Atheist vs. Religious

[urbanclassic]

See, I'd object to this. It's why the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle ruffled my feathers this past summer.

A Christian can believe some act, like homosexuality or homosexual marriage, to be immoral. It's a pretty clear teaching of their god. I personally think gay marriage rights are fine, even if the campaign for them is a little overwrought, but I think people should be free to think they're morally reprehensible. There are a lot of things society allows that I find to be morally reprehensible, but I still support the right of others to "do evil unto themselves." But over my dead body will some stooge come be my thought-police by telling me I'm not allowed to think some act is wrong or right, and I think the handwringing and subsequent bully campaign ("HATE CHIKIN") over CFA--a private enterprise--expressing its support for traditional marriage was utter BS. Sure, I support gay marriage rights, but I'd support someone's right to have an opinion a million times over.

Fine, think what ever you want, but at the end of the day I don't believe Christians should try to force people to live by Christian rules, ESPECIALLY and specifically when those people are fully capable of making their own decisions. God gave us all free will for a reason. And yes, people can find whatever they wish morally reprehensible... heck, some people believe it's morally reprehensible to marry outside one's race, whatever, my concern is not to change those people's opinons... my concern is more to make them realize they shouldn't be trying to control other people.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sinuous sausage]

Fine, think what ever you want, but at the end of the day I don't believe Christians should try to force people to live by Christian rules, ESPECIALLY and specifically when those people are fully capable of making their own decisions. God gave us all free will for a reason. And yes, people can find whatever they wish morally reprehensible... heck, some people believe it's morally reprehensible to marry outside one's race, whatever, my concern is not to change those people's opinons... my concern is more to make them realize they shouldn't be trying to control other people.

Couldn't agree more, dude. It becomes a problem when a certain breed of people tries to outlaw thoughts and it happened this summer. That's called "forcing beliefs on another person." It's every Christian's right to believe gay marriage is wrong. They need to come to grips with the fact it's gonna happen, but what others are doing shouldn't matter. Like ya said!

And it isn't "hate," either. People will spit out any word that serves their agenda.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Couldn't agree more, dude. It becomes a problem when a certain breed of people tries to outlaw thoughts and it happened this summer. That's called "forcing beliefs on another person." It's every Christian's right to believe gay marriage is wrong. They need to come to grips with the fact it's gonna happen, but what others are doing shouldn't matter. Like ya said!

And it isn't "hate," either. People will spit out any word that serves their agenda.

I believe the issue was that corporate funds were used to promote anti gay endeavors. I'm not sure how I feel about it though. I agree that personal beliefs on conduct are not necessarily intolerant. Intolerance has more to do with what you do with those beliefs.

 

[Abider]

If religious belief systems were self contained ethical systems that helped the individual make decisions for themselves about any number of things such whether or not to suck a c@ck. You know...that thing looks delicious but gee whiz I don't know...(fill in the blank deity) doesn't approve. I might live a horrible sunken life of sin and shame....but dangit if that thing doesn't tempt me to just...but I just can't....it wouldn't be right. And so on. If that was what it meant to discuss how we were to approach the mass delusions of others life on this planet would be much less troubled.

But instead...we have to contend with the well organized armies of the zealous who take their mission to improve the "morality" of others deadly serious and will not stop until these worldly objectives are accomplished. These are the good works. Wrought in money and politics and legislation. And often, in the blood of the lord's enemies.

Such that equal protection under the constitution is not possible for same sex couples in the current cultural climate in our country.

It's for these types of reasons that people think atheists are arrogant or confrontational. And I why I don't bother trying to appear otherwise. If the religious people kept to themselves like the Jews outside of Zionism for example, curiosity would be all that's required for sensible interaction. But the religious don't give us this option. They want the world in their image as much as they try to claim otherwise. So to hell with them, is all I can say. Wish it could be otherwise.

I don't pick fights with individuals. But in the discussion of ideas flat opposition is the only viable option for siding with those that would be bullied otherwise.

 

[link2swim06]

I do find this poll interesting. I would expect a higher number of agnostic and fewer atheist.

Its quite an assumption to presume there is absolutely no higher power.

 

[Mbeas]

I do find this poll interesting. I would expect a higher number of agnostic and fewer atheist.

Its quite an assumption to presume there is absolutely no higher power.

I agree. But I think the reverse is also true, and it is intellectually dishonest to state that there absolutely is a higher power. As I stated before, if people knew about the classifications of agnostic theist and agnostic atheist, we would find that many people would fall into these two categories.

 

[bauber]

None of it matters. Just live your life and be kind to others. God or no god it's going to play out how it plays out.

 

[sinuous sausage]

If religious belief systems were self contained ethical systems that helped the individual make decisions for themselves about any number of things such whether or not to suck a c@ck. You know...that thing looks delicious but gee whiz I don't know...(fill in the blank deity) doesn't approve. I might live a horrible sunken life of sin and shame....but dangit if that thing doesn't tempt me to just...but I just can't....it wouldn't be right. And so on. If that was what it meant to discuss how we were to approach the mass delusions of others life on this planet would be much less troubled.

But instead...we have to contend with the well organized armies of the zealous who take their mission to improve the "morality" of others deadly serious and will not stop until these worldly objectives are accomplished. These are the good works. Wrought in money and politics and legislation. And often, in the blood of the lord's enemies.

Such that equal protection under the constitution is not possible for same sex couples in the current cultural climate in our country.

It's for these types of reasons that people think atheists are arrogant or confrontational. And I why I don't bother trying to appear otherwise. If the religious people kept to themselves like the Jews outside of Zionism for example, curiosity would be all that's required for sensible interaction. But the religious don't give us this option. They want the world in their image as much as they try to claim otherwise. So to hell with them, is all I can say. Wish it could be otherwise.

I don't pick fights with individuals. But in the discussion of ideas flat opposition is the only viable option for siding with those that would be bullied otherwise.

lol...why not nihilism, Mr. Dawkins? Militant atheists are terrible to be around, and it mostly has to do with how irrational they are. Their ideas are one-dimensionally boring and ultimately self-defeating; it's like they never progressed past their first counterintuitive thought, and they advance that thought with the same fervor, dogmatism, and evangelical spirit as the worst bible-thumper. If you're that certain there's no god (we'll leave the question as to how you reached this epistemological revelation for another time), please explain how you could still possibly believe that shabby and quaint little notions of morality and personal rights have any value at all? You sit there and demand the loudest what is ultimately impossible with your philosophy. At least religions attempt to give some comprehensive explanation for morality and the inherent value of human beings--even if they're often mistaken in what that should look like, at least it's a logical possibility. But you guys? Nah, man. Nah. I once tried to join an atheist group out of interest, and to join I had to provide my atheistic "testimony." Not even kidding. There is less doubt in those circles than even in the most backwards Baptist church you can find.


"And when we speak of "abandonment" – a favorite word of Heidegger – we only mean to say that God does not exist, and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. Towards 1880, when the French professors endeavoured to formulate a secular morality, they said something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values should be taken seriously; they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat one's wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same, inscribed in an intelligible heaven although, of course, there is no God. In other words – and this is, I believe, the purport of all that we in France call radicalism – nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself. The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that "the good" exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted"; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself." ~ Sartre

 

[gasknight]

Atheist here.

Lolz jk, all effects have a cause.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/11/how-to-convert.html

 

[Abider]

See, I'd object to this. It's why the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle ruffled my feathers this past summer.

A Christian can believe some act, like homosexuality or homosexual marriage, to be immoral. It's a pretty clear teaching of their god. I personally think gay marriage rights are fine, even if the campaign for them is a little overwrought, but I think people should be free to think they're morally reprehensible. There are a lot of things society allows that I find to be morally reprehensible, but I still support the right of others to "do evil unto themselves." But over my dead body will some stooge come be my thought-police by telling me I'm not allowed to think some act is wrong or right, and I think the handwringing and subsequent bully campaign ("HATE CHIKIN") over CFA--a private enterprise--expressing its support for traditional marriage was utter BS. Sure, I support gay marriage rights, but I'd support someone's right to have an opinion a million times over.

None of it matters. Just live your life and be kind to others. God or no god it's going to play out how it plays out.

Because living like that isn't even remotely possible for many many people in the world.

Yeah I fit the agnostic atheist category. I find nothing in the religious doctrines that alters, explains, or services the essential mystery of life.

 

[SpecterGT260]

lol...why not nihilism, Mr. Dawkins? Militant atheists are terrible to be around, and it mostly has to do with how irrational they are. Their ideas are one-dimensionally boring and ultimately self-defeating; it's like they never progressed past their first counterintuitive thought, and they advance that thought with the same fervor, dogmatism, and evangelical spirit as the worst bible-thumper. If you're that certain there's no god (we'll leave the question as to how you reached this epistemological revelation for another time), please explain how you could still possibly believe that shabby and quaint little notions of morality and personal rights have any value at all? You sit there and demand the loudest what is ultimately impossible with your philosophy. At least religions attempt to give some comprehensive explanation for morality and the inherent value of human beings--even if they're often mistaken in what that should look like, at least it's a logical possibility. But you guys? Nah, man. Nah. I once tried to join an atheist group out of interest, and to join I had to provide my atheistic "testimony." Not even kidding. There is less doubt in those circles than even in the most backwards Baptist church you can find.

+1. This touches on the thing we talked about last week in that the zealous atheists seem unaware that they too are guilty of "faith". There is popular notion that religious = belief and non-religious = fact but that is complete crap.

There is also a great irony among these types in that it is not only acceptable, but actually trendy to speak out against "those intolerant religious people". The irony being that they themselves are being intolerant.

 

[MrBeauregard]

+1. This touches on the thing we talked about last week in that the zealous atheists seem unaware that they too are guilty of "faith". There is popular notion that religious = belief and non-religious = fact but that is complete crap.

There is also a great irony among these types in that it is not only acceptable, but actually trendy to speak out against "those intolerant religious people". The irony being that they themselves are being intolerant.

So true.

 

[Dartmouth2005]

There are a lot of religious people in my Midwestern med school. I really don't see how they can reconcile science with the big book of "Jewish fairy tales." Plus, some of them can be really judgmental. For example, one of my friends was telling me how she had an uncomfortable conversation with one because she supports access to birth control and abortions.

I generally don't have time for this since I need to study which I am off to go do right now.

 

[SpecterGT260]

There are a lot of religious people in my Midwestern med school. I really don't see how they can reconcile science with the big book of "Jewish fairy tales." Plus, some of them can be really judgmental. For example, one of my friends was telling me how she had an uncomfortable conversation with one because she supports access to birth control and abortions.

I generally don't have time for this since I need to study which I am off to go do right now.

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit "A"....

I personally see no conflict between religion and science. It is the people who take all teachings as completely literal (which is insane after several thousand years of translation.... oh wait... I forgot that God intended us to "reed and right English cuz that's what the bible is written in.... MURKA!"....). The major issue I see is that all writings in every major religious text are written to an audience who had no scientific understanding. It is when people attempt to extrapolate meaning out of specific words and phrases while missing the big picture that we have problems.

On a completely unrelated note, hypocrisy is fun, aint it?

 

[Kaputt]

lol...why not nihilism, Mr. Dawkins? Militant atheists are terrible to be around, and it mostly has to do with how irrational they are. Their ideas are one-dimensionally boring and ultimately self-defeating; it's like they never progressed past their first counterintuitive thought, and they advance that thought with the same fervor, dogmatism, and evangelical spirit as the worst bible-thumper. If you're that certain there's no god (we'll leave the question as to how you reached this epistemological revelation for another time), please explain how you could still possibly believe that shabby and quaint little notions of morality and personal rights have any value at all? You sit there and demand the loudest what is ultimately impossible with your philosophy. At least religions attempt to give some comprehensive explanation for morality and the inherent value of human beings--even if they're often mistaken in what that should look like, at least it's a logical possibility. But you guys? Nah, man. Nah. I once tried to join an atheist group out of interest, and to join I had to provide my atheistic "testimony." Not even kidding. There is less doubt in those circles than even in the most backwards Baptist church you can find.


"And when we speak of "abandonment" – a favorite word of Heidegger – we only mean to say that God does not exist, and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. Towards 1880, when the French professors endeavoured to formulate a secular morality, they said something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values should be taken seriously; they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat one's wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same, inscribed in an intelligible heaven although, of course, there is no God. In other words – and this is, I believe, the purport of all that we in France call radicalism – nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself. The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that "the good" exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted"; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself." ~ Sartre

Nice word salad.

Yeah, "militant" atheists are annoying to be around but they are pretty harmless. Just leave them to their neckbeards and their basements.

As far as morality goes, I still can't tell what you're trying to argue. Atheism itself is not a moral philosophy and doesn't need to explain anything. Secular morality can be argued for but its foundation is not atheism and probably has a lot in common with religious morality. Any religious morality founded on "things are bad cause God says so" is a fundamentally absurd morality that undermines itself in a sense. Morality is a cultural construct that evolves, and was probably bred out of our inherent evolutionary drive to create stable societies. Only the people who like to talk in absolutes have a problem reconciling that.

 

[Kaputt]

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit "A"....

I personally see no conflict between religion and science. It is the people who take all teachings as completely literal (which is insane after several thousand years of translation.... oh wait... I forgot that God intended us to "reed and right English cuz that's what the bible is written in.... MURKA!"....). The major issue I see is that all writings in every major religious text are written to an audience who had no scientific understanding. It is when people attempt to extrapolate meaning out of specific words and phrases while missing the big picture that we have problems.

I don't buy the "it was written for scientifically illiterate folks" argument. Seeing how science and engineering single-handedly obliterated massive sources of suffering for the human race, I find it rather silly that the creator of the universe wrote a book full of patronizing half-truths about reality. If a holy book has nothing more accurate to say about the real world than the competing, obvious myths of the time, how can you possibly discern which text was divinely inspired? The Epic of Gilgamesh is just about as accurate as the Old Testament but one is considered myth and the other divine truth. Doesn't add up to me.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't buy the "it was written for scientifically illiterate folks" argument. Seeing how science and engineering single-handedly obliterated massive sources of suffering for the human race, I find it rather silly that the creator of the universe wrote a book full of patronizing half-truths about reality. If a holy book has nothing more accurate to say about the real world than the competing, obvious myths of the time, how can you possibly discern which text was divinely inspired? The Epic of Gilgamesh is just about as accurate as the Old Testament but one is considered myth and the other divine truth. Doesn't add up to me.

You don't understand much of what religious texts are. Very little is ever intended to be taken as "inspired". Most of the Bible is first hand accounts, written history, and a collection of letters written to the early church from leaders.
The creation story is something like 1% of the entire bible

 

[dr zaius]

lol...why not nihilism, Mr. Dawkins? Militant atheists are terrible to be around, and it mostly has to do with how irrational they are. Their ideas are one-dimensionally boring and ultimately self-defeating; it's like they never progressed past their first counterintuitive thought, and they advance that thought with the same fervor, dogmatism, and evangelical spirit as the worst bible-thumper. If you're that certain there's no god (we'll leave the question as to how you reached this epistemological revelation for another time), please explain how you could still possibly believe that shabby and quaint little notions of morality and personal rights have any value at all? You sit there and demand the loudest what is ultimately impossible with your philosophy. At least religions attempt to give some comprehensive explanation for morality and the inherent value of human beings--even if they're often mistaken in what that should look like, at least it's a logical possibility. But you guys? Nah, man. Nah. I once tried to join an atheist group out of interest, and to join I had to provide my atheistic "testimony." Not even kidding. There is less doubt in those circles than even in the most backwards Baptist church you can find.


"And when we speak of “abandonment” – a favorite word of Heidegger – we only mean to say that God does not exist, and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. Towards 1880, when the French professors endeavoured to formulate a secular morality, they said something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values should be taken seriously; they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat one’s wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same, inscribed in an intelligible heaven although, of course, there is no God. In other words – and this is, I believe, the purport of all that we in France call radicalism – nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself. The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted”; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself." ~ Sartre

Dawkins never claimed that there is, concretely, no God. He argues for why there almost certainly is no God, but being a man that understands science he knows that God is something that currently cannot be proven (or disproven).

I'm an atheist and I will agree with you that militant atheists can be a bit annoying. Dawkins was great in the beginning when his movement was picking up speed, but he got to the point where he was no better than the people he was rising up against. I will still support him when it comes to removing public funding from religious use, etc. though.

If only we could all mind our own business and let others do as they wish. Too bad it's all a numbers game to see who can get the highest.

 

[Kaputt]

You don't understand much of what religious texts are. Very little is ever intended to be taken as "inspired".

If a holy book is not considered to be divinely inspired, how is it a holy book? It is a far more recent wave of thinking that interprets massive amounts of the OT as "metaphorical", largely due to the obvious absurdity of taking those things literally. But back in the day, before modern science, the Bible was considered the end-all-be-all statement on reality and the natural world.

Learning more about reality has chipped away at the credibility of the Bible, as it does for any given set of myths. A myth is pretty much a placeholder explanation for something not yet understood, and that's why people made up these stories. We can still learn from these myths, but that doesn't mean there is any shred of truth to them. And that was my point -- that there is no more reason to accept anything the Bible has to say about reality than the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Most of the Bible is first hand accounts, written history, and a collection of letters written to the early church from leaders.
The creation story is something like 1% of the entire bible

The Bible is mostly a compilation of oral traditions and various written accounts that was compiled over centuries.

Are you a religious person or just a super-sympathetic non-religious person?

 

[SpecterGT260]

If a holy book is not considered to be divinely inspired, how is it a holy book? It is a far more recent wave of thinking that interprets massive amounts of the OT as "metaphorical", largely due to the obvious absurdity of taking those things literally. But back in the day, before modern science, the Bible was considered the end-all-be-all statement on reality and the natural world.

This is that fundamental misunderstanding I was talking about. I did not say metaphorical. Just as every scientific paper that has been retracted over the years is not to be taken as metaphor, neither should religious texts simply due to the fact that new information has refined the understanding of observations. But anything within the texts that could be taken as "scientific" or as explanation of understanding was not the primary goal of the text. In fact.... I am not aware of anywhere in the bible that attempts to explain how the physical world works. Rather, phrases are used to describe specific events along the way of making a larger point. We do this constantly in common language, yet when an eons old book decides to do it we suddenly have a problem . Go find me passages which fit your definition for what you are talking about here. Just because groups of people took the book and pulled additional meaning out of it (just as you did when you brought up metaphors) doesn't mean that such meaning was the intent of the text (just as metaphor was not my meaning )

Learning more about reality has chipped away at the credibility of the Bible, as it does for any given set of myths. A myth is pretty much a placeholder explanation for something not yet understood, and that's why people made up these stories. We can still learn from these myths, but that doesn't mean there is any shred of truth to them. And that was my point -- that there is no more reason to accept anything the Bible has to say about reality than the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I disagree. I think you are responding more to the overarching and repeated conversation on such topics and less to any actual experience with religious texts.

What you are suggesting here is true of religious people. However it is not true of the text itself. The bible did not say the earth was the center of the universe. But because it did not say that it was not, and there are a few passages which could potentially support such a notion (for example, "god held the sun still in the sky" during some battle) the common belief among the believing was that the earth was in the center.

Many people, and apparently yourself included, seem to respond to the absolutism of the practitioners as if that has any bearing on the text itself. Kinda like bogus literature classes where they ask you to write an essay on the meaning of the word "blue" in some dead authors short story.... just because YOU get something out of a text does not mean that this is what the author meant.

The Bible is mostly a compilation of oral traditions and various written accounts that was compiled over centuries.

Are you a religious person or just a super-sympathetic non-religious person?

How is this in any way different from what I said?.... written history = oral tradition recorded. various written accounts = first hand accounts (like... duh...). Much of the new testament, apart from the gospels, are actually letters written to early churches from major figures like Paul regarding conduct and practice. There is also a substantial portion of the old testament which are books of law and lineage. You make the point that the bible was originally taken as the end-all be-all, and this is correct for that time. So it stands to reason that many things would be included in early texts aside from inspired word. Then there is Psalms which is frigging huge and really just a collection of poetry (oral tradition? maybe, less involved with societal conduct.....).

I am religious.

 

[Stacker]

Before I was religious, I had existential angst that made me very depressed. I wanted to find a purpose for my existence and an explanation of what would happen in the afterlife. Then I found a religion. It answered my existential problems, at least for a short time. It had answered my life's purpose on earth but I couldn't find a meaningful purpose for what the Bible explained was the afterlife. Now I am an agnostic leaning towards atheism. It was much easier for me to be happy when I was religious than it is now.
Considering how I could never deduce whether God existed or not, the better deal appears to be just believing in God and potentially escape Hell while at the same time being content with my life or risk Hell if it turns out that I'm wrong (Pascal's Wager).
Some times I hope that there is a God because I feel so damn empty inside (my God hole).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-qw2Vwwnh0[/youtube]

 

[Shnurek]

 

[Abider]

Dawkins never claimed that there is, concretely, no God. He argues for why there almost certainly is no God, but being a man that understands science he knows that God is something that currently cannot be proven (or disproven).

I'm an atheist and I will agree with you that militant atheists can be a bit annoying. Dawkins was great in the beginning when his movement was picking up speed, but he got to the point where he was no better than the people he was rising up against. I will still support him when it comes to removing public funding from religious use, etc. though.

If only we could all mind our own business and let others do as they wish. Too bad it's all a numbers game to see who can get the highest.

Yeah I'm with most of what you're saying except that it's popular to marginalize atheists as militant. As far as I know there's no atheist with a bomb strapped to their chest headed over to some alter or shrine or temple or church to blast shrapnel into the crowds. So militancy is not our issue. When I say militant I mean in defense of those currently being bullied out of their human rights. A lesbian in Saudi Arabia should be able to put her girlfriend on the back of her Harley and ride around in leather.....if she wants too. I think people should be able to do what they want. Many, not all, but many of the religious have agendas that say otherwise.

Agendas that that are well supported by religious texts. No amount of metaphysical acrobatics can change the fact that these texts are used by the delusional to affect the rights of others. Shariat law in England as an example. I use the term militant in that case to differentiate myself from accomodationists who support the thwarting of their own secular law.

I have many role models and friends whom I respect and admire who are religious. Because their religion is directed at elevating their own conduct and kindness to others. If that were the only goal of religions I would be an agnostic experimenter with them. As I was for much of my life.

But when you have people you love being shamed and hurt and deprived of their rights, then playing nice is not what I see as just.

 

[Kaputt]

This is that fundamental misunderstanding I was talking about. I did not say metaphorical. Just as every scientific paper that has been retracted over the years is not to be taken as metaphor, neither should religious texts simply due to the fact that new information has refined the understanding of observations.

IF holy books are considered divinely inspired, they would not require any correction with new information. They should be consistent with all new information. But, if you don't define your holy book as divinely inspired, you escape this conundrum.

But, if you don't think your holy book is divinely inspired, doesn't that defeat the whole point? What then makes your book any better than any other book written by a human? Why form a religion around it?

But anything within the texts that could be taken as "scientific" or as explanation of understanding was not the primary goal of the text. In fact.... I am not aware of anywhere in the bible that attempts to explain how the physical world works. Rather, phrases are used to describe specific events along the way of making a larger point. We do this constantly in common language, yet when an eons old book decides to do it we suddenly have a problem . Go find me passages which fit your definition for what you are talking about here. Just because groups of people took the book and pulled additional meaning out of it (just as you did when you brought up metaphors) doesn't mean that such meaning was the intent of the text (just as metaphor was not my meaning )

I disagree. I think you are responding more to the overarching and repeated conversation on such topics and less to any actual experience with religious texts.

What you are suggesting here is true of religious people. However it is not true of the text itself. The bible did not say the earth was the center of the universe. But because it did not say that it was not, and there are a few passages which could potentially support such a notion (for example, "god held the sun still in the sky" during some battle) the common belief among the believing was that the earth was in the center.

So you're saying the Bible has nothing to say about anything in reality that can actually be measured. Thus, it is impossible to assess the truth of the Bible with an outside measurement. Convenient. What then is the use of the Bible?

Many people, and apparently yourself included, seem to respond to the absolutism of the practitioners as if that has any bearing on the text itself. Kinda like bogus literature classes where they ask you to write an essay on the meaning of the word "blue" in some dead authors short story.... just because YOU get something out of a text does not mean that this is what the author meant.

Same goes for you, though. What if the authors of the Bible intended to put into writing the true history of the world via the stories in Genesis and Exodus, etc?

How is this in any way different from what I said?.... written history = oral tradition recorded. various written accounts = first hand accounts (like... duh...). Much of the new testament, apart from the gospels, are actually letters written to early churches from major figures like Paul regarding conduct and practice. There is also a substantial portion of the old testament which are books of law and lineage. You make the point that the bible was originally taken as the end-all be-all, and this is correct for that time. So it stands to reason that many things would be included in early texts aside from inspired word. Then there is Psalms which is frigging huge and really just a collection of poetry (oral tradition? maybe, less involved with societal conduct.....).

My implied point was that oral traditions and copies of copies of copies with heavy editing and canonical debates could chinese whisper whatever the original story was into something completely different.

I am religious.

Good. I just wanted to make sure you weren't putting words into religious-peoples mouths, as a lot of non-religious sympathizers tend to do, like say "well duh no religious people actually believe there was a talking snake", when there probably is a sizable chunk of literalists out there who do.

 

[KinasePro]

Yeah, "militant" atheists are annoying to be around but they are pretty harmless. Just leave them to their neckbeards and their basements.

LOL very true.

As far as morality goes, I still can't tell what you're trying to argue. Atheism itself is not a moral philosophy and doesn't need to explain anything. Secular morality can be argued for but its foundation is not atheism and probably has a lot in common with religious morality. Any religious morality founded on "things are bad cause God says so" is a fundamentally absurd morality that undermines itself in a sense. Morality is a cultural construct that evolves, and was probably bred out of our inherent evolutionary drive to create stable societies. Only the people who like to talk in absolutes have a problem reconciling that.

The comment in bold doesn't hold up under scrutiny, though. There are plenty of things that are awful for society but we tolerate for higher moral reasons, such as caring for the poor and disabled. If we were only concerned about the survival of our species & stable societies, then we would have the handicapped executed and infanticide would be a common occurrence.

In fact, if you look into the history of western philosophy (check out Bertrand Russell's book), our current western idea of the sanctity of human life comes irrefutably form the Judeo-Christian principle of Imago Dei. Before Imago Dei (e.g. the majority of humanity's history), moral law was given to the person who holds the power, aka "might makes right."

Dawkins never claimed that there is, concretely, no God. He argues for why there almost certainly is no God, but being a man that understands science he knows that God is something that currently cannot be proven (or disproven).

I'm an atheist and I will agree with you that militant atheists can be a bit annoying. Dawkins was great in the beginning when his movement was picking up speed, but he got to the point where he was no better than the people he was rising up against. I will still support him when it comes to removing public funding from religious use, etc. though.

As a religious person myself, I have to say that my favorite modern atheist is Christopher Hitchens. He was the most logically consistent and intellectually honest of the modern crowd, though I obviously disagree with a lot of his conclusions.

Dawkins has his moments, but he has gone off the deep end a few times and is not entirely logically consistent. His conversations/debates with Neil deGrasse Tyson are a good example of why I struggle taking him seriously.

If a holy book is not considered to be divinely inspired, how is it a holy book? It is a far more recent wave of thinking that interprets massive amounts of the OT as "metaphorical", largely due to the obvious absurdity of taking those things literally. But back in the day, before modern science, the Bible was considered the end-all-be-all statement on reality and the natural world.

This is just historically false. Biblical literalism is entirely a modern innovation, starting around the mid-1800's in Protestant circles and later in Roman Catholicism via protestant influence. Historically, the Bible has been viewed as a collection of writings meant to be used in the Church. They are not a stand alone Holy Book to be worshipped, as some modern Christians have erroneously started doing.

 

[dr zaius]

Yeah I'm with most of what you're saying except that it's popular to marginalize atheists as militant. As far as I know there's no atheist with a bomb strapped to their chest headed over to some alter or shrine or temple or church to blast shrapnel into the crowds. So militancy is not our issue. When I say militant I mean in defense of those currently being bullied out of their human rights. A lesbian in Saudi Arabia should be able to put her girlfriend on the back of her Harley and ride around in leather.....if she wants too. I think people should be able to do what they want. Many, not all, but many of the religious have agendas that say otherwise.

Agendas that that are well supported by religious texts. No amount of metaphysical acrobatics can change the fact that these texts are used by the delusional to affect the rights of others. Shariat law in England as an example. I use the term militant in that case to differentiate myself from accomodationists who support the thwarting of their own secular law.

I have many role models and friends whom I respect and admire who are religious. Because their religion is directed at elevating their own conduct and kindness to others. If that were the only goal of religions I would be an agnostic experimenter with them. As I was for much of my life.

But when you have people you love being shamed and hurt and deprived of their rights, then playing nice is not what I see as just.

I agree. I should be more selective with the term militant. Obnoxious would probably be a better word.

Dawkins debated Tyson? What were they debating? If I recall NdGT is agnostic leaning towards atheist. I'd be interested to hear whatever conversations they have had, though Dawkins is 71 now and seems to be losing his touch.

 

[link2swim06]

Religious people, how do you explain/reconcile everything in the Bible/texts that has been proven incorrect by modern science?

 

[Abider]

I agree. I should be more selective with the term militant. Obnoxious would probably be a better word.

I hear you. And I'm trying pull back from being obnoxious. It just makes for poor conversation. Thing is I would presume that a lot of religious people are like these here--very intelligent and interestesed in communicating a modern secularly respectful version of their doctrines, but I just have too much experience with really intense really stupid really dangerous religious people to think that what people are saying here is representative enough.

 

[SpecterGT260]

IF holy books are considered divinely inspired, they would not require any correction with new information. They should be consistent with all new information. But, if you don't define your holy book as divinely inspired, you escape this conundrum.

You are going to have to point out for me where I said it was the book that needs to be corrected and not the interpretations and extrapolations that were made.

But, if you don't think your holy book is divinely inspired, doesn't that defeat the whole point? What then makes your book any better than any other book written by a human? Why form a religion around it?



So you're saying the Bible has nothing to say about anything in reality that can actually be measured. Thus, it is impossible to assess the truth of the Bible with an outside measurement. Convenient. What then is the use of the Bible?

So your response is to demand that I hold the bible's validity against your dictated external set of criteria - also convenient

and you go further to say that because it avoids making absolutes concerning the specific criteria that you dictated that it can be of no use. This is fallacious

You are either so stuck in the common debate on this topic (usually against an ignorant bible thumper, so I can understand why....) that you are still formulating arguments against that point of view, or simply not understanding what I am saying.

The bible never attempts to explain physics. So it saying "the sun stood still in the sky" is slightly different than if your astronomy textbook says this. The same is true of nearly all didactic learning today. You learn facts flavored by the subject because many factoids are simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. The bible never needed to fully flesh out astronomical physics in order to make the point it wanted to, yet you hold this entirely irrelevant exclusion as damning. That is ridiculous.

Same goes for you, though. What if the authors of the Bible intended to put into writing the true history of the world via the stories in Genesis and Exodus, etc?

so your point now is that because I cannot difinitively prove that the authors did not intend your interpretation that we must accept it until otherwise proven false?

are you sure you are not religious?

My implied point was that oral traditions and copies of copies of copies with heavy editing and canonical debates could chinese whisper whatever the original story was into something completely different.

and that was my point as well. I said so explicitly.

Have you ever even touched a bible? Do you know what the parts of it are intended to do? Honestly, other than the beginning of genesis and the book of revelation (maybe some proverbs.... and writings of the prophets) I cant think of anything that could be construed as "inspired word". Nearly everything else in there was a dude writing about what he saw first hand. All 4 gospels (luke was actually written after the fact...... but whatever) are simply written accounts. How much inspiration does one need to recount what he saw? Again, you are responding to the misconceptions common among the practitioners and not to the book itself, yet you fallaciously point your argument at the book instead of the people drawing conclusions from it.

If you took a moment to think about it, I doubt you have even a single argument that is not a direct rebuttal to some religious person's interpretation. Sure, it is easy as crap to discount the ravings of a religious nut. But we can say the same for a bunch of pseudo-scientific nuts in today's world. Does this mean the science they form their faulty assumptions upon are also faulty? no. No it does no

Good. I just wanted to make sure you weren't putting words into religious-peoples mouths, as a lot of non-religious sympathizers tend to do, like say "well duh no religious people actually believe there was a talking snake", when there probably is a sizable chunk of literalists out there who do.

I find this incredibly ironic.... You seem to be putting a ton of words in religious people's mouths.

I am aware of a crap ton of religious people who are very literalistic and very rigid and very non critical with their beliefs. But I find atheists to be very literalistic and rigid as well. If a 5 year old child tells you a story with scientific inaccuracies, are you not just as guilty of literalism when you correct them all? Does his naivete really diminish the intent of the story? I would argue that nearly every "miraculous" story in the bible has alternative explanations. Talking snake? One interpretation was that there was a literal snake which spoke words to Adam and Eve. Another explanation could be that this is entirely metaphorical. Another explanation could be that this was a vision they were given and therefore the story is accurate to their experience regardless of the physical happenings around them (this is actually a pretty common occurrence in the writings). Coincidence, or even divine coincidence, can appear to be much more than they really are. Did moses part a 100ft deep sea, or did they cross at a point which was unseasonably low and attribute it to moses's efforts? Regardless of the facts here, I fail to see how it is at all important. I don't recall the exodus as being a meteorological text so.....

 

[KinasePro]

Religious people, how do you explain/reconcile everything in the Bible/texts that has been proven incorrect by modern science?

I adopt the Orthodox Christian view that there isn't any content in the Bible that is supposed to be read or interpreted like a textbook. The creation story, for example, is metaphorical Jewish mythology that is meant to illustrate the relationship between God, man, and man's will (aka sin). This is why the Bible is meant to be interpreted in the Church, because without the historical context of traditionally held beliefs, its easy to make assertions that were never held by the very people who assembled the Bible.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Religious people, how do you explain/reconcile everything in the Bible/texts that has been proven incorrect by modern science?

give me an example where this has happened, and note the previous discussion on how it is the certainties of the religious people and not of the text that have been proven wrong.

A good one is geocentricism. If you have ever (and I mean EVER) used the phrase "sunset" your entire argument is invalid


this is endlessly frustrating for me. You are attacking religious interpretation. Any and all statements that atheists attempt to attack (that I am aware of) are made in passing while the author attempts to make a completely separate point. What science has proven false is the claims made by religious people - many of which I cannot find succinct defense for in the bible in the first place. I suspect, historically anyways, that many of the scientifically faulty beliefs stemmed from natural assumptions that people then attempted to defend using religious texts because they were the end-all authority on things in early society.

 

[Shnurek]

give me an example where this has happened, and note the previous discussion on how it is the certainties of the religious people and not of the text that have been proven wrong.

A good one is geocentricism. If you have ever (and I mean EVER) used the phrase "sunset" your entire argument is invalid

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for saying that there are other planets around other stars. In 1995 we discovered the first extrasolar planet.

 

[kpcrew]

give me an example where this has happened, and note the previous discussion on how it is the certainties of the religious people and not of the text that have been proven wrong.

A good one is geocentricism. If you have ever (and I mean EVER) used the phrase "sunset" your entire argument is invalid


this is endlessly frustrating for me. You are attacking religious interpretation. Any and all statements that atheists attempt to attack (that I am aware of) are made in passing while the author attempts to make a completely separate point. What science has proven false is the claims made by religious people - many of which I cannot find succinct defense for in the bible in the first place. I suspect, historically anyways, that many of the scientifically faulty beliefs stemmed from natural assumptions that people then attempted to defend using religious texts because they were the end-all authority on things in early society.

1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”
4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.[b]
7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew.

 

[sinuous sausage]

sh's getting real in here, but I have football to watch. I'll weigh in with another polemic soon--I'm sure everyone's waiting with bated breath!

Broncos upend Patriots in NE today, yes? 31-21. Or is that insane?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for saying that there are other planets around other stars. In 1995 we discovered the first extrasolar planet.

um.... you either have to provide the bible passage where this occurred or you know... return one of those additional chromosomes you are carrying around. How on earth do you think that this is a counterpoint to what I am saying?

Me: people interpret the bible to extract things like geocentricism which isnt actually explicitly stated in the bible
you: well, people extrapolated that and then burned a dude who disagreed, ergo the bible says it....


seriously wtf

1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4 "Woman,[a] why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My hour has not yet come."
5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.[b]
7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."
They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew.

My posts did not preclude the possibility for direct divine intervention. Remember, the worldview focuses on an entity with the power to create. The biblical account of Jesus and its interpretation was very much intended to be direct divine intervention. Science has literally nothing to say on this matter either. There are logical problems concerning falsifiability, but your post here really doesn't stand as a counterpoint to mine.

If we were to accept the existence of and omnipotent figure, especially one that descended to walk among the people, adding some booze to some water really isn't much of a stretch. it may not be scienctifically based, but neither does science state anywhere that this couldnt have happened. The conflict of science and religion has much more to do with creation than it does specific acts of intervention.


p.s. this exact story was why my earlier post said "many" and not "all"

 

[KinasePro]

sh's getting real in here, but I have football to watch. I'll weigh in with another polemic soon--I'm sure everyone's waiting with bated breath!

Broncos upend Patriots in NE today, yes? 31-21. Or is that insane?

That's batsh:t insane but I hope it turns out to be true.

 

[Shnurek]

give me an example where this has happened, and note the previous discussion on how it is the certainties of the religious people and not of the text that have been proven wrong.

A good one is geocentricism. If you have ever (and I mean EVER) used the phrase "sunset" your entire argument is invalid

The date of creation in the bible is literally derived as being between 3761 BC and 5000 BC depending on which scripture you believe. The Hebrew calendar dates creation as happening in 3761 BC.

The Lambda-CDM model of the universe says that the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years. Hell, Carbon-14 radioactive half-life dating wouldn't allow us to date anything before 3761-5000 BC.

To believe the bible you have to shut out almost 100% of science.

What's your next excuse? That the bible has been translated four times? That it is too vague to know truthfully? I pity your ignorance.

 

[EarthtoneJon]

I have always reconciled science and religion in a unique way. Unlike many contemporary Christians, I do not believe that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. The more I delve into the biomolecular underpinning of life, the more I see the mark of a creator. Most people I've discussed this with (outside of the scientific circles of SDN) feel as though the processes essential to life must run on magic if indeed God is responsible for them. In other words, the moment energy states, electrons, and gradients are used to describe cell respiration, it has suddenly become adulterated, and God cannot be at work there. The way I see it, God uses and has always used the physical phenomena observable today. He has spring-loaded life with the ability to adapt to the Earth as it inevitably changes. Evolution is beautiful. It reaffirms my faith rather than challenging it.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The date of creation in the bible is literally derived as being between 3761 BC and 5000 BC depending on which scripture you believe. The Hebrew calendar dates creation as happening in 3761 BC.

The Lambda-CDM model of the universe says that the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years. Hell, Carbon-14 radioactive half-life dating wouldn't allow us to date anything before 3761-5000 BC.

To believe the bible you have to shut out almost 100% of science.

What's your next excuse? That the bible has been translated four times? That it is too vague to know truthfully? I pity your ignorance.

Ill give you a hundred dollars if you can find the passage that says this, and again (since it is MY ignorance here right? ) not the convoluted compilations of some preacher in an attempt to validate ill-conceived notions. Are you not reading or just drunk? this is seriously an increased level of fail for you around here

I am not aware of anything in the bible which says I cannot believe in events happening millions of years ago. that is an erroneous conclusion based on the work of a few people. Your major issue is that you seem to believe that I am somehow bound to believe what you tell me I have to believe in order to belong to some group based on your interpretations of what that group stands for. To be honest, I find such statements frustrating because of the blind idiocy that they are built on. It is alarmingly common in this debate. religious fallacy is more outwardly apparent so the atheists fallaciously believe they are immune to it (and yes, my redundancy is intentional to demonstrate how circular the logic is)


I do like how immediately hostile you get on this topic because its only the religious nuts who get angry, right? Calm down there half-pint. I mean seriously.... you are now managing to be condescending AND smug while simultaneously missing the major point I made and thereby basically proving it. Congratulations broseph.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Here is the thing, my position on this matter can be summarized as such:
1) The bible is not intended to be a physical science textbook
2) The bible is not to be taken literally at all points (some points are blatantly not literal, see psalms)
2.1) Being "not literal" is not the same thing as "being metaphorical". Many stories are likely true to the experiences of the authors, and with our expanded undersanding of the physical world such accounts make less sense.
3) An understanding of how religious texts are created and compiled is important to understanding why literalism is inappropriate both in practice and in attacking the text.


And in spite of this, you come at me with "well if you take xxxxx passage as completely literal, then you have to reject all of science brah!".

1) First of all, I don't take such things as completely literal, nor is there any expectation that personal accounts are inspired word. The bible is pretty good at telling you "god said" vs "this dude saw". They both happen within the text. Deal with it
2)The claim that if a factual inconstancy exists that I must reject all of science is fallacious to the point of absurdity.... and now much more about your behavior around here makes a TON more sense
3)You still seem unaware that you are combatting points that I did not make. Seriously, the thing about burning that dude at the stake... you should feel bad for making that point. It is was so irrelevant that I had to check my ears to make sure I wasnt bleeding. Many brain cells died as a result of attempting to follow your logic (although to be fair I am pretty sure they committed suicide so you could make a solid argument that you did not directly cause it)

 

[kpcrew]

My posts did not preclude the possibility for direct divine intervention. Remember, the worldview focuses on an entity with the power to create. The biblical account of Jesus and its interpretation was very much intended to be direct divine intervention. Science has literally nothing to say on this matter either. There are logical problems concerning falsifiability, but your post here really doesn't stand as a counterpoint to mine.

If we were to accept the existence of and omnipotent figure, especially one that descended to walk among the people, adding some booze to some water really isn't much of a stretch. it may not be scienctifically based, but neither does science state anywhere that this couldnt have happened. The conflict of science and religion has much more to do with creation than it does specific acts of intervention.


p.s. this exact story was why my earlier post said "many" and not "all"

You're begging the question here. If your statement was a legitimate argument, a person would be unable to claim that any religion is false because all an adherent would have to do is say claim divine intervention. What would stop anyone from claiming anything and claim divine intervention? (just look at the claims Scientology makes which are widely believed to be completely untrue).

Turning water into wine is not possible, it's simply not how the world works. There are basic physical principles and having atoms just appear out of nowhere and molecules made to form wine is literally impossible. It's definitely a huge stretch. And the thing is that it's not even the most ridiculous claim out there, like raising the dead or curing blindness with mud.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You're begging the question here. If your statement was a legitimate argument, a person would be unable to claim that any religion is false because all an adherent would have to do is say claim divine intervention. What would stop anyone from claiming anything and claim divine intervention? (just look at the claims Scientology makes which are widely believed to be completely untrue).

absolutely nothing. That may be an issue for you with non falsifiable statements, but nothing about being non-falsifiable makes a statement intrinsically false (that is kind of in the definition, but the popular opinion is to simply reject any and all such statements because this is the only debate tactic that can touch them).

This still does not demonstrate how such stories are contradictory to science. If the basis for such belief is that the "rules" were created by the creator, it stands to reason that he would be able to bend/break the rules. Again, this is in no way anti-science..... Even if it may seem like it at face value.

Turning water into wine is not possible, it's simply not how the world works. There are basic physical principles and having atoms just appear out of nowhere and molecules made to form wine is literally impossible. It's definitely a huge stretch. And the thing is that it's not even the most ridiculous claim out there, like raising the dead or curing blindness with mud.

this is wrong. You need to go brush up on your quantum theory. Atoms are created spontaneously all the time. Go look up "hawking radiation". The rule is that the energy of a system must remain static, nothing is said of the system's mass. Quantum theory also allows for finite non-zero probability for literally anything. "whatever can happen does happen". While incredibly unlikely, quantum theory allows for a spontaneous water to wine conversion.... It is a technicality in the math, but it is very much there.

Raising the dead is ridiculous? Looks like my ED rotation just got a whole lot easier without having to act on any of those pesky codes Ancient hebrews had a different definition of "dead" than we did, and even today we still struggle with the notion of "how dead is dead". From any angle the lazarus story isn't nearly as absurd as you make it out to be. You should also note that I am not arguing for scientific rationale for these reported events.... I am only arguing that your assertion that these phenomena are not accounted for in the scientific cannon that they are therefore anti-science is a logical fallacy. The argument is invalid.

Agree or disagree, please don't attempt to combat MY point of view using YOUR point of view. That is simply a fruitless strategy. My point of view is logically sound even if it has separate foundations from yours, and my point of view really rather easily accounts for these problems.... the real issue is that your worldview doesn't and you are unable to accept a worldview that differs from your own. I have yet to see you point out a logical fallacy in what I have said, you just complained that what I said was "no fair" because it was not falsifiable. While such statements pose significant difficulty for debate, they are not in and of themselves fallacious.

This is why the common comebacks relating to the "religious zealous norm" simply do not apply to what I am saying... because I am not saying those things (again, intentionally redundant) but the debate strategy used here is simply so off base that I don't really know how else to address it.....

 

[kpcrew]

absolutely nothing. That may be an issue for you with non falsifiable statements, but nothing about being non-falsifiable makes a statement intrinsically false (that is kind of in the definition, but the popular opinion is to simply reject any and all such statements because this is the only debate tactic that can touch them).

This still does not demonstrate how such stories are contradictory to science. If the basis for such belief is that the "rules" were created by the creator, it stands to reason that he would be able to bend/break the rules. Again, this is in no way anti-science..... Even if it may seem like it at face value.




this is wrong. You need to go brush up on your quantum theory. Atoms are created spontaneously all the time. Go look up "hawking radiation". The rule is that the energy of a system must remain static, nothing is said of the system's mass. Quantum theory also allows for finite non-zero probability for literally anything. "whatever can happen does happen". While incredibly unlikely, quantum theory allows for a spontaneous water to wine conversion.... It is a technicality in the math, but it is very much there.


Raising the dead is ridiculous? Looks like my ED rotation just got a whole lot easier without having to act on any of those pesky codes Ancient hebrews had a different definition of "dead" than we did, and even today we still struggle with the notion of "how dead is dead". From any angle the lazarus story isn't nearly as absurd as you make it out to be. You should also note that I am not arguing for scientific rationale for these reported events.... I am only arguing that your assertion that these phenomena are not accounted for in the scientific cannon that they are therefore anti-science is a logical fallacy. The argument is invalid.

Agree or disagree, please don't attempt to combat MY point of view using YOUR point of view. That is simply a fruitless strategy. My point of view is logically sound even if it has separate foundations from yours, and my point of view really rather easily accounts for these problems.... the real issue is that your worldview doesn't and you are unable to accept a worldview that differs from your own. I have yet to see you point out a logical fallacy in what I have said, you just complained that what I said was "no fair" because it was not falsifiable. While such statements pose significant difficulty for debate, they are not in and of themselves fallacious.

This is why the common comebacks relating to the "religious zealous norm" simply do not apply to what I am saying... because I am not saying those things (again, intentionally redundant) but the debate strategy used here is simply so off base that I don't really know how else to address it.....

lol. If you're going to try to tell someone else to check their knowledge, you should try checking yours first. Atoms are not created spontaneously all the time. What you're describing are vacuum fluctuations which blink in and out of existence but they're closer to bits of energy rather than concrete particles. Energy is equivalent to mass. And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what everything is possible means. If you had infinite time, then everything that is possible is certain to happen. But the chance of something like an atom spontaneously converting into another atom the manner you claim is so vanishingly small that you won't ever see it in the lifetime of the universe.

And you're purposefully misinterpreting my offhand mentioning of the Lazarus story. The scriptures say he died and was in his tomb for 4 days with a stench of the dead coming from the tomb. This is obviously different from someone crashing in the ER and being brought back. You claimed that miracles were possible because of divine intervention, so the existence of the divine is possible. That's an example of begging the question which is a logical fallacy.

 

[SpecterGT260]

lol. If you're going to try to tell someone else to check their knowledge, you should try checking yours first. Atoms are not created spontaneously all the time. What you're describing are vacuum fluctuations which blink in and out of existence but they're closer to bits of energy rather than concrete particles. Energy is equivalent to mass. And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what everything is possible means. If you had infinite time, then everything that is possible is certain to happen. But the chance of something like an atom spontaneously converting into another atom the manner you claim is so vanishingly small that you won't ever see it in the lifetime of the universe.

You are correct, except in the presence of an event horizon in which particle generation does actually occur (I miss spoke when I said "atom", but the point here was not to get overly nitpicky but only to demonstrate that your absolutism on the subject is unfounded). That is the basis for hawking radiaiton - the gravitaitonal purterbations have an increased likelihood to consume the anti-matter particle while radiating the matter particle in the spontaneous generation/annihilation events that take place. Mass is an energy state. They are equivalent through a constant, but not one and the same.

However this is largely irrelevant, the point I was not making was "oh yeah physics said that the water to wine thing totally happened". I was saying that your assertion was faulty. If I recall correctly (wait let me check... yes... yes I sure did) I said that such an event was incredibly unlikely. You can go back and re-read the post you quoted if you wish. The level of "improbability" is really not a factor here. Your initial argument depends upon literal impossibility, not practical impossibility.

And you're purposefully misinterpreting my offhand mentioning of the Lazarus story. The scriptures say he died and was in his tomb for 4 days with a stench of the dead coming from the tomb. This is obviously different from someone crashing in the ER and being brought back. You claimed that miracles were possible because of divine intervention, so the existence of the divine is possible. That's an example of begging the question which is a logical fallacy.

I am not trying to misinterpret anything. i am just highlighting the absolutes you are attempting to talk in. These arguments concern very trivial and nitpicky interpretations of events which, IMO, were already handled in the overarching worldview.


what it really boils down to is you are attempting to falsify something you have already stated as unfalsifiable... which is why your arguments seem logically disconnected. There are plenty of scientific interpretations of theory which do not exclude possibility for things like divine intervention, as we call it here.

To go back to water and wine.... we agreed (or rather, I stated and you argumentatively agreed ) that such an event is ridiculously unlikely. Since it is technically allowed for within the cosmos-governing rules, we have neither supported nor contradicted the idea of divine intervention. It remains as unfalsifiable as it started.

 

[SpecterGT260]

kpcrew, what exactly IS your point in all of this? I am not arguing that you MUST believe in a god based on my arguments. I am arguing that your rationales do not discredit such belief nor do they mandate that anyone who has a religion reject scientific principles. This is true. We determined so when we "agreed" that the statements were non-falsifiable. Yet you seem to be attempting to falsify them anyways... to what end? Within the definition there you can never expect that you truly corner me on this subject. I recognize the shortcomings of such a belief system in terms of "proof", but it appears that you do not understand the same within your belief system.

 

[Stacker]

If you're arguing with someone who believes in Creationism, that God created all things by violating all four laws of thermodynamics, then quibbling over whether the minor "miracles" outlined in the Old and New Testament where all land creatures can manage to fit inside an ark, a virgin can birth a child, iron can float in water, a man can be raised from the dead, a man can walk on water, a man's separated ear can be reattached simply by touching it, and a man can survive in the digestive tract of a whale are possible, is unnecessary. Why? Because if the prerequisite to their belief is that God's major miracle is the creation of the universe, which violates all four laws of thermodynamics, what makes you think you can convince them that God doesn't exist based on how impossible it is to accomplish the minor miracles, which is nothing compared to the committing the first and biggest miracle ever mentioned in the Bible?

Also please don't bring up any argumentum ad ignorantiam or petitio principii fallacies. We can't prove or disprove God exists just as much as we can't prove the flying spaghetti monster does or does not exist.

 

[Stacker]

Ill give you a hundred dollars if you can find the passage that says this, and again (since it is MY ignorance here right? ) not the convoluted compilations of some preacher in an attempt to validate ill-conceived notions. Are you not reading or just drunk? this is seriously an increased level of fail for you around here

I'll vouch for you. Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters."

With that word, "became", you can fit in dinosaurs and the millions of years before the creation of man
Depends on which version you read. I disagree with the translation of the NIV which says, "Now the earth was formless and empty." The Hebrew should be translated differently. I'm pretty sure that word should have been translated into "became" instead of "was" because it's the same word that was used to describe Lot's wife who "became" a pillar of salt. It doesn't make sense why God would make something formless and empty in the first place.

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you're arguing with someone who believes in Creationism, that God created all things by violating all four laws of thermodynamics, then quibbling over whether the minor "miracles" outlined in the Old and New Testament where all land creatures can manage to fit inside an ark, a virgin can birth a child, iron can float in water, a man can be raised from the dead, a man can walk on water, a man's separated ear can be reattached simply by touching it, and a man can survive in the digestive tract of a whale are possible, is unnecessary. Why? Because if the prerequisite to their belief is that God's major miracle is the creation of the universe, which violates all four laws of thermodynamics, what makes you think you can convince them that God doesn't exist based on how impossible it is to accomplish the minor miracles, which is nothing compared to the committing the first and biggest miracle ever mentioned in the Bible?

Also please don't bring up any argumentum ad ignorantiam or petitio principii fallacies. We can't prove or disprove God exists just as much as we can't prove the flying spaghetti monster does or does not exist.

I cant tell exactly who this is directed at....

Your initial statement was exactly my point - that trifling over such minutia is a little silly when the basis was mass creation in the first place (although, thermodynamics are not known to apply until the very instant after the big bang. Even then the very early universe had some nifty properties which dont really apply to today's universe).

your last statement is what confuses me.... who exactly is utilizing those fallacies? I am not asserting the truth of any statements. To the contrary, I am refuting the assertion that other statements are proving falsehood. These are very different. I personally accept truth in my beliefs while knowing and acknowledging that I cannot make a logical argument which demonstrates that truth. This is a double edged sword, so I commit no fallacy by stating that my views are "true". I only state that they are not shown to be false by another's argument. You have to be careful when slinging "fallacy" around.... because someone has to be actually drawing a fallacious conclusion. There is nothing fallacious in the conclusion that something that is not falsifiable cannot be found false. That is kinda the definition.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'll vouch for you. Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters."

With that word, "became", you can fit in dinosaurs and the millions of years before the creation of man
Depends on which version you read. I disagree with the translation of the NIV which says, "Now the earth was formless and empty." The Hebrew should be translated differently. I'm pretty sure that word should have been translated into "became" instead of "was" because it's the same word that was used to describe Lot's wife who "became" a pillar of salt. It doesn't make sense why God would make something formless and empty in the first place.

I agree that much is lost in translation. There are many people today whose worldviews hinge upon the protection of some of these more radical views ( <10k year history, dinosaurs meant to test us, whatever). Likewise, there are those whose arguments hinge upon their opponents believing such things (like shnureck). Both groups of people are so deep into the delusion that they are unable to see when such things simply do not apply.

Regardless of the translations, I think such discussions would be much more productive if people were able to really identify what statements are completely non-provable and non-falsifiable. Each of us picks a set of such things which make the most sense to us, and then many of us sets out to prove those right, like the water and wine debate earlier, even though they honestly cannot be. Regardless of one's own beliefs, just pretend for a moment that that one foundational belief is true and then build logically from there. But when people try to poke logical holes in higher order aspects of worldview while simultaneously rejecting the premise upon which those were built it is no wonder that the arguments fall on deaf ears. The arguments themselves are invalid. In effect such people are committing a strawman fallacy because the points they attack are not really encapsulated within the worldview they wish to undermine

 

[zoner]

This thread is a proof that religious people are impossible to be around.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile