|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2004 : 12:29:05 [Permalink]
|
I have to be brief (I'm at work) - but I just to note - before there are any more replies to my posts:
Dude:
quote:
If you are actually saying that you believe the bible is the word of god because the bible claims it is then we are probably never going to be able to conduct a meaningfull dialogue
There are already enough points for me to address without having to take the time to go back and explain things that are already clear. It is obvious from what I wrote that I did not make that claim. Please re-read my post - carefully.
Of course I am perfectly happy to address valid objections (see Dave's most recent post) - and will do so when I have time. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 13:20:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
I have to be brief (I'm at work) - but I just to note - before there are any more replies to my posts:
Dude:
quote:
If you are actually saying that you believe the bible is the word of god because the bible claims it is then we are probably never going to be able to conduct a meaningfull dialogue
There are already enough points for me to address without having to take the time to go back and explain things that are already clear. It is obvious from what I wrote that I did not make that claim. Please re-read my post - carefully.
Of course I am perfectly happy to address valid objections (see Dave's most recent post) - and will do so when I have time.
"My faith is not blind. It is not proven (by definition), but it is supported. Supported in large part… by a book. A book that is more than just a book – it is God's word.
Tangent of relevant interest: It must be God's word (written through direct inspiration) or it is nothing at all, because it itself claims to be God's word." -- verso 6/16/2004 @ 00:42:53
Tends to indicate that you have made the claim that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Bible must be so because it claims to be.
(Edit to clarify meaning) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 06/16/2004 13:22:23 |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 13:31:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tends to indicate that you have made the claim that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Bible must be so because it claims to be.
Wrong. I claimed that it must be one or the other because it itself claims to be.
I made absolutely no claim as to which it actually is based on the fact that it itself claims to be God's word. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 15:07:50 [Permalink]
|
| Well.... what is it then? Is the bible the word of god, or not? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 07:00:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
quote:
Tends to indicate that you have made the claim that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Bible must be so because it claims to be.
Wrong. I claimed that it must be one or the other because it itself claims to be.
I made absolutely no claim as to which it actually is based on the fact that it itself claims to be God's word.
You cited it as a source for support of your faith. If you are dubious on the authenticity of the document, then why do you base your life on it?
Saying that it must be the Word of God or nothing is classic bifurcation. It could be a myriad of things.
1) The inerrant "Word of God"
2) A fluff piece full of thees and thous
3) A way to control the pensantry during the Feudal age which gained support
4) A historical document which has been heavily edited thoughout it's history and is now dubious at best
5) A religious text which is very vague on the workings of the world but reflect the opinions of a society 2000 years in the past about spirituality and an afterlife
Your usage of the term "nothing" indicates that you do not seriously consider this to be a valid option. Still, basing any assertation about a document based on how the document refers to itself is circular reasoning. How does one validate that kind of arguement?
In addition, you make the claim that your faith is supported by a book which is more than a book. That it is the "Word of God". Therein, you have made the claim that the Bible is the "word of God".
Arg A = Bible is the word of God
Arg B = Bible is nothing
Arg C = Bible claims to be the "Word of God"
Your assertation flows as follows
Arg A
Arg C = Arg A if True
Since Arg A, then Arg C
Arg B is referenced only as a meaningless gesture. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 06/17/2004 07:07:11 |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 23:33:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In addition, you make the claim that your faith is supported by a book which is more than a book. That it is the "Word of God". Therein, you have made the claim that the Bible is the "word of God".
Arg A = Bible is the word of God
Arg B = Bible is nothing
Arg C = Bible claims to be the "Word of God"
Your assertation flows as follows
Arg A
Arg C = Arg A if True
Since Arg A, then Arg C
Arg B is referenced only as a meaningless gesture.
I think I can see where your confusion is stemming from. I did cite the Bible as support for my faith, but I did not back that up. I simply stated it.
Then I pointed out an "interesting fact" about the Bible (which is also true of any set of statements that internally claim to be true in their entirety), in no way logically connected to my statement that the Bible is the word of God.
In other words, I never logically related your ‘Arg A' and ‘Arg C.' Here is the logical analysis of what I did say.
Arg A = Bible is the word of God OR Bible is nothing
Arg B = Bible claims to be the "Word of God"
IF B THEN A
And that is it! If you are thinking this is a truism, you are right. Which is why I am bewildered that this is so hard to grasp.
I believe your confusion is stemming from your separation of my “Arg A” into two statements. But I never did make a claim as to which it was in the context of that logical argument. I simply said it was “either-or,” not one or the other.
This argument is interesting. Most arguments concern the details of the logic, or the premise on which the logic was built. But this one is simply you insisting I came to a logical conclusion that I never came to!
Anyway, If you cannot understand what I am saying... I'm sorry. Unless 2 or 3 others indicate that they also do not understand that portion of my post, this is the last I will address the topic.
Whether or not you do understand, I'll move on to your next point, which was also raised by Dave.
quote:
Saying that it must be the Word of God or nothing is classic bifurcation. It could be a myriad of things.
1) The inerrant "Word of God"
2) A fluff piece full of thees and thous
3) A way to control the pensantry during the Feudal age which gained support
4) A historical document which has been heavily edited thoughout it's history and is now dubious at best
5) A religious text which is very vague on the workings of the world but reflect the opinions of a society 2000 years in the past about spirituality and an afterlife
To a fundamental Christian, 2, 3, 4, and 5 all fit under “nothing.” This is a matter of categorization - you have simply categorized it further. Let me give you an analogy. I might have said:
“There are humans and there are animals.”
Then by your argument, you would have said:
“No, you have created a false dichotomy. In reality, there are humans, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.”
Let me annotate your statement, Dave. “In reality, the Bible is (A) the Word of God, (B) fiction (not the Word of God), (C) a tool of political and/or social change or (not the Word of God), (D) some other possibility I haven't considered (not the Word of God).”
To me, as a fundamental Christian, if the Bible is not the Word of God, it is nothing. That same argument translates to my statements about Jesus.
And why was my tangent the important part Dave?
Moving on...
quote:
Besides, where in the Bible does it claim to |
| Edited by - verso on 06/17/2004 23:51:32 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 05:36:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Precisely zero! Wow! That is an amazing claim! What if I were to provide a list to you of creation scientists (including biologists) who have degrees from secular universities, and practice professionally?
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html
Even the great, ignorant ICR seems to have a whole slew of practicing, professional creation scientists (including biologists) on board, some of whom have spent years in secular research.
That addresses comments made by Starman and Filthy as well.
Well you gave us a list of people with scientific credentials believing in biblical creation. There are also people (on your list I'm sure) that belive in creation that practice science.
But how do some one practice creation science?
All on your list subscribe to
ICR Tenets of Creationism They reject evolution and profess creation beforehand.
Where is the science in that?
quote:
Overall, this was a disappointing series of posts. For a group of people who claim to be able to ‘give me the tools and input I need' to accurately consider evolution as a viable theory, there has been an excessive amount of misreading, incorrect logic, and blatant misstatement of fact.
Now there, get off your high horses.
You have provided nothing except your own ignorance (evolution, purpose of ICR) and flawed logic (the Bible is either wholly true or wholly false). Nobody claimed that this forum was free from mistakes. You make them other people make them.
Whining wont give you any extra points. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 05:54:15 [Permalink]
|
Verso, this is an example of the black/white either/or thinking I mentioned before. Not all Christians either embrace the Bible as the word of God or dismiss it entirely. This seems to be a fundamentlist thing, and people here have done a good job explaining why it doesn't make much sense.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to say:
"I believe the Bible is inspired by the word of God, and it contains the heart of Jesus' teachings. It may have been influenced by its writers and translators and the prevailing values at the time, but it's still a good foundation for a Christian life."
I don't think that's what you're saying, though.
Anyway...off to work. |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 06:28:24 [Permalink]
|
| So there's a list of "creation scientists" that reject evolution in favour of a myth. Apparently they have evidence to support the creation myth, but if that is so, why are they so hesitant to present it? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 09:18:34 [Permalink]
|
That is an interesting list, but I've seen it before. Now then, what is their research and where do they publish?
I will answer: their research is picking apart the works of others to incorporate it into their dogma (quote mining), and they only publish in in-house organs and the popular press. And they whine pitiously about it, and cry prejudice because Science, Nature, et al. will not accept unsupported assertions.
Tell ya an ICR story: Seems like a couple of fellers, faithful and true, went to Alaska in quest of fresh dinosaur bones. It was a rousing tale, filled with adventure and mosquitos, and finally our heros were in a canoe, floating rapidly down a river. One of them saw something sticking out of a sandbar. They paddled over and one of them grabbed it on the fly. He yanked an 80# dino mandible out of the sand (without tearing a rotator cuff) and into the canoe. I've forgotten what species it was supposed to be, but it was described as all but still bleeding.
This was posted on site for some time, but if you want to read it now, you must buy a book, why am I not suprised?
I read this, then sent ICR an e-mail politly asking where I and my good friend, Jack Horner might observe this marvelous find. I never recieved an answer, but that's ok. I've never met the esteemed Professor Horner, either. If they can lie, so can I. 
I say "pu-lease" for the Ark because there is no way a handful of Bronze Age peoples are going to build a barge of those dimentions without shipyard facilities. It would require sawpits, forges and foundries, ropewalks to supply cordage for lifting devices as well as what would be necessary for the Ark it's self. It would require a small village to house the workforce, assuming that sufficient people could be bribed or flogged into it with no promise of a berth when the rains came.
I say "pu-lease" for the whole, darn yarn because in the first of the Verlch Hootenannies, I demonstrated, with the excellent aid of Dr. Marty Leipzig, that a global flood is A( impossible; and B( impossible to survive in anything short of the Starship Enterprise if it were possible. I will re-post the Leipzig here, if asked. How's your math, verso? Better'n mine, I hope.
What it all sugars off to is that if the Flood Story is only ledgend, which it is, then how much else of Genesis can be taken literally?
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 11:03:31 [Permalink]
|
Renae:
quote:
Verso, this is an example of the black/white either/or thinking I mentioned before. Not all Christians either embrace the Bible as the word of God or dismiss it entirely. This seems to be a fundamentlist thing, and people here have done a good job explaining why it doesn't make much sense.
If someone has done a good job explaining it, I have not seen the explanation.
If we cannot take the Bible in it's entirety, then yes, it may be a good, wholesome book, but it is not the Word of God. It would be a good book - among thousands of other good books. To me - that is "nothing."
To address your more general concerns - there is nothing wrong with black and white thinking - because that is often the way things are.
The fact that you don't feel comfortable with the idea of absolute truth simply because it might lead to intolerance and judgmental behavior has no bearing on reality. The fact that you do not feel comfortable with the idea that some issues are black and white has no bearing on reality. Reality often is uncomfortable.
Everyone:
While I was a bit frustrated by the end of my last post, I should have added that I believe the discussion here has been good (for the most part) thus far. I have appreciated much of the input from (almost) all of you. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 13:21:26 [Permalink]
|
Here then, is the Leipzig. I decided to post it anyway, ‘cause I enjoy reading it myself from time to time.
You will have to forgive the slightly smug style that shows up in the good doctor's words occasionally. He too, has been quote-mined to the bone, and mere smugness does not refute his science.
quote:
Hey, Georgie. The cretinists at the ICR, AIG, CRC and a half-dozen other fundy-run shill organizations absolutely insist on the Flood of Noah" being global (meaning ALL the world, to your limited deference). To them, your claim that it was local makes you the infidel.
Shocking. When you're obviously nothing more than a nescient schmuck.
Hell, I'm just taking what they claim and agreeing it to death.
Viz:
First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.
So, here are the calculations:
First, Everest
V= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)
Now, the Earth at sea level
V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
= 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3)
The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth:
4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres
This is one helluva lot of water.
At this point, he briefly discusses why the flood's waters could not have come from the polar ice caps or the atmosphere, along with the math to prove it. He also discusses glaciers and their effect of their weight on the earth's crust, including this excerpt:
quote:
Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy).
Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands.
Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurab |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 13:35:11 [Permalink]
|
verso wrote:quote:
If we cannot take the Bible in it's entirety, then yes, it may be a good, wholesome book, but it is not the Word of God. It would be a good book - among thousands of other good books. To me - that is "nothing."
So would a history textbook with a single error in it be - to you - "nothing"? As in not "a tool for meaningful investigation"?
And you know that God didn't intend the Bible to be metaphorical how, exactly? His Son sometimes spoke in metaphors, why do you deny God Himself the ability to do so?
I'm working on the list of creationist "scientists," but in the meantime, you pointed me towards 2 Timothy 3:16, which reads:All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... I don't see where that says "meaningful investigation," which is what we were talking about, with the implication of scientific investigation. It claims, instead, that the Bible is useful for making more Christians. The next verse ends the sentence:...so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Which sounds to me like the Bible is only a useful tool for anything in the hands of someone who already believes. Paul doesn't say any man, but only "the man of God." We are to take these things literally, correct? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 17:24:38 [Permalink]
|
Verso, we'll have to disagree here. I can't think of an instance where the world has been black and white to me.
Your definition of "reality" and mine may be very different. I've heard Christians deliver the Fire and Brimstone message and then blame me for not liking "reality." Uhhhh...?
It doesn't make me uncomfortable to be presented with black and white views. I believe them to be...simplistic, maybe. Or misguided. Or reductionist. Or, in my more charitable moments, simply a way of looking at the world that I can't understand. I do admit that they annoy me sometimes, though.
I think it makes fundamentalists and others like them uncomfortable to see the world in shades of gray. Us Gray Folk (tm) have less certainty, more moral ambiguity...a less clear-cut and definite path in life, maybe. I think living as I do scares the crap out of fundamentalists.  |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 19:49:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To address your more general concerns - there is nothing wrong with black and white thinking - because that is often the way things are.
The old either/or fallacy.... reality check! There is NEVER a situation where the choices available are either/or. There are always many options. Either/or is a trap, and a bad one at that. It's also completely false. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
