I will start off with in apology for misreading the word berate, I had to go to work shortly after reading your response and it was one of my last points so I rushed it. My deepest condolences. Something of such great importance should not be rushed even if it's in clarifications of peer's intentions. Regardless the same answer applies, no Mus you are not berating me your simply expressing your views. I will admit when I make a mistake. I wonder if I would receive the same courtesy, I have read responses to my blog with mistakes on the persons view on Christianity but since this is not an argument of one's credibility, I let it go. In the reason of keeping focus on the main criteria, rather than constantly insulting one of my peers.
With that being said on to the crux of the matter. Religion's denotation, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, are you or are you not concerned on the purpose of the universe or at least the causes of nature? So you may laugh at me if you will, I will simply lay out a dictionary definition of religion and see if it lines up with what we are discussing, which I did. You think you have the right answer by offering no answer to stand on, as an alternative to an answer you create " a rejection of the claims you (I) put forth". You stand for nothing, offering me nothing to consider to rival the truth my God.
You are right about one thing Ursa you do have everything you need within you, because Christ is within you, and I will pray for you as well as Mus, for I know my words alone cannot shine light in the darkness, but with Him all things are possible. [I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.] Philippians 4:13
You say there is no proof of God, when I have giving you plenty, in addition to a whole large book The Bible, which by the way was not just written after Jesus birth, it was written before during and after. The Bible has not been proven wrong so why do you ask that I make a case for it. That is like me asking you to prove gravity, I don't see it, where is the proof? If your ego is the problem, finding it hard to have humility, not wanting to worship a deity to prove the unknown, that's understandable, there are a lot of false idols how do you know Christianity is right?
"how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth."
-Grant R. Jeffery-"
Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence."
-Hank Hanegraaff-
Note: I am not trying to have a quote off, just thought I would give you some other people to look up. Before I go over some of these scientific truth, I would like to know what you two think about the others approach? In other words do you two (Mus, and Ursa) share the same view to the T, or just to the point that you two are sure nothing is for sure? Also can I learn a little more about you two, I am not hiding I have a blog account a facebook, all that jazz, you can find out nearly anything you want about me on the internet but I am still communicating to two near nameless people.
Some scientific truths in the bible
Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
In response to my identity, I too have a facebook, and Ursa and i are in the progress of getting a blog of our own set up. My name is Andrew. I, like yourself, am in high school.
ReplyDeleteTo make this response easier to read, I've used pieces of your original post to help navigate the points I want to make. I'm really only going to try and refute what you've already said, and perhaps Ursa will come around with something for you to mull over. This post would be truly massive if I put in any of my own questions for you.
"With that being said on to the crux of the matter. Religion's denotation, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, are you or are you not concerned on the purpose of the universe or at least the causes of nature?"
I don't want this to turn into a debate over semantics regarding atheism as a religion. You are correct in that religion sets forth an explanation as to the origin and purpose of the universe. Atheism does not make a claim in that area, so by your own definition, it is not a religion.
"You think you have the right answer by offering no answer to stand on, as an alternative to an answer you create " a rejection of the claims you (I) put forth". You stand for nothing, offering me nothing to consider to rival the truth my God."
You make a fair point, indeed, in your first statement. I only offer what science has to offer, which doesn't have all the answers. Saying that I stand for nothing is incorrect on so many levels, however. I stand for logical reason, for scientific fact, which as I said in an earlier post may one day negate the need for religion. I offer you logic to rival your god. I offer you sane, rational thought against your god.
On Grant R. Jeffrey: I know of him with his book, The millennium meltdown: The year 2000 Computer Crisis. (http://www.amazon.ca/millennium-meltdown-year-computer-crisis/dp/0921714483) He was CERTAIN that come the turn of the millennium that the world would fall into ruin, financial systems would fail, people would go insane. Did that happen? That show how much faith I put into his "prophecies" and his scientific understanding. As to Hank Hanegraaff, I've never heard of him, but I will certainly do some research.
"Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time."
I've never heard that verse used in a such a way. If I can, I'd like to use the direct quotation of the verses:
Luke 17:34–36 (NIV):
"34: I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.
35: Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.
36: Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left."
You state that the words "at night" and "doing daytime activities." Simply put, they're not there. Let's not forget, too, that the Bible often takes rhetorical liberties to make its point: Was this merely a device to grind in the point that some will be taken, others not? There's a literary parallel structure in these verses, with 3 direct comparisons: In the first, two people (presumably a husband and wife) will be in bed, one will go the other will stay. In the second, two woman grinding grain will experience similar circumstances. Same with the third. These instances aren't compared to each other, which is where I believe you're misreading this. I hope that was clear. If not, let me know and I'll try again.
"Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day."
This condition is not so much a peak but a period of neonatal jaundice in which blood may not clot as well. You make a good point: in matters of the body, ancient civilizations were keen in knowing good and bad. For example, the Sumerians, existing long before Abraham, had a decent grasp of human biology, understanding the concept of hormones and histology. They worshiped a plethora of gods, many of which were naturalistic in origin, like An, their version of heaven, you could say. Interestingly enough, "An" in Sumerian means sky. Utu was their god of the sun, Nanna the god of the moon. Would you consider their gods "false idols?" Why? They had scientific discoveries, too.
"Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6)."
This isn't so much proof that the Bible has a divine grasp on the mysteries of life and science, but proof that the writers of the Bible were observant of nature. They had to be, because nature provided far more sustenance then than it does us now. Observing a pattern, which in this quotation Solomon does, and understanding the phenomenon behind it are two completely different things. Science didn't prove that this happens, it explained WHY it happens: the heating and cooling of air due to the sun causes pressure systems to move. FInd me a Bible verse that discusses meteorological pressure systems and I'll reevaluate my stance on that.
And on a different note, your quote from Jeffrey states that "There is no other book in any of the world’s religions...that contains scientific truth." If what you just showed me above is scientific evidence in the Bible, then this quotation from the Qur'an also shows scientific evidence:
Surah Al-Anbiya, 32:
"And We have made the sky a protected roof. But they turn away from its Signs." Is that not evidence of the atmosphere, our protection from the harmful effects of the sun's radiation? Every religious book is going to contain naturalistic observations, as their ultimate purpose is to explain them. But let's please differentiate between OBSERVATION and EXPLANATION.
Well, there is a plethora of content here to discuss, and on my part, rebuke.
ReplyDeleteOff the bat, I'll go head and submit that I may have been a bit harsh at times, but personally, the ignorance that spews from this blog deserves to be ridiculed and deserves to be challenged. And it's not so much your assertion that God is real, but merely your "proofs", "logic", and claims about science and the bible that are obscenely clueless.
First off, my name is Nick. I too am in highschool.
Now. Onto the fun part. You're right that I have everything I need, but wrong in that it's because Jesus is within me. Not only is that a bit creepy, but it also connotates that I'm always being watched, my future known, my thoughts not purely my own. And that is not a life I desire. I truly believe you are deluded in your claim that a 2,000 year old god is within you and with you all the time, and that he can hear you and perhaps talks back. I'm not sure why anyone needs that, other than personal weakness. It's not a matter of humility for me. It's a matter of common sense and reality.
Now, onto the scientific proof in the bible. These things, as Mus said, are not science, they are observation. Science isn't important for saying that things happen. It's important for explaining WHY and HOW. Not only that, but as Mus showed, you clearly added words and meaning to the verses that aren't even there.
I'm not sure how old you think the Earth is. But according to Christian fundamentalists..its around 6,000. using information from the bible. Now, its scientifically accepted that the true figure is around 4.5 billion. Now, let me put the magnitude of this error into perspective. saying the earth is 6k years old is like saying the distance from New York to San Fransisco is...28 feet. Pretty substantial wouldnt you say? Buses are longer than that.
So, finally I will fulfill Mus's prophecy (OMG A MIRACLE), and leave you with some questions to mull over.
If the Bible is so scientifically enlightened and advanced, why does the bible appear to claim the earth is flat and that it doesn't orbit anything? (Which we both know are false)
for reference:
Revelation 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH
Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Psalm 104:5
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
And in conclusion..regarding your critique that we have no answer and that you do..sometimes answers are wrong. Claiming to know, claiming that God is real and that he is the explanation of all our metaphysical and epistemological questions..without proof is no viable answers. You keep saying you've given proof, but nothing you've said would hold up in either court or a lab. Nothing you've said about bible or your particular religion can't be said of another. I challenge you again to give just one substantial proof of your claims.
I sense from the tone of this response that you've reached the end of this discussion. No worries, I respect that. Here are my final thoughts.
ReplyDelete"Identity still dubious, if you are so confident in your argument why do you hide behind aliases, and vagueness? I kind of assumed you know ursa, but It is nice to know for sure."
I've given you just as much information as your blog gives me. Your name is Kevin, mine is Andrew. You're in high school, I'm in high school. I chose to omit my lack of an occupation to go along with your "Rue 21" stuff, because I thought my words could be better directed at making some sort of logical point. Obviously I failed. I think it's pretty self-explanitory that I'm an atheist. There we go. No alias here.
"Now, as to whether or not atheism is a religion, this is a point that I think we will have to agree to disagree on for the sake of the main point."
Your ignorance impresses me. Moving on.
"you have no platform to explain the start of the universe, ergo no contrary system of idea to prove the phenomenon of creation. Still I ask again if you admit you DON'T KNOW how then how do you KNOW I am wrong?"
Just because I don't have a better explination to something doesn't mean I can't label it as bullshit. I don't know where I put my credit card when I stopped at Chic Fil a this morning for breakfast, but if you told me it was because of evil elves that steal your ability to remember where things are, I would say you're wrong. Can I prove definitively that such elves don't exist? No. Is it absurd and probably not the real cause of why my card has gone missing? Absolutely.
"Consider this if I am wrong we both rot no harm no foul, if you're wrong... Are you willing to take that risk?"
Quite interesting that you've gone this long without bringing in Pascal's Wager. I think, if this god you worship is as all-knowing and all-powerful as you say he is, he'll see right through my pretending and know I'm faking it. I refuse to pretend to believe something that makes no sense at all. I won't spend my life jumping through hoops to please someone that I have SERIOUS doubts even exists. So yes, I will take that risk. To me, it's like betting on a full house in Poker. The odds are on my side.
"I am going to assume you never heard of neither Hank nor Grant. You looked them both up after I mentioned them in my blog, which is what I want you to do, your own research, however you couldn't find anything to discredit Hanegraaff, so you didn't mention your findings."
You know what they say about assumptions. Don't assume I'm an idiot. Don't assume that I don't know just as much about your faith as you do. Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean I don't know it. Yes, I do know of "Hank," because I do get a kick out of reading kooky people, which he would qualify as. I haven't read any of his stuff on religion, because I don't have time to read fiction that I'm not really interested in. The difference between him and a fortune teller is a book that's had 2000 years of people saying it's correct.
"Speaking of Jeferry, and his predictions, yes he was wrong, he is just human born to be flawed, but the predictions in the Bible are true, many of them already fulfilled."
Like...
"Regarding the Bible verses, they are to be interpreted by the reader, as I mentioned (in my other blog posts) so I find it will be futile to dispute these points farther, you are reading them Godless and I am reading them God filled, and it does not take a scholar to turn a verse. If any of you find this an "easy out" I would humor you by frolicking in this futile activity."
God filled. That's a new one on me.
Let's set the record strait here. The Bible was written by man. Not God. Not Jesus. Perhaps the writers of it were "inspired," or perhaps they were simply stoned out of their minds, but they were HUMAN. Humans like using fluffy language and intelligently crafted phrases. Hence the term "rhetoric." Wikipedia that term if you're not sure what it means.
"To turn this to an Islamic debate, which I am sure was not your objective when using that quote from the Qur'an, you were just making a point that other religion had observations you find similar to that in the Bible."
Don't nuttin' get by you, Slick!
"Nick, ignorance, lack of knowledge, is what you admit you have in the area of how the universe was created; moreover it’s the epitome of ignorance to disregard a hypothesis without proof."
It's even stupider to accept one without proof. You've proven our point.
"Creepy and undesirable, are points you make against Christianity, not only are they not scientific your views on Christianity are naive. God could control everything, but He gave us free will so we can choose to love Him or not, He only leads us to the best path of our life he does not force us down it..."
Naive? You're seriously going to say WE are the naive ones? You're the one that believes in a flying spirit man who can hear us all muttering to him at once.
"and God has always been, is and always will be, He is everlasting."
Okay, so it's completely impossible for the universe to have ALWAYS existed, but God can. Why's God so special?
"As for the age of the earth for it to be an error of mine, I must also think that the earth is 6k years old, to answer you statement you don't know how old I think the earth is."
How old is the earth? Be careful, best not contradict your precious BIble.
"Four corners is a metaphor in this verse, four corners is a fairly common metaphor for all over the place/spread out"
Okay, so you DO recognize that rhetorical devices are loaded throughout the Bible. Okay, duly noted.
"God sits above the circle of the earth...] Isaiah 40:22 the earth is round which Christians knew before scientist discovered it."
Perhaps you've found another metaphor! And if you're going to play the semantics game about the definition of atheism, I'll have you know that the earth is not round. It's spherical. Considering Christianity was the predominant religion in western civilization, I refuse to believe that Christianity knew the earth was spherical when western science didn't until long after the death of Christ.
"I find this to be work of God you picked this verse out of the whole Bible read Daniel 4 in its entirety then try to tell me with a pure heart it does not speak to you."
It didn't speak to me. Send a snake to tell me about it and we'll see.
"The earth does not move, from its orbiting course around the sun."
...What? The writers of the Bible didn't even know the earth orbited the sun, so I seriously doubt this is what they meant.
"When your sole objective is to dispute whatever evidence I bring to you, no you are not going to believe in Christ. A relationship takes respect, and trust."
My sole objective is for you to THINK about religion, and I was trying to do so by refuting what evidence (if you could call it that). That's kinda the idea of a debate: you present evidence, I try to refute it. I present evidence, you try to refute it. And I don't want a relationship. I gave up the imaginary friend thing when I finished 3rd grade.
"I will say, I brought up enough evidence that it would take more faith for me to be an Atheist than a Christian, as I am. I must have faith, that Jesus did rise, and masses of people including persecutors of Christ did not switch to Christianity to worship a died guy. If I was Atheist on the other hand I would have to have faith that the very same people who wanted Jesus dead, decided to follow Him, after his death without Him rising, just because."
I'm pretty sure I have no idea what the hell you just said. Really. Firstly, you've given us no real evidence. You've given us a few Bible verses, a kooky guy, and some uninformed beliefs about physics. The entire IDEA of atheism is to NOT have faith. It's AGAINST religious faith. It doesn't take faith to be an atheist, it takes thought. You need to have faith that your beliefs, out of the hundreds of religions of the world, are wrong. I'd really like to say something about that final sentence, but I'm not really sure what you said. As I mentioned before, I don't need to have faith in anything.
It's been nice getting to have this chat, and if you're ever interested in talking more, feel free to contact me or Ursa at our blog: http://livingthemystery.wordpress.com.