A graphical representation of what happens after Death

[xmobotx]

Your stance seems to be that you aren't going to look into anything that might contradict your already held beliefs. When challenged to provide evidence of contradictions, I provided it. You ignored it. Now you wanna quit. That's fine by me

My already held beliefs haven't been held my entire life - I have looked into many many alternatives many many times.

And, I have seen arguments which are actually somewhat convincing for all manner of ideas from universal energies/power in everyone (we are all god) to simple science (happened by chance) to alternatives such as wicca/druidism

NTM buddha, shiva, zeus, etc.

Hell, for a time I was into the necronomicon and witchcraft

What I'm saying (w/o personally attacking you) is I don't see ANY logic in your counterpoints. It's like explaining science to a 3rd grader talking to you.

To be fair, your point contrasting "God's equity to all" w/ his commands to destroy babies seems like something of a contradiction. BUT, that's why I replied "if a parent rebukes their child do they still love them?"

AND, this is the only point you've actually made with any merit whatsoever. Everything else has been "this is my opinion so it must be right=I WIN!"

OK, the babies did nothing wrong. But, if the Isrealites had left survivors they would constantly be at war. (I know that's not too much different) But, they did have a period of respite. It's important to note that the Isrealites failed to follow Moses' law and much of the fallout of that time (to present) is as a result of that (I believe it's a demonstration that we NEED to follow God's rules)

But, many confuse these rules w/ rules mandated by various churches.

~#~

For some reason, you feel the need to "win" this discussion - ironic since our points are not too different.

a) I believe there is not life after death - you believe there is not life after death

b) I believe there is a supreme being - you seem willing to accept that there is; you just don't like the god of the bible

so,

c) that's the ONLY thing we disagree on (because I do believe the bible)

MY POINT

The religions of the world are wrong (at least I haven't found a true one)

But, the bible is not wrong

~#~

Let's be serious; you don't see any significance to the fact that the bible is scientifically accurate when it was written in a time long before science caught up? (I know surprise surprise, it's not scientifically accurate -after all, YOU say so! [that's my opinion=I WIN!])

i.e. 2+2=4 so.... (see where I get 3rd grade?)

There is no other sacred writing which combines literal history w/ at least slightly plausible information about the unseen over such a long time period - and then includes scientific info that makes any sense today...

maybe if you had a citation for the scientific inaccuracy? So, I can just ignore that too.

The thing is, I didn't ignore you - it's just that when I present my answer in a form that isn't spoon-feeding reply for reply to you - that's apparently too difficult to figure out (I thought you were following/ interested in the conversation?)

So, from where I'm standing; if you're not following the conversation well enough to read my reply w/o your quote, maybe you're not smart enough to figure out these kinds of deep things we're talking about?

But, I don't want to make fun of you or call you names. I'm just telling you what I believe.

Take it or leave it that's your choice

 

[JackSkellington]

read dmt the spirit molecule and then ull think this thread is a bunch of crap...if there was no god thered be no universe idc what you think the world didnt make itself such a perfect place by itself dmt IS the spirit molecule dont flame me

 

[Lazyman]

Scientifically a negative cannot be proven, it is up to the entity making the claims to prove the positive. Since Gods existence has not been proven, it is not so.

Oh man I love that Epicurius quote, soooo good, thanks for posting it Anti!

Question for Christians: Who do you think WROTE the Bible? Old, new , Mormon. Do you think God wrote it himself? Men wrote it. The first over 200 YEARS after Jesus' death. Do you know how badly stories are mangled when passed on over ten generations, orally? Sheit, Jesus coulda just been some hip cat who had a fat sack of shrooms and got everybody fucked up. Since we don't have any written data from that generation, you can't prove it's NOT true.

 

[xmobotx]

~Men wrote it. The first over 200 YEARS after Jesus' death. Do you know how badly stories are mangled when passed on over ten generations, orally?~

actually it's a written history and many manuscripts and codice exist from pre-christian times

this kind of statement sounds authentic and makes for a seemingly pretty good case (how could this history be accurate? - anyone play the telephone game?)

but, the statement is false. it's conjecture and the basis is atheist in source.

more lies! as the serpent "you will not die, you will become like god."

BTW, revelation refers to the dragon cast down from heaven, clarifies that it is indeed satan, then references the serpent; verifying that the serpent is indeed the devil (which we all already know when we're not being smart-asses.)

 

[Anti]

What I'm saying (w/o personally attacking you) is I don't see ANY logic in your counterpoints. It's like explaining science to a 3rd grader talking to you.

I can't imagine how that could be the case, homie. I'm constantly having to re-explain things to you that the rest of the group seems to be catching onto very quickly. I'm sorry if my tone is somewhat abrasive... it's just my orating style, it's not personal.

If you can't see the logic, you aren't trying very hard.

To be fair, your point contrasting "God's equity to all" w/ his commands to destroy babies seems like something of a contradiction.

It's not the only one I can provide. I actually pulled that one straight out of my butt. (and the bible.) There are lots of websites that have lots of them, though, to be fair, the more militant atheists tend to skew data just as often as militant theists.

I am neither.

BUT, that's why I replied "if a parent rebukes their child do they still love them?"

Ok... here's a parable that I came up with to address this point:

You love your children and you want to protect them, so you tell them to look both ways when they cross the street. (This is for their own safety.) When you see your child running into the street and a car is coming, you might grab the child, yank him back to safety and give him a good smack on the behind and scold him.

"NO! You DO NOT go running into the street!"

You do this, of course, not because you are angry with him or evil, but because you are frightened for his welfare and you know that while he may not yet understand WHY he must not run in the street, he does know what angry daddy looks like, and he wants to avoid Angry Daddy as much as possible. We both know that Angry Daddy is mostly an act and the rest is concern, frustration, fear.

Ok. This is usually the part where I point out the obvious absurdity of the notion of eternal damnation. But in this instance, I am modifying my parable to address your point about scolding your children:

You slap them on the behind to PROTECT THEM. Slaughtering infants and pregnant mothers and even the animals they rode in on is the very OPPOSITE of this! Where's the love in this genocide?

AND, this is the only point you've actually made with any merit whatsoever. Everything else has been "this is my opinion so it must be right=I WIN!"

Come on, homie. Anybody here can go back right now and read every word of this exchange.

OK, the babies did nothing wrong. But, if the Isrealites had left survivors they would constantly be at war. (I know that's not too much different) But, they did have a period of respite. It's important to note that the Isrealites failed to follow Moses' law and much of the fallout of that time (to present) is as a result of that (I believe it's a demonstration that we NEED to follow God's rules)

If God's rules include slaughtering pregnant women (and saving the virgins to rape and/or marry later) then God can go eat a bag of dicks. A big bag.

For some reason, you feel the need to "win" this discussion - ironic since our points are not too different.

My references to "winning" were themselves ironic. Funny you didn't notice this, what with our points of view being so similar.

a) I believe there is not life after death - you believe there is not life after death

I do not know whether there is life after death or not, not having died. But I know that all the so called "evidence" that is presented for life after death is either dubious or maliciously faked.

If you have some evidence one way or the other I'd be happy to see it.

b) I believe there is a supreme being - you seem willing to accept that there is; you just don't like the god of the bible

I accept that there are things that I do not understand about existence and that the possibility exists for a thing that might be deserving of the label "GOD"; and I think the god of the bible is petty, mean-spirited and barbaric.

But, the bible is not wrong

In the bible, Noah takes 2 of every animals onto a boat that is not nearly big enough. It would be next to impossible for an army to have built a wooden ship in the time he was given to build it, let alone a guy and his adult children, and then it would be impossible to keep these animals alive and captive on this ship for the duration of the trip! (What are you feeding all the predators, for example? Who is cleaning up the feces of all these millions of animals? What are the humans eating? How could a small extended family possibly capture and contain all the animals on each and every continent prior to the flood? etc.)

That's just the tip of what's completely implausible about one single story very near the beginning of the book.

When you say the bible is not wrong... what exactly do you mean? In what ways is it right? Metaphorically? Inspirationally? Because, read literally, it certainly is wrong.

Let's be serious; you don't see any significance to the fact that the bible is scientifically accurate when it was written in a time long before science caught up? (I know surprise surprise, it's not scientifically accurate -after all, YOU say so! [that's my opinion=I WIN!])

The bible is a collection of the wisdom of the ancients. Man has been staring at the sky for a long, long time. From the dawn of agricultural man, knowing the rhythm and length of the seasons is critical to survival. Of course you would encode this knowledge into your myths! In a world where 99.9% of the populace is illiterate, you need a way of combining your ability to plant with your ability to navigate with stories that teach you about your heritage and make you proud of your culture.

When you succeed, you imagine that god is blessing you.

When you fail, you imagine that god is punishing you.

In both scenarios it is YOUR belief that shapes YOUR reality.

i.e. 2+2=4 so.... (see where I get 3rd grade?)

That was a simplification because you didn't seem to care for more complex examples.
I already replaced it with my "Liquid State of Water = No Jesus" example.

I can replace it again if you feel it necessary.

There is no other sacred writing which combines literal history w/ at least slightly plausible information about the unseen over such a long time period - and then includes scientific info that makes any sense today...

Quantum physics, when expressed in common english, has much in common with both buddhist and hindu texts.

There's a lot of history, astronomy and practical wisdom in their sacred texts, as well.

I can find examples of all of this, if you feel the need.

maybe if you had a citation for the scientific inaccuracy? So, I can just ignore that too.

I provide you with lots of citations. When are you going to start offering more than your mild rebuke of my writing style? When will you offer citations to back up your points?

How's this for proof of the non-science of the bible. Remeber that only one fact in the bible need be wrong to prevent it from being the infallible, miraculous work of the one true god. I'll start at the very beginning:

Genesis 1

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Ok. So we can see in 1 that God created heavens and earth first.


In 3 and 4, God creates light! (After earth existed.)


It isn't until 14 that he gets around to creating the Sun, Moon and Stars! This is the third day, btw!


Scientific answer:


The formation of the planet came AFTER the formation of the star which came AFTER the formation of the galaxy. The STARS are the SOURCE of the LIGHT.

So.. the planet came first? nope. Not possible. Light came before stars? Nope. The light we see in the sky, the brightness that reaches our retinas in the morning... coming straight from the nearest star. The light of the moon? (Does it shine with it's own brilliance?) Nope. Starlight.

We can stop reading right here if we're approaching this from a literal, scientific perspective! The bible is simply NOT scientifically accurate. It's not perfect. So now what?

(Please confine your argument to my actual points, and not to my personality and conversation style.)

The thing is, I didn't ignore you - it's just that when I present my answer in a form that isn't spoon-feeding reply for reply to you - that's apparently too difficult to figure out (I thought you were following/ interested in the conversation?)

I take the time to quote what you're saying for the ease of everyone. Your refusal to do the same only makes your argument that much harder to read, while conveniently allowing you to twist my words without having them right there for the reader to judge.

So, from where I'm standing; if you're not following the conversation well enough to read my reply w/o your quote, maybe you're not smart enough to figure out these kinds of deep things we're talking about?

From where I'm sitting, you are clearly the one who is not following this conversation and the fact that you are now stooping to attacks on my intelligence just shows how hopelessly deluded you are. Come back to reality, Neo! We need you in the real world.

But, I don't want to make fun of you or call you names. I'm just telling you what I believe.

Are you sure? I could swear you just called me stupid.

 

[Wilson!]

Profressor of Special Education on the Bible

Profressor of Special Education on the Bible

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/daily_000232.php


The Revealer is probably the last to get this email currently making the rounds, but in case you missed it, we republish here an "open letter" to Dr. Laura. Impressed by the depth of her biblical knowledge, Dr. James M. Kauffman seeks further advice from the lifestyle guru:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -- Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness -- Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -- Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

 

[Wilson!]

it's all funny but at 4:02 is the shit. It's a gas.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/fg-christianity-p1.php

 

[xmobotx]

Are you sure? I could swear you just called me stupid.

No, i can see quite clearly that you know everything

for instance, you know the order in which everything came to be

how could i possibly debate that w/ talk of miracles?

and you're absolutely right, i can't make some of these connections

liquid state of water? - i m lost

 

[GrnMtnGrwr]

...

 

[HydroManiac]

Anybody who thinks I'm whining about diamondmine's beliefs, please give me a "thumbs down" on this post.

And why would I ever want to justify evil? I think evil is evil. (And therefore not good.)



I would love to see evidence that these murdered babies are not really dead and live on forever in paradise. Please provide it for me so that I can sleep better at night.



I don't have any children. On purpose. I can't yet promise my potential children that they will live a beautiful life, relatively safe from the dangers from near and abroad. I cannot guarantee them that I can provide them with everything they will need in terms of shelter, sustenance, clothing, security, wisdom, guidance, etc.

I have chosen not to burden this world with any more mouths to feed until I can be reasonably comfortable that I will not be contributing to the evil in this world by so-doing.

But I guess I'm just an unfeeling monster who wants babies to suffer because I refuse to believe in a fairy tale with no reasonable explanation?

How does your belief system help babies? Doesn't it just allow you to pass the buck into some afterlife system of reward and punishment?

The babies aren't suffering anymore because they're with Jesus. (Unless, of course, they weren't baptized.) The people who did it will burn in hell forever, so I needn't be bothered with trying to understand why they do it or trying to prevent it.

Vote now.

Not everybody who believes in God believes everybody who isn't baptized is going to hell just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there!

 

[Stoned Crow]

So for the babies that get raped and killed, murdered left for dead in a dumpster bloody and cold murder, EVIL triumphs!!!!!!!

That's a great outlook, no justice, just...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Good job in bringing this post to the raped, killed, murdered and left for dead babies threshold. I think I missed your point. What exactly were you trying say?

 

[xmobotx]

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/daily_000232.php


The Revealer is probably the last to get this email currently making the rounds, but in case you missed it, we republish here an "open letter" to Dr. Laura. Impressed by the depth of her biblical knowledge, Dr. James M. Kauffman seeks further advice from the lifestyle guru:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -- Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness -- Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -- Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

you know, this is funny

 

[Castelvetro]

some of u in this thread are prime examples of people who have been taught to think from empathy. in the positive with your imaginary heaven and how great we should all feel about it and most obviously and the reason i bring it up is the negative side of your empathys perverse ways with your total fear that life n fate is decided by accidents and a flip of the coin if u will, some of u this really bothers but that doesnt mean it bothers us atheist, u just empathize it does and hear it how u want to, and much like all religous bafoons almost want an apology for how weve upset u some how....... All this thinking n mentality of the believer is just about to be erradicated from the earth, no apology is necessary. u have nothing to sell, nothing is free. the after life was a great means to keep small poor abusable people abusable, the upcoming challenge is how to replace the babysit factor religeon has provided for so long at the same time getting the children themselves to pay for it, the latter part will have to abandon.

 

[xmobotx]

some of u in this thread are prime examples of people who have been taught to think from empathy. in the positive with your imaginary heaven and how great we should all feel about it and most obviously and the reason i bring it up is the negative side of your empathys perverse ways with your total fear that life n fate is decided by accidents and a flip of the coin if u will, some of u this really bothers but that doesnt mean it bothers us atheist, u just empathize it does and hear it how u want to, and much like all religous bafoons almost want an apology for how weve upset u some how....... All this thinking n mentality of the believer is just about to be erradicated from the earth, no apology is necessary. u have nothing to sell, nothing is free. the after life was a great means to keep small poor abusable people abusable, the upcoming challenge is how to replace the babysit factor religeon has provided for so long at the same time getting the children themselves to pay for it, the latter part will have to abandon.

i m not sure how heaven can be imaginary since i could walk outside and look up to see what of it i can see (it's daytime) or, FTM more if i wait till night to walk out there.

So, atheist=don't believe in the sky?

no doubt, many religious people feel their way is the only way and avoid/discriminate non-believers

yishYawah didn't do this

it seems to me that atheism as a religion has become what xtianity has been - you resent the believers and expect them to adopt your beliefs

i don't expect anyone to adopt my beliefs - actually, i could very well be wrong (see anti, i agree w/ you on yet another point)

but i do believe in god and the bible -just not the way xtianity sees it

xtianity is yet another lie (you won't die - you'll become as gods [kinda sounds like "heaven"]) but, atheism is not the answer

 

[xmobotx]

#2. What do you suppose the chances are of Tiger Woods (or you, or anyone) hitting a certain blade of grass with their golfball?

Billions to one (if you only count that one golf course)?

Or even Trillians to one (If you only count the grass surrounding that golf course)?

Or millions of billions to one (if you count all the grass on the planet)?

Pick any of them (let's say the golf course to make it simpler) and then ask people to lay bets on individual blades of grass. Even if you offer incredible odds, I suspect that nobody is going to take that bet! The odds of picking the right blade of grass out of all the grass on that course are not very good.

But here's the thing... even with all that statistical improbability going against it.. that ball is going to land on a blade (or two, or more) of grass. Even at odds of billions (or trillians, or more) to one, that ball is going to land SOMEWHERE.

So even if it is statistically improbable that life could just "happen" to evolve here in this "special" place... it happens every day.

Well, hopefully I just cleared you of this misconception with my Tiger Woods analogy above. Hopefully you can see now that when you look at a universe with over a billion KNOWN galaxies (and counting), where each galaxy is teeming with hundreds of millions of stars (and counting) there are bound to be some of those stars in "habitable" regions and that some of those stars within habitable regions are going to have planets around them and that some of those planets are bound to be in the "habitable" region around those stars and we have evidence for at least one of them. (Earth.)

i owe you an apology, instead of just losing it and laughing about the ludicrous 2+2 thing, i should have took this one.

so here goes:

let's see, you're saying that "since Tiger hit some grass, in a field full of grass he was AIMING at" that proves that life could have "just happened" here?

this is assuming that "life IS GOING to happen -no matter what- it's just a matter of where it will happen"

ignoring the probability that he misses and hits the sand or water or trees etc. (since, he's not aiming at those. and, he's a good shot.) how could he miss the grass?
could the grass run out of the way?
i think the likelihood that he would have hit the ball, it's falling, and the grass dives out of the path is closer to the likelihood that life could have sprung up (since life just happening is unlikely)
OIW, life is more of a miracle than a natural event which is un-avoidable
-this is the nature of the illustration, it's un-related factors being used to demonstrate a non-point

i said "bible is scientific even though it pre-dates science"
you say, "oh there's some science? that proves nothing" then go on to insist that science is the answer?
BTW i m not just talking about time-keeping. but, why do they need to keep track of ages? you know, to farm?

 

[bromhexine]

to argue about god is as ridiculous as to argue that there is no god. logic says god cannot exist but i find it saddening to think we are living for the sake of living. i hope there is a god and i hope its not the muslim one!

 

[GrnMtnGrwr]

it seems to me that atheism as a religion has become what xtianity has been - you resent the believers and expect them to adopt your beliefs

Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair color.

 

[GoatCheese]

It goes 'Black' huh?



my 'ancestor spirits' tell me this is not so..

 

[Anti]

Not everybody who believes in God believes everybody who isn't baptized is going to hell just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there!

I never said or implied that.

I was having a particular conversation with a person who asserted that the bible is literally true and scientifically accurate.

If you can't see something, how do you know it is there? Are you using one of your other senses? Is it a feeling? How deeply have you followed that feeling?

 

[Anti]

i owe you an apology, instead of just losing it and laughing about the ludicrous 2+2 thing, i should have took this one.

so here goes:

let's see, you're saying that "since Tiger hit some grass, in a field full of grass he was AIMING at" that proves that life could have "just happened" here?

Ok, you got me, Tiger Woods (or anybody) hitting a golfball does imply there is a mover behind things. But that is merely a point where the analogy breaks down. Not a flaw with the idea behind that analogy. The idea again is that:

In a sample size of 9x10^21 stars,

(which is 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe,)

If only 0.01% of the stars in the universe have planets within the stars' habitable zone, that means there are 9x10^19 stars with planets in their habitable zones...

(which is 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.)

If only 0.01% of the planets within the habitable zones of these habitable stars are capable of supporting life, then that means that 900,000,000,000,000,000 planets out there (9x10^17) are cable of supporting life...

If only 0.01% of the planets that are capable of supporting life AND are within the habitable zone of their star AND are situated in a galactic arm such as earth manages to produce life in ANY form, that would mean that 900,000,000,000,000,000 planets have life in SOME form...

If only 0.000000001% of the planets that have life have intelligent life, that means that 9,000,000 intelligent species exist in the known universe.

this is assuming that "life IS GOING to happen -no matter what- it's just a matter of where it will happen"

Life did happen - here. Therefore it can happen. I am simply showing that within a large population, even statistically unlikely events will happen from time to time. If 0.000000000000001% of the universe is populated with intelligent life there are 9,000,000 planets with intelligent life on them, right now.

i said "bible is scientific even though it pre-dates science"

you say, "oh there's some science? that proves nothing" then go on to insist that science is the answer?

Nope. I'm pointing out that there are flaws within the bible. Which means that it is not possibly the work of the one perfect superbeing. (My point is in bold for those who have trouble following.)

Address what I actually said, (use quotes if you really wanna prove your point) and then show how what I'm saying is wrong, instead of misinterpreting what I've said.

BTW i m not just talking about time-keeping. but, why do they need to keep track of ages? you know, to farm?

For other reasons... like...navigation. (as I mentioned in the post you are responding to.) You navigate by using certain stars as your starting point. Over the course of thousands of years, stars move away from their seeming "fixed" point in the sky through a process known a precession. You can look it up on google pretty quickly if you don't know what it is.

This was tremendously important for fishermen, international trade, travel, etc. Modern humans have existed for at least 100,000 years. Even without technology, people had sharp minds and devised ways to teach vast amounts of vitally important information to a culture that had not yet discovered or embraced writing.