Can former atheists explain what atheism is?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Mar 22, 2019.

  1. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    For some I suppose. Never gets old for me. We can still figure out it’s mysteries and complexities. He did create a fully functioning running Creation. Lots to know and do. We still have some animals to name

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,053
    But what's the point if it's just an illusion? (God sustaining plants without sunlight, etc.)
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    It was only 24 hours, ( day 3 for plants and day4 for sun ) not long time; plants would have lived in that short period and people were not even around then so they would not have see this issue.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,053
    You said we'd expect to see what we actually do see. If we were there to see plants growing without sunlight, we wouldn't expect sunlight to be necessary for plant growth.
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  8. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Plants can live for quite some time without sunlight, I am a amature botanist, 24 hours is nothing to a plant. This was a one time event, long over.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,053
    But you'd have no reason to "expect" that.

    When you say we'd "expect" to see what we do see, that's just a glib "bumper sticker" response with no real meaning.
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  10. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Agree, not that issue. I am talking about others things, like the religiosity of mankind.

    One would expect to see this is Genesis were true.

    Since Adam and Eve, they would have passed down all they knew, but due to rebellion/sin/disbelief, we are left with the left-overs of millennia of manmade systems, yet all are similar and contain elements of the original truth.
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,053
    The problem is that all of your claims are reverse-engineered. What is there in Genesis that predicts what we might see? For example, evolution via mutation predicted the existence of DNA before DNA was actually discovered.
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  12. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Genesis showed created kinds of creatures, reproducing after kind, exactly what we see. Micro EV, not macro. We see micro all the time, exactly as expected. Evolutions today have confused ( or assumed ) macro in face of micro. Depending on environment, food, ( Darwin’s finches ) stressors etc, creatures change and adapt.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,053
    Genesis in no way predicted that.
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  14. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    But it does follow. Look as what we see. Creatures reproducing after their established kind. We never see creatures change into a completly different creature, but see see slow drift and expansion of the species over time.
     
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,053
    On the contrary, speciation is well documented.
    Again, that is not what we would "expect to see" from reading Genesis.
     
  16. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Could you show me a link to a completely different creature turning into another ?

    Again, that is not what we would "expect to see" from reading Genesis.[/QUOTE]

    I respectively disagree. It’s exactly what we would expect to see.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,053
    You could start with the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
    That's dishonest. There is nothing in Genesis that suggests adaptation.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,884
    Yikes.

    Do you think all gays should be killed? Do you think ants don't have queens? Do you think that the Sun moves around the Earth?

    I strongly suspect that you don't, and that you consider those aspects of the Bible to be quaint, or not to be taken literally, or leftovers from an earlier time. If so, congratulations; that's what most people do. They don't make the mistake of thinking that the Bible is a science, math or law book.
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  19. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    I will have a look. It’s not dishonest, that’s a unreasonable statement. It’s a reasonable conclusion if Genesis is the truth. God creates base kinds, they reproduce and drift/adapt to stressors after their kind. Cats stay cats and dogs stay dogs but with a wide margin for change.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So look at the similarities, for clues to that common ancestry.
    Having a god is not one of them. Neither is having a holy book with nothing but truth in it. So there's no common background there.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,884
    Google "idiurus macrotis." It is a mouse evolving into a bird. It even has a new bone in its arm to help extend its (rudimentary) wing.

    Google "pakicetus." It was the first step in something that looked like a dog evolving into a whale.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Nobody did.
    Nobody. For tens of thousands of years, absolutely nobody.

    The only people who have ever read Genesis and expected to see evolution and plate tectonics and a planet 3 billion years old and DNA in common between bacteria and bananas and so forth were the people who already knew about that stuff, and were trying to re-interpret Genesis as a biology textbook.

    The Bible is a collection of stories. All of its biological and historical information is wrong, one way or another.
     
  23. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Indeed.

    Agree. I don’t.

    Different time, different perspetive. Literary devices need to factor in to imo. The Bible is not a detailed science book, agree, it’s a history book ( how God dealt with those before us ) and a instruction manual how to live and to prepare our deaths. Lots in between.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2019

Share This Page