The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Originally posted by Dean Why would such a being need six "days", or even have a construct such as a "day" in the first place? It's the idea of magnitude and scale from the perspective of a bronze-age culture, things take time regardless of how large the task is, "instantaneous" would have been inconceivable, just as it is to modern theists. (Not that the "big bang" is instantaneous - it is predicted that it took ~400 thousand years for subatomic particles to form atoms)   For them creating a whole world in one week was an impressive achievement of supernatural proportions that didn't need a shorter timespan because shorter periodic time-intervals do not occur in nature: hours, minutes and seconds are artificial - one day (solar cycle) is the shortest time-interval we can measure without mechanical apparatus. The other naturally occurring time-intervals of months (Luna cycles) and years (seasonal cycles) would be too long, less likely to be as impressive and could be usurped by a more productive/powerful supreme being who could do it quicker (my god is better than your god).   The "day of rest" was not for the supreme being, but for the priesthood - a means of ensuring that one day a week was handed over to them. In other cultures and religions these "rest intervals" were different but still existed as times when the population stopped working and worshiped.

Most religions don't take Genesis seriously though.

There cannot even begin to be numbers to quantify morality unless you admit to a universal morality of which you know all the details. Can you claim that?

You start talking about morality and switch to measures of crime. Crime and morality have little to do with each other. If you have a bunch of people thrown in jail because of marijuana possession or underage drinking, how does that relate to morality? Also, the claim is additionally misleading since it suggests that the explanatory variable for the difference in "morality" comes from the beliefs of the individuals. That's nonsense. Poor African Americans are more likely to commit crime than rich Asians. The former are also more likely to be theists.

It doesn't add up. You're spouting nonsense and your own biased interpretation of things. I know theists who believe themselves to be in the wrong if they even have thoughts of defending themselves from others or reprimanding those who do wrong. I know theists who believe themselves unworthy of heaven and refuse to comment on the ultimate fate of anyone else's soul. You're being ridiculous. It's fine to say theists are wrong, but it's ridiculous to say that theists are inherently immoral.

I agree. It's more of an idea of context. I see self-righteous atheists making absurd comments to Catholics trying to refute their beliefs by pulling quotes from books of the Old Testament that are really ignored by the religion. It's just silly. That doesn't apply to you obviously. 

Religions don't accept Genesis now because it's obviously ridiculous. But they once all believed it devoutly. They have changed to avoid ridicule. But if an almighty God existed, then Genesi could just as easily be true. 

Originally posted by Snow Dog Religions don't accept Genesis now because it's obviously ridiculous. But they once all believed it devoutly. They have changed to avoid ridicule. But if an almighty God existed, then Genesi could just as easily be true.

It could be true without a one way arrow of time too.

I don't see what that matters though. There's no reason to view religion as a static entity. You wouldn't criticize any other philosophy for change.

I'm also pretty sure that the gnostics never took the story literally.

Originally posted by Snow Dog Religions don't accept Genesis now because it's obviously ridiculous. But they once all believed it devoutly. They have changed to avoid ridicule. But if an almighty God existed, then Genesi could just as easily be true.

I don't think this is completely true in that they changed to avoid ridicule, they changed interpretation to fit the known data, which is not unreasonable just as it was not unreasonable to change our model of gravity to fit the known data of planetary motion. 

That's more of a reason of why you deny Christianity.

Lucifer's sin was pride, which I always found very interesting.

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 That's more of a reason of why you deny Christianity. Lucifer's sin was pride, which I always found very interesting.

I always found Lucifer interesting, but more when I was reading Nietzsche back a decade ago. The idea that a worldly, successful, intelligent, ambitious, rebellious person gets condemned to demonization... what does that say about independent thinkers under Christianity in the middle ages? Another thing was biting the forbidden apple - knowledge - knowledge is the worst thing you can pursue - you need to be blissfully ignorant, like Adam and Eve were supposed to be.

I was less interested after i moved on from existentialism but it is still an interesting point about the messages the bible sends.

Comedy gold. A supernaturally incompetent theist.

You don't think Dillahunty actually won that? Explain.