Atheists what is your proof?

[SolusCado]

Most fundies I know would consider you an atheist.

FYI - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7118715.ece

That link doesn't work for me, but yeah - my mother thought I "had demons in me" for about 15 years.

 

[SolusCado]

Mushrooms. They don't alter us genetically, but they do help to reveal knowledge. McKenna has a theory about how the presence of magic mushrooms stimulated brain development in early Africans.

I think this was probably just a metaphor for our evolution from an animal to a thinking human being. Ancient Jews could see that we were different than animals in this way, and created this myth to explain it.

Those are actually both excellent theories (well, the mushrooms and the breeding). Observations that breeding with a different subspecies could have actually been the cause of the evolution from an animal to a thinking human being. However, if you look at the timeframes, the Adam and Eve stories were well past the initial development of homo sapiens. I suspect that there was an even more minor development than that of "thinking human being" that occurred at that point. Whether from the consumation of a brain-altering plant, or partaking in the forbidden fruit of a neighboring tribe, either one could have had an impact to mankind that I believe is what made us capable of having "spiritual experiences", i.e. the ability to "walk and talk with God", as the Bible puts it.

EDIT: And who knows, perhaps there are some plants out there that DO alter us genetically... We already know of fruits that are high in anti-oxidants, which slow genetic damage from sunlight. It would not surprise me in the least if there was actually a plant back then that did cause a genetic change. I do think the interbreeding might be a more realistic theory though, since we also have archeaological and genetic evidence of interbreeding with Neandertals.

 

[spidergoat]

They could alter us indirectly. If their ingestion provided a survival advantage, those that used these plants or fungi would prevail in the evolutionary game. There is some evidence that mushrooms do increase visual acuity. There is even a plant called ibogane used by some modern African tribes in hunting, it stimulates awareness while paradoxially allowing one to remain calm and still.

 

[SolusCado]

They could alter us indirectly. If their ingestion provided a survival advantage, those that used these plants or fungi would prevail in the evolutionary game. There is some evidence that mushrooms do increase visual acuity. There is even a plant called ibogane used by some modern African tribes in hunting, it stimulates awareness while paradoxially allowing one to remain calm and still.

Well there you go!

 

[gmilam]

That link doesn't work for me, but yeah - my mother thought I "had demons in me" for about 15 years.

I wonder why..

Uh, the link not working I mean - not your mom thinking you were possessed.

Anyway, it's a link about the Texas textbook situation, and reminding people that Texas is a big state with enormous buying power. As such, the current guidelines will probably affect the content of textbooks throughout the country.

 

[SolusCado]

I wonder why..

Uh, the link not working I mean - not your mom thinking you were possessed.

Hahahaha

Anyway, it's a link about the Texas textbook situation, and reminding people that Texas is a big state with enormous buying power. As such, the current guidelines will probably affect the content of textbooks throughout the country.

Yeah - I am familiar with that subject.

 

[gmilam]

There is even a plant called ibogane used by some modern African tribes in hunting, it stimulates awareness while paradoxially allowing one to remain calm and still.

If I recall, tribes in South America have been known to chew coca leaves for the same reason.

 

[SolusCado]

If I recall, tribes in South America have been known to chew coca leaves for the same reason.

I have read that before as well. Hmmm... perhaps we can get the fundies to legalize cocaine!

 

[AlexG]

that the majority of people on earth believe things for no damn good reason,

Yes.

 

[SolusCado]

yes.

.. +1

 

[gmilam]

I have read that before as well. Hmmm... perhaps we can get the fundies to legalize cocaine!

I have my doubts. Some counties in Texas still don't sell alcohol, despite stories of Jesus turning water into wine. :cheers:

 

[SolusCado]

I have my doubts. Some counties in Texas still don't sell alcohol, despite stories of Jesus turning water into wine. :cheers:

Good point!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It doesn't really matter which Bible I pick. They are all going to use different terms that suffer from the same flaws I noted previously.

Then I'll randomly choose.

You are looking at everything through a lens of the 21st century, not the 5th century B.C.

I am looking through the lens of consistency, persistency, and non-contradiction.

Answer my questions, and YOU pick the Bible you wish to use, because from my perspective the specific translation is irrelevant. It is still incumbent on us to try to see things from the perspective of the authors, if we wish to understand what the author was saying. Once again, this is common practice in the secular world... why are atheists so resistant to accepting it in the religious world?

The perspective of the authors is obvious. A fictional story. If you take the leap to call it truth then I'll invalidate it as fiction:

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.

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.

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").

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.

From Genesis 1

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...
...and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..."

This means god created the first two humans with no passage of time in between. He then spoke to them right after creation and that means they were real instances of humans... not some designs on paper. Naturally, Adam and Eve (the first two humans) came about via a seperate timeline in Genesis 2 and their communication with god was much different as well.

From Genesis 6

"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female...
...of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind; two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

God clearly stated that every living creature on Earth (notice the word "earth") was destined for the ark. Those are "gods" words.

Your claims stand invalidated and mine supported. The biblical god is demonstrated to be false.

No, you pointed out well known interpretations - which I reject. You can spend all day pointing out things I reject and continue to waste time for both of us, or you can actually address the points that I make.

You can call earth a village, a dog a cat, and dirt a toaster. Interpret English however you please; however, the rest of us will use the English language correctly. Your're welcome to reject the evidence against the Biblical god presented; however, that rejection is merely based on your own personal desires vs. actual truth. You're at the point now where your particular god has been demonstrated to be fantasy. You can try to put your god further out of reach or you can simply reject truth in favor of belief.

 

[iceaura]

It seems to me you are ignoring a huge possibility (and IMO, the reality of the situation), which is that the important thing isn't that we fully understand the messages, but that we strive to understand them. That we overcome doubt with faith. - -

Striving to understand and overcoming doubt with faith are mutually conflicting approaches - you are declaring the importance of exactly what you are refusing to do.

Answer my questions, and YOU pick the Bible you wish to use, because from my perspective the specific translation is irrelevant. It is still incumbent on us to try to see things from the perspective of the authors, if we wish to understand what the author was saying.

Again a direct conflict in approach, and again a declaration of the importance of exactly the refused task.

The people who made up the stories in the Bible have given us no evidence of an intention to establish falsehoods as history. They seem to be dealing in myth and legend for the same reasons we all do - from King Arthur and Sir Gawaine through Bre'er Rabbit and the Fox.

Those are actually both excellent theories (well, the mushrooms and the breeding). Observations that breeding with a different subspecies could have actually been the cause of the evolution from an animal to a thinking human being. However, if you look at the timeframes, the Adam and Eve stories were well past the initial development of homo sapiens. I suspect that there was an even more minor development than that of "thinking human being" that occurred at that point. Whether from the consumation of a brain-altering plant, or partaking in the forbidden fruit of a neighboring tribe, either one could have had an impact to mankind that I believe is what made us capable of having "spiritual experiences", i.e. the ability to "walk and talk with God", as the Bible puts it

Tha kind of nonsense is what makes the atheist take all the reassurances about teaching science in science class and so forth with suspicion. Fundies have a very hard time letting go of the basic magical thinking underlying the acceptance of a storybook as depicting historical event.

 

[SolusCado]

The perspective of the authors is obvious. A fictional story. If you take the leap to call it truth then I'll invalidate it as fiction:

Upon what basis do you make the claim that the perspective of the authors is obvious? Or that their intent was to create a fictional story?

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...
...and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..."

This means god created the first two humans with no passage of time in between. He then spoke to them right after creation and that means they were real instances of humans... not some designs on paper. Naturally, Adam and Eve (the first two humans) came about via a seperate timeline in Genesis 2 and their communication with god was much different as well.

With what authority do you state that this is what those verses mean? You haven't even addressed by supposition - if you are going to ignore my comments, then why should I bother responding to yours?

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female...
...of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind; two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

God clearly stated that every living creature on Earth (notice the word "earth") was destined for the ark. Those are "gods" words.

Your claims stand invalidated and mine supported. The biblical god is demonstrated to be false.

Few people would suggest that there was some voice from the sky. Again, you are ignoring my response. What makes you think Noah would have suddenly had insight into the size and shape of the planet? For that matter, if he did, why was that knowledge lost for the next 6 or so thousand years? You are holding fast to interpretations which support your beliefs, and refuse to accept any possible alternatives. You are as bad as any creationist.

You can call earth a village, a dog a cat, and dirt a toaster. Interpret English however you please; however, the rest of us will use the English language correctly. Your're welcome to reject the evidence against the Biblical god presented; however, that rejection is merely based on your own personal desires vs. actual truth. You're at the point now where your particular god has been demonstrated to be fantasy. You can try to put your god further out of reach or you can simply reject truth in favor of belief.

You really don't know anything about the Bible, do you? The Old Testament wasn't written in English, it was written in Hebrew. Then it was translated into Greek, then latin, then English. There may be some translations direct from the Greek into the English, and perhaps some of the OT from Hebrew into English, but ALL of these are living things. Languages change over a span of 50 years, and linguists recognize that they change a LOT over thousands of years. You have created an image of God that you can demonstrate to be false, and to that I do not disagree. But don't tell me it is MY God. Because it isn't. You haven't done anything to address MY God. You have simply ignored it. As I said above - you're as bad as any creationist. Either keep up with the topic at hand or get left behind. This will be my last message that indulges your stubbornness.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

The Old Testament wasn't written in English, it was written in Hebrew

So that I am clear with our discussion. This would mean that your intent should be to re-interpret the original text written in Hebrew. No ?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Upon what basis do you make the claim that the perspective of the authors is obvious? Or that their intent was to create a fictional story?

Quite simply I am far more educated then the authors, I know a lot of things they the didn't, and I understand what happens when human behavior and human ignorance have a creative baby (I can show u examples of that if you like on these very forums). That is how their perspective becomes obvious. As far as intent is concerned, I made no claims about it nor does it interest me at this stage.

With what authority do you state that this is what those verses mean?

With the authority vested in me by the president of the united states. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to correctly interpret simple English words and sequential events.

You haven't even addressed by supposition - if you are going to ignore my comments, then why should I bother responding to yours?

I only ignored one comment because it is utterly irrelevant to what part of Genesis 2 I was focusing on.

Few people would suggest that there was some voice from the sky.

Nobody suggested there was.

Again, you are ignoring my response. What makes you think Noah would have suddenly had insight into the size and shape of the planet? For that matter, if he did, why was that knowledge lost for the next 6 or so thousand years? You are holding fast to interpretations which support your beliefs, and refuse to accept any possible alternatives. You are as bad as any creationist.

You are asking questions whose answers simply show the bible to be incorrect. Assuming Noah was a real person, he would have little to no knowledge of Earth's macro topology; however, there it is in the bible that he was directed to take all of EARTHS species and stuff them into a tiny ark. There are no alternatives to the very clear and explicit words used. It's just wrong.

You really don't know anything about the Bible, do you? The Old Testament wasn't written in English, it was written in Hebrew. Then it was translated into Greek, then latin, then English.

I know it's a big book-o-fiction. Ani otser ivrit yafeh maod; however, you do not which is why we are addressing an English translation. If you want to go the path of hebrew, I am all for it; however, you're going to have to take a few classes before you will be ready for that. Any other language would be a waste as it's just "another translation".

There may be some translations direct from the Greek into the English, and perhaps some of the OT from Hebrew into English, but ALL of these are living things. Languages change over a span of 50 years, and linguists recognize that they change a LOT over thousands of years. You have created an image of God that you can demonstrate to be false, and to that I do not disagree. But don't tell me it is MY God. Because it isn't.

You took the path of claiming that you believe in the Biblical god. I can show you in case you have forgotten. What I demonstrated to be false is that very same god.

You haven't done anything to address MY God. You have simply ignored it. As I said above - you're as bad as any creationist. Either keep up with the topic at hand or get left behind. This will be my last message that indulges your stubbornness.

I have consistently taken your claims of god, starting off from the non-religion-specific claim to the biblical claim and shown them to be false. That is what I claimed I could do and that is what I have done. I can't make you accept it and I can't make you understand it... that is 100% your problem.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,

So that I am clear with our discussion. This would mean that your intent should be to re-interpret the original text written in Hebrew. No ?

Ideally. I will admit, I'm not the most educated in the subject, but that is indeed my goal.

 

[Syzygys]

what your proof of there being no god is?

I looked under every rock in the Universe and I found nothing, well beside a few toads. So I can safely say, there is no god in the known Universe. Now if you ask me the Rumsfeldian question about the unknown Universes....

 

[SolusCado]

Quite simply I am far more educated then the authors, I know a lot of things they the didn't, and I understand what happens when human behavior and human ignorance have a creative baby (I can show u examples of that if you like on these very forums). That is how their perspective becomes obvious. As far as intent is concerned, I made no claims about it nor does it interest me at this stage.



With the authority vested in me by the president of the united states. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to correctly interpret simple English words and sequential events.



I only ignored one comment because it is utterly irrelevant to what part of Genesis 2 I was focusing on.



Nobody suggested there was.



You are asking questions whose answers simply show the bible to be incorrect. Assuming Noah was a real person, he would have little to no knowledge of Earth's macro topology; however, there it is in the bible that he was directed to take all of EARTHS species and stuff them into a tiny ark. There are no alternatives to the very clear and explicit words used. It's just wrong.



I know it's a big book-o-fiction. Ani otser ivrit yafeh maod; however, you do not which is why we are addressing an English translation. If you want to go the path of hebrew, I am all for it; however, you're going to have to take a few classes before you will be ready for that. Any other language would be a waste as it's just "another translation".



You took the path of claiming that you believe in the Biblical god. I can show you in case you have forgotten. What I demonstrated to be false is that very same god.



I have consistently taken your claims of god, starting off from the non-religion-specific claim to the biblical claim and shown them to be false. That is what I claimed I could do and that is what I have done. I can't make you accept it and I can't make you understand it... that is 100% your problem.

You have officially rendered your perspective irrelevant.