IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th April 2012, 08:16 PM   #2041
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
I call shenanigans on the distinction you are attempting to make. Especially since we have a variety of books which claim to state the words of god directly.

My argument is the logical conclusion if god is real. He is either directly deceitful or does not care to actually share truth. The alternative solution is that the bible is NOT of god, either because the authors lied about it. This says nothing regarding whether or not god is real.
No there is NO WAY your argument is logical. Take the New Testament for example. WE ALL KNOW that the four Gospels were written from the perspective of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were not written by God, they were not written by Jesus. They were written by some guy who heard it from some other guy who heard it and finally put it to paper. There is no deceit by God in this; the four Gospels are completely man-derived. No one can claim otherwise, and yet you're just a'doin it. But this doesn't mean God doesn't exist either, because these books have no horse in that race. If someone were to say "The Gospels are proof of God's existence" then sure, we can say they aren't, but they also don't say "the Gospels somehow prove God doesn't exist, or is a deceiver either"

God doesn't have a horse in that race. Really...he doesn't.

I really really cannot understand how you can make a tenable argument that what I'm saying is shenanigans. You can have ALL the books about God in the world that have God speaking directly to someone (Deuteronomy and Exodus are fine examples) but those books aren't WRITTEN by God. They're written by people. They can claim just about anything they want, and we can treat it just as we treat anything PEOPLE say. But you cannot say that because a person wrote about something God said means it MUST be accurate.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 15th April 2012 at 08:21 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 08:16 PM   #2042
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
But with that said the Bible does seems to know a lot about science:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans
Was I the only one to misread the highlighted text as tasty humans?
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 08:19 PM   #2043
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
No there is NO WAY your argument is logical. ... They were not written by God, they were not written by Jesus.
Stop strawmanning my argument. I did not say god wrote the bible. Reread what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

I am, for sake of argument, permitting the possibility that god exists. If we work on that basis, then my arguments hold true. It demonstrates the fundamental problem that both DOC and Marduk must address. Nothing more nothing less.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 08:23 PM   #2044
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Stop strawmanning my argument. I did not say god wrote the bible. Reread what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

I am, for sake of argument, permitting the possibility that god exists. If we work on that basis, then my arguments hold true. It demonstrates the fundamental problem that both DOC and Marduk must address. Nothing more nothing less.
I'm not strawmanning your argument, you're being deliberately obtuse. You're saying that because books exist that claim to be the word of God (or at least have conversations from God) that they MUST be accurate (at least, for the choice that Marduk and DOC desire to have) There is no reason to assume that's true. Divine Inspiration cannot automatically be a free pass to be forever true (realistically speaking of course...). That you're saying it has to be one of only two options isn't fair because that first option is baseless (God said it, so it must be accurate). You HAVE to consider that....people, not God, wrote it, and people...can bull@#(! like crazy. That doesn't mean God should suffer for people making crap up though... I'm sure if God existed, people throughout the ages have given him a real headache with the crap they make up using him. God's existence doesn't hinge on the stories about him. It's not fair to DOC and Marduk that you're making that the ONLY options available is all. There's more integrity to just say "Look, the authors were full of it. Doesn't mean God was full of it, just means the authors were. Why is there no germ theory? Because the authors didn't know tiddlytits about germs." I mean, isn't that....the honest choice?

I edited this into my previous post:

Originally Posted by Lowpro
I really really cannot understand how you can make a tenable argument that what I'm saying is shenanigans. You can have ALL the books about God in the world that have God speaking directly to someone (Deuteronomy and Exodus are fine examples) but those books aren't WRITTEN by God. They're written by people. They can claim just about anything they want, and we can treat it just as we treat anything PEOPLE say. But you cannot say that because a person wrote about something God said means it MUST be accurate or MUST include specifics to germ theory... that is just stupid
Bolded parts are a current revision
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 15th April 2012 at 08:36 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 08:39 PM   #2045
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
The bible does not claim to be a science book, the vast majority of it deals with God's relationship with man, and spiritual and ethical matters. The little amount that does deal with science themes like Genesis could have been to satisfy the natural curiosity of the illiterate uneducated people in a manner they could easily understand without confusing them, and distracting them from the more important spiritual matters and ethical matters.

But with that said the Bible does seems to know a lot about science:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

Now back to prophecy.


Why do you pick and choose from two completely different creation myths, DOC?
It's dishonest.
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 08:46 PM   #2046
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by Muldur View Post

There is no possible way to derive that from my argument. The Bible was written in the language of the day, nothing more or less. It was written from the POV of people who did not have (among other things) germ theory, yet it speaks to the fact that under the sanitation laws the house of a deceased person was to be treated as "unclean", and that one should make the latrine separate and distant from one's encampment.

No deception, simply depicting events and matters in terms the people at the time could understand.
Hardly revelatory. Hygiene was a common concept before the writings of the Torah/Bible surfaced. Do you think Roman soldiers crapped where they ate (the benefits of logistics, which came from armies conquering and learning how to have the most effective military power; hygiene was well practiced and preceded Alexander the Great) It is FAR more likely that the concepts of hygiene were usurped by writers and used as revelation.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 15th April 2012 at 08:52 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 09:54 PM   #2047
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
No there is NO WAY your argument is logical. Take the New Testament for example. WE ALL KNOW that the four Gospels were written from the perspective of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were not written by God, they were not written by Jesus. They were written by some guy who heard it from some other guy who heard it and finally put it to paper. There is no deceit by God in this; the four Gospels are completely man-derived. No one can claim otherwise, and yet you're just a'doin it. But this doesn't mean God doesn't exist either, because these books have no horse in that race. If someone were to say "The Gospels are proof of God's existence" then sure, we can say they aren't, but they also don't say "the Gospels somehow prove God doesn't exist, or is a deceiver either"

God doesn't have a horse in that race. Really...he doesn't.

I really really cannot understand how you can make a tenable argument that what I'm saying is shenanigans. You can have ALL the books about God in the world that have God speaking directly to someone (Deuteronomy and Exodus are fine examples) but those books aren't WRITTEN by God. They're written by people. They can claim just about anything they want, and we can treat it just as we treat anything PEOPLE say. But you cannot say that because a person wrote about something God said means it MUST be accurate.
How do you know gods' betting habits?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 09:59 PM   #2048
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Hardly revelatory. Hygiene was a common concept before the writings of the Torah/Bible surfaced. Do you think Roman soldiers crapped where they ate (the benefits of logistics, which came from armies conquering and learning how to have the most effective military power; hygiene was well practiced and preceded Alexander the Great) It is FAR more likely that the concepts of hygiene were usurped by writers and used as revelation.
Matthew 15
Quote:
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
I think the elders go it right, and Jesus was wrong. Christian innovations in the matter of hygiene were catastrophic.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 10:14 PM   #2049
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
How do you know gods' betting habits?
It's a turn of phrase -.- the only people who effect the Gospels are the people who wrote them.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 10:16 PM   #2050
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Matthew 15 I think the elders go it right, and Jesus was wrong. Christian innovations in the matter of hygiene were catastrophic.
Jesus and the Sunshine Gang loved to stick it to the Pharisees any way they could :P I bet they double dipped too.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 10:22 PM   #2051
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
I'm not strawmanning your argument, you're being deliberately obtuse. You're saying that because books exist that claim to be the word of God (or at least have conversations from God) that they MUST be accurate (at least, for the choice that Marduk and DOC desire to have)
Yes. That is my claim. If a book is the inspired word of god, it should be verifiably true and accurate.


Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
There is no reason to assume that's true. Divine Inspiration cannot automatically be a free pass to be forever true (realistically speaking of course...).
Anything less would be indistinguishable from a non god-inspired source. Remember, we are discussing a book claimed to be relevant to our modern society.

Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
You HAVE to consider that....people, not God, wrote it, and people...can bull@#(! like crazy. That doesn't mean God should suffer for people making crap up though... I'm sure if God existed, people throughout the ages have given him a real headache with the crap they make up using him.
In which case, it wouldn't have been the product of divine inspiration.

Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
It's not fair to DOC and Marduk that you're making that the ONLY options available is all. There's more integrity to just say "Look, the authors were full of it. Doesn't mean God was full of it, just means the authors were. Why is there no germ theory? Because the authors didn't know tiddlytits about germs." I mean, isn't that....the honest choice?
Which falls into option 2.
The text wasn't divinely inspired.

You seem to take exception to the two options, but they really are what we have. If the text accurately reflects god's word "As written through man", then god intentionally lied to people.
The other option is to say that the bible isn't the inspired word of god.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 10:23 PM   #2052
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
The bible does not claim to be a science book, the vast majority of it deals with God's relationship with man, and spiritual and ethical matters. The little amount that does deal with science themes like Genesis could have been to satisfy the natural curiosity of the illiterate uneducated people in a manner they could easily understand without confusing them, and distracting them from the more important spiritual matters and ethical matters.

But with that said the Bible does seems to know a lot about science:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

Now back to prophecy.
But what about the other story which gives the order:

Gen 2:4b-5 - The Earth (and I'm guessing the universe)

Gen 2:7 - man

Gen 2:8 - all plants

Gen 2:18-19 - all animals

Gen 2:21-23 - woman

So if Genesis was supposed to explain science without confusing illiterate, uneducated people then why have the contradictory creation story? Are you saying that illiterate, uneducated people will not see a contradiction?
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2012, 10:34 PM   #2053
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
You seem to take exception to the two options, but they really are what we have. If the text accurately reflects god's word "As written through man", then god intentionally lied to people.
The other option is to say that the bible isn't the inspired word of god.
I took exception in that the omission (lying) was the fault of the author, not of God. It just seems like you have a baseless demand that God should provide all the information of germ theory otherwise he's lying (by omission) but you have to remember, Jesus isn't a fountain of knowledge. Sure people now think he was an avatar of God but Jesus was just knowledgeable of Scripture, which includes clean/unclean blah de blah. I'm sure he probably knew a bit about hygiene too probably because certain hygiene practices were already associated (hygiene and purification were closely associated), that comes as no surprise (and for anyone to say that's revelatory is deluded). I feel I have to include this reason, because if we're going to argue about why these hygiene passages are in the Bible, let's use common sense for a minute.

But that would explain those hygiene practices and it would seem unfair to go from this to "well why didn't Jesus teach them Germ Theory?" how could he? They have no idea of microbes. Does that mean God is lying by omission? No, there is no obligation by anyone to consider germ theory. Two reasons, the theist reason: "God doesn't have to reveal anything, God's will and all (GWIMW)" so you're stuck at that dead end. The rational reason: " God is a fictional character, and can only be utilized as far as the writer can imagine, and microbes ain't one of em."

But both are viable answers to the Germ Theory question, but you didn't let DOC/Muldur pick the theist answer. You gave them an unfair choice so to speak, or at least a loaded choice.

To bring it back to PROPER context you were giving Muldur the two options according to the stars falling to Earth; why didn't God be more specific and call them meteors, because actual STARS don't fall to Earth. Either God omitted by not defining what the two were so that the passage would be less nonsensical (to us) or the Bible isn't divinely inspired. I'm not defending Muldur's delusions, but this is obviously a cognate you're bickering over...
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 15th April 2012 at 10:45 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 12:31 AM   #2054
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Muldur View Post
...The Bible does not use 21st century technical language. It uses the every day language of a technologically less advanced people.
Welcome to the party, Muldur.
Your very apt comment about the language of the bible is perhaps the reason, I personally, reject it as of being of neither more nor less relevance in my life than, say, "The Golden Ass".

Would it surprise you to know that children are tortured and killed even today in the name of the bibical injunction:
"thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?



Originally Posted by Muldur View Post
...The very existence of meteorites was not recognized until many centuries later....
About ancient meteorites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteori...tes_in_history



Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well, I've already responded to all of these, some with several posts. If Muldur can add something, fine.
Would you care to give us references to those replies, please?
As a courtesy to new readers.
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 02:47 AM   #2055
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Yes. That is my claim. If a book is the inspired word of god, it should be verifiably true and accurate.
That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate. The only reason it seems inaccurate to some people is that either they don't see symbolism, or for example they mistake "different" accounts for "wrong" accounts. For example one person writes of two angels being at the tomb and another writer says one. That is a different account but one does not contradict the other. If one would have said there were 2 angels at the tomb and the other would have said there is "only" one angel then that would have been a contradiction, but they didn't say "only" one. It's like if I say get me a pencil, "there is one in that drawer". If the person opens the drawer and there are two pencils, that doesn't mean I was wrong. There is one pencil in the drawer (but there is also two). I would have been wrong however if I would have said there is "only" one pencil in the drawer.

Also, as one expert reported in a quote, it is almost impossible to 100% accurately translate the exact meaning into another language. But even with a partial translation you can usually get acceptable accuracy, but not always. That is also probably the reason for some of the problems. But a bible that is not 100 clear doesn't necessarily mean it is not 100% accurate. The vast majority of Christians don't put every verse under a microscope, they see the big picture and they accept that big picture. This can be compared to many skeptics who except the big Bang and abiogenesis without knowing almost anything about the details.

Last edited by DOC; 16th April 2012 at 03:15 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 02:55 AM   #2056
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
But what about the other story which gives the order:

Gen 2:4b-5 - The Earth (and I'm guessing the universe)

Gen 2:7 - man

Gen 2:8 - all plants

Gen 2:18-19 - all animals

Gen 2:21-23 - woman

So if Genesis was supposed to explain science without confusing illiterate, uneducated people then why have the contradictory creation story? Are you saying that illiterate, uneducated people will not see a contradiction?
You will find explanations on the net, but that is a whole other thread.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:03 AM   #2057
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
You will find explanations on the net, but that is a whole other thread.
Do these explanations include an explanation of how the stars will fall out of the sky?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:05 AM   #2058
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Do these explanations include an explanation of how the stars will fall out of the sky?
Probably not, just like they don't include an explanation how Christ is the vine and we are branches and also why Christ said we are the salt of the earth.

And even today we use the terms "sunset" and "sunrise" which are symbolic.

Last edited by DOC; 16th April 2012 at 03:09 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:12 AM   #2059
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
You're saying that because books exist that claim to be the word of God (or at least have conversations from God) that they MUST be accurate (at least, for the choice that Muldur and DOC desire to have) There is no reason to assume that's true.
There isn't, but it is a position that at least some Christians claim, that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I was going to look for an example, but one just arrived:

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate. The only reason it seems inaccurate to some people is that either they don't see symbolism, or for example they mistake "different" accounts for "wrong" accounts.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:13 AM   #2060
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate.
What's your position, DOC?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:17 AM   #2061
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
The vast majority of Christians don't put every verse under a microscope, they see the big picture and they accept that big picture. This can be compared to many skeptics who except the big Bang and abiogenesis without knowing almost anything about the details.
You can compare apples to oranges, too, and then you notice they are different. The difference in this case being that if you start examining the details about the Big Bang, for example, you find that the details support the big picture. When you examine the details of the Bible, you find the opposite.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:20 AM   #2062
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Yes. That is my claim. If a book is the inspired word of god, it should be verifiably true and accurate.


That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate.


That lying maroon Geisler and his buddies are a lot of things, but inerrant most certainly isn't one of them.


Originally Posted by DOC View Post
The only reason it seems inaccurate to some people is that either they don't see symbolism, or for example they mistake "different" accounts for "wrong" accounts.


Different from what actually happened = wrong.

And pretending that your Big Book of Fairytales is sometimes a true and accurate account and sometimes allegorical based on nothing more than the whim of the apologist involved is as intellectually bankrupt as all of your arguments.


Originally Posted by DOC View Post
For example one person writes of two angels being at the tomb and another writer says one. That is a different account but one does not contradict the other.


Except that that's exactly what it's doing. Two different accounts of a single event is, by definition, a contradiction.


Originally Posted by DOC View Post
If one would have said there were 2 angels at the tomb and the other would have said there is "only" one angel then that would have been a contradiction, but they didn't say "only" one. It's like if I say get me a pencil, "there is one in that drawer". If the person opens the drawer and there are two pencils, that doesn't mean I was wrong. There is one pencil in the drawer (but there is also two). I would have been wrong however if I would have said there is "only" one pencil in the drawer.


This rubbish doesn't even qualify as weaseling - it's just complete balderdash


Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Also, as one expert reported in a quote, it is almost impossible to 100% accurately translate the exact meaning into another language. But even with a partial translation you can usually get acceptable accuracy, but not always.


This insight comes from your exrensive knowledge of ancient and modern languages, does it?

How many languages are you literate in, DOC?


Originally Posted by DOC View Post
That is also probably the reason for some of the problems. But a bible that is not 100 clear doesn't necessarily mean it is not 100% accurate.


Yes, it does, as a matter of fact.

ETA: I notice that you actually went back and edited your post to add bolding to this particular sentence and still didn't notice that there's an obvious error in it. Does 'irony' mean the same thing to you as it does to the rest of us, DOC?

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
The vast majority of Christians don't put every verse under a microscope, they see the big picture and they accept that big picture.


The vast majority of Christians aren't here making the ridiculous arguments you are in what you hope to be support of biblical accuracy, so you don't get to invoke them.

It's your drivel that's being taken to task here, not theirs.


Originally Posted by DOC View Post
This can be compared to many skeptics who except the big Bang and abiogenesis without knowing almost anything about the details.


No it can't. All it can be compared to is your record of spouting utter nonsense on topics of which you have absolutely no knowledge, especially, in the context of this thread, history.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 16th April 2012 at 03:37 AM.
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:27 AM   #2063
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by DOC View Post

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Do these explanations include an explanation of how the stars will fall out of the sky?


Probably not, just like they don't include an explanation how Christ is the vine and we are branches and also why Christ said we are the salt of the earth.


Are these statements allegorical or literal and how do we tell?


Originally Posted by DOC View Post
And even today we use the terms "sunset" and "sunrise" which are symbolic.


In exactly the same way that all words are symbolic of the thing they are describing.

What in the name of Thoth is the point you were attempting to make with this statement of the bleeding obvious?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:27 AM   #2064
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Probably not, just like they don't include an explanation how Christ is the vine and we are branches and also why Christ said we are the salt of the earth.

And even today we use the terms "sunset" and "sunrise" which are symbolic.
These expressions are not at all "symbolic" but are relics of former times when people, in particular Christian people, literally believed that the sun went round the earth, and punished the few who hypothesised otherwise. The language is not figurative, but reflective of former ignorance sustained by religious bigotry.

Your foolish use of this example will, I hope, cause you to be haunted by the ghost of Galileo.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:29 AM   #2065
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
DOC's back!

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
... The vast majority of Christians don't put every verse under a microscope, they see the big picture and they accept that big picture. This can be compared to many skeptics who except the big Bang and abiogenesis without knowing almost anything about the details.
Do you mean to say here that "the vast majority of" christians accept neither the Big Bang theory nor abiogenesis?
What does this have to do with bibical prophecies?

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
You will find explanations on the net, but that is a whole other thread.
DOC, that's hardly an edifying post for new readers!
Surely you want to reach out to the readers of this thread, don't you?

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
...And even today we use the terms "sunset" and "sunrise" which are symbolic.
When do we know when the bible is symbolic and when it should be taken literally?
Especially in terms of the OP of this thread, is which is about bible prophecies, rather than one of Perry Como's best-loved songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWVwVTFAs4c
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:30 AM   #2066
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Also, as one expert reported in a quote, it is almost impossible to 100% accurately translate the exact meaning into another language. But even with a partial translation you can usually get acceptable accuracy, but not always. That is also probably the reason for some of the problems. But a bible that is not 100 clear doesn't necessarily mean it is not 100% accurate.

"Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a supreme being." - George Carlin.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:35 AM   #2067
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
...and I'll use my 20,000th post to say welcome back, Pharaoh!
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:43 AM   #2068
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
...and I'll use my 20,000th post to say welcome back, Pharaoh!


I'm honoured. Please help yourself to a delicious slice of Aberhaten's Pizza.



Congratulations on a fine achievement.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:45 AM   #2069
Helen
Implicitly explicit
 
Helen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here. Or very nearly getting there, at least.
Posts: 2,129
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
...and I'll use my 20,000th post to say welcome back, Pharaoh!
Finally. The real god this thread has sorely lacked for so long.
Helen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 03:46 AM   #2070
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
When do we know when the bible is symbolic and when it should be taken literally?
Well, clearly, since the Bible is true, if a passage can be shown to be literally incorrect then it must be symbolic.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 04:05 AM   #2071
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
I was on the brink of being convinced by your logic, zooterkin... but....saved by the Pharaoh!
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba

Last edited by pakeha; 16th April 2012 at 04:10 AM.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 04:43 AM   #2072
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
I think you mean omniscient.
Thank you, Mr. Know-it-all!
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 04:48 AM   #2073
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Was I the only one to misread the highlighted text as tasty humans?
And was I the only one to think of this?

Patty: [spoiler] Mr. Chambers! Don't get on that ship! The rest of the book, "To Serve Man", it's... it's a cookbook!
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 04:50 AM   #2074
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate. The only reason it seems inaccurate to some people is that either they don't see symbolism, or for example they mistake "different" accounts for "wrong" accounts.
And yet, you have failed to show that even 1 biblical prophecy was fulfilled.

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
For example one person writes of two angels being at the tomb and another writer says one. That is a different account but one does not contradict the other.
That's the very definition of a contradiction.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 04:58 AM   #2075
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Probably not, just like they don't include an explanation how Christ is the vine and we are branches and also why Christ said we are the salt of the earth.

And even today we use the terms "sunset" and "sunrise" which are symbolic.
don't forget that Jesus likened our relationship with god as that with a master slave he used the beating of slaves as an analogy for a lesson in the proper disciplinary action towards slaves.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 05:00 AM   #2076
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
That's the very definition of a contradiction.
If there were 2 angels, there must have been 1 (and another 1 as well, to be sure) Where there are 2 there must be 1. Thus say the inerrantists. Who can gainsay such reasoning?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 05:10 AM   #2077
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
If there were 2 angels, there must have been 1 (and another 1 as well, to be sure) Where there are 2 there must be 1. Thus say the inerrantists. Who can gainsay such reasoning?
I'll be sure to use that reasoning next time I report my salary on my tax forms.

"But I did earn a dollar. I wasn't saying that i ONLY earned a dollar...."
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 05:30 AM   #2078
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate. The only reason it seems inaccurate to some people is that either they don't see symbolism, or for example they mistake "different" accounts for "wrong" accounts.

You see DOC, that's the problem.
They are believers in biblical inerrancy, and admit as much. They are not objective pursuers of knowledge and understanding. They start with their conclusion (inerrancy), and then twist, distort and cherry-pick their way to it.





Also, I wish to retract the following post:

Originally Posted by X View Post
Why do you pick and choose from two completely different creation myths, DOC?
It's dishonest.

I mixed up myself on where the two creation accounts begin. DOC's selections were all from the first account. My apologies.
Although he did cherry-pick certain events, and avoided mentioning details like light and plants being created before stars. Funny how that sort of thing happens when you begin with the conclusion...
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

Last edited by X; 16th April 2012 at 05:34 AM.
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 05:39 AM   #2079
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Helen View Post
Finally. The real god this thread has sorely lacked for so long.

Resurrection!!
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2012, 05:43 AM   #2080
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Well, clearly, since the Bible is true, if a passage can be shown to be literally incorrect then it must be symbolic.
Or a metaphor, or we have to understand the cultural context or a word was translated wrong or whatever is needed to fill in the cognitive dissonance cracks formed in the believers mind.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.