Everyone has a religion

[PruePhillip]

According to the Bible, at 15 cubits (Genesis 7:20), only about half of the height of the arc, the world was never flooded or an ocean planet. Mount Ararat, it would seem, is better suited to bear the name of "Ant Hill Ararat."

Define the word "world" as employed in the Bronze Age.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So how did "they" know the earth was cold, dark and oceanic?

We can run chemical tests. The ancients did not.

The English settled in North America and the colony grew to a mighty nation, even putting a man on the moon.

Amusingly simplistic and infers a natural progression that isn't there. There were far more ups and downs than "Pilgrims --> Astronauts". Also almost insultingly Eurocentric.

Again. You are the observer, not someone in outer space.

Wouldn't God know the difference, though?

What is the probability that the ancient Jews fluked it?

Considering I can't find any evidence that they even attempted celestial studies when every other civilization had such studies, it'd be a miracle for them to get anything right. Even more primitive people could stick some stones in the ground and trace the movements of the stars.

Even His own brothers and sisters did not believe in him.

Maybe they had a point, though. After all, they were the most familiar with him.

I resent the way religion is exploited.

It's a tool for exploitation.

But the bible is not like other religious texts.

I agree. It makes even LESS effort to be right about anything.

Not heard of Nicolas Flament

To be honest, I thought we were talking about Nicholas Flamel.

How can one exist outside of time, for instance!

The reality is that you can't. If God even just says "let there be light", then there was the time before He said it, during the statement, and after He said it. Time is required. The entire nonsense about timelessness is to impress people depressed about the transitory nature of reality. Not even Heaven can escape transition, if one can accept some kind of angelic rebellion and multiple wars against earth and hell and such things.

"The rain does not need to come from. Rain simply is, and that assuming that it cannot exist without a cause, or an explanation, is question begging."

Well, it's true that rain is just recycled through a water cycle. It is not "created".

 

[PruePhillip]

We can run chemical tests. The ancients did not.

I got that one wrong. Never said in the bible it was cold. I checked - oceanic earth was hot.

Amusingly simplistic and infers a natural progression that isn't there. There were far more ups and downs than "Pilgrims --> Astronauts". Also almost insultingly Eurocentric.

That's not the point I was making. But technologically it is fair to say there's been a progression. When you hear people say that word "Eurocentric" I wonder for how much longer we will have the Enlightenment with us, or our liberal democracies, or our Scientific Method. Maybe the West is entering another dark ages.

Considering I can't find any evidence that they even attempted celestial studies when every other civilization had such studies, it'd be a miracle for them to get anything right. Even more primitive people could stick some stones in the ground and trace the movements of the stars.

Thanks for that. Hadn't considered it before. Yes, the "children of Israel" who were "born in slavery" never made monuments to themselves, or cared for the natural order of things. They didn't give us Genesis 1 of course - but whoever did gave us the most exact "creation myth" I have encountered.

Re time. This most mysterious of phenomenon is a part of the natural universe. God created the natural world, from outside of it. At the Judgement it says there will be no more time. We can't begin to imagine how something can operate without time.

 

[ChristineM]

To be honest, I thought we were talking about Nicholas Flamel.

So did i at first, it just didn't make sense until i did a search. My surprise was classic.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"It's the religious position that something came from nothing."

And what is the Atheism position on the above, please?
Regards

The atheist posn is that something came from nothing.
The theist says that God (who lies outside the natural world) created the first things.
The atheist says a miracle happened to create the first things.
Go figure...

So, religious and atheistic positions are the same?
The truthful position, I believe, is that G-d created both, the one described "something" and the one described as "nothing".

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

So, religious and atheistic positions are the same?

Never trust a god believer to inform you of the atheist position on anything. More than likely they are blinded by their faith.

Take it from an atheist, atheism only has one position and that is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

As for something from nothing, that is one of several possibilities hypothesised by cosmologists, not all of whom are atheist.

 

[paarsurrey]

Never trust a god believer to inform you of the atheist position on anything. More than likely they are blinded by their faith.

Take it from an atheist, atheism only has one position and that is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

As for something from nothing, that is one of several possibilities hypothesised by cosmologists, not all of whom are atheist.

Thanks for the information.
I understand that Atheism is not a unified position/ no-position. Is it one's own opinion that other Atheism people are free to reject, please?
Regards

 

[PruePhillip]

Never trust a god believer to inform you of the atheist position on anything. More than likely they are blinded by their faith.

Take it from an atheist, atheism only has one position and that is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

As for something from nothing, that is one of several possibilities hypothesised by cosmologists, not all of whom are atheist.

As I see it, the creation position is this:
1 - something from God
2 - something from Nothing
3 - been here forever.

I feel that the last one is dodging the question. That just leaves two. And both are miracles by the definition of science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

As I see it, the creation position is this:
1 - something from God
2 - something from Nothing
3 - been here forever.

I feel that the last one is dodging the question. That just leaves two. And both are miracles by the definition of science.

Fire was probably a miracle to those earlier. As no doubt was electricity when discovered, and ...

 

[PruePhillip]

Fire was probably a miracle to those earlier. As no doubt was electricity when discovered, and ...

This is the fallacy of the faulty analogy.
Fire might have been a "miracle" to some cultures but we understand it's an oxidizing event, a reaction that had a cause in chemistry. And electricity had a cause in the flow of electrons.
There's effects and they come from causes.
But we kick the can up the hill.
Eventually we come to an effect that had no cause - that's a miracle by the definition of science. IMO the real miracle believers are those who believe in FAITH that science can explain something that happened without a prior cause.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That's not the point I was making. But technologically it is fair to say there's been a progression. When you hear people say that word "Eurocentric" I wonder for how much longer we will have the Enlightenment with us, or our liberal democracies, or our Scientific Method. Maybe the West is entering another dark ages.

The only reason you think Europe contributed the most to civilization is the fact you read history books written by Europeans.

but whoever did gave us the most exact "creation myth" I have encountered.

How can it possibly be exact? It's glossed over and usually wrong. It takes entire libraries of books to describe what happened "in the beginning" and you think a couple of paragraphs of poetry is the same thing?

At the Judgement it says there will be no more time.

You can't have "no time" and still exist. Time isn't magical. It is a function of being.

Thanos said that Gamorra whined about him for 20 years, which makes no sense because neither of them are from earth thus we can't ensure their concept of year is the same as ours, but time still passed.

1 - something from God
2 - something from Nothing
3 - been here forever.

4-something that fluctuates
5-something from lots of gods
6-is the god(s)

Eventually we come to an effect that had no cause

We really don't. The "First Cause" is just where people arbitrarily decided to become too lazy to count.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks for the information.
I understand that Atheism is not a unified position/ no-position. Is it one's own opinion that other Atheism people are free to reject, please?
Regards

You understand wrong, as has been explained to you often. Atheism is the unified position of disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Anything else is not atheism but is often associated with atheism by those who know no better?

 

[ChristineM]

As I see it, the creation position is this:
1 - something from God
2 - something from Nothing
3 - been here forever.

I feel that the last one is dodging the question. That just leaves two. And both are miracles by the definition of science.

Please provide a scientific definition of miracle.

Fyi, Science does not concern itself with woo so no such scientific definition exists.

3. Why is it dodging the question? It is a sound hypothesis that time has always existed

2. 'Something from nothing' is not black magic or woo, it is a possibility
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
Like all hypothesis of how the universe was created it is not a "doh, i dont know so god" guess. Is is a mathematically feasible scenario based on measurement, observation and evidence.

1. 'Something from god', all you need to do is prove a god exists and then prove that god is capable of creating a universe from nothing than you will have something to work with... Otherwise all you have is opinion.

 

[paarsurrey]

You understand wrong, as has been explained to you often. Atheism is the unified position of disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Anything else is not atheism but is often associated with atheism by those who know no better?

Sorry, I am not convinced from one's argument.
Regards

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, I am not convinced from one's argument.
Regards

That is your problem, the definition of atheism is specific.

If you dont like the definition there are channels for getting it changed. I suggest you start with lobbying the OED in the uk and Merriam-Webster in America.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is your problem, the definition of atheism is specific.

If you dont like the definition there are channels for getting it changed. I suggest you start with lobbying the OED in the uk and Merriam-Webster in America.

I am from Indian-subcontinent, I don't see in Urdu exact equivalents of the words "theism" or "atheism", even in English these words were loaned from some other language after 1600 AD, as I understand .
It has no origin in the ancient cultures, as I understand, it is an invention of the philosophy people for their own philosophy purposes.
Regards

 

[ChristineM]

I am from Indian-subcontinent, I don't see in Urdu exact equivalents of the words "theism" or "atheism", even in English these words were loaned from some other language after 1600 AD, as I understand .
It has no origin in the ancient cultures, as I understand, it is an invention of the philosophy people for their own philosophy purposes.
Regards

What? Urdu is not my problem and irrelivant because Atheism and theism are from ancient greek.

Theos = god
A-theos = without god.

The vast majority of words are loaned from another language. In europe the entomology of words can be traced mostly to ancient greek and roman with some more modern words coming from the east or far east.

So you are saying that around 95% of the english language is just a philosophical invention coined for personal purpises?

Sheesh... Really?

 

[paarsurrey]

ChristineM said: ↑
That is your problem, the definition of atheism is specific.

If you dont like the definition there are channels for getting it changed. I suggest you start with lobbying the OED in the uk and Merriam-Webster in America.

What? Urdu is not my problem and irrelivant because Atheism and theism are from ancient greek.

Theos = god
A-theos = without god.

The vast majority of words are loaned from another language. In europe the entomology of words can be traced mostly to ancient greek and roman with some more modern words coming from the east or far east.

So you are saying that around 95% of the english language is just a philosophical invention coined for personal purpises?

Sheesh... Really?

Is it a confirmation that there were no Atheism people in England before 1600 AD as they did not have any word for "theism" in their language or the word "Atheism", please?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

ChristineM said: ↑
That is your problem, the definition of atheism is specific.

If you dont like the definition there are channels for getting it changed. I suggest you start with lobbying the OED in the uk and Merriam-Webster in America.



Is it a confirmation that there were no Atheism people in England before 1600 AD as they did not have any word for "theism" in their language or the word "Atheism", please?

Regards

First off, that was not the question ot addressed. Which was your disbelief in the definition of atheism.

However seeing as how you have moved the goalposts, let me ask how old you are, if more than 500 years then you may have a relevant point, but if you were born more recently than it is part of the english language.

There were no overt atheists in the 16th century because being atheist meant being murdered by the church.

However one does not need a word to disbelieve god or god magic.

 

[syo]

Everyone has a religion of some sort.

Sure. What is religion?