Argument of the week
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2010, 05:36 PM
RE: Argument of the week
fr0d0 is talking a lot, but he's not actually saying anything. The bible says God created man and woman in the form of one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), put them in a garden on a world he created in the dark, then punished them for eating fruit on a tree he put in the middle of the garden and which they were tempted to eat by a snake. That's what it says. That, however, never happened. Everything else the bible says is therefore also bullshit.

The end.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 05:41 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 05:21 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  And what exactly is new about your previous post UB?

Not much, since you keep running around in circles.

Quote:Mr Dodgemtastic? Wink

I've dodged nothing. Either present the question that I have dodged or stop saying it. I do not enjoy being lied about.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 06:11 PM
 
RE: Argument of the week
(14-11-2010 02:47 PM)gamutman Wrote:  Actually, "Not believing in something specific but believing something could exist as creator behind all that is" is compatible with atheism...


Interesting. I thought that would be more akin to agnosticism.
Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 06:18 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 05:36 PM)gamutman Wrote:  fr0d0 is talking a lot, but he's not actually saying anything. The bible says God created man and woman in the form of one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), put them in a garden on a world he created in the dark, then punished them for eating fruit on a tree he put in the middle of the garden and which they were tempted to eat by a snake. That's what it says. That, however, never happened. Everything else the bible says is therefore also bullshit.

The end.

Actually even if the bible was wrong a bout Adam and Eve it isn't logical to say that everything it said was wrong.

Issac Newton believed in alchemy for example. Being wrong about that doesn't remove his work on gravity as any less true.

Personally I don't think the bible hits the mark very often at all but it does have some very limited things right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 07:03 PM
RE: Argument of the week
Actually, a better Newton example would be that Newton was wrong about motion and gravity but yet gravity and motion still existed.

Just sayin'....

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 07:19 PM
RE: Argument of the week
Of those limited things the bible has right, not only do I wonder what they are, but also on what basis you deem them to be correct.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 07:45 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 06:18 PM)Godless Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 05:36 PM)gamutman Wrote:  fr0d0 is talking a lot, but he's not actually saying anything. The bible says God created man and woman in the form of one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), put them in a garden on a world he created in the dark, then punished them for eating fruit on a tree he put in the middle of the garden and which they were tempted to eat by a snake. That's what it says. That, however, never happened. Everything else the bible says is therefore also bullshit.

The end.

Actually even if the bible was wrong a bout Adam and Eve it isn't logical to say that everything it said was wrong.

Issac Newton believed in alchemy for example. Being wrong about that doesn't remove his work on gravity as any less true.

Personally I don't think the bible hits the mark very often at all but it does have some very limited things right.
As I noted in a previous post, since all of the history in the bible flows from Genesis, it's all wrong by default. Since all of the dogma also flows from that origin story, it's also all wrong. Since all the bible has going for it is history and dogma, it's all useless.
(15-11-2010 06:11 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  
(14-11-2010 02:47 PM)gamutman Wrote:  Actually, "Not believing in something specific but believing something could exist as creator behind all that is" is compatible with atheism...


Interesting. I thought that would be more akin to agnosticism.

Agnosticism is also compatible with atheism. The term agnostic deals with uncertainty, not with disbelief. Atheism deals with disbelief, but not necessarily certain disbelief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 12:10 AM
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 05:36 PM)gamutman Wrote:  fr0d0 is talking a lot, but he's not actually saying anything. The bible says God created man and woman in the form of one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), put them in a garden on a world he created in the dark, then punished them for eating fruit on a tree he put in the middle of the garden and which they were tempted to eat by a snake. That's what it says. That, however, never happened. Everything else the bible says is therefore also bullshit.

The end.
The Adam and Eve story describes the nature of the human condition. It sets out the precept that all humans are fallible. There never existed in reality that person named Adam, a talking snake, or a tree named "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (catchy huh). To take that story literally would rightly earn you your place in a funny farm, together with a literal interpretation of the creation story. Please be rational, you're hurting my eyes.

(15-11-2010 05:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 05:21 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  And what exactly is new about your previous post UB?
Not much, since you keep running around in circles.
So you \gree. Thankyou
(15-11-2010 05:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Mr Dodgemtastic? Wink
I've dodged nothing. Either present the question that I have dodged or stop saying it. I do not enjoy being lied about.
Ditto. Truce then?

(15-11-2010 07:45 PM)gamutman Wrote:  Agnosticism is also compatible with atheism. The term agnostic deals with uncertainty, not with disbelief. Atheism deals with disbelief, but not necessarily certain disbelief.
Agreed. I am Agnostic and Christian... because I cannot 'know' either way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 07:42 AM
RE: Argument of the week
(16-11-2010 12:10 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 05:36 PM)gamutman Wrote:  fr0d0 is talking a lot, but he's not actually saying anything. The bible says God created man and woman in the form of one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), put them in a garden on a world he created in the dark, then punished them for eating fruit on a tree he put in the middle of the garden and which they were tempted to eat by a snake. That's what it says. That, however, never happened. Everything else the bible says is therefore also bullshit.

The end.
The Adam and Eve story describes the nature of the human condition. It sets out the precept that all humans are fallible. There never existed in reality that person named Adam, a talking snake, or a tree named "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (catchy huh). To take that story literally would rightly earn you your place in a funny farm, together with a literal interpretation of the creation story. Please be rational, you're hurting my eyes.

(15-11-2010 07:45 PM)gamutman Wrote:  Agnosticism is also compatible with atheism. The term agnostic deals with uncertainty, not with disbelief. Atheism deals with disbelief, but not necessarily certain disbelief.
Agreed. I am Agnostic and Christian... because I cannot 'know' either way.

You claim to be a Christian and an agnostic and you also claim to consider the Adam&Eve story to be strictly metaphor, so I'm going to have to ask what it is specifically about the Christ fable that you do believe. Was Christ born of a virgin? Was Christ God? Did Christ rise from the dead? If there was no garden of Eden, does Christ's death still symbolize the forgiveness of original sin? Inquiring minds want to know how you reconcile all of this crap.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 12:17 PM
RE: Argument of the week
Enquiring minds need to try not to pre judge then Big Grin

Yep to all those answers on Christ. The Garden of Eden story sets out the precept that people are fallible > Fallible people need saving > Christ was needed to save them from that. We all have the inbuilt propensity to be selfish, 'original sin' isn't some past distant act, nothing to do with us now >>> it is us. Adam & Eve are us doing what people do > if doing what people do makes us unhappy > we have to find a way to redress that imbalance. Take away Christianity and you naturally devise a parallel system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: