Re: What's the Problem?


Cheezits wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cheezits wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cheezits wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cheezits wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[etc.]
You're assuming that you know all about the authors of the
Bible.

And you're not? :-D I know they were human beings, and that
they did not have a modern scientific background. Feel free to
point out where I'm wrong.

So far, so good. But, you went way beyond that to conclude that
they knew nothing more about God than you.

There is no good reason to suppose that they did, or that anyone
else does.

I still haven't seen a good reason. You probably feel that you have.

They wrote the Bible, yes? Then, there is a good reason to suppose
that they did, especially when the Bible has supernatural aspects to
it.

So does Greek mythology have supernatural aspects to it.

Having supernatural aspects to it by itself means little. In this
aspect, it is all about the credibility of authorship.


These aspects include accurate prophecy that would take millions
of dollars and modern special effects to fake.

I can't imagine what special effects have to do with prophecy. I'll
leave this discussion for the other posts where you go into detail.

How do you fake a prophecy about a dead man walking out of a grave,
being seen by hundreds, and fooling the Roman and Jewish authorities?
Special effects. But, they didn't have special effects back then,
so...


They include knowledge
of scientific facts well before there was science to begin with.

Having seen what you consider their knowledge of scientific facts, I
consider this all the more reason to doubt that the Bible was inspired by
anyone with omniscience.

Let's keep the inuendo to a minimum please.


So, either the Biblical authors got phenomenally, coincidentally lucky
or they knew what they were talking about.

They clearly were only talking about things that they either knew or
believed. There is nothing phenomenally lucky about coming up with a
book of poetry and myths that reflect the knowledge of their time.

Testifying about a dead man coming back to life is far more than
"knowledge of their time".


You are, after all, talking about a being that is supposedly
outside space and time and not observable.

Unless He makes Himself observable and knowable.

Which he hasn't. Nobody seems to be observing him these days.

You need to physically see something before believing it?

People in Biblical times supposedly saw God. And there is no effect
happening today that can unambiguously be attributed to God, so please
don't keep trying to claim that your belief is "just like believing in
gravity". We have already seen that that is not true, and no amount of
rationalization can support such an argument. You would be better off
dropping it completely.

I'll try again. Do you need to physically see something before
believing it?


If God just sat back
and never interceded into the affairs of mankind, then that would
be true. But, if God allows us to know Him in a very limited way,
as we can positively handle such knowledge, then we can know Him.

A lot of ifs that go nowhere. People claim to know God, then go on
to spew the sort of rubbish that we get from Pat Robertson and his
ilk. I can not trust their judgement.

Well, I might have to agree with you concerning Pat Robertson.
Although, didn't he just announce that he believes in global warming?
Certainly, that would lend something to his credibility.

No, it just means that some people have to be hit over the head before
they will accept reality. And I suspect he believes it for the wrong
reasons. I've heard people who ought to know better say that they think
global warming is a myth just because we got a few cold days in a row.
You can't detect it just by looking at your thermometer for a week.

As I said, I have no reason to believe that any religious fanatic
actually has access to an infinite source of knowledge, or any claim to
enlightenment. The evidence says the opposite.

What evidence?


What we can't know about is God, or heaven or
any of that other stuff that fundies are always going on about
as if they had been there.
[etc.]
If you saw one of those "fundies" walking the walk (feeding the
hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the downtrodden), would you
feel differently?

No. I would feel that they were acting on their desire to help
people. Much the same way non-Christians might do the same. Feeding
the hungry does not indicate that someone knows diddly-squat about
God. More likely, it means they know what being hungry is about.

But, what if their nature was to be extremely selfish and not feed the
hungry? What if their nature, including any empathy, was dead set
against feeding the hungry and they did so anyway? Would that not
saying something about the forces at work in their lives?

It would say that they believe they should be feeding people. It does
not indicate that they know anything about God.

Hello? The question is WHY would they feed those people unless they
have been influenced to do so.


[etc.]
I don't see design by faith. My faith came about because of the
design that I have seen.

I find that rather unlikely.

Well, maybe if you knew me better.

I've seen the arguments that you have used to defend the idea that
everything is designed, and I haven't seen anything that isn't based on
fallacy.

You must have missed the talk about the hard numbers involved with
getting the first stand of DNA to work.


And there are scientists who have become,
and remained, a Christian because of science's discoveries.

Do you have a pointer to some evidence for this?

OK. Time to Google, as I don't keep lists like this on my computer.

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

Just looking over these pages, they seem to be a list of scientists who
are/were Christians. It doesn't say *why* they were believers, so it
doesn't provide said evidence.

Well, I guess you'd have to call them up...just to make sure. After
all, you just might be missing something. Isn't it worth a quick phone
call, especially since we are talking about the possibility of an
eternity in a very bad place?


[etc.]
If evolutionary theory is accurate, then it
explains how life forms arose from previous forms. It says
nothing about how the universe formed.

Maybe you need to stay after class and write the above 100 times.

I never said that it did.


Evolution gives no
explanation for why evolution exists, in other words! That is a
whole other subject.

Got it now?

Maybe.

Would it kill you to just admit you were wrong? :-D

But the two theories would have to mesh perfectly if they are both
correct. They don't mesh.


But, the all theories have to mesh and jive with each others
if all are accurate.
[deleted irrelevant stuff]

50 more times, and clap the erasers when you're done.

[etc.]
I'm not talking about what various scientists believe about the Bible
or your own private experiences. I was referring to theories they
may have about how the universe came into being, based on what we
know of physics, astronomy, etc.

Wonderful. No problem. But, I am including in my analysis that which
they summarily dismiss from consideration.

If someone is working out a theory of the origins of the universe, then
why the heck wouldn't he summarily dismiss your personal experiences?

Not my personal experiences. He dismisses from possibility any divine
source and forces the conclusion of Big Bang, abiogenesis, and
evolution even when the data points away from them.

And he can hardly be expected to consider the Bible as evidence, just
because some people happen to believe it's divinely inspired.

No problem. He doesn't need to consider the Bible as scientific
evidence. He can just analyze the universe and life on this planet by
themselves.


[etc.]
When a Christian murders in cold blood, he does so in
spite of what the Bible teaches. When an atheist
desires to murder in cold blood...
[etc.]
Then if an atheist commits murder, he does it in spite of his own
prohibitions against it. No different from what you asserted about a
Christian.

Then, yes.

Presumably you won't be using statements like the above anymore.

But, the atheist, who has deemed murder offensive, does so for no
reasons other than because he feels like it.


I was just pointing out how the source of his own morals (himself)
has inherent problem due to subjective nature of that source that
the source of mine (Bible) does not.

You consider it an inherent problem, but have not shown any
convincing reason why it's a problem for anyone else.

It can be a problem when the person with a moral code with a
subjective nature has a code which totally contradicts the subjective
moral code of another.

This is one of those hypotheticals that seems to have little basis in
reality.

What?!? Everyone who does not subscribe to some source trancendent to
themselves for the definitions of morality look to their own subjective
feelings to create their moral code. That means every atheist,
agnostic, secular humanist, etc. There are millions of them.
Completely reality and not hypothetical.


in that case, who is right? In that case, can
either of them be right?

You might as well ask the same question of Christians who don't agree on
some particular point. The problem is no different.

You didn't answer, probably because you cannot answer this question.
Your not being able to answer shows the illogical nature and immediate
bankruptcy of humanistic moral codes.


[etc.]
Sometimes I see fundies talking about morals as if
they would rather be going around on a killing spree or something,
but the Big Guy said not to. I wonder sometimes if they really
feel that way.

And I wonder more than ever now.

Well, get to know those fundies and your fears will probably be
relieved.

Your own statements haven't dispelled anything. You did say you might
feel good beating up a child molester.

Yep. Given your morality based on only how you feel, I can see why a
convicted child molester, or any criminal, would love to have you as an
"empathatic" judge.


As if the idea of hurting someone else has NEVER entered your
mind.

Hurting someone is a different thing. And I rarely want to do
that either. What would be the point?

To have piece of mind and make you feel good.

Holy moly. How would that give me peace of mind or make me feel
good? It sure as hell never did before, even when I hurt someone
unintentionally.

Not you. But, not everyone thinks like you and has a subjective moral
code like you.

I doubt I am all that unusual in this respect. But the point is, this
has nothing to do with whether or not there is any supreme being.

Sure it does. There is no such thing as sustainable, consistent,
logical-based morality if there is no God. The fact that some actions
are deemed evil by even secular humanists regardless of society's
collective morality shows that somethings are inherently evil. For
anything to be inherently evil regardless of human recognition of that
evil, there had to be a Source for that definition which transcends
humanity. Only God fits that bill.


And if you were to meet someone who had peace of mind and felt better
by hurting someone else, how would you ever convince them that YOUR
subjective moral code is better than THEIR subjective moral code?

Since what you are describing is probably a sociopath, I'm not sure there
is anything I could say, and would keep my distance.

Germany, Soviet Union, North Korea, Islamic nations. Your definitions
of what consistutes a sociopath seems very broad and over-encompassing.


I find these sort of questions interesting to try to answer. In effect,
what you are doing is trying to use a moral code to judge moral codes.
This kind of self-referential logic is bound to lead to paradox. The
Absolute Standard you are looking for would be a sort of meta-standard to
judge standards. But we still would try to judge *that* standard, and on
and on...

You just brought up the final point in this discussion. It all depends
on whether you think that you, yourself, have the power to declare, on
your own, morality for others.

Obviously, you don't. No human does. Thus, the Source for morality is
elsewhere.


You
certainly couldn't point to any objective morality to which everyone
can refer.

Not in the sense you imply. And you couldn't either, unless you can
convince them that God is going to judge them. Even then you can't say
with authority *what* God's objective morality is.

I can say with authority if God has revealed that moral code to
humanity.


Anyway, you're assuming again concerning "religious
fanatics".
[etc.]
You haven't said what I was assuming.

That religious fanatics think and act a certain, consistent way.

I don't see where I have indicated that. I said that morality is a human
trait, and that fundies have no objective source of morality. If they do
have one, they haven't shown evidence of it.

They have been trying to show evidence. But, most of it has a
religious overtone to it and has thus been dismissed outright by
skeptics, sometimes even before consideration.


Still, why would anyone come up with the idea that the Bible
is not almost completely a text of literal history?

Because they read it. I should think the Genesis story speaks
for itself. The talking snake alone ought to be a dead
giveaway that what you are reading is a myth.

This is one reason I can't take fundamentalists seriously. The story
makes sense only as a myth. Treating it as a literal account of
something that happened in history makes it ridiculous, and makes the
believer sound like someone with no connection to reality.

After you see or experience something supernatural, reading such
Biblical passages as literal events is not difficult at all. I can
understand your skepticism.

Reading that statement, I can only understand the phrase "something
supernatural" to mean "convincing hallucination" or possibly "brain
damage". Not that that makes it any less convincing to you personally;
who knows what I would believe if the same thing happened to me.

You can have supernatural experiences, to one extent or the other, if
you wish. The Bible says how to experience God's influence on your
life. And it's not sitting in a corner in the lotus position humming
softly while letting your mind wander.


[etc.]
In summary, a Biblical scholar may have good reason to consider some
part of the Bible as fiction or myth. Whether it agrees with your
private visions is not their problem.

It becomes their problem when they make public proclamations. No one
should introduce beliefs into the public arena or marketplace of ideas
and think that they are beyond scrutiny and analysis.

I'm not aware of historians making public proclamations. That is the job
of preachers. What I know about history could probably empty a library,
but I would expect historians or Bible scholars to approach the subject
in a spirit of scrutiny and analysis. This is more than can be expected
of the everyday believer who has other things on his mind.

No problem, but historians make public proclamations whenver they write
and try to sell a book. They make them whenever they show up on
television as an "expert".


Man does what comes naturally to him.
[etc.]
Well, you're correct there. Then again, if current
evolutionary
theory is highly accurate and survival of the fittest is
the mechanism which nature "uses" to propogate and evolve
species, then a lot of so-called "evil" that men do is
nothing more than humanity doing what every other species
has done over 2 billion years. It's just now on a global
scale with advanced technology.

Like, no kidding. Evolution must be accurate then.

You just agreed that murder, even genocide, has its roots in
natural processes if evolutionary theory is accurate.

Of course it does. So does all other behavior.

I take it you have no counterevidence to this.

If evolutionary theory is accurate, then yes. If not, then the source
for evil desires are not necessarily biologically-based.



All behavior has its roots in natural processes?

Yes, according to evolutionary theory. Which is not to say that
every bit has all been mapped out by now. And didn't you just say
I was correct there?

Yes, if evolutionary theory is accurate.

If evolutionary theory is accurate, then humans and other animals
behave pretty much the way we see them behaving. So I guess that
means it's accurate.

Circular reasoning. Even I saw that one coming.

Why exactly do you keep intoning "if evolutionary theory is accurate"?
You have produced ***-all to suggest that it isn't, least of all this
morality business.

Actually, I am the one still waiting for someone here, anyone actually,
to show how evolutionary theory is accurate, other than just showing
gross similarities.


[etc.]
For some reason, every now and then fundies
seem to think they are scoring a point against evolution by saying
"if we all evolved from animals, then...", and go on to describe
exactly the world we see!

OK. I don't want to get into evolutionary theory. But, what I'd
expect is a lot more species "in between" current classfications.

There is no reason to expect that.

There is every reason to expect it, unless we can see reasons why only
a scant few species survive, relative to the enormous number of
permutations available.


There are maybe one billion (?) species in existence today. But, the
permutations allowed by evolutionary theory number in the untold
trillions upon trillions and probably orders of magnitude more.

Well, so what? The number of possible human beings is a lot more than
actually exist too.

Well, what was the process and rationale which kept them from existing?
Natural selection? If so, how?


[etc.]
I answered this in another post, so I shall not repeat it. Why
would I want to perpetuate something *I* consider evil?

See, you have still not said why I would want to do that, just
because I don't need a supreme being.

You may want to in order to feel better and have piece of mind.

Gee, I suppose I may, if I were truly deranged. Or maybe the thought
of doing jail time would make me feel better because I wouldn't have
to take care of myself anymore. Or even better, I could get the
death penalty! The ultimate peace of mind! Yeesh. I dunno, is that
the sort of thing that would give you peace of mind?

No. It would not give me peace of mind. But, then I don't do things
to give me peace of mind or to feel better.

I seem to be left with no reason to commit evil. I might as well not
bother. :-D

Not everyone has the same morality as you.

Actually, nearly everyone I know believes murder is wrong.

I see you have no objection to this statement.

You see correctly.

Then it comes pretty close to being an absolute standard.

Yes, luckily for the secular humanist. If most people wanted to commit
murder, then such would be deemed as a good thing and your peaceful
beliefs who be considered evil. Fortunately, God's moral code is
better.


So I guess everyone does think like me. :-D

No. Not really.

Well, there are always sociopaths and dictators.

And billions of other humans all with varying personal moral codes with
no reference point outside of themselves. Fortunately, there is an
absolute reference available.


I thought it said they got that knowledge from eating the fruit. Am
I supposed to be impressed that the writers of the Bible knew that
people had ideas of right and wrong? Or that they made up a story to
try to explain it?

Adam and Eve got it from the fruit. Everyone else got it from God
because of Adam and Eve and the fruit.

I'm not even going to try to argue with that.

I was hoping that you'd be impressed that the Biblical writers somehow
knew about the origins of human behavior long before human psychology
was invented.

They didn't somehow know any such thing. They somehow made up a rather
simplistic story. Somehow I find this unimpressive.

Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green

.

Quantcast