The bible clearly states that the earth is circular. Isaiah 40:22 says "“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” The prophet Isaiah had not traveled around the earth. He had not been up in a space vehicle looking down to see that the earth was round, but God, who dwells in the heavens and who created the earth, gave the truth as to its shape. As for how old the world is, the bible doesn't exactly say, however the Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” [Genesis 1:1] In fact, a number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse*3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began. Geologists estimate that the earth is 4*billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15*billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is not at odds with the Biblical text.
A circle does not equal a globe. Even flat-earthers thought the world was "circular". All they had to do was look up into the sky and see a "circular" sun, a "circular" moon... and assume that earth was also a circle... no supernatural insight was needed to say such a thing. If God wanted to impress us with his mighty knowledge through his prophet, then he should have provided a few more details. I'm totally fine with any argument against a young earth... no problemo there. Did you click on my link about the flood? There seems to be some difficulties with that one...
3814's point about a circular Earth is exactly what came to my mind when I read the quote provided. Some of these arguments are just sad.
I recommend this book for those of you who don't believe. Not believing is exactly the same as believing. They both take faith. The only difference with believing is that we have scripture which makes non believing an ever larger jump of faith than simply believing. The Reason For God - By Timothy Keller http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Be...3493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323290641&sr=8-1
It was one of the first books I bought when I started questioning. While Keller raises some interesting points, I think he does a poor job of arriving at his conclusions. Here is a review that aligns with my response to the book quite closely: http://www.atheistichope.com/2009/04/reason-for-god.html A short quote from the review: "He makes the strong point that we need to hold our beliefs we are choosing as alternatives to Christianity to the same standards we use in doubting Christianity, but he ends up making his case by arguing that since our beliefs can not generally be proven, that we are making "leaps of faith" all the time. He says, “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B." He's set up "belief based on faith" as in opposition to "belief based on proof," which I don't think is the real issue. I would agree with him if he said "you cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of believing (rather than 'faith in') Belief B," but I can't see what is added to say that we must have FAITH IN Belief B unless he wants to say that belief in anything without proof is all he means by religious faith. Such a move reduces faith to simply be a synonym for belief since no beliefs (or at least very few of them) are thought to be conclusively proven. In effect he is saying that pretty much all beliefs are taken on faith. Can you prove conclusively that the earth is not only 10,000 years old? So, it's just faith then. Can the scientific method be used to justify itself? Then it's just faith. All our sets of beliefs are all just different flavors of Koolade, and Christianity tastes the best, so drink up!" Of course, Keller fails to actually provide a strong argument in regards to the existence of god or "the reason for god". But to me, it doesn't seem like the book was ever written for the non-believer. Keller knows his target market (believers with doubts) and wrote his book accordingly. Unfortunately, non-believers require a silly thing called "evidence".
Atheism is just as unknowable as religion. Why would anyone want to invest in a concept with no possibility of proof? At least with religion you get some peace of mind. You want to jump up and down about "there is no god , there is no god", not only can you not define the concept, develop a theory or propose an experiment, you piss off people who need to believe and you get big handful of pointless existence for your trouble. I don't have a problem telling people that an omnipotent talking burning bushes that decided to stop talking 2000 years ago or an eternal consciousness somehow arising from a no longer functioning mortal form don't make any real world sense to me, but to think you know anything about the nature of the universe is hubris. Einstein and Hawking are baby steps, there may be information, like from before the singularity, that we can just never know. NO Dammit, A cosmic ray chipping off one piece of one nucleotide is the very definition of random. There a million ways you can get mutations, tiny ones and disruptive ones. You never know which ones will reproduce more successfully or why, or when or where. The only thing that is not random about it is that everything trends to more complexity because it yields greater stability. That gives the appearance of purpose but it is an illusion. (or, maybe that's how god set up his train set)
And this is the beauty of being a free thinker, even if it was written by Richard Dawkins, doesnt make it right. Mr.Dawkins makes mistakes as well.
I don't think you know what atheism is. It's not belief there is no god. It's without the belief there is a god. subtle, but meaningful difference given the above rant.
We don't, and We've been busting our arses trying to find out. What have you learned from your bronze age book?
The definitions are not universally agreed upon, for this board the general consensus I believe, was that atheism is the belief there is no God; without the belief there is a god to me is the same thing, but I have no capacity for intellectual subtlety. And, agnosticism is the belief that any truth about God either way is unknowable. Some have gone so far as to define atheistic agnostics. A definition I was suppose to remember for the test but it looks like I'm not going to make an A.
Agnosticism and Atheism are really two different things. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a measure of certainty while Theism/Atheism is a measure of belief. For what it's worth, I would classify myself as an Agnostic Atheist since I don't think there is a god, but I also realize such a thing is not knowable. And it's funny - I think most Atheists will admit to being agnostic while most theists seem to want the certainty of "knowing" there is a god (not openly admitting a lack of certainty) even though they actually don't "know".
I am ashamed how the poll has turned out, but realize this IS a liberal leaning board so not too surprised.
Bingo. Dubious, it's not about intellectual subtlety. It's a matter of understanding the differences between these distinct ideologies. Once you truly understand those differences, you should be able to see that many of the things mentioned in your rant (which I previously quoted) are equally applicable/not applicable to theism. Not quite sure how you're associating the poll results with liberalism?
I have always perceived many religious people to be busting their arses searching for answers. Isn't that the point of studying religions? To find meaning in the nothingness of existence? I feel like people of every religion spend hours and hours reading and studying the contexts of these ancient works in order to discover their true meanings. The religious people I have talked to (not just Christians, I actually have been studying the Law of One recently) are pretty diligent in their study and attempts to understand the meaning of what has been written as said.
The arguments are sad. Being wrong or right about something doesn't prevent one from making a strong argument. I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.
