Andsed wrote:Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.
"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.
Advertisement
by Aellex » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:18 am
Andsed wrote:Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.
by Neutraligon » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:21 am
by Menassa » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:50 am
New Legland wrote:
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
No, it's not. I don't know where you got that from, because no scientist believes that night, day, and plants were created before the sun, no scientist believes that the moon is luminescent, and no scientist believes that every star was created simultaneously. If this is supposed to be some metaphor, I'd really like to know what says that it is, because personal interpretation isn't going to cut it. And that still wouldn't explain the order of events.
If creationism is supported by science, why do around 97% of scientists believe in evolution? There is actually a list that was compiled of scientists who have variations of the name Steve that accept evolution that is longer than Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who dissent from evolution.
by New Legland » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:59 am
Menassa wrote:New Legland wrote:
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
No, it's not. I don't know where you got that from, because no scientist believes that night, day, and plants were created before the sun, no scientist believes that the moon is luminescent, and no scientist believes that every star was created simultaneously. If this is supposed to be some metaphor, I'd really like to know what says that it is, because personal interpretation isn't going to cut it. And that still wouldn't explain the order of events.
If creationism is supported by science, why do around 97% of scientists believe in evolution? There is actually a list that was compiled of scientists who have variations of the name Steve that accept evolution that is longer than Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who dissent from evolution.
"Light"
by Frievolk » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:59 am
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik ♔
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne ♔
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt ♔
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.
by Menassa » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:00 pm
by United New England » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:09 pm
Kavagrad wrote:What’s more important that whether there is a god is which of the hundreds of deities that have existed throughout human history is/are the true god/s.
Until someone/something can prove to me that their god is, without question, the only god that could ever exist, there are simply too many possibilities, including those imperceptible to the human mind, to attempt to worship a deity/deities with any conviction.
by Olthar » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:13 pm
Telcz wrote:Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Accept Christ and trust Him as your savior, and you'll be saved forever!
by Kowani » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:13 pm
United New England wrote:Kavagrad wrote:What’s more important that whether there is a god is which of the hundreds of deities that have existed throughout human history is/are the true god/s.
Until someone/something can prove to me that their god is, without question, the only god that could ever exist, there are simply too many possibilities, including those imperceptible to the human mind, to attempt to worship a deity/deities with any conviction.
What if all of those many deities are flawed interpretations of different aspects, facets, or roles of an infinite god that is not fully comprehensible to the human mind? We can’t even fully understand ourselves, so I highly doubt that anyone has ever fully comprehended any deity that may exist.
by New Legland » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:13 pm
Menassa wrote:New Legland wrote:Sorry, I don't understand, you'll have to be more specific.
https://thetorah.com/before-the-beginning/
by Menassa » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:16 pm
New Legland wrote:
I skimmed through the article to find the most relevant information, so forgive me if I missed something, but I believe you were referring to this paragraph:
All this began to change in v. 3, “Let there be light” (verse 3). This light, a new element in the primeval soup, began to exist. It apparently mixed into the dark stuff immediately. That is why God’s second activity during the first day consisted of separating out the light from the dark stuff to establish daytime, nighttime, and thereby, a measurable day (verse 4).
God later improved on the light of the first day by creating the heavenly luminaries on the fourth day and designating their functions. The author’s unlikely conclusion that disembodied light must have been created before anything else appears to partake in the common ancient Near Eastern conception that light was associated with comprehensible order and structure, darkness with disorder and anti-structure.[11]
Sure, this could be acceptable if the disembodied light was only referred to as "the light" and kept that vague title (I wouldn't know much about debating that), but "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" before he "made the two great lights." This is saying that day and night were established before the Sun was, which is factually incorrect.
by New Legland » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:19 pm
by New Legland » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:21 pm
Menassa wrote:New Legland wrote:I skimmed through the article to find the most relevant information, so forgive me if I missed something, but I believe you were referring to this paragraph:
All this began to change in v. 3, “Let there be light” (verse 3). This light, a new element in the primeval soup, began to exist. It apparently mixed into the dark stuff immediately. That is why God’s second activity during the first day consisted of separating out the light from the dark stuff to establish daytime, nighttime, and thereby, a measurable day (verse 4).
God later improved on the light of the first day by creating the heavenly luminaries on the fourth day and designating their functions. The author’s unlikely conclusion that disembodied light must have been created before anything else appears to partake in the common ancient Near Eastern conception that light was associated with comprehensible order and structure, darkness with disorder and anti-structure.[11]
Sure, this could be acceptable if the disembodied light was only referred to as "the light" and kept that vague title (I wouldn't know much about debating that), but "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" before he "made the two great lights." This is saying that day and night were established before the Sun was, which is factually incorrect.
You've a very limited understanding of the verses contained within Genesis, which is totally understandable, most people do. The simple translations of the words 'light' 'dark' 'night' 'day' have never sufficed as proper explanations for an accurate cosmogony. Nor they have they ever been seen that way.
by Menassa » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:24 pm
New Legland wrote:Menassa wrote:You've a very limited understanding of the verses contained within Genesis, which is totally understandable, most people do. The simple translations of the words 'light' 'dark' 'night' 'day' have never sufficed as proper explanations for an accurate cosmogony. Nor they have they ever been seen that way.
Okay, I think I addressed this in my post, it's just that it came to my mind after I posted it and I edited it too late: 'The article does say that "There would need to be the regular cycle of day and night, complete with sun, moon and stars that governed longer and shorter days and dry and wet seasons (day 4)," but unless this is a matter of semantics, the problem still stands.'
If that's the explanation, I completely understand.
by New Legland » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:30 pm
Menassa wrote:New Legland wrote:Okay, I think I addressed this in my post, it's just that it came to my mind after I posted it and I edited it too late: 'The article does say that "There would need to be the regular cycle of day and night, complete with sun, moon and stars that governed longer and shorter days and dry and wet seasons (day 4)," but unless this is a matter of semantics, the problem still stands.'
If that's the explanation, I completely understand.
Light may mean energy Dark may mean primeval matter, not enough information is given in the 11 or so verses of an English translation of Genesis to make normative claims about the 'facts' of the matter, from either side of the aisle.
by Dogmeat » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:12 pm
United New England wrote:Kavagrad wrote:What’s more important that whether there is a god is which of the hundreds of deities that have existed throughout human history is/are the true god/s.
Until someone/something can prove to me that their god is, without question, the only god that could ever exist, there are simply too many possibilities, including those imperceptible to the human mind, to attempt to worship a deity/deities with any conviction.
What if all of those many deities are flawed interpretations of different aspects, facets, or roles of an infinite god that is not fully comprehensible to the human mind? We can’t even fully understand ourselves, so I highly doubt that anyone has ever fully comprehended any deity that may exist.
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:27 pm
by Andsed » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:52 pm
by The Blaatschapen » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:42 pm
by Ausinia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:55 pm
-Astoria wrote:‘WE'RE NOT COMMUNISTS, DAMMIT!’
Then explain the hammer-and-sickle on your flag. Otherwise, X.
The Ausinian National:Due to recent baby booms in Ausinia, a general board has being formed, the leaders in new ways of fair population control. Suggested methods already include standardised testing in schools, for the most fit and intelligent to stand out.
by Aellex » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:41 pm
Andsed wrote:So me asking for evidence of your massive claim about how atheist are apathetic and only atheist because of society is me being a stereotype? Just admit you made a massive generalization about atheist based on personal experience instead of actual facts instead of your weak attempts to make me look dumb. I am not asking much here just some evidence.
The New California Republic wrote:Aellex wrote:"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.
Oh joy, you are using words with intermittent caps again in a mocking manner, because you really have no response to a request for evidence. That is very telling.
And yes, that really bad stereotype of daring to ask for evidence when someone makes a claim. So terrible(!)
Ausinia wrote:Ah yes, someone who doesn’t just feel but also thinks! Just imagaine what would happen if he accepted, probably wouldn’t last, like me..
by Jolthig » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:45 pm
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:47 pm
Aellex wrote:Yes, that stereotype of always screeching about having FACTS, SCIENCE and LOGIC on one's side and thus moaning about sourcez 'nz shitz even when it makes no sense whatsoever, it's a rather bad one indeed.
Aellex wrote:As the saying goes, "La culture, c'est comme la confiture, moi on en a, plus on l'étale." :^)t
by Aellex » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:48 pm
Jolthig wrote:Aellex, as a theist, and as someone who's been in your shoes in the past before I learned my lesson, you're not really getting anywhere in here, no offense. All you're doing is committing fallacies, and red herring.
An atheist simply isn't going to believe you. They believe in or rather have confidence in the theories and evidences science brings up for the world. They don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual because they aren't of the natural world.
Even I acknowledge this as a theist. Take a vacation from the forum, man if atheists get under your skin.
by Jolthig » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:50 pm
Aellex wrote:Jolthig wrote:Aellex, as a theist, and as someone who's been in your shoes in the past before I learned my lesson, you're not really getting anywhere in here, no offense. All you're doing is committing fallacies, and red herring.
An atheist simply isn't going to believe you. They believe in or rather have confidence in the theories and evidences science brings up for the world. They don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual because they aren't of the natural world.
Even I acknowledge this as a theist. Take a vacation from the forum, man if atheists get under your skin.
Nah, it's alright fam. Most of my mates IRL are atheists so I'm accustomed to it but it's just that I can't help but feel a little bemused when people are playing a trope so straight.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dazchan, Eahland, Free Radio States, Haganham, Himmelland, Ineva, Kostane, New Temecula, Oceanic Socialist Republics, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, The Vooperian Union, Verkhoyanska
Advertisement