It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Okiminletsdoit!
interesting read on your other posts,but the people in the bible could have come to these conclusions on their own,as far as we know there could have been other people who sailed around the world and found it was round of which by word of mouth came to jeremiah.

with the amount of people that have existed on this earth since we became,the topic of the world is round or its discovery would have become old news rehashed.

i mean someone was bound to find out,and then report it over and over and over....................................


And yet more important!
Somebody decided to surpress the knowledge...

Take ancient maps like the ones from Piri Rei, Hadji Muhammed and Oronteus Finaeus fx where did they get that knowledge of an icefree Antarctica and the idéa of meridians?

In the history "we" know longitude wasn´t possible to depict before 1765...

Something aint right...




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
That's crazy, because...I am evidence that I exist. I am here, I know myself, and if you choose to believe I don't exist, that's because you're delusional.

Simply dreaming about "maybe the same thing happened on a grandeur scale!" is not scientific, has no merit, and is wrong to direct your entire life around. If you want to live in hypothetical postulates, by all means do. The way you choose to delusion yourself, however, should not affect children who don't know any better.

You can say anything you want, but a simple posing of a question without evidence, can and will never overturn what the entire scientific community knows is true, has evidence for, and has based research off of for the past century.

I too can say, "Well, maybe the same way you quoted me, scientists are quoting the mind of God when they discover equations!" How you expect anyone to take that seriously, beyond figurative or poetic merit, is completely beyond me. Which is surprising considering I was brainwashed to not believe in evolution and was a creationist too.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


After they settled down I was re examined and was found to have blood pressure and of course No pulse.

It was some minutes after the main examination that My heart started to pulse again and blood pressure slowly returned.


You walked with no blood pressure or pulse???... You walked?

I'm going to need some evidence to verify this because I have every reason to believe it's horsecrap.


Perhaps you are the harbinger of the zombie apocalypse.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by griftin

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by griftin
....
I'd believe in an alien race creating us and placing us here before believing we were created by the Christian God.

....



OK, interesting theory, where you get it from?

Can you elaborate?

OT


Just something I thought up one day. If there are beings out there able to travel incredible distances they must have incredible technology. Possibly the technology to create other forms of life. It would make more sense to me that we were placed here by aliens for some reason than by some god that put us here just to worship him/her.


It´s not so farfetched if you study mythology from Mesopothamia involving Akkadian, Assyrian, sumerian, Babylonian and even Egyptian writings. many stories in their mythologhy depicts men with wings who carry water to a tree of life which is an interpretation of gods creating foundations for life.

Read the epoch of Gilgamesh and you will understand things a little more about the origins of very many things.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
That's crazy, because...I am evidence that I exist. I am here, I know myself, and if you choose to believe I don't exist, that's because you're delusional.




We disagree, but you are not delusional, my friend...nor am I. Keep searching and u2u me whenever you like...

OT prayin for you...



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Originally posted by tungus

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Many scientific and mathematical discoveries were made by Muslims.


Could you give some examples, please?


Sure. I learned about this man in school.


Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī[1] (c. 780, Khwārizm[2][3][4] – c. 850) was a Persian[5][2][6] mathematician, astronomer and geographer, a scholar in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. His Algebra presented the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations. He is considered the founder of algebra,[7] a credit he shares with Diophantus.

en.wikipedia.org...ūsā_al-Khwārizmī

List of Arab scientists:
en.wikipedia.org...

I am busy at this moment. I'll see if I will find more later.

See my previous reply

You are missing the point. They might be great scientists but for islam to claim credit is like the church taking credit for the work of Galileo.
Islam, like any 'true' religion is concerned only with service to god. Anything that does not serve this purpose is a waste of time at best and distracting the faithful therefore needing to be eradicated at worst.

From "Why I am not a Muslim" p. 274:


Not only (the Muslim) orthodoxy stifle the research of the scientists but it was also obvious 'that their researches had nothing to give to their community which this comunity could accept as an essential enrichment of their lives'...for the Muslim there was no loss since this science did not serve the Muslim aim of serving God. The idea of knoweldge for its own sake was meaningless in the Muslim context;"



[edit on 18-8-2009 by tungus]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by m4ng4n
 


granted there is more to life than meets the eye, or even "revealed"

Do you believe in EVIL? MERCY? JUSTICE?

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Do you believe in EVIL? MERCY? JUSTICE?


These are human concepts.

Morality is a by-product of evolution.

There are no absolutes.

No "right" or "wrong" that permeates all cultures identically.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Do you believe in EVIL? MERCY? JUSTICE?


These are human concepts.

Morality is a by-product of evolution.

There are no absolutes.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Welfhard]



so the "adapted" got religion? your argument is so lopsided...



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
....There are no absolutes.

....



your sentence above is an absolute statement...a self-contridiction...confusing really if you think it through...

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


so the "adapted" got religion? your argument is so lopsided...


Had to start somewhere but we should be beyond that now.


your sentence above is an absolute statement...a self-contridiction...confusing really if you think it through...


Allow me to be more specific. There are no absolutes in morality.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


No universal right and wrong?

Tell me you believe that after 20 years of work...


Maybe there are some that believe...


Screw your father and your mother, what do they know?.

You shall murder, if you can get away with it?

You shall commit adultery, don't worry about Steve McNair?

You shall steal, its all good if you are not caught?

You shall bear false witness against your neighbor, he'll never know!

You shall covet your neighbor’s house, if she's hot, after all David did



= = = =
It's no wonder followers are called SALT and LIGHT..... "preservatives" and "doers of good"


EVIL unrestrainted would not be nice....



edit, damn formatting


[edit on 18-8-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard


Allow me to be more specific. There are no absolutes in morality.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Welfhard]



whoa!!!!!!!

that's a first.....a welfhard admission...star for you!!!!!



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 

If you are going to bring up the 10 commandments, can I ask that you use the original source, the Egyptian Book of the Dead? No, probably not. I'm sure you know nothing of that book.


Now Are you going to stand there and tell me that "killing is wrong" is an absolute moral?

Is there no context in which killing is wrong?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



Sure, tell me about it...

good stuff?

You better after reading it?

OT curious!



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Is there no context in which killing is wrong?



Deep question my young scholar!!!!!

Killing?

Murder?



1. The flavor of the term used for killing in Exodus 20:13 is killing within the covenant community. So even if it forbids all killing within the covenant community of Israel, the sixth commandment can't be used by itself to justify universal pacifism. At most it could support pacifism with respect to those within the covenant. The pacifist would have to appeal to Genesis 9 for a more universal prohibition on killing.

2. Genesis 9 includes the first imposition of the death penalty, which is treated as a universal moral principle. The pacifist has a hard time prohibiting all killing when the very passage that seems most to justify it also implements a death penalty for those who violate it.

3. There are places in the Torah that Christians don't observe, most especially when the New Testament itself explicitly removes such practices. The Sabbath, for instance, is fulfilled in Christ, and it's clear in the New Testament that observing special days is in the same category as circumcision -- at best optional and quite possibly counterproductive if it leads to a replacement of the gospel with legalism. The New Testament in this case doesn't remove capital punishment, however. In fact, Romans 13 explicitly includes the use of the sword for promoting justice as one of the legitimate functions of God's appointment of leaders serving in government.

That doesn't deal with the contradiction charge, since it could very well still be that Genesis 9 contradicts itself, just as the death penalties and holy war passages in the Mosaic law might contradict Genesis 9 (and the death penalties might contradict the sixth commandment) for all I've said so far. So more needs to be said for that.

3. One thing to keep in mind is that just because a word can mean something doesn't mean it always includes that sense in every context. So it doesn't follow from the fact that this word can be used of legitimate killing that the prohibition on killing includes a prohibition on legalized killing.

4. In fact, the very existence of legalized killing in the same law code as the sixth commandment is strong evidence that it wasn't intended to cover that category of killing. It's often perfectly legitimate to speak of something that, when taken literally, is false but when taken in a restrictive context is perfectly fine. Saying there's no milk left in the fridge in order to justify buying more is perfectly ok even if there's a tiny puddle of milk at the bottom of the vegetable crisper. Some might object if they hold to a piecemeal approach to the composition of the Pentateuch according to which materials from different time periods and perspectives were combined haphazardly.

But such a view is at odds with the internal evidence of those documents. It's highly implausible that editors would put together contradictory materials in the same passage and not make any attempt to resolve the contradiction, and Genesis 9 includes both the prohibition on general killing along with the death penalty if it's violated. I know of no theory of composition that places these with different sources, but such a view would be on the face of it implausible if it attributed to the editor the utter stupidity that would require putting two contradictory statements immediately next to each other without recognizing the incongruity.

So the best way to take prohibitions on killing is in a more restricted sense in some way, even if the same word can in other places refer to legitimate killing.

5. A view that seems highly plausible to me is that the Genesis 9 passages teaches the general moral badness of killing, emphasizing its seriousness without explaining the moral complexities in practice that the rest of the Torah sometimes will detail with various nuances. It merely gives the most obvious exception, which is that the moral seriousness of murder is so great that one loses one's own right to continue living. Then Exodus 20:13 presents the application of the principle among members of the covenant with the same generality, also without offering the various nuances that the rest of the Torah details. Then the various instances when the presumption against killing is lifted will give care to explaining which exact circumstances those will be, and the various instances when the penalty for killing is mitigated or removed will also explain the details of how that works. This is a perfectly coherent view that much better explains the text as it stands, without resorting to claiming contradiction but without denying the serious nature of the original moral principle behind killing being always bad.

So I think there's plenty to say against both the absolute pacifist's use of the sixth commandment and the claims of those who would classify this surface contradiction as a genuine contradiction, all without making the simpler argument that turns out to rely on a false view of the word for killing in Genesis 20:13. It just takes a little more work to think through the issues and come to a reasonable reconstruction of what's going on in the various texts. But that's true of most biblical interpretation and indeed most interpretation of texts arising from cultural environments somewhat foreign to us. I don't think there's anything especially difficult about this case. I just needed to fill in the details, since I have used the faulty argument myself in the past.



more: parablemania.ektopos.com...


The DEBATE rages>>>>>>>>>>>>>



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Vinci
 



Maybe he's saying what's displayed by you now, was displayed on a grander scale earlier...semantics isn't the point....


Thank you Oldthinker...

Why is it, that you and others can understand, but to others it is Not a case of Not being able to understand, but rather they Choose to Reject "Intelligence" and more importantly LIFE, or in other words The True Mind, Consciousness or Awareness!

Isn't it funny that some are terrified of the possibility, that they had to be Created, because they could Not Create themselves.

Just as well something else, has Control and Not the human Primate.

Hell if we were given total control, we would all be up the creek without a paddle....



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Well the writers of said book wrote many things into it including a set of around about 15 statements.

I have not killed.

I have not bore false witness.

I have not disobeyed my parents.

Etc.

The same book also wrote about a mythical figure with a virgin birth 1300 years before KRST YHWH - another mythical figure plagiarized off the Egyptians from beforehand. This and lots of other cool stuff.



Deep question my young scholar!!!!!

Killing?

Murder?


Well which is it? According to the commandments it's inexcusable, absolutely. By this standard, killing is not justifiable.


The DEBATE rages

You mean that the understanding that most humans have that there are certain circumstances where killing is justified and therefore contradicts the bible is something that you are aware of? How interesting. Perhaps this is not an absolute moral.

Perhaps, maybe, there is no absolute morals.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 




Welfhard,

Dinner time for OT!

Have to run....

I've said it before...your are a very very smart fellow....

Keep searching, stay patient with OT's debate-style, and we'll search for truth together, for decades to come my friend!


OT



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 




Isn't it funny that some are terrified of the possibility, that they had to be Created, because they could Not Create themselves.


Who are terrified?

Why can't they create themselves? And you still come to the question of wether or not God was created.

Why can't we all be eternal beings?

Maybe Christians are terrified that they were not created? That they are eternal beings?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join