We really need some creationists don’t we
You wanna volunteer? We could take turns.
Yeah, nice rebuttal.
What am I supposed to say? I countered the only two arguments that can possibly be extrapolated from what you’ve said. Rephrase in a way that makes sense or drop it.
How does saying “you’re wrong” counter an argument? That’s just meaningless contradiction.
There are only two outcomes. Either:
A. You’re claiming that without the Bible we would not have literature today. I take this to mean that I wouldn’t be able to go out, right now, and buy a novel because they wouldn’t exist.
This was the counter.
B. You’re claiming that without the Bible we would have literature, but it would not be the literature we know today. For example, instead of The DaVinci Code, obviously Dan Brown would have written about something else. Literature would be different.
You countered that yourself.
Are you stupid?
Fuck’s sake, I used to think you were a nice guy but you’re being such a fucking prick.
Here’s what you said:
That sentence means, literally, “Without the bible, we would not have literature at the present time.”
At the very least it can mean both things, so surely you must understand why we interpreted it that way?
What you should have said is “Literature today wouldn’t be the same” or “We wouldn’t have the literature of today.”
Then you went on to insult me because I wouldn’t admit that today’s literature wouldn’t be the same without the bible, which I did:
What we’re saying, Soup, is that we WOULD have today’s literature without the Bible and our evidence is the fact that literature existed before the Bible existed and before the Bible came to other countries.
All literature is an extension of humanity, including the Bible. It is laughable to suggest that literature of any sort (even today’s literature) would not have come about if it weren’t for the Bible.
However, I do credit the Bible for one thing: Mass production. In order to print out Bibles en masse, the printing press was invented by Gutenberg (hence, the “Gutenberg Bible”), though, it’s possible that any popular book(s) would’ve helped spur the invention of the press.
The way I see it: The Bible is a reflection on man and was influenced by humanity, not the other way around.
Fair points, but you see my position now.
Of course the Bible was influenced by humanity, humans wrote it, that also wasn’t my point. I will say more when I’m sober.
Yes, and while I too think that is a bit of an overstatement, religion HAS had an incredibly huge impact on the evolution of human culture. What I pointed out still stands: don’t read more into what someone says than what they actually say; it makes it impossible to have a discussion.
Obviously it goes the other way as well, as is evidenced by the more recent confusion as to what Soup was trying to say: don’t say less than what you mean and hope people will see it (btw, not an attack on Soup, just using what was probably a mistake as a rather convenient example)
I don’t agree. It was “human culture” that had a huge impact on “human culture”. Religion is just one part of it.
I know this was a joke, but hell, why not?
I’ll take the first turn as creationist.
Atheistic evolution is unscientific. In science “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. Similarly stated, science shows us that: “matter can neither be created nor destroyed” (to include its transformed counterpart: energy). The sum total of the universe today, no matter what the scientific experiment, remains the same. If you take a closed empty box and leave it on a shelf for a long time, just how long would you have to wait for a “Little Bang” to happen inside? That would be unscientific, huh? Something from nothing for no reason is inherently unscientific. Belief in the “Big Bang” is superstitious in origin; just like hoping for an unscientific “Little Bang” to happen all by itself in an empty box on a shelf.
Scientists like these atheistic evolutionists also used to believe that the Earth was flat and that large objects fell to Earth faster than small objects; they were wrong on both those counts too. Atheists (based on their religious outlook after all) are not “scientific” in their belief that the universe just kind of exploded into existence all by itself. Rather they are in denial and their religious beliefs stand against known testable-repeatable science. Creationists are the ones standing on the side of science. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction there must have been a Creator to initiate all that is.
I sometimes ask devout atheists (and anti-theists, i.e. persons angry at and thus ignoring God) if they strap on a seatbelt when they go to bed at night. How do they know that gravity will still be working the next morning? If they truly believe by their faith that our universe exploded into existence by pure chance (from nothingness … all by itself) with no design elements then chaos should rule supreme. It does not. In fact even Chaos Theory follows rules. …Right? Gravity obeys laws. Light obeys laws. Your car obeys laws; if you run out of gas the car stops running. More gas does not just magically appear in the tank all by itself, does it? Please consider these things scientifically and logically, i.e. like a creationist, one who can recognize design and order when he or she see it. An internal combustion engine obeys chemical, mechanical and electrical laws. The cones and rods in your eyes obey laws. The iris readjusts to different lighting when you enter a room. The eyes move across the page, following the orders of your brain. The sets of muscles enveloping your eyeballs gently pull each eyeball into oblong shapes to try to focus and refocus on objects according to the sophisticated bio-chemical design originally placed there by our Maker.
Holy shit I feel bad even posting this. I’m itching to tear it’s “logic” apart, but I’ll leave it to you guys.
This thread is in such danger of becoming a circle jerk… lol.
Firstly I would point out that this entire argument is a straw man. Cosmic evolution does not equal biological evolution. Even if it did, disproving the big bang does not equal disproving atheism or even evolution.
Secondly, the laws of physics are well known to biologists and astrophysicists. It’s not as if some middle school understanding of Newton tears apart the insight of Hawking. Even if it did, the laws of physics are already known to break under extreme pressure, such as on the scales of the very small, or inside black holes.
Thirdly, I would say whoever came up with this misunderstands what the big bang is. The big bang is the idea that, observably, there was once a time when the universe either did not exist or occupied an infinitesimally small space. This is not at odds with Creationism anyway. Creationists believe something similar, they just believe God started it. (Correct me if I’m wrong)
As an atheist, I do not believe anything was started by nothing. That is not what I believe, and that is not what the mainstream of science believes. It’s a misrepresentation. The whole goal of astrophysics is to move beyond the beginning and find out what did cause the big bang. This does not mean it was caused by nothing, it means we don’t know. It’s called cosmic humility.
I’m not even sure how one would go about “disproving atheism”. “I don’t believe in God” is a statement of something personal.
I guess the producing of God for all to see and test would disprove the notion that God doesn’t exist, but “God doesn’t exist” isn’t a statement of atheism.
I never disputed that, but he literally said religion is the foundation for our culture.
I think in a broader sense, as humans we are always looking for a certain moral compass to gauge our sense of self worth and / or worthiness for higher regard. I don’t care if you depend on the Bible, Koran, the Golden Rule, Atheism or whatever as your moral compass. The fact remains that there is always something that you gage your moral standards against that encourages you to ‘do better’. It is that “do better” thing that makes the human race grow beyond our current standings. While a bear is the same a thousand years ago as it is today, humans have this special “do better” thing that makes us grow.
Inherent in every human though is the flaw of using that compass poorly or otherwise for bad intentions. This is where you get your Bible thumpers that preaches hate and kills doctor that perform abortions, your Muslim extremist that kills thousands in one fell swoop, or a crazy leader like Hitler to wipe out millions of a single creed. All have a religion or moral compass that they hold to. It is what we make of it that then turns around and influences the culture around us.
Thing is catz, humans made morals. Everyone has their own morals. We don’t have to look to religion to know killing is wrong. Also morality is never black and white.
I credit religion for helping to codify and write down the more vague aspects of humanity into an easily digestible format, but it should NEVER be considered as distinct from humanity, IMHO.
why do I cringe whenever I post in religion topics and see daniel posted rather soon after me? :chuckle:
Into, that may be true, but there is so much more ‘in’ religion that HAS had an effect on culture. “Turn the cheek” perhaps would be a better example? The bible is not the only religion that holds to this teaching.
I consider things like “turn the cheek” as being part of humanity, however. To me, all the things “in” religion are just aspects of humanity and human culture. And these things evolve over time. It’s one of the reasons there’s elebenty-billion religions out there and even members of the same religion have different perspective on their religion. How many denominations of Christianity are there?
I’m not saying religion is bad. It’s completely amoral in my opinion, like a screwdriver or a gun. However, when it’s used as a bludgeon or shield, I have a problem. “I’m a good guy because I’m a Christian” or “You’re evil because you’re not Muslim” or so on. That’s not what religion is meant for.
Catz: I apologize for your cringing. I have no problems with you or your religion. I’m just giving my viewpoints, same as you. And I think we’re on the same side of the coin here. 