- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Atheism VS Theism, which takes more “Faith” to believe in?
Here is a debate where both views are presented…
Stuart, how do you weigh in on the evidence?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgIt really takes a lot of faith to believe that nothing can do anything.
In fact it takes misinterpretation to believe that, because anything that can do something is by any definition, not nothing.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2011,16:14) It really takes a lot of faith to believe that nothing can do anything. In fact it takes misinterpretation to believe that, because anything that can do something is by any definition, not nothing.
You appear to have reached the point of self-parody t8.Are congratulations in order?
Stuart
Hi T8,
To the atheist, anything instead of God.
Even irrational thoughts are propagated; shame isn't it.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgThe Atheist’s Response to the Theist:
(i) God doesn’t exist because science explains the cosmos without him.
(ii) Even if a finely-tuned cosmos and/or complex life suggest a first cause/designer, there’s too much pain and suffering in the world to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
(iii) The Judeo-Christian Bible is myth and legend.
(iv) A moral life doesn’t require God, anyway.
The Theist’s Response to the Atheist:
(i) Science affirms that the finely-tuned cosmos was created out of nothing.(ii) Life’s order, design, and complexity require an Intelligent Designer, and our response to pain and suffering is relative to our knowledge of right and wrong/good and evil in a fallen world.
(iii) The Bible is trustworthy based on history, science, archaeology, manuscripts, and prophecy.
(iv) True morality requires a transcendent standard — God.
the basic four.
I disagree with several aspects of the atheist's claims:
(i) “God” is a word. It is not an alternative explanation for anything. It is usually an excuse for not having an explanation.
(ii) Nothing suggests a designer. Apart from artifacts known to have been produced by living things with intent, everything else looks as if no design has been involved at all.
(iv) A moral life should reject the concept of the Judeo-christian god.
Of course the theist would be wrong about there being any scientific basis to much of the contents of the bible.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2011,18:40) Of course the theist would be wrong about there being any scientific basis to much of the contents of the bible. Stuart
Hi Stuart,I told you, you were naive; now you also illustrate (to us believers) that you are ignorant as well.
Here are three examples of written information, penned long before Science has been able to confirm!1) Biochemistry: Pig is an unhealthy animal to consume for sustenance.
Leviticus 11:7 …the swine …he is unclean to you.
Pigs are scavenger animals, eating both dung and carcass remains.
Toxins are excreted out of the sweat glands of mammals, pigs don't sweat!
Plus: Without the advent of refrigeration, pork meat is susceptible to trichinosis.2) Digestion: Slaughtered animals that “ARE” to be eaten,
must first be bleed; and dead animals are not fit for human consumption.
Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Deut.15:23 …thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.
Leviticus 22:8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith.3) Astronomy: The Earth is round and that the Universe is ever expanding…
Isaiah 40:22 …the circle of the earth, and …that stretcheth out
the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Job 26:7 He …hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Gravitational forces hold it's position)eth: suffix -used to form the archaic third person singular present in verbs <doeth>
stretch: to extend in length, to extend or expand, to enlarge,
to become extended in length or breadth or both,
to extend over a continuous period.Heavens: the expanse of space, celestial.
spread: to open or expand over a large area, to stretch out: extend,
to distribute over an area, to become dispersed, the act or process of spreading.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd,
I am glad that you re-posted this – do you have a rolodex of standard replies? – since you never addressed my direct response to this assertion previously. I will recreate my original post (from here) below.
1. See Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat's A History of Food, on page 408:
Quote However, pastoral people who kept sheep and oxen cannot have thought much of this scavenging animal, which sometimes ate humans and nearly always carried parasites. The ancient Egyptians thought it transmitted leprosy, and forbade their very few swineherds, who in any case were the lowest of the low, to enter temples. Pigs are never shown in Egyptian tomb paintings.
That attitude could be at the root of the Jewish and Muslim prohibition of pig meat. Moses, brought up in Pharaoh's court, declared the animal unclean (Leviticus XI, vii) – so unclean that is should not even be touched.In other words, forbidding pig consumption represented the ideas about pigs at the time the bible was written.
2. See here:
Quote To understand the magnitude, the awesomeness, of the problem, we have to put ourselves into an animistic mind-set, where every part of nature has a life of its own, guarded by its own protective power. To kill a goat, even for food, was an offense against Goat. And somehow, Goat must be appeased. Thus we find that our pre-Torah ancestors brought offerings to the Se'irim (Lev. 17:7), a word whose usual translation is simply “goats”, but here may well be translated as “Goat.”
This practice is clearly seen by the Torah as idolatrous, and in its attempt to stamp it out, the Torah in Leviticus introduces two new measures.
First, before any meat is to be eaten, the animal must be brought for slaughtering at the Tent of Meeting, and its blood must be dashed against the altar by the priest. A person who does not do this “has shed blood and shall be cut off from his people.” (Lev. 17:4)
This is about superstition, not digestion issues. In fact, people do consume blood in various forms with no real ill effects, (e.g. black pudding).
As for not eating animals that were found dead, that is common sense. It doesn't take long for scavenger creatures to infest the meat, and a few attempts to eat a maggot infested turkey leg will likely straighten you out. In any case, the biblical law goes back to the superstition described above. An animal that was not ritualistically killed was not properly “blessed” for consumption. It might offend Goat and God!
Another case of the bible encoding the present day thinking of the people who wrote it.
3. Is the Isaiah passage that you quote literal or figurative?
For example, when it says that “he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth”, is that a literal statement? Furthermore, what exactly does “[stretching] out the heavens as a curtain” mean? Does that mean the “heavens” are a solid material that can be spread out like a sheet, or is that figurative language for something else entirely? Oh, what about “[spreading] them out as a tent to dwell in”? Is that meant to imply that the “heavens” are a covering over our heads only, (i.e. not something that the earth is a part of), or is that figurative language for something else?
As for the Job passage, let's show more of the passage:
Job 26:7-8: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
Is this whole passage literal? Spreads out the northern skies over empty space? Is that a solid material suspended above the earth, (i.e. NOT a thinning of the earth's atmosphere as you get further away from the earth's surface)? How is the spreading of the sky over empty space different from hanging the earth on nothing? Are both solid materials? Are both relatively flat? Further, are clouds merely wrappers for water in the sky, (i.e NOT the actual water droplets suspended in air)?
How do these two passages convey reliable scientific information? Are they meant to be treated as literal physical descriptions, or are they poetic, (i.e completely open to interpretation)?
I don't know Ed. If this is the best that you've got, you are on pretty shabby ground.
Hi WhatIsTrue,
Egyptians also thought sheep were filthy animals, which you forgot to mention.
Egyptians and others staying away from pork products sure got it right; aye?So God telling them that the earth is round, hangs on nothing,
and our universe both began and is in constant expansion
proves that they got all these points wrong; yes or no?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd wrote:
Quote Egyptians also thought sheep were filthy animals, which you forgot to mention.
Egyptians and others staying away from pork products sure got it right; aye?The Egyptians observed pigs and decided that they were repulsive. What's so scientifically advanced about that?
And no, they did not get it right. As stated here:
Quote Consumption of Pork in moderate quantities is helpful in gaining energy. It is good for skin, eyes, nervous system, bones and mental performance. Intake of Pork also ensures better immunity to body due to presence of essential antioxidants. Ed wrote:
Quote So God telling them that the earth is round, hangs on nothing,
and our universe both began and is in constant expansion
proves that they got all these points wrong; yes or no?Let's see. In the two passages we learn that:
1. God stretches out the heavens like a curtain, “like a tent to dwell in”.
There is nothing infinite or “constantly expanding” about a curtain or a tent. I'm going to mark that one down as a big fail.
2. God spreads out the skies over empty space.
This is factually incorrect. The “sky” is simply part of the earth's atmosphere which does not reside above some “empty space”. The atmosphere is a continuous layer of gases that envelop the entire earth. Another fail.
3. God wraps water in clouds while miraculously keeping the clouds from bursting under the weight of the water.
This is not only wrong, it's comical. Big fail.
Of course, if you understand that those two passages are poetic, and subject to interpretation, then you can draw less silly conclusions from them. No matter how you look at them though, you won't be able to draw any valid scientific conclusions from them.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 21 2011,06:13) Ed wrote: Quote (1)Egyptians also thought sheep were filthy animals, which you forgot to mention.
(2)Egyptians and others staying away from pork products sure got it right; aye?(2)The Egyptians observed pigs and decided that they were repulsive. What's so scientifically advanced about that?
And no, they did not get it right. As stated here:
Quote (3)Consumption of Pork in moderate quantities is helpful in gaining energy. It is good for skin, eyes, nervous system, bones and mental performance. Intake of Pork also ensures better immunity to body due to presence of essential antioxidants.
Hi Wit,1) You have yet to addressed this comparison? Egyptians also thought sheep were filthy animals, which you forgot to mention.
2) Pigs are a scavenger animal. They eat dead carcass that were not properly bled even eating their own kind.
Science has since proven that mammals excrete toxins out through sweat glands, yet pigs have none.3) Nowadays farmers keep pigs contained in pens so they can monitor what they consume.
If you want to eat scavenger animals go right ahead!
The dietary laws were given for our health,
not superstition as you assert!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 21 2011,06:13) Ed wrote: Quote So God telling them that the earth is round, hangs on nothing,
and our universe both began and is in constant expansion
proves that they got all these points wrong; yes or no?Let's see. In the two passages we learn that:
1. God stretches out the heavens like a curtain, “like a tent to dwell in”.
There is nothing infinite or “constantly expanding” about a curtain or a tent. I'm going to mark that one down as a big fail.
2. God spreads out the skies over empty space.
This is factually incorrect. The “sky” is simply part of the earth's atmosphere which does not reside above some “empty space”. The atmosphere is a continuous layer of gases that envelop the entire earth. Another fail.
3. God wraps water in clouds while miraculously keeping the clouds from bursting under the weight of the water.
This is not only wrong, it's comical. Big fail.
Of course, if you understand that those two passages are poetic, and subject to interpretation, then you can draw less silly conclusions from them. No matter how you look at them though, you won't be able to draw any valid scientific conclusions from them.
Hi Wit,1) One stretches out a curtain as far as they want; right?
How you “mark” things is irrelevant to the truth of Science now matching God's word!2) Did you cut and paste this from an Atheist website;
because it sure doesn't match any of the points I made?3) Did you cut and paste this from an Atheist website;
because it sure doesn't match any of the points I made?Why don't you instead address the points I make; deal?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 20 2011,22:58) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2011,18:40) Of course the theist would be wrong about there being any scientific basis to much of the contents of the bible. Stuart
Hi Stuart,I told you, you were naive; now you also illustrate (to us believers) that you are ignorant as well.
Here are three examples of written information, penned long before Science has been able to confirm!1) Biochemistry: Pig is an unhealthy animal to consume for sustenance.
Leviticus 11:7 …the swine …he is unclean to you.
Pigs are scavenger animals, eating both dung and carcass remains.
Toxins are excreted out of the sweat glands of mammals, pigs don't sweat!
Plus: Without the advent of refrigeration, pork meat is susceptible to trichinosis.2) Digestion: Slaughtered animals that “ARE” to be eaten,
must first be bleed; and dead animals are not fit for human consumption.
Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Deut.15:23 …thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.
Leviticus 22:8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith.3) Astronomy: The Earth is round and that the Universe is ever expanding…
Isaiah 40:22 …the circle of the earth, and …that stretcheth out
the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Job 26:7 He …hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Gravitational forces hold it's position)eth: suffix -used to form the archaic third person singular present in verbs <doeth>
stretch: to extend in length, to extend or expand, to enlarge,
to become extended in length or breadth or both,
to extend over a continuous period.Heavens: the expanse of space, celestial.
spread: to open or expand over a large area, to stretch out: extend,
to distribute over an area, to become dispersed, the act or process of spreading.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Wit,So, apparently you agree with point #2; correct?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd,
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
I addressed the digestion issue, (i.e. “#2”), in my original post. You never responded to it.
The stuff that you think I cut and paste from an atheist website are my paraphrases of the scripture that you referenced.
Isaiah 40:22:
Quote It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.Job 26:7-8:
Quote He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it. And, no, you can't stretch a curtain as far as you want. You can only stretch it to its limits. Trying to squeeze infinite expansion into the very finite metaphor of a curtain or a tent is beyond ridiculous.
Ed wrote:
Quote You have yet to addressed this comparison? Egyptians also thought sheep were filthy animals, which you forgot to mention. I can't find any basis for your statement that Egyptians thought sheep were filthy. As referenced here, Egyptians thought quite highly of sheep:
Quote Rashi now explains that shepherds are an abomination to Egyptians because sheep are a deity to them. … hepherds are considered abominable because they lack respect for the sheep, a pagan god of the Egyptians.As for pigs, you are right that improperly prepared pigs can bring disease. However, this is not some grand revelation. It would have been very easy for people to observe that eating pig meat led to problems from time to time. As I pointed out already, Egyptians considered pigs very low due to their behavior. Pigs were not allowed near sacred places. So this “divine biblical insight” had very pagan origins.
Hi Wit,
It would be nice if you would stick to the points I make,
instead you bring up others that only serve as a distraction.So God telling them that the earth is round, hangs on nothing,
and our universe both began and is in constant expansion
proves that they got all these points wrong; yes or no?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd J,
Stick to the points?!?!?
I have been addressing everything that you brought up by showing the context of where it came from. You can't claim that the bible says something and simply expect me to take your word for it. I pulled up the passages in question and showed you quite clearly that what you claim the bible says is a major stretch.
If the bible actually said what you said, then it would be intriguing, but it does NOT say what you are inferring. If you don't understand that, then I can not help you.
Quote As for pigs, you are right that improperly prepared pigs can bring disease. However, this is not some grand revelation. It would have been very easy for people to observe that eating pig meat led to problems from time to time. As I pointed out already, Egyptians considered pigs very low due to their behavior. Pigs were not allowed near sacred places. So this “divine biblical insight” had very pagan origins. This is most likely why they were never used in sacrifices either, not considered fit for the gods, an Hawian folklore has it that on one part of the island the smell of pork offends the gods.
Interesting WIT, I wonder how the not eating animals that ate blood came about then, do you think by observation, or sickness?
Princess,
I am not aware of any OT law that says that you can't eat animals that eat blood. There is one against consuming blood, which is what Ed J referenced in his initial post on the subject.
Here was my response:
Quote Quote
To understand the magnitude, the awesomeness, of the problem, we have to put ourselves into an animistic mind-set, where every part of nature has a life of its own, guarded by its own protective power. To kill a goat, even for food, was an offense against Goat. And somehow, Goat must be appeased.Thus we find that our pre-Torah ancestors brought offerings to the Se'irim (Lev. 17:7), a word whose usual translation is simply “goats”, but here may well be translated as “Goat.”
This practice is clearly seen by the Torah as idolatrous, and in its attempt to stamp it out, the Torah in Leviticus introduces two new measures.
First, before any meat is to be eaten, the animal must be brought for slaughtering at the Tent of Meeting, and its blood must be dashed against the altar by the priest. A person who does not do this “has shed blood and shall be cut off from his people.” (Lev. 17:4)
This is about superstition, not digestion issues. In fact, people do consume blood in various forms with no real ill effects, (e.g. black pudding).
As for not eating animals that were found dead, that is common sense. It doesn't take long for scavenger creatures to infest the meat, and a few attempts to eat a maggot infested turkey leg will likely straighten you out. In any case, the biblical law goes back to the superstition described above. An animal that was not ritualistically killed was not properly “blessed” for consumption. It might offend Goat and God!
Another case of the bible encoding the present day thinking of the people who wrote it.
Animal sacrifices were born out of an “animistic” mindset where each animal god must be appeased for killing one of its kind. Pouring blood on the altar was part of the ritual sacrifice. It had nothing to do with digestion.
Lev 11:13-19 `And these ye do abominate of the fowl; they are not eaten, an abomination they are : the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
and the vulture, and the kite after its kind, every raven after its kind, and the owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after its kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
and the stork, the heron after its kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.Most seem to be birds of prey or scavengers.
I understand the importance of either human or animal to appease the gods, however, how did the idea of blood become of such importance? What origin did the ritual stem from, how did the ritual progress throughout cultures?
Princess,
Great questions. I don't really know the answers though.
It seems like everything stemmed from appeasing various gods, which probably came from the realization that the “forces of nature” were bigger than them, and potentially very deadly.
I know that the blood of animal represented its life, (e.g. the bible's reference to life being in the blood). That probably came from the observation that killing often involved bloodshed. Pouring that blood onto an altar was probably a way to “honor” the god who watched over that particular kind of animal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
