Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julio · 03-13-2009, 11:49 PM

You see, the clue is in the first words of verse one:
"Chisel two stone tablets like the first”.

Moses should have replied:
“YOU do it, Jehovah! With your magic powers, YOU do it yourself!
Make them unbreakable, too; so that NOBODY will be able to destroy them, and they will last forever!”
But, no. This Tribal Idol of the Superstitious Jews was not that powerful.
A travesty of a god, I tell you; incongruent and unsophisticated.

spamandham · 03-13-2009, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Think about it. You inhabit a finite universe - which means everything in it never existed at one time.

Does that include time? If so, that means there was a *time* when time did not exist.

Think about it.

Wooster · 03-14-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I believe if the BBT is considered, it could not have occured without an external impact. An absolute singular entity cannot perform any action - not even an explosion or an expansion. It is one reason why anti-creationists reject the finite premise, or embellish it with qualifications. In a finite realm - there is no aternative to Genesis' mode of Creationism - and none here can argue the point by putting an alternative on the table.

This is exactly what I mean when I say "educate yourself".
You clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what the Big Bang was. You base your comments on what you have been told it was, what you think it was (with your extremely limited understanding of the topic) and then you go on, based on your incorrect assumptions, to draw incorrect conclusions.

So, once again, I have to say: Educate yourself!
Why do you not want to educate yourself? Why do you want a collection of mythical stories to be real? And why do you refuse to accept the collective work of millions of brilliant minds over the uneducated superstitious minds of the biblical writers?

Julio · 03-14-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I believe if the BBT is considered, it could not have occured without an external impact. An absolute singular entity cannot perform any action - not even an explosion or an expansion. It is one reason why anti-creationists reject the finite premise, or embellish it with qualifications. In a finite realm - there is no aternative to Genesis' mode of Creationism - and none here can argue the point by putting an alternative on the table.

This is exactly what I mean when I say "educate yourself".
You clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what the Big Bang was. You base your comments on what you have been told it was, what you think it was (with your extremely limited understanding of the topic) and then you go on, based on your incorrect assumptions, to draw incorrect conclusions.

So, once again, I have to say: Educate yourself!
Why do you not want to educate yourself? Why do you want a collection of mythical stories to be real? And why do you refuse to accept the collective work of millions of brilliant minds over the uneducated superstitious minds of the biblical writers?

Well put!

Amaleq13 · 03-14-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

By the only path possible: determining the names are authentic,...

How did you determine the names are authentic?

Quote:

The operative factor here is 'continue to debate the question' - making it a non-negatable, sustainable issue today. This makes it a legitimate premise.

If you aren't claiming the author was correct in claiming the universe is "finite with a beginning", then you aren't really saying anything are you?

Quote:

Whatever is useless to you [NO OTHER GODS]...

It is objectively useless to anyone not trying to "sell" a monotheistic belief system.

Quote:

...must be enjoined by the fact it cannot be disputable, via logic, science or math...

As it has no basis in logic, science, or math, no such dispute is necessary. It can simply be ignored as irrelevant.

Quote:

this is the only list of comprehensive laws followed by the world - which does not contain ancient laws which were clearly discarded.

This sentence is incomprehensible to me. I suspect it is inherently incomprehensible.

Quote:

Anyone can copy Einstein's Theory of Relativity - but how many can edit and correct it?

Anyone can apply logic to the "10 commandments" and improve them by ignoring all that serve only to reinforce ancient religious beliefs.

Quote:

Note the critical difference as opposed the commonlities here: gone are the head bashing deities battling for surpemecy...

No, just replaced with God vs The Devil and/or Jesus vs The Anti-Christ. No "critical difference" looking in from the outside.

Quote:

gone are the rights to supreme rule by a king, prophet or messiah - they become subserviant to the law

Which is meaningless since they are the ones who enforce/interpret the law to which they are allegedly "subserviant".

Quote:

Nor are the Hebrew laws self-serving when correctly examined.

Half of the 10 serve no other purpose except to reinforce the belief system. That percentage skyrockets when all the other "commandments" are included. They are "self-serving" in that sense. They serve no objectively useful purpose for maintaining civilization.

No other gods, no idols, no misuse of god's name, remember the sabbath, don't covet.

All useless except to reinforce the belief system. All self-serving for that system. All unnecessary for a functioning civilization.

All evidence against the notion that this collection is somehow special or miraculous.

jon-eli · 03-14-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Anyone can copy Einstein's Theory of Relativity - but how many can edit and correct it?

Anyone can apply logic to the "10 commandments" and improve them by ignoring all that serve only to reinforce ancient religious beliefs.

Actually, I'd add to this (parenthetically) that Einstein was a skeptic of quantum theory, which is accepted today as on a par with relativity... but both of them need to be "edited" to conform to one-another, since their coexistence is not a happy one.

IamJoseph · 03-14-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Well, it is a contradiction of terms. “I will write the law myself again on the tablets; bring them here!”
But next:
“Well, Moses, you know what? I’ve changed my mind: YOU write the law yourself on the tablets; sorry for the misinterpretation!”
.

Rather than argue for the sake of it, I should check up on that one before responding.

IamJoseph · 03-14-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

“The text says only the first two commandments were given directly, and the people begged Moses this be stopped and given via him. All other transmissions were via dictation or inspiring.”

Folkloric stuff! Inappropriate for intelligent consumption, sorry.
It is a Tribal Deity incapable of straightforwardness. A desert illusion, if you prefer, in the minds of deluded patriarchs and their scribes!

That is clearly not possible for anyone or many to perform, considering the extent of stats and data involved. Please name your last three generations - use a super PC or all the Libraries, and the advantage of listings of birth certificates. By default, you are being far too generous to the ablities of those desert wondering Hebrews.

IamJoseph · 03-14-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

You see, the clue is in the first words of verse one:
"Chisel two stone tablets like the first”.

Moses should have replied:
“YOU do it, Jehovah! With your magic powers, YOU do it yourself!
Make them unbreakable, too; so that NOBODY will be able to destroy them, and they will last forever!”
But, no. This Tribal Idol of the Superstitious Jews was not that powerful.
A travesty of a god, I tell you; incongruent and unsophisticated.

I should let you carry on - before exposing your deficiency here.

IamJoseph · 03-14-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Think about it. You inhabit a finite universe - which means everything in it never existed at one time.

Does that include time? If so, that means there was a *time* when time did not exist.

Think about it.

It includes everything. It is an absolute declaration in the text with no conditions or qualifications.

FYI, time has been proven to have a definitive begining this side of the universe emergence by numerous scientists and mathematicians [Hawking's BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME'; etc].

IMO< Genesis - and thereby Creationism, rests on the premise the universe is absolutely finite; I personally do not claim anything outside this premise. If one does not subscribe to a finite universe - then Genesis' Creationism cannot be legitimised. Knock-knock! - equally, their own premise is also not evidenced in any way whatsoever. In the latter case we all fall into the unknown at best. This says, there is greater science and credibility in Genesis than its antithesis!!!!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2009, 11:49 PM	#51
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	You see, the clue is in the first words of verse one: *"Chisel two stone tablets like the first”.* Moses should have replied: “YOU do it, Jehovah! With your magic powers, YOU do it yourself! Make them unbreakable, too; so that NOBODY will be able to destroy them, and they will last forever!” But, no. This Tribal Idol of the Superstitious Jews was not that powerful. A travesty of a god, I tell you; incongruent and unsophisticated.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.