If god is against adultery

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
If god is against adultery

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ? If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3264
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The religious people will

The religious people will argue that god is all holy and that god has the right to do as god will. There is no such thing as adultery when it comes to god because all marriages are with god and only because of god.

Matthew 1:18-21 
"Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. 
19 Joseph her husband, being a just man, and unwilling to put her on public display, decided to divorce her quietly. 
20 Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home on account  it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. 
21 She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus,  because he will save his people from their sins. " 
 "

WOW... well let's put things in to perspective? Today a man and a woman are getting married (over in the middle east) and they find her to be already pregnant... The guy says, "It isn't mine" so they stone the woman to death. If it is up in New York they go on to some talk show and do a DNA test to see who the father is... sounds like Mary was fucking around on Joseph.

As for the story that the angel appeared to tell him [blah blah blah] I call bullshit.

This is the problem with faith... you gotta believe some really whacked out stories. Strange that all this amazing shit happened back in a time when their was less knowledge, less technology and less understand of the world.

Here is what I think happened. Mary got pregnant by some other dude. She gets busted. Being a compulsive liar she makes up some bullshit story about god getting her pregnant. Joseph being a total tard and having no backbone says, "but I love her...". He's a man who will let women walk over him. He's a sap.

So they get married and she has the baby which isn't his... it happens a lot today so I see no reason why it didn't happen back then.

That's my theory.

As for the science question, I'm not sure I understand you.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: As

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

As for the science question, I'm not sure I understand you.

 

 

Well, allot of theists are always whining about science destroying religion. Yet, god himself did not actually get a chance to get laid with mary, he sent an angel down, probably with holy ghost sperm in it, and implanted it. Hmm, sounds like god was using technology and science. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3264
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

As for the science question, I'm not sure I understand you.

 

 

Well, allot of theists are always whining about science destroying religion. Yet, god himself did not actually get a chance to get laid with mary, he sent an angel down, probably with holy ghost sperm in it, and implanted it. Hmm, sounds like god was using technology and science. 

Most religious people, and I'm saying this because of my catholic youth, is that it is magic.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

As for the science question, I'm not sure I understand you.

 

 

Well, allot of theists are always whining about science destroying religion. Yet, god himself did not actually get a chance to get laid with mary, he sent an angel down, probably with holy ghost sperm in it, and implanted it. Hmm, sounds like god was using technology and science. 

Most religious people, and I'm saying this because of my catholic youth, is that it is magic.

 

Smiling  I grew up in a Catholic household as well. So, I can relate. My family (and my former self before deconversion) would probably think that I am either going to hell or purgatory for this. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3264
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

As for the science question, I'm not sure I understand you.

 

 

Well, allot of theists are always whining about science destroying religion. Yet, god himself did not actually get a chance to get laid with mary, he sent an angel down, probably with holy ghost sperm in it, and implanted it. Hmm, sounds like god was using technology and science. 

Most religious people, and I'm saying this because of my catholic youth, is that it is magic.

 

Smiling  I grew up in a Catholic household as well. So, I can relate. My family (and my former self before deconversion) would probably think that I am either going to hell or purgatory for this. 

I've been trying to find my book of writings from the Buddha which talks about what happens at death.

Don't worry.. you won't be going to either of those places unless you want to...

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
God is not against


harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ? If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?

adultery, Moses was. There's no such thing as adultery, it's an invention of civil leaders. The ten commandments create a civilization. When civilization is created "it" replaces God. Adultery extends from the will if the powerful to own the female.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ? If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?

adultery, Moses was. There's no such thing as adultery, it's an invention of civil leaders. The ten commandments create a civilization. When civilization is created "it" replaces God. Adultery extends from the will if the powerful to own the female.

...?

Alot of things a created by civilization, that doesnt mean they don't exist. As far as "Adultery extends from the will of the powerful to own the female" how does that make sense if it is the woman who instigated it? I really don't get what you are trying to say.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Eve wasn't around

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ? If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?

adultery, Moses was. There's no such thing as adultery, it's an invention of civil leaders. The ten commandments create a civilization. When civilization is created "it" replaces God. Adultery extends from the will if the powerful to own the female.

...?

Alot of things a created by civilization, that doesnt mean they don't exist. As far as "Adultery extends from the will of the powerful to own the female" how does that make sense if it is the woman who instigated it? I really don't get what you are trying to say.

at the time of the forming of civilization but was before it (apparently). Adam and Eve weren't members of any civilization. There's other considerations to attach but it's not likely they will be understood easily.

Civilization was instituted by Nimrod for the lineage of the Hebrews and middle easterners.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ? If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?

adultery, Moses was. There's no such thing as adultery, it's an invention of civil leaders. The ten commandments create a civilization. When civilization is created "it" replaces God. Adultery extends from the will if the powerful to own the female.

 

Um, my understanding was that god/s/dess dictated the 10 to Moses.  They weren't Moses' idea ----

But I'm just an old female atheist - WTF do I know?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: Civilization

Old Seer wrote:

Civilization was instituted by Nimrod for the lineage of the Hebrews and middle easterners.

 

Civilization is usually defined as "living in cities".  Once an agricultural surplus exists such that not everyone has to farm, and there exists enough leisure for people to specialize in the arts and crafts and to build large architectural works.  Often the very first architectural works are wells or irrigation systems.

Sumer or Mesopotamia was/is a civilization from about 4500-4000 BCE to present.  (Now it is Iraq.)

The Egyptians were comparatively late comers - about 3150 BCE.

One theory is that Nimrod may be Enmerkar and date to about 2850 BCE, so he is no where close to the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia.  I have no interest in arguing about this.  If you can find some reputable archaeologist who has a different idea, post your link(s).  See http://www.redmoonrising.com/agenda.htm

 

Quote:

Biblical scholar and archaeologist David Rohl offers some excellent scholarship of Sumerian texts to argue that Nimrod was the historical figure Enmerkar (circa 2850 BC) who is credited as being the very first empire builder. Sumerian texts also record Enmerkar's many building projects, including a great temple/tower in the city of Eridu, which is a city that is translated as "Babylon" in the Greek version of the Sumerian King List that was translated by the Babylonian historian Berossos.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
There is

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Civilization was instituted by Nimrod for the lineage of the Hebrews and middle easterners.

 

Civilization is usually defined as "living in cities".  Once an agricultural surplus exists such that not everyone has to farm, and there exists enough leisure for people to specialize in the arts and crafts and to build large architectural works.  Often the very first architectural works are wells or irrigation systems.

Sumer or Mesopotamia was/is a civilization from about 4500-4000 BCE to present.  (Now it is Iraq.)

The Egyptians were comparatively late comers - about 3150 BCE.

One theory is that Nimrod may be Enmerkar and date to about 2850 BCE, so he is no where close to the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia.  I have no interest in arguing about this.  If you can find some reputable archaeologist who has a different idea, post your link(s).  See http://www.redmoonrising.com/agenda.htm

 

Quote:

Biblical scholar and archaeologist David Rohl offers some excellent scholarship of Sumerian texts to argue that Nimrod was the historical figure Enmerkar (circa 2850 BC) who is credited as being the very first empire builder. Sumerian texts also record Enmerkar's many building projects, including a great temple/tower in the city of Eridu, which is a city that is translated as "Babylon" in the Greek version of the Sumerian King List that was translated by the Babylonian historian Berossos.

 

It is now found that Egypt predated Babylon which was understood to be the cradle of civilization. But now discounted. You need to re-read my post. I posted that Nimrod is the institutor of civlization for the later upcoming Hebrews and middle eastrners, (Arabs).

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Your input is respected.

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ? If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?

adultery, Moses was. There's no such thing as adultery, it's an invention of civil leaders. The ten commandments create a civilization. When civilization is created "it" replaces God. Adultery extends from the will if the powerful to own the female.  

 

Um, my understanding was that god/s/dess dictated the 10 to Moses.  They weren't Moses' idea ----

But I'm just an old female atheist - WTF do I know?

 

There is an Archaeologist on our team. I remember at times he became so flustered on accounts of conflicting claims he couldn't properly advise and input. There has developed a problem. To many finding to much to fast to make a positive understanding. There's been found in Thailand running through that area buildings of a bygone people stretching 300 miles long. No idea who they were or what happened to them. What next, someone before Egypt. There's no way to know anything for sure. We,ve gotten really leary about quoting things from Archeology

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:ThunderJones

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ? If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?

adultery, Moses was. There's no such thing as adultery, it's an invention of civil leaders. The ten commandments create a civilization. When civilization is created "it" replaces God. Adultery extends from the will if the powerful to own the female.

...?

Alot of things a created by civilization, that doesnt mean they don't exist. As far as "Adultery extends from the will of the powerful to own the female" how does that make sense if it is the woman who instigated it? I really don't get what you are trying to say.

at the time of the forming of civilization but was before it (apparently). Adam and Eve weren't members of any civilization. There's other considerations to attach but it's not likely they will be understood easily.

Civilization was instituted by Nimrod for the lineage of the Hebrews and middle easterners.

 

Seriously OldSeer I have no idea what you are talking about. I really don't have a clue what your posts are trying to say, they usually seem off-topic and poorly constructed.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:It is now

Old Seer wrote:

It is now found that Egypt predated Babylon which was understood to be the cradle of civilization. But now discounted. You need to re-read my post. I posted that Nimrod is the institutor of civlization for the later upcoming Hebrews and middle eastrners, (Arabs).

 

Only you and your crazy sect believe so.  Read. the. dates.  Archaeology - modern, careful, extensive - has determined those dates.  Mesopotamia - the Sumerians - developed a civilization before Egypt.  And long, long, long before the Hebrews were Hebrews. 

Did you know there is no difference in DNA between the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians?  Same people.  No difference.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Old Seer wrote:It

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

It is now found that Egypt predated Babylon which was understood to be the cradle of civilization. But now discounted. You need to re-read my post. I posted that Nimrod is the institutor of civlization for the later upcoming Hebrews and middle eastrners, (Arabs).

 

Only you and your crazy sect believe so.  Read. the. dates.  Archaeology - modern, careful, extensive - has determined those dates.  Mesopotamia - the Sumerians - developed a civilization before Egypt.  And long, long, long before the Hebrews were Hebrews. 

Did you know there is no difference in DNA between the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians?  Same people.  No difference.

 

The shadowy group that only wishes for everyone to gain transcendence through their self and refuses to share information too deeply for fear of interfering with everyone's personal quest for truth has an archaeologist that does not like to discuss archaeology ? 

Maybe they should start infiltrating archaeology groups as well. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Old Seer wrote:It

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

It is now found that Egypt predated Babylon which was understood to be the cradle of civilization. But now discounted. You need to re-read my post. I posted that Nimrod is the institutor of civlization for the later upcoming Hebrews and middle eastrners, (Arabs).

 

Only you and your crazy sect believe so.  Read. the. dates.  Archaeology - modern, careful, extensive - has determined those dates.  Mesopotamia - the Sumerians - developed a civilization before Egypt.  And long, long, long before the Hebrews were Hebrews. 

Did you know there is no difference in DNA between the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians?  Same people.  No difference.

 

The shadowy group that only wishes for everyone to gain transcendence through their self and refuses to share information too deeply for fear of interfering with everyone's personal quest for truth has an archaeologist that does not like to discuss archaeology ? 

Maybe they should start infiltrating archaeology groups as well. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:There is an

Old Seer wrote:

There is an Archaeologist on our team. I remember at times he became so flustered on accounts of conflicting claims he couldn't properly advise and input. There has developed a problem. To many finding to much to fast to make a positive understanding. There's been found in Thailand running through that area buildings of a bygone people stretching 300 miles long. No idea who they were or what happened to them. What next, someone before Egypt. There's no way to know anything for sure. We,ve gotten really leary about quoting things from Archeology

 

Maybe he was flustered because his findings did not support the wishful thinking of your group.  And then he had a little case of "cognitive dissonance" going.  That is when what you believe does not match up with the facts you have just had your nose rubbed in.

You are suffering from "confirmation bias" - only read the data and information that you have made up your mind to believe.  We are all susceptible to this prejudice.  Including me.  The difference between you and me is I like verifiable, repeatable data.  And if the data don't fit my preconceived notions, I may squirm and huff about it, but I change my beliefs and go with the data.

You might think about that.  What would it take for you to change your beliefs about your imaginary friend?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:cj

harleysportster wrote:

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

It is now found that Egypt predated Babylon which was understood to be the cradle of civilization. But now discounted. You need to re-read my post. I posted that Nimrod is the institutor of civlization for the later upcoming Hebrews and middle eastrners, (Arabs).

Only you and your crazy sect believe so.  Read. the. dates.  Archaeology - modern, careful, extensive - has determined those dates.  Mesopotamia - the Sumerians - developed a civilization before Egypt.  And long, long, long before the Hebrews were Hebrews. 

Did you know there is no difference in DNA between the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians?  Same people.  No difference.

The shadowy group that only wishes for everyone to gain transcendence through their self and refuses to share information too deeply for fear of interfering with everyone's personal quest for truth has an archaeologist that does not like to discuss archaeology ? 

Maybe they should start infiltrating archaeology groups as well. 

 

Only if the poor archaeologist doesn't mind being laughed out of the building.  I'll bet he hasn't published a darn thing in any respectable journal for just that reason.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:You might think

cj wrote:

You might think about that.  What would it take for you to change your beliefs about your imaginary friend?

 

 

It's interesting, I haven't seen any theists (especially the really hot and bothered ones that are throwing scripture out like it's candy) answer this question on this site, despite seeing it asked many times. Avoiding a hard question, maybe they think it is blasphemy to hypothesize that you could ever be swayed from your religiousness?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:cj

ThunderJones wrote:

cj wrote:

You might think about that.  What would it take for you to change your beliefs about your imaginary friend?

It's interesting, I haven't seen any theists (especially the really hot and bothered ones that are throwing scripture out like it's candy) answer this question on this site, despite seeing it asked many times. Avoiding a hard question, maybe they think it is blasphemy to hypothesize that you could ever be swayed from your religiousness?

 

Well, yeah, that is their idea.  They (the hot and bothered ones) are being persecuted if they are required to actually think for themselves and not just spew the party line.  Many people are capable of thinking for themselves and are capable of entertaining of what it would take for them to change their minds about their personal beliefs - including religion.  These people have critical thinking skills.  The hot and bothered ones not only don't have the skills, they don't want them. 

I think it is a good idea to keep asking the question.  What would it take?  Someone some day may actually think about it.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
point of reference

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

It is now found that Egypt predated Babylon which was understood to be the cradle of civilization. But now discounted. You need to re-read my post. I posted that Nimrod is the institutor of civlization for the later upcoming Hebrews and middle eastrners, (Arabs).

 

Only you and your crazy sect believe so.  Read. the. dates.  Archaeology - modern, careful, extensive - has determined those dates.  Mesopotamia - the Sumerians - developed a civilization before Egypt.  And long, long, long before the Hebrews were Hebrews. 

Did you know there is no difference in DNA between the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians?  Same people.  No difference.

 

       

 

                      Ethnicly speaking Jews and Arabs ARE the same people. Even they know it. You would rarely hear an Arab use the term 'Jew'  because it makes no sense in Arabic, in Arabic the people are Mousowi [follower of Moses]. In English or other languages ,if they are polite it's Israeli, if not polite Zionist [or some other derogatory word] . They can use the word 'Jew' but it is awkward for them. In the middle-east any reference is to the Israelis, outside of the middle-east they have no use to distingush between brother Semites.  These Semites seem to have originated in the swamplands of southern Iraq,  where the Tigris & Euphrates enter the Persian Gulf.

 

 

                     Has for the oldest civilization: pre-dateing both Egyt and Sumer is Gobekli-Tepe temple complex dateing to 9000BCE thats just the temple not the towns the builders came from. Try the link.

 

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html   

 

 

 

 

 

      

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

                      Ethnicly speaking Jews and Arabs ARE the same people. Even they know it. You would rarely hear an Arab use the term 'Jew'  because it makes no sense in Arabic, in Arabic the people are Mousowi [follower of Moses]. In English or other languages ,if they are polite it's Israeli, if not polite Zionist [or some other derogatory word] . They can use the word 'Jew' but it is awkward for them. In the middle-east any reference is to the Israelis, outside of the middle-east they have no use to distingush between brother Semites.  These Semites seem to have originated in the swamplands of southern Iraq,  where the Tigris & Euphrates enter the Persian Gulf.

 

 

                     Has for the oldest civilization: pre-dateing both Egyt and Sumer is Gobekli-Tepe temple complex dateing to 9000BCE thats just the temple not the towns the builders came from. Try the link.

 

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html   

 

Thanks, I knew I remembered something from class --- but I couldn't remember what!  <insert bad word of choice here>  That site is fascinating.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That's temporary.

Jeffrick wrote:

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

It is now found that Egypt predated Babylon which was understood to be the cradle of civilization. But now discounted. You need to re-read my post. I posted that Nimrod is the institutor of civlization for the later upcoming Hebrews and middle eastrners, (Arabs).

 

Only you and your crazy sect believe so.  Read. the. dates.  Archaeology - modern, careful, extensive - has determined those dates.  Mesopotamia - the Sumerians - developed a civilization before Egypt.  And long, long, long before the Hebrews were Hebrews. 

Did you know there is no difference in DNA between the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians?  Same people.  No difference.

 

       

 

                      Ethnicly speaking Jews and Arabs ARE the same people. Even they know it. You would rarely hear an Arab use the term 'Jew'  because it makes no sense in Arabic, in Arabic the people are Mousowi [follower of Moses]. In English or other languages ,if they are polite it's Israeli, if not polite Zionist [or some other derogatory word] . They can use the word 'Jew' but it is awkward for them. In the middle-east any reference is to the Israelis, outside of the middle-east they have no use to distingush between brother Semites.  These Semites seem to have originated in the swamplands of southern Iraq,  where the Tigris & Euphrates enter the Persian Gulf.

 

 

                     Has for the oldest civilization: pre-dateing both Egyt and Sumer is Gobekli-Tepe temple complex dateing to 9000BCE thats just the temple not the towns the builders came from. Try the link.

 

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html   

/quote]

It's temporary. Everyone uses the evidence they prefer. Next year I'm supposed to believe someone else.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Jeffrick

Old Seer wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

It is now found that Egypt predated Babylon which was understood to be the cradle of civilization. But now discounted. You need to re-read my post. I posted that Nimrod is the institutor of civlization for the later upcoming Hebrews and middle eastrners, (Arabs).

 

Only you and your crazy sect believe so.  Read. the. dates.  Archaeology - modern, careful, extensive - has determined those dates.  Mesopotamia - the Sumerians - developed a civilization before Egypt.  And long, long, long before the Hebrews were Hebrews. 

Did you know there is no difference in DNA between the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians?  Same people.  No difference.

 

       

 

                      Ethnicly speaking Jews and Arabs ARE the same people. Even they know it. You would rarely hear an Arab use the term 'Jew'  because it makes no sense in Arabic, in Arabic the people are Mousowi [follower of Moses]. In English or other languages ,if they are polite it's Israeli, if not polite Zionist [or some other derogatory word] . They can use the word 'Jew' but it is awkward for them. In the middle-east any reference is to the Israelis, outside of the middle-east they have no use to distingush between brother Semites.  These Semites seem to have originated in the swamplands of southern Iraq,  where the Tigris & Euphrates enter the Persian Gulf.

 

 

                     Has for the oldest civilization: pre-dateing both Egyt and Sumer is Gobekli-Tepe temple complex dateing to 9000BCE thats just the temple not the towns the builders came from. Try the link.

 

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html   

It's temporary. Everyone uses the evidence they prefer. Next year I'm supposed to believe someone else.

 

Uh, no. If you are rational, you should believe the best evidence available at the time. The cool thing about science, is that it can change it's mind.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No, you didn't comprehend.

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

There is an Archaeologist on our team. I remember at times he became so flustered on accounts of conflicting claims he couldn't properly advise and input. There has developed a problem. To many finding to much to fast to make a positive understanding. There's been found in Thailand running through that area buildings of a bygone people stretching 300 miles long. No idea who they were or what happened to them. What next, someone before Egypt. There's no way to know anything for sure. We,ve gotten really leary about quoting things from Archeology

 

Maybe he was flustered because his findings did not support the wishful thinking of your group.  And then he had a little case of "cognitive dissonance" going.  That is when what you believe does not match up with the facts you have just had your nose rubbed in.

You are suffering from "confirmation bias" - only read the data and information that you have made up your mind to believe.  We are all susceptible to this prejudice.  Including me.  The difference between you and me is I like verifiable, repeatable data.  And if the data don't fit my preconceived notions, I may squirm and huff about it, but I change my beliefs and go with the data.

You might think about that.  What would it take for you to change your beliefs about your imaginary friend?

 

His part was to search latest findings and information to advise the team with. The info wasn't his. It came from what you would call reliable sources. He expressed "conflicting" evidence. Your modifying my sentencing. My friend is exactly the same as you and I. He was merely a tad more human. -Thank You

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
But not

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

There is an Archaeologist on our team. I remember at times he became so flustered on accounts of conflicting claims he couldn't properly advise and input. There has developed a problem. To many finding to much to fast to make a positive understanding. There's been found in Thailand running through that area buildings of a bygone people stretching 300 miles long. No idea who they were or what happened to them. What next, someone before Egypt. There's no way to know anything for sure. We,ve gotten really leary about quoting things from Archeology

 

Maybe he was flustered because his findings did not support the wishful thinking of your group.  And then he had a little case of "cognitive dissonance" going.  That is when what you believe does not match up with the facts you have just had your nose rubbed in.

You are suffering from "confirmation bias" - only read the data and information that you have made up your mind to believe.  We are all susceptible to this prejudice.  Including me.  The difference between you and me is I like verifiable, repeatable data.  And if the data don't fit my preconceived notions, I may squirm and huff about it, but I change my beliefs and go with the data.

You might think about that.  What would it take for you to change your beliefs about your imaginary friend?

 

[/quote

You though, right. There's no conformation bias going on here. The sources our Archeo Smurf used is the same as you use or any one else. And state that you know personally that there are absolutly no contradictions in the field of Archeology. He's got a Ph D- Doctorate what-ever---paper work to show he accomplished something---do you. I'm sure you won't except that, you might want to pick and choose. Give me evidence that God doesn't exist. Prove that absolutely no God of any kind exists or ever did, now or in the past. What is your evidence---your mind. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You though,

Old Seer wrote:

You though, right. There's no conformation bias going on here. The sources our Archeo Smurf used is the same as you use or any one else. And state that you know personally that there are absolutly no contradictions in the field of Archeology. He's got a Ph D- Doctorate what-ever---paper work to show he accomplished something---do you. I'm sure you won't except that, you might want to pick and choose. Give me evidence that God doesn't exist. Prove that absolutely no God of any kind exists or ever did, now or in the past. What is your evidence---your mind. 

 

Sweetie, I did not say there are no contradictions in archaeology or any other scientific field of study.  I did say there was no way Nimrod's little plot of land was the first civilization.  And that would not be refuted by any archaeologist I know of.  For that matter, most of them would refute the known existence of any ruins that might conceivably a "tower of Bable" as described in the OT.  Mind you, some of them will say, we just haven't found it yet.  And I'm okay with that. 

As for god/s/dess existence or lack there of - there is no way to prove the existence of a being that is out of time and space or is supernatural.  Not without some sort of evidence that said entity interacts with our world.  And there isn't any evidence we have been able to find.  All natural things have a natural cause.  No supernatural imaginary superhero is required.

Logically, one can not disprove any concept or idea.  Would I be able to examine all known and unknown universes? All possible dimensions of time and space?  Of course not.  So I could not disprove god/s/dess even if I wanted to.

I like Epicurus - an ancient Greek guy.  He said - and this is my words, not a quote off the internet (you can search for them if you want) - there is no evidence that the gods interact with humans or the earth.  (He lived long before christianity and so he was familiar with Zeus and all those Greek gods.)  Therefore, why waste time and effort and resources worshiping them?  Live a life of minimal pain - which he thought was a life of moderation, not too much of the good stuff, not too little.  Be good to each other as that will cause the least pain in your own life.  And don't waste your time or money on the gods.

This web site has some fun quotes - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/epicurus.html

If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another.  (Isn't this one true?)

Or this web site - http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/114041.Epicurus

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

This is the heart of the argument about god/s/dess for me.  Why bother?  So I get to sit around on a cloud and play a harp for eternity?  It just doesn't appeal to me.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm referring to

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

You though, right. There's no conformation bias going on here. The sources our Archeo Smurf used is the same as you use or any one else. And state that you know personally that there are absolutly no contradictions in the field of Archeology. He's got a Ph D- Doctorate what-ever---paper work to show he accomplished something---do you. I'm sure you won't except that, you might want to pick and choose. Give me evidence that God doesn't exist. Prove that absolutely no God of any kind exists or ever did, now or in the past. What is your evidence---your mind. 

 

Sweetie, I did not say there are no contradictions in archaeology or any other scientific field of study.  I did say there was no way Nimrod's little plot of land was the first civilization.  And that would not be refuted by any archaeologist I know of.  For that matter, most of them would refute the known existence of any ruins that might conceivably a "tower of Bable" as described in the OT.  Mind you, some of them will say, we just haven't found it yet.  And I'm okay with that. 

As for god/s/dess existence or lack there of - there is no way to prove the existence of a being that is out of time and space or is supernatural.  Not without some sort of evidence that said entity interacts with our world.  And there isn't any evidence we have been able to find.  All natural things have a natural cause.  No supernatural imaginary superhero is required.

Logically, one can not disprove any concept or idea.  Would I be able to examine all known and unknown universes? All possible dimensions of time and space?  Of course not.  So I could not disprove god/s/dess even if I wanted to.

I like Epicurus - an ancient Greek guy.  He said - and this is my words, not a quote off the internet (you can search for them if you want) - there is no evidence that the gods interact with humans or the earth.  (He lived long before christianity and so he was familiar with Zeus and all those Greek gods.)  Therefore, why waste time and effort and resources worshiping them?  Live a life of minimal pain - which he thought was a life of moderation, not too much of the good stuff, not too little.  Be good to each other as that will cause the least pain in your own life.  And don't waste your time or money on the gods.

This web site has some fun quotes - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/epicurus.html

If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another.  (Isn't this one true?)

Or this web site - http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/114041.Epicurus

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

This is the heart of the argument about god/s/dess for me.  Why bother?  So I get to sit around on a cloud and play a harp for eternity?  It just doesn't appeal to me.

 

the biblical Nimrod. The Book says---the beginning of his kingdom was called Babel. I stated ---it used to be claimed that Babylon was considered the cradle of civilization. The was in my history book in high school. If there was a civilization older then Egypt that's ok with me. Your posts confirm my fact of , Archeology is contradictory. So you know, Alpha Smurf does not believe that any God exists in the likeness of the European Dark Age, Middle Age mind. The only God we find exists is within one's own person/mind---and that---we find is what the book is dealing with.  Alpha Smurf is not a Deist, Atheist, Atheist, or Christian. Alpha Smurf is us all collectively, and denotes the group, not a singular person.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Absolute Zero
Theist
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-08-18
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: If

harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ?

What's one thing have to do with the other ? The Gospel never says that God had 'sex' with a married woman, only a child.   Even in this day, artificial insemination isn't considered "adultery."

Quote:
If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?
  I must have missed that part of the story. Enlighten me.  


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Absolute Zero

Absolute Zero wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ?

What's one thing have to do with the other ? The Gospel never says that God had 'sex' with a married woman, only a child.   Even in this day, artificial insemination isn't considered "adultery."

Quote:
If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?
  I must have missed that part of the story. Enlighten me.  

That post was meant as a joke and not to be taken seriously.

Besides, I don't believe in god, jesus, or anything else that out dated text of superstition tells me, was just having a jab at some of their doubletalk and stupidity.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Absolute Zero
Theist
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-08-18
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

 If god is against adultery, why did he choose to have a child with a married woman ?

What's one thing have to do with the other ? The Gospel never says that God had 'sex' with a married woman, only a child.   Even in this day, artificial insemination isn't considered "adultery."

Quote:
If god is against science, why did he choose to send someone with sacred sperm down to earth to do the fertilization ?
  I must have missed that part of the story. Enlighten me.  

That post was meant as a joke and not to be taken seriously.

Besides, I don't believe in god, jesus, or anything else that out dated text of superstition tells me, was just having a jab at some of their doubletalk and stupidity.

No worries.   I generally discuss interpretation and context from our ancient text more than I ever argue about belief\disbelief itself.