patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

The catholics could be really cool again if they took up crucifying bankers.

Think of the attendance on Sundays if the mass came with a little bankster crucifixion.

The one time Jesus was cool was when he kicked the money lenders asses.

Given that some people need that irrational hope to go on, and others prefer painful truth to any kind of self-deception, how can we best all get along?

As far as religion is concerned, why is truth painful?
Why can't we be comfortable with the unknown?

In fact, blind belief is painful. Look at all the wars fought in the name of religion.

Given that some people need that irrational hope to go on, and others prefer painful truth to any kind of self-deception, how can we best all get along?

Mortality isn't necessarily a bad thing. Eternal life would be really, really boring. Sure the first ten thousand years are great, but eventually it's like being on vacation with a bunch of Mormons. Plus, can you imagine the kind of procrastination that eternal life would encourage?

@uomo,
what wars were fought for a reason you feel was a good enough reason? ANd what about the reason(s) impressed you so greatly.

please look at the original graphic again. See the ball in the kids hand. In the "shades of gray" world that is the progressive's best friend, that ball is not a baseball. Why would it be called a baseball? Just by it's looks? If it was never used as a baseball, why would it still be called one? Was it created for one specific purpose? Wiat, you can use a ball like that for lots of other games, or as a paper weight, so a progressive can't base the INTENDED use of a CREATION on what it is to be called. Who says that is a baseball, and under what circumstance is it not a baseball, and when is it, and if you use another type/style of ball to play baseball would it too be called a baseball? At this point you will say that we all have a basic agreement on what is what -- a normalcy -- but that same normalcy gets torn to shreads by the deviant army of the progressive left. So, do we embrace normacy or not? Normal American Family behavior? Normal Human behavior? If we do, then do we defend it? Absolutly?

Useing the uber-logic of the progressive left, nothing can be absolute - other than nothing being absolute. (the nothing is absolute part must be an absolute in their world -- weird huh)

back to the opening picture:
So, Person A says to Person B that they have a baseball. In Progressive America, the next step would be for Person C to demand to know why that orb in Person A's hand is called a ball, and moreover, why a baseball. After a four year discussion, the issue is placed before the voting public. The voting public said the orb was a Cricket Ball, not a baseball, and was created to be used as a Cricket Ball, but Person A can use it to play any game they wish and call it whatever they wish. This angers Person C, so they go find funding through George Soros and went to the ACLU and mount a legal attack against Person A and Person B, demanding that they look at all balls equally and never again refer to Cricket Balls or Baseballs ever again. They demand that all balls be seen as equal, and sue every other Person that ever tries to use any other ball for any purpose it was created for. They next form the National Orbophobia Progressive Enclave (NOPE for short), and funnel millions of dollars into the political arena, so as to bring about change in the American education system, and military system, in an effort to change the American normalcy concerning baseball.

In my narrow mind, the religion of progressive liberalism is much more dangerous to man than having a group of like-minded conservatives following the teaching of Chirst, or having a personal relationship with God.

@DAN,
I think Jesus was cool like Fonzie all the time, but I really do agree with the way he expelled those guys working the cash trade at the temples. Those dudes were there selling birds and sheep and other sacrificaial animals so folks could follow the law and atone for their sins. Many folks had to go into debt to swing this weeks sin payment. Jesus ended all that crap. But, don't tell a catholic that.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Think of the attendance on Sundays if the mass came with a little bankster crucifixion.

I would not merely attend, I would donate big time. I'd buy $10/bag popcorn too.

I would not merely attend, I would donate big time. I'd buy $10/bag popcorn too.

Is this not a little hypocritical? You don't like the church because you say they started wars and killed people who "weren't like them" but then you turn around and would support them if they were killing people that you didn't like? You need to get yourself to the nearest confessional and work through this. You can easily find the closest Catholic church at www.masstimes.org

You're right. That was an evil thought. I should forgive them.

OK, I'll forgive the bankers when they stop screwing over the country with lobbyists, mortgage fraud, and bailouts. Their move.

BTW, I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church starting wars or killing people were weren't like them, did I?

I just had a thought about the bankster F-in we have been getting .... is it right for me to think that the problem is the system that allowed banks to act stupid with our money and lend it to anyone they wanted to? I mean, really, all they did is play a game that had rules wrote by someone in Gov ... just like welfare people are just taking advantage of a system ... kinda the same? a little?

Bap33 says

is it right for me to think that the problem is the system that allowed banks to act stupid with our money and lend it to anyone they wanted to?

Sort of. The lack of regulations is something the Obama admin has tried to address (Dodd Frank). The deregulation (ending Glass Steagal) was a direct cause of what happened.

BTW, I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church starting wars or killing people were weren't like them, did I?

Nah you didn't my bad AGAIN in one week. I will punish myself severely. For the record, though, they have a bad history of fraud, corruption, deceit...so even if you did say it you'd be right.

OK, I'll forgive the bankers when they stop screwing over the country with lobbyists, mortgage fraud, and bailouts. Their move.

I don't think they have the capacity. Perhaps we need to tax campaign contributions at 90%. If we do that and lift any and all caps, we would pay off the debt in short order.

St. Paul says that if Jesus was not raised from the dead, than the whole Christian movement is B.S.

St. Paul, at least, does not advocate blind faith.

If you don't like Christianity, just find the remains of Jesus' body somewhere and the whole thing is proved a hoax.

The first Christians didn't go out into a hostile world saying "you can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore he does", they went out proclaiming that Jesus was God in the Flesh and had, in fact, come back from the dead.

Maybe they were mistaken. But it is interesting how modern Christians seem to capitulate to belief in a generic "god" that can't be disproven (i.e. the flying spaghetti monster). The first Christians believed in a specific God which had, in their minds at least, acted in recordable human history.

wthrfrk80 says

The first Christians didn't go out into a hostile world saying "you can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore he does", they went out proclaiming that Jesus was God in the Flesh and had, in fact, come back from the dead.

Unfortunately, we don't know what they said, because the earliest gospels were written decades after the life of Jesus. We don't even know who wrote them. Mark, Matthew, being the authors is based on oral tradition, we have no other works by them to compare style with and the earliest gospels have no byline.

And unlike, say, Caesar, we have no physical evidence or contemporary written accounts of Jesus' life from eyewitnesses. Whereas with Caesar, we have contemporary reports of his life not only from himself, and his supporters, but also his detractors. There were Pagan detractors of the Jesus cult, but unfortunately the originals were 'burned in the fires of righteousness' by Christians once they took power. We only know that they exist because they are mentioned and parts of them are paraphrased by Christian Authors in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries.

But Celsus, an early (150-200AD) critic of Christianity said that Christians simply acted on blind faith without proof, according to Origen, who quoted him as part of a refutation.

So the critique that Christians exhibit blind faith goes all the way back to the Early Church times.

I'm not a biblical scholar, so I can't speak about the authenticity of the gospels.

St. Paul says, in his first letter to the Corinthians,

"if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also vain"

Maybe later Christians acted on blind faith. But St. Paul doesn't seem to advocate blind belief, at least not to the church in Corinth.

http://danceswithanxiety.blogspot.com/2009/03/luther-on-faith-and-reason.html

And it's very plain that religiousness is no measure of morality.

Eventhough we don't agree with their religious beliefs, that doesn't mean we can be mean to them. Like, calling them names! Grow up!

pikachulove says

Eventhough we don't agree with their religious beliefs, that doesn't mean we can be mean to them. Like, calling them names! Grow up!

Throughout history religion has caused genocide, slavery, rape, torture, horrific murders like burning at the stake. Today, religion is the basis of terrorist attacks and threatens to spark nuclear war. More subtly, the religious are more likely to discard the overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are irrevocable damaging the very habituate on which we depend for existence. Quite simply, religion has been the cause of the greatest evils in history and today threatens our very survival as a species.

Despite this, religion is often given a pass for its immoral, unethical, and often illegal activities. We are told that you must always respect other people's religions no matter what. I say hogwash.

I don't advocate being mean, but there is no reason why religion should be given a free pass for crimes against humanity, children, the powerless, or anyone else. When a woman is "honored killed" because she was raped, that's a bad practice regardless of how religiously significant it is. When a child is denied medical care by the very parents who should be protecting him because of their religious beliefs, that's inexcusable. When brainwashed masses vote in politicians that continue to let companies destroy the atmosphere and literally poison our food (Google methylmercury fish), religion should not be coddled.

If religion, like smoking or endangering children, were less socially acceptable, fewer people would indulge in it. There is a purpose to ridiculing the village idiot. It prevents others from taking on the role.

As religious irrationality becomes less acceptable as an excuse for dumb, false beliefs and bad behavior and policies, our society and the world at large will become free of the bigotry, ignorance, and stupidity inflicted upon us by religion. This is the only way to stop the violence in the Middle East and the gay bashing at soldiers' funerals.

Religion is stupidity. It should not be tolerated. That doesn't mean you have to be mean to people, but you can openly oppose such irrationality and it is your duty to humanity to do so. Never fear to call religion out on its falsehood, foolishness, and evilness.

Bap33 says

millions more people have been infected with HIV through sodomite activity than all the witches ever burned by people holding a Bible (they were not Christians). But, I see your point.

That power issue and structure you mention is the Catholic Church, not Christianity. In my opinion.

Bap33, I'm pretty sure most of those millions of people killed by HIV were the recipients of the virus through heterosexual activity.

could be that you are 100% correct (normally are), but I said "sodomoite", not homo, so I may still be right. Plus, I said "infected" not died, so I may be in the clear that way too.

I was just illustrating how many more people have been put in harms way due to the militant activist sodomite community refusing to be shown as a "most likely" spreader of a disease (circa 1986 or so), in relation to the non-Christian religious types burning 17 or 20 women at the stake. I may have missed my mark a bit, due to my really really bad writing skills ... and obtuse world view (for you bro). lol

Here's one for the gallery: I believe in demons. And I believe demons exist in the physical and the spiritual, just like un-fallen-demons, AKA, Angles. But, Jesus showed us how to cast away demons, not burn the host. Anyways, just sharing.

Broken record,....dead horse...yawn....

The comic that is the basis for this thread is stupid.

Most people who have spiritual beliefs develop them over a life time and they are extremely varied. For one person it might be about a sky daddy for another it might be about dealing with the death of loved ones or hopes for themself "after" death. For others it is some more subtle and complex set of beliefs that they have developed or even just an appreciation for unanswered questions that they prefer to leave unanswered, thus living with what they perceive to be the more truth in their lives than they would have being emotional and dogmatic atheists (see Dan).

But here is the point, and the reason the comic is so stupid. Most, or at least many "believers" (see varied points of view in previos paragraph) have no desire to prove something that they know is unprovable. This might not prevent them from getting in arguments with childish atheists who claim THEY CAN PROVE THE UNPROVABLE, that belief in God in all forms is incorrect.

Whether the guy has a ball is obviously simple to prove based on direct observation.

How ridiculous can you get ?

Again, and I repeat,...yawn.

I'm glad you're anti witch burning. We can agree on that.

You're still off on the HIV thing because most of those infected, living and dead, were infected through non-sodomistic, old fashioned copulation which occurred in exactly the manner taught by the same missionaries who brought them western european religion.

Dan8267 says

That's because "deviant sodomites" haven't been burning people at stakes,

You do remember "Sodomites" come from the biblical story Sodom and Gomorrah. Where the towns folk would assault visitors and sodomize men with mop handles.

The guy who turns out a Prison Bitch would be a deviant Sodomite.

marcus says

Most people who have spiritual beliefs develop them over a life time and they are extremely varied.

Most people who have racist beliefs develop them over a lifetime. That does not make the racist beliefs any less wrong. Nor does the variations of wrong answers make a fundamentally wrong assumption right.

marcus says

or another it might be about dealing with the death of loved ones or hopes for themself "after" death.

Emotional trauma does not make a false belief true. Nor does the emotional trauma justify inflicting further damage on the world by promoting false and bad ideas.

I'm sorry your grandpa died, but that doesn't mean you get to hate fags.

marcus says

For others it is some more subtle and complex set of beliefs that they have developed or even just an appreciation for unanswered questions that they prefer to leave unanswered

The complexity of a wrong argument does not make it less wrong. The most complex argument for the square root of two being a rational number is still wrong.

If people want to leave questions unanswered, that's fine. Saying god did it does not leave the question unanswered but rather answered incorrectly. Of course, if people just used god as an excuse not to study nature, faith would not be dangerous. The problem is as soon as people believe in a god, they start believing that god wants them to do things, usually really bad things.

marcus says

thus living with what they perceive to be the more truth

There were plenty of politicians and American citizens who "perceived" Iraq as threatening the United States with weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Queda. That incorrect perception resulted in the deaths of over a million people and the suffering of countless others. When your perception results in war, torture, and oppression, your perception should be challenged and refuted.

marcus says

emotional and dogmatic atheists (see Dan).

There is no such thing as a dogmatic atheist despite your childish attempts to brand atheists as such. Furthermore, my arguments are grounded in reason whereas yours make feeble emotional appeals to distract from the real issues and facts.

marcus says

Most, or at least many "believers" (see varied points of view in previos paragraph)) have no desire to prove something that they know is unprovable.

They don't "know", they "believe". Just because you are absolutely sure of something, doesn't make it true. See Iraq's WMDs and ties to Osama.

CaptainShuddup says

You do remember "Sodomites" come from the biblical story Sodom and Gomorrah. Where the towns folk would assault visitors and sodomize men with mop handles.

The Bible, including the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is a complete work of fiction. Many of the stories were written by assholes with political agendas trying to make their opponents look bad.

For example, in America we glorify the myth of the farmer, which does not exist today. But back in Biblical times, farmers were hated by hunter-gatherer nomads. That's why Cain, the farmer, couldn't please god with his sacrifice but Able, the nomad, did. It's why Cain was made out to be the murderer of Able. Agriculture killed nomadic life by allowing people to settle down and build towns and cities.

And ancient nomads hate cities. People end up with free time, which nomads never have because they barely manage to exist day to day. Jealousy and economic competition results in made up bullshit stories like Sodom and Gomorrah, which were the ancient equivalent of America's small towns in the heartland.

There's a reason why ancient cities were built one on top of the other. People would turn to agriculture and build a city. Then nomads, jealous of the city's economic success and security, would make war against the city to pillage and take over the city. Then the conquerors became farmer city dwellers, and the next group of nomads would repeat the cycle.

The nomads didn't always win. They usually lost. But when they did win, the old city would be destroyed and a new city would be built on its ruins.

marcus says

For others it is some more subtle and complex set of beliefs that they have developed or even just an appreciation for unanswered questions that they prefer to leave unanswered, thus living with what they perceive to be the more truth in their lives than they would have being emotional and dogmatic atheists (see Dan).

For clarification of what I mean by "dogmatic atheists:"

Non belief of various degrees could probably be broken down more than this, but for the simplicity of making my point I will just try to label two poles.

Normal healthy atheists: Don't believe in God, period. They may have opinions about the good and bad of religious history, but little emotion, ego, or "charge" and certainly no need to proselytize, and for the most part have a 'live and let live' attitude toward believers (but possibly disdain for fundamentalists).

The dogmatic Atheist: They take it to an entirely different level. MAny are literally children, who stroke eachother on the internet and are like Sudden Clarity Clarence ( http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q3sgx/ ), feeling that they are having profound insights, when they share obvious inconsistencies or contradictions that crop up in religion. It's so easy, and so adolescent. They are on a crusade, apparently to make the world a better place by selling the idea that religion is evil and that God in any conceivable form does not exist (oh, ad some even claim they can prove it !! LOL). Above all what you hear when listening to them is a religious emotional zeal, but also an arrogance and self righteousness that you will rarely hear even from the most dogmatic fundamentalist.

Ready ?

marcus says

Normal healthy atheists

Translation: If you don't agree with me or at least shut up and tow the line, you're a deviant.

Marcus, you talk about atheist exactly like Bap33 talks about gays. And you are just as full of shit and for the exact same reasons.

Bap33 irrationally considers any homosexual to be deviant, abnormal, and unhealthy. Marcus irrationally considers any vocal atheist to be deviant, abnormal, and unhealthy. You both have issues with people coming out of the closet. You both also have take your arbitrary and unfounded opinions and present them as inalienable truths as if your opinions were natural law.

marcus says

selling the idea that religion is evil

The whole of history demonstrates in painful detail that religion is evil. Current events continue to confirm this fact.

marcus says

(oh, ad some even claim they can prove it !! LOL).

Given any definition of god, I can either prove that god does not exist or that people don't worship and take moral direction from that god. I have done that extensively on other threads.

Feel free to attempt to find fault in any of the proofs I have submitted. They are available for the entire world to view. However, your constant assertion that the existence or non-existence of god is unprovable coupled with your cowardly refusal to even attempt to contradict my proofs indicates that you do not even believe your own arguments.

If you want to debate the proofs against various gods, I'll gladly take you on one-on-one in a new thread. But I suspect you far too much of an intellectual coward to accept this challenge.

As a rationalist, I have nothing to fear. The worst case scenario is that you actually do prove that god proofs/disproofs are impossible, in which case I come out ahead by learning something. However, I doubt that will happen.

You see, I don't actually give a rat's ass whether or not god exists. But I do care that the truth, whatever it is, prevails and that lies are not used to commit acts of evil. Atheism is a conclusion, not a presumption. That is how atheist differ from the faithful. You never seem to be able to grasp this simple concept. Perhaps you were dropped as a baby. I don't blame you. I blame your parents.

I rest my case.

marcus says

I rest my case.

Resting your case after the opposition has destroyed it is a foolish move.

Put perhaps you'd rather comment in this thread.

In any case, it is nice to see that you are consistent in your strategy:
1. Make a wild and unfounded assertion.
2. Call the opposition childish.
3. When the opposition replies like an adult, run away!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hcy40pvGIGQ
That is all, class dismissed.

According to Marcus, George Carlin is an "unhealthy childish crusader". Who are you going to believe, George Carlin or Marcus? I'll go with Carlin any day.

I've argued with you before Dan.

Dan8267 says

in which case I come out ahead by learning something

I'm quite certain you aren't going to learn anything from me Dan. At least not in any immediate way that would be reflected in a forum conversation.

I'll give you one small argument then I'm out of here.

Dan8267 says

Atheism is a conclusion, not a presumption.

Maybe. But only by presuming that you totally understand what all forms of adult spiritual belief can take, can you debunk them. Your conclusions are based on a straw man argument of what adult religious belief is.

Your "proof" may accurately address some believers, but is unable to touch others.

How do you begin to supposedly understand what it is that for example this Episcopalean Bishop believes ? Logically, wouldn't you have to understand his belief before you could disprove it ?

He describes his belief as "walking in to the mystery."

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6AfFcAmx-Ro&feature=relmfu

Dan8267 says

According to Marcus, George Carlin is an "unhealthy childish crusader". Who are you going to believe, George Carlin or Marcus? I'll go with Carlin any day.

Generalizing about most institutional religion is a far cry from your arguments about any form of spiritual belief.

It's the difference between thinking that religion should be better versus thinkng that it needs to not exist and that we all need to be atheists.

"When it comes to God's existence, I'm not an atheist and I'm not an agnostic. I'm an acrostic. The whole thing puzzles me."
- George Carlin, When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?

Dan, you are a rational person. Whould you say the nature of man has been pretty consistant over the last few thousand years? I would suggest it has been. So, given the basic nature of man, and his tendancey to want to leave his mark, and art, and imagination, and stuff like that, doesn't it seem pretty far fetched that the oldest writings we have from man tells such matter-of-fact detailed things as how and when to plant, fertilize, when harvest a crop? And how to make beer and bread. And how man came to exist, and the fact that man was created after all other life forms. And how there was a big deluge that almost wiped man out. And a big rock that wiped out alot of things too. What I'm getting at is this, why would the nature on man be so different in that ancient time that he would create an exact documant with nothing but facts, write every part as a fact, but then, out of the blue, ad in some fairy tale. That would certianly not be following the nature of a people that advanced enough to invent writing. They then took the time to write down their detailed knowledge for the furture generations to have and hold. It would make no sense. A history book, or a manual full of directions, seldom have fairy tales included.

Writing, schools, roads, farming, animal husbandry, schools, hospitals, money, banks, debts, uniform measurements ... not the stuff fairy tales are made of, are they? The first history of man ever wrote was the Genisis story. In extreme detail. The nature of man has not changed.

The Zues, Posidon, crap came long after the original explainations of our universe was wrote down. You can't say ancient man had a special nature without proof. If anything, ancient man was much smarter -- and spiritual. Those two things are mutually exclusive in the minds of most liberal/leftists, it seems. And that may be the real issue here. Liberal/leftists see spirituality as a sign of stupidity, much like conservatives see male sodomites as being soft or weak. Both are assumptions based on nothing but personal points of view.

marcus says

I'm quite certain you aren't going to learn anything from me Dan.

Finally, something we can agree upon!

marcus says

I'll give you one small argument then I'm out of here.

Promise?

marcus says

But only by presuming that you totally understand what all forms of adult spiritual belief can take, can you debunk them. Your conclusions are based on a straw man argument of what adult religious belief is.

Hardly. I have listened to every argument made in favor of the belief in a god, any type of god. I play devils advocate -- no pun intended -- in any ideas that I debate in my mind. I always welcome new arguments in favor of the opposition. If a new opposition argument prevails, then I will gladly change my position 180 degrees on a dime, but only if the opposing argument is demonstrably true.

A few months ago I even watched a debate between Richard Dawkins and a priest in the Anglican Church. It was a wonderfully civilized debate, and if only it were available on YouTube I would have posted it on this site and given my critic of it. Interestingly, the Anglican priest illustrated why many people want their to be a god: they need a god to justify the belief in absolute morality which they erroneously believe is the only alternative to morality being arbitrary and meaningless. I would have gone into great detail in my critic about why this is wrong, but without a transcript or video to link to, it would have been pointless.

In any case, I listen to all arguments as there is no disadvantage to doing so. And the arguments I've heard are far more intelligent than anything that has ever come out of your mouth, Marcus.

marcus says

Your "proof" may accurately address some believers, but is unable to touch others.

Irrelevant. The purpose of a proof is to demonstrate beyond doubt to rational people why a statement is true. Proofs are not created to persuade those who are willfully ignorant and consciously choose not to accept the truth because it threatens their income or power.

A proof that the square root of two is irrational is a valid proof regardless of how many fools choose to ignore it and continue believing that the root is rational.

And as I said many times, the viruses of religion, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. cannot be cured. One must simply strive to prevent infection of the next generation. Society advances with every funeral as bad ideas die with their advocates.

marcus says

How do you begin to supposedly understand what it is that for example this Episcopalean Bishop believes ? Logically, wouldn't you have to understand his belief before you could disprove it ?

I could watch the 30 minute video you posted and critique it point by point. But I have little motivation to do so since I have yet to witness you actually listening to anything I've ever said. So unless I am convinced that other people think the video is worth discussing, I have no reason to spend the time watching it and then responding to it.

marcus says

It's the difference between thinking that religion should be better versus thinkng that it needs to not exist and that we all need to be atheists.

George Carlin did not think religion needs to be improved. He thought the world would be better without it.

In any case, improving an inherently flawed system is foolish. It is far better to create a new system that is not inherently flawed. Should we try to improve racism making it nicer or should we replace racism with something better like rationalism. The same applies to religion and for the exact same reasons. You don't make astrology better. You replace it with astronomy.

There is no reason why religion should be preserved. It serves no purpose that isn't already served by better institutions like philosophy, ethics, compassion, social justice, and reasoning.

I love it when confused deists with secular humanistic leanings are confused into thinking they are "true atheists". The definition of atheism ain't all that complicated. If you think it is, then you're a deist. Nothing wrong with that at all. Be proud. Deists are profoundly rational people, including most of those who founded this country, after all.

In modern western cultures, most christians are also secular humanists, including most of the evangelicals in actual practice. While many tend to profess literal fundamentalist beliefs, very very few practice accordingly. Even Bap33 is a secular humanist, though I doubt he realizes it. If evangelicals did stay true to their scripture then they would find themselves quickly incarcerated...at the least, they wouldn't be on the Internet blogging, incurring debt or treating their ailments with modern medicine.

But hey, at least there aren't any $cientoligist$ on this site.

Bap33 says

Whould you say the nature of man has been pretty consistant over the last few thousand years?

The question is too vague to answer, particularly what is meant by the nature of man. The human brain has not changed significantly in the past few thousand years, however, culture and paradigms have changed greatly and these things affect human behavior.

Bap33 says

The first history of man ever wrote was the Genisis story. In extreme detail.

The Bible is not a single work. It is a collection of many works written over long periods of time, revised and rewritten, and voted on in a committee. The Bible is not full of facts in any historical sense. It's full of contradictions.

And Genesis is not the first history of man ever written by any account. Genesis isn't even the oldest book in the Bible. Just because it appears first in the Bible doesn't mean it is the oldest. And Genesis completely lacks any meaningful details to construct a historic account even if you took it literally. How the hell did Adam and Eve's children find mates?

Genesis is clearly an allegory. Taking it literally completely misses the point of the story -- which isn't a bad thing since the point is a stupid one anyway.

Take Adam and Eve. They were banished from paradise for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Can you see the symbolism. Babies are innocent and know nothing of good and evil, so they are happy in paradise. As a child grows into adulthood he learns of good and evil and thus is banished from the paradise of ignorance. It's a story about how losing innocence is the price to pay for gaining adult knowledge. And it's a bad point because you want children to mature into adults.

Then take Cain and Able. As I've said elsewhere, this is an allegory of the conflict between nomadic life and the earliest cities. When the ice age ended the agricultural revolution started. This allowed people to settle down and build cities. This also allowed the ancient religions that are still practiced today to get started. And when these religions started, there were conflicts between those who lived nomadic lives (the old ways) and those who farmed and settled in towns and cities (the new ways).

Cain represents the farmers / city dwellers. Able represents the hunter-gather nomads. The story was written by the nomads so Cain is evil and Able is good. Cain kills Able like agriculture killed the nomadic way of life.

Then consider how the life expectancy drops with every generation from Adam. This symbolizes the distancing of man from god, the source of life.

As for the flood, there were many natural disasters including many floods and flood stories throughout history at different times and places. Although a major flood might appear to be world-wide to some tiny ancient tribe, it does not mean the flood was world-wide.

Various floods inspired similar stories, and these stories were combined and intertwined and spawned new stories which eventually became the standard story of Noah's flood. But I assure you that rainbows existed long before man. I know this from physics.

Clearly Genesis is not even an attempt at recording historical facts. It is purely a symbolic script.

Bap33 says

You can't say ancient man had a special nature without proof.

I don't know what you mean by "special nature" or how you are trying to relate it to the historical accuracy of myths. But know that there are many different creation myths throughout the world. Most of them are very different from the Christian one. Are you prepared to accept those non-Christian creation myths as literally true? The ones from India are the oldest and predate Christian myths by many thousands of years.

Bap33 says

If anything, ancient man was much smarter -- and spiritual.

There is no reason to believe ancient man was smarter, and he certainly was far less knowledgeable. As for ancient man's spiritual beliefs, they were what you would call pagan and witchcraft.

Bap33 says

smarter -- and spiritual. Those two things are mutually exclusive in the minds of most liberal/leftists, it seems.

Leftists can be quite religious. Just look at the nuns who were criticized by the Vatican for spending their time helping the poor instead of fighting gay marriage.

The philosophy of liberalism says nothing about mythical beliefs except that people have the right to hold and practice them.

Now, the philosophy of rationalism does have a problem with mythical beliefs. What you call spiritualism is nothing more than a euphemism for superstition, the belief in supernatural entities. Although neither leftist philosophy nor liberal philosophy has a problem with supernatural beliefs, rational philosophy clearly does.

Rationalism is based on the acceptance of truth, as best as we can know it, based on evidence and reasoning. Supernatural beliefs by definition are beliefs in which there is no evidence for and which contradict or ignore natural laws (physics, chemistry, etc.). So, of course, superstition and rationalism are mutually exclusive.

In fact, for the better part of three millennia there has been a war between mysticism and rationalism. I clearly advocate the rational side. Rationalism is why we live in the modern world with electricity, world-wide communication, flying machines, skyscrapers, and modern medicine. If mysticism ruled, we'd still be living in the Bronze Age trying to turn lead into gold and performing rain dances to ensure sufficient food for the winter. Rationalism is clearly the right choice, and mysticism offers nothing but lies.

Sometimes when a thesis and and anti-thesis fight, you don't get a synthesis because one side is utterly bullshit.

Patrick,
Don't go to a Catholic church, the priest might abuse you.

BTW, Does anyone have any proof a spirit?

Randy H says

Even Bap33 is a secular humanist, though I doubt he realizes it.

Bap333 a secular humanist? If that's true, I'm god, which would be ironic since I'm an atheist and clearly a secular humanist.

Noun

S: (n) humanism, secular humanism (the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural)

Princeton University's WordNet

HEY YOU says

BTW, Does anyone have any proof a spirit?

Ah, tangible evidence. Why would one need that when basis one's entire life on a belief?

I didn't say how much of a secular humanist he was, only that he demonstrates something more than 100% fundamentalist evangelism in his behavior simply because he clearly engages in modern society and lives within its laws, mores and norms.

Dan on the other hand is just a bit too wound up and preachy. The problem being a preachy atheist is you end up wasting all your time arguing with BOTH the evangelicals AND the postmodernist whack-a-moles.

Life's short dude, live and let live. If you're really an atheist then you know that the believers will never learn the truth because when they die they'll cease to exist, thus they will die ever believing their interpretation of the truth was right. That's the clever thing about the rationality of faith: it is unfalsifiable.

Dan8267 says

The ones from India are the oldest and predate Christian myths by many thousands of years.

for the first time - ever - you may be wrong. I understand the facts to suggest that the first written accounts of ANYTHING are from Sumer. And the history of man is one of the facts they shared.