Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Obviously you haven't been to Detroit.

 

So let's go a little further. In my city; there are builders that built the very same house; yet 1 is a few miles from the other. One of the neighborhoods are about 100k more than the other. Why would they be so different in price?

 

or (d), you missed the point of that passage entirely. Because we go back and redefine something doesn't mean the Bible is wrong about it. Just like calling the end of the spine a "tail bone" doesn't mean we evolved from apes.

 

Then why do you supposed that scientists can assume how the the universe and life on this planet was created? Do you think it's "A matter of fact"? Even in this thread; there are the "God of the gaps" rebuttals on improbabilities, life has not been created with non-life.

I think in many ways the bible uses metaphors. How would you explain an airplane to someone 3,000 years ago?

But that is getting off topic. We have another thread talking about the "Bible". This thread is debating the existence of a Creator, or intelligent design. In this thread. It could be a designer not even in any theist thinking today.

 

Also, you have to keep in mind that the Bible was translated from different languages and used the best and closest possible English words for what Scripture said. The Greek translation could have been more along the lines of "flying animals", whereas the English translation simplified it to "birds". I see no conflict here, except for people desperately looking to pick apart little details in the Bible in an attempt to discredit it. People have been trying for centuries, and yet the Bible still thrives.

 

Just seems odd that you HAVE to take it literally sometimes, and then other times, we kind of just assume what they were talking about. And assume stuff got lost in translation.

 

I just don't see how minute details like bats/birds should overrule the Bible as a whole, and what it teaches. Especially when there are logical explanations and possibilities behind them.

 

Can we have a tailbone appreciation thread? Such an ingenious design decision, that one.

 

Actually you have a very valid point. I think that's why it's important to constantly read the "bible" when you become a Christian. It would be like literary professors dedicating their life to "Shakespeare". And even then, they won't get the jest of it.

It really sucks when this thread goes off topic though.

 

This is where Catholics would argue that responsible Christians must have an institution to parse and interpret the Bible, so that all of these details can be clarified...

P.S. It's "gist", not "jest", though I think your sentence is better the way you wrote it, since it implies that Biblical scholars can't see how comical it is. I'm really not trying to pick on you with these corrections, BTW -- it's just my latent OCD tendencies peeking through!

 

What you mean when you say "you accepted logic" is that you accepted that those conclusions followed logically from OTHER things you believed. In other words, you resolved an inconsistency in your belief system.

Is this one of them? Explain how calling a bat a "fowl" is a useful metaphor (rather than evidence that it was written by fallible humans who didn't know that bats were mammals).

Not sure of the relevance of that example, but to answer your question: presumably God could find a way, don't you think? After all, people worked out about dinosaurs despite never having seen them (and despite them never being mentioned in the Bible. Oh wait - maybe "bats" is a "metaphor" for "pteranodons", and the Bible contained evidence that, in fact, birds ARE DINOSAURS! My God, you're on to something!).

But you don't believe that. What you believe is the Christian God, and that colors your thinking about other matters. I'm curious as to why you believe that universe began millions of years ago because that's what science tells us (why not have God create it and make it LOOK like it happened millions of years ago?) but are perfectly okay with God being indivisible and three distinct persons (one of whom is one of the others' son) despite THAT being incompatible with logic.

 

Hahahaha thanks for the correction. I think I've used "Jest" meaning "Gist" like a hundred times. Kinda ironic how it played out though.

P.S. This is why I hate Religion (when you speak of the Catholic Faith).

 

Enlighten me.

 

And why would that matter? Even in this thread; the atheists aren't in agreement on how the universe was created. Some are even arguing the actual definition of an Atheist. Regardless if my "Faith" in God; you think is relevant. It really isn't in this thread.

Personally I think believing in a creator is healthy. I think it's logical and fills in the gaps quite nicely. I have used "logic" on my 1-7; and never once used the "Bible". If you want to spin this to some "Bible vs. Rasta" thread; then I will be more than happy to debate you there. On this thread; we can debate what I've posted and answer the actual rebuttals on my posts.

 

I gave you two plausible explanations for it. Don't confuse a possible translation difficulty with imprecision.

 

Oden, buddy, I think it's really important to stay on topic. It seems as if the rabbit hole is going in a different direction. Let's try and keep on point.

 

you stay on point : )

 

LOL touché

 

36 pages and still no evidence by the atheists that God doesn't exist.