Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?

[sakinago]

No you’re missing the point, I’m not saying how do you explain the Big Bang without a god. But how would one explain the Big Bang to people who have no concept of any sort of astrophysics, and further how would they describe that?

Well, I certainly wouldn't do it by introducing them to some mythical "Magi-Man-In-The-Sky"! I can certainly understand your "telephone game" explanation of how the original story got distort. However, even with that, what you are saying is that God is the invention of Man.

Ok now you’re running fast to beat on a strawman. No I clearly never said that. My point is clear, even without the telephone game (although that does add credence). Even with google translate, as I talk to my cousins in Brazil earlier today, much is still lost in translation from superiorly educated (compared to back then) man to man. We’re talking about people who didn’t even have the language to describe what we know now about the formation of the universe, earth, and life. If a god or person taught or showed or whatever to pigmys on some pacific island who’ve never experienced the modern world...people who have never conceived of a singularity, to where if you told them all you see, plus more, was condensed to the size smaller than a pinkie toe nail and would call you crazy, do you think they’d fully grasp that concept and be able to describe it back to you?

TO THE BOLD: "If a god or a person"? You then end your hypothetical with their lack of ability to successfully describe the science back to me, indicating that I am that "god or person". If I were involved in your hypothetical, the first thing I would do is make certain that every time these primitives tried to ascribe to me some silly divinity, I would point out, and remind them, and demonstrate that I am just me. I am just a human, just like them. That way, even if their understanding of advanced, or even rudimentary physics, was lacking, at least it wouldn't get tied up with some stupid "God Myth". No matter how you want to parse it, what you are suggesting is that Man created God, not the other way around. Not that I disagree. It's just that such a revelation would, again relegate the Bible to "just another book".

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

I mean you say there’s no reason inserting god into the myth story...but why would people way back then ever believe in a void outside of the earth (let alone a singularity) without guidance from say YOU or a god, and then the fact of ocean life (oceans were seen as monsterous death areas back then) before animal life, and before humans? It’s these people got this on their own, which would make them lucky or really really smart compared to rest of the world (even by today’s standards). You really shouldn’t have as much trouble with this, I feel like (taking the meaning of your name into consideration) you’re an atheist because you have a compulsion to reject religion/status quo for whatever reason. You’re not a real atheist but an a rebel not because you believe in the cause but because you want to be part of “counter culture”.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Think of a single question that science sought to answer, that was, in the end, better answered by religion.

einstein thought to build an A-bomb during a world war that was not answered by scriptural religion which only go's to show your premise has a gaping hole in it ... neither has the quality necessary to decipher the truth when it is only an either / or proposition. presently, the books are all written by the same types -

the third face of eve, the fee knowing spirit is what is missing from collective humanity as the definition of humanity must include the awfulness recorded history portrays for mankind as an endless series of deliberate incursions that can only be described as evil repeating itself without interruption.

science / religion to accomplish its collective goal as seemingly set would be to become together an Almighty unison where acceptance would be universal and the rewards shared by all beings be what they may. life on Earth to become as perceived while living as their dreams project life after death.

the desert religions have always been a disservice for what they attempt to convey, science has yet to prove any differently.

Okay...You start with Einstein, and then devolve into a blather word salad that I tried for 20 minutes to try to make sense of, in, I presume since you were directly responding to my challenge to do so, an attempt to point out some scientific question that was ultimately answered more rationally by religion.

By all means, I invite you to translate that gibberish into English for the rest of us.

.

By all means, I invite you to translate that gibberish into English for the rest of us.

it's self explanatory I doubt it would be an issue if found in the bible which you freely translate flawlessly -

you distinguish science that exists to explain origins as different than religion which you equate somehow to the desert religions where there is no equivalency the same as saying science was responsible for Hiroshima.

In some ways, science was responsible for Hiroshima. "I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds," That was what Oppenheimer said when he saw the first successful test. It, literally, scared the absolute fuck out of him. It appalled him to realise the level of devastation that he had just helped to create. So what? How does that alter the reality that religion will never answer the question that Sakinago asked? He didn't ask a question about morality, which is what you seem to want to make this. He asked a question about objective reality: Where did the universe come from? How was it formed? These are the types of questions that science over, and over have purposed answers for. And, not once, in all of history, has religion ever gone behind science, and proven to correct it. Not. Once.

.

In some ways, science was responsible for Hiroshima.

no, that was einstein and crowd, just as religion is not responsible for those that made up the desert beliefs.

So what? How does that alter the reality that religion will never answer the question that Sakinago asked? ... He asked a question about objective reality:

The Triumph of Good vs Evil is an objective reality science is ill prepared to answer as the solution involves not science but the individuals that interpret the data science provides. the problem is for those that made the A-bomb, not that it was made using science. there is a reason for both religion and science that binds them together for any real solutions to prevail. why it is the person that presents an answer that matters as much as their discovery.

Where did the universe come from? How was it formed? These are the types of questions that science over, and over have purposed answers for. And, not once, in all of history, has religion ever gone behind science, and proven to correct it. Not. Once.

well, that is true in the broad picture when religion is held captive by the likes of the desert beliefs, obviously and the same with einstein introducing an A-bomb during a world war both science and religion have their own barriers that prevent advancements for humanity but that is not to say religion and science are not mutually necessary in the longrun to accomplish the true and lasting results sought by both.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Simple: No it isn't.

It is a book wrote by men that wanted to control other people.

 

[sakinago]

The simpsons isn’t even close to funny, and hasn’t been that way for about a decade (since at the very least the movie) who is watching this show to keep it alive??? Stop...this show needs to die, we need to put it to sleep, it’s like keeping a dog that lives in constant pain and giving it elaborate surgeries to keep it alive.

 

[sakinago]

The simpsons isn’t even close to funny, and hasn’t been that way for about a decade (since at the very least the movie) who is watching this show to keep it alive??? Stop...this show needs to die, we need to put it to sleep, it’s like keeping a dog that lives in constant pain and giving it elaborate surgeries to keep it alive.

Not even a smirk. There are so many better shows that have been cancelled...this show is way past it’s time...I’m ready to start a campaign. There has to be other people that agree with me on this, it’s past the point of sad, it actually makes me angry

 

[Czernobog]

The Triumph of Good vs Evil...

...isn't an objective anything. It is a philosophical construct. You're right that science is "ill prepared" to respond to that, as the purpose of science is not to debate philosophy, but to understand how things work. Feel free to debate the philosophy of the morality of whether those things should work all you like.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, I certainly wouldn't do it by introducing them to some mythical "Magi-Man-In-The-Sky"! I can certainly understand your "telephone game" explanation of how the original story got distort. However, even with that, what you are saying is that God is the invention of Man.

Ok now you’re running fast to beat on a strawman. No I clearly never said that. My point is clear, even without the telephone game (although that does add credence). Even with google translate, as I talk to my cousins in Brazil earlier today, much is still lost in translation from superiorly educated (compared to back then) man to man. We’re talking about people who didn’t even have the language to describe what we know now about the formation of the universe, earth, and life. If a god or person taught or showed or whatever to pigmys on some pacific island who’ve never experienced the modern world...people who have never conceived of a singularity, to where if you told them all you see, plus more, was condensed to the size smaller than a pinkie toe nail and would call you crazy, do you think they’d fully grasp that concept and be able to describe it back to you?

TO THE BOLD: "If a god or a person"? You then end your hypothetical with their lack of ability to successfully describe the science back to me, indicating that I am that "god or person". If I were involved in your hypothetical, the first thing I would do is make certain that every time these primitives tried to ascribe to me some silly divinity, I would point out, and remind them, and demonstrate that I am just me. I am just a human, just like them. That way, even if their understanding of advanced, or even rudimentary physics, was lacking, at least it wouldn't get tied up with some stupid "God Myth". No matter how you want to parse it, what you are suggesting is that Man created God, not the other way around. Not that I disagree. It's just that such a revelation would, again relegate the Bible to "just another book".

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

 

[sakinago]

Ok now you’re running fast to beat on a strawman. No I clearly never said that. My point is clear, even without the telephone game (although that does add credence). Even with google translate, as I talk to my cousins in Brazil earlier today, much is still lost in translation from superiorly educated (compared to back then) man to man. We’re talking about people who didn’t even have the language to describe what we know now about the formation of the universe, earth, and life. If a god or person taught or showed or whatever to pigmys on some pacific island who’ve never experienced the modern world...people who have never conceived of a singularity, to where if you told them all you see, plus more, was condensed to the size smaller than a pinkie toe nail and would call you crazy, do you think they’d fully grasp that concept and be able to describe it back to you?

TO THE BOLD: "If a god or a person"? You then end your hypothetical with their lack of ability to successfully describe the science back to me, indicating that I am that "god or person". If I were involved in your hypothetical, the first thing I would do is make certain that every time these primitives tried to ascribe to me some silly divinity, I would point out, and remind them, and demonstrate that I am just me. I am just a human, just like them. That way, even if their understanding of advanced, or even rudimentary physics, was lacking, at least it wouldn't get tied up with some stupid "God Myth". No matter how you want to parse it, what you are suggesting is that Man created God, not the other way around. Not that I disagree. It's just that such a revelation would, again relegate the Bible to "just another book".

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

 

[Czernobog]

TO THE BOLD: "If a god or a person"? You then end your hypothetical with their lack of ability to successfully describe the science back to me, indicating that I am that "god or person". If I were involved in your hypothetical, the first thing I would do is make certain that every time these primitives tried to ascribe to me some silly divinity, I would point out, and remind them, and demonstrate that I am just me. I am just a human, just like them. That way, even if their understanding of advanced, or even rudimentary physics, was lacking, at least it wouldn't get tied up with some stupid "God Myth". No matter how you want to parse it, what you are suggesting is that Man created God, not the other way around. Not that I disagree. It's just that such a revelation would, again relegate the Bible to "just another book".

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

I keep making that point. You keep calling it a "straw man". If they made that shit up, then the Bible is no different than any other work written by man.

 

[sakinago]

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

I keep making that point. You keep calling it a "straw man". If they made that shit up, then the Bible is no different than any other work written by man.

Except they got pretty damn close, taking in consideration their knowledge at the time, it’s at the very least impressive. When you compare to any other creation story...not a contest. And even now you’re still missing the point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

TO THE BOLD: "If a god or a person"? You then end your hypothetical with their lack of ability to successfully describe the science back to me, indicating that I am that "god or person". If I were involved in your hypothetical, the first thing I would do is make certain that every time these primitives tried to ascribe to me some silly divinity, I would point out, and remind them, and demonstrate that I am just me. I am just a human, just like them. That way, even if their understanding of advanced, or even rudimentary physics, was lacking, at least it wouldn't get tied up with some stupid "God Myth". No matter how you want to parse it, what you are suggesting is that Man created God, not the other way around. Not that I disagree. It's just that such a revelation would, again relegate the Bible to "just another book".

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

"And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in"

I don't get this... what do you mean, "how"? Humans had the abilities of imagination and language then, just as they do now.

 

[Czernobog]

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

I keep making that point. You keep calling it a "straw man". If they made that shit up, then the Bible is no different than any other work written by man.

Except they got pretty damn close, taking in consideration their knowledge at the time, it’s at the very least impressive. When you compare to any other creation story...not a contest. And even now you’re still missing the point.

I still take issue with your "pretty damn close" assessment, but even so. Sure. Impressive. Kinda like the pyramids of Egypt without modern geometry, and engineering. Or the Mayan ziggurats. Or any of a number of other ancient accomplishments, most of which were done without "God's" help.

 

[sakinago]

Oh please stop, I’m just illustrating my point of the disparity of knowledge, which either a god or modernly educated person (using person to help you sympathize) vs people who don’t know their elbow from their asshole...that’s what we’re dealing with. Stop with the strawman.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

"And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in"

I don't get this... what do you mean, "how"? Humans had the abilities of imagination and language then, just as they do now.

I’m in disbelief that this first half ass salvo has cut this deep into “hard core” atheists. Holy shit, ok...consider again we’re talking about very ego centric people who were one of the very very few who didn’t consider the sun was an actual god, and one of many gods. Which if I lived back then, the sun, and moon, and whatever other superstition based loosly on the cycle of survival, being one of many gods would’ve been more likely than a singular god who instead of creating everything all at once went in the order of no light to light, shapeless earth to land and sea, and then sea creatures to land animals, and from land animals, to humans.

 

[Czernobog]

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

"And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in"

I don't get this... what do you mean, "how"? Humans had the abilities of imagination and language then, just as they do now.

I’m in disbelief that this first half ass salvo has cut this deep into “hard core” atheists. Holy shit, ok...consider again we’re talking about very ego centric people who were one of the very very few who didn’t consider the sun was an actual god, and one of many gods. Which if I lived back then, the sun, and moon, and whatever other superstition based loosly on the cycle of survival, being one of many gods would’ve been more likely than a singular god who instead of creating everything all at once went in the order of no light to light, shapeless earth to land and sea, and then sea creatures to land animals, and from land animals, to humans.

You do know that Yahweh was just one of many Sun Gods worshipped by ancient desert tribes, right? The Bible, even the first books, were written years, even centuries, after the religion had already coalesced into Judaism. Hell, the Jews grew out of that polytheistic realm. You act like the Jews sprang out of the ground already worshipping a single god. There is absolutely nothing in archaeological information about the region to suggest that.

In it's earliest incarnation, Judaism wasn't even monotheistic. It was a form of monolatry. And they weren't even the first civilisation to practice Monolatry. That would have been the 18th Egyptian dynasty, about a thousand years before the Yahweh cult even came into being.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

"And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in"

I don't get this... what do you mean, "how"? Humans had the abilities of imagination and language then, just as they do now.

I’m in disbelief that this first half ass salvo has cut this deep into “hard core” atheists. Holy shit, ok...consider again we’re talking about very ego centric people who were one of the very very few who didn’t consider the sun was an actual god, and one of many gods. Which if I lived back then, the sun, and moon, and whatever other superstition based loosly on the cycle of survival, being one of many gods would’ve been more likely than a singular god who instead of creating everything all at once went in the order of no light to light, shapeless earth to land and sea, and then sea creatures to land animals, and from land animals, to humans.

Why the self-aggrandizement? I only asked a simple question.

Again I ask: what do you mean, "how"? Seems like a simple question with a simple answer: gods got personified, naturally, and then imagination took over. Which is why I asked what you meant, because, apparently, you think it's not so simple.

 

[Picaro]

I’ll hop in. C This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them.

Who thought the earth was flat? that's a myth dreamed up by ...um .... 18th and 19th Century allegedly 'educated atheists'.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Uh...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the belief that the Earth was flat goes back a great deal further than that. In fact The Early Church ridiculed, and even imprisoned for heresy anyone "silly enough" to suggest that the earth was a sphere:

Christian Topography (547) by the Alexandrian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, who had travelled as far as Sri Lanka and the source of the Blue Nile, is now widely considered the most valuable geographical document of the early medieval age, although it received relatively little attention from contemporaries. In it, the author repeatedly expounds the doctrine that the universe consists of only two places, the Earth below the firmament and heaven above it. Carefully drawing on arguments from scripture, he describes the Earth as a rectangle, 400 day's journey long by 200 wide, surrounded by four oceans and enclosed by four massive walls which support the firmament. The spherical Earth theory is contemptuously dismissed as "pagan"

So...yeah...the idea that the Earth was flat precedes the 1800's by quite a bit.

Rubbish.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

Finding a couple of Bishops or somebody who thought the Earth was flat isn't some proof that theory had anything to do with Christianity, or what most Christians and Jews thought. Flat Earthers were a distinct and very small minority in the West, unlike most other parts of the world, like China and elsewhere.

Except you are trying to say that the Bible - particularly the creation story - arose from a primitive people trying to describe events for which they had no understanding. Okay. I would agree that their narrative would probably not be scientific. However that still doesn't explain the insertion of God into the narrative. Guess what? If I had to describe how a nuclear device works, it probably wouldn't be scientifically accurate, as I am not a nuclear physicist. However, my description certainly would not start with, "God created a little ball of energy..." and take it from there. There is no explanation, in your analysis, for inserting the God myth into the story.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

I keep making that point. You keep calling it a "straw man". If they made that shit up, then the Bible is no different than any other work written by man.

Except they got pretty damn close, taking in consideration their knowledge at the time, it’s at the very least impressive. When you compare to any other creation story...not a contest. And even now you’re still missing the point.

He certainly didn't post anything proving all those ancient atheists discovered the Earth was round, or discovered anything else. that's because most of what passes for atheism these days is purely politically motivated, and has nothing to do with 'science', hence the constant barrage of silly lies and deliberate distortions. In the West, Christianity and its traditions are seen as brakes and social inhibitions on narcissism and the politics of mindless self-indulgence and assorted anti-social sociopathic behaviors.

 

[sakinago]

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

I keep making that point. You keep calling it a "straw man". If they made that shit up, then the Bible is no different than any other work written by man.

Except they got pretty damn close, taking in consideration their knowledge at the time, it’s at the very least impressive. When you compare to any other creation story...not a contest. And even now you’re still missing the point.

I still take issue with your "pretty damn close" assessment, but even so. Sure. Impressive. Kinda like the pyramids of Egypt without modern geometry, and engineering. Or the Mayan ziggurats. Or any of a number of other ancient accomplishments, most of which were done without "God's" help.

And that’s perfectly fair enough. The one good response yet. But the one thing that makes me pause and say “oh shit this might be real” is (if I’m being honest how much antisemitism has and continues to exist since pretty much jews have been a thing, despite that making no sense, there have been like 8 different holocausts in the past few hundred years). Just to me the hate for Jews I don’t understand, and the biggest haters seems to come from the most evil of society. But beyond that, the whole revelation, not being able to buy and sell, that’s ancompetely foreign concept to people back then (but is actively happening now). The armored insects with screaming hair attacking people, well shit that sounds like drones. Yea that’s the stuff that gives me pause

 

[Czernobog]

I’ll hop in. C This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them.

Who thought the earth was flat? that's a myth dreamed up by ...um .... 18th and 19th Century allegedly 'educated atheists'.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Uh...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the belief that the Earth was flat goes back a great deal further than that. In fact The Early Church ridiculed, and even imprisoned for heresy anyone "silly enough" to suggest that the earth was a sphere:

Christian Topography (547) by the Alexandrian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, who had travelled as far as Sri Lanka and the source of the Blue Nile, is now widely considered the most valuable geographical document of the early medieval age, although it received relatively little attention from contemporaries. In it, the author repeatedly expounds the doctrine that the universe consists of only two places, the Earth below the firmament and heaven above it. Carefully drawing on arguments from scripture, he describes the Earth as a rectangle, 400 day's journey long by 200 wide, surrounded by four oceans and enclosed by four massive walls which support the firmament. The spherical Earth theory is contemptuously dismissed as "pagan"

So...yeah...the idea that the Earth was flat precedes the 1800's by quite a bit.

Rubbish.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

Finding a couple of Bishops or somebody who thought the Earth was flat isn't some proof that theory had anything to do with Christianity, or what most Christians and Jews thought. Flat Earthers were a distinct and very small minority in the West, unlike most other parts of the world, like China and elsewhere.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

I keep making that point. You keep calling it a "straw man". If they made that shit up, then the Bible is no different than any other work written by man.

Except they got pretty damn close, taking in consideration their knowledge at the time, it’s at the very least impressive. When you compare to any other creation story...not a contest. And even now you’re still missing the point.

He certainly didn't post anything proving all those ancient atheists discovered the Earth was round, or discovered anything else. that's because most of what passes for atheism these days is purely politically motivated, and has nothing to do with 'science', hence the constant barrage of silly lies and deliberate distortions.

I didn't say that it was Christian. The flat Earth theory pre-dates Christianity by about 7 or 8 centuries. I only said that the Early Christian Church subscribed to the theory. It was one of the things that got Copernicus thrown into prison. That, and the fact that he dared to put forth the heretical theory that the Earth wasn't the centre of the solar system, let alone the universe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

"And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in"

I don't get this... what do you mean, "how"? Humans had the abilities of imagination and language then, just as they do now.

I’m in disbelief that this first half ass salvo has cut this deep into “hard core” atheists. Holy shit, ok...consider again we’re talking about very ego centric people who were one of the very very few who didn’t consider the sun was an actual god, and one of many gods. Which if I lived back then, the sun, and moon, and whatever other superstition based loosly on the cycle of survival, being one of many gods would’ve been more likely than a singular god who instead of creating everything all at once went in the order of no light to light, shapeless earth to land and sea, and then sea creatures to land animals, and from land animals, to humans.

You do know that Yeshua was just one of many Sun Gods worshipped by ancient desert tribes, right? The Bible, even the first books, were written years, even centuries, after the religion had already coalesced into Judaism. Hell, the Jews grew out of that polytheistic realm. You act like the Jews sprang out of the ground already worshipping a single god. There is absolutely nothing in archaeological information about the region to suggest that.

Correct.

We know this to be true because the god of the ancient Hebrews was not universal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’ll hop in. C This is people who thought the earth was flat and the sun and moon spinned around them.

Who thought the earth was flat? that's a myth dreamed up by ...um .... 18th and 19th Century allegedly 'educated atheists'.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Uh...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the belief that the Earth was flat goes back a great deal further than that. In fact The Early Church ridiculed, and even imprisoned for heresy anyone "silly enough" to suggest that the earth was a sphere:

Christian Topography (547) by the Alexandrian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, who had travelled as far as Sri Lanka and the source of the Blue Nile, is now widely considered the most valuable geographical document of the early medieval age, although it received relatively little attention from contemporaries. In it, the author repeatedly expounds the doctrine that the universe consists of only two places, the Earth below the firmament and heaven above it. Carefully drawing on arguments from scripture, he describes the Earth as a rectangle, 400 day's journey long by 200 wide, surrounded by four oceans and enclosed by four massive walls which support the firmament. The spherical Earth theory is contemptuously dismissed as "pagan"

So...yeah...the idea that the Earth was flat precedes the 1800's by quite a bit.

Rubbish.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

Finding a couple of Bishops or somebody who thought the Earth was flat isn't some proof that theory had anything to do with Christianity, or what most Christians and Jews thought. Flat Earthers were a distinct and very small minority in the West, unlike most other parts of the world, like China and elsewhere.

....and the lowest common denominator is still the people you hold to our modern standards in describing how the universe came about. My points are clear on the fact that its not really about YOU explaining this, or a god explaining this, but the people it would’ve been explained to. I really thought an atheist wouldn’t run to strawman as much as this.

You can call it a strawman all you want. The question is very simple. When these ancient people tried to explain things they didn't understand, why did they start with "God did this..."? Unless your answer is, God was there to tell them, then the only reasonable answer is, "They made that shit up,"

And my whole point is how did they make this up on their own, considering the time they lived in. I’ve tried to make that quite clear, many times. You try to skip this point more than a respectable atheist should. You might as well be a satanist, who acknowledges god but wants to reject god just to be different.

I keep making that point. You keep calling it a "straw man". If they made that shit up, then the Bible is no different than any other work written by man.

Except they got pretty damn close, taking in consideration their knowledge at the time, it’s at the very least impressive. When you compare to any other creation story...not a contest. And even now you’re still missing the point.

He certainly didn't post anything proving all those ancient atheists discovered the Earth was round, or discovered anything else. that's because most of what passes for atheism these days is purely politically motivated, and has nothing to do with 'science', hence the constant barrage of silly lies and deliberate distortions. In the West, Christianity and its traditions are seen as brakes and social inhibitions on narcissism and the politics of mindless self-indulgence and assorted anti-social sociopathic behaviors.

"He certainly didn't post anything proving all those ancient atheists discovered the Earth was round,"

Nevertheless, those who discovered it certainly were atheists, when it comes to your god.