Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

Still nothing on Gilgamesh, by the way? Pity.

pickled you don't need to quote bible verses at me, I have read it. Including the bits that tell us that bats are birds, insects are quadrupeds, and you can breed stripy animals by having the parents mate under the shadows of posts Clearly the bible is not a reliable source of info on cladistics, comparative anatomy and genetic inheritance!

The fossil record shows that the theropod linage ancestral to modern birds had feathered wings and powered flight, so yes, penguins evolved from flying birds. So did other flightless families and species. These include the now extinct [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk great auk]], from whose scientific name (Pinguinus impennis) the modern word 'penguin' is derived. I'm guessing from what you've said that you might think that the great auk looks just like a penguin and so is clearly of the same 'kind', but that's convergent evolution in action. Because species that use similar niches often develop superficial similarities, you need to go a bit further than 'what things look like', hence study of deep comparative anatomy, gene sequencing and behaviour/ecology. And then you'll find that great auks and penguins are much more distantly related to each other than are, for example, humans and chimps.

It's sad that that many creationists, while talking of the wonder and majesty of life on earth, rarely actually LOOK at that life with any real interest.

Re my other comment - you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about god but the PEOPLE in heaven - how could decent people enjoy their reward while knowing others were being eternally tortured? For that to work, they would have to a) be sociopaths, so they didn't care, or b) have their memories wiped.

You have a lot of comments being thrown at you and you're doing your best to respond to them, so kudos for that.

I echo 'kudos' for responding singlehandedly Pickled. I confess that over half term my family made me choose between them and MN and this thread particularly as I had to follow links and read up on stuff and was everlastingly telling the poor kids to let me concentrate. I have really admired your detailed responses and confess to having followed quietly without responding. One thing that has struck me is that there are lots of accusations thrown at Pickled that she has not thought things through/studied enough and yet all the posts make it clear that Pickled has done a huge amount of study and in doing so has moved from a position of evolutionary atheist to Creationary Theist. (think I may have made some words up there!) The other thing that has struck me as a bit rich is the criticism levelled at Pickled for believing that she is right in what she thinks which is belittling to all those of other faiths who believe different, and yet as atheists you are allowed to think and say that we are ALL completely brainwashed from birth and that is OKAY for you to believe. What is the difference.Atheists say all theists are deluded and Christians say that you have to know Christ to know God and somehow the Christians are being more judgemental.I do not get that!

You don’t have to DO anything; that’s the whole point. It’s all about what HE has done for us to free us. There is no selling of your soul, only freeing of it; and there is no performing mental contortions to get something so simple to make sense. It's all very straightforward.

I didn't say you had to sell your soul, I said you had to do the intellectual equivalent of selling your soul - ie suspending all logical thought and believing things which have either been shown not to be true, or have no evidence to prove them one way or the other.

Oh yes, it's all very straightforward though, isn't it? Good stuff = done by God, Bad stuff = done by sinful people. God doesn't intervene in bad stuff happening as it's not his fault, except when he steps in and punishes people and makes an example of them (that doesn't count as intervening).

When bad things happen to good people, it's because they are inherently bad people, because they are not 'saved' Christians. Except when they are 'saved' Christians, then it's just part of the burden they have to bear and they should be grateful for the extra responsibility of having that burden.

When good things happen to bad people, well, who knows - it's all part of the plan and they're sure not to get away with it. Somehow.

... yet as atheists you are allowed to think and say that we are ALL completely brainwashed from birth and that is OKAY for you to believe. What is the difference.

Firstly atheism is not a 'belief' as there is no act of faith needed - so it's not 'belief A vs belief B'.

Secondly (and I speak only for myself here), I was most certainly brainwashed into Christianity myself as a child through the education system, from the age of 2 to 18. Although my parents weren't churchgoers they did little to counter the stuff we were taught as fact at school. From childhood I always found the thought of heaven and hell - and being constantly watched and judged by invisible 'beings' - rather disturbing.

So it was a relief when I realised that you could actually free yourself from those thoughts and that they weren't compulsory. Living with constant vague feelings of guilt, even when you haven't done anything particularly bad, isn't very healthy or good for you.

VDB, I'd disagee actually - I think Pickled has been doing an awful lot of 'you'd understand if you'd studied like I had, people who disagree clearly haven't studied it properly' - and that those of us who have moved in the opposite direction might not also have done quite a bit of study around the issue.

I think you're wrong; you think I'm wrong. We've both made that pretty clear and it's no more insulting coming from either side - it's a statement of fact based on what we believe. That's fine - but what's wrong with examining what each other present as 'facts'? There has been a lot of interesting discussion on this thread and I've definitely learned stuff. But it has also been frustratingly circular in many ways.

As I've said to you on other threads, I think, I really want to understand where people are coming from - and I'd hope that theists are interested in why atheists disagree, rather than haranguing them and saying that they don't believe in a god either because they haven't tried hard enough or they haven't studied.

We're all reading with our own personal biases though, aren't we?

JassyRadlett:
How were they supposed to know the God of scripture?

The same was as you or me. God does the following:

1. Imputes inbuilt knowledge of Him, in us, right from the beginning
2. Responds to our openness to Him by revealing Himself further
3. Has no bounds

Or are you saying that your god and the rainbow serpent are one and the same, and it doesn't matter really which set of rules you follow as long as you believe in a deity? ?

No, God repeatedly says to have no other graven image. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life, No man comes to the Father, BUT BY ME”. ?
Why would God say to one set of people 'here's a detailed if ambiguous handbook' and to others 'look at the mountains and guess'?

Show me the chapter and verse of God saying “look at the mountains and guess”? We both know it’s not there, and that you’re twisting the inbuilt knowledge of God, of His power, and of His nature, and of course of His creation.

Next time you see something impossible happen, will you scratch your head and think “wow, no idea how that happened, but who cares because I’m only going to die in a few years so what’s the point” or will you think “you could be forgiven for thinking someone bigger than me had a hand in that.”

Or maybe next time “someone offers you an act of undeserved kindness or forgiveness, with no strings attached, you will likely be moved. Will your heart then suppress that little thought that “God is love”, or that it reminds you of the undeserved free gift that you once heard about and rejected? Or will you stop a moment and think “I wonder…” Because if you do, that is a small step, a warming to God, an openness that He would respond to.

Well, no, it demonstrates that someone who lives within a day's walk of someone who knew about Jesus.

A mile is as long as a thousand miles if it means you’ve never heard about Jesus. Moot point.

And of course it doesn't show anything, it's a story that isn't independently verified.
??
It’s a story in the bible, which is a very accurate book, historically, archeologically, prophetically, and of course within itself contextually.

Why didn't God send anyone to parts of the world that weren't discovered by the western world for another millennium or so?

You don’t know who or where the news has been spread to; so you’re blindly trying to stab at another moot point here. Now who doesn’t have much in the way of details to back it up? If people respond to the inbuilt knowledge then God is true to His word and will quench that thirst, wherever in His universe they may be.

God's creative flair reflected there.??His creative flair is also pretty evident in the not so nice things, right, like malaria and typhus?

Oohhh that’s a little negative, isn’t it? You think of creation and then think of malaria and typhus? Crikey, I bet you’re a bundle of laughs at a party!

You’re forgetting (perhaps deliberately?) that the reason we have disease in the world is because of the fall in Genesis, where sin was introduced to the world, bringing with it death, disease, and decay.

But that is absolutely not the full picture. Even if you think the glass is half empty.

Still nothing on Gilgamesh, by the way? Pity.
What of it? Another moot point. So, there are many stories about a world flood, well guess what, Jesus referred to Noah and the flood, not to your Gigamesh. Or anyone else’s report of a world flood.

GerundTheBehemoth
pickled you don't need to quote bible verses at me, I have read it.

Yes but obviously not with any understanding or else you’d be telling me you already knew about the free gift. Perhaps you’ve only read it to try and prove it wrong? No wonder you sound a bit disillusioned.

Including the bits that tell us that bats are birds,

www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.php

Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).

It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers.
Those who make this sort of complaint don't want answers. The objection has no legitimacy

insects are quadrupeds,

www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.php

It's ridiculous to think they had no idea what a locust looks like, especially when they were actually eating the things. We usually become reasonably acquainted with anything we put as close to our mouths on a regular basis!

Lev. 11:20-3 says: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;"

The 4 feet spoken of were used to move but the two legs (that we now count as 6 legs) were used for a different purpose. They were ahead of the feet and called legs, differentiated from legs because they had a uniquely different function.

If you read the Leviticus verse above you see clearly it speaks of 4 feet and 2 legs above the feet. 4+2=6!

and you can breed stripy animals by having the parents mate under the shadows of posts

Regarding the story you refer to of Jacob breeding strong flocks and using a ritual of placing sticks by water troughs to get sheep with blemishes. Don't worry, they didn't evolve, they remained the same "kind"
God has been known to intervene and change what would have happened if God did not change the natural process. For example, the story about the fleece being left out overnight and dry ground versus wet fleece, and then vice versa.

Almost everyone has known of times a body has healed when doctors said it could not be. Also have you noticed that many times when the scripture reports a miracle, there was something done before, even if it was as simple as Jesus putting mud on a blind eye before sight was restored. ??God doesn't always find it necessary to explain the method used, We do not have the mind of God to fully understand, but we are given enough facts that we can know what is necessary for us to know.

Clearly the bible is not a reliable source of info on cladistics, comparative anatomy and genetic inheritance!?

So you are telling me the “kinds” have changed into a different “kind”? Because if not, then the bible is absolutely reliable source of info on claudistics, comparative anatomy and genetic inheritance. Much much more than evolution ever could be.

The fossil record shows that the theropod linage ancestral to modern birds had feathered wings and powered flight, so yes, penguins evolved from flying birds.

you need to go a bit further than 'what things look like', hence study of deep comparative anatomy, gene sequencing and behaviour/ecology. And then you'll find that great auks and penguins are much more distantly related to each other than are, for example, humans and chimps.?

All that nonsense about apes and humans evolving from each other is the same rationale you use to support penguin evolution? Oh dear!

Have you noticed the explanations given involve lovely diagrams of artists impressions, void of all hard facts? And even if penguins evolved from a flying bird, that's devolution not evolution because they have lost a function and not evolved to gain one. That's the problem with evolution, modifications can occur but only to CURRENT data, nothing new is added or evolved into something entirely additional and vital for survival. God already has been there and done that, and evolution can't come even close I'm afraid.

answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/birds-did-not-evolve-from-dinosaurs-say-evolutionists/

With regard to your 'convergence evolution' - there are many well-known cases where homologous structures could not have shared a common ancestor (within an evolutionary framework). For example, at a superficial level frog digits appear similar to human digits. However, it is now known that they develop in a completely different way, and could not share a common ancestor. Even most biology textbooks admit numerous cases of apparent similarities with no plausible way for the two species to be “related.” A typical example is similarities between sharks and dolphins.

To accommodate these cases, evolutionists coined another term: “convergent evolution.” Convergent evolution is defined as “the independent development of similarity between species as a result of their having similar ecological roles and selection pressures” Evolutionists often refer to these similarities as “analogous structures".
This illustrates another key (non-scientific) feature of the theory of evolution. The theory is constructed in such a way that no matter what the evidence, evolutionists can claim it supports their religion. If a bird is brightly colored, it evolved vivid feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s plumage is drab, it evolved that drabness to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar gene sequences, it is because the two species share a common ancestor. If similar structures occur in species that are genetically quite different, it is because of “convergent evolution.” No matter what the evidence, in the eye of the believer, evolution is true.

It's sad that that many creationists, while talking of the wonder and majesty of life on earth, rarely actually LOOK at that life with any real interest.
??
I agree. And it’s even sadder that many atheists, while talking of the wonder and majesty of life on earth, rarely LOOK at that life with any real interest. Or even worse, they look at that life and see malaria and typhus, as you quoted earlier.

Re my other comment - you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about god but the PEOPLE in heaven - how could decent people enjoy their reward while knowing others were being eternally tortured? For that to work, they would have to a) be sociopaths, so they didn't care, or b) have their memories wiped. ??

Your comment about torture and God's people in heaven enjoying their freedom knowing that others suffer elsewhere - quite simply, it's your choice. You can have the free gift of eternal life offered to you, just as much as I can. Or I could have continued to harden my heart against God and go my own way, which leads to my own destruction.
Every single person tormented in hell has chosen to go there. We all have a choice. Just as every single person in prison has chosen to go there too. They didn't have to; they could have chosen a different path for themselves. Do you sit around crying over people in prison as you walk around in freedom? Thought not. Does that make you a sociopath? Thought not.

You have a lot of comments being thrown at you and you're doing your best to respond to them, so kudos for that.
Thanks.

vdbfamily - Thank you for your accurate observations.

HouseOFBamboo:
Oh yes, it's all very straightforward though, isn't it? Good stuff = done by God, Bad stuff = done by sinful people. God doesn't intervene in bad stuff happening as it's not his fault, except when he steps in and punishes people and makes an example of them (that doesn't count as intervening).
??
This is not something I have said, nor something the bible has said. The bible actually says “the sun shines on the righteous AND the unrighteous alike”, and as I keep saying, Christians are warned that they will also have troubles in this world. So there you go, God is good to the undeserving, and those that follow Him also have bad things happen to them.

?When good things happen to bad people, well, who knows - it's all part of the plan and they're sure not to get away with it. Somehow.

If someone murders your child, they will still feel the sun on their face, they will still eat fine food and drink fine wine, and possibly enjoy sky TV even if you can’t afford it.

But they won’t get away with it forever. One day there will be a judgement for all of us.

Firstly atheism is not a 'belief' as there is no act of faith needed - so it's not 'belief A vs belief B'. ?

Yes but it is! You don’t like that idea because it makes you squirm, you can’t bear the idea that you believe something because that puts you in the same camp as other people who believe in … horror of horrors; GOD!

Atheism is very much an act of faith needed. Nobody was there when the world began, so you either have faith that goo turned into you. or that a loving God created you. Since no one was there to observe and test, we have to choose what we believe about it.

?Secondly (and I speak only for myself here), I was most certainly brainwashed into Christianity myself as a child through the education system, from the age of 2 to 18.

I am sorry you felt brainwashed, but Brainwashing? At school? Really?

Although my parents weren't churchgoers they did little to counter the stuff we were taught as fact at school. From childhood I always found the thought of heaven and hell - and being constantly watched and judged by invisible 'beings' - rather disturbing. ??So it was a relief when I realised that you could actually free yourself from those thoughts and that they weren't compulsory. Living with constant vague feelings of guilt, even when you haven't done anything particularly bad, isn't very healthy or good for you.

False guilt is not healthy that’s true. By false guilt I mean a woman blaming herself for her husband’s violence because she “must have deserved it.” But you say “particularly bad” which does suggest you did “something” bad, something that you’ve decided in your own wisdom is acceptable, probably because it was YOU that did it.

Guilt is a God-given emotion, our conscience is part of that inbuilt knowledge of God. The thing nobody explained to you, perhaps, was that you don’t have to carry that burden of guilt. It can be washed away in the blood of Jesus, and then God says “I remember their sins no more”. It’s gone forever.

JassyRadlett
I think Pickled has been doing an awful lot of 'you'd understand if you'd studied like I had, people who disagree clearly haven't studied it properly'

Well you think wrong, Jassy, because as I keep saying, it is not about what I say it is about what GOD says. Anyone can read the verses I have given here, and see it makes plain perfect sense, to even the most feeble minded. You don’t need to study John 3:16 to see that “whosoever believes in Him shall not perish” clearly doesn’t say you have to go to church or give to charity to get to heaven. Not saying that are bad things to do, only that they are works and not saving grace.

No, the reason why I have discussed studying is to show that the propaganda can be best grasped if you look at it properly. I have suggested study to those who present me with bible verses deliberately taken out of the context and meaning they clearly have; I have continuously said study it so that people can see those ridiculous atheist websites trying to twist the bible have got it all wrong.

and that those of us who have moved in the opposite direction might not also have done quite a bit of study around the issue.?

Studying what, atheist websites that distort the bible deliberately? Hmmm. Very unbiased study that. If you seriously are trying to tell me you’ve studied with an open mind then I dispute that.

?I think you're wrong; you think I'm wrong. We've both made that pretty clear and it's no more insulting coming from either side - it's a statement of fact based on what we believe.

That is exactly what it is. Atheism is a statement based on what you believe. There you go, we agree on that one!

That's fine - but what's wrong with examining what each other present as 'facts'? There has been a lot of interesting discussion on this thread and I've definitely learned stuff. But it has also been frustratingly circular in many ways.??As I've said to you on other threads, I think, I really want to understand where people are coming from - and I'd hope that theists are interested in why atheists disagree, rather than haranguing them and saying that they don't believe in a god either because they haven't tried hard enough or they haven't studied.??

No, I don’t say you don’t believe in God because you haven’t tried hard enough. That would be works. A lot of atheists tell me they’ve read the bible at one time or the other, but I do think it’s often with a bias from an atheist website or a closed mind. And as for haranguing? Look, I am one person who has been bombarded by how many atheists here? My last count was 14.
Hakluyt,
BigBlueStars
BackOnlyBriefly
CoteDAzur
BigDorrit
Headinhands
JassyRadlett
Thistledew
ErrolTheDragon
VelvetGreen
Asator
BOOreOfWOOObylon
GerundTheBehemoth
HouseOFBamboo

So for every hour you spend online talking to me, in theory I could be spending 14 hours talking back to all of you. Now do you want to talk to me about haranguing!

We're all reading with our own personal biases though, aren't we?

Try reading and praying first: “God, I don’t believe you’re there because I’m an atheist, but if you are then show me, help me to be open.”
What have you got to lose? Money? Nope, it’s just a prayer. Your soul? Nope, because you lose that already if you go to hell. Your body? Nope, its just a prayer in your head, don’t even have to kneel down or say it out loud. Your pride? Ahhh, now maybe we’re getting closer to the bone. Well, you know what, if it’s your pride then it’s a shame you can’t live with that long enough to study with an open mind.

What is evolutions explanation for our 'ape-like' ancestor developing in a backwards direction?
If man was once an ape-like creature and evolution works through positive genetic mutations/natural selection, why did we become less agile, weaker, lose our prehensile feet,our strong teeth,our sense of smell.Why did we lose our hairy covering so we are forced to wear clothes. What 'natural' process would have caused all our physical attributes to start going backwards in favour of purely brain development which seems to be the only advantage that we have gained. And how does something like consciousness and reason evolve from basic protoplasm. It really is mind boggling to me.
And whilst I am throwing in all the questions,what is the point of beauty. Why does a human being look at dying leaves on trees in autumn and think it is stunningly beautiful. What possible evolutionary purpose could there be for something as stunning as a peacock feather? A few bright feathers maybe but have you seen the variety of indescribably beautiful feathers on a peacock? It does not make sense in evolutionary terms and for us to find a bird beautiful does not make sense either.

With no consistent and robust definition of 'kind', it's obviously impossible to say whether any given evolutionary change can be considered a change of 'kind'. If you can direct me to a such a definition, or failing that, a concise list of the extant 'kinds', that'd be grand. But from previous discussions of this nature, I don't think there is such a thing.

Like I said, I've read the bible, and the Lev verse you quote about legs and feet does indeed seem pretty clear to me, but your interpretation is very strange indeed, and not one I've heard from other creationists. Nor is it meaningful in terms of actual insect anatomy and behaviour. Orthopterans use all six legs for locomotion. Try watching one sometime.

Becoming flightless has enabled penguins to become the deepest-diving and fastest-swimming of all birds (by changes in body composition and proportions that wouldn't be possible if they needed to fly), to endure the lowest temperatures (by storing more body fat than would be possible if they needed to fly), and to thus brilliantly exploit niches that are out of reach to all other birds. If that's your idea of 'devolution' then - well, that's a pity!

Humans are apes. Our nearest living relatives are the two chimp species, we're united in the tribe Hominini (and with the other great apes in the family Hominidae - but humans and chimps are closer to each other than either are to other extant apes). It's actually not controversial. There's plenty online and in print about hominid evolution if you'd like to learn more, it's very interesting stuff. Here's a good one for a start The Third Chimpanzee.

As for the other point, you're really not getting it - the bizarre and irrelevant prison analogy shows that. The fundamentalist heaven/hell idea requires that heaven-goers are totally cool with the idea of other people (very probably including people they were close to in life) being tortured for EVER, as punishment for not believing in a particular god. To be able to accept that with a carefree smile and carry on being blissed out in heaven, for EVER remember, you'd have to be devoid of empathy.

What possible evolutionary purpose could there be for something as stunning as a peacock feather?

You are no doubt familiar with Darwin's theory re peacock sexual selection but here it is spelled out:

"In the past when peacocks had ordinary colour and length tails, peahens (for some reason) showed a preference to mate with males with slightly longer and more flamboyant than average tails. Thus, the characteristic of slightly longer, more brightly coloured tails would be passed on to the next generation and over many generations the peacocks' tails would become longer and brighter. Thus, the ornate tail gives such an advantage in terms of mating success that it is selected for despite being a disadvantage in terms of general survival. Darwin thus argued that these flamboyant male characteristics were not, as believed at the time, due to a designer who had an aesthetic sense, but due to the need to attract a mate. Other examples where males are more striking than the females are found in fish, lizards and spiders."

The fact that peahens can be experimentally demonstrated to prefer a big colourful, healthy-looking tail on a bloke supports this theory.

The fact that peacocks have not died out proves that it's possible for them to survive with the tails as they are, despite their disadvantages. So it doesn't seem an untenable theory. Unless you prefer 'God thought they looked pretty like that' - but that can't really be tested as a theory.

Try reading and praying first: “God, I don’t believe you’re there because I’m an atheist, but if you are then show me, help me to be open.”

Have you tried that? To Thor and Hanuman? You really ought to give it a try if you are going to reject them and say they don't exist.

Humans aren't so crap, vdb We are adapted to highly co-operative group living in open savannah, where feet are more useful for running than gripping. We are not the quickest runners but have extreme endurance, partly assisted by our hairlessness as this allows quicker cooling by free sweating (look up 'persistence hunting'). Bipedalism frees the hands and that plus a great brain allows for sophisticated tool use. The ability to make and use stuff is what allowed us to radiate from our evolutionary 'birthplace' in Africa to less hospitable climates.

Colourful plumage in male birds such as peacocks is driven by female choice and preference - such elaborations are 'honest signals' of fitness and, in species that do not form pair bonds, the female's only requirement of the male is that he possess good genes. Sorry I don't have time to explain more fully (have already spent too long on this thread today!) but look up 'sexual selection' and also 'runaway sexual selection' for more.

One more thing. Pickle if you're saying people without access to the bible had the same chance to believe in god then you don't need the bible to convince us.

So show us your god without mentioning the bible and without any historical documents or observations (which some random tribesman from 1000bc wouldn't have)

And of course without mentioning the crucifixion which hadn't happened yet.

Pickled, I get that you feel attacked - that's not my intent. I'm hoping that you'll be open-minded enough to try to understand how others feel and think - in the same way as I'm trying to understand your philosophy through asking questions about it. I'm not expecting you to answer if you'd rather not, though I'd find it interesting.

Here's some thoughts on your responses to me, and I hope I've answered your questions to me:

The same was as you or me. God does the following: 1. Imputes inbuilt knowledge of Him, in us, right from the beginning; 2. Responds to our openness to Him by revealing Himself further; 3. Has no bounds

That's not quite true, though, is it? You and I had the Bible to help to guide us towards God (or away from him as has been the case in my life to date). For most of the post-Christ world, most of the world has been cut off from those teachings.

Next time you see something impossible happen, will you scratch your head and think “wow, no idea how that happened, but who cares because I’m only going to die in a few years so what’s the point” or will you think “you could be forgiven for thinking someone bigger than me had a hand in that.”

You'll forgive me if I think there is at least a third response: "That is a amazing. I wonder what caused it and how it happened? I wonder how I can find out more about it? I wonder if there are people working on this stuff? This world is amazing, and I'm full of wonder at how quickly our understanding of it is advancing, and how much is yet to be explained."

I am honestly filled with joy on a daily basis on how our understanding of the world and our existence has changed and improved in just my lifetime, and I am filled with wonder at how different my son's understanding of his existence will be from mine.

Studying what, atheist websites that distort the bible deliberately? Hmmm. Very unbiased study that. If you seriously are trying to tell me you’ve studied with an open mind then I dispute that.

I don't think I've ever visited an 'atheist website' to be honest. I've been doing a lot of rereading of the bible over the last week, though, which has been interesting, as has been reading texts around biblical history and translation (generally written from a Christian perspective).

Where do you do your study? How do you ensure the information you're getting is balanced?

Oohhh that’s a little negative, isn’t it? You think of creation and then think of malaria and typhus? Crikey, I bet you’re a bundle of laughs at a party!

You’re forgetting (perhaps deliberately?) that the reason we have disease in the world is because of the fall in Genesis, where sin was introduced to the world, bringing with it death, disease, and decay.

I'm not forgetting it. I don't believe it. I don't believe that an all-powerful God is powerless in such issues, or that a responsible deity would absolve themselves of responsibility for the negative, or punishing, parts of their creation. It also doesn't allow for differing ideas of beauty or wonder - and partiuclarly the fact that some things can be both beautiful and quite deadly or destructive. It's imposing a dichotomy where none can reasonably exist.

So for every hour you spend online talking to me, in theory I could be spending 14 hours talking back to all of you. Now do you want to talk to me about haranguing!

As you're aware, that comment wasn't aimed at you (or individually at vdb either) but as a general atheist/theist point.

A mile is as long as a thousand miles if it means you’ve never heard about Jesus. Moot point.

You were the story of Cornelius in Acts as the proof that God would send news about Jesus to anyone whose heart was really open to it. I questioned the basis of that as proof, given that in the story he was sending Peter a day's walk away and there is no Biblical evidence of God sending anyone much further afield - and there no evidence that God sent anyone to share the word of Jesus until European exploration of the New Worlds, which is a long time for the hearts of entire continents to be closed to knowledge they were inborn with and could see all around them.

Well, you know what, if it’s your pride then it’s a shame you can’t live with that long enough to study with an open mind.

No, not my pride. As you're aware, I used to be a Christian, and now I'm not. It wasn't a particularly prideful or easy journey. Aren't you being slightly closed-minded about the reasons people might not agree with you?

^Still nothing on Gilgamesh, by the way? Pity.
What of it? Another moot point. So, there are many stories about a world flood, well guess what, Jesus referred to Noah and the flood, not to your Gigamesh. Or anyone else’s report of a world flood.^

Not my Gilgamesh. But interesting to consider when you look at the respective ages of the texts around the two stories, and evidence that the Mesopotamian texts influenced the later telling. This is part of the study - reading from all different angles.

Do you sit around crying over people in prison as you walk around in freedom? Thought not. Does that make you a sociopath? Thought not.

I have, yes. I've cried over people I don't know. Because I have empathy and can see how sometimes bad situations and bad decisions can lead people into horrible situations. And if a person I loved were in prison, and separated from me, and being tortured - yes, I'd cry. A lot. Because I love them, unconditionally, even if I may hate their works.

By false guilt I mean a woman blaming herself for her husband’s violence because she “must have deserved it.”

Isn't that the Bible's premise for all bad things that happen to people - that it happened because they somehow (directly or indirectly) deserve it?

But you say “particularly bad” which does suggest you did “something” bad, something that you’ve decided in your own wisdom is acceptable, probably because it was YOU that did it.

Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't a delinquent child - unless you count stuff like resisting eating vegetables and having a messy room as 'bad' and something I should still be feeling guilty for

Pickled, do you thin I I deserve to be torured for ever? Do you think that would be fair?

Now, the point is you can’t chose what level of punishment you’ll get, because you are not the rule-maker. God is. His rules, not ours.

It sounds like you are almost saying you don't think I deserve eternal punishment (I hope you don't, I don't think you do) but you don't overtly disagree because you think someone in authority over you (god) thinks I do deserve it.

Don't you see a, how scary that is, that's not morality, that's obedience, to say 'I don't agree with this morally but I will go along with it/keep my mouth shut', that sort of obedience never ends well. And b, how come your empathy is superior to gods? How come you have more mercy and kindness? Shouldn't he be superior to you?

A lot of atheists tell me they’ve read the bible at one time or the other, but I do think it’s often with a bias from an atheist website

I read it when I was a Christian. Probably not all of it, I definitely didn't read much of the horrid stuff.

But they won’t get away with it forever. One day there will be a judgement for all of us.

Only they will if they believe Jesus died for them, simple as.

Atheism is very much an act of faith needed. Nobody was there when the world began, so you either have faith that goo turned into you. or that a loving God created you. Since no one was there to observe and test, we have to choose what we believe about it.

I have no evidence that a god made the world/me, I don't know how it started but I am unsatisfied by making stuff up or believing stuff I have no reason to believe. Until I have reason to believe what you say I suspend belief. Maybe there is a god, it sure isn't interested in or moved into action by human suffering, that I feel I can say because I have reason to think that, as unsatisfying as that is for you or me.

Pickled think about how you are able to sweep aside all the claims of the other religions. That's me.

I do think it’s often with a bias from an atheist website

Someone said that recently and I (and someone else on here) pointed out that we became atheists before they invented the internet :)

Not sure I even knew the word atheist back then. I can't imagine where I would have heard it.