Re: What's the Problem?

"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:
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.

That credibility has not been established.

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?

Writing a story or repeating something you heard does not take special
effects.

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.

You can call it what you want but I've read your writing and I stand by
my statement.

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".

It's a story. There is nothing phenomenally lucky about that.

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.

Well, didn't they?

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.

You *really* would be better off dropping it. Just a little friendly
advice.

Do you need to physically see something before
believing it?

No.

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.
[etc.]
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?

The evidence of this thread for a quick example. And virtually all the
crap, if you'll excuse the expression, that I've seen posted by fundies
here for the past 15 years. You come on with all the clueless
overconfidence of a kid whose youth group leader keeps telling him how
brilliant he is even as he's floundering hopelessly, pontificating about
subjects you know ***-all about and getting most of it wrong. This is
not what I would expect from someone with access to Infinite Knowledge.

So far in my experience NOT ONE fundy has ever produced anything but hot
air. No advanced knowledge, no special insight, NOTHING that would make
the thinking person sit up and say "Wow, that guy must have been talking
to the Creator of the Universe." Instead, we see the kind of drivel that
people like yourself trot out like you think we haven't seen it before.
You would think that fundies with their pipeline to omniscience would
have something to show for their privileged relationship. You would
think they would act like they knew what they were doing. But no, they
spend hours on their knees asking for Divine Guidance, then go on to make
incredibly bad decisions. Any more questions? I can go on.

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?
[etc.]
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.

The answer is BECAUSE they believe they should be feeding people. Like I
said. They show no evidence that they know anything about God. Sorry to
have to keep repeating it but you seem to be determined to miss the
point.

[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.

No, I saw it all right. The hard numbers were based on erroneous
assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. If that is how your faith came
about it is built on a foundation of quicksand.

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

No, I'm asking you. You obviously have no evidence for your statement.
Maybe you're the one who needs to call them up. <smirk>

[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.

Your question indicated that you think so.

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

I guess it would. :-D

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

Horse hockey. Just admit you were wrong. Or go ahead and try to show
that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Big Bang theory.

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.

Make that 200 times.

[etc.]
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.

There is no such data. I'd encourage you to post some but I already you
don't have any.

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.

Um, that is what scientists do. Regardless of what your preacher may
tell you, there is no objective scientific evidence for your religious
beliefs.

[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.

No, I and several others have wasted plenty of bandwidth explaining to
you the many reasons that murder is wrong. But you just keep those
fingers in your ears. :-D

[etc.]
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.

Neither can you.

[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,

No. It is based on more than that, but I have already written enough on
the subject. I don't expect you to understand it. The interested lurker
(if any) can draw his own conclusion.

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.

Yes, there is - a humanistic one.

The fact that some actions
are deemed evil by even secular humanists regardless of society's
collective morality shows that somethings are inherently evil.

No, it shows that some beliefs, needs, etc. are common to all people.

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.

Are you actually claiming that all, or even most, members of those
nations fit the above description?

[etc.]
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.

No, I don't. You don't either.

Obviously, you don't. No human does.

No *individual* does, acting alone. It is a collective endeavor. Your
imaginary Source with a capital S adds nothing to the effort.

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.

Again with the meaningless and impotent "if".

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.

2000 years and nothing to show for it.

This is one reason I can't take fundamentalists seriously. The
story makes sense only as a myth.
[etc.]
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.

Is the phrase "supernatural experience" now a synonym for "God's
influence on your life"? If so then there is absolutely no way to tell
if something is a supernatural experience or not. Frankly I have no
desire to plunge into the deep end of delusion that you seem to have
experienced. The real world may have its nasty bits but at least it is
real.

[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".

Does it offend you that people who know more than you do about a subject
make public statements about it? Without even consulting your superior
expertise or taking your visions into consideration? My heart doth bleed
for you. :-D

[etc.]
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.

If this, if that. Still nothing but hot air.

[etc.]
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.

You aren't waiting for anything. You can go read the literature if you
like. It's not hard to find. Nothing you have written has shown any
evidence against evolution. Nothing. At all. Not to rub your nose in
it or anything. :-D

[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.

Does the word "selection" ring a bell? There is also the problem of
competition for resources. You have given no reason to expect more
species than we actually see.

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?

Most of them were never even conceived. Many people get killed before
they ever reproduce. There are only so many resources available. Think
about it.

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.

Right, it was just "lucky" that people somehow figured out that getting
murdered might be a bad thing. :-D

If most people wanted to
commit murder, then such would be deemed as a good thing and your
peaceful beliefs who be considered evil.

Gee, yes, I guess I'm just Amazingly Lucky that most people don't want to
commit murder. <eye roll>

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.

No reference point except, get this, a humanistic code.

Fortunately, there is
an absolute reference available.

Yes, we are so fortunate to have your continued assurance that this
imaginary reference really exists. Hey, you forgot to capitalize
Absolute Reference, you're slipping kid! :-D

I'm sorry, I know I'm being overly sarcastic, even for me, but your posts
lately are just so full of brain-dead *** I can't hold it in any longer.
Seriously, how uneducated does a person have to be to become a fundy?

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

.