The bible's postulated story of Adam and Eve + the scientific theory of evolution.

Charles Darwin has proven the story of Adam and Eve to be self indulgent folly.

The Christian god is supposed to be all knowing. Obviously whoever inspired and wrote the bible were completely ignorant of evolution.

The fact that the Christian god did not correctly dictate reality in the bible means he himself was ignorant, and therefore could not exist, since it is a main tenet of Christianity that god is all knowing.

Much more likely and simply, the men who wrote the bible had no ****ing clue what they were talking about.

"Much more likely and simply, the men who wrote the bible had no ****ing clue what they were talking about."

This is indeed seems to be the most likely explanation but you haven't disproved anything nor do you KNOW that Christianity is wrong.

I certainly agree the writers/editor of Genesis certainly had no f...ing idea of Big Bang Cosmology or other ideas of chemistry or physics.

But what of this statement following ancient Aristotelian idea of an eternal universe:
"Until the late 1910's humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they ever been. Those who didn't take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning" (Foreward "Show Me God" Heeren, Fred)

Now the notion of a literal 6 day creation period has been heavily debated and I can completely agree at the outrageously ridiculousness of this notion!!!

But, ancient historians such as Augustine of Hippo wrote in his commentary of Genesis circa 400 A.D. of the idea of extended periods of time for each "yom"(hebrew for day). As the "yom" has been used elsewhere in the hebrew bible in representing periods of time.

But, why so much hostility toward christianity?

What do you mean I haven't disproved anything.

Christianity says that god knows everything. This is undeniable.

If god knows everything, he would have inspired the scribes of the bible to speak of evolution. Instead, a totally unsubstantiated fairy tale about the first 2 humans is written. This effectively shows that god does not know everything, since if he had known about evolution, we could deduce with 100% certainty that it would have been dictated and talked about in the bible since god supposedly knows everything and is said to be honest and loving.

Therefore, this particular god cannot exist. Since it was presupposed by the bible and the religions own followers that he is omniscient, that he knows everything, the fact that parts of his holy book do not match up with reality show effectively, that were he to exist, he does not know everything, or he blatantly lied to humanity in the bible, which would make him malevolent, which is also a characteristic not supposedly present in this god.

The religion and it's followers have supposed that the christian god is omniscient, he knows everything. We've found out that at least one of the extremely important stories detailing "creation" he dictated in his holy book is patently false. This makes him either A) ignorant, B) malevolent, or C) non-existent.

If it is option A), then this is all self defeating, since it was supposed that this god knows everything. If we find out, for a fact, that he obviously does not IE, he did not know of evolution, then said god could not be omniscient and therefore Christianity would not be true.

If it is option B), then even if this god existed, he would be considered malevolent for consciously lying to humanity through the inspired writings in his holy book, which also contradict his presupposed nature of being all loving. Again, if this option is true, it self defeats the religion itself.

If it is option C), well, then, Christianity is wrong.

Please explain how this is wrong.

If I suppose that there is a god that knows everything and inspires writings in books, and then you examine the book and it is erroneous in several different areas, then it is obvious that such a god - one that knows everything and inspired said book containing massive errors about reality - is not correct. Is it not?

lol what do you mean why so much hostility. I'm typing words on my computer.

And, therefore hostility and emotions cannot be conveyed?...via writing

If you are not I apologize! But, it strongly appears that you are hostile towards christianity

Rizeagainst - Although I'm not sure I agree with you or not. I really don't know. However, have you considered the possibility that God placed the evidence of evolution here on earth after the bible was written so that we, as humans, would think that was reality when indeed the bible is actually reality?

Although I don't believe this to be true, it is possible. Therefore, you cannot absolutely "know" that Christianity is false.

The only thing that I can see as an absolute in religion is that we can't "know" anything. No theory, religion, belief or otherwise is 100%.

Yeah buddy my mistake, you just disproved Christianity. No need to go any further or read the spoiler : when you know you're right, that's all that counts.

You cannot say with certainty that the easter bunny, the flying spaghetti monster or god does not exist but this in no way makes it likely for god (or the easter bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster) to exist unless you have reason (evidence) that increases the likelihood (which is obv not the case neither for the easter bunny neither for god).

I just prayed to god to ask if he wanted to debate rise, God didnt say **** back. Rise wins. Easy Game. GGYO

Really, really bad analogy, Borg. Like, REALLY bad. There is an insane amount of evidence that God may exist. None of it proves anything but it's certainly out there. There is literally no evidence that either of the entities that you mentioned exist and it is about as 100% certain as anything can be that they don't.

Blanket statements about religion are just insanely ridiculous. There is no absolute right or wrong. If there was then don't you think that this thing would have been settled thousands of years ago?

My lord.

What's the evidence for the existence of god?
In my opinion it's a great analogy to be honest because I believe there is no evidence for either (unless you prove the contrary to me in a minute).

I don't think I'm going to fall into this trap of going back and forth as to what evidence is worthwhile and what evidence isn't as is the inevitable path. I'll just say this, there are billions and billions and billions of people that believe or have believed that a God exists. A very good percentage of them base that belief on evidence that they hold dear. You obviously disagree with the evidence, I do to in many, many cases, but that does not mean the evidence isn't there.

The easter bunny does not exist. No one in the history of the world believes it does. There is literally no evidence, worthwhile or useless, to suggest that it does exist.

You see the difference?

While I agree this thread was very poorly constructed and rise is malign some gigantic logical leaps, there is no "evidence" as you say for God's existence, and certainly not any specific god in any scientifically meaningful sense. Most theistic arguments generally break down to false dichotomies and appeals to ignorance.

fail... i'm surprised you don't notice your double standards in your post...

I was tempted to be a douche just based on how cocksure you was that borg was offbase, but nah, because im sure when I'm off base people afford me the same leeway, or at least I would like them to.

Your whole post is riddled with a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. Basically its an argument that states if a whole lot of people believe something, then it must be true. This is not the case. Popular opinion used to hold that the earth was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe. Not so. And the fact that many people believed that didn't make it so. Likewise, the strength with which people believe doesn't make anything more or less true.

You should have tried being a douche. My post had absolutely nothing to do with that fallacy, as I'm quite aware of that pit fall. It doesn't matter the shear number of people that believe it. My point was that those people base those beliefs on evidence that they hold dear. That evidence exists regardless of whether or not you or borg or I believes in the evidence.

He compared it to the easter bunny in which there is no evidence of it's existance.

That's the point I was making. I am in no way saying anyone is proving anything nor that anything that anyone believes in this argument is true.

I thought I made that pretty clear in the first post.

Yes, don't fall into the trap of trying to point out even one example of the "insane" amount of evidence that god exists...

Millions of people (would have been billions if billions existed) believed that the sun orbited the earth based on "evidence" they held dear (the evidence was that somebody told them that the sun orbited the earth). How did that turn out?

What does 'evidence they held dear' mean? What kind of evidence constitites that?

You guys are COMPLETELY missing my point. I am NOT (I wish I could use 36 point text to get my point across) arguing that God exists or the validity of the evidence that God exists.

Borg compared it to the Easter Bunny. I disagree completely with that analogy because of the fact that evidence (RIGHT OR WRONG) is there for God existing while there is no evidence of the Easter Bunny existing.

I was also trying to point out that there are no absolutes when it comes to religion. There is no "I know" in this discussion.

The Bible. Life experiences. But that's completely NOT the point. All I'm arguing is the OP is completely ridiculous because there are possibilitiehes that exist that he didn't think of or take into account. There is no "I know" in this discussion.

In the midst of that argument, Borg somehow compared the belief in God to the belief in the Easter Bunny. I've already talked about why that analogy is ridiculous.

Those are the ONLY two points I'm trying to make. That's it.

There are millions of children all around this country and others that would disagree with you based on evidence they hold true. Eggs are hidden while they are sleeping that they must hunt for. They wake up to giant baskets filled with candies and gifts that come while theyre sleeping and come from what they believe to be the Easter Bunny.

These are the same children that are indoctrinated with evidence that they then hold true that causes them to believe that god exists.

So, no, the logic is right on the money, and you have fallen into logical holes in this argument, specifically with the "billions of people believe this based on evidence they hold true." Hundreds of people killed themselves in Jonestown based on evidence they hold true. It doesn't make them right.

lol.. WHAT???

That is not evidence that the Easter Bunny exists because it is an absolute that the Easter Bunny does not exist. The same cannot be said for God.

Oh my lord. Have you read anything I've wrote. LET ME SAY THIS VERY CLEARLY -

I AM NOT ARGUING THE VALIDITY OF THE EVIDENCE, ONLY THAT THE EVIDENCE EXISTS!!!!!!

Stop trying to prove to me that there isn't a God. There is no proof that there is or that there isn't a God and I'm not arguing either side.

I'm simply saying that there are no absolutes in this argument. No one actually "knows" anything.

You haven't presented any evidence, of course you aren't arguing its validity. You keep saying evidence exists, and yet you present nothing. How are we to take anything you say seriously?