Support NeoGAF

[jdogmoney]

Buddha was a fine atheist, he's the atheist role model.

Yep yep. Too bad people feel like injecting stuff into his philosophy...

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Not sure. I see this sort of thing from my family all the time. I wondered ever since I was young, if God has a plan from which nothing can deviate, why pray? I'm talking about for all the trivial nonsense I've had to endure throughout my life, such as for safety on a plane flight, or like above, good weather, etc.

Something goes right: Thank the Lord.
Something goes wrong: The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Fucking perfect.

 

[JGS]

But...but you're religious...

So believe me, I know boring hum drum rhetoric when I hear it. I left religion because of it. Non-Bible reading atheists have boring hum drum rhetoric in spades.

 

[JGS]

Damnit, I hate when I do that.



ronito used to be Mormon. Many - maybe even most - of the atheists in this topic used to be Christian and have at least some level of familiarity with the Bible.

And if the flaws being mentioned are weak ones, why haven't they been addressed sufficiently? I'm not really interested in a theological debate over Scripture - I'm more interested in hearing a justification for why someone believes in scriptural inerrancy when the Scriptures are inconsistent with one another.

Was I accusing ronito? I thought he/she said they've read it several times.

Most people are familiar with the Bible. We both know that does not equate to them reading it.

I said some of them were weak. Pi errors against a cubit are ludicrous as is the thought that a day must equal 24 hours just so it can be disproven better.

However some have been pretty interesing like God being created and even the one about the Governor that I'm too lazy to discuss.

The Scriptures are inconsistent is an old argument and too broad to be taken seriously.

 

[jdogmoney]

It's too broad to be taken seriously?

If you're claiming the Bible doesn't err, ever, at all, then any error, no matter how small, is worthy of discussion.

 

[Evlar]

Again, as I've said in this thread previously, all arguments concerning the Bible and Christianity all boil down to one basic epistemological question: "How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?"

Certainly not. The core statements of faith for a very large number of Christians worldwide- the Creeds - are not contained in the Bible and make minimal mention of scripture. The Apostle's Creed and the Athanasian Creed do not mention scripture at all. The Nicene Creed merely assents that certain parts of Christ's life occurred "according to the Scriptures": it says nothing further about the veracity or necessity of scripture to the Christian faith. So to that point, the token of Christian faith has little to nothing to do with the inerrancy of the Bible for wide swaths of Christianity.

While most Christian faith traditions will go on to acknowledge the inspiration of Scripture (and delineate what those inspired scriptures are- the content differs from tradition to tradition), many do not carry that concept of inspiration to inerrancy as understood today. The inerrancy is only when properly interpreted, and some teaching authority must provide guidance on the interpretation (typically the Holy Spirit through the organs of the church, or directly to believers). Therefore the Bible's position as the "Word of God" is predicated on being able to discern which parts are to be taken literally and which parts are meant to be understood in other ways- metaphorically, poetically, and so forth. This is meant to dodge the kinds of obvious criticisms brought up here and in every other thread topic on the Bible (though I can't say how effective a defense it is).

Arching over all of this is the very obvious fact that Christians existed before the New Testament, hundreds of years before the canon was anything like settled. How did they persist? Through shared beliefs of course, beliefs that can and did survive and thrive without a settled collection of words thought to be breathed by the divine down to the tenses and particles.

 

[jdogmoney]

So believe me, I know boring hum drum rhetoric when I hear it. I left religion because of it. Non-Bible reading atheists have boring hum drum rhetoric in spades.

Also, I was joking at this point. A "" would have ruined the comedic timing, for which I apologize.

 

[Mgoblue201]

& Wikipedia says just as much. However, from my POV, if there are two schools of thought and one is verified more than the other, then the logical course would be choose the one with the most points going for it.

Yet what is your proof for this? And who else even argues this? I'm interested in knowing.

Also, is or isn't god culpable for what he can know?

Again, this is a fancy way of saying that man should not have had free will to begin with or that no rules of right or wrong whatsoever could enter into the equation. Basically humans remain perfect on the basis of the standard being so low as to be non-existent. Considering there was only a handful of rules to follow and only one leading to death (Rule the Earth, have kids, and don't eat from the one tree).

There were already tons of animals that could fill the role of lacking rules beyond basic instinct. Man was made in God's image meaning they could make decisions for themselves. The angels had free will but were spirits. Man was a nice bridge between the two.

I do not hold to the idea that free will is lost simply because there are predetermined choices, especially if there are numerous ones out there, although I see where some would say that since the rules are in place, it hinders us. To me, it doesn't take a mental giant to see all of the possible circumstances and develop free will from all the various offshoots and branches that come with each choice made. For example, if Adam held off eating from nthe tree until he had kids, that would have caused a different outcome. If the serpent hadn't seduced Eve at the tree- different outcome. The options go on and on just for the Garden of Eden scenario. In fact, God, being greater than us, is also pretty predictable.

This isn't, at least to me, an argument about free will. This is an argument for the incoherence of Christianity. Humans can have free will. But if god knew what was going to happen, then he cannot condemn because he is partially culpable for having chosen those initial conditions. If he didn't know, then he is mistaken prone. Either way, I am making an argument about god himself.

Things as complex as the entire universe do not appear out of thin air whether we are talking magically or scientifically. The only example we have of this is people saying that it happened- conjecture.

Dang it! I have to go to work.

Actually, it's a law that entropy only tends to increase. We know that matter can spontaneously arrange itself into a low entropy state. Now, that doesn't get us to a new universe, but if by conjecture you mean complex mathematical formulas, then sure, it's just "conjecture". But, okay, the point of science is to predict something and then test it. General relativity was "just" a formula until it was proven. There are many good reasons to support these theories, more than the idea that goddidit. You could try to argue that god set a low entropy condition and leave it at that, but again, that runs into massive problems. You still must explain vacuum energy that caused the rapid inflation of the universe. You must explain why the amount of usable energy in our universe is decreasing. You have to explain why it's expanding quicker and quicker. And all these from a design perspective.

You didn't have to bother with even this.

Basically, salamandar became a new improved salamandar, cichlid became new cichlid, finch became new & improved finch- something I distinctly said I didn't have a problem with, certainly not one worth arguing over.

Now if one could only show me the salamandar turning into a new & improved fish, then we would be in business.

No, but I can show you a mammal becoming a "fish".

There is every reason to think that whales descended from land mammals. It's a mammal, unlike most sea creatures. It appears in the fossil record after mammals. As an embryo, whales show hints of useless features from the past that are eventually removed as it grows - for instance, it has hair. Some whales have femurs. Most whales have a very tiny hole where the ear would be in other mammals.

Furthermore, "improvement" is an irrelevant concept in evolution. Sure, some animals survive better, but that's dependent upon the environment that they live in. Organisms are simply different. Now, if you admit that salamanders can change, then you can admit that larger change are possible. Maybe legs start to get shorter. They rotate at a slightly different angle. Eventually, the legs might be more useful for swimming. If you doubt that this is possible, then look at the natural world. There are hundreds or thousands of variations for swimming. Some animals simply paddle. Some are better at displacing water behind them. Some have flippers that can still act as limbs. We just can't see the change because it takes millions of years, but that is what the fossil record is for. Again, just look at the whale. Here is a better chart that shows the abundance of "transitional" fossils we've found.

There are no errors in the Bible. If you believe that the aforementioned standard of accuracy is what it takes to constitute no errors, then the majority of ancient history just got tossed out the window.

History never claimed to be perfect and ineffable. The Bible did. If you're so sure that the Bible is perfect, then you've sure failed to actually engage in most of the arguments about these supposed errors, instead making broad claims about faith instead. The point isn't whether there can be an explanation. It's about the best explanation. Look, I used to be a Bible apologist. But eventually I just realized that a bad explanation that keeps my faith alive didn't make it a good faith. An error can be explained away, but it's still an error. The Bible has to be held to a higher standard. If a supposed mistake, especially if it's an outright contradiction, has to be explained away, then god isn't a good communicator. If it is an error, then the Bible is fallible. Either way is a problem.

 

[JGS]

Also, I was joking at this point. A "" would have ruined the comedic timing, for which I apologize.

I was joking too- just threw in a a little self-deprication to throw you off the scent of what an arogant, ignorant Bible thumper I am.

Also, done with evolution although that sure is a fine drawing in your post.

 

[JGS]

It's too broad to be taken seriously?

If you're claiming the Bible doesn't err, ever, at all, then any error, no matter how small, is worthy of discussion.

I didn't claim that all although as you know I would probably take issue with whatever is brought up. Well, except for that verse that completely ignored Pi. Got God on that one. It's a wonder they finished building the thing. My Bible burst into flames when I read it.

I found the actual sentence too broad unless he thinks that all scripture is inconsistennt with each other. It's like saying drugs are bad for you without detailing if he's talking about crack, pot, or Tylenol - thus too broad.

Btw, I haven't gotten into a Bible is inerrant discussion because there are some things I can't address and I don't believe in the "Lord works in mysterious ways", so until that time, I work on the details.

Scriptures inconsistent with each other is the opposite of details.

 

[Kinitari]

Mogblue, thanks for that bit of information! I knew that whales were descendants of land mammals, but I wasn't sure of the specifics, very informative.

Now we're getting somewhere. There is no reason for a bird to come from a reptile, creatively speaking. It makes for a good movie.

I have been trying to understand this since yesterday, and I still don't. What do you mean, creatively speaking? And what sort of reason are you looking for? If you are making a joke, I dun get it, I am slow =/.

edit:

Also, done with evolution although that sure is a fine drawing in your post.

Awww, why?

 

[JGS]

You see it, I see it, anyone that understands basic mathematics can see it. It's a factual error. A mistake.

It's a rounding error at best and I acknowledge that it blew this God stuff out of the water. One to be expected from men who did not know what Pi or decimals were. They would never say buld a circle at 29 cubits a qtr cubit. You're finding fault with the measurements of the time, which is your right but I can make fun of the nit picking if I want to.

I apologize for using common sense. I have no idea what I was thinking.

He said understand, not appreciate. You thing think religious folks understand more of the natural word than scientists?

I know what he said.

Are you saying that ALL scientists have a better understanding of nature than others- religious or not? I would disagree with that sure.
What des it say about the scientist who understand nature better but still finds a way to mess it up?
Surely you're not thinking all scientist are with Greenpeace

I can see why people put so much blind faith in them now if ALL scientists have more understanding and knowledge of nature than us dimwitted blokes.

For your benefit, I'll fix my quote. Notice that I am staying humble by not putting "equal" in there":

I disagree with this. I think everyone should have an understanding of the natural world & it's insulting to think that religious folk do not, and I think that if people observed and appreciated the natural world more, there would not be as much destruction of it- from both common man and brilliant scientists. The world is not exactly a much better place now just because of a scientific discovery.

 

[JGS]

Mogblue, thanks for that bit of information! I knew that whales were descendants of land mammals, but I wasn't sure of the specifics, very informative.



I have been trying to understand this since yesterday, and I still don't. What do you mean, creatively speaking? And what sort of reason are you looking for? If you are making a joke, I dun get it, I am slow =/.

edit:
Awww, why?

I've said it numerous times already in other posts, but it's arguing about something I have no interest in arguing about. Isn't that a good enough reason?

 

[Kinitari]

I know what he said.

Are you saying that ALL scientists have a better understanding of nature than others- religious or not? I would disagree with that sure.
What des it say about the scientist who understand nature better but still finds a way to mess it up?
Surely you're not thinking all scientist are with Greenpeace

I can see why people put so much blind faith in them now if ALL scientists have more understanding and knowledge of nature than us dimwitted blokes.

For your benefit, I'll fix my quote. Notice that I am staying humble by not putting "equal" in there":

I'm sorry, what? Firstly, the natural world != 'nature' in the sense of the word you seem to be using. Secondly, just because someone understands 'nature' better, does mean they are obligated to care for it. Thirdly, how are scientists 'messing up' nature? Fourthly:

The world is not exactly a much better place now just because of a scientific discovery.

What? The world is definitely a better place now because of scientific discovery. And lastly, you are entirely misunderstanding my original point, when it comes to better understanding how the world - and in fact the universe ticks, I will ask a scientist, not a religious scholar and not a regular Joe - simply because what Scientists do is essentially attempt to understand the world better, and the limited understanding we have now is almost entirely thanks to the work of scientists.

I've said it numerous times already in other posts, but it's arguing about something I have no interest in arguing about. Isn't that a good enough reason?

It's fine I guess - you don't have to talk about anything you don't want to, it's just frustrating. It seems like no matter what anyone says, you just don't like the idea of speciation, and thus, you will not believe it happens. Aw well, if that's how it's always going to be, there is no real point discussing it anyway.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Certainly not. The core statements of faith for a very large number of Christians worldwide- the Creeds - are not contained in the Bible and make minimal mention of scripture. The Apostle's Creed and the Athanasian Creed do not mention scripture at all. The Nicene Creed merely assents that certain parts of Christ's life occurred "according to the Scriptures": it says nothing further about the veracity or necessity of scripture to the Christian faith. So to that point, the token of Christian faith has little to nothing to do with the inerrancy of the Bible for wide swaths of Christianity.

While most Christian faith traditions will go on to acknowledge the inspiration of Scripture (and delineate what those inspired scriptures are- the content differs from tradition to tradition), many do not carry that concept of inspiration to inerrancy as understood today. The inerrancy is only when properly interpreted, and some teaching authority must provide guidance on the interpretation (typically the Holy Spirit through the organs of the church, or directly to believers). Therefore the Bible's position as the "Word of God" is predicated on being able to discern which parts are to be taken literally and which parts are meant to be understood in other ways- metaphorically, poetically, and so forth. This is meant to dodge the kinds of obvious criticisms brought up here and in every other thread topic on the Bible (though I can't say how effective a defense it is).

Arching over all of this is the very obvious fact that Christians existed before the New Testament, hundreds of years before the canon was anything like settled. How did they persist? Through shared beliefs of course, beliefs that can and did survive and thrive without a settled collection of words thought to be breathed by the divine down to the tenses and particles.

What you've touched on here is a big debate within Christian circles: whether or not the Bible is God's revelation or only a record of God's revelation. If you believe that the Bible is indeed God's revelation itself, then all of Christianity's claims do boil down to the epistemological question I mentioned because God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. Yes, interpretation is necessary and yes, this interpretation comes through the power of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't change the fact that Christians who believe that the Scriptures are God's revelation are going to appeal to them as their highest authority. That's why the question, "How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?" is the basic question all claims boil down to. Tradition is important yes, as was the teaching of the apostles while they were alive, but now that all apostles are gone, the Scriptures serve as the highest authority.

 

[JGS]

It's fine I guess - you don't have to talk about anything you don't want to, it's just frustrating. It seems like no matter what anyone says, you just don't like the idea of speciation, and thus, you will not believe it happens. Aw well, if that's how it's always going to be, there is no real point discussing it anyway.

You've said that a bunch of times and I have no idea why. If this is an all or nothing thing, then I guess you're right, but I've been pretty accommodating on the topic which adds to the point that it's not worth arguing about if no one sees that.

 

[operon]

What you've touched on here is a big debate within Christian circles: whether or not the Bible is God's revelation or only a record of God's revelation. If you believe that the Bible is indeed God's revelation itself, then all of Christianity's claims do boil down to the epistemological question I mentioned because God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. Yes, interpretation is necessary and yes, this interpretation comes through the power of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't change the fact that Christians who believe that the Scriptures are God's revelation are going to appeal to them as their highest authority. That's why the question, "How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?" is the basic question all claims boil down to. Tradition is important yes, as was the teaching of the apostles while they were alive, but now that all apostles are gone, the Scriptures serve as the highest authority.

How can scripture be the highest authority when it depends on someone else ie. the church to say this is scripture, It didn't fall from heaven leather bound gilt edged with a nice table of contents at the start

 

[JGS]

I'm sorry, what? Firstly, the natural world != 'nature' in the sense of the word you seem to be using. Secondly, just because someone understands 'nature' better, does mean they are obligated to care for it. Thirdly, how are scientists 'messing up' nature? Fourthly:

So you think that ALL scientists understand the natural world better, but don't have to care about what they know. Understanding does not measn caring. That would certainly explain a lot. They are mutually exclusive. Got it.

If concern for the natural world isn't that relevant then why would I concern myself with scientific thought if the curiosity isn't there? In other words, why worry about what a scientists thinks if it isn't linked to something I care about or something that benefits the natural world? I would be listening to the scientist only to here how it benefits him.

What? The world is definitely a better place now because of scientific discovery.

That is a matter of persective. I disagree. IMO, The world is at best no better than it was except in terms of scientific advancement (Whoopee), & quite frankly I think it's worse off.

And lastly, you are entirely misunderstanding my original point, when it comes to better understanding how the world - and in fact the universe ticks, I will ask a scientist, not a religious scholar and not a regular Joe - simply because what Scientists do is essentially attempt to understand the world better, and the limited understanding we have now is almost entirely thanks to the work of scientists.

If you're talking about the natural world, then I guess you are thinking I'm disagreeing with that? I'm not. I'm the one that says science and religion don't contradict so naturally I'm fine with science.

However, if you are saying scientist know the world better in a general sense, I say scientists have absolutely no understanding of the world. Think about all the godless scientists out there now who have a hard time understanding religious people. That's the world. They are clueless about what makes people tick even if the know when a meteor is going to fly by the earth.

To break it down:

1. I wouldn't pick any scientist (or non-religious person) to trust on religious matters. So why would I start taking the advice of a bunch of admitted non-religious folk on religious matters? Short answer is I wouldn't.

2. I would not rely on a scientist to tell me how best to care for this natural world they know so much about but often show little regard for it.

3. Further, since there is no scientist that can see/prove/provide evidence of some of the whackier "scientific" theories out there, I'll remain a skeptic on those matters as well.

4. I do not accept things solely on the basis of a guy wearing a lab coat. I'm not that blind of faith.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I'm still putting together a list of books and dictionary entries regarding the date of Jesus' birth and the census of Quirinius, but for now, here are some journal articles you might want to check out:

"Of Jesus and Quirinius." Smith, Mark D. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 no 2 Ap 2000, p 278-293.
"Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and the Syrian census." Lawrence, John M. Restoration Quarterly 34 no 4 1992, p 193-205.
"The census and Quirinius : Luke 2:2." Brindle, Wayne A. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no 1 Mr 1984, p 43-52.
"Caesar's decree (Luke 2:1-2) : puzzle or key?" Smith, Robert Harry. Currents in Theology and Mission 7 no 6 D 1980, p 343-351.
"Once more: Quirinius's census." Compton, Jared M. Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 14 2009, p 45-54.
"Demography, the population of Syria and the census of Q. Aemilius Secundus." Kennedy, David. Levant 38 no 1 2006, p 109-124.
"Luke 2:2: making sense of the date of Jesus' birth." Rist, John M. Journal of Theological Studies ns 56 no 2 O 2005, p 489-491.
"Zwei römische Statthalter im Evangelium: die epigraphischen Quellen." Alföldy, Géza. In: Contributo delle scienze storiche allo studio del Nuovo Testamento; Vatican City : Libreria editrice vaticana, 2005. (p 216-242.)
"Erstmals unter Quirinius! Zum Verständnis von Lk 2,2." Wolter, Michael. Biblische Notizen no 102 2000, p 35-41.
"Die Historizität des Census de Quirinius." Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. Biblische Notizen no 87 1997, p 17-23.

There are several to get you started. If you want more, let me know.

 

[Kinitari]

You've said that a bunch of times and I have no idea why. If this is an all or nothing thing, then I guess you're right, but I've been pretty accommodating on the topic which adds to the point that it's not worth arguing about if no one sees that.

Who said anything about all or nothing? I specifically mention speciation. If you want this to die, let it die, but don't pretend as though you have been anything but unreasonable.

So you think that ALL scientists understand the natural world better, but don't have to care about what they know. Understanding does not measn caring. That would certainly explain a lot. They are mutually exclusive. Got it.

Of course, all of them - because that is what I said isn't it? I specifically said that all Scientists not only know about the natural world better than non-scientists (which is not a hyperbole I have that much issue with to be honest) I ALSO said, that all of them do not care about the natural world, and thus are laying waste to it, even as we speak. I said those exact words.

If concern for the natural world isn't that relevant then why would I concern myself with scientific thought if the curiosity isn't there? In other words, why worry about what a scientists thinks if it isn't linked to something I care about or something that benefits the natural world? I would be listening to the scientist only to here how it benefits him.

Concern for the natural world was not relevant for my point - not in general. Whether or not someone cares for the natural world has no relevance as to whether or not they understand it - I was pretty sure that was clear enough for anyone to understand.

But if you are looking for any excuse to blind yourself to knowledge, please by all means, twist my statement and use it to your advantage.

That is a matter of persective. I disagree. IMO, The world is at best no better than it was except in terms of scientific advancement (Whoopee), & quite frankly I think it's worse off.

This might be something interesting to talk about. Which is fascinating because we would not even be able to do this, discuss this on the internet, had it not been for the toils of Scientists. Still, elaborate if you want.

If you're talking about the natural world, then I guess you are thinking I'm disagreeing with that? I'm not. I'm the one that says science and religion don't contradict so naturally I'm fine with science.

I don't know what you mean. Who is saying that Science and Religion 'contradict'? I am simply saying that I would go to a Scientists if I wanted to better understand the natural world, thus weighing their explanations more than I would a non-Scientist. Is this a confusing thing to understand? If it is, maybe it's because of the way I've worded it?

However, if you are saying scientist know the world better in a general sense, I say scientists have absolutely no understanding of the world. Think about all the godless scientists out there now who have a hard time understanding religious people. That's the world. They are clueless about what makes people tick even if the know when a meteor is going to fly by the earth.

When did I even kind of imply I was talking about Scientists understanding the world in 'a general sense' - that can be taken to mean a thousand different things. I do not, for example, think that Scientists are better at understanding women - I would not go to a Scientists if I needed help getting laid. I have repeatedly and specifically said "natural world" and even outlined what I mean by saying that, I don't know why you are going off on this little tangent.

To break it down:

1. I wouldn't pick any scientist (or non-religious person) to trust on religious matters. So why would I start taking the advice of a bunch of admitted non-religious folk on religious matters? Short answer is I wouldn't.

Uhm, Okay - that's a silly comparison (you can be religious and be less knowledgeable about religion than someone who is Atheist, it is hard to be a Scientist and be less knowledgeable about Science than someone who is not one) but I'll let you have it - essentially you are saying that you will ignore any non-religious people when it comes to religion.

2. I would not rely on a scientist to tell me how best to care for this natural world they know so much about but often show little regard for it.

Who the hell asked you to do this?

3. Further, since there is no scientist that can see/prove/provide evidence of some of the whackier "scientific" theories out there, I'll remain a skeptic on those matters as well.

Are we talking like String theory here? Or are we talking about something that is not wacky, but something you want to pretend is wacky, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
?

4. I do not accept things solely on the basis of a guy wearing a lab coat. I'm not that blind of faith.

If only Scientists who made claims had to back them up with evidence! That's where religious people have them beat.

 

[Shanadeus]

So you think that ALL scientists understand the natural world better, but don't have to care about what they know. Understanding does not measn caring. That would certainly explain a lot. They are mutually exclusive. Got it.

It's almost as if you're not even trying to understand what he's saying, maybe he's just pushed your buttons or annoyed you by being insistant - I don't know.

But understanding doesn't mean caring at all, without meaning they're mutually exclusive.
Science is a effective and reliable way of understanding the natural world better, much better so than any other method. And I base that simply on that practically all understanding and knowledge of the surrounding world have come from scientific research and progress.

The caring is something we have to we exert when using the knowledge gained from scientific research and endeavors, it's nothing inherent in the process of understanding.

If concern for the natural world isn't that relevant then why would I concern myself with scientific thought if the curiosity isn't there? In other words, why worry about what a scientists thinks if it isn't linked to something I care about or something that benefits the natural world? I would be listening to the scientist only to here how it benefits him.

Not being curious about matters regarding the natural world in general is your prerogative, but you might wanna make an effort to learn it even if it's just to help your kids with their homework.

That is a matter of persective. I disagree. IMO, The world is at best no better than it was except in terms of scientific advancement (Whoopee), & quite frankly I think it's worse off.

Enjoy your average lifespan of 40-50 years with children and mothers dying like flies in labour among other things. The scientific method has lead to tons of knowledge that has directly led to saving and improving lives, along with knowledge that can hurt and destroy lives and nature.
But I'd say that all in all, we've used it more for helping lives than destroying.
You yourself are almost guaranteed to have benefited from the scientific progress in one way or another.

If you're talking about the natural world, then I guess you are thinking I'm disagreeing with that? I'm not. I'm the one that says science and religion don't contradict so naturally I'm fine with science.

Unless when science and religion do contradict? Like how man was evolved rather than created?

However, if you are saying scientist know the world better in a general sense, I say scientists have absolutely no understanding of the world. Think about all the godless scientists out there now who have a hard time understanding religious people. That's the world. They are clueless about what makes people tick even if the know when a meteor is going to fly by the earth.

Psychology is a relatively new science, and rather undeveloped in my opinion, but to say that they are clueless about what makes people tick is a rather incorrect statement.

And get off your high pedestal, humanity is not the world.
Jesus christ this is a futile discussion.

 

[Kinitari]

It's almost as if you're not even trying to understand what he's saying, maybe he's just pushed your buttons or annoyed you by being insistant - I don't know.

So I have not gone crazy, I was pretty clear with my point, wasn't I?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

How can scripture be the highest authority when it depends on someone else ie. the church to say this is scripture, It didn't fall from heaven leather bound gilt edged with a nice table of contents at the start

Might I recommend the following book that deals with how the canon of Scripture developed?

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270742283&sr=8-4

Without going into too much detail here, there were distinct criteria by which the church recognized which items were divinely inspired.

 

[ronito]

What you've touched on here is a big debate within Christian circles: whether or not the Bible is God's revelation or only a record of God's revelation. If you believe that the Bible is indeed God's revelation itself, then all of Christianity's claims do boil down to the epistemological question I mentioned because God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. Yes, interpretation is necessary and yes, this interpretation comes through the power of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't change the fact that Christians who believe that the Scriptures are God's revelation are going to appeal to them as their highest authority. That's why the question, "How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?" is the basic question all claims boil down to. Tradition is important yes, as was the teaching of the apostles while they were alive, but now that all apostles are gone, the Scriptures serve as the highest authority.

He's a basic question though that I keep on posing but getting no answer.

We know that god didn't just reach out and write the bible himself (or is that what you're claiming?) but rather used prophets and apostles to do this for him.

Now because the bible itself teaches us that there was no one that was perfect outside of Jesus, then to say that the prophets/apostles did a perfect job would mean they'd have to be perfect as well. Which again, is a Muslim belief, not so much a christian one.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Just popping my head in to recommend that anyone interested in early Christianity/Judaism check out a podcast called "The Bible Geek." I find him incredibly informative, entertaining, and respectful. He basically answers questions from a skeptical POV on anything from theology to Christ Myth Theory. Here's his webpage, which also contains some interesting reviews and articles.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

He's a basic question though that I keep on posing but getting no answer.

We know that god didn't just reach out and write the bible himself (or is that what you're claiming?) but rather used prophets and apostles to do this for him.

Now because the bible itself teaches us that there was no one that was perfect outside of Jesus, then to say that the prophets/apostles did a perfect job would mean they'd have to be perfect as well. Which again, is a Muslim belief, not so much a christian one.

The Christian response to this is that the writers were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote and hence, were preserved from error in writing scriptural documents. However, that's not to say that through the years, transmission errors have not crept into the text, through scribal errors and the like. That's why those of us who believe in inerrancy will say that the Scriptures are inerrant in the original manuscripts.

 

[Dude Abides]

The Christian response to this is that the writers were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote and hence, were preserved from error in writing scriptural documents. However, that's not to say that through the years, transmission errors have not crept into the text, through scribal errors and the like. That's why those of us who believe in inerrancy will say that the Scriptures are inerrant in the original manuscripts.

So they're inerrant only in documents that have been lost and nobody will ever see? That's conveniently non-falsifiable.

 

[ronito]

The Christian response to this is that the writers were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote and hence, were preserved from error in writing scriptural documents. However, that's not to say that through the years, transmission errors have not crept into the text, through scribal errors and the like. That's why those of us who believe in inerrancy will say that the Scriptures are inerrant in the original manuscripts.

so what I'm gleaming from this is that the writers then were perfect, since what they wrote was perfect?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

So they're inerrant only in documents that have been lost and nobody will ever see? That's conveniently non-falsifiable.

Do some research on how many ancient documents whose original manuscripts we are possession of. There are very few. And you expect differently for the Bible?

There are more ancient copies of the New Testament text than any other ancient document in existence: http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

so what I'm gleaming from this is that the writers then were perfect, since what they wrote was perfect?

Do you mean permanently perfect? Unsinning? Never made any mistake in their lives? I'm not sure what you mean. They were preserved from writing error when writing the original documents. That doesn't mean they were perfect human beings.

 

[operon]

Might I recommend the following book that deals with how the canon of Scripture developed?

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270742283&sr=8-4

Without going into too much detail here, there were distinct criteria by which the church recognized which items were divinely inspired.

I already know all this, but this does not mean that scripture is the sole authority when the church decreed what was canon and what was not

 

[Drastic]

Question for atheists:

Do you believe in the existence of any spiritual powers, forces or entities such as:

karma
voodoo
witchcraft
spirits
ghosts
auras
etc.

?

 

[Evlar]

Just popping my head in to recommend that anyone interested in early Christianity/Judaism check out a podcast called "The Bible Geek." I find him incredibly informative, entertaining, and respectful. He basically answers questions from a skeptical POV on anything from theology to Christ Myth Theory. Here's his webpage, which also contains some interesting reviews and articles.

Thanks for this.

 

[Kinitari]

Question for atheists:

Do you believe in the existence of any spiritual powers, forces or entities such as:

karma
voodoo
witchcraft
spirits
ghosts
auras
etc.

?

Nope, not even a little bit. But I guess you could and still be an Atheist.

 

[Xyphie]

Question for atheists:

Do you believe in the existence of any spiritual powers, forces or entities such as:

karma
voodoo
witchcraft
spirits
ghosts
auras

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.

 

[operon]

Just diving late into this thread and have most definetly missed a good deal, but there seems to be some who want to deal with the Bible as a scientific book as opposed to what it is actually is a religous text. You wouldn't look up a scientific to research about God no more than you would look up the Bible to research about the how the world works, etc. Science deal with the how, Religion deal with the why. Genesis is not meant to be taken as an exact account of how the world was made step by step, but is meant to explain God's role in creation and about man's separation with him, no more and no less.

 

[Shanadeus]

Question for atheists:

Do you believe in the existence of any spiritual powers, forces or entities such as:

karma
voodoo
witchcraft
spirits
ghosts
auras
etc.

?

I really don't see what you'd have to aim this question at atheists specifically, I don't think they are that different from theists in that question.
Sure you might argue that if you already believe in one supernatural thing then it'd be easier to believe in others. But I would disagree that believing in one supernatural phenomena would extend to other things in the supernatural sphere.

 

[Dude Abides]

Do some research on how many ancient documents whose original manuscripts we are possession of. There are very few. And you expect differently for the Bible?

Did I say that I did expect something differently? Of course not (though one would imagine a God who thought his Word was of any importance might have ensured their preservation in their only inerrant form. I guess that's just another of His many blunders.) It's just an obvious dodge to say "They're only perfect in the versions that nobody will ever see."

There are more ancient copies of the New Testament text than any other ancient document in existence: http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence.

This is irrelevant. Per your assertion, we can't be sure those ancient copies are any more inerrant than the KJV if they aren't actually the originals.

It's also completely stupid and a great example of the unrelenting bad faith of Christian apologetics:

But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer.

Except, of course, nobody claims Politics or the Iliad are inerrant accounts of mercantilism in the golden age of Athens or the actual Trojan war.

 

[Mumei]

Do some research on how many ancient documents whose original manuscripts we are possession of. There are very few. And you expect differently for the Bible?

There are more ancient copies of the New Testament text than any other ancient document in existence: http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence.

But those works don't claim to be the inspired Word of God, and no one - at least that I'm aware of - claims that the claims of, say, Aurelius' Meditations are divine truths passed down through Aurelius from some omniscient, omnipotent sovereign of the universe.

I don't think it's too problematic that some of our most recent manuscripts for various ancient texts are a few hundred years off the mark, simply because those extraordinary claims aren't being made.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I already know all this, but this does not mean that scripture is the sole authority when the church decreed what was canon and what was not

They were not decreeing it as though it were something new, a la "We're going to decide right here and right now what we want our Scriptures to be." They were affirming what was already the standard agreed upon by a vast majority of the churches in the ancient world.

 

[Evlar]

To further the point, the value of Plato's Socratic dialogues or Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are independent of who actually wrote them. There is no necessary appeal to authority as there is with so many claims of the exceptional nature of the Bible. The writings attributed to Plato would still be a philosophical goldmine if they were written three hundred years later than commonly accepted, in China, by men who had never actually been to Athens. The value is in the concepts, floating free of their origin. Homer's poems would likewise be extraordinary as works of literature even if they were somehow proven to be frauds penned in 850 AD by some insane Irish monk and the original Homeric texts referenced by the Greeks were lost forever. Now, we sacrifice historic integrity of the works by allowing such errors, so the Iliad as penned by an Irish monk would not be a trustworthy guide to the Trojan War or of life in ancient Greece- but scholars don't accept the Iliad as a perfect account of the war to begin with.

 

[Dude Abides]

They were not decreeing it as though it were something new, a la "We're going to decide right here and right now what we want our Scriptures to be." They were affirming what was already the standard agreed upon by a vast majority of the churches in the ancient world.

Churches run by men, not God. A standard established by men, not God.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Did I say that I did expect something differently? Of course not (though one would imagine a God who thought his Word was of any importance might have ensured their preservation in their only inerrant form. I guess that's just another of His many blunders.) It's just an obvious dodge to say "They're only perfect in the versions that nobody will ever see."

You're placing a human standard of "perfection" on a divine being. "If God really wanted to..., then of course he would have..."

This is irrelevant. Per your assertion, we can't be sure those ancient copies are any more inerrant than the KJV if they aren't actually the originals.

It's also completely stupid and a great example of the unrelenting bad faith of Christian apologetics:

Except, of course, nobody claims Politics or the Iliad are inerrant accounts of mercantilism in the golden age of Athens or the actual Trojan war.

I didn't say that the number of manuscripts proves inerrancy. You are making inferences that I am not, so before you go off calling apologetics stupid, it might help if you paid attention to what people are arguing. My point is that if the originals are inerrant, then because of the sheer number of copies of the ancient text, the transmission errors must be minimal. Thus, we can be sure the text of the New Testament we have now is extremely close to the originals, which obviates the need of the originals.

 

[operon]

They were not decreeing it as though it were something new, a la "We're going to decide right here and right now what we want our Scriptures to be." They were affirming what was already the standard agreed upon by a vast majority of the churches in the ancient world.

"vast majority of churches" no that was the catholic church, they confirmed the canon as they had the authority,.

 

[Pandaman]

Question for atheists:

Do you believe in the existence of any spiritual powers, forces or entities such as:

karma
voodoo
witchcraft
spirits
ghosts
auras
etc.

?

No.

 

[JGS]

It's almost as if you're not even trying to understand what he's saying, maybe he's just pushed your buttons or annoyed you by being insistant - I don't know.

But understanding doesn't mean caring at all, without meaning they're mutually exclusive.
Science is a effective and reliable way of understanding the natural world better, much better so than any other method. And I base that simply on that practically all understanding and knowledge of the surrounding world have come from scientific research and progress.

It sounds like you didn't understand what I said.:lol

I don't care one way or another whether a scietist cares about something. I focus on what I care about. Not sure how to make that clearer.

Not being curious about matters regarding the natural world in general is your prerogative, but you might wanna make an effort to learn it even if it's just to help your kids with their homework.

Boy that was a lot of imaginaruy words you placed in my mouth. It's tough to swallow it. In fact it's impossible to swallow so I got no reply to something I didn't say.

Enjoy your average lifespan of 40-50 years with children and mothers dying like flies in labour among other things. The scientific method has lead to tons of knowledge that has directly led to saving and improving lives, along with knowledge that can hurt and destroy lives and nature.

OK, you guys are doing this on purpose. Did I not make an exception for scientific advancement? Are parts of my words censored on your computers?

I am saying that scientific advancement does not equate to quality of life. Happiness has been with us since the dawn/creation of man. So has sadness. The worlds not a better place. If anything scientific advancement verifies that.

If this life is all you have then have at it. Make most of it that you can.

The reality is that most people live the exact same healthy lives as their forefathers, they just stay older longer. People still die of diseases and old age- even the cureable ones. Man still kills man, just on a larger scale. Science can prove that there's enough food to feed the world coming out of the US alone, but there's still food shortages. The solution to population control are easy but the cause is still the centuries old tradition having unprotected sex and screwing anything that moves like a bunch of animals during mating season. Girl Age suggest science can't do one thing about relationships between men and women although they've always been here together. There is more suicide, more murder, more crime, more war (& more scietific advancement as a result of war) than ever before. People are more greedy, more selfish, more uncaring, more isolated than ever. These are indeed critical times hard to deal with. There are probably 3 or 4 ways we can destroy ourselves like the idiots we are and we have science to thank for that too.

I'll stick to my opinion thank you very much.

But I'd say that all in all, we've used it more for helping lives than destroying.
You yourself are almost guaranteed to have benefited from the scientific progress in one way or another.

I've already answered this and it's true I have benefitted from scientific advancement just by having DirecTV, that doesn't mean the quality of my life has improved OMG dramatically than when my parents were kids. Further, I'm fortunate for being in tech heavy country. Worldwide, not a lot of difference. So if I look at things from a Western Civ worldview, I guess you might have a point. But I still wouldn't characterize people as happier which in the end

Unless when science and religion do contradict? Like how man was evolved rather than created?

Again you don't read. Religion and evolution can co-exist. Creation and abiogenesis cannot. You already know which side I'm on.

Psychology is a relatively new science, and rather undeveloped in my opinion, but to say that they are clueless about what makes people tick is a rather incorrect statement.

No areas of concentration were mentioned in the original statement made about the superiority of scientists. For all I knew, they were talking about physicists.

Yes, psychologist have the ability to say what part of the brain is causing what. However, you can't compare them to other branches of science because the way they come up with the various cures/solutions to a diagnosis are wildly different and often contradictory. What is the correct scientific way to deal with depression, marital problems, craziness exactly?

And get off your high pedestal, humanity is not the world.
Jesus christ this is a futile discussion.

You think I'm on a high horse? Why? What have I said that make you think I'm talking down to you and not the other way around? Are you thinking you're telling me these things as someone that views me as equal.

I'm not feeling that. I respect your opinion and respectfully disagree with some of it. If you feel the same you'd let it go. But you're not are you?

 

[JGS]

Just diving late into this thread and have most definetly missed a good deal, but there seems to be some who want to deal with the Bible as a scientific book as opposed to what it is actually is a religous text. You wouldn't look up a scientific to research about God no more than you would look up the Bible to research about the how the world works, etc. Science deal with the how, Religion deal with the why. Genesis is not meant to be taken as an exact account of how the world was made step by step, but is meant to explain God's role in creation and about man's separation with him, no more and no less.

Good post.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

"vast majority of churches" no that was the catholic church, they confirmed the canon as they had the authority,.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270742283&sr=8-4

Read it. Come back. Discuss.

 

[Kinitari]

.... stuff

I'm out.

 

[Dude Abides]

You're placing a human standard of "perfection" on a divine being. "If God really wanted to..., then of course he would have..."

More sophistry. Words lose their meanings when applied to God. "'When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'"

I didn't say that the number of manuscripts proves inerrancy. You are making inferences that I am not, so before you go off calling apologetics stupid, it might help if you paid attention to what people are arguing. My point is that if the originals are inerrant, then because of the sheer number of copies of the ancient text, the transmission errors must be minimal. Thus, we can be sure the text of the New Testament we have now is extremely close to the originals, which obviates the need of the originals.

Your inability to articulate your "argument" coherently is in the first instance is your issue, not mine. Now, of course, you are trying to have it both way, since earlier you relied on transmission errors to explain away the myriad errors in the Bible, and now you are claiming that those errors are minimal.