religious debate

[unreality]

Yep, and I'd say that we're winning, actually, looking at the debate up to now. Wouldn't you agree?

[Guest]

Yep, and I'd say that we're winning, actually, looking at the debate up to now. Wouldn't you agree?

You cant win.

We cant win.

No one can win.

This is a philosophical debate which can NEVER be proven in our lifetimes (unless there is a God and s/he decides to show us that s/he exists).

This debate can only end in people dying and then figuring out if they were right or not (or course, if there is no God and there is a finality with death, then we'll never find out for sure).

I think the only reason it seems like you're winning is because other religious/spiritual people here arent speaking up.

oh well, I find most religous people are not very well educated in their own beliefs and cannot see both sides of an argument and are easily shut up because they arent well educated enough to discuss issues intelligently; while most atheists (at least the ones that I know) are very well educated in various religions, but just decide that science hasnt proven the existence of God and they havent felt it in their own lives.

[Guest]

You cant win.

We cant win.

No one can win.

This is a philosophical debate which can NEVER be proven in our lifetimes (unless there is a God and s/he decides to show us that s/he exists).

This debate can only end in people dying and then figuring out if they were right or not (or course, if there is no God and there is a finality with death, then we'll never find out for sure).

I think the only reason it seems like you're winning is because other religious/spiritual people here arent speaking up.

oh well, I find most religous people are not very well educated in their own beliefs and cannot see both sides of an argument and are easily shut up because they arent well educated enough to discuss issues intelligently; while most atheists (at least the ones that I know) are very well educated in various religions, but just decide that science hasnt proven the existence of God and they havent felt it in their own lives.

ummm... so?

It's not about how many people are saying the same thing

It's about what people are saying, and the evidence they back it up with.

Quite frankly, Writersblock produced the best theist proof with the story of his connection (willed or not, whose to say) with God

Other than that it just seems to be theists asking atheists to prove god's non-existence although they require no proof for his existence

in turn, I believe we are winning, unreality, or at least providing better argument

[Guest]

I said what I didn't really think I was saying. What I meant to say was that, as I have heard, many atheists think that there is no moral absolutes or absolute truth, which sort of makes sense if you believe that we owe are lives to chance, why not think that your life is governed by chance as well as indebted to it. This seems to me like if you really followed this belief to it's end and lived by it, this world would be even more disorderly than it already is. Does any body believe this or is this just another crazy thing I have heard?

About the morals question.

I was not saying that if I didn't believe in God I would be immoral, but that I believe if there was no God, everybody would be immoral. It seems to me like as far back as history goes, people have been fairly moral. In almost all societies, there are some things that you just don't do, or if you do, you are condemned by your community. I guess I am not sure how far before history most atheist believe that the human race as we know it existed, but it seems to me that morality is something specific to man that would take an extremely long time to evolve. Also, in the animal world, morality is not an asset so morality couldn't have evolved before humans were humans.

Please continue to do your best to "win" this debate. I think that atheists have some advantages and that theists have some advantages in it, so it seems fairly fair to me. Obviously, there is the intelligence of the debaters and the information they have access to and have seen, and the time to research and think and write, but overall, it seems like a productive use of time and the more research you do, the more you know. One problem with the argument of "Is there a God?" is that of perspective. To me something looks like evidence for a God and to somebody else that very same thing looks like evidence against a God. It is so abstract that there isn't much direct evidence to support or undermine the case for a creator.

[Guest]

I find it so ironic and apropo that I just got this today in my email from "positive quote of the day"

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.

-- Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) French Philosopher

As bociniki just said, there isnt much evidence either way.

I think the way it is usually presented is the bible pitted against science.

in this case, I believe that science has a strong advantage.

but, just remember that 30 years ago, scientists "knew" the best way to treat depression was shock therapy, and 60 years ago, they "knew" that the atom could not be split, and 500 years ago, scientists "knew" the Earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe, and 1000 years ago, scientists "knew" .....so on and so on. believe me, one day, years from now, we'll all be thinking about how scientists "knew" one thing that turned out to be wrong.

granted, a lot of the knowledge that science had way back when was very much influenced by theologists, and the church imprisoned scientists who went against the church .

This isnt really meant to put science down, but rather to tell you that "the purpose of any good research to produce two questions where only one grew before."

science is dynamic and the bible hasnt changed in ages. I personally dont believe in everything the bible says, at least not literally. and if you believe everything that science tells you, then you dont have a true thirst for knowledge. science is made by humans, and humans are fallible. i admit that, and I am a scientist working in pharmaceutical research. the only thing that research can do is suggest a correlation between certain topics, it can never "prove" anything. the "p" word is taboo in scientific research.

It's obvious that we wont change each other's minds; and that was never my intention.

The only thing that I hope comes out of this thread is that young people reading this will expand their minds and think for themselves before making a rash decision one way or the other.

Other than that it just seems to be theists asking atheists to prove god's non-existence although they require no proof for his existence

you cant have one without the other. if you're asking us to prove God, then we should require you to prove God's non-existance.

I believe that God/spirituality is a personal relationship, and if you feel that in your heart, then it's real to you. Just like it's hard to explain love, it's even harder to explain a relationship with an entity you cant see.

Edited February 6, 2008 by carlosn27

[Guest]

ok.........well this is a very deep thread and i am not a particularly deep person but.......

I am atheist although slightly christian. I do not firmly believe in a god although it is sometimes reassuring to think that there is someone looking out for you.

I am slightly christian as i have a very good friend who is christian and who is the nicer person you could ever possibly hope to meet. He has sort of converted me to christianity as i feel that the morals of christianity help you to be a better person and more thoughtful of others. He has a small group called christians in sport. I am a very sporty person and i feel that being christian helps you to be a better sportsman and also push yourself more and work harder.

Dont know if this has any particular relevance to the thread but felt like writing it.

Thanks for reading

[Guest]

ok.........well this is a very deep thread and i am not a particularly deep person but.......

I am atheist although slightly christian. I do not firmly believe in a god although it is sometimes reassuring to think that there is someone looking out for you.

I am slightly christian as i have a very good friend who is christian and who is the nicer person you could ever possibly hope to meet. He has sort of converted me to christianity as i feel that the morals of christianity help you to be a better person and more thoughtful of others. He has a small group called christians in sport. I am a very sporty person and i feel that being christian helps you to be a better sportsman and also push yourself more and work harder.

Dont know if this has any particular relevance to the thread but felt like writing it.

So is the word you're looking for agnostic?

And the opinion that it's reassuring (some might find it intrusive and threatening) doesn't make it fact

Of course the moral values are helpful

but you can have a list of moral values without needing a God to give them to you.

You don't need a God to be good.

Thanks for reading

since you're new here I'll let you know

Members of this board will always take your words into consideration

no need to thank anyone

the debate wouldn't have lasted 15 pages if people ignored one anothers posts.

[Guest]

What I meant to say was that, as I have heard, many atheists think that there is no moral absolutes or absolute truth, which sort of makes sense if you believe that we owe are lives to chance, why not think that your life is governed by chance as well as indebted to it.

The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is that they don't believe any gods exist. There's nothing about atheism that has to do with "we owe are lives to chance". If you're speaking about what atheists that believe in evolution believe, then you're even more off the mark because natural selection has zero to do with chance. How on Earth can anyone feel indebted to chance anyway, as if chance were a being that should be payed back?

Are there moral absolutes? No. Some think it is immoral to have a sexual fantasy, some do not. Are there absolute truths? I believe there must be only one truth, but there is no reason any other atheist must agree with me on either of these points.

About the morals question.

I was not saying that if I didn't believe in God I would be immoral

You didn't say it directly, but you sure said it indirectly:

There is no point in helping others, unless you hope they will help you back, there is no point in giving or helping those with less wealth than you since it is somewhat unlikely that they will ever be able to help you back.

and why do they help out charitable causes? Why do they ever do something that they think will hurt them (for example, telling the truth in a situation where it would be easier to lie).

It seems you may be a little embarrassed for asking why anyone would ever help another if they weren't going to be punished or rewarded and you're trying to take it back, but your words above speak for themselves.

It seems to me like as far back as history goes, people have been fairly moral. In almost all societies, there are some things that you just don't do, or if you do, you are condemned by your community. I guess I am not sure how far before history most atheist believe that the human race as we know it existed, but it seems to me that morality is something specific to man that would take an extremely long time to evolve.

No, it's not specific to man, and yes, it took many millions of years for any organisms to develop with that kind of concept; no one is claiming otherwise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/...hoo&emc=rss

Here are some good replies about the theistic belief that " You can't be moral without God":

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1780,You...chardDawkinsnet

Also, in the animal world, morality is not an asset so morality couldn't have evolved before humans were humans.

Listening to people who have no understanding of evolution talk about what couldn't have happened is getting really tiring. There are many advantages for a group of animals to care about each other, to look out for their fellow's back. If a member looks out for the group, the individuals of the group will look out for that member. If one does something wrong, for example, kills a contributing member of the group, they now have a reputation, and the group will no longer be willing to look out for that member. Doing something bad for the group is discouraged by the group, and will lead to personal loss. Evolving to sympathize with pain that other members of your group will have if you hurt them helps to insure that the group will work to help one another, therefore helping each individual to better survive. This doesn't apply to cats, but to animals that live in societies such as chimps and bonobos, it certainly does. And yes, chimps are sometimes kicked out of the group if they are a bad seed.

It is very easy to see the purpose of morality from a Darwinian perspective. As governing dynamics states, "the best result will come when everyone in the group is doing what's best for him/herself and the group."

To me something looks like evidence for a God and to somebody else that very same thing looks like evidence against a God. It is so abstract that there isn't much direct evidence to support or undermine the case for a creator.

Atheists can never prove that there aren't any gods, but we can continue to knock out faulty arguments theists make for 'evidence' that there is one, such as this little piece you posted earlier:

I definantely agree that something must have always existed. According to physics, it is impossible for the universe to have always existed, therefore, making necessary some sort of deity.

[Guest]

As bociniki just said, there isnt much evidence either way.

But he and others that make that claim then contradict themselves and post what is supposedly evidence for a god. I think this is why others are claiming that the atheists are winning this debate. All supposed evidence for gods have been debunked fairly well.

I think the way it is usually presented is the bible pitted against science.

in this case, I believe that science has a strong advantage.

but, just remember that 30 years ago, scientists "knew" the best way to treat depression was shock therapy, and 60 years ago, they "knew" that the atom could not be split, and 500 years ago, scientists "knew" the Earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe, and 1000 years ago, scientists "knew" .....so on and so on. believe me, one day, years from now, we'll all be thinking about how scientists "knew" one thing that turned out to be wrong.

Scientist don't claim to "know" anything. The beauty of science is that that it is known that nothing can be known for sure, which is why scientists spend so much time trying to prove a hypothesis wrong. How did we find out how to split the atom? It sure wasn't by believing it couldn't be done.

the only thing that research can do is suggest a correlation between certain topics, it can never "prove" anything. the "p" word is taboo in scientific research.

You're preaching to the choir.

The only thing that I hope comes out of this thread is that young people reading this will expand their minds and think for themselves before making a rash decision one way or the other.

Amen. Uh...well...you know what I mean.

you cant have one without the other. if you're asking us to prove God, then we should require you to prove God's non-existance.

Absolute nonsense! You should really know better than that. The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. If theists want to argue that a god exists, then it is up to them to prove one does. Asking us to prove one doesn't isn't logical.

[Guest]

Absolute nonsense! You should really know better than that. The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. If theists want to argue that a god exists, then it is up to them to prove one does. Asking us to prove one doesn't isn't logical.

I guess, in a sense, I'm asking you to disprove what I/we feel in my/our heart(s).

For us, IT IS REAL; it already exists. we just cant prove it to anyone else, sorry.

without getting into specifics, I was reared a catholic, hated the sanctimonious arrogance and hipocrisy of it, and then became an agnostic bordering on atheism. at one point in my life, I felt the hand of God touching my life, and I have since become more of a spiritual being that is a non-denominational Christian.

I cant prove it to you, and you cant disprove it to me. thus, I fear we are at a standstill in the whole proving to each other aspect of it.

[Guest]

So is the word you're looking for agnostic?

And the opinion that it's reassuring (some might find it intrusive and threatening) doesn't make it fact

Of course the moral values are helpful

but you can have a list of moral values without needing a God to give them to you.

You don't need a God to be good.

since you're new here I'll let you know

Members of this board will always take your words into consideration

no need to thank anyone

the debate wouldn't have lasted 15 pages if people ignored one anothers posts.

My post was not meant to be general and say that everybody thinks the same as me as i know for sure that everyone is different as this thread has proved due to the discussion. I was just sayin how i feel and how slight christianity has helped me both as a person and in sport.

And of course people do not need a God to be good as there are many lovely people in the world who are not christian or not religious as i myself almost am. I was just sayin that i feel i have improved myself as a person by listening to my friend and what he has said about God.

[Guest]

I guess, in a sense, I'm asking you to disprove what I/we feel in my/our heart(s).

Nice try. Can we get a little more dishonesty from the theists in this thread? What you said was "if you're asking us to prove God, then we should require you to prove God's non-existance."

Why would you ask me to disprove what you feel in your heart? I totally believe you when you say the feeling is real in your heart. That is entirely different than any gods actually existing. A child's feeling of fear because she believes that the bogey-man is real is a real feeling. That doesn't mean the bogey-man must necessarily be a real entity.

I cant prove it to you, and you cant disprove it to me. thus, I fear we are at a standstill in the whole proving to each other aspect of it.

There's no standstill because you're making that scenario up. There are no atheists here trying to prove to anyone that gods don't exist.

[Guest]

but, just remember that 30 years ago, scientists "knew" the best way to treat depression was shock therapy, and 60 years ago, they "knew" that the atom could not be split, and 500 years ago, scientists "knew" the Earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe, and 1000 years ago, scientists "knew" .....so on and so on. believe me, one day, years from now, we'll all be thinking about how scientists "knew" one thing that turned out to be wrong.

granted, a lot of the knowledge that science had way back when was very much influenced by theologists, and the church imprisoned scientists who went against the church .

and over 2,000 years ago, theists "knew" that Zeus was the God of Thunder, Aphrodite the God of Beauty....So on. Why is that still not so?( I might have accidentally mixed the Greek and Roman gods, ignore that if I did, you know what I mean)

Were the Roman and Greek's polytheistic beliefs proven wrong?

because "best way to treat depression was shock therapy" "atom could not be split" "the Earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe" sure were.

I'm not asking for you to provide proof, just stating that scientists had evidence and theists... didn't

My post was not meant to be general and say that everybody thinks the same as me as i know for sure that everyone is different as this thread has proved due to the discussion. I was just sayin how i feel and how slight christianity has helped me both as a person and in sport.

And of course people do not need a God to be good as there are many lovely people in the world who are not christian or not religious as i myself almost am. I was just sayin that i feel i have improved myself as a person by listening to my friend and what he has said about God.

I know,

I was simply agreeing that the providing of moral values in religion is something that I like about it

and although you don't need that religion to have moral values

the fact that the religions DO have moral values is an upside

[Guest]

the fact that the religions DO have moral values is an upside

Only if one cherry picks and follows the morals most of us would consider favorable. There are plenty of biblical "morals" that are downright reprehensible. The Bible commands one to kill others that work on the Sabbath, says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery, kill homosexuals, and even condones rape in certain situations. Even the NT speaks of some pretty questionable morals of Jesus:

http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm

[Guest]

says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery

ahh. duh. I knew about these and wasn't thinking of them when I said that.

oh, and to the slavery thing

I believe that I heard that the bible says it's okay to sell your daughter into sex slavery, which doesn't say much better.

Or did you just forget to type that?

[Guest]

Sorry for jumping in and out of this thread. Super busy lately and this is a lot to follow, but I wanted to follow up a previous post.

I think Martini said concerning harmony between the Big Bang and Genisis "Genesis starts with, "First God made heaven & earth". We can really stop right there. "

That is a dreadful misreading of the Genesis story. Understanding the original mode of the Genesis story shows that is a preamble to what comes next. For example, If I were to say, "The other day I made a ladder and a tree fort. First, I used some wood to make a ladder, and then I made a platform for the treehouse." You don't infer that it's impossible because my first statement suggests I already made the tree fort and later say I made the platform.

Really read Genesis and see what it says. The writer is giving a history. He says, "First the heaven and earth were made, and here's how it was done."

First, the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep - This is exactly the condition of the universe prior to the big bang. Matter was without form and there was no free flowing light.

And God said let there be light - The very first part of the big bang is that light escaped and filled the universe.

And divided light from the darkness - The light fled the point of the big bang in waves before it stabilized and then began to make matter (darkness).

Using better examples of hebrew - the light was the light of day and the darkness the darkness of night and God called this the first period.

The first matter to form was gas- a fluid (waters) and some of those gasses made suns while others did not. (divide the waters from the waters)

That is the second period.

Third period, we have the creation of a solid from the waters (gasses) which accumulate into the earth. Then the gasses created a water cycle.

Where is the discrepancy?

[Guest]

And God said let there be light - The very first part of the big bang is that light escaped and filled the universe.

And divided light from the darkness - The light fled the point of the big bang in waves before it stabilized and then began to make matter (darkness).

Using better examples of hebrew - the light was the light of day and the darkness the darkness of night and God called this the first period.

. . .

Where is the discrepancy?

But night is not "darkness." Night is simply the shadow of matter blocking the light.

While mildly original, you have to twist all of science and all of theology into curlicues in order to get to your conclusion. Light does move in waves, but not in "waves" of light and dark. If the light filled the universe at the Big Bang, then you have to wait for matter to form before you can have darkness, yet Genesis talks about God "dividing" the light from the darkness before matter (with one exception) is created. Beyond that, "the waters" already exist prior to light. Light follows water which is clearly contradicted by the scientific view of the Big Bang as well as your interpretation of Genesis.

You are trying too hard. Your interpretation does not make sense on a simple reading of the text and trying to force your odd interpretation (that no one before you seems to have understood) onto the text of Genesis alongside the observations of science causes you to violate the words and the spirit of both.

You've given us your interpretation, or match, between an ancient, imprecise story and the current scientific theory of creation. You've managed to fit them in ways that satisfy you by overlooking some details that others cannot.

What do you hope to prove? That the better match you can make, the more holy the story? If I can find another version of creation that I can match as well or better, will you be willing to believe in that one instead, even if the god(s) invoked are foreign to your background?

Did you ever try the same "match game" with Nostradamus? Now there's a clever writer who wrote nebulous verses that have been interpreted by many as prophetic, always after the fact. It's amazing how accurate predictions can be AFTER something happens!

Now if a biblical reader of 500 years ago had looked at a bible verse and derived the big bang from it, or the germ theory of disease, or postulated dinosaurs of 65 million years ago would be found, ideas/theories which subsequently were proven over time, maybe we'd have something. But no theologian of 500 years ago tried that successfully. Why do you think that is? Could it be because the "wisdom" of an ancient writing is only "revealed" when someone interprets it in a certain fashion?

What's your take on "Adam was created from dirt" and "Eve was created from Adam's rib"? If you have cooked up some way of reconciling those with evolution (or basic biology in any form, for that matter), I would be amazed.

[unreality]

Some atheists do good things, so do some theists.

Some atheists do bad things, so do some theists.

But mostly everyone, no matter WHAT you believe, is a good mix of both, with mostly good morals and values that you thing are accepetable, and generally atheists and theists have the same morals and values when it comes to being nice and stuff. A criminal is just as likely to be an atheist than a theist (actually more likely, just cuz there are more theists than atheists, but you know what I mean)

So drop the "morals" thing... if you attack atheist morals you are essentially attack theist morals:

* an atheist that does the right thing: most likely is that he/she wants to do the right thing

* a theist that does the right thing: same. They probably do it more cuz they want to than of their "fear of God", though that's also a factor.

It's just human nature, it doesnt matter what you believe. Yes there are some nuts, but they come from both sides

[Guest]

"What do you hope to prove"

Only that the bible and science don't have to be mutually exclusive.

"your odd interpretation (that no one before you seems to have understood)"

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Dis...y/dp/0553354132

http://elronsviewfromtheedge.wordpress.com...y-blow-account/

"What's your take on "Adam was created from dirt" and "Eve was created from Adam's rib"?" - Mistranslations of the original Hebrew and a God who uses laws (of science) to accomplish His works. (We could make a female from a male's rib today - cloning).

"Some atheists do good things, so do some theists.

Some atheists do bad things, so do some theists.

But mostly everyone, no matter WHAT you believe, is a good mix of both, with mostly good morals and values that you thing are accepetable, and generally atheists and theists have the same morals and values when it comes to being nice and stuff. A criminal is just as likely to be an atheist than a theist (actually more likely, just cuz there are more theists than atheists, but you know what I mean)

So drop the "morals" thing... if you attack atheist morals you are essentially attack theist morals:

* an atheist that does the right thing: most likely is that he/she wants to do the right thing

* a theist that does the right thing: same. They probably do it more cuz they want to than of their "fear of God", though that's also a factor.

It's just human nature, it doesnt matter what you believe. Yes there are some nuts, but they come from both sides"

- I agree whole heartedly.

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity, Writersblock, have you ever read a cosmology book, and if so, which one? Your model of cosmology seems to come from a mixture of skimmed popular articles on the Big Bang and wishful thinking.

And by the way

This is exactly the condition of the universe prior to the big bang. Matter was without form and there was no free flowing light.

Prior to the Big Bang there was no matter period, with form or without. It's not clear what form even means here. Others have already mentioned that the universe was opaque at the beginning. And what exactly is the face of the deep here?

Ask yourself why God wouldn't want to inspire something that makes you twist the story around to get anywhere close to the truth. By your logic I could probably find an argument for saying that the 10 commandments require adultery! Is the moral code you get from the Bible a straightforward reading of what it says, or is it a translation so it says what you want it to say?

[Guest]

"What's your take on "Adam was created from dirt" and "Eve was created from Adam's rib"?" - Mistranslations of the original Hebrew and a God who uses laws (of science) to accomplish His works. (We could make a female from a male's rib today - cloning).

Cloning. Right.

By the way, by what basis do you select those particular verses to believe as being mistranslations? If it's just because they're clearly mythological, then all you're doing is ignoring the parts of the bible you don't like and lying to yourself as to your justification. In which case, you can do it with all the parts you don't like. Here, I'll help: the entire book of genesis is actually a (rather overlong) mistranslation of "In the beginning, there was the big bang and evolution and all that stuff. Also, don't worship me!" There! All the contradictions with science are resolved!

[unreality]

How about this:

Creation of the World

In the begining there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared.

Then Erebus slept with Night, who gave birth to Ether, the heavenly light, and to Day the earthly light. Then Night alone produced Doom, Fate, Death, Sleep, Dreams, Nemesis, and others that come to man out of darkness.

Meanwhile Gaea alone gave birth to Uranus, the heavens. Uranus became Gaea's mate covering her on all sides. Together they produced the three Cyclopes, the three Hecatoncheires, and twelve Titans.

However, Uranus was a bad father and husband. He hated the Hecatoncheires. He imprisoned them by pushing them into the hidden places of the earth, Gaea's womb. This angered Gaea and she ploted against Uranus. She made a flint sickle and tried to get her children to attack Uranus. All were too afraid except, the youngest Titan, Cronus.

Gaea and Cronus set up an ambush of Uranus as he lay with Gaea at night. Cronus grabed his father and castrated him, with the stone sickle, throwing the severed genitales into the ocean. The fate of Uranus is not clear. He either died, withdrew from the earth, or exiled himself to Italy. As he departed he promised that Cronus and the Titans would be punished. From his spilt blood came the Giants, the Ash Tree Nymphs, and the Erinnyes. From the sea foam where his genitales fell came Aphrodite.

Cronus became the next ruler. He imprisoned the Cyclopes and the Hecatoncheires in Tartarus. He married his sister Rhea, under his rule the Titans had many offspring. He ruled for many ages. However, Gaea and Uranus both had prophesied that he would be overthrown by a son. To avoid this Cronus swallowed each of his children as they were born. Rhea was angry at the treatment of the children and ploted against Cronus. When it came time to give birth to her sixth child, Rhea hid herself, then she left the child to be raised by nymphs. To concel her act she wrapped a stone in swaddling cloths and passed it off as the baby to Cronus, who swallowed it.

This child was Zeus. He grew into a handsome youth on Crete. He consulted Metis on how to defeat Cronus. She prepaired a drink for Cronus design to make him vomit up the other children. Rhea convinced Cronus to accept his son and Zeus was allowed to return to Mount Olympus as Cronus's cupbearer. This gave Zeus the opertunity to slip Cronus the specially prepaired drink. This worked as planned and the other five children were vomitted up. Being gods they were unharmed. They were thankful to Zeus and made him their leader.

Cronus was yet to be defeated. He and the Titans, except Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Oceanus, fought to retain their power. Atlas became their leader in battle and it looked for some time as though they would win and put the young gods down. However, Zeus was cunning. He went down to Tartarus and freed the Cyclopes and the Hecatoncheires. Prometheus joined Zeus as well. He returned to battle with his new allies. The Cyclopes provided Zeus with lighting bolts for weapons. The Hecatoncheires he set in ambush armed with boulders. With the time right, Zeus retreated drawing the Titans into the Hecatoncheires's ambush. The Hecatoncheires rained down hundreds of boulders with such a fury the Titans thought the mountains were falling on them. They broke and ran giving Zeus victory.

Zeus exiled the Titans who had fought against him into Tartarus. Except for Atlas, who was singled out for the special punishment of holding the world on his shoulders.

However, even after this victory Zeus was not safe. Gaea angry that her children had been imprisoned gave birth to a last offspring, Typhoeus. Typhoeus was so fearsome that most of the gods fled. However, Zeus faced the monster and flinging his lighting bolts was able to kill it. Typhoeus was burried under Mount Etna in Sicily.

Much later a final challenge to Zeus rule was made by the Giants. They went so far as to attempt to invade Mount Olympus, piling mountain upon mountain in an effort to reach the top. But, the gods had grown strong and with the help of Heracles the Giants were subdued or killed.

J.M.Hunt

obviously this is correct. A spiteful wife giving a sickle to her son and telling him to castrate his father, who then retired to Italy, makes about as much sense to me as the Bible ;D

[unreality]

The point is, I could make that fit into the Big Bang too if I really tried

[Guest]

"your odd interpretation (that no one before you seems to have understood)"

http://elronsviewfromtheedge.wordpress.com...y-blow-account/

Since I generally do not read crackpots, even well-intentioned ones, I admit to having missed that particularly odd concept, before.

I'm not sure which is scarier: that someone else actually did combine all the errors you have presented as some sort of reconciliation of Genesis and science or that more people than you have actually accepted his errors as presenting a valid argument.

I see no conflict between Genesis and science because I do not see Genesis as a scientific tract, but distorting the words of Genesis to match up to misunderstood physics and cosmology is just not the way to go.

You are still stuck with water existing before light, light and darkness existing as separate entities without a source, and "days" occurring when no physical matter exists.

::: shrug :::

[Guest]

"(We could make a female from a male's rib today - cloning).

Wrong. You could only clone a male from a male and vice versa. A clone is an identical twin.