Atheists what is your proof?

Crunchy Cat said:
Genesis 1
God creates Adam and Eve at the same time.

Genesis 2
God creates Adam. Adam then does some things (ex. names some animals) and he gets lonely. He tells god, and god makes eve out of his rib.

That's 2 different creation stories.
Click to expand...

Genesis 1 does not say that Adam and Eve were created at the same time. It says that man was created as a male/female pair (referring to the biological nature of "mankind"). Genesis 2 is talking about the development of the spousal relationship between man and woman, suggesting that the male/female nature of homo sapien existed for some time before homo sapien developed into mated pairs sociologically.

Crunchy Cat said:
Genesis 6
There is no way Noah could store the millions of non-aquatic species on the planet on an ark. He could not even get a fraction of that.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to think this wasn't referring to the specific geological locality of Noah and his neighboring tribes. Think about how long it took mankind to realize Earth wasn't flat. "The earth" would have referred to their known lands, not the planet.

Crunchy Cat said:
The bible god does not exist.
Click to expand...

That is a logical leap with no supporting proofs. Treat this as a geometry proof where you have to show your work. You aren't showing your work...
 
AlexG said:
He's saying that Amazon ratings of a book are not in any way a reflection of the books accuracy or veracity. And the amount of junk which is produced by way of a Master's thesis is immense.
Click to expand...

Oh ok well fine w/e.

@phlog:fine I give up in trying to convince if you refuse to read that book but at the same you haven't convinced me why I should be an atheist which is why I made this thread. I made it trying to find out the logical reasoning behind atheisim which cannot be logically argued back but I haven't found that at all. I've just found statements that I can argue.
 
SolusCado,
It's fine if you admit you worship a God that cannot be logically supported with evidence, but it's quite another to claim that the Bible is the word of that same Omniscient God. Genesis is full of errors including the notion that the creation took 6 days. Also it says flowers came before trees, which is wrong. And there was no global flood. A day can not be interpreted differently, in fact the days used to be even shorter. Two billion years ago, a day was 22 hours long.
 
spidergoat said:
SolusCado,
It's fine if you admit you worship a God that cannot be logically supported with evidence, but it's quite another to claim that the Bible is the word of that same Omniscient God. Genesis is full of errors including the notion that the creation took 6 days. Also it says flowers came before trees, which is wrong. And there was no global flood. A day can not be interpreted differently, in fact the days used to be even shorter. Two billion years ago, a day was 22 hours long.
Click to expand...

You've never heard the word day used in reference to an epoch? I quote the 12th definition at dictionary.com: "period of existence, power, or influence". So, a day CAN be interpreted differently.

The claim isn't that the Bible was somehow transcribed from some ancient stenographer, but rather that it was inspired by God. In non-spiritual terms, this would be saying that the authors of the Bible had ideas that they then wrote down. The religious belief is that those ideas were divine truth. In my explanations for how the divine is manifested in our universe, we could just as easily say that the belief is that these ideas were realized to be true before they could be scientifically proven.

So, with that foundational understanding in place, these ideas would still be restricted by other technological or exploratory limitations of the day (again, I'm not referring to a 24-hr period :p). Case in point: 'the earth', or 'the known lands'. Noah didn't even know what a planet or globe was. Why would anyone think that is what he was referring to (or rather, Moses - who no doubt receive it by verbal tradition). Given that he couldn't possibly be referring to the entire planet, one SHOULD read that entire section as referencing the whole of what they knew - or perhaps that everything was flooded as far as the eye could see. And for THAT we have archaeological evidence.

And finally, where does it say flowers came before trees?
 
spidergoat said:
SolusCado,
It's fine if you admit you worship a God that cannot be logically supported with evidence, but it's quite another to claim that the Bible is the word of that same Omniscient God. Genesis is full of errors including the notion that the creation took 6 days. Also it says flowers came before trees, which is wrong. And there was no global flood. A day can not be interpreted differently, in fact the days used to be even shorter. Two billion years ago, a day was 22 hours long.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that it appears total lunacy to me to claim you believe in the biblical god, but do not believe the bible.

I mean seriously, :wtf:
 
phlogistician said:
You're a self confessed drug user with mental heath issues. This makes me look clean and sober.
Click to expand...

first of all, if you've never tried any recreational drugs, you're a freak.

secondly, no actually for the millionth time, i do not have mental health issues, so stop lying, freak.
 
gmilam said:
Not to mention that it appears total lunacy to me to claim you believe in the biblical god, but do not believe the bible.

I mean seriously, :wtf:
Click to expand...

I believe the Bible; I also believe the interpretations of thousands of years, along with the evolution of language, and the errors of translation, combined with the motivations of corrupt organizations (like the Catholic Church) have all served to massivel corrupt the original meanings and intent of the Bible. That atheists are so quick to condemn theists for ignoring the light of scientific discovery, but then just as quick to dismiss any attempt to apply that light to the Bible convinces me that such atheists aren't as interested in knowledge as they are in simply being right.
 
science man said:
Oh ok well fine w/e.

@phlog:fine I give up in trying to convince if you refuse to read that book but at the same you haven't convinced me why I should be an atheist which is why I made this thread. I made it trying to find out the logical reasoning behind atheisim which cannot be logically argued back but I haven't found that at all. I've just found statements that I can argue.
Click to expand...

It's not science kid. And I'm not trying to convince you to become an atheist. If you're smart enough, and brave enough, you'll get there by yourself.
 
SolusCado said:
I believe the Bible; I also believe the interpretations of thousands of years, along with the evolution of language, and the errors of translation, combined with the motivations of corrupt organizations (like the Catholic Church) have all served to massivel corrupt the original meanings and intent of the Bible. That atheists are so quick to condemn theists for ignoring the light of scientific discovery, but then just as quick to dismiss any attempt to apply that light to the Bible convinces me that such atheists aren't as interested in knowledge as they are in simply being right.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is if an all-powerful God has a plan for us and considers it important that we understand it, then logically (s)he made sure it was written down and preserved properly. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
to interject,

could we just big-picture the bible for a minute? from start to finish, the whole point of the bible is to illustrate that you and i can have a personal relationship with god via the holy spirit. that which phlog and some others, condemn me to mental illness due to the manifestation of. now if one has the counsel of the holy spirit, then one needn't worry about every jot and every tittle, because god will personally make sure you understand every jot and every tittle that you need to.
 
science man said:
So then you're saying that that the people who get a Masters in a science, that all their theses are not true?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that book is not a scientific publication. Articles containing real science are published in Journals, and get peer review. They make reasonable conclusions based on data. That book of yours does not draw reasonable conclusions that peer review would concur with. It's opinion, tainted by theology, it is nowhere near approaching science.
 
Lori_7 said:
to interject,

could we just big-picture the bible for a minute? from start to finish, the whole point of the bible is to illustrate that you and i can have a personal relationship with god via the holy spirit. that which phlog and some others, condemn me to mental illness due to the manifestation of. now if one has the counsel of the holy spirit, then one needn't worry about every jot and every tittle, because god will personally make sure you understand every jot and every tittle that you need to.
Click to expand...

The big picture, sure. Your God is a genocidal maniac. Big enough for you?
 
Lori_7 said:
to interject,

could we just big-picture the bible for a minute? from start to finish, the whole point of the bible is to illustrate that you and i can have a personal relationship with god via the holy spirit. that which phlog and some others, condemn me to mental illness due to the manifestation of. now if one has the counsel of the holy spirit, then one needn't worry about every jot and every tittle, because god will personally make sure you understand every jot and every tittle that you need to.
Click to expand...
Sure, I'm usually pretty good at the big picture.

Solus says the bible has been corrupted and/or mistranslated for centuries. Which I have no problems with... (NOTE: I am not lumping all Christians together. I am just trying to understand the resoning.)

But, logically, wouldn't that render it unreliable at best?
 
SolusCado said:
You've never heard the word day used in reference to an epoch? I quote the 12th definition at dictionary.com: "period of existence, power, or influence". So, a day CAN be interpreted differently.
Click to expand...

You know what? Epoch is also a good word to use to describe an epoch. Your apologetics do your argument no good.

Given that he couldn't possibly be referring to the entire planet, one SHOULD read that entire section as referencing the whole of what they knew -
Click to expand...

More apologetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top