Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Even if the biblical authors wrote retroactively about real events, it offers no authenticity to the claims of the bible, any more than King's Cross station existing proves Harry Potter, or the actual sinking of the Titanic proves that Jack and Rose have a heart that will go on.. Anybody can weave a fictional story around historical events. But the fact that the bible proposes hypotheses about how the world works that have turned out to be false... All things that if the book is supposed to be divinely inspired are damaging the credibility of it's case...
Shanna wrote: "Even if the biblical authors wrote retroactively about real events, it offers no authenticity to the claims of the bible, any more than King's Cross station existing proves Harry Potter, or the act..."
Hmmm....
And, the point ...?
Hazel asked for one thing, one, from the Bible that has been proven to be true.
Don't think Maria attempted to (I know I didn't) claim that the real events that are discussed in the Bible offer authenticity to the other claims of the Bible. Did we? We didn't, right? That wasn't our point.
Though, it is interesting that this is coming up.
Questions....
Do non-believers feel it's "dangerous" to admit that a good number of writings regarding events, etc... in the Bible are historically accurate?
Do you guys think it could be used to convince people that "God" exists and that they should follow religion? If so, given that, would you allow false claims to be made and even make false claims in order to promote lack of belief? Example ... Nothing in the Bible is true. Or, most of the Bible has been proven not to be true.
Or, is there simply a lack of knowledge regarding history and, given that, some have believed falsehoods that have been promoted? Falsehoods like ... religion causes all wars or most wars.
Hmmm....
And, the point ...?
Hazel asked for one thing, one, from the Bible that has been proven to be true.
Don't think Maria attempted to (I know I didn't) claim that the real events that are discussed in the Bible offer authenticity to the other claims of the Bible. Did we? We didn't, right? That wasn't our point.
Though, it is interesting that this is coming up.
Questions....
Do non-believers feel it's "dangerous" to admit that a good number of writings regarding events, etc... in the Bible are historically accurate?
Do you guys think it could be used to convince people that "God" exists and that they should follow religion? If so, given that, would you allow false claims to be made and even make false claims in order to promote lack of belief? Example ... Nothing in the Bible is true. Or, most of the Bible has been proven not to be true.
Or, is there simply a lack of knowledge regarding history and, given that, some have believed falsehoods that have been promoted? Falsehoods like ... religion causes all wars or most wars.
The point is that New York is not evidence Spiderman... I have no problem if events like the plague are real, they were a real enough event all over the world, real they don't prove the claims of the bible... Really, that wasn't the point!? really...
Floods are real enough and to folk who can't see it's edge it may indeed seem the world covered, but a world wide flood...
There are other events like an eclipse, an earthquake and zombies wandering the streets of Jerusalem at the crucifixion, evidence of which outside the bible would be impressive...
Hazels did not ask for one thing from the bible to proved true, she asked for something NEW in the bible something people of the time didn't already know an entirely different proposition. Something predictive like mental illness is not demonic possession, the germ theory of illness...
Shanna wrote: "Hazels did not ask for one thing from the bible to proved true, she asked for something NEW in the bible something people of the time didn't already know an entirely different proposition. Something predictive like mental illness is not demonic possession, the germ theory of illness... "
And, part of the point, though I guess we can pretend to ignore it, is that Becky said, simply, some things in the Bible have been proven to be true. Hazel, of course, went down the scientific route. Name one new thing that, etc..., etc... What was my response? We know, right? Might Becky have been referring to things from history ... people, tunnels, wars, etc...?
Yup.
Then, when Maria wrote about the world as a circle and someone wrote that such writings occurred in 700 BCE elsewhere, I decided to go to the historical record. Oops. Nope. Not so much.
At some point, Travis kept saying that people were happily claiming that the Bible got so much right and science has proven "so much" of the Bible to be false, mere myth. Huh.... No matter how many times I said, really ... no one is happily claiming the Bible got so much right ... that "argument" kept being made.
Well, that "argument" is inaccurate, for more than one reason. It's not what we were doing and it's not historically accurate, with regard to events in the Bible, etc....
So, .... If we want to focus on Hazel's argument, we can say, as Maria did, that Isaiah refers to the world as a circle. Some might see a round world in their heads. Some might see a flat circle. Further, Maria mentioned the reference in Job to the world being suspended in nothing. Huh.... Something "NEW" ... perhaps? Something that others at the time weren't aware of. Seemingly possible.
If we want to add to that, ... the fact that Becky might have been thinking history vs. science or the fact that the idea, promoted by Travis, that "so much" in the Bible has been proven by science to be untrue, we can analyze the historic record and read some of the information I posted. And, no, bringing the historic record to light is not an argument that all other claims in the Bible are accurate. Not even close. Not the point at all. (By the way, ... the NYT doesn't prove Spiderman ... I'm unclear. Does that mean you don't think the NYT is an adequate reference? Is wiki a better source?)
Finally, I can't help but notice ....
You ignored my questions.
And, part of the point, though I guess we can pretend to ignore it, is that Becky said, simply, some things in the Bible have been proven to be true. Hazel, of course, went down the scientific route. Name one new thing that, etc..., etc... What was my response? We know, right? Might Becky have been referring to things from history ... people, tunnels, wars, etc...?
Yup.
Then, when Maria wrote about the world as a circle and someone wrote that such writings occurred in 700 BCE elsewhere, I decided to go to the historical record. Oops. Nope. Not so much.
At some point, Travis kept saying that people were happily claiming that the Bible got so much right and science has proven "so much" of the Bible to be false, mere myth. Huh.... No matter how many times I said, really ... no one is happily claiming the Bible got so much right ... that "argument" kept being made.
Well, that "argument" is inaccurate, for more than one reason. It's not what we were doing and it's not historically accurate, with regard to events in the Bible, etc....
So, .... If we want to focus on Hazel's argument, we can say, as Maria did, that Isaiah refers to the world as a circle. Some might see a round world in their heads. Some might see a flat circle. Further, Maria mentioned the reference in Job to the world being suspended in nothing. Huh.... Something "NEW" ... perhaps? Something that others at the time weren't aware of. Seemingly possible.
If we want to add to that, ... the fact that Becky might have been thinking history vs. science or the fact that the idea, promoted by Travis, that "so much" in the Bible has been proven by science to be untrue, we can analyze the historic record and read some of the information I posted. And, no, bringing the historic record to light is not an argument that all other claims in the Bible are accurate. Not even close. Not the point at all. (By the way, ... the NYT doesn't prove Spiderman ... I'm unclear. Does that mean you don't think the NYT is an adequate reference? Is wiki a better source?)
Finally, I can't help but notice ....
You ignored my questions.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Even if the biblical authors wrote retroactively about real events, it offers no authenticity to the claims of the bible, any more than King's Cross station existing proves Harry Pot..."Now you get all heated about the 'religion causes war' bit, and chide people for their lack of historical knowledge, but are now going to defend the bible?
So, since the 'religion starts war' people got some stuff right, that would mean their argument is a strong as the bible's claim to science. Since, apparently, getting some stuff right is now okay.
The bible is a suspect source for both science and history, but if people are going to claim it is either, than maybe it should be held to the high standards you have claimed history deserves.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, are we going to do a tally on what'a right and wrong...?"Is it just me, or is this your go-to "argument" every time I use actual facts from the historic record to disprove misc..."
to be fair, the tally thing started when you claimed that aside from the talking snake the bible had a pretty good track record.
I just made the tally comment, when that's what the debate started to degenerate into.
Travis wrote: "to be fair, the tally thing started when you claimed that aside from the talking snake the bible had a pretty good track record.
I just made the tally comment, when that's what the debate started to degenerate into. "
To truly be fair, it started like this ...
Travis wrote: "Since science has proven so much of the bible to be false or myth, is it really a good idea to make that the yardstick we judge religion by? "
Well, first, short of talking snakes, I'm not entirely sure the first part of that statement is correct.
So, .... Does my statement mean I doubted whether science has proven so much of the Bible to be false, or does my statement mean the Bible had a pretty good track record? Interesting question, that. Very different ways of looking at the thing.
In truth, as my words declared, I was referencing your reference of "so much" and the idea that science had proven so much of the Bible to be false. Neither are wholly accurate. I was not, also as evidenced by my words and, frankly, my words and behavior over the past year and a half, making a claim that the Bible has a great track record and is mostly accurate.
Seriously ....
Further, your comment regarding the tally didn't come after I, supposedly, made a claim for the Bible as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Your comment came after I listed things in the Bible that have not been proven by science to be false. Lists with articles, evidence ... so that people could read for themselves vs. take my word for it.
Finally, we're arguing over nothing ... or are we arguing over something ... I've not made a claim for religion in these posts nor have I asserted that the Bible is largely accurate. That's something you guys would argue against. But, hey, it's not something I've done. I simply said I don't know that the idea that science has disproved most of the Bible is accurate. Further, I've given a truthful representation of some historical events, etc... that were documented in the Bible and seem to be proven accurate, at least in general, by science.
I guess the argument, if there is one, possibly hinges on the questions I asked. Questions that no one seems to want to answer.
I just made the tally comment, when that's what the debate started to degenerate into. "
To truly be fair, it started like this ...
Travis wrote: "Since science has proven so much of the bible to be false or myth, is it really a good idea to make that the yardstick we judge religion by? "
Well, first, short of talking snakes, I'm not entirely sure the first part of that statement is correct.
So, .... Does my statement mean I doubted whether science has proven so much of the Bible to be false, or does my statement mean the Bible had a pretty good track record? Interesting question, that. Very different ways of looking at the thing.
In truth, as my words declared, I was referencing your reference of "so much" and the idea that science had proven so much of the Bible to be false. Neither are wholly accurate. I was not, also as evidenced by my words and, frankly, my words and behavior over the past year and a half, making a claim that the Bible has a great track record and is mostly accurate.
Seriously ....
Further, your comment regarding the tally didn't come after I, supposedly, made a claim for the Bible as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Your comment came after I listed things in the Bible that have not been proven by science to be false. Lists with articles, evidence ... so that people could read for themselves vs. take my word for it.
Finally, we're arguing over nothing ... or are we arguing over something ... I've not made a claim for religion in these posts nor have I asserted that the Bible is largely accurate. That's something you guys would argue against. But, hey, it's not something I've done. I simply said I don't know that the idea that science has disproved most of the Bible is accurate. Further, I've given a truthful representation of some historical events, etc... that were documented in the Bible and seem to be proven accurate, at least in general, by science.
I guess the argument, if there is one, possibly hinges on the questions I asked. Questions that no one seems to want to answer.
Travis wrote: "Now you get all heated about the 'religion causes war' bit, and chide people for their lack of historical knowledge, but are now going to defend the bible?
So, since the 'religion starts war' people got some stuff right, that would mean their argument is a strong as the bible's claim to science. Since, apparently, getting some stuff right is now okay."
I've gotten all heated and chided people, huh....
Careful .... We might be getting perilously close to making a quasi-personal attack. And, ... you know what Gary says about the motives of people who do that. Well, at least the motives of believers....
Don't worry, though. I'm used to male non-believers here making references to my being emotional, heated and confused. Well, to be truthful, one woman, believer or no, has said that, too....
Question....
When someone makes a claim that is inaccurate, historically, and I argue for our being accurate in our claims, you think I'm "all heated" and such.
Does that mean, when people make claims as to God's existence and the need to believe, you get "all heated" and such? You know.... When you follow up with talk about the "big guy in the sky" ... is that you being heated and chiding?
Hmmm....
Or, do you simply want people to be accurate? Do you want people to say, "I believe "God" exists, but I know I don't have evidence, at least scientific evidence, to prove such to be true" ...?
Now, regarding your argument that the "religion causes all wars" camp is as accurate as I am, ....
Well, that would be true if I was arguing for the Bible. Yes? For the Bible as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Hey, part of it is true, so all of it must be.
If that were my argument, you'd be, I guess, onto something.
But, given the fact that it isn't even remotely close to what I'm saying, I have to say ... that dog don't hunt.
In both cases, ... I was arguing for history. Not against non-believers and not for the Bible.
I'm simply asking that people make accurate statements.
So, since the 'religion starts war' people got some stuff right, that would mean their argument is a strong as the bible's claim to science. Since, apparently, getting some stuff right is now okay."
I've gotten all heated and chided people, huh....
Careful .... We might be getting perilously close to making a quasi-personal attack. And, ... you know what Gary says about the motives of people who do that. Well, at least the motives of believers....
Don't worry, though. I'm used to male non-believers here making references to my being emotional, heated and confused. Well, to be truthful, one woman, believer or no, has said that, too....
Question....
When someone makes a claim that is inaccurate, historically, and I argue for our being accurate in our claims, you think I'm "all heated" and such.
Does that mean, when people make claims as to God's existence and the need to believe, you get "all heated" and such? You know.... When you follow up with talk about the "big guy in the sky" ... is that you being heated and chiding?
Hmmm....
Or, do you simply want people to be accurate? Do you want people to say, "I believe "God" exists, but I know I don't have evidence, at least scientific evidence, to prove such to be true" ...?
Now, regarding your argument that the "religion causes all wars" camp is as accurate as I am, ....
Well, that would be true if I was arguing for the Bible. Yes? For the Bible as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Hey, part of it is true, so all of it must be.
If that were my argument, you'd be, I guess, onto something.
But, given the fact that it isn't even remotely close to what I'm saying, I have to say ... that dog don't hunt.
In both cases, ... I was arguing for history. Not against non-believers and not for the Bible.
I'm simply asking that people make accurate statements.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "to be fair, the tally thing started when you claimed that aside from the talking snake the bible had a pretty good track record.I just made the tally comment, when that's what the ..."
Your questions:
Yes, I think it's 'dangerous' to admit the bible is historically accurate, because it isn't.
It is used to convince people to follow god and too many people treat it like a text book, when it is a collection of myths, parables and stories.
Don't think this is a fair question though, as your example implies that 'most of the bible has been proven untrue' is a false statement and there's still some doubt about that one in my mind.
I wouldn't allow a false statement like 'All Christians secretly eat puppies'.
There is a lack of knowledge as to how historically/scientifically accurate the bible is, but again, I think it's because people think the bible is scientifically and historically accurate.
Shanna wrote: "Hazels did not ask for one thing from the bible to proved true, she asked for something NEW in the bible something people of the time didn't already know an entirely different proposition. Something predictive like mental illness is not demonic possession, the germ theory of illness... "And, part of the point, though I guess we can pretend to ignore it, is that Becky said, simply, some things in the Bible have been proven to be true. Hazel, of course, went down the scientific route. Name one new thing that, etc..., etc... What was my response? We know, right? Might Becky have been referring to things from history ... people, tunnels, wars, etc...?
Yup.
Hazel was pretty clear the bible writer wrote what they knew, Hazel was asking where is something they didn't know something divinely inspired. I don't know what is unclear about that?
Then, when Maria wrote about the world as a circle and someone wrote that such writings occurred in 700 BCE elsewhere, I decided to go to the historical record. Oops. Nope. Not so much.
At some point, Travis kept saying that people were happily claiming that the Bible got so much right and science has proven "so much" of the Bible to be false, mere myth. Huh.... No matter how many times I said, really ... no one is happily claiming the Bible got so much right ... that "argument" kept being made.
Actually I agree with Travis here it is a common argument I've encountered many times from theist Just because it is not your argument does not mean it is not a prevalent one.
Well, that "argument" is inaccurate, for more than one reason. It's not what we were doing and it's not historically accurate, with regard to events in the Bible, etc....
So, .... If we want to focus on Hazel's argument, we can say, as Maria did, that Isaiah refers to the world as a circle. Some might see a round world in their heads. Some might see a flat circle. Further, Maria mentioned the reference in Job to the world being suspended in nothing. Huh.... Something "NEW" ... perhaps? Something that others at the time weren't aware of. Seemingly possible.
"If we want to focus on Hazel's argument" that was the argument at hand...
If we want to add to that, ... the fact that Becky might have been thinking history vs. science or the fact that the idea, promoted by Travis, that "so much" in the Bible has been proven by science to be untrue, we can analyze the historic record and read some of the information I posted. And, no, bringing the historic record to light is not an argument that all other claims in the Bible are accurate. Not even close. Not the point at all. (By the way, ... the NYT doesn't prove Spiderman ... I'm unclear. Does that mean you don't think the NYT is an adequate reference? Is wiki a better source?
Where does the historic record come into it Hazel said: "name something that has been proven to be true from the bible that we didn't know to be true before the bible was written. People so often underestimate the level of knowledge pre monotheistic societies had.
" Becky said nothing about the historical record you erected that strawman all by yourself Hazel's question specifically referred to things they couldn't have known, presuambly they could have know the historical record to that point...
The spiderman thing if a story is set in the real world and mentions real places and real events is not necessarily proof the story is real...
Finally, I can't help but notice...
You ignored my questions
I did not... but I'll copy and paste it for you.
The point is that New York is not evidence Spiderman...
I have no problem if events like the plague are real, they were a real enough event all over the world, real they don't prove the claims of the bible... Really, that wasn't the point!? really...
Floods are real enough and to folk who can't see it's edge it may indeed seem the world covered, but a world wide flood...
I'll address more fully now I had to pick up the kids.
Do non-believers feel it's "dangerous" to admit that a good number of writings regarding events, etc... in the Bible are historically accurate?
I can't spesk for every non believer, but for my self
No, writing retroactively for events they could have easily known about, is no startling thing, it the editorializing about the cause of events ie Joshua blowing his trumpet and god knocking down the walls, God destroying Sodom and Gommorrah because not ten good people could be found, Women suffering painful childbirth as punishment from god thus women must be bad, that's dangerous...
Do you guys think it could be used to convince people that "God" exists and that they should follow religion? If so, given that, would you allow false claims to be made and even make false claims in order to promote lack of belief? Example ... Nothing in the Bible is true. Or, most of the Bible has been proven not to be true.
It may convince some folk who don't critically analyse the proposition and in fact I'd say it does.
Or, is there simply a lack of knowledge regarding history and, given that, some have believed falsehoods that have been promoted? Falsehoods like ... religion causes all wars or most wars.
I guess we can all be guilty of that... Oh and when on this green earth do you sleep woman? :D
Travis wrote: "Yes, I think it's 'dangerous' to admit the bible is historically accurate, because it isn't."
Ah, Travis ....
That wasn't my contention and wasn't the question. Come on....
The question was ...
Do non-believers feel it's "dangerous" to admit that a good number of writings regarding events, etc... in the Bible are historically accurate?
Why are you painting me as a Bible thumper? Do I really need to cry bull**it? Seriously.
There are a number of writings in the Bible, regarding events, etc... (etc... meaning rulers like old Neb) that have been proven, historically, to be true ... at least in general. And, wow, I've even pointed out that fact and given sources that point out that fact and are far from Bible thumping.
Further, I made this statement,
"@Maria ... No, the Bible isn't a history book, but some things in the Bible can be proven through archaeology and the historic record."
So, seriously, why misrepresent my point and put a Bible-thumping spin on the question ... rewording it, for all intents and purposes.
Is accurate information really and truly that horrifying and dangerous to non-believers? 'Cause, if so, WOW!
Ah, Travis ....
That wasn't my contention and wasn't the question. Come on....
The question was ...
Do non-believers feel it's "dangerous" to admit that a good number of writings regarding events, etc... in the Bible are historically accurate?
Why are you painting me as a Bible thumper? Do I really need to cry bull**it? Seriously.
There are a number of writings in the Bible, regarding events, etc... (etc... meaning rulers like old Neb) that have been proven, historically, to be true ... at least in general. And, wow, I've even pointed out that fact and given sources that point out that fact and are far from Bible thumping.
Further, I made this statement,
"@Maria ... No, the Bible isn't a history book, but some things in the Bible can be proven through archaeology and the historic record."
So, seriously, why misrepresent my point and put a Bible-thumping spin on the question ... rewording it, for all intents and purposes.
Is accurate information really and truly that horrifying and dangerous to non-believers? 'Cause, if so, WOW!
Travis wrote: "Don't think this is a fair question though, as your example implies that 'most of the bible has been proven untrue' is a false statement and there's still some doubt about that one in my mind.
I wouldn't allow a false statement like 'All Christians secretly eat puppies'."
Don't know how to respond to this ... given the fact that my question doesn't imply that most of the Bible has been proven untrue nor does it imply that most of the Bible has been proven true.
The question stated a good number of writings regarding events, etc... (...and, when it comes to the etc... all I had discussed were tunnels and leaders like Neb) have been proven to be historically accurate ... through archaeology, aka science.
But, I guess I'm grateful that you'd never let people get away with saying Christians eat puppies.
?
I wouldn't allow a false statement like 'All Christians secretly eat puppies'."
Don't know how to respond to this ... given the fact that my question doesn't imply that most of the Bible has been proven untrue nor does it imply that most of the Bible has been proven true.
The question stated a good number of writings regarding events, etc... (...and, when it comes to the etc... all I had discussed were tunnels and leaders like Neb) have been proven to be historically accurate ... through archaeology, aka science.
But, I guess I'm grateful that you'd never let people get away with saying Christians eat puppies.
?
Shanna wrote: "Actually I agree with Travis here it is a common argument I've encountered many times from theist Just because it is not your argument does not mean it is not a prevalent one. "
Ahhh.... So, are you and Travis responding to theists who are making a common Bible-thumping argument. If so, I can understand the confusion. Instead of dealing with the arguments at hand, one might have been addressing arguments made by other people in other places, which hardly seems fair ... I must say.
If you and Travis were really discussing things with me vs. some random theist from your past, perhaps you could tell me which parts of my many posts led you to believe I was "happily claiming the Bible got so much right" ....
I'd be rather interested in the evidence for that ... since you agree with it.
Ahhh.... So, are you and Travis responding to theists who are making a common Bible-thumping argument. If so, I can understand the confusion. Instead of dealing with the arguments at hand, one might have been addressing arguments made by other people in other places, which hardly seems fair ... I must say.
If you and Travis were really discussing things with me vs. some random theist from your past, perhaps you could tell me which parts of my many posts led you to believe I was "happily claiming the Bible got so much right" ....
I'd be rather interested in the evidence for that ... since you agree with it.
Shanna wrote: ""If we want to focus on Hazel's argument" that was the argument at hand..."
Which was done ... circle ... suspended in nothing ....
The argument changed a bit when people made statements that weren't exactly historically accurate. So, the argument evolved.
More to the point, however, Maria gave Hazel her one thing ... one new thing that wasn't known. That's it. That's all.
Somehow, that was seen as using that statement to prove the veracity of the Bible and as a reason for her faith.
And, who knows, maybe my references to actual historic fact were seen as that.
When, in reality, Hazel asked for one thing and Maria said ... Isaiah refers to the world as a circle and she didn't think other people at the time did.
Maria! What were you thinking? You darned Bible-thumper, you! Oh, wait.... I actually seem to remember your stating, over the past few months, that you're not sure about your faith and the veracity of the Bible ... though, if people claim to be Christian, in your opinion, they should believe every word ... however, you're conflicted. Given your words and conduct, then, I'm guessing you're not Bible-thumping.
So, that and the answer to Hazel's question do not a theist argument make.
By the way, should I ignore it when people make comments that aren't historically accurate? Is that the thing...?
Which was done ... circle ... suspended in nothing ....
The argument changed a bit when people made statements that weren't exactly historically accurate. So, the argument evolved.
More to the point, however, Maria gave Hazel her one thing ... one new thing that wasn't known. That's it. That's all.
Somehow, that was seen as using that statement to prove the veracity of the Bible and as a reason for her faith.
And, who knows, maybe my references to actual historic fact were seen as that.
When, in reality, Hazel asked for one thing and Maria said ... Isaiah refers to the world as a circle and she didn't think other people at the time did.
Maria! What were you thinking? You darned Bible-thumper, you! Oh, wait.... I actually seem to remember your stating, over the past few months, that you're not sure about your faith and the veracity of the Bible ... though, if people claim to be Christian, in your opinion, they should believe every word ... however, you're conflicted. Given your words and conduct, then, I'm guessing you're not Bible-thumping.
So, that and the answer to Hazel's question do not a theist argument make.
By the way, should I ignore it when people make comments that aren't historically accurate? Is that the thing...?
Shanna wrote: "Do non-believers feel it's "dangerous" to admit that a good number of writings regarding events, etc... in the Bible are historically accurate?
I can't spesk for every non believer, but for my self
No, writing retroactively for events they could have easily known about, "
Okay. Glad to hear it.
It seemed odd last night that you responded by saying accurate information in the Bible regarding historical events doesn't prove other claims. Odd because that wasn't the contention .... Glad, though, ... truly ... that you don't think it's dangerous to admit that some things that are written in the Bible are historically accurate. Glad given how much stock many non-believers put in evidence. I think it would rather throw that argument off if non-believers started freaking out when and if historical evidence for certain things were mentioned.
Regarding sleep ... got about 5 hours or so. Must admit ... time got away from me last night.
I can't spesk for every non believer, but for my self
No, writing retroactively for events they could have easily known about, "
Okay. Glad to hear it.
It seemed odd last night that you responded by saying accurate information in the Bible regarding historical events doesn't prove other claims. Odd because that wasn't the contention .... Glad, though, ... truly ... that you don't think it's dangerous to admit that some things that are written in the Bible are historically accurate. Glad given how much stock many non-believers put in evidence. I think it would rather throw that argument off if non-believers started freaking out when and if historical evidence for certain things were mentioned.
Regarding sleep ... got about 5 hours or so. Must admit ... time got away from me last night.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Actually I agree with Travis here it is a common argument I've encountered many times from theist Just because it is not your argument does not mean it is not a prevalent one. "Ahh..."
Why is it I'm being chided for reiterating a common theistic argument of the scientific veracity of the bible, presumably because is it not yours
"At some point, Travis kept saying that people were happily claiming that the Bible got so much right and science has proven "so much" of the Bible to be false, mere myth. Huh.... No matter how many times I said, really ... no one is happily claiming the Bible got so much right ... that "argument" kept being made."
then Becky made that exact same argument that you are saying is not being made... Perhaps Travis was addressing this...
and science has proved things in the Bible to be true. I think God made man with a curious mind so we could use science to learn about our world and how it works and also solve our own problems.
Presumably relatively happy about it. Are you denying people make that argument, just because it is not yours doesn't mean it is not made, frequently...
Also why am I being chided for presumably lumping all theists together under they all make the science has proved the "truth" of the bible and in the next paragraph you are happy lump all non believers as freaking out about the bible being actually correct about an event.
It is we know it is, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod was an actual client king, Rome Jerusalem and such where actual places, crucifixion was an actual execution method, but what about the earthquake, eclipse and zombies of the crucifixion, the nonexistent census, Herod's the massacre of the male infants, All of these are events worthy of documentation and the Romans wrote everything down,indeed conducted censi, censuses,, the silence is a little deafening...
Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Actually I agree with Travis here it is a common argument I've encountered many times from theist Just because it is not your argument does not mean it is not a preva..."
Wouldn't want to "chide" you, Shanna.
You're right. Becky may (...or may not) have been making that argument. Travis, however, was commenting on Maria's remarks ... and mine. And, you, after all, said you agreed with Travis and referenced theist arguments.
I was making some observations. But, if I was wrong, ....
If when you said you agreed with Travis, you meant with regard to Becky and not with regard to Maria or with me, well, I guess I'm wrong.
If that's what you meant....
If that's not what you meant, I'd ask for evidence from my statements that would point toward Bible-thumping.
If you meant that you agreed with Travis and that Maria or that I Bible-thumped yet have no evidence of that, you'd be, actually, throwing us into the theist pool.
Chiding or observing.... It's a fine line, I guess. Therefore, I should likely end my part of the discussion here.
Wouldn't want to "chide" you, Shanna.
You're right. Becky may (...or may not) have been making that argument. Travis, however, was commenting on Maria's remarks ... and mine. And, you, after all, said you agreed with Travis and referenced theist arguments.
I was making some observations. But, if I was wrong, ....
If when you said you agreed with Travis, you meant with regard to Becky and not with regard to Maria or with me, well, I guess I'm wrong.
If that's what you meant....
If that's not what you meant, I'd ask for evidence from my statements that would point toward Bible-thumping.
If you meant that you agreed with Travis and that Maria or that I Bible-thumped yet have no evidence of that, you'd be, actually, throwing us into the theist pool.
Chiding or observing.... It's a fine line, I guess. Therefore, I should likely end my part of the discussion here.
Shanna wrote: "the Romans wrote everything down"
Can't help myself ....
I know many say and believe that the Romans wrote everything down. It's a very common idea.
Is it accurate?
Spoiler Alert ... This post will address a historical personage and not be an attempt to verify claims found in the Bible.
Did Boudica live? Did she fight the Romans? Did she burn Roman cities?
What do people think?
I think Boudicca lived and burned Roman cities.
Interestingly, though, if memory serves, the Romans didn't write her name down in their records. Well, not at the time at least ... some 50 to 70 years later. And, that, wasn't exactly written down by the Romans, at least not by the Roman machine.
But, please note, I'm discussing Boudicca. I'm guessing, though, that the Romans didn't write other things down. Like ... the existence of Hannibal and his exploits in Italy.
Can't help myself ....
I know many say and believe that the Romans wrote everything down. It's a very common idea.
Is it accurate?
Spoiler Alert ... This post will address a historical personage and not be an attempt to verify claims found in the Bible.
Did Boudica live? Did she fight the Romans? Did she burn Roman cities?
What do people think?
I think Boudicca lived and burned Roman cities.
Interestingly, though, if memory serves, the Romans didn't write her name down in their records. Well, not at the time at least ... some 50 to 70 years later. And, that, wasn't exactly written down by the Romans, at least not by the Roman machine.
But, please note, I'm discussing Boudicca. I'm guessing, though, that the Romans didn't write other things down. Like ... the existence of Hannibal and his exploits in Italy.
Yes that is what I meant, I took it to his referring to Becky's assertion and then you and Maria providing "evidence" for it. Bible thumping is an emotive word designed to further chide me for I did not use it.. and would not in connection with you, as for Maria, I have been in other threads in which she was participating also and while I wouldn't say bible thumping...
You argued incorrectly that "the science proves the bible" assertion card had not be played here it has and a multitude of times for goodness sake the thread is science or religion there has been little but.
You say you have not made this argument, perhaps, but you did considerable research (for a thread such as this) to go to some length to argue it for Becky.
Why do you choose to address this and ignore the substantative points?
Shanna wrote: "you did considerable research (for a thread such as this) to go to some length to argue it for Becky.
Why do you choose to address this and ignore the substantative points? "
In point of truth ... and I'm being 100% honest ... I didn't do considerable research. Regarding the history, I knew all of that. History is my thing. It always has been. All of that was in my head to begin with. Given that I didn't want to just say it and expect people to trust that I wasn't talking out of my arse, I quickly Googled things. It didn't take much.
Why do I choose to address this and not substantive points?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. History is important. When we forget the past, we continue to make the same mistakes ... over and over. A fair number of people don't seem to know much about history. I see that as problematic. I didn't take chemistry and physics in high school and only have some knowledge of "earth" science and bio. I, personally, see that as problematic. As I've mentioned before .... Therefore, I read science related articles all the time.
What substantive points am I ignoring? That certain things that are claimed in the Bible aren't accurate. Well, I've actually admitted that, over and over, throughout the past year. That I don't believe the Bible is, word for word, the Divine word of God ... but written by fallible men. I'm said that over and over again. The fact that there's no evidence for a census, at least at the time and place it was claimed, and for Herod's massacre of the babies. There is no historical evidence for either of those things nor did I or would I claim there was evidence of those events.
I've not claimed that all of the events, etc... of the Bible are true.
I did claim that I questioned whether or not science has disproven much of what's in the Bible. That and only that.
Further, I mentioned that Becky might have been thinking history vs. science. I don't think her post is clear on that point. We're guessing. Simply guessing.
Finally, regarding Maria's point, I went to "Ask an..." because I knew the person's response to Maria, timing, was inaccurate. I was right and offered that info. How is that problematic or indicative of my "providing evidence" for Becky's assertion.? Maria answered Hazel; I corrected a historical inaccuracy. (Don't know Maria from other threads, so I can't say anything about that.)
And, regarding what I choose to address, as I've mentioned on several occasions, I'm not okay with people making inaccurate historical claims. Cerebus told me once, given that, it's for me to address those things. Just as he has issues regarding people saying religion leads to moral behavior. He doesn't think that's okay, so he takes it upon himself to address it.
Are you suggesting I not address that, or that, by addressing such inaccuracies, I'm defending the faith? Truly? I'm guessing not, but that's just a guess.
Hopefully this answers your question .... I'm not sure as I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at regarding substantive points.
Why do you choose to address this and ignore the substantative points? "
In point of truth ... and I'm being 100% honest ... I didn't do considerable research. Regarding the history, I knew all of that. History is my thing. It always has been. All of that was in my head to begin with. Given that I didn't want to just say it and expect people to trust that I wasn't talking out of my arse, I quickly Googled things. It didn't take much.
Why do I choose to address this and not substantive points?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. History is important. When we forget the past, we continue to make the same mistakes ... over and over. A fair number of people don't seem to know much about history. I see that as problematic. I didn't take chemistry and physics in high school and only have some knowledge of "earth" science and bio. I, personally, see that as problematic. As I've mentioned before .... Therefore, I read science related articles all the time.
What substantive points am I ignoring? That certain things that are claimed in the Bible aren't accurate. Well, I've actually admitted that, over and over, throughout the past year. That I don't believe the Bible is, word for word, the Divine word of God ... but written by fallible men. I'm said that over and over again. The fact that there's no evidence for a census, at least at the time and place it was claimed, and for Herod's massacre of the babies. There is no historical evidence for either of those things nor did I or would I claim there was evidence of those events.
I've not claimed that all of the events, etc... of the Bible are true.
I did claim that I questioned whether or not science has disproven much of what's in the Bible. That and only that.
Further, I mentioned that Becky might have been thinking history vs. science. I don't think her post is clear on that point. We're guessing. Simply guessing.
Finally, regarding Maria's point, I went to "Ask an..." because I knew the person's response to Maria, timing, was inaccurate. I was right and offered that info. How is that problematic or indicative of my "providing evidence" for Becky's assertion.? Maria answered Hazel; I corrected a historical inaccuracy. (Don't know Maria from other threads, so I can't say anything about that.)
And, regarding what I choose to address, as I've mentioned on several occasions, I'm not okay with people making inaccurate historical claims. Cerebus told me once, given that, it's for me to address those things. Just as he has issues regarding people saying religion leads to moral behavior. He doesn't think that's okay, so he takes it upon himself to address it.
Are you suggesting I not address that, or that, by addressing such inaccuracies, I'm defending the faith? Truly? I'm guessing not, but that's just a guess.
Hopefully this answers your question .... I'm not sure as I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at regarding substantive points.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Yes, I think it's 'dangerous' to admit the bible is historically accurate, because it isn't."Ah, Travis ....
That wasn't my contention and wasn't the question. Come on....
The q..."
I addressed the question, I think it is dangerous, because I don't see the bible as being mostly historically accurate.
I'm not painting you as a bible thumper, but I am disagreeing with your claim.
You keep claiming most, alot, in general the bible is historically. scientifically accurate as though that is a solid fact and I don't see a couple links and a few general points as proving the point.
So, I'm not dodging your question, but just pointing out that I think your main point is flawed.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Don't think this is a fair question though, as your example implies that 'most of the bible has been proven untrue' is a false statement and there's still some doubt about that one i..."again, if I disagree with your main point, then of course I'm going to have a little trouble when your example of a false statement is something I've said I disagree with.
Travis wrote: "I don't see the bible as being mostly historically accurate."
Nor do I. Yay! It seems we're in agreement.
I do, though, know that a good number of events, etc... detailed in the Bible have been proven, through archaeology, to be historically accurate. That's my main point. That and only that ... with notations regarding the fact that the Bible is not a history text and should not be read as such; there are things, a good bit, that aren't proven through archaeology.
Now, if you disagree that a good number of events, etc... detailed in the Bible have been proven, through archaeology, to be historically accurate, we're not in agreement. But, that is the crux of my argument.
Don't know how to respond to 8994 ... found it somewhat confusing. Both times ....
It reads that I'm saying "most of the Bible has been proven untrue" ... but, ultimately, you've been arguing the opposite, that I've been saying most of the Bible is true, that it has such a good track record, etc....
My argument is not on either extreme....
Nor do I. Yay! It seems we're in agreement.
I do, though, know that a good number of events, etc... detailed in the Bible have been proven, through archaeology, to be historically accurate. That's my main point. That and only that ... with notations regarding the fact that the Bible is not a history text and should not be read as such; there are things, a good bit, that aren't proven through archaeology.
Now, if you disagree that a good number of events, etc... detailed in the Bible have been proven, through archaeology, to be historically accurate, we're not in agreement. But, that is the crux of my argument.
Don't know how to respond to 8994 ... found it somewhat confusing. Both times ....
It reads that I'm saying "most of the Bible has been proven untrue" ... but, ultimately, you've been arguing the opposite, that I've been saying most of the Bible is true, that it has such a good track record, etc....
My argument is not on either extreme....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I don't see the bible as being mostly historically accurate."Nor do I. Yay! It seems we're in agreement.
I do, though, know that a good number of events, etc... detailed in th..."
you have stated that a bunch of stuff has been proven, as a counter to my the bible got a lot of stuff wrong.
So, we are on opposite sides of this.
Not that either argument is extreme, but I think we are more disagreeing due to terms.
you disagree with my 'most', and I find your 'a good number' too vague to be able to agree with it.
What is a 'a good number'?
Compared to stuff they got wrong, is it a big enough percentage to be seen as a positive thing?
In my mind, I'm looking at the ratio of right to wrong and don't think it adds up enough to view the bible as a reliable book, so saying they got a few things right doesn't seem a compelling/positive argument on the whole, as I see the ratio to not be in the bible's favor.
Travis wrote: "What is a 'a good number'? Compared to stuff they got wrong, is it a big enough percentage to be seen as a positive thing?"
This is what I think, in my heart. Perhaps it can be a compromise.
I, personally, think the Bible was written by fallible men, as I've said previously. I think, more often than not, it reflects the culture, etc... of men of that time and place. Some things are likely myth. Many things can't be proven through the historic record. However, there are a good number of events, cities, rulers, etc... that are recorded in the Bible and have been proven to be historically accurate.
Would you agree with that statement, or do you still disagree? It's cool if you disagree. I'd just like you to understand and acknowledge what I'm actually arguing.
Separate and apart from that, for me, some of the teachings seem to hold great truth and serve as a reminder to me. As I've mentioned before, James speaks the most to me. But, that is truly separate and apart from my argument. I add this because it's true and I believe in full disclosure.
This is what I think, in my heart. Perhaps it can be a compromise.
I, personally, think the Bible was written by fallible men, as I've said previously. I think, more often than not, it reflects the culture, etc... of men of that time and place. Some things are likely myth. Many things can't be proven through the historic record. However, there are a good number of events, cities, rulers, etc... that are recorded in the Bible and have been proven to be historically accurate.
Would you agree with that statement, or do you still disagree? It's cool if you disagree. I'd just like you to understand and acknowledge what I'm actually arguing.
Separate and apart from that, for me, some of the teachings seem to hold great truth and serve as a reminder to me. As I've mentioned before, James speaks the most to me. But, that is truly separate and apart from my argument. I add this because it's true and I believe in full disclosure.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "What is a 'a good number'? Compared to stuff they got wrong, is it a big enough percentage to be seen as a positive thing?"This is what I think, in my heart. Perhaps it can be a c..."
I do still disagree.
I get what you are saying, but like I said before, my main problem was that the terms were too vague to make a strong, definitive argument for the bible as any kind of reference material.
I have no trouble with religion and the bible as a personal philosophy, it's when they are moved from the personal to the public that I've got issues.
Travis wrote: " the terms were too vague to make a strong, definitive argument for the bible as any kind of reference material"
Have mercy...! I appreciate your tenacity, truly, I can say that.
Question ....
Where in any of my posts or questions did I hold the Bible up as reference material?
You might want to look at post 8972 and the following ...
"@Maria ... No, the Bible isn't a history book, but some things in the Bible can be proven through archaeology and the historic record."
I wrote that, by the way.
Have mercy...! I appreciate your tenacity, truly, I can say that.
Question ....
Where in any of my posts or questions did I hold the Bible up as reference material?
You might want to look at post 8972 and the following ...
"@Maria ... No, the Bible isn't a history book, but some things in the Bible can be proven through archaeology and the historic record."
I wrote that, by the way.
I'm just referring in general to how people see it that way.With so many comments floating around, i do on occasion make a blanket statement, trying to deal with a bunch of ideas and am old and creaky, so do not always keep track of who said what.
in other words,shannon, it's not all about you.
But, your comments did contain enough vague terms that they got lumped in with the others, as it was a common thread though the multitude comments concerning the bible as historically accurate.
OK. Thanks for defending me, Shannon. I normally don't feel the need to justify my posts here or in other threads - I just say what's on my mind and try not to be offensive - but I will explain a bit more. I have read and studied the Bible, both independently and with the "thumpers". I know what it says. And it annoys me to no end when people cherry pick, misquote, or otherwise twist what is actually written to justify their own traditions, behavior, and/or lifestyle.
There is actually a gentlman on one of the other threads who has been commenting that he is "saved" - by some supernatural revelation made to him at a gas station - but then in the same post he claims God has ruined his life, and that he doesn't believe anything from Acts to Jude.... Seriously?
Is it the inspired word of God? I don't know, and really don't care. It's a book, there for our reading pleasure, discussing, commenting, etc.
So, really I'm not a "thumper" per se, but I do get my feathers ruffled when I feel the hypocrisy. Such as when someone claims to be a "thumper" - a devout Catholic, Baptist, etc. but then says, but I don't really believe the entire Bible, I know it says _________, but it really meant ___________.
Anyway, that's my "angle" - and I've really enjoyed "meeting" all the people on this thread - I don't always have time to post, but I do check in every few days, and comment when the spirit moves me. Pun intended. :)
If nothing else, you Science folks, you can get yourself this t-shirt...http://store.xkcd.com/products/scienc...
...in case you ever have a t-shirt duel with someone wearing one saying "WWJD?" or the like I don't care who wins the duel, just as long as you all go for a drink together afterwards.
Michael wrote: "If nothing else, you Science folks, you can get yourself this t-shirt...http://store.xkcd.com/products/scienc...
...in case you ever have a t-shirt duel with someone wearing one saying "WWJD..."
I would prefer to wear a 'What would Scooby Do?' t-shirt myself.
personally, i don't think we can live in a world without either of them, since they practically go hand in hand
Josh wrote: "personally, i don't think we can live in a world without either of them, since they practically go hand in hand"How? How do they go hand in hand? Trust me, this is something that new posters claim on at least a weekly basis, and it still hasn't been shown that this is the case. But always interested to hear a (hopefully) new take.
Some people may say they'd be happy to live without science, but I suspect the people helped by this will disagree....
Give me science any day, religion was and still is based on superstition and ignorance. God seems to be the answer for all things that the human race do not understand. Science is slowly but surely bridging the gap between the unknown and fact. For those teetering on the precipice of indecision read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, it is not bashing religion or science but rather providing logical points of view. It is also quite witty, he has some great quotes like "Blasphemy is a victimless crime" and "When one person is delusional it is called insanity, when a group of people are delusional it is called religion"And of course you know why you say Amen & not Awomen, it is because you sing Hymns not Hers.
I think both are important. They work together in a way that religion makes people disciplined and science advances their lives.
I think both are important. To me, religion is restricting. Do this, you go to hell or purgatory or some other place where there are bugs and flames and blood and such. Isn't that what they usually say? Or maybe, do this and God will reward you, bless you and give you eternal life. Do good and you'll feel peace and quiet in your head and heart. Isn't that what we all want? Some peace and quiet? Or is that just me? I'm not an atheist, though, I'm not the 'religous' kind either. I'm in a place where I'm trying to figure that out.Anyway, science on the other hand, is sometimes quite the same. Science gives us answers that we don't want to hear. Like, how our brain works. It's creepy. How could they possibly know that if they hadn't used real and alive people as 'subjects'? Maybe even dead people to poke around their unconcsious brains. Gross, I know, but its an unavoidable point.
And the unavoidable point that I want to make is that both are intrusive: emotionally, intellectually and physically.
In a way, we need them both. To invade our lives and make it easier to understand things, be it about miracles or scientific discoveries. It's better to leave it to them to answer our many questions than to come up with our own answers. But I prefer answering my own questions and NOT letting other peoples opinion weaken mine otherwise.
when we were kids we are awed by things unexplainable, and as we grow up, we are eventually understanding why and how these things happened. one cannot exist without the wonder of another. some people blindly follow rules and accept things as they are, without reason, but they are satisfied because great things need not be explained, just like love, why dyou love? ( because i fucking can!) religion is something that a heart can understand while science is what the mind can grasp. and both constitute the wholeness of a person cause one cannot have the heart or the mind alone.
Victoria wrote: "and both constitute the wholeness of a person cause one cannot have the heart or the mind alone. "Why? We know so little of the working of the human brain but there is no reason to suspect that it's workings are more than purely physical processes.
The fact that when we are children we will believe any old crap told to us by our elders and the fact that as we grow we understand that most of this crap told to us by our elders when we were children is crap should surely point in the direction that much of the religious stuff we are told as children by our elders is also crap.
Hp wrote: "The fact that when we are children we will believe any old crap told to us by our elders and the fact that as we grow we understand that most of this crap told to us by our elders when we were children is crap should surely point in the direction that much of the religious stuff we are told as children by our elders is also crap. "
Wow.... Don't know that I've see the word "crap" so many times in one place before.
Don't know about Victoria but know what I was thinking as I read that post. Instead of feeling the splash of water to the face and thinking that I need to grow up, I started thinking about the crap people believe in.
Like ....
Adults, who are grown and intelligent and promote the search for evidence-based knowledge, believing that religion causes all or most wars.
Or, ... the same adults being misled by the idea that Romans wrote down everything ... and promoting that idea ... sometimes even promoting that false idea as a way to dissuade people from their beliefs. Turning people from what they consider is a false faith through false "facts".
The religious believing that religion alone gives humans a moral compass and that non-believers are immoral.
The religious closing their eyes to scientific facts ... like how long it took to create our planet ... as if acknowledging such scientific fact could shake their faith and destroy their "God".
Ehhh....
My point? All sorts of people believe all sorts of things, from a woman believing in "God" to a woman believing religion causes most wars.
Instead of focusing on "crap" and the need of religious folk to leave their faith behind, perhaps we should promote learning and knowledge for all people. Questioning for all people.
Then, ... when we come to certain understandings, whether they be about religion or history or science, we'll be making informed decisions and conscious choices. Maybe we'll still believe as we always have ... despite the evidence to the contrary or despite the lack of evidence. But, in those situations, we'd at least be making decisions after looking at facts, what is around us, what is in our minds and hearts, and will be making a choice ... instead of just following.
Wow.... Don't know that I've see the word "crap" so many times in one place before.
Don't know about Victoria but know what I was thinking as I read that post. Instead of feeling the splash of water to the face and thinking that I need to grow up, I started thinking about the crap people believe in.
Like ....
Adults, who are grown and intelligent and promote the search for evidence-based knowledge, believing that religion causes all or most wars.
Or, ... the same adults being misled by the idea that Romans wrote down everything ... and promoting that idea ... sometimes even promoting that false idea as a way to dissuade people from their beliefs. Turning people from what they consider is a false faith through false "facts".
The religious believing that religion alone gives humans a moral compass and that non-believers are immoral.
The religious closing their eyes to scientific facts ... like how long it took to create our planet ... as if acknowledging such scientific fact could shake their faith and destroy their "God".
Ehhh....
My point? All sorts of people believe all sorts of things, from a woman believing in "God" to a woman believing religion causes most wars.
Instead of focusing on "crap" and the need of religious folk to leave their faith behind, perhaps we should promote learning and knowledge for all people. Questioning for all people.
Then, ... when we come to certain understandings, whether they be about religion or history or science, we'll be making informed decisions and conscious choices. Maybe we'll still believe as we always have ... despite the evidence to the contrary or despite the lack of evidence. But, in those situations, we'd at least be making decisions after looking at facts, what is around us, what is in our minds and hearts, and will be making a choice ... instead of just following.
Shannon wrote: "Hp wrote: "The fact that when we are children we will believe any old crap told to us by our elders and the fact that as we grow we understand that most of this crap told to us by our elders when w..."Let's not forget my favorite: rational, educated people who believe an invisible being made the world and the belief system that doesn't cause all wars.
promoting looking at the facts, making an informed decision and then going ahead with your belief of choice, despite the evidence, may be why that woman believes religion causes all wars.
And if that's what you believe, why get so hopped up about the religion and war thing in the first place?
Maybe all the people that have said it reached that conclusion after doing what you recommend in that last paragraph.
Travis wrote: "Let's not forget my favorite: rational, educated people who believe an invisible being made the world and the belief system that doesn't cause all wars.
promoting looking at the facts, making an informed decision and then going ahead with your belief of choice, despite the evidence, may be why that woman believes religion causes all wars.
And if that's what you believe, why get so hopped up about the religion and war thing in the first place?"
Well, yeah ....
But, then, ... I don't claim to be logical all the time. In fact, I've admitted, on several occasions, that I don't have verifiable evidence for the existence of "God" and that my belief isn't logical.
That's quite different from advocating for logic in all things and stating that verifiable ... scientific ... evidence is needed in order to know something exists or is true. Different from saying that over and over, yet not really needing verifiable evidence to believe things when it comes right down to it. Certain things, at least.
Therein lies the difference....
Now, do the people who claim religion causes all wars or most wars or that the Romans wrote everything down want to answer your question? Did they do what I suggested? Did they study the thing? Read? Take a class? Read the BBC articles, etc...? Did they read those things and decide to go with their belief rather than go with the facts at hand? I mean, I guess it's possible.
It would get rather sticky, though. Because, at that point, you'd have people who say it's important to base decisions on logic, that it's not okay to lie, even if it makes people feel better, and that we should demand facts and evidence in all things who ....
... don't follow through with what they say other people should do ...?
Frankly, I wasn't thinking along those lines, because I don't think of you guys as a bunch of hypocrites who are full of bull. That's how I'd have to think of you guys, from now on, if that was the case, right? Read, questioned, searched mind and heart, yet decided the history texts and history professors are all wrong. Somehow.... You know you have no facts to back your claim. Worse than the absence of fact, you have facts that have been researched and evaluated by trained scientists/historians, yet you argue against those scientists. That would be pretty hypocritical, right? Or, is there another way to see that?
So, until I hear otherwise, I'm going with ... they just don't know a lot about history ... 'cause I'd rather think of you as logical, well-intentioned people who have strong moral codes and who wouldn't be hypocrites. That's how I choose to view you; I think that's likely accurate. No real desire to explore that other option ... unless people tell me it's true. Now, at that point, fine .... I'd just ask why they talk the logic and proof game and ask if that's a wise argument, given everything.
You know ...?
promoting looking at the facts, making an informed decision and then going ahead with your belief of choice, despite the evidence, may be why that woman believes religion causes all wars.
And if that's what you believe, why get so hopped up about the religion and war thing in the first place?"
Well, yeah ....
But, then, ... I don't claim to be logical all the time. In fact, I've admitted, on several occasions, that I don't have verifiable evidence for the existence of "God" and that my belief isn't logical.
That's quite different from advocating for logic in all things and stating that verifiable ... scientific ... evidence is needed in order to know something exists or is true. Different from saying that over and over, yet not really needing verifiable evidence to believe things when it comes right down to it. Certain things, at least.
Therein lies the difference....
Now, do the people who claim religion causes all wars or most wars or that the Romans wrote everything down want to answer your question? Did they do what I suggested? Did they study the thing? Read? Take a class? Read the BBC articles, etc...? Did they read those things and decide to go with their belief rather than go with the facts at hand? I mean, I guess it's possible.
It would get rather sticky, though. Because, at that point, you'd have people who say it's important to base decisions on logic, that it's not okay to lie, even if it makes people feel better, and that we should demand facts and evidence in all things who ....
... don't follow through with what they say other people should do ...?
Frankly, I wasn't thinking along those lines, because I don't think of you guys as a bunch of hypocrites who are full of bull. That's how I'd have to think of you guys, from now on, if that was the case, right? Read, questioned, searched mind and heart, yet decided the history texts and history professors are all wrong. Somehow.... You know you have no facts to back your claim. Worse than the absence of fact, you have facts that have been researched and evaluated by trained scientists/historians, yet you argue against those scientists. That would be pretty hypocritical, right? Or, is there another way to see that?
So, until I hear otherwise, I'm going with ... they just don't know a lot about history ... 'cause I'd rather think of you as logical, well-intentioned people who have strong moral codes and who wouldn't be hypocrites. That's how I choose to view you; I think that's likely accurate. No real desire to explore that other option ... unless people tell me it's true. Now, at that point, fine .... I'd just ask why they talk the logic and proof game and ask if that's a wise argument, given everything.
You know ...?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Let's not forget my favorite: rational, educated people who believe an invisible being made the world and the belief system that doesn't cause all wars.promoting looking at the fac..."
Again, why insist on the logic, research, etc if your last paragraph gives them an out to just go with your beliefs, make your choices...?
if being shown facts, history and evidence and then going with a contrary belief is horrible and hypocritical than you need to stop just targeting the non-believers.
because I only see you pushing the logic, research and reason argument only when it comes to your pet cause and not holding the religious folk to the same standard.
Travis wrote: "Again, why insist on the logic, research, etc if your last paragraph gives them an out to just go with your beliefs, make your choices...?
if being shown facts, history and evidence and then going with a contrary belief is horrible and hypocritical than you need to stop just targeting the non-believers.
because I only see you pushing the logic, research and reason argument only when it comes to your pet cause and not holding the religious folk to the same standard. "
Actually, Travis, I do not deserve that ... for a very long list of reasons.
I'll leave it at that.
if being shown facts, history and evidence and then going with a contrary belief is horrible and hypocritical than you need to stop just targeting the non-believers.
because I only see you pushing the logic, research and reason argument only when it comes to your pet cause and not holding the religious folk to the same standard. "
Actually, Travis, I do not deserve that ... for a very long list of reasons.
I'll leave it at that.
Hp wrote:Why? We know so little of the working of the human brain but there is no reason ..."
crap. yes we know so little,, but why would you call it crap? you've drawn into conclusion about things that people believe though you know little about it, i cannot understand all things, neither can everyone. and i can live with that knowing that it's beyond reason.
Hp wrote: "The fact that when we are children we will believe any old crap told to us by our elders and the fact that as we grow we understand that most of this crap told to us by our elders when we were children is crap should surely point in the direction that much of the religious stuff we are told as children by our elders is also crap"That's a lot of "crap" - you can take that as a double-meaning if you like, your choice. Got to admit though, fella, it was a bit harsh. It does recall the post I did a while back (I can't be bothered to look for it, sorry) about there being at least a little bit of patronisation when it comes to the atheist addressing the believer. You know the jive-ass tone I mean: "Ah you believe in God, there there, you do know it's cobblers don't you, like the Easter Bunny and economic policy fairness in Tory Britain. Fairy tales, cock and balls. Now drink your your cocoa! And instead of saying your prayers before you go to sleep, how about pi to 30 decimal places?" Dramatic license is being exercised here, can you tell? But you get the gist...
No, it's fair to say that no matter what side I'm on or anyone else is on, that kind of tone makes everything you say sound meaningless and unmeasured, even a bit preachy (ironic!) and lacking in control, street-corner nutbar cooked up on cheap sherry and wearing a string belt, as if perhaps you have let your passions be your undoing, as Spock always warned Bones about. Govern them. Being so proscriptive is not an opinion - it's a rant and therefore cannot be taken seriously.
You may think believers are misguided, you may think that they are lacking what we shall loosely call "the facts", but which you no doubt have a dictionary definition or two waiting to be exposed for our elucidation - though please don't do it on my account, it's only mildly relevant to my point and it won't be original thinking anyway.. But generally, it's fair enough if you believe them to be grasping at air and dealing in untenable futures, 'cos that's up to you. But adopting such an outrightly dismissive view is... well, crap.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Is it just me, or is this your go-to "argument" every time I use actual facts from the historic record to disprove misconceptions about history?
One could wonder about that ....
@Maria ... No, the Bible isn't a history book, but some things in the Bible can be proven through archaeology and the historic record.