Well, "Atheist" still has a negative connotation.
Hopefully I am not the first to state this on this thread.
Well, "Atheist" still has a negative connotation.
Hopefully I am not the first to state this on this thread.
Sadly... wrote:
Well, "Atheist" still has a negative connotation.
Hopefully I am not the first to state this on this thread.
No, you're not the 1st one. You are the sad one.
How about a hundred years from now we have a LetsRun meet up in the after life and the loser of this argument buys the drinks. Who's on board?
You have to go to the original Hebrew text for clarification. What about the those plants described in Gen 2:5? Why weren’t those created on Day 3 when God made the other plants? The context provides the answer.
Verses 5 and 6 provide a description of what the world was like prior to the creation of man. Two specific types of plants are translated from specific Hebrew terms: “plant of the field†(siah hassadeh) and “herb of the field†(eseb hassadeh). Hebrew scholar Mark Futato defines these terms as “wild shrubs of the steppe†and “cultivated grain†respectively.
This verse is preparing the reader for what is going to happen next in the narrative. The herbs of the field were not around because Adam had not been created yet, so there was no one to till or cultivate the ground.
How about this? wrote:
How about a hundred years from now we have a LetsRun meet up in the after life and the loser of this argument buys the drinks. Who's on board?
The "winners" and "losers" won't be in the same place in the afterlife.
Great idea, but wrote:
How about this? wrote:How about a hundred years from now we have a LetsRun meet up in the after life and the loser of this argument buys the drinks. Who's on board?
The "winners" and "losers" won't be in the same place in the afterlife.
Yeah, they'll be in different graveyards, neither of which have bars.
Besides why would there be currency in Heaven or anywhere else? Do we still have to work?
Atheists are so angry. Why atheists? Calm the fuk down and respect other people's beliefs even if you don't agree with them.
Atheists are negative wrote:
Atheists are so angry. Why atheists? Calm the fuk down and respect other people's beliefs even if you don't agree with them.
Obviously people are free to believe whatever they want. It's not about attacking people, it's about attacking ideas. While I'd never go after a person, I will go after bad ideas, and religion is full of them. It *does* do some good things but I would ask this: Can you name something good someone did because of their religion that couldn't be done by someone with no religion? It is unnecessary.
Why are a person's political ideologies, which sports teams you root for, ethics, and the like all up for criticism but religion gets a free pass? If you want to know who has the power in a society just look at who you aren't allowed to criticize. The priestly class, and to a lesser extent the political class, have gotten a free ride for centuries; that free ride is over.
Dust to Dust wrote:
Great idea, but wrote:The "winners" and "losers" won't be in the same place in the afterlife.
Yeah, they'll be in different graveyards, neither of which have bars.
Besides why would there be currency in Heaven or anywhere else? Do we still have to work?
My bad. Damn, you guys take all the fun out of afterlife! Why?
The Ancient Hebrew Research Center disagrees with you (and Mark). Should those folks be put to death?
Seriously, that's what you have? And how long was this particular "day"? Just a regular day? Or another of these millions of years days? Because it would seem either Adam went hungry for quite some time, or the "herb of the field" went uncultivated for quite some time before Adam came along to till the earth.
Why would anyone describe a garden/paradise of eden in a place with no shrubs or plants?
"The herbs of the field were not around because Adam had not been created yet, so there was no one to till or cultivate the ground."
Well,that's (again) you telling half of the fable.
They were not around also because it hadn't yet rained, right?
In this 'millions of years to the day" theory, there was water around, but no rain. So for at least quite some time, there was water, and sun, and no rain. Evaporation? How did the "plants but not plants of the field" manage to do well, for so long, with no rain?
Didn't your god also tell Adam (Gen 1) that he was given every plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit fielding seed to be food for Adam? Then how come the "plants but not plants of the field" are included here? It would seem that this passage ought only refer to the plants of the field, not really "every plant", right? Yet it seems explicit to say Adam was given every plant and herb on the face of the earth, not simply those of the field in the newly constructed garden that had no plants.
Can you scurry back to Mark's website and tell me precisely which plants were made on Day 3 and which were not? Just so we're clear. It would help. Spruce? Well, people DO drink spruce needle tea, so was that a Day 3 tree or a later one? How about Eskimo potato (Hedysarum alpinum )? It's edible, but the seed can be somewhat fatal. It doesn't require (as do so so many other edible plants, cultivation. Corn? We often put it in fields today, but for centuries, it grew just fine without fields and tillers. What do you suppose? Wild Rice? Indian Rice Grass?
I'd still, fwiw, enjoy reading your account of just what a 'servant' was to people wandering the deserts of the middle east several thousand years ago. You seem to believe they were effectively maids and shepherds and whatnot. Did they work a 40 hours week? What kind of care was to be given them when the master (not the employer, the master) beat them to where they couldn't move for several days, but then were able to recover?
Looking at Gen 2:4-5 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every 'plant of the field' before it was in the earth, and every 'herb of the field' before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
Verse 6 talks about the mist from the earth that waters the ground.
The allegation is that whereas Gen 1 has plants made before man, Gen 2 has man made before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that Gen 2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field? The Hebrew word for 'field' is sadeh which refers to a limited area of land such as the Garden of Eden.
Referring back to Gen 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." The Hebrew word for 'earth' is erets which refers to a much broader geographic area aka planet Earth.
As for the duration of days, I believe it was 24 hours. 6 days of creation and on the 7th day, God rested.
It suggests that your god made the pants, with no rain, for 3 days. The mist came afterward. But if you believe those days were indeed 24 hours .. then that becomes a moot point. Kinda weird to call them day one, when days didn't actually exist .. but I'm sure it makes sense.
Which are the herbs and plants of the field? Because Gen 1 makes it perfectly clear your god made plants and herbs with seeds to eat before he made Adam and breathed into his nose. And explicitly commands that all those plants and herbs are there for Adam to eat. But you're suggesting a certain select few species were made later on for Adam to eat.
Which ones were they, and how do you know?
... and those were???
Some faithful folks in this thread would suggest you're twisting scripture to make it fit your worldview. I'm sure they won't point this out, but Thought I'd mention it.
Why would a day have been 24 hours in a time when the earth didn't revolve around the sun?
It still does.
Let's keep in ,mind that the winner of the first big sibling rivalry battle managed to go off and find a wife.
Let's forget about which weeds grew first and wonder how these other people were surviving.
Dust to Dust wrote:
Let's keep in ,mind that the winner of the first big sibling rivalry battle managed to go off and find a wife.
Let's forget about which weeds grew first and wonder how these other people were surviving.
If you knew ancient Aramaic, you'd be able to answer that question. it's all about context and nuance.
wtfunny wrote:
Dust to Dust wrote:Let's keep in ,mind that the winner of the first big sibling rivalry battle managed to go off and find a wife.
Let's forget about which weeds grew first and wonder how these other people were surviving.
If you knew ancient Aramaic, you'd be able to answer that question. it's all about context and nuance.
If you mean creative writing then yes anything is possible.
Atheists are negative wrote:
Atheists are so angry.
Well, I don't think they *all* are, but I think it's a valid observation. Some atheists are angry a lot; a lot of atheists are angry sometimes. A few comments:
1) I know that *I* was angry, when I first understood that no god(s) existed. It was actually anger at myself: "How could I have *believed* that stuff?" And because it's uncomfortable for us to be angry at ourselves, we might project that anger outwards. I truly think this accounts for a fair amount of the anger that people see.
2) Many people interpret "out" atheists as *automatically* angry. That is, they tend to see visible nonbelief as being *perforce* an angry rebellion--rather than simply a "not me." In my experience, folks who interpret the situation this way tend to be those who might say, "Everyone knows there's a god, but some choose to reject him"--and interpret that "rejection" as anger.
3) I don't waterski. But I'm not angry at waterskiers or waterskiing, and I don't call myself an "a-waterskier." That's because the folks who *do* waterski don't try to have The Waterskier's Manual enacted into law; don't try to mandate waterskiing in the public schools; don't try to enlist the guns and money of government, to force (or "encourage") waterskiing on the general population.
But some god-believers (aka theists) DO try to do such things. And it makes me angry when they do so.
For a longer discussion of this question, I recommend
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQEI think the "angry atheist" stereotype comes from the fact that during discussions about religion (when someone would be the atheist in the discussion) religious people, and Christians in particular, say some of the dumbest things in defense of their beliefs. Pointing out the idiocy of their reasoning comes across as being mean or angry. People simply don't like their beliefs being called out as irrational and baseless and instead of addressing the argument attack the messenger.
I hereby pronounce myself an a-atheist. I am not necessarily a theist; I just stand for the opposite of everything that atheists believe.
Me: The atheist position is morally and scientifically indefensible. The God of Science does not exist, and their faith is misplaced. How anyone could buy into the Atheist God of Science completely baffles me. Atheists have offered no proof of their God of Science.
Atheist: I never said I believe in a God of Science.
Me: Of course you do. So does every atheist in the world. To say anything else is to twist what I, the anti-atheist, already know about your Religion of Science. Therefore, I am right and you are a childish simpleton for clinging to your atheist views.
Everyone, embrace a-atheism with me. If these arguments are effective against religion, then they ought to be effective atheism, too. I might even start a Freedom from Atheism Foundation...
Perfect example. If I was to point out all the stupidity in thejeff's post, first, it would take me a long time. But second, he would probably accuse me of being angry when in reality it's just me trying to help him sound less idiotic.
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Official Suzhou Diamond League Discussion Thread (7-9 am ET+ Instant Reaction show at 9:05 am ET)
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34