Leyla

If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 That doesnt sound like a history book, its very similiar to what I am used to in the Quran and if I read this verse in the Quran, I would think that its part of the book. Jesus said that he did not come to change the law in Matthew 5:17 so the old laws still apply. Also here is a list of things in the NT that can be considered cruel or evil for example the idea of a hell http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html We did not establish yet, if the creator of the universe is our God or not, so we cant use this argument.

Is killing whole cities in sodom and gomorha, almost the whole world with the flood, ordering to kill for example 1 Samuel 15:3-4 or supporting slavery in exodus 21 part of the grace? I would dare to say that the bible has almost as many bad elements as the Quran, though it obviously doesnt beat it.

So God is love but satan takes us to him? Does it mean that satan can overpower God and take us with him? EDIT: What is the corolarry of torture? Non torture in heaven (=life in heaven)? If thats the opposite to eternal torture in hell, then why was it wrong for me to say that its about eternal life and eternal torture

Hello, thanks for the reply. Is it a strawman if I can quote it directly from the bible? I never intented to say that christians do good or bad or anything. It was simply a reply to someone that said to look at the religion with the best results ( or something like that im sorry for quoting wrong if I am) Exodus 21. Is that an Idea that atheists adapted? That would be true if there was no context. My reply was towards someone that asked something about how atheists view the fact that christians did so much good or something like that. My reply was that there is no universal atheistic view. I never attempted to say what is right or wrong. Again Im sorry if I misquoted that person I already answered why I think that slavery is bad and you did not respond to it directly so I will copy and post it right now . "Slavery is bad because of 2 main things. 1 Is that its unproductive in the grand scheme of things. Slaves are cheap but produce less. The hard work, that was usually reserved for slaves is now replaced with machines. In this time we need qualified workers and thats not something you get with slaves. Thats why we have an interest, to have qualified and well nourished workers. Nr 2 and thats the more important part, is that I dont want to be a slave. Its a fairly miserable "job", destroys your health, doesnt pay well and is generally just bad. Because I dont want it, I can assume that others dont want it too. I dont want people to force me to be a slave. I am physicially weak, but even if I wasnt, I dont want other people to force me into slavery and thats why I want some kind of protection. The legal system protects me and others and I have to return (not yet) pay taxes. People finance it with money but we can look at money as a ressource. People want ressources. Thats why they will go out of their way, to do the things I want them to do. In this case I want protection and give ressources, they give me in return a legal system, police etc. Even without morality this could function as something like a soul-les ant community. But generally morality has a fairly strong naturalistic explanation. Its a tool that that is very important for intelligent social animals. " I also like to say that word evil, and that is usually combined with islam. I read Dawkins book and you have to admit that it makes good points. Just because we dont have objective evil, doesnt mean that we cant use that word. Religion indeed generate lots of interest. My case is a bit weirder because I would be executed in my home country for religious reasons but thats another religion. That justifies alot of my interest. From what I heard when I talked with atheists in america, is that leaving christianity (especially some of the sects like mormonism, jehowas witnesses, but also the "normal" christianity") often brings MANY problems. The common thing, among many atheists is that their social life dried up after leaving their religion. A religious enviroment often doesnt accept atheists and that could be frustrating and it could explain why so many atheists are loud about it. ( again that depends on your enviroment, its different in some places but thats the general idea that could explain why so many people have an interest in it). The other major ts almost impossible to reach high political positions if you are an open atheist, because the US is a very religious country and that influences votes. A faith can influence the decisions politicians make and that could be a problem. The other social/ political problems , like rejecting same sex marriages or abortions, demanding to teach creationism in schools etc, are almost exclusively based on religion and that often brings it in the center of attention and public talks. Yes, and islam never made the claim that he was risen from the dead. I also would not say that christianity spread exclusively by peaceful means but im too lazy to bring up history, but I will if I have to. Islam believes that jesus rose to heaven, but deny crucifiction. Im no expert about the death of Jesus, so maybe there is historic evidence for the crucifiction. If there is something like that, then I will admit that this point is accurate. No I dont want to live in a culture that tells you to behave and not to dare to ask questions, my fear is that christianity will turn into something very similiar if it gets political power. My evidence is that we have a conscious because our brain processes information with electrical and chemical means. Once this activity stops, our conscious ends. Our conscious seems to be limited to our brain, so if our brain is dead, we can strongly assume that "we" are dead aswell. That would only apply, if religion was a private matter. The problem is that many issues like abortion, same sex marriages, teaching creationism in school etc are based on religious reasons, and that makes religion turn from a private into a public matter.

https://adam4d.com/the-atheist-elephant/ First I must admit that Richard Dawkins is one of my personal heroes because his work helped me alot to get through difficult times and he brought biology, a subject that I thought I could never even begin to understand, very close to me. I dont know him in person so I can only assume what he would say in this comic, based on the lectures or books i read. This comic, could be something just for humor but I will treat it seriously I never heard that quote from him, but aslong as he doesnt use force during his "fight against religion" im fine with that. Every idea needs to be scrutinied and it can even get vicious, aslong as it stays polite. I dont really know what to say and I cant imagine an instance where he would support being zealots to atheism. I remember him saying, that his working methods are based on reason and evidence and not on faith. Thats why I would expect him to go against the idea of becomming a zealot to atheism. Picture 3 Richard Dawkins is not a physicist so we cant expect accurate answers about the beginning of the universe. He is an expert in another field. If you have questions about the beginning of the universe please ask a physicist. Its really hard for me to believe, that an evolutionary biologists like Dawkins, a highly estalbished scientist that works on finding the smallest details and changes in life, would not notice a creature that could barely fit in my living room, right next to him.

Excuse me what do you mean with "use the argue their caise is sound"? Do you mean that "evolutionist" have little substance but are very loud? The exchange and scrutiny of ideas is very harsh, because everyone is trying to viciously rip apart any ideas that are presented. I also dont think that anyone thinks that anything is infallible and if anyone has good points then most people will sit down and listen. There are christian scientists but they usually seperate their religion from work, during working hours. If anyone is able to proof my sources or what I say wrong then I will Edit my earlier posts in a different colour and write a big "EDIT: THIS WAS ALL PROVEN TO BE WRONG, AND HERE IS THE ONE THAT MANAGED TO DO THAT "INSERT USERNAME" ". The fact that we never got to this point shows the problem we have. What do you mean with worshipping evolution? Darwin (peace be upon him) was the greatest prophet of science! I doubt that anyone worshipps the evolutionary theory and I never met weirdos that do that. Its just the best theory we have and most people want something that is accurate and gives good result

From what I studied, animals dont have a soul and therefore no afterlife. At what time, will God draw the line between man and animal in our evolutionary path? Will heaven and hell be filled with neanderthals, homo erecti etc? [EDIT: currently trying to figure out if animals have a soul or not, thanks for pointing it out]

Do we have to ignore the evidence for evolution then? We cant have modern biology, genetics, medicine etc, if we view evolution as something that is not required and throw it away. Why is evolution generally such a strong, good, and predictive theory if its not required? [Edit] This thread started with how genomes, evolution etc are supposed to prove God, but so far it only did the opposite.

Other religions could say "The difference in other religions and X, is that we have Wischnu, or the real last prophet mohammad etc" and point to how that makes them special I can copy you Quran verses of "do" and "done" and if I looked for similair things in other religious books, then I could find it too. Look at what it encourages followers to do? Like ripping of your eye or arm if you look at another person lustfully [Matthew 5:29] or devalue humans to the point where you have to accept that a huge portion of humanity will have to suffer in hell for all eternity? What about encouraging slavery in Exodus 21? What about the dark ages where books of science and philosophy were burned, great minds like galileo surpressed etc. Even now religion is often the main motivation to deny science (for example evolution), or to not give acess to contraceptions. Christianity is the largest religion and its also largely present in the power houses of the world, so its naturally that alot of good things come from christians. However, can we really say that these good things only came because they were christians? If we dont count in the christian church, then christian charity organisation dont seem all that impressive anymore. The largest private charity organisation is the Bill and Melinda organisation and it was launched by an atheist. Universities teach valuable skills and these skills are what made our societies so good, so I dont think that their model of reducing everything to a formula, or to make everything super simplistic and logical is a bad thing. I dont think that there is one atheistic worldview, because atheism is the rejection of a religion and doesnt tell you much about a person. I mean you cant draw any conclusion from a person, just because hes an atheist, or an abiologist, or an astronomist etc. Slavery is bad because of 2 main things. 1 Is that its unproductive in the grand scheme of things. Slaves are cheap but produce less. The hard work, that was usually reserved for slaves is now replaced with machines. In this time we need qualified workers and thats not something you get with slaves. Thats why we have an interest, to have qualified and well nourished workers. Nr 2 and thats the more important part, is that I dont want to be a slave. Its a fairly miserable "job", destroys your health, doesnt pay well and is generally just bad. Because I dont want it, I can assume that others dont want it too. I dont want people to force me to be a slave. I am physicially weak, but even if I wasnt, I dont want other people to force me into slavery and thats why I want some kind of protection. The legal system protects me and others and I have to return (not yet) pay taxes. People finance it with money but we can look at money as a ressource. People want ressources. Thats why they will go out of their way, to do the things I want them to do. In this case I want protection and give ressources, they give me in return a legal system, police etc. Even without morality this could function as something like a soul-les ant community. But generally morality has a fairly strong naturalistic explanation. Its a tool that that is very important for intelligent social animals. The naturalistic view of evil is that in the grand scheme of, evil does not exist. What we call evil are simply behaviours that are very destructive or disruptive to our society and thats why we have a strong desire to stop them. Good things are things, that are pleasent for us, good for our society etc. Let me give you an example, of what a muslim would say: "What about prophet mohammad? There is no doubt that he lived, died and was burried, we even know that he is burried (at the mosque in Medina). He was born 600 years after the last prophet. He was born as a poor orphan, in mekkah where the jews, christians, paegans and others did not even believe in what he said, so he had to flee his home city. Just a few years later, he build such a strong force of believers, that he could easily take over mekkah and all the other cities around it and islamise it. And this group of believers, later became one of the most influencial forces that live on earth and it will probably outgrow christianity in the next 50-100 years." Do you have any reason to think that this life is a test and not the only thing we have? How would a world look like, with no test and a limited life with no afterlife? If you can tell me how such a world would like like in your opinion, we could start to compare it with our world, and see if there are similarities. Also can you explain to me how atheism demonstrates a God? I want to copy a wikipedia page about the golden rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule " The idea dates at least to the early Confucian times (551–479 BC) according to Rushworth Kidder, who identifies that this concept appears prominently in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and "the rest of the world's major religions".[3] The concept of the Rule is codified in the Code of Hammurabi stele and tablets, 1754-1790 BC" So even before christ, people knew to treat each other how you want to be treated. Its not only about eternal life, its also about eternal torture and we cant leave that one out. If we find out that God is evil, then we will have more time enjoying our life and not waste it with things that are useless if a loving God does not exist (praying, church etc) Muslims adore their prophets and God too, thats why so many want to die in combat to share the same heaven as their prophets. I would not say that followers of other religions are doing it just because of fear of hell. The word gracious is what stood out, because the first sentence of the Quran is "In the name of Allah, the merciful, the especially/most merciful" (can be gracefull too, depending on translation). Christianity is not the only one, that believes their God to be graceful. [Edit: Im sorry if all my comparisons with other religions are about islam, its the only other religion I know enough to talk about, I will try to include buddhism in the near future too]

If no argument is needed then its implied that its something obvious. If its obvious, then why do so many people struggle with accepting God as real?

Hello Im fine, thanks and you? Hell is definitely a place I would like to avoid so Ill try my best at doing that. Natural selection is not evolution, yes. Evolution means change over time. Natural selection is a pressure, that drives evolution forward. I also doubt that a wolf ( a modern animal that exists now ) will turn into another (quite old but still modern animal that exists today) shark. If wolves evolved into sea creatures then it would be a completly new animal, and not one that exists today. I also disagree with evolution being unscientific and unproven, its the backbone of biology and noone was able to prove it wrong yet. Link: http://book.bionumbers.org/what-is-the-mutation-rate-during-genome-replication/ "In humans, a mutation rate of about 10-8 mutations/bp/generation (BNID 105813) was inferred from projects where both parents and their children were sequenced at high coverage. [....] In humans it is estimated that there are about 20-30 genome replications between the fertilized egg and the female gametes (BNID 105585) and about ten times that for males, with large variation depending on age (BNID 105574). With ≈3×109 bp in the human genome the mutation rate leads to about 10-8 mutations/bp/generation x 3×109 bp/genome ≈ 10-100 mutations per genome per generation (BNID 110293). Using an order of magnitude of 100 replications per generation, we arrive at 0.1-1 mutations per genome per replication. Another Link (long version) nature.com/articles/ng.862 Same but in short summary: medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-human-mutation-revealed-family-genetic.html " Each one of us receives approximately 60 new mutations in our genome from our parents. This striking value is reported in the first-ever direct measure of new mutations coming from mother and father in whole human genomes published today. " These numbers of mutations seem to fit in the whole idea of slow yet steady change over a very long time Most mutations cause disease or are lethal and they are mostly weeded out by natural selection. Here are some links to beneficial mutations, one that was approximately 5-10 million years ago and helps monkeys fight of viruses: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2279257/ (Author Summary) "The TRIM5 gene encodes TRIM5α, a protein that blocks infection of the cell by retroviruses. [...] While it is difficult to prove positive selection for a non-coding change, the frequency of this mutation in two different species of Asian monkeys (Macaca sp) raised the possibility that the mutation was once evolutionarily advantageous. As it turns out, monkeys carrying this substitution also carry a nearby cyclophilin-A (CypA) pseudogene, and these individuals express chimeric mRNA encoding a fusion between the TRIM5 and CypA sequences. Thus, the mutation, which interferes with expression of the normal TRIM5α protein, instead contributes to expression of a novel protein. Remarkably, this is the second example of the appearance of a TRIM5/CypA chimera during primate evolution, the other having occurred in a new world monkey lineage (Aotus sp). Cellular CypA binds to the capsid proteins of several lentiviruses, and we believe that TRIM5-CypA proteins were at one time selected for the ability to block infection by retroviral pathogens, possibly related to modern lentiviruses. Here is a more recent mutation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApoA-1_Milano Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.[1] Natural selection or evolution doesnt attempt to answer the origin of genes, its a different field. Its like saying newtonian mechanics are bad because they dont explain relativity or an apple cake recipe is bad because it doesnt tell you how to make a cheese cake.

Is saying that nothing can change your mind, something good or is it something dangerous? Im an ex muslim and the question " what would it take for you to leave your religion? " was my biggest help in leaving something that I consider to be wrong now. My answers to that question were a flawed holy book, unreasonable teachings/believes and a lack of proof. If I never questioned these things, then I would have never come so close to christianity, something you strongly assume to be right. What I dont understand is, why we should stop at christianity. We have to always consider the possibility of being wrong. If we dont question everything then we will be stuck with the lies that we are born with forever.

People ask their God and come to different conclusions, for example with all the different denominations and sects and even people among the same church group, often have a different understanding of God. Thats why I strongly assume, that asking God is not a way to find acurate answers.

Hello, what would it take for you to leave your religion? What kind of evidence or other things do you need for that?

Is the God that created the universe Yachweh, or Allah, or Wischnu or one of the other many Gods from different religions? What if its a God that created the universe but never intervened in it, and never cared about the life in this creation? What if the creator of our universe is not God but just a really powerful creature? Do we have any reason to assume that the creator of the universe is our God, the God of the bible?

We dont have evidence that humans can perform magic. We also dont have evidence that a God can perform something supernatural. The bible tells us many things, but is the bible really sufficient? Can we believe everything in the bible or only some parts? Do we have any reason to think that its the complete word of God? How can I get in contact with the devil to gain power? My soul is worth the experiment to discover, if you can gain power from something supernatural or magical like the devil

How do you know that the supernatural God is real, but magic is not real? What methods did you use to determine that magic is not real and what methods did you use to determine that God is supernatural and real. I doubt that any farmer stores enough food to feed every species on earth and enough fertilizers to repopulate and regrow the world after a global catastrophe. Í just googled that one elefant alone needs 250 000 kilocalories a day, that is around 200 kilogram of leafs, grass etc. What kind of farmer stores so much that they can feed EVERY species? If the answer to impossible things in the bible is magic or something supernatural, then it means that the flood story is illogical and many other stories are illogical.

Both God and magic seem to be something that is seperate from the natural world so I dont understand why its a bad comparison. Is there another word like magic for the things God did/does/will do? If you dont want to respond to the things I wrote then dont. But making the efford to post in this thread just to devalue the things I said, after I tried my best to examine the flood, is really mean. Water evaporating is one thing and its observed. However if my calculation from earlier is accurate, then the volume of the water increased by around 215% and suddenly dissapeared. Such huge water amounts cant just evaporate in thin air in such high rates. arkencounter.com I found this website about a guy that build Noahs Ark with the appropriate size. It took them 1000 workers, modern power tools, trucks, huge cranes, easily avaiable ressources etc and 2 years. 8 people survived so lets make a 10 out of it for easier math and assume that everyone helped building the arc . In theory and in our modern time, this is how long it would take one person to build the arc: 2 * 1000 = 2000, so it would take 10 people 200 years, so its somewhat close to 120. However, that calculation is highly theoretical and involves the use of modern technology. Without that technology it would certainly take thousands of years, or it would take tens of thousands of slaves working day and night. There is not enough time to build it, so how can there be enough time to grow food, prepare it, produce fertilizers, store seeds etc. If we dont look for proof and accept everything, how can we ever hope to find the truth? How are we supposed to know what faith is true, what aspects of a faith are not true or which faith will lead you to a bad life/afterlife? If we assume that one religion is true, then it would mean that all the other religions are false, because they contradict each other. Our afterlife and spiritual being is depended on finding the true faith, so I do think that its a problem that is so severe that it can be compared to homelessness, starvation, terrorism etc.

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Is a collection of observed speciation. We observe it with the gradual change in the fossil record. We observe it when we study our genetics. I think these observations are very strong. Richard Dawkins is a very accomplished and respected scientist and his working methods are based on facts and evidence and not on faith. Well its called evolution by natural selection. Evolution is the process and natural selection is what drives evolution. Im not good at playing with words so maybe I worded it wrong. Natural selection means that favourable traits are preserved and passed on, ( because they work) and it weeds out traits that are a handicap ( because they dont work), so I dont think that it was a wrong description. Things or traits that work simply work, those that do not will dissapear.

The cause is that things that work will work and things that dont wont work. If a collection of organic compounds works and survives then it will persist, if not then it will be gone.

Not just spontaneously, evolutionary pressure favoured things that work and weeded out things that dont.

Why is it designed? It seems to be more reasonable to assume that our eyes evolved to adapt to the enviroment

Hello and thanks for the eye candy. Humans are very visual animals and alot of our brain is dedicated or involved in vision, so its no surprise that we react strongly to visual stimulation. Pretty colours, symmetry, the sun in general (considering that the sun is the only reason we even evolved eyes) is very ressonating with us. But saying that this is beautiful raises another question for me. Is it objectivelly beautiful or is it subjective? Would this picture still be beautiful, if there were no sentient minds left in our universe, that could perceive it as beautiful? I also dont think that we cant answer why we think that some things are beautiful. Evolution in plants or wildlife often favours pretty colours or symmetry. Symmetry because its usually a sign of good health and pretty colours because they differentiate themselves from their enviroment. An insect, for example, is more likely to notice something colourful than something bland and is therefore more likely to pollinate the more colourful plant. Over time this will create things that simply draw our attention to them. The human made parts in the picture also follow that rule. A fence that is badly crafted, non symmetrical, falling apart would probably not give us the same pleasent feeling. I dont mean to say that ruins cant look pretty too, but its a general rule I follow when I build things and other seem to follow it too and it usually gives good results

Where did the water go? I made a calculations one post previously and the volume of the water is absolutely huge, it cant just dissapear. Its not that alot of sealife did not survive. A global flood on this scale would definitely eradicate the sealife. Cows and chickens take the chemicals from their food and use that to make eggs and milk. If they dont have anything to eat then there are no eggs and milk. The energy transfer of food is not 100% so there would be a natural loss of energy. The animals on the ark could not live in basically a perpetual machine of eggs and milk. I also strongly suspect that there would be no grass or plants for a very long time after a global flood. If there is no greenlife, how can there be no oxygen problem? There is strong evidence, that the land was dead and cold earth when they left the ark, it wasnt a plentiful enviroment. Why should they not admit it, if they find something that supports the bible record? I think its very mean to assume that atheistic scientists or evolutionists try to conceal information. I respect people that spend lots of years studying their profession and also work hard to progress the knowledge of mankind. Ill check out drl carl baugh and your comment about the receeding waterlines on the Grand Canyon I think noone tries to actively disprove the bible, the evidence just points to the opposite of what the bible tells us. I could not find a single scientific peer reviewed paper ( that was well received), that supports Noahs Flood yet, but I will check out your references thank you. [EDIT: I will also check out the links the others gave me but it will take some time until Im done with it]

Genesis 7:20 "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. ". 15 cubits is 6,85 meter. The mount everest is 8 848 m tall. The radius of the earth is 6371071,03 m = 6371,07103 km. Lets assume that the earth is a perfect sphere, which its not. If we take the radius of the earth, add in the height of the mountain and add an additional 6,85 meter = 6379,92588 km. The volume of our earth is (4 / 3) * 3.14 *6371,07103 = 1083243147129,12 km^3. The volume of the earth with the flood would be (4/3) * 3,14 * 6379,92588 = 1087766072607 km^3. 1087766072607 km^3 - 1083243147129,12 km^3 = 4522925477.88 km^3. Now lets assume that one third of the calculated flood water, was actually not water but land, mountains etc, that were above the radius of the earth and were calculated into its volume. That would be 4522925477,88 km^3 * 0,66 = 2985130815.4 km^3. According to this calculation the total volume of the flood water, is 2985130815,4 km^3 or 716170968,641578 miles^3. According to wiki " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth " the total volume of all water right now is 332500000 miles^3. The volume of the flood water minus the volume of the water we have now is 716170968,641578 miles^3 - 332500000 miles^3 = 383670968,641578 miles^3 or 1599210358,441008 km^3. If these calculations are accurate, then it would mean that 383670968,641578 miles^3 or 1599210358,441008 km^3 of water are missing. It would mean that the total volume of the water increased by 215% and then suddenly dissapeared. I cant believe that a few months are enough to make the water dissapear. There is also not enough time for a new ecosystem to develop. The only explanation, that I can think of, is magic. A flood, is as catastrophic for water animals, as it is for us. The only way I can think of, that could make all sealife survive, is the use of magic. If we agree that there was an original landmass, then we also have to agree on the timescale and that the original landmass had its shape millions of years ago and that the earth is not a few thousand years old. There were many mass extinctions on our earth so there are also many mass graveyards of animals. I also dont agree that old fossils look the same as they do now. " evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 " here is a link , that shows how land mammals slowly evolved into whales. I also never heard that we found something that looks today, exactly as it looked 4,5 billion years ago.