God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

[ding]

Bronze Age answers for Bronze Age people.. Every culture has a creation myth and they are all very different.

Their biggest problem in my opinion is that their superstitious beliefs become so outdated and they're faced with even more mockery if they try to run some new ones.

Case in point is the Mormons who tryied something in tune with the times and ended up making it all much worse!

I think your biggest problem is that you don't have enough sand in your pants.

Maybe I'll make a call out thread in the bull ring and prove it. It'll be fun.

 

[surada]

Have you applied modern science to any of the other 250 creation myths?

13 Creation Myths in World History - World History Edu

13 Creation Myths in World History - World History Edu

Here is our pick of the 13 most amazing creation myths from around the world.

www.worldhistoryedu.com

 

[ding]

Have you applied modern science to any of the other 250 creation myths?

13 Creation Myths in World History - World History Edu

13 Creation Myths in World History - World History Edu

Here is our pick of the 13 most amazing creation myths from around the world.

www.worldhistoryedu.com

Why would I?

It's pretty obvious creation ex nihilo is correct. Or don't you accept the science?

 

[ding]

Have you applied modern science to any of the other 250 creation myths?

13 Creation Myths in World History - World History Edu

13 Creation Myths in World History - World History Edu

Here is our pick of the 13 most amazing creation myths from around the world.

www.worldhistoryedu.com

How many of those religions claim to be revealed religions? Cause I only know of one.

 

[surada]

Have you applied modern science to any of the other 250 creation myths?

13 Creation Myths in World History - World History Edu

13 Creation Myths in World History - World History Edu

Here is our pick of the 13 most amazing creation myths from around the world.

www.worldhistoryedu.com

How many of those religions claim to be revealed religions? Cause I only know of one.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all revealed religions.


Judaism began with Abraham claiming revelations from Yahweh.
- Christianity began with Jesus claiming to speak for his Father, who was divine.
- Islam began with Muhammad saying Gabriel taught him the Quran.
- The Baha'i Faith began with Baha'u'llah saying a woman in a vision appeared unto him.
- Hinduism began when the rishis became so in-tune with hidden reality as to hear the whispers of it, which they wrote down as the Vedas.
- Buddhism began with Siddartha Gautama claiming he achieved Nirvana, or experiential unity with the ultimate reality, by which he could each others the path to Nirvana
- Jainism's case is similar to Buddhism's I think.

 

[ChemEngineer]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

Right! About 6000 years ago.

So YOU say. Since you're so smart, why don't you give YOUR explanation of the materialistic origin of the universe, the physical constants, the elegance of nature, of physics, of chemistry, mathematics, music, and eyesight. Let's read all about it as your smartass opinion states. This will be very amusing, IF you have the courage to say something meaningful, something relevant, something remotely plausible or scientific, which I seriously doubt.

Incidentally, Albert Einstein stated that time is relative, didn't he. It has been confirmed by atomic clocks on missiles sent into outer space at supersonic speeds. Giggle that away why don't you.

 

[BreezeWood]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

Right! About 6000 years ago.

So YOU say. Since you're so smart, why don't you give YOUR explanation of the materialistic origin of the universe, the physical constants, the elegance of nature, of physics, of chemistry, mathematics, music, and eyesight. Let's read all about it as your smartass opinion states. This will be very amusing, IF you have the courage to say something meaningful, something relevant, something remotely plausible or scientific, which I seriously doubt.

Incidentally, Albert Einstein stated that time is relative, didn't he. It has been confirmed by atomic clocks on missiles sent into outer space at supersonic speeds. Giggle that away why don't you.

.

why don't you give YOUR explanation of the materialistic origin of the universe,

.
- and for you to prove there was ever a time matter or energy have not existed.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's pretty obvious creation ex nihilo is correct. Or don't you accept the science?

Oh no, looks like ding's making a final, final stand again..

Faith = Science!

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Your idea of universal code of morality is idealistic and divorced from reality.

If something is universal then it applies to all and like I said we have decided that there are times when a behavior is both acceptable and unacceptable relative to the situation.

That one fact alone disproves the idea of some universal code of morals

There is nothing idealistic in saying that morals are standards which exist for logical reasons. I have already explained to you why everyone doesn't follow the moral law. Do you need for me to tell you again?

It's idealistic because it is divorced from reality.

You claiming that there is some sort of universal moral code is nothing but a wish because no such thing exists in human society

 

[ding]

It's pretty obvious creation ex nihilo is correct. Or don't you accept the science?

Oh no, looks like ding's making a final, final stand again..

Faith = Science!

Don't be jelly because I know more science than you do.

 

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Your idea of universal code of morality is idealistic and divorced from reality.

If something is universal then it applies to all and like I said we have decided that there are times when a behavior is both acceptable and unacceptable relative to the situation.

That one fact alone disproves the idea of some universal code of morals

There is nothing idealistic in saying that morals are standards which exist for logical reasons. I have already explained to you why everyone doesn't follow the moral law. Do you need for me to tell you again?

It's idealistic because it is divorced from reality.

You claiming that there is some sort of universal moral code is nothing but a wish because no such thing exists in human society

I am claiming that morals are based on logic and logic can't be anything man wants it to be.

 

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Your idea of universal code of morality is idealistic and divorced from reality.

If something is universal then it applies to all and like I said we have decided that there are times when a behavior is both acceptable and unacceptable relative to the situation.

That one fact alone disproves the idea of some universal code of morals

There is nothing idealistic in saying that morals are standards which exist for logical reasons. I have already explained to you why everyone doesn't follow the moral law. Do you need for me to tell you again?

It's idealistic because it is divorced from reality.

You claiming that there is some sort of universal moral code is nothing but a wish because no such thing exists in human society

I am claiming that morals are based on logic and logic can't be anything man wants it to be.

Logic is a man made thing.

Logic is the rules of reasoning that were authored by man.

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

But it is no the reality of conduct. So it's the actual conduct that is the standard not the ideal

 

[Hollie]

I can summarize my opinion on religion pretty quickly for you. The Christian bible(s) are full of impossibilities and nonsense if interpreted literally. We can continue to expand on that fact if 'literal' is your opinion.

You atheists simply cannot discuss the scientific backing of Nature's God, implicit everywhere without bringing up the Bible.

Leave the Bible out of the discussion and explain everything from nothing.

"Believers have to explain evil. Atheists have to explain everything else." - Some Famous Rabbi (paraphrased)

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

It took mankind 2,000 years to scientifically validate this incredible fact. Two thousand years.
Just the first sentence in the first book.

You Bible thumpers can't seem to provide any ''scientific backing'' for your various gods. Using bible quotes to prove the bible is true is an exercise in promoting a circular argument, thus pointless. No, it didn't take mankind two thousand years, two thousand years, once more for dramatic affect, two thousand years to ''scientifically validate'' biblical tales and fables.

It’s a shame that the gods are such inept communicators and can’t clearly define their message.

 

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Your idea of universal code of morality is idealistic and divorced from reality.

If something is universal then it applies to all and like I said we have decided that there are times when a behavior is both acceptable and unacceptable relative to the situation.

That one fact alone disproves the idea of some universal code of morals

There is nothing idealistic in saying that morals are standards which exist for logical reasons. I have already explained to you why everyone doesn't follow the moral law. Do you need for me to tell you again?

It's idealistic because it is divorced from reality.

You claiming that there is some sort of universal moral code is nothing but a wish because no such thing exists in human society

I am claiming that morals are based on logic and logic can't be anything man wants it to be.

Logic is a man made thing.

Logic is the rules of reasoning that were authored by man.

Logic is made manifest by intelligence. The evolution of space and time evolved in a logical progression; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness. The logical sequence of the evolution of space and time would have been logical even if it were never made manifest by mind. You can't make truth or logic be whatever you want them to be. They exist independent of the observer. Logic like truth is waiting to be discovered.

 

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

But it is no the reality of conduct. So it's the actual conduct that is the standard not the ideal

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

 

[Donald H]

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible is the literal word of their god then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.

A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.

 

[Hollie]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

Right! About 6000 years ago.

So YOU say. Since you're so smart, why don't you give YOUR explanation of the materialistic origin of the universe, the physical constants, the elegance of nature, of physics, of chemistry, mathematics, music, and eyesight. Let's read all about it as your smartass opinion states. This will be very amusing, IF you have the courage to say something meaningful, something relevant, something remotely plausible or scientific, which I seriously doubt.

Incidentally, Albert Einstein stated that time is relative, didn't he. It has been confirmed by atomic clocks on missiles sent into outer space at supersonic speeds. Giggle that away why don't you.

You should learn to be precise with terms and definitions. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic origin of the universe as opposed to your claimed supernatural origin. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; you need to provide some support for the existence of your supernatural gods before you can assign universe building tasks to them.