Yup, that about sums it up! No doubt about it.

You know the really scary thing? There are a whole lotta Christians who would believe that this video was promoting their beliefs... scary, but true.

Ugh, how I hate thee who tries to impose his will upon me... go away religious people and leave our schools alone.

I feel that I should point out that there's more to the Bible than the literal meaning. Much of it is metaphorical out of necessity, and some of it is not. For example, the accounts of Jesus are historical depositions containing the accounts of witnesses to the events, but most of Genesis is an "it's LIKE this" document. That said, some of Genesis is factual, like Adam and Eve betraying God, but you can see how Moses (the author) struggles to explain the events with language.

I feel bad for whomever made the video. How anyone could think that Creation (compared to what a human can process mentally) could be explained by man-invented language is beyond me, whether it's ancient Hebrew, Greek, or an English translation. For example, try to imagine something, *anything*, without basing the concept of it on something you already know. It can't be done with our limited minds or our limited vocabulary.

In fact, I feel so bad for their misunderstanding that I want to believe this is a parody/hoax. The video should really be titled "The Christian Delusion." The delusion that somehow Christianity needs to be defended. The delusion that the Bible is a scientific treatise. The delusion that God took the time to design and create all this beautiful order out of chaos, and then would leave us without a way to think about it in terms of logic, observation, and mathematical approximations. The delusion that because you say you believe that something must be, that it necessarily is.

The only way to know God is to have a relationship with Him, not through words in books, although that is a basis for beginning. I highly agree with Spoco2 - imposing upon someone is pointless.

Final comments: Spoco2, did you know that Christians (Methodists) created the public school system in America? So are they YOUR schools or ours? That's right, they are yours, because Jesus commands, "Freely you have received [from Me], freely give [to everyone]."

If any of you reading are not "Christian" (heavy on the quotes), I invite you to read a few chapters in the book, Matthew. Chapters 5, 6 & 7. At the least, be aware of what "Christianity" is, and get it straight from the quotes of Jesus, not from a video.

Mathew 6:22-23 "The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness." Literal? HELL NO.

Good giggle

Marr.. Unfortunately, I'd have a lot easier time beliving the bible, if a lot of it wasnt comparable to the events that happened to buddha..and Zorroaster, Both of which pre-date the bible.

Both were born of a Virgin (from an angel), zorroaster was the first to propose the notion of "One God, One Devil"

..Not to mention the theory of addam and eve, means we're all very, very, very, VERY Inbred.
And, If the addam and eve theory is correct, How do we have such diversity? Skin colour, Language, Appearances, all this came from two people?

I'm sorry, but I can't exactly trust a religion that activly took traditions from other religions to convert members, Christmas trees from the Vikings, Painting easter eggs from the Pagans i belive.

Dude! Tower of Bable or somesuch.

Go ahead, the most ignorant people on the sift can all take their turns on the christians. Hell, they deserve it.

marr, seriously, I must admit feeling a little sorry for you, even despite the fact you have a solid reason to rejoice: for once, quite unlike with that religion-thingy, your wish to believe (marr: "...I want to believe this is a parody/hoax.") might just be satisfied by a fact. really, the thought that one might ignore even the acknowledgments to Dawkins at the end... I mean what does it take to be that blind to reason?

I understand this isn't a forum for this sort of thing, and that it's about sifting videos, so I won't make more than a single response.

Re Shepppard's comments, I should make clear that I'm stating my understanding of the points brought up rather than trying to "impose" my beliefs.

Zoroaster and Moses lived around the same time. No one really knows for sure, and who knows what motivation these "scholars" have for picking the dates they do. Buddha came much later, by most if not all accounts. Anyway.. because someone in a non-Judaic religion says "one god, one devil" before or after Judaism does, doesn't mean that it isn't true. Personally, I think it would tend to make the case for it being the truth even stronger. Jews and Christians aren't special, despite what many think. The Bible clearly says that ALL of mankind are "children" of God, so revelation of the truth shouldn't be seen as a property that can be claimed only by them.

Jesus was not fathered by an angel. It's curious that there is more than one "virgin birth" - I didn't know that. Perhaps there is something special about people who are born in that way.

>"Skin colour, Language, Appearances, all this came from two people?"

My grandmother had red hair, my grandfather black. One had hazel eyes, the other light brown. Their son, my uncle, is blond with blue eyes. The fact that two people contribute to one offspring apparently doesn't result in a narrowing of traits in their children. Why would Adam and Eve be any different? Evolution indicates that these biological machines we are in become less complex as well as more complex. Re language, one only has to compare British and American English to see how language changes over time as a result of geographic distribution.

I agree with your complaints re christmas trees and easter eggs. For what it's worth, those are never mentioned in the Bible. They have nothing to do with the 'truth' of such statements like "[you should] treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you." (Which is a tenet held by over forty major religions. Again, which would seem to make the case for it being true even stronger.)

For some reason, I think this is a parody, as in not made by a whack-job evangelicalist.

If this is real, then there are not enough words to express how sorry I fell for that poor bastard. Im a preachers kid, but you really got to be kidding me. That is pitiful.

This is parody.

Attacking evangelical literalists is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel! The majority of Christians are not literalists. As marr pointed out, the bible is a highly metaphorical work that was not intended to be taken literally. Dawkins and his ilk have reacted to religious fundamentalism by propagating their own brand of intolerant atheist fundamentalism which paints all religions as inherently stupid, evil, irrational, and incompatible with science. All fundamentalism is bad - and atheist fundamentalism is no exception.

"I understand this isn't a forum for this sort of thing..."

Yes, it is. The comments sections are one of the huge pluses at VS, imho, and I hope it only becomes more robust and forum-like in the future.

nicely put gwaan.

Your grandmother and grandfather, who are very diverse, also had diverse children due to recessive genes. In other words, these traits were stored up in their DNA from countless ancestors. Of course, Adam and Eve has no ancestors, unless you count God. Now, even taking your grandmother and grandfather into consideration, that still doesn't explain exactly how we have Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Indians, Native Americans, (the list goes on) all from just two presumed white people.

On the other hand, one could assert that God made Adam and Eve with all these recessive genes, and therefore diversity began to spread, but I see this as highly unlikely because it would be impossible to cram that much into one person. Also, taking into account Noah's ark, it would seem that many of these races would have been wiped out in the flood, if the story proved to be true. So again, all these races spawned from a couple of white people.

I also find huge flaws in the Bible's story of Adam and Eve because they only had three sons. I'm not quite sure how you expect to have grandchildren with only three sons (one which is later killed) and no other women except for the mother. What's also interesting is that the Bible condemns incest on several occasions, yet this would have to have taken to place for humanity to survive in the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark. I don't understand why God would put them in that situation where they would HAVE to commit incest, if He disproved of it so much as to mention it several times in the Bible.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by language being affected by geographical distribution. American and British English are different because at one point, under Elizabethean rule, the English decided on trying to make their language more beautiful, and actively changed the way they spoke, while here in the American colonies, no such change took place, save for a few people on the East Coast. If that's what you meant, then yes, you would be correct.

In reply to your comment:
“My grandmother had red hair, my grandfather black. One had hazel eyes, the other light brown. Their son, my uncle, is blond with blue eyes. The fact that two people contribute to one offspring apparently doesn't result in a narrowing of traits in their children. Why would Adam and Eve be any different? Evolution indicates that these biological machines we are in become less complex as well as more complex. Re language, one only has to compare British and American English to see how language changes over time as a result of geographic distribution.”

gwaan, please stop using that ridiculous term. I'm not going to debate you, because I've seem from past exchanges you've had with BRM that it is pointless. Just a linky or two if you wish to peruse them.

"Evolution indicates that these biological machines we are in become less complex as well as more complex"

Marr - could you explain this and give an example of what you mean?

Bibles not ALL bad...
Check out this passage...

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Now thats a step forward RIGHT? LOL!

gwaan spaketh:
"The majority of Christians are not literalists. "

1) That's because the majority of people who refer to themselves as "Christian" are not 'born-again' believers and disciples of Jesus Christ, rather they are simply church goers who categorize themselves as 'Christian' in the same way they call themselves American or Caucasian or Republican.

It's just another social group affiliation label.

2) genuine Literal interpretation does not exclude the recognition that many parts of scripture were =intended= to be poetic, metaphorical, allegorical, etc.

The problem comes when simple minded zealots refuse to use reason and common sense and try to impose a meaning onto scripture that doesn't exist and twist it to mean some bizarre thing that was never intended.

Upvote for the debate. Seriously, evolution does not disprove the existence of a higher power (aka God). As an atheist-leaning agnostic, I think it is important to show tolerance (cults are a different story).

@dremifa: 0618680004...

@Obsidian
I'm not a biology expert, and I'm using other people's conclusions here, so I hope they're correct. I'm sure there must be more than one example for each, but this explains what I was getting at.

Becoming less complex: "Other cave beetles include [...] the very rare Blind Cave Beetle, Goedetrechus mendumae at Ida
Bay. This beetle has lost virtually all trace of its eyes."

Becoming more complex: My first cat was a silver tabby, and her offspring is a calico, with a more complex set of colors.

Those are kinda weak. I mean, both cats still have four legs and maybe the beetle never had eyes to begin with, but I hope that points you in the right direction as far as what I meant. The Bible says "in the beginning God created the creatures", but one has to remember that God is 'outside' of time. He/It doesn't get old. He just is. And just because the Bible says the creating was done at the beginning, doesn't mean that He can't continue to create throughout what we observe as 'time'. Or maybe at this point, His beginning was so completely badass, that He's just kicking back, letting it create itself.

I wrote most of this to karaidl as a private response, keeping to my promise not to fill up the comments with my chatter. However, it seems like it would be okay with most people if I post it publicly, and I want to share these thoughts with you. I discussed my thoughts about his ideas but it was long so I will cut to the chase....

""
All that said, maybe Adam and Eve didn't exist at all. Whether fictional or not, what's most important is what the story has to say about people. I think what it says, is that at some point, "people" chose to make their own opinions and their own judgements based on what selfishly suited them, knowingly going against "doing the right thing." It's that selfishness that breaks us away from "Love". Ever heard it said, "God is Love"?

You can think about the point of "Adam and Eve" like this: God wants a relationship with you. In a relationship, you can't force someone to want to stay in it with you, right? You might do it physically and threaten their life if they try to leave, but if you did that to a girl, her heart would be running away from you at a million miles an hour even if her body wasn't, right? Soooo - to have a true, intimate relationship you have to give the other person the possibility of leaving. You have to say, "Okay, I accept you into my heart, and I know that by doing so I ALSO have to accept the fact that you can hurt me."

And they did it man. The "Adam and Eve" said, "well okay, we're outta here." And poof! Now there's all this bullshit in the world, because they "broke up" with Love (God).
""

SooooOOOoOoo the point of the Bible is: the relationship that God wants to have with each of you. It's like a box of love letters. God says, "You left me, but I'm still in love with you. Please, please come home."

You can't say soemthing like that in a book of facts, that's how I know the Bible is not all fact-based. That's how I know that people who ignore or discredit the Bible based on this are completely, completely missing the point of why all the books in it were written down for you to read.

@marr:

Then how can you believe ANY of it? My god (pun intended), there are as many interpretations of the bible as there are people who read it. If it really is the word of god, then it MUST be factual if you believe god to be infallible. If you don't believe it to be completely factual, then how can you believe it is the word of god? If you believe some parts are literal and some are open for interpretation, then who decides which is which? You? Your pastor? Religion keeps trying to cram viability into the cracks of scientific knowledge. Always trying to reinvent itself so that science and religion can co-exist peacefully. Who are you to say the bible isn't all factual? Is your grip on belief so tenuous that you must create your own set of rules? "God is outside of time"? Who says? I wonder what concept of time they had around 80AD.

And, cave beetles is your example of something becoming less complex? Strengthens evolution if you ask me. If they lost their eyes, how do you know other senses didn't become more complex? Maybe losing eyesight was due to evolutionary pressure for using other senses that increased survival. I don't know, but you surely don't. I just refuse to fill in the blanks with "god did it". Throw away the Kent Hovind DVDs and think for yourself man!

@doremifa:

"As an atheist-leaning agnostic, I think it is important to show tolerance (cults are a different story)."

Atheist-leaning agnostic? Lol! Sounds like you are almost on one side of the fence but your pant leg is caught on a barb. Evolution doesn't disprove Santa either. Still think he exists? Might exist? Your assertation that science can't disprove god implies that science is trying to disprove god. No more than trying to disprove Santa. And I thinks all religions are cults of a sort.

I'm perfectly fine with anyone who doesn't interpret the Bible as completely literal and the exact word of God. There are far too many contradictions in it (for example, we're told to love and fear God, yet in one passage, it is stated that there is no love in fear). I feel this way because I regard the Bible as a rule book to base our morality on. Although no longer completely necessary in a modern day world, at one point people needed to be reminded what was right.

So long as Christians can come to a point where they realize that it isn't fact based, like marr has done, then we can begin to move forward.

Fletch - DON'T tell me what to do!

I'll keep on using the term 'Atheist fundamentalists' because it is a term that accurately describes a small number of intolerant and bigoted atheists - of whom Dawkins is the most high profile advocate. Although I am not an atheist, I would defend people's right to be atheists and to advocate atheism. Atheism alone - simply being the belief that God or gods do not exist - is not a problematic creed, and it is not inherently intolerant - nor is theism. But both atheism and theism become problematic when they are coupled with intolerant rhetoric which seeks to paint all people who hold different or opposing beliefs as less worthy. For example, there is nothing wrong with being a Christian, but when the Christian creed is coupled with fundamentalist rhetoric which seeks to paint all non-Christians - including atheists - as one homogenous group who are all inherently evil and worthless, it becomes a problem. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with atheism, but when it is coupled with fundamentalist rhetoric which seeks to paint all non-atheists as one homogenous group who are inherently stupid, irrational, intolerant, and literalist in their reasoning, it too becomes problematic. When Dawkins argues that the influence of religion is only negative, that all religious people are inherently irrational, that religion and science are totally incompatible, and that bringing children up with religious beliefs is a form of child abuse - he is propagating fundamentalist rhetoric which is aimed at driving a wedge between atheists and theists, and teaching atheists to look down on theists.

"Dawkins and his ilk have reacted to religious fundamentalism by propagating their own brand of intolerant atheist fundamentalism which paints all religions as inherently stupid, evil, irrational, and incompatible with science. All fundamentalism is bad - and atheist fundamentalism is no exception. " -- Gwaan

You sound like you're parroting third-hand spin. Have you read the entirety of The God Delusion, or any other book by Richard Dawkins? Do you have any arguments to offer against any of his specific points? Will you be satisfied with mere contradiction of him?

Yes I have read it - cover to cover! As I have said before on the Sift:

Dawkins is a good scientist - I would not deny that - but over the years he has moved from being a scientific sceptic to a preacher of intolerance. This move from scepticism to intolerance may have been motivated by the many vocal religious fundamentalists he met on his way who regulalry condemned him. But one should never respond to intolerance and bigotry with more intolerance and bigotry.

My charge against the God Delusion is precisely that in many of his arguments Dawkins abandons empiricism and reason in favour of simplistic generalisation and rants against the evil of religion. As Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project has argued: "Dawkins has abandoned his much cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." Or as Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard, has argued, Dawkins reasoning is full of "gaps, inconsistencies, and a suprising lack of depth of argument".

As Alister McGrath has argued: "The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today - wonderfully illustrated in the God Delusion - immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism which refuse to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. Dawkins is resistant to the calibration of his own certainties seeing them as being luminously true, requiring no defence. He is so convinced that his own views are right that he could not bring himself to believe that the evidence might legitimate any other options - above all religious options. What is particularly worrying is that, without seeming to realise it, Dawkins simply treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his pre-conceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalisms portrayal of atheism. When some leading scientists write in support of religion, Dawkin retorts that they simply can't mean what they say. Dawkins clearly feels deeply threatened by the possibility of his readers encountering religious ideas or people that they might actually like - or even worse, respect, and regard as worthy of serious attention."

hey Marr: I thought you'd appreciate knowing this... The historicity of Jesus the Christ has no basis.

1, Jesus the Christ, based of extant extra-biblical writings, is unheard of, and cannot be located in the century in which he was reported to have lived.
2, The multitude of followers of Jesus the Christ, based on extant extra-biblical writings, are unheard of and cannot be located in the century in which Jesus lived.
3, The teachings of Jesus the Christ, based on extant biblical writings, are also unheard of and did not affect any extant writings of contemporary extra-biblical writers.
4, There can be found no record of heresies concerning Jesus the Christ.

In addition

If we bear in mind that biblical sources all claim that Jesus the Christ had thousands of followers, was preaching in synagogues, in the mountains, in the cities and at the seashores, was under the threat of death by the chief priests, constantly challenged by the Pharisees, was tried by Pilate, Herod and then finally Pilate again, all this in the 1st century. The followers of Jesus the Christ, according to Acts, were growing at an alarming rate, sometimes thousands in a day, they were being persecuted, imprisoned, and even killed, again all this in the 1st century.

Jesus the Christ, his followers, his teachings are not known and had no effect on any historian, writer, poet, philosopher, king or emperor during the 1st century. It is interesting to note that Josephus in 'War of the Jews' described the severe beating and death of a solitary individual who constantly shouted, 'Woe unto Jerusalem" but did not write a single word about the thousands of followers of the Christ that were being converted and persecuted on a daily basis according to Acts.

marr wrote: "The only way to know God is to have a relationship with Him"
umm, it begs the question: which god ? there are thousands of different gods that have been documented.

I like how Dawkins says he won't talk about the text of the bible as it is akin to arguing with someone about mother goose.
but I will...
God didn't lose his only child, Jesus isn't literally his child since they are of one substance in the trinity. In order for him to count as a 'real' sacrifice he would need to have been 'actually' dead, but since 'death had no hold over him' and he came back to life, it wasn't really a sacrifice now was it?

the Trinity
is not found in the New Testament texts. It is the result of later development, e.g. the Athanasian Creed. It is the result of harminization, the attempt to put a polytheistic belief structure into monotheistic trappings. You end up with a bunch of illogical, self-contradictory statements, but you will go to hell if you don't believe it.

When I look at how many horrible things have been done in the past in the name of religion, I cannot help but question religion in general. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, hate crimes of every sort, jihads of all kinds, these have all been justified by or committed in the name of one religion or another.

What sort of deity allows these things to be committed in the name of its religion? Do I want to be even remotely associated with such a diety?

Knowing that there have been MANY religions in the past, all of which believed they were the ONE true religion, most of which are now completely extinct, I cannot help but ask: why should any religion today be right?

"My holy text says it is the one true holy text, therefore it is the single true religion in a sea of failed religions and mislead people."

At some point, one must proceed on faith alone.

Call me crazy, but I don't want to have faith in millenia-old beliefs that, frankly, don't add up.

Take Christianity for example. If the Christian god is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, why not have your followers just write a bible that was clear, concise, and open to only one interpretation? If the translation into English is the problem, why not just guide translators to give the meaning you originally intended?

qruel:

Check out E.P. Sanders for a good intro of the historical figure of Jesus and the attempts by scholars to use scientific and historical method to parse the mythology from the historical figure of Jesus.

In the field, the minority view is that Jesus was a figment of Paul's imagination. And the archeological proof (both canonical and non-canonical sources) seems to point more towards a historical reality of Jesus than the idea of an imaginary Jesus. By no means is the debate settled, but it doesn't mean that all of the papyrus is bullshit.

And there are a number of sources from Josephus, to Pliny, to Jewish sources, to the canonical and non-canonical gospels that indicated that Jesus existed.

Taking mere existence to Son of God and Trinity status is a whole different can of worms, but I have to disagree that the historicity of Jesus has no basis.

I really wish the following disclaimer hadn't been edited out of the bible:

"WARNING, THE FOLLOWING IS COMPLETE FICTION AND SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN AS FACT IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM."

Good mornin' argument!

I love it!

"Fletch - DON'T tell me what to do!

I'll keep on using the term 'Atheist fundamentalists' because it is a term that accurately describes a small number of intolerant and bigoted atheists"... yadda, yadda, yadda...


Who is intolerant? Didn't think I was TELLING you what to do. But, whatever. Exactly why I didn't want to debate with you. I used to think you were a reasonable, intelligent person who could think beyond the dogma of the religion you follow, but that just isn't true, is it. You seem extremely touchy, reactive, intractable, and self-righteous when anybody questions your religion, motives, or the quotes you love to parrot. It seems your personal sixth pillar of Islam is to sell it to us infidels by espousing some non-literal, watered-down version. Islam has taken some hits in the last few decades and it's probably pretty sucky to be defending it and explaining yourself all the time. If you think I just don't get it, or don't understand... I'm fine with that. If you think I'm being self-righteous and intractable, I'm fine with that too.

"Atheist fundamentalist" is a laughable term. You can apply whatever silly definition you want to it (with accompanying voluminous explanation), but others will continue to see it as a contradiction in terms. Words mean what they mean, not what you say they mean.

I don't like religion because it gives certain people an elevated feeling over others. I don't like atheism because it tends to do the same.

My view.

karaidli: "because it would be impossible to cram that much into one person"

Some group of scientists recently proved that a 'real' adam and eve could have existed as recently as 1500 years ago, or so, I forget the exact years but the outside was like 5000. They did statistical research and found that we all share common heritage as recently as that. So we do all have all that crammed into each of us. This has nothing to do with the adam and eve in the bible. I could not find the original articles I read but the logic is something like this:

Assume there is a generation every 30 years. After 900 years you have 30 generation. That is over a billion distinct ancestors. 900 years ago there were only about 320 million people. The farther back you go, the more probable it is that everyone became family. The authors had done a great deal of research into wars, raiding, famines and other things that mix populations, as well as having a much better explanation.

I point this out mostly because I find it interesting, and your comment sparked my memory karaidli.

And Farhad, consider the case where everyone was religious (the same religion) or everyone was atheist. In the latter case, everyone would have to find another reason to feel superior to others, but many religions have it built in.

Blast! It seems you have debunked me, sir. Well done! I did not know that, although I still remain skeptical. I find it hard to believe that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to make one insignicant change, yet several skin colors were formed in under 5000 years. I don't understand how that could be so speedy, even considering drastic climate/geographical changes.

Also, you forgot Noah's ark, which did not happen 5000 years ago. (I forget the actual estimated time, anyone know?) That would have surely wiped out a good deal of races, and it would be even more improbable for there to be such modern diversity.

And I need to get this out in the open, because people keep getting it wrong - There's no "I" at the end of my name. There is an "L." It's my first two initials followed by my last name, and Raidli sounds like pasta.

"When Dawkins argues that the influence of religion is only negative, that all religious people are inherently irrational, that religion and science are totally incompatible, and that bringing children up with religious beliefs is a form of child abuse - he is propagating fundamentalist rhetoric which is aimed at driving a wedge between atheists and theists, and teaching atheists to look down on theists."

Says you. And by pretending to know his "aim", and simply dismissing what he says as fundamentalist rhetoric, you are doing exactly what you claim he, and those who agree with him, are doing. Get off your soapbox before you fall down and hurt yourself.

"Also, you forgot Noah's ark, which did not happen 5000 years ago. (I forget the actual estimated time, anyone know?)"

Never?

Darn on the name karaidl, I even copied it from a post in case I got it wrong.

The study has nothing to do with there being one couple to populate the earth. The point is that the offspring of one couple, over the next 30+ generations, slowly mingled with everyone else on the planet that was not already in their family tree. And they did it in such a way that the family tree of everyone alive today includes that couple. And the article went on to say that past some further distant point, everyone alive then is an ancestor of everyone alive today, unless their genes were lost to the pool.

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

I think it was Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on the bible that featured a historian-type guy who said that Noah's flood was probably just a higher-than-usual flood of some river in mesopotamia.

The historian seemed to be trying to prove the bible, or at least interpret it in a way that wasn't completely historically inaccurate.

Anyway, here's a link to the Noah's ark portion of that episode. Should have more detail than I remember off the top of my head.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Is-Noahs-Ark-True-Penn-Teller-Bullshit

"Also, you forgot Noah's ark, which did not happen 5000 years ago. (I forget the actual estimated time, anyone know?)"

Never?

Oh, don't me wrong, I don't believe in it, but when do the fundamentalists say it happened?

LOL I'm agnostic to. I loved it. that's hilarious!

I loved it and think that everyone should have something like this to watch when they grow up! lol

Man...sometimes sarcasm can be more profound than anything.

Somehow i feel like i've stepped into a Fark religious flamewar.

Hint: it's not a good thing.

@ Fletch

>If it really is the word of god, then it MUST be factual if you believe god to be infallible.

I think we're teetering on the semantics of "factual", maybe because I chose the wrong word. Here's an example of what I mean:

"[Jesus,] why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" Jesus answered them, "Those who are well don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do."

Jesus was not saying that he ate with tax collectors and sinners because they needed antibiotics. That they are "sick" is not FACT, it is a metaphor. So when I say the Bible is not fact-based, I mean that it is largely driven by metaphors. There is however a FACT there in the quote. The FACT is carried by the metaphor. God doesn't have to have a literally-stated Bible in order to be infallible. The abscence of being literal does not make something fallible, although it would in science. I think this is where many of us run into a roadblock. Love is beyond science, and it bothers us because we have this in-built desire to "know for sure."

>If you don't believe it to be completely factual, then how can you believe it is the word of god?

I'm sorry, I've struggled with my wording, so I'll make it clear: I believe it to be full of facts and truths, carried in the meaning of metaphors.

>If you believe some parts are literal and are open for interpretation, then who decides which is which? You? Your pastor?

Most times it is obvious when you read. "Jesus went over to the well to talk to the woman" versus "Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?" Fact vs metaphor. I think your question of who decides is a really, really good one. This is why Christians get together to discuss the Bible. It can be difficult to read and understand. Quite often I have gone back to something I thought I understood, and I have seen that there was another level to a particular verse it that I wasn't old enough, or experienced, enough to appreciate. All a pastor can say is, "I spent alot of time thinking about this, and here's what I think." Since humans are fallible, you get pastors who are wrong. Jesus acknowledges the difficulty when he says, "Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

>"God is outside of time"? Who says?

He does. The Bible does.

>Strengthens evolution if you ask me.

There is no doubt in my mind that it strengthens 'evolution'. I really don't think God is so simple that He would do anything other than allow for life to change and evolve. I mean if He got such a big kick out of creating stuff, why would He just want His creations to sit around and be boring. I think if I were the ultimate creator, I would make stuff that went off on its own and constantly re-made itself, because that would be, and is, a beautiful thing to behold.

>I just refuse to fill in the blanks with "god did it".

No doubt, it can be a cop out. "Why did the book hit the ground when it fell off the table? God did it!" ...doesn't work for me either. But, why does gravity necessarily exist? Couldn't we have a universe without it? Sure we could. Where did it come from? God did it! ...that one I am okay with.

>Throw away the Kent Hovind DVDs and think for yourself man!

I have no idea who that is. Maybe there's hope for me.

@cheesemoo

>When I look at how many horrible things have been done in the past in the name of religion, I cannot help but question religion in general.

All people suck to some degree or another. This is one of the truths contained in the Bible. How anyone can kill or hurt or persecute "in the name of God" is beyond me. I have to wonder what crack they are smoking.

I think that if you wanted to destroy something, like the relationship between God and believers, you wouldn't make a frontal assault. You would pull a Trojan horse. You would infiltrate and destroy it from the inside out. I believe the Devil is doing it this way.

>What sort of deity allows these things to be committed in the name of its religion? Do I want to be even remotely associated with such a diety?

Earlier I mentioned that in order to have a true relationship, you have to allow yourself to be hurt. I think that religion is people-created, and people are fallible. I'm 100% positive that God is hurt when people He is trying to love are killed by people He is trying to love.

>If the translation into English is the problem, why not just guide translators to give the meaning you originally intended?

The meaning is there. You have to seek it out. What would be the point of making a rule book? God doesn't want you to follow rules; God wants you to live in a such a way that the rules aren't necessary.


@Farhad2000

You hit the nail on the head. People try to use religion as a way to "puff themselves up" (see the verse at the end). I'm don't like it when I see Christians touting themselves above other people. I mean, what part of "humble yourself" didn't they get. It's right there in the Bible.

What this says to me is this: if I want to know God/Jesus, I can't do it by following the example of other people who are trying to do the same, because inevitably they are fking up. I have to follow the example of Jesus. The only way I can do that is to see what he did, and what he has to say, in the Bible.


@whomever

I see some "I don't believe it because of x y and z." But look at the material. How could you not agree with this:

""
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit.

Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth.
""

Surely you cannot say that those statements aren't true. And surely you cannot say that Christians who go around being asses are anywhere near listening to what verses like this have to say. The truth of the matter is, that all Christians fail at being Christ-like. Myself, included. If you want to know God, then you have to forgive, and look past that to Jesus.

"I used to think you were a reasonable, intelligent person who could think beyond the dogma of the religion you follow, but that just isn't true, is it. You seem extremely touchy, reactive, intractable, and self-righteous when anybody questions your religion, motives, or the quotes you love to parrot. It seems your personal sixth pillar of Islam is to sell it to us infidels by espousing some non-literal, watered-down version."

Firstly Fletch - you told me to stop using the term 'atheist fundamentalists' - and you seem to get "extremely touchy reactive, intractable, and self-righteous" when anyone questions your religion - atheism - and the motives of people like Dawkins who seek to paint all religion as evil. Secondly - It is clear from your comments that you are not a reasonable or intelligent person, and that you are unable to think beyond the dogma of the religion that you follow - atheism. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Your answers reveals what an intolerant little bigot you are. I have never used the term infidel or anything like it - and I would not because I do not think of people in those terms. But by suggesting that I view people in terms of infidels and believers you reveal what an inherently negative opinion of Muslims you have and that your own understanding of the Islamic world is based on nothing more than the stereotype of the intolerant, literalist, fundamentalist, terrorist Muslim that dominates the media.

I have never attempted to sell a watered down version of Islam to anyone - merely to show people that there is more to the Islamic faith and the Islamic peoples than an ill-informed and highly simplistic stereotype of the intolerant, literalist, fundamentalist, terrorist Muslim that dominates the media. I have tried to show people the other side of the Islamic faith - the side rarely shown by the media. Furthermore, I have NOT avoided the difficult problems which are currently facing the Islamic world, and if you had taken even a second to look at the videos that I have posted in my Islamica collective you would see that many of them deal with the problems of fundamentalism, literalism, misogyny, unequal rights, etc. Before you start levelling charges against me and attacking my character and motivation I suggest you watch and read what I have posted. My charge against Dawkins is precisely that he paints theism as entirely negative - a negative force without any merit - and that is a charge which is at best empirically innacurate and at worst the belief of a fundamentalist.

Religious people (any religion) are just sheep...weak, deaf, dumb, blind, and born to follow. If you believe any of the overwhelming bullshit in the bible, the koran or whatever other fairytale book, then you just need to go ahead and jump off a cliff or something so you can be with your God. Hey asshole, jump! he's down there waiting for you! Spare the rest of us your insane, unbelievable garbage.

marr, I disagree with you almost completely, but thank you for your considerate and non-volatile responses. It's almost like a real, what did we used to call them? Oh, a discussion.

For those of you who are interested in a discussion about religion and the bible, with peoples whose knowledge is very deep and vast in regards to debunking the bible for what it is.

visit the world famous forums at INFIDELS.ORG

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php

Out of curiosity, can you, marr, or any other true believers in the bible as the word of your god explain the true meaning of metaphors like those I've pasted below? I'm sincerely curious how you address such passages and not making an argument one way or the other. They talk about slavery and murder, and I just really can't imagine the goodness this god had in mind for the humans he is supposed to love so much. There's really so much murder and hatred preached in the bible I find it not surprising how strongly "peaceful" and "loving" followers call for the murder of innocent people. (I know a devout Christian or two who often express their desire for the entire Middle East to be nuked to hell.) It seems Shirley Phelps (who protests at funerals) really seems to be following this god's word to the letter.

Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 NAB - If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Leviticus 20:10 NLT - If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.

Ephesians 6:5 NLT - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT - However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Exodus 21:2-6 NLT - If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

Exodus 21:7-11 NLT - When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.

Exodus 21:20-21 NAB - When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Dawkins said it himself, the very moment there is concrete evidence for a god he will change his tune, unlikely as it seems any evidence will surface. I hardly call that fundamentalist. How can one even be fundamentalist about something completely objective such as a lack of evidence for god? It's like saying someone is a fundamentalist because they firmly believe(almost arrogantly) the Earth is round. Disbelief in god is not a religious choice in itself. Evidence to the contrary will change a scientist's views. A true fundamentalist, eh, not so much...

Religion in of itself as a social guideline/construct for morals etc is a slippery slope due to the aforementioned "cherry picking" of favorable/socially acceptable passages over others that paint the religion in a slightly less desirable light. Religion has played the role of truth-seeker over human development due to the lack of a better explanation for all the mystery present in the universe and in that sense Dawkins acknowledges it's importance in history and it's effect on many good people still living today. He wants the truth to be out there on the table, readily available...for people to review at their own discretion. If they walk away unconvinced, great. Their business. I do somewhat agree that Dawkins can be very offensive to alot of sensibilities. But no one has the right to not be offended.

If anyone is interested, there's a good article on the web about Einsteins additudes and beliefs about God. Just Google this..
Einstein and God
By Thomas Torrance

"Firstly Fletch - you told me to stop using the term 'atheist fundamentalists' - and you seem to get "extremely touchy reactive, intractable, and self-righteous" when anyone questions your religion - atheism - and the motives of people like Dawkins who seek to paint all religion as evil. Secondly - It is clear from your comments that you are not a reasonable or intelligent person, and that you are unable to think beyond the dogma of the religion that you follow - atheism. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I said "please". Then you over-reacted, as usual. Can't criticize or disagree with the resident Muslim, can we? The rest of the paragraph I just copied so others who may have missed it could laugh as hard as I did. Atheism as a religion... maybe if you say it enough times, it will be true. Try that.

"Your answers reveals what an intolerant little bigot you are.

Aah... I was anticipating this one, and you didn't disappoint. Angry? Hmmm?

@marr

"I believe it to be full of facts and truths, carried in the meaning of metaphors."

I just don't think these facts and truths (in the bible or any other book) are the source of human morals. "Aesop's Fables" is also full of truths as metaphor. I do appreciate your responses, but they do somewhat demonstrate the uselessness of an atheist discussing/arguing the bible, or god, or religion with a true believer (and vice-versa). There are no corners to get backed into in your world. I'm not ripping on you, marr. I just see where this would go. We can just agree to disagree and call it good.

>explain the true meaning of metaphors like those I've pasted below?

Well, they are definitely not metaphors. The books that you've cited from are records of laws of the Israelites of the time. On a personal level I have to ask myself : Do I believe these laws should be followed because they are from books that were compiled to form the compendium we call the Bible? No. Definitely not. And I would hope that we'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who believes that they should. In fact, if we found one, that person would not be a Christian at all. Jesus clearly and directly spoke out against laws like these. I dunno exactly why, but I think those books are included because it is part of the history that lead up to Christianity. In part, they give a basis for understanding why Jesus was so hated.

Here are some of the things Jesus said when he spoke out against stuff like this:

• Blessed are the merciful. They will be shown mercy.

• Blessed are the peacemakers. They will be called the children of God.

• You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20) But I say to you, do not resist the doer of evil. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. [Speaking out against the laws in the same books as the one you cited, he's saying that to break the cycle of violence you should be the one to deny retaliation.]

• You have heard it said "love your neighbor." (Leviticus 19:18) But I say to you: love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well. [Again, speaking out against the old laws by first citing from them.]

• Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. [I'll bet that one pissed a bunch of people off because he called them on their b.s.]

• On another Sabbath, Jesus entered the synagogue and was teaching. Now a man was there whose right hand was withered. The experts in the law and the Pharisees watched Jesus closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they could find a reason to accuse him. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man who had the withered hand, “Get up and stand here.” So he rose and stood there. Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do evil; to save a life or to destroy it?” After looking around at them all, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” The man did so, and his hand was restored. But they [the Pharisees] were filled with mindless rage and began debating with one another what they would do to Jesus. [This illustrates how blinded to love their laws had made them, and how Jesus went directly against those ways in public, and indeed, right in front of them. He was no coward, for sure.]

• So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. [He's saying, "Look, if love isn't the motivating factor in what choices you make, and what you do in life, you don't belong to me."]

In Luke 11:37-54 he really lays into them, right to their face.

Fletch

I'm angry because you automatically assumed that since I am a Muslim I view anyone who doesn't agree with me as an infidel - that is deeply patronising and ill-informed. You don't know me, yet you presume to know what I believe or how I view other people. Furthermore, without ever talking to me you say that "I'm not going to debate you, because I've seem from past exchanges you've had with BRM that it is pointless".

Then you say "you over-reacted, as usual". I'll tell you why I reacted the way I did. I live in a world which is becoming increasingly polarised by people who see the world in black and white. Some people are responding to this situation by trying to build bridges between people with different, and sometimes opposing, belief systems. I have spent along time on this Site trying to show that there is more to the Islamic world and the Islamic faith than the simplistic stereotypes which pervade so much of the media. I have tried to show that there is a thoughtful, tolerant, rational, pluralist, compassionate form of Islam which is far more widespread than many people realise or would like to admit. My hope is that I can hope to foster understanding, tolerance and apreciation of a culture which is alien to many users of this site. One of the greatest obstacles I - and many others like me - face in this task is the way many people - be they Christian, Muslim, Pagan or Atheist - use simplistic rhetoric to paint anyone who doesn't agree with their opinions as less worthy. If atheists wish to attack religious fundamentalism, intolerance, misogyny, bigotry, I will support them. But they must choose their words carefully. You title your video 'the problem with Islam' and you constantly refers to 'Muslims' (or Christians for that matter) as if they are a homogenous group of people. Islam is not a homogenous religion and the Islamic peoples are not a homogenous group (the same could be said of any other religion). I object to videos and comments which paint the Islamic faith and the Islamic peoples (or any other religion) as a homogenous group - because as a Muslim this means that you are some how equating the beliefs that I hold with every other person who professes to be a Muslim.

I use the term 'bigot' and refer to atheism as 'a religion' because it seems that many atheists are as dogmatic in their denial of the divine as theists are in its defence, and as intolerant of theists as many theists are of atheists or people of different religions. However, I have not set out to condemn atheism or atheists - and I would strongly defend peoples right to be atheists. I have also never used this Site to convince people that there is a God - or that Islam is the right religion - because I don't believe in proseletyzing. But on a daily basis this site is filled with videos and comments which attack and ridicule all religion and try to convince people that religion is all bad and that atheism offers the only solution.

I am sorry if I caused any offense - I did not mean to, and if I did I apologise. All I ask is that when atheists criticise religion they be a bit less aggressive and don't tar all believers with the same brush. I will also try to temper my criticism of atheism.

Oh and marr - thanks for the *quality contributions to this debate - cheers!

bravo gwaan.

I for one have gotten a lot from both the atheist and islam posts on the sift and I look forward to hearing more well reasoned discussion by fellow sifters on each of them in the future.

@Fletch

>There are no corners to get backed into in your world. [...]I just see where this would go.

Me too. Atheism and Christianity are mutually exclusive of one another. You can't be both. An atheist could as easily say, "There is no god" over and over as much as I could say, "Yes, there is. Yes, there is." All I can tell you is that I've met Him and we're in love. You have my permission to laugh. I will laugh at me with you.

But, why does gravity necessarily exist? Couldn't we have a universe without it? Sure we could.

No, we couldn't. The earth wouldn't have formed if it wasn't for gravity. And just think for a moment on how well you would do if suddenly you woke up and you were floating up to outer space.

marr, thank you for your considerate and non-volatile responses. It's almost like a real, what did we used to call them? Oh, a discussion.

I second that!

Whew! I think you can all take a breath now.

see, i'm just waiting for the babel fish to come along so we can disprove god, and watch him disapere in a cloud of logic.

but really, this stinks of coporate backing. altho it looks cheaply done there is an INSANE amount of polish and othe tricks used to attempt to brainwash people. i'd say this is more viral then anything.

@ Fletch. First, it is surreal to argue about religion with a happy pig named "Mr. Happy."I think it is cool actually.

You said "Atheist-leaning agnostic? Lol! Sounds like you are almost on one side of the fence but your pant leg is caught on a barb. Evolution doesn't disprove Santa either. Still think he exists? Might exist? Your assertation that science can't disprove god implies that science is trying to disprove god. No more than trying to disprove Santa. And I thinks all religions are cults of a sort."

First, importantly, science is not about disproving God. That is not its focus. It is about understanding life and nonliving systems, processes, reactions, functions... In any dcredible scientific journal, you will not see this-disproves-God's-existence postulated in the discussion segments.

Comparing God and Santa is really a false analogy. One is an Earth-bound fable and the other is most likely mischaracterized if it does in fact exist. Santa can be disproved easily yet the Universe is too vast to discredit the existence of a higher power. I choose not to follow any religion because I don't want to settle on something so absolute in its beliefs without any yearning for the truth or even reforming around science.

This needs to have a satire tag...

But a singular god who is dubbed omniscient and omnipotent is a long step from a mere higher power. The gods of most pantheons were higher powers, as were the non gods like the fates, but all were still fallible and fool-able. It could be argued, if you believed in the greek gods, that they were alien teenagers from a higher civilization. They fought and mated and drank, got emotional and eventually disappeared. No such humble description can fit the creator of the universe, although the actual behaviors described in holy scriptures are no less juvenile.

This needs to have a satire tag...

Done!

What I think is really sad is hypocrites who seem to imply that they're followers of Christ, of God, and his Word, the Bible, while altering what it says. How can you claim any truth from the Bible if you "pick and choose" the portions that you like? God is not morally relativistic; He never changes. He's as absolute and "fundamentalist," if you should so choose the word, as He was from day one. Fundamentalism without thought is folly. Fundamentalism, laying aside the negative connotations and associations with the word in politics today, is wisdom when dealing with God and the Bible.

One thing to keep in mind when dealing with the Bible as a believer is to realize that you have no basis in saying that anything written in it is to be ignored, changed, or dismissed as "not literal" unless it specifically says that it is. When you ignore, change or reinterpret things to fit your own needs and desires, that's called listening to yourself, what YOU want, and what pleases YOU.

For example, many people who profess that they are Christians say that they believe in the Bible, yet also believe in evolution, that the world is as old as this generation believes it is, and that the creation account mentioned in Genesis is just a bunch of fairy tale stories that are not to be taken at face value. Basically, they want to please the world and get esteem from men because they're somehow more "intelligent" and not like all those ignorant fools who believe that the Genesis account that the Israelites preserved over thousands of years for us to read is actually true. First off, where does the Genesis account ever suggest that it's not to be taken literally, as a historical account? Whoever wrote it down after having been passed down orally obviously thought that it was important enough to put at the very beginning of the Torah. If this is just some mystical, made-up account, then why doesn't it say this ANYWHERE? No, it was not made up, and it's quite saddening to increasingly see so-called "intelligent" people professing that it is not to be taken at its honest word. YOU'RE DISCREDITING GOD!!

If MACRO (not micro) evolution is the answer that has been revealed to us in the past centuries because we humans are so smart and wise to have discovered it, then the Genesis account in the Bible is absolutely wrong. You can't have it both ways. MACRO evolution has never been proven, and it still remains merely a belief. MICRO evolution does exist and it's this process that has brought about the many varieties of animals and skin colors that we see today. MACRO evolution has not ever been witnessed. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that any "kind" of animal has changed into a new kind. A dog may give rise to many varieties of dog types through natural selection (AKA micro evolution) but a dog will nevertheless always remain a dog. It will not, over millions of years, give rise to another kind of animal.

The reason you can't both believe in macro evolution and the Genesis account is because in Genesis, the first original sin of mankind is recorded. There was no sin, and hence no death, before this first sin against God. If animals were "evolving" millions of years before this first sin, they necessarily must have died before sin was introduced. The theory of macro evolution is impossible without death occurring (you need time and energy for evolution to occur and if animals are immortal, and yet they continue to reproduce, overpopulation occurs, and energy is over-consumed). If millions of years of macro evolution was happening before the account of Adam and Eve, death was already occurring and thus sin had already entered. So, if you choose to accept the theory of evolution (MACRO) as truth, you must logically also ignore one of the most essential theological points of the Bible, that Adam and Eve were the first people to sin and death was introduced only after they sinned (because sin=death, a point that recurs continually in the four gospels and letter of Paul).

Therefore, by this reasoning, Adam and Eve were not the first to sin, the Genesis account cannot be taken for what it says, and all those references to the creation account in the book of Genesis by none other than Jesus himself must have been lies or foolish nonsense. After all, why should Jesus, the one who Christians claim to be saved by, know anything about how things were created (even though he claims in John 1 to have been the one who created everything)? By your reasoning, you seem to think you know better than Jesus, than the Israelites who recorded this account, than Paul and the early Christians who based their theology on the concepts of liberation from sin/death by Christ, and that we should listen to evolutionists because anything other than they're belief is just a bunch of RADICAL, FUNDAMENTALIST, RIGHT-WING, OVER-CONSERVATIVE, UNINTELLIGENT, and IGNORANT foolishness. I choose to honestly follow exactly what the Bible says, and not taking it as a light document that can be twisted and changed around to suit our need to feel intelligent to the world. I don't believe that God plays games with us. Sin and death are real things, and to ignore this account in Genesis is the correct thing to do if you follow evolution, but the incorrect thing to do if you believe the Bible is true.

As someone said earlier, there are books in the Bible that were written as poetry, using metaphors and figurative language. This is true. This is how we as literate, speaking, intelligible humans recognize what is to be read as a piece of literature and what is to be read for its history. These books are literal in the sense that they say what they say and should be read and understood for what is obvious about them: that they are pieces of literature that contain figures of speech to better communicate what needs to be said which ordinary language cannot. The truth is in them just as much as it is in books of the Bible that contain history. You've just got to distinguish the two, which is not difficult if you can speak, read, or have a brain. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are books of history, which is obvious by their writing form and style. They contain direct statements of fact about what people did and what things happened in the past. This would have been obvious to Jews thousands of years ago, and I hope that it is still apparent to people today.

Someone commented earlier that the Bible can't be taken be taken seriously with such strict passages in the Old Testament as:

Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 NAB - If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Yes, these are meant to be taken literally, but keep in mind that they DO NOT apply to all people. You've got to take commands like these IN CONTEXT! God was delivering these absolute commands for the ISRAELITES, not all people everywhere for all time. If you read the Old Testament, particularly the first 5 books, you would realize that the Israelites had been chosen specifically as a people by God through Moses to be His holy people on earth. These commands were given specifically and solely to the holy and chosen Israelites. Yes they are harsh. But just because they are harsh does not mean that we can choose to believe that God never gave them. God is a wrathful and jealous God, punishing sinners and the proud because of his perfect justice. This is why Jesus came: to satisfy God's justice by taking this punishment that sinners rightfully deserve for offending God. Once again: THESE COMMANDMENTS WERE SPECIFIC TO THE ISRAELITES AND TO BE FOLLOWED ONLY BY THEM.

So, if you believe that God exists and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God that we modern Americans have the privilege to read, great. But don't go around saying that Christians are a bunch of loonies if you believe differently. It's not illogical to believe that what the first and most fundamental book in the Bible (Genesis) claims is true. Truth is truth and there's only one truth, not multiple truths. Evolution (Macro) is an unproven belief that most atheists and scientists hold. It's a scientific theory that attempts to adequately explain the origin and manifestation of life, but macro evolution remains a belief, no matter how much you followers of it want it to be proven. As a professing Christian, you can't claim truth from the Bible if you discount the validity of Genesis and the hundreds of references made to it throughout the Bible. If you believe in the God of Israel and his son Jesus, you can't also believe in "billions and billions of years" of macro evolution and claim that the Bible is true. If you believe in macro evolution, then God lied to us.

Romans 1:16-32 (English Standard Version)

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,[a] as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."[b]

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

12 separate comments to one topic? Aiming for an award or something?

The bible as the literal word of God? Thats rich.

What about Council of Trent? The Protestant Reformation? the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England? the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism? the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Greek Orthodoxy?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [Council of Trent]."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

no i just can't fit them all in one post

(I've got to split this comment up into a few parts because the website doesn't accept it)

Well, first off, it helps to believe that there is a God. If you don't believe in God, then of course it's going to be difficult to historically justify the reliability of the New Testament for yourself. I don't have any magical answers to change history, but since I believe there is a God, and that He chose to make himself known to all people, I think that we are without excuse. I believe this God has made himself known not only with the observation of this amazingly complex yet beautiful creation and existence around us, but namely with this curious people-group called the Jews that have been constantly persecuted throughout all of history and claim to have been chosen by this God of their ancestors, the Israelites (who also were heavily persecuted, enslaved, and fought against) and the mention of this man named Jesus who was recorded in these writings around 2000 years ago, a man whose followers spawned a religious movement called Christianity that remains the most widely proclaimed religion in the world, a religion that has reached almost every people-group on every continent by now.

So, since I believe that God exists and that God desires to make himself known, I don't find it implausible to believe that God would have willed, or guided the process of recording the books of the New Testament, even though they were historically written at different times by different people during the first century. There is evidence that the canon of Scripture we have in the New Testament now was already in place long before these councils met to confirm the canon. The early church needed to confirm the canon of Scripture because there were many false writings and forgeries that were circulating from groups other than the proto-orthodox Christians. Historians have a Christian record, written by Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, that is the earliest recording of the entire list of the 27 books of the New Testament canon that we have today. It was written in the year 367 C.E. and also has a proscription of heretical books. The canon could have been confirmed earlier than 367 C.E. but this is the earliest document that historians have found naming all 27 books. Irenaus of Lyon was an anti-Gnostic church father that already make mention in 170 C.E. of part of the canon being authoritative: the 4 gospels.

According to Wikipedia, "Irenaeus was an important figure defending the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John in the New Testament in 170, stating in his Against Heresies: "But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit."

Am sorry but what you are saying is akin to saying everything is the way it's meant to be because of preordained manifestations.

The clear question then is raised why would God give such a multitude of religions before, during and after the rise of Christianity? He couldn't make up his mind if he wanted to be Ra? or the multitude of Roman gods? or the Flaying Spaghetti monster?

Since dawn of mankind you see a clear line of moving God from the supernatural to the more humane, from objects such as the Sun and Moon, to manifest deities like Zeus until finally we have the arrival of Christianity and in reality we are all an image of God. However that didn't fit either so we had the new testament and Jesus as the savior... this time in the image of man.

If God exists am sure he doesn't want us to be ostriches sticking our heads in the sand and accepting any dogma thrown at us by MAN.

more often than not, the reason something is claimed as a metaphore is because its bullshit.

"First, importantly, science is not about disproving God. That is not its focus."

That was my point.

"Comparing God and Santa is really a false analogy."

I wasn't really trying to equate them, but in the eyes of an atheist, they are equally unlikely. I used Santa simply as an example that science can't disprove the existence of any deity or mythological figure. You can add Zeus, pixies, unicorns, Martians, and a million other things to that list. If you can imagine it, science probably can't disprove it. You say that Santa can be easily disproved. You wouldn't say that had you my parents as a young child. They had an answer for everything. Explanations for how he could get to so many houses in one night, how he got up and down the chimney without getting stuck, how he could be at two different malls at the same time, where all those elves came from, how he knew if I was bad or good (I suspected my parents were ratting me out), and how he got so many toys into one single sleigh. You see, Santa can never be disproved to those who truly believe in him because there will always be some mysterious and magical explanation for anything science could throw at it. You just need use your imagination. God is no different. That's why I didn't want to get into a debate about this with someone who is true believer. No matter what logical pitfall I could possibly construct to entrap said true believer, no matter how well-thought and reasonable, "faith" will always lift him out of whatever corner he may temporarily find himself backed into.

I've heard theists argue that science can't disprove god, as if that "fact" reinforces their belief in his existence. Science can't disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist any more than I could to a true believer. That's not what science is. And that's not what science tries to do.

Farhad, Romans 1 specifically addresses the issue of the many gods/idols that people have made and worshiped in the past and present.

21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Seeing that humanity is sinfull, it's to be expected that all the cultures of the world would worship their own gods. God "gave them up" to these idols because they forsook Him and "did not honor him as God."

Acts 17

Paul in Athens
16Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this babbler wish to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19And they took hold of him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean." 21Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.

Paul Addresses the Areopagus
22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[b] 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.

Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for

"'In him we live and move and have our being';[c]

as even some of your own poets have said,

"'For we are indeed his offspring.'[d]

29Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

I love how he says "Isn't God Absolutely Unbelievable".

@Fletch. "I've heard theists argue that science can't disprove god, as if that 'fact' reinforces their belief in his existence. Science can't disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist any more than I could to a true believer. That's not what science is. And that's not what science tries to do."

Well said. This shows that thinking about God's existence isn't a waste of time - even if you and I think there are many faults about believing in something you cannot see or even hear.

@mrcrosby4: The Merchant of Venice, act 1, sc. 3, l. 97
The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose(WS).

How about breaking the bible down in a language we all can understand? Just a thought.

phew. Read it all. Where did my evening go?

I'm going to turn this into a novel... I've certainly got enough comments.

I wonder why Ant upvoted. I thought he downvoted atheist leaning things. Just when I thought I had him figured out...

Downvote for being 2 minutes too long. Brevity is the SOUL of wit.

Speaking of delusional, the earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years but only now do freedom-hating socialists claim it's SUVs making the earth warm.

Faith isn't science and neither is JUNK science.

Ah, I've been wondering where you've been while this was going on, QM.

2 long to watch, more atheist drivel, not worth spit, stop wasting bandwidth, kthnxbye

I love how Bill just randomly pops up every once in a while. He's like the whack-a-mole of Videosift.

Junk.

Bill's a busy man.

@doremifa
>How about breaking the bible down in a language we all can understand? Just a thought.

NET (New English Translation) is online at http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=1 . I really like this one because they're very open about reasons for translating the way they did. They point out where different scrolls disagree on the copying of a word, for example. They also point out where different schools of thought disagree on what a given passage means. The footnotes are very good. If you have questions about a passage or something you can 'profile reply' me.

@mrcrosby4
>If you believe in the God of Israel and his son Jesus, you can't also believe in "billions and billions of years" of macro evolution and claim that the Bible is true. If you believe in macro evolution, then God lied to us.

Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created – when the Lord God made the earth and heavens. 2:5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 2:6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 2:7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. [...] 2:18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him." The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 2:22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 2:23 Then the man said, "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."

I have to wonder when science suggests that life came out of hot springs of mud. Because isn't that what the Bible just said? The Bible does not say how the formation of life was accomplished. How long did it take? Billions and billions of years? A day? A minute? No time at all? What are your thoughts on these verses? (That's not meant to be taken as a challenge. I don't think it has anything to say about 'macro evolution' as you call it. I'm more wondering what you think about the absence of a time frame.)

@ no one in particular
I think it doesn't say exactly how long it took, or how it was done in detail, because it doesn't matter. I guarantee that God and Jesus are much, much more concerned about how we're treating those around us rather than what we think about how the world and everything in it was built. I doubt that God will keep us from coming home to Him because we dared to use the intellect He gave us, and speculated about how He accomplished all His great works. In fact, He probably enjoys the fact that we appreciate and care enough to wonder about it. Ultimately, He wants credit where credit is due.

Genesis does specifically say how long each creation event took place. God created a different thing each day for six days, and rested on the seventh. People have distorted and re-interpreted the word "day" to mean epoch to satisfy their theory of evolution over billions of years (both cosmic evolution and the evolution of life). Whoever transcribed this Genesis creation account among the Israelites wrote it in this way for a reason. If he wanted to say "long periods of time" he easily could have with other words from the Hebrew language. When you compare the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis 1 with "day" used elsewhere in this book, it's the same as an ordinary day of the week: 24 hours, sunrise to sunset. There is no indication that this account, which specifically tells us that creation occurred by God for 7 days, means anything other than exactly what it says. To suggest otherwise is to ignore/change what it says. Furthermore, the idea of creation happening in 7 literal, 24 hour days was essential for the Israelite worship of their God, because God used this to justify that his people set aside one day out of the week as special - the Sabbath - and this was taken literally because of the fact that God created (or worked) in 6 literal days, and rested on the 7th. Thus, the Israelites were commanded to do likewise, resting on the 7th day after their literal 6 days of work, in order to obey their God because He did it first in creation.

Aside from this point, as one who acknowledges the existence of God, I find it illogical and presumptuous to suggest that God "used" evolution in his creation of this world we now live in. I've talked with all kinds of people who believe in God, yet also try to squeeze in this man-made theory. The problem is that they just don't fit together: they inherently contradict each other. On one hand you've got this mention of God speaking everything into existence in the account in Genesis. And on the other, you've got a theory that scientists use to explain both cosmic evolution (big bang/stars, galaxies, planets) and the evolution of life over looooong periods of time. If you take God at his word in Genesis, agreeing that he spoke his creations into existence and that they were "very good" in his sight, why would God use evolution to slowly and gradually create better and better and more adapted creations (suggesting that they were not good enough to begin with and had to get better by evolution)? Macro evolution necessitates that life starts at a fundamental, undeveloped, and ill-equipped state, and gradually gets "better" and more adapted to its environment. If this is so, then God's creation was NOT good to begin with, and had to spend countless millions of years to change and get better all by itself.

As far as HOW God created life and the earth and space to begin with, Genesis says that the spoke it into being, and right afterward, He saw that it was good. If God used macro evolution to create life over millions of years, He would be speaking for a very loooong time, don't you think?

Furthermore, as I said earlier, in macro evolution, for adaptation and mutation to occur, life must successively reproduce and die, passing on and changing traits for millions of years. If things are dying before Adam and Eve first sin, then there was no original sin because death was already happening.

Genesis 2 is a special "up-close" look into what happened in the Garden of Eden, not creation as a whole, which is given in Genesis 1. Creation had already been completed as a whole, for it says in verse 2:1 that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

lol from the video: "clearly, stuff like science and reason have no place in our lives"

speak for yourself man!

Its been great hearing what everyone has to say, without so much of the pointless hostility you'd see somewhere else. Cheers all around.

That's what we're about here.

@ Heinosity

Religious people (any religion) are just sheep...weak, deaf, dumb, blind, and born to follow. If you believe any of the overwhelming bullshit in the bible, the koran or whatever other fairytale book, then you just need to go ahead and jump off a cliff or something so you can be with your God. Hey asshole, jump! he's down there waiting for you! Spare the rest of us your insane, unbelievable garbage.

I love it.

'Atheist fundamentalists'??? are yall' gonna getta manifesto r' something.....bathroom reading stuff......

straight lines, gotta have straight lines-

http://www.2think.org/hii/images/101399benson348.gif

*promote

Promoting this classic video back to the front page; last published Sunday, May 27th, 2007 5:57pm PDT - promote requested by rottenseed.

Prehistoric tribal ancestor worship of the Neanderthal was wrong.. and it sank into the swamp. The Sumerians got it wrong, and their religion also sank into the swamp. The ancient Greek and Romans had it wrong for many centuries. Their religion fell over... then sank into the swamp. The Pharaoh (living God) worship of one of the longest reigning and largest ancient civilizations of the world, the Egyptians, was also dead on wrong. Their religion sank into the sand.

Now.. the FINAL AND ONLY CORRECT RELIGION STOOD! Christianity of course in all its divinely inspired holy magical sparkly magic-man infused goodness FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT!

Thats right folks. They finally got it right after many thousands and thousands of years (counting only actual recorded history since the ascent of literacy and writing mind you).

So. Isn't that proof enough?

Yeah. Really. Ok. Sure.

"Dawkins is a good scientist - I would not deny that - but over the years he has moved from being a scientific sceptic to a preacher of intolerance." -- gwaan

not even finished reading the discussion, but that's absolute crap

"I like how Dawkins says he won't talk about the text of the bible as it is akin to arguing with someone about mother goose." -- qrei (or whatever your name is)

is that the sort of intolerance you're thinking of? because - in the words of your peers - that's not literal, man! he's making a point.. vis. "how can god have introduced so many variants of human beings when he began with only 2 caucasians?" - "because he is god"

the point is, it's like asking a child "how can you pretend that you're cooking food when you didn't turn on your oven?" - "because the oven knew to came on when i put the food in it!" - they can say anything they want to because it's their imagination

"I see some "I don't believe it because of x y and z." But look at the material. How could you not agree with this:
Surely you cannot say that those statements aren't true. And surely you cannot say that Christians who go around being asses are anywhere near listening to what verses like this have to say. The truth of the matter is, that all Christians fail at being Christ-like. Myself, included. If you want to know God, then you have to forgive, and look past that to Jesus." -- marr

what are you talking about? are you saying that because those statements are true, that means jesus and god exist? because that was the denial of the people you are addressing, and as far as i can see you do not tackle that.. you simple quote the bible or something, and then say "that's not wrong is it?! EH? SEE?!" and there's nothing to see

i'm a simple guy, i don't even know what i believe in yet.. but i live my life by what many people would consider to be a christian or some sort of religious way.. i put people's feelings before my own (even when that person insults me or hurts my feelings, i will not return it when given the easy opportunity), i'm as generous as i can be according to my means, i try to see other people's point of view before judging them, and many many more private moral standards that i force myself to live up to

i've been doing all this for years, since i was very young, and sometimes i failed, but for those i feel bad and try harder.. this has nothing to do with christianity, or the rules set out by any religion, telling people how to be a good person, i simply do it, because i couldn't live with myself to do anything else

what's my point? several points, i think..
1) just because someone says "be nice to each other, the world would be better" doesn't mean they're (a) god, or i'd be one and then we'd all be in big trouble (i may be wrong about that being what you said)
2) you don't need religion to be a nice person
3) christians are (meant to be) nice.. their reward is going to heaven.. for my set of morals, i have no reward, and yet i probably live a better and nicer life than a high majority of christians.. the whole christian "be nice, you'll go to heaven" thing seems very false to me

i've gone off on a tangent.. screw it, good luck

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with atheism, but when it is coupled with fundamentalist rhetoric which seeks to paint all non-atheists as one homogenous group who are inherently stupid, irrational, intolerant, and literalist in their reasoning, it too becomes problematic. When Dawkins argues that the influence of religion is only negative, that all religious people are inherently irrational

You keep saying you have read the God Delusion.. But judging from these accusations I have a hard time believing you. Large parts of TGD is spent cautiously separating literalists from moderates, statements like "Of course not all religious people are [insert from quote above]" are everywhere in that book. The main point of the book is to show how really, really unlikely a god of any kind is, not to paint anyone with anything. The atrocities committed daily because some people think they know the mind of God speaks for themselves, without Dawkins or anyone else points them out.

that all religious people are inherently irrational

If anything, he points out that Religious CLAIMS, (not people), are irrational, there is a huge difference. The problem is this: Why are perfectly ordinary rational people convinced by irrational nonsense?

, that religion and science are totally incompatible,

They are. A state of perpetual doublethink/Faith provides a satisfying solution to this problem.

and that bringing children up with religious beliefs is a form of child abuse

Indoctrinating children is child abuse. You can teach them about all religions and let them decide when they grow up.

"Metaphor" Bullshit. God exists or he doesn't exist. There is no middle ground, spectrum or what the like. Nothing, at all, indicates that god in fact do exist and thus we can safely assume that it doesn't exist.

"Atheism is a religion" No, atheism is indeed not a religion, because atheism is not based upon faith.

"Fundamental atheism" What is that? The active spreading of atheism? To be an atheist is to be NOT a theist. It's not what we generally mean when we say a religious fundamentalist, who takes the bible, or what ever holy book he prefers, literally. There is no "great book of atheism".

Marr, I'm sure your a nice guy/girl in person, but you are really, really misguided. You can't just brush off factual evidence against the faith. When you say "well, what that means is that.." you've already lost ground. You already have a set theory that you adapt your evidence to, it should be the other way around. Your theory must change if the evidence does not hold up.

*parody *religion

Adding video to channels (Parody, Religion) - requested by nibiyabi.

*kill

Permanently discarding this video - kill requested by submitter karaidl.