[Lord Dave]

Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did.  So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.

If all those people had been wiped out, Dave, I wouldn't be here. I'm not a greasy Italian.

You're not a Druid either.  The culture and religion was wiped out but not all the people.  Just the ones who fought back.

Of course he is. I expect he did know. But that does not change the fact that God had to choose a perfect nation to light the way for others. The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door. "I shall bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."

They are doing a very poor job at it.  Also, why land that was already occupied?  Why not empty land?  Would have solved A lot of problems.

I'd say we have done a pretty good job of bringing monotheism to the world, since Christianity and Islam are both here because of us.

Except God wanted JEWS to do it, not children of the jewish faith.  And really, Christianity is a sin to Jews isn't it?  Worshiping a false idol (Jesus)?  Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did.  So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.

And I really hope you aren't suggesting that Jews created Islam because that would make your hatred of it quite ironic since the two faiths are so very similar, aside from an updated rule book.

Well, one would think that Christianity would be considered as such, but, oddly enough, it has been accorded (by most Jewish scholars) a place at the table of monotheisms. I'm not exactly sure why, but it has.

Regarding Islam, I don't hate its theology, which is essentially not much different than ours. I despise its tendency to want to blow shit up, and its sense of wanting to make the rest of the world second class citizens. Beyond that, however, I have no objection to it.

Ummm....  You have gone on record on this forum time and again of having claimed that Muslims were sub-human and their religion full of hatred and violence.  How can you say that and NOT hate the theology?  That's like hating blacks but liking the Black Panther's goals.

As far as Romans go, well, you are right at least to a point. Their military force did take Christianity further than it would otherwise have gone, just as Islam was carried by the sword further than it would otherwise have got.

Which the Jews have totally failed to do.  Again, Jews did nothing to promote Monotheism.  At best you can claim they stumbled into a lie (Jesus is God), got rid of nearly all the rules of the Jews (only Noah laws now) and everyone loved it.  Well, those who weren't being tortured or converted anyway.

As far as land that was already occupied (by the Canaanites), that was so God could make an example out of people.

This literally makes no sense.  From the perspective of everyone else (the people who would learn the lesson) it was no different than any other conquering army.  What lesson did the dead people learn?  And what lesson did the living people who heard about it learn?  That an army can take over land?  If God wanted to make an example out of people, he'd have wiped them out with his divine power.

The neighbours of the Canaanites got to learn the power of the Jewish God over their own gods. And I think were advised that their own filthy practices must stop. Whether they heeded the advice, I don't know. 

No it didn't.  They weren't being attacked so their gods didn't have to do anything.  The Jews did not attack them and thus there was no challenge between the Gods of their neighbors and the Jewish God.
And if you REALLY want to claim that it does, then you really need to explain how Hitler's God was more powerful than the Jewish God but less powerful than the American God.  Come to think of it, the Roman Gods too.  And the Egyptian Gods (It took a man to save the slaves).  You continue to paint the Jewish God as really weak.

I recommend reading the Torah before asking further questions on this. As far as modern Israel is concerned, the fact that modern Arabo-Canaanites who call themselves "Palestinians" happen to be there is not our fault. They must be removed, peacefully if possible, forcibly if necessary.

Yes it is.  The Jews failed in their Godly task to wipe out all Canaanites.  Had they succeeded, there would be no such thing as a "Arabo-Canaanite".

Yes there would. They would just be pure Arabs in that case.

....
I don't think you understand what you just said.  You just said that Canaanites would exist if they had all been wiped out but they'd be called just Arabs.  So either Arabs and canaanites are the same thing or you really have no clue what you're talking about and you're just trying to argue against me to keep yourself from feeling like a schmuck.

[beardo]

Why do you think God is more than just an invention of primitive minds to explain things they themselves could not explain?

[Vindictus]

Why do you think God is more than just an invention of primitive minds to explain things they themselves could not explain?

Entrenched beliefs, little or no understanding of science/physics, the nice feeling it gives, cultural/societal pressure and group think, lack of critical thinking skills, religion as a tool for acceptance/belonging. The list goes on and on..

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did.  So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.

If all those people had been wiped out, Dave, I wouldn't be here. I'm not a greasy Italian.

You're not a Druid either.  The culture and religion was wiped out but not all the people.  Just the ones who fought back.

Of course he is. I expect he did know. But that does not change the fact that God had to choose a perfect nation to light the way for others. The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door. "I shall bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."

They are doing a very poor job at it.  Also, why land that was already occupied?  Why not empty land?  Would have solved A lot of problems.

I'd say we have done a pretty good job of bringing monotheism to the world, since Christianity and Islam are both here because of us.

Except God wanted JEWS to do it, not children of the jewish faith.  And really, Christianity is a sin to Jews isn't it?  Worshiping a false idol (Jesus)?  Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did.  So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.

And I really hope you aren't suggesting that Jews created Islam because that would make your hatred of it quite ironic since the two faiths are so very similar, aside from an updated rule book.

Well, one would think that Christianity would be considered as such, but, oddly enough, it has been accorded (by most Jewish scholars) a place at the table of monotheisms. I'm not exactly sure why, but it has.

Regarding Islam, I don't hate its theology, which is essentially not much different than ours. I despise its tendency to want to blow shit up, and its sense of wanting to make the rest of the world second class citizens. Beyond that, however, I have no objection to it.

Ummm....  You have gone on record on this forum time and again of having claimed that Muslims were sub-human and their religion full of hatred and violence.  How can you say that and NOT hate the theology?  That's like hating blacks but liking the Black Panther's goals.

I repeat. It is their tendency to blow shit up, and treat others as second class that I despise.

As far as Romans go, well, you are right at least to a point. Their military force did take Christianity further than it would otherwise have gone, just as Islam was carried by the sword further than it would otherwise have got.

Which the Jews have totally failed to do.  Again, Jews did nothing to promote Monotheism.  At best you can claim they stumbled into a lie (Jesus is God), got rid of nearly all the rules of the Jews (only Noah laws now) and everyone loved it.  Well, those who weren't being tortured or converted anyway.

It depends on how you look at conversion of the world to monotheism. We do not, and have never, required the world, to think like us. Judaism is the religion of the Jew. The Christian and the Muslim and the Zoroastrian can have their monotheisms that are different than ours and yet pleasing to God in their own ways. I don't personally understand how worship of Jesus of can be acceptable, but our Rabbis have acknowledged that it can be, so therefore it can be. I'll figure that one out later.

As far as land that was already occupied (by the Canaanites), that was so God could make an example out of people.

This literally makes no sense.  From the perspective of everyone else (the people who would learn the lesson) it was no different than any other conquering army.  What lesson did the dead people learn?  And what lesson did the living people who heard about it learn?  That an army can take over land?  If God wanted to make an example out of people, he'd have wiped them out with his divine power.

The neighbours of the Canaanites got to learn the power of the Jewish God over their own gods. And I think were advised that their own filthy practices must stop. Whether they heeded the advice, I don't know. 

No it didn't.  They weren't being attacked so their gods didn't have to do anything.  The Jews did not attack them and thus there was no challenge between the Gods of their neighbors and the Jewish God.
And if you REALLY want to claim that it does, then you really need to explain how Hitler's God was more powerful than the Jewish God but less powerful than the American God.  Come to think of it, the Roman Gods too.  And the Egyptian Gods (It took a man to save the slaves).  You continue to paint the Jewish God as really weak.

Well, since Hitler failed to kill all the Jews, and ended up shooting himself... And since the Roman Gods ended up submitting to Christianity... and since the Egyptian Gods ended up submitting the Hebrew God...

I recommend reading the Torah before asking further questions on this. As far as modern Israel is concerned, the fact that modern Arabo-Canaanites who call themselves "Palestinians" happen to be there is not our fault. They must be removed, peacefully if possible, forcibly if necessary.

Yes it is.  The Jews failed in their Godly task to wipe out all Canaanites.  Had they succeeded, there would be no such thing as a "Arabo-Canaanite".

Yes there would. They would just be pure Arabs in that case.

....
I don't think you understand what you just said.  You just said that Canaanites would exist if they had all been wiped out but they'd be called just Arabs.  So either Arabs and canaanites are the same thing or you really have no clue what you're talking about and you're just trying to argue against me to keep yourself from feeling like a schmuck.

No, Arabs and Canaanites are NOT the same thing. "Palestinians" are a mixture of both.  If the Canaanites had ALL been wiped out, modern "Palestinians" would have been descended from only Arabs.

Why do you think God is more than just an invention of primitive minds to explain things they themselves could not explain?

Entrenched beliefs, little or no understanding of science/physics, the nice feeling it gives, cultural/societal pressure and group think, lack of critical thinking skills, religion as a tool for acceptance/belonging. The list goes on and on..

Another stupid response by an atheist who doesn't know what he is talking about. Given that most of the early scientists were clergy, that was just a stupid remark. You have no ability to judge the critical thinking skills of anyone outside yourself, so that was a remark you cannot back up. Throw in the fact that religious belief often gives one a negative feeling, when one feels that one has pissed off the deity in some way, rendering your third point simply false...

You're batting a thousand today, Brilliance. Keep it up...

[Rama Set]

Early scientists had little to no understanding of science hence them being early in the timeline. They understood all the science available but they did not know what they did not know you know?

[Rushy]

Most early scientists were clergy because early church members were so devout that they believed the Bible to be the penultimate truth. What can science possibly do to damage the truth? It wasn't until recently that religion became fundamentally anti-science because scientists began uncovering a truth that opposes their religion.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Early scientists had little to no understanding of science hence them being early in the timeline. They understood all the science available but they did not know what they did not know you know?

Most early scientists were clergy because early church members were so devout that they believed the Bible to be the penultimate truth. What can science possibly do to damage the truth? It wasn't until recently that religion became fundamentally anti-science because scientists began uncovering a truth that opposes their religion.

Fundamentally, of course, it doesn't. The Bible, read properly, doesn't oppose scientific endeavour. What it comes down to is this: if the Bible seems to contradict human wisdom, then one of two things is wrong. These two things are as follows, to whit:

1. Human wisdom, which is fallible at all times, and often needs correction. Look at this website, for example. The advocates of said site believe, against all scientific proof, that the Earth is flat. Either they are wrong (I think so), or the rest of the world is wrong.

2. Our understanding of the Bible may be wrong also. If this is the case, then it is our duty to make our understanding of the Bible correct. I think this has OFTEN been the case throughout history. To whit, our recent little discussion of homosexuality. No one disputes that that both Jewish and Christian authorities forbade sex outside of marriage (which is appropriate from my reading of Scripture). They also forbade homosexual marriage (which I think perhaps is INAPPROPRIATE from my reading of Scripture). Naturally, this had the affect of forbidding homosexual sex entirely. Since this appears to have come from a misunderstanding of Hebrew Scripture... well, you see where I am going with this.

The same can be said of other things in the Bible, and not just of social issues, but of matters touching on the scientific. Although the Bible is far from a science book, and makes no claim to be such, it does touch on the subject when discussing the Creation of the world. How could it not?

Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.

[Ghost of V]

Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.

So you're basically saying that the following accepted scientific theories are wrong: evolution, the big bang, the age of the Earth, etc.

Instead you choose to believe what is written in the bible. If this is true then you must believe in the following things:
- The firmament (a roof above the Earth which is obviously not there, Genesis)
- The moon is luminous and its own light source (Genesis)
- The Earth was created before the Sun (which contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, also Genesis)

There are many others, but you see the point.
Please back up the following three points with evidence that is not "the bible".

[Vindictus]

Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.

Ridiculous. The ancient zealots that wrote your book had no grasp of even the most basic modern scientific theories, so you can't expect them to to write something even remotely accurate, no matter how it's interpreted. Science is not 'interpreted' in the same sense your mystical book is. The fact that you can interpret something like that makes your entire belief system dubious.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.

So you're basically saying that the following accepted scientific theories are wrong: evolution, the big bang, the age of the Earth, etc.

No, I am actually inclined to accept all of them.

Instead you choose to belive (sic) what is written in the bible. If this is true then you must believe in the following things:
- The firmament (a roof above the Earth which is obviously not there, Genesis)

God made the waters and divided the waters from the waters, ie, he made the sky. Just because Moses called it a roof doesn't it mean it was a roof in the literal sense. I see no problem with simply acknowledging that it is the roof in the sense that it is above us. I am hardly going to limit myself to a primitive Hebrew (and general Mesopotamian) understanding of the cosmos, any more than I am to an atheist one.

- The moon is luminous and it's own light source (Genesis)

Actually, I see no reason why the moon has to be is own light source. The Bible merely said that God created two great lights. He did NOT say how they were to be lit.

- The Earth was created before the Sun (which contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, also Genesis)

This point gets interesting. It requires more study.

There are many others, but you see the point.
Please back up the following three points with evidence that is not "the bible".

Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.

Ridiculous. The ancient zealots that wrote your book had no grasp of even the most basic modern scientific theories, so you can't expect them to to write something even remotely accurate, no matter how it's interpreted. Science is not 'interpreted' in the same sense your mystical book is. The fact that you can interpret something like that makes your entire belief system dubious.

And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?

[Ghost of V]

And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?

Please provide evidence for the Firmament.

If the Bible is correct about everything written within it, then surely this must be true and surely there must be evidence proving its existence. Please provide this evidence, then we will discuss the next topic.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?

Please provide evidence for the Firmament.

If the Bible is correct about everything written within it, then surely this must be true and surely there must be evidence proving its existence. Please provide this evidence, then we will discuss the next topic.

Don't be dense. I said in your past retardedness concerning the firmament that there was no literal roof in the sky. That is a common viewpoint among ancient Hebrew/Mesopotamian concepts of the universe. The message being conveyed there was that God created the waters, and then separated the waters from the waters. He called the separation between the two "Sky". Moses called it a firmament because that was the limit of his landbound interpretive capabilities. Had he been a pilot, he'd have known differently, now wouldn't he have? He didn't need to know otherwise, so he called it a roof. I have no problem looking at the sky at thinking of it as a roof in the non-literal sense. You get too high, you leave the atmosphere. The atmosphere IS a roof that keeps the oxygen in, and the vacuum of space out. End of problem.

[Ghost of V]

And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?

Please provide evidence for the Firmament.

If the Bible is correct about everything written within it, then surely this must be true and surely there must be evidence proving its existence. Please provide this evidence, then we will discuss the next topic.

Don't be dense. I said in your past retardedness concerning the firmament that there was no literal roof in the sky. That is a common viewpoint among ancient Hebrew/Mesopotamian concepts of the universe. The message being conveyed there was that God created the waters, and then separated the waters from the waters. He called the separation between the two "Sky". Moses called it a firmament because that was the limit of his landbound interpretive capabilities. Had he been a pilot, he'd have known differently, now wouldn't he have? He didn't need to know otherwise, so he called it a roof. I have no problem looking at the sky at thinking of it as a roof in the non-literal sense. You get too high, you leave the atmosphere. The atmosphere IS a roof that keeps the oxygen in, and the vacuum of space out. End of problem.

So you're basically saying the Bible's wrong and that Moses was a fucking idiot? Ok.

"The firmament was a great solid dome which, according to the pseudepedigraphic 2nd or 3rd century book of 3 Baruch, might be pierced by tower and gimlet."

They seem pretty dead set on making it seem like a solid dome. But you're saying it's just the atmosphere. You are saying they're wrong, right?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?

Please provide evidence for the Firmament.

If the Bible is correct about everything written within it, then surely this must be true and surely there must be evidence proving its existence. Please provide this evidence, then we will discuss the next topic.

Don't be dense. I said in your past retardedness concerning the firmament that there was no literal roof in the sky. That is a common viewpoint among ancient Hebrew/Mesopotamian concepts of the universe. The message being conveyed there was that God created the waters, and then separated the waters from the waters. He called the separation between the two "Sky". Moses called it a firmament because that was the limit of his landbound interpretive capabilities. Had he been a pilot, he'd have known differently, now wouldn't he have? He didn't need to know otherwise, so he called it a roof. I have no problem looking at the sky at thinking of it as a roof in the non-literal sense. You get too high, you leave the atmosphere. The atmosphere IS a roof that keeps the oxygen in, and the vacuum of space out. End of problem.

So you're basically saying the Bible's wrong and that Moses was a fucking idiot? Ok.

"The firmament was a great solid dome which, according to the pseudepedigraphic 2nd or 3rd century book of 3 Baruch, might be pierced by tower and gimlet."

They seem pretty dead set on making it seem like a solid dome. But you're saying it's just the atmosphere. You are saying they're wrong, right?

2 and 3 Baruch are not in the Bible. And no, I am not saying Moses was an idiot, although you are. Moses called it a firmament because that is what it was. It may not have been hard, which you'll notice, he never said it was, but it was still a firmament. It was a separation between the waters and the waters.

[Rushy]

2 and 3 Baruch are not in the Bible. And no, I am not saying Moses was an idiot, although you are. Moses called it a firmament because that is what it was. It may not have been hard, which you'll notice, he never said it was, but it was still a firmament. It was a separation between the waters and the waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

The firmament is, by definition, a hard thing. It is like me saying "hey look, an airplane" and then following it up with "I said it was an airplane, but I never said it had wings!" It is quite amusing though, watching you play mental gymnastics again.

[Vindictus]

And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?

For someone who loves bringing up Dawkins, you're pretty shit when it comes to understanding his position. You'd be hard pressed to find a single atheist/agnostic that thinks they're the master of the Universe and they have all the answers. That's a view inherent in many religious philosophies, so it's humorous to see you project it on to those opposed to such things.

[Ghost of V]

"It's firmament but it's not a firmament"


I understand your denial. We'll move on to the next topic. Does the Moon produce its own light?

[Thork]

Does the Moon produce its own light?

No. The tiny creatures on it do and they bloom across its surface in crescent shaped waves.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?

For someone who loves bringing up Dawkins, you're pretty shit when it comes to understanding his position. You'd be hard pressed to find a single atheist/agnostic that thinks they're the master of the Universe and they have all the answers. That's a view inherent in many religious philosophies, so it's humorous to see you project it on to those opposed to such things.

The man invented a word and even a definition for it! If that isn't arrogance, what is? I mean, seriously, how does some asshole actually try to come up with a new word in the language to justify his perverted philosophy? And every atheist in this room has proven to me that they do indeed consider themselves the greatest thing since peanut butter and sliced fucking bread. I have never seen more stuck up, pompous, arrogant people in my life.

I shan't deny that some religious people resemble them. But its a pale resemblance at best. I guess that's why the State Atheists, like China, the USSR, Albania, Cambodia, and every other regime that tried it ended up killing so many millions of people. Just China and the USSR alone managed a good 70 million people, and that is an estimate. It was probably higher than that. Although religion and religious people have been  responsible for a lot of intolerance, it pales in comparison to that kind of vicious brutality. In the 20th Century alone, more people died in outright government sponsored brutality than any other century. And the current century appears to coming along similarly. And most of that government sponsored brutality was at the hands of the so-called "Communist" regimes, which weren't in any way really Communist, but they were surely Atheist, both officially and in practice.

So, continue you on your way. Keep telling yourselves the lies you need to in order to sleep at night. I've got no problem with that, honestly. Go right ahead.

"It's firmament but it's not a firmament"


I understand your denial. We'll move on to the next topic. Does the Moon produce its own light?

A stupid question. The Bible never said the Moon produced light.  God, you are batting a thousand for being obtuse, aren't you?

[Ghost of V]

A stupid question. The Bible never said the Moon produced light.  God, you are batting a thousand for being obtuse, aren't you?

"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound." Isaiah 30:26



Please pay attention, Jaakov. This seems to imply that the moon produces its own light similar to how the sun produces light. Now this is just flat out wrong, as the Moon is a natural satellite and the Sun is a fucking star.