ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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.
Tags aliens , bigfoot , ghosts , religion

Reply
Old 14th April 2015, 01:50 AM   #41
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Sorry but you lost me here.

What do you think of the conclusion: the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion all gods are human fictional inventions?
I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Point #2 in my post was an attempt tp explain what I think is the evidence: that humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize and see sentient agency even where it doesn't exist, so that's why they like to imagine gods.
Pup 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 14th April 2015, 06:07 PM   #42
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,135
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
...What does bother me, however, is when I say the evidence supports the conclusion that all gods are fictional human inventions, I get accused of some kind of offensive wrongdoing. Other than that, I don't think blind spots make one not a skeptic.
I can find nothing in your post to substantially disagree with.

Originally Posted by Pup View Post
What are "skeptical tools"? I'd say common sense, knowledge of mental illness and various lesser human biases, and that kind of thing, are skeptical tools just as much as experimentation, physical evidence, and so forth.

If a real, living, literal neighbor told me he had the infamous invisible dragon in his garage, I could apply those kinds of skeptical tools and form a fairly solid opinion about whether there really was a kind of dragon in his garage.
Like I said, up to and including the scientific method. You could apply some skeptical tools to this claim, but you couldn't do science with it.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot 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 17th April 2015, 10:00 PM   #43
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla Sama View Post
God really loves people and won't let the true love be prostituted. This is why it's primarily used to bestow touch downs. No exploitation is allowed of God's true love.
Yay. A true believer.

BobR 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 17th April 2015, 10:04 PM   #44
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 395
My current theory is that God and love are synonymous and are all that exist. While I, of course, am skeptical of all of my theories, I haven't found anything that absolutely refutes this one.
BobR 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 17th April 2015, 10:13 PM   #45
BobR
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by River View Post
I believe one day religions will be looked at as one of the largest hoaxes of all time.
Religion essentially is the idea of reconnecting to whatever created us. To me, the greatest human fantasy is that we are disconnected from the whatever-that-is in the first place. Much of religion derives from that "Ur-Fantasy", and is evidence for the power of our imagination.
BobR 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 18th April 2015, 03:08 AM   #46
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,853
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
My current theory is that God and love are synonymous and are all that exist. While I, of course, am skeptical of all of my theories, I haven't found anything that absolutely refutes this one.
What do you think could possibly 'absolutely refute' it ?
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde 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 18th April 2015, 06:06 AM   #47
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
My current theory is that God and love are synonymous and are all that exist. While I, of course, am skeptical of all of my theories, I haven't found anything that absolutely refutes this one.
Then making love is the highest form of worship?
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 18th April 2015, 06:46 AM   #48
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by BobR View Post
My current theory is that God and love are synonymous and are all that exist. While I, of course, am skeptical of all of my theories, I haven't found anything that absolutely refutes this one.
Well, that eliminates the god of the bible from being the god you're talking about. Because, as we've all heard at countless weddings, Paul tells us: "love is never jealous." But, the god of the bible is a self-declared jealous god. Ergo, according to the bible, god is not synonymous with love.
jond 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 18th April 2015, 09:33 AM   #49
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
Yeah...
Let the hippie god show all his love while.cursing figtrees...
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto 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 18th April 2015, 09:51 AM   #50
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Religion was born of need, and has never brought anything but more need to the table. When you formalize a belief, you need a priesthood; before long, you find you need a bible to codify it, and then a sword to enforce it. Recognizing the innate need is one thing; attending to it as if it's its own separate creature that needs feeding is to make a monster of it.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 18th April 2015 at 11:05 AM. Reason: clarify and grammar
turingtest 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 18th April 2015, 10:03 AM   #51
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Religion was born of need, and has never brought anything but more need to the table. When you formalize a belief, you need a priesthood; before long, you find you need a bible, and then a sword to enforce it. Recognizing the innate need is one thing; attending to it as if it's its own separate creature that needs feeding it to make a monster of it.
Nicely put. The wolf you feed. The creed you heed.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 18th April 2015, 10:06 AM   #52
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
Nicely put. The wolf you feed. The creed you heed.
Even more nicely put.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 18th April 2015, 11:05 AM   #53
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Well, that eliminates the god of the bible from being the god you're talking about. Because, as we've all heard at countless weddings, Paul tells us: "love is never jealous." But, the god of the bible is a self-declared jealous god. Ergo, according to the bible, god is not synonymous with love.
I think you'd probably need to actually read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments before you can form an intelligent statement about it.

What you have done is make a blanket statement without really learning your source. The "jealous God" part comes from the Old Testament, and essentially makes the then popular concept of polytheism to be considered as wrong. Pointing to the need to only worship one God instead of many. At this time "one God" was a completely new concept.

The other part you mention about "love" comes from the New Testament, you know the other book of the Bible modern Christians use because of Jesus and stuff. There is a staggering difference in the teachings of the 2 books. Many of the teachings of the Old Testament were reversed in the New.

Divorce would be one example of reversed teachings. Moses said a man that was not happy with his wife could simply write her a bill of divorce, put it in her hand and send her from his home. Later, in the book of Mark we find: "What God has joined together let no man put asunder".

The New Testament does seem to be largely about love and understanding of God likely designed to attract followers. The Old Testament seems to point to the fear of God to retain followers. "Worship God or else" kinda stuff. Of course one must take into account the people during that time period were likely far more primitive. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 18th April 2015, 11:54 AM   #54
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I think you'd probably need to actually read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments before you can form an intelligent statement about it.

What you have done is make a blanket statement without really learning your source. The "jealous God" part comes from the Old Testament, and essentially makes the then popular concept of polytheism to be considered as wrong. Pointing to the need to only worship one God instead of many. At this time "one God" was a completely new concept.

The other part you mention about "love" comes from the New Testament, you know the other book of the Bible modern Christians use because of Jesus and stuff. There is a staggering difference in the teachings of the 2 books. Many of the teachings of the Old Testament were reversed in the New.

Divorce would be one example of reversed teachings. Moses said a man that was not happy with his wife could simply write her a bill of divorce, put it in her hand and send her from his home. Later, in the book of Mark we find: "What God has joined together let no man put asunder".

The New Testament does seem to be largely about love and understanding of God likely designed to attract followers. The Old Testament seems to point to the fear of God to retain followers. "Worship God or else" kinda stuff. Of course one must take into account the people during that time period were likely far more primitive. Chris B.
Jesus claims to be saving a place at his father's house. Who is that father if not the jealous god of the Old Testament?
jond 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 18th April 2015, 12:24 PM   #55
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Jesus claims to be saving a place at his father's house. Who is that father if not the jealous god of the Old Testament?
A schizophrenic god defined by changing (human) necessities?
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 18th April 2015 at 12:25 PM. Reason: clarify
turingtest 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 18th April 2015, 12:28 PM   #56
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
A schizophrenic god defined by changing (human) necessities?
That, or a work of fiction.
jond 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 18th April 2015, 12:41 PM   #57
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by jond View Post
That, or a work of fiction.
Yep; a badly collated body of fictions.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 18th April 2015, 12:46 PM   #58
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Yep; a badly collated body of fictions.
Much more accurate, yes.
jond 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 19th April 2015, 01:00 PM   #59
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Jesus claims to be saving a place at his father's house. Who is that father if not the jealous god of the Old Testament?
That's the trick. The teachings of Jesus now portrayed God as a loving God. Instead of jealous and vengeful as in the Old Testament. He "changed" the game. Now Heaven was not only reserved for the Hebrews, but it was for everyone who believed. And all "God" really wanted was return of his love for the people.

The people had changed (become more civilized for lack of a better descriptor) and therefore they needed a new improved outlook on religion. At the time of the Old Testament, they needed to be fearful of God to keep Mosaic Law in mind. As time passed and the people learned to live by and follow the law by choice Jesus pops in and changes things up a bit, quite a bit.

In effect even though the same supreme being, God is now portrayed as being completely different in the New Testament. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 19th April 2015, 01:45 PM   #60
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Yep; a badly collated body of fictions.
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Much more accurate, yes.
I don't know about that. The Bible is a good source of study for military battle strategies. Some of the battles portrayed in the Old Testament are verified in the other culture's side of the time as well.

One example that I can think of is the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. It's discussed in 2 Kings 19 in detail. Verse 35 is the clincher. The Assyrians lost 185,000 troops in one night. Effectively ending the siege.

Regardless of the reason of their defeat, the battle is discussed on Assyrian clay tablets from the period. So a cross reference of the Hebrew culture with the Assyrian culture on the other side of the battle check out. In effect, it happened.

Now that doesn't mean every miracle in the Old and New Testaments are not open for interpretation, but it is a good indication that the book is an accurate account of events. (Though some interpretations of those events may seem more miraculous to the faithful). "Pillars of fire" were likely just a tornado etc. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 19th April 2015, 01:57 PM   #61
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
That's the trick. The teachings of Jesus now portrayed God as a loving God. Instead of jealous and vengeful as in the Old Testament. He "changed" the game. Now Heaven was not only reserved for the Hebrews, but it was for everyone who believed. And all "God" really wanted was return of his love for the people.

The people had changed (become more civilized for lack of a better descriptor) and therefore they needed a new improved outlook on religion. At the time of the Old Testament, they needed to be fearful of God to keep Mosaic Law in mind. As time passed and the people learned to live by and follow the law by choice Jesus pops in and changes things up a bit, quite a bit.

In effect even though the same supreme being, God is now portrayed as being completely different in the New Testament. Chris B.
Except that Jesus said that he wasn't there to change one bit of the laws. Further, many Christians use the Old Testament to, for instance, justify their bigotry of gays. Or scream when secular types try to get the 10 commandments out of our government. When it suits them, they reference it as quickly as the New Testament.

If the same book can be interpreted as differently as, say you and BobR's (god is love) or PaulBethke's hateful interpretation, or many of the members of the US senate, or the Westboro Baptists, well, it seems to me that there is no reason to take any of those interpretations seriously, and instead treat the book as the fiction that it is. Sure, there may be some good bits in it, just as there are good bits in the Harry Potter books. But the problem is no one is making laws based on their personal interpretation if Harry Potter, nor are people justifying killing other people because they don't believe in Harry Potter.
jond 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 19th April 2015, 02:00 PM   #62
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I don't know about that. The Bible is a good source of study for military battle strategies. Some of the battles portrayed in the Old Testament are verified in the other culture's side of the time as well.

One example that I can think of is the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. It's discussed in 2 Kings 19 in detail. Verse 35 is the clincher. The Assyrians lost 185,000 troops in one night. Effectively ending the siege.

Regardless of the reason of their defeat, the battle is discussed on Assyrian clay tablets from the period. So a cross reference of the Hebrew culture with the Assyrian culture on the other side of the battle check out. In effect, it happened.

Now that doesn't mean every miracle in the Old and New Testaments are not open for interpretation, but it is a good indication that the book is an accurate account of events. (Though some interpretations of those events may seem more miraculous to the faithful). "Pillars of fire" were likely just a tornado etc. Chris B.
Adam and Eve aren't real. The flood didn't happen. Nor did the exodus. Jesus existence is very much in question. Many fictional books describe real events. They're still fiction.
jond 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 19th April 2015, 02:18 PM   #63
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Except that Jesus said that he wasn't there to change one bit of the laws. Further, many Christians use the Old Testament to, for instance, justify their bigotry of gays. Or scream when secular types try to get the 10 commandments out of our government. When it suits them, they reference it as quickly as the New Testament.

If the same book can be interpreted as differently as, say you and BobR's (god is love) or PaulBethke's hateful interpretation, or many of the members of the US senate, or the Westboro Baptists, well, it seems to me that there is no reason to take any of those interpretations seriously, and instead treat the book as the fiction that it is. Sure, there may be some good bits in it, just as there are good bits in the Harry Potter books. But the problem is no one is making laws based on their personal interpretation if Harry Potter, nor are people justifying killing other people because they don't believe in Harry Potter.
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Adam and Eve aren't real. The flood didn't happen. Nor did the exodus. Jesus existence is very much in question. Many fictional books describe real events. They're still fiction.
Ah, I see. If you choose to accept the book is fiction that's great for you but you should know you're at least wrong in part as some of it (as referenced above) has been proven to be accurate and is still being used today for purposes other than religion. That's how they find those lost cities, location clues from the Bible.

So you're saying those parts may be true but the rest is fiction? It's not a requirement to believe the Bible is fiction to not follow it. You can simply choose not to live by it. There's really no need to attack it by making statements as "it's all fiction" When in fact it has already been proven to be historically accurate many times in many cases. Are there stories told about common people in the Bible? Certainly, perhaps they're true (most likely), perhaps they're not but all have some sort of message or teaching at the end. A good method to teach is it not?

There's alot missing from the Bible as well. It's not all there as some books were not included. If you want to test a preacher ask him where the Land of Knod is.

Perhaps you'd need every story in the Bible to be checked out as legit.
lol. Faith is a choice, not a requirement. If you think I'm a Christian, you'd be wrong. But I have studied the texts of the Bible in great detail. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 19th April 2015, 02:34 PM   #64
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Ah, I see. If you choose to accept the book is fiction that's great for you but you should know you're at least wrong in part as some of it (as referenced above) has been proven to be accurate and is still being used today for purposes other than religion. That's how they find those lost cities, location clues from the Bible.

So you're saying those parts may be true but the rest is fiction? It's not a requirement to believe the Bible is fiction to not follow it. You can simply choose not to live by it. There's really no need to attack it by making statements as "it's all fiction" When in fact it has already been proven to be historically accurate many times in many cases. Are there stories told about common people in the Bible? Certainly, perhaps they're true (most likely), perhaps they're not but all have some sort of message or teaching at the end. A good method to teach is it not?

There's alot missing from the Bible as well. It's not all there as some books were not included. If you want to test a preacher ask him where the Land of Knod is.

Perhaps you'd need every story in the Bible to be checked out as legit.
lol. Faith is a choice, not a requirement. If you think I'm a Christian, you'd be wrong. But I have studied the texts of the Bible in great detail. Chris B.
No, what I'm saying is that many fictional books contain real events and people. The bible is no exception. There are good messages in the bible, and there are bad messages too. But treating the book as factual, when it isn't, leads to things like the alarmingly large number of people in the USA who believe the flood really happened. And the laws that are being passed currently by people who use the bible to justify bigotry are a big problem.

It's been 30 years since I read the bible in college, but that was what cemented my acceptance that I'm an atheist. I'm sure you've studied the texts in detail, as have many others here, and once again we can look at how different your interpretation is from another poster, and ask ourselves if maybe the problem is with the text and not the poster.
jond 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 19th April 2015, 02:41 PM   #65
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
If you want to test a preacher ask him where the Land of Knod is.
Never heard of it. Are you talking about the Land of Nod, east of Eden where Cain went? I thought that was well known by people who study that kind of thing.

Edited to add: I googled, and Land of Knod seems to be a very rarely used alternate spelling, for example: https://books.google.com/books?id=fl...nod%22&f=false I could only find a few hits like that. Is the spelling with the silent K closer to the original Hebrew? Where did that spelling come from?

Quote:
Perhaps you'd need every story in the Bible to be checked out as legit.
lol. Faith is a choice, not a requirement. If you think I'm a Christian, you'd be wrong. But I have studied the texts of the Bible in great detail. Chris B.
The problem is that the Bible is full of inaccuracies in its basic premises, from God creating the earth to Jesus performing miracles. It really is like saying Harry Potter has a lot of real things in it, because there's an England, and children do customarily go to school, and there are owls and trains and such, so each part should be checked out. Well, one could do that, showing how close each section comes to reality or what real thing it's based on. The basic story, though, of either Harry Potter or the Bible, isn't about something real, and that colors everything in it.

Last edited by Pup; 19th April 2015 at 02:48 PM.
Pup 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 19th April 2015, 02:59 PM   #66
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Later, in the book of Mark we find: "What God has joined together let no man put asunder".
It looks like you prefer the King James version so we'll use that.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

All you actually have is a paraphrasing of Genesis 1:27 with Mark 10:6 and a paraphrasing of Genesis 2:24 with Mark 10:7. Then you have an emphasis of the phrase "they shall be one flesh" with Mark 10:8 and 9. I'm not seeing any reversal.
barehl 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 19th April 2015, 02:59 PM   #67
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by jond View Post
No, what I'm saying is that many fictional books contain real events and people. The bible is no exception. There are good messages in the bible, and there are bad messages too. But treating the book as factual, when it isn't, leads to things like the alarmingly large number of people in the USA who believe the flood really happened. And the laws that are being passed currently by people who use the bible to justify bigotry are a big problem.

It's been 30 years since I read the bible in college, but that was what cemented my acceptance that I'm an atheist. I'm sure you've studied the texts in detail, as have many others here, and once again we can look at how different your interpretation is from another poster, and ask ourselves if maybe the problem is with the text and not the poster.
Well, the problem is always the interpretation. Two different views can arise from the same passage. As is usually the case when one uses stories to teach.

Some obviously were mentioned in or borrowed from other cultures. You mentioned the flood, likely that was borrowed from the epic if Gilgamesh, but there is also another way of looking at it. Could Noah have taken part in the same flood? Entirely possible either scenerio as Noah would have been contemporary with the time of the flood mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Obviously we're not talking about a Worldwide event. But to the ancients, it really was their World that was flooded, so to them in writing of the event they would have certainly thought it was a Global event. (Even though we know better, likely after being washed out to Sea, the ancients would have been horrified and under the impression the World was completely gone under the water.) We can understand and agree though that there was likely a real flood that ended many lives in that area, but it certainly didn't end the World.

Remember, we're talking about scribblings of the ancients. They likely weren't as sharp as modern folks, but the lessons are pretty good though regardless.
I don't think we'll find Noah's Ark on Ararat, but there was likely a boat on a hillside somewhere within a couple thousand miles of Mesopotamia.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 19th April 2015, 03:08 PM   #68
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,710
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post

Remember, we're talking about scribblings of the ancients. They likely weren't as sharp as modern folks
I think that this is an incredibly condescending view. The ancients were just as sharp, and probably in some ways much sharper than you or I. Think of what "the ancients" accomplished with lesser technology, for example.
carlitos 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 19th April 2015, 03:15 PM   #69
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Well, the problem is always the interpretation. Two different views can arise from the same passage. As is usually the case when one uses stories to teach.

Some obviously were mentioned in or borrowed from other cultures. You mentioned the flood, likely that was borrowed from the epic if Gilgamesh, but there is also another way of looking at it. Could Noah have taken part in the same flood? Entirely possible either scenerio as Noah would have been contemporary with the time of the flood mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Obviously we're not talking about a Worldwide event. But to the ancients, it really was their World that was flooded, so to them in writing of the event they would have certainly thought it was a Global event. (Even though we know better, likely after being washed out to Sea, the ancients would have been horrified and under the impression the World was completely gone under the water.) We can understand and agree though that there was likely a real flood that ended many lives in that area, but it certainly didn't end the World.

Remember, we're talking about scribblings of the ancients. They likely weren't as sharp as modern folks, but the lessons are pretty good though regardless.
I don't think we'll find Noah's Ark on Ararat, but there was likely a boat on a hillside somewhere within a couple thousand miles of Mesopotamia.
Chris B.
The things is: floods happen. Earthquakes happen. Gods have nothing to do with these things. The problem with the stories is that people, today, still believe that accepting gays is causing earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc. all because they believe the bible is true. People pass laws based on their interpretation of the bible. You clearly don't see this as a problem. I, obviously, do.

Why is your interpretation more valid than Bethke's?
jond 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 19th April 2015, 03:18 PM   #70
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,710
Originally Posted by jond View Post

Why is your interpretation more valid than Bethke's?
I seriously doubt that Chris knows who Bethke is. Is that the guy that was going to blind people and make the World Cup field in South Africa turn brown?
carlitos 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 19th April 2015, 03:36 PM   #71
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I seriously doubt that Chris knows who Bethke is. Is that the guy that was going to blind people and make the World Cup field in South Africa turn brown?
That's the one. His current thread is, um, alarming....
jond 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 19th April 2015, 04:05 PM   #72
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,710
How about a link for chris' my benefit?
carlitos 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 19th April 2015, 04:52 PM   #73
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Sorry, I'm on my iPad. It's the "the end" thread in R&P.
jond 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 19th April 2015, 05:42 PM   #74
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
How about a link for chris' my benefit?
Here you go. Be aware, there's some pretty hair-raising stuff in there. Maybe there really was a Noah to back up Bethke's worldview.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 19th April 2015, 05:49 PM   #75
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Never heard of it. Are you talking about the Land of Nod, east of Eden where Cain went? I thought that was well known by people who study that kind of thing.

Edited to add: I googled, and Land of Knod seems to be a very rarely used alternate spelling, for example: https://books.google.com/books?id=fl...nod%22&f=false I could only find a few hits like that. Is the spelling with the silent K closer to the original Hebrew? Where did that spelling come from?



The problem is that the Bible is full of inaccuracies in its basic premises, from God creating the earth to Jesus performing miracles. It really is like saying Harry Potter has a lot of real things in it, because there's an England, and children do customarily go to school, and there are owls and trains and such, so each part should be checked out. Well, one could do that, showing how close each section comes to reality or what real thing it's based on. The basic story, though, of either Harry Potter or the Bible, isn't about something real, and that colors everything in it.
Different sources will have alternate spellings. Knod is closer to the original Hebrew though and why I use that one. To be really accurate it'd need to be spelled "Kn d" but that would throw off the pronunciation for most. It's pronounced exactly the same though. It's a sticky subject for preachers as the book that explains the land of Knod and how it came to be was not included in the books of the Bible.

It also leads to alternate theories about other folks that were not discussed in Genesis and how they came to be. After all, we start with Adam and Eve then poof somehow there's this other land where guys are fleeing and taking wives from that we've heard nothing about previously.

Keep in mind the story of creation is an attempt by primitive man to explain how things came to be. While the Bible has historically accurate facts in it, it's also a book of stories, stories with a purpose to teach. We know everything began with a big bang. Exactly what caused that bang is still a mystery though...

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 19th April 2015, 06:01 PM   #76
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
It looks like you prefer the King James version so we'll use that.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

All you actually have is a paraphrasing of Genesis 1:27 with Mark 10:6 and a paraphrasing of Genesis 2:24 with Mark 10:7. Then you have an emphasis of the phrase "they shall be one flesh" with Mark 10:8 and 9. I'm not seeing any reversal.
Actually the King James version is a terrible Bible to study. It is the most commonly quoted though at weddings. The better edition to read from would be a revised standard edition as it is translated from older texts in the Hebrew directly to modern English.

I said previously the status on divorce was changed. Mosaic law (Old Testament) allows for a man to divorce his wife by writing her a bill of divorce , placing it in her hand and sending her out from his home. In Mark 10 1-12 Jesus discusses divorce when asked and it is not OK anymore......
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 19th April 2015, 06:17 PM   #77
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by jond View Post
The things is: floods happen. Earthquakes happen. Gods have nothing to do with these things. The problem with the stories is that people, today, still believe that accepting gays is causing earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc. all because they believe the bible is true. People pass laws based on their interpretation of the bible. You clearly don't see this as a problem. I, obviously, do.

Why is your interpretation more valid than Bethke's?
Ridiculous. If someone does not accept Gays because of their religion so what of it? Are you required to accept everything you find personally offensive? Isn't that kind of overbearing? You know, kinda like imposing your personal beliefs onto someone else? Why?

Is it important to be accepted by every single person or group on the Planet? Nope, not at all. If that's one's expectation, someone is setting themselves up for a big disappointment.

Christians do tend to frown on Gays, because it's outlined specifically in Leviticus in the Bible (I'm not certain of the exact verse). "He that lays down with a man as he would a woman shall surely burn in Hell" So , I'd kinda expect them to have a dim view of the subject. Should they reject Gays from attending their Church? Obviously not but why on Earth would someone want to attend with them in the first place? It's like boys fighting a court battle to be allowed to be in Girl Scouts. It is truly a strange World. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 19th April 2015, 06:33 PM   #78
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Ridiculous. If someone does not accept Gays because of their religion so what of it? Are you required to accept everything you find personally offensive? Isn't that kind of overbearing? You know, kinda like imposing your personal beliefs onto someone else? Why?
...
This is ridiculous; it's the same old superficial "you're as bad as a bigot if you oppose their bigotry" argument. You do know what a false equivalency is, right? Do you think jond is requiring that his personal abhorrences be written into law? That would be overbearing, huh? Christians who abhor gay people on religious grounds are not personally barred by any law from doing so- no one requires them to accept gay people into their homes or churches. But they cannot have their intolerance enshrined as law outside home or church either; that's not exercising a right of religious freedom, it's demanding a privilege.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 19th April 2015, 06:44 PM   #79
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
This is ridiculous; it's the same old superficial "you're as bad as a bigot if you oppose their bigotry" argument. You do know what a false equivalency is, right? Do you think jond is requiring that his personal abhorrences be written into law? That would be overbearing, huh? Christians who abhor gay people on religious grounds are not personally barred by any law from doing so- no one requires them to accept gay people into their homes or churches. But they cannot have their intolerance enshrined as law outside home or church either; that's not exercising a right of religious freedom, it's demanding a privilege.
We're not talking about law, we're talking about religion. You know a choice. If someone's lifestyle conflicts with their religion . Find another! Problem solved.

I know a guy that went to a church once for "Revival" on the invitation of a friend. He told me about halfway thru the services they brought out snakes. He left and never went back, you know because he didn't have to.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY 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 19th April 2015, 06:59 PM   #80
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
We're not talking about law, we're talking about religion. You know a choice. If someone's lifestyle conflicts with their religion . Find another! Problem solved.

I know a guy that went to a church once for "Revival" on the invitation of a friend. He told me about halfway thru the services they brought out snakes. He left and never went back, you know because he didn't have to.
Chris B.
Then we're talking about irrelevancies. Knock yourself out.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

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 05:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.