Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You say that because Genesis is SO RIDICULOUS that Christianity would look utterly foolish if you took Genesis literally. Genesis was never intended to not be taken at it's word, to mean what it says and say what it means. Just because it sounds so utterly crazy you have to pull out the "allegory" card, I'm afraid.I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)Did God say it was moral? .......So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)
If a Nazi storm-trooper is running at me with his bayonet, I just might have to over-ride the 6th commandment ("thou shalt not kill"), and "end a human life".That isn't my question. My question is... is it wrong to end a human life?I'm not "pro-abortion", as such.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former....... It did happen. ......
So the dragons in Revelation (NT) are literal - dragons actually exist, right? And you magically know how to tell the DIFFERENCE between the dragons in Game of Thrones, and the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Revelation, right?I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)Did God say it was moral? .......So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)
Thank you. I appreciate that, but we weren't talking about Jesus. We were talking about allegorical events like "the flood." My position was that the Bible tells about actual events in an allegorical fashion such as the great migration from the cradle of civilization. Your position was that science proves the flood didn't happen.Yes, Jesus' claims are not falsifiable, not testable, so of course Scientific Humanists can't put Jesus claims above the claims of, say, Mohammad, or above the claims of followers of Zeus, or above the claims of those that claim Krishna is a god, etc.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former....... It did happen. ......
I admire your tenacity and energy - I wish I could keep up with you.
Would you like for me to explain why you should believe that it would still be wrong to end his life?If a Nazi storm-trooper is running at me with his bayonet, I just might have to over-ride the 6th commandment ("thou shalt not kill"), and "end a human life".That isn't my question. My question is... is it wrong to end a human life?I'm not "pro-abortion", as such.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former....... It did happen. ......
Revelations is a prophecy of the fall of Rome. I don't think it can be said to be allegorical as much as it was symbolism for obvious reasons. They were still ruled by Rome.So the dragons in Revelation (NT) are literal - dragons actually exist, right? And you magically know how to tell the DIFFERENCE between the dragons in Game of Thrones, and the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Revelation, right?I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)Did God say it was moral? .......
Sorry to be so hard on you, but Scientific Humanists, more than any other overall belief system, demand intellectual consistency. Not only are we the most ethical overall belief system, but most intellectually consistent. It's not easy, but we try to live up to that - so we can't bring forward the unscientific parts of the Bible, but "love your neighbor" is pretty awesome, to be sure.
No science shows that Everest was under water, like the Bible says.Thank you. I appreciate that, but we weren't talking about Jesus. We were talking about allegorical events like "the flood." My position was that the Bible tells about actual events in an allegorical fashion such as the great migration from the cradle of civilization. Your position was that science proves the flood didn't happen.Yes, Jesus' claims are not falsifiable, not testable, so of course Scientific Humanists can't put Jesus claims above the claims of, say, Mohammad, or above the claims of followers of Zeus, or above the claims of those that claim Krishna is a god, etc.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former....... It did happen. ......
I admire your tenacity and energy - I wish I could keep up with you.
Can you show me that science?
I agree that abortion is not a great thing. Responsible birth-control is the best way, or not engaging in that sex in the first place. I don't have a ton of energy on the abortion issue.Would you like for me to explain why you should believe that it would still be wrong to end his life?If a Nazi storm-trooper is running at me with his bayonet, I just might have to over-ride the 6th commandment ("thou shalt not kill"), and "end a human life".That isn't my question. My question is... is it wrong to end a human life?I'm not "pro-abortion", as such.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former.
So then the "hell" that it describes is not literal, then, right? And that would mean that the majority of Christians are delusional then, since most of them do buy into "hell" as being literal.Revelations is a prophecy of the fall of Rome. I don't think it can be said to be allegorical as much as it was symbolism for obvious reasons. They were still ruled by Rome.So the dragons in Revelation (NT) are literal - dragons actually exist, right? And you magically know how to tell the DIFFERENCE between the dragons in Game of Thrones, and the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Revelation, right?I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)
Sorry to be so hard on you, but Scientific Humanists, more than any other overall belief system, demand intellectual consistency. Not only are we the most ethical overall belief system, but most intellectually consistent. It's not easy, but we try to live up to that - so we can't bring forward the unscientific parts of the Bible, but "love your neighbor" is pretty awesome, to be sure.
If that's true then Jesus/Bible are one of the WORST communicators of all time. We can do better than that, folks - let's increase the accuracy of our communication, as much as feasible - our children deserve that.Revelations is a prophecy of the fall of Rome. ....So the dragons in Revelation (NT) are literal - dragons actually exist, right? And you magically know how to tell the DIFFERENCE between the dragons in Game of Thrones, and the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Revelation, right?I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)
Sorry to be so hard on you, but Scientific Humanists, more than any other overall belief system, demand intellectual consistency. Not only are we the most ethical overall belief system, but most intellectually consistent. It's not easy, but we try to live up to that - so we can't bring forward the unscientific parts of the Bible, but "love your neighbor" is pretty awesome, to be sure.
Ding argues that Genesis is often allegorical, and nothing in the Books talks about Everest being under water.No science shows that Everest was under water, like the Bible says.Thank you. I appreciate that, but we weren't talking about Jesus. We were talking about allegorical events like "the flood." My position was that the Bible tells about actual events in an allegorical fashion such as the great migration from the cradle of civilization. Your position was that science proves the flood didn't happen.Yes, Jesus' claims are not falsifiable, not testable, so of course Scientific Humanists can't put Jesus claims above the claims of, say, Mohammad, or above the claims of followers of Zeus, or above the claims of those that claim Krishna is a god, etc.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former....... It did happen. ......
I admire your tenacity and energy - I wish I could keep up with you.
Can you show me that science?
Jesus taught that one must die to self. I don't see many people doing that. You do realize that the only way to be objective is to have no preference for an outcome or consequence to one's self, right? That is what it means to die to self. Jesus not only taught this with words He also used Himself as a living parable by dying on the cross. I can promise you the power of dying to yourself (i.e. being objective) will literally transform you in such a manner as it can be described as a resurrection (i.e. being reborn into a new life).If that's true then Jesus/Bible are one of the WORST communicators of all time. We can do better than that, folks - let's increase the accuracy of our communication, as much as feasible - our children deserve that.Revelations is a prophecy of the fall of Rome. ....So the dragons in Revelation (NT) are literal - dragons actually exist, right? And you magically know how to tell the DIFFERENCE between the dragons in Game of Thrones, and the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Revelation, right?I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?
Sorry to be so hard on you, but Scientific Humanists, more than any other overall belief system, demand intellectual consistency. Not only are we the most ethical overall belief system, but most intellectually consistent. It's not easy, but we try to live up to that - so we can't bring forward the unscientific parts of the Bible, but "love your neighbor" is pretty awesome, to be sure.
Have a great rest of your weekend.
No. That's isn't what I argue. I argue that the Bible (in some accounts) tells the account of an actual event in an allegorical fashion.Ding argues that Genesis is often allegorical, and nothing in the Books talks about Everest being under water.No science shows that Everest was under water, like the Bible says.Thank you. I appreciate that, but we weren't talking about Jesus. We were talking about allegorical events like "the flood." My position was that the Bible tells about actual events in an allegorical fashion such as the great migration from the cradle of civilization. Your position was that science proves the flood didn't happen.Yes, Jesus' claims are not falsifiable, not testable, so of course Scientific Humanists can't put Jesus claims above the claims of, say, Mohammad, or above the claims of followers of Zeus, or above the claims of those that claim Krishna is a god, etc.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former.
I admire your tenacity and energy - I wish I could keep up with you.
Can you show me that science?
Hell is nothing more than being eternally separated from God. At your death He will grant you your wish. He doesn't separate Himself from us, we separate ourselves from Him.So then the "hell" that it describes is not literal, then, right? And that would mean that the majority of Christians are delusional then, since most of them do buy into "hell" as being literal.Revelations is a prophecy of the fall of Rome. I don't think it can be said to be allegorical as much as it was symbolism for obvious reasons. They were still ruled by Rome.So the dragons in Revelation (NT) are literal - dragons actually exist, right? And you magically know how to tell the DIFFERENCE between the dragons in Game of Thrones, and the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Revelation, right?I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?
Sorry to be so hard on you, but Scientific Humanists, more than any other overall belief system, demand intellectual consistency. Not only are we the most ethical overall belief system, but most intellectually consistent. It's not easy, but we try to live up to that - so we can't bring forward the unscientific parts of the Bible, but "love your neighbor" is pretty awesome, to be sure.
I don't recall the Bible saying that Everest was under water and as I said before the Bible tells the account of actual events in an allegorical fashion. So, I don't see your point. How does this prove that science proves there was not a great flood? One that was recorded in many cultures around the globe?No science shows that Everest was under water, like the Bible says.Thank you. I appreciate that, but we weren't talking about Jesus. We were talking about allegorical events like "the flood." My position was that the Bible tells about actual events in an allegorical fashion such as the great migration from the cradle of civilization. Your position was that science proves the flood didn't happen.Yes, Jesus' claims are not falsifiable, not testable, so of course Scientific Humanists can't put Jesus claims above the claims of, say, Mohammad, or above the claims of followers of Zeus, or above the claims of those that claim Krishna is a god, etc.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former....... It did happen. ......
I admire your tenacity and energy - I wish I could keep up with you.
Can you show me that science?
Great, but will you admit that it is wrong?I agree that abortion is not a great thing. Responsible birth-control is the best way, or not engaging in that sex in the first place. I don't have a ton of energy on the abortion issue.Would you like for me to explain why you should believe that it would still be wrong to end his life?If a Nazi storm-trooper is running at me with his bayonet, I just might have to over-ride the 6th commandment ("thou shalt not kill"), and "end a human life".That isn't my question. My question is... is it wrong to end a human life?I'm not "pro-abortion", as such.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"
So the NT is more allegorical, then? (I thought you said the NT was not allegorical??) So Jesus will not actually return to earth, like many Christians believe, then?Hell is nothing more than being eternally separated from God. At your death He will grant you your wish. He doesn't separate Himself from us, we separate ourselves from Him.So then the "hell" that it describes is not literal, then, right? And that would mean that the majority of Christians are delusional then, since most of them do buy into "hell" as being literal.Revelations is a prophecy of the fall of Rome. I don't think it can be said to be allegorical as much as it was symbolism for obvious reasons. They were still ruled by Rome.So the dragons in Revelation (NT) are literal - dragons actually exist, right? And you magically know how to tell the DIFFERENCE between the dragons in Game of Thrones, and the dragons in Harry Potter, and the dragons in Revelation, right?I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?
Sorry to be so hard on you, but Scientific Humanists, more than any other overall belief system, demand intellectual consistency. Not only are we the most ethical overall belief system, but most intellectually consistent. It's not easy, but we try to live up to that - so we can't bring forward the unscientific parts of the Bible, but "love your neighbor" is pretty awesome, to be sure.
IIRC it's something like "all the mountains were covered....", or something like that.I don't recall the Bible saying that Everest was under water and as I said before the Bible tells the account of actual events in an allegorical fashion. So, I don't see your point. How does this prove that science proves there was not a great flood? One that was recorded in many cultures around the globe?No science shows that Everest was under water, like the Bible says.Thank you. I appreciate that, but we weren't talking about Jesus. We were talking about allegorical events like "the flood." My position was that the Bible tells about actual events in an allegorical fashion such as the great migration from the cradle of civilization. Your position was that science proves the flood didn't happen.Yes, Jesus' claims are not falsifiable, not testable, so of course Scientific Humanists can't put Jesus claims above the claims of, say, Mohammad, or above the claims of followers of Zeus, or above the claims of those that claim Krishna is a god, etc.That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former.
I admire your tenacity and energy - I wish I could keep up with you.
Can you show me that science?
I personally would choose to not abort a baby that I had created, but since it's such a personal decision, and 70% of people are pro-choice, I'm not sure that I can support laws that take away that freedom.Great, but will you admit that it is wrong?I agree that abortion is not a great thing. Responsible birth-control is the best way, or not engaging in that sex in the first place. I don't have a ton of energy on the abortion issue.Would you like for me to explain why you should believe that it would still be wrong to end his life?If a Nazi storm-trooper is running at me with his bayonet, I just might have to over-ride the 6th commandment ("thou shalt not kill"), and "end a human life".That isn't my question. My question is... is it wrong to end a human life?I'm not "pro-abortion", as such.
