Wednesday, February 25, 2009
To be, or not to be?
Song of the Glob: Imagine by John Lennon.
I think it's "silly" (to put it as mildly as possible) to say that the bible is true, that God's word is true. *God's word is that God's word is true.* God says the bible is true. --> The bible says God is true. --> God says God is true in the bible. --> Man wrote the bible... so doesn't that mean that man says God is true, saying he says he's true, in the bible, which man wrote, which man claims the g-Man told them to write... You can't prove the bible with the bible. Basically, what I wrote up there was the bible proves God proves the bible proves God proves the bible proves God proves the bible proves God proves the bible, and so forth.
If the bible were true, I should be able to be convinced by it and believe it without first having to be told that it is true and without having to suspend reason. But no, I have to believe in the g-Man before I can believe in g-Man. That makes perfect sense. I have to be told that this is the way it is, from day one, and not to think otherwise, in order to believe in the bible. A girl I talked to admitted this is the case... and she was okay with it! She said, yes, “It's blind faith.” How can you be okay with that? You're blocking out all scientific facts for a fairy tale that gives suitable “answers" to unanswerable questions and saves you from unavoidable, ever-feared death.
I don't have a problem with religion; I have a problem with believing in something without reason, (Like Bill Maher said) without question, and blindly following one's forefathers, giving up logic, reason and science in the name of faith, in the name of a few-thousand-year-old myth. There is some scientific evidence of some things mentioned in the bible, the recording of certain events. Sometimes they are exaggerated, however. I will get back to this later.
I think it's appalling that in some religious schools, they teach biology only to refute it later.
No, not appalling - twisted.
Faith is Belief; Believing is NOT Knowing.
Why God doesn't exist:
Noah's Ark: There is no way the Noah's Ark Shebang could have ever happened.
Now they're saying that rather than "all species" boarding the ark, the bible actually meant kinds
of animals. - One kind of feline, one kind of canine, one kind of bird, one kind of rodent? Something like that. But that's changing the words of the bible which are meant to be taken literally, I am told. It's all true. If God wanted it to be clear, he would have told the writers to write "KIND" not "SPECIES." If that were the case, it would be admitting evolution happened in that when the flooding ceased, those animals somehow had to evolve in less than a few thousand years into jaguars, lions, beavers, toucans, and then spread across the world to their necessary habitats. That’s some seriously advanced evolution. If not, then somehow Noah would have had to convince every single insect, the guanacos and condors of South America, the native badicoots, koalas, and kangaroos of Australia, to go with him. But they're not on the same continent. He would have had to travel across the oceans, give all species the 4-1-1, and bring them all back, only to get on another boat and get flooded somewhere in the Middle East. Did you know that there are 755 different species of reptiles currently in Australia? And somehow they would not have eaten the rodents accompanying them on this voyage... (Imagine the spiders!!! Oooohh NO, DON'T! >.< ) “The Noah thing is probably a mixture of stories about a flood that really happened on the Euphrates River about 125 miles southeast of present day Baghdad. Every spring the Euphrates floods but according to archaeologists, one June around 129 BC, there was a six day storm and the river rose another 22 ft. That would have overflowed the levies; a lot of people got killed. One of the survivors was a local Sumerian King named Ziusudra. He resourcefully commandeered a commercial barge, loaded it with merchandise and rowed the barge downstream into the Persian Gulf, where he finally ran aground. Thankful to be alive, Ziusudra offered a sacrifice in a hilltop temple.” “We have geologic and archaeological evidence to support that. No surprise, at least six other cultures of the region had flood stories like Noah.” – Penn & Teller. Dinosaurs: They existed, we know it. It's a scientific fact. If you don't believe me, I'll take you to a museum where they've reconstructed a brontosaurus using its skeletal remains.
Some religious people do believe in dinosaurs. Some claim that the first few "days" of the world were not actually days. They were periods. Yet, again, you're going back to change things in the bible so that they can fit with reality. You know what else you can do that with? Astrological predictions and fortune cookies. But fine, let's say they were "periods." When, during those periods, could dinosaurs have been able to walk the earth? Let's examine, using the bible:
Genesis says, 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. But the previous day, he had already made light and separated it from the dark - day and night... identifiable by the sun and the moon, but the sun and the moon are in the sky... so the sky had to have been there before God created it in the next passage. But then... 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. So that's when the sun and moon showed up... but vegetation was created before this and there was no sun until the next Period? or Day? And just before he makes man, he puts some wildlife and livestock on the planet... When could dinosaurs have fit in?
Not the first day, because the two lights had not been created, although for some reason there's day and night already.
Not the second day, because the water of the earth was still connected to the water of the sky. But there was morning and evening again, without the sun and moon. They couldn't have been around then because land was not yet available.
Not the third day, because plants and trees were sprouting from the ground at a fast rate... it needed to be fast to cover the planet. Dinosaurs would probably get stabbed by random spruce and acacia trees bursting out of the ground. No animals mentioned here.
The fourth day! NOW the sun and moon are created. NOW the plants can live and grow... because they couldn't have without it... so that must really have been just a day because if it were a period, the plants would have died. He separated the light and darkness AGAIN. :/
On the fifth day, there were birds and trees and at no point are any other creature on the land discussed - so not that day/period either.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. All of a sudden, there's livestock and wild animals and other creatures that move along the ground, but if that were the case on this day/period, where were the dinosaurs? They moved along the ground... and ate all the livestock? There were cows and sheep and pigs (livestock) at the time the dinosaurs ruled? I didn't know that. Funny how there aren't any livestock fossils from millions of years ago. So they could not have walked the earth together.
The g-Man later gave all green plants for food to man, but when did he make some of those plants venomous? But I guess since Adam and Eve were so pure, they would be immune to poisons and such. Still, they were venomous to the later generations... so not all green plants were good.
There is no proof of Moses or Exodus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses - See 'Challenges to his historicity'
There were many Jesuses back in the day, just like today! Jesus Bonilla is a Spanish actor...Was there a Jesus who was crucified? Yes - "Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history." – [Quoted from]
If there was enough evidence to prove the bible, wouldn't everyone already be able to believe in the bible? If the bible could be proven true, it would be true, and no one would believe, they would know. If there was enough proof that God and Jesus exists, that there is a paradise promised to you post-partum, which is an exclusive club only for people who are worthy enough in the eyes of God, and not any other god-created creature, THEN we could all KNOW that the g-Man is more believable than the tooth fairy. For he currently is not.
If the idea that a man-god simply snapped his fingers and said, *poof* light. *poof* sky. *poof* night and day. *poof* trees. *poof stars* *poof* animals. and *poof* humans, would ever really overrule the probable fact that humans gradually came to be, evolving from the smallest of things to bigger things, from apes to humans, over a millions-of-years time frame, then I would need to see the evidence more than ever. But until religion has a good case, I won’t wait on the tooth fairy to give me a toonie for my tooth; I will live my life the way I choose, god-free and happy, living not in denial and fear of the consequences of not believing/worshipping/etc., but with acceptance of the fact that I won't, nor anyone I will ever meet, be perfect, that death is death and not more life, that I will die when it is my time and before then, I will have done everything I could to make my world and the general world a good place to live in. I have the same right to be here as a possum, a dandelion, a dolphin, a man, a king, an Amazonian tribe member, a fish, an elephant, a lamb, and so on. I have the right to be. It is my choice: to be. The only purpose I have in life is to love, and be loved in return, and to help the world continue loving and spread that love all over the place like butter on bread.
It is my choice to be good and to be happy, because feeling angry and doing bad things does not make a person feel good. If everyone did bad things and acted immorally, the world would turn to chaos, and by now we would not longer exist as a species. That is why it is all about survival of the fittest. You protect your young and you try to co-exist with others as best you can, for what? Not for paradise. Not for heaven. Not for any purely selfish, self-righteous reward... but for a better world and to keep it from crumbling. (- Metaphorically. If it crumbles for real, there probably won’t be much we could do about it.) Selfish only to the world.
To be, or not to be? My answer is "to be," and that is why I'm here. And because I can be.