Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

Kelly of the Phoenix · Oct 20, 2019

Another example of shared experiences for nonsense that wasn't a thing.

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 20, 2019

sojourner said:
God is known by a thousand names and yet is unnameable.

Then God is also unknowable, and therefore there ought to be nothing more to say about it.

sojourner said:
Atheists ask for evidence. Evidence usually consists of measurable data. This is the point I was trying to make. Y’all believe beauty and love exist, yet they are not measurable. Why can’t Hid be taken with same assumption that we take beauty upon?

Evidence can be all sorts of things. Often enough we might just observe a series of coincidences, with what appears to be a common factor. This can lead to supposing that the common factor might be causative. That's not proven yet, but there is evidence. We must then go on and ask further questions.

What are the evidences, the coincidences, that suggest that God is doing, or has done, something about the world? I can't see a single one that doesn't have a more plausible explanation. And in fact, the least plausible thing of all -- on that neither you nor any other theist ever goes anywhere near -- is why, in the absence of absolutely everything would we assume that there was still an intelligent, powerful, intentional agency that suddenly couldn't contain itself any longer and just had to create a universe, and life, and a special life called "humans" at the very top of everything.

Take a look at Carl Sagan's Humility and you might see what I mean.

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 20, 2019

sojourner said:
But I have. Are you going to suggest that I haven’t— without evidence to suggest such?

All right, but then, once again, I can point to the many things that people have "experienced," very much like some of the "experiences of God" that I've heard. Try reading "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Dr. Oliver Sachs. Or perhaps investigate anosognosia, which can leave a person utterly convinced that the arm attached to their own shoulder is not theirs, but someone else's. And that tell me that, if that is what they perceive (as in the case of the woman who actually believed it was her son's arm that refused to move at her will), if that must therefore be the case? Was the son's arm magically transferred to the mother's shoulder? Or is something else going on.

I can make no claim about what you might have experienced, or how you might have interpreted (or magnified) your experience. I can only say that I have had none of that, nor have I ever perceived someone else's appendages attached to me, nor conversations with the devil, nor an imaginary friend who has better jokes than I do.

Polymath257 · Oct 20, 2019

sojourner said:
So, your parents didn’t particularly want you, or a family. But it was just sort of a happy byproduct of copulation? And it was simple, mechanical copulation? Or was there meaning behind the act, and hope for what it might produce, and the meaning that creating and becoming a family provides?

Well, first of all, I happen to know I was an 'accident' and my parents were not married, so that answers a few of your questions. But that isn't relevant. You asked for why I am here. The reason I am here is that they had sex. The surrounding emotions, society, etc are the reasons they had sex. But it was the sex that was the cause of my existence.

So there WAS meaning, then. God is similarly found within relationship. In fact, the Trinity is an expression of just that: God-in-relationship.

The people in the family objectively exist. That seems to be a relevant different with them and deities.

They’re not factual, but they do speak to human truths.

They speak to human experiences. They speak to human emotions. They speak to human goals. Those are not truths. Those are opinions.

There is an ineffable quality to human experience, much of which is really too deep, too profound for factual language to adequately address. Myth helps in that area.

That it cannot be addressed by factual language means it isn't truth: it is opinion. Now, opinions are important in how we live our lives, how we make judgements, how we attach meanings to things, etc. But they not truths. I.e, justified true beliefs.

Sure, so long as you can remain on the fact-gathering level.

You mean, at the level of truth as opposed to myth.

Polymath257 · Oct 20, 2019

sojourner said:
But it does exist. Perhaps existence is the same sort of thing. Perhaps God doesn’t exist as a “thing.”

What does that even mean?

Polymath257 · Oct 20, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
All right, but then, once again, I can point to the many things that people have "experienced," very much like some of the "experiences of God" that I've heard. Try reading "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Dr. Oliver Sachs. Or perhaps investigate anosognosia, which can leave a person utterly convinced that the arm attached to their own shoulder is not theirs, but someone else's. And that tell me that, if that is what they perceive (as in the case of the woman who actually believed it was her son's arm that refused to move at her will), if that must therefore be the case? Was the son's arm magically transferred to the mother's shoulder? Or is something else going on.

I can make no claim about what you might have experienced, or how you might have interpreted (or magnified) your experience. I can only say that I have had none of that, nor have I ever perceived someone else's appendages attached to me, nor conversations with the devil, nor an imaginary friend who has better jokes than I do.

And I'll go further with this.

Suppose I am color blind. I may not experience a difference between, say, red and green. But I certainly can determine that *others*, who do see colors, are consistent in their evaluations, even when there is no possibility of communication, and that there are actual physical effects produced by different colors, etc. So I can, indeed, know that there are colors that I do not see and what their properties are.

On the other hand, if those who claimed to see colors had no consistency between each other. If the same basic effect produced wildly different reports from those claiming to see color, and there were no physical effects produced by the difference in color, I would be perfectly justified to say that the differences in color do not *actually* exist and that the differences were personal perception issues.

So, which version does religious though fall under?

Vinayaka · Oct 20, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Then God is also unknowable, and therefore there ought to be nothing more to say about it.

Evidence can be all sorts of things. Often enough we might just observe a series of coincidences, with what appears to be a common factor. This can lead to supposing that the common factor might be causative. That's not proven yet, but there is evidence. We must then go on and ask further questions.

What are the evidences, the coincidences, that suggest that God is doing, or has done, something about the world? I can't see a single one that doesn't have a more plausible explanation. And in fact, the least plausible thing of all -- on that neither you nor any other theist ever goes anywhere near -- is why, in the absence of absolutely everything would we assume that there was still an intelligent, powerful, intentional agency that suddenly couldn't contain itself any longer and just had to create a universe, and life, and a special life called "humans" at the very top of everything.

Take a look at Carl Sagan's Humility and you might see what I mean.

Sagan was one of the scientists who recognised the depths of some ancient faiths such as Hinduism.

Quote by Carl Sagan: “The Hindu religion is the only one of the world...”

paarsurrey · Oct 20, 2019

Stevicus said: ↑
I don't know if atheists are defining God in any way. Atheists didn't invent "God," but the concept does exist in society. I suppose if no one ever invented "God," or if no one ever heard of "God" and the concept of belief simply didn't exist at all, then everyone would be "atheists," although they probably wouldn't use that particular word.

Stevicus said:
Well, the concept does exist. I don't know who first came up with it, though.

"I suppose if no one ever invented "God," or if no one ever heard of "God" and the concept of belief simply didn't exist at all,"

G-d is Eternal*, and this is one of His attributes as told by Him in Quran, in other words one has accepted that G-d is lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.One cannot deny this attribute of G-d on the basis of "know"ing . Right, please?

Regards
_______________
[57:1]بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ﴿۱﴾
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[57:2]سَبَّحَ لِلّٰہِ مَا فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡحَکِیۡمُ ﴿۲﴾
Whatever is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Allah; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
[ 57:3]لَہٗ مُلۡکُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ یُحۡیٖ وَ یُمِیۡتُ ۚ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرٌ ﴿۳﴾
His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He gives life and He causes death; and He has power over all things.
*[57:4]ہُوَ الۡاَوَّلُ وَ الۡاٰخِرُ وَ الظَّاہِرُ وَ الۡبَاطِنُ ۚ وَ ہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ ﴿۴﴾
He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/57

PruePhillip · Oct 20, 2019

blü 2 said:
Tell me plainly ─ WHY do you want to wish knowledge of modern cosmology on the bible's authors when they've plainly reported the cosmology of their day? What can possibly be the point of that?.

Just this point for now.
There are a number of places in the bible where there are two accounts of something.
It's possible this happened when the bible was "split" into two Jewish kingdoms for
many centuries - Judah and Israel. The latter was more pagan and "sinful" to Judah
and its tribes were ultimately carried off into permanent exile.
Despite the way we READ the current version of Genesis 1 the fact remains there are
real statements here.
God created and heavens.... and the earth.

THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.
"Heavens" is stars, planets, galaxies, quasers, nebula, comets.......... in Jewish
cosmology.

the stage now moves to the earth
where, if you were to touch upon it as a human observer, you would see nothing but
sterile water and darkness (cloud planets and ocean planets are thought to be
common in the universe)

This account is based upon you, the observer. To the observer the whole heavens
revolve around the earth. It's all relative.

SO THIS IS A FACT.

and then the skies cleared.

THIS IS CONSIDERED A POSSIBLE SCENARIO, ACCORDING TO NASA'S TITAN MODEL.

And then the land or earth appears above the water.

AND THIS IS A FACT.

And then life appears on the land. Not the oceans as was thought just two years ago. Land.
Wetting and drying of chemical rich pools, creating layers of concentrated organics.

THIS IS A FACT.

And then the seas brought forth life.

THIS ALSO IS A FACT.

And man appeared, last.

THIS IS THE LAST FACT.

Sure, Genesis doesn't talk about M-theory five dimensional "fabrics" which collide to
form super bangs of infinitely dense balls of space and time. Nor does it go into the
science of where hyperspace membranes derive, or what created even this in turn.
Why?
1 - the bible is a theological book
2 - the bible cared little for earthy/physical things, even to ignoring most of the history around it.
3 - you would need to understand physics to a level far beyond anything we have - plus the maths
which describes it.

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 20, 2019

Polymath257 said:
And I'll go further with this.

Suppose I am color blind. I may not experience a different between, say, red and green. But I certainly can determine that *others*, who do see colors are consistent in their evaluations, even when there is no possibility of communication, that there are actual physical effects produced by different colors, etc. So I can, indeed, know that there are colors that I do not see and what their properties are.

On the other hand, if those who claimed to see colors had no consistency between each other. If the same basic effect produced wildly different reports from those claiming to see color, and there were no physical effects produced by the difference in color, I would be perfectly justified to say that the differences in color do not *actually* exist and that the differences were personal perception issues.

So, which version does religious though fall under?

I very much like your analogy of color blindness. Yes, if I am red-green color blind and cannot see any difference between the two, and yet 20 people, shielded from one another, each choose "green is on the left, red is on the right," then I am forced -- by that EVIDENCE - to accept that there is a difference, just one that I cannot discern.

QuestioningMind · Oct 20, 2019

paarsurrey said:
"evidence"

What one understands from the natural word "evidence", one's own understanding not from a lexicon, please?

Regards

I have no idea what you just asked. Care to reword your question in an intelligible manner?

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 20, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Just this point for now.
There are a number of places in the bible where there are two accounts of something.
It's possible this happened when the bible was "split" into two Jewish kingdoms for
many centuries - Judah and Israel. The latter was more pagan and "sinful" to Judah
and its tribes were ultimately carried off into permanent exile.
Despite the way we READ the current version of Genesis 1 the fact remains there are
real statements here.
God created and heavens.... and the earth.

THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.
"Heavens" is stars, planets, galaxies, quasers, nebula, comets.......... in Jewish
cosmology.

the stage now moves to the earth
where, if you were to touch upon it as a human observer, you would see nothing but
sterile water and darkness (cloud planets and ocean planets are thought to be
common in the universe)

This account is based upon you, the observer. To the observer the whole heavens
revolve around the earth. It's all relative.

SO THIS IS A FACT.

and then the skies cleared.

THIS IS CONSIDERED A POSSIBLE SCENARIO, ACCORDING TO NASA'S TITAN MODEL.

And then the land or earth appears above the water.

AND THIS IS A FACT.

And then life appears on the land. Not the oceans as was thought just two years ago. Land.
Wetting and drying of chemical rich pools, creating layers of concentrated organics.

THIS IS A FACT.

And then the seas brought forth life.

THIS ALSO IS A FACT.

And man appeared, last.

THIS IS THE LAST FACT.

Sure, Genesis doesn't talk about M-theory five dimensional "fabrics" which collide to
form super bangs of infinitely dense balls of space and time. Nor does it go into the
science of where hyperspace membranes derive, or what created even this in turn.
Why?
1 - the bible is a theological book
2 - the bible cared little for earthy/physical things, even to ignoring most of the history around it.
3 - you would need to understand physics to a level far beyond anything we have - plus the maths
which describes it.

That would have been a lot more impressive if any of your stated "FACTS" were actually facts. As they are not, however, there's not a lot more to be said.

PruePhillip · Oct 20, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
That would have been a lot more impressive if any of your stated "FACTS" were actually facts. As they are not, however, there's not a lot more to be said.

Which of my "facts" do you think it not a fact?

Evangelicalhumanist · Oct 20, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Just this point for now.
There are a number of places in the bible where there are two accounts of something.
It's possible this happened when the bible was "split" into two Jewish kingdoms for
many centuries - Judah and Israel. The latter was more pagan and "sinful" to Judah
and its tribes were ultimately carried off into permanent exile.
Despite the way we READ the current version of Genesis 1 the fact remains there are
real statements here.
God created and heavens.... and the earth.

THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.
"Heavens" is stars, planets, galaxies, quasers, nebula, comets.......... in Jewish
cosmology.

the stage now moves to the earth
where, if you were to touch upon it as a human observer, you would see nothing but
sterile water and darkness (cloud planets and ocean planets are thought to be
common in the universe)

This account is based upon you, the observer. To the observer the whole heavens
revolve around the earth. It's all relative.

SO THIS IS A FACT.

and then the skies cleared.

THIS IS CONSIDERED A POSSIBLE SCENARIO, ACCORDING TO NASA'S TITAN MODEL.

And then the land or earth appears above the water.

AND THIS IS A FACT.

And then life appears on the land. Not the oceans as was thought just two years ago. Land.
Wetting and drying of chemical rich pools, creating layers of concentrated organics.

THIS IS A FACT.

And then the seas brought forth life.

THIS ALSO IS A FACT.

And man appeared, last.

THIS IS THE LAST FACT.

Sure, Genesis doesn't talk about M-theory five dimensional "fabrics" which collide to
form super bangs of infinitely dense balls of space and time. Nor does it go into the
science of where hyperspace membranes derive, or what created even this in turn.
Why?
1 - the bible is a theological book
2 - the bible cared little for earthy/physical things, even to ignoring most of the history around it.
3 - you would need to understand physics to a level far beyond anything we have - plus the maths
which describes it.

PruePhillip said:
Which of my "facts" do you think it not a fact?

Very well, since you ask -- let us begin.

"God created and heavens.... and the earth." You cannot even quite define what the difference is between "the heavens" and "the earth." Okay, let's assume that means "God created the earth -- plus everything else which is so astronomically much more as to make the earth look like an afterthought, a bit of leftover nothing." But there is nothing that you can use to show that this "creation" event -- if it even happened the way that you think it did -- is true. And in fact, the evidence from all the science done in cosmology over the last 100 -plus years strongly suggests that it's utter nonsense.

"This account is based upon you, the observer. To the observer the whole heavens revolve around the earth. It's all relative." Yes, well, wherever I am, I'm the centre of my universe, since I am the observe. That's relative to be sure, but for me to make the statement that "because this is how I observe it, the world must revolve around me" is simply ludicrous. It says, "I don't know how to think -- I cannot extrapolate."

"And then the land or earth appears above the water." You cannot begin to presume that's how this planet formed, and it is, in fact, scientifically, extremely unlikely. This planet, while it does come with a lot of ocean, and a great sea of atmosphere, is almost totally made of up of solid material. So to suggest that there was this big, watery thing that eventually heaved up land masses is nonsense. Much more realistic is to understand that our gravity is sufficient to hold an atmosphere, that atmosphere can contain much water vapour, which can condense and fall to earth, which earth can then support it's presence in various depressions...and so on. But to suggest that there was this big "water world" and lands (and cathedrals, a la Debussy's Cathedrale Engloutie, a favourite piece of mine) is silly.

"And man appeared, last." You claim that this is "the last fact." But it ain't true. I can tell you that cocker spaniels, AIDS and Caucasians all appeared long after "man" appeared.

paarsurrey · Oct 20, 2019

QuestioningMind said: ↑
Go ahead and give me your definition of god and the verifiable evidence that you have for this god and I'll let you know if I have any good reason to believe in it. Thus far after 57 years of life, I have yet to come across anyone who can provide me with a definition and the evidence that I would require for belief. Let's see if you are any different.
paarsurrey said: ↑
"evidence"

What one understands from the natural word "evidence", one's own understanding not from a lexicon, please?

QuestioningMind said:
I have no idea what you just asked. Care to reword your question in an intelligible manner?

One asked for a definition (of G-d) and "evidence", so I want to know one's own understanding of the natural word "evidence" used by one to enable others to provide it. Right, please?

Regards

PruePhillip · Oct 20, 2019

Yes, you can say that AIDS viruses appeared after man. But let's not get too tech here.
We understand what is meant by "lastly man is created."
The "heavens" in Jewish cosmology was simply the sun, moon, stars etc..
As to whether we can "prove" this cosmology event happened - well it did happen, and
both science and Genesis agree on the sequence.
It's not "ludicrous" to say the heaven revolves around you. There's no center to the universe
and you are it. Or more likely, the universe expands AWAY from you. But in this instance I
am showing the earth from the viewpoint of an observer - should you have been there at
that time, paddling around in the gloom.
The earth was oceanic, like Kostner's water world. The continents emerged above the
waters with the creation of the lighter granite. Water provided the lubrication for continental
plates to "subduct" under each other and slowly create this lighter material.

Revoltingest · Oct 20, 2019

dfnj said:
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."

Can't bear wading thru the entire thread,
so I don't know if it's been already said...
To be an atheist is to be not even wrong.
(Should'a posted this earlier.
It woulda settled everything.)

blü 2 · Oct 21, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Just this point for now.
There are a number of places in the bible where there are two accounts of something.
It's possible this happened when the bible was "split" into two Jewish kingdoms for
many centuries - Judah and Israel.

But you also encounter the same phenomenon when (for example) you Grimmly collect the various folk-versions of Hansel and Gretel, or Snow White. Or when, Child-like, you collect stories sung in folksong. Do you know the superb border ballad 'Sir Patrick Spens'? About the most favored version is that collected by Sir Walter Scott c.1800, fortunately (because it's a fine version) or unfortunately (because that version was polished by a buddy of Scott's who was an educated and highly literate lawyer). To edit is to alter, and I can think of no reason why the assemblers of the bible would be immune.

PruePhillip said:
Despite the way we READ the current version of Genesis 1 the fact remains there are real statements here.
God created and heavens.... and the earth.

That's the parochial view. In fact physics is the only credible explanation for the creation of the universe, of which the earth is a tiny tiny tiny tiny part.

But as I keep spelling out for you, "stars, planets, galaxies, quasers, nebula, comets" were ALL concepts utterly unknown 2500-3000 ya, no trace of any of them anywhere in the Tanakh.

PruePhillip said:
.......... in Jewish cosmology.

In the present time and going back a century or two, sure. Otherwise neyn.

PruePhillip said:
the stage now moves to the earth
where, if you were to touch upon it as a human observer, you would see nothing but
sterile water and darkness (cloud planets and ocean planets are thought to be
common in the universe)

Read the history! Read the science! The ancients knew NOTHING of that.

And my entire puzzlement is why you're so determined to assert that they did, nonetheless. Not only did they not know, not only could they not have known, but they clearly state their actual take on cosmology in the bible. >Here< it is again ─ please read carefully and this time digest the significance of their words.

lukethethird · Oct 21, 2019

Why atheism and atheists are just wrong
Right or wrong what difference does it make? What does your God consist of and what difference does it make to anything if it exists or not? Should we care? Inquiring minds want to know, so just asking.

PruePhillip · Oct 21, 2019

blü 2 said:
But you also encounter the same phenomenon when (for example) you Grimmly collect the various folk-versions of Hansel and Gretel, or Snow White. Or when, Child-like, you collect stories sung in folksong. Do you know the superb border ballad 'Sir Patrick Spens'? About the most favored version is that collected by Sir Walter Scott c.1800, fortunately (because it's a fine version) or unfortunately (because that version was polished by a buddy of Scott's who was an educated and highly literate lawyer). To edit is to alter, and I can think of no reason why the assemblers of the bible would be immune.
That's the parochial view. In fact physics is the only credible explanation for the creation of the universe, of which the earth is a tiny tiny tiny tiny part.

But as I keep spelling out for you, "stars, planets, galaxies, quasers, nebula, comets" were ALL concepts utterly unknown 2500-3000 ya, no trace of any of them anywhere in the Tanakh.
In the present time and going back a century or two, sure. Otherwise neyn.
Read the history! Read the science! The ancients knew NOTHING of that.

And my entire puzzlement is why you're so determined to assert that they did, nonetheless. Not only did they not know, not only could they not have known, but they clearly state their actual take on cosmology in the bible. >Here<
it is again ─ please read carefully and this time digest the significance of their words.

The bible has no comment to make on the shape of the earth as far as I know.

If the account of Snow White HAD AN HISTORIC CLAIM and backed it with
hard evidence, ie we knew who the "evil queen" was in archaeology, we had
historic and genetic evidence to seven dwarfs, the names of the seven matched
that of a culture unknown to the authors, evidence Snow White scrolls were
4,000 years old, along with numerous insights into the world right into our time
and beyond then hey, maybe I WOULD take an interest in the story.

When I point to quasars and the like I don't mean this is what the ancient
Hebrew know about. I mean this is the "heavens." And the "heavens" was all
that above the clouds, or even, the clouds too.

It makes utterly no impact on how tiny the earth is compared to the universe.
This is one of the issues raised by the tree of knowledge - implication.

Quote "they did not know" and yet here is an account of a stage of the early
earth -
1 - oceanic with no land
2 - dark
3 - sterile

A good guess? Just the same "good guess" as the writing about the time
when the Jews come, for a second time, out of exile and take back their
land with the sword - and have an ally in the coastlands or islands that
has a name not known to the biblical authors. That's our age, today.

Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

Well-Known Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Think & Care

Think & Care

Think & Care

devotee

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Well-Known Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Well-Known Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

unknown member

Well-Known Member