Are Atheist Arrogant

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

But that's an incorrect application of translation. Getting more specific by changing the language doesn't prove anything about the original intent of the document. The Greek words, if more specific, are a mistranslation.

No it´s not an incorrect application of translation. I am reading it in Old-Greek LXX, because my native language is Greek and i check the verses and the words. So it´s not a mistranslation. It´s a verification of what i am reading is true.

Well, that's what I think because I understand how astronomy works. Primitive nomads wouldn't have understood this...hence we can't take any of their scientific premises at face value.

A primitive nomad, in earth would seen the moon as a Light Source.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The Lights mentioned here are Stars. Which also the same stars can be used as navigation, astrology etc.
No Sun and No Moon here.

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Here simply mentions that the Stars give light upon the Earth.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Here it speaks about the Sun="The greater light" and the Moon="Lesser Light". The last part is just a mention of the stars mentioned in 1:14-15

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

It simply says that He positioned the Sun and the Moon to give light on the Earth.

1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

It simply says that the Sunlight is for the Day and the Moonlight is for the Night. The rest you can understand it.

Oh, and also there's the clear fact that the sun and moon are set around the Earth

If you observe the Sun and the Moon as a "primitive nomad" as you said before, from the Earth. Then you make this claim. Simillary if you are on the Moon as a "primitive nomad" then you see the Sun and the Earth around the Moon.

Again is just simply formulated. Not in Scientific terminology, since the Bible is not a scientific book.

I'm familiar with group JKCS 041...and there's nothing odd about them except for how damn far away they are.

I am not,since i have enough stress in my work i do not follow those matters. And for my part have found it very interesting especially when it said

The data collected by two astrophysicists about JKCS041, confirm that fact, the cluster of galaxies "miracle" is really old, so old that it can not exist in accordance with what is believed about the universe today

Which basically means if the data are correct then according to what we know, this cluster should not even been there.

Anyway i think we are of topic.

Peace

reply to post by spy66

You have made your choice on how you want to understand it. And you dont want to understand it, because you dont understand what you read in Genesis chapter 1. Plain and simple.

Hmmm, looks like I am not the only one that has come to the same conclusion.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'll shrug off the personal attacks, not biggie. Anyways,:

Link

Also, check our your Faint Sun Paradox problems:

HERE

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
are Atheist over-opinionated and not entirely as intelligent as they wish to appear ? Arrogance is the first wall of defense for a very insecure person... I believe Einstein once said he disliked talking to Atheist because all they ever talk about is God.

Ok, try not to laugh but are we talking “active disbelief” Atheists, or the newly defined “passive disbelief” Atheists, which I personally see as just Agnostic?

IMO most people who are arrogant and self opinionated, in general, tend to be rather insecure in other areas.
Although there is a fine line between arogance and someone just being highly knowledgable on a set topic.


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
are Atheist over-opinionated and not entirely as intelligent as they wish to appear ? Arrogance is the first wall of defense for a very insecure person... I believe Einstein once said he disliked talking to Atheist because all they ever talk about is God.

Ok, try not to laugh but are we talking “active disbelief” Atheists, or the newly defined “passive disbelief” Atheists, which I personally see as just Agnostic?

IMO most people who are arrogant and self opinionated, in general, tend to be rather insecure in other areas.
Although there is a fine line between arogance and someone just being highly knowledgable on a set topic.


- JC

I used to feel that way too about the word agnostic, but it just isn't so. You have to consider that atheist has two parts to its definition, one is denying belief, and another is just disbelieving. Atheist and theist apply to beliefs. The words agnostic and gnostic apply to lack of knowledge, or having knowledge.

So I think maybe what you might mean is those atheists who deny god, which I take as gnostic atheists (what you call active disbelief?), as opposed to agnostic atheists (passive disbelief?) who just disbelieve, but don't deny. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I'll shrug off the personal attacks, not biggie. Anyways,:

Link

The fact that you get your scientific "knowledge" from the "creation research institute" explains a lot of your misconceptions

I might have missed these points back in the posts where Madness was talking of Genesis, but there are things that I don't understand about Genesis 1. Things that make me confused as to why even Christians don't ask these questions.

I'd like to know different interpretations that people have from what I take it to mean. Different interpretations rooted in science are preferred, but I'm open to any views as long as they make sense in terms of language.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

*In Genesis 1, god creates heaven (as in the cosmos/universe?) and earth at the same time. But according to science, the universe itself is billions and billions of years older than the formation of earth.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

*How did god create night and day before he made the sun? How can it say "evening and morning", "day and night", when there was no sun or stars yet?
So there was morning and evening, day and night...before there was even light on earth...AND before the sun or any stars existed? Makes no sense.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

*And when god creates man, why does he say "let us create man in our image, after our"? That to me implies god is not alone? Or he's talking to himself? Also, if we are made in god's image, then is god both male and female? It would make a lot more sense if god was a woman actually, at least then all the smiting could be chalked up to that time of the month.

***And the most simple question for me is, why if god made all the stars at once, are there constantly stars dying or forming, and new stars being created all the time?

Also, off topic of Genesis interpretations, but what about other things in the bible? I'm not asking your biblical interpretation of these, I'm asking your personal view on these acts from an outside perspective. Pretend you have no clue what the bible is and are reading it for the first time. What would your impression be if no one told you what to think of it?

There's so many bad acts included in the bible. Like why does god feel petty human emotions? Why does god order people to be murdered? Why does god order children to be murdered (Sodomites and other instances)? Why does god speak of slavery as if it is okay? There's stories of raping women, there's stories of (Abraham?) wanting to kill his child. What of Lot and his virgin/not virgin daughters and the incest of the daughter's raping him I suppose? There's incest elsewhere in the bible but sometimes god says it's okay, sometimes not? There's sexism in the bible, women are referred to as barren for fertility when we know that men can also be the cause of this. Women are basically property. Women have been falsely accused of not being virgins because in the bible god asked for tokens of proof. There's men with many wives. Stuff like that.

The sheer violence, there's animal sacrifices upon animal sacrifices, burning flesh of people and animals, limb breaking of people, burning people to death, stoning people to death, plagues, sick people being abandoned, blood drinking, hanging bodies, cannibalism, I could go on forever...

What makes the bible so great when it appears to be nothing but a reflection of humanity's imperfections? Why did god let the serpent be in the garden? If it was a test, then why does god do such petty things as testing humans that lack knowledge? And god decides to kill everyone, beeeeeeeecause...we messed up and failed his test? Then he says oops, I'm sorry, was just a moment of rage, I'll never do that again. God must have omitted the part where he joined an anger management support group. I mean...god used violence...to eradicate violence...?

This leads me to think that god needs a serious hobby, other than playing with the ant farm that is earth, and some SSRI medication. I mean really, what would you all think if a parent killed all their children because they didn't know how to act the way the parent wanted them to act?

And finally, my own thought is that god didn't want Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge because he knew the knowledge would lead to atheism.

It is because of all these examples of god displaying these overtly human emotions in a negative way, that the bible reads like a script from a (bad) daytime soap opera. That's really what I think about it. These are just some of the things that I suppose go through an atheist's head while considering the bible. It brings me to the same conclusion as Einstein:

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." -Albert Einstein

reply to post by SpaceJ

Originally posted by SpaceJ
I used to feel that way too about the word agnostic, but it just isn't so. You have to consider that atheist has two parts to its definition, one is denying belief, and another is just disbelieving. Atheist and theist apply to beliefs. The words agnostic and gnostic apply to lack of knowledge, or having knowledge.

Well, it’s a lot more complex IMO and it’s being discussed on my thread here

Originally posted by SpaceJ
So I think maybe what you might mean is those atheists who deny god, which I take as gnostic atheists (what you call active disbelief?), as opposed to agnostic atheists (passive disbelief?) who just disbelieve, but don't deny. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Yes, that’s is what I meant…

I think “Atheist” in the “active” sense is slightly arrogant but the position of Atheists of a “passive” sense, are not arrogant. My problem/dilemma, is that I have to ask for clarification, when someone just uses the word “Atheist” on it’s own.

This is not the fault of the person using the word atheist, but the idea that definition of it, has to be somehow changed. Atheists have been trying to change the definition of atheism, to incorporate this new form of Agnostic-Atheist position. There currently is no agreed upon definition of atheism, between atheists and theists.

- JC

man I am so confused ! can someone please cut through all the techno babble for us lame brains

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by SpaceJ

 

Originally posted by SpaceJ
I used to feel that way too about the word agnostic, but it just isn't so. You have to consider that atheist has two parts to its definition, one is denying belief, and another is just disbelieving. Atheist and theist apply to beliefs. The words agnostic and gnostic apply to lack of knowledge, or having knowledge.

Well, it’s a lot more complex IMO and it’s being discussed on my thread here

Originally posted by SpaceJ
So I think maybe what you might mean is those atheists who deny god, which I take as gnostic atheists (what you call active disbelief?), as opposed to agnostic atheists (passive disbelief?) who just disbelieve, but don't deny. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Yes, that’s is what I meant…

I think “Atheist” in the “active” sense is slightly arrogant but the position of Atheists of a “passive” sense, are not arrogant. My problem/dilemma, is that I have to ask for clarification, when someone just uses the word “Atheist” on it’s own.

This is not the fault of the person using the word atheist, but the idea that definition of it, has to be somehow changed. Atheists have been trying to change the definition of atheism, to incorporate this new form of Agnostic-Atheist position. There currently is no agreed upon definition of atheism, between atheists and theists.

- JC

Whether or not theists and atheists agree upon the definition, that doesn't change the root words of the term atheist.

The Greek etymology of the word atheist itself is atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'. And the modern word atheist is derived from the 16th century French term athéisme, which was derived from the Greek atheos, which simply means without god. Atheism = without god. Being "without god" doesn't mean you are without any belief whatsoever, and it also doesn't mean you deny god.

So the main meaning of the original word was just without god, lacking god, not believing in god, plain and simple. It has to get complicated by those who explicitly deny god, giving atheism a 2nd definition. But those people's beliefs or claims of knowledge shouldn't change the definition of atheism for everyone. The word means what it means, without god.

I think the resolution here is that until further clarification from the individual, you should just take an atheist first for only disbelieving. I'm not saying you personally jump to conclusions, I'm saying people in general when labeling atheists could benefit from first assuming they simply disbelieve, rather than off the bat assuming they deny god. Because the essence of the word means to not believe, not to deny. I think the possibilities should be regarded in that order.

How are atheists trying to change the definition of atheism? I don't think agnostic atheism is any "new" form of atheism. It's more or less the original form of atheism, and denying god is the knew form, if anything. Because again, the etymology of the word is without god, not denying god. Just my opinion, based on the history of the word itself.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I'll shrug off the personal attacks, not biggie. Anyways,:

Link

The fact that you get your scientific "knowledge" from the "creation research institute" explains a lot of your misconceptions

Ad Hominem argument.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by spy66

 

The Sun loses great mass and size daily.

Just imagine how massively HUUUUUUUUUUGE the Sun was 'billions' of years ago. By mathematical estimates it would have been over half the distance it currently is to the Earth. (93 million miles)

I would say you are onto something. Because after a compression you would have nothing but hot plasma, and the plasma will cool down by emitting of energy ( this is called expansion). As the plasma cools down by emitting of energy, the universes will start to take shape. There would probably be a lot of shining stars, planets and suns at an early stage. Earth was a shining bright light to in the beginning until it cooled down.

The grass on earth could manage to grow from other light sources then the sun, until the sun takes over as the main source of light and energy. The sun could overlap a previous light and energy source.

reply to post by SpaceJ


If you read Genesis chapter two. You will learn that God is done creating heaven and the earth. So in Genesis chapter 1. God is creating Heaven and earth.

If you read verse two in Genesis chapter 1. You should understand that Moses is explaining what nothingness looks like. He also mentions that earth is without form and void. In other words without form and density. That means there is no earth yet. If earth had existed it would have a form and a mass/density.

If just have to add:

If God is done creating everything in chapter 1. Even man is created in Genesis chapter 1. As male and female. Then Chapter 2 is false. Lord God is a false God.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpaceJ

 

If you read Genesis chapter two. You will learn that God is done creating heaven and the earth. So in Genesis chapter 1. God is creating Heaven and earth.

If you read verse two in Genesis chapter 1. You should understand that Moses is explaining what nothingness looks like. He also mentions that earth is without form and void. In other words without form and density. That means there is no earth yet.

If just have to add:

If God is done creating everything in chapter 1. Even man is created in Genesis chapter 1. As male and female. Then Chapter 2 is false. Lord God is a false God.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Well that I get, but how can there logically be a day and a night before there is a sun? I'm not attacking here with this question, at all. I really want to know if anyone has an explanation that makes sense to me, is all.

And how can there be more new stars forming since god created all the stars at once?

And yes I don't understand what's up with Genesis 1 then Genesis 2. Don't they say creation happened in two different orders? Or is Genesis 2 describing a specific day of Genesis 1?

Originally posted by SpaceJ

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpaceJ

 

If you read Genesis chapter two. You will learn that God is done creating heaven and the earth. So in Genesis chapter 1. God is creating Heaven and earth.

If you read verse two in Genesis chapter 1. You should understand that Moses is explaining what nothingness looks like. He also mentions that earth is without form and void. In other words without form and density. That means there is no earth yet.

If just have to add:

If God is done creating everything in chapter 1. Even man is created in Genesis chapter 1. As male and female. Then Chapter 2 is false. Lord God is a false God.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Well that I get, but how can there logically be a day and a night before there is a sun? I'm not attacking here with this question, at all. I really want to know if anyone has an explanation that makes sense to me, is all.

And how can there be more new stars forming since god created all the stars at once?

And yes I don't understand what's up with Genesis 1 then Genesis 2. Don't they say creation happened in two different orders? Or is Genesis 2 describing a specific day of Genesis 1?

edit on 12/22/2010 by SpaceJ because: (no reason given)

And how can there be more new stars forming since god created all the stars at once?

God created all the stars, planets and galaxies at once, but they evolved as planets, stars and galaxies at different time as the plasma cooled down and took shape. The sky was probably brighter in the beginning then we see it to day, because the stars/galaxies where a lot closer to each other. This is confirmed by science. To day we know that the universe, stars and galaxies where a lot more compressed, closer together.

how can there logically be a day and a night before there is a sun

True, how can there be a day and night if there is no sun!

In the beginning as things where cooling down there was light all over. So day and night must have a non scientific meaning.

It seams like day and night is used to describe different stages as things evolve/expand and take shape.

NB.
The cooling proses probably explains why the Galaxies furthest from us seam older then our own galaxy. They evolved faster because they cooled down faster.

reply to post by spy66


And so things get twisted and twisted and twisted just to make the hypothesis fit...without ever providing any evidence in the first place. All you guys are doing is speculating...

1) There's things science can explain and we therefore KNOW.
2) There's things we can't explain yet...and we have to admit to not knowing.

Anything is is pure belief not based on rationality or logic. Religion falls into that category since there is zero evidence to back it up...

reply to post by SpaceJ



Thanks for your reply

I will try to get round to answering it, on my own thread, where you have posted roughly the same thing.


- JC

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66

 

Anything is is pure belief not based on rationality or logic. Religion falls into that category since there is zero evidence to back it up...

There is nothing that is not mentioned in science in what i have said. It is just that i can't see how the Big Bang happened by how i know and understand science.

Every scientist agree that our finite existence was more compressed in the beginning. That means all the planets, stars and galaxies where much, much closer together at the beginning. Like a large mass of matter gathered at one place.

In Genesis chapter 1. this mass of matter gathered at one place is called the firmament. A firmament is a compressed mass of energy. Genesis even mentioned that the firmament is in the midst of the waters.

It is how the mass came to be at this starting point that separates our differences.

How does science explain the compressed mass gathered at one place? You would probably have to choose the theory that you like the best, because there are many. You will choose your theory based on the author or the scientific community that you have put your faith in. And it is probably from a author or a community that is most known, popular and supported through the media/internet.

reply to post by Seed76

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

But that's an incorrect application of translation. Getting more specific by changing the language doesn't prove anything about the original intent of the document. The Greek words, if more specific, are a mistranslation.

No it´s not an incorrect application of translation. I am reading it in Old-Greek LXX, because my native language is Greek and i check the verses and the words. So it´s not a mistranslation. It´s a verification of what i am reading is true.

...except that you're using a Greek translation of Archaic Hebrew...and the Archaic Hebrew is less specific than the Old-Greek LXX, so you're saying that the more specific version, the translation, is correct while the original, which is more vague, is incorrect.

Well, that's what I think because I understand how astronomy works. Primitive nomads wouldn't have understood this...hence we can't take any of their scientific premises at face value.

A primitive nomad, in earth would seen the moon as a Light Source.

Yes, and they would have been wrong. This also explains why Genesis is wrong.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The Lights mentioned here are Stars. Which also the same stars can be used as navigation, astrology etc.
No Sun and No Moon here.

Yes, but then it goes on to the sun and moon

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Here simply mentions that the Stars give light upon the Earth.

Which they don't really do.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Here it speaks about the Sun="The greater light" and the Moon="Lesser Light". The last part is just a mention of the stars mentioned in 1:14-15

Yes...and they are created...on the Fourth day.

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

It simply says that He positioned the Sun and the Moon to give light on the Earth.

No, it says he placed them in the firmament, which is a thing that is basically a giant sphere around the Earth.

1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

It simply says that the Sunlight is for the Day and the Moonlight is for the Night. The rest you can understand it.

Um...I understood the whole thing.

Oh, and also there's the clear fact that the sun and moon are set around the Earth

If you observe the Sun and the Moon as a "primitive nomad" as you said before, from the Earth. Then you make this claim. Simillary if you are on the Moon as a "primitive nomad" then you see the Sun and the Earth around the Moon.

And thus, Genesis is entirely incorrect on all factual claims. Of course, the "primitive nomad" has his word taken at face value here and as absolute truth by many.

Again is just simply formulated. Not in Scientific terminology, since the Bible is not a scientific book.

And is simply incorrect.

I'm familiar with group JKCS 041...and there's nothing odd about them except for how damn far away they are.

I am not,since i have enough stress in my work i do not follow those matters. And for my part have found it very interesting especially when it said

The data collected by two astrophysicists about JKCS041, confirm that fact, the cluster of galaxies "miracle" is really old, so old that it can not exist in accordance with what is believed about the universe today

Which basically means if the data are correct then according to what we know, this cluster should not even been there.

Anyway i think we are of topic.

It's...complicated. But yes, we are off topic.

Peace

Love and understanding.