Cain: the evil one or simply infantile?

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, you have changed your claims here. You used to be saying that you had 100% proof against religion. Now you are saying you don't konw one way or the other. For example, you have said in your last response "was he the son of god? i don't know". This goes against your previous claims how the Cain's story absolutely can't happen due to logical contradictions, which would imply that you KNOW that Jesus won't be son of God for simple fact that he believes the bible.

I have also noticed that you are no longer defending the original evidence you were using. On the contrary, you have openly admitted that you were using a double standart in your very first sentence where you said "thats different because its something that can be proven". In other words, when you said the words "thats different" you have admitted that your original logic was fautly. And then with the rest of the sentence you said that it is okay that it is faulty because it leads to correct conclusion and "the end justifies the means".

If this is indeed what you want to do, then you are basically dismissing your first evidence with your own hands, which leaves you hard pressed to stick to the second logic, namely the one you brought up in your very last response. ANd that secnond logic really isn't much since all it says is that lack of evidence being equal to evidence to the contrary, and this is simply not true.

I am giving you benefit of the doubt and simply saying that you didn't have time to explain everything that is in your mind. So, in order for you to make better case, it seems like you need to choose one of these three:

1)Make a case towards the evidence you were discussing in the past (the one about who stole what from whom) WITHOUT an appeal to what you have brought up in your last response

2)Admit that your ONLY evidence is what you brought up in your last response, and stick to that. Namely, your argujment is the fact that bible has no evidence to support it.

3)Admit that your argument is NOT logical but rather STATISTICAL. In this case, indeed, you are allowed to say that one evidence by itself isn't strong enough but something else backs it up.

In case you choose part 1, you have to adress the distinction between the case of who learned the bible first verses who learned quantum first WITHOUT any appeal to lack of evidence towards the bible. In particular, consider the fact that my dad learned quantum much before me and yet I haven't borrowed it from him. Also consider the fact that all descendants of Adam and Eve (Jewish or otherwise) had a way of learning their family story since it was passed from generation to generation.

In case you choose part 2, I am going to bring up a lot of end time prophecies taht are being fulfilled, whether it be mark of the beast microchip implant, State of Israel, etc. etc. Furthermore, even if you dismiss all of them as coincincence, still neither side will win because the only "evidence" given in your last response is lack thereof. Finally, the whole thing about relgion being used to damage people isn't an evidence either since nuclear power can be used to do the same too, but this doesn't disprove nuclear physics.

In case of part 3, you are no longer hard pressed between choosing the difficulty in the first or second option. Instead, you basically admit that neither of the two evidence offers any proofs, but they basically play upon probabilitities, so them two being together makes religion highly unprobable. In this case you would still have to admit that you mis-spoke in your past replies when you were saying you had a proof. Furthermore, given that the probability of bible being true is no longer 0, but simply close to 0, this still leaves me a room to bump that probability up by giving you a bunch of evidence FOR the bible such as fulfilled prophecies, and who knows may be I will bump it up quite a bit.

i have not changed my claims. your trying to equate something that can be proven with something that cannot be proven, and im trying to get down to where you are comming from. thats why i used the example of jesus. your using things that are not related to religion to try to explain yourself, like "taking a test" i was using what the sumerians said, against what the jews took from them, so thats using similiar ideology's. not compairing what the sumerians said, against what the jews said as taking a test. wich is what you said.

either way you make no sence. and i have proved that

1. the jews stole the ideas of the creation of man story, and noahs flood story from the sumerians. and used it into there own religion

2. the story of cain makes no sence the way the bible tells it.

3. why would "god" reveal the truth to the jews who ripped off the ideas of an entirely different culture, and used them as there own as the truth?

4. there's no way that adam and eve lived at the same time, there's a seperation of atleast 30,000 years. so its highly unlikely the way the bible describes them as being the first people on earth and that everyone came from them. and if your whole argument is going to be well, "who knows how long they were in paradise for" here's my answer, why should i believe that when the story of cain makes absoutley no sence at all?

5. the new testement was written 70 some odd years after jesus death. his diciples didn't have a pen and paper when they were with him writing everything he said down wich leaves alot of room for erorrs

There's really nothing left to discuss, so this will probably be my last reply. since everything i've listed here can be backed up with either using scientific methods, or are well established facts.

In other words, you are saying that since real life can be proven but religion can't, you don't have to use the same criteria. In particular, in a real life if one person learns something before the other person did, this doesn't imply plaguirism, since real life can be proven. On the other hand, in context of religion, if one group of people learned something before the other one did, then it most definitely means plaguirism since religion can't be proven.

This is a fautly logic. Suppose you have a few suspects of crime A, and you judge their innocence/guilty based on whether or not each person's innocence has been established with respect to crime B. In this case, crime A is plaguirism, while crime B is lack of evidence to support a theory.




You haven't. I do believe the bible. But for the sake of an argument lets pretend that I am atheist. In this case, I can still say that may be both groups of people have borrowed it from some other group that is older than both of them. Since I do believe the bible, by "something older than both of them" I mean God. But even if I were atheist, I woulud still be albe to imagine something older than both of them. The point being is that you don't have solid evidence for the claim that Jews borrowed it from sumerians.



I have given you few ways in which it does make sense. First possibility is that adam and eve had daughters that the bible simply haven't mentioned for the same reason as in the story of Moses bible was only counting number of men. The second possibility is that there were pre-adamic people as supported by metochandrial adam and metochandrial eve. I also adressed your objection about metochandrial eve having different age from metochandrian adam. Each of these two had a partner to reproduce, thus Adam and Eve can be ONE of these two couples. Furthemrore, it is possible that older couple corresponds to Adam and Eve while younger one corresponds to Noah.



You are appealing to the part 1, which I have shown to be wrong.

Actually, you are being circular, because right now you are trying to adress my statement that Jews didn't steal because they simply got it from God. And your answer is why would God reveal anything to them given that they steal ideas.



I don't know which of these is the case but there are several hypothesis that shows how it can be possible

a)FIRST POSSIBILITY: Two creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. So it is possible that first Adam/Eve couple is the Genesis 1 one, and they reproduced into pre-adamic ppl, while the second couple is Genesis 2 one which had Cain and Abel

b)SECOND POSSIBILITY: may be first metochandrial adam/eve are the biblical ones, while the second adam/eve are Noah and his wife. He will too be an Adam since everyone else was killed in a flood

c)THIRD POSSIBILITY: since I do talk about multiple creation may be there were dozens of Adam's and Eve's. In this case biblical ones are yet another couple. And why not? If God did it twice he can do it few more times.




Again you are being circular. Your goal is to PROVE that story of cain makes no sense. If you are trying to prove a theorem, you can't use that theorem as a part of your proof. But that is exactly what you are doing now. After all, in order to prove that story of cain makes no sense, you had to prove that adam and eve makes no sense, but then when I have to explain how they might make sense, you are saying that you won't listen to my explanation because the story of cain makes no sense. In other words, you are being circular.



First of all they received revelation from holy spirit. One evidence for it is the fact taht the prophecies in the book of revelation come to pass on daily basis. One of them is microchip implant that is being developed to fulfill prophecy of mark of the beast.

Even if you going to reject this, there is a secular explanation of how disciples remembered Jesus' words. i have heard that at least in the past there was a strong emphasis on memory in jewish education, and from childhood there were a lot of memorisation of talmud and stuff. And indeed it is true that Jews were quoting each other in a lot of cases, and Jesus and his disciples were just one example of it.

On any event, once again you are doing your usual logical mistake. The story of Cain and Abel are the Old Testament and not a new one. Yes, I do believe in New Testament, but all I am saying is that you are not making a terribly good case here.

thats right, because if i remember corrctly no ones religion so far has proven to be the truth. if i have to explain what i mean you're an idiot.


actually i do. i'll use the "noahs flood story" as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziusudra

pay attention closely because i'll only say it once. if you make up a flood story and you are the first person on earth to tell such a story, everyone after you who makes up similar storys, is borrowing ideas from the origional idea, in this case from the sumerians.



well i mean maybe you should be god, since you know more about him and are better explaining why he did what he did than he did.



Well i didn't know wishfull thinking was the truth, but congratulations you do.



So what do you mean by "recieved revelation" by the holy spirit? did he talk to them directly, or was this more of an "inner tinggling" that told them what they were writing was right?

This is man's fault rather than God's. Jesus explained that things are deliberately hidden from men that are sinful. As a result, when ppl try to interprete things that are hidden from them, they are bound to come up with erroneous interpretations, and thats how we get different religions that teach different things. Here is a relevent passage in the bible that talks about it:

13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.



Okay, there is a clue in what you said: "and inf you are the first person on earth to tell such a story". Well, in this case it isn't the case. In the very link you provided I have seen three different groups of ppl with this story. So, may be NONE of them made it up but rather they have ALL learned it from their ancestors since the story is the truth.

Think of secular history -- one way to test the truthfulness of something is that you get similar things from different sources. In such cases you aren't saying that different sources plaguirised from one another. Rather you are saying that they match because the story happends to be the truth.

And by the way, speaking of history, you don't know ANYTHING ever took place since you weren't there to see it. So, the way you know various historical facts is PRECISELY through seeing how many different sources would agree with these facts, the more the better. In light of this, I can even argue that the fact that so many societies have similar stories might only support its historical validity.

On the other hand, if I follow your logic, then I would say that since I haven't seen a given SECULAR historic event, I have no solid proof of it. Furthermore, most sources can't be trusted, since I can always single out the oldest of these, and then claim that this oldest source made it up and then the rest simply borrowed the story from the oldest one.

This argument would disprove just about ANY historical event, after all, from simple probability theory I know that if I have a bunch of sources one of them will be the oldest. And if such is the case, it would be enough to argue that everyone else have borrowed the evidence from that oldest source.




I never said these ARE the ways in which god did it. I merely said that these are few out of many more POSSIBILITIES of what god MIGHT have done. Even though I don't claim that these are the possibilities that happened to be true ones, I have still refutted your claim that there are no possibilities.

Think of it this way. Suppose bible talks about some mysterious numbers, a, b, c, and d. While it makes it clear that they are CONCRETE numbers, it doesn't tell you what they are. Later, it says that a+b=cd. You then tell me that bible is wrong because you have proved a theorem that this equality can't possibly hold. Then I refute your proof by counterexample. I say what if a=7, b=5, c=3, and d=4. You then respond to me by saying that may be I should be god since I just told you what god chose a, b, c, and d to be. And then I respond to that by saying that I have no clue what god chose a, b, c, or d to be at all. I was merely making an example to refute your claim that a+b can't possibly be cd. In other words, these four values are merely ONE POSSIBILITY in which the biblical statement that a+b=cd can be accomplished, but I never said that is the only possibility.

I have done the same thing with Adam and Eve. I have no clue what have actually happened, but I do have a few POSSIBILITIES in mind. So, even though I have no way of knowing whether or not these POSSIBILITES are indeed the case, the mere fact that i can THINK of these possibilities refutes a statement that the thing is impossible. After all, if it was some kind of mathematical contradiction, it would of been humanly impossible to think of a single possibility for it to be realized.




Well, we disagree on whether or not it is wishful thinking.



I don't know for sure but if I try to extrapolate from Moses and Jesus I would believe he talk to them dirrectly. Moses was told word by word what to write in case of burning bush. Likewise Jesus said that he doesn't speak of his own but only what he HEARD from his father. So, by extrapolation, I believe the same probably applied to ppl who wrote the New Testament.

actually i do. i'll use the "noahs flood story" as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziusudra

pay attention closely because i'll only say it once. if you make up a flood story and you are the first person on earth to tell such a story, everyone after you who makes up similar storys, is borrowing ideas from the origional idea, in this case from the sumerians.



Alright this is where your whole argument goes down. PAY ATTENTION TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
exerpt from the second paragraph:

Many story's in the sumerian religion appear homologous to other middle easten religions. for example the biblical account of the creation of man, as well as noah's flood narrative resemble the sumerian tales very closely. though fragments of the sumerian myths were written many century's earlier than the tanakh (old testement) and the bible.

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_mythology

Translation is this: The jews stole the ideas of the sumerians and used them in thier own religion.

My take on you is this, your brainwashed beyond belief dude. (but most religious people are) so i'm not suprised. i have just given you facts and proved that what i'm saying is the truth. while you have yet to give me anykind of prof about anything your saying, besides quoting scripture. from the bible

Okay, as far as the second paragraph that you quote, again it isn't an evidence towards anything. It can be interpretted in three different ways

1)May be everyone is borrowing from sumerians
2)May be summerians borrowing from everyone
3)May be everything is being shared among these people

You seem to insist that number 1 is the case. On the other hand, I am saying that may be number 2 or number 3 are the case. In case of possibilities 2 or 3 your argument goes down.



I DO have evidence. Namely, the fact that different biblical prophecies being fulfilled. One of the most notable ones is the mark of teh beast thing. Right now they are trying to device microchip implant in order to track terrorists and they also thinking of using it as credit card that way it can't be lost or stolen. Now this implant has to be powered in order not to discharge. The way it can happen is if it is instollen in the areas of large blood circulation that would be enough to power it. The ONLY such areas the researchers found are RIGHT HAND and FOREHEAD. And noteably it has to be RIGHT hand; left hand has less of the blood flow. So this coincides EXACTLY with the prophecy that mark of the beast has to go to right hand or forehead. Furthermore, the bible says people won't be able to "buy and sell" without mark of the beast. And, indeed, if the implant is to be used as credit card, they won't be able to buy or sell without it, either. Finally, the bible says that the mark of the beast will have 666 on it. Now, if implant is to be used as a credit card, it would need to have bar code, and, incidentally, all current bar codes in stores are all based on 666.

You want more? Well, there was biblical prophecy that Israel is going to be rebuilt "in one day". You would say it is impossible. Well, it happened in the 1948 conference where they decide to return Israel to the Jews. This conference only took 1 day.

Speaking of the Jews, it is also interesting to note that a lot of their calamities, including the disractions of both of the two temples, expulsion from Spain, and few other things, all occured on the same day of a year according to Hebrew calendar. This is the same day as the Israelites have angered God in certain way back in the Old Testament (I don't remember what it was, but I can find out). Similarly, it is noteworthy that a lot of enemies of the Jews meet their death on various Jewish holidays which indicates God's wrath on them. I don't remember all of the examples off hand, but the one I can think of right now is that Stalin died on Jewish holiday, and right before his death he was going to send all the Jews to Siberia, and his death prevented it from happening.

Now, returning to Biblical times, in the Book of Daniel there are weeks (where a day equals a year) where there is enough info to predict the comming of Messiah. So counting these weeks, the Messiah's comming falls right into the time of Jesus. Of course you can say that Jesus is a myth. But the thing is that he can be linked to historical event, namely the disraction of a second temple as a result of Jews killing him. Jesus have said that his "generation" won't pass untill the temple be destroyed. In Jewish mindset, the "generation" equals 40 years. Jesus died in around 30 ID, so 30+40=70. Indeed, temple was destroyed in 70 AD which fulfilles the prophecy perfectly.

Also, there are various biological traits that are meant to make a person right with God, and they CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF EVOLUTION OR SURVIVAL. For example, they have discovered "god recempors" in temporal lobe. Whenever you are dealing with religious people, these receptors are activated when they pray. You can't explain them with evolution because they have NO OTHER FUNCTION, the only time when they are activated is strictly when you pray. They are NOT being activated in social or sexual activities of any kind.

Another thing is why do women have this thing over their vaginas that can verify their virginity? From biblical point of view, it is in order to make sure that they don't commit adultery. From evolutional point of view it makes no sense. You might say it is to prevent infection, but then I would ask you how come married women who DID have sex don't get any infections diseases?

Well lets see here number 2 and 3 can't be the case BECAUSE THE JEWS DID NOT COME BEFORE THE SUMERIANS. s**t, i mean are you ret*d? There's no way to interpet what i'm saying because THE SUMERIANS WERE THE FIRST RECORDED CIVILIZATION ON EARTH. EVERYONE WHO CAME AFTER THEM AND STOLE THIER IDEAS, WICH I HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE TO AND PUT THEM INTO THIER OWN RELIGION STOLE THERE IDEAS AND CALLED THEM THERE OWN. SO 2 AND 3 MAKE NO SENCE. This conversation is now over. because in typical christian fasion you're trying to tun this into a religious babble that makes absolutely no sence.

There are plenty of others who did. What I am saying is that it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE among A LOT OF PEOPLE, simply because it was history. Then Jews came and God supernaturally taught them this common knowledge.

Okay, let me explain it this way. French Revolution is common knowledge, right? Now suppose God decided that there are some crucial detailes about French Revolution that got distorted. So he chose a group of people to supernaturally reveal to them what happened during French Revolution from God's perspective. So, he revealed it to this group of people in 21-st century. In this case, it is still true that these ppl learned it from God's revelation, even though it was common knowledge untill that time.

Now, what I am applealing here is NOT that Jews knew it before Sumerians. Fine, Jews weren't there. What I DO want to say is that it was common history. IN other words, I have to say that Sumerians aren't the ONLY ONES who knew it (if they were, then you are right they made it up). So, when I am saying 2 or 3 I am referring to "people other than Sumerians". I NEVER SAID JEWS -- I said "people other than Sumerians".




If Sumerians are the first civilization on earth, then they would be fathers of EVERYONE living on earth, in which case it won't be possible for anyone to steal anything FROM sumerians since everyone will BE sumerians.

There is a key in what you are saying. It is a first RECORDED civilization, which means there were plenty of others, they simply weren't recorded. And this leaves plenty of room for these other civilizations to pass things orally.

So if they weren't the only ones who knew what they made up in the first place, who else knew it?




Well as it stands now scientifically, THEY are the first civilization in recorded history to date. WICH MEANS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEFORE THEM SAYING WHAT THEY SAID. (AND IF THERE IS PROVE IT.) otherwise everything you are saying is garbage.

Civilizations that weren't recorded. Also, look at your own link that you have shown me. I saw at least 3 groups of ppl who knew this story.



Okay it is simple logic. If there is an oldest recorded civilization, there can only be two possibilities

1)Everyone today is the descendants of this one civilization. This would include Jews, hence no stealing ever happened.

2)There were civilizations that were not recorded. Since they weren't recorded, there is nothing to rule out the possibility that they knew everything that Sumerians did.

There is no possibilities. because in order for a "group of people" to be classified as a civilization, they have to meet specific criteria for being a civilization. IDIOT. The sumerians, met all these criteria before anyone else! jesus christ your f*****g ret*d. AND NO ONE BEFORE THEM CAME UP WITH ANY OF THE MYTHS THAT THEY MADE AND SUBSEQUENTLY EVERYONE AFTER THEM COPYED.

Okay, in this case there were "tribes of people" otehr than Sumerians. So even though these "tribes of people" didn't meet a criteria for "civilization" it still didn't stop them from keeping their history through family tradition.



If nothing about no one before them were recorded, then there is nothing to exclude the ppl before them from comming up with these things. After all I DO know that ppl before them DID exist, even if they weren't civilizations but simply tribes.

I don't know what your trying to say here, because there's no evidence of any tribe, before the sumerians civilization, saying anything that the sumerians said.

Wishfull thinking will get you nowhere. now if you want to back up what you say using some kindof scientific method that would be alright with me.

Okay it is simple logic. Our population on earth is X. The number of descendants of Sumerians that are living today is Y. Either Y=X or Y<X. If Y=X, then everyone is descendants of Sumerians so no stealing can possibly happen. If Y<X, then the question is where did these X-Y people come from. They didn't come from thin air, so obviously their ancestors were un-recorded tribes. Since these tribes weren't recorded, you have no way of saying that they didn't know everything Sumerians did.



I can accuse you of wishful thinking too. If we know NOTHING about someone, then either saying that they knew something or saying that they didn't know it has equal validity or lack thereof.

Dude i'm not interested in you're take of things because it cannot be proven at all. i have given you nothing but facts about where everyone stole there ideas for thier religions and used them as the truth. you can idependlently look up every claim i've made in this thread on the internet to see its the truth.