The bible

[Kashi]

Here is another point in which shows the world cannot be 6000 years old:

 

gonpost wrote:

 

 

 

Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far.

 

 

 

I hope nobody has pointed this out yet, because I think it needs to be, and that point is this;

 

 

 

If the failure of the logic in this quote isn't immediately apparent, you're not trying hard enough.

 

 

 

EDIT: See my below post for an explanation.

[Rebdragon]

there seems to be alot of Atheist in here...and very few Christians....

 

Hehe, it's mostly teenage rebellion among the younger members.

 

 

 

I don't really call someone an atheist until they have the intellectual and maturity level of an adult.

 

 

 

I remember I used to be atheist just because my family was Christian. I spent a few years completely hating everything about Christianity, especially going to Church, bleh. In reality though, I wasn't actually an atheist, I was just being a rebellious teenager :lol: . After a little probing and investigation into my "faith" I went through a year of jumping between atheism, Christianity, and agnosticism, and eventually settled on the view of agnosticism once I had learned enough about each viewpoint.

 

 

 

Trust me, most of the kids on this forum aren't old enough to make dedicated decisions like that; I'd laugh at a 12 year old if they told me they knew the faith they were going to keep for the rest of their life.

 

 

 

Here is another point in which shows the world cannot be 6000 years old:

 

gonpost wrote:

 

 

 

Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far.

 

 

 

I hope nobody has pointed this out yet, because I think it needs to be, and that point is this;

 

 

 

If the failure of the logic in this quote isn't immediately apparent, you're not trying hard enough.

 

I'm not trying hard enough :-s .

[assassin_696]

Oh no please don't read a modern translation, if you want to read the Bible properly and understand it's literary richness and how it profoundly influenced so many great writers, read the King James (Authorised Version). It's also accepted as one of the more accurate translations.

 

 

 

That said:

 

 

 

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived

 

 

 

Let me think... If I wish to understand a work, should I read a translation of a transcription of a translation, in a language that is not my primary language, or should I read a translation of a transcription that is in my native language? I will also point out that though the KJV is a good translation of the Latin Vulgate, the Latin Vulgate by virtue of not being Greek and Hebrew fails to fully convey what the intention of the original text was in several places. A direct translation tends to do a better job in that department.

 

 

 

I rather admire Asimov. He is one of very few atheists who actually had any idea what he was really rejecting... Though even he had a skewed vision of Christianity, and I would assume consiquentially other religions as well. He viewed them through the assumption that it is not the case that there is any god. I'm not saying that is necessarilly a bad assumption but it ought to be obvious that to view a theism through that lense will always give you a skewed image of what that theism is. It would be about the same as me looking at the world around and marveling that you and I see the same world and you still don't believe in God. Of course I see HIM in it. I believe in and know HIM so it only follows that I recognize HIS handiwork... even if that isn't actually what I see. However, if I desire to understand you and what it is that you see I have to see the world without that preconception. I have to see it through the lense of there is not a God. I can do a fair job of that, having actually been there once upon a time. So I have a fair idea what an atheist sees, looking at the world. However I find that it is often the case that like I was at that time, most atheists are very ignorant about what it is that they actually reject.

 

 

 

Now, if you are only interested in your own life and having reason to act in whatever way seems best to you, that is fine If I know you I will pray for you, but it is your right to be that way. However if you claim to be persuant of the truth, then have the courage to actually look at what doesn't agree with what you believe to be true. If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense and you know that... and that affirms that what you believe is more likely to be true by virtue that this particular belief system does not appear to be true. If it does make sense then you can believe it based on reason, and know that you are one step closer to what is actually true.

 

 

 

That's fair enough, but I do have a pretty good idea of what i'm denying. Although I was never Christened I was brought up to believe in God, and have studied Christianity and other religions up to GCSE. It is only within this year that I turned from deist to atheist.

 

 

 

I'm not claiming that I have the absolute truth, I don't believe there really is such a thing, I just claim to have questioned my beliefs enough to come to the conclusion that religion or the God hypothesis doesn't stand up to rigorous questioning, in my view. I just care about what is true.

 

 

 

Anyway, my point was that the King James version has had such an influence on English literature that reading it is very useful in understanding some of the classics, and the prose is much richer.

[spikethebloody]

If there was any proof of God's existance, faith would fail and religion would not be able to exist.

 

 

 

One can not prove or disprove science, at the end of the day I believe that it is impossible to sample a rock and say that it is several billion years old. The world could be 2.4 billion years old, or it could be 6000 years old, nobody have lived long enough to tell us.

[Rebdragon]

ethebloody"]If there was any proof of God's existance, faith would fail and religion would not be able to exist.

 

 

 

One can not prove or disprove science, at the end of the day I believe that it is impossible to sample a rock and say that it is several billion years old. The world could be 2.4 billion years old, or it could be 6000 years old, nobody have lived long enough to tell us.

 

You do understand the logic behind the scientific methods of dating things, right?

 

 

 

Don't reject religion until you first understand it. The same goes for science- don't reject it until you understand it.

 

 

 

We can never know Truth, but different methods have a higher probability of finding different aspects of it, the Scientific Method being the most efficient one to date.

 

 

 

See my sig for the valuable opinion of the mighty shorty alchemist Edward Elric :D.

[spikethebloody]

Oh no please don't read a modern translation, if you want to read the Bible properly and understand it's literary richness and how it profoundly influenced so many great writers, read the King James (Authorised Version). It's also accepted as one of the more accurate translations.

 

 

 

That said:

 

 

 

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived

 

 

 

I absolutely agree, the modern version is translated completely wrong, people quote from it and say "omg they hate women, omg they have gays, omg they hate me"

 

 

 

The king james version is a very good copy.

 

 

 

[Kashi]

Well, for anyone who didn't understand why this quote

 

 

 

Here is another point in which shows the world cannot be 6000 years old:

 

gonpost wrote:

 

 

 

Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far.

 

 

 

is so ridiculous, I've made this simple diagram.

 

 

 

[hide]

 

 

[/hide]

 

Now, the stars shedding the light are point A, see. And as you can see in the first picture,

 

the light from Star A is going in a straight line to Point B, where it's existence becomes

 

apparent from its reflection off the giant floating 'B' in space.

 

 

 

But that light doesn't disappear on its trip over to point B, oh no. It's still there occupying

 

empty space at like 3,000 miles a second. This is a very bad explanation I suppose, but in

 

picture the second you can see, when I suddenly stick a planet between Star A and Point B,

 

the photons that were already part of the way to Point B suddenly find themselves hitting

 

a planet located at Point C. The only way the light would -not- have reached Earth was if the

 

stars were fewer than 6,000 years old. The age of the planet has nothing to do with it, so long

 

as those stars were there long enough to shed light as far as point C.

 

 

 

If you don't understand, I may be able to give a better explanation later, but I'm pretty incoherent

 

right now. Sorry. :?

[Rebdragon]

~

 

Yes, but the idea behind Creationism is that the universe and world were created at the same time, 6,000 years ago, not that the Earth just popped into a really old universe recently.

 

 

 

Oh, and when labeling diagrams that have to do with light, try not to use the letter "c". It gets confusing when you have to differentiate it from the variable (ille est, the constant speed of light) every time you look at it #-o .

[Jaziek]

Thats a fairly good explanation.. but cmon its like trying to get blood out of a stone getting these people to see reason

 

 

 

A lot of people here will still believe that god created the earth 6000 years ago no matter how much scientific evidence you stick in front of them.

[Kashi]

~

 

Yes, but the idea behind Creationism is that the universe and world were created at the same time, 6,000 years ago, not that the Earth just popped into a really old universe recently.

 

 

 

Oh, and when labeling diagrams that have to do with light, try not to use the letter "c". It gets confusing when you have to differentiate it from the variable (ille est, the constant speed of light) every time you look at it #-o .

 

 

 

Nooo, the bible never says that the earth was created at the same time as the rest

 

of the universe ... I don't think their astronomy was advanced enough to really think about it.

 

 

 

And about how I label points in my diagram; does that really matter? It got the idea across.

 

 

 

EDIT: Just want to make it clear, because I'm not sure whether I'm arguing with a Christian

 

or an Atheist (Rebdragon?), I don't support Creationism. Normally I wouldn't try to pick apart

 

the theories set by Atheists, but that one was so glaringly wrong.

[warri0r45]

~

 

Yes, but the idea behind Creationism is that the universe and world were created at the same time, 6,000 years ago, not that the Earth just popped into a really old universe recently.

 

 

 

Oh, and when labeling diagrams that have to do with light, try not to use the letter "c". It gets confusing when you have to differentiate it from the variable (ille est, the constant speed of light) every time you look at it #-o .

 

 

 

Nooo, the bible never says that the earth was created at the same time as the rest

 

of the universe ... I don't think their astronomy was advanced enough to really think about it.

 

 

 

And about how I label points in my diagram; does that really matter? It got the idea across.

 

 

 

EDIT: Just want to make it clear, because I'm not sure whether I'm arguing with a Christian

 

or an Atheist (Rebdragon?), I don't support Creationism. Normally I wouldn't try to pick apart

 

the theories set by Atheists, but that one was so glaringly wrong.

 

 

 

What theory is that? I'm confused. :?

[Rebdragon]

EDIT: Just want to make it clear, because I'm not sure whether I'm arguing with a Christian

 

or an Atheist (Rebdragon?), I don't support Creationism. Normally I wouldn't try to pick apart

 

the theories set by Atheists, but that one was so glaringly wrong.

 

Actually, I'm neither. Agnostic, at your service.

 

 

 

warri0r, I believe she was referring to the method of debunking Creationism by saying it would be impossible to see the stars that are too far away to see (based on the speed of light). I always thought Creationism included the creation of the universe, but that's just me. It's crap no matter how you look at it, so, ah well.

[Evrae]

You could make it even simpler. The bible says that the earth and universe were created together. If that were the case we would only be able to detect objects up to 6000 light years away. In fact it is possible to detect objects billion of light years away.

 

 

 

Therefore the creationist account is wrong.

 

 

 

The other possibility is that it really was god, but he is an arsehole. Setting things up so that every piece of evidence points to the non-existence of god. I think I'll stop there before I get really offensive.

[assassin_696]

Nooo, the bible never says that the earth was created at the same time as the rest

 

of the universe ... I don't think their astronomy was advanced enough to really think about it.

 

 

 

The Bible contradicts itself, in the Genesis creation story God makes the earth first, then the stars, but other books of the Bible disagree with this.

 

 

 

Meh, either way creationism is bunk.

[Kashi]

It's gonna' be hilarious when we all die because someone plants bombs in the Annual

 

Atheists Convention (if such a thing exists) and we all find out there's a God ... and

 

he's pissed at us.

[Evrae]

I reckon we'll be alright - I mean wouldn't god be angry with anyone who just acceptted the bible as truth without question? It could be that the bible is actually the work of the devil tricking us. So by taking it as what it appears to be - complete guff - we're playing it safe.

 

 

 

Thats my excuse anyway.

 

 

 

I can just imagine someone getting to heaven and god saying 'hah - Do you people still believe all that rubbish? I only said it for a laugh!'

 

 

 

If there is a god (I dont think there is, but you never know) I consider that to be a likelyhood, given the massive contradictions between genesis and reality.

[warri0r45]

I reckon we'll be alright - I mean wouldn't god be angry with anyone who just acceptted the bible as truth without question? It could be that the bible is actually the work of the devil tricking us. So by taking it as what it appears to be - complete guff - we're playing it safe.

 

 

 

Thats my excuse anyway.

 

 

 

I can just imagine someone getting to heaven and god saying 'hah - Do you people still believe all that rubbish? I only said it for a laugh!'

 

 

 

If there is a god (I dont think there is, but you never know) I consider that to be a likelyhood, given the massive contradictions between genesis and reality.

 

 

 

How would you know that the devil tries to trick people without taking what the bible proclaims about the devils shenanigans as true? Gotta be objective and truthful, right? :wink:

[Evrae]

Aaaargh! You got me there!

 

 

 

Its because of... Magic Pixies! Obviously. Some people are so ignorant. :lol:

[warren211]

Nooo, the bible never says that the earth was created at the same time as the rest

 

of the universe ... I don't think their astronomy was advanced enough to really think about it.

 

 

 

The Bible contradicts itself, in the Genesis creation story God makes the earth first, then the stars, but other books of the Bible disagree with this.

 

 

 

Meh, either way creationism is bunk.

 

 

 

 

 

Why can't everyone get it through their blasted heads? the bible, especially Genesis and Revelation, are SYMBOLISM. Why the blasted hell is the world created in six days, when god probably can have made it in 10 seconds? ans if god is godly, why did he need to rest on the last day? the answer? Those "days" are symbols for the israeli work days. monday through saturday, work work work. sunday rest. that author used symbolism to show how close god is to his people. we all know very well that dinosaurs came before humans, so why are they not mentioned? the answer is, they WERE. Each "day" in that book can have varied from 20 minutes to 60 million years. the dinosaurs can have come, died, and evolution took place all in one "day". The earth was not created the same time as everything else. It could have been created millions of years after some things, depending on how long the "day" was. But its symbolism. The real point is not how the world was created, but a hint of who God is.

 

 

 

Atheists and agnostics think they can find flaws in the bible and then point out that christianity must be wrong. but of course, what every blasted atheist can't seem to comprehend is that there's more SYMBOLISM in the bible then actual FACTS! Whats the point of the bible then? exactly what you're supposed to find. How to live a good life. but symbolism makes it basically a christian code that blocks out all idiots and anti-christs who believe the bible is flawed. I've posted several long posts on this thread and they seem to be ignored. I'm getting rather annoyed that nobody can comprehend the word "symbolism."

[assassin_696]

Nooo, the bible never says that the earth was created at the same time as the rest

 

of the universe ... I don't think their astronomy was advanced enough to really think about it.

 

 

 

The Bible contradicts itself, in the Genesis creation story God makes the earth first, then the stars, but other books of the Bible disagree with this.

 

 

 

Meh, either way creationism is bunk.

 

 

 

 

 

Why can't everyone get it through their blasted heads? the bible, especially Genesis and Revelation, are SYMBOLISM. Why the blasted hell is the world created in six days, when god probably can have made it in 10 seconds? ans if god is godly, why did he need to rest on the last day? the answer? Those "days" are symbols for the israeli work days. monday through saturday, work work work. sunday rest. that author used symbolism to show how close god is to his people. we all know very well that dinosaurs came before humans, so why are they not mentioned? the answer is, they WERE. Each "day" in that book can have varied from 20 minutes to 60 million years. the dinosaurs can have come, died, and evolution took place all in one "day". The earth was not created the same time as everything else. It could have been created millions of years after some things, depending on how long the "day" was. But its symbolism. The real point is not how the world was created, but a hint of who God is.

 

 

 

Atheists and agnostics think they can find flaws in the bible and then point out that christianity must be wrong. but of course, what every blasted atheist can't seem to comprehend is that there's more SYMBOLISM in the bible then actual FACTS! Whats the point of the bible then? exactly what you're supposed to find. How to live a good life. but symbolism makes it basically a christian code that blocks out all idiots and anti-christs who believe the bible is flawed. I've posted several long posts on this thread and they seem to be ignored. I'm getting rather annoyed that nobody can comprehend the word "symbolism."

 

 

 

Dude, calm down. I didn't ignore your previous post, and in fact I believe I wrote a reply to it. Look back and you'll find that, but if not i'll keep it simple:

 

 

 

Your views are those of a religious moderate, perhaps even a religious liberal. Your views on the Bible are not in the absolute majority, many many people believe the Bible as literal truth, not symbolism. I.e. fundamentalists.

[Barihawk]

For the love of God, Assassin. The word you are looking for is LITERALISTS.

 

 

 

Fundamentalists are something completely different, but the internet has perverted it into something it is not. Fundamentalists are conservative Christians (as opposed to liberal Christians).

 

 

 

Literalists are the ones who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and every little word in the Bible should be taken as fact. Fundamentalists are those who believe the Bible in general is fact, but written in various figurative ways, in addition to literal elements. Among these are the belief that science is true, and part of the figurative aspect of the Bible. Liberal Christians are those who believe the Bible is just a fancy story and morality plays.

[Hooya2]

no, guys, i figured it out.

 

 

 

the universe was created 3 seconds ago. it was created instantaneously and complete with all of our memories in place, skeletons in the ground, and photons in the sky.

 

 

 

BAM. disprove that noobs.

[Evrae]

Personally, I am of the belief that a word means what it is most commonly used to mean. This is the way in which Assassin uses fundamentalist. Unfortunately this can lead to confusions in discussions such as this.

 

 

 

How about we try to use fundamentalist properly, and the creationists try to use 'theory' properly. As in 'evolution is just a theory'. Whats with the 'just eh?

 

 

 

 

...symbolism makes it basically a christian code that blocks out all idiots and anti-christs who believe the bible is flawed.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

I suppose you could classify me an anti-christ, in that I am not a christian, and do not think that Jesus was the son of god. But I'm not certain that the negative association of being an evil-doer applies to me. And I am most definitely not an idiot.

 

 

 

As Assassin said, there are a great many Christians who do not view the bible as mere symbolism. And it is the practices of those christians, mainly in America but also here in the UK, that is most dangerous to society. When children are told that their teachers are lying to them, when thinly disguised creationism is taught as science, then society is in danger.

 

So there is a great emphasis on discrediting (for want of a better word) the creationist viewpoint, in the hope that people will see it for what it is - symbolism. There is then no conflict with what we observe around us.

 

 

 

I personally go further, and say that once you see the bible as symbolism for a moral code, you can accept that moral code without the need to invoke God.

[assassin_696]

For the love of God, Assassin. The word you are looking for is LITERALISTS.

 

 

 

Fundamentalists are something completely different, but the internet has perverted it into something it is not. Fundamentalists are conservative Christians (as opposed to liberal Christians).

 

 

 

Literalists are the ones who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and every little word in the Bible should be taken as fact. Fundamentalists are those who believe the Bible in general is fact, but written in various figurative ways, in addition to literal elements. Among these are the belief that science is true, and part of the figurative aspect of the Bible. Liberal Christians are those who believe the Bible is just a fancy story and morality plays.

 

 

 

Clearly we have a difference of definition here, but I'd be interested to see where you got yours from, because mine isn't just a misinterpreted 'internet definition'.

 

 

 

 

Main Entry:

 

funÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷daÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷menÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷talÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ism Listen to the pronunciation of fundamentalism

 

Pronunciation:

 

\-tÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢-ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬â¢li-zÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m\

 

Function:

 

noun

 

Date:

 

1922

 

 

 

1 aoften capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

 

 

 

stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record.

 

 

 

Maintainence of traditional orthodox beliefs such as the inerrancy of the Scripture and literal acceptance of the creeds

 

 

 

And to boot, my defintion is the one taught nationwide on the English schools curriculum. I know what you're getting at, it just seems to me that your definition is in the minority.

[Defender2516]

Personally, I am of the belief that a word means what it is most commonly used to mean. This is the way in which Assassin uses fundamentalist. Unfortunately this can lead to confusions in discussions such as this.

 

 

 

How about we try to use fundamentalist properly, and the creationists try to use 'theory' properly. As in 'evolution is just a theory'. Whats with the 'just eh?

 

 

 

 

...symbolism makes it basically a christian code that blocks out all idiots and anti-christs who believe the bible is flawed.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

I suppose you could classify me an anti-christ, in that I am not a christian, and do not think that Jesus was the son of god. But I'm not certain that the negative association of being an evil-doer applies to me. And I am most definitely not an idiot.

 

 

 

As Assassin said, there are a great many Christians who do not view the bible as mere symbolism. And it is the practices of those christians, mainly in America but also here in the UK, that is most dangerous to society. When children are told that their teachers are lying to them, when thinly disguised creationism is taught as science, then society is in danger.

 

So there is a great emphasis on discrediting (for want of a better word) the creationist viewpoint, in the hope that people will see it for what it is - symbolism. There is then no conflict with what we observe around us.

 

 

 

I personally go further, and say that once you see the bible as symbolism for a moral code, you can accept that moral code without the need to invoke God.

 

 

 

Way to go! =D>

 

 

 

Obviously Christians like myself, are terrorists! Wheres your house so I can blow you up in the name of love?

 

 

 

Gee, you make things sound so much clear now.. all this time I thought I was suppose to care for people unconditionally.. but now I realize, thanks to you, i'm suppose to be dangerous to society!

 

 

 

Watch out people, i'm holding a book, and I know how to use it!!!

 

 

 

*throws book at you*

 

 

 

Darn.. I knew I should of gotten hardbacks instead of paperback!

 

 

 

~Defender~