Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

indioblack · 26-04-2015 07:19AM

katydid wrote: »

Some of the OT is a folk story. Some is historical. Some is poetry. All written by humans, all inspired by God. And we have our God given intelligence to figure it the difference.

So why have some people "figured out the difference" differently?

MaxWig · 26-04-2015 04:03PM

J C wrote:

Are you saying, as a Christian, that the revealed Word of God is a 'folk story' ... on a par with stories about Leprechauns and Unicorns???

If that is how you distinguish fact from fiction in this instance, then yes.
The idea that wisdom is passed from generation to generation via some kind of simple communication that means the same thing to all (wo)men is clearly silly.
Folk stories, if that is what you wish to call them are ingenious in that they distill so much into so little.
Far be it from me JC to denigrate or even challenge your particular view of the world. My problem with your particular take however is that it is not flexible (or sophisticated) enough to acknowledge that human experience cannot be contained in any book, without the reality/perception of the reader being taken into account.
If it was 'only' the words on the page that mattered, then the book would have ran out of print a very long time ago

J C · 26-04-2015 05:41PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Your post is a prime example of un-common sense: Katy is making the point that there ARE differing accounts of the same event in the bible. Which ones are reported accurately and truthfully?

What are these accounts that you / she is referring to?

katydid · 26-04-2015 08:36PM

J C wrote: »

What are these accounts that you / she is referring to?

You could ask me...

I already gave you an example: the differing versions of the Resurrection. There's the different versions of how Judas died, as another example. There are several examples.

Now, if you're claiming that what's important is accurate, which version is accurate and which is wrong? They can't both be accurate

katydid · 26-04-2015 08:38PM

galljga1 wrote: »

This is where I have to take leave from people who take the bible literally. There are differing accounts of the same event, so, logically, it cannot be taken literally. Personally, I do not believe any of it but if one takes inspiration from it and lives a good life, as most Christians do, then the world is a better place.

Most Christians don't believe it literally either. You can't, since there is too much that doesn't fit. What people who don't believe don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter. It's the essence of the story that's important.

katydid · 26-04-2015 08:43PM

indioblack wrote: »

So why have some people "figured out the difference" differently?

No idea. Maybe they have just accepted what they are told and not thought about it. Perhaps because it makes them uncomfortable.

At a series we did recently as preparation for Easter, we had very frank and open discussions about certain passages from scripture. One of the group said that he felt a fraud because he had never really thought about it before, and was feeling quite uncomfortable. We said he was being too hard on himself for calling himself a fraud, but that it was better late than never to start reading scripture thoughtfully.

tommy2bad · 26-04-2015 10:13PM

Came across this, not a lot of answers in it but it shows that science may not be the solution or alternative to religion, they may be two faces of the same coin.
http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-provocateurs/the-man-who-may-one-up-darwin/39217

indioblack · 27-04-2015 03:03PM

katydid wrote: »

No idea. Maybe they have just accepted what they are told and not thought about it. Perhaps because it makes them uncomfortable.

At a series we did recently as preparation for Easter, we had very frank and open discussions about certain passages from scripture. One of the group said that he felt a fraud because he had never really thought about it before, and was feeling quite uncomfortable. We said he was being too hard on himself for calling himself a fraud, but that it was better late than never to start reading scripture thoughtfully.

Yes, I see that. A good answer.

indioblack · 27-04-2015 03:07PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Came across this, not a lot of answers in it but it shows that science may not be the solution or alternative to religion, they may be two faces of the same coin.
http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-provocateurs/the-man-who-may-one-up-darwin/39217

I read the link. This lad may have something - though I'd expect most of it would go over my head!

looksee · 30-04-2015 02:19PM

Quote from the article at http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-...p-darwin/39217 linked above:

Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism?

I don't claim to be able to make any sort of judgment on the (full) article, but just looking at the quote above, does it make any sense at all? He predicts that the atoms of the glass will rearrange themselves, but in order to learn how to do that the glass will have to have shattered first. So how do the atoms get to have a second go? I can't see how there can be any progress at all. A plankton-type organism rearranging itself over several generations is a completely different example, and even then there has to be natural selection input.

indioblack · 30-04-2015 04:21PM

looksee wrote: »

Quote from the article at http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-...p-darwin/39217 linked above:

I don't claim to be able to make any sort of judgment on the (full) article, but just looking at the quote above, does it make any sense at all? He predicts that the atoms of the glass will rearrange themselves, but in order to learn how to do that the glass will have to have shattered first. So how do the atoms get to have a second go? I can't see how there can be any progress at all. A plankton-type organism rearranging itself over several generations is a completely different example, and even then there has to be natural selection input.

I re-read the article and, as expected, it went over my head!
Probable because he's only theorising - he doesn't seem to know how it will work, and introducing his religion didn't seem too add much.
Maybe the opera singer should just keep trying - she might get it right with a bit of repetition!
The creation bit I didn't get - what did it matter what name you give to the Earth - or is it more subtle than that?
One thing both believers and unbelievers share is the reality of this planet.
At the risk of stating the obvious, this earth, our main reference point I would suggest, is suitable for life, but not perfect for it.
Life can be unbalanced, unequal and, without doubt it is unfair as we perceive it.
We are part of this inequality - it cannot be otherwise whist we are here.
Simple example: I am not a rich man here in the First World - yet to many from the Third World I am wealthy.
Even if Jesus had walked this earth he could not have avoided being part of
this perceived unfairness - simply by taking human form and engaging in the world he was part of what the world is.
To the believers "that's the way the world is", and they are right.
To the unbelievers.....ditto - and they are also right.
To some it doesn't matter that this is the way it is because.... well, this is the way it is.
Whatever avenue we take to observe it, whether the world we inhabit now is the result of chance, chemical reaction and mechanics, or the result of an initial creation by a conscious god - the world is as it is.
If you think there is no supernatural dimension to the universe, then no further explanation is required. The world works according to revealed mechanics.
If you believe there is an omnipotent god behind all this, then I say, once again, that existence must give some reflection of the entity that created it.
As Paul Newman said in Cool Hand Luke, when his prayer to the church rafters didn't appear to get an immediate response, just the arrival of the prison guards to capture him, "Is that your answer, Old Man? "

tommy2bad · 01-05-2015 10:57AM

indioblack wrote: »

I re-read the article and, as expected, it went over my head!
Probable because he's only theorising - he doesn't seem to know how it will work, and introducing his religion didn't seem too add much.
Maybe the opera singer should just keep trying - she might get it right with a bit of repetition!
The creation bit I didn't get - what did it matter what name you give to the Earth - or is it more subtle than that?
One thing both believers and unbelievers share is the reality of this planet.
At the risk of stating the obvious, this earth, our main reference point I would suggest, is suitable for life, but not perfect for it.
Life can be unbalanced, unequal and, without doubt it is unfair as we perceive it.
We are part of this inequality - it cannot be otherwise whist we are here.
Simple example: I am not a rich man here in the First World - yet to many from the Third World I am wealthy.
Even if Jesus had walked this earth he could not have avoided being part of
this perceived unfairness - simply by taking human form and engaging in the world he was part of what the world is.
To the believers "that's the way the world is", and they are right.
To the unbelievers.....ditto - and they are also right.
To some it doesn't matter that this is the way it is because.... well, this is the way it is.
Whatever avenue we take to observe it, whether the world we inhabit now is the result of chance, chemical reaction and mechanics, or the result of an initial creation by a conscious god - the world is as it is.
If you think there is no supernatural dimension to the universe, then no further explanation is required. The world works according to revealed mechanics.
If you believe there is an omnipotent god behind all this, then I say, once again, that existence must give some reflection of the entity that created it.
As Paul Newman said in Cool Hand Luke, when his prayer to the church rafters didn't appear to get an immediate response, just the arrival of the prison guards to capture him, "Is that your answer, Old Man? "

No he is not saying that science will be informed by religion, he is saying that religion needs to be informed by science. His notion is reading religious texts in the light of the science we now have shed new light on ancient texts and in this understanding the texts have relevance and insight,. Basically they need not contradict each other, they are complimentary.

Safehands · 01-05-2015 01:08PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

No he is not saying that science will be informed by religion, he is saying that religion needs to be informed by science. His notion is reading religious texts in the light of the science we now have shed new light on ancient texts and in this understanding the texts have relevance and insight,. Basically they need not contradict each other, they are complimentary.

There is no problem with people not believing in Darwin, the big bang or current scientific suggestions.
Could they just let us know what they understand to be a more believable theory for how it all started and exactly why they believe that.

indioblack · 01-05-2015 03:02PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

No he is not saying that science will be informed by religion, he is saying that religion needs to be informed by science. His notion is reading religious texts in the light of the science we now have shed new light on ancient texts and in this understanding the texts have relevance and insight,. Basically they need not contradict each other, they are complimentary.

That they may be complimentary. I would think you are right to say that.
It may even be essential.
To marry the philosophical approach with material observations.
The rest of my post dealt with an aspect of this debate that should not cause dispute - our experience of the material existence on this planet.
it may even travel along similar lines to the thinking that religious writings and science may have some overlapping.
My posting, as in others, sees something like this, an explanation, as a requirement to understanding.

hinault · 01-05-2015 03:31PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

No he is not saying that science will be informed by religion, he is saying that religion needs to be informed by science. His notion is reading religious texts in the light of the science we now have shed new light on ancient texts and in this understanding the texts have relevance and insight,. Basically they need not contradict each other, they are complimentary.

That is a good summation, tommy.

In defence of Christianity, it has always held that where science can validate the truth that this is just.

The truth has no need of lies in order to validate it.
Of course science can and does evolve as a result of greater understanding derived from more information.

Clearly what Darwin held to be true has since been found to be untrue because Darwin was working with incomplete information relative to the information that we have today.
Does Darwin deserve to be damned for being wrong is an interesting question.

indioblack · 01-05-2015 04:29PM

hinault wrote: »

That is a good summation, tommy.

In defence of Christianity, it has always held that where science can validate the truth that this is just.

The truth has no need of lies in order to validate it.
Of course science can and does evolve as a result of greater understanding derived from more information.

Clearly what Darwin held to be true has since been found to be untrue because Darwin was working with incomplete information relative to the information that we have today.
Does Darwin deserve to be damned for being wrong is an interesting question.

That's quite a statement, that science can validate the truth.
It's as if science comes tagging along behind verifying what some people knew all along.
I would imagine that if science validated something, and this was generally accepted, it may or may not be just - more probably it's simply the proven case.
Darwin, and others of his time, are credited with the basic idea of evolution and natural selection. This required an old earth, and the accepted age of the earth increased in the 19th and 20th century.
I don't see that new discoveries regarding evolution and the earth make Darwin wrong.
What would you damn him for?
Actually, I made no claim that science needs to be informed by religion.
My post mainly concerned the reality of the world in relation to god.

hinault · 01-05-2015 08:39PM

indioblack wrote: »

That's quite a statement, that science can validate the truth.
It's as if science comes tagging along behind verifying what some people knew all along.
I would imagine that if science validated something, and this was generally accepted, it may or may not be just - more probably it's simply the proven case.
Darwin, and others of his time, are credited with the basic idea of evolution and natural selection. This required an old earth, and the accepted age of the earth increased in the 19th and 20th century.
I don't see that new discoveries regarding evolution and the earth make Darwin wrong.
What would you damn him for?
Actually, I made no claim that science needs to be informed by religion.
My post mainly concerned the reality of the world in relation to god.

You're aware that you've replied (quoted) to a post not addressed to you, or to any point that you raised?

But setting that aside, you managed to miss some crucial points as well.

Modern science has actually debunked many of the claims made by Darwin.

Darwin's "tree of life" is shown by modern science to be garbage.
Darwin's claim about single cell life has been shown to be a hell of a lot more complex by modern science.
Darwin's claim about the contents of a cell have been shown by modern science to be wholly inaccurate in terms of the volume of data a single cells contains - something which Darwin vastly underestimated.

I could list all of the other things which Darwin was wrong about, but that would be futile.

As I said earlier, more and more information has provided modern science with the ammunition to debunk most of what Darwin claimed 150 years ago or so.
I'm not blaming Darwin for making the assertions that he made. I'm simply pointing out that modern science has pointed toward truth far more accurately than Darwin did.

marienbad · 01-05-2015 08:59PM

hinault wrote: »

You're aware that you've replied (quoted) to a post not addressed to you, or to any point that you raised?

But setting that aside, you managed to miss some crucial points as well.

Modern science has actually debunked many of the claims made by Darwin.

Darwin's "tree of life" is shown by modern science to be garbage.
Darwin's claim about single cell life has been shown to be a hell of a lot more complex by modern science.
Darwin's claim about the contents of a cell have been shown by modern science to be wholly inaccurate in terms of the volume of data a single cells contains - something which Darwin vastly underestimated.

I could list all of the other things which Darwin was wrong about, but that would be futile.

As I said earlier, more and more information has provided modern science with the ammunition to debunk most of what Darwin claimed 150 years ago or so.
I'm not blaming Darwin for making the assertions that he made. I'm simply pointing out that modern science has pointed toward truth far more accurately than Darwin did.

This is a public forum , we can reply to any post we like . Of course Darwin was wrong as current theory may well be wrong . That is the beauty of science , it evolves as new information become available , unlike other belief systems .

Frank Bullitt · 01-05-2015 09:53PM

hinault wrote: »

You're aware that you've replied (quoted) to a post not addressed to you, or to any point that you raised?

But setting that aside, you managed to miss some crucial points as well.

Modern science has actually debunked many of the claims made by Darwin.

Darwin's "tree of life" is shown by modern science to be garbage.
Darwin's claim about single cell life has been shown to be a hell of a lot more complex by modern science.
Darwin's claim about the contents of a cell have been shown by modern science to be wholly inaccurate in terms of the volume of data a single cells contains - something which Darwin vastly underestimated.

I could list all of the other things which Darwin was wrong about, but that would be futile.

As I said earlier, more and more information has provided modern science with the ammunition to debunk most of what Darwin claimed 150 years ago or so.
I'm not blaming Darwin for making the assertions that he made. I'm simply pointing out that modern science has pointed toward truth far more accurately than Darwin did.

Care to back ANY of this up with some proof?

hinault · 01-05-2015 10:27PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Care to back ANY of this up with some proof?

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?

Frank Bullitt · 01-05-2015 10:38PM

hinault wrote: »

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?

Can you provide proof?

katydid · 01-05-2015 10:39PM

hinault wrote: »

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?

The question is if you think it has, what is your proof?

hinault · 01-05-2015 10:53PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Can you provide proof?

Proof of what?

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?

Frank Bullitt · 01-05-2015 10:55PM

hinault wrote: »

Proof of what?

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?

The answer you are searching for it "no, I don't have any proof, I just made that claim up".

hinault · 01-05-2015 11:00PM

Gintonious wrote: »

The answer you are searching for it "no, I don't have any proof, I just made that claim up".

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin.

That's your prerogative of course.

Frank Bullitt · 01-05-2015 11:03PM

hinault wrote: »

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin.

That's your prerogative of course.

Proof, you made the claim, now back it up. Stop evading.

hinault · 01-05-2015 11:06PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Proof, you made the claim, now back it up. Stop evading.

You've made up your mind that modern science hasn't debunked Darwin. You confirmed so yourself.

You have no need of proof.:)

Frank Bullitt · 01-05-2015 11:08PM

hinault wrote: »

You've made up your mind that modern science hasn't debunked Darwin. You confirmed so yourself.

You have no need of proof.:)

Where have I done that? You are making a claim that modern science has debunked Darwin.

So please, back that up. I am open minded on the whole issue, ill adjust according to the evidence.

So please, enlighten me.

katydid · 01-05-2015 11:15PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Where have I done that? You are making a claim that modern science has debunked Darwin.

So please, back that up. I am open minded on the whole issue, ill adjust according to the evidence.

So please, enlighten me.

He's digging to Australia as fast as he can...

hinault · 01-05-2015 11:16PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Where have I done that? You are making a claim that modern science has debunked Darwin.

So please, back that up. I am open minded on the whole issue, ill adjust according to the evidence.

So please, enlighten me.

You're open minded on the whole issue now, but only after the fifth time of asking.

I don't buy your claim that you're open minded on the whole issue.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments