Periodic Table of Elements come in being?" => this has nothing to do with evolution, try again.
@RevolutionaryWordsTV "Where are all the fossils that prove apes evolved into humans and reptiles evolved into birds?" => transitional fossils do exist. If you say "oh but if evolution is real, we would expect to see more", then that's just wrong. Even if evolution is wrong, fossil record would still be rare and spotty simply because of the way a fossil is formed, which requires certain conditions that are not easy to come by.
@RevolutionaryWordsTV I have no problem with people having belief in God, but I can't accept lies about science. Geological strata are dated by radio-metrically testing isotopes with very long half lives.
Hydrogen then Helium formed as soon as the universe cooled enough to allow the formation on atomic nuclei. Other elements formed in stars.
Fossils are interesting but only in that none have been found to contradict Evolution which is supported by many other fields of study. No faith required.
@GuillemotWatcher Every soul will return to God for judgement after this flesh is lifeless.
If you are right then believers have nothing to worry about.
If the Bible is right then non-believers have the rest of eternity to spend it hell.
Believing in Jesus Christ costs you nothing, but just as the devil put the thought to sell Jesus Christ to the religious leaders of the day, he also puts thoughts into the hearts of other people.
No. Originally (as in the 19th century) yes, correlation between the geologic column was the most reliable way of determining age. In the 20th century we discovered this thing called Atomic Theory, and the constant decay rate of radioactive isotopes. If you have a problem with That I suggest you test your doubt by going to your nearest nuclear power station and taking a bite out of a chunk of uranium.
How did all the elements from the Periodic Table of Elements come in being?
Didn't go to school much did you?
Try a chemistry book to understand the process. But basically elements were formed by fusion of hydrogen into higher elements in Stars. Heavy elements are formed by Super Novae. And this isn't a guess, we can actually See it happening in other parts of the Universe.
Fossils/reptiles into birds? Caudipteryx Beipiaosaurus Shuvuuia Microraptor Rahonavis Anchiornis Archaeopteryx Wellnhoferia Xiaotingia And those are just Some of the proto-birds. That's not counting Avialae, Pygostylia, Enantiornithes, Ornithurae. And those are Groups of individual species. Wow. You Really softballed that on didn't you?
BTW, if public education can convince the masses that there is no God. Then there is no right and wrong, which means the government can make the Ultimate Law.
Just as dirty underwear is cleaned in washing machine, dirty sinners are washed by faith in the work of Jesus Christ.
If the laundry machine washes your clothes then your clothes become clean
If Jesus Christ washed your sins then you are clean. You are holy. You are righteous
How much time do you have, Youtube only allows a 200 character limit.Your ignorance is no argument against.
"If Jesus Christ washed your sins then you are clean. You are holy. You are righteous"
And if you're naughty, Santa won't bring you any Christmas presents. If you don't go to sleep the sandman will come and get you. and Everybody gets one rescue from your friendly neighborhood Spiderman.
@KesselRunner606 Say the earth is a million years old, as it may be, there still needs a Creator.
Personally I can't understand many things in the Bible. The one thing I believe is that Jesus took away the sin of the world
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)
But thanks for proving a point I made years ago, that when creationists are backed into a corner with Facts, all they have left is irrelevant Bible quotes.
To which I always reply with an equally irrelevant quote from the Silmarilion:
"Last of all Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed; and it is sung that the axe smoked in the black blood of the troll-guard of Gothmog until it withered, and each time that he slew Húrin cried 'Aurë entuluva! Day shall come again!' Seventy times he uttered that cry; but they took him at last alive..."
First of all, all drugs should be legal. God gave each one of us a body and free will. (Ron Paul 2012)
Back to God though
Just as dirty underwear is cleaned in washing machine, dirty sinners are washed by faith in the work of Jesus Christ. (wages of sin is death. Jesus bore the sin of the world)
If the laundry machine washes your clothes then your clothes become clean
If Jesus Christ washed your sins then you are clean. You are holy. You are righteous
The tutor is a metaphor for the old law, its starting to get annoying that I have to keep saying this to both Atheists and fundamentalists. The Bible is just a book of stories and metaphors to help point people in the right direction. When people start interpreting the bible in a literal sense, then Christianity gets warped into something it isn't. As a result, people can't see how it applies to them and they lose both faith and hope and start spewing a bunch of shit out of their mouths.
I love ya, Cenk, and I think you are a tremendous force for good . . . but quantum physics even calls into question E=mc2. The equation is now E=mc2 some of the time.
@sagmann20 good to see another person who understands the relationship between atheism and agnosticism. i have to constantly explain to people that agnostics ARE atheists, just like squares ARE rectangles.
@UnluckyGambler Actually, atheism and agnosticism are different. Atheism is a statement of beliefs. Agnosticism is a position concerning those beliefs. I'm an agnostic theist. I believe there is a god to whatever degree, but I know that I don't actually know. I'm a theist because I believe in a god. You're an atheist because you don't believe in a god. We're both agnostic because we both recognize that we're ultimately just guessing on the god hypothesis.
@Theroha i recently stopped caring about those 2 definitions. different people have different definitions for those 2 words, and as much as i dislike it and wish for a universal definition, ill have to accept the commonly accepted meanings, like the word gay. and the common definition now is ambiguous. so ill just let people call themselves whatever they want, and to truly find out what they are, if i care, ill ask them more specific questions. these labels dont work anymore, sadly.
Cenk is wrong here, too. There is a difference between forming hypotheses based on known scientific principles arrived at by the gathering and examination of evidence, applying the scientific method to that evidence, and arriving at a reasonable expectation which is then repeatedly tested and eventually either proven or disproven through rational reasonable application of the data and making totally unsupported suppositions that are not based on any evidence of any kind.
This is how creationists manage to fool a lot of people. There is a big difference between faith and reasonable expectation. There is science behind postulates like abiogenesis or universal origin. Look into Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." Do you think he just made this stuff up? How about all the peer-reviewed literature that forms the basis of his proposals? Pretty big conspiracy, don't you think? It is not your "suppositions" vs. my "suppositions."
Faith is the belief in a thing despite lack of evidence or in the fact of evidence to the to the contrary. The two are completely different. There are authorities on Earth whom we can trust. I trust a doctor over a priest to prescribe me medicine just like I trust an astrophysicist over a priest when we are talking about the nature of spacetime and the universe in general.
@xJoeEDangerouslyx But the odd thing about the word "faith" is that it means two basically opposite things. When I start to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, I have faith that it won't fall over or break apart. That faith is established by observations. If I have faith in a friend, it's based on my observations of his or her behavior in the past. BUT when we use faith in the instance of religion, it means the exact opposite. You ever notice how much Christians lean on the word "Truth"?
True. Faith by evidence isn't Biblical faith but reasonable faith.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
Although I feel that my sin remains and I still sin, the Word of God says that, if you believe in Jesus Christ, that you are justified, sanctified, and washed. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
So is a believer a dirty sinner still or is he/she washed, justified, and sanctified?
Each religion was contrived out of jealousy of wealth, power, and influence of the one before,using real people of that time. Remember the experiment in class ware you whisper a sentence to the first person in the first row,and by the time it hits the last, it it's totally different? Billions of people?Thousands of years? Why is the gospel of St.Thomas heresy?King James who owned priests,and influenced the content of the modern bible, was a murdering,raping, evil person,that had forgiveness24/7.
Whatever Saint Cyprian or Saint Ausgustine says is SECONDARY to what the Bible says. Remember, the Pope states that evolution and the Bible are not anti-thetical to each other. But the Bible states differently.
@marcdaddy33 I would recommend that you read Saint Augustine (the architect of Western theology). His book "On Christian Teaching" explores the practice of Biblical interpretation. He emphasizes understanding symbols, metaphors, and parables for what they are and not misunderstanding their form or meaning. In the prologue to his work, he also justifies a critical reading of the Bible, the discipline of a multi-layered interpretation, centered in the Church, but never superficial.
"He emphasizes understanding symbols, metaphors, and parables for what they are and not misunderstanding their form or meaning."
=====
That's true, however the creation account is not in any way shape or form a symbol, metaphor, or allegory. It's written as HISTORY and should be interpreted as such. When it comes to Biblical interpretation the most important tool we must utilize for understanding scripture is scripture... Let the BIBLE interpret itself.
Besides Genesis 1 and 2 what does the BIBLE say about creation?
"For in SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
Did you get that, kristonio? God, in giving His Law, explicitly states that He created the world in SIX days, not epochs, not ages, not years... DAYS. Two more scriptures:
"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth."
--Psalm 33:6
"For He SPOKE, and it was done;
He commanded, and it STOOD FAST."
--Psalm33:9
NOTHING to indicate that the world was created in more than six days, or that the days actually mean long periods of time.
Now here is my question for you antonio... in Genesis 2 we read how God created Adam and Eve. Did it take God hundreds of years to form Adam in the dirt and the breath life into him? Furthermore, when He made Eve, how long did Adam sleep while God was creating Eve from his rib?
If God didn't take that long to create Adam and Eve, why is it so difficult to understand that it didn't take Him so long to create the universe?
I could care less what an atheist or an agnostic believes... they don't accept the Bible as the Word of God. But when someone purports to believe in the Bible yet twist the PLAIN reading of scriptures so as to avoid being mocked by infidels, that's when a problem arises. Those who claim to be followers of Christ MUST stand on the Bible as the FINAL authority... not scientists or any other MAN.
Part 6 For it is written: “ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."
"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.... And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, NOT FORSAKING THE ASSEMBLING of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another,..."
So we ought to go to church but everything the pastor MUST be examined in comparison to the scriptures. Remember, SATAN knows the Scriptures as well, therefore it is incumbent upon us to be thoroughly familiar with God's Word... that we may, like Jesus, respond to errors by stating: "IT IS WRITTEN" (Matthew 4:4)
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for CORRECTION, for instruction in righteousness
"Does this mean the only way to learn from the bible is to read...interpret it yourself?"
---
NO. We NEED outside influence... but not HUMAN influence. The "heart is deceitful" (Jer. 17:9) and will TWIST Scripture according to its carnal nature. As Paul predicted: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires... they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth".
So how can we understand Scriptures? Let's let the BIBLE tell us: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will TEACH you ALL things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."- John 14:26 For the Holy Spirit "will guide you into ALL truth" (John 16:13).
But we cannot receive the Spirit unless we PRAY for it before reading the Bible-- read Luke 11:13
"...creationism as put out by evangelical right-wing christians"
---------
how prejudiced.
what about BIBLE-BELIEVING Christians? Typical of a leftist- when a professed Christian DOESN'T live according to the Bible he is excoriated and his behavior is used as proof for why one shouldn't believe in the Bible... but when he acctually DOES live and believe according to the Bible he is smeared as a "fundamentalist" a "right-winger" a "Jesus Freak", etc.
Christian seminaries not part of the Evangelical Fundamentalist movement (Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc...) don't teach creationism AT ALL. Instead, they teach Genesis as a theological book. Its literary genre is Myth- a story which communicates profound truth. This trend of interpreting it literally as if empirically true is a modern phenomenon.
A LOT of the scholars and theologians in the seminaries are actually ATHEISTS. You pointing to seminaries is laughable. Many of them don't even believe in the miracles of Jesus
@marcdaddy33 Why would secular scholars teach at seminaries which are schools to train the clergy? There certainly are a significant number of secular professors at various institutions who do scholarly work, but seminaries are there to serve the churches they represent. While there are naturalists (those like Thomas Jefferson who view Jesus as a teacher but not divine) they would not be in a majority at any Christian seminary. I'm curious, have you been to any? Sat in on any classes?
This is like asking why would an anti-American individual run for president. It's called INFILTRATION; destroy a country, destroy a party, destroy a religion or denomination from within. ANYONE who has a desire to transform the minds of a large group of people... let's say, a large group of believers... knows that in order to best do so is to form the minds of individuals while they are young. This requires the CONTROL OF EDUCATION.
@kristonio17 What profound truth? Those sects don't teach that God created all humans? They don't teach that the Bible is literally true? Yo ucan't say that they don't teach creationism at all. They say God created us. how is that not creationism?
@iowntwocats Creationism is defined as a post-Enlightenment interpretation of the creation account which posits the details as being empirically true. The early church often debated the viability of the details and sometimes interpreted them symbolically (ie 1 day is a thousand years in the sight of God, a reference to the psalms). The profound truth, however, is that this God has created the universe and it is good. The how is an open topic (big bang, M theory, evolution...)
Most Christians don't understand the scientific arguments supporting creationism. Please read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS, SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD, CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGIAN NO LONGER BELIEVES ETERNAL TORMENT (Explains why eternal punishment in the Bible does not mean eternal torment).
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
because of this creationist non sense, atheists have just found one more excuse to try and make their false case that all christians or religious people are a bunch of lunatics. What a lot of atheists miss is the part of the polling data that shows the percentage of religious believers that also think evolution is a scientific fact. It justs drives me nuts when militant atheists and creationists fundamentalists drive the conversation. their both a bunch of fringe lunatics in some cases
science has got closer to the truth with evidence then any religious doctrine ever has. Religious doctrines interperate any evidence with their specific god in mind, but aliens could have fused chromosone 2 together and seeded it back into an ancestor with fertility drugs. Although I think it came from natural purpose over eons of time. The bottom line is that religious people just have to think of something to believe it, science has to prove it.
@legion1a you would do well to take into consideration that while the Idea of a bearded man living in the sky granting wishes may seem stupid, so does the idea that a giant expolosion brought everything into existence for absolutely no reason. I'm a Christian and I believe in the big band and evolution but you atheists have to remember that even some of your ideas have a scent of bullshit attached to them.
@legion1a I am a Christian because I was told I was one? I can't be a Christian and believe in evolution? that seems just as ignorant as the fundamentalist that we both stand against. And just because Genesis may not be historically accurate doesn't mean that my religion has no basis; I don't really even care if the stories of the Bible are historically accurate or not because the morals provided by the stories of the Bible are more important.
What you beleive is just tradition, and has nothing to do with reality.
It's time to stop believing in ancient explanations of the world; fabricated by intellectually immature people who had no concept of science.
You don't believe in the morals given in the Bible.
If you believed in those morals, you would stone your neighbor to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, burn your daughter to death for dating outside of your faith, and kill your son if he disobeyed.
@legion1a those "morals" you presented are from the Old Testament; at the risk of sounding anti-semetic, if you're going to pester anybody about those "rules" go pester the Jews because that is more their book than it is ours. I suggest you consult the sermon on the mount for proper "morals." Christianity seems unapplicable to reality becaus it has been warped into something it is not. The Bible is a book of stories that help point us in the right direction; not control our lives.
@09smitel You'd be better off taking moral lessons from Harry Potter, rather than the Bible.
I've heard many like you use the "Oh that's just the old testament" argument.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Mathew 5:17-18
@saiyanmage I tried but I never really got into the Harry Potter hype, and to answer your Matthew verse
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:24-26
@legion1a "Intellectually immature people who had no concept of science?" Who do you think gave us math or astronomy? People from before the birth of Christianity! The "father of modern science," Copernicus, was a monk! Think what you want about religion, but just because people lived before cars does not make them primitive.
(And about morals, why don't you actually read the bible before making judgments? Saying things that are untrue just makes you sound worse than a creationist.)
@legion1a I've seen some of your other comments. It seems you've traded one extreme for another. As an ordained minister, you must have taken a position of literal interpretation of Genesis in order to have such a literalistic view from the other side of the equation.
Just because genesis isn't historically accurate doesn't mean that it isn't metaphorically correct. They are stories which have symbolical meaning meant to be understood after deep thought into what is being said. It wasn't meant to be taken literally when written
Restating what you already said doesn't make it more right. Just so you know not to try using that in a debate. Metaphors don't count? What kind of logic is that? The story is mythology but it has symbols which are relevant to the real world. Religion is about interpretation and there are many different one. Evolution disproves a literal reading of genesis, but it can't do anything to the symbolism behind the story.
No, I understand atheism too well to be an atheist. "My religion" is definitely NOT any form of mainstream Christianity. A-theism is a practice which is defined in theism. If you are against theism, why would you worship the other side of the same coin? My religion is discordian pantheism including practices of Gnostic Christianity, Cabbalistic Judaism, and Sufic Islam, which means I realize that there is much to be learned from those stories if they aren't take literally.
I havent once mentioned "God". You are projecting your beliefs about religious people onto me despite not having any basis for it. I don't have faith in a/the "God", I have awareness of my own connection to a bigger intelligent whole, just like a cell is part of a bigger interconnected whole. Its a sad man who refuses to learn from something besides an "expert". Can't you trust in your own knowledge? 1984 was a fictional story, so does it have no lessons which it can teach?
@legion1a I'm an atheist but i disagree that evolution disproves God. The god hypothesis is an unfalsifiable claim with no evidence to back it up and, though you can dismiss it do to lack of evidence you can't disprove it. The god in question being an invisible intangible creator of the universe not a magic sky-daddy. Sky-daddies can be easily disproved.
@legion1a i totally agree, by saying you can't disprove it i'm not giving it any credence, you can't disprove fairies, doesn't mean the idea isn't delusional.
@legion1a Invisible, yes. But he/she left out all-powerful. And from my past encounters with your comments, you have failed to show ANY evidence to your claim. Rather than being reasonable you sit on your high horse and call others idiots. When I presented facts to you, you promptly deleted my comments. And sense I'm in an atheist hangout, this comment will probably be marked as spam. Leave it up and prove me wrong, as you so seek to do.
@TheSarnaran If the Bible were shown to have had scientific ideas in it, before they were discovered thousands of years later by scientists, would that be reasonable proof for God?
@TheSarnaran Actually, many scholars believe that the fact that God "separated light from darkness" before a He created the sun (the our main source of light), is a reference to the principal that "there is light in all visible objects." Genesis 1:9 also describes Pangea ("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.") It is also notable that in the flood story, the water is described as coming from the ground.
@TheTrojantroy It is also worth noting that Dinosaurs where described in the book of Job, and that the Nation of Assyria was thought to be a biblical myth until we recently uncovered their remains.
@TheTrojantroy - The bible also says to kill people who work on the sabbath and stone to death women who are not virgins on their wedding night and many more evil things. I hope you don't live your life by that book because you might end up in jail. We've come a long way from those primitive desert fables and I think we are more civilized than whoever wrote that violent book.
@TheTrojantroy The description of "Pangea" that you mentioned is clearly wrong. Pangea is a supercontinent, all the landmass of the Earth collected into a single area. What you quoted, "let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place" describes the opposite. To use the same language as genesis, pangea is 'dry land gathered together unto one place'. Which is the literal opposite from your quote.
@legion1a Evolution disproves most Gods except that of the Deists, in my opinion. I think it's rational that the universe has some type of first cause
@TheTrojantroy Evolution does not seek an answer to the origin of life. Abiogenesis deals with the question of life's origin. Don't confuse the two, that would be like calling Cain Abel.
@TheTrojantroy You aren't getting anywhere with this "origin of life" issue. The "god of the gaps" argument is a losing battle to fight. Human history is a continuous trend of phenomenon attributed to a god initially due to a lack of rational understanding; one by one, case by case, we learn more and more, and every time it turns out there is a natural cause or mechanism. Yet here you are pleading the same naive, desperate appeal to ignorance.
@TheTrojantroy - Look up Abiogenesis. That DOES explain how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. And even if you don't believe in that process, the fact that we don't know everything about the universe and life does NOT mean it's time to jump straight to the conclusion that "magic man did it". I mean science is only a few hundred years old and look how much we have learned. Give it a couple hundred more years and we might have ALL of the answers : )
@legion1a Ah yes I was right. You're attacking the institution which is just a branch of the actual belief itself. You shouldn't so readily attack the people who call themselves Christians when you have no idea how strictly their church follows certain rules and "truths". Do you forget that most don't even attend churches? Or that some churches perform gay marriages? " Religion is a way of controlling people " this coming from an ordained minister? I think not. Good thing you did leave if so.
@legion1a What do you believe in that in comparison to a supernatural power seems so correct? It's assumably impossible to uncover the truth and the beginnings of the fabric of reality. I'm sure if you asked every question to draw their god it would look different. People's imaginations vary as well as many of their other religious faucets. There are infinite possibilities to how this began. It's only ignorance and anger to dispel only a few possibilities. Reality is an subjective illusion.
@legion1a You don't understand the subjectivity and the respect it deserves. There is no moral objectivity. Look at your page. Look at how worked up you are. It's so futile and exhausting. Your own anger is a prime example of why Religion is bad for some people. Look what it's doing to you.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@legion1a Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@legion1a Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@legion1a Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
If religion is based on nothing, why go on believing?
If the Pope believes in evolution, as you said; then the Pope cannot be a Christian.
If snakes and donkeys can't talk, and the Earth is not 6,000 years old, then Christianity has no basis in fact, it is just a lie that has been forced on mankind by people trying to control all of us
People that vote for politicians that proclaim great faith are being controlled!
That is because the bible is a moral guide, and a collection of poetry, not a work of science and facts. It is a mistake to think that the ones who wrote it meant everything litteraly, a mistake that both you and creationists make, but in a different way.
That being said, it is easy to refute the bible, but you can never prove the non-existence of a Deity, eventhough it is very unlikely
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 4 days ago
Comment removed
luciferisaplanet 5 days ago
er, atheists dont have a supposition of how everything exists as is, we just lack the supposition of the religious.
Cheapshot420420 4 weeks ago 3
creationalism and creation are two different things, creation took a lot longer than 10,000 years. the seven days mentioned in Genesis are not literal days as in 24 hours a day, but longer periods of time
gemsgarden07 1 month ago
Comment removed
jungsbodyguard 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
please guys, atheist of christian lets not go on here and argue. trust me if you THINK that your delivering knock out blows that somehow prove the other people wrong, chances are somone much smarter than you will tear you apart. so please, lets leave it up to the craig lane's and christopher hitchens' to argue and not waist our time.
KingOCleveland 1 month ago
@KingOCleveland I partly agree. Christians can't win because their arguments lack any logic or evidence to support them. At the same time you can't prove that god doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative when it resides outside of natural law (which christians/muslims/jews claim god does). However, you can prove that evolution is true and that the earth is billions of years old.
You've picked bad examples though. Hitchens is dead and Lane is a complete idiot.
jungsbodyguard 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
@jungsbodyguard Lack logic? Look up Aquina's cosmological argument. There are so many other examples of logical reasons. The question isn't why is someone believing something it's in fact why do you care that they do? I think you'll solve a lot more problems that way.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@bubsadoozy Aquinas' cosmological argument provides no logical reasoning that proves that the christian god exists. He states that there must be a first cause. Which doesn't mean that this cause was the christian god or even a conscious being. It could just as easily be an singular event. But even this isn't logically sound because it offers no reasoning how this 'first cause' was caused itself; it also works from the unsubstatiated claim that a first cause is even necessary.
jungsbodyguard 1 month ago
@jungsbodyguard It's not arguing for the christian God. Just a monotheistic God. Don't be the normal pseudo-athiest who is just an anti-christian. I'll agree it doesn't offer much evidence or reasoning but it is just as logical as the big bang with the amount of material you're working with. It is a logical assumption. Denying that is ignorant. There are many many more logical arguments for god's existence. Come to the realization that an anti-god or pro-god argument is futile and subjective.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@HannahAPolster- If believing that makes you feel better then that is your choice. I choose to look at the same facts and determine a different answer. If the universe is laid out in a way that appears as if there is no supernatural being, then I have
NO reason to believe in a supernatural being. If there IS a god and he WANTS logical people to believe in him, he KNOWS exactly what evidence to present to make a scientist believe. So if he's there he DOES NOT want me to believe in him : )
djangothecat 1 month ago
Hey Cenk, I'm an Atheist and I just wanted to let you know that you are too. A "Theist" is someone who "Believes" in a god. An "Atheist" is someone who does not "Believe" in a god. Agnostic is kind of an anti-concept that people use to muddle the line. I think christians like to say that if you do not "know that there is no god" then you are an Agnostic but really all you need to do is "Not Believe" in a god and you are an Atheist. It's simple, I do not "believe" in supernatural beings=Atheist.
djangothecat 1 month ago
Noah was 600 years old when he built the ark, Adam lived to 930 years after eating the forbidden fruit, snakes and donkeys talk, axe heads float, demons cause mental illness, God speaks to people through visions and dreams, infanticide is acceptable, belief and servitude is superior to wisdom and knowledge.
This is the nonsense that fills the Bible cover to cover. Grow up and realize the Bible was written by men living in very ignorant times.
metalsusa1 1 month ago 2
STill WAY off the pace of the rest of the western world.....catch up already you retards.
Caineheist 1 month ago
Is that a poll only among Christians? The Catholic church openly endorses the belief in evolution. I find it hard to belief that fundamentalist psychos make up 40% of our nation.
you123123123123 1 month ago
@you123123123123 Do they believe in micro or macro-evolution?
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
Jenks you misstate Creation. It was 6000 years ago.
surfricy 1 month ago
@surfricy obvious troll is obvious
utube2344 1 month ago
Agnostic = Doesnt claim to know.
Atheist = Doesnt believe in God. Or disbelieves in God.
Most Ahteists are Agnostics.
Anuojat 2 months ago
love ya Cenk, same here, I respect all people's opinions
sersarsor 2 months ago
How do they date fossils? 1. Geologic Column
How do they date time periods in the Geologic Column? 1. Index Fossils
Yes, "scientists" date the layer of ground with a fossil and date the fossil by what layer they come in.
This is called "Circular Reasoning".
How did all the elements from the Periodic Table of Elements come in being?
Where are all the fossils that prove apes evolved into humans and reptiles evolved into birds?
Evolution requires blind faith too!!
God lives.
RevolutionaryWordsTV 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevolutionaryWordsTV "How do they date fossils? 1. Geologic Column" => wrong, we date fossils by radiometric dating. And we don't date one element either, we use multiple elements, and see if the results support each other. Also, the result contains error bars to show level of confidence. "How did all the elements from the Periodic Table of Elements come in being?" => this has nothing to do with evolution, try again.
Casshyr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevolutionaryWordsTV "Where are all the fossils that prove apes evolved into humans and reptiles evolved into birds?" => transitional fossils do exist. If you say "oh but if evolution is real, we would expect to see more", then that's just wrong. Even if evolution is wrong, fossil record would still be rare and spotty simply because of the way a fossil is formed, which requires certain conditions that are not easy to come by.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@RevolutionaryWordsTV I have no problem with people having belief in God, but I can't accept lies about science. Geological strata are dated by radio-metrically testing isotopes with very long half lives.
Hydrogen then Helium formed as soon as the universe cooled enough to allow the formation on atomic nuclei. Other elements formed in stars.
Fossils are interesting but only in that none have been found to contradict Evolution which is supported by many other fields of study. No faith required.
GuillemotWatcher 3 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher Every soul will return to God for judgement after this flesh is lifeless.
If you are right then believers have nothing to worry about.
If the Bible is right then non-believers have the rest of eternity to spend it hell.
Believing in Jesus Christ costs you nothing, but just as the devil put the thought to sell Jesus Christ to the religious leaders of the day, he also puts thoughts into the hearts of other people.
1 Cor. 6:9-11
RevolutionaryWordsTV 6 days ago
@RevolutionaryWordsTV
#1: dating og fossils by circular reasoning.
No. Originally (as in the 19th century) yes, correlation between the geologic column was the most reliable way of determining age. In the 20th century we discovered this thing called Atomic Theory, and the constant decay rate of radioactive isotopes. If you have a problem with That I suggest you test your doubt by going to your nearest nuclear power station and taking a bite out of a chunk of uranium.
KesselRunner606 2 months ago
How did all the elements from the Periodic Table of Elements come in being?
Didn't go to school much did you?
Try a chemistry book to understand the process. But basically elements were formed by fusion of hydrogen into higher elements in Stars. Heavy elements are formed by Super Novae. And this isn't a guess, we can actually See it happening in other parts of the Universe.
KesselRunner606 2 months ago
Fossils/apes evolved into humans
(Actually to be pedantic, Humans Are Apes. But to give you an answer:)
Sahelanthropus Tchadensis
Ardipithecus Ramidus
Australopithecus Anamensis/Afarensis/Garghi/Sediba/Aethiopicus/Robustus & Boisei
Kenyanthropus Africanus
Homo Habilis/Georgicus/Erectus/Ergaster/Antecessor/Heidelbergensis/Florisensis & then Us Homo Sapens.
KesselRunner606 2 months ago
KesselRunner606 2 months ago
@KesselRunner606
Where are the fossils?
BTW, if public education can convince the masses that there is no God. Then there is no right and wrong, which means the government can make the Ultimate Law.
Just as dirty underwear is cleaned in washing machine, dirty sinners are washed by faith in the work of Jesus Christ.
If the laundry machine washes your clothes then your clothes become clean
If Jesus Christ washed your sins then you are clean. You are holy. You are righteous
RevolutionaryWordsTV 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevolutionaryWordsTV
"Where are the Fossils"?
How much time do you have, Youtube only allows a 200 character limit.Your ignorance is no argument against.
"If Jesus Christ washed your sins then you are clean. You are holy. You are righteous"
And if you're naughty, Santa won't bring you any Christmas presents. If you don't go to sleep the sandman will come and get you. and Everybody gets one rescue from your friendly neighborhood Spiderman.
KesselRunner606 5 days ago
@KesselRunner606
There should be thousands, if not thousands, of "transitional" fossils for each species.
Plus, you never saw an apple tree yield a cherry or an orange. How and why did the fruit trees evolve?
RevolutionaryWordsTV 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevolutionaryWordsTV
"There should be thousands, if not thousands, of "transitional" fossils for each species."
Every fossil is a transitional fossil. That's the whole point.
"How and why did the fruit trees evolve?"
Take a biology class, instead of philosophy next time.
KesselRunner606 5 days ago
@KesselRunner606
The fundamental law of science is cause and effect.
RevolutionaryWordsTV 6 days ago
@KesselRunner606
Scientists have never seen the formation of star. Only the death of a star.
But, goodness, have you seen some of the Hubble photographs?
Pretty marvelous, I'd say.
Looks like artistry
RevolutionaryWordsTV 6 days ago
@RevolutionaryWordsTV
"Scientists have never seen the formation of star."
The Orion Nebula
The Pillars of Creation (Eagle Nebula; one of the most iconic Hubble Images)
LH 95 stellar nursery in Large Magellanic Cloud.
The Pleiades
Cepheus
And dozens of other observations. It's actually observing super Novae that's relatively rare.
KesselRunner606 5 days ago
@KesselRunner606 Say the earth is a million years old, as it may be, there still needs a Creator.
Personally I can't understand many things in the Bible. The one thing I believe is that Jesus took away the sin of the world
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)
RevolutionaryWordsTV 6 days ago
@RevolutionaryWordsTV
"Say the earth is a million years old, as it may be, there still needs a Creator."
Fine, but who created the Creator?. If the Creator had no Creator, then we can also assume the universe didn't need one either, so what's your point?
Your quote mine of Einstein is invalid, as other more detailed quotes show his disdain for religion. He merely meant "God" in the deist sense.
KesselRunner606 5 days ago
@KesselRunner606
But thanks for proving a point I made years ago, that when creationists are backed into a corner with Facts, all they have left is irrelevant Bible quotes.
To which I always reply with an equally irrelevant quote from the Silmarilion:
KesselRunner606 5 days ago
"Last of all Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed; and it is sung that the axe smoked in the black blood of the troll-guard of Gothmog until it withered, and each time that he slew Húrin cried 'Aurë entuluva! Day shall come again!' Seventy times he uttered that cry; but they took him at last alive..."
Hurin, at the Battle of Un-numbered Tears.
KesselRunner606 5 days ago
@RevolutionaryWordsTV No, it doesn't. There's plenty of evidence for it. That's not circular reasoning. For example, look at your 2nd chromosome.
TheSpartanondrugs 2 months ago
@TheSpartanondrugs
First of all, all drugs should be legal. God gave each one of us a body and free will. (Ron Paul 2012)
Back to God though
Just as dirty underwear is cleaned in washing machine, dirty sinners are washed by faith in the work of Jesus Christ. (wages of sin is death. Jesus bore the sin of the world)
If the laundry machine washes your clothes then your clothes become clean
If Jesus Christ washed your sins then you are clean. You are holy. You are righteous
RevolutionaryWordsTV 6 days ago
@RevolutionaryWordsTV Give me an ounce of proof your claim that Jesus is the son of god is true.
TheSpartanondrugs 5 days ago
@RevolutionaryWordsTV Um, ever heard of radiometric dating? You are aware of the discovery of atoms an elements, right?
What are you trolling?
zzyzx0788 2 months ago
The tutor is a metaphor for the old law, its starting to get annoying that I have to keep saying this to both Atheists and fundamentalists. The Bible is just a book of stories and metaphors to help point people in the right direction. When people start interpreting the bible in a literal sense, then Christianity gets warped into something it isn't. As a result, people can't see how it applies to them and they lose both faith and hope and start spewing a bunch of shit out of their mouths.
09smitel 3 months ago
I love ya, Cenk, and I think you are a tremendous force for good . . . but quantum physics even calls into question E=mc2. The equation is now E=mc2 some of the time.
desertpair2 4 months ago
cenk, ur an agnostic atheist, u just dont like the term atheist...im agnostic athiest i got no beef with religion...except for the crazy fundies
sagmann20 5 months ago
@sagmann20 good to see another person who understands the relationship between atheism and agnosticism. i have to constantly explain to people that agnostics ARE atheists, just like squares ARE rectangles.
UnluckyGambler 5 months ago
@UnluckyGambler yeah i just think people are afraid of the term atheist because it has such a negative connotation. i can understand that
sagmann20 5 months ago
@UnluckyGambler Actually, atheism and agnosticism are different. Atheism is a statement of beliefs. Agnosticism is a position concerning those beliefs. I'm an agnostic theist. I believe there is a god to whatever degree, but I know that I don't actually know. I'm a theist because I believe in a god. You're an atheist because you don't believe in a god. We're both agnostic because we both recognize that we're ultimately just guessing on the god hypothesis.
Theroha 1 month ago
@Theroha i recently stopped caring about those 2 definitions. different people have different definitions for those 2 words, and as much as i dislike it and wish for a universal definition, ill have to accept the commonly accepted meanings, like the word gay. and the common definition now is ambiguous. so ill just let people call themselves whatever they want, and to truly find out what they are, if i care, ill ask them more specific questions. these labels dont work anymore, sadly.
UnluckyGambler 1 month ago
LOL A REPUBLICAN EVOLUTIONIST LOLWUT?
JMT3EBAotP 6 months ago
Cenk is wrong here, too. There is a difference between forming hypotheses based on known scientific principles arrived at by the gathering and examination of evidence, applying the scientific method to that evidence, and arriving at a reasonable expectation which is then repeatedly tested and eventually either proven or disproven through rational reasonable application of the data and making totally unsupported suppositions that are not based on any evidence of any kind.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 6 months ago
This is how creationists manage to fool a lot of people. There is a big difference between faith and reasonable expectation. There is science behind postulates like abiogenesis or universal origin. Look into Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." Do you think he just made this stuff up? How about all the peer-reviewed literature that forms the basis of his proposals? Pretty big conspiracy, don't you think? It is not your "suppositions" vs. my "suppositions."
xJoeEDangerouslyx 6 months ago
Faith is the belief in a thing despite lack of evidence or in the fact of evidence to the to the contrary. The two are completely different. There are authorities on Earth whom we can trust. I trust a doctor over a priest to prescribe me medicine just like I trust an astrophysicist over a priest when we are talking about the nature of spacetime and the universe in general.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 6 months ago
@xJoeEDangerouslyx But the odd thing about the word "faith" is that it means two basically opposite things. When I start to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, I have faith that it won't fall over or break apart. That faith is established by observations. If I have faith in a friend, it's based on my observations of his or her behavior in the past. BUT when we use faith in the instance of religion, it means the exact opposite. You ever notice how much Christians lean on the word "Truth"?
desertpair2 4 months ago
@desertpair2
True. Faith by evidence isn't Biblical faith but reasonable faith.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
Although I feel that my sin remains and I still sin, the Word of God says that, if you believe in Jesus Christ, that you are justified, sanctified, and washed. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
So is a believer a dirty sinner still or is he/she washed, justified, and sanctified?
God is only pleased w/ faith Rom 14:23
RevolutionaryWordsTV 6 days ago
@xJoeEDangerouslyx What?
desertpair2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xJoeEDangerouslyx What?
desertpair2 4 months ago
Each religion was contrived out of jealousy of wealth, power, and influence of the one before,using real people of that time. Remember the experiment in class ware you whisper a sentence to the first person in the first row,and by the time it hits the last, it it's totally different? Billions of people?Thousands of years? Why is the gospel of St.Thomas heresy?King James who owned priests,and influenced the content of the modern bible, was a murdering,raping, evil person,that had forgiveness24/7.
zappp111 6 months ago
Saint Cyprian: "The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]
Even the first saints often interpreted the fine details of the creation story theologically and metaphorically, not as if empirically true
kristonio17 6 months ago
@kristonio17
Whatever Saint Cyprian or Saint Ausgustine says is SECONDARY to what the Bible says. Remember, the Pope states that evolution and the Bible are not anti-thetical to each other. But the Bible states differently.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
How can people say its 10,000 years?? :S when we know of civilisations that are much older than that! :/
Alshahadah 6 months ago
People aren't looking at the evidence... it's that they trust science more than the Bible... especially if they don't go to church more, if at all.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
I'm STILL and six-day creationist... either one believes what the Bible says, or one cannot call oneself a Bible-believing Christian.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
@marcdaddy33 I would recommend that you read Saint Augustine (the architect of Western theology). His book "On Christian Teaching" explores the practice of Biblical interpretation. He emphasizes understanding symbols, metaphors, and parables for what they are and not misunderstanding their form or meaning. In the prologue to his work, he also justifies a critical reading of the Bible, the discipline of a multi-layered interpretation, centered in the Church, but never superficial.
kristonio17 6 months ago
@kristonio17
"He emphasizes understanding symbols, metaphors, and parables for what they are and not misunderstanding their form or meaning."
=====
That's true, however the creation account is not in any way shape or form a symbol, metaphor, or allegory. It's written as HISTORY and should be interpreted as such. When it comes to Biblical interpretation the most important tool we must utilize for understanding scripture is scripture... Let the BIBLE interpret itself.
(cont...)
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Part 2
Let the Bible interpret itself... we should not rely on MAN to interpret the Scriptures
"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.”
-Isaiah 28:10
Besides Genesis 1 and 2 what does the BIBLE say about creation?
"For in SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
--Exodus 20:11
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Part 3
Did you get that, kristonio? God, in giving His Law, explicitly states that He created the world in SIX days, not epochs, not ages, not years... DAYS. Two more scriptures:
"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth."
--Psalm 33:6
"For He SPOKE, and it was done;
He commanded, and it STOOD FAST."
--Psalm33:9
NOTHING to indicate that the world was created in more than six days, or that the days actually mean long periods of time.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Part 4
Now here is my question for you antonio... in Genesis 2 we read how God created Adam and Eve. Did it take God hundreds of years to form Adam in the dirt and the breath life into him? Furthermore, when He made Eve, how long did Adam sleep while God was creating Eve from his rib?
If God didn't take that long to create Adam and Eve, why is it so difficult to understand that it didn't take Him so long to create the universe?
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Part 5
I could care less what an atheist or an agnostic believes... they don't accept the Bible as the Word of God. But when someone purports to believe in the Bible yet twist the PLAIN reading of scriptures so as to avoid being mocked by infidels, that's when a problem arises. Those who claim to be followers of Christ MUST stand on the Bible as the FINAL authority... not scientists or any other MAN.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Part 6 For it is written: “ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."
--1 Corinthians 1:19-21
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
@marcdaddy33 "Let the Bible interpret itself... we should not rely on MAN to interpret the Scriptures"
Does this mean I should not go to church and believe what I am being told?
Does this mean the only way to learn from the bible is to read and interpret it yourself without outside influence?
ScoKimber 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScoKimber
"Does this mean I should not go to church..."
------
ABSOLUTELY YOU MUST
"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.... And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, NOT FORSAKING THE ASSEMBLING of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another,..."
-Hebrews 10:23-25
For where two or three are GATHERED TOGETHER in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
--Matthew 18:20
(cont...)
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Part 2 @ScoKimber
So we ought to go to church but everything the pastor MUST be examined in comparison to the scriptures. Remember, SATAN knows the Scriptures as well, therefore it is incumbent upon us to be thoroughly familiar with God's Word... that we may, like Jesus, respond to errors by stating: "IT IS WRITTEN" (Matthew 4:4)
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for CORRECTION, for instruction in righteousness
--2 Timothy 3:16
(cont)
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Part 3 @ScoKimber
"Does this mean the only way to learn from the bible is to read...interpret it yourself?"
---
NO. We NEED outside influence... but not HUMAN influence. The "heart is deceitful" (Jer. 17:9) and will TWIST Scripture according to its carnal nature. As Paul predicted: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires... they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth".
-2 Tim 4:4
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Part 4 @ScoKimber
So how can we understand Scriptures? Let's let the BIBLE tell us: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will TEACH you ALL things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."- John 14:26 For the Holy Spirit "will guide you into ALL truth" (John 16:13).
But we cannot receive the Spirit unless we PRAY for it before reading the Bible-- read Luke 11:13
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
"...creationism as put out by evangelical right-wing christians"
---------
how prejudiced.
what about BIBLE-BELIEVING Christians? Typical of a leftist- when a professed Christian DOESN'T live according to the Bible he is excoriated and his behavior is used as proof for why one shouldn't believe in the Bible... but when he acctually DOES live and believe according to the Bible he is smeared as a "fundamentalist" a "right-winger" a "Jesus Freak", etc.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Christian seminaries not part of the Evangelical Fundamentalist movement (Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc...) don't teach creationism AT ALL. Instead, they teach Genesis as a theological book. Its literary genre is Myth- a story which communicates profound truth. This trend of interpreting it literally as if empirically true is a modern phenomenon.
kristonio17 6 months ago 19
@kristonio17
A LOT of the scholars and theologians in the seminaries are actually ATHEISTS. You pointing to seminaries is laughable. Many of them don't even believe in the miracles of Jesus
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
@marcdaddy33 Why would secular scholars teach at seminaries which are schools to train the clergy? There certainly are a significant number of secular professors at various institutions who do scholarly work, but seminaries are there to serve the churches they represent. While there are naturalists (those like Thomas Jefferson who view Jesus as a teacher but not divine) they would not be in a majority at any Christian seminary. I'm curious, have you been to any? Sat in on any classes?
kristonio17 6 months ago
@kristonio17
This is like asking why would an anti-American individual run for president. It's called INFILTRATION; destroy a country, destroy a party, destroy a religion or denomination from within. ANYONE who has a desire to transform the minds of a large group of people... let's say, a large group of believers... knows that in order to best do so is to form the minds of individuals while they are young. This requires the CONTROL OF EDUCATION.
BTW... I graduated from a Christian college.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
@kristonio17 What profound truth? Those sects don't teach that God created all humans? They don't teach that the Bible is literally true? Yo ucan't say that they don't teach creationism at all. They say God created us. how is that not creationism?
iowntwocats 5 months ago
@iowntwocats Creationism is defined as a post-Enlightenment interpretation of the creation account which posits the details as being empirically true. The early church often debated the viability of the details and sometimes interpreted them symbolically (ie 1 day is a thousand years in the sight of God, a reference to the psalms). The profound truth, however, is that this God has created the universe and it is good. The how is an open topic (big bang, M theory, evolution...)
kristonio17 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Christians don't understand the scientific arguments supporting creationism. Please read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS, SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD, CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGIAN NO LONGER BELIEVES ETERNAL TORMENT (Explains why eternal punishment in the Bible does not mean eternal torment).
Mogley52 6 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
because of this creationist non sense, atheists have just found one more excuse to try and make their false case that all christians or religious people are a bunch of lunatics. What a lot of atheists miss is the part of the polling data that shows the percentage of religious believers that also think evolution is a scientific fact. It justs drives me nuts when militant atheists and creationists fundamentalists drive the conversation. their both a bunch of fringe lunatics in some cases
jamaicanification 6 months ago
science has got closer to the truth with evidence then any religious doctrine ever has. Religious doctrines interperate any evidence with their specific god in mind, but aliens could have fused chromosone 2 together and seeded it back into an ancestor with fertility drugs. Although I think it came from natural purpose over eons of time. The bottom line is that religious people just have to think of something to believe it, science has to prove it.
pillowbugg 6 months ago
If you accept evolution, that means that you know Genesis is not true.
If Genesis is not historically accurate; that means was no Adam and Eve, talking snake, whirling sword of fire or original sin.
Without original sin you are not born into sin.
If you are not born into sin, there was not a sin for Jesus to die for.
There is no basis for any faith!
Man evolved, and all religions are bullshit.
legion1a 6 months ago 75
@legion1a you would do well to take into consideration that while the Idea of a bearded man living in the sky granting wishes may seem stupid, so does the idea that a giant expolosion brought everything into existence for absolutely no reason. I'm a Christian and I believe in the big band and evolution but you atheists have to remember that even some of your ideas have a scent of bullshit attached to them.
09smitel 3 months ago
@09smitel
I believe in Big Bands too!
I like Buddy Rich's old band! (What does that have to do with you being a delusional Christian?)
You can not really be a Christian and believe in evolution; evolution disproves Genesis.
If Genesis is not historically accurate; there is no foundation for any religion based on the God of Abraham.
You are a Christian, because you were told you are a Christian, not because of anything that is real and proven.
Do some research, the Atheists are right!
legion1a 3 months ago
@legion1a I am a Christian because I was told I was one? I can't be a Christian and believe in evolution? that seems just as ignorant as the fundamentalist that we both stand against. And just because Genesis may not be historically accurate doesn't mean that my religion has no basis; I don't really even care if the stories of the Bible are historically accurate or not because the morals provided by the stories of the Bible are more important.
P.S. I'm more of an Dave Brubeck fan :)
09smitel 3 months ago
@09smitel
What you beleive is just tradition, and has nothing to do with reality.
It's time to stop believing in ancient explanations of the world; fabricated by intellectually immature people who had no concept of science.
You don't believe in the morals given in the Bible.
If you believed in those morals, you would stone your neighbor to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, burn your daughter to death for dating outside of your faith, and kill your son if he disobeyed.
Wake up!
legion1a 3 months ago
@legion1a those "morals" you presented are from the Old Testament; at the risk of sounding anti-semetic, if you're going to pester anybody about those "rules" go pester the Jews because that is more their book than it is ours. I suggest you consult the sermon on the mount for proper "morals." Christianity seems unapplicable to reality becaus it has been warped into something it is not. The Bible is a book of stories that help point us in the right direction; not control our lives.
09smitel 3 months ago
@09smitel You'd be better off taking moral lessons from Harry Potter, rather than the Bible.
I've heard many like you use the "Oh that's just the old testament" argument.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Mathew 5:17-18
saiyanmage 3 months ago
@saiyanmage I tried but I never really got into the Harry Potter hype, and to answer your Matthew verse
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:24-26
09smitel 3 months ago
@09smitel Just because you are no longer under a tutor doesn't mean you're exempt from the old law.
saiyanmage 3 months ago
@09smitel You were saying?
saiyanmage 3 months ago
@legion1a "Intellectually immature people who had no concept of science?" Who do you think gave us math or astronomy? People from before the birth of Christianity! The "father of modern science," Copernicus, was a monk! Think what you want about religion, but just because people lived before cars does not make them primitive.
(And about morals, why don't you actually read the bible before making judgments? Saying things that are untrue just makes you sound worse than a creationist.)
KaoriOnyx7 1 month ago
@KaoriOnyx7
You said “why don't you actually read the bible before making judgments?”
I am/was an ordained minister for longer than you have been alive.
I did some actual research and found out that the Atheists are right.
I woke up!
Nice example you used to defend religion.
Copernicus was a genius, not a moron like you.
He was correct; the Earth revolves around the Sun.
That’s why the Church put his writings on the Index of Prohibited Books.
The Church condemned Copernicus.
legion1a 1 month ago
@legion1a I've seen some of your other comments. It seems you've traded one extreme for another. As an ordained minister, you must have taken a position of literal interpretation of Genesis in order to have such a literalistic view from the other side of the equation.
Theroha 1 month ago
@Theroha The Bible claims to be the word of God.
It is not, it is the word of ancient intellectually immature near savages, that had no understanding of science.
Evolution has proven the Bible wrong.
If it is not 100% Historically Accurate, it is nothing.
Look at the harm religious delusions have done to the mind of "TheTrojantroy".
He has no concept of reality.
Read his comments here, he is mentally ill because of his delusions, and he is now a perverted YouTube stalker.
Faith is evil!
legion1a 1 month ago
@legion1a
Just because genesis isn't historically accurate doesn't mean that it isn't metaphorically correct. They are stories which have symbolical meaning meant to be understood after deep thought into what is being said. It wasn't meant to be taken literally when written
227Morgan 1 month ago
@227Morgan
That's a stupid thing to say.
It must be literal, or it is nothing.
Metaphors don’t count!
If Genesis is not historically accurate, then there was no "Original Sin".
No Original Sin, then there was nothing for Jesus to pay for.
If you were not born sinful, the entire foundation of Christianity is a removed.
Genesis must be 100% true for the Christian Religion to be based on reality (it is not).
Evolution disproves Genesis, the Christian Creation story, and God
legion1a 1 month ago 37
@legion1a
Restating what you already said doesn't make it more right. Just so you know not to try using that in a debate. Metaphors don't count? What kind of logic is that? The story is mythology but it has symbols which are relevant to the real world. Religion is about interpretation and there are many different one. Evolution disproves a literal reading of genesis, but it can't do anything to the symbolism behind the story.
227Morgan 1 month ago
@227Morgan You are an idiot.
If Genesis is not real, your religion is not based on anything real.
You are too stupid to be an Atheist.
legion1a 1 month ago
@legion1a
No, I understand atheism too well to be an atheist. "My religion" is definitely NOT any form of mainstream Christianity. A-theism is a practice which is defined in theism. If you are against theism, why would you worship the other side of the same coin? My religion is discordian pantheism including practices of Gnostic Christianity, Cabbalistic Judaism, and Sufic Islam, which means I realize that there is much to be learned from those stories if they aren't take literally.
227Morgan 1 month ago
@227Morgan
You are just a fairy tale believing idiot and not worth debating.
Science is based on reality; faith in God is based on a delusion.
You say the holy books are metaphors and not based on reality.
Yet you believe in a fiction God!
How can you be so freaking stupid?
legion1a 1 month ago
@legion1a
I havent once mentioned "God". You are projecting your beliefs about religious people onto me despite not having any basis for it. I don't have faith in a/the "God", I have awareness of my own connection to a bigger intelligent whole, just like a cell is part of a bigger interconnected whole. Its a sad man who refuses to learn from something besides an "expert". Can't you trust in your own knowledge? 1984 was a fictional story, so does it have no lessons which it can teach?
227Morgan 1 month ago
@legion1a I'm an atheist but i disagree that evolution disproves God. The god hypothesis is an unfalsifiable claim with no evidence to back it up and, though you can dismiss it do to lack of evidence you can't disprove it. The god in question being an invisible intangible creator of the universe not a magic sky-daddy. Sky-daddies can be easily disproved.
TheSarnaran 1 month ago
@TheSarnaran
An "invisible intangible creator" would be called nature.
There is nothing supernatural, never was, never will be.
All religions are delusions.
Delusions are a form of mental illness.
legion1a 1 month ago
@legion1a i totally agree, by saying you can't disprove it i'm not giving it any credence, you can't disprove fairies, doesn't mean the idea isn't delusional.
TheSarnaran 1 month ago
@legion1a Invisible, yes. But he/she left out all-powerful. And from my past encounters with your comments, you have failed to show ANY evidence to your claim. Rather than being reasonable you sit on your high horse and call others idiots. When I presented facts to you, you promptly deleted my comments. And sense I'm in an atheist hangout, this comment will probably be marked as spam. Leave it up and prove me wrong, as you so seek to do.
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
@TheSarnaran If the Bible were shown to have had scientific ideas in it, before they were discovered thousands of years later by scientists, would that be reasonable proof for God?
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
@TheTrojantroy possibly. but there are no such things in it.
TheSarnaran 1 month ago
@TheSarnaran Actually, many scholars believe that the fact that God "separated light from darkness" before a He created the sun (the our main source of light), is a reference to the principal that "there is light in all visible objects." Genesis 1:9 also describes Pangea ("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.") It is also notable that in the flood story, the water is described as coming from the ground.
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
@TheTrojantroy It is also worth noting that Dinosaurs where described in the book of Job, and that the Nation of Assyria was thought to be a biblical myth until we recently uncovered their remains.
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
@TheTrojantroy - The bible also says to kill people who work on the sabbath and stone to death women who are not virgins on their wedding night and many more evil things. I hope you don't live your life by that book because you might end up in jail. We've come a long way from those primitive desert fables and I think we are more civilized than whoever wrote that violent book.
djangothecat 1 month ago
@TheTrojantroy The description of "Pangea" that you mentioned is clearly wrong. Pangea is a supercontinent, all the landmass of the Earth collected into a single area. What you quoted, "let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place" describes the opposite. To use the same language as genesis, pangea is 'dry land gathered together unto one place'. Which is the literal opposite from your quote.
DirectInjected 1 month ago
@DirectInjected Gathered onto ONE place. How could that possibly mean anything else? That's EXACTLY what it is.
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DirectInjected Gathered onto ONE place. How could that possibly mean anything else? That's EXACTLY what it is.
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
@legion1a Evolution disproves most Gods except that of the Deists, in my opinion. I think it's rational that the universe has some type of first cause
TheResilient5689 1 month ago
@legion1a Where did life come from then? Evolution never explains that.
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
@TheTrojantroy Evolution does not seek an answer to the origin of life. Abiogenesis deals with the question of life's origin. Don't confuse the two, that would be like calling Cain Abel.
DirectInjected 1 month ago 4
@DirectInjected Atheism cannot exist without evolution. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. That puts atheists in quit a sticky situation.
TheTrojantroy 1 month ago
@TheTrojantroy You aren't getting anywhere with this "origin of life" issue. The "god of the gaps" argument is a losing battle to fight. Human history is a continuous trend of phenomenon attributed to a god initially due to a lack of rational understanding; one by one, case by case, we learn more and more, and every time it turns out there is a natural cause or mechanism. Yet here you are pleading the same naive, desperate appeal to ignorance.
Tibberclaw 1 month ago
@TheTrojantroy - Look up Abiogenesis. That DOES explain how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. And even if you don't believe in that process, the fact that we don't know everything about the universe and life does NOT mean it's time to jump straight to the conclusion that "magic man did it". I mean science is only a few hundred years old and look how much we have learned. Give it a couple hundred more years and we might have ALL of the answers : )
djangothecat 1 month ago
@legion1a That is an incredibly moronic syllogism. Metaphors don't count? You have absolutely no idea of what Religion is in the slightest.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@bubsadoozy
You said: "You have absolutely no idea of what Religion is".
You are wrong; I know exactly what religion is from being an ordained minister for 14 years.
Religion is a way of controlling people, religion is a delusion.
Religion confuses genuine human potential by crediting God, and not human nature.
The Church historically suppressed research in science and medicine.
Most wars in history were based on shoving your religion down people’s throats.
You are the pathetic moron
legion1a 1 month ago 3
@legion1a Ah yes I was right. You're attacking the institution which is just a branch of the actual belief itself. You shouldn't so readily attack the people who call themselves Christians when you have no idea how strictly their church follows certain rules and "truths". Do you forget that most don't even attend churches? Or that some churches perform gay marriages? " Religion is a way of controlling people " this coming from an ordained minister? I think not. Good thing you did leave if so.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@bubsadoozy
What it all boils down to is this; it doesn't matter if there are thousands of people praying in a Church, or one person praying alone in their room.
There is nothing to pray to, it's all a delusion.
There is not Supernatural Being sitting on a throne; waiting with breathless anticipation for your next prayer.
God did not make man, man evolved.
Man created every single version of God; the God that you know is correct, and all of the other versions that you know are not.
legion1a 1 month ago 14
@legion1a What do you believe in that in comparison to a supernatural power seems so correct? It's assumably impossible to uncover the truth and the beginnings of the fabric of reality. I'm sure if you asked every question to draw their god it would look different. People's imaginations vary as well as many of their other religious faucets. There are infinite possibilities to how this began. It's only ignorance and anger to dispel only a few possibilities. Reality is an subjective illusion.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@legion1a You don't understand the subjectivity and the respect it deserves. There is no moral objectivity. Look at your page. Look at how worked up you are. It's so futile and exhausting. Your own anger is a prime example of why Religion is bad for some people. Look what it's doing to you.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@legion1a The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@legion1a Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
You are Muslim, which means that nothing that you say, think, or believe has any value.
Muslims are all ignorant to reality.
You are brainwashed and delusional.
Allah does not exist any more than Jesus, Amun Ra or Zeus.
You discredit science, but when you get sick you use the cures that it has found.
Islam wants to have a return to the Dark Ages, and you are foolish enough to support them.
Have a nice day.
legion1a 4 weeks ago 5
@legion1a The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 4 weeks ago
@1tabligh
As I said before, you are a Muslim, all of your thoughts are based on a delusion, nothing you say, think or believe has any value.
You make life decisions based on fairy tales.
Islamic faith is the only faith more stupid than the Mormons (and that’s hard to do).
As to unproven theories, Allah is an unproven theory.
Mohammed could not read or write had sex with an 11 year old, and you think he was wise. You’re disgusting.
Read some books by Richard Dawkins (PBUH) and wake up!
legion1a 4 weeks ago 5
@legion1a Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 4 weeks ago
@1tabligh
You are just brainwashed.
Everything is material, there is nothing spiritual.
You are less of a person for thinking there is.
Now go strap on a bomb; go kill innocent people; and get your 72 virgins.
Don't bother me again with your mindless drivel; you are a person with no value.
Your kind takes away from human progress, and adds nothing.
There are no deities, but if there were; your Allah would play the role of Satan.
legion1a 4 weeks ago 5
@legion1a Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 4 weeks ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@legion1a
That's a wrong way to deal with religion, because you "force" them to be either atheists or religious fanatics.
There are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution for example. One of them is the pope
Guitarvirtuoso666 1 month ago
@Guitarvirtuoso666
Religion is based on nothing that is real.
If religion is based on nothing, why go on believing?
If the Pope believes in evolution, as you said; then the Pope cannot be a Christian.
If snakes and donkeys can't talk, and the Earth is not 6,000 years old, then Christianity has no basis in fact, it is just a lie that has been forced on mankind by people trying to control all of us
People that vote for politicians that proclaim great faith are being controlled!
legion1a 1 month ago 6
@legion1a
That is because the bible is a moral guide, and a collection of poetry, not a work of science and facts. It is a mistake to think that the ones who wrote it meant everything litteraly, a mistake that both you and creationists make, but in a different way.
That being said, it is easy to refute the bible, but you can never prove the non-existence of a Deity, eventhough it is very unlikely
Guitarvirtuoso666 1 month ago