Rainbow Post-it Notes
Science tells us that rainbows are a natural phenomenon resulting from the refraction of sunlight through water droplets, whereas the bible tells us they are a supernatural sign reminding God of his promise not to drown every child in the world—again, showing the bible to be not only incompatible with science, but incompatible with commonsense and common decency.
Gn 9:8-17
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Genesis 9 says nothing about God needing help to remember anything. The word help never even occurs in the passage.
This is more borrowing from Christianity, distorting the meaning to fit your presuppositions, so that you have an argument against the Bible and Christianity. Without the distortion you have no argument.
This tactic is getting very old and boring. These tactics are the same tactics used by Sam Harris, Christopher and Dickie Dawkins and other "new atheists."
I am finding out that this new atheism is causing much division in atheism. Other atheists consider these silly arguments an embarrassment to atheism.
Respected atheist Michael Ruse who is a professor at FSU, says, "The God Delusion (by Richard Dawkins) makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.
What in Gen. 9:8-17 is incompatible with what science tells us about rainbows?
I read it over and over again and couldn't find anything that would lead me to think it contradicts what science tells us about rainbows.
This whole passage and thus this conversation is beyond ridiculous. Do you really think an invisible being placed his bow in the sky as a sign for him and the world as the story goes? This is an ancient myth to explain rainbows. Please! This is kindergarten silly.
But to play along, here goes: Apparently this invisible being in the sky isn’t always thinking about his covenant (promise) not to kill everything on earth again by drowning. (Note: He is careful to only commit to not “drowning” everyone, leaving open the possibility for killing everything in other holy ways which he threatens to do later in the good book). But when he sees the rainbow appear he “remembers” his promise. This “remembering” is obviously important because the word “remember” is repeated.
As to your comment about it not conflicting with science I thought the fact that the bible said rainbows were a SUPERNATURAL sign and science says they are NATURAL was clear but I have now spelled it out for you.
Your comment about there being “much division in atheism” is as silly as this conversation. There is no “atheism” to divide! There is no governing atheist body. No consensus among atheists about anything other than sharing a lack of belief in a god. Michael Ruse has every right to be embarrassed or proud or whatever of Dawkins, the President, the Pope or whomever. As an atheist one can think any thought, one wants, fearlessly and freely without regard to anyone or any god.
The creation of the cosmos was supernatural (as science can't give natural reasons for why the big bang occurred). That doesn't mean we can't know why things in the cosmos do what they do. Again, this passage in Genesis in no way contradicts science as you say it does.
You said, "isn’t always thinking about his covenant." I can't find that phrase in that passage. Is this more of your reading into the text your own presuppositions so that you have an argument against Christianity?
You hate God and Christianity and this "thought of day" clearly shows that you will twist and distort what's in the Bible to discredit all things Christian.
Sooner: The creation of the cosmos was supernatural (as science can't give natural reasons for why the big bang occurred).
me: Wow. Do you actually think this, or did you not think about what you were writing? You really think that everything science has not figured out yet is therefore “supernatural”? This is “God of the gaps” thinking and the God of the gaps shrinks everyday.
Sooner: You hate God and Christianity and this "thought of day" clearly shows that you will twist and distort what's in the Bible to discredit all things Christian.
Me: O.K. I admit it! I DO HATE GOD! I know I have said this is an impossibility for an atheist many times in the past but am so glad you just keep asserting that I do. Thank you. I now see that I was just fooling myself. Gosh, how deluded I was. Forgive me for all that time I wasted saying that I can’t hate what I don’t think exists. What gibberish I was spouting! So now that you have finally gotten it into my thick skull that I do in fact hate God can I be so bold as to ask for your guidance in turning my hate into love for God? I really don’t like the idea of hating anyone and seems truly awful of me to hate God! I think I’ll go pray to him the rest of the day and ask for his forgiveness and for him to guide me in the understanding of his perfect word and if you could recommend some good Christian authors that could help me with all this hate I have inside of me that would be super.
Thanks again!
So, you believe that one day there will be a natural explanation for the origin of the cosmos? How much FAITH would you say you have in that theory?
On the contrary. I think it’s likely that it is beyond our ability to comprehend what triggered the Big Bang so I guess I have very little FAITH. It could have been a god of some sort or it could just as easily have been an invisible pink unicorn’s fart, or just another cycle in the natural expansion and contraction of the universe or an infinite number of things. Since we don’t know the responsible position is to simply say we don’t know. The irresponsible thing is to claim “God” did it.
We do know what happened a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang and all that has come from that has provided us more than enough to study and be awed by.
Let's see here . . . what is more reasonable to believe?
A powerful, supernatural being brought into existence all that is, or a pink unicorn farted and caused all that is to be.
I am overwhelmed by your intellect, and me thinks you have way more faith than I if you really think it's possible that a pink unicorn farted and bang we are here.
Saying "I don't know" is an atheistic copout. Would you say that Hawking, Einstein, and Flew are irresponsible in their thinking because they believe that a supernatural being brought the cosmos into being.
you are correct in saying that "Science tells us that rainbows are a natural phenomenon". However, what may not be so clear is whether the rainbow came into exitence at that point or had pre existed and was now being used a sign. If it is the later case then your argument falls.
That would defy natural law. Religious people are always quick to point out that someone supernatural "may have" occurred. But these things do not actually happen. We tend to give supernatural reasons before we know the scientific reason. History is full of these examples; from illness (mental illness/epilepsy used to be demon possession); storms used to be god's punishment; etc. I could say that a talking rabbit created the rainbow for the first time in that bible story - what would make that claim any more incredible than yours?
Post a Comment