|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2005 : 11:55:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
quote:
I'm sorry that you equate your faith in God with a child being told by his parents that the Tooth Fairy exists
There's a difference between faith and blind faith. Faith is believing what you're told, and that's the best definition I know of for "faith". Blind faith is believing what you're told regardless of any other knowledge that you might have.
quote:
as it makes your faith seem cheap and subject to the whims of others.
If my faith was subject to the whims of others I would have become an atheist a couple of weeks after I first found this site.
quote:
I feel even worse for you that the differences that you and I have discussed between faith in God and faith in science were apparently lost on you.
The majority of scientific statements which people around the world believe are accurate; and the majority of religous opinions which people around the world believe are inaccurate. I'm not saying that scientists have faith that the world is round, they know that the world is round. I'm saying that most people, including myself, have faith in the scientists who tell them that the earth is round. All that I'm saying is that believing anything without proving it is, by definition, faith. I am not despising scientific endeavor; I am exhorting people to be more knowledgeable about science, and not to simply have faith in what you hear about science.
quote:
While your suppositions about these two sets of verses are, indeed, common-sensical, they don't magically erase the apparent self-contradiction(s) within the Bible. You are external to the Bible, after all.
I have a feeling that this topic is more important to you than whether or not the two lists are indeed contradictory. The reason why I apply external reasoning to the Bible is because the Bible doesn't record every moment of every event that it talks about. If it did it would be incredibly more tedious than it already is. I presume that the latter list is an update. You presume that it isn't. The Bible doesn't say one way or the other.
On another note, it's been asked before why I go through all the trouble over these Jewish histories, why they're so important. While apparent contradictions in them may not be faith-shaking to me, you all seem to find them to be sufficient grounds for dismissing the Bible, and that's why I go through such lengths to defend even the lists of David's mighty men.
Matt:
quote:
what I'm asking you is whether or not it's even remotely possible that the discrepancies between the two lists, do in fact, represent a biblical contradiction. If not, then why is it impossible?
Yes, it is possible that there's a contradiction between the lists. My faith is not primarily based on the Scriptures being without contradiction. Because I have faith in the Author, I dismiss apparent contradictions and evidences which are not conclusive. I suppose that I'm not really here to prove the veracity of the Bible, but to see if it can be disproven.
I know this is biased, but I would grant the same bias to a discussion of Islam, or Hinduism, or whatever. I would not grant it to a scientific discussion, because faith and science operate under different rules.
Mack:
quote:
If you accept as a matter if faith that unexplainable events occur directly contrary to the principles of physics, could it not be true that some of those similar, but contradictory descriptions of the "same" event actually did occur simultaneously in parallel universes with just those few details of difference?
Some people can believe this, I don't. Some people believe that the universe doesn't exist, some people believe that they don't exist. I cannot offer any rational arguement to say otherwise, but neither can they they offer any rational arguement in favor of their position. I believe that I exist, the universe exists, and that the Bible doesn't record what happened in multiple universes. I can't bring forth any solid evidence to say one way or the other, I simply believe it because it seems most reasonable to me.
quote:
There are millions of believers who are certain they know which parts of the Bible should be taken for their word and which are questionable, and almost none agree.
In my experience, most Christians are nominal Christians, and hardly know anything about the Bible. Most who actually have an opinion about the Bible don't want to discuss it; and if you actually try to have a discussion about a particular subject after ten minutes they'll say "let's agree to disagree". I have had people simply walk away from me in the middle of a polite discussion. I am one of those few people who will, on the one hand, continue to have a discussion on a topic while, on the other hand, I won't change my opinion quickly, but only after much study on the matter.
quote:
All your attempts to iron out the discrepancies might make you more comfortable, but if you really believed, really had faith, you wouldn't be so desperately trying to prove these things to yourself.
As I said to Dave, these little alleged contradictions aren't faith-shaking to me, but they apparently matter to you.
Hippy
quote:
|
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 13:02:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
There's a difference between faith and blind faith. Faith is believing what you're told, and that's the best definition I know of for "faith".
Many other people would define "faith" as "believing that for which you have no evidence." Whether it's something someone told you, or something you decided to believe on your own, it would be faith if there is no evidence for it.quote:
Blind faith is believing what you're told regardless of any other knowledge that you might have.
And children are supposed to have "knowledge" that there is no Tooth Fairy? From where is this knowledge alleged to come?
In other words, I still see no difference - per your definitions - between an adult's faith in God, and a child's faith in the Tooth Fairy. If you do, you'll need to find a better way to articulate that difference to me, otherwise I'll continue to think of your ideas of faith as fairly insulting (to yourself).quote:
If my faith was subject to the whims of others I would have become an atheist a couple of weeks after I first found this site.
Apparently, you decided to interpret my words as "depending upon the whims of others," instead of as they were intended. When something is subject to change, that doesn't mean it will necessarily change. It just means it's possible.
quote:
The majority of scientific statements which people around the world believe are accurate; and the majority of religous opinions which people around the world believe are inaccurate. I'm not saying that scientists have faith that the world is round, they know that the world is round. I'm saying that most people, including myself, have faith in the scientists who tell them that the earth is round. All that I'm saying is that believing anything without proving it is, by definition, faith.
But science doesn't deal in "proving" anything. It cannot, due to its underlying assumptions. All of science rests upon the assumption that we live within an objective reality which we can both agree upon and measure. And everyone I know, scientist or not, lives as if that assumption is true. You can call that "faith," if you like, but it has much more practical value than even a strong, unevidenced belief.quote:
I am not despising scientific endeavor; I am exhorting people to be more knowledgeable about science, and not to simply have faith in what you hear about science.
That's fine, but it doesn't repair your signature. You're just apologizing for it, instead of acknowledging its serious problems. Just like you're doing with the Bible.quote:
I have a feeling that this topic is more important to you than whether or not the two lists are indeed contradictory.
Indeed, I'm trying to figure out precisely why someone who declares that he is not a Biblical literalist is behaving precisely like a Biblical literalist. I find this fascinating.quote:
The reason why I apply external reasoning to the Bible is because the Bible doesn't record every moment of every event that it talks about.
Fine, but that doesn't make the Bible itself self-consistent. All you're doing is inventing external rationalizations which bring disagreeing parts of the Bible into agreement for you. The Bible, as written, remains inconsistent. This is a difference you need to acknowledge in order for your apology to be honest to you.quote:
If it did it would be incredibly more tedious than it already is.
So what? Is the Bible supposed to be easy? I thought the way to salvation was narrow and difficult.quote:
I presume that the latter list is an update. You presume that it isn't. The Bible doesn't say one way or the other.
I "presume" it is the same list because it contains much the same exact text. And the Bible gives other clues, since the chapter after David's last words has him doing all sorts of stuff. The fact that his last words precede a list of his captains means very little if he's quite alive and giving commands after his last words have been recorded.quote:
On another note, it's been asked before why I go through all the trouble over these Jewish histories, why they're so important. While apparent contradictions in them may not be faith-shaking to me, you all seem to find them to be sufficient grounds for dismissing the Bible, and that's why I go through such lengths to defend even the lists of David's mighty men.
Actually, the contradictions are one of the least of my reasons for dismissing the Bible. Much more important is that the Christian God appears to be a nasty and vindictive bully, and even if I were to believe He exists, I certainly wouldn't worship Him.
The contradictions are only "important" when people come along who say that these contradictions do not exist, and/or who claim that the Bible presents inerrant histories or science. (I'm not saying that you say that, but others before you have, and others after you will.)
All that said, the Bible presents some good stuff (don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, be good to everyone, do unto others...), and so it's a mistake to think that I dismiss the Bible entirely. I just happen to think that those are good general rules for a society (and probably pre-date the Bible by thousands of years), and a matter of common sense, but if some people require the threat of eternal damnation to behave pleasantly, okay. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 13:36:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All that said, the Bible presents some good stuff (don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, be good to everyone, do unto others...), and so it's a mistake to think that I dismiss the Bible entirely. I just happen to think that those are good general rules for a society (and probably pre-date the Bible by thousands of years), and a matter of common sense,
Dave_W, that is prettymuch the main problem I have with christians/christianity in general. They think they have the only source of morality and ethical behavior. The sheer arrogance is staggering.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 02:38:11 [Permalink]
|
H4C:Beskeptigal:
My interpretation is better than past interpretations because I take verses literally which they take figuratively, or ignore, or sideline. Sometimes I've been in polite conversations with people and they've just walked away rather than deal with verses that I bring up.
Hello all:
First, a rewording/clarification. My interpretation of the Bible is better than past ones because it does not contradict itself, to my present knowledge. I got this interpretation
quote:because I take verses literally which they take figuratively, or ignore, or sideline.
And, in a very few cases, I take verses figuratively where they take them literally.
So you dismiss the history of thousands of years of people getting the Bible wrong and the billions of people today each with their own interpretation of the Bible and claim to be the one person who gets it right?
H4C:There are some parts of the Bible that I am not concerned with; namely, the Book of Esther. The reason for this is because it nowhere mentions Yahweh, contains no doctrine, and, to my knowledge, it is not quoted by any other part of the Bible. As for the rest, I have a general desire to not believe something which is not true. And, though books like Judges and Samuel may be "Jewish histories" they do contain words of Yahweh which can shed light or modify other parts of the Bible. Also, if one book in particular has an inordinately high amount of contradictions, then I might want to consider that that book should perhaps be taken out of the canon of Scripture.
I defend Exodus and the rest of the Old Testament because I have so far found it to be a) relevant to the Christian life, b) harmonious with the Gospel, and c) as far as I have seen, not seriously out of step with known history. (I have studied the difference between the archeologists version of history and the Bible's version of history, and haven't found much that's conclusive.)
If I believe that there is an actual contradiction between the truth and the faith, I will believe the truth. At the moment there are two minor contradictions in the Bible which come to mind that I will agree with: in one gospel Jesus curses a fig tree before entering the temple, in another he curses it after leaving the temple. Also, one of the gospels attributes a quote to Zechariah when it was really from Jeremiah.
These verses depict two different events by different people: the first refers to a battle in a field of lentils, the second refers to a battle in a field of barley. You may think that this is cheesy excuse, but think about it. David reigned for forty years and the Philistines were one of their primary enemies. There's bound to be lots of encounters that were similar.
As for the other differences, they simply list different people. The people from the first list (which was at the beginning of David's reign) probably died or resigned and were replaced by the time of the second list (which was at the end of David's reign).
Blind faith is believing what you're told regardless of any other knowledge that you might have.
The majority of scientific statements which people around the world believe are accurate; and the majority of religous opinions which people around the world believe are inaccurate. I'm not saying that scientists have faith that the world is round, they know that the world is round. I'm saying that most people, including myself, have faith in the scientists who tell them that the earth is round. All that I'm saying is that believing anything without proving it is, by definition, faith. I am not despising scientific endeavor; I am exhorting people to be more knowledgeable about science, and not to simply have faith in what you hear about science.
While apparent contradictions in them may not be faith-shaking to me, you all seem to find them to be sufficient grounds for dismissing the Bible, and that's why I go through such lengths to defend even the lists of David's mighty men.
My faith is not primarily based on the Scriptures being without contradiction. Because I have faith in the Author, I dismiss apparent contradictions and evidences which are not conclusive. I suppose that I'm not really here to prove the veracity of the Bible, but to see if it can be disproven.
In my experience, most Christians are nominal Christians, and hardly know anything about the Bible. Most who actually have an opinion about the Bible don't want to discuss it; and if you actually try to have a discussion about a particular subject after ten minutes they'll say "let's agree to disagree". I have had people simply walk away from me in the middle of a polite discussion. I am one of those few people who will, on the one hand, continue to have a discussion on a topic while, on the other hand, I won't change my opinion quickly, but only after much study on the matter.
Hippy, the above statements are very selective interpretations of the Bible. "I'll take this, dismiss that, reinterpret this", and so on. I am not impressed. You, like the rest of the persons who believe, merely fit the Bible to your liking. You do not follow the Bible and take it literally or more seriously than others. You are no different than the rest. Hear no contradictions, see no contradictions, speak gibberish.
Genesis is wrong. Oh, it must be a metaphor. Maybe a day isn't a day. Incest is OK if you are Lot, hey blame the kids. An eye for an eye, no...turn the other cheek, well that's because Jesus changed God's rules. God puts a tree in the garden and says don't eat the fruit. You eat the fruit and are punished for eternity. But wait, Jesus comes to get beaten and tortured for one day and all is forgiven. But womens' punishment was pain of childbirth. If you are 'born again' does your pain of childbirth go away? No but a couple thousand years later when science comes up with anesthesia it sure gets a lot better.
It doesn't even make any sense. The Bible contradicts reality. Coyote stole fire from heaven, Pele is in a constant battle with sister sea and God sends his son to be tortured and killed by humans so God can then forgive the humans. Yeah right. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 11:35:25 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
quote:
Many other people would define "faith" as "believing that for which you have no evidence."
I would amend that to add "no conclusive evidence". If one has conclusive evidence for a particular thing, then there is no need to have faith for it.
quote:
And children are supposed to have "knowledge" that there is no Tooth Fairy? From where is this knowledge alleged to come?
Yes, the "legend" of the tooth fairy says that if you lose a tooth and put it under your pillow it'll turn into a quarter (or something like that.) So if that doesn't happen, or if the child sees a parent do the exchanging, then they know it's a myth. However, the Bible isn't nearly that simple, and has a lot more caveats.
quote:
But science doesn't deal in "proving" anything. It cannot, due to its underlying assumptions.
Sure, if you take the word "prove" to it's ultimate sense. But I wasn't. I was talking about proof according the assumptions of rules that we agree to.
I have a better example of faith in science: when I was in high school (which was a few years ago) I was taught the rubber-band big-bang theory, in which the universe had always been blowing up, then contracting into a big mass, and blowing up again for all eternity past and present; and I decided not to have faith in it. Now scientists reject the rubber-band big-bang theory, and instead have the big-bang as the beginning of time itself. So why should I accept this theory right off the bat like most other people do?
quote:
Indeed, I'm trying to figure out precisely why someone who declares that he is not a Biblical literalist is behaving precisely like a Biblical literalist. I find this fascinating.
I think the Bible is literal unless there's a reason for it not to be; just like if I'm listening to a guy giving a speech on immigration, I'll take him literally if he said 'poor Mexicans are coming into this country illegally and taking jobs that Americans could have'. I'd take him figuratively if he said 'Mexicans are illegally crossing the border all the time'. He doesn't mean that there is not one moment when a Mexican is not in the act of illegally crossing the border, he simply means that it happens often.
quote:
Fine, but that doesn't make the Bible itself self-consistent.
I'm not claiming that the Bible itself, taken completely literally and without external reasoning, is self-consistent. I'm saying that unless a claim of contradiction can be conclusively prooved, that claim cannot be conclusively used as evidence against the Bible. It can be used as circumstancial evidence against the Bible, but not conclusive evidence.
I would like to suggest that it might be more useful on both out parts to discuss claims of contradiction of doctrine in the Bible.
Dude:
quote:
Dave_W, that is prettymuch the main problem I have with christians/christianity in general. They think they have the only source of morality and ethical behavior. The sheer arrogance is staggering.
All morality, even Yahweh's, is an opinion. Christian morality derives itself from Yahweh's opinion. Your morality derives itself from your opinion. Is one man's opinion more valid than another's? If one atheist says that we ought to treat our fellow humans as we wish to be treated for the benifit of the human individual, and another says that individuals should benifit themselves so that the strong survive for the benifit of the human species, who has the authority to say which opinion is better? Who else than the Creator of both the individuals and the species?
beskeptigal:
quote:
So you dismiss the history of thousands of years of people getting the Bible wrong and the billions of people today each with their own interpretation of the Bible and claim to be the one person who gets it right?
When people say something, they usually mean one thing. Occasionally they mean multiple things, but usually, even in figurative speech, only one idea is being communicated. Therefore, even though billions of people have hundreds and thousands of interpretations, we can logically say that at least one of the interpretations could be the correct interpretation of what the speaker was attempting to convey. When interpreting the Bible at all, you have to make unprovable premises, just like in science. The criteria for selecting these premises lies mainly on circumstancial evidence and opinion. I someone does not accept the premise that they exist, I don't bother talking to them about these subjects. I cannot prove that they do exist because any such proof might also not really exist, but I cannot accept the premise that I don't exist.
quote:
Hippy, the above statements are very selective interpretations of the Bible. "I'll take this, dismiss that, reinterpret this", and so on. I am not impressed. You, like the rest of the persons who believe, merely fit the Bible to your liking. You do not follow the Bible and take it literally or more seriously than others. You are no different than the rest. Hear no contradictions, see no contradictions, speak gibberish.
I do not fit the Bible to my liking, there are several parts of the Bible which are against my natural desire, but according to the rules that I accept I must believe what it says unless there's a good reason not to. I do take the Bible much more literally than others, it just doesn't seem that way because right now we're discussing the parts that I do take figuratively. Parts that I take literally that others don't include loving your enemies, forsake your possessions, do not swear, etc. I don't accept non-conclusive contradictions as conclusive evidence.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 11:47:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
In a post about the big bang you once said:
quote:
If something existed before the Big Bang, we don't know what it was. Furthermore, my current understanding is that we cannot know what it was. The Big Bang is the ultimate "event horizon," beyond which nothing we know now can be reasonably said to apply.
To which I replied:
quote:
Why is is it thought that a singularity would change the laws of physics, or change matter, energy, and light into something that wasn't matter, energy, or light? Or vice versa? Have we ever observed any of the effects of a singularity?
Then you said:
quote:
Only the effects on the things nearby. Since light itself cannot escape (and we haven't figured out how to "decode" any of the information which might come back out), we have no way to probe what goes on inside.
How is this not assuming that the laws of physics change under certain circumstances? And if it is then how can the big bang be anything other than a faith statement?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 13:23:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have a better example of faith in science: when I was in high school (which was a few years ago) I was taught the rubber-band big-bang theory, in which the universe had always been blowing up, then contracting into a big mass, and blowing up again for all eternity past and present; and I decided not to have faith in it. Now scientists reject the rubber-band big-bang theory, and instead have the big-bang as the beginning of time itself. So why should I accept this theory right off the bat like most other people do?
That is a fine example of you, H4C, not understanding what science is.
quote:
How is this not assuming that the laws of physics change under certain circumstances? And if it is then how can the big bang be anything other than a faith statement?
1. What Dave_W was saying only implies that we don't yet understand or know all the rules.
2. Just because you don't know "everything" doesn't mean you can't formulate hypotheses. The big-bang theory is as widely accepted as it is because it made some predictions which have been found to be true. It has evidence to support it.
Your apparent expectation that we should be able to 100% explain and understand events before we accept them as true is foolish.
|
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 |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/14/2005 13:24:05 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 15:40:11 [Permalink]
|
Friendly moderator push:
This topic is about Biblical Contradictions. If you want to discuss the validity of the Big Bang or any other scientific theory, I would recommend starting a new topic. There also happen to be a couple of topics in which this discussion is occurring:
I am a logical Deist
Occam's Razor: Just how sharp is it?
Both of the above topics are attempting to address the "science as a religion" issue and each discusses the Big Bang (and a few other theories) from its own angle. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 18:54:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
I would amend that to add "no conclusive evidence". If one has conclusive evidence for a particular thing, then there is no need to have faith for it.
And the scientific philosophy is that nothing can ever have conclusive evidence for it. Overwhelming evidence, yes, but never conclusive. Do you have conclusive evidence that George W. Bush exists?quote:
quote:
And children are supposed to have "knowledge" that there is no Tooth Fairy? From where is this knowledge alleged to come?
Yes, the "legend" of the tooth fairy says that if you lose a tooth and put it under your pillow it'll turn into a quarter (or something like that.) So if that doesn't happen, or if the child sees a parent do the exchanging, then they know it's a myth.
But until then, the child takes on faith that which his parents tell him. Do you not see how this childhood "faith" before disillusionment is, in the light of your signature, the same thing as an adult's faith in God?quote:
However, the Bible isn't nearly that simple, and has a lot more caveats.
Like the fact that we don't often see priests or pastors doing parlor tricks anymore, and the Bible itself is incapable of such chicanery. In fact, the Bible tells us lots of stuff which we cannot learn the truth about (so it says) until after we're dead.quote:
I have a better example of faith in science: when I was in high school (which was a few years ago) I was taught the rubber-band big-bang theory, in which the universe had always been blowing up, then contracting into a big mass, and blowing up again for all eternity past and present; and I decided not to have faith in it. Now scientists reject the rubber-band big-bang theory, and instead have the big-bang as the beginning of time itself. So why should I accept this theory right off the bat like most other people do?
I challenge you to demonstrate that "most other people" accept that theory "right off the bat." I would say that most people don't know about it, and/or don't care about it, and/or treat it as something which "scientific people" tell them - and nothing more. I know that there exist some people who'll accept just about anything which comes from the mouth of an authority, but that's not faith, either, it's just gullibility.quote:
I think the Bible is literal unless there's a reason for it not to be...
So how do you reconcile those things which scientific research says are wrong about the Bible?quote:
I'm not claiming that the Bible itself, taken completely literally and without external reasoning, is self-consistent.
Well, that's what the basic "contradictions" argument is all about.quote:
I'm saying that unless a claim of contradiction can be conclusively prooved, that claim cannot be conclusively used as evidence against the Bible.
Again, it isn't the Bible that's being argued against, it is the claims which people make about the Bible being "inerrant" and "not contradictory" for which the contradictions are useful.quote:
It can be used as circumstancial evidence against the Bible, but not conclusive evidence.
Again with the "conclusive." That's an extremely high standard to hold to. If your keys are missing, do you not search for them until you can conclusively rule out a burglar? What about a really good burglar, who might only leave microscopic evidence behind?quote:
I would like to suggest that it might be more useful on both out parts to discuss claims of contradiction of doctrine in the Bible.
Okay, what's an example of contradictory doctrine? Would you like to start with "nobody has seen God" vs. "John has seen God?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 19:32:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Friendly moderator push:
This topic is about Biblical Contradictions. If you want to discuss the validity of the Big Bang or any other scientific theory, I would recommend starting a new topic. There also happen to be a couple of topics in which this discussion is occurring:
Roger roger!
But, on a technical note, the big-bang thing sorta spun off from discussing the contradiction between the biblical account of origins and the observable universe. 
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 19:45:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
When people say something, they usually mean one thing. Occasionally they mean multiple things, but usually, even in figurative speech, only one idea is being communicated. Therefore, even though billions of people have hundreds and thousands of interpretations, we can logically say that at least one of the interpretations could be the correct interpretation of what the speaker was attempting to convey.
It is equally valid that none of the interpretations are correct.
quote:
When interpreting the Bible at all, you have to make unprovable premises, just like in science. The criteria for selecting these premises lies mainly on circumstancial evidence and opinion.
The bible, or its contents, are falsifiable ??
quote:
I someone does not accept the premise that they exist, I don't bother talking to them about these subjects. I cannot prove that they do exist because any such proof might also not really exist, but I cannot accept the premise that I don't exist.
I suspose that after thinking about this Rene Descartes would consider this a silly premise, too. I also suspect that you and Rene would have a great deal in common beyond this premise. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 05:48:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:I have a better example of faith in science: when I was in high school (which was a few years ago) I was taught the rubber-band big-bang theory, in which the universe had always been blowing up, then contracting into a big mass, and blowing up again for all eternity past and present; and I decided not to have faith in it. Now scientists reject the rubber-band big-bang theory, and instead have the big-bang as the beginning of time itself. So why should I accept this theory right off the bat like most other people do?
I challenge you to demonstrate that "most other people" accept that theory "right off the bat." I would say that most people don't know about it, and/or don't care about it, and/or treat it as something which "scientific people" tell them - and nothing more. I know that there exist some people who'll accept just about anything which comes from the mouth of an authority, but that's not faith, either, it's just gullibility.
In relation to this, I was very skeptical of evolutionary theory and big bang theory as they were taught to me in high school. At the time the best religious definition you could have applied to me would have been pagan/nature based, so I didn't have a real religious bias against it. Its just that I was taught it very poorly and really didn't understand the evidence in support of it or even its major tenets. Alas so crappy is our education system.
I didn't come to terms with evolution until I took an upper level genetics class in college in my junior year, combined with an upper level ecology class. Only then did I see that with isolated populations and the mechanisms of genetics, evolution was inevitable. Everything I have studied since, has only confirmed the major tenets of the theory. I say major, because yes there are many minor details that are debatable. Punctuated Equilibria, Out of Africa vs. Multi regional, etc.
With regards to the Big Bang, I didn't come to terms with it until after college, from my own readings. This despite having taken the two intro to physics classes with labs most colleges give including a section on cosmology. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 14:32:28 [Permalink]
|
Boron's right, let's stick to the topic.
Dave:
quote:
And the scientific philosophy is that nothing can ever have conclusive evidence for it.
Alright, let me exapand that to say "no conclusive evidence within the agreed-upon premises". For instance, in the absolute sense, I cannot conclusively proove that my name is Elijah because I might be hallucinating all of this in an insane asylum. But if I have the premise that my senses give me an accurate view of the universe around me, then I can conclusively prove that my name is currently Elijah because that's what everyone is calling me now. It's theoretically possible that I had a different name at birth, but I have no reason to believe that.
So, here are my proposed premises for the study of Biblical Contradictions:
1: The purpose of this study is to measure the self-consistency of the Hebrew Masoretic (Old Testament) and the Greek Received Texts (New Testament).
2: No alleged contradiction shall be considered as evidence of inconsistency unless said allegation has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt within these premises.
3: If a proposal is made to consider the intent of a passage to be figurative, or if one claims that an unsaid statement was intended, compelling evidence must be presented.
4: The universe shall be presumed to work according to observed laws of nature unless specific mention is made of a supernatural occurence, or unless compelling evidence for such an occurence is presented.
I think that' good for now, I may think of something else later. These premises are debatable.
quote:
But until then, the child takes on faith that which his parents tell him. Do you not see how this childhood "faith" before disillusionment is, in the light of your signature, the same thing as an adult's faith in God?
If an adult never tested the promises of Yahweh then, in that sense, I'll agree with you. That adult's faith is like a child's faith in the Tooth Fairy.
quote:
Like the fact that we don't often see priests or pastors doing parlor tricks anymore, and the Bible itself is incapable of such chicanery.
That's because most priests and pastors have gone astray. The Bible promises that the 'gifts of the spirit' (speaking in tounges, healing, etc.) will follow those who believe and obey all of Jesus' commands. I intend sometime to fulfill the command to forsake my possessions and preach the gospel abroad, something that I've never done before. If I find myself following all of His commands for an extended period of time and I see no signs, I just might stop believing.
Let me do some searches on the 'seen God' topic.
Moakley:
quote:
It is equally valid that none of the interpretations are correct.
True.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When interpreting the Bible at all, you have to make unprovable premises, just like in science. The criteria for selecting these premises lies mainly on circumstancial evidence and opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bible, or its contents, are falsifiable ??
Please elaborate.
|
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 06/15/2005 14:35:48 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 14:56:57 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Here is the SAB account of the question: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html
Here is a key verse that I'll bring up: 1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Yahweh appears as many things, but no man has seen him as he truly is. He appeared as a traveler to Abraham when he was told that Sarah would have a son, he appeared as Melchizidek, he appeared as Jesus Christ. And it is in that sense that Jesus says: "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; (John 14:9)". Just like if I'm in a play and I were a mask the audience sees me, but not as I truly am. And if someone captures you and interrogates you while pointing a flashlight in your face, you may be talking face to face with them, but you haven't seen them.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 18:42:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
So, here are my proposed premises for the study of Biblical Contradictions:
1: The purpose of this study is to measure the self-consistency of the Hebrew Masoretic (Old Testament) and the Greek Received Texts (New Testament).
2: No alleged contradiction shall be considered as evidence of inconsistency unless said allegation has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt within these premises.
3: If a proposal is made to consider the intent of a passage to be figurative, or if one claims that an unsaid statement was intended, compelling evidence must be presented.
4: The universe shall be presumed to work according to observed laws of nature unless specific mention is made of a supernatural occurence, or unless compelling evidence for such an occurence is presented.
I think that' good for now, I may think of something else later. These premises are debatable.
Well, "reasonable doubt" could be a talking point all to itself, since we obviously have different standard for what is reasonable (we wouldn't be having this discussion if I believed as you do, or vice versa).
Aside from that, I'll accept these premises, for sake of argument.quote:
Here is the SAB account of the question: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html
Here is a key verse that I'll bring up: 1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Yahweh appears as many things, but no man has seen him as he truly is. He appeared as a traveler to Abraham when he was told that Sarah would have a son, he appeared as Melchizidek, he appeared as Jesus Christ. And it is in that sense that Jesus says: "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; (John 14:9)". Just like if I'm in a play and I were a mask the audience sees me, but not as I truly am. And if someone captures you and interrogates you while pointing a flashlight in your face, you may be talking face to face with them, but you haven't seen them.
Well, in what sense does John say, "No man hath seen God at any time" (John 4:12), yet Deuterotomy 34:10 says, "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." That's not just "talking to." "Knew" suggests much more.
Indeed, Exodus 33:11 reads, "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." Obviously, it's not meant to be taken literally, because when people speak "face to face," it simply means "in person and without subterfuge," and not two disembodied faces talking to one another, as a literal reading would imply. The figurative reading is clear, making John wrong.
Or, of course, John is right and Moses lied. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
