Yeah but...!
You seem to accept that Eve being the named the Mother of all things" means Eve is the origin of mankind, according to the bible.
Why?
Jan.
Were Adam and Eve the first people?
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
Yeah but...!
You seem to accept that Eve being the named the Mother of all things" means Eve is the origin of mankind, according to the bible.
Why?
Jan.
Yes. Santa is a real character.
You obviously agree with me, so why the complications?
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You are wrong Jan I dont accept anything at all what you think I seem to accept is your own invention.
I dont know what was said specifically that is why I asked you to post the section so I could look at it.
You did not.
You used the opportunity to run your "denial" thing.
In your haste to build and attack a straw man you lost all opportunity to have me probably agree with you.
Look you continue arguing with your strawman and I will be off doing something useful.
I am disappointed.
I would have liked to read how the bible told the story but it seems I dont get to ...no matter.
I just dont know what point you are trying to make at all.
Alex
Why the need for interpretation?
I take it you can read.
Obviously, hence your worldview.
Jan.
Without it, you'd be stuck with translations of stories - instead of Scripture.
No, you said Santa Claus was real. Not that he was a real character, or that he was really in pictures. You said he was real.
Again, you made a mistake. You refuse to ever admit mistakes. So you make asinine arguments to try to cover up your mistake.
Which explains a lot of your posting, actually. You said something foolish about genetics. To cover it up, you had to claim that Adam and Eve were not the first people, and that God created a whole lot of other people at the same time. And so you "revised" the Bible to cover yourself.
Why not just admit you were wrong, and move on from there? You wouldn't have to make asinine arguments about how you think Santa is real, and that that is the same as claiming that there's a fictional character by the same name.
Some definitions for atheism use the words God or gods....
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Some definitions use the words deity or deities. ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Your definition was that they are atheists because they do not believe in the God you believe in ...
The definition of a word is not based on personal belief. Some people, in certain situations, believe that "no" can mean "yes" or "stop" mean "more" yet that belief does not make them right either.Jan Ardena said:
Excuse Me?!? I have tried my best to patiently engage you Jan. You just keep changing the subject. Here is a summary of every interaction between the both of us in this very thread:
Me: Subject of this thread is a mute point, Noah is the bottleneck where all humans come from (Quotes biblical text to support my argument).
Jan: Eve was not the origin of all humans according to scripture (Quotes no biblical text to support his argument).
Me: Quotes biblical text to support my argument.
Jan: Asks if I know textual difference between "earth" and "world".
Me: Says I do know difference, adds that the text does not support his argument.
Jan: Asks for my textual definition between the two.
Me: Asks if the text I quoted is lying then paraphrases the text I quoted.
Jan: Questions the word "ground" I paraphrased, says he does not believe the text says all humans came from Noah. Accuses me of assuming things. Challenges me for proof.
Me: Quotes biblical text showing genealogy from Adam to Noah. Quotes biblical text saying all living, breathing things on dry land died except Noah and his family. Asks what biblical text supports his argument.
Jan: Mutters some word salad about the textual quotes I offered. Does not provide any biblical text to support his argument.
Me: Exits "conversation".
.......
Me: Shinto is a religion, it's not Atheism.
Jan: It is Atheism because they do not believe in his God (and because he says so).
Me: I didn't realize we could make up our own definitions to words.
Jan: Accuses me of dodging him again. Accuses me of not engaging him. Accuses me of being afraid of him.
Me: Demonstrates how woefully misguided and dishonest Jans last post was - Exits "conversation".
....
I'm going to give you some free advice Jan. Wean yourself off of the milk before you try to digest the meat.
Matt 5:37
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
James 5:12
12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
No I cant help it I am now worrying.Don’t worry about it then.
Jan.
I am worried that you are OK.
You seem not your usual self as your game has faded dramatically.
Are you sleeping well or staying awake wondering if you are going to hell for things you thought were fun but upon examination are no doubt sins.
Look dont worry.
There is no hell and no after life you just need to remind yourself that way down deep you are a good person and that all your bad behaviour and trickyness are just symptoms of your earlier brain washings that has you ignoring reason in favour of unsupported superstition.
I am sure all your bad behaviour is merely seeking attention...attention that no one in the real world gives you...that is sad but inventing invisable friends can only cause you to think you are right when others try and help in guiding you to enlightenment.
I suggest you get out more, sit in the park and enjoy the wonderful eternal universe and look in wonder at the various animals and birds each of who have evolved to decome the own unique life form.
Perhaps look to your diet.
You have said here how beneficial good and wholesome food is for one so even its just you alone at least try to prepare some nice healthy meals.
But this behaviour of being difficult really does you no good...you are not a child you can do better.
Perhaps avoid substances that confuse your mind.
At least get away from the computer and get some healthy sleep.
A bit a rest will do wonders for you.
And make sure to read the newspaper so you can identify that you really dont live in the bronze age.
I just wish I knew your address so I could send professional help.
Eve can be who ever you want her to be..its ok Jan.
Alex
There are atheistic religions.
Shinto is normally classified among them, because it has no particular deities
(pace the Western heavily influenced intellectual's tendency to find something, anything, even an ancestor's spirit, it can label "deity" and restore the familiar frame. Like finding male dominance in animal packs and herds - it's a psychological bent). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto
Last edited:
Sorry, Bob, you're wrong. Word games aren't any more useful to your critique of religion than your rape advocacy.
One of the problems is your attribution.
It? What is it? The Bible? It says? What Gen. 3.20 says is that Adam says.
Generally speaking, fallacy just isn't useful unless one's purpose is fulfilled or served by willful failure.
We should, on that point, note the narration of Job; in 28.21, Job speaks such that birds are not included among the living.
You appear to be insisting on your own definition of the living, instead of that used in these Hebrew stories.
At that point, one is no longer criticizing a religion or religious thought and behavior as much as their own religious outlook.
From my Post 256
Instead of an implied denial of evolution as the explanation for those fossils, can you provide a better explanation?
Jan, do you accept the story of Adam, Eve, & the Garden of Eden as historical fact?
In post 258You, Jan, quoted my post 256 & remarked
Evolution provides a cogent explanation for the fossils mentioned above.
Instead of an implied denial of evolution as the explanation for those fossils, can you provide a better explanation?
Jan, do you accept the story of Adam, Eve, & the Garden of Eden as historical fact?
Huh? It says:
Yes, the God that theists accept and believe in,. The God that atheists deny,reject, and do not accept and believe in.
The definition of “atheist” is a person who does not believe in God. Period.
From an atheist perspective, you can tag other things on to that, like gods, spaghetti monster, ghosts, whatever. It changes nothing.
Okay.
No the subject of this particular thread is the question of whether or not Adam and Eve were the first people.
The subject I’m discussing, is, the psychology of theists and atheists (atheists in particular).
So far it’s not looking good for atheists, at least the ones who have responded. It seem they will lie, evade, and obfuscate, intensely, without batting an eyelid.
This thread, this particular topic, has brought it out of them.
The weird thing thing is, so do most Christians, when confronted with the same situation. At that point they converge.
There is no biblical text that support the idea that Eve was origin of all humans. So in that sense, the entire bible is evidence that it does not support that notion.
But it seemed you’re denial and rejection got the better of your rationale, because not only did I quote a verse to show that Eve was so named, because she was the mother of ALL LIVING (for which I gave a Hebrew account of), but I mentioned the first chapter of genesis which clearly states the origin of mankind.
This has strangely been ignored, as though it doesn’t exist. I wonder why?
And it was a good one. It really got me thinking. Then I noticed that only Adams descendants were all killed, as Adam was the only human to receive “the breath of life”., and be fashioned by God, personally.
It appears Adam was a new person, the first of his race. The person from whom a direct link to God could be made.
The sixth day creation of mankind were not created in the same way Adam was.
Again this is not my idea, it was written in the biblical quote you posted.
And what did you do?
You ignored it.
This was the text you posted where you thought it supported your argument.
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
This does not indicate the entirety of man kind, if we take what the bible actually says. Does it.
Based on that we can assume that only Adams descendants died. Not the whole of mankind. Are you prepared to review you’re thinking, on this matter?
How do you know it doesn’t ? More importantly, why are you so adamant that it does not.
There is a difference between earth and world, if look up the Hebrew meanings. “Earth”, more often than not, does not mean the entire world.
It can be a specific area, or areas. But it generally refers to dry land.
Jan.
Last edited:
Santa IS a real character. Is this not true?
Are you saying that I believe Santa Clause is a real individual personality, that exists with all other individual personalities, like you and me?
Now why would you think that, especially in light of my correcting you?
Could it be that you want to discredit me?
You only reveal more of yourself, and your agenda, when you pursue this. So let’s see how much you are prepared to discredit me.
Jan.
Uh... That stood out somehow.
Why?
Why couldn’t I have meant he is real as a character? That is the truth? Isn’t it?
Jan.
God is real as a character, just as real as Santa Claus.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Which begs for a definition of this "GOD" that atheist do not believe in.
......................
and, therein. imho
lies the peculiarity that those who voice atheism first define the "GOD" that they do not believe in.
.......................
agnosticism, being a declaration of ignorance, seems a milder approach
............................
all that aside
Abraham was, imho, a complete and total nutjob who thought that his god needed blood sacrifices.
And, following on
those who espouse the abrahamic religions
have based their beliefs on the ravings of a mad man.