|
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. |
15th April 2012, 08:16 PM | #2041 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
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 |
|
15th April 2012, 08:16 PM | #2042 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
|
__________________
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) |
|
15th April 2012, 08:19 PM | #2043 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
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 |
|
15th April 2012, 08:23 PM | #2044 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
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
|
__________________
"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 |
|
15th April 2012, 08:39 PM | #2045 |
Slide Rulez 4 Life
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
15th April 2012, 08:46 PM | #2046 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
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 |
|
15th April 2012, 09:54 PM | #2047 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
15th April 2012, 09:59 PM | #2048 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
|
15th April 2012, 10:14 PM | #2049 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
15th April 2012, 10:16 PM | #2050 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
15th April 2012, 10:22 PM | #2051 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Yes. That is my claim. If a book is the inspired word of god, it should be verifiably true and accurate.
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. In which case, it wouldn't have been the product of divine inspiration. 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 |
|
15th April 2012, 10:23 PM | #2052 |
Adelaidean
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
|
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? |
__________________
|
|
15th April 2012, 10:34 PM | #2053 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 12:31 AM | #2054 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
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"? About ancient meteorites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteori...tes_in_history Would you care to give us references to those replies, please? As a courtesy to new readers. |
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba |
|
16th April 2012, 02:47 AM | #2055 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
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. |
16th April 2012, 02:55 AM | #2056 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
|
16th April 2012, 03:03 AM | #2057 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
|
16th April 2012, 03:05 AM | #2058 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
|
16th April 2012, 03:12 AM | #2059 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 03:13 AM | #2060 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 03:17 AM | #2061 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 03:20 AM | #2062 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
That lying maroon Geisler and his buddies are a lot of things, but inerrant most certainly isn't one of them. 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. Except that that's exactly what it's doing. Two different accounts of a single event is, by definition, a contradiction. This rubbish doesn't even qualify as weaseling - it's just complete balderdash This insight comes from your exrensive knowledge of ancient and modern languages, does it? How many languages are you literate in, DOC? 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? 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. 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 |
|
16th April 2012, 03:27 AM | #2063 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
Are these statements allegorical or literal and how do we tell? 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 |
|
16th April 2012, 03:27 AM | #2064 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
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. |
16th April 2012, 03:29 AM | #2065 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
DOC's back!
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? 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? 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 |
|
16th April 2012, 03:30 AM | #2066 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
16th April 2012, 03:35 AM | #2067 |
Mostly harmless
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 03:43 AM | #2068 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
16th April 2012, 03:45 AM | #2069 |
Implicitly explicit
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here. Or very nearly getting there, at least.
Posts: 2,129
|
|
16th April 2012, 03:46 AM | #2070 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 04:05 AM | #2071 |
Penultimate Amazing
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 04:43 AM | #2072 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
|
16th April 2012, 04:48 AM | #2073 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
|
16th April 2012, 04:50 AM | #2074 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 04:58 AM | #2075 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 05:00 AM | #2076 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
|
16th April 2012, 05:10 AM | #2077 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th April 2012, 05:30 AM | #2078 |
Slide Rulez 4 Life
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
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: 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 |
|
16th April 2012, 05:39 AM | #2079 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
16th April 2012, 05:43 AM | #2080 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|