Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-03-2007, 04:23 PM   #331
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
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).
Ah, an interesting game. How is it a bias to consider miracles to be violations of natural law? Is it because, perhaps, they were not miracles at all, just advanced, but quite natural, technology? If it is technology, it has the special property of not only appearing to break the laws but also of completely covering its tracks afterward. In magic, when I conjure a puff of smoke, there is always a gunpowder residue. Not so with Jesus walking on water or raising the dead.

As you know, it is not necessary to begin a study of reported miracles with the assumption that they violate natural law. One can treat them as simple reports and investigate their truth. The results have been the same either with or without the assumption. The reports do not stand up to scrutiny.

Rather than events substantiating miracles, the attribution of miracle casts doubt on the event ever happening.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 04:41 PM   #332
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Quote:
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....
That's a loaded set of answers. Even C is wrong because it requires you to actually get up and do something, a situation which is intolerable by itself.
Any of the five will get you a face full of shit in time.
I would answer "Say, what was Agnes doing in the car with Thurston the other night? I thought they had split up. and that jacket she had on!..." :D

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 04:43 PM   #333
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Mog wrote
Quote:
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.
Nice :thumbsup:

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 04:47 PM   #334
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Rat Bastard wrote
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Quote:
Rat Bastard wrote
Guess I needs to buy me a pick-em-up truck to carry my logic-box in. That "never-to-be-sufficiently-damned"* theistic claptrap is going to require a HUGE bed, though.

*a cookie for finding of that reference- quite esoteric!
I didn't cheat by using google so I am not sure, but it sounds a lot like "Paradise Lost" or "Faust".
Really esoteric: A quote of Boskone from E.E. "Doc" Smith's "Second Stage Lensman":

"Also, from the fact that everybody having any weight at all wore thought-screens, it was almost a foregone conclusion that they had been warned against, and were on the lookout for, THE Lensman - that never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Lensman who had already done so much hurt to the Boskonian cause."
Wow!

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 04:50 PM   #335
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
And Lily never answered whether or not she might have any biases towards my [hypothetical] claims that my dearly departed maternal grandma was born without a navel and reanimated exactly seven days after all her vital organs ceased functioning. It wasn't meant to be a trick question. I was hoping Lily might shed some insight on how one is to know when to believe the unseen miraculous claims of others.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:03 PM   #336
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Demi, haven't you read any of the comments preceding this? We have discussed science vs the Bible at some length here. You might also look up a great thread I participated in many months ago called "Is Genesis scientific?"

Quote:
Demigod79 wrote
Quote:
Lily wrote
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!
This is something that I have never understood. A particular section of the bible does not stand up to scientific scrutiny so you simply attribute it to the fallability of the human authors. What you don't seem to realize is that virtually no part of the bible stands up to scientific scrutiny. It should be very clear that the entire bible is the work of man.
Yes. So? Is this supposed to be a revelation to me? (Pardon the pun.) And after all the gallons of cyber ink I have spilled? Of course, I think God guides history and men and so I find it no problem to accept the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Quote:
I think this nit-picking is what bothers me the most about modern-day Christians. Although I don't like evangelicals at least they have the guts to be more-or-less consistent in what they believe. Catholics and liberals on the other hand go all over the place, picking out what they like while rejecting what they don't like. God's laws my ass. What good are god's laws if you are just going to nit-pick them?
:) Strawmen everywhere! I think some of this comes right out of your own background. You may think you have completely rejected your religious upbringing but I think you still conceive of the Bible as some sort of magic book. Evangelicals tend to read the scriptures more literally than is proper. Fundametalists really have a hard time accepting the historical development of the Bible. That is a real problem for Protestantism.

Catholics, on the other hand, have never worshipped the Bible but have always believed that it is one of the tools the Church has been given by God to transmit and teach the faith correctly and faithfully. Since the Church came into existence long before the Bible did, that should give you an indication of the priority.

Quote:
I have heard Lily and other Catholics saying that certain parts of the bible are historical, others are literal, others are only allegorical. And yet they have consistently failed to provide guidelines for deciding which is which.
There is nothing mysterious about it. You likely acquired all the basic tools of literary analysis by the time you finished high school. So when a book starts "once upon a time" you should be alerted to the fact that a story is about to follow. Likewise, when you see words in the center of the page surrounded by large white margins, you probably have a poem in front of you (Ok, that is a gross definition but ...:rolleyes:)

Now, of course, it is true that there is a little more too it than that and the further back in time you go, the more likely you are to encounter less familiar genres. But, if you pick the Bible up, it ought to be possible to figure out the more obvious genres. That still leaves understanding the historical situation, the cultural practices etc. to be dealt with but that is inevitable.

Quote:
I guess it's based on whatever the prevailing concensus is at the time based on what people want to believe. Is this right Lily?
Partly, I think. The part I cannot concede is that the decision was based on what the people wanted to believe. But consensus was certainly part of the equation.

There were 4 properties or characteristics that a book had to have, in order to be included in the canon. 1). It had to be authoritatively asociated with an apostle; 2.) It had to teach true doctrine, 3) it had to be widely acknowledged (popular!) and it had to have been used in the liturgy (i.e. read aloud in worship). There were lots of books out there that exhibited one or two of these characteristics but the bar was set higher than that. There was a lot of backing and forthing over the validity of various books all during the opening centuries A.D. And, as you likely know, Luther rejected several books and kicked them out of the Protestant Bible.

Beyond all that history, your belief that the Bible does not stand up to scientific scrutiny is completely true but completely irrelevant. As a commenter on a blog I like wrote about this notion that we pick and choose what is real and what is allegorical to fit with the advance of science: "The Church Fathers certainly did not take the creation story literally so there is no basis to the idea that the Christian faith held to a literal Genesis until modern science made them change their story. One need look no further than St. Augustine in his "De Genesi ad Litteram" to discover that. St. Origen distinguished between the different senses of scripture whether literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. Not only do adherents of scientism have to make all Christians into literalistic fundamentalists to prove their point, they have to rewrite history too."

This strikes me as a very perceptive summary of the case. Also, it is perfectly true that as we have learned more and more about history, culture, languages and approaches to studying them, our understanding of the Bible has evolved. If it were static, I suppose I would still be living at home with dear old dad waiting in vain for him to accumulate enough sheep and goats to tempt a husband into showing up ...



Edited to add comma, flesh out a sentence and add emphasis to a word. Nothing nefarious, Professor!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:06 PM   #337
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Lily wrote
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Quote:
Lily wrote
What a pair of losers we are!
you're half right! That's a step in the right direction.

(I didn't say I had been married, I was merely using the power of empathy.)
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

"you're the garbage, take yourself out bitch" My heart is moved; my withers wrung, by this example of your empathy!
come on Lily you have to take it in context. The bitch wants the garbage out for fucks sake.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:09 PM   #338
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
And Lily never answered whether or not she might have any biases towards my [hypothetical] claims that my dearly departed maternal grandma was born without a navel and reanimated exactly seven days after all her vital organs ceased functioning. It wasn't meant to be a trick question. I was hoping Lily might shed some insight on how one is to know when to believe the unseen miraculous claims of others.
Oh bother. I have been at this all day and can't catch up with everything. You know your scenario is silly and you know that I know that you know it. I don't think anyone should accept the unseen miraculous claims of others, until there is enough evidence of a persuasive nature to do so. How many people can attest to the resurrection of granny? How credible are they? What proofs can they offer that the story is true? Blah, blah, blah.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:09 PM   #339
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Lily wrote
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
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.
I (taking your word for it that you are a bibliophile who enjoys all sorts of literature) am partly glad and partly not to know that you understand all kinds of literature. Glad, as a human being, that that particular pleasure is not foreclosed to you but not glad, because it demonstrates the truth of my observation that you are deliberately dodging and deliberately misunderstanding the real point of everything I have tried to convey.

Misquoting individual scriptures can be bad, if you are trying to make a point but I really had in mind the pairing of quotes that irrelevant to one another or that you misuse to bolster a false argument. We have talked, for instance, about Psalm 137 before. You just didn't listen. There is no noble principle to be gleaned from that Psalm, per se, beyond the obvious that the psalmist is expressing again that he trusts God to bring the Jews out of captivity. It conveys the grief the captive nation feels. The fact that he hopes that the babies of the enemy will be dashed against rocks should shock us; unfortunately that was a common fate of vanquished foes at that time and in that part of the world. There was no Geneva convention in place and those peoples needed to do some evolving of the moral kind.

The Psalms as a whole are there because they are the songs of the people whose history the OT is recording. They express trust in the goodness of God towards the nation and towards the Psalmist. Any good commentary on Psalms can give you more information.

Quote:
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.
Anyone who thinks that the God of the Bible is insubstantial and ill-defined has either not read the Bible or has not learned to read, period.

Yet again I say, scratch an atheist, uncover a fundamentalist. You, despite the education you have (or could have) received from Steve, Thomas and even me, continue to read the Bible literally and find it wanting (naturally) as a scientific text.

This is why it does not repay me or any of the others to try and engage you on these issues.

Quote:
... I am not always in a position to create a comprehensive, Bass-O-Matic job on Lily and Lily wannabes.
Well, I don't begrudge you the adulation of your amen corner. I should point out to you, though, that you have never even come close to creating "a Bass-O-Matic" job on me. You simply will not engage my point. Anyone can win at his own game when he creates the rules! :lol:
Somebody said that somebody said that patience is a virtue...
What education I have been able to glean from you is that the Bible, which many hold as both dear and sacred, is merely human literature with a tuny admixture of some divine inspiration commingled with obviously uninspired dream fiction and irrelevant history.

I'll drop the lack of verifiable realistic information (science) for a bit and address the "how to live a happy life" sorts of issues. I do not think that believing that viewing striped sticks will cause a black sheep can possibly help me live a happier life and, by being false, it certainly can't lead to salvation. There is no actual information about Jesus conveyed by his refusal to let Mary Magdelene touch him after he arose unless it is that she would have discovered he was only disguised as Jesus. How would it contribute to a happy life or to salvation to firmly believe that the entirety of mankind, except for Noah who was perfect, was entirely corrupt to the point of deserving a horrible death, even the innocents (fetuses and animals)?

It must be a metaphoric bunch of idea scraps swept into a pile with the caption: "Believe or Burn".

Sorry. There is much more but I am out of time for today.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:09 PM   #340
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Obviously, you are only allowed to believe miraculous claims when they:

(1) happened so long ago that they can never be verified. Anyone claiming that a family member died and came back seven days later in 2003, even with medical verification, is obviously a lying piece of shit.
(2) are reported by anonymous sources known only for their limited mythological writings. Any known and/or prolific historian claiming that the laws of nature have been broken is obviously a lying piece of shit.
(3) conform to the mythos of the predominant cult of one's culture. Anyone claiming that Aphrodite, Muhammed, Vishnu or Thor has appeared to them on a grilled-cheese sandwich is obviously a lying piece of shit.

Quote:
Lily wrote
How many people can attest to the resurrection of granny?
If it's more than zero, then it's more than could have attested to the resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:
Lily wrote
How credible are they?
As credible as four anonymous authors who contributed nothing else of historical value to literature?

Quote:
Lily wrote
What proofs can they offer that the story is true?
Why should they have to provide proofs? You have their stories: that should obviously be enough for you.

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:11 PM   #341
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Quote:
Lily wrote
Quote:
Choobus wrote
you're half right! That's a step in the right direction.

(I didn't say I had been married, I was merely using the power of empathy.)
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

"you're the garbage, take yourself out bitch" My heart is moved; my withers wrung, by this example of your empathy!
come on Lily you have to take it in context. The bitch wants the garbage out for fucks sake.
Choobus, please, please, please invite me to your wedding. I have to meet the woman who is brave enough to take you on...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:13 PM   #342
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote
Obviously, you are only allowed to believe miraculous claims when they:

(1) happened so long ago that they can never be verified. Anyone claiming that a family member died and came back seven days later in 2003, even with medical verification, is obviously a lying piece of shit.
(2) are reported by anonymous sources known only for their limited mythological writings. Any known and/or prolific historian claiming that the laws of nature have been broken is obviously a lying piece of shit.
(3) conform to the mythos of the predominant cult of one's culture. Anyone claiming that Aphrodite, Muhammed, Vishnu or Thor has appeared to them on a grilled-cheese sandwich is obviously a lying piece of shit.

Quote:
Lily wrote
How many people can attest to the resurrection of granny?
If it's more than zero, then it's more than could have attested to the resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:
Lily wrote
How credible are they?
As credible as four anonymous authors who contributed nothing else of historical value to literature?

Quote:
Lily wrote
What proofs can they offer that the story is true?
Why should they have to provide proofs? You have their stories: that should obviously be enough for you.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:19 PM   #343
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
Lily wrote
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
And Lily never answered whether or not she might have any biases towards my [hypothetical] claims that my dearly departed maternal grandma was born without a navel and reanimated exactly seven days after all her vital organs ceased functioning. It wasn't meant to be a trick question. I was hoping Lily might shed some insight on how one is to know when to believe the unseen miraculous claims of others.
Oh bother. I have been at this all day and can't catch up with everything. You know your scenario is silly and you know that I know that you know it. I don't think anyone should accept the unseen miraculous claims of others, until there is enough evidence of a persuasive nature to do so. How many people can attest to the resurrection of granny? How credible are they? What proofs can they offer that the story is true? Blah, blah, blah.
Bingo.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:21 PM   #344
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote
Obviously, you are only allowed to believe miraculous claims when they:

(1) happened so long ago that they can never be verified. Anyone claiming that a family member died and came back seven days later in 2003, even with medical verification, is obviously a lying piece of shit.
(2) are reported by anonymous sources known only for their limited mythological writings. Any known and/or prolific historian claiming that the laws of nature have been broken is obviously a lying piece of shit.
(3) conform to the mythos of the predominant cult of one's culture. Anyone claiming that Aphrodite, Muhammed, Vishnu or Thor has appeared to them on a grilled-cheese sandwich is obviously a lying piece of shit.

Quote:
Lily wrote
How many people can attest to the resurrection of granny?
If it's more than zero, then it's more than could have attested to the resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:
Lily wrote
How credible are they?
As credible as four anonymous authors who contributed nothing else of historical value to literature?

Quote:
Lily wrote
What proofs can they offer that the story is true?
Why should they have to provide proofs? You have their stories: that should obviously be enough for you.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Yet again, you laugh too soon, although laughing at Mad Tony is inevitable. I suggest you read Acts to see how the Apostles' message was received and how they went about making converts.

That goes for you, too, Irr.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2007, 05:23 PM   #345
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
The day I become a Christian is the day you marry Osama bin Laden. Ain't never gonna happen.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational