Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can we make the starting point to be that the bible is all rhetoric and nothing in it is to be believed as the literal word of your god? I can accept that as the starting point if you proclaim it so. What do you expect me to believe?You must determine the literary style for not only each book but each chapter. That is literally the first thing you must do. That this is a foreign concept to you tells me you have never made a serious investigation of any account in the Bible.
No, what YOU can do is exactly what I said before.Can we make the starting point to be that the bible is all rhetoric and nothing in it is to be believed as the literal word of your god? I can accept that as the starting point if you proclaim it so. What do you expect me to believe?
Without that it's not fair to expect an atheist to start in reading the bible with an open mind.
It's much more involved and complicated than just the story of the Ark or the whale.
I'll have to start from a position that the bibles are all rhetoric until you present something that can be taken literally.Incorrect. They compliment each other. Again... in it's simplest form the first two chapters of Genesis tells us in allegorical form that God created existence and that the world ancient men lived in was part of a process and not created all at once. And that man AROSE from that creation.
That's more like what I was asking for. I can now accept the bibles to be allegory and rhetoric, but still containing no literal word of your god.The account of the Tower of Babel is the allegorical account of migration from Mesopotamia which (egad) was an actual historical event.
That's not a message of peace, it's of frustration and anger.No, what YOU can do is exactly what I said before.
I don't care if you read the Bible. I don't care if you believe in God. I don't even care if you worship the devil. It's not my job to make you do anything. I'm more than happy for you to go through life suffering through the impositions placed upon you by everyday life. I don't have that problem. I have peace through the storm. You don't and most likely never will.
I'm a degreed engineer who spent 37 years in various engineering roles. I'm pretty familiar with science. As such I don't believe it's a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence. It is literally written into the fabric of matter. There are an infinite number of ways that matter can be structured and our universe could have been created in exactly the same way for each one but there is only one structure of matter that can produce life and intelligence.
You are familiar with science, yet your arguments aren't even close to acceptable from a scientific or from a sound epistemological viewpoint. This statement for instance is fallacious. Just because you don't believe something is a coincidence doesn't make your hypothesis acceptable. This is what is called an appeal to incredulity. I don't believe something therefor what I believe is right.I'm pretty familiar with science. As such I don't believe it's a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence.
This is another example. This is "begging the question"there is only one structure of matter that can produce life and intelligence.
Objectivity is having the ability to keep an open mind. Looking at evidence without presupposing anything.Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Truth is discovered. Usually through what I call a conflict and confusion process. Diversity of thought is critical to that process.
Can you tell me what one must do to be objective? It can be stated in a simple sentence of only four words. Because discovering truth requires objectivity. And if you don't know what is required to be objective, you'll have a hard time discovering truth.
I believe the account can be passed down but the meaning gets diluted, corrupted or lost. I imagine great discussions followed each telling. What else were they going to do with their time in the evenings?
And yet you are touting that parts of a book that you yourself admit is derived from oral accounts somehow one-upped science.Did you know that Genesis correctly sequence matter existing before light?
God is transcendent. There is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence. The indirect evidence is based upon science. The universe did begin. Matter and energy are tuned to produce life. Any change to the structure of matter wouldn't produce life. The evolution of space and time did follow stages according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created and predestined not only life but intelligence.You are familiar with science, yet your arguments aren't even close to acceptable from a scientific or from a sound epistemological viewpoint. This statement for instance is fallacious. Just because you don't believe something is a coincidence doesn't make your hypothesis acceptable. This is what is called an appeal to incredulity. I don't believe something therefor what I believe is right.
This is another example. This is "begging the question"
Incorrect. It's just science and logic. If the intention was to create life and intelligence then there should be evidence showing that creating life and intelligence wasn't an accident. Given the infinite number of lifeless universes that could have been created in the exact same way as universe was created, this universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence isn't an accident.This is another example. This is "begging the question"
God is transcendent. There is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence. The indirect evidence is based upon science. The universe did begin. Matter and energy are tuned to produce life. Any change to the structure of matter wouldn't produce life. The evolution of space and time did follow stages according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created and predestined not only life but intelligence.
Only if you already believe in God before would you say that.There is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence. The indirect evidence is based upon science.
This is complete and other speculation, discounting countless other possible explanations. Like for instance the idea that there are other structures of matter that would do so. Again, just because you make a claim, doesn't all of a sudden makes it truth. This is why belief doesn't work. It is completely unfalsifiable. And since you are familiar with science you should know the worth of that.Matter and energy are tuned to produce life. Any change to the structure of matter wouldn't produce life. The evolution of space and time did follow stages according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created and predestined not only life but intelligence.
Incorrect. It's just science and logic. If the intention was to create life and intelligence then there should be evidence showing that creating life and intelligence wasn't an accident. Given the infinite number of lifeless universes that could have been created in the exact same way as universe was created, this universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence isn't an accident.
This is true. So please provide evidence that doesn't rely on circular reasoning like this?If the intention was to create life and intelligence then there should be evidence showing that creating life and intelligence wasn't an accident
Nope. That's not it. You can tell yourself you have an open mind and tell yourself you have looked at all the evidence without presupposing anything and still not be objective. Why is that?Objectivity is having the ability to keep an open mind. Looking at evidence without presupposing anything.
No, that's not quite right. I said the meaning of the account was probably lost but the account itself was likely intact. The account in question is an allegorical account of an historical event, the creation of existence. In that allegorical account they sequenced matter and energy being created before light. Which I found amazing. That account also said that everything wasn't created all at once. That what they saw was the result of a process. And lastly the account tells us that man arose from that creation. All in allegorical fashion mind you.And yet you are touting that parts of a book that you yourself admit is derived from oral accounts somehow one-upped science.
I never would claim I looked at all the evidence. I can only judge the evidence that is presented to me or that I find. This is the whole point of atheism. I don't claim God doesn't exist. I simply claim I haven't seen any evidence of God. And until I do, I will go with likely explanations that don't involve a God. Especially a God that is described in old books without any scientific bases I can discern.Nope. That's not it. You can tell yourself you have an open mind and tell yourself you have looked at all the evidence without presupposing anything and still not be objective. Why is that?
That's not settled science that the universe did begin.God is transcendent. There is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence. The indirect evidence is based upon science. The universe did begin.
Can you quote science on that?Any change to the structure of matter wouldn't produce life.
You're making the assumption that space and time were created when it could be that they always existed.The evolution of space and time did follow stages according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created and predestined not only life but intelligence.
Again... I've look at both sides objectively. For many years I might add. You haven't. You probably don';t even have a perception of God that would allow an honest investigation to take place. You're biased.Only if you already believe in God before would you say that.
Simple question. Do you believe life began within the timespan of human existence?No, that's not quite right. I said the meaning of the account was probably lost but the account itself was likely intact. The account in question is an allegorical account of an historical event, the creation of existence. In that allegorical account they sequenced matter and energy being created before light. Which I found amazing. That account also said that everything wasn't created all at once. That what they saw was the result of a process. And lastly the account tells us that man arose from that creation. All in allegorical fashion mind you.
Actually it's not. George Wald brought it up first. It's 100% true. You should look into it.This is complete and other speculation, discounting countless other possible explanations. Like for instance the idea that there are other structures of matter that would do so. Again, just because you make a claim, doesn't all of a sudden makes it truth. This is why belief doesn't work. It is completely unfalsifiable. And since you are familiar with science you should know the worth of that.
