Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The basic message of the New Testament is: No matter how moral you are, you can be tortured for eternity for your beliefs.
One message that seems to permeate the bible/Christianity (and the other major religions) is the idea that injustices/problems in the real world should be ignored in lieu of promises of a magical reward in a future world.
The message is to do your chores, don't make a fuss, know your place, follow the plan, obey the rules and if you are good and do all that without anybody having to pull out a whip then you will rule the world (the meek shall inherit the earth) but only in heaven because you won't get a darn thing down here.
It's about control, keeping you under their thumb and convincing you that if you do everything they ask and don't make a fuss then you'll get everything you want and more. It's a perfect way to get those under your control to be nice. If you think for yourself too much it's just bad.
Hello Rose ... be prepared for a roller coaster ride.
The first point I'm going to bring to the table here, is that the Bible is no different from any other mythology. Mythologies all exhibit various defining features, namely:
[1] They contain within their text, one or more assertions about such matters as the existence of various fantastic entities, the role of those entities in history and cosmogony, various events portrayed as purportedly "historical", etc;
[2] The authors of the relevant texts, clearly and manifestly intended the requisite assertions contained therein to be regarded as true, and constituting historical and observational fact;
[3] The relevant texts also contain various prescriptions, presented as being universally applicable to human behaviour.
Part [1] above contributes to the central problem that arises, whenever a mythology and its assertions are treated as fact. This problem centres upon the nature of assertions, which, when presented, all possess the status "truth value unknown". This is a central rule of discourse that, if you are in a properly functioning academic environment, you should of course already understand, and apply in your studies, because that central rule of discourse is regarded as axiomatic in said properly functioning academic environments. Furthermore, it is also understood in such environments, that the epistemological deficit described above, is remedied by subjecting assertions to properly constructed tests, aimed at establishing in a properly rigorous and robust manner, the previously unknown truth-value of the assertions in question. Without such properly constructed tests and their application, that truth-value can never be determined.
One of the major problems with mythologies, yours included, is that all too often, critically important assertions presented therein are untestable, either by accident or design. As a corollary, no useful substantive knowledge can be properly extracted from those assertions, with respect to the subject matter thereof. The assertions may be informative with respect to other matters, such as the level of imagination of the authors thereof, but without the ability to perform proper examination of core assertions, any body of work containing such 'orphan assertions' cannot be considered a source of genuine knowledge with respect to the subject matter of those 'orphan assertions'.
And, indeed, the observational data available, with respect to supernaturalist adherence to various mythologies, informs us that this is the case. Supernaturalists on a global scale, cannot agree among themselves, which of the numerous mythologies available is purportedly the "right" mythology. This on its own should be teaching us all an important lesson, namely, that mythologies containing untestable assertions are, by definition, unreliable bases for the formulation of properly constituted ideas about the world. This lesson is reinforced, by the fact that adherents of a particular mythology, cannot agree amongst themselves, what "message" the mythology in question is supposed to be disseminating.
As a corollary, if supernaturalist adherents themselves cannot arrive at a robust consensus on the matter, even remotely approaching the consensus seen in, for example, the physical sciences, then asking us to provide information on this matter would appear to be, superficially at least, an unwarranted discoursive imposition. Though the mere fact that several here have exercised diligent effort cultivating the proper conduct of discourse, possibly places us in a better position to understand the details. But the data that we draw on doesn't stop at the body of text itself: the body of data includes observational data on supernaturalist behaviour and practice.
The quote that is frequently, and possibly apocryphally, attributed to Seneca the Younger, is informative with respect to the view held here: "Religion is regarded as true by the foolish, false by the wise, and useful by the leaders". This applies with particular force to Abrahamic mythologies and their adherents, because regardless of the rampant anti-consilience with respect to core concepts purportedly expounded by those mythologies, there is one matter on which they all agree - namely, that ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine is considered within the pages thereof, to be a singular virtue. It does not matter which of the rampantly anti-consilient "interpretations" of the mythologies in question is being considered, what matters first and foremost, is that conformity thereto is to be imposed, and any means achieving this end, no matter how brutal or inhuman, are justified in pursuit thereof. Indeed, the one principle that is consistently presented in these mythologies, a principle that has lamentably infected certain arenas of secular politics as well, can be summed succinctly as "conform or die".
Of course, the history of adherence to these mythologies, is replete with examples of this one consistent principle being applied with zeal and undisguised glee, frequently by venal and powerful figures who recognised the utility value of that principle, with respect to their own consolidation of power and privilege. That utility value in the hands of despots, of course is the reason that application of this principle extended beyond its origins, and infected the world of political ideologies. It became as useful a tool in those arenas, as it ever was in the arena of religion, and it should not surprise any historically aware observer, that the moment such utility was realised beyond its origins, that those other users of that tool would prove, in part because of the accident of history of existing in a more technologically abundant era, to be even more proficient and cunning in the deployment thereof.
Indeed, so useful has that one consistent principle been in the hands of the cynically Machiavellian, that any of the other internally contradictory messages contained within these mythologies, are frequently an afterthought. Combine that one consistent principle, with the profusion of inconsistencies arising from the other assertions residing within these mythologies, and the result practically guarantees the emergence of the various malignant behaviours and events that have stained human history over the past two millennia.
If you found it frightening to read the above, Rose, I assure you that many here regard it as even more frightening to see the above in action.
Perhaps this is popular in the States but ive never seen a strictly 'bible college'.
Do you guys have a Santa Claus college over there?
Asking for a friend...
@ Random Hero
American Bible colleges are great, back in the late eighties I was ordained as Minister in the Church of the Blue Lake or some such nonsense for a birthday present. Yep it was all legal. I was a Pastor! Think of the tax benefits!
To follow this up a couple of years later I got a PhD from a similar Christian based College ...it cost me $2,650 U.S plus the onerous task of detailing my life story and writing a 3000 word essay on the topic of my choice. I also got a free DD as I chose a religious/charitable topic for my essay.
So in short, many Bible Colleges are unaccredited, cannot confer meaningful qualifications and are attended by the scions of homeschoolers.
They are good for impressing your friends and the gullible.....
Haha oh I love them, isn't that what some of these apologists have?
Like Ham and Hovind?
Like Degrees in metaphysics from University of Absolute Dogshit in Tennessee?!?!
A BS in BS.
@ Random
Exactly like Ken and WLC and the rest of the charlatans....I used mine to get into a profitable christian band. Boy that was fun back in the day LOL. They were well impressed with my "PhD" and DD,...LMFAO...then my mate and I had our cover blown by a few indiscretions *whistles while looking innocently out of window* but the 7 months we toured with them was musically sooooo boring but sexually amazing...LOL...
@Old man shouts...
I'm back! Lol.
Wow. There has been a lot of discussion going on since I've been gone. Love it!!
Couldn't help but notice this particular dialogue... Glad to know that the college I attend is not anything like the one you described! That doesn't sound helpful or practical. And I think it's one of the many reasons we have people who can' back up what they believe in a practical way. Our institution is accredited and many of our credits can be transferred to other major universities (which is super helpful for those who aren't going to be pastors or missionaries, etc). They definitely do not let you get away with academic apathy here! I can testify to that! Lol.
Randomhero1982: YOU HAD TO ASK!
"The International University of Santa Claus, has been seen and featured on NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, the Travel channel, the History Channel,"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mRjN1Focog
IF YOU ARE LOOKING TO CHANGE PROFESSIONS AND EXTEND YOUR RESUME - WHY NOT...
Hamburger University (Week Long Program) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9nehPueARc
IT'S EMBARRASSING HOW MANY CLOWN COLLEGES THERE ARE IN THE USA.
RINGLING BROTHERS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpRlUay7UhE
AND MY FAVORITE ----- THE ONLINE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF EXORCISM AND SPIRITUAL WARFARE. ha ha haha ha ha ha ha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj5WfMEMzFI
@Cog Re: "IT'S EMBARRASSING HOW MANY CLOWN COLLEGES THERE ARE IN THE USA."
Hey, asshole! Don't be dissin' my alma mater! I busted my ass (in more ways than one) to earn the right of wearing The Huge Red Nose and the Over-sized Shoes! Matter of fact, I graduated summa clown laude, and the revered Bozo himself pinned the coveted Badge of the Squirting Flower on my flamboyant lapel. It was a proud moment, indeed. Then, after the graduation ceremony, the entire graduating class of fifty-three students got into my Volkswagen Beetle and headed for the beach. What a great day!
@ Tin-Man
*Palm to Face* "Why am I not surprised?"
@Tin-Man
Shouldn't that be "Summa Clown Lolde"?
@Terraphon Re: "Shouldn't that be "Summa Clown Lolde"?"
Aw, dang. My bad. Yeah, that would actually be true, but I forgot to mention it was a Christian Clown College. So technically I graduated Summa Clown Laurdy. Good catch, man. Thanks.
Oh for fuck sake!
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
"Perhaps this is popular in the States but ive never seen a strictly 'bible college'.
Do you guys have a Santa Claus college over there?
Asking for a friend..."
Now I'd go there, that would be cool.
Well...I'd apply anyway...
Hey everyone! So I've been hearing a lot of things regarding the NT's historical reliability.
I'm curious as to how many of you would agree with the following statements regarding the NT.
1. The NT was written 100-200 years after the life of Christ. Therefore we have a distorted view of his life due to this gap.
2. We do not have what was originally written because there is too much time between original manuscripts and the earliest surviving copies. More time=more copying=more mistakes, and we don't even know what mistakes were made.
3. Even if there was a short time in between the originals and the first copies there are still too many differences among the surviving NT manuscripts for us to know what was in the original. There are too many conflicting manuscripts.
rosedjan,
"So I've been hearing a lot of things regarding the NT's historical reliability."
The current Bible was written by a committee based in England. They produced three master copies in Latin in the 680s-690s = the Codex Amiatinus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus.
It doesn't matter what existed before that. All Bibles use the stories written in the Codex Amiatinus. Other posters will disagree and claim that the Bible was written centuries earlier but they have no actual evidence to support their claim, only hoaxes.
This link will give you some history about the English Bibles = https://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
Some things you will notice when looking at the scraps and fragments of supposedly ancient manuscripts is that the images are always of poor quality, out of focus, small, and tilted where they are hard to read. You will also see that they are written in the Modern Greek alphabet. IOWs, they are fakes.
@Diotrephes:
Interesting material! So are you referring to the Bible as in all 66 books put together or are we talking about separate books? Because there are many early manuscripts of the Gospels some of which have been dated back to to 150-200 A.D. One was just recently found by the Egyptian Exploration Society last year.
@ Rosedjan
I have a lot of time for Diotrephes, but just as a heads up he does have some , lets say, 'unique' perspectives on the history of the bible.
"I have a lot of time for Diotrephes, but just as a heads up he does have some , lets say, 'unique' perspectives on the history of the bible."
Not just the bible, just saying...
rosedjan,
"Interesting material! So are you referring to the Bible as in all 66 books put together or are we talking about separate books?"
The original Bible contained 80 books and all subsequent versions did as well until a couple of English malcontents, Westcott & Hort, led the push to delete the Apocrypha when the English wrote a new version in the early 1880s. The Protestants adopted the new version, which is how they ended up with 66 books instead of the original 80.
Some background on Westcott & Hort =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westcott-Hort
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm
https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=Westcott-and-Hort-part-1
https://www.chick.com/Information/article?id=who-were-westcott-and-hort
http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-...
There is a lot more sources about this topic you can find on your own. There is even some references to it in the New York Times archives for that time period that deal with the new Bible version.
The sources say that the New Testament was written in Greek but it was written in Modern Greek and not on of the ancient Greek alphabets. SO they were just reading a Modern Greek translation of the stories that had been originally written in Latin and then translated into English and Greek.
Do you have an image of this recently discovered manuscript?
@ Rosedjan
We shall be getting into this in our own conversation:
An error in terminology. The gospels were collated in several textual versions from about the turn of the 2nd century CE (i.e 98 to 100CE. Each sect (and there were quite a few) had their own versions depending on whether they were Syriac, Marcionite, Ebionite and "old uncle tom cobbley and all and all". The earliest bound codex were in the Second century. We do not know the contents as we have only fragments. We do know they were bound in a volume as they have the binding marks on the fragments....
We have fragments, the earliest is P52, a fragment of John. Dated earliest to 125CE. The the next earliest fragment is P137 a fragment of Mark dated to about 160 CE. The information we have about the early gospels is given to us by the enemies of various sects that describe in detail the contents, although in derogatory tones. That the gospels have been subject to inclusion, editing, exclusion, interpolation and fraud is not under dispute by any serious scholar. Only which bits. No, we cannot know for certain the contents of the pre 2nd century CE texts. Only approximations.
I will just address the last point: there are many texts from the 3rd century and more and more as the centuries pass. They achieve a certain homogeneity after the adoption of the Pauline versions as the official texts and as the official religion of Rome. The earliest example (complete example) of a codex containing the NT is the Codex Sinaiticus. Written in Koine Greek. Fascinating read, highlights many differences between the modern versions and the originals. Again, you are right, we do not know for certain what was in the original gospels from about 80CE.
Some interesting thoughts perhaps and they may be food for thought...
• would you not agree from an outside perspective, that the God hypothesis is a wonderful and ultimate way of controlling masses of people to conform. I.e. do good or go to hell etc...
• As more people have wised up and realised morality doesnt come from the bible, the number of atheists, free thinkers and skeptics has dramatically risen, is this not quite damning.
• Do you not wonder how every miracle purported in the bible is never confirmed by other sources such as the Roman's, who were amazing keeper of historic information.
• That the laws of physics and nature cannot be suspended for anyone, yet apparently they can in the bible.
@rosedjan
1. No.... We have NO VIEW of his life. If he existed everything we know about him is gossip. There is nothing, NOTHING, contemporary to the life of Jesus that validates his actual existence. Nothing. We do have scribes and scholars of the time talking about other prophets and religious movements but nothing, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, for your loving Jesus. NOTHING! We have NO VIEW of his life before this gap.
2. We do not have what was originally written because there is too much time between original manuscripts and the earliest surviving copies.
NO! We have no original copies because the Church of Rome went on a killing spree. They knocked off all the agnostics and converted any temples the pagans had into Christian Churches. Why do you think all the texts found at Nag-hamadi were buried in the cliffs? "Their suppression as banned documents, and their burial on the cliff at Nag Hammadi, it turns out, were both part of a struggle critical for the formation of early Christianity. The Nag Hammadi texts, and others like them, which circulated at the beginning of the Christian era, were denounced as heresy by orthodox Christians in the middle of the second century." (Elane Pagels) THE VICTORS WRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS.
3. There is no original. No scholar worth his salt talks about original texts. They are not there. Half the New Testament if FORGED. Watch the video: Just One Example ----
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEGa3BgHPwo
Loving this! Lots of intriguing thoughts to respond to! Sorry I'm getting to it so slowly, but I only have time to answer some of these one at a time
In relation to your statements @Randomhero1982...
• would you not agree from an outside perspective, that the God hypothesis is a wonderful and ultimate way of controlling masses of people to conform? I.e. do good or go to hell etc... (Ans. Sure! In the same way that I can say, "Isn't the idea of a smartphone a wonderful way to get people to sit around all day and be unproductive. Smartphones are an excellent way to be unproductive, but that doesn't mean that that was the intent behind their design. Humans tend screw up the intent of a lot of things. I understand where you're coming from though! And I also believe that using religion as a means of control is immoral and contradictory to what true Christianity is about. If you're using Christianity as an excuse to control the behavior of others, then Ibelieve you've missed the whole point. I've witnessed many a tyrant who attempted to hide themselves under the disguise of Christianity. I don't buy it for a minute.)
• As more people have wised up and realized morality doesn't come from the Bible, the number of atheists, freethinkers and skeptics has dramatically risen, is this not quite damning. (Ans. I personally do not find it damning. In fact, the Bible prophecied of a day where the number of "scoffers" would increase. I actually think it speaks of the intense desire human beings have for individual control. Sure, I think it's very possible for people without faith to make moral decisions. In fact, many do! However, even by claiming that it is possible to be moraI without God, we're still asserting htis idea of morality. I personally have never heard a good argument that explains why there is ultimate good and evil if there is no author of that standard to begin with. So maybe you all can enlighten me! I've heard people say that we have evolved to know what is beneficial for a civilization and what is not. But my problem with that is that there are many immoral things that would be evolutionary beneficial to us that we as a society simply do not do because of morality. Why is this?)
• Do you not wonder how every miracle purported in the bible is never confirmed by other sources such as the Roman's, who were amazing keepers of historical information. (Ans. The Romans saw Jesus as a threat to their empire. Therefore it would make sense why they would not want to record or endorse His miracles or His claim to be the Son of God.)
• That the laws of physics and nature cannot be suspended for anyone, yet apparently they can in the Bible. (Ans. Well that is asserting that no one has ever been able to "suspend the laws of physics and nature." This is is asserting that just something didn't happen to you means that it cannot exist. There are two problems with this assertion. 1. There are thousands upon thousands of people who claimed to have witnessed miracles on a personal level. Are all of them true? No, but that also does not mean that all of them are false. Even if they misinterpreted what happened, there are still too many claims of the supernatural for me to lump them all together under one category and scoff at them as a whole. 2. I believe that when faith decreases, the likelihood of miracles also decreases since most miracles are often a product of faith. This would make sense as to why we don't see what people consider to be "big miracles" in today's world. The faith of the average human being has decreased dramatically. 3. Also, don't think miracles are just confined to things that "suspend" the laws of nature and physics. I believe that little miracles happen every day. Life itself, I believe is a miracle. There are so many that shouldn't make sense and yet I'm alive and breathing this very minute.)
@rosedjan
"If you're using Christianity as an excuse to control the behavior of others, then Ibelieve you've missed the whole point."
History disproves this assertion. Christianity has been, and is still used to control the behavior of others. Do you know where the phrase "all men are created equal" in your Declaration of Independance comes from? Cromwell committed genocide against Irish Catholics circa 1650. The Irish immigrants carried this memory, and when the declaration was written, it was to prevent another Cromwell. You need to understand "Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652"
"I personally have never heard a good argument that explains why there is ultimate good and evil if there is no author of that standard to begin with."
If I committed an atrocious act of violence (I never would, I believe violence is the last resort of the incompetent) would you benefit or be harmed by such and act? The answer is that it would harm you. Thus we have a starting point in determining morality, because I did you harm. No god required.
Morality is not objective, it is subjective.
"• Do you not wonder how every miracle purported in the bible is never confirmed by other sources such as the Roman's, who were amazing keepers of historical information. (Ans. The Romans saw Jesus as a threat to their empire. Therefore it would make sense why they would not want to record or endorse His miracles or His claim to be the Son of God.)"
Yet the Romans documented their war against Carthage, which came very close to destroying the entire Roman empire. That was a tangible threat. And you are speculating on a possible threat?
"There are thousands upon thousands of people who claimed to have witnessed miracles on a personal level."
Please provide one example of a miracle. And please make it your best one. Expect that claim to be eviscerated.
@rosedjan
As you may, or may not eventually conclude...the last bullet point is the only real measure that we have for any god being part of reality. Your response is poor.
I challenge you to present one example of a supernatural event or thing occurring at any point. Anything that is proven to contravign the natural laws of our universe.
As you claim your so called critical thinking prowess, I suggest you exercise it.
rosedjan,
"Loving this! Lots of intriguing thoughts to respond to! Sorry I'm getting to it so slowly, but I only have time to answer some of these one at a time"
1. There is a theory that people created vengeful gods when their populations reached a certain point, around 1 million.
"When Ancient Societies Hit a Million People, Vengeful Gods Appeared"
https://www.livescience.com/65039-punishing-gods-rise-with-complex-socie...
It only appears to be true in certain areas of the world so it is not universal.
2. The Bible doesn't teach morality. It only teaches obedience and loyalty.
3. There was no one named "Jesus" in the entire world until around 1631. If the biblical character existed his name was something else. It wasn't Jesus. There is also a theory that a Roman came up with the idea of Christianity as a way to weaken the Jews. The Romans had a lot of experience in creating religions. The emperor Hadrian created a religion to honor his dead boyfriend. It had temples, rituals, and priests. It was popular for a while.
4. Regarding miracles everything that someone experiences has already happened to countless other people throughout time. One guy got nuked twice in one week and he lived to a ripe old age withot any ill effects from being nuked twice in a week. Some poor people have won the lottery with their last dollar. Some soldiers go through wars on the frontlines without getting wounded while others all around them get killed and wounded.
Remember all of the miracles that the Israelites supposedly saw firsthand? They didn't believe any of them. So why should you? They even saw God. They were not impressed.
A few things I wish to address here ...
No we're not. Because until [1] the assertion that this entity exists, and [2] the assertion that this entity is responsible for the existence of ethics, are both validated by proper, rigorous test, there is no reason to regard these assertions as anything other than discardable, in accordance with the central rule of discourse I expounded earlier.
Furthermore, assertion [2] looks particularly shaky, in the light of the fact that there exists a voluminous body of scientific literature, pointing to a biological and evolutionary basis for both our capacity for ethical thought, and our propensity to act upon said thought. I'm not familiar with the entire body of literature in question, but I provide a detailed exposition of the small fraction I am familiar with here, which I've linked to here in order to illustrate the depths of knowledge that have been searched by neuroscientists and behavioural ecologists among others. As a corollary of the findings that [1] ethical behaviour is observed in species other than humans, and [2] that behaviour clearly has a history extending several million years into the past, we can safely conclude that morality pre-dates religion by a considerable length of time.
Again, the existence of these is another assertion awaiting proper test, and discardable in the absence thereof. Indeed, I am tempted to suggest that the human tendency to order both abstract and concrete entities in hierarchies, is a more likely explanation for any asserted 'zenith' or 'nadir' in question.
There exists yet again an abundant scientific literature on the evolutionary benefits of co-operation. The moment a species develops the tendency to be a socially gregarious species, then behaviours facilitating the cohesion of the social structure arising within that species' behaviour, are positively selectable, even if they are disadvantageous from a purely selfish standpoint. Whenever the maintenance of social cohesion provides lasting benefits outweighing the short term benefits of selfish behaviour, then that maintenance of social cohesion will be positively selectable.
This isn't an assertion, it's an observed fact. Scientists would be the first to notice if it were possible to modify the laws of physics. That they have not noticed this in 300 years of diligent enquiry, and indeed have provided numerous bodies of empirical data pointing to the constancy of physical laws over time spans of several billion years, should be telling you something important.
Not one of these claims has ever withstood proper scrutiny. Indeed, with respect to one particular "miraculous" claim, I'm aware of numerous sound reasons why it quite simply didn't happen. It has been asserted that back in 1917, the Sun performed all manner of weird and wonderful gymnastics around the sky, and that this was purportedly "witnessed" by 80,000 people at Fatima in Portugal. Several problems with this claim include:
[1] In 1917, astronomers were active in human society, and had access to a range of instruments to allow them to measure astronomical phenomena. Not one of them noticed this bizarre dancing of the Sun around the sky, nor for that matter, did the billion or so people outside Fatima who were manifestly in a position to observe this. Had this phenomenon occurred for real as asserted, it would have been headline news around the entire planet, because everyone alive at that time would have seen it, not just a large collection of supernaturalists who were primed to look for anything unusual and declare it a "miracle", as a result of the febrile manifestations of religiosity operating at that place and time;
[2] If the Sun had genuinely moved about the sky as described, this would have violated Special Relativity, because the Sun would have to have travelled at speeds far faster than light in order to perform said gymnastics. Furthermore, the perturbations in the orbit of the Earth, and of other Solar System bodies that would have resulted from said motion, would have been observable through to the present. No such orbital perturbations have been detected. Worse still, if the Earth had been moving in the requisite manner instead of the Sun, none of us would be alive to report on this, because the ferocious accelerative forces would have left people on the rearward face of the Earth suddenly finding themselves suspended in space, whilst those on the forward face of the Earth as it moved would have been crushed to a pulp by the gigantic g-forces involved. Good luck trying to survive several billion g's worth of acceleration.
The world's molecular biologists all disagree with you. Not least because their diligent researches have established that life is simply chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body as I type this, and if some of those reactions stop, then you die. Indeed, the wealth of detail about our life processes uncovered by molecular biologists is enormous.
As for the origin of life, I've provided a brief exposition of some of the extant research on this subject here, which you may find illuminating. Ignore the drivel being posted about this by a certain individual who postures in that thread as knowing more than actual tenured scientists, and concentrate instead upon said scientists' work.
Pages