Can Any Of The Ab Bible Quoters Help Me?

[Atheist]

I have a vague memory of Biblical quotes wherein Jehovah exhorts his chosen people to smite the Midianites and to destroy them and their cattle and their children and to spare only the women who please them so that they may do with them as they see fit.
I hope my memory is playing me false. Perhaps someone with more Biblical knowledge can put me right?

[Khandro]

//The question seems to have been, how life started on Earth; //

and to answer that question Richard Dawkins famously said, "it was a happy accident" - that is why he's a clown, folks.

[vulcan42]

The difference is Theland, Dawkins said could, you always say did. Neither of you have proof, you're just more dogmatic in your views.

[Theland]

Douglas, yes, some may say that.
So what am I missing?
What is it that you know and I don't?
Please share it with me.

[Theland]

Vulcan, it is not beyond the wit of scientists with all of their computers and high fallutin' gizmos, to recreate the conditions found on the early earth, and I guess they have tried that, but beyond the failed Miller Urey experiment in the 1950's, no progress has been made in creating life in the laboratory.
God is the author of life itself.

[naomi24]

Theland, //When asked how he thought life had begun on Earth, Dawkins replied that our planet could have been seeded with life by an alien race.
Honestly!
I was shocked to hear that!//

I don’t believe for one moment that you were shocked to hear that. I know for a fact it’s not the first time you’ve heard that theory - and actually there’s far more potential evidence here on earth for alien visitors in the distant past than for the existence of supernatural gods. I certainly think it’s a possibility - but of course you knew that - which is why you mentioned it. Go on then, I'll bite - what more do you want to say about it?

//The bible is revelation from God, and answers my questions.//

If it’s a revelation from God it reveals stuff you’d have thought he’d rather have kept under wraps - and you find answers to your questions only if you ignore the bits you don’t like - for example the bible tells us that God was not omnipotent and that he was weak - but don’t let that stop you pretending otherwise.

Khandro, //Richard Dawkins famously said, "it was a happy accident" - that is why he's a clown, folks.//

Perhaps it was a happy accident. Do you know it wasn’t?

Since you ignored my question I assume you’ve not read any of Dawkins’ works then. Nothing like the ignorant pontificating on that of which he is ignorant. There's a lot of it about.

[Khandro]

naomi: Answer 1, Common sense. If anyone looks at the magnificent beauty & order of the natural world & thinks it's all an accident then they are half-witted (or less).

Answer 2. Yes I have read 'The God Delusion' which is on my bookshelves, I have thought of taking it on one of my regular trips to the local book-recycling centre but decided against it for fear it might contaminate some simple-minded person.

IMO the only deluded person is it's author.

[naomi24]

Oh well done, Khandro. You've read one. What did he say that leads you to believe he's deluded - and what evidence do you have to support your findings?

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - your analysis is as baseless as it is dogmatic.

Just because the complexity of something defies current knowledge does not mean it must have a supernatural origin.

For decades, scientists did not understand how a bee's ability to fly was against the known laws of aerodynamics - the bee's body weight measured against it's wing area made flight impossible. No-one told the bee that, it must have been 'God's work' then.

But advances in slow mo photography showed that the bee's wings are not fixed, they rotate, hence the redrawing of the rules.

Absence of an explanation does not mean it must be 'God's work' - there will be an explanation for everything eventually.

[Zacs-Master]

‘ for fear it might contaminate some simple-minded person’

It has a few billion people to contaminate before it catches up with the bible!

[Theland]

Naomi @ 09:25
Alien visitors?
But that just puts the problem back one place.
Then THEY were seeded by other alien visitors weren't they?
No, I don't buy that.

[Theland]

And God is weak?

[Theland]

How come the other thread closed?

[naomi24]

Theland, despite a complete absence of evidence you conclude that you have the definitive answer to creation. That requires a ridiculously huge leap of faith - and of rationality. There is no sense in it whatsoever.

And yes, that god wasn't what you claim him to have been. Read the bible.

[pixie374]

Andy, 10:01... exactly. Atheist, while theland is generally the first to claim there must be a "first cause", he is often also the first to claim that there isn't a "first cause" for god.
Logic doesn't come into it.

Neither does every atheist "follow" other atheists. It means a lack of belief in a god- it isn't a separate theory of its own. People may or may not believe everything Dawkins says, but nobody "follows" him, or anyone else.

[Canary42]

/// The bible also describes it.
So, should I trust the bible?
Yes, I do, for a variety of reasons.
The bible is revelation from God, and answers my questions.///

Every religion has its supporting documentation - it needs it to spread its propaganda. What makes you believe your bible has got it right and other tomes are incorrect ? Other tomes claim to be their Saviour's revelations, and also answer believers' questions. What evidence is there that yours is the one other than blind faith ?

[naomi24]

//It [Atheism] means a lack of belief in a god//

Atheism is an absence of belief rather than a lack of belief which could be construed as insufficient belief, or doubt. Atheism is a complete rejection of the notion of supernatural gods.

[pixie374]

Not really, naomi. It literally means "without belief in god". There are no degrees, just someone who doesn't positively believe. "Without" is the important part. Many might change their minds with evidence, but that's irrelevant, until it arrives.

[naomi24]

//There are no degrees//

Precisely - which is why ‘lack’ isn’t an appropriate description. Atheists positively reject the notion.

[Khandro]

//Many might change their minds with evidence, but that's irrelevant, until it arrives.//

If by that you mean scientifically proven evidence, like an experiment in a test tube, which is what clown Dawkins wants, you may all have a long wait.

[pixie374]

So far. You seem to be just being deliberately awkward about words though. I'm very happy to clarify for anyone whose first language isn't English. But, for the majority... lack, absence, without... are synonymous enough to not confuse anyone.