On the contrary, it speaks precisely to the thread title and your post, and I can prove it with a quote from Einstein. Shall I? Nevertheless, it is a logical inference from what you did say. You also presumed, to all appearances, to speak for theists on the subject. Imagine we're talking about chess, and I say it was invented by So and So in the 6th century, and you reply that what I call So and So, you call the rules of chess. That woud be less preposterous than what you said about God.
I think you are being a llittle hard on him. The bible is a book intended to teach moral lessons. I think you are taking it well beyond that. It isn't scientific. It isn't historical. It is life lessons.
You will note that I didn't deny the event. But, the thing is that there are very rational reasons for algae blooms. And, they certainly can damage other life forms such as animals (including humans) and crops. It's not uncommon for those of a particular religion to suggest that various negative events are the punishment of the gods. We even see that with Christianity and current events in the USA today. It's not shocking that the people of thousands of years ago did the same. What's surprising is when WE do it.
There would be a lot less contention concerning religion if Christians in the USA were to view it that way.
Herein lies the bulk of where Christian Prosecution Complex arises. A Christian makes claims of biblical accuracy and fact, then attempt to use the books as "Proof" of their God and what you state is pointed out, we then are accused of some strange attack and an evil Atheist rant begins.
the authors of the bible put demanding sayings of Jesus. Why would they do that if they wanted a religion to get new converts? Jesus taught us how to live, not entertain us.
Right - they weren't tailoring the religion to be more salable to disbelievers, we should assume. I think the problem comes when people's interpretation is that Jesus/God is teaching us science, rather than teaching us how we should live.
Fascinating. This has nothing to do with the fact the Bible is directly refuted by historical and scientific evidence.
On the bolded part, I just lol. There are hardcore Christians who take the bible literally word for word.
those sources might be biased. other than the theory evolution, how could science provide theories that you feel refute the Bible?
When religious superstitions are treated as being metaphorical they can be used as a means to educate about morality. The problem arises with theists who take those religious superstitions literally.
You would probably call me an atheist because I'm not religious in any way. But I have no problem with other peoples' beliefs. Beliefs don't hurt anyone. When the beliefs turn to hurtful actions like we see in the world of terrorism then there is problem. The curious thing to me is that militant atheists say they are harmed by religious beliefs. They aren't. I have no explanation for it. It must be some sort of egotism or condescension.
yes they can but when they try to IMPOSE their superstitious beliefs on others they are violating their Constitutional rights.
So theists DENYING gays their RIGHT to marry the consenting adult of their choice is NOT doing any "harm"? How about theists DENYING women their reproductive rights? Is that not doing any "harm" IYO?
No, there isn't. There are some anomalies that creationists claim invalidates carbon dating, but it's because those anomalies don't fit the assumptions needed to accurately carbon date. Dating the carbon for seashells, for example. IMHO, many of the outspoken creationists should be ashamed of themselves for bearing false witness in these sorts of cases.