OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[Hollie]

"Every miracle in the book is a slap in the face to science..."

This is only the case if one treats the Bible as literal truth, rather than metaphor or allegory .


Only the least intelligent do so.
Raise your paw, Underwear.


“If there appears something in the Torah that is intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to the evidence of our senses, then we must search for a hidde meaning. This is because intelligence is the basis of the Torah. The Torah was not given to ignoramuses.”
Dershowitz, “ The Genesis of Justice.”


If you ask nicely, I'll post an OP on fundamentalism and the Bible.

That's all well and good. But when you start talking about intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to evidence, the whole damn concept of god comes into question.

So that begs the question. Where do you draw the line? If you say Jesus didn't actually walk on water, did he actually raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he himself rise from the dead?

If one feels constrained to sign on to what others say, or write, then your predicament feels real.

I am not of that viewpoint. I feel able to analyze based on my own intelligence and experience.

Dershowitz wrote something which you might incorporate, and would ameliorate your problem:

I do not feel bound by any particular interpretation, nor do I regard any as authoritative or dispositive. We may interpret a text according to our own lights. The marketplace of ideas is the sole judge of the validity or usefulness of a given interpretation. Tradition certainly has a vote but not a veto.

Great. There's no reason to accept what is written in the bibles. Accept what you're comfortable with, dismiss the rest and make the religion what you like it to be.

How convenient.

 

[G.T.]

"Every miracle in the book is a slap in the face to science..."

This is only the case if one treats the Bible as literal truth, rather than metaphor or allegory .


Only the least intelligent do so.
Raise your paw, Underwear.


“If there appears something in the Torah that is intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to the evidence of our senses, then we must search for a hidden meaning. This is because intelligence is the basis of the Torah. The Torah was not given to ignoramuses.”
Dershowitz, “ The Genesis of Justice.”


If you ask nicely, I'll post an OP on fundamentalism and the Bible.

That's all well and good. But when you start talking about intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to evidence, the whole damn concept of god comes into question.

So that begs the question. Where do you draw the line? If you say Jesus didn't actually walk on water, did he actually raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he himself rise from the dead?

If one feels constrained to sign on to what others say, or write, then your predicament feels real.

I am not of that viewpoint. I feel able to analyze based on my own intelligence and experience.

Dershowitz wrote something which you might incorporate, and would ameliorate your problem:

I do not feel bound by any particular interpretation, nor do I regard any as authoritative or dispositive. We may interpret a text according to our own lights. The marketplace of ideas is the sole judge of the validity or usefulness of a given interpretation. Tradition certainly has a vote but not a veto.

If it's bouncing interchangably between parable and actual miracle, it's very poorly written. Absurdly, actually.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's all well and good. But when you start talking about intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to evidence, the whole damn concept of god comes into question.

So that begs the question. Where do you draw the line? If you say Jesus didn't actually walk on water, did he actually raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he himself rise from the dead?

If one feels constrained to sign on to what others say, or write, then your predicament feels real.

I am not of that viewpoint. I feel able to analyze based on my own intelligence and experience.

Dershowitz wrote something which you might incorporate, and would ameliorate your problem:

I do not feel bound by any particular interpretation, nor do I regard any as authoritative or dispositive. We may interpret a text according to our own lights. The marketplace of ideas is the sole judge of the validity or usefulness of a given interpretation. Tradition certainly has a vote but not a veto.

Great. There's no reason to accept what is written in the bibles. Accept what you're comfortable with, dismiss the rest and make the religion what you like it to be.

How convenient.

Seeing as you have a moment, I wonder if you might indulge me by answering this question:


1. Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes! Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Welll..at least one monkey.


2. And, remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”


Did you want to retract any of your post?

 

[Underhill]

"Every miracle in the book is a slap in the face to science..."

This is only the case if one treats the Bible as literal truth, rather than metaphor or allegory .


Only the least intelligent do so.
Raise your paw, Underwear.


“If there appears something in the Torah that is intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to the evidence of our senses, then we must search for a hidden meaning. This is because intelligence is the basis of the Torah. The Torah was not given to ignoramuses.”
Dershowitz, “ The Genesis of Justice.”


If you ask nicely, I'll post an OP on fundamentalism and the Bible.

That's all well and good. But when you start talking about intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to evidence, the whole damn concept of god comes into question.

So that begs the question. Where do you draw the line? If you say Jesus didn't actually walk on water, did he actually raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he himself rise from the dead?

If one feels constrained to sign on to what others say, or write, then your predicament feels real.

I am not of that viewpoint. I feel able to analyze based on my own intelligence and experience.

Dershowitz wrote something which you might incorporate, and would ameliorate your problem:

I do not feel bound by any particular interpretation, nor do I regard any as authoritative or dispositive. We may interpret a text according to our own lights. The marketplace of ideas is the sole judge of the validity or usefulness of a given interpretation. Tradition certainly has a vote but not a veto.

So, it's a personal choice which bits you take seriously?

 

[Hollie]

If one feels constrained to sign on to what others say, or write, then your predicament feels real.

I am not of that viewpoint. I feel able to analyze based on my own intelligence and experience.

Dershowitz wrote something which you might incorporate, and would ameliorate your problem:

I do not feel bound by any particular interpretation, nor do I regard any as authoritative or dispositive. We may interpret a text according to our own lights. The marketplace of ideas is the sole judge of the validity or usefulness of a given interpretation. Tradition certainly has a vote but not a veto.

Great. There's no reason to accept what is written in the bibles. Accept what you're comfortable with, dismiss the rest and make the religion what you like it to be.

How convenient.

Seeing as you have a moment, I wonder if you might indulge me by answering this question:


1. Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes! Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Welll..at least one monkey.


2. And, remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”


Did you want to retract any of your post?

Well actually, I recall scolding you for cutting and pasting falsified, edited and parsed "quotes" which you tried (dishonestly), to use in a flawed and sleazy attempt to support your failed position.

Otherwise, do feel free to invent your own fetching version of christianity (christianity-lite) by picking and choosing those elements of the bibles you prefer over others.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's all well and good. But when you start talking about intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to evidence, the whole damn concept of god comes into question.

So that begs the question. Where do you draw the line? If you say Jesus didn't actually walk on water, did he actually raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he himself rise from the dead?

If one feels constrained to sign on to what others say, or write, then your predicament feels real.

I am not of that viewpoint. I feel able to analyze based on my own intelligence and experience.

Dershowitz wrote something which you might incorporate, and would ameliorate your problem:

I do not feel bound by any particular interpretation, nor do I regard any as authoritative or dispositive. We may interpret a text according to our own lights. The marketplace of ideas is the sole judge of the validity or usefulness of a given interpretation. Tradition certainly has a vote but not a veto.

So, it's a personal choice which bits you take seriously?

No.

You take the entire Bible seriously.

But you apply insight and intelligence in understanding the guidance provided.

 

[koshergrl]

Great. There's no reason to accept what is written in the bibles. Accept what you're comfortable with, dismiss the rest and make the religion what you like it to be.

How convenient.

Seeing as you have a moment, I wonder if you might indulge me by answering this question:


1. Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes! Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Welll..at least one monkey.


2. And, remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”


Did you want to retract any of your post?

Well actually, I recall scolding you for cutting and pasting falsified, edited and parsed "quotes" which you tried (dishonestly), to use in a flawed and sleazy attempt to support your failed position.

Otherwise, do feel free to invent your own fetching version of christianity (christianity-lite) by picking and choosing those elements of the bibles you prefer over others.

What failed position?

Here is the problem with ignorant folk who try to pass themselves off as learned....you cannot get them to provide any detail whatever. If YOU provide details, they accuse you of standing on the shoulders of giants.....if you ask THEM to provide details, they make spurious claims like "everybody knows" and "all scientists say" and "common sense dictates", or "numerous claims" and "mountains of evidence provided by unnamed scientific people that we've heard of but can't name or quote".

They maintain that science has disproven huge tracts of the bible...but then they refuse to state specifically which tracts, where in the bible, and what science provided by which scholars was used to *disprove* it.

When that no longer works for them, they start assigning stances to the faithful that they are arguing with that not once have ever been asserted by those people. They seem to believe that our faith is based upon bad science...when in fact it is their lack of faith that is founded on bad science (it actually can't technically be called science at all. To say "science proves that the bible isn't true" without actually citing what has been proven, by whom, isn't *science* in any sense of the word. It's just the incoherent babbling of people who lack any understanding of science, the bible, or even history).

And our faith isn't founded in science at all. The only assertion I've made, or that I've ever heard any Christian make, as far as science and the bible goes is that there is no science on the face of the earth that disproves anything in the Bible.

That of course gets the anti-Christians all worked up, and they start in again with their non-specific, completely random and ridiculous claims that *science* has proven again and again that the bible is just a bunch of made up tripe...which is funny because that is, in and of itself, made up tripe. And they know it, which is why they assign it outwards.

Hollie is laughable, with all her ranting and railing and her pretentious claims regarding "science". This poster has yet to make a specific claim about anything. She ridicules Oxford scholars and has proven repeatedly that she hasnt' the slightest idea what she's talking about. She mouths trite stereotypical blatherings picked up from PBS, NPR, and "Unsolved Mysteries" and thinks that she comes across as knowledgeable; a formiddable opponent in the arena of ideas....and completely misses the fact that the whole of her cheering section consists of gaddawg, who is one of the stupidest, most malicious and slimiest posters this site has, and underhill, who is new and just doesn't know any better yet.


The other retards, like GT and a couple of others are just trolls who like to follow PC around and bite at her heels, because she is one of the most formiddable political and religious posters this site has. Her posts are well researched, intelligently written (although they have had to be dumbed down for, well, the dumbest of the dumb, who tend to be the ones that like to harass her). She is precise and specific in her arguments, she actually cites and provides references to support her points...and THAT is what galls know-nothing anti-christian nitwits like Hollie....

Meanwhile, hollie, you have refused to clarify your position or respond to the references to the gaping holes in your posts (and without question, your mind)....and respond instead with ridiculous personal attacks that carry no weight and which, I promise you, are taken seriously by nobody (except possibly your fellow know-nothing trolls, g.t. and gaddawg...congratulations, you have a following of two of the most revolting posters here). Well done.

 

[G.T.]

koshergrl, your opinion is meaningless.

you've been embarrassed off this site, forced to create an alias, and now get embarrassed more anew.

stfu, in other words. You're irrelevant to me.

 

[Hollie]

If one feels constrained to sign on to what others say, or write, then your predicament feels real.

I am not of that viewpoint. I feel able to analyze based on my own intelligence and experience.

Dershowitz wrote something which you might incorporate, and would ameliorate your problem:

I do not feel bound by any particular interpretation, nor do I regard any as authoritative or dispositive. We may interpret a text according to our own lights. The marketplace of ideas is the sole judge of the validity or usefulness of a given interpretation. Tradition certainly has a vote but not a veto.

So, it's a personal choice which bits you take seriously?

No.

You take the entire Bible seriously.

But you apply insight and intelligence in understanding the guidance provided.

What a completely derelict and really nonsensical comment. So, you take the bibles seriously, just not too seriously to believe what is actually written.

Those whose abilities are limited to subjective interpretation fail to present a convincing argument.

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this relate to specific paragraphs as well? Can one paragraph be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged? According to you, there is no standard, just subjective interpretation.

I think you should be able to see the absurdity of such a position but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.

And that means your moral and ethical foundation is, by definition, on tenuous ground.

The good revisionist creates for her/himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He/she claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He/she claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He/she further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endowed one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.

The theist then further complicates matters by suggesting, as I believe you have previously, and here, that there are various subjective methods by which one can read and interpret this source material.

Then the theist proceeds even further. He/she states that the god has a vested interest in human salvation, and through this book makes that word of salvation known, and yet... according to you there are varying degrees by which this knowledge may or may not be interpreted or even discovered.

In other words, the message of the book is a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned.

Then the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not.

Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), did Jesus even resurrect?

I dunno. Could be. Maybe. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a flesh and blood body. Maybe not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – marshmallow in Hell.

You don’t quite get that same message from the Illiad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against this incredibly important book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".

No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because the bibles have a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.

 

[Gadawg73]

Seeing as you have a moment, I wonder if you might indulge me by answering this question:


1. Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/280175-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes! Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Welll..at least one monkey.


2. And, remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”


Did you want to retract any of your post?

Well actually, I recall scolding you for cutting and pasting falsified, edited and parsed "quotes" which you tried (dishonestly), to use in a flawed and sleazy attempt to support your failed position.

Otherwise, do feel free to invent your own fetching version of christianity (christianity-lite) by picking and choosing those elements of the bibles you prefer over others.

What failed position?

Here is the problem with ignorant folk who try to pass themselves off as learned....you cannot get them to provide any detail whatever. If YOU provide details, they accuse you of standing on the shoulders of giants.....if you ask THEM to provide details, they make spurious claims like "everybody knows" and "all scientists say" and "common sense dictates", or "numerous claims" and "mountains of evidence provided by unnamed scientific people that we've heard of but can't name or quote".

They maintain that science has disproven huge tracts of the bible...but then they refuse to state specifically which tracts, where in the bible, and what science provided by which scholars was used to *disprove* it.

When that no longer works for them, they start assigning stances to the faithful that they are arguing with that not once have ever been asserted by those people. They seem to believe that our faith is based upon bad science...when in fact it is their lack of faith that is founded on bad science (it actually can't technically be called science at all. To say "science proves that the bible isn't true" without actually citing what has been proven, by whom, isn't *science* in any sense of the word. It's just the incoherent babbling of people who lack any understanding of science, the bible, or even history).

And our faith isn't founded in science at all. The only assertion I've made, or that I've ever heard any Christian make, as far as science and the bible goes is that there is no science on the face of the earth that disproves anything in the Bible.

That of course gets the anti-Christians all worked up, and they start in again with their non-specific, completely random and ridiculous claims that *science* has proven again and again that the bible is just a bunch of made up tripe...which is funny because that is, in and of itself, made up tripe. And they know it, which is why they assign it outwards.

Hollie is laughable, with all her ranting and railing and her pretentious claims regarding "science". This poster has yet to make a specific claim about anything. She ridicules Oxford scholars and has proven repeatedly that she hasnt' the slightest idea what she's talking about. She mouths trite stereotypical blatherings picked up from PBS, NPR, and "Unsolved Mysteries" and thinks that she comes across as knowledgeable; a formiddable opponent in the arena of ideas....and completely misses the fact that the whole of her cheering section consists of gaddawg, who is one of the stupidest, most malicious and slimiest posters this site has, and underhill, who is new and just doesn't know any better yet.


The other retards, like GT and a couple of others are just trolls who like to follow PC around and bite at her heels, because she is one of the most formiddable political and religious posters this site has. Her posts are well researched, intelligently written (although they have had to be dumbed down for, well, the dumbest of the dumb, who tend to be the ones that like to harass her). She is precise and specific in her arguments, she actually cites and provides references to support her points...and THAT is what galls know-nothing anti-christian nitwits like Hollie....

Meanwhile, hollie, you have refused to clarify your position or respond to the references to the gaping holes in your posts (and without question, your mind)....and respond instead with ridiculous personal attacks that carry no weight and which, I promise you, are taken seriously by nobody (except possibly your fellow know-nothing trolls, g.t. and gaddawg...congratulations, you have a following of two of the most revolting posters here). Well done.

Science has never disproved any of the Bible.

The Bible is religion and not science.
The Bible is all beliefs and faith.
Nothing scientific in the Bible to disprove.
All beliefs.

 

[koshergrl]

koshergrl, your opinion is meaningless.

you've been embarrassed off this site, forced to create an alias, and now get embarrassed more anew.

stfu, in other words. You're irrelevant to me.

Obviously. That's why you're compelled to point it out, repeatedly. 'SHUT UP! I'M NOT LISTENING! SHUT UP! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY SO SHUT UP!"

Moron.

PS...I've never been embarassed off the site. Who even knows what you mean by that, but those who have been here as long as I have, and who know me well know that embarassment isn't an emotion I'm familiar with. And while I have been bested a few times in internet discussions (usually because I'm doing something important like making beer butt chicken or sewing lips on a sock monkey and am only paying attention with about 1/4 of my brain, and caring with only about 1/200th of my being) I've certainly never been embarassed about it. It happens so seldom, you see, that when it does happen I find it funny.

I do know one thing. You have yet to best me at anything, or embarass me about anything. You don't have the ability. You're like a scaled down, less intelligent del...sort of like a cross between del and TM.

In other words, laughable. Which is why I have you on ignore. You just don't ever have anythign of note to say. You aren't even funny. It's sort of sad. I never put tm or bode on ignore because occasionally they post something that produces a giggle. You can't even manage that.

 

[koshergrl]

So, it's a personal choice which bits you take seriously?

No.

You take the entire Bible seriously.

But you apply insight and intelligence in understanding the guidance provided.

What a completely derelict and really nonsensical comment. So, you take the bibles seriously, just not too seriously to believe what is actually written.

Those whose abilities are limited to subjective interpretation fail to present a convincing argument.

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this relate to specific paragraphs as well? Can one paragraph be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged? According to you, there is no standard, just subjective interpretation.

I think you should be able to see the absurdity of such a position but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.

And that means your moral and ethical foundation is, by definition, on tenuous ground.

The good revisionist creates for her/himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He/she claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He/she claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He/she further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endowed one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.

The theist then further complicates matters by suggesting, as I believe you have previously, and here, that there are various subjective methods by which one can read and interpret this source material.

Then the theist proceeds even further. He/she states that the god has a vested interest in human salvation, and through this book makes that word of salvation known, and yet... according to you there are varying degrees by which this knowledge may or may not be interpreted or even discovered.

In other words, the message of the book is a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned.

Then the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not.

Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), did Jesus even resurrect?

I dunno. Could be. Maybe. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a flesh and blood body. Maybe not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – marshmallow in Hell.

You don’t quite get that same message from the Illiad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against this incredibly important book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".

No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because the bibles have a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.

I just waded through that entire mess and found not ONE reference to any sort of evidence, or even a specific statement.

Thank you for proving the point that I, and others, have made repeatedly. At this point, we can just sit back and watch you continue to prove yourself an idiot...over and over and over.

You're an uneducated loon who thinks that her opinion, just because it is your opinion, carries some sort of intellectual and scientific weight.

Back to 7th grade, girl. You obviously missed some larning. If you were writing compositions for 8th grade English, you'd fail every single time.

 

[Hollie]

No.

You take the entire Bible seriously.

But you apply insight and intelligence in understanding the guidance provided.

What a completely derelict and really nonsensical comment. So, you take the bibles seriously, just not too seriously to believe what is actually written.

Those whose abilities are limited to subjective interpretation fail to present a convincing argument.

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this relate to specific paragraphs as well? Can one paragraph be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged? According to you, there is no standard, just subjective interpretation.

I think you should be able to see the absurdity of such a position but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.

And that means your moral and ethical foundation is, by definition, on tenuous ground.

The good revisionist creates for her/himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He/she claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He/she claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He/she further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endowed one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.

The theist then further complicates matters by suggesting, as I believe you have previously, and here, that there are various subjective methods by which one can read and interpret this source material.

Then the theist proceeds even further. He/she states that the god has a vested interest in human salvation, and through this book makes that word of salvation known, and yet... according to you there are varying degrees by which this knowledge may or may not be interpreted or even discovered.

In other words, the message of the book is a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned.

Then the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not.

Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), did Jesus even resurrect?

I dunno. Could be. Maybe. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a flesh and blood body. Maybe not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – marshmallow in Hell.

You don’t quite get that same message from the Illiad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against this incredibly important book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".

No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because the bibles have a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.

I just waded through that entire mess and found not ONE reference to any sort of evidence, or even a specific statement.

Thank you for proving the point that I, and others, have made repeatedly. At this point, we can just sit back and watch you continue to prove yourself an idiot...over and over and over.

You're an uneducated loon who thinks that her opinion, just because it is your opinion, carries some sort of intellectual and scientific weight.

Back to 7th grade, girl. You obviously missed some larning. If you were writing compositions for 8th grade English, you'd fail every single time.

Don't mistake your lack of reading comprehension skills/ incompetence with English as a first language to be a failure other than one you need to take ownership of.

... and the angry, religious zealot thing is getting old.

 

[G.T.]

koshergrl, your opinion is meaningless.

you've been embarrassed off this site, forced to create an alias, and now get embarrassed more anew.

stfu, in other words. You're irrelevant to me.

Obviously. That's why you're compelled to point it out, repeatedly. 'SHUT UP! I'M NOT LISTENING! SHUT UP! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY SO SHUT UP!"

Moron.

PS...I've never been embarassed off the site. Who even knows what you mean by that, but those who have been here as long as I have, and who know me well know that embarassment isn't an emotion I'm familiar with. And while I have been bested a few times in internet discussions (usually because I'm doing something important like making beer butt chicken or sewing lips on a sock monkey and am only paying attention with about 1/4 of my brain, and caring with only about 1/200th of my being) I've certainly never been embarassed about it. It happens so seldom, you see, that when it does happen I find it funny.

I do know one thing. You have yet to best me at anything, or embarass me about anything. You don't have the ability. You're like a scaled down, less intelligent del...sort of like a cross between del and TM.

In other words, laughable. Which is why I have you on ignore. You just don't ever have anythign of note to say. You aren't even funny. It's sort of sad. I never put tm or bode on ignore because occasionally they post something that produces a giggle. You can't even manage that.

Oh jesus christ, how embarrassing.

It really kind of skeeves me out seeing all this emotion you have invested. You block me but read my posts, you have all these thoughts about me and I don't even know who the fuck you are irl.

Scary shit, allie baba.

lol @ your opinion still not mattering, though

 

[koshergrl]

What a completely derelict and really nonsensical comment. So, you take the bibles seriously, just not too seriously to believe what is actually written.

Those whose abilities are limited to subjective interpretation fail to present a convincing argument.

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this relate to specific paragraphs as well? Can one paragraph be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged? According to you, there is no standard, just subjective interpretation.

I think you should be able to see the absurdity of such a position but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.

And that means your moral and ethical foundation is, by definition, on tenuous ground.

The good revisionist creates for her/himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He/she claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He/she claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He/she further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endowed one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.

The theist then further complicates matters by suggesting, as I believe you have previously, and here, that there are various subjective methods by which one can read and interpret this source material.

Then the theist proceeds even further. He/she states that the god has a vested interest in human salvation, and through this book makes that word of salvation known, and yet... according to you there are varying degrees by which this knowledge may or may not be interpreted or even discovered.

In other words, the message of the book is a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned.

Then the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not.

Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), did Jesus even resurrect?

I dunno. Could be. Maybe. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a flesh and blood body. Maybe not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – marshmallow in Hell.

You don’t quite get that same message from the Illiad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against this incredibly important book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".

No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because the bibles have a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.

I just waded through that entire mess and found not ONE reference to any sort of evidence, or even a specific statement.

Thank you for proving the point that I, and others, have made repeatedly. At this point, we can just sit back and watch you continue to prove yourself an idiot...over and over and over.

You're an uneducated loon who thinks that her opinion, just because it is your opinion, carries some sort of intellectual and scientific weight.

Back to 7th grade, girl. You obviously missed some larning. If you were writing compositions for 8th grade English, you'd fail every single time.

Don't mistake your lack of reading comprehension skills/ incompetence with English as a first language to be a failure other than one you need to take ownership of.

... and the angry, religious zealot thing is getting old.

The angry zealot is yourself, as has been noted and pointed out by several people in several different threads.

I was paid to tutor college English comp honey. Shall I go through your offerings with a red marker?

 

[Avatar4321]

This thread has seriously degernerated into a pile of crap.

There is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Both are supposed to teach us truth, they just have different methods to go about doing so.

 

[Hollie]

I just waded through that entire mess and found not ONE reference to any sort of evidence, or even a specific statement.

Thank you for proving the point that I, and others, have made repeatedly. At this point, we can just sit back and watch you continue to prove yourself an idiot...over and over and over.

You're an uneducated loon who thinks that her opinion, just because it is your opinion, carries some sort of intellectual and scientific weight.

Back to 7th grade, girl. You obviously missed some larning. If you were writing compositions for 8th grade English, you'd fail every single time.

Don't mistake your lack of reading comprehension skills/ incompetence with English as a first language to be a failure other than one you need to take ownership of.

... and the angry, religious zealot thing is getting old.

The angry zealot is yourself, as has been noted and pointed out by several people in several different threads.

I was paid to tutor college English comp honey. Shall I go through your offerings with a red marker?

Of course you were a tutor.

You also command the French forces at Waterloo, right?

 

[Hollie]

This thread has seriously degernerated into a pile of crap.

There is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Both are supposed to teach us truth, they just have different methods to go about doing so.

There actually is an inherent conflict.

Religious "miracles" are by definition in conflict with what we define as natural laws and processes.

 

[koshergrl]

This thread has seriously degernerated into a pile of crap.

There is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Both are supposed to teach us truth, they just have different methods to go about doing so.

There actually is an inherent conflict.

Religious "miracles" are by definition in conflict with what we define as natural laws and processes.

Cite, reference and link please...

 

[newpolitics]

This thread has seriously degernerated into a pile of crap.

There is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Both are supposed to teach us truth, they just have different methods to go about doing so.

There actually is an inherent conflict.

Religious "miracles" are by definition in conflict with what we define as natural laws and processes.

Cite, reference and link please...

You don't need a reference or citation for a priori, or definitional knowledge. Grow a brain. Lmao...