Creation Museum

[speedz99 145]

Main thing seems to be that it's difficult to judge their level of consent.

I think that's the only thing. Well, aside from the aforementioned grossness.

[ShakeZuma 585]

wait are you guys talking about 9 year olds having sex with animals? jesus, I need to stay out of this forum.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

wait are you guys talking about 9 year olds having sex with animals? jesus, I need to stay out of this forum.

[Balloon guy 158]

wait are you guys talking about 9 year olds having sex with animals? jesus, I need to stay out of this forum.

no, we are talking about how people that talk about 9 year olds having sex with animals are the best representation of atheism on the internet because at least they are frank.

[timwakefield 68]

no, we are talking about how people that talk about 9 year olds having sex with animals are the best representation of atheism on the internet because at least they are frank.

I'm paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens, who calls himself an anti-theist rather than an atheist. The reason he does this is because "atheism" isn't a distinct philosophy. The only reason the word exists and is used by so many people to describe themselves is because theism is so pervasive that people who don't believe in YHWH want a simple way of expressing their non-belief, if asked. But a lack of belief in something is an extremely different sort of opinion to hold than a belief in something is. One example Hitchens used was astrology: One doesn't need to call himself an anti-astrologist, or an a-Voodounist, because astrology and Voodoo are, in Western culture, largely understood to be silly superstitions. That's exactly the way he feels, and I feel, about YHWH. I simply don't believe in Him, and I find religions organized around the belief in Him to be very silly and to rely on weird superstitions. But here's the thing you don't seem to understand: I don't need to replace that lack of belief with something else. I don't cling strongly to "atheism," because one can't really cling to a lack of belief. In the Sam Harris passage I recently quoted in the other thread, he suggested that you, BG, know exactly how it feels to be an atheist in regard to Islam, and the same could be said about astrology or Voodoo (assuming you don't believe in astrology or Voodoo). You simply know in your mind that astrology is, quite obviously, very silly and essentially meaningless. You don't need to define how and why you know that, because the how and why are blatantly obvious to you. That's how (most) "atheists" feel about YHWH.

[ShakeZuma 585]

no, we are talking about how people that talk about 9 year olds having sex with animals are the best representation of atheism on the internet because at least they are frank.

and now we're on to hot dogs... GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT PEOPLE

[Roll the Bones 74]

no, we are talking about how people that talk about 9 year olds having sex with animals are the best representation of atheism on the internet because at least they are frank.

No, you simply avoided addressing the sensible reply in the letter by bringing a small paragraph of a conversation his daughter had, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand or athiesm in general. She is not an advocate in any way or even writes that much, except a few items rarely. The only thing I remember is her taking umbrage with Sam Harris over his book on morality.

[Balloon guy 158]

No, you simply avoided addressing the sensible reply in the letter by bringing a small paragraph of a conversation his daughter had, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand or athiesm in general. She is not an advocate in any way or even writes that much, except a few items rarely. The only thing I remember is her taking umbrage with Sam Harris over his book on morality.

I don't know what could be more ironic:An atheist telling another atheist that their understanding of morality is wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

In the Sam Harris passage I recently quoted in the other thread, he suggested that you, BG, know exactly how it feels to be an atheist in regard to Islam, and the same could be said about astrology or Voodoo (assuming you don't believe in astrology or Voodoo). You simply know in your mind that astrology is, quite obviously, very silly and essentially meaningless. You don't need to define how and why you know that, because the how and why are blatantly obvious to you. That's how (most) "atheists" feel about YHWH.

Why do you think I can't grasp what you think about God?I was an agnostic long before I was a Christian.I have a very good understanding of your position, because I used to have it.But that whole sadly misguided sound bite style 'gotcha' direction of saying I am an atheist like you except you just dis-believe in one more religion than me has already been discredited with a tiny thing we call common sense.See, no matter how many answer are wrong for a question, each one bears no relevance on what is right.If you have 100 maps, but only one of them is a world map, all the rest of them mean nothing to the question of where is China? The only thing that would matter is that one of those maps has the answer to that question.You saying that the map of Canada's dismissal means you're dismissal of the world map is logical is really sad. I'm sure you will see why when you quit allowing slick one liners by people selling books isn't anyway to arrive at a worldview.

[timwakefield 68]

I don't know what could be more ironic: A guy who believes that a book that tells you how to beat your slaves is the Perfect Word of The Creator talking about morality.

I was an agnostic long before I was a Christian.I have a very good understanding of your position, because I used to have it.

I don't think I've ever described myself as an agnostic.

[timwakefield 68]

But that whole sadly misguided sound bite style 'gotcha' direction of saying I am an atheist like you except you just dis-believe in one more religion than me has already been discredited with a tiny thing we call common sense.

It had nothing to do with "gotcha!" It was an attempt to get you to understand how I think about the world, and how other "atheists" may think about the world. I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was trying to get you to expand your thinking just a tiny bit, which was obviously a fool's errand.

If you have 100 maps, but only one of them is a world map, all the rest of them mean nothing to the question of where is China? The only thing that would matter is that one of those maps has the answer to that question.You saying that the map of Canada's dismissal means you're dismissal of the world map is logical is really sad. I'm sure you will see why when you quit allowing slick one liners by people selling books isn't anyway to arrive at a worldview.

I'm saying I don't believe in sky-Santa-Claus. Your analogy is wack.

[Balloon guy 158]

It had nothing to do with "gotcha!" It was an attempt to get you to understand how I think about the world, and how other "atheists" may think about the world. I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was trying to get you to expand your thinking just a tiny bit, which was obviously a fool's errand.

You know what's best about being open minded?Being called closed minded by the closed minded.That and trying new foods

I'm saying I don't believe in sky-Santa-Claus. Your analogy is wack.

Santa Clause's existence or non-existence has no bearing on the question 'Did Shakespeare exist?"You think it does.

[vbnautilus 48]

I have a very good understanding of your position, because I used to have it.

Yeah, no.

[BaseJester 1]

See, no matter how many answer are wrong for a question, each one bears no relevance on what is right.If you have 100 maps, but only one of them is a world map, all the rest of them mean nothing to the question of where is China? The only thing that would matter is that one of those maps has the answer to that question.You saying that the map of Canada's dismissal means you're dismissal of the world map is logical is really sad. I'm sure you will see why when you quit allowing slick one liners by people selling books isn't anyway to arrive at a worldview.

I accept your point that false religions don't preclude a true one.However, in your analogy, choosing a religion is more like having 100 world maps (each claiming a different location for China) than having 100 maps of different regions. They can't be simultaneously true, and they do attempt to answer the same questions. Only the analogous location can't be China, because that is testable. (If I go to the location labeled as China on the map and a shark bites my leg off, I will no longer trust this map regarding other locations.)

[BaseJester 1]

Connected only by the tenuous thread of China, have you seen this video of the child run over and then ignored? Disturbing as hell. You seriously might not want to watch it.

You can probably use this to support the notion that atheistic countries are bad, Balloon Guy.

[timwakefield 68]

You know what's best about being open minded?Being called closed minded by the closed minded.

To me, anybody in the world who believes absolutely that there is a single book or set of books which is impeccable due to the fact that its author was the Creator of the Universe or whose author was a unique vessel through which the Creator of the Universe told him all about everything, is definitively more closed-minded than anybody who is willing to question the veracity of that book or books. The fact that people are punished for questioning its veracity should, itself, make it obvious that the book can't withstand academic scrutiny.

Santa Clause's existence or non-existence has no bearing on the question 'Did Shakespeare exist?"You think it does.

No I don't, and your assertion that I do is bizarre, unfounded, and weird. And bizarre.

[Balloon guy 158]

To me, anybody in the world who believes absolutely that there is a single book or set of books which is impeccable due to the fact that its author was the Creator of the Universe or whose author was a unique vessel through which the Creator of the Universe told him all about everything, is definitively more closed-minded than anybody who is willing to question the veracity of that book or books.

?This only remotely makes sense if you first assume the book in question is false.If the book is true, then all those actions are 100% justifiable and correct.

The fact that people are punished for questioning its veracity should, itself, make it obvious that the book can't withstand academic scrutiny.

?That is make believe. The Bible stands up to all academic questions.Any chance you can link us to anyone in the last 100 years who was punished for questioning its veracity?

No I don't, and your assertion that I do is bizarre, unfounded, and weird. And bizarre.

So you believe that Santa Clause is real?I'm confused what you are asserting here.Kidding, not an important thing to argue about.

[Balloon guy 158]

Connected only by the tenuous thread of China, have you seen this video of the child run over and then ignored? Disturbing as hell. You seriously might not want to watch it.

You can probably use this to support the notion that atheistic countries are bad, Balloon Guy.

Thanks, I have plenty of my own facts to support the reality that nobody with a brain wants to live in a country run by or founded on atheist's 'principles'.

[Balloon guy 158]

I accept your point that false religions don't preclude a true one.However, in your analogy, choosing a religion is more like having 100 world maps (each claiming a different location for China) than having 100 maps of different regions. They can't be simultaneously true, and they do attempt to answer the same questions.

Actually, from my perspective only one map has the locations, the rest are lacking. The reasons why one map isn't good enough may be different between maps though.

Only the analogous location can't be China, because that is testable. (If I go to the location labeled as China on the map and a shark bites my leg off, I will no longer trust this map regarding other locations.)

Well, when you die you will test which religion was right...

[Shia LaBeouf 0]

This only remotely makes sense if you first assume the book in question is false.If the book is true, then all those actions are 100% justifiable and correct.

headassplode.

[vbnautilus 48]

The Bible stands up to all academic questions.

<spit take>

[speedz99 145]

That is make believe. The Bible stands up to all academic questions.

And by that you mean, "You can't prove that a man didn't turn water into wine, because you weren't there. You can't prove a man didn't survive for multiple days in the belly of a whale, because you weren't there. You can't prove that a man didn't die and then come back to life days (or whatever) later, because you weren't there. You can't prove that two of each of the animal species didn't repopulated the earth, because you weren't there. You can't prove that a snake didn't talk, because you weren't there. You can't prove that...etc."I'm not sure that counts as standing up to all academic questions.

[Roll the Bones 74]

And by that you mean, "You can't prove that a man didn't turn water into wine, because you weren't there. You can't prove a man didn't survive for multiple days in the belly of a whale, because you weren't there. You can't prove that a man didn't die and then come back to life days (or whatever) later, because you weren't there. You can't prove that two of each of the animal species didn't repopulated the earth, because you weren't there. You can't prove that a snake didn't talk, because you weren't there. You can't prove that...etc."I'm not sure that counts as standing up to all academic questions.

Or perhaps he should read the letter to Emma. But there are plenty of books that actually discount the validity of the bible and how often it was plagerized, copied, rewritten etc. This is a good one, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why Or you can just go to freethoughtpedia, http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Was_the_b...s_of_fiction%3F

The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information. In this short piece I'll attempt to show blatant similarities with regard to two of the most important Biblical narratives: the Genesis story and the character of Jesus Christ. The Book of Genesis's Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share: 1.God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds. 2.God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah. 3.God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat. 4.The ark would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species. 5.A great rain covered the land with water. 6.The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East. 7.The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return. 8.The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice. 9.The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again. Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It's not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc. [Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon -- hundreds of years before the Bible was even written. Do you honestly think, based on the similarities above, that those who wrote the Genesis story had not heard the Gilgamesh story? And if they had heard it, and they were simply rehashing an old, very popular tale, what does that say about the Bible?

[Roll the Bones 74]

I like this as well.

Jesus's Story Is An Obvious Rehashing Of Numerous Previous CharactersPerhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it's not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples. 1.Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer. 2.Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world. Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him. He walked on water and told his mother, "Don't cry, I'm going to heaven." when he died. As he passed he said, "It is finished." 3.Dionysus was literally the "Son of God", was born of a virgin mother, and was commonly depicted riding a donkey. He healed the sick and turned water to wine. He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal. His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself. 4.Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven. 5.Osiris's son, Horus, was known as the "light of the world", "The good shepherd", and "the lamb". He was also referred to as, "The way, the truth, and the life." His symbol was a cross. 6.Mithra's birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he'll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he's the Sun God). His followers called themselves "brothers", and their leaders "fathers". They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners. 7.Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man. 8.Buddha's mother was told by an angel that she'd give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself "the son of man" and was referred to as, "prophet", "master", and "Lord". He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn't strong enough. 9.Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, "The Son of God". The problem, of course, is that these previous narratives existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus did. Logic Sets In Many are familiar with Occam's Razor, which states that, all things being equal, one should not seek complex explanations when more simple ones are available. No one disputes that these other stories predate the Judeo-Christian Bible, so we really only have two options: 1.The religious explanation is that while the other stories were very much the same as those in the Bible, they are all false. But when they occur in the Bible (despite it being much the same content), this time the stories are true. One explanation of the resemblances to the earlier myths is that Satan created them to lead people astray from the true Messiah that would come much later. So essentially, an ultra-powerful and evil being (Created by God) influenced humanity to create deceptive stories -- thousands of years before the real version -- so that people wouldn't believe the real thing when they saw it. 2.The alternative explanation is that the nature of storytelling during the period was such that central themes propagated through time. This combined with the natural tendency to have certain repeating elements in human stories, and the fact that the Bible stories came after the other ones, explains the similarities to previous myths. And since the stories of worldwide floods, virgin births, and people rising from the dead that the Bible is based on were false to begin with (which everyone agrees on) -- they are also false in the Bible. In short, the Bible is simply another iteration of the same themes that came long before it. Which of these two explanations makes more sense to you?

[Roll the Bones 74]

But the best source of understanding what a crazy ass book it is, is the actual book itself.