You're setting up a false dilemma. The Ark being fictional does not negate the existence of God... It negates the entire bible being taken literally, but not much more.
Evolution
by DonExodus 50 Replies latest members adult
-
-
serotonin_wraith
If the worldwide flood never happened, and if evolution is real, then most of us are not descendants of Adam and Eve, and Jesus' sacrifice for all humanity is meaningless. Just check over what I put in those posts ^ It's all there.
-
DonExodus
I dont believe in Adam and Eve, or original sin personally. That does not negate the need for Jesus, however.
-
monophonic
oi vey, just let me be agnostic over here.
in the end i just don't like know-it-alls.
even if i agree with parts of someone's theories or politics.
-
serotonin_wraith
I dont believe in Adam and Eve, or original sin personally. That does not negate the need for Jesus, however.
So why was he needed if not to atone for our inherited sins?
-
IP_SEC
Ok first.
Athiest dont claim to know it all. They dont claim there is no god. They do not believe in god/something unproven. Just as you cant claim "there are no pink flying unicorns in the amazon jungle" you cant claim there is no god. One can chose not to believe in god unless proven, just as one can choose not to believe in pink flying unicorns until proven.
Second
Evolution and god/creator are not at odds with one another. They are two seperate topics.
Evolution does not try to describe how life began, only how it came to be what it is today.
-
Dansk
I'm an atheist and I find the whole subject of how life got here fascinating.
This is my greatest dilemma: I imagine a great expanse of blackness. There's nothing there, no life, nothing, just blackness. So how did something come from nothing?
Now, before someone says "God made it" I'm afraid that doesn't hold up, because the old chestnut "Who made God, then?" would have to apply.
Ian
-
serotonin_wraith
I tend to think either the universe is eternal and there are many like ours, or everything started with ours. Saying what came before could be like saying what's north of the north pole.
Evolution doesn't disprove a god, but it disproves the Bible's account of things and therefore the Biblical god.
-
DonExodus
///Evolution doesn't disprove a god, but it disproves the Bible's account of things and therefore the Biblical god.\\\ No, evolution proves the bible is not 100% accurate, which anyone who has ever read it knows. That being said, the major parts regarding Jesus and God in general are still possibly true.
-
Gopher
However, is Jesus historical -- is the Bible filled with FACT about him?
There are no contemporary records of Jesus, in Palestine or anywhere in the Roman Empire. Archaeology should have been able to find something in the records during the last century of intense activity. Instead there's a gap between 30 AD when Jesus lived, and 125 AD when the earliest fragments now found were written. (The later first-century writings of Roman historian Josephus regarding Jesus are controversial and very possibly forged, by Christians.) The gospel "accounts" were very likely written by later Christians rather than by eyewitnesses.
If Jesus had a huge following and turned Israel on its ear through his preaching, as claimed in the gospels, surely there would be at least some concurrent record. There are contemporary records of other kings and princes of that era.
Just like the legend of King Arthur in Britain was built up through the centuries, although its reality is much disputed, the story of Jesus was built up through the centuries as the movement gained momentum in the early centuries, until finally a mixture of Christianity & paganism called Roman Catholicism became the officially sanctioned religion of the empire. Without the force of the Roman empire behind it, Christianity and its holy book likely would not have gained such notoriety and popularity in the Western world.
The ongoing popularity of the Bible and the Jesus story do not necessarily make it more truthful or historical than the King Arthur legends.