Why do religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science?

[Raider5678]

I answered your question. I have read the bible. Flood stories are quite common since most cultures and settlements arose near water sources. You also seem to be confusing me with someone else.

True, you answered my question, but it also proved my point I was trying to make with memammal. And a large number of atheists say there was no flood. Then the link you provide says god killed 20,000,000 people in one.

 

Wait, what makes you think I'm confusing you with someone? Just wondering....

[iNow]

The fact that you said my lack of knowledge about the bible was getting annoying. I've barely bothered engaging you on this topic, especially not for at least the last several weeks/months.

[Moontanman]

True, you answered my question, but it also proved my point I was trying to make with memammal. And a large number of atheists say there was no flood. Then the link you provide says god killed 20,000,000 people in one.

 

Wait, what makes you think I'm confusing you with someone? Just wondering....

 

 

The Bible is not evidence of anything, the bible is the claim that requires evidence....

I, the religious bigot would like to make a statement. I have been gone for 3 weeks and spent two of those n Brazil helping the poor starving people there. A christian mission trip, so I'm sure your going to point out all the wrongs in that. Anyways, back on topic. Christians always have an option. If they didnt, then most of the would would be christian.

And since its OBVIOUSLY christians running around in suicide vests. And flying headfirst into sky scrapers. You wouldnt possibly be profiling anybody there could you? Muslim christian Hindu. Your a religist. Or something like that. Like racist, but for religion. Your profiling all of us religious bigots on what you believe we are like.

 

Also, why couldn't Adam and eve be the first humans? Your gunna throw in evolution, but if there was a God, and he did make them, does evolution say that's not possible? No where in the bible does it say anything about evolution. Doesn't say its not there. Doesn't say it is.

 

As for downsides, isn't circumscision healthy? And while I have to agree that some religions are bad, I don't feel christianity is one of them.

 

Also, moontanman, one of the religions that doesn't force everyone to join their religion, is Christianity. Of course somebody's gunna argue against that, but oh well, it true, and I'll proved it if you don't believe me. The Bible is against human anger. It talks about kindness and understanding and helping others. Then some people come in and try to turn it into a demon religion.

 

 

Current christianity which was gelded during the enlightenment is completely different from the christian religion we see today. Yes christianity was spread at the point of a sword, various denominations persecuted each other often to the death over points of dogma. the christianity you see not is one that the power of life an death has been stripped from. Before that millions of people were killed, often in horrible ways over points of dogma, others were killed because they either didn't believe or believed in other gods...

[Raider5678]

The fact that you said my lack of knowledge about the bible was getting annoying. I've barely bothered engaging you on this topic, especially not for at least the last several weeks/months.

Actually that was aimed slightly more at memammal then you, my bad. I've been gone for the past few weeks, so I really hope you haven't engaged much with me during those weeks lol.

[Memammal]

6000 years... Where the heck did you pull that number out. Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible.

I think it is vitally important for you to understand this matter. My number of approx. 6,000 years is based on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar who meticulously calculated the date of Adam & Eve's arrival to be 4004 BCE. And there were others who made very similar calculations: Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC). ​If you do some further research you will find many references to these dates. There are some sources that support a slightly older Adam & Eve, up to 10,000 years. That still does not resolve the vast difference with the scientifically determined age of our species. So either you accept that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, or you accept that the Biblical genealogy/chronology is wrong...and the consequences thereof.

 

Also, quick question. Why are the native Americans even humans? After being separated for lon periods of time aren't species suppose to become 2 different species? This is an actual question BTW.

Do you really want to pursue this? I fail to see the relevance and you are treading on thin ice with this kind of reasoning.

 

but tell me where the bible encourages mass murder as memammal seems to think.

I am not sure if and where I insinuated this but seeing that you raised the subject, does the genocide of the Canaanites (men, women and children) ring a bell?

Actually that was aimed slightly more at memammal then you, my bad.

Please explain why you find my knowledge of the Bible annoying?

Your lack of knowledge of the bible is getting annoying, read about all the people God has saved. And if you had ever even once read the new testament, you would learn extremely quickly that you should put people to death anymore, and rather, tell them they did wrong, hope they don't do it again, and let them go.

And talking about questionable knowledge of the Bible... Could you perhaps elaborate on the above?

Edited July 17, 2016 by Memammal

[John Cuthber]

Let's face it; nobody had to invent a conflict- there is one. This pretty much sums it up

 

 

[Raider5678]

I think it is vitally important for you to understand this matter. My number of approx. 6,000 years is based on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar who meticulously calculated the date of Adam & Eve's arrival to be 4004 BCE. And there were others who made very similar calculations: Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC). ​If you do some further research you will find many references to these dates. There are some sources that support a slightly older Adam & Eve, up to 10,000 years. That still does not resolve the vast difference with the scientifically determined age of our species. So either you accept that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, or you accept that the Biblical genealogy/chronology is wrong...and the consequences thereof.

 

 

Do you really want to pursue this? I fail to see the relevance and you are treading on thin ice with this kind of reasoning.

 

 

I am not sure if and where I insinuated this but seeing that you raised the subject, does the genocide of the Canaanites (men, women and children) ring a bell?

 

Please explain why you find my knowledge of the Bible annoying?

 

And talking about questionable knowledge of the Bible... Could you perhaps elaborate on the above?

If you have read Matthew, you would find that it is very clearly against putting people to death, because things have changed since the earlier history.

And the earlier history is where the calendar failed. The "unbroken male lineage" is actually broken and could stretch a massive span of time. If you read my post you would know that this is why 6000 years isn't correct.

And genocide of entire towns, cities, and populations was very common during those times. A rebellion in those days was a lot harder to stop then modern day, in case you didn't notice that. For the same reason we don't sacrifice animals these days, we dont execute people any more.

I gtg.

[John Cuthber]

If you have read Matthew,

I did

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It seems to me that he was citing Christ as saying things were not changing

[Raider5678]

I did

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[/size]

It seems to me that he was citing Christ as saying things were not changing

I don't believe its referring to the law of Leviticus, unless I'm confused. I thinks its referring to the law of God. No sinners will enter heaven without coming to accept Jesus type of thing.

[Memammal]

If you have read Matthew, you would find that it is very clearly against putting people to death, because things have changed since the earlier history.

Whereas I agree that there was a shift away from the emphasis on the old laws, the problem that I had with your original post related to this part: "you should (not?) put people to death anymore, and rather, tell them they did wrong, hope they don't do it again, and let them go." It came across as implying a general abolishment of the death penalty. Furthermore, i.m.o. any notion that the NT was less "barbaric" than the OT is negated by all its apocalyptic prophecies and Paul's condemnation of the entire human race to eternal hell unless...

 

And the earlier history is where the calendar failed. The "unbroken male lineage" is actually broken and could stretch a massive span of time. If you read my post you would know that this is why 6000 years isn't correct.

You are not going to sidestep yourself out of this one with such a reply; it is simply not good enough. You need to be much more specific in explaining why you consider all the various calculations based on the Biblical genealogy/chronology to be wrong and how you propose for the "massive span of time" to be resolved by the alleged broken male lineage? Do you then also propose that Adam & Eve a) happened to be an isolated case of two of a new species from an earlier H. sapiens lineage and b) that they and their sons (who presumably mated with some of the other H. sapiens hominids to produce the next lineage) all came from Africa?

 

And genocide of entire towns, cities, and populations was very common during those times.

So an omniscient and omnipresent God felt that it was perfectly acceptable to order the genocide of the Canaanites for Israel to occupy their land at that point in history, but that would not be something that the same God would do in the present time as that would be really bad PR..? And that makes sense to you?

Edited July 18, 2016 by Memammal

[Raider5678]

Whereas I agree that there was a shift away from the emphasis on the old laws, the problem that I had with your original post related to this part: "you should (not?) put people to death anymore, and rather, tell them they did wrong, hope they don't do it again, and let them go." It came across as implying a general abolishment of the death penalty. Furthermore, i.m.o. any notion that the NT was less "barbaric" than the OT is negated by all its apocalyptic prophecies and Paul's condemnation of the entire human race to eternal hell unless...

 

 

You are not going to sidestep yourself out of this one with such a reply; it is simply not good enough. You need to be much more specific in explaining why you consider all the various calculations based on the Biblical genealogy/chronology to be wrong and how you propose for the "massive span of time" to be resolved by the alleged broken male lineage? Do you then also propose that Adam & Eve a) happened to be an isolated case of two of a new species from an earlier H. sapiens lineage and b) that they and their sons (who presumably mated with some of the other H. sapiens hominids to produce the next lineage) all came from Africa?

 

 

So an omniscient and omnipresent God felt that it was perfectly acceptable to order the genocide of the Canaanites for Israel to occupy their land at that point in history, but that would not be something that the same God would do in the present time as that would be really bad PR..? And that makes sense to you?

I already explained why the biblical calculations can't be done. Just because its easily dismissed doesn't mean I have to make it complicated.

Yes, he wouldn't do it modern time, but not because it would be really bad in his standards, but because at that time it was war, now its no longer a war, its trying to convert people.

[Memammal]

I already explained why the biblical calculations can't be done. Just because its easily dismissed doesn't mean I have to make it complicated.

I am sorry, but you can't get out by virtue of such a lame excuse. You need to show me how you resolve the ENORMOUS difference between the scientifically verified age of our species and the time that Adam, Eve and their sons walked this earth according to the Bible. If you want to refute my (substantiated) claim that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, you need to prove me wrong and not conjure up some vague explanation. I am convinced that your alleged broken male lineage will not solve this puzzle. It may buy you a few thousand years at most, but that ain't gonna do it. Prove me wrong or admit that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first. Your ongoing refusal to explain the discrepancy will imply the latter.

 

Yes, he wouldn't do it modern time, but not because it would be really bad in his standards, but because at that time it was war, now its no longer a war, its trying to convert people.

Huh?

[John Cuthber]

I don't believe its referring to the law of Leviticus, unless I'm confused. I thinks its referring to the law of God. No sinners will enter heaven without coming to accept Jesus type of thing.

The Law of Leviticus was (and remains, according to what Matthew said about Christ's words) the law of God.

What did you think it was? The law of the local metropolitan council?

. The "unbroken male lineage" is actually broken and could stretch a massive span of time. If you read my post you would know that this is why 6000 years isn't correct.

 

I read it; it makes no sense.

Why have a big long record of A begat B and so on, but miss some out?

If any of them is worth remembering, then they all are.

However this also leads to another interestignproblem.

If reading the list of begettings gives you the wrong answer, how do you know that reading the rest of (the whole or any part of) the Bible doesn't also lead to the wrong answer for essentially the same reason?

 

Or were you just "cherrypicking"?

[Raider5678]

I am sorry, but you can't get out by virtue of such a lame excuse. You need to show me how you resolve the ENORMOUS difference between the scientifically verified age of our species and the time that Adam, Eve and their sons walked this earth according to the Bible. If you want to refute my (substantiated) claim that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, you need to prove me wrong and not conjure up some vague explanation. I am convinced that your alleged broken male lineage will not solve this puzzle. It may buy you a few thousand years at most, but that ain't gonna do it. Prove me wrong or admit that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first. Your ongoing refusal to explain the discrepancy will imply the latter.

In what way can I prove anything to you? And why, can it only buy me a few thousand years?

The Law of Leviticus was (and remains, according to what Matthew said about Christ's words) the law of God.

What did you think it was? The law of the local metropolitan council?

I read it; it makes no sense.

Why have a big long record of A begat B and so on, but miss some out?

If any of them is worth remembering, then they all are.

However this also leads to another interestignproblem.

If reading the list of begettings gives you the wrong answer, how do you know that reading the rest of (the whole or any part of) the Bible doesn't also lead to the wrong answer for essentially the same reason?

There's a difference, one is listing hero's and goddly people, and their descendents, while most of the bible isn't.

And, if the bible is really so complicated to understand, that your mind can't possibly understand so much as the simplest this in it, why are you even bothering tying to prove it wrong?

[John Cuthber]

In what way can I prove anything to you? And why, can it only buy me a few thousand years?

There's a difference, one is listing hero's and goddly people, and their descendents, while most of the bible isn't.

And, if the bible is really so complicated to understand, that your mind can't possibly understand so much as the simplest this in it, why are you even bothering tying to prove it wrong?

You can't prove it.

That's because there is no evidence.

But it can buy you a lifetime.

And the Bible is the simple answer

"Goddidit".

It's science that's complicated- and beautiful.

[Memammal]

I would like to highlight this discussion as an example of what was referred to by the OP (as Phi for All already alluded to in his post #148):

 

Also, why couldn't Adam and eve be the first humans? Your gunna throw in evolution, but if there was a God, and he did make them, does evolution say that's not possible? No where in the bible does it say anything about evolution. Doesn't say its not there. Doesn't say it is.

 

Oh gosh. You really need to read more. Biblical Adam & Eve walked this earth around 6,000 years ago. At that time humanity was spread over the entire world already, each group with its own (albeit primitive) languages, cultures and superstitions. The Neolithic revolution has taken place approx. 6,000 years prior to Biblical Adam & Eve, in fact the wheel might have already been used when Adam & Eve arrived on the scene. Genetically our species can be traced back to around 200,000 ago, a dating which is also supported by the oldest remains of homo sapiens. The Genesis creation story is a very far cry from evolutionary biology. So no, it simply does not add up.

 

6000 years... Where the heck did you pull that number out. Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible.

 

I think it is vitally important for you to understand this matter. My number of approx. 6,000 years is based on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar who meticulously calculated the date of Adam & Eve's arrival to be 4004 BCE. And there were others who made very similar calculations: Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC). ​If you do some further research you will find many references to these dates. There are some sources that support a slightly older Adam & Eve, up to 10,000 years. That still does not resolve the vast difference with the scientifically determined age of our species. So either you accept that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, or you accept that the Biblical genealogy/chronology is wrong...and the consequences thereof.

 

And the earlier history is where the calendar failed. The "unbroken male lineage" is actually broken and could stretch a massive span of time. If you read my post you would know that this is why 6000 years isn't correct.

 

You are not going to sidestep yourself out of this one with such a reply; it is simply not good enough. You need to be much more specific in explaining why you consider all the various calculations based on the Biblical genealogy/chronology to be wrong and how you propose for the "massive span of time" to be resolved by the alleged broken male lineage? Do you then also propose that Adam & Eve a) happened to be an isolated case of two of a new species from an earlier H. sapiens lineage and b) that they and their sons (who presumably mated with some of the other H. sapiens hominids to produce the next lineage) all came from Africa?

I already explained why the biblical calculations can't be done. Just because its easily dismissed doesn't mean I have to make it complicated.

 

I am sorry, but you can't get out by virtue of such a lame excuse. You need to show me how you resolve the ENORMOUS difference between the scientifically verified age of our species and the time that Adam, Eve and their sons walked this earth according to the Bible. If you want to refute my (substantiated) claim that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, you need to prove me wrong and not conjure up some vague explanation. I am convinced that your alleged broken male lineage will not solve this puzzle. It may buy you a few thousand years at most, but that ain't gonna do it. Prove me wrong or admit that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first. Your ongoing refusal to explain the discrepancy will imply the latter.

 

In what way can I prove anything to you? And why, can it only buy me a few thousand years?

 

So Raider5678 challenged me regarding my claim that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans. I asked him numerous times to explain his counter argument, but he has been (deliberately) circumventing it. He is either oblivious to the extent of the missing time span that is in question here, and/or he is just plain ignorant, and/or he pretends to be ignorant as he has since realised that he got himself in a bit of a bother. He seemingly wants to avoid the truth, or the implications of this significant discrepancy..?

Edited July 19, 2016 by Memammal

[Overthinker301]

Religious people desire to bury science alive when it intimidates them with facts and causes them to slightly question their beliefs. The way they fight this back, is to try and "destroy" the facts by discrediting the knowledge gained in science.

[Raider5678]

Religious people desire to bury science alive when it intimidates them with facts and causes them to slightly question their beliefs. The way they fight this back, is to try and "destroy" the facts by discrediting the knowledge gained in science.

Oh yeah. Instead we should just let you say what ever you want and sing kumbaya around a fire eh? And if we dare challenge something, then were immediately anti science freaks bent on destroying the world in the sadistic way of un education. And should we actually prove a lie you were saying, then its just something that some nutjob was saying and got lucky. All the time if we do just stand around a fire singing, then we're ignoring you because we "know" we're wrong. We do one thing wrong and you hold us up to a standard 10x higher then the normal person, and if we don't meet that standard? Then we're liars and thrives, and enjoy nothing better then to attack you. So what would you have us do? "Fight back"? Just ignore you? Nothing we do will ever be good enough. Your only goal is trying to tell people they're wrong about religion. So I have questions for you.

 

What's your purpose in life? Is it to do what I mentioned? Is it perhaps to better the world? What's your thoughts on things above your understanding? Are they simply not real? Miracles that are impossible to dismiss, what do you say about them? If you find religion so painfully obviously wrong, why do you bother to tell people about it? What is it that you'll never be content until you've done so? Were you there 2 million years ago, that you can so accurately without a shadow of a dout, tell me exactly what was happening? Are there no holes in your theory of evolution? Is it a perfect theory that you wouldn't ever imagine that there could be imperfections in it?

 

Were you the brilliant mind who advances science? Or are you the mind that uses it to simply prove your smarter and better then everyone else?

 

There's holes in science, and there's holes in religion. You'll just have to accept that.

So Raider5678 challenged me regarding my claim that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans. I asked him numerous times to explain his counter argument, but he has been (deliberately) circumventing it. He is either oblivious to the extent of the missing time span that is in question here, and/or he is just plain ignorant, and/or he pretends to be ignorant as he has since realised that he got himself in a bit of a bother. He seemingly wants to avoid the truth, or the implications of this significant discrepancy..?

I gave you my counter argument. Your basing me being wrong on the findings of someone I proved in accurate. 6000 years is false, accept that. There's proof if you would just open your eyes. Look at my post and any fool can see that I presented an argument that you choose to ignore.

[Memammal]

I gave you my counter argument. Your basing me being wrong on the findings of someone I proved in accurate. 6000 years is false, accept that. There's proof if you would just open your eyes. Look at my post and any fool can see that I presented an argument that you choose to ignore.

Uhmm...a broken male lineage cannot account for the more or less 190,000 missing years (even give or take 50,000 years either way)...while most of those who calculated the age of the Biblical genealogy took all such factors in consideration. I am not ignoring your argument, I am challenging you to substantiate it. Until you prove otherwise, our contemporary scientific knowledge read together with the Biblical genealogy dictate that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Memammal

[Overthinker301]

Oh yeah. Instead we should just let you say what ever you want and sing kumbaya around a fire eh? And if we dare challenge something, then were immediately anti science freaks bent on destroying the world in the sadistic way of un education. And should we actually prove a lie you were saying, then its just something that some nutjob was saying and got lucky. All the time if we do just stand around a fire singing, then we're ignoring you because we "know" we're wrong. We do one thing wrong and you hold us up to a standard 10x higher then the normal person, and if we don't meet that standard? Then we're liars and thrives, and enjoy nothing better then to attack you. So what would you have us do? "Fight back"? Just ignore you? Nothing we do will ever be good enough. Your only goal is trying to tell people they're wrong about religion. So I have questions for you.

 

What's your purpose in life? Is it to do what I mentioned? Is it perhaps to better the world? What's your thoughts on things above your understanding? Are they simply not real? Miracles that are impossible to dismiss, what do you say about them? If you find religion so painfully obviously wrong, why do you bother to tell people about it? What is it that you'll never be content until you've done so? Were you there 2 million years ago, that you can so accurately without a shadow of a dout, tell me exactly what was happening? Are there no holes in your theory of evolution? Is it a perfect theory that you wouldn't ever imagine that there could be imperfections in it?

 

Were you the brilliant mind who advances science? Or are you the mind that uses it to simply prove your smarter and better then everyone else?

 

There's holes in science, and there's holes in religion. You'll just have to accept that.

I gave you my counter argument. Your basing me being wrong on the findings of someone I proved in accurate. 6000 years is false, accept that. There's proof if you would just open your eyes. Look at my post and any fool can see that I presented an argument that you choose to ignore.

I apologize for offending you, I was referring to the more extreme religious ones, not just people who are religious. I made a bad assumption that we were all talking about the extreme ones.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Overthinker301

[Memammal]

@ Overthinker301, me think you got it right the first time and his incoherent reaction is the ramblings of a teenager whose feelings got hurt.

[Phi for All]

Until you prove otherwise, our contemporary scientific knowledge read together with the Biblical genealogy dictate that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans.

 

I find it interesting that the concept of an initial mated pair seems intuitive to us, until we discover evolutionary knowledge, which tells us that species have no such defined markers. The mother and father of the first creature we'd call a modern human were not quite modern humans themselves, but if you insist on drawing a line somewhere, they're the ones who "begat" the first modern human.

 

So the writers of the Bible either made up the creation story (or adjusted a previous one), or God inspired them to tell a version we could intuitively understand but was wrong, for some reason. If I believed in god(s), I'd have to say my god has a reason for dumbing things down for an Iron Age audience, but somehow his writings must apply across the ages. There must be a hidden meaning to explain all the parts that are obviously ignorant of modern physics and cosmology. And therein lies the rub. Hidden meanings abound, but none has the weight of evidence in support. It seems more reasonable that people ignorant of many modern explanations made it all up, and poured lots of omnipotence into the gaps to fill in where they had no idea.

 

So I go back to the default stance, probably no god(s), no way to know either way. There shouldn't be a conflict.

[Memammal]

Very well said @ Phi for All. Interestingly enough the Judaists don't make such a big fuss about this fallacy, probably because of the fact that the teaching of original sin is not as important to them. Total different story within Christianity though. Notwithstanding many of them downplaying it, original sin (reliant on the Adam & Eve narrative) remains one of the core doctrines of Christianity. And this is the disconcerting aspect of it. Paul reinvented the sin/fall in Eden, he reconfirmed Adam as being the first man and on that premise he founded the teaching of original sin. This was supposedly one of God's post-Jesus revelations to Paul during their encounter on-route to Damascus (this is what Christians believe). It was never mentioned during God's alleged punishment of Adam & Eve, nor did Jesus ever mentioned it, but Paul somehow got this idea and based on this we have this hideous teaching prevailing to this very day. So even the Roman Catholic Church, that is actually very progressive when it comes to integrating science into their dogma and declared their acceptance of evolution, still refuses to compromise on the teaching that Adam was the first ("spiritual") man.

[Raider5678]

I find it interesting that the concept of an initial mated pair seems intuitive to us, until we discover evolutionary knowledge, which tells us that species have no such defined markers. The mother and father of the first creature we'd call a modern human were not quite modern humans themselves, but if you insist on drawing a line somewhere, they're the ones who "begat" the first modern human.

 

So the writers of the Bible either made up the creation story (or adjusted a previous one), or God inspired them to tell a version we could intuitively understand but was wrong, for some reason. If I believed in god(s), I'd have to say my god has a reason for dumbing things down for an Iron Age audience, but somehow his writings must apply across the ages. There must be a hidden meaning to explain all the parts that are obviously ignorant of modern physics and cosmology. And therein lies the rub. Hidden meanings abound, but none has the weight of evidence in support. It seems more reasonable that people ignorant of many modern explanations made it all up, and poured lots of omnipotence into the gaps to fill in where they had no idea.

 

So I go back to the default stance, probably no god(s), no way to know either way. There shouldn't be a conflict.

I'll go with this. I just have a hard time when the person who accuses me of starting arguments(memammal) continues to say stuff about the religion. And should we reply then it was obviously us who started the argument.

[John Cuthber]

There's a difference, one is listing hero's and goddly people, and their descendents, while most of the bible isn't.

 

How can you know that?

It's not recorded anywhere is it?

And, most of these "heroes and Godly people" only get 1 mention in the Book- and that's for the "begetting" they did.

There's nothing very heroic about getting someone pregnant.

 

Why not face the fact that you made that bit up in an attempt to cover up for the stupidity of the Bible?