|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 03/24/2004 : 19:48:23 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by moakley
Doomar, you have been asked a dozen times in this thread for some evidence to support these assertions.
Provide some evidence, and remember we do not consider the bible evidence of anything more than the recorded stories and superstitions of a middle eastern people from 1900 or so years ago.
Moakley, this thread is not about presenting evidence. Sorry to disappoint you. This thread may not be a subject to your liking, but it is a viable topic. I don't believe most people even understand what the Biblical account of creation is. Many are constantly refuting what they've never studied. I have studied evolution and, in a recent thread about "Darwinism and modern evolution" we've discussed what today's theory is in respect to Darwin's theory. I'm not afraid to look at both sides, are you? Demanding evidence about Creationism is another subject that is debated quite a bit. We'll leave it at that. For now, the actual Biblical account is being discussed...not its scientific validity, but just what it says and directly implies. Once we get the basics down, maybe then we can discuss the other.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 03/24/2004 19:57:02 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 19:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
When one believes in God or has faith in God, it by no means clouds their vision. God is a god of truth. God is not afraid of anything, especially some stupid theory.
Then why are His faithful so afraid of it?quote:
When a scientist does his job right, the truth is revealed.
Science is based upon evidence, not upon faith.quote:
Most all scientists in ancient times were men with belief in God, including Darwin.
Darwin lost his faith. Creationist geologists were the ones who first showed that the Earth was very old. Why do you dispute them now?quote:
So how can you say "Faith" has no place in the classroom?
Because even those first scientists realized that faith was not enough when the piles of hard evidence they were examining said otherwise. "God did it" is an answer to every question, and allows people to quit using their brains. It is not science.quote:
Can a scientist separate his faith from his work?
Many do.quote:
Can an atheist separate his faithlessness from his work?
Absolutely.quote:
I think not.
Your opinion on those questions, since you are neither a scientist nor an atheist, doesn't much matter. You've repeatedly shown that your opinions about people different from yourself (especially scientists and atheists) are prejudiced and incorrect.quote:
In reality, an atheist has faith, only it is not in God, but probably himself or some other object of his affection.
See, there's a perfect example of your prejudice. You assume that atheists must have faith in something. You're wrong.quote:
So, if you want to look at this subject on a deeper level, you really cannot separate people's beliefs from their work and study. One can only do that in theory, not in reality.
Oh, and now you do a little tap-dance, and switch from talking about "faith" to talking about "belief." Those two words are not synonyms. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 19:54:50 [Permalink]
|
And how are we to tell? All we know about the alleged "diamond" is what it tells us, and right now that is, "no, really, I'm a diamond! See, I wrote down in this book that I'm a diamond, therefore it's true!"
Dave, I'm afraid I must leave your comments alone, lest I get off subject again. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 20:00:01 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Moakley, this thread is not about presenting evidence. Sorry to disappoint you.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you brought up all the great things God allegedly did for Moses as evidence that God exists. On that basis, you did indeed turn this thread into one about presenting evidence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 20:14:04 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
Doomar wrote:quote:
When one believes in God or has faith in God, it by no means clouds their vision. God is a god of truth. God is not afraid of anything, especially some stupid theory.
Then why are His faithful so afraid of it?
Dave, you presume that because "some" are afraid that "all" are afraid, and that is just not true. It is the same with non-believers. Fear affects all men indiscriminately at times.
quote:
When a scientist does his job right, the truth is revealed.
Science is based upon evidence, not upon faith.quote:
Most all scientists in ancient times were men with belief in God, including Darwin.
Darwin lost his faith.
From what I've read of Darwin, he allowed for a Creator in his theories. He may not of had "faith" in that Creator, but it did not keep him from believing in the possibility of the Creator, which atheism does and thereby limits greatly the scope of their study.
Creationist geologists were the ones who first showed that the Earth was very old. Why do you dispute them now? Not all creationists believe the same, just like evolutionists, Dave, I'm simply studying what Creationism is taken from. Why not give it a rest and stick with the subject.
quote]So how can you say "Faith" has no place in the classroom?[/quote]Because even those first scientists realized that faith was not enough when the piles of hard evidence they were examining said otherwise. "God did it" is an answer to every question, and allows people to quit using their brains. It is not science.
Tell that to all the great scientists with "faith in God" who discovered great things. Seems their inquisitiveness was not hindered. Are you trying to tell me that all the great discoveries of science were made by atheists, Dave? Better check your history again, as many great discoveries were made by people who acknowledged the existance of God and even worshipped Him. I would challenge you to come up with a list of atheist scientists and their discoveries as compared to scientists with faith? But I must refrain from answering your off the topic points of interests.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 21:22:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
Doomar, you have been asked a dozen times in this thread for some evidence to support these assertions.
Provide some evidence, and remember we do not consider the bible evidence of anything more than the recorded stories and superstitions of a middle eastern people from 1900 or so years ago.
Moakley, this thread is not about presenting evidence. Sorry to disappoint you. This thread may not be a subject to your liking, but it is a viable topic. I don't believe most people even understand what the Biblical account of creation is. ... I'm not afraid to look at both sides, are you?
Absent of evidence you are asking us to look at this creation story using what criteria ?? Faith ??
Let's take a look at how you began this thread.
quote:
Many clues lie within the description that Moses gave about the six days of creation. If mixed with wisdom, these clues tell much more about the beginnings of the universe than people realize.
Sounds like you expect to reveal something substantial. On what basis do you expect to substantiate this in a skeptic forum ??
quote:
... We'll try to note the logic and order as the days of creation proceeded.
Note the logic of this creation story. Absent of evidence, how ??
quote:
We can note any contradictions or confirmations with science or logic as we go on.
"Confirmations with science" without evidence !! You truely have no idea what you are talking about. Science is all about the data/evidence.
quote:
We'll begin our discussion with verse one of Genesis, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." A starter question: Did this verse imply that a physical realm existed before the first day or not?
Yes, the physical realm was a top hat and a magic waund.
Edited to add an end quote |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 03/24/2004 21:26:47 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 01:58:02 [Permalink]
|
Moakley, you do not have to reply or participate in this thread. There is no requirement that says you must participate. Not every thread is about evidence. I don't see why that is such a stumbling block to you. True, many accept the Biblical account without question because it is part of their faith. If you are to debate the question of Creationism vs. Darwinism/Evolutionism you should at least be aware of what the other side is all about. It is customary to allow both sides of a case to present their argument without constant harassment from the other side (the harassment comes later). If you have any insight into the story of creation, feel free to share it. There are other threads debating the subject of Creationism vs. Evolutionism at this moment. I have clearly stated more than once that this thread is not for that purpose. I am attempting to illuminate the position of the Creationists who take a strict literal interpretation of the written text.
As to your point of this being a "skeptic forum". This forum is not strictly for atheists. There are many members of Skeptic Friends who have some form of faith. I don't remember being asked to pledge allegience to "atheistic skepticism" when I joined in January of 2003. I don't agree with your assertion that only the "faithless" can be skeptical. I first found this site when attempting to find someone who had a digital video copy of an expose on Benny Hinn. I've been skeptical of this self-proclaimed "prophet" for a long time. I am skeptical of much of the activity of the American Christian (Protestant) Church at this time. Atheists do not have a corner on the market of deceit and hypocrisy, nor are they capable of dealing with it in a rhelm that they refuse to believe exists.
The only evidence that we need at this point is a fairly accurate translation of the Old Testament book of Genesis, written, as supposed by a majority of Biblical scholars, by Moses, a former adoptive son to Pharoah's daughter, trained in the arts and science of Egypt and also called by the God of the Israelites for an important task of extracting His people from the bondage of Eqypt. The accounts written by Moses have never been successfully refuted and millions of people have had occasion to try. On the contrary, this man's life with his flaws and successes was written by his own hand. He was renowned as an extremely humble and wise man who has been greatly respected through the centuries. The main difference between Moses and other renowned secular leaders, is His utter faith in God, accompanied by amazing miracles displayed in front of millions of people. He was feared by Pharoah and respected by most of the Israelites because of these displays of power done by God in respect to Moses's prayers. I'd say there is more support for Moses than for Plato or Socrates. But this is not the subject at hand, rather just exactly what did he say about creation. It's just a short chapter or two at the beginning of the Bible. It is a declaration and not a scientific study, much as Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was his declaration of his ideas with little scientific evidence and much supposition. It is the ideas that are the basis of the argument, not the evidence. Let's keep this thread focused on the ideas...the evidence discussion is overrated and overly discussed. The basis of ideas is by far more important and foundational and the logic of those ideas is key. So many throw out bits and pieces of evidence in these forums without understanding the logic or lack thereof behind the conclusions. Without a reasonable method of decifering evidence one will become lost in these piles of bits and pieces and lose sight of the goal, to discover the truth. A good skeptic, in my opinion should be skeptical of ideas contrary to his own opinion, but not dismiss them summarily without close scrutiny. And to prevent partisanship from overtaking him, should srutinize his own side's 'evidence', lest he become a brainwashed believer, not fully understanding what he believes, subject to manipulation. If a skeptic finds himself on the wrong side of a debate, he is not afraid to change sides and admit to himself where he (or she) went wrong. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 03/25/2004 09:29:57 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 02:02:36 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
Doomar wrote:quote:
Moakley, this thread is not about presenting evidence. Sorry to disappoint you.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you brought up all the great things God allegedly did for Moses as evidence that God exists. On that basis, you did indeed turn this thread into one about presenting evidence.
My bad, Dave, but I was provoked into doing so. I don't think the opposite side has the right to refute the Biblical side as a legitimate side of the debate. That would mean you are wasting your time entirely at this thread. You and others are here and posting because you disagree with the Creationist side and by your own admission, admitting that it is indeed a viable point worth debating.
I'm simply trying to point out what the creationist side is. If you believe you know already, then please share it with us. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 04:09:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
(Chippewa wrote:)"...in the words of Jacob Bronowski,) {The Bible} is "part fact, fiction and folklore."
(Doomar answered:)
Jacob who? Who the heck is that? Now Moses was and is a highly regarded man with great learning and tremendous spiritual insight... So when you quote some unknown like this Bronowski, it really is like holding a piece of sand besides a famous diamond.
(Chippewa:)
Who was Bronowski? He was just another highly regarded man with great learning and tremendous spiritual insight. (He wasn't quite as famous as Moses, but then again, that doesn't mean much, as one could argue that Humphrey Bogart is actually more famous than Moses - or surely seen by more folks. Bronowski was hardly an "unknown" except to an ignorant person.) Bronowski is just one of many thinkers who is studied today by serious students (including students of theology.)
quote:
(Doomar wrote:) So when you quote some unknown like this Bronowski, it really is like holding a piece of sand besides a famous diamond.
Yes, like the humble cup that Jesus drank from as opposed to the magnificent chalice fit for a king! (Did you see "Indiana Jones?")
Bronowski is also famous for standing on the grounds of Auschwitz, where years earlier members of his family perished (at the hands of people who believed in a political system that was itself influenced by religious self-righteous certainty,) and he reached down and grabbed a handful of soil, (where many people were buried,) and squeezed it saying something like - we have to touch people, we must not give in to a monstrous certainty.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 05:45:39 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
The only evidence that we need at this point is a fairly accurate translation of the Old Testament book of Genesis, written, as supposed by a majority of Biblical scholars, by Moses...
Really? This scholarly work indicates that there are many varied viewpoints about the author(s).quote:
The accounts written by Moses have never been successfully refuted and millions of people have had occasion to try.
How is one supposed to "refute" the idea that Moses parted the Red sea when there is no hard evidence of this whatsoever? It's just as difficult for you to "refute" the idea that there's an invisible dragon in my garage. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 06:00:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Moakley, you do not have to reply or participate in this thread. There is no requirement that says you must participate. Not every thread is about evidence.
On what basis do you expect us to evaluate this creation story ?? Using what criteria ??
I have already commented on how you began this thread and you failed to answer my questions. If you eliminate evidence from this discussion, then there is no basis on which to evaluate this story and you are just witnessing.
You have passed judgement on me, but let me make one thing perfectly clear, "I am willing to change my mind, I've done it before." But in order for me to change my mind about the merits of any assertion begins with ...
edited to correct grammar |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 03/25/2004 06:10:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 08:41:21 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
From what I've read of Darwin, he allowed for a Creator in his theories.
The important points of both Darwin's original theory and its modern formulation neither include nor exclude the Divine.quote:
He may not of had "faith" in that Creator, but it did not keep him from believing in the possibility of the Creator, which atheism does and thereby limits greatly the scope of their study.
Um, many atheists study religion. "Know thine enemy" and all that. A lack of belief that God actually exists doesn't prevent one from understanding how such a belief has shaped the world.quote:
Not all creationists believe the same, just like evolutionists, Dave, I'm simply studying what Creationism is taken from. Why not give it a rest and stick with the subject.
If you think you'll be able to do so, without reference to things outside the Bible (like its editors, translators, etc.), you are very much mistaken.quote:
Tell that to all the great scientists with "faith in God" who discovered great things. Seems their inquisitiveness was not hindered. Are you trying to tell me that all the great discoveries of science were made by atheists, Dave? Better check your history again, as many great discoveries were made by people who acknowledged the existance of God and even worshipped Him.
Right. But show me where, in calculus or Newtonian phsyics, "God" is mentioned either as a postulate or a conclusion. Despite Newton's tremendous amount of faith, his two greatest contributions to science neither include nor exclude God. Why do you think that is?quote:
I would challenge you to come up with a list of atheist scientists and their discoveries as compared to scientists with faith?
I expect such a list would show that the number of atheist scientists at any given time is proportional to the number of atheists in the general population at the same time, proving nothing more than that scientists are people who have various beliefs. Instead, a more interesting challenge to you would be to show that even one scientific discovery required faith in a god in order to have been discovered. In other words, that even a single scientific discovery could not have been discovered by an atheist.quote:
But I must refrain from answering your off the topic points of interests.
Indeed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 09:18:50 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
It is customary to allow both sides of a case to present their argument without constant harassment from the other side (the harassment comes later).
Then please, present it. Your first post in this thread presented a single line from the Bible, followed by a question. If that question was meant to be rhetorical, it is clear that at least a few people misunderstood. Your further attempts have involved discussing just a few points amongst all of Genesis, and appearing to leave yourself open to questions and comments.
Instead, why not type up everything (in Notepad, for example), and then post it here all at once? Go ahead and start a new thread to do so. Then, you will have presented your case, without all the "harassment."quote:
If you have any insight into the story of creation, feel free to share it. There are other threads debating the subject of Creationism vs. Evolutionism at this moment. I have clearly stated more than once that this thread is not for that purpose.
I don't think anybody else here is debating creationism vs. evolution, either. In fact, it seems to me that most of these "off topic" posts are simply asking you to support your claims with something other than the Bible.quote:
I am attempting to illuminate the position of the Creationists who take a strict literal interpretation of the written text.
Then you are failing, since you are clearly speculating (which is not strictly literal) about what might have happened during Genesis 1:1-5, and using definitions from outside the Bible (such as what a "day" means - Biblically, a "day" had nothing to do with Earth's rotation, since the Earth did not rotate).quote:
As to your point of this being a "skeptic forum". This forum is not strictly for atheists. There are many members of Skeptic Friends who have some form of faith.
Right, which is probably why moakley did not imply that this is an atheist forum. The primary idea behind skepticism is demanding evidence before forming a conclusion. You said that God did a lot of things for Moses. Since the Bible is simply a book, you were asked for other evidence to support your claim. There is no reason for us to believe anything about what Moses may or may not have written himself, just like there's no reason for you to believe me when I tell you I'm a trillionaire.
Such skepticism, in a skeptic's forum, should be expected. Your attempts to deflect it will fail so long as you treat this thread as a dialog amongst people willing to assume the "truth" of the Bible. I know this because my own attempts to keep such a thread running and free from side-tracking failed. It took me seven pages to figure it out, however. I hope that you can learn the same lesson in just three. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 09:53:52 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
How is one supposed to "refute" the idea that Moses parted the Red sea when there is no hard evidence of this whatsoever? It's just as difficult for you to "refute" the idea that there's an invisible dragon in my garage.
I don't need to refute your invisible dragon, Dave, I believe you have one.
Why does one need to refute Moses? Don't you think that of the couple million people that followed him at least one of their descendants nearer to that time could have easily refuted these events, but none did. Don't you think the absence of such refute says quite a bit? How do you refute an actual occurance witnessed by so many? Now it's true, that no man witnessed the creation, but Moses's reputation of closeness to God gives him more credence than anyone else (except Jesus) to discuss the issue. Based on that knowledge alone, many give heed to Moses's description of the creation. It is likewise true that no believer in Evolution in any field of science can unequivocally say they "know" what happened in the beginning. So to make this an "evidence" argument and emphasis unprovable evidence as more relative than the people giving us the ideas is not a credible argument. Consider that in a courtroom, where evidence is given, there is testimony given on both sides about the evidence, and part of that testimony can and many times does include the credibility of those presenting the evidence. A policeman with an axe to grind loses his credibility when presenting evidence that can easily be tainted. The more upright and "professional" a witness is, the more credence is given to their testimony. And, thus, the testimony of Moses has great weight with many people. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 10:06:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
...Right, which is probably why moakley did not imply that this is an atheist forum. The primary idea behind skepticism is demanding evidence before forming a conclusion. You said that God did a lot of things for Moses. Since the Bible is simply a book, you were asked for other evidence to support your claim. There is no reason for us to believe anything about what Moses may or may not have written himself, just like there's no reason for you to believe me when I tell you I'm a trillionaire.
Such skepticism, in a skeptic's forum, should be expected. Your attempts to deflect it will fail so long as you treat this thread as a dialog amongst people willing to assume the "truth" of the Bible.
Thanks Dave. Sums up nicely what I was trying to get Doomar to understand ...
Michael Shermer (I believe)
http://www.skeptic.com/what-is-a-skeptic.html
Straight from the SFN site itself
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=15&fldAuto=65 |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
