1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Everyone has a religion

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by PruePhillip, Jul 23, 2018.

  1. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,687
    Ratings:
    +15,104
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Better yet, don't obsess about an arbitrary dichotomy of beliefs in creation.
     
  2. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    3,311
    Ratings:
    +2,965
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    What you're not grasping is that there was probably never a "non-Universe". One universe simply transitioned to another or something. There would be no beginning and no end objectively, only to the subjective experience of those living in the current universe.

    The bible wasn't written by smart people. If I were sick, I'd rather go to Egypt, China, Greece, or Rome because despite the outdated nature of the science, at least I'd have a better shot at survival.

    I've heard that heaven is timeless, but that can't be true if anyone, including God, can do anything, because there was the moment before, during, and after.



    Don't you find it curious that nearly all the medical miracles in the bible are for vague and convenient problems? Certain biblical characters can resurrect people, but John the Baptist or Saul or anyone with a pretty *cough* "cut and dry" *cough* cause of death can't be resurrected? So much for miracles! They only seem to exist when the plot holes allow. Modern science and technology do more for people today than anyone in the bible ever did. Lose an arm? We'll build ya one and are on the track for growing you one. Beat THAT, Jesus.

    "Endless loop" is too complicated for you? Do you believe God is eternal?

    If matter can't be created or destroyed, it means God can't create it nor destroy it either. :p It's eternal.

    In many myths, the universe IS at least one deity whose body parts make up the celestial bodies and stuff.

    Many ancient cultures all over the globe had some sort of astronomical setup going on, even something as simple as a few pillars that tracked the sun or whatever. I'm unfamiliar with anything similar in ancient Jewish culture. Burying one's nose in the scriptures was the "height" of knowledge, the one thing that couldn't tell them squat about how the world worked. Looking it up on wiki, apparently I'd have to go to the Talmud and even then, most data is late in Jewish BCE history, like the last century before the switch to CE. For all the importance given to the dating of rituals and such, you'd think they'd have at least a Stonehenge-like setup. Nothing. It's weird.

    You have no evidence of a First Cause. Aristotle was overrated.

    Yeah, it's not even 100% accurate of the bible. Only light is spoken into existence. God merely tweaks pre-existing material the rest of the time.

    There ... might ... be ... no ... "creation". There ... might ... only ... be ... matter ... reorganization.

    Heat and light don't will themselves into existence from the sun. They are byproducts of the sun's chemical reactions.

    And if you don't study and determine laws, everything becomes a miracle.

    To my Labrador Retrievers, opening a door is a miracle because they can't (yet) do it.

    Christians love to brag that the Word of God, for some the only way we can know God at all, is the best selling book of all time. Do you feel the Word of God lets us know about about God?

    But we witness things being "created" via previously existing material. Have you ever taken sex ed? That's how you got here. We don't see people coming from dirt. We don't see (yet) ribs making human beings. We can do lots of things now even the God of the Bible couldn't accomplish, even getting closer to putting a new head on a body.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. jonathan180iq

    jonathan180iq Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,140
    Ratings:
    +2,454
    "The hot soup is something..."
    You are absolutely correct - Please note that this is not a claim of something coming from nothing, but of something coming from something.

    Cool. I'm glad you recognize that we're talking about something coming from something.

    What does "outside the physical world" mean?
    Where did it come from?
    What is it?
    Where is it?
    How did God get there?

    You're establishing your position as something coming from nothing... If you confront that, and choose to posit that God has always existed, then it's well within your realm of understanding to accept that the Universe has always existed, right?

    Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

    I'm glad you recognize it as symbolic, but without Scientific understanding, how could you possibly make the second claim in that sentence?

    Not just your god, but any god.
    Atheists don't believe in god(s), literally by definition.

    That's a false dichotomy. It's equally just a plausible that some iteration of the Universe has simply always been...

    And worst case scenario, the position that you're attempting to disparage is the very same explanation you are giving as to where God is, and where he came from... You should really think about that.

    You mean.... like God?

    You either have to accept that it's possible for things to have always existed. Or you have to change your concept of where God comes from. In a logical argument, one doesn't get to have it both ways out of convenience.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,523
    Ratings:
    +593
    Religion:
    None
    Genesis. First the heavens
    then the earth.

    But what was the earth like, back then?
    There are cloud planets, water planets, rocky planets, ice planets, gas planets etc..

    from the perspective of an observer upon that earth would have seen a cloud planet and an oceanic planet - later a rocky or hybrid planet.

    the earth was oceanic - first demonstrated about 15 years ago.
    the continents emerged - understood with continental crust subduction.
    life began on the land - finally settled in 2018, in aquatic environment
    and then life began in the sea - even birds ultimately came out of the sea.
    and finally, man.
    And written in theological language that people could understand. Seven days, with seven being the symbol of completeness.

    Forget what the bible says about the world today, just this alone shows someone very smart was writing this. Or it could just have been a one in a trillion fluke.
     
  5. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,867
    Ratings:
    +5,434
    Except that the Bible says that the first forms of life were flora and fauna on the land, despite the fact that we know unicellular life vastly predates them and came from the sea. It also says the sun (the "greater light to rule the day") was formed after the earth, sea and plant life, which is wrong. It also says that birds were created before land animals, which is also completely wrong.

    It's no fluke; it's random, illustrative guesswork. And almost certainly not divinely inspired.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,157
    Ratings:
    +37,803
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    "Everyone has a religion". Thank god and Darwin I was gone a few days when this thread came out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,523
    Ratings:
    +593
    Religion:
    None
    The early earth was a cloud planet. NASA calls Titan an "earth precursor" because it resembles our planet from an earlier time. Titan is shrouded in dense clouds and is quite dark. This was our early earth. Remember, Genesis is about an EARTH OBSERVER.
    Cellular life is not the issue - it's life and it began on land. Until this year there was a strong argument that life began first in the oceans.
    And birds come from dinosaurs, who come from reptiles, who come from amphibians who come fish (put crudely) Generations of skeptics ridiculed the idea that birds could come from the ocean. But the bible gets it broadly right.
     
  8. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Silent Generation - so don't expect much
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    7,670
    Ratings:
    +3,775
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable (agnostic atheist)
    I just try to ignore them mostly but it is rather difficult.
     
  9. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,867
    Ratings:
    +5,434
    Where are your sources that say life started on land? I can't find anything.

    Once again: The Bible says that birds pre-date land animals. This is patently not true and even you admit it here. To say that the Bible "gets it broadly right" is just a very sneaky way of avoiding admitting the Bible is wrong.

    The Bible posits a very specific order of events. That order is wrong on at least three counts. How can that be "broadly right"?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,523
    Ratings:
    +593
    Religion:
    None
    The Earth "creates" life. Of itself. It is was believed that life appeared in the oceans first. But new lines of evidence converged in 2017 to suggest that it was the land and not the deep ocean trenches which set in motion the creation of life (University of California - Santa Cruz. 2017)

    Got this slightly wrong - it was 2017, not this year. But here is one link
    https://news.ucsc.edu/2017/07/origin-life.html

    re birds before animals.
    this is semantics mostly. Life came out of the sea, and colonized the land. Though life began on the "land" (or fresh water) What comes out of that ocean process LATER, or in the process of time, is not the point.
     
  11. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,958
    Ratings:
    +6,543
    Religion:
    None
    Likewise with religion. If every worldview is a religion, the word is unnecessary.

    Another benefit is that consistent with Occam's Razor, we have a much more parsimonious hypothesis, one that doesn't require a conscious, volitional, intelligent agent. The eternal multiverse hypothesis answers any question that the god hypothesis does.

    It answers the question by challenging its assumption that there was a first phenomenon. Even if there was a first phenomenon in our universe, it may well be the result of an eternal entity like a multiverse, by which I mean any unconscious source of universes.

    Not this atheist. See above.

    Your list of possibilities is too short: Here's my list of candidate hypotheses for the origin of our universe. It seems to me that one of these must be the case.:

    [1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
    [2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

    [3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
    [4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

    [5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
    [6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.​

    Are you aware that you are tacitly indicating that science is the arbiter of truth in these matters and not scripture? If it were the other way around, you'd be saying that science got it right broadly, implying that where discrepancies occur, the Bible is right and science wrong.

    Your argument defending the biblical creation story using science's findings is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, defined as "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred." The differences between the biblical and scientific accounts are being ignored. We could do that using any other creation myth and create the same argument that the writers of those myths broadly got it right if we ignore all of the features that appear in only the scientific or only the mythical account.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,881
    Ratings:
    +5,459
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    Those are not the only options, really.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,867
    Ratings:
    +5,434
    You do realize that this is a hypothesis, right?

    It really isn't. The Bible explicitly says that birds pre-date land animals. They do not.

    It's entirely the point. You're acting like the Bible got so much right that it can't be coincidence, and I'm pointing out that the Bible gets a lot of things wrong - and the only responses you can muster are re-interpreting the Bible or obfuscating.

    The Bible gets almost everything wrong in the order of creation. Are you going to admit this or not?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. JesusMyFriend

    JesusMyFriend Rosalia

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    114
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Christian Catholic
    I think I agree with you... Because after all, as humans it is in nature to ask questions, to wonder, to search, to look for a meaning behind everything, to understand, etc. And I think this is how religions originated long ago, and many people even nowadays continue to begin this journey of constant search. I think atheists share this. Literally "atheism" means not believing in God.. but first of all, we should ask ourselves what is God? What does God mean to us? And then from all my discussions with my atheists friends, they do end up believing in something, having their own "gods".. so as humans it's something we can't get away from..
     
  15. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    3,311
    Ratings:
    +2,965
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    We can dig and find the answers. Nobody responsible for writing the creation tales were there.

    We are not the end all be all of creation. "Creation" is still going on. Dinosaurs lasted for hundreds of millions of years. I'll be shocked if our species lasts up to 500k. We are definitely not God's gift to Planet Earth, or we'd be better at dealing with it.

    Scavengers and decomposers do a better job than we do and many are unicellular organisms.

    You know whose fault it is for dumbing something down to the extent that it's just plain wrong? God.

    How can I seriously take the idea that Hebrews were given a pass because all of humanity was dumb when there are clearly other civilizations running circles around them before and during their "peak"? You don't say Your kids can't understand sex and that's why You taught them about storks and cabbage patches. I used to have posters like this on my bedroom wall as a kid. I would correct them if I thought they left stuff out or got it wrong some other way. An entire NATION can't be held to such a standard?

    Isn't this insulting to an entire NATION?

    Jeffrey (of DarkMatter2525 fame): Sorry, guys, but God decided even the geniuses have to sit on the short bus today. God doesn't think anyone's ready for the long buses, even though we're using fleets of them for your neighbors.

    (this isn't a quote so much as something I could imagine him saying)

    You realize that the creation account is a Fox News version of other already established accounts, right? They took the "research" of other nations, slapped on a few personalized details, and called it "truth".

    And nobody was there to observe. Even if you take the creation account literally, no one was alive, not even bacteria, on the first "day".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,523
    Ratings:
    +593
    Religion:
    None
    No, it doesn't necessarily say that birds predate animals.
    It says that life came out of the sea, and from the sea came fish, whales and birds.
    And it says that life emerged on the land, and then details that, too.
    It's ambiguous.
    But... first life emerged on the land - most likely in cellular form, or even basic DNA or RNA, then colonized the sea. Then it became apparent on land in more advanced plant and animal form. And man was last.
    This isn't some myth about rainbow serpents or Zeus on Mount Olympus. It makes the claim, like the rest of the bible, to history.
     
  17. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,523
    Ratings:
    +593
    Religion:
    None
    So how did "they" know the earth was cold, dark and oceanic? Something not appreciated until about fifteen years ago? Science thought the early earth was molten lava when I was born.

    I didn't say there were observers, nor did the bible. You are misconstruing me. I said that IF you could observe the early earth, this is what you would see.
     
  18. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,867
    Ratings:
    +5,434
    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

    23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

    24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    It says that life in the sea and life in the air came to be on the fourth day, and the creatures on the land came about on the fifth day.

    Only if you twist it to be. It quite clearly says that one happened before the other.

    Also, YOU are the one claiming that the genesis account is so accurate that it was a "one in a trillion fluke", and now you are saying it's "ambiguous". If it's ambiguous, then how can you even remotely consider it accurate.

    You have yet to sufficiently demonstrate that. You have presented ONE page that presents a HYPOTHESIS that life may have started on land - that is it.

    The point being that birds came AFTER land animals, which directly contradicts what the Bible states.

    And it's a claim you have tauted as accurate enough to be either divinely inspired or a "one in a trillion fluke", despite the fact that all it posits is a specific order of creation - and it gets the order wrong in three different instances.

    It doesn't take a fluke to be woefully inaccurate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,867
    Ratings:
    +5,434
    For starters, the earth wasn't initially cold. It was, in fact, a giant ball of molten rock.

    Second, it's not hard to presume the earth is going to be "cold and dark" if you're already assuming that there isn't yet a sun. It doesn't take divine inspiration to know that not having one of those might leave things a little dim and chilly.


    The earth was molten lava:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean

    No, it isn't. You're twisting reality to fit the Bible.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,523
    Ratings:
    +593
    Religion:
    None
    So you are explaining what the early earth was like.
    As Einstein put it, all things are relative, no observer is privileged over another.
    Where should the observer be 'standing' in regards this narrative?
    Please don't say 'in orbit' because people had no concept of orbit.
    They are an observer standing upon the earth. No sun was visible, no continents existed. That's science, pure science. That's Genesis.
    The earth was lava for a very brief time - most of the early period it was oceanic.
    That the bible said it was cold, dark and oceanic when scientists THOUGHT UNTIL RECENTLY that it was molten and transparent is remarkable.
    Until the discovery of the oldest zircon crystals in Australia I thought there's no way to accommodate Genesis with geology.

    Ancient zircon crystals discovered in Western Australia have been positively dated to 4.374 billion years … the journal Nature Geoscience, means Earth began forming a crust far sooner than previously thought, following the giant impact event which created the Earth-Moon system 4.5 billion years ago… believes the findings indicate Earth's water didn't need to come from asteroids, during a period known as the late heavy bombardment 3.9 billion years ago. Instead, it suggests water was present in the liquid magma ocean that formed the zircon crystals. "We'll never know how much water there really was, but the simplest interpretation of those zircons coming from granitic rocks, is that we had a hydrous planet right from the very beginning," says Bowring.


    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/24/3950076.htm
     
Loading...