RIP Christopher Hitchens

[JoltinJoe]

What's certainly worth discussing is that Genesis described the creation of the universe as the process by which God made "order" out of "chaos." Those are precisely the terms used by modern quantum physics to describe the process by which our universe formed.

And many Native American myths describe the world as covered in water in the beginning and the first creatures being water creatures, etc. Which is the way modern science understands the beginning of life. Just coincidental.

I'm not familiar with this Native American myth, but if read Genesis from a philosophical perspective, Genesis mirrors not only the language of modern quantum physics (both Genesis and Stephen Hawking contend that the universe was created "out of nothing"), but also subsequent philosophy. For example, God's name Yahweh translates "I am" or "I am what exists without cause." Thus, Genesis posits that the universe was created out of nothing by the First Cause, Yahweh, that which exists without prior cause, while many modern quantum physicists contend that the "First Cause" were the laws of science. If you understand God as the objective source of all truths, then saying that the "First Cause" was the law of science rather than God really is different language describing the same concept.

What the present debate boils down to is whether the "order" we observe is intended by the First Cause, or a random result of the impersonal laws of science.

Genesis is an allegorical tale, but the language and concepts of its text are consistent with philosophy and science which follow it, and Genesis can be viewed as a philosophical expression of how what is came to be.

[D1B]

And many Native American myths describe the world as covered in water in the beginning and the first creatures being water creatures, etc. Which is the way modern science understands the beginning of life. Just coincidental.

I'm not familiar with this Native American myth, but if read Genesis from a philosophical perspective, Genesis mirrors not only the language of modern quantum physics (both Genesis and Stephen Hawking contend that the universe was created "out of nothing"), but also subsequent philosophy. For example, God's name Yahweh translates "I am" or "I am what exists without cause." Thus, Genesis posits that the universe was created out of nothing by the First Cause, Yahweh, that which exists without prior cause, while many modern quantum physicists contend that the "First Cause" were the laws of science. If you understand God as the objective source of all truths, then saying that the "First Cause" was the law of science rather than God really is different language describing the same concept.

What the present debate boils down to is whether the "order" we observe is intended by the First Cause, or a random result of the impersonal laws of science.

Genesis is an allegorical tale, but the language and concepts of its text are consistent with philosophy and science which follow it, and Genesis can be viewed as a philosophical expression of how what is came to be.

What else does genesis say? OK, I'll post it.

Here's the rest of the story...

The first of two contradictory creation accounts. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.

(1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.

In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.

(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

(1:6-8) The Firmament (Heaven)
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.

(1:11-13) "Let the earth bring forth grass"
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.
Were plants created before or after humans?
Does the Bible teach evolution?

(1:14) "Let them be for signs"
God placed the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac to predict what will happen on Earth.
Does the bible condemn astrology?
What the Bible says about astrology

(1:16) "God made the two great lights."
"The greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light; it only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?

(1:16) "He made the stars also."
God spends a day making light (before making the sun and stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.
When were the stars made?

(1:17) "God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth."
Then why is only a tiny fraction of stars visible from earth? Under the best conditions, no more than a few thousand stars are visible with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies. Were they all created "to give light upon the earth"?

(1:20-21) "Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life, and fowl."
From what were the animals created?
From what were the fowls created?

(1:24) "Let the earth bring forth the living creature."
Does the Bible teach evolution?

(1:25) "God made the beast of the earth."
Were humans created before the other animals?
"The beast of the earth"

(1:26) "Let us make man in our image."
How many gods are there?
"Let them have dominion ... over all the earth"

(1:27) "Male and female created he them."
When was Adam created?
When was Eve created?
Is God both male and female?
The Pre-Adamites

(1:28) "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." [more]
ful?

(1:29) "I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat."
May Adam eat from any tree?
What should we eat?
Is it okay to smoke marijuana?

(1:30) "To every beast ... I have given every green herb for meat.""

(1:31) God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."

In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed.

Yeah, Genesis - The Foundation of Science

[D1B]

Here's the Second Genesis myth.

(2:2) "He rested."
Even God gets tired sometimes.
Does God work on the Sabbath?

(2:4-25) "These are the generations"
The second creation account. Compare with Genesis 1:1-2:3 in which the order of events is entirely different.
The two creations

(2:5-7) In chapter 1 plants are created on the third day before humans are created on the sixth. But in chapter 2 the order is reversed.
When were plants created?

(2:7, 18-22) In the first creation story, God makes humans (male and female) after the other animals; in the second, God makes a man first, then the other animals, and then a woman.
Were humans created before or after the other animals?
But humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms.
(2:9)
"The tree of life ... and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
God created two magic trees: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Eat from the first, and you become a god and live forever (3:22); eat from the second and you'll die the same day (2:17). (Or that's what God said, anyway. Adam ate from the tree of knowledge and yet he didn't die. In fact he lived for another 930 years or so (5:5). But Adam never got a chance to eat from the tree of life. God kicked him out of the garden before he could eat from that tree, become a god, and live forever.)

(2:10) "A river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads."
Rivers don't split, they converge.

(2:15) "To dress it and to keep it"
Some believers claim that this verse requires them to be environmentalists.

(2:17)
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." [more]
May Adam eat from any tree?
When did Adam die?

(2:18)
"It is not good that man should be alone."
Is marriage a good thing?

(2:19)
"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast."
From what were the animals created?

(2:19-20)
"God ... brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them." [more]

(2:19-22)
"But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."
God makes the animals and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes. (Although he was tempted to go for the sheep.)
When were humans created?
When was Eve created?

(2:22)
God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs.
When will Armageddon occur?

Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. Fucking morons

(2:22)
God made only one woman to be Adam's helpmeet.
Is polygamy OK?

(2:25) "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
What the Bible says about nudism

Yep, every scientist should have a copy of Genesis on hand.

[D1B]

Perhaps the worst directive of Yahfuck - DO NOT THINK, DO NOT INQUIRE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THINGS, ESPECIALLY OF GOOD AND EVIL - I WILL DO ALL YOUR THINKING FOR YOU - NOTHING CHANGES!

3:6) "When the woman saw that the tree was ... to be desired to make one wise, she ... did eat."
Is wisdom a good thing?

(3:6) "And he did eat."
In 2:17 God said that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But Adam eats the forbidden fruit and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5).
When did Adam die?

(3:8-11) "They heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden."
God walks and talks (to himself?) in the garden, and plays a little hide and seek with Adam and Eve.
Does God have a body?
Does God know everything?

3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (3:12-13)
"The woman ... gave me of the tree.... The serpent beguiled me."
Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent.

(3:14)
"Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat."
God curses the serpent. From now on he will crawl on his belly and eat dust.

(3:15) "I will put enmity ... between thy seed and her seed."
The Two Seed Theory

(3:16) "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. ... Thy husband ... shall rule over thee."
God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men.
What the Bible says about women's rights

What a fucking asshole. The intellectual and artistic contribution of women to humanity would never reach their full potential until about 20 years ago. Thanks Christianity.

And this idiot is Joe's source of objective truth.

[D1B]

8,000 years of religious domination and we're still at war with each other, we've destroyed our oceans, forests and creatures, we've adopted free market capitalism as a societal and personal ethic. What a fucking shame.

Time to shed the tyranny of religion, get our heads out of the fucking sky and embrace an ethical and moral system that focuses on the improvement of mankind and our planet, guided by science and critical ethical inquiry.

Preamble:

Our planetary community is facing serious problems that can only be solved by cooperative global action. Fresh thinking is required. Humanity needs to reconstruct human values in the light of scientific knowledge. We introduce the term "Neo-Humanism" to present a daring new approach.

The Next Step Forward:

There are various forms of religious and non-religious beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum are traditional religious beliefs; on the other "the new atheism." Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an alternative. This Statement advocates non-religious secular Neo-Humanism.

Sixteen recommendations:

Neo-Humanists:

aspire to be more inclusive by appealing to both non-religious and religious humanists and to religious believers who share common goals;

are skeptical of traditional theism;

are best defined by what they are for, not what they are against;

wish to use critical thinking, evidence, and reason to evaluate claims to knowledge;

apply similar considerations to ethics and values;

are committed to a key set of values: happiness, creative actualization, reason in harmony with emotion, quality, and excellence;

emphasize moral growth (particularly for children), empathy, and responsibility;

advocate the right to privacy;

support the democratic way of life, tolerance, and fairness;

recognize the importance of personal morality, good will, and a positive attitude toward life;

accept responsibility for the well-being of society, guaranteeing various rights, including those of women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities; and supporting education, health care, gainful employment, and other social benefits;

support a green economy;

advocate population restraint, environmental protection, and the protection of other species;

recognize the need for Neo-Humanists to engage actively in politics;

take progressive positions on the economy; and

hold that humanity needs to move beyond ego-centric individualism and chauvinistic nationalism to develop transnational planetary institutions to cope with global problems—such efforts include a strengthened World Court, an eventual World Parliament, and a Planetary Environmental Monitoring Agency that would set standards for controlling global warming and ecology.

Those who endorse this Statement accept its main principles and values, but may not agree with all of its provisions. We invite others to join us in these endeavors.

Visit http://paulkurtz.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to endorse this statement.

[andy7171]

So now we're up to 8000 years? What page of this thread did this happen?

[Ivytalk]

8,000 years of religious domination and we're still at war with each other, we've destroyed our oceans, forests and creatures, we've adopted free market capitalism as a societal and personal ethic. What a **** shame.

Time to shed the tyranny of religion, get our heads out of the **** sky and embrace an ethical and moral system that focuses on the improvement of mankind and our planet, guided by science and critical ethical inquiry.

Preamble:

Our planetary community is facing serious problems that can only be solved by cooperative global action. Fresh thinking is required. Humanity needs to reconstruct human values in the light of scientific knowledge. We introduce the term "Neo-Humanism" to present a daring new approach.

The Next Step Forward:

There are various forms of religious and non-religious beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum are traditional religious beliefs; on the other "the new atheism." Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an alternative. This Statement advocates non-religious secular Neo-Humanism.

Sixteen recommendations:

Neo-Humanists:

aspire to be more inclusive by appealing to both non-religious and religious humanists and to religious believers who share common goals;

are skeptical of traditional theism;

are best defined by what they are for, not what they are against;

wish to use critical thinking, evidence, and reason to evaluate claims to knowledge;

apply similar considerations to ethics and values;

are committed to a key set of values: happiness, creative actualization, reason in harmony with emotion, quality, and excellence;

emphasize moral growth (particularly for children), empathy, and responsibility;

advocate the right to privacy;

support the democratic way of life, tolerance, and fairness;

recognize the importance of personal morality, good will, and a positive attitude toward life;

accept responsibility for the well-being of society, guaranteeing various rights, including those of women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities; and supporting education, health care, gainful employment, and other social benefits;

support a green economy;

advocate population restraint, environmental protection, and the protection of other species;

recognize the need for Neo-Humanists to engage actively in politics;

take progressive positions on the economy; and

hold that humanity needs to move beyond ego-centric individualism and chauvinistic nationalism to develop transnational planetary institutions to cope with global problems—such efforts include a strengthened World Court, an eventual World Parliament, and a Planetary Environmental Monitoring Agency that would set standards for controlling global warming and ecology.

Those who endorse this Statement accept its main principles and values, but may not agree with all of its provisions. We invite others to join us in these endeavors.

Visit http://paulkurtz.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to endorse this statement.

Hitchens is still dead. And getting colder. /thread.

Paul who?

[D1B]

So now we're up to 8000 years? What page of this thread did this happen?

STFU Fatman and sign the neo-humanist manifesto.

http://paulkurtz.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

8,000 years of religious domination and we're still at war with each other, we've destroyed our oceans, forests and creatures, we've adopted free market capitalism as a societal and personal ethic. What a **** shame.

Time to shed the tyranny of religion, get our heads out of the **** sky and embrace an ethical and moral system that focuses on the improvement of mankind and our planet, guided by science and critical ethical inquiry.



Visit http://paulkurtz.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to endorse this statement.

Hitchens is still dead. And getting colder. /thread.

STFU Myron and sign the manifesto.

http://paulkurtz.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

Hitchens is still dead. And getting colder. /thread.

STFU Myron and sign the manifesto.

http://paulkurtz.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Mistah Kurtz...he dead."

OK, Moron, if you can tell me what great work of literature that line is from, without Googling it, I'll credit your early Catholic school education.

[D1B]

STFU Myron and sign the manifesto.

http://paulkurtz.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Mistah Kurtz...he dead."

OK, Moron, if you can tell me what great work of literature that line is from, without Googling it, I'll credit your early Catholic school education.

Roots



"Mistah Kurtz...he dead."

[Ibanez]

I shit about 3 lbs this morning.


It looked this thread.


Sent from my iPhone.

[D1B]

I shit about 3 lbs this morning.


It looked this thread.


Sent from my iPhone.

Learn how to use your iPhone, turd muncher.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm not familiar with this Native American myth, but if read Genesis from a philosophical perspective, Genesis mirrors not only the language of modern quantum physics (both Genesis and Stephen Hawking contend that the universe was created "out of nothing"), but also subsequent philosophy. For example, God's name Yahweh translates "I am" or "I am what exists without cause." Thus, Genesis posits that the universe was created out of nothing by the First Cause, Yahweh, that which exists without prior cause, while many modern quantum physicists contend that the "First Cause" were the laws of science. If you understand God as the objective source of all truths, then saying that the "First Cause" was the law of science rather than God really is different language describing the same concept.

What the present debate boils down to is whether the "order" we observe is intended by the First Cause, or a random result of the impersonal laws of science.

Genesis is an allegorical tale, but the language and concepts of its text are consistent with philosophy and science which follow it, and Genesis can be viewed as a philosophical expression of how what is came to be.

Similar concepts are found in many religions.

Bringing order to chaos (how many religions conceptualize creation) has also been the function of religion in native society for thousands of years. It's not surprising that this is how they speak about the creation of the universe. And, Christianity is far, far from alone in speaking of the world in a chaos vs. order duality.

[D1B]

I'm not familiar with this Native American myth, but if read Genesis from a philosophical perspective, Genesis mirrors not only the language of modern quantum physics (both Genesis and Stephen Hawking contend that the universe was created "out of nothing"), but also subsequent philosophy. For example, God's name Yahweh translates "I am" or "I am what exists without cause." Thus, Genesis posits that the universe was created out of nothing by the First Cause, Yahweh, that which exists without prior cause, while many modern quantum physicists contend that the "First Cause" were the laws of science. If you understand God as the objective source of all truths, then saying that the "First Cause" was the law of science rather than God really is different language describing the same concept.

What the present debate boils down to is whether the "order" we observe is intended by the First Cause, or a random result of the impersonal laws of science.

Genesis is an allegorical tale, but the language and concepts of its text are consistent with philosophy and science which follow it, and Genesis can be viewed as a philosophical expression of how what is came to be.

Similar concepts are found in many religions.

Bringing order to chaos (how many religions conceptualize creation) has also been the function of religion in native society for thousands of years. It's not surprising that this is how they speak about the creation of the universe. And, Christianity is far, far from alone in speaking of the world in a chaos vs. order duality.

Nope, Christianity discovered quantum physics.

[JoltinJoe]

I'm not familiar with this Native American myth, but if read Genesis from a philosophical perspective, Genesis mirrors not only the language of modern quantum physics (both Genesis and Stephen Hawking contend that the universe was created "out of nothing"), but also subsequent philosophy. For example, God's name Yahweh translates "I am" or "I am what exists without cause." Thus, Genesis posits that the universe was created out of nothing by the First Cause, Yahweh, that which exists without prior cause, while many modern quantum physicists contend that the "First Cause" were the laws of science. If you understand God as the objective source of all truths, then saying that the "First Cause" was the law of science rather than God really is different language describing the same concept.

What the present debate boils down to is whether the "order" we observe is intended by the First Cause, or a random result of the impersonal laws of science.

Genesis is an allegorical tale, but the language and concepts of its text are consistent with philosophy and science which follow it, and Genesis can be viewed as a philosophical expression of how what is came to be.

Similar concepts are found in many religions.

Bringing order to chaos (how many religions conceptualize creation) has also been the function of religion in native society for thousands of years. It's not surprising that this is how they speak about the creation of the universe. And, Christianity is far, far from alone in speaking of the world in a chaos vs. order duality.

The only ancient texts of which I am aware of that actually employ the specific terminology of "chaos" and "order," other than Genesis, are the ancient Greek creation narratives. Some other ancient creation stories may be explained today in such terms, but I am not aware of ancient texts which actually used that language. If you are aware of ancient texts that actually employ "chaos" and "order," I'd like to know that.

[D1B]

Similar concepts are found in many religions.

Bringing order to chaos (how many religions conceptualize creation) has also been the function of religion in native society for thousands of years. It's not surprising that this is how they speak about the creation of the universe. And, Christianity is far, far from alone in speaking of the world in a chaos vs. order duality.

The only ancient texts of which I am aware of that actually employ the specific terminology of "chaos" and "order," other than Genesis, are the ancient Greek creation narratives. Some other ancient creation stories may be explained today in such terms, but I am not aware of ancient texts which actually used that language. If you are aware of ancient texts that actually employ "chaos" and "order," I'd like to know that.

By golly, if Joe isn't aware of it, it don't exist!

Christianity invented the terms Chaos and Order!