nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 299:
Line 299: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 14:47, May 19, 2008
, 14:47, May 19, 2008→It's not a religion: long reply
::Regarding those scripture references, how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words? There ''is'' certainly a problem in the scripture. Earth is not round. It is spherical. It is incorrect to say that it is round. Bible sceptics do not "falsely" claim that creationists take the Bible literally. The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally? After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary. If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song? In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer. Why would Hannah state in a prayer that God does something he really doesn't? Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so. However, they tend to ignore some of those passages that give some precepts that would be considered wacky today. If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (Leviticus 19:27), mix textiles for attire (Leviticus 19:19), eat anything with blood (Leviticus 19:26) (I don't see fundamentalists objecting to restaurants serving rare steaks), women teaching men (1 Timothy 2:12), tattooing, and piercing (Leviticus 19:28). Oh, and let us not forget those many passages that justify slavery and cruel and unusual punishment. My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate, but do not represent even the norms of most Christian fundamentalists today. Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo and fundamentalists who have used the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justified racism with the Curse of Canaan. And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin and fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus. It just shows that history repeats itself and I have yet to see how the abuse of dubious Bible passages regarding moral and scientific viewpoints from today's fundamentalists differ from those in the past.
::Regarding those scripture references, how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words? There ''is'' certainly a problem in the scripture. Earth is not round. It is spherical. It is incorrect to say that it is round. Bible sceptics do not "falsely" claim that creationists take the Bible literally. The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally? After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary. If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song? In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer. Why would Hannah state in a prayer that God does something he really doesn't? Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so. However, they tend to ignore some of those passages that give some precepts that would be considered wacky today. If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (Leviticus 19:27), mix textiles for attire (Leviticus 19:19), eat anything with blood (Leviticus 19:26) (I don't see fundamentalists objecting to restaurants serving rare steaks), women teaching men (1 Timothy 2:12), tattooing, and piercing (Leviticus 19:28). Oh, and let us not forget those many passages that justify slavery and cruel and unusual punishment. My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate, but do not represent even the norms of most Christian fundamentalists today. Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo and fundamentalists who have used the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justified racism with the Curse of Canaan. And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin and fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus. It just shows that history repeats itself and I have yet to see how the abuse of dubious Bible passages regarding moral and scientific viewpoints from today's fundamentalists differ from those in the past.
::I am aware of Galileo's faithfulness to Christianity in spite of his clash with the Church, but I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. That seems quite ironic, especially considering Galileo's situation. Could you cite this assertion? In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary. The fact that the Church took those passages literally which resulted in a clash between the Bible and astronomy proves that there are passages which fundamentalists will defend in spite of scientific evidence against them, kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution! [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 22:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::I am aware of Galileo's faithfulness to Christianity in spite of his clash with the Church, but I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. That seems quite ironic, especially considering Galileo's situation. Could you cite this assertion? In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary. The fact that the Church took those passages literally which resulted in a clash between the Bible and astronomy proves that there are passages which fundamentalists will defend in spite of scientific evidence against them, kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution! [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 22:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Yes, I agree that religion is one's personal belief system, but where I disagree is that it is ''just'' that, rather than something founded on fact, such as the fact of God's existence and of God creating the universe. I don't understand your objection to religion not being the infallible Word of God "because that is too specific a description".
::: I agree that Christianity is not science. I accept that religion and science are two different concepts. I reject that science is superior to God's revealed Word.
::: I don't reject evolution "simply because it contradicts your personal beliefs". I reject it because (a) it contradicts the revealed and infallible Word of God, and (b) it contradicts scientific observations.
::: "''...it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.''": Oh? How does it show that?
::: "''Neither is evolution from an anti-theist or even anti-religious perspective.''": Agreed. But it is anti-Christian. Darwin started off believing in God, but evolutionists like Michael Ruse and Stephen Jay Gould have said that the motive behind evolution was to replace God, and that ''does'' seem to be the case with Darwin.
::: "''Evolution would have never survived in the scientific field if it had only been based on storytelling.''": Why not? I say that it has survived because it allows atheists to be "intellectually fulfilled", to quote Richard Dawkins.
::: "''Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.''": Incorrect. What experimentation can you do to see if fish changed into amphibians millions of years ago? Even if you showed today that fish ''can'' evolve into amphibians, it would still not prove that it happened millions of years ago. And the evidence today is that fish ''can't'' evolve into amphibians. That is, we understand enough about genetics to know why fish don't change into amphibians. It's only the faith of evolutionists (not evidence) that says that it did happen in the past.
::: "''Christians who use the “Genesis account” or “consider Genesis to be scientifically accurate” (call it what you want, I can’t see the difference)...''": That wasn't the distinction I was making. The distinction was between "scientifically accurate" and a "''scientific'' account".
::: "''Christians who use the “Genesis account” ... are taking a text literally that is no more than storytelling itself.''": Oh? What makes it "storytelling"? Since when does an eyewitness account count as "storytelling"?
::: "''If you are saying that this Web site (I read this[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/52/] article) reflects your personal beliefs, I’ll assume that for now (unless you state otherwise).''": You assume correctly.
::: "''However, that Web site is quite disturbing to me.''": Not surprising. Evolutionists don't like to be told they are wrong.
::: "''The site assumes that evolution “removes any clear source of authority in our lives” which is wrong. Evolution does not, in fact.''": Yet you provide no counter argument to the reasons they gave.
::: "''You may look in any scientific textbook or ask any evolutionary biologist and they will disagree with this site’s statement.''": And yet the article quoted evolutionary biologists that agreed with that point!
::: "''Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in God. And remember that Christianity is not the only belief system that describes the concept of “God”.''": Belief in evolution replaces belief in the creator God of the Bible, because the former makes the latter unneccesary, and because the former contradicts the biblical account.
::: "''You say that I have no business to state that the arguments are wrong. I never said they are wrong.''": Then what are you arguing about?
::: "''However, if you do indeed believe in what this site is saying, it goes to show that you do not have a clear understanding of evolution and thus can’t say that evolution is wrong either or even argue against it.''": Another fact-free statement of your opinion. Why would it show that? The site was largely written by scientists who learned evolution, and in some if not most cases by people who used to believe in evolution. What makes you think they don't understand it?
::: "''Arguing against evolution when you don’t understand it is bad enough but when you demonise it, it is a sign of weakness.''": You mean like the evolutionists demonise creation rather than actually address its arguments? No, creationists address the arguments of evolution. That's not "demonising" it.
::: "''Evolution is most certainly not the cause of broken lives, broken families, suicide, Nazism, or communism...''": Just because you say so? Because other articles on that web-site will back up those claims.
::: "''What makes it so twisted is that you state that saying “Genesis is a scientific account” and that “Genesis is scientifically accurate” imply two different things and that to say that Genesis is a scientific account is misleading. How exactly is this misleading and how does a different syntax (in this instance) imply something else?''": I explained that earlier, with the example of the Amazonian scientist. What's unclear about that explanation?
::: "''I am also curious to know why you accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke.''": I recall reading that somewhere once. What's so wrong with accepting that that explanation is a possibility?
::: "''So if you give the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke, you might as well bring up the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals. Why the double-standard?''": It's not a double standard at all. I accept the ''possibility'' of ''anything'' that (a) I haven't investigated, and (b) is not blatantly illogical or against known facts. I don't know a lot about the Flat Earth society, so I accept the ''possibility'' that it is a joke society, and I also accept the ''possibility'' that it's not. But just quoting their existence to me does not mean that it's not a joke society. I don't accept the possibility that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales because this is something that I know a lot more about and know that there's good reason for rejecting that idea.
::: "''you left out that I said that "if you want to accept the assumption" between the ellipsis. I said you only assume so. In an earlier post, you said about Darwin's journal entry: "How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?". Thus, you give the possibility that he lied (although, you don't support this assertion with any facts).''": An ''assumption'' and a ''possibility'' are two different things. A ''possibility'' is something that you consider ''possible'', but don't necessarily believe to be the case (but don't reject either). An ''assumption'' is something that you ''do'' believe, even if you do so without complete certainty. I pointed out that it's ''possible'' that Darwin lied, not that I think he did; that is, I made no ''assumption'' that he did.
::: "''...how does the Bible differ from any other archaic texts that describe things not known to be observed by a scientific consensus such as dragons or leviathans?''": The question is loaded, as it implies that the only things accepted from ancient texts are things that are observed by scientists. That Ceasar Augustus ruled Rome, for example, is something known only from ancient texts, not from scientific observation. Almost all ancient history is known in this way, and to that extent, there is no difference between the Bible and other ancient texts. But of course the Bible ''is'' different, in a number of ways. First, we know that the Jews went to great lengths to copy it accurately, so rather than being a distorted copy of a distorted copy of ... the original, as many ancient documents are, it is a very accurate copy of a very accurate copy of ... the original. Second, archaeologists have found evidence confirming a very large number of details mentioned in the Bible, so we know that it is a very reliable document. Third, it claims to be the testimony of the omniscient God, and there is evidence, such as consistency of authorship over at least 2,000 years and fulfilment of prophecy, that supports that claim.
::: "''... the details about Siegfried and the dragon are usually considered to be legends.''": True, they are usually ''considered'' that, but there's good reason for thinking that dragon "legends" have a basis in fact, and in particular, in dinosaurs.
::: "...how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words?''": How do I "cite" it? I'm not sure what you mean, but I did ''substantiate'' it, and you have not refuted that.
::: "''Earth is not round''": Then why did ''New Scientist'' say that it is? Answer: Because "round" is a general term that can include "spherical". That you deny this is why I say that this is playing with words.
::: "''The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally?''": Because the Psalms and the verse from 1 Samual are ''poetry'' or ''song'', not ''narrative'', like Genesis. If I said to you that it's raining cats and dogs, would you understand me to mean that it's raining very heavily, or that felines and canines are falling from the sky? Whether or not you take words literally depends on their context. The context of Psalms is that it's poetry/song. The context of Genesis 1 is that it's narrative.
::: "''After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary.''": Just like you are doing so: in order to justify their/your point of view, not because the words require that.
::: "''If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song?''": Because not every conversation, song, poem, metaphor, parable, etc. is couched in scientifically-literal terms. Why in recent times have we said that Australia rides on the sheep's back? Not because this is literally true, but because a lot of Australia's income derived from wool. This sort of thing occurs very frequently; there's nothing odd about the Bible doing it also. It's only bibliosceptics like yourself who try and make out that there's something wrong with the Bible doing so, and/or make out that one is unable to tell the difference.
::: "''In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer.''": It's a prayer in poetic form.
::: "''Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so.''": Of course. Because it does, and not in poetry.
::: "''If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (rest snipped)''": Because the Bible includes laws specific to the Jews under the Old Covenant. The laws themselves, specifying punishments for certain deeds, are no longer applicable. The principles behind some of the laws, such as God making a man and a woman, not a man and a man (a matter of ''history'', not ''law'') still apply, though. That is, God created sexual intercourse and marriage to be between a male and a female in a state of life commitment, and even though the ''law'' regarding what should happen to someone going against this is no longer applicable, the fact that this is the way we were designed is still the case.
::: "''My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate...''": Yet all the examples you quoted made no scientific claims.
::: "''Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo''": "Fundamentalists"? That term was only coined in the early 20th century, and it is not appropriate to apply it to those that opposed Galileo, as their motivation was not one of sticking to the biblical account. Rather, the ones that opposed Galileo are more like the liberal churches who today have compromised with the atheistic origins myth (evolution).
::: "''And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin...''": That wrongly presupposes that the evolutionary view is scientific.
::: "''...fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus''": I doubt that you know the meaning of "tolerance". It means to put up with something you're opposed to, not to accept all things as legitimate. And aren't you intolerant of creationism?
::: "''I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. ... Could you cite this assertion?''": See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5586/105/ here]. And for more on the whole affair, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::: "''In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary.''": I've since answered this on the Main Page discussion page. Your proof texts were all poetic passages.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)