Most people believe what they want to believe. Reality has no bearing on their lives.

Most people believe what they want to believe. Reality has no bearing on their lives.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Ah, if only it were that simple. Ever since the first philosophers people have asked, why are we here? What is our purpose?

Science tells us how, when, where, and how much but not why. Existing for the purpose of continued existence (like science teaches) is too esoteric for the masses. It is no wonderment that the lower the general intelligence of a culture, the greater role religion plays in it.

So some crafty folks come along and invented invisible gods that promised eternal bliss or damnation depending on how well you behaved.

Churches and governments both have pushed this because part of that behavior is to live within whatever government you find yourself and be a good citizen.

Science doesn't stand a chance when it comes to selling fantasy, so the masses will never accept it as long as they believe the fairy tales.

So I suppose your original statement was correct.

"Science doesn't stand a chance when it comes to selling fantasy...."

Your mythos, and it is a mythos, rests on the notion religous people can't tell fantasy from reality.

The problem, of course, is that you're attempting to convince often very reasoning and educated men they don't know the difference between shit abd shinola.

They wonder where you left your vaunted powers of observation and critical detachment. Many, many scientists are also religous, but that's a flaw in your construct YOUR fantasies won't let you acknowledge.

Chew on this, however---If it is actually the case that poor lonely science has no chance against fantasy life, then you may as well burn your libraries and pack it in.

I say "your" libraries. We barbarians will prefer to continue reading.

"The masses"....That would be me....One of us is an arrogant SOB.

"It is no wonderment that the lower the general intelligence of a culture, the greater role religion plays in it."

Yet the two fathers of the two lines that come together in modern evolutionary synthesis were both men of strong faith. Darwin nearly joined the Clergy and Gregor Mendel was a priest. In their time many religious people found that it was their duty to attempt to understand that natural world.

But because it contradicts the allegorical babblings of a bunch of made-up old books, it's been under attack since day one

Zed's points are well made. I would only add that in our day and age, the religious who have issues with science and the science minded who have trouble with religion are both narrow minded individuals with axes to grind (ones that are usually separate from science and the beliefs of religion.)

I have seen and heard such people, here on the Retort and in the real world. More often than not I find that these people thrive on an us versus them mentality. Their desperate need to belong to some group it seems can only be achieved by opposing someone else with ridicule. If one's self worth is dependent upon the belittling of another, than all the intellectual acumen at one's disposal is out shown by a stunted, childish immaturity.

Unfortunately, both the religious and the atheists have more than their share of the above.

Science versus religion is a false dichotomy.

BTW, the passage I quoted at the top of my post is amusing because it totally misunderstands the notion of allegorical. Ironically, it is those religious people who do not have to take every passage of the bible literally but can interpret it allegorically (according to the ancient traditions of exegesis) generally have no problems with evolutionary theory.

PAX

"What was it that spooked them so? Probably natural selection's lack of reassuring narrative. It lays the ruthless, godless world pretty bloody bare."

A lack of a reassuring narrative? Is that what some science zealots, like some religious zealots, are always whining about?

There cannot in any of recent science's proposed multi-verses be any place of reassuring narrative? You know that for a fact, do you?

There is no case at all to be made for the vastly more numerous occasions of potential joy than sorrow in the human experience, even in this particular universe?

Because life as we know it is often, and ultimately, tough, not gentle, God cannot exist?

Jesus taught that even if a human could be "good" enough in behaviour (follow the Law) to match God, that it wouldn't save him {to allow him to live eternally in spirit) because even to think something "evil" is enough to miss the mark, to interfere with our relationship to a "perfect" God.

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. Paul said that, "to be absent from the body" was to be "present with God."

His God rather thought that because of the spiritual law that requires death for sin (death being separation from God for missing the mark of spiritual perfection) the law of spirit which separates spiritual God from fleshly human, Paul's God thought that human free will and the possibility of reunification between God and man wasn't a bad deal, considering the alternative.

People blame the (their) human condition on some God they themselves don't think exists, and decry the unfairness of a not indifferent, but antagonistic universe as an example of why God doesn't exist.

It's the, "if God exited, my ice cream cone wouldn't melt" theology.

"Science versus religion is a false dichotomy."

Amen.

if God exited -- "God has left the building"

"existed", lmao

Your mythos, and it is a mythos, rests on the notion religous people can't tell fantasy from reality.

True. And easily proven. Either you pick and choose what the bible says is real, or you believe every word. Is the talking snake fantasy or reality?

The problem, of course, is that you're attempting to convince often very reasoning and educated men they don't know the difference between shit abd shinola.

Well, facts are they have been brainwashed from the cradle. Anyone can be brainwashed. Your god can do anything except stand up to logic. Think your god is logical?

Genesis 1:26 (King James Version)

26And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

What US is god talking about? What OUR is god talking about? Who is god talking to? If you say Jesus and the Holy Spirit--I would ask--who was Jesus's mother if Jesus was god's son?

Let's here you separate shit from shinola.

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-02 05:02 PM | Reply

When Buffalo Bob creates life from a bunch of lifeless materials in a lab I might give his version of science another look.

As it is science has never shown one fossil example to explain Transmigration of Species.

1. How did the first oganism that sprang to life know how to reproduce? Consume energy? Eliminate waste?

2. Why would or how did eyesight evolve? What would make an animal that had never had the complex function of sight whatsoever develope it? What accidental leap in evolution would create this?

3. Wings are supposed to be a product of evolution but we are told evolution takes millions of years. Since wings would create additional drag on a land animal slowing it down. Since, we know that animals do go through natural selection where the strongest and fastest survive and breed. So, how would these two things work together?

True. And easily proven. Either you pick and choose what the bible says is real, or you believe every word. Is the talking snake fantasy or reality?

Ah, the either or fallacy.

It is all real.

Some of it is real myth, others parts are real poetry, others are real law, still others are real legends and proverbs; some are real historical works.

All of it contains truth.

The real question, and one that the ancient Hebrews themselves discussed and debated, is how do you read it to understand to get at the spiritual truth?

Fundamentalists for some reason need to read it literally. Atheists who oppose them are also dependent on such readings. (Thus the false dichotomy and the either or fallacy.) Both suffer from an emotional dependency to know things absolutely and they are generally intolerant of anything that requires interpretation. They are in denial over the blurry fuzziness that surrounds all of knowing reality.

Everyone else engages the text in the act of interpretation. That is truly the divine inspirations behind it. The whole point is that the text raises questions! The raising of questions requires us to search for spiritual understanding--that is the ultimate end of scripture.

Understanding and knowing something of God begins with scripture; it does not end with it though. It
ends within us as we look.

PAX

I would say arrogance is the biggest reason that people doubt evolution.

Too arrogant to believe that humans are the product of random mutations over billions of years. It is much more in line with their arrogance to beleive that an all powerful ghost created them just the way they are.

Dirtbag, sounds like you do not have an understanding of the science behind evolution. First off evolution does not take millions of years for new features to develop. It can take a very long time but it can also happen very quickly.

And what is "transmigration of species". I've never heard anyone in the scientific fields use this phrase? Transmigration is migration to a different country or is used in a religious or spiritual context to describe a soul moving from one body to another.

Sounds to me like you are making up a new meaning for the word.

"An all-powerful ghost....."

When I was an an atheist, I didn't see the contradiction between evolution and religion. Now that I'm a Christian, I still don't.

One of us wants an elementary school concept of reality very, very badly. It's not me.

I always believed The Parable of the Talents charged us with exploring science to our capacity.

So, how would these two things work together?

Posted by dirtbagobama at 2008-08-02 07:44 PM | Reply

If you have questions--educate yourself. That's why people pay money to go to college.

Dirtbagorama

And I notice you didn't answer the questions. Did your brainwashing allow you to see them?

True. And easily proven. Either you pick and choose what the bible says is real, or you believe every word. Is the talking snake fantasy or reality?

Ah, the either or fallacy.

Posted by Grendel at 2008-08-02 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag

There are no other options if you are a believer. There is no fallacy. Your "interpretation" is just another way to say picking and choosing.

Yeah, the talking snake was real. Now, how about super-strings?

OK---Let me see if I have that straight---There is no interpretation in science? Science doesn't interpret?

Zed

Try the questions at 7:42. Did snakes have lips too?

;-)

OK---Let me see if I have that straight---There is no interpretation in science? Science doesn't interpret?

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-02 10:31 PM | Reply

Science hypothesizes, investigates, and summarizes. They don't make baseless statements about things like talking snakes unless they have actual evidence of talking snakes. Same with lizards who sell insurance.

Yeah, the talking snake was real. Now, how about super-strings?

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-02 10:29 PM | Reply

Super Strings are a hypothesis. Not an interpretation. If you could follow the math, you could make up your own mind. I concede I can't follow the math, but have confidence in those who can. But facts are, no one has knowledge of Super Strings, and no one I have read, claims such knowledge. Talking snakes on the other hand are given as real by the believers--no guessing involved. If they read the original story, they would know the talking snake was real, and how it makes sense in the original telling.

There are no other options if you are a believer. There is no fallacy. Your "interpretation" is just another way to say picking and choosing.

That is what you choose to believe so you can dismiss it easily without thinking. It is what fundamentals believe so they don't have to challenge themselves theologically.

Interpretation is not about picking and choosing what is convenient; it is about the richness of a text to lend itself to the creation of meaning.

The act of reading any text, whether fairy tale, historical tract or scientific treatise requires a partnership between writer and reader in which the text is an intermediary. Every act of reading any of these texts is an act of interpretation.

The writers of ancient Scripture knew this well. Their complex interpretations of scripture is called the midrash, in which they believed every word had at least well over 70 facets of meaning. This act of interpretation, what you disdainfully and erroneously characterize as picking and choosing, was the entire point. If you cannot accept that, then you make the error, along with the fundamentalists, of approaching scripture according to your terms not on the terms of those who wrote it.

My hunch is that you will not accept this. Your reading of scripture depends up a narrow all or nothing perspective. To accept anything otherwise would mean that the polysemous nature of the text would open for you and thus you could not simply reject it outright. Your entire worldview demands, however, that you are able to just that--reject it outright. That is a paradigm shift you are not capable of making.

PAX

That is what you choose to believe so you can dismiss it easily without thinking. It is what fundamentals believe so they don't have to challenge themselves theologically.

Interpretation is not about picking and choosing what is convenient; it is about the richness of a text to lend itself to the creation of meaning.

Posted by Grendel at 2008-08-03 12:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

You repeat the same point that has just been refuted. Interpretation is exactly picking and choosing what you believe is valid and what is false or allegorical. Let's try this. See if your giant brain can fill in thte blank.

There are two option for believers who read the bible.

1. Take it literally, every word as the word of god.

2. Pick and choose what is real and what is not real.

or--if you think there is a 3--fill it in.

3. ________________

Your reading of scripture depends up a narrow all or nothing perspective.

Actually--that is your strawman. I never said--all or nothing--only you said that. I said believe the bible is all true word for word---or pick and choose what you like. See the difference there? Look close.

;-)

In any decent biology course Dirtbag's questions would be pretty simply answered. I doubt he has taken one.

You repeat the same point that has just been refuted. Interpretation is exactly picking and choosing what you believe is valid and what is false or allegorical. Let's try this. See if your giant brain can fill in thte blank

Repeat it yes, because that is how scripture is supposed to be approached. It is not my argument; it is the position of how the ancient Hebrew writers of scripture expected it would be approached and how people for centuries have approached it.

In your mind, interpretation is somehow a failing or a shortcoming--an idea that the ancient Hebrews would have found rather odd and alien. I don't think you are able to accept that interpretation is not some kind of weakness, but the very point.

I understand why though; it would require a huge rethinking of your whole interpretation of scripture (and you do interpret) in a way that might not fit in with your long held beliefs. In this way, you are not very different from the fundamentalists you disdainfully reject.

You refuted my point? Hardly. Chose to ignore this intended and long accepted approach to scripture is more accurate.

No one likes their foundational beliefs chipped away at. Relax, BB, I won't chip away anymore at yours. I can see that your myopic view of scripture is far too important to you to allow any other understanding or way of approaching it.

Enjoy the rest of your thread.

PAX

BB,

So sorry, forgot to take your quiz. Here we go! )

There are two option for believers who read the bible.

1. Take it literally, every word as the word of god.

2. Pick and choose what is real and what is not real.

or--if you think there is a 3--fill it in.

3. That scripture should be read according to genre of the individual writings. Myth should be read as myth, history as history, poetry as poetry, legend as legend in order to get at the spiritual truth that each contains. (The important thing to remember is that ancient writers of scripture, like us, sometimes told stories and sometimes try to record history to present some truth about life. Only a fool in the library would read every book in the exact same way.)

PAX

Myth should be read as myth, history as history, poetry as poetry, legend as legend in order to get at the spiritual truth that each contains.

(The important thing to remember is that ancient writers of scripture, like us, sometimes told stories and sometimes try to record history to present some truth about life. Only a fool in the library would read every book in the exact same way.)

Thankfully the word of god is carefully labeled to avoid confusion as in a library. God would never leave a mass of confusion as a legacy.

"If you follw the math, you could make up your own mind...."

In other words, interpret. Physics or religion, you be dishonest.

"I never said all or nothing....."

But that's precisely what you did say. I'm not sure what you're up to, but I think it's just to start a fight with someone.

In other words, interpret. Physics or religion, you be dishonest.

That is the point.

The word of God would never need interpretation. It would be clear and concise not needing Rabbis, Priest, Ministers, Prophets or TV evangelist. Religion has always been a business of control starting before the authors of the bible.

"A mass of confusion....."

If I told you no one I'll see in church this morning is confused, would you merely label them simple-minded?

If I told you some of them were still working stuff out, would you blame God for being confusing?

Double-binds only serve the unfair and irrational.

"The word of God would never need interpretation...."

My dar Zap, in the next world it won't. In this world we have something called English, and before that Greek, and before that Hebrew, which do.

Then we have the complexity of this reality, which annoys unbelievers a lot more than the faithful, given how much time they spend trying to reduce human thoughts, behaviors, and emotions to the level of cartoons.

If I told you no one I'll see in church this morning is confused, would you merely label them simple-minded?

Aside from the normal percentage found in any grouping no.

Would I blame god, surely you jest.

we have something called English, and before that Greek, and before that Hebrew, which do.
Then we have the complexity of this reality

How could this possable be a problem with a god who wanted to reach us?

My dar Zap, in the next world it won't.

Really?

And what interpretation do you espire to know that of the next world?

The word of God would never need interpretation.

Really???

We all definitely have the "same" enlightened understanding.

How could this possable be a problem with a god who wanted to reach us?

God is trying to reach us????

Seems to me we are trying to reach God.

Well, Zap---God usually works within the rules he's established. You use this as evidence against the existence of God.

Now, God sometimes employs miracles, deviations from His rules, in order to make a point, and to show what's in back of the rules.

You don't believe in miracles, that's obvious. What you seem to want is a magic on demand, however.

I guess it will someday be possible to program a robot wife to be and act perfect. That is, without the requirement she learn and experience. To which I'd say, if your idea of a partner is a machine I feel really sorry for you.

Interpretation............What is the definition of is...........is

I'm pissed.................mad? drunk? Angry? Relieved?

I guess it will someday be possible to program a robot wife to be and act perfect. That is, without the requirement she learn and experience. To which I'd say, if your idea of a partner is a machine I feel really sorry for you.

LOL where did that come from?

Everyone has the fundamental idea of God, some choose to believe in God some don't.

Not everyone has the fundamental idea of evolution.

Well, Zap---God usually works within the rules he's established. You use this as evidence against the existence of God.

No Zed, you're limiting god to rules with vague wondering tales written and changed through the ages. Secondly I don't deny the possible existence of a god just the fallacy of religion, any religion.

God usually works within the rules he's established.

Really???

Now, God sometimes employs miracles, deviations from His rules...

Sounds a little contra to the first statement.

So, Who established these rules of God in which God supposedly works?

God usually works within the rules he's established.

"he's established"????

God is a he?

Wow! Who would of thought?

So, Who established these rules of God in which God supposedly works?

The bible silly, it's in the preface*.

*Only found in the lost original............

I guess it will someday be possible to program a robot wife to be and act perfect.

Well, I suppose someday we will all agree upon what perfect acting will be.

Zed looking forward to an explanation of why I want a robot wife. In the mean time I'm heading out.

The bible?

Well whisper what the rules are to me so I can whisper them to others and so on and in the end we will all have the perfect interpretation of what those rules are in perfect sameness.

"God usually works within the rules he's established."

That's not what he told me.

3. Accept it as it is, a book written by men, their interpretations of events, their spin at spiritual and religious matters.

3. That scripture should be read according to genre of the individual writings. Myth should be read as myth, history as history, poetry as poetry, legend as legend in order to get at the spiritual truth that each contains. (The important thing to remember is that ancient writers of scripture, like us, sometimes told stories and sometimes try to record history to present some truth about life. Only a fool in the library would read every book in the exact same way.)

PAX

Posted by Grendel at 2008-08-03 08:52 AM | Reply | Flag

Your 3--is picking and choosing. You just use more words to say so. You pick and choose which is myth. You pick and choose which is history. You pick and choose which is poetry, and you pick and choose which is legend.

Now, is the talking snake--poetry--history--
legend--or myth. I picked--you choose.

Then you STILL fail to answer the questions about Gen 1:26. Who was god talking to? What US is he talking abnout. What OUR was he referring to?

Zed looking forward to an explanation of why I want a robot wife....

Posted by Zap

So am I.

Secondly I don't deny the possible existence of a god just the fallacy of religion, any religion.

Amen Zap

Science does not contradict the existence of a divine being or the divinity and wisdom of existence itself. It does often dispel stories that have been created to try to explain life's mysteries.

To conclude that loss of "the story" is the absence of god is ridiculous.

To conclude that those who hold to the belief in something much greater AND embrace scientific discovery are non-believers, is the business of religion.

God is not anti-math.

Divinity is in math.

"God's a He...?"

Upset about that? Just strange.

"You pick and choose...."

I guess the problem I have with your philosophy, so-called, is that excoriate others for having exactly the bad habits you do.

You've shown you pick and choose among elements of the scientific method. I guess an alternative explanation is you don't really understand what that method is.

After I read the headline of this thread, an image of Timmy from South Park popped to mind.

"Well, someday we can all agree on what acting perfect is...."

Wouldn't be hard, really. Given "we" are just people, however, it would likely be perfectly wrong.

"So, who established those rules of God within which God supposedly works....?"

God did, necessarily. Of interest is whether He has also done reality some other way. My guess would be yes.

In physics, when you find something done "some other way", you refer to it as a singularity.

"In physics, when you find something done "some other way", you refer to it as a singularity."

Posted by Zed

[citation needed]

We welcome Zat defining a singularity. We wouldn't even require a citation. What say? Got enough grad school mojo?

(Zat often adheres to the premise that it's better to keep silent and be presumed a fool than to answer and confirm it).

"We wouldn't even require a citation."

Of course you wouldn't, you never do.

Take a math course.

Wow, Zat....So, a singularity is really THAT? My goodness, how could I have been so wrong? Thanks for clearing that up.

I promise to take a math course. In gratitude I'll send you the selected wisdom of Emily Post.

"I'll send you the selected wisdom of Emily Post."

Postcard, eh?

Didn't do well in complex variables?
Too bad.

"God's a He...?"

Upset about that? Just strange.

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-03 02:46 PM

What is strange is that you think your god has a penis. It doesn't.

You've shown you pick and choose among elements of the scientific method. I guess an alternative explanation is you don't really understand what that method is.

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-03 02:51 PM | Reply

What are you talking about? Any examples? I think your delusions are coming back.

"A postcard....?"

Pretty much all you would be able to handle without a special trainer.

Bob, did you ever, that is-in your entire life-refer to a ship or a plane as a "she"? Were you thinking vaginas at the time.

As for scientific method, talk to Zat. He's a genius, as he's fond of implying.

.......the Pope believes in evolution and he is infallible......

"One of us is an arrogant SOB.

Posted by Zed "

Of course, you meant to say "at least one".

Well, if all of us got together we could play three-handed spades, Jomama.

"Bob, did you ever, that is-in your entire life-refer to a ship or a plane as a "she"? Were you thinking vaginas at the time."

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-03 05:26 PM | Reply

Yes--I've done that many times, and I was always aware there were no genitals involved. I was just making sure you were as aware as I was that your god has the same quality of genitalia. None. But it seems you already agree your god is an It--not a Him. Sometimes when I refer to a ship, I use the term "it" also. Have you ever referred to your god that way? Truthfully,I mean--calling It an It?

As for scientific method, talk to Zat. He's a genius, as he's fond of implying.

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-03 05:26 PM | Reply |

YOU were the one who said I pick and choose--not Zat. Put up or shut up. Simple isn't it.

;-)

Unfortunately for me I continued to read this thread after Grendel's post at 1843 yesterday...everything seemed to be blah blah blah God created everything and he's Great or blah blah blah if you believe in God then you're obviously mentally handicapped.

If you happen upon this thread, do yourself a favor and refer to Grendel's above post and subsequently abandon this argument for the next 100 years or so.

The doubters are those that haven't and won't evolve. Note that the POTUS is their leader along with his Dick the VP.

Nuff said.

Who reads this crap? I just look for a good place for a zinger, and I'm off.

When I was an an atheist, I didn't see the contradiction between evolution and religion. Now that I'm a Christian, I still don't.

Because going from an Athiest to a Christian is De-evolution

Here again, the non-religious believers are forced to accept a lower-level debate to accomodate the biblical literalists, who are by statistics, of lower intelligence.

Evolution is not a scientific absolute. Just because the reigious folks think it is the opposite of what they believe, doesn't make it a proven scientific belief, it is still a theory.

Science is a process of searching and finding proofs to physical mysteries. I know of many theological mysteries that can be solved with science, but no science mysteries that can be solved with religion.

That is why we are in the dawn of the death of religion. Good riddance.

"it is still a theory"

And you're thinking of the wrong definition of theory when you say it that way.

When Buffalo Bob creates life from a bunch of lifeless materials in a lab I might give his version of science another look.

As it is science has never shown one fossil example to explain Transmigration of Species.

1. How did the first oganism that sprang to life know how to reproduce? Consume energy? Eliminate waste?

2. Why would or how did eyesight evolve? What would make an animal that had never had the complex function of sight whatsoever develope it? What accidental leap in evolution would create this?

3. Wings are supposed to be a product of evolution but we are told evolution takes millions of years. Since wings would create additional drag on a land animal slowing it down. Since, we know that animals do go through natural selection where the strongest and fastest survive and breed. So, how would these two things work together?

Posted by dirtbagobama at 2008-08-02 07:44 PM | Reply |

"God of the Gaps is an informal logical fallacy where a participant uses a lack (real or presupposed) of mundane explanation for something as evidence of supernatural intervention.

This is a fallacy because just because one is unaware of a mundane explanation, or just because a mundane explanation has not yet been found, does not mean that one does not exist. As such, it is an example of argument from ignorance."

"an example of argument from ignorance."

Well, that kinda sums up Dirtbag.

1. How did the first oganism that sprang to life know how to reproduce? Consume energy? Eliminate waste?
2. Why would or how did eyesight evolve? What would make an animal that had never had the complex function of sight whatsoever develope it? What accidental leap in evolution would create this?
3. Wings are supposed to be a product of evolution but we are told evolution takes millions of years. Since wings would create additional drag on a land animal slowing it down. Since, we know that animals do go through natural selection where the strongest and fastest survive and breed. So, how would these two things work together?

POSTED BY DIRTBAGOBAMA

I see you were home schooled Dirt..

Funny Flag

nd God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness:

The KJV was written for , obviously, King James. Royals always use the "we" instead of "I", so it would have been demeaning to God to say "Let Me...".

The Bible is riddled with re-writes, edits and inconsistencies. Just as you'd expect from the Word of God, right?

Hell, Northguy---I could re-write and edit the Bible right now. So could you. Both of us could be vandals and barbarians, and do miserable jobs.

How would that affect it being the word of God? Seems to me if reflects on us only. You do know that sterling translations exist?

We have ancient Biblical texts. What's there looks a lot like what here. In other words, consistent.

Not that you care. Or, given you went out of your way to be nasty, perhaps you care a lot?

"Just because a mundane explanation has yet to be found...."

Assumes there is always a mundane explanation, if someone were just clever enough to find it. And, if never found, it's still there regardless, right?

You guys were never interested in logic. The "Gap" thing cuts both ways. Drop your biases and begin to think.

At the risk of intensifying my already profound reputation for arrogance, it's annoying to be lectured in logic and history by people that learned just enough of either to be dangerous to themselves.

We have ancient Biblical texts. What's there looks a lot like what here. In other words, consistent.

Not so Zed. The Bible was hand written until the invention of the printing press. No two Bibles were alike and there are no originals. Then there is the matter of competing texts that didn't make it into canon. Some errors in the King James were copied out of the Septuagint and corrected in modern versions. Not consistent by any means.

No two Bibles are alike because no two translators are. There's a nifty museum in Israel dedicated to the consistency of the Bible. It's contains the dead seas scrolls.

In regards to competing texts---You are aware that new plays by Shakespeare are sometimes discovered. Some non-canonical are held by many to be authentic for long periods of time.

Their existence doesn't undermine the existence and validity of Shakespeare one bit. To think they do is, what was the genius above describing it as? A logical fallacy.

In regards to competing texts---You are aware that new plays by Shakespeare are sometimes discovered. Some non-canonical are held by many to be authentic for long periods of time.

Their existence doesn't undermine the existence and validity of Shakespeare one bit. To think they do is, what was the genius above describing it as? A logical fallacy.

LOL They have a lot in common both works of fiction.

Your analogy is very amusing, thanks....

"Works of fiction...."

That somehow find confirmation through archaeology. I know there's a mundane explanation for that, but it appears to have fallen in a "Gap".

"Works of fiction...."

That somehow find confirmation through archaeology.

"Works of fiction...."

That somehow find confirmation through archaeology.

Sorry, what does that mean? Is there a god signature somewhere?

An historical religion would of course be supported by archaeology. Sounds fairly mundane to me.

"Is there a God signature somewhere....?"

Depends on what you mean. Tell me, when the Exodus is proven as an historical event, and that's getting closer now, would that affect your attitude at all?

Tell me, when the Exodus is proven as an historical event

No unless you want to argue that 911 was gods way of inspiring the Bush war.

"No...."

Really? That's interesting. I've been exposed to years of atheists using the non-reality of Exodus as a means to debunk the Bible entirely. No points at all if it's true?

Afraid to award any points at all? My.

I've been exposed to years of atheists

Zed, I'm not a full fledged atheist.

I'm just adamantly anti-religion, any religion.

No points at all if it's true?

No none, zero zip.

I apologize for misunderstanding your point of view.

"Zero, zip...."

Is not rational.

Afraid

Not at all aren't you embarrassed asking for points?

"At the risk of intensifying my already profound reputation for arrogance, it's annoying to be lectured in logic and history by people that learned just enough of either to be dangerous to themselves."

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-04 06:50 PM | Reply

When your logic and history are flawed, you should be lectured to, and be thankful for the education.

Your history is flawed by thinking the stories of the bible originated with the Christian, Moslem, or Jewish religions.

The stories the bible is based on, all come from much older stories from other religions discarded long ago. The stories of Genesis--Adam and Eve--the Garden of Eden--the Flood--the Tower of Babel---are all poorly edited versions of much older stories. Without these stories, there is no bible.

Your logic is flawed in thinking these older stolen stories are valid for a new religion. No--they are still stories from older religions. And at that--they make much more sense then their biblical counterparts.

You continue to disregard these simple facts, as you do the questions about who god was talking to in Gen 1:26. The difficulty is because Gen 1:26 was taken directly from the older stories that contained many gods.

"Embarrassed...?"

Not for employing a rhetorical device, no.

BTW what was the deal with my wanting a robot wife?

My wife hasn't stopped laughing. I made a bad choice if that is what I wanted.

28 years and I still love her, athough she breaks my balls at every opportunity....

Bob, I've told you your point of view is old news, and it is. We've been digging cuneiform out of the wastes for years now. You act like you're the first to know.

I've actually forgotten what brilliant point I wanted to make with that robot thing. Congratulations on twenty-eight years.

"I've actually forgotten what brilliant point I wanted to make with that robot thing..

If it was brilliant please expand when you remember it sounded, frustrated.

Bob, I'm a New Testament sort of guy. Genesis helps provide background to what I believe. There's little central to me there.

"Zero, zip...."
Is not rational.

What part of you get no points if exodus was historical accurate don't you get?

Bob, I'm a New Testament sort of guy.

So we can blow off the old testament?

If some part of a story is real, then it all might be. I was hoping you might accept that.

No, can't blow off the Old Testament, if for no other reason than without it you couldn't understand the New.

Bob, I've told you your point of view is old news, and it is. We've been digging cuneiform out of the wastes for years now. You act like you're the first to know.

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-04 07:50 PM | Reply

You still fail to acknowledge the cuneiform texts. You act as if they don't exist. They show the OT to be stolen stories. The NT says that Jesus is the son of the god of the OT. If the OT is not valid--guess what?

Bob, I think I own a few of those texts. What's your point? My religion is Christ rose on the third day. You're not going to get me by attacking Genesis.

You can't have it both ways, zed.

You're not an old testament guy, but it's needed to understand the new? And if some of it is true, then it all might be?

Come on. Life started with TWO white people? I don't think so.

I mean, really...you're elevating the old testament as possibly being all true, but attacking and debunking it won't sway your opinion?

Um, huh?

If some part of a story is real, then it all might be. I was hoping you might accept that.

911 fit perfectly into the PNAC / Bush, Cheney plan for removing Saddam so 911 was a conspiracy. Buffalo Bob will be so Happy!

sorry no points.....

No, can't blow off the Old Testament, if for no other reason than without it you couldn't understand the New.

POSTED BY ZED

Got ya, like trying to decipher Harry Potter 8 without reading number 1.

Zap- come on. I may not agree with zed's particular religion in whole, but there's no reason to be completely disrespectful.

The world would be a better place if more Christians were like him.

My only objection is to the incongruity in his logic about the old testament.

Zap- come on. there's no reason to be completely disrespectful.

Hey, I really don't feel I'm being disrespectful.

I believe with my heart of hearts the bible a work of fiction.

The world would be a better place in my opinion without religion.

Thanks for the compliment, Alex. I have equal respect for you. And Zap. And that Bob, he just sort of grows on you.

So, zed...I am confused on your old testament stance. Debunking it doesn't sway you, yet you seem to give it quite a bit of reverence.

Their existence doesn't undermine the existence and validity of Shakespeare one bit. To think they do is, what was the genius above describing it as? A logical fallacy.

Posted by Zed at 2008-08-04 07:05

Flawed argument. The existence of a panoply of different biblical texts doesn't undermine the existence of original texts. The whole point of textual criticism is to get as close as possible to the original texts.

Look Zed. You're going to dodge and weave like you always do, so I'll leave it there.

"Debunking doesn't sway you...."

What's debunked? That God created exsistence, which is what Genesis is about? If you don't believe in God, the issue is moot. If you do, then there's nothing impossible.

I lost youy, Ray. I wholly agree a plethora of texts undermines nothing, including non-canonical texts. That was my point.

"There's nothing impossible...."

Gets to the nub. Are you a big universe or a little universe sort of guy? In large part faith is the transition from limitation to possibility.

Debunking....My perception of a Bible is that it is something being filled in, not subtracted from.

Someone posting here once posed the question if the Bible is valid, then why didn't God leave clues only we future people could recognize? Interestingly enough, I think I found one. But this waits another debate.

Darwin's theory of evolution was simple, beautiful, majestic and awe-inspiring..

Then why are chimpazee's still here? Where is the missing link?

Why can't this be created by science--in a lab??

Evolution is a theory and not proven and with a great many gaps and problems.

The same can be said about God or intelligent design.

Did anyone see the History Channel about the Decoding of the Exodus?

Apparently most all of the Exodus has been proven to be true.

The authors had problems getting into SA and other places for artifacts. Turkey won't let folks on Mt. Ararat (?) for the ark ship. Wonder why??

SA doesn't want the Jewish version of the Old Testament getting proven up with actual findings of history.

Someone explain the wings on ameabos? Suggest reading Pandas and People..

Then why are chimpazee's still here? Where is the missing link?

There ya go. Perfect summation of the "reasoning."