The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Epignosis wrote: Zargus wrote: "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"     - House. Um...did you see the last episode of House?

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"     - House.

Edited by Zargus - June 19 2009 at 08:19

Oh my Godless world,

The burden of proof is on the believers,

and no science can prove the existence of a Zues, a Quetzalcoatl or a Jehovah sitting up there in the sky and demanding the Vatican gets a tithe

The little indrawn mathematicians who can prove a widget rotates at X speed can't prove that the Holy Dalai Lama is divinely fit to be autocrat of Tibet,

The little indrawn astronomer who can prove background radiation can't prove that once again, medieval Aquinas's ridiculous cosmological argument has stretched but not snapped again!

Where did the idea of Jehovah come from?

WHAT ROLE HAS RELIGION PLAYED IN HUMAN SOCIETY?

REMEMBER, BOYS AND GIRLS, HOW THE KING WAS DIVINELY CHOSEN TO RULE AND EXPLOIT THE PEASANTS, WHO WOULD HAVE TO WAIT FOR HEAVEN!

PROPAGATION OF A "GOD" IS A SOCIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON CORRESPONDING TO SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND IS AS LAW GUIDED AS THE PRACTICE OF WIPING OUR BUTTS

One day Humanity will see "God" as sensible as "natural" Slavery of the Greeks and Americans, as Feudalism, War, and Capitalism.

The ghastly bible will be reserved for museum studies

(I hope this gains more attention than my previous posts)


Edited by RoyFairbank - June 18 2009 at 15:28

Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: Why not learn the original languages?   Translation is an art, not a science.  Translating anything presents numerous challenges and obstacles.  On top of that, many people use the King James Version (completed in the 1600s), which itself almost needs a translation these days!  Think of the benefits if translations were included. I mean, back in the day, as a child and teen, studying the Bible in Parochial schools, none of the meanings were discussed. Why is it not done as such? Well, today we have study Bibles, which include footnotes and comments on the side to aid understanding.  I find many of them a bit shallow, however. I should also add, Rich, that often times we don't have exact words to match the ideas presented by ancient words, and vice versa.  For example, the ancient Hebrews might say "my bowels are troubled" without meaning that they have bad gas!  The bowels (like the heart) were considered a seat of human emotion by many ancient cultures.  Yet some translators don't use "bowels," they use "heart" despite what the original language says (to aid meaning).  And worse still, we have words that meant one thing a hundred years ago that no long carry that meaning! If you want a literal translation, I recommend Robert Young's Literal Translation (YTL).

Edited by StyLaZyn - June 18 2009 at 13:56

Epignosis wrote: Why not learn the original languages?   Translation is an art, not a science.  Translating anything presents numerous challenges and obstacles.  On top of that, many people use the King James Version (completed in the 1600s), which itself almost needs a translation these days!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: el dingo wrote: [       Give me the boy at the age of seven and I will give you the man.   Scary IMO, very scary.       This could only scare a person who doesn't want to understand what he said.   It's often to listen sports trainers or teachers to say they rather teach small chidren, because when they receive teen agers, many of them are already full of bad habits and vices.   That's what Saint  Ignatius said, only if he teaches a pupil since he's very young, he can be sure he's clean and ready to learn.   That's why Jesuits teach children only if they start with them in kindergarten, because some of the older teens are already corrupt, and that's something easy to prove.    Iván

One mustn't forget that atheism and agnosticism 100+ years ago was severely frowned upon.  Very few people spoke out about not believing in God in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Therefore many of these scientists of a religious persuasion, may well have had doubts but could just not mention it.

Look at how the Catholic Church shunned Galileo originally too.

Anyhow, on the other side of the coin, many of today's scientific beliefs originated in the Middle East and with Islam.

Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote:   Still, I have been amazed by how accurate the Bible portrays many phenomena (it just uses a different language- they obviously didn't know what "red algal bloom" was, for instance, when describing the Nile turning into blood). Wasn't Moses responsible for this?  Moses was merely an agent.  The Bible is clear that it was God doing the plagues (yes, scientifically- it's actually really really cool). Exodus 7  1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.

StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote:   Still, I have been amazed by how accurate the Bible portrays many phenomena (it just uses a different language- they obviously didn't know what "red algal bloom" was, for instance, when describing the Nile turning into blood). Wasn't Moses responsible for this?

Moses was merely an agent.  The Bible is clear that it was God doing the plagues (yes, scientifically- it's actually really really cool).

Exodus 7

 ¹ Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. ² You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.

Epignosis wrote:   Still, I have been amazed by how accurate the Bible portrays many phenomena (it just uses a different language- they obviously didn't know what "red algal bloom" was, for instance, when describing the Nile turning into blood).