Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

The bigger problem here seems to not be science, as two people are standing in direct opposition to each other. The bigger problem is dissecting poetry and exposing scientific matter from it. The matter in the line is inconclusive to me. I can't honestly settle on one side nor the other. And regardless of what side you sit, why then go on to subject science on such matters-meaning of which at the very least you have to accept that it is being debated on- is... oh leave it... Why subject this to my self even? It's free discussion board, carry on if you like...

I used to ask people what do they think would have happened had their diety specifically spoken in the scientific lexicon we used today, like for example said:

For future reference, know that E=MC(2).

(the E=MC (2) is not important thing by the way. Just anything very very very spefic)

This one guy had the best answer:

Well people would have wondered about this for centuries. One side will say, the future is always around the next corner. Possibly religious mathematicians/scientist of that religion will have made it so that something or the other becomes that exact thing. Or people will say it is merely a coincidence; how can you argue against that?
In any way you spin it, it become pretty useless -religion wise- unless as a god you wanted to merey influence or push man in some way or another.

And another said:

In another universe, it could have dementing effects.
(this person went to explain it, and at the time it made sense to me, but I can't recall the explanation. It was a complicated one I'd have to say.)

I agree with you, talking about jizz in the Qu'ran for the last pages is a goodexample of what you're saying.

 

[gumshoe]

How could have the Qu'ran used the arabic word for sperm before sperm itself had even been discovered?
And in the verses I've been arguing, 86:5-7, do not mention Nutfa.



So whatever fluid they are talking about here, it must be the fluid which create men - which must be semen (as they were unaware of sperm back then).

...because it was sent from God?? You are telling muslims that it doesn't make sense for the meaning of the word sperm to be in the Quran, since sperm wasn't discovered until later on. But that doesn't mean anything to muslims, since we believe that God sent the Quran and He knows everything.

The same case can be made for bees. The fact that worker bees are female wasn't scientifically discovered until 14th-15th century. But the Quran, sent in the 7th century, clearly refers to worker bees as females.

 

[Shanadeus]

...because it was sent from God?? You are telling muslims that it doesn't make sense for the meaning of the word sperm to be in the Quran, since sperm wasn't discovered until later on. But that doesn't mean anything to muslims, since we believe that God sent the Quran and He knows everything.

Okay I assume you speak Arabic, so what would you say?
And is this the same word used in any of the verses we've been discussing?

The same case can be made for bees. The fact that worker bees are female wasn't scientifically discovered until 14th-15th century. But the Quran, sent in the 7th century, clearly refers to worker bees as females.

I didn't know about that, the only passage about bees that I could find was about them eating from fruits:

16: 68

Transliteration - Waawha rabbuka ila alnnahli ani ittakhithee mina aljibali buyootan wamina alshshajari wamimma yaAArishoona

Literal - And your Lord inspired/signaled to the bees, that take from the mountains homes , and from the trees, and from what they raise and support/hold onto .

Yusuf Ali - And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations;

Pickthal - And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch;

Arberry - And thy Lord revealed unto the bees, saying: 'Take unto yourselves, of the mountains, houses, and of the trees, and of what they are building.

Shakir - And your Lord revealed to the bee saying: Make hives in the mountains and in the trees and in what they build:

Sarwar - Your Lord inspired the bees, "Make hives in the mountains, in the trees and in the trellises,

Khalifa - And your Lord inspired the bee: build homes in mountains and trees, and in (the hives) they build for you.

Hilali/Khan - And your Lord inspired the bee, saying: "Take you habitations in the mountains and in the trees and in what they erect.

H/K/Saheeh - And your Lord inspired to the bee, "Take for yourself among the mountains, houses, and among the trees and [in] that which they construct.

Malik - Behold! Your Lord inspired the bees to build their hives in the mountains, in the trees, and in anything which men may build for beekeeping,

QXP - And consider how your Lord inspired the bee, "Build for yourself dwellings in hills and in trees, and in what people may build."

Maulana Ali - And thy Lord revealed to the bee: Make hives in the mountains and in the trees and in what they build,

Free Minds - And your Lord inspired to the bees: "You shall take homes of the mountains and of the trees and of what they erect."

Qaribullah - Your Lord revealed to the bee: 'Build your homes in the mountains, in the trees, and in what they are building.

George Sale - Thy Lord spake by inspiration unto the bee, saying, provide thee houses in the mountains, and in the trees, and of those materials wherewith men build hives for thee:

JM Rodwell - And thy Lord hath taught the BEE, saying: "Provide thee houses in the mountains, and in the trees, and in the hives which men do build thee:

Asad - And [consider how] thy Sustainer has inspired the bee:" "Prepare for thyself dwellings in mountains and in trees, and in what [men] may build [for thee by way of hives];

16: 69

Transliteration - Thumma kulee min kulli alththamarati faoslukee subula rabbiki thululan yakhruju min butooniha sharabun mukhtalifun alwanuhu feehi shifaon lilnnasi inna fee thalika laayatan liqawmin yatafakkaroona

Literal - Then eat from all the fruits, so enter/pass your Lord's roads/paths manipulated/dangled low, from its bellies/insides emerges/appears a drink its colours (are) different, in it (is) a cure/healing for the people;184that in that (is) an evidence/sign (E) to a nation thinking.

Yusuf Ali - Then to eat of all the produce (of the earth), and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord: there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for men: verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought.

Pickthal - Then eat of all fruits, and follow the ways of thy Lord, made smooth (for thee). There cometh forth from their bellies a drink divers of hues, wherein is healing for mankind. Lo! herein is indeed a portent for people who reflect.

Arberry - Then eat of all manner of fruit, and follow the ways of your Lord easy to go upon.' Then comes there forth out of their bellies a drink of diverse hues wherein is healing for men. Surely in that is a sign for a people who reflect.

Shakir - Then eat of all the fruits and walk in the ways of your Lord submissively. There comes forth from within it a beverage of many colours, in which there is healing for men; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who reflect.

Sarwar - then eat of every fruit and follow the path of your Lord submissively." From out of their bellies comes a drink of different color in which there is a cure for the human being. In this there is evidence (of the truth) for the people of understanding.

Khalifa - Then eat from all the fruits, following the design of your Lord, precisely. From their bellies comes a drink of different colors, wherein there is healing for the people. This should be (sufficient) proof for people who reflect.

Hilali/Khan - "Then, eat of all fruits, and follow the ways of your Lord made easy (for you)." There comes forth from their bellies, a drink of varying colour wherein is healing for men. Verily, in this is indeed a sign for people who think.

H/K/Saheeh - Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down [for you]." There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing for people. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.

Malik - and feed on every kind of fruit and follow the smooth ways of your Lord. From its belly comes forth a syrup of different colors, which contains a healing for mankind. Certainly in this there is a sign for those who think.

QXP - "And then eat of all kind of fruit, and follow the ways that your Sustainer has made easy for you." (We endowed the bee with navigational skills). And then comes forth from their bellies a delicious drink of many hues, in which there is health for people. In all this, behold, there is a message for people who are willing to listen.

Maulana Ali - Then eat of all the fruits and walk in the ways of thy Lord submissively. There comes forth from their bellies a beverage of many hues, in which there is healing for men. Therein is surely a sign for a people who reflect.

Free Minds - Then you shall eat from every fruit, so seek the path your Lord has made easy. From its stomach will emerge a liquid that has different colors, in it is a healing for mankind. In that is a sign for a people who will think.

Qaribullah - Eat every kind of fruit, and follow the easy ways of your Lord. ' From its belly comes forth a drink (honey) of many hues in which there is healing for people. Surely, in this there is a sign for a nation who reflect.

George Sale - Then eat of every kind of fruit, and walk in the beaten pathes of thy Lord. There proceedeth from their bellies a liquor of various colour; wherein is a medicine for men. Verily herein is a sign unto people who consider.

JM Rodwell - Feed, moreover, on every kind of fruit, and walk the beaten paths of thy Lord." From its belly cometh forth a fluid of varying hues, which yieldeth medicine to man. Verily in this is a sign for those who consider.

Asad - and then eat of all manner of fruit, and follow humbly the paths ordained for thee by thy Sustainer."a [And lo!] there issues from within these [bees] a fluid of many hues, wherein there is health for man. In all this, behold, there is a message indeed for people who think!

 

[gumshoe]

Okay I assume you speak Arabic, so what would you say?
And is this the same word used in any of the verses we've been discussing?


I didn't know about that, the only passage about bees that I could find was about them eating from fruits:

16: 68



16: 69

I am working on it right now. I have a Quran that explains most verses briefly.


and about the bees, God clearly refers to worker bees as females. "Itakhethee" "Kolee" are some of the examples.

 

[Shanadeus]

I am working on it right now. I have a Quran that explains most verses briefly.


and about the bees, God clearly refers to worker bees as females. "Itakhethee" "Kolee" are some of the examples.

Before you check it up, just write it down here before you start checking in the Qu'ran.

And do you know which verses speak of these bees?

 

[gumshoe]

(I am translating these)

Verses 86:5-7 say: "Let humans ponder what they were created from.(5) They were created from a gushing fluid/water (6) that exits from between backs and Taraeb"

The author says:
"Created from Maen Dafeq" 6: Dafeq is from Dafq and Dafq is "pouring that includes pushing and quick streams:" He goes on to say that both man and woman have "Mani" (sperm/egg) that reach each other quickly.

"That exists from between the Solb and Taraeb"7: Solb means back, and Taraeb is plural for "Tareeba" and it is what is between the breasts, or it can also mean the extensions of the human body (hands, legs, eyes, ears, etc..) and the second meaning is meant to to be representative of the whole body.

He then goes on to say that this whole section is trying to describe intercourse by using water as the main metaphor. So, when the verse says that humans "are created from gushing water that exists from backs and Taraed" it means that the man and woman use their bodies (backs, legs, arms, etc..) and their strength in order to help in finishing the first step in forming babies. (the water of the man (sperm) and the egg of the woman accompanied by the fluid join together and move to the womb)

 

[gumshoe]

Before you check it up, just write it down here before you start checking in the Qu'ran.

And do you know which verses speak of these bees?

the ones that you quoted

 

[gumshoe]

I accept that my reasoning contained a fallacy then, you are right in what the text is arguing - it almost sound as if it's okay if the text have some contradictions.
I must ask Muslims reading this if the Quran perhaps can contain contradictions after all, because if it can then that would make the erroneous verses a moot point.

I'll go ahead and narrow down the initial list and try to focus on as clear verses as possible, and put forth the arguments against them

"Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" could possibly only apply to human beings if "creatures" does not include non-human species. If it does include all animals then it sounds incorrect as homosexual behavior are naturally occurring in many species and probably before human beings were evolved.
"Al 3alameen" can refer to either everything in existence (plants, human, animals, etc..) or just plain old humans and jinns. And in the later case, I don't see how there is a contradiction.

I cannot find a single source of crucification being used in ancient egypt, and thus question the accuracy of this particular verse.

"Salab" doesn't mean to tie someone on a cross and crucify. While it can certainly mean that, it also means to put someone in one place and tie them so that they can no longer move (hard in one place) until fluid starts leaving their bodies (torture). I am sure this was done plenty of times back then.

Really depends on whether or not the language was metaphorical, otherwise incorrect as bees don't eat of fruits.

As you already kind of said, it is metaphorical. (personification).

Now here he is speaking of the creation of man(kind) and the creation of individual men, but there are still contradictions as well as inaccuracies regarding how Allah created mankind (96:2, 3:59 and 6:2) and how individual men are created (16:4, we aren't created from a drop of fluid no matter if the drop is referring to sperm or the egg cell )

I don't see how any of these contradict each other??

1) It is common knowledge that we are basically 70% water
2)Created man from clot: we basically start off as a tiny clot in the womb.
3)God created adam and Jesus from dust. (from nothing) they had no fathers

 

[RustyNails]

I will tomorrow try explain why that site you linked me to is pure hogwash.

See this is the kind of attitude of "lol, i know more than you" that I don't like from Athiests. You're like that Nizar fellow, who had a holier than thou attitude every time he posted something.

Spoiler

I didn't provide the link to you as my defense case which you need to prosecute. Take it up with the website.

If you have absolutely nothing better to do all day than go through Islamic websites, look at their viewpoints, then go to anti-Islamic websites, look at their responses and post the responses here for me, then go ahead and do it. See if I care.

 

[Kinitari]

See this is the kind of attitude of "lol, i know more than you" that I don't like from Athiests. You're like that Nizar fellow, who had a holier than thou attitude every time he posted something.

Spoiler

I didn't provide the link to you as my defense case which you need to prosecute. Take it up with the website.

If you have absolutely nothing better to do all day than go through Islamic websites, look at their viewpoints, then go to anti-Islamic websites, look at their responses and post the responses here for me, then go ahead and do it. See if I care.

I mean, to be honest it just sounds like sour grapes coming from you now.

1. Shanadeus has been super courteous, I didn't know saying "This is hogwash" is something that someone could take offense to.

2. Even if he is rebutting the arguments you make (or arguments you find) with arguments from other people, it doesn't remove the arguments validity. And that's not all he does, he in fact gives his response, and then gives a similar and sometimes better worded response from a professional.

3. Sperm, the thing that makes men, comes from the testes! Not your midsection - and even the contents of semen come from all over your body, not just your midsection!

 

[RustyNails]

I mean, to be honest it just sounds like sour grapes coming from you now.

1. Shanadeus has been super courteous, I didn't know saying "This is hogwash" is something that someone could take offense to.

2. Even if he is rebutting the arguments you make (or arguments you find) with arguments from other people, it doesn't remove the arguments validity. And that's not all he does, he in fact gives his response, and then gives a similar and sometimes better worded response from a professional.

3. Sperm, the thing that makes men, comes from the testes! Not your midsection - and even the contents of semen come from all over your body, not just your midsection!

Sour grapes, in a thread thats talking about balls for the past few pages.

I'm not offended, sorry if I came off that way. Its just that the way he wrote it reminded me of Nizar's posts where he wanted to display his supremacy over anyone and everyone. The air of belittlement was very thick whenever he was around. I'm not using that website as a source for my arguments. Heck, I didn't even know about it before today. If he wants to destroy that website's arguments, go ahead and be my guest. I won't care one iota.

I wasn't using someone's arguments. I will truthfully say that I came to the results myself. I didn't know Dr. Badawi used the same arguments, or that Dr. Naik said that testicles are made up of kidney tissue or whatever.

 

[Ashes]

(I am translating these)

Verses 86:5-7 say: "Let humans ponder what they were created from.(5) They were created from a gushing fluid/water (6) that exits from between backs and Taraeb"

The author says:
"Created from Maen Dafeq" 6: Dafeq is from Dafq and Dafq is "pouring that includes pushing and quick streams:" He goes on to say that both man and woman have "Mani" (sperm/egg) that reach each other quickly.

"That exists from between the Solb and Taraeb"7: Solb means back, and Taraeb is plural for "Tareeba" and it is what is between the breasts, or it can also mean the extensions of the human body (hands, legs, eyes, ears, etc..) and the second meaning is meant to to be representative of the whole body.

He then goes on to say that this whole section is trying to describe intercourse by using water as the main metaphor. So, when the verse says that humans "are created from gushing water that exists from backs and Taraed" it means that the man and woman use their bodies (backs, legs, arms, etc..) and their strength in order to help in finishing the first step in forming babies. (the water of the man (sperm) and the egg of the woman accompanied by the fluid join together and move to the womb)

This is what I mean. It could be scientific, it could be poetic metaphor. You derive the wrong meaning, science cannot be subjected to it. So in the end, it appears to only help the believer.

 

[RustyNails]

This is what I mean. It could be scientific, it could be poetic metaphor. You derive the wrong meaning, science cannot be subjected to it. So in the end, it appears to only help the believer.

It certainly helps me. I fail to see all the ruckus ultimately.

 

[GT500]

I just wanted to nip in and say that things aren't that black and white. I'm an agnostic athiest but I believe in the concept of a soul, separate from our consciousness. I also think this soul is maintained by our consciousness and that when we die, we lose both. I'm quite happy to accept I may be completely wrong. You can't pigeonhole athiests as having certain beliefs when all you know is that they have one non-belief.

I didn't say all atheists say it and I know that some of them call it a soul whether they really mean it or just as a language thing. I am not really sure if the majority call it consciousness or not though. And whether it is called consciousness or not, there is a source for it. I remember when an atheist said when the electric charges run out of his body, he will die. It was one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard.

Anyway, the soul is not something that we are supposed to know about.

And I assume you are very aware of this even though you are an atheist since you said you believe in the concept of soul. We can't prevent someone's soul from leaving his body and we can't bring it back if he died. We don't know its location. We know it is something uniquely related and connected to us. It is what it makes us ourselves and it is unique. You only control your body, no one else. Is this something you also believe about soul? Because I think what I said is undeniable. I am not really sure if anyone went far and called it software yet :lol. But there are nonphysical things within us.

 

[SmokyDave]

I just think there is some non-organic 'magic' inside us all that requires our organic form to be alive in order to sustain it. Call it a soul if you will. Your original statement was "my soul or 'consciousness' as you athiests put it". That statement doesn't make any sense to me.

I remember when an atheist said when the electric charges run out of his body, he will die. It was one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard.

Really? Was it really? funnier than walking on water and resurrection? Funnier than 2 of every animal squeezed onto a boat? funnier than people being turned into pillars of salt?

You seem extremely dismissive of this group you call 'athiests' despite not really attempting to understand them.

 

[GT500]

I just think there is some non-organic 'magic' inside us all that requires our organic form to be alive in order to sustain it. Call it a soul if you will. Your original statement was "my soul or 'consciousness' as you athiests put it". That statement doesn't make any sense to me.


Really? Was it really? funnier than walking on water and resurrection? Funnier than 2 of every animal squeezed onto a boat? funnier than people being turned into pillars of salt?

You seem extremely dismissive of this group you call 'athiests' despite not really attempting to understand them.

What do you mean of not understanding them? I talked about someone who admitted this himself although I think he was probably joking or even mocking. He was an atheist and I said that to clarify. It would be still funny to me if anyone else said it. I think it is funny because it is funny, not because an atheist said it. Don't worry, I am not someone who generalizes people, especially atheists who don't normally have the same beliefs about everything else other than God's existence, which is also a subject of different possible beliefs.

I believe in God who can do anything such as resurrecting us as he created every single one of us uniquely in the first place. No thing is impossible when you believe God and only God can do it. And here, we return to the same spot of the usual cycle of "I believe in God because of blah blah" and "I don't believe in God and I want a proof blah blah".

And by the way, anyone who believe in the concept of soul also believes that consciousness is a separate thing. The best examples are sleeping or passing out=\=death.

And if you don't mind, I want to know more about your thoughts about the soul concept. Care to elaborate? I already said earlier atheists can have completely different beliefs because they don't follow a religion. I am not asking this to make fun of you or anything, I am asking this question in order to "understand" you so you won't accuse me of not understanding you.

Shanadeus said he will share his thoughts about the soul concept when he is in the mood.

 

[SmokyDave]

What do you mean of not understanding them?...

I'm not really sure myself, I just see many statements in this topic referring to the beliefs of atheists and as you've rightly said, there are none.

And if you don't mind, I want to know more about your thoughts about the soul concept. Care to elaborate? I already said earlier atheists can have completely different beliefs because they don't follow a religion. I am not asking this to make fun of you or anything, I am asking this question in order to "understand" you so you won't accuse me of not understanding you.

Shanadeus said he will share his thoughts about the soul concept when he is in the mood.

Sure. I haven't really fleshed out my belief because it isn't that important to me. Broadly speaking I feel that there is a certain 'something' that makes us humans special. I believe it is a kind of energy separate from but dependent upon our organic bodies. That 'energy' is possessed by every living creature on the earth but ours is considerably more powerful. I believe that this energy can be positive or negative and that when we die that energy is simply diffused into the wider world to become part of someone else. I can imagine that one persons 'energy' would be capable of affecting another persons 'energy' and then by extension, mood. This could also work for large groups.

To be honest, I'm happy to accept that I just made all of that up with no basis in reality whatsoever and the chances of being correct are so miniscule as to be irrelevant. I do think there is something 'more' to us, I just don't think it has divine origins.

 

[Sh1ner]

Just reading through this thread, I am kinda confused with the current debate. A verse has been picked and both sides are arguing how accurate it is in scientific terms?

What does the validity of this verse matter when the Qu'ran has obvious mistakes in other areas?

 

[Shanadeus]

See this is the kind of attitude of "lol, i know more than you" that I don't like from Athiests. You're like that Nizar fellow, who had a holier than thou attitude every time he posted something.

I didn't provide the link to you as my defense case which you need to prosecute. Take it up with the website. If you have absolutely nothing better to do all day than go through Islamic websites, look at their viewpoints, then go to anti-Islamic websites, look at their responses and post the responses here for me, then go ahead and do it. See if I care.

So I changed my mind today, I was going to compare all the translations of each relevant verse with the interpretations which makes it sound correct and show it's all sidestepping the issue and doing some questionable leaps of faiths in the progress of making sense of that verse with today's medical knowledge.

And btw, I am not saying that you've derived your arguments from the site - I'm just using it to clarify my argument. I found these websites useful as I lack knowledge of the Arabic language necessary to make an compelling argument, and what better way of improving my argument by utilizing the knowledge of apostates which probably know the Qu'ran way better than me.

I'll just head straight to the issue instead:

“Nutfa” in Arabic means “very little water” or “a drop of water”. This coincides with man’s water which contains sperms as part of its components. The sperm or (spermatozoon) is reproduced from the despised lowly water (nutfa) and looks like a long-tailed fish (this is one of the meanings of Sulalah).

So nutfa, "very little water", is sperm?
Or do they mean it is semen containing sperm as part of it's component?

The other meaning of Sulalah is "extract", means the essential or best part of something . By either implication, it means "part of a whole" indicating that the origin of creation is from only part of man's fluid and not all of it (which contains many components as shown above) .
Clarifying the role of the nutfa in creation, He the Almighty says;

See translations of verse 86: 5-6

So the gushing water contains the "extract" or "part of whole", aka sperm, which means it must be semen.
But it is not semen until it contains the sperm, and thus it cannot be gushing forth from between the spine and ribs and nor can it be issued/proceed/produced from there as well.

Transliteration - Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi
Literal - It emerges/appears from between the spine and the rib bones.

Yusuf Ali - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Pickthal - That issued from between the loins and ribs.

Arberry - issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.

Shakir - Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Sarwar - which comes out of the loins and ribs.

Khalifa - From between the spine and the viscera.

Hilali/Khan - Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,

H/K/Saheeh - Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.

Malik - that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.

QXP - That issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.

Maulana Ali - Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Free Minds - It comes out from between the spine and the testicles.

Qaribullah - that issues from between the loins and the ribs.

George Sale - issuing from the loins, and the breast-bones.

JM Rodwell - Which issue from the loins and breastbones:

Asad - issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].

That's the short version, but I think I made the argument clear enough.

You say that perhaps:

As for Surah 86, you are correct it does not use "Nutfa", but uses the "gushing fluids" term, which does in fact originate from the internal abdominal glands, whose ejaculation is assisted by PSNS in the spinal cord. The Nutfa part is the fluid-drop, which comes after the whole thing is constituted. Here's clarification about all the terms and verses.

But the gushing fluids are as far as I can see, semen containing sperm, and thus cannot originate from between the loins and breastbones/between spine and testicles/between back and the ribs when it fact originate not from between these places but in many several places. That the ejaculation is assisted by the nerves in the spinal cord is also not an good explanation as the nerves aren't responsible part for fertilizing the woman, and even if we were to use that interpretation then it wouldn't fit any of the translations I posted which say it issues forth between the back and ribs/back and loin/ and so on.

I'll try to share my views on the soul and reply to gumshoe as soon as possible.

Just reading through this thread, I am kinda confused with the current debate. A verse has been picked and both sides are arguing how accurate it is in scientific terms?

What does the validity of this verse matter when the Qu'ran has obvious mistakes in other areas?

What other areas would that be?
I've posted several verses and short arguments for why I thought they looked incorrect, while at the same time providing counterarguments to my own arguments.

 

[soul creator]

this made me chuckle: Was God a Volcano?

 

[jdogmoney]

Poop. Bottom of page.

Nonetheless.

Does the following make any sense at all?

This may take some explaining. I hope you don't mind me starting at the beginning.

According to the Bible:

God created the universe in 6 days. On the 6th day He made humans. Humans were created perfect and with physical bodies that were eternal. Humans were given free run of the Earth with only one command. Don't eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The command came with a warning of death should they fail to obey.

Two things happened when Adam and Eve ate the fruit. 1) their spirits died instantly condemning them to eternal separation from God. (we see in God's curse on them in later chapters that He had already made provision to overcome this negative status) 2) God kicked them out or the Garden of Eden so they couldn't eat from the Tree of Life and find themselves stuck living forever physically and separated from God in spirit.

The Bible tells us that there is on remission for sin without the shedding of blood. That's why the Jews had to make sacrifices that involved blood. Jesus, by extension, was God's promised one time sacrifice for sin.

If Adam and Eve's situation hadn't been what was then Jesus wouldn't have had to come save us from our inherited innate sin nature.

Because of all of this, Evolution and the Christian faith are completely opposed on a foundational level. Without a starting set of humans we don't have original sin that condemns every human at conception. Without original sin we don't need a savior in the way the Bible describes it.

I tried to be clear, but it's late. Hopefully this isn't as disjointed as I feel it is.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I agree that an evolving universe is not one that needs a savior because in that kind of universe chaos is a natural component and not one that came as a result of disobedience. Those who try to treat the story as metaphor are just gutting it of its intention, which for much of Christian history was taken as an actual event, and stripping it of any authority or possibility to mean anything.

Unfortunately, that's the bad news, because the story just makes absolutely no sense in light of modern biology. Everything about life has arisen out of the necessity to survive. Parasites, for instance, only make sense if they evolved to feed on a host. A designer would have to be cruel to make such a thing, but even more intellectually mystifying is the thought that such a creature could live in a paradise. Furthermore, what good is a cell if it's not metabolizing anything? You'd have entire parts of organisms that just aren't doing anything if they're living in paradise. Why would a porcupine have quills if it didn't need to defend itself? The entire creation story is nonsense because to even design these things, which only work in a "survival of the fittest" kind of world, means that God basically designed his creation knowing that it would all go to hell. Besides, it's obvious to anyone that the universe has always had some measure of entropy. There couldn't have ever been a paradise; by its very nature the universe is a messy place.

And the idea that sin is passed down and forced upon descendents is also nonsense. It contravenes any notion of free will that some Christians love to go on about.

 

[Shanadeus]

I have no clue what is going on in here anymore.

Sperm. Entropic universe is evil.
On this page that is.

 

[LCGeek]

And the idea that sin is passed down and forced upon descendents is also nonsense. It contravenes any notion of free will that some Christians love to go on about.

Sin is passed down through ignorance. How many ignorant religious types do you know?

 

[Ashes]

...A designer would have to be cruel to make such a thing...

Or intelligent.

 

[Pandaman]

Or intelligent.

intelligence does not forgo cruelty.

 

[Consul]

I won't get into religion in general because my opinions are rather extreme in regards to my belief that religion is pure evil.

I will say however that whenever a sports player or actor/musician thanks god for their success I get the urge to stab them in the face. The idea that god has any interest in your stupid fucking game, shitty movie, or boring album is so incredibly egoistical and arrogant. God doesn't give two shits about you, your superbowl, your record sales, or your career.
And on a smaller level, God also doesn't care about your marriage, your new born child, your promotion, your good luck, or anything to do with you in general. How about you thank the people who deserve it, the people that suppprted you, loved you, helped you, trained you, taught you, and made you the person you are today. Stop thanking an entity that you don't even truly understand who cares nothing for you.
When your plane lands safely in a river after an emergency, its not a damn miracle of god, its a remarkable feat performed by a man who you completely dishonor by giving his credit to some make believe concept you have created in the vain attempt to understand something your stupid little mind could never hope to truly conceive.
In other words, shut the fuck up.

There, thats my rant for the week.

Amen

Spoiler

I'm sorry if that was a bit late but i thought it was gold.

 

[Ashes]

intelligence does not forgo cruelty.

Do you mean abject cruelty or in the way a young child pulls a grasshopper's legs off?

Spoiler

Hint: do you see what I did there?

 

[Karram]

I think the thread needs more sperm talk again.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Or intelligent.

Intelligence is a loaded phrase. What kind of intelligence would a god have? Is intelligence the same as goodness? So perfect reasoning would be nothing more than an expression of god's perfect will? Because the mere idea of reason presupposes subjectivity, a point of view. Or god isn't merely reasoning, but actually expressing objective goodness through action. So either god is just creating things with no real objective purpose, which would be bad for us, or the creation can be judged as a direct reflection of god's goodness.

Furthermore, omniscience and omnipotence proportionately scale to goodness. If a god-like being can create whatever it wants, and it knows the exact consequences of its creation, then it has every obligation for those things. Would the world be less evil without certain creatures in it? Would it be more evil? What is the maximal amount of evilness that a god can allow in the world? What if god allowed nothing but mammals to exist, a relatively intelligent, social, and caring phylum of creature? Is god obligated to create more or fewer creatures that prey upon man?

Each subsequent questions (and there are limitless possible questions) just makes the whole notion of creation more and more incoherent. God could create plenty of disgusting, reprehensible organisms, or he could create a world full of lolcats. How do we judge that? And evolution hardly liberates god from any of this since he still can see in advance what would eventually evolve, therefore he is still shackled with the responsibility.

 

[EzLink]

So guys, I was having a discussion with one of my friends about Christianity, and as usual, he always brings up very interesting points. He is one of the most intelligent people I know... he's 21 and he is about to get his masters, and he is starting med school next year. Incredibly logical scientific mind, he's a HUGE skeptic, and yet he is a firm devout Christian. Here's just a sample from the AIM convo we had, I wanted to see what you guys thought about it

"Let's refer to one of my favorite examples of biblical wackiness - the book of leviticus
: everyone loves making fun of us for reading this book. It's the one about shunning homosexuals, about eating shellfish being a sin, etc
I: now, I don't know if it was just God's doing or actual observations on the part of the israelites,
I: but for some reason, the book of leviticus has some very fascinating biology behind it
I: the israelites did not know about microbes. They did not know what caused sickness. They had no idea about Koch's postulates for infectious disease etiology
XI: and yet...for some reason...the book of leviticus essentially hits on every type of disease-causing agent we know about in modern medicine
: it was said that eating crawfish was "unclean." We know now that Crawfish can carry Vibrio, the bacterium that causes cholera. It was said that having mold in one's house was to be unclean, and that a priest must cleanse it. We know now that mold releases spores that produce respiratory illness, especially when one is exposed to it at regular periods, i.e. in one's house.
I: it was said that "unnatural sexuality" was unclean. Do I really need to list every STD that the israelites would have NEVER suffered from if they had followed these particular laws?
: it was said that one shoudn't eat human flesh. We now know that prion-related diseases like VKJ are caused by eating neural tissue of the same species as yourself
: of course, we don't need these laws anymore, because any idiot knows about germs and illness...but for people who hadn't yet made that discovery in the world, all they could do was derive the answer based on the "equation" they were given. Namely, if one adds what thou shalt and subtracts what thou shalt not, one equals a healthy person.
XI: so, yes, any atheist can tell you these are bad based on their observations of the world, but they took longer to get to that point than the Israelites who already knew better"

Thoughts?

 

[Mgoblue201]

I have hardly done enough studies on that topic to offer a definitive opinion, but those arguments seem incredibly porous. Most cultures, I believe, have their own sets of taboos when it comes to animal consumption. Why prescribe to a deity what you can prescribe to cause and effect through observation? Furthermore, some of those are no-brainers. A society that purports to be holy isn't going to allow cannibalism or loose sex. The rest must be subject to greater scrutiny. Does the unclean list really comprise an amalgamation of the most unclean things to eat? Were they eating things that could still cause plenty of disease? I would be interested in knowing, but it's hard to make an argument either way until a comprehensive analysis is done. I do know that some experts in the past have argued that these lists were based not so much on safety regulations but other reasons such as symbolic reasons.

Besides, the Bible presents plenty of bad biology elsewhere. We all know the rainbow story.

 

[EzLink]

I have hardly done enough studies on that topic to offer a definitive opinion, but those arguments seem incredibly porous. Most cultures, I believe, have their own sets of taboos when it comes to animal consumption. Why prescribe to a deity what you can prescribe to cause and effect through observation? Furthermore, some of those are no-brainers. A society that purports to be holy isn't going to allow cannibalism or loose sex. The rest must be subject to greater scrutiny. Does the unclean list really comprise an amalgamation of the most unclean things to eat? Were they eating things that could still cause plenty of disease? I would be interested in knowing, but it's hard to make an argument either way until a comprehensive analysis is done. I do know that some experts in the past have argued that these lists were based not so much on safety regulations but other reasons such as symbolic reasons.

Besides, the Bible presents plenty of bad biology elsewhere. We all know the rainbow story.

The thing about my friend is that he can usually beat any objection into bloody submission. Not only is he incredibly smart but he is very persuasive. Unfortunately I don't get a chance to talk to him very often, but I'll send this along to him next time we speak and see what he has to say.

How is the rainbow story "bad biology"? It's basically God using the rainbow as a symbolic promise to never flood the earth again. Out of all the things in the bible, that one isn't a stretch at all. I would argue of course that rainbows DID exist before th flood, God just didn't attach the significant meaning to it until after

Playing devils advocate here of course. But I'm really trying to get back into Christianity. I've realized that my mind simply cannot cope without it :/

 

[Peronthious]

It's true that Leviticus has some relatively advanced medicine in it...but so did Egypt. Ancient Egyptian medicine, which the Israelites could have been drawing from, was considerably advanced for the time.

 

[EzLink]

Very interesting about the ancient egyptian medicine. I'll have to look into that further

I feel like posting another interesting excerpt from our conversation:

"XI: my atheist colleagues suggest that evolution is directed by natural selection, in which those with beneficial mutations outperform their peers, and thus are more represented
: their underlying assumption is that natural selection is simply a fundamental principle of the universe, and that something about this place we live in just happens to make it possible
: I agree with this, but the difference is that I see no reason why natural selection should be a fundamental principle.
I: There's no reason why there can't be a universe where the most successful organisms die faster
I: it's an absurd paradox to us, but it might be sound logic in another world
I: imagine what your logic is like in a dream, and you'll see how easy it is to believe the opposite of truth
: so, I would suggest that there is a REASON why natural selection exists in the universe
: I sense a sort of intent, a goal, even
I: something about the universe favors the elevation and improvement of its components
XI: now, I don't really care whether I'm right about that or not, because both me and my colleagues study biology the same way
I: we look for natural selection, and see what changes it should be inducing in an organism
XI: neither one of us care whether or not natural selection works for no reason or EVERY reason, we just know that it works
I: however...there is a fundamental difference
XI: if I believe that natural selection has a goal in "mind,"
XI: then perhaps there are other forces that facilitate this goal as well
I: there is no reason why a person who believes in natural selection should also believe in things like random mutagenesis
I: there is no link between them at all in terms of their mechanisms
: granted, they work together to produce an interesting effect,
I: but it suddenly creates a fascinating phenomenon if you consider both at once
I: natural selection, the "Shiva" if you will, and random mutagenesis, the "Brahma"
: creation and selective destruction, combined together, produce evolution
I: so, I suppose what I'm saying is that atheists and theists alike acknowledge many of the same "mechanisms" of the world
I: we differ in the way we extrapolate these things beyond the microcosm, and the way we assign significance to them"

 

[Shanadeus]

Very interesting about the ancient egyptian medicine. I'll have to look into that further

I feel like posting another interesting excerpt from our conversation:

"XI: my atheist colleagues suggest that evolution is directed by natural selection, in which those with beneficial mutations outperform their peers, and thus are more represented
: their underlying assumption is that natural selection is simply a fundamental principle of the universe, and that something about this place we live in just happens to make it possible
: I agree with this, but the difference is that I see no reason why natural selection should be a fundamental principle.
I: There's no reason why there can't be a universe where the most successful organisms die faster
I: it's an absurd paradox to us, but it might be sound logic in another world
I: imagine what your logic is like in a dream, and you'll see how easy it is to believe the opposite of truth
: so, I would suggest that there is a REASON why natural selection exists in the universe
: I sense a sort of intent, a goal, even
I: something about the universe favors the elevation and improvement of its components
XI: now, I don't really care whether I'm right about that or not, because both me and my colleagues study biology the same way
I: we look for natural selection, and see what changes it should be inducing in an organism
XI: neither one of us care whether or not natural selection works for no reason or EVERY reason, we just know that it works
I: however...there is a fundamental difference
XI: if I believe that natural selection has a goal in "mind,"
XI: then perhaps there are other forces that facilitate this goal as well
I: there is no reason why a person who believes in natural selection should also believe in things like random mutagenesis
I: there is no link between them at all in terms of their mechanisms
: granted, they work together to produce an interesting effect,
I: but it suddenly creates a fascinating phenomenon if you consider both at once
I: natural selection, the "Shiva" if you will, and random mutagenesis, the "Brahma"
: creation and selective destruction, combined together, produce evolution
I: so, I suppose what I'm saying is that atheists and theists alike acknowledge many of the same "mechanisms" of the world
I: we differ in the way we extrapolate these things beyond the microcosm, and the way we assign significance to them"

Okay is he XI?
This is such a weird conversation anyway, completely based on existing beliefs which the mechanisms themselves doesn't even require to work.

Occam's Razor and stuff you know.

And I'll check the leviticus, I might be able to find some fun inconsistencies reagrding sperm like in the Qu'ran.

 

[EzLink]

Oh he's saying all of it. I just didn't consistently delete the same parts of his username

I would still say he brings up valid points though. At the very least he always gets me thinking in unconvential ways about these issues

 

[Dude Abides]

Very interesting about the ancient egyptian medicine. I'll have to look into that further

I feel like posting another interesting excerpt from our conversation:

"XI: my atheist colleagues suggest that evolution is directed by natural selection, in which those with beneficial mutations outperform their peers, and thus are more represented
: their underlying assumption is that natural selection is simply a fundamental principle of the universe, and that something about this place we live in just happens to make it possible

There is no "underlying assumption" that natural selection is a "fundamental principle of the universe." This is pointless verbiage. Natural selection is the explanation that best fits the evidence for how organisms on earth (not in "the universe") developed over time. That's all. Your friend uses a lot of flowery rhetoric but he isn't really saying anything insightful.

 

[Shanadeus]

Oh he's saying all of it. I just didn't consistently delete the same parts of his username

I would still say he brings up valid points though. At the very least he always gets me thinking in unconvential ways about these issues

Right, what he's saying is that:

My atheist colleagues suggest that evolution is directed by natural selection, in which those with beneficial mutations outperform their peers, and thus are more represented.
Their underlying assumption is that natural selection is simply a fundamental principle of the universe, and that something about this place we live in just happens to make it possible. I agree with this, but the difference is that I see no reason why natural selection should be a fundamental principle.

There's no reason why there can't be a universe where the most successful organisms die faster. It's an absurd paradox to us, but it might be sound logic in another world

Imagine what your logic is like in a dream, and you'll see how easy it is to believe the opposite of truth.

So, I would suggest that there is a REASON why natural selection exists in the universe
I sense a sort of intent, a goal, even, something about the universe favors the elevation and improvement of its components - now, I don't really care whether I'm right about that or not, because both me and my colleagues study biology the same way.

We look for natural selection, and see what changes it should be inducing in an organism
neither one of us care whether or not natural selection works for no reason or EVERY reason, we just know that it works.

However... there is a fundamental difference if I believe that natural selection has a goal in "mind," then perhaps there are other forces that facilitate this goal as well - there is no reason why a person who believes in natural selection should also believe in things like random mutagenesis.
There is no link between them at all in terms of their mechanisms and granted, they work together to produce an interesting effect, but it suddenly creates a fascinating phenomenon if you consider both at once.

Natural selection, the "Shiva" if you will, and random mutagenesis, the "Brahma"
creation and selective destruction, combined together, produce evolution
so, I suppose what I'm saying is that atheists and theists alike acknowledge many of the same "mechanisms" of the world.

We differ in the way we extrapolate these things beyond the microcosm, and the way we assign significance to them.

It would be neat if evolution has a purpose?
He's adding an aspect which cannot be seen in any part of the evolutionary process, working towards a specific goal in his own words, for no other reason then that it fits in neatly with his belief in what I presume is God, the creator of this intent or whatever.

I could say that there might be a universe where there is no life at all, and reason that maybe that means the life and evolutionary process in this universe is useless and has neither purpose nor intent. I could say any number of bizarre things and imagine up thousands of scenarios without it ever making my own beliefs and position interesting or even true - it'd just show that I have a working imagination.

And the very reason you find what he's saying interesting and worth thinking about is because it seems like you want to believe, and he's given you a nice non-theological sounding way of re-igniting that belief.

I hope I'm not coming off as arrogant or a dick but I get tired of hearing similar stuff from new-ageists and ufologists.

There is no "underlying assumption" that natural selection is a "fundamental principle of the universe." This is pointless verbiage. Natural selection is the explanation that best fits the evidence for how organisms on earth (not in "the universe") developed over time. That's all. Your friend uses a lot of flowery rhetoric but he isn't really saying anything insightful.

And this.

I've read up a little on Leviticus, and apparently they are suggesting that camel meat is unclean? I always chalked up the blatant inaccuracies in this text to the wording "unclean" meaning something spiritually unclean, which could then apply to pretty much anything at all no matter how good or bad it is for us. But if one is to suggest that "unclean" is supposed to warn you about viruses in shellfish then I have to point out that camel meat is very, very healthy and quite beneficial actually - it'd be stupid to not eat camel meat:

Camel meat has been eaten for centuries. It has been recorded by ancient Greek writers as an available dish in ancient Persia at banquets, usually roasted whole. The ancient Roman emperor Heliogabalus enjoyed camel's heel. Camel meat is still eaten in certain regions including Somalia, where it is called Hilib geel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Kazakhstan and other arid regions where alternative forms of protein may be limited or where camel meat has had a long cultural history. In the Middle East, camel meat is the rarest and most prized source of pastırma. Not just the meat, but also blood is a consumable item as is the case in northern Kenya, where camel blood is a source of iron, vitamin D, salts and minerals. Camel meat is also occasionally found in Australian cuisine, for example, a camel lasagne is available in Alice Springs.

The only part you need to watch out for is the liver, and it can't really be taken a sign that the advice is accurate. The chapter refers to various parts of cows and bulls when it comes to sacrificing them for ones sins, and thus they could easily just have said that the kidney of the camel is unclean - instead of letting some really fine and nutritional meat going to waste.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I would like to hear some arguments about the rainbow, but I did some searching and came across this from The Mythology of Judaism by Howard Schwartz:

"There is a debate among biblical commentators about whether or not the rainbow existed before God revealed to Noah as a sign of their covenant."

Some biblical interpretations puts it as a present tense like the King James (I do set), which could just be a neutral admonition that there is no set interpretation, or future tense (I will set). Furthermore, it seems odd to bring up the creation for a thing already existing. "The bow in the clouds shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth," would sound like the more natural way to me. Why would he mention that he is setting it in the clouds if it has been appearing since creation? Even if it it already had existed, that still doesn't mean that it's not compelely wrong. Wikipedia says:

"The Mishnah taught that the rainbow (of Genesis 9:13) was one of ten miraculous things that God created on the sixth day of creation at twilight on the eve of the Sabbath. (Avot 5:6)"

This is still wrong. The rainbow needed no creating, and it should have existed prior as an outcome of the natural laws of the universe.

I don't know why with my last post I mentioned the rainbow in conjunction with biology. I meant any natural facts. If I wanted to mention biology specifically, then I would probably go back to the creation story, which, even if translated figuratively, is still wrong, but I just had that debate a few weeks ago.

It's true that Leviticus has some relatively advanced medicine in it...but so did Egypt. Ancient Egyptian medicine, which the Israelites could have been drawing from, was considerably advanced for the time.

Egypt might have been one of the civilizations that I was thinking of. Anyway, the argument that cleanliness somehow aligns with the ideas of modern science is hardly a new one. It has been promulgated by many believers in the past.

"XI: my atheist colleagues suggest that evolution is directed by natural selection, in which those with beneficial mutations outperform their peers, and thus are more represented
: their underlying assumption is that natural selection is simply a fundamental principle of the universe, and that something about this place we live in just happens to make it possible

I agree with Dude Abides here. Natural selection isn't a principle. It's a process. Sure, it still arises from other environmental and genetic factors, but it's not even the only process of evolution. There is genetic drift, for one. Maybe there are still others for other kinds of life. Hell, there is even something called Boltzmann's brain, proposed by Ludwig Boltzmann, a contributor to our understanding of thermodynamics. He postulated that high entropy molecules could randomly fluctuate into a low entropy state, creating an organism out of thin air, say, a brain, with memories already implanted. Life didn't necessarily have to evolve the way it did to become dependent upon an ecosystem like Earth's. Furthermore...

I: There's no reason why there can't be a universe where the most successful organisms die faster
I: it's an absurd paradox to us, but it might be sound logic in another world

If he's saying that logic itself is a random outcome, then by his own admission he doesn't even know if it's a coherent argument. Besides, he's not considering the opposite. Maybe our universe isn't the best place for developing life. Maybe if the laws were slightly different life would have been easier to develop. Maybe there are countless universes and the fact that our universe is increasing in entropy means that we're living in a failed universe. The anthropic or telelogical argument is somewhat compelling, but it is still flawed, and anyway it doesn't get you beyond anything other than deism.

Look at it from the theistic point of view. If there is a god that actually cares about his creation, then why allow such a flawed universe? Why allow such an imperfect thing like evolutionary mechanisms to promulgate life? We're complex, but we're also incredibly inefficient and perhaps flawed in some ways, and evolution obviates design as an explanation of complexity anyway. Evolution also has no goal. That is one of the most important aspects.

 

[Joel Was Right]

The Pope's comments on gay marriage being "dangerous" amongst other things have made the front page of one paper here in the UK. There seems to be a media campaign against institutionalised religion here in Europe, whether that be with immigration policies in regards to Muslims, or the sex scandal being used to define the entire Catholic Church

 

[jdogmoney]

The Pope's comments on gay marriage being "dangerous" amongst other things have made the front page of one paper here in the UK. There seems to be a media campaign against institutionalised religion here in Europe, whether that be with immigration policies in regards to Muslims, or the sex scandal being used to define the entire Catholic Church

It's a pretty defining thing, isn't it?

 

[Shanadeus]

The Pope's comments on gay marriage being "dangerous" amongst other things have made the front page of one paper here in the UK. There seems to be a media campaign against institutionalised religion here in Europe, whether that be with immigration policies in regards to Muslims, or the sex scandal being used to define the entire Catholic Church

And I fondly remember the Gord saying that Christians are the moral backbone of the country. I suppose the general public didn't agree with him, or I guess they're not considering catholics christians or something.

 

[perryfarrell]

I never read religion threads, but I wanted to post this article, which I thought was quite good.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/damon-linker/another-kind-atheism

 

[Mario]

Thoughts?

I have seen this argument before and don't find it compelling evidence that man was passed "divine knowledge". Man is intelligent enough enough to note correlations between behaviours and events e.g. "we ate those orange berries/rancid meat/spoiled fruit and it made us sick". Over time, in more stable societal groups, more tenuous correlations such as those between household mold and decreased health or the risks of consuming shellfish would be made. You don't need to know why orange berries make you sick in order to form a rule that you shouldn't eat them.

In fact, it might be worth considering that because more primitive cultures didn't understand the underlying biological mechanisms behind such things that they ascribed supernatural influence to them, and could only put forward these rules in the context of a religious text. Or perhaps, given the stakes of sickness or death, embedding them in a religious text was the only way to give them enough weight for people to follow them.. er.. religiously

Suggesting "atheists" have only found about such phenomenon recently while Israelites have known for thousands of years is also a common but weak suggestion that atheists have been in the dark when they too have been privy to collective knowledge of observed phenomena. What is the case is that science in the past few hundred years has crossed a barrier allowing us to detect and examine things we cannot see with our raw senses, be they very small, very far away, happening very fast, or very slow. Science and society in general is now in a much better position to investigate and understand why things happen even if we already have been observing such happenings for thousands of years.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I never read religion threads, but I wanted to post this article, which I thought was quite good.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/damon-linker/another-kind-atheism

It's kind of a banal defense to say that the opposition doesn't address the point or attempt to understand what is being said. Sure, that can be used as a position to clarify, but look at the actual essay by Hart, which contains mostly a pompous use of words. "Plenitude of actuality"? Really? It's incredibly painful to read. After all, he's just redressing in pretentious words a very common Christian argument: the contingency of all finite things flows from an infinite god; he is the essential being. It's very similar to the argument from first cause. To say that this is "a more philosophically adequate and rigorous account of God" is making Drum's point. Linker is distracted by the fact that something is said in a new way and misses the fact that Hart isn't actually saying anything new or interesting at all.

Furthermore, if he wants me to mourn religion, then no, I won't. There is nothing essential in religion that can't be found elsewhere. That's the point: it's superfluous (one could make the argument that religion may be important culturally, and I'll accept that, but culture doesn't have to come in any specific form). If religion was true, then there would be something lost, because it would contain essential truths. But the point the non-believer makes is that it contains no essential truths. Therefore, any good that comes from religion is universal. We can divorce the good parts from everything else and still have universal compassion and good.

And anyway, he's completely wrong on one notion. He claims that new atheists conflate two different claims, yet at least PZ Myers, whom Linker mentions in the article, emphatically denies that this is true (I don't know about the others, but I suspect the same thing). So Linker is in danger of setting up a strawman here.

 

[Aaron]

I never read religion threads, but I wanted to post this article, which I thought was quite good.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/damon-linker/another-kind-atheism

I think one prominent flaw is accusing well known atheists of egotism. Of course they're egotists! Otherwise you would have never heard of them! That their beliefs border on the extreme is par for the course when they want to keep their names known. Major religious leaders suffer the same failing, but it's less obvious in them because they can fall back on dogma than exposing their personal views.

 

[perryfarrell]

If religion was true, then there would be something lost, because it would contain essential truths. But the point the non-believer makes is that it contains no essential truths.

I thought this part was interesting: "Rather than explore the complex and daunting existential challenges involved in attempting to live a life without God, the new atheists rudely insist, usually without argument, that atheism is a glorious, unambiguous benefit to mankind both individually and collectively. There are no disappointments recorded in the pages of their books, no struggles or sense of loss. Are they absent because the authors inhabit an altogether different spiritual world than the catastrophic atheists?"

Religion involves struggling and thinking about such things as death, good & evil, meaning, etc. And the author of the article I linked to is suggesting that, while 'catastrophic atheists' (not my favorite term) honestly draw the conclusions as far as these things are concerned, the 'new atheists' do not. The latter might say something like, 'Death is the end. Yup. No meaning to life. Nope. Next question!' As if that's all to be said about these matters. Perhaps they're missing something, or perhaps they're not sensitive to something?

 

[Mgoblue201]

I thought this part was interesting: "Rather than explore the complex and daunting existential challenges involved in attempting to live a life without God, the new atheists rudely insist, usually without argument, that atheism is a glorious, unambiguous benefit to mankind both individually and collectively. There are no disappointments recorded in the pages of their books, no struggles or sense of loss. Are they absent because the authors inhabit an altogether different spiritual world than the catastrophic atheists?"

Religion involves struggling and thinking about such things as death, good & evil, meaning, etc. And the author of the article I linked to is suggesting that, while 'catastrophic atheists' (not my favorite term) honestly draw the conclusions as far as these things are concerned, the 'new atheists' do not. The latter might say something like, 'Death is the end. Yup. No meaning to life. Nope. Next question!' As if that's all to be said about these matters. Perhaps they're missing something, or perhaps they're not sensitive to something?

But isn't it completely unfair to tell people how to feel or what to write? One problem of Linker is that he conflates a sense of loss with lack of exploration and struggle. Plenty of "new atheists" have written about and debated the problems of ethics and mortality. But it's a problem that we have to live with in a godless world. There is no mourning over that fact. And the reason atheists don't mourn it is because atheists see a godless world as very much preferable to the world of modern day religion (it is better that we all die than even one person goes to hell, tyrant god, etc). I guess everybody could mourn the fact that we're not all going to live forever in some perfect dreamland of our own making, but that's not even a discussion worth having.

Furthermore, I assume that most people he is excoriating are pretty cultured and understand a few things about existential philosophy and art. Their understanding, from what I have seen, generally contains nuance, but for indicting a whole group of people for lack of nuance, Linker is, strangely, not using much nuance. He doesn't even cite any examples except for Drum, but as I pointed out previously, Linker mistakes style for nuance, so his argument against Drum is invalid. I haven't seen anyone say that the world will be perfect with atheism either.

 

[soul creator]

question: does the study of stories from Ancient Egypt or Ancient Greece fall under the term "theology"?