The Oldest Atheist in the world

iUseVi

chozometroid wrote: »

I'll play your little game, tbh. :pac:

God created Adam with His own hands. This is a direct act of a Creator God and created being. It is then said that God formed Eve from Adam's rib. Whether this is literal or metaphorical doesn't really matter, because God is there performing an act of creation. The significance of the rib is spiritual. Adam and Eve were to be "one flesh" physically and spiritually, as man and wife. The rib is at the middle of the body, signifying the role Eve had as Adam's equal "helpmate." It also relates to the idea that we are all part of the body of Christ.

Alright this bit is not important, its all part of the myth. What you are supposed to be doing is explaining why your myth is more likely than the Norse myth.

chozometroid wrote: »

Ymir's foot, armpit, and sweat making other gods whilst sucking a cow gods's milk whilst the cow god licked salt which made some more gods is a little bit different.

But hey, to each his own. I will run away now, but only for the exercise.

Different how? In what substantive way is it different? That was the challenge. I know the theology of the christian creation myth as well as you do, thats not what I am looking for.

chozometroid

iUseVi wrote: »

Alright this bit is not important, its all part of the myth. What you are supposed to be doing is explaining why your myth is more likely than the Norse myth.



Different how? In what substantive way is it different? That was the challenge. I know the theology of the christian creation myth as well as you do, thats not what I am looking for.

Oh man, a theologian atheist.

The Bible gives an account of a Creator God and His chosen people. This account leads up to the present day, and is all based on real people and this real world we live in. The Biblical records predate Norse mythology records by 1000+ years.

The Norse mythology is based on a plethora of gods and 9 worlds connected by a giant tree. From what I can tell, most of it is not even supposed to be taken as anything other than a collection of myths and stories.

This is why the Bible account is more likely than the stories of Norse mythology.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

Oh man, a theologian atheist.

The Bible gives an account of a Creator God and His chosen people. This account leads up to the present day, and is all based on real people and this real world we live in. The Biblical records predate Norse mythology records by 1000+ years.

The Norse mythology is based on a plethora of gods and 9 worlds connected by a giant tree. From what I can tell, most of it is not even supposed to be taken as anything other than a collection of myths and stories.

This is why the Bible account is more likely than the stories of Norse mythology.

Ok all I'm seeing is..

Book of Myths versus Book of Myths but I believe book of Myths to be more truer because those myths are older being argued here.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok all I'm seeing is..

Book of Myths versus Book of Myths but I believe book of Myths to be more truer because those myths are older being argued here.

No, you forgot the part where one book (not of myths) is based on a history of real people in the real world.

doctoremma

chozometroid wrote: »

No, you forgot the part where one book (not of myths) is based on a history of real people in the real world.

Perhaps you could tell us which one that is. I couldn't judge which is the more unlikely.

doctoremma

chozometroid wrote: »

No, you forgot the part where one book (not of myths) is based on a history of real people in the real world.

So are you saying that during creation, someone was around taking notes?

The Mad Hatter

chozometroid wrote: »

No, you forgot the part where one book (not of myths) is based on a history of real people in the real world.

Only if you take the bizarre history in Genesis as fact. Frankly, it would be way easier to invent a history like that.

iUseVi

chozometroid wrote: »

Oh man, a theologian atheist.

I was a christian for many years, but the average atheist knows the bible better than the average christian anyway.

chozometroid wrote: »

The Bible gives an account of a Creator God and His chosen people. This account leads up to the present day, and is all based on real people and this real world we live in. The Biblical records predate Norse mythology records by 1000+ years.

The Norse mythology is based on a plethora of gods and 9 worlds connected by a giant tree. From what I can tell, most of it is not even supposed to be taken as anything other than a collection of myths and stories.

This is why the Bible account is more likely than the stories of Norse mythology.

No. Wrong. The Bible is a very poor account of history. The garden of Eve story, the flood, the Israelites escaping from Egypt, the stopping of the Sun - none of these things happened. And these are just the few from the top of my head. You could hardly find a worse history book than the bible. Well, maybe something from Dan Brown.

Also, and again you are completely wrong, the Norse sagas do contain some amount of history, although they contain other stuff which is not, just like the bible.

I could list hundreds of events in the bible that a historian would laugh at. I'm not saying it contains no accurate history, I'm saying a lot of it is fiction, just like the Norse sagas!

chozometroid

I knew I was wasting my time. I guess you never knew these things have been argued to death in the past.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

I knew I was wasting my time. I guess you never knew these things have been argued to death in the past.

Well in fairness you are the one putting forward the some what ridiculous idea that the Hebrew creation story is some how reasonable and grounded in facts where as the Norse one isn't.

Naturally such an odd position is not going to go unchallenged on the atheist forum where sceptical and critical analysis of the myths of the various religions are regularly discussed.

Unlike some other forums we won't mention (cough) we don't see criticism of individual ideas of beliefs here as a bad thing. If you have a genuine argument present it. To get all huffy because your position is being questioned and critiqued is just unhelpful. This sort of critique of religious axioms might be a new experience for a Christian but it is the regular norm around here. People aren't ganging up on you, they are merely attempting to tear your position apart. That is a good thing, it makes for healthy critical debate. What you are supposed to do, if you are bothered, is show them they are wrong by tearing their argument apart.

iUseVi

chozometroid wrote: »

I knew I was wasting my time. I guess you never knew these things have been argued to death in the past.

You keep saying that "you are wasting your time" or your "point has been made" but it has not.

Your viewpoint that the bible is a good history book is plain wrong. Anyone who thinks that all humans came from two humans or that the entire globe was covered in water is just wrong.

If you feel you are making little headway in convincing us there is a good reason for that.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

People aren't ganging up on you, they are merely attempting to tear your position apart. That is a good thing, it makes for healthy critical debate. What you are supposed to do, if you are bothered, is show them they are wrong by tearing their argument apart.

You prompted me to make my first lolcat. Its rubbish I know but its my first attempt!

GLaDOS

Not sure where the topic has drifted to, but this is related to the OP, list famous dead atheists: http://jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html

chozometroid

iUseVi wrote: »

You keep saying that "you are wasting your time" or your "point has been made" but it has not.

Your viewpoint that the bible is a good history book is plain wrong. Anyone who thinks that all humans came from two humans or that the entire globe was covered in water is just wrong.

If you feel you are making little headway in convincing us there is a good reason for that.

I didn't say "my point has been made" anywhere that I'm aware of.
I also have not said that the Bible is a "good history book."

You guys have gladly turned this into an argument of the historicity of the Genesis account of creation, which it is not.

I gave my reasons for thinking the Bible is more compelling and more likely than Norse mythology, and those reasons were dismissed. Big surprise.

God created Adam with His own hands. This is a direct act of a Creator God and created being. It is then said that God formed Eve from Adam's rib. Whether this is literal or metaphorical doesn't really matter, because God is there performing an act of creation. The significance of the rib is spiritual. Adam and Eve were to be "one flesh" physically and spiritually, as man and wife. The rib is at the middle of the body, signifying the role Eve had as Adam's equal "helpmate." It also relates to the idea that we are all part of the body of Christ.

The response was:

Alright this bit is not important, its all part of the myth.

I would have to disagree. It is important because it is relevant to our lives and our relationship with our God. The fact that our God is a personal God separates Him from all others. The creation account is not a proof for God, but it is something that must connect with the believer in some way. It has to show what the origins of God's dealings with man are, and has to make sense when viewed in light of what we currently experience in our lives. This is why it is more compelling, to me. Atheists of course don't view anything of their current experience as being impacted by God. This is where we differ. As for the Norse myth, cow gods feeding other gods with milk doesn't do it for me. Sorry, but the scientific method isn't useful for me here. I can't "win" this argument, and I don't care to.

Norse mythology might have some real (or legendary at best) people and places thrown in, but for the most part (or entirely) it is based on worlds that have nothing to do with our own. There is no evidence that any people or stories are in any way real that I'm aware of.

The Bible is based on the history of the real world. I am wasting my time if I try to present any historical evidence for the Bible here, because I've seen time and time again how it is dismissed off-hand. Whether or not you think it's historicity is accurate "enough" doesn't take away the fact that it's 10000x more historical than Norse mythology.

The belief for Bible-related things comes as a result of the message of the Bible as a whole, along with the experience of a life changed by Christ. It is not the fact alone that Norse myths seem ridiculous or that Israel is a real country that makes me turn to the Christian God. I have found the Bible to have much deeper meaning over time and through spiritual growth. This cannot be argued for and explained to an atheist. It's not convenient, either. I'm just stating my real position here. This is the experience of life, not numbers.

I didn't expect to make "headway" with a bunch of atheists. You are merely a distraction in the controversy between Christ and Satan. Your only relevance is that you turn away some believers that are not well-grounded in their faith, and Satan doesn't have to bother with you, because you are all ready lost.
I suppose once you realize that not everything in life can be analyzed in terms of raw physical data, you will have the opportunity to find something special.

Now let me have your best, and most prideful, retorts, even though I've heard them all before. :eek::pac:

Pygmalion

chozometroid wrote: »

As for the Norse myth, cow gods feeding other gods with milk doesn't do it for me.

And a god making a person out of a rib does nothing for me, you haven't given any solid reason why this is a believable situation.
People aren't dismissing your arguments, you just aren't making the relevant one, can you give a straight-forward answer of why the story of god making Eve from a rib makes more sense than anything in Norse mythology?
Other than "I believe it to be true so clearly it is; Whereas Norse mythology is silly to me so it's obviously not true".

chozometroid

Pygmalion wrote: »

And a god making a person out of a rib does nothing for me, you haven't given any solid reason why this is a believable situation.
People aren't dismissing your arguments, you just aren't making the relevant one, can you give a straight-forward answer of why the story of god making Eve from a rib makes more sense than anything in Norse mythology?
Other than "I believe it to be true so clearly it is; Whereas Norse mythology is silly to me so it's obviously not true".

And around we go...

It's not possible to give the "straightforward answer" you guys are looking for regarding such a question. All I can say is that the Bible story portrays humanity and the perfect relationship structure of man/wife/God and the Norse one does not.

Zillah

chozometroid wrote: »

perfect relationship structure of man/wife/God

You people are insane. Get off my planet.

robby^5

People being created from ribs sounds about as logical as people created from feet and armpits to me (Norse).

chozometroid wrote: »

And around we go...

This is because of this:

chozometroid wrote: »

It's not possible to give the "straightforward answer" you guys are looking for regarding such a question.

You're inability to provide a straightforward answer to you're very straightforward statements about Norse paganism is causing this merry-go-round.

chozometroid wrote: »

All I can say is that the Bible story portrays humanity and the perfect relationship structure of man/wife/God and the Norse one does not.

Well the new testament does anyway, the old testament not so much...what with the taking of multiple wives and all that.

What's the difference between Man/Wife/God and Man/Wife/Gods in how they bring about a family unit? They both serve the purpose of making babies, preserving culture and worshipping their god(s). Is having only one god perfect because he multi-tasks whereas Thor and Odin are specialists? Why is it a perfect realtionship?

You cant seriously expect people not to pose such questions to such vague statements and then complain that the debate is going around in circles.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

All I can say is that the Bible story portrays humanity and the perfect relationship structure of man/wife/God and the Norse one does not.

The bible portrays what ?

You can't give a single solitary example of how the bible is more believable then any other religion. In fact you can't give a single solitary reason why your version of Christianity is any more believable then any other form of Christianity including Fred Phelps and co.

Scientifically, logically, reasonably you have as much as the Hindu's or the Muslims or the Jews or the Mormons or the ancient Greeks. You have absolutely nothing.

The only defense you have for your beliefs is that they are your beliefs. There is nothing to back them up, there is nothing to set them apart from any other mythology. I could set up my own religion tomorrow and I guarantee you within 10 years I would have nut jobs believing in the 'almighty teapot from whence we were all poured'.

Your last post was frankly ridiculous. Have you got any decent argument whatsoever for this assertion ?

Dades

chozometroid wrote: »

I suppose once you realize that not everything in life can be analyzed in terms of raw physical data, you will have the opportunity to find something special.

Go ahead and just make up a new way of looking at reality because the correct way doesn't back up your hypothesis - but don't expect it to wash here.

doctoremma

chozometroid wrote: »

I would have to disagree. It is important because it is relevant to our lives and our relationship with our God. The fact that our God is a personal God separates Him from all others. The creation account is not a proof for God, but it is something that must connect with the believer in some way. It has to show what the origins of God's dealings with man are, and has to make sense when viewed in light of what we currently experience in our lives.

You forget that many Christians (and maybe you, I don't know your particular faith background) will coming at this backwards. You connect with the Christian version of Genesis because this is the one that has been taught to you to make sense. It's a self-propagating circle. Consequently, other accounts of creation will appear ridiculous to you because you haven't been immersed in the story for any length of time. You likely haven't spent a great deal of time trying to figure out the metaphors/actual events/etc in Norse mythology because you've already decided it's not true.

People who study and even worship the Norse system may find your account of creation as ridiculous as you hold yours.

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

You are merely a distraction [...] Your only relevance is that you turn away some believers that are not well-grounded in their faith, and Satan doesn't have to bother with you [...] I suppose once you realize [...] you will have the opportunity to find something special. Now let me have your best, and most prideful, retorts

More prideful than that?

Matthew 7:5

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

I would have to disagree. It is important because it is relevant to our lives and our relationship with our God. The fact that our God is a personal God separates Him from all others.

Only if it is true. All gods are personal gods if they actually exist and communicate with humans (which the Norse gods are supposed to have done, heck the Greek gods had sex with humans)

chozometroid wrote: »

The creation account is not a proof for God, but it is something that must connect with the believer in some way. It has to show what the origins of God's dealings with man are, and has to make sense when viewed in light of what we currently experience in our lives.

Do you agree though that the Norse myths do this for some people, just not you?

chozometroid wrote: »

Atheists of course don't view anything of their current experience as being impacted by God. This is where we differ. As for the Norse myth, cow gods feeding other gods with milk doesn't do it for me.

But that doesn't make the story any less magical or fantastical though, does it.

It is like saying I believe in ghosts but not fairies cause that would be ridiculous. Do you see the point people are making. Your religious faith in a god creating light and "the deep" and pulling plants from the ground and making a man full grown and making a woman from his ribs and then flooding the planet etc etc is as fantastical a story as any other human supernatural creation myth

You can say you still believe it happened cause you know God exists, fair enough. But this idea that your super fantastical magic creation story is some how more reasonable than any other super fantastical magic creation story is bizarre.

chozometroid wrote: »

The Bible is based on the history of the real world. I am wasting my time if I try to present any historical evidence for the Bible here, because I've seen time and time again how it is dismissed off-hand. Whether or not you think it's historicity is accurate "enough" doesn't take away the fact that it's 10000x more historical than Norse mythology.

The creation story isn't, which is what we are talking about.

Eventually the Bible starts referencing historical events. But that takes a while. You don't seriously think we think Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah etc existed?

The Norse myths also reference real events, but obviously not in their creation story. Neither does the Greek creation story, despite them referencing real events and places such as Troy.

And neither does the Bible.