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.
“The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God is improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.”
Bertrand Russell, What is an agnostic?
Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Carl Sagan-Demon Haunted World
If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Let's take a look at people. Do you see them walking on water or rising from the dead? How about snakes or bushes talking? No? I guess that means we can rule out Christianity being legitimate as well then, right? Why set standards for some and not for others?
Christianity teaches some things that are just as ridiculous as any other religion, the problem is bias on people's parts.
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Can you prove that Atlas or turtles didn't at one point hold up the Earth some time in the past? Nope.
How can you be so sure that Atlas or turtles didn't hold up the Earth 4 or 5 thousand years ago? According to the bible, in that same time period people lived for almost a thousand years at a time. Those statements are no more ridiculous than Jesus walking on water believe it or not.
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Modern science says that the Earth doesn't need anything to support it sure, but modern science also says that people cannot walk on water or rise from the dead after 3 days of decomposing. You have just as much evidence for your belief as pagans did back then. What makes your faith any better than theirs?
Bad argument, sin has increased the past few hundred years with the invention of tools of war like missiles and bombs, corporate greed as increased thanks to computer systems and such, yet the average lifespan has increased fairly dramatically in that same time period. Sin does not equal shorter life expectancy, if it did the life expectancy wouldn't have increased like it has since the recent past.
There is not enough water in the world to cover the entire Earth. If there was we'd be under water right now. Where did all that flood water go exactly?
There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the Flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11 note “waves”). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the Earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!
Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the Earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the Earth's topography.
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Yeah, and that lifespan is an increase from a hundred or so years ago. The life expectancy in the 19th century was only 50 years old. Why has life gotten longer since the advent of nuclear weapons and corporations creating monopolies?
If sin reduces lifespan as you assume, why has life expectancy increased by nearly 30 years when sin is bigger than ever today? It seems as though sin equals longer lifespans in today's world. Why is that?
Genesis 1:6-7 mentions the water above the expanse, a canopy of water that surrounded the earth. Such a water canopy would have created a greenhouse effect and would have blocked much of the radiation that now hits the earth. This would have resulted in ideal living conditions. Genesis 7:11 indicates that, at the time of the flood, the water canopy was poured out on the earth, ending the ideal living conditions. Compare the life spans before the flood (Genesis 5:1-32) with those after the flood (Genesis 11:10-32). Immediately after the flood, the ages decreased dramatically. Another consideration is that in the first few generations after creation, the human genetic code had developed few defects. Adam and Eve were created perfect. They were surely highly resistant to disease and illness. Their descendants would have inherited these advantages, albeit to lesser degrees. Over time, as a result of sin, the human genetic code became increasingly corrupted, and human beings became more and more susceptible to death and disease. This would also have resulted in drastically reduced lifespans. Read more: www.gotquestions.org...
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Life expectancy is an average. Most people live either much longer or much shorter than what the life expectancy indicates. When life expectancy is low, this is mostly due to a very high child mortality rate. Those that survive the dangers of childhood can expect to live to a relatively old age, even in countries with very low life expectancy.
Evidence-based studies indicate that longevity is based on two major factors, genetics and lifestyle choices.[5] Twin studies have estimated that approximately 20-30% of an individual’s lifespan is related to genetics, the rest is due to individual behaviors and environmental factors which can be modified.[6] Although over 200 gene variants have been, according to the LongevityMap database,[7] associated with human longevity, these explain only a small fraction of the heritability of longevity.[8] Recent studies find that even modest amounts of leisure time physical exercise can extend life expectancy by as much as 4.5 years.[9] In preindustrial times, deaths at young and middle age were common, and lifespans over 70 years were comparatively rare. This is not due to genetics, but because of environmental factors such as disease, accidents, and malnutrition, especially since the former were not generally treatable with pre-20th century medicine. Deaths from childbirth were common in women, and many children did not live past infancy. In addition, most people who did attain old age were likely to die quickly from the above-mentioned untreatable health problems. Despite this, we do find a large number of examples of pre-20th century individuals attaining lifespans of 75 years or greater, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Cato the Elder, Thomas Hobbes, Eric of Pomerania, Christopher Polhem, and Michelangelo. This was also true for poorer people like peasants or laborers. Genealogists will almost certainly find ancestors living to their 70s, 80s and even 90s several hundred years ago. For example, an 1871 census in the UK (the first of its kind) found the average male life expectancy as being 44, but if infant mortality is subtracted, males who lived to adulthood averaged 75 years. The present male life expectancy in the UK is 77 years for males and 81 for females (the United States averages 74 for males and 80 for females). Studies have shown that African-American males have the shortest lifespans of any group of people in the US, averaging only 69 years (Asian American females average the longest).[10] This reflects overall poorer health and greater prevalence of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and cancer among African-American men.
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
So you agree that sin has nothing to do with life expectancy then. As sin has increased over the past 100 years or so, people have been living longer and there has been a lower child mortality rate. If sin decreases life expectancy, this would not be the case would it?
There were a couple of thousand years between Adam and Noah. According to biblical evidence there was about 2,000 years between creation and the flood.
If Adam brought sin into the world and it took 2,000 years for the life expectancy to drop by 900 years, why haven't we seen sort of the same rate of decrease in the 4,000+ years since the flood? Especially since sin has only gotten exponentially worse, particularly in the past 100 years or so.
Why are people more likely to live longer today compared to 200 years ago if sin affects age? Either sin has absolutely no bearing on age or sin increases age as the evidence of the past 100 or so years suggests.
The only reason people in the OT supposedly lived so long was because the authors had to create as much history as possible with as few characters as possible. Sin does not affect age at all, if that were the case the man who brought sin into the world wouldn't have lived for 930 years.
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Men are pretty good at creating patterns aren't they? The bible follows patterns, men are great at creating them... see where I'm going with this?
Maybe even the men who run the world today are following these patterns in order to fulfill them?
The bible says that before Jesus comes back there are supposed to be wars and rumors of war. Wars have been fought for thousands of years. Every time a war is fought, believers think Jesus will be coming back, so they support and/or are complacent about these wars. They do nothing to stop them because they want Jesus to come back.
Christianity is a religion of perpetual war, a religion that serves those in power perfectly. It's no coincidence that powerful men are the ones who legalized it at the Council of Nicaea.
What's the best way to gain support and/or complacency for wars you want to start for your own benefit? Clothe it in biblical prophecy, follow the pattern the bible has set out for you. It's a never ending waiting game and Christianity has been a huge pacifying mechanism for those in power, which is why it's so popular in such a corrupt world.
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
I'm not accusing God of anything, I'm accusing the men who wrote, edited, and put the bible together. God did not write the bible and the bible is not his word.
Yet people have been believing the end is coming for thousands of years now. The saying in the bible of wars and rumors of war is a great tool for those in power to make war constantly.
That's the point of saying Jesus is coming back, so they can sucker people into being complacent about the wars they fight. Notice how those who order the wars to be fought are never actually fighting them, they are profiting off of them.
This is why the bible is so popular, because it promotes complacency. Sin is unavoidable and Jesus will come back to fix everything for us. Both teachings of laziness and complacency. Read Romans 13 and tell me the bible isn't a tool of those In power. If it weren't a tool for them, it wouldn't have become so popular and lasted for so long.
We can barely get the truth out of them today, so what makes you think they would have let the ultimate truth spread so widely for so long? Because it is a tool for them to keep us complacent, which is why you see churches on almost every corner in America. Not only do they let it spread, they promote it and encourage people to believe it.