Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
YOU add all the superfluous attributes like perfection, Omni's etc.,, rifle . . . because the people you can't stand do so. There is NO requirement for any of it, rifle.
You pretend we are trying to change the label but it has already been changed from the ORIGINAL Label . . . GOD . . . used by the first scientists. We are still looking for a SCIENTIFIC justification for doing so and none is forthcoming . . . just assertion and arrogance.
Arrogance? Is that what you call anyone who disagrees with your nonsense? Why am I not surprised?
It is pretty silly to even think ancient man were in any way scientists. Whoever stumbled upon a blunt stick and a looped bow string rotated back and forth to cause heat and the first ember which could be used to start a fire did not have a word like friction. Likewise the folk that stumbled upon flint stones had no idea why it sparked and could also be used to start a fire. The first example is due to friction, the latter is the exposure of iron articles reacting with oxygen.
We have valid explanations of all early god beliefs attributed in the realm of magic b/c our language has expanded to create words that describe these gods adequately. To depart from ignorance, call it science and use their language fast forward to the 21st century and still apply archaic mindsets is of course what religion/god belief thrives upon.
Both these methods of archaic fire lighting will of course still work today but that does not infer some sort of empirical truth. The bic lighter uses synthetic flints and gas to start a flame or we have the alternative electronic lighters or simple matches. This is called progress.
Arrogance? Is that what you call anyone who disagrees with your nonsense? Why am I not surprised?
Anything that can be validly credited as the fount and constitution of everything that exists can certainly and reasonably be deemed as an entity that would qualify as meeting the most strict of requirements to be titled "God".
What is commonly referred to as "The Universe" passes the muster of that requirement...and can thus be accurately assigned the "God" title. And, yes...only arrogance (and/or bias) would constrain one to claim it doesn't. Well, ignorance could do it too...but that most likely isn't the case here...but, then again.
Anything that can be validly credited as the fount and constitution of everything that exists can certainly and reasonably be deemed as an entity that would qualify as meeting the most strict of requirements to be titled "God".
What is commonly referred to as "The Universe" passes the muster of that requirement...and can thus be accurately assigned the "God" title. And, yes...only arrogance (and/or bias) would constrain one to claim it doesn't. Well, ignorance could do it too...but that most likely isn't the case here...but, then again.
Who has validly accredited any of this nonsense, certainly not you or Mystic...
The only other place that I've seen this god=nature nonsense was from Spinoza who lived from 1632 to 1677, and I give him no validity either....You guys have been babbling about all this valid evidence you have for many months now...It is time to either show us or stop boring everyone to death...In other words put up or shut up...No, actually they are the perfect words.
The evidence for "God" is the same evidence that is used to identify and explain the euphemisms used for God- "Universe", "Nature", etc.
Evidence for god would require a well defined idea of what that god is. So far, we have nothing of the sort, just vague assertions that it must be there because something exists.
Another one spouting Biblical information. But, considering the "Biblical time-line" is inaccurate, how many other things were forgotten by the time the Bible was actually written? From 5,000 BC and before, to about 1,200 BC when the first written form of the Bible first came into existence, how much information was lost?
"I am as I was" certainly did have a sense of humor when to told the ancient Hebrews to find out who he is. It's a challenge to go back and find out just who he is, and they never did. So, he's still "I am as I was".
And, from what I've learned about "I am as I was", he certainly seems to enjoy using natural events to do his handy-work on this earth. From the parting of the waters, to the great flood of Utanapistim, to creation. Or, perhaps, creation came about using evolution to do his handy-work. Your Bible says "7 days", but the ancient texts say "7 periods of time". A 24 hour day was not specified in the ancient texts. And, what happened to God's wife? As late as 800 BC, it seems that God had a wife named Asharah. Somewhere between 800 BC and 600 BC, he got as divorce? Go back to the ancient texts, the ones that preceded the Ancient Hebrews, and you may realize that the information had been handed down from one generation to the next via "word-of-mouth" until it was written down. There's a whole lot missing from the Bible, that can still be read in the ancient texts, up to and including the flood. Back when God chose the king instead of having it follow the bloodline.
I could go on, but I won't. I'd be wasting time, I'm sure.
As well as a wife/consort, Yahweh also had 69 sibling gods. What happened to them?
I would retitle this thread: "Fundamentalism and Intelligent Thought are Diametrically opposed and opposite... and never the twain shall meet"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
This is the best comment in this thread, and it applies equally to religious fundamentalism and liberal/secular/athiest fundamentalism.
I would say that Evolution and modern secular liberal values are diametrically opposed. Evolution is most compatible with the values of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).
Why do you say that as if it is a fact? That is dishonest, as you cannot know that....Myths are not facts and cannot be proven.
Are you sure? Are you very sure? Archaeology has been finding facts behind myths for decades now. At one time, Pompeii was a myth. Now, it exists... Or at least what is left of it. But it's real now. Other places that were myths have also been located. I'm afraid you can not simply discard it because you claim it to be a myth. In the next decade, it may become scientifically proven fact. Are you then going to claim science is mistaken?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
