From today I can call myself an atheist

Dades

Boulevardier wrote: »

Otherwise, you are pathologising my beliefs, which I would find rather arrogant and more than a little offensive.

Are you purposely looking to be offended? Because there is nothing offensive in what I said. I have no problem with deists whatsoever.

My point was deism is so vague as to be outside the realm of proof or truth as sought by Robin's dialectic method. What I suggested could be analysed would be some people's reasons for being a deist.

Example:

Statement: I'm a deist as how could life arise from nothing? Something must have made it happen.

Response: Refer to the theory of abiogenesis and how life could potentially come from inorganic matter.

See?

As least I understand what your beliefs are which is more than can said for you own understanding of other beliefs this thread.

Undergod

Boulevardier wrote: »

Atheism is a belief. Please do not pretend it is other than that.

Put it like this: do you believe I am blonde?

robindch

Undergod wrote: »

do you believe I am blonde?

I think you're bald, but I demand to know what's the color of the hair you don't have!

Undergod

Not exactly where I was headed with that one, but it is a great analogy!

Thankfully I still have my hair, for the moment at least.

Turtwig

Undergod wrote: »

Not exactly where I was headed with that one, but that is a great analogy!

Thankfully I still have my hair, for the moment at least.

Obviously you need to spend more time on this forum then.:D

scruffystack

I've read through a lot of this thread, I love this debate and always enjoy having it with friends in college!
I myself don't believe in a God which I guess makes me an atheist. Since I'm 20 and in college i still live at home most of the time. My mam is Catholic so she always asks me to go to mass, and I reply with a swift "No Thanks" as always. I think she finds it hard that I used to attend regularly up until the age of about 17, but this wasn't out of some strong belief I had or whatever, it was just the way things were when your young, my mam making me! I'm sure it's the same for a lot of young people.
What I find hard at home is when my mam asks me do I pray for my late grandmother (Who died last november).. She asks do I visit her grave and such. I really find it hard to answer incase I upset her. The answer is I dont pray for her, I dont visit her grave.
My belief is we are alive, then we die, that's it. Nothing more too it. I just can't say that at home... I loved my nan, i miss her loads but this belief that praying for her and visiting her grave will some how help my life and benefit me when I die is in my opinion just crazy!!
Life is life... We're all gonna die, get over it, and stop covering your ass, "just in case" we're wrong and your right!

One more thing, reading comments like "Praying gets people through hard times, belief will help you through blah blah"..
Music does it for me thank you very much!

strobe

{This post has been edited:}

Go with your Mother to her Mother's grave if she is going and want's you to go. That's just my opinion.

Turtwig

Strobe, mate, might I suggest making an uber complicated password that your intoxicated self cannot muster the coordination to enter.:D
That or stick to the thread for A&A's when we're a little jiffy.

philologos

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The point (I think) Dades was making is that the weakness of other belief systems is their level of detail. Christianity for example has such a complex theology that refuting it as a literal truth is easier than Deism which is so vague that it is almost indefinable.

Very interested here. What do you mean by it, and literal truth? It's evident that the Bible does use allegory and metaphor in parts, but in others it is using direct language. For example compare Jesus' parables with the Ten Commandments. At the same time, Christianity as it is communicated is very much true according to Christians obviously.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

That's all there is to it. There are no requirements for atheism other than not believing in God.

Although a few years ago here, it was argued that atheism is simply the rejection of theism. Other forms of belief in God such as deism could be also referred to as the rejection of theism?

I'm simply interested in your take on this.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

Very interested here. What do you mean by it, and literal truth? It's evident that the Bible does use allegory and metaphor in parts, but in others it is using direct language. For example compare Jesus' parables with the Ten Commandments. At the same time, Christianity as it is communicated is very much true according to Christians obviously.

What I meant in my original post was that Deism really only makes a single positive claim, namely that a Supreme Being created the universe but does not interfere with its operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Christianity on the other hand, while starting in the same position (that God created the universe) diverges from deism by also believing in an interventionist God. However, Christianity transcends theism by making further positive claims about the character, will and actions of this God.
The more positive claims that are presented, the more evidence needed to support these claims.
I'm not going to argue here against biblical inerrancy. I don't believe for a second that you're a fundamentalist Christian. However, prior to the 17th century Christianity was considered to be a catalogue of historical stories. Any way, we're dealing with modern Christian interpretation so I'll move on. The current interpretation of Christian mythology is that it is a blend of metaphor and fact. There are however, still a number of claims of christianity which hinge on certain bible stories being literally true. These include the Resurrection, the Incarnation, the Assumption, the Ten Commandments etc. These are all claims that Christians have provided no evidence for and in most cases, go against the evidence we do have.
Any way, my point was that Deism makes but a single claim and is thus more resistant to counter-argument than Christianity.

Jakkass wrote: »

Although a few years ago here, it was argued that atheism is simply the rejection of theism. Other forms of belief in God such as deism could be also referred to as the rejection of theism?

I'm simply interested in your take on this.

It is true that within the narrower definition of theism, that of an interventionist singular supernatural creator, deism is a rejection of theism. However, deism is still making an unfounded assertion that a creator exists. The way I see it is that, given our current understanding of the universe, we do not know how it all began and so it is possible that there is a creator. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there is and so why assume that there is one?
I view our understanding of the universe the way Pierre-Simon Laplace did when he told Napoleon: " Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" (I have not needed that hypothesis) when questioned why his book on astronomy did not mention God.

philologos

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Christianity on the other hand, while starting in the same position (that God created the universe) diverges from deism by also believing in an interventionist God.

Some deists also diverge in and out of this conclusion. Thomas Jefferson for example does posit an interventionalist God at least in part when he writes the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

God clearly intervenes in endowing human beings with rights and liberties in his thought. It's just the miracles that he has difficulty with.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, Christianity transcends theism by making further positive claims about the character, will and actions of this God.
The more positive claims that are presented, the more evidence needed to support these claims.

I've no issue with this. What I am having trouble understanding is how this leads to refutation? Claiming "no evidence" is not a refutation, it is a proclamation of ignorance. I don't mean this in the authoritative sense, but in the sense that one doesn't actually know of any evidence potential or otherwise. You said originally:

Christianity for example has such a complex theology that refuting it as a literal truth is easier

Without even saying that the Bible is to be read literally in every case (in some cases it is and in others it isn't depending on the context) I don't see how "no evidence" makes it easier to refute Christianity as truth.

If we want to look further into it we have to define what you mean when referring to this "it" Christianity, and "literal truth".

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not going to argue here against biblical inerrancy. I don't believe for a second that you're a fundamentalist Christian. However, prior to the 17th century Christianity was considered to be a catalogue of historical stories. Any way, we're dealing with modern Christian interpretation so I'll move on. The current interpretation of Christian mythology is that it is a blend of metaphor and fact. There are however, still a number of claims of christianity which hinge on certain bible stories being literally true. These include the Resurrection, the Incarnation, the Assumption, the Ten Commandments etc. These are all claims that Christians have provided no evidence for and in most cases, go against the evidence we do have.

I believe that the Bible is infallible, in that it is God's inspired word to mankind. The Bible doesn't serve one purpose it serves many. I do believe that the Bible is entirely faithful and authentic in what it does however. Perhaps this would make you put me in the "fundamentalist" camp. As a few of us mentioned over in the Christianity forum the term "fundamentalist" has changed. Originally it meant people who were in keeping with the fundementals of the Christian faith which can be only good as far as I'm concerned. Now it has become to mean people who distort Christianity. To use fundamentalist in the pejorative in the original sense would mean that there is something wrong about Christianity, and personally I would reject that there is anything wrong with Christianity as faith.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Any way, my point was that Deism makes but a single claim and is thus more resistant to counter-argument than Christianity.

Claiming "no evidence" isn't a counter-argument though really is it?

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

Some deists also diverge in and out of this conclusion. Thomas Jefferson for example does posit an interventionalist God at least in part when he writes the Declaration of Independence:


God clearly intervenes in endowing human beings with rights and liberties in his thought. It's just the miracles that he has difficulty with.

I wasn't talking about individual deists, I was talking about the definition of deism as I linked to.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've no issue with this. What I am having trouble understanding is how this leads to refutation? Claiming "no evidence" is not a refutation, it is a proclamation of ignorance. I don't mean this in the authoritative sense, but in the sense that one doesn't actually know of any evidence potential or otherwise.

I'm sorry. That was a poor choice of words. What I should have said is rejection and not refutation. As Christopher Hitchens said: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Atheism is the rejection of deism, theism, Christianity etc. because they have provided no evidence for their claims.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that the Bible is infallible, in that it is God's inspired word to mankind. The Bible doesn't serve one purpose it serves many. I do believe that the Bible is entirely faithful and authentic in what it does however.

OK, let's not use the word fundamentalist. The above quote sets out your position adequately for the purposes of this argument that it isn't necessary to use any label like fundamentalist.
Your position, though is what I meant by my first post. You can believe the BIble is infallible all you want. That doesn't make it so. There are examples of biblical fallibility too numerous to list here so I'll just present a short summary.

First off, how is the Bible the inspired word of God? Every religion that has a holy book claims that theirs is the inspired word of God. The Torah, The Qur'an, The Bhagavad Ghita, The Urantia Bookk, The Book of Mormon, The Kitab-i-Aqdas of Bahaullah, the Adhi Granth, The Vedas etc. etc. How do you assert that your holy book is the inspired word of God and not any of the others. You can't all be right (of course you can all be wrong). If there really was a God and he did inspire a book to be written then it would be so perfect and fit so completely with the available evidence that it would be the only such book and would result in a unity of belief across all mankind.

Secondly, the bible is by no means infallible. Only the bunch of savage tribal goat-herders that actually wrote the Bible could have come up with whoppers like these:

• If you show striped patterns to pregnant cattle, they will bear striped offspring. (Genesis 30:37-43)
• Donkeys can talk (Numbers 22:28)
• As can snakes (Genesis 3:1)
• Joshua commanded the earth to stop rotating for a whole day. (Joshua 10:12-14)
• The Great Zombie Invasion of 33AD (Matthew 27:52-54)
• Sprinkling the blood of a dead bird can cure someone of leprosy (Leviticus 14:1-7)
• Whales are fish (Jonah 1:17, Matthew 12:40)
• Pi is exactly 3 (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)
• The Earth is flat (Isaiah 11:12, 44:24)

Then, there's the moral code which the Bible advocates which condones murder, slavery, human sacrifice, child molestation, prejudice against homosexuality, etc. The only thing that the Bible teaches about morality is that if your God does exist then he is a complete asshole.

If the Bible is the word of God, then why are there so many mistakes, why is so much of it lifted from earlier mythological traditions and how is it that God couldn't just have chosen one person to write the entire bible start to finish so that there was a clear unbroken narrative of his intentions?

You can believe the Bible is God's word and infallible for as long as you want but if you're going to make that assertion then let's see the evidence.

philologos

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm sorry. That was a poor choice of words. What I should have said is rejection and not refutation. As Christopher Hitchens said: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Atheism is the rejection of deism, theism, Christianity etc. because they have provided no evidence for their claims.

Dismissing something or rejecting something != refuting something surely?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's not use the word fundamentalist. The above quote sets out your position adequately for the purposes of this argument that it isn't necessary to use any label like fundamentalist.
Your position, though is what I meant by my first post. You can believe the BIble is infallible all you want. That doesn't make it so. There are examples of biblical fallibility too numerous to list here so I'll just present a short summary.

Of course it doesn't make it so. You made a claim about my position, I clarified it. Surely you don't believe that just because I point out that I believe that the Bible is infallible that it must be true just because I claim it. Give me a bit of credit please

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First off, how is the Bible the inspired word of God? Every religion that has a holy book claims that theirs is the inspired word of God. The Torah, The Qur'an, The Bhagavad Ghita, The Urantia Bookk, The Book of Mormon, The Kitab-i-Aqdas of Bahaullah, the Adhi Granth, The Vedas etc. etc. How do you assert that your holy book is the inspired word of God and not any of the others. You can't all be right (of course you can all be wrong). If there really was a God and he did inspire a book to be written then it would be so perfect and fit so completely with the available evidence that it would be the only such book and would result in a unity of belief across all mankind.

I look to the Bible as I do any other text that claims anything about reality. It is by looking to see how does the Bible actually pertain to external reality that one can determine how faithful or unfaithful as ones views may determine that it is with reality. Personally I find the case for Christianity convincing on a number of grounds. You can look up some of my previous posts in this forum if you want to see how that is the case.

I merely have posted to ask you more about your position because I found it interesting.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, the bible is by no means infallible. Only the bunch of savage tribal goat-herders that actually wrote the Bible could have come up with whoppers like these:

I believe that the Bible is infallible in communicating God's truth to us, so lets look at your points. Many of them I've seen before.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If you show striped patterns to pregnant cattle, they will bear striped offspring. (Genesis 30:37-43)

Would you like to read the next chapter and tell me if the Bible actually presents this as an act of mere scientific naturalism or as an act of God? If it is the latter read to the answer provided in the next quote. If it is an act of God it becomes only ridiculous the second we conclude that a omniscient, omnipotent Creator cannot exist which is a totally different argument.

In and of itself I would agree with you that such things do not ordinarily happen. And not only that are extremely rare. Were there not a Creator it would be laughable. More in the next paragraph.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Donkeys can talk (Numbers 22:28)

You're surely better than to commit such a clear informal fallacy. One donkey != all donkeys or even some. I know for an objective fact that all donkeys do not speak, and even that I haven't witnessed one speaking. I'm putting my trust in you that this is a genuine mistake. Otherwise it would be clearly dishonest. I claim as a Christian that any such event is extremely rare and I wouldn't present them as every day occurrences. Although I do believe that God is at work daily I don't believe He performs miracles on a daily basis. If He performed miracles on a daily basis why the heck would we call them miracles? Rather we would call them normal. The very notion of the miraculous suggests that they are rare.

If I am to believe that God is the Creator of all things (which is really what issues with miracles lead back to of necessity), what is so difficult about believing that He could do this when He brought all this into existence? Shouldn't He know how everything in the universe operates and indeed be able to manipulate this if He desires.

I agree with you. If God doesn't exist, the idea is absolutely absurd. As someone who does believe that God does exist and is the Creator and the sustainer of the universe I should have no reason to rule this possibility out. We need to tackle the root issue.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As can snakes (Genesis 3:1)

Same logical fallacy as in previous quote but also more.
The Bible refers to the serpent in Genesis as Satan in Revelation.

Revelation 12:9 wrote:

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Joshua commanded the earth to stop rotating for a whole day. (Joshua 10:12-14)

Joshua 10:12-14 wrote:

On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun stand still over Gibeon, O moon over the valley of Aijalon". The sun stood still and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it was written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!
Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal

This is surprisingly easy to deal with. I personally don't believe the Bible is a science book, but I'm not going to give that as my answer. Rather I'll ask you a question.

What do you say about the sun when it is dusk? Don't you say that it is going down rather than saying that the earth is moving in such a way on its axis that it is going down? Indeed, in the morning at dawn if you are up at such an hour what do you say about the sun? Surely you say that it is rising?

From Joshua's point of view the sun did stand still because Joshua was on the earth. As someone on the earth I will also say that the sun is rising and setting even when it is doing neither.

If you want my answer, I believe the LORD did keep the earth from moving in such a way that the sun set.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The Great Zombie Invasion of 33AD (Matthew 27:52-54)

See second paragraph.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sprinkling the blood of a dead bird can cure someone of leprosy (Leviticus 14:1-7)

Likewise.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Whales are fish (Jonah 1:17, Matthew 12:40)

This is down to translation. In the Ancient Hebrew language there wasn't such a distinction. It also precedes that distinction so it is absolutely ridiculous to use such an obvious anachronism.

Even the Wikipedia article can tell you this:

Though it is often called a whale today, the Hebrew, as throughout scripture, refers to no species in particular, simply sufficing with "great fish" or "big fish" (whales are today classified as mammals and not fish, but no such distinction was made in antiquity)

Whale is a result of our best translation of the Ancient Hebrew into English. "Whale" as a word actually doesn't exist in the Hebrew manuscripts.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Pi is exactly 3 (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

This is what happens when the Bible isn't a science book, it is describing on an approximate level to measurements of the Temple that Solomon built. Look on to the "Funny Side of Religion" thread search for either my name or PDN's and you'll see that we discussed this a year or so ago.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The Earth is flat (Isaiah 11:12, 44:24)

Let's read the context. I know for a fact that there are other passages in Isaiah that suggest that the earth is round (such Isaiah 40:22). So let's look at it?

Isaiah 11:12 - context Messianic prophesy:

He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

Isaiah 44:24 -

“This is what the LORD says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,

I don't see how this makes it so that the earth is flat in either example. In the first example it seems to be referring to geographical or political territories, in the second it seems to be just talking in figurative terms about what God did in the beginning.

I suspect in the first case the issue is with "four corners". I suspect in the second that it may be "stretched" or "spread".

So let's look to the Hebrew:

First case:
Other translations have "corners". kanaph in the Hebrew can also be rendered as "wing, extremity". Not quite arguing for a flat earth.

Second case:
In the case of natah which is used for "stretched" it can mean bend also. In the case of raqa which is used for "spread" it can mean to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out. Both terms seem to be speaking more about the labour of God in creation rather than the scientific means by which He achieved this. Not the best argument when one looks to the Hebrew.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Then, there's the moral code which the Bible advocates which condones murder, slavery, human sacrifice, child molestation, prejudice against homosexuality, etc. The only thing that the Bible teaches about morality is that if your God does exist then he is a complete asshole.

I compared Biblical slavery and colonial slavery on this forum about 2 years ago. If you search for me in this forum and put in "colonial slavery" you will find out about what I think about this subject.

By the by, I have to ask you what does bringing up your so called issues with the Bible have to do with its truth or falsity or the idea that it is infallible. You could be wrong. Unless you are assuming that every idea in the modern world is de-facto right merely by existence?

God has His ethical standards, you can choose to follow them or to reject them. That's your choice, but I certainly don't see any point in justifying God's standards to you by using yours. His standards exist and they are our moral guide, I try and aim to live by His word in every single part of my life. I guess I'm just a woefully immoral person by association :pac:

Most of your accusations fall flat on any examination of the word.

Human sacrifice is also a joke if you are to claim this in respect to the Bible. In Abraham's case in Genesis 26 God stopped Him. As I mentioned in another thread, there is evidence that child sacrifice actually occurred amongst Israel's neighbours the Phonecians. God differed from other gods in that He didn't expect such a sacrifice.

The other case I could see you using is in respect to Jephthah's awful promise in Judges 11. This argument would fall short in that the passage does not say ultimately what happened. There is some external reason in the Babylonian Talmud to suggest that he actually didn't go through with this. Nor does the Bible show God's approval for the concept in any shape or form.

You can't make the typical accusations that I've seen atheists making that Christians ignore such passages, because I've read them and there is always much more to what is actually there than those who argue it make out.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If the Bible is the word of God, then why are there so many mistakes, why is so much of it lifted from earlier mythological traditions and how is it that God couldn't just have chosen one person to write the entire bible start to finish so that there was a clear unbroken narrative of his intentions?

I don't believe I have seen any using honest, and effective mechanisms for looking into each of the passages you've described.

I have to say, I really can't be doing posts this long in response going into the near future due to university exams. I'd love to, but I really can't. We're either going to have to cut down the amount which will be in response to this, or that I simply won't be able to respond to it all. I've put a huge amount of effort into that response, and I always try to but I'm going to have to be more wise with my time!

Edit: Hebrew source is bible.cc - look up a passage and click the Hebrew tab. I usually use Logos Bible Software for this but I'm logged onto Linux right now

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

I look to the Bible as I do any other text that claims anything about reality. It is by looking to see how does the Bible actually pertain to external reality that one can determine how faithful or unfaithful as ones views may determine that it is with reality. Personally I find the case for Christianity convincing on a number of grounds. You can look up some of my previous posts in this forum if you want to see how that is the case.

OK, like I have said, there are a lot of religions out there which claim that their holy book is inspired by their God and is the absolute truth.

What is the evidence that makes your book the correct one and all the other ones not?

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that the Bible is infallible in communicating God's truth to us, so lets look at your points. Many of them I've seen before.

So you're talking about infallibility with regard to faith and Christian practice then and not inerrancy?

Jakkass wrote: »

Would you like to read the next chapter and tell me if the Bible actually presents this as an act of mere scientific naturalism or as an act of God? If it is the latter read to the answer provided in the next quote. If it is an act of God it becomes only ridiculous the second we conclude that a omniscient, omnipotent Creator cannot exist which is a totally different argument.

That's not what I mean at all. What I meant was what kind of moron believes that you can produced striped cattle by showing the pregnant cow a striped pattern. Anyone who does has clearly no knowledge of basic biology. This is not what you would expect from something which is inspired by God. I suspect that your clarification above regarding your attitude to biblical infallibility may make the rest of the points in my last post redundant but let's plough on.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're surely better than to commit such a clear informal fallacy. One donkey != all donkeys or even some. I know for an objective fact that all donkeys do not speak, and even that I haven't witnessed one speaking. I'm putting my trust in you that this is a genuine mistake. Otherwise it would be clearly dishonest. I claim as a Christian that any such event is extremely rare and I wouldn't present them as every day occurrences. Although I do believe that God is at work daily I don't believe He performs miracles on a daily basis. If He performed miracles on a daily basis why the heck would we call them miracles? Rather we would call them normal. The very notion of the miraculous suggests that they are rare.

No, I wasn't equating all donkeys with that one. So anything that contradicts basic facts of biology is therefore a miracle? I see.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible refers to the serpent in Genesis as Satan in Revelation.

And? So? Therefore? I know that Satan is identified with the serpent in Genesis. So what? God talking through a donkey or Satan talking through a snake. Same difference.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is surprisingly easy to deal with. I personally don't believe the Bible is a science book, but I'm not going to give that as my answer.

But you have already claimed the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Is it beyond your God to inspire people to write things which are scientifically accurate?

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you say about the sun when it is dusk? Don't you say that it is going down rather than saying that the earth is moving in such a way on its axis that it is going down? Indeed, in the morning at dawn if you are up at such an hour what do you say about the sun? Surely you say that it is rising?

From Joshua's point of view the sun did stand still because Joshua was on the earth. As someone on the earth I will also say that the sun is rising and setting even when it is doing neither.

If you want my answer, I believe the LORD did keep the earth from moving in such a way that the sun set.

First of all, how we refer in the vernacular to the motion of the sun does not reflect our understanding of how it really works. However, the quote from Joshua is quite explicit:

"The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

That is fairly unambiguous. From Joshua or anyone else's point of view, how could the sun have stayed in the middle of the sky for a whole day. Did God move the whole battle to the North Pole?

As for your belief that God actually did stop the Earth for a full day, how is it that Joshua and everyone else on Earth as well as everything not naled down not get flung into space when the Earth stopped rotating?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is down to translation. In the Ancient Hebrew language there wasn't such a distinction. It also precedes that distinction so it is absolutely ridiculous to use such an obvious anachronism.


This is what happens when the Bible isn't a science book, it is describing on an approximate level to measurements of the Temple that Solomon built. Look on to the "Funny Side of Religion" thread search for either my name or PDN's and you'll see that we discussed this a year or so ago.

As I have already asked, is your God incapable of inspiring specificity or accuracy?

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's read the context. I know for a fact that there are other passages in Isaiah that suggest that the earth is round (such Isaiah 40:22). So let's look at it?

Isaiah 40:22 makes no mention of the earth being a sphere. It says the circle of the earth. Go to any hilltop and look around you in every direction and you will see a circle. This doesn't mean that the bible teaches that the earth is a sphere. The people could simply believe it to be a flat disc (which they did).

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how this makes it so that the earth is flat in either example. In the first example it seems to be referring to geographical or political territories, in the second it seems to be just talking in figurative terms about what God did in the beginning.

I suspect in the first case the issue is with "four corners". I suspect in the second that it may be "stretched" or "spread".

So let's look to the Hebrew:

First case:
Other translations have "corners". kanaph in the Hebrew can also be rendered as "wing, extremity". Not quite arguing for a flat earth.

I don't see how changing the translation of kanaph from corners (which you seem to admit is a valid translation) to wing or extremity makes any difference. A text inspired by God who would know that the Earth was spherical would not so refer to the Earth or allow such vague language as to suggest that the Earth was flat in the first place.

Jakkass wrote: »

Second case:
In the case of natah which is used for "stretched" it can mean bend also. In the case of raqa which is used for "spread" it can mean to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out. Both terms seem to be speaking more about the labour of God in creation rather than the scientific means by which He achieved this. Not the best argument when one looks to the Hebrew.

As above, can mean doesn't mean should mean. Just because natah can mean bend doesn't mean it can't also be interpreted as stretched.

Jakkass wrote: »

I compared Biblical slavery and colonial slavery on this forum about 2 years ago. If you search for me in this forum and put in "colonial slavery" you will find out about what I think about this subject.

I'll have to check that one out.

Jakkass wrote: »

By the by, I have to ask you what does bringing up your so called issues with the Bible have to do with its truth or falsity or the idea that it is infallible. You could be wrong. Unless you are assuming that every idea in the modern world is de-facto right merely by existence?

What I mean is that the moral codes advocated in the Old Testament are not representative of the way people, including Christians live their lives now. If, again, as you claim, the Bible is the inpsired word of God, why are the moral guidelines that were to be adhered to then discarded now.

Jakkass wrote: »

The other case I could see you using is in respect to Jephthah's awful promise in Judges 11. This argument would fall short in that the passage does not say ultimately what happened. There is some external reason in the Babylonian Talmud to suggest that he actually didn't go through with this. Nor does the Bible show God's approval for the concept in any shape or form.

Strange then that the bible says:

"After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed." Judges 11:39.

God's approval isn't apparent but what about his disapproval. If human sacrifice is not something to be condoned, then why doesn't God step in and stop Jephthah just as he stopped Abraham?

Look, I don't wish to continue this endless stream of biblical criticism because it is a debate that has been going on for longer than either of us have been around. I understand the belief you have in the bible and God, it's one that I used to share but if you want to elevate your belief from subjective faith to objective truth then you'd better have something to back it up and I've yet to see any Christian provide any such evidence.

Gordon

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that the Bible is infallible

Which one?

philologos

Gordon wrote: »

Which one?

In short, I'm not referring to Biblical translations when I say this, but the Biblical text as was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Hence why I spent the time going to the Hebrew in my last post to oldrnwisr. Something I won't be able to do as extensively over the next while.

Biblical translations actually don't differ all that much.

Briefly to oldrnwisr - I don't believe that God can't be accurate in revealing His word to us. Indeed, His word is written so that it can speak clearly to people of every culture, tribe and nation about Him and what He has done for mankind. I.E It's not intended to be a science book. If I want to learn more about whales I will look at a biology book. I believe that the approximisation of PI to 3 also isn't significant as I don't believe 1 Kings is meant to be a formal engineering manual but rather a book informing of how God works through the Kings of Israel and Judah.

Edit: As for Judges 11 and Jephthah you might find this interesting.

yawha

Jakkass wrote: »

His word is written so that it can speak clearly to people of every culture, tribe and nation about Him and what He has done for mankind.

But it doesn't, because it quite obviously excludes skeptics/scientific minded people.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe that God can't be accurate in revealing His word to us.

Oh. So he chose this muddled catastrophe that we've got going on here on Earth?

philologos

yawha wrote: »

But it doesn't, because it quite obviously excludes skeptics/scientific minded people.

I don't see how it does. Particularly since skeptics and people involved in science are often Christians rather than atheists. The Bible isn't intended to be a science book, but this doesn't mean that it can't appeal to people who are both generally quite skeptical, and scientists.

Zillah wrote: »

Oh. So he chose this muddled catastrophe that we've got going on here on Earth?

Que?

Stercus Accidit

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how it does. Particularly since skeptics and people involved in science are often Christians rather than atheists. The Bible isn't intended to be a science book, but this doesn't mean that it can't appeal to people who are both generally quite skeptical, and scientists.

Aren't scientists one of the least religious demographics?

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Aren't scientists one of the least religious demographics?

Indeed, but there are still many scientists who are Christians. Anecdotally in terms of churches, and indeed statistically as well. To claim that one can't be a scientist and have an appreciation of the Bible is just plain ignorant. Why do you think that scientists such as Francis Collins for example become Christians? (Remembering that Collins grew up in a family of "freethinkers")

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

Particularly since skeptics and people involved in science are often Christians rather than atheists.

What utter nonsense. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that 93% of the members of the US National Academy of Sciences are atheists, the preponderence of studies conducted on the religiosity of scientists have found that the rough breakdown of religiosity is 35% atheist, 30% agnostic and 35% religious. Furthermore within the religious group, the largest single religion represented is Jewish with 15% of all scientists identifying as Jewish. In fact a better argument could be made for the appeal of Judaism to scientists rather than Christianity since Israel has the highest level of scientists and engineers per capita of all countries.

Zillah

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What utter nonsense. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that 93% of the members of the US National Academy of Sciences are atheists, the preponderence of studies conducted on the religiosity of scientists have found that the rough breakdown of religiosity is 35% atheist, 30% agnostic and 35% religious. Furthermore within the religious group, the largest single religion represented is Jewish with 15% of all scientists identifying as Jewish. In fact a better argument could be made for the appeal of Judaism to scientists rather than Christianity since Israel has the highest level of scientists and engineers per capita of all countries.

Not to mention that Judaism is considered a race and cultural demographic as much as it is a religion, and hence many of those identifying as Jewish are not necessarily stating their position in regard to theological claims.

We're all too aware of how many "Catholics" identify as such because of their background regardless of their stated position that the beliefs of the religion are nonsense, I'd imagine being part of a group with such a powerful identity as Judaism is even more influential again.

philologos

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What utter nonsense. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that 93% of the members of the US National Academy of Sciences are atheists, the preponderence of studies conducted on the religiosity of scientists have found that the rough breakdown of religiosity is 35% atheist, 30% agnostic and 35% religious. Furthermore within the religious group, the largest single religion represented is Jewish with 15% of all scientists identifying as Jewish. In fact a better argument could be made for the appeal of Judaism to scientists rather than Christianity since Israel has the highest level of scientists and engineers per capita of all countries.

I'm saying from experience and in reality quite a number of scientists are involved in churches. Being a scientist doesn't mean that one can't be a Christian, indeed neither does being skeptically minded. A large proportion of Christians that I have met at university are studying the sciences, possibly more than are studying humanities. Of people in churches I'd hazard a guess at the same.

What seems to follow on from this is the claim that intelligent people can't believe in God. This simply isn't true either. In Australia there is a 10% difference between the number of churchgoers who have attained a third level degree than the general population. 23% of churchgoers in Australia have an undergraduate or a postgraduate degree, whereas 13% have one in the general population. Source here.

yawha

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how it does. Particularly since skeptics and people involved in science are often Christians rather than atheists. The Bible isn't intended to be a science book, but this doesn't mean that it can't appeal to people who are both generally quite skeptical, and scientists.

You're completely sidestepping the issue.

The very fact that it is not a science book, that it is not written in a detailed, rigorous, unambiguous manner means that it doesn't appeal to me, and many others like me.

And I'm not unique, there exist millions of people who think like me. The Bible simply doesn't speak to us. It's nothing to do with being closed minded or denying anything. It just fundamentally fails to impress or have any impact on us because of the way we think. Your claim that the Bible speaks to people of every culture, tribe and nation is simply untrue.

philologos

I'm not sidestepping anything. You made the woeful point that scientists or those who are skeptically minded cannot find anything of value in the Bible. I'm clearly showing you that this is wrong. If it were true why are there scientists in our churches? Why are there groups of Christian scientists all around the world many of them teaching in university faculties or committed to research?

I'm not sidestepping the issue, I'm tackling your original point head on. I would suspect if you were intellectually honest that you'd recognise this at the very least.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sidestepping anything. You made the woeful point that scientists or those who are skeptically minded cannot find anything of value in the Bible. I'm clearly showing you that this is wrong. If it were true why are there scientists in our churches? Why are there groups of Christian scientists all around the world many of them teaching in university faculties or committed to research?

I'm not sidestepping the issue, I'm tackling your original point head on. I would suspect if you were intellectually honest that you'd recognise this at the very least.

I'm curious, do you think these scientists have treated their belief in a scientific manner whether you think they should or not?

Edit:
Had a look at one of the members of the organisation CiS and she had this to say

My faith guided me to look for indeterminism and causal openness in nature and to expect more sophisticated mechanisms (and not just copying errors or radiation damage) as the source of new genetic information in evolution.

So it's not clear to me why stress science and religion as seperate domains of inquiry. Here you have "scientists" making up there conclusion and then looking for the evidence instead of using hypothesis primed to be destroyed or supported by evidence. Not very comendable.

DeBunny

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe that God can't be accurate in revealing His word to us. Indeed, His word is written so that it can speak clearly to people of every culture, tribe and nation about Him and what He has done for mankind.

And what about all the cultures, tribes and nations who, upon hearing the word of god, carry on regardless? Why doesn't god use something a bit more persuasive than the bible?

I think you might find this interesting.

philologos

DeBunny wrote: »

And what about all the cultures, tribes and nations who, upon hearing the word of god, carry on regardless? Why doesn't god use something a bit more persuasive than the bible?

I think you might find this interesting.

As Christians we keep trying. If we really believe that Jesus died to save mankind from their sin and bring them into eternal life rather than eternal condemnation. Or indeed if we believe that Jesus can really offer something to every single person on the face of the earth, we keep going as far as I see it.

It would be profoundly immoral for me not to aim to tell people about Christ after seeing what He has done in my life and in the lives of others.

The Bible is simply put amazing. I remember reading it when I was 17 and it blew me away. If I would have had anything to say to my younger self, I would have said read the Bible properly. I find that most people who would claim to be atheists actually have very little contact with the Bible. The only exception to that rule has been in this subforum. Most atheists I have discussed the Bible with usually resort to things such as Skeptics Annotated Bible or the Reason Project's list of alleged contradictions rather than independent reading of the Bible. It is a hugely powerful book when we actually decide to listen to what it has to say rather than trying to poke as many holes in it as possible.

Arguably, it mostly comes down to will or desire. It is rarely solely because of intellectual argument that people don't come to know God. There's always more to it. I can only hope and pray that God will impact peoples lives positively. Indeed I've seen this happen in a number of peoples lives and it is really something beautiful to see. Indeed, I've seen people who would have been outspokenly critical about Christianity come to see that there is actually something in this Christianity thing after all. I can only hope that it will happen more and more.

As for that story, yes I've heard of it before. I'm not doubting that situations like that occur.

DeBunny

I know it's about free will but why is god so cryptic and elusive? If he really wanted us to have free will, he would present himself in an obvious manner and then let us make our minds up. Wouldn't an all powerful being use something even slightly more persuasive than a book? Why does he leave all those cultures, tribes and nations behind? Why doesn't the bible impress other people in other cultures as much as it did you?