Altruism as good as sex and chocolate?

Irreligious wrote

And here, right on cue, is where the dialog breaks down and your circular reasoning riles up the heathens. It's like that Bill Murray movie, "Groundhog Day," only this is a conversation on endless loop.

This may be egregious, but I am compelled to point out to you that once you exempt your beliefs from the laws of nature, and without any further evidence to back up your position, there is no place for the conversation to go. Any honest dialog is henceforth shut down in its tracks and this is precisely why the discussion devolves into personal attacks.*

I don't want to pique your ire, even if others around here think it's fine sport. However, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what you think you have of value to say to any of us that it is worth the perpetual enmity you engender here. And it is honestly earned, Lily. I hate saying that, but it's true, my dear. But I ain't mad at 'cha.

*Edited

This is a little arrogant. The argument doesn't break down because I point out the obvious-- that miracles violate science is a bias you bring to its study.

If the argument proceeded honestly, we would examine that proposition (since you don't agree with it).

[Choobus]

Miracles do not violate science. They violate (if they exist) currently understood science. Either your god acts within the framework of physical reality or it does not. In the latter case, as irrelegious suggests, no meaningful dialogue can take place. You cannot speak about what would, might or even could happen in an entirely undefined scenario. It's just a matter of logic and reason. It is the way theists eschew these vital concepts that breeds the contempt reasonable people logically have for them, and moreover, it is why true believers can accurately be described as shitsuckers.

One should distinguish between the abstract concept of god used by people to fill in the gaps of our knowledge, and the absurd specific religons used by people to tailor the gap god to a specific cultural environment for the purposes of sheeple herding. Where did the universe cone from? Fuck knows. Is the universe down with the gaysex? Chances are it doesn't care at all. Oh wait, a fictional book of ancient storries sort of suggests that some guys who reckon they have been talking to the universe say that maybe the gaysex is forbidden. When you pin a specific label on your diety (Hello, my name is JESUS) while claiming that it exists outside of our experience you make a cunt of your fictional god, and a fool of yourself.

Sternwallow wrote

Lily, you take much of the brunt of my conflict with the whole group of people who believe as you do. The others are more likely than you to actually put me in jail for not believing in Jesus and, for that, I am grateful. Is it of no interest to you, for instance, why people grouped by a different faith than yours might want to impose Sharia law on you? If only so you could find a way to stop them from actually doing it. Wouldn't you ask similar questions of as many Muslims as you met in conversation in a discussion forum? Surely your evident love of the esoteric realms of life has not so isolated you that you would complacently let fanatical hordes inundate you through the incremental erosion of your government and your culture.

We do not live in a theocracy. We have the tools we need to keep an alien legal system from usurping our laws and way of life, if we have the balls to do what needs to be done.

It is not only the failure as a science text, it is a failure concerning human psychology and behavior. Even more people misuse the Bible for this than for science.

Neither I nor millions of others, educated or not, would agree with this. I recognize myself and every other person I encounter in the pages of the Bible, just as I do in all literature, whatever its age.

It is not necessary that God say the universe is 12 billion years old as long as he doesn’t say that its creation took exactly 6, 24-hour days. If the terms “day” and “evening” and “morning” in Genesis aren’t meant to be literal, why would such obviously misleading terms be used metaphorically?

I despair. We have been over this so many times. Genesis is a literary work not a scientific treatise! How much so became even clearer to me after I listened to a series of lectures from Gary Rendsburg (Chair of Jewish History at Rutgers). It is carefully crafted to achieve its author's goals. Among those goals is the separation of God from any hint of evil. The world of the author's day was full of evil gods. Our author's words and the structure of the narrative make crystal clear (to his original audience) that God brought only good into the world. He does this symbolically with the term "light" and he does so concretely with the refrain "And He saw that it was good."

This process of separating God from the gods of the pagans is reflected in his very choice of words. The word sun and moon are avoided on day 4 because the same words were the names of Canaanite gods. Likewise he uses the plural "seas" because the singular form of the word was the name of the Canaanite sea god. This account in Genesis I is cosmocentric. The account in Genesis 2, is anthropocentric in its focus and has a different goal. Rendsburg (whose lectures on Genesis are available from the Teaching Company and are worth every penny) sums up the purpose of these two accounts by saying "Both foci are required in Israel's approach to religion: God and man in their separate realms yet inextricably interlinked".

The notion that the Bible, if it is the word of God, must be trustworthy for use by modern culture (of whatever age) is such a testable claim. If it turns out not to be trustworthy, it must not be the word of God and must not be sacred.

I despair, yet again. It is trustwory for use by modern culture, if used as it should be. It is not used properly as a scientific treatise.

How, I wonder, can we discern what those important things are and what the Bible tells us about them?

All of literature, all of philosophy (at least in the old days) has been concerned with the question of good and evil. Why we are here and where we are going, if we are going anywhere. What if, anything, it all means. How we should live, if we are to be happy. These are the issues the Bible addresses.

We seem to use our inherited and innate recognition of such important notions as morals to locate and identify the morals in the Bible. This suggests that, lacking any new insights from such a study, our existing morals are already sufficient and the Bible is confirmation at best, horrible misleader at worst. We readily declare that the God-instigated slaughter of innocents for being in the wrong tribe, is not a moral item just because we recognize it as being a fundamentally immoral act.

See the posts from SteveG at the beginning of this thread.

Can God really be pleased with science when He, according to the Bible, works so tirelessly against it and the very questioning attitude that is the heart of science? Can we truly trust a God who is afraid of iron or ineffective in its presence?

To be blunt, this you pulled out of your sphincter. God and truth are one. Scientific truth is God's truth. God's truth contains all scientific truth. There is no conflict possible.

Concerning Pi as an example, there will not be new facts that show it is 3 after all, but worse, God actually did extra, unnecessary work to get it wrong! There are three characteristics quoted for the sea which, taken together define Pi as =3. The description would have been perfect, without having to teach goat herders trigonometry, simply be dropping any one of the three conflicting items. The sea could have been round with a certain diameter, it could have had a circumference three times its diameter if it weren't round, it could have been round with a certain circumference. Any of these three would have been perfectly accurate but God had to overspecify the case incorrectly.

See above. This is a literary account and not written by God. It reflects, I suppose, the mathematical understanding of the man/men who wrote it. Yaaawwwn!

[calpurnpiso]

Lily wrote

Cal, you aren't the one who should be diagnosing crippled brains. I have given you a direct answer to this question at least twice that I remember. Why don't you, since it interests you so much?

Remember if the shoe fits.....besides, you only imagined giving me "direct" answer. You have NOT, simple ignoring answering something that could prove to us your neurological afliction. You NEVER answer our questions in an intelligent manner and it is not just me saying that!. First you ought to remember you ARE in a forum of mentally healthy folks ( atheists) that CAN, unlike you, tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Perhaps you FAIL to realize that's the reason I bring up Matthew -- a person that wrote the fairy tales you accept as reality, over 1900 years ago--so many times. Stick with REALITY if you can, though in brains crippled by Christ-psychosis infection this is not likely to happen. Keep in mind you are among very well educated QUESTIONERS that DEMAND evidence to the delusions spouted by Christ-psychotics and other demented people infected with religious beliefs. If you care to explain to us in minute detail WHY do you accept a stupid irrational idiotic asanine puerile tale written 1900 years ago as TRUE and WHY do you believe this idiotic puerile story has remained UNCHANGED all of these centuries, when it is OBVIOUS it has not, then I would stop begging for an intelligent response from you. If you simply answer by saying FAITH, you fail to understand that:

faith is always inversely proportional to the knowledge and information of the person experiencing this anomaly.
It is PRODUCED by chemical reactions under electromagnetism and
faith in extraordinary claims to represent reality without requiring extraordinary EVIDENCE is found in children, the very ignorant or those having brains crippled by disease where the ability to reason differentiating fantasy from reality has failed.

calpurnpiso wrote

Remember if the shoe fits.....besides, you only imagined giving me "direct" answer. You have NOT, simple ignoring answering something that could prove to us your neurological afliction. .

I can only be bothered to find one instance of the several where I answered your question directly.

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/view...191287#p191287

But you will ignore or forget this as soon as you see it (that razor sharp, healthy brain of yours is a wonder to behold).

[calpurnpiso]

Lily wrote:

"Pay attention sweetie: kisskisskiss Gotta make sure those cooties stick or, at least, that Kate has to come at you with an 18 gauge needle to insure that enough anti-venom reaches you in time--

In any case, I have answered this question for you several times. I have no basis on which to explain it away. Therefore, I have to assume that something very unusual happened. The fact that the other Gospels don't mention it makes me wary of accepting it dead literally.

Is this an answer? This "answer" of yours clearly shows confused thinking and a psychosis. Many atheists in this forum are STILL waiting for answers to their questions. Sorry you are still in the clouds unable to tell between the Christian fairy tales and reality.

[Sternwallow]

RenaissanceMan wrote

Heh! Yeah, I wanted to point that out, but we're already pushing 20 pages. I hate the "Well! Science doesn't know everything! It learns new shit all the time!" My response to that is "At least science learns, bitch!" Or as Choobus would say "Where is my Jesus powered car?"

You know damn well a Jesus powered car would use no gasoline or other oil related products! Who wouldn't want one?

I thought a Jesus car ran on anointing oil refined into godsoline.

[Sternwallow]

Rat Bastard wrote

The point is, I like to watch Sternwallow dice it up and go through it point by point, and finally pin the poor theist down to the point where they can't squirm anymore. They either leave, or complain they can't reason with him. All the made-up crap is flayed to the bone, and the theistic types just can't face up to it. lily's complaint is that she can't reason with him, essentially. This is the ultimate theistic dodge, the other ones just admit "Ya just gotta believe". I don't buy it for a minute that these people have some different, better, deeper knowledge of anything except an understanding of the human condition, which is invariably used by those expert at it to manipulate the rest of the sheeple unwittingly into some nefarious scheme like converting all the heathens in the Americas to xtianity on the way to attempting world domination. This is the reason the religious fear the atheist, the lack of manipulability. We stand there and say "What the hell is up with the Emperor?", when he strolls by nekkid to the world, when we are supposed to admire the cloth, like everybody else.

Ratty, you set a very high bar for my performance. Thankfully, I'm doing the Limbo so the higher bar makes it easier. I hope my little offering is up to spec.

Lily helps me sharpen my clauses. I owe her a special kind of debt that I know I'll never be able to adequately repay and that she wouldn't want me to.

Naturally I did hit on the Einstein Newton issue as you guys predicted.

[Choobus]

Sternwallow wrote

I thought a Jesus car ran on anointing oil refined into godsoline.

A real Jesus powered car would run on faith. That is, the priest sits in the car enjoying the quiet and smooth ride, while the faithful outside push the car along, thinking that their final destination is heaven

[Choobus]

Sternwallow wrote

Lily helps me sharpen my clauses. I owe her a special kind of debt that I know I'll never be able to adequately repay and that she wouldn't want me to.

Naturally I did hit on the Einstein Newton issue as you guys predicted.

I don't know how you have the patience. One also has to be careful to speak to theists in the right way. It's a bit like responding to a scowling wife: the wrong word and the shit hits not the fan but your face: For example, what is the correct response to a request to take out the garbage:

a) Yeah, I'll do it later

b) don't nag me woman

c) No problem, I'll do it immediately. I love you.

d) ok, after this wank

e) you're the garbage, take yourself out bitch

For some reason theists don't respond well to my analysis of their condition....

[The Judge]

Mog wrote

I want to know who this blogger is so we can dump comments on him. Its just apologetic tripe. The devotees of Newtonian physics weren't disproved by Einstein, just elaborated upon.

It is Mark Shea's blog

Dump away...

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

This is a little arrogant. The argument doesn't break down because I point out the obvious-- that miracles violate science is a bias you bring to its study.

If the argument proceeded honestly, we would examine that proposition (since you don't agree with it).

OK. If I told you that my maternal grandmother, a very wise and mysterious woman, was born without a navel and died at age 53 on Dec. 20, 1971, but revived herself exactly one week later, would you believe me? If not, what would be your bias against my claims?

(And, if it's not already clear to you, these are hypothetical questions).

[Mog]

Can God really be pleased with science when He, according to the Bible, works so tirelessly against it and the very questioning attitude that is the heart of science? Can we truly trust a God who is afraid of iron or ineffective in its presence?

To be blunt, this you pulled out of your sphincter. God and truth are one. Scientific truth is God's truth. God's truth contains all scientific truth. There is no conflict possible.

Would you like Sternwallow to quote the passage in the bible where god appears to be afraid of iron?

Or how about the many passages in the Bible where God practiced deception or urged his followers to do so?
You don't really believe whats in the Bible, Lily. You believe in a spin-doctored perfect version of it that doesn't exist.

[Sternwallow]

Lily wrote

He has you conned with his lengthy messages and his misquotations from scripture.

I must object! I sometimes loosely characterize well known ideas, but, more than any other poster, I give the actual text from the Book and do not misquote. Perhaps I reference smashing kids on rocks. When the detail is important, I give the whole quote “Pss.137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” when I ask what noble principle is to be gleaned from that “poetry” or in what possible context can happy infanticide be honored.

He doesn't dice, slice or go through anything point by point. He makes one irrelevant comment after another based on a reading of an ancient document that would earn him an F in any college literature course. We just get tired of trying to teach him what he either will not or cannot learn and we bail.

Of course I am interested in literature and, if I were in your literature course, I would treat the assigned material as literature and I would earn, though I doubt I would be awarded, at least a “B+”. Most Christians do not treat the Bible as literature, they call it the inerrant literal word of God and the powerful among them seek to embed it in our plural society thereby lowering all who do not happen to believe one particular brand of religion to subhuman status.

What I am positing is that he really can't understand what he is reading. So now I am feeling guilty for cutting him off a few months back.

I think my posting record during whatever time that was will show that I actually didn’t notice being “cut off”. As addicted as I am to this forum that I, along with several others love, I am not addicted to any Lily brand of irrationality.

Well, not exactly that. I would have had to stop trying to get through to him no matter what. But I would have been a great deal more gracious about it, if I had understood that literature just isn't his cup of tea and that there wasn't any way he could get what I and the others have been trying to convey.

Your concern for my feelings, while appreciated as a kind thought, is not necessary. I am quite comfortable with the written word in its many forms, literature, fiction, textbooks, poetry etc. The very big mistake that I do not make is to read one kind of text thinking it is another. So, when reading poetry, for instance, I appreciate and experience the emotions the author intended. I do not read it as sacred communication intended to enrich my relationship with an insubstantial and ill-defined god.

Similarly, I do not read the history of an ancient people as sacred communication, especially when the historicity of the material cannot be verified or worse is contradicted by independent sources. I do not read religious texts as realistic science as long as other people, some of them in places of high power, also recognize the absence of and contradictions of science found there.

If I were reading Chaucer, which I have, I would not expect the quaint habits of the people there and their surroundings to be applicable in today's America. I would not marvel that a fictional story included the names of towns that were real at that time nor would I more highly value the rest of the story because of them. It would not seem to be a miracle or worth even a raised eyebrow if a prediction written in the front of the story was said to have come true by the end of the story. That is often what stories do. It adds spice to the plot but not a shred of credibility.

That said, if Chaucer had claimed that his story was completely flawless and God-given and one of my fellows wanted to enshrine its principles of justice in my town’s court, I would object strenuously as I think you might. I would be justified in searching the story for the promised truth and publishing those bits that were far from perfect after all.

So, more power to your love of literature and its arcane inner workings. I am happy for you if you can read phone books, operating instructions, biology texts, diaries, magazines and sacred texts all as "literature". However, it is a mistake if you do so, thinking that you are finding sacred wisdom in them. Your literary scholarship, when applied to the Bible, is well suited for discovering, in fine detail, why it is not relevant today. Your scholars do not seem to inform the religious authorities so that they can make the changes necessary to correctly convey the original meanings in currently applicable form. For the last several thousand years, your Bible has needed an updating yearbook like those supplied with a good encyclopedia.

Though you may not have seen signs of it in my posts, I am a bibliophile to a fault and to the ill health of my wallet. There is no book of any sort in my collection that is more diligently scrutinized in the ongoing and, so far unfruitful, fervent hope and desire to find any Biblical truth (beauty, nice for its own sake, doesn't even buy a cup of coffee).

[Irreligious]

Preach it, brother!