Re: What's the Problem?
- From: Mark VandeWettering <wettering@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:00:01 -0500
On 2006-08-05, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cheezits wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cheezits wrote:[etc.]
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cheezits wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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. These aspects include accurate prophecy that would take millions
of dollars and modern special effects to fake.
Somehow, I missed this claim before.
Jim, let's be clear. it doesn't take any money to fake any of the so-called
prophecies, because the prophecies themselves are specious: nobody actually
could use the information they supposedly present before hand. It is only
in hindsight and with a great deal of interpretation that people say things
like "this prophecy was fulfilled".
They include knowledge of scientific facts well before there was
science to begin with.
No, they don't, and a stopped watch is right twice a day.
So, either the Biblical authors got phenomenally, coincidentally lucky
or they knew what they were talking about.
It's not exactly lucky to imagine that air has weight, given that it
manages to push stuff around.
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?
You are back to employing double standards, Jim. You adopt a different
tone when people patiently try to explain features of evolution or cosmology.
You don't
see gravity, subatomic particles, or even the wing. Yet, you believe
in them because of their effect on that which you can see.
And what effect of God can we see, Jim? Other than creating self-satisfied
sanctimonious followers I mean?
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.
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.
Well, that is true. Nothing beats experiencing somethings for
oneself....which is what I have been trying to tell you.
I can see what fundies have to say, and how they act, as a result of
their belief or experience or whatever. And I have seen nothing from
them that would indicate that they *know* what they are talking
about. But they display a whole lot of arrogance nonetheless.
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?
[etc.]
Actually, I agreed with it. Except that it is not only "the atheist"
that would recognize it, but also any theist who realizes that there
is no evidence of planning. You see design *by faith*, is that not
so? If there were objective evidence for it then any scientist would
be able to find it, regardless of their religion.
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.
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
This is a website for Christian Apologists. It doesn't have anything to
do with science. Paraphrasing someone clever, they use science as a drunk
uses a lamp post: for support, rather than illumination.
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
Jim, you were asked to support your idea that scientists became Christians
because of science. A random list of scientists (which, incidently
includes many Jews and atheists) is not support for that rather extraordinary
claim.
[etc.]
What facts?
The ones I just mentioned above.
None. Just opinions concerning my assertions.
The *fact* that your question about evolution showed that you didn't
understand the theory. I think I showed that pretty clearly since you
have no argument about it:
If evolutionary theory is accurate, then it
explains how life forms arose from previous forms. It says nothing
about how the universe formed. Evolution gives no explanation for
why evolution exists, in other words! That is a whole other subject.
Got it now?
Maybe. But, the all theories have to mesh and jive with each others if
all are accurate. Any theory which espouses a natural process must
stand the scrutiny of asking the origin of that process.
If we observe a process in action today, we do not need to know how it
began to form meaningful scientific theories about it.
If the theory
of evolution postulates one or a few original life forms (at the base
of the evolutionary tree), then we should be free to ask how those life
forms got created.
You are, of course free to ask anything you like.
If the likelihood of abiogenesis is shown to be
next to zero,
Sigh. When that happens Jim, come back to us about that.
and the theory of evolution insinuates one or a few
proto-bacteria to start through abiogenesis, then such an implication
causes skepticism of the theory of evolution itself.
Only if you are a cretin.
The OP suggested that God created by way evolution.
I meant to say "created life" by evolution, as opposed to creating
everything (just in case that was confusing).
[etc.]
Using a simple algorithm
like mutation with selection to produce generations of millions of
worshippers, without further input on God's part necessary, is a
pretty neat idea. I wish I'd thought of it!
You'd be rich by now.
Or overrun with too many people!
I have no clue how the universe came into being. It could have
been any number of ways that we haven't even imagined yet. But I
think it is safe to assume that people who have done some serious
study of cosmology, physics, etc. have a better handle on it than
you or I do.
Uh-oh! It's been a while since I was told that someone else's
pocket protector was bigger than mine, so I should just abide by
whatever they say.
What an amazingly childish and arrogant thing to say. You think you
are qualified to make pronouncements about God because you've read
the Bible, or seen visions or whatever, but people who have studied
nature have nothing to teach you about nature.
No. They have a lot to teach my about nature. But, when I come to
different conclusions given what the Bible says and the supernatural
experiences that I have had, they dismiss my conclusions as truth,
eventhough they haven't experienced what I have experienced.
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. No wonder we are having
different conclusions.
They were not summarily dismissed. Creation was the core idea in science
until well into the 1800's. It was after careful consideration and gathering
of facts that it was rejected as untenable.
You, on the other hand, summarily dismiss all sorts of science, with very
little knowledge or understanding of what they mean.
[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...
He does it in spite of his own moral values.
You assume that the atheist shares your own moral values. You
should know better than that.
You assume he doesn't have any at all.
Not true. He has his own set of moral values. This is NOT in doubt.
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.
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. in that case, who is right? In that case, can either of
them be right?
So, you assertion is that because you think your book is an objective
standard, you should win?
Doesn't that seem subjective?
[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.
I suspect they will be greatly magnified. Religious fundamentlism is
an inherent flaw in character, one usually accompanied by other gross
flaws.
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.
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?
How could you do it?
You
certainly couldn't point to any objective morality to which everyone
can refer.
Neither can you.
Anyway, you're assuming again concerning "religious fanatics".
This statement is semantically null and void, unless you are
prepared to tell me what those assumptions are or what is wrong
with them.
You assume that you know what a "religious fanatic" thinks and why.
How do you know?
I don't. I'd have to ask them.
You haven't said what I was assuming.
That religious fanatics think and act a certain, consistent way.
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.
But that's the point Jim. You haven't observed anything supernatural.
Nothing supernatural actually exists. If I observed something which
defied my understanding and which made me question some of my preconceptions
it would not lead to the result of concluding that what I was seeing was
supernatural. I would question my understanding, my preconceptions and
my perceptions. I would no leap to the hasty conclusion that it was
the work of some inscrutable, all-powerful guy who helped inspire a book
millenia ago.
And the historians who do believe it in every way?
Such as?
I don't know. I just figured that statistically some of the untold
millions of Christians have to be historians, just as some are
scientists.
I suppose there are plenty who are Christians. But that doesn't
necessarily mean they believe that there was an actual garden of Eden,
with a talking snake, a magical Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life, none
of which have left behind any traces of their existence (or descendants),
or that every other event written in it actually happened.
True. Even among fundamentalist Christians, there is disagreement
concerning the literal/figurative aspect of some of the Bible.
[etc.]
What about the parts that are simply fiction?
There is no fiction.
See above. Or see what Biblical scholars have to say about it; as
I understand it, many parts of it are considered to be fictional.
I take it that you think that the Biblical scholars who agree with
you have bigger pocket protectors than the ones who agree with me.
More intellectual arrogance.
You are the one showing arrogance. It's not a question of "agreeing
with me". I am even more clueless about history than science. But I
do know that many historical sources have to be taken into account
when doing history, not just your favorite book.
No problem. I just wish that others would take the Bible into account
instead of dismissing it outright from consideration.
I doubt anyone dismisses the whole thing outright, without any reason.
But it has to jibe with what other sources have to say, as well as
archeological evidence. And it has nothing to do with pocket protectors.
It has to do with evaluating evidence. Doing history probably has a lot
in common with science.
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.
[etc.]Man does what comes naturally to him.
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.
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.
[etc.]Show me the evidence.
The evidence, as I see it, is in the similarity of human behavior to
that of other species, especially our closest relatives.
I guess that would make sense if evolutionary theory is accurate and
humanity really did evolve from proto-bacteria. It would not be
direct evidence but a good logical inference.
Since what we see in human society does not contradict what we would
expect from evolution, then the theory is not disproved by any arguments
from morality. 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.
Your reluctance to get into evolutionary theory apparently doesn't
actually extend to keep you from making pointless, unsupported
statements about what it should predict.
There are maybe one billion (?) species in existence today.
Nobody knows what the exact number is, but a billion is probably higher
than most sources would claim.
But, the permutations allowed by evolutionary theory number in the
untold trillions upon trillions and probably orders of magnitude more.
You are hopelessly mixing up:
the theory of evolution
genetics
the species concept
and adding in a dash of numerical bravado without any actual math to
support your idea.
Now,
you may say that the current species are the only ones that must have
survived natural selection. But, that is just as much of a handwave
answer as my merely stating that we should be seeing quadrillions of
species now.
If you'd like to formulate your argument in terms of, well, an argument,
perhaps we can proceed further.
[etc.]
I answered this in another post, so I shall not repeat it. Why
would I want to perpetuate something *I* consider evil? Why would
I want to commit murder?
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.
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.
[Jim being a nitwit deleted]
But everyone does seem to have feelings of right and wrong. Even
though they sometimes violate them.
So I guess everyone does think like me. :-D
No. Not really.
Crazy how the Bible said that God placed the basic knowledge of good
and evil into the hearts of mankind...considering that the Bible was
written long before human psychology was invented.
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 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.
The origin of human behavior is caused by eating fruit?
Mark
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
- References:
- Re: What's the Problem?
- From: Jim Spaza
- Re: What's the Problem?
- Prev by Date: Re: Scientific Definitions
- Next by Date: Re: Scientific Definitions
- Previous by thread: Re: What's the Problem?
- Next by thread: Re: What's the Problem?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
