why people who don't believe in God or pray,etc. feel ...

Post Reply New Topic

You are making a sweeping generalization about atheists (that they ridicule believers and condemn them) while at the same time you are criticising atheists who make a similar sweeping generalization about believers (that they scorn and condemn atheists.)

If you want to be respected as a "not one of those Christians" the least you can do is respect that not all non-belivers "feel the need to ridicule." I don't. Two of the people I love and respect most in all the world are Christians and ministers. But I'm irritated by your post and am biting back the urge to be nasty.

Because it's annoying?

Sorry, you're both wrong. Genesis 1 explains everything she questioned. Did you know many of the great astronomical revelation came from the Bible?



Galileo was a devote Roman Catholic. I can't find the exact quote, but he said that he came to believe in Copernicanism from the Bible's scripture.

As for dinosaurs and the like, there is no reason to believe that the original 7 days in Genesis were 24 hr days. Jupiter's day is only ~10 hrs long. Even the original text, the word for day has been translated to even thousands of days. So there is no reason to believe that evolution, dinosaurs, and the like did not occur according to the Bible.

For the formation of the planets and universe..



I really hope the assumption isn't that the heavens means heaven where God resides. This is a literal interpretation, heavens is anything not formerly called Earth. Even the creation of the moon is put separately. This confirms science hypothesis that another celestial body hit the earth and the remnants from that impact formed the moon.

I could go on, but then I would look preachy. I just wanted to correct the misnomers here.

Why? Because beliefs inform actions that affect other people. It would be nice if we could just live and let live, but the religious can't seem to do that. That is why God is on out money and in our pledge. It is why an atheist can't get elected to public office. It is why 9/11 happened. It is why children go untreated with curable medical conditions and die. It is why AIDS is still rampant in Africa (thank you Catholics). The story from the original poster bothered me because if you replace ASD with anything potential lethal, you have a dead child on your hands and parents that deserve to be in prison.
And if you aren't willing to explain your beliefs, then DON'T POST THEM ON A PUBLIC FORUM and expect EVERYBODY to just "get it".
You aptly demostrate why there is so much animosity towards the faithful these days. I have shown infinite patience and respect to all of you and what do I get in return? Insults and sarcasm...and yes, I understand sarcasm. And yes, I did enjoy Mr. Hitchens book. I also enjoy Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. But none of them made me an atheist. You know what book did that? The Bible! Have you actually read it? Probably not.
I apologize for once again assuming that people like you are capable of rational, courteous conversation with people that don't already agree with you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Bible writers could not even determine the correct value for Pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter). The Bible says that the value is 3, yet the correct value is almost 5% greater than that. This does not bode well for anyone calculating the elements of a planetary orbit - if they adhere to the Biblical value, then their results will not be accurate, and if their results are accurate, then they've committed heresy!


The value of Pi does. Check out 2Chronicles 4:2, and get back to us with your excuses for why the Bible is wrong.


You can't find the exact quote because it likely does not exist.


Why not? Either the Bible is the inaccurate and inerrant Word of God, or it isn't.


Jupiter's sidereal rotation period is 9.925 hours. However, comparing this value to Earth's is equivocating a non sequitor - you are comparing similarly-named events from two widely isolated frames of reference.


וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."- Genesis 1:5 (Translated from the original Hebrew).


The Bible does not allow for evolution, yet the fossil evidence does.


Again, a non-sequitor ... nowhere in the Bible is there a statement that "another celestial body hit the Earth." You are relying on the ignorance of your readers to limit challenges to your assertions. This is typical of Religionists of all faiths.

The Bible is not the ultimate authority, and you are not the ultimate authority on the Bible. I, at least, have attended seminary school.


I could go on, but I don't want to embarrass you.

I must correct myself from the previous post. In a letter to Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei writes:

Those "countless people" were devout followers of the Catholic Church, under control of "the Sovereign Pontiff, Urban the Eighth," who summoned him to Rome to attend a "Congregation of the Holy Office," which deemed poor Galileo a heretic unless he recanted all of his scientific discoveries concerning Earth not being the center of the universe. Like a good Catholic, Galileo obeyed.

Eppur si muove! ("And yet it moves!")

First, I'd like to thank you for responding and pointing out my errors. I don't often have a chance to brush up on my old studies. To quote:



Going by these figures, yes, they calculated the circumference at pi=3, assuming a perfect circle. One thing that's not clear is whether or not we had a circle or oval. Given the formula for circumference of an oval, the diameter from front to back could have been closer to 9 cubits. This means it quite possibly could have been an imperfect circle. To the naked eye, it could have still seemed like a circle (or as many translations have put it, circular). I know that you will see this as an "excuse," but I feel with what I know, this is the most accurate thing I can say.



The above quote from Galileo in Rome was the most accurate I could find. I can imagine what I stated may not have been a direct quote, but that it was a conclusion because of the quote in the text above.



I love the typo, but will move on to more pressing matters. I do believe that the Bible is the accurate inerrant Word of God. To say, though, that time has always been for the whole of the universe a 24 hr day, would be inaccurate. Also, to constrain God to Earth time would be unreasonable.



I know, you're going to say that he didn't mean a thousand years is literally one day. But it does expound on God's eternal nature and as such is not constrained by our time.



I said ~ for it's normally taken definition of approximately. The point was that a day on Earth is not a day everywhere. It's still a day on Jupiter. It was just something simple that people can understand the illustrate the point.



כי אלף שנים בעיניך כיום אתמול כי יעבר
ואשמורה בלילה׃


Excuse me if that is copy and pasted wrong. I do not speak Hebrew nor write it. The word for day is the same in both yowm. Still not giving a definitive answer on how long a day is.




This is where I disagree as based on how I feel about the first 7 days. I feel it gives every bit of allowance for evolution. And not that crock evolution that things evolved from the animals on the ark (Have you heard that theory? That dinosaurs were on the ark? My jaw dropped when I heard that one.). I believe in full evolution as it's what science tells us what happened. Whether I'm in my error trying to mold my religion to fit my science, I don't know.. I'm not really an objective viewer for that.



No, there was no text that state another celestial body hit the Earth. But there is clear formation of the moon and the Sun, as well as stars in Earth's sky. It still supports the idea that the universe and Earth were formed before the moon in it's orbit.



You are right. I haven't attended seminary. Nor do I care to as I don't want to work in the ministry. I am not hear to sway you on whether or not the Bible is the ultimate authority though, but since you asked questions, I felt compelled to answer. I would have appreciated not going on to insult me, but that's okay. I'm sure after typing all of that out, you had some extra frustration.

I pulled out these statements to make a point. I don't think you understand how you come off. Certainly, "you should be ashamed of yourself" is not infinite patience and respect, and telling me that you "pitied my son" was not infinite patience and respect. Some of your posts have definitely been well worded, thoughtful and respectful. But others ... not so much. You appeared to start from a blanket assumption that everyone you were talking to held one type of ignorant faith. That put us on the defensive from the start. We now know you didn't mean that, but you still lash out pretty quickly - in my opinion, which may or may not be worth anything. You are clearly intelligent and well thought out, and I've enjoyed many of your posts, even when I don't agree with them, but when other posts by you read as being in fight mode, people will respond in kind.

I think we all want to have a friendly conversation. Perhaps we should all start from the assumption that everyone is well meaning and seek clarification before accusing and getting defensive.

I intended no insult. I have embarrassed a few others here by pointing out the flaws in their reasoning, their faulty data, and their erroneous conclusions.

You've based your beliefs on feelings, and by "Cherry Picking" Biblical verses out of their original context. You have not given a context-based translation and interpretation of the Bible, yet you are certain of its validity according to your beliefs.

Many of my seminary professors also used unrelated verses to support their personal interpretations of a single verse, and then tried to brainwash their students into believing that their particular interpretation was the correct one. Fortunately for me, I saw through this sham, as they had arrived at their respective beliefs first, and then tried to back it up by manipulating each verse by taking it out of context and comparing it to other verses that were also taken out of context. Plus, they would often interject their "feelings" and unrelated superstitions as valid reasons to believe their own delusional thinking.

I left the seminary after two years, frustrated and confused over the fact that there is no one Biblical authority for everyone to follow, leaving each so-called "expert" to develop fallacious interpretations on their own.

This is also why there are more than 38,000 Christian sects and denominations in the world today.

BTW: 2 Chronicles 4:2 (KJV) reads "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

Round things are circular. The verse describes a circular item, and from it the Biblical value of Pi is 3. Thus, the Bible is in conflict with the real world.

And if the Bible errs on this one point, then what else might be in doubt? Biblical history? Biblical prophesy? Biblical accounts of virgins giving birth?

Last edited by Fnord on 12 Dec 2008, 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fortunately the Catholic church has evolved since then and no longer tries to muddle in science. Catholic High Schools teach evolution as fact, and teach science as fact, although they do put the hand of God into it. I have a friend who teaches at a Catholic High School; I asked.

It's kind of funny - or not, maybe just interesting - that what frustrated you is one of the things I have always loved about the Bible. That it CAN mean different things at different times to different people. To me, it is a living, breathing book, and that is it's gift. I realize that also means it is totally open to misunderstanding and abuse, but unless it had been written to embrace flexibility, how on earth could something written almost 2,000 years ago have any relevance to life today? But, yeah, that all rather defies the Aspie need for logic, doesn't it? I wonder how my son fits all that in his head? He seems to, even though he doesn't do that in other areas of his life ... flexible meanings are hard for him to embrace, although he has surprised me at times ... hmm ... maybe he just hasn't read enough of it yet to get frustrated by it? Well, as a parent with faith I have to say that I hope he can keep his innocent faith, but that isn't mine to choose. Sorry, tangent. But you got me thinking ...

Just FYI, I've enjoyed the exchange between you and ImaMelody. I believe pretty much as she does, but it's always good to hear more.

I'm going to take your word for it being an objective outside viewer that I have put emotion into my beliefs. It makes sense. I cannot say things I have come to conclusion is purely based on empirical evidence.

I have very little "faith" in the experts on my religion. I have been told one too many times that my salvation is in question because I don't believe a day is 24 hrs. The Bible has always been up to interpretation. The same verse of scripture tells women that they should keep their hair long, that it should not be worn down, that they shouldn't wear make-up, and that they shouldn't wear pants. And each of these interpretations are from a different sect... denomination.

I'm quite aware that my God and my beliefs are merely my interpretation of what I have presented. I have also come to decide that I will never find someone who believes exactly the same as I do. If they agree with me on the science of creation, then they won't agree with me on the Holy Trinity.

As for the Chronicles verse, round still does not mean it's a perfect circle. It could still be round and circular without being a circle. An ellipse is circular, without being a circle, and is still round without being so. Plus, I cannot imagine with the tools of the time, that they could have created a perfect partial sphere. It's just not within my comprehension.

Actually, a select few here, yourself included, went into "fight mode" and I have responded in kind. I never made assumptions about anybody's beliefs. As you yourself pointed out before, I have repeatedly asked for explainations of those beliefs. That is not making an assumption. You, however, made many assumptions about me in your first post on this thread. When I said I have shown patience and respect, that was, as I stated and you quoted me on, BEFORE you and certain others attacked me for ASKING QUESTIONS.
Am I angry and annoyed now? Yes, of course. You keep accusing me of what you yourself are doing. This is something I run into often.
What I find very upsetting, is that you attacked me for not realizing how I "come off" to people. I would suggest that you brush up on Asperger's Syndrome.
I am going to once again make this point: YOU ATTACKED ME. You entered this discussion with the sole purpose of attacking me. There was no escalation to this point. Look at ImMelody posts. That is a fine example of people having a frank, honest discussion about differing beliefs without resorting to childish bickering, as you have done. While I disagree with her, I have a great deal of respect for that, and for actually exploring her beliefs.

Well said!

I respect everything from your post except for this one, lone paragraph.

As an engineer, "Circular" means to me something that is round; that is, a circle, which is any closed, convex, two-dimensional curve with one focus and constant radius.

Also as an engineer, "Elliptical" means any closed, convex, two-dimensional curve with two foci and two radii.

However, if the two foci are co-located with the same {X,Y} coordinates, then the radius of the ellipse would, by necessity, be constant.

Thus, while circles are ellipses, not all ellipses are circles.

So, if the "Molten See" of 2Chron were an ellipse, then the Bible would have stated values for both a major axis and a minor axis instead of just one value for diameter - a diameter being particular to a circle, and axis' being particular to an ellipse.

:: The Bible is in error when it comes to the value of Pi.

I did not "attack" you; I meant to EXPLAIN to you. I fully realized that you probably did not mean to come off as you did, and I was trying to explain how you did come off, at least to me. Or do you not wish to know, do you not wish to understand why a discussion might have moved off track against your intentions? Since that isn't instinctive when you have AS, I thought you might want to know; might - don't HAVE to read it. It was not meant as an attack; it was meant as an explanation. I don't have the time or interest in attacking people; but I do have interest in trying to move forward understanding. If that effort by mistake is pompous, in that I am assuming I know something better, THAT criticism I'll take; I know I can go too far in trying to "help" where none is needed or wanted, and that my ego can be to blame for it.

As for my answer on the "science is God," please show me the attack in that post. It was a bit too strong and tactless, but it wasn't written very personally. There are no attack words in it, if I recall. I stuck to the general, and tried to suggest that one cannot demand answers on a forum, that answers are freely given or not given. Where is that meant to attack you? It was meant to simply say, "back off," with an explanation as to why. I don't see how you saw it an attack, although I'll accept that you did. Perhaps you can break it down so that I learn from it. I would obviously like to avoid being misunderstood or upsetting anyone. If you've read me outside of these two threads, you know that.

Meanwhile, I guess I should re-read it, in case I remember it incorrectly ...

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 12 Dec 2008, 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.