atheism and its follower are not bright

[alang1216]

The stumbling and bumbling of the atheists above is cringe worthy.

Guys, it is OK for you to believe that. But you are not any more intelligent than those who believe in God.

As I see it, a true belief in God is based on faith, something completely separate from intelligence. There are plenty of brilliant people who believe in God just as there are plenty of stupid people who also believe in God. What I've also seen, is that many here defend the supernatural by being ignorant of the natural world, especially processes like evolution. That is their right but it makes for a very poor argument.

 

[martybegan]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

 

[PK1]

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

---
Atheism related to a specific fantasy belief is logical.
However, the most honest position related to "creation" is agnosticism or ignosticism.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The stumbling and bumbling of the atheists above is cringe worthy.

Guys, it is OK for you to believe that. But you are not any more intelligent than those who believe in God.

As I see it, a true belief in God is based on faith, something completely separate from intelligence. There are plenty of brilliant people who believe in God just as there are plenty of stupid people who also believe in God. What I've also seen, is that many here defend the supernatural by being ignorant of the natural world, especially processes like evolution. That is their right but it makes for a very poor argument.

That is not their argument, that is your argument. And that is why you are stumbling and bumbling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The stumbling and bumbling of the atheists above is cringe worthy.

Guys, it is OK for you to believe that. But you are not any more intelligent than those who believe in God.

As I see it, a true belief in God is based on faith, something completely separate from intelligence. There are plenty of brilliant people who believe in God just as there are plenty of stupid people who also believe in God. What I've also seen, is that many here defend the supernatural by being ignorant of the natural world, especially processes like evolution. That is their right but it makes for a very poor argument.

That is not their argument, that is your argument. And that is why you are stumbling and bumbling.

Right along with PK1.

 

[PK1]

you are stumbling and bumbling.

---
That appears to be your faith position, i.e., belief based on intellectual as well as emotional insecurity.
.

 

[alang1216]

That is not their argument, that is your argument. And that is why you are stumbling and bumbling.

Repeating something doesn't make it true or very convincing.

I guess we're all stumbling and bumbling except for you. Lofty position you occupy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is not their argument, that is your argument. And that is why you are stumbling and bumbling.

Repeating something doesn't make it true or very convincing. I guess we're all stumbling and bumbling except for you. Lofty position you occupy.

Indeed, we see our atheists repeating yet not doing it very convincingly. Carry on, guys. The OP is exceedingly clear. You can't rebut it.

 

[PK1]

The OP is exceedingly clear. You can't rebut it.

---
Sure you can, like a single "god" came from nothing makes sense. LOL.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is exceedingly clear. You can't rebut it.

---
Sure you can, like a single "god" came from nothing makes sense. LOL.
.

That's your belief You can't rebut it.

 

[PK1]

The OP is exceedingly clear. You can't rebut it.

---
Sure you can, like a single "god" came from nothing makes sense. LOL.
.

That's your belief You can't rebut it.

---
Are you dense? I have no beliefs in the unknowable.
Why do you? Insecure?
.

 

[hobelim]

What I've also seen, is that many here defend the supernatural by being ignorant of the natural world, especially processes like evolution. That is their right but it makes for a very poor argument.

I agree but the argument for the supernatural is also indicative of ignorance of basic literary techniques, metaphors, analogies, homonyms,hyperbole, etc., figurative language in general.

A talking snake in the very first book of the bible should have been a dead giveaway to anyone with a second grade education that the stories should be approached more like a fairy tale than a historical document.


That being said to dismiss the entirety of scripture as false because many stories seem to contradict reality is equally ignorant since they were never meant to be taken literally by intelligent people anymore than the author of the three pigs meant intelligent people to believe there once was a magical time in the past when pigs and wolves could talk.

 

[alang1216]

Indeed, we see our atheists repeating yet not doing it very convincingly. Carry on, guys. The OP is exceedingly clear. You can't rebut it.

And I'm rubber you're glue...

The OP implies the universe was created by some supernatural intelligence. If that is the case where did the matter that we see all around us and makes us up come from? Was it created from nothing? How does God create something from nothing, what is the mechanism?

 

[alang1216]

That being said to dismiss the entirety of scripture as false because many stories seem to contradict reality is equally ignorant since they were never meant to be taken literally by intelligent people anymore than the author of the three pigs meant intelligent people to believe there once was a magical time in the past when pigs and wolves could talk.

Scripture is theology. Only when it is used as a basis for history or science does it fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is exceedingly clear. You can't rebut it.

---
Sure you can, like a single "god" came from nothing makes sense. LOL.
.

That's your belief You can't rebut it.

---
Are you dense? I have no beliefs in the unknowable.
Why do you? Insecure?
.

You believe that the unknowable is whatever. That is belief, son. You can't prove what you believe.

 

[hobelim]

That being said to dismiss the entirety of scripture as false because many stories seem to contradict reality is equally ignorant since they were never meant to be taken literally by intelligent people anymore than the author of the three pigs meant intelligent people to believe there once was a magical time in the past when pigs and wolves could talk.

Scripture is theology. Only when it is used as a basis for history or science does it fail.

Of course you are right but that leaves the question of what these stories are actually about unanswered.

I suspect that these bronze age nomads were far more intelligent, ethical, and dedicated to truth than anyone has ever imagined..

Thousands of years and counting and many people still haven't figured it out metaphors as simple as a talking serpent, manna from heaven, or rising from the dead....

there is way more going on here than what meets the eye...

 

[alang1216]

Of course you are right but that leaves the question of what these stories are actually about unanswered.

I suspect that these bronze age nomads were far more intelligent, ethical, and dedicated to truth than anyone has ever imagined..

Thousands of years and counting and many people still haven't figured it out metaphors as simple as a talking serpent, manna from heaven, or rising from the dead....

there is way more going on here than what meets the eye.

The OT is an anthology of various societies oral traditions that were passed down through the generations of Israelites. Likely each story began as an explanation for a historical or a natural event. As it was retold it became a moral lesson too so any part that did not enforce the lesson was altered or deleted. Everything evolves and the OT was no different.

 

[PK1]

The OP is exceedingly clear. You can't rebut it.

Sure you can, like a single "god" came from nothing makes sense. LOL.
.

That's your belief You can't rebut it.

Are you dense? I have no beliefs in the unknowable.
Why do you? Insecure?
.

You believe that the unknowable is whatever. That is belief, son. You can't prove what you believe.

---
I don't have a belief about creation or any "god".
Not having a belief is a belief? LOL

What's there to prove?
That you fantasize when you state your beliefs about creation?
No need to "prove" that; it's common sense.
.

 

[hobelim]

Of course you are right but that leaves the question of what these stories are actually about unanswered.

I suspect that these bronze age nomads were far more intelligent, ethical, and dedicated to truth than anyone has ever imagined..

Thousands of years and counting and many people still haven't figured it out metaphors as simple as a talking serpent, manna from heaven, or rising from the dead....

there is way more going on here than what meets the eye.

The OT is an anthology of various societies oral traditions that were passed down through the generations of Israelites. Likely each story began as an explanation for a historical or a natural event. As it was retold it became a moral lesson too so any part that did not enforce the lesson was altered or deleted. Everything evolves and the OT was no different.

There is much more going on here than what meets the eye that seems to indicate that there is a hidden barrier, a great gulf that separates the superstitious from the rational as great as the gulf that separates the living from the dead which may further imply the existence of a living God who either grants or denies comprehension.

Seriously, how is it even possible that even one person on earth whether they believe in God or not has failed to comprehend the implications of a talking serpent unless there is some sort of God who either grants or denies comprehension and a higher sphere of intelligent life?

No one is debating the historical veracity of the story of the boy who cried wolf. No nation bases its legal and moral code on the story of pinoccio. No churches have been built, no statues have been made, and no one prays to the wise pig.

How can you explain why anyone in this day and age believes that the world is 6000 years old in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

What could possibly prevent anyone from seeing the truth unless that insight was being denied and is evidence of what is conveyed in scripture as divine condemnation?

 

[alang1216]

There is much more going on here than what meets the eye that seems to indicate that there is a hidden barrier, a great gulf that separates the superstitious from the rational as great as the gulf that separates the living from the dead which may further imply the existence of a living God who either grants or denies comprehension.

Seriously, how is it even possible that even one person on earth whether they believe in God or not has failed to comprehend the implications of a talking serpent unless there is some sort of God who either grants or denies comprehension and a higher sphere of intelligent life?

No one is debating the historical veracity of the story of the boy who cried wolf. No nation bases its legal and moral code on the story of pinoccio. No churches have been built, no statues have been made, and no one prays to the wise pig.

How can you explain why anyone in this day and age believes that the world is 6000 years old in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

What could possibly prevent anyone from seeing the truth unless that insight was being denied and is evidence of what is conveyed in scripture as divine condemnation?

Faith