here is the scenario
Offline An athiest and a christian are sitting in the same science class, learning the same exact thing. They take a huge exam and both ace it. The christian states though that this information is either lies, irrelevant, not enough information to gather for such a conclusion, etc. The athiest says the the Christian that they don't know what they are talking about they don't understand.
This is a common thing i see among the athiestic community. Its pre-assumed that the christian they are talking to/debating doesnt know a thing about the subject at hand. I am a devout Christian and i believe in studying every side of an argument. There is no room for assumption anywhere.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
- Login to post comments
The problem is, most Christians believe in a book of fairy tales that says some very specific things - when something in Science contradicts that book - no matter how great the evidence - there's that cognitive dissonance. Of course the liberal/moderate Christian will say "Well, that's not what the Bible really meant" or something similar, while the fundie will say science is wrong.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Please accept my humble appology in the name of this community if you were unfairly called ignorant.
If it happened, it was because we deal with a lot of Christians who are indeed completely ignorant of the topics they attempt to discuss. What is worse most of them are completely unwilling to learn anything that contradicts their beliefs.
If you are not like the people I just described, I again apologize.
But what was your point in starting this thread?
I haven't seen anyone call you, or in any way assume that you're ingorant (tough I admit I could've missed it).
If you wish to discuss anything in particular, by all means do so, and if you wish to ensure that we will keep a civil tone, start the thread in the "Kill 'em with kindness" forum.
It is your assumption that science contradicts the Bible. The Bible is very scientifically, mathemattically, historically accurate. Have you read the Bible completely? if so, im assuming you have only read the english words, am i correct or not? Hebrew and Greek are very complex languages, and the english takes away from alot that is written in the Bible
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
That is one of the most absurd things I ever heard in my life! You have Pi = 3, things growing without the sun, and so on as discussed on here before.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
No, that is the conclusion from knowing what science tells us and comparing that with the bible.
It is neither of those things. Assumption: you either know little about the bible, science, history or a combination thereof to say such a thing. If you feel I have made an unjustified assumtion there, feel free to correct my misconception. After all, I really want to know the truth.
I have read the NWT in English. I also have read the Swedish translation. They made equally little sense.
Have you read the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts? Just curious. If you want to you can talk about issues with that with Rook at the RRS. Just be careful not to state untrue things, then he will bite your head of.
Remember, Jesus loves you, he's just not in love with you.
there you go assuming that is what i am talking about
The variety of supernatural events in the bible defies science. We could begin with one, Noah's ark. You assume the bible to be scientifically harmonious, can yet illustrate this and maybe some of us might understand your argument better.
Here's just the short list of historical and scientific fallicies from the Bibull:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/short.html
Here are some from the NT:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/nt.html
Please tell us how these are incorrect, mistranslations, misunderstandings, etc.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
Didn't the bible say that rabbits chew cud?
I am getting to that hold your horses. I am looking at the link of fallacies previously provided and checking them against the hebrew and greek.
As far as the cud chewing rabbits:
the word used for rabbit here, 'arnebeth, the exact meaning is unknown. The word is actually best left untranslated.
I will look at each verse very closely. PLUS understand that if you are taking verses and translating you are taking them out of context. one must use the entire context.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
all this website is doing is citing scripture. how is it skeptical of anyting?
So, given the right context, it would be possible that insects do, in fact, only have four legs as described in Lev 11:23? *blink blink* Whatever you say...
Because the bible is a very important book to Christians, if you can show that there are problems with it, you just weakened the foundation of Christianity. And to the Christians who believe that if the book is wrong in one part it might as well be all wrong, by showing a problem with it you take out the whole bible.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
this website is doing nothing but citing scripture. where are the arguments you pose?
Don't forget that bats are birds.
Come on, this is the most weak-o-tastic list I've ever seen in my whole life!
1-8 : Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, which is largely a recap) is a list of laws for the ancient Israelites. "Going on all four" is clearly a reference to moving, opposite of "standing upright". So, penguins would of been kosher, I guess... (ostriches were forbidden in Leviticus 11:16).
The insect and bat comments would of been clear to the people involved, and the health reasons hold. Eating bats is not a good idea. As for rabbits, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Some lagomorphs [rabbits and hares] are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants".
9 (Joshua's battle with the sun holding an hour) falls under miracles. If you don't accept miracles, then you've got plenty more problems...
10 : Isaiah is describing the behavior of people who reject God. The context is "[these people] hatch snake's eggs and give people poison". This is not a description of some natural process...
11: James is discussing controlling one's tongue (a hard, near impossible task). He is contrasting that with our success at taming animals.
A reference to moving? So, what, there are animals that don't move at all now? Talk about "weak-o-tastic"... Besides, a portion of your cult claims the bible is to be taken literally, that means "on all fours" means exactly what it says: Insects with four legs.
The fact that they "would have been clear to the people involved" doens't take away from the fact that they're WRONG. Insects do not have four legs. Interesting point on the rabbits, though.
I think that the people who accept the idea of the earth stopping its rotation have more problems than the people who realize such a thing is impossible. But then, that's just me.
Also, according to Wikipedia, the "Book of Jasher" referenced in the next verse, doesn't actually exist...Kinda puts a kink in the whole "perfect word", doesn't it?
Based on the entry in Wikipedia, I'm guessing the original form of this passage referenced a basilisk rather than a cockatrice. It should be noted that neither of these creatures actually exist.
The problem is that it says EVERY animal has been tamed. Pay attention, please.
Actually, not believing in miracle does not mean you have problems, it simply means you don't believe in bullshit (at least one form of it.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
So these are facts to you? Science has proven otherwise.
You'd think a god that knew everything and created all of it would know to give the facts to the guys who wrote his book.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No it isn't. Eating your own poop pellets is distinct from chewing cud, which involves bringing food back up from the stomach.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/bible.html#accurate
For those playing the home game, the verse can be found here and the word translated as "cheweth" does indeed mean "bring up" as shown here. Truly fascinating stuff. (Hit the little C next to the verse to expand it out into Hebrew words.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan00.html
It should be pointed out, of course, that even though the appearance of cud-chewing is a potential reason for the error in the Bible, it still doesn't change the fact that there was an error. Rabbits do not chew cud.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Anyone who asserts that insects have four legs is just ignorant.
The book has been lost. God never promised to protect it.
1. anybody ever ponder that there may have just been 4 legged flying creatures that are EXTINCT! that we haven't found any fossil evidence of yet?
2. you are STILL basing your assertions on the ENGLISH TEXT.
Let me go back to the rabbit example:
the hebrew word used here is 'arnebeth. The exact meaning of this word is unknown and is better left untranslated. Another thing here is there is a possibility YOU ARE DOUBTING YOUR OWN SCIENCE! What is known as micro-evolution has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. So why can't a rabbit adapt enough to not have to chew cud anymore?
so you can say monkey has evolved into man, but you can't accept that rabbits can adapt as well. I find quite an error there.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
What the frick? So, "we don't know what that word means anyway, but most people think it means chew the cud, so therefore, maybe the rabbit DID chew the cud, but maybe it evolved and now it doesn't have to anymore?" That's the most roundabout ridiculous argument ever. Rabbits don't chew cud. Sure, they eat their own poop, but that isn't "bringing up the food."
And "monkey" didn't evolve into man. Monkeys and man evolved from a common ancestor of the primate family.
Please, please read some evolutionary biology books.
Oh My Thoth!
We must have faith in science no questions asked.
lol
When given a choice between the following two options:
1) There was an entire taxon of four legged insects that suddenly totally vanished from the fossil record and evolutionary history, leaving no trace of their existence except for a minor reference in a Bronze Age text.
2) The Bronze Age authors of the book of Leviticus did not have the level of entomological knowledge that we have now, and miscounted the number of appendages on some flying insects.
why on Earth do you think we're going to consider number one to be more likely?
Did you, uh, see my post where I link to Strong's Concordance, which provides the original Hebrew text with a quick lookup of what the words mean? The verb used means "to bring up", as in bringing the food back up from the stomach and rechewing it. It has nothing to do with re-eating poop pellets.
True, but a similar reference exists in verse 11:5, about the coney, which is now pretty well agreed to be the rock hyrax. As for the 'arnebeth, the meaning of the word is indeed unknown. But there is no evidence of any such animal, regardless of the name, that chews the cud and yet does not have a cloved hoof. There is no evidence that any animal exists, nor that any animal ever existed. Again, which of these two options should we consider more likely:
1) There was an entire taxon of cud-chewers with no hooves that suddenly totally vanished from the fossil record and evolutionary history, leaving no trace of their existence except for a minor reference in a Bronze Age text.
2) The Bronze Age authors of the book of Leviticus did not have the level of zoological knowledge that we have now, and misinterpreted the actions of small rodents like the hyrax as cud-chewing.
There's no evidence that rabbits ever chewed their cud. Such a dramatic restructuring of the digestive system of a hare or other small rodenty animal would not be microevolution, and there's no evidence for that sort of change either. (It also leads to the question of why a small prey animal like a hare would evolve to stand around chewing its own cud.) Losing hooves or gaining a cud-chewing digestive system would not be small changes, and there would undoubtedly be several instances of speciation along the way, making it macroevolution.
The issue isn't whether they could have evolved like that. The issue is whether they did. There is no evidence that hares or other rodents chewed their cud, and the only reason anyone would suggest that they did is because some people expect Bronze Age people to know as much about zoology as modern scientists do. You need to understand more about the patterns of evolution. If hares had ever had cud-chewing capabilities that have since been lost, we would expect to see some sort of evidence of that, either in the fossil record, or in a vestigial reticulorumen (the part of the digestive tract that holds cud), or in cud-chewing behaviors in other lineages of rodents that hadn't lost that behavior. But there is none. The authors of Leviticus, quite simply, were mistaken. There is absolutely no evidence of any animal that would fit the descriptions given in Levitcus 11:5 or 11:6. It's not the end of the world, you know. It just means that the Bible is not 100% accurate.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Exactly.
It seems to me that if your bible were perfect as some people like to think, either the reference to the "Book of Jasher" would have been somehow edited out or the book would have survived.
It's also possible that the people that picked and chose the books of the bible destroyed it because they didn't like what it said.
Perhaps it never existed at all.
Most likely, the books of the bible were chosen by people with an agenda to control the masses.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Uh... All 4 legged flying creatures going extinct, leaving no trace, and not much else got damaged... Or someone just doesn't know how to catch flies?
This is true. Therefore, we cannot assume that "walking on all fours" means walking horizontally. Walking on all fours means walking on all fours until shown why ancient Hebrews may have had similar euphamisms to us.
There has to be a slow upward slope. What you are saying is that, by analogy, that some of a cows stomachs disappear, and the others simultaneously adapt to eating dung. Uh...
Editing the reference out would of violated the integrity of scripture. Lots of ancient books have been lost, that has no impact on the Bible.
The books of the Old Testament were adopted by Christians exactly as they were recognized by Jews at the time. The Jews did eliminate some books around that time: Maccabees, Enoch, and some others. The books of the New Testament were selected based on authorship and general content.
I've read some of the books that were removed, and skimmed others. They are useful for instruction, but I agree that they are not divinely inspired.
If people were going to remove and edit books, they should of done a whole lot more work. The Bible directly contradicts most of the teachings of the Catholic Church (the sole holders and copiers for hundreds of years). It remains silent on most of the other Catholic doctrines.
The Old Testament tells of time and time again that the Israelites failed God, and worshiped other gods. It reads like a laundry list of embarrassment and failure. Not anything like what you would find about America in a 1960's American history textbook.
Again, if your bible was so perfect, there wouldn't be a reference to a "lost" or non-existent book.
What makes a writing divinely inspired and who gets to make that determination? Who makes the divinity rules? Why has nothing been added for a long time? Has nothing been divinely inspired for a long time?
I'm quite sure that many Mormons think that their book is divine, too.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Wrong, it's not an assumption. We make such a statement based on an analysis of the bible. The bible makes many scientific blunders.
This issue has been dealt with to death, and the sole theist response is to dogmatically reinterpret every flawed passage in a completely ad hoc fashion.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
If someone claims that the bible doesn't commit any scientific blunders, then the argument would entail citing the bible and demonstrating such blunders.
This is rather basic induction here.... this is argumentation - citing evidence.
If you are looking for a more formal debate, the offer one up.... but there's really nothing that theists have to offer that hasn't been refuted to death 10,000 times already....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I have to comment on Christians expecting everyone to read the Babble in the original language. First off, how many of them have? Do we have to throw the ones who haven't out of church? Second, have you read the Quoran in the original Arabic? What about Hindu texts in Hindi/Sanskrit? Have you read the Book of Mormon or Dianetics? (OK these are originally in English.) Be honest - how many Atheist books has the average Christian read?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You got me thinking about the book of the dead.
I laugh.
I can't read ancient Hebrew or Greek, I wouldn't expect you to. When I ask people if they have read the Bible, I do so only out of curiosity. Just say yes or no, its ok.
I have read enough of the Koran to know that it is wrong. I haven't read anything indicating the Hindu texts are to be taken as literal descriptions of God. I have read most of the book of Mormon, and skimmed the rest. It is very likely a concoction of Joseph Smith. Dianetics is just silly. L. Ron Hubbard wrote science fiction before that stuff, and often boasted about making up a religion.
I never used to read a lot of nonfiction. I have read plenty of science fiction. Is there a particular title or author you recommend? I am always willing to give it a chance. (I started reading Brocca's Brain [Sagan] but it was pretty painful).
1) Many theists come here and ask that question assuming that people who post here know nothing about the Bible. If you are not one of those, that's good to know.
2) You say you've read enough of the Koran to know it's wrong. Did you make that discovery after you read it or did you go in thinking "The Koran is wrong because my belief system says it is but I'll read a little of it anyway. That way I can tell people I read it with an open mind."?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I would agree with you on the other books (Hinduism isn't monotheistic by the way.) I just believe in one less god than you.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You are free to believe you are immune to buses. But if you step out in faith, only the truth will matter
That's a non-sequitor. Everything I have experienced shows buses exist, and stepping in front of them is not a good idea. The evidence of a God is sorely lacking.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Thank you.
I've only recently come to know Christ. I was raised Catholic, but found it wanting. A web survey I took said Muslim would be a good fit for me. I can't claim a perfectly open mind, but I did try to accept its claims. The problem is, it claims the Bible is true, but that Allah has no son. That means Allah is not God...
Huhhhh???
So not having a son disqualifies a being from being a god?
Because you were conditioned to believe that Jesus was the son of God so that's the only idea that can be right? I'll give you credit for the attempt, but you can't say you came in with an open mind, perfectly or otherwise.
For me, it was a return to the default position after reading the Bible. The more I read the Bible, the less sense it made.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The Bible definitely says Jesus is the son of God. If you don't get that from the Bible, the rest of it doesn't make much sense.
The Bible is false.
That is an assertion. Do you have an argument?
It's all over here, everything wrong with it. Or look here:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
The point of Matt's asking this, I believe, was to point out that you went into reading the Koran with the assumption that this relationship of God and God's son. IF that is your reason for rejecting Allah, it is simply a presupposition.
The Moslem's point will be (again, I believe) that the idea of God having a son, of God incarnating in that way, is something that makes no sense for their understanding of God.
The fact that an idea is in a book, no matter how old, where it came from, or if you were raised in an environment which holds it sacred does not imply that the idea is true.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
I'm saying their understanding of God is wrong. If Jesus is not God's son (also not God Himself, which Muslims also deny), then Jesus' death makes no sense (and they deny the resurrection, all of which make them antichrist).
I'm not saying they're wrong because they are antichrist. Lots of people are antichrist. But you don't get to claim the Bible, and be antichrist. Without the backing of the Bible, the Koran is just another book of Mormon or Dianetics.
The Babble is no more valid than any of those books.
You are correct, Jesus death does make no sense. Saying that unless a god fits the description that is in agreement with Christian doctrine, then it isn't the true God is a form of circular logic. It assumes that the Christian God is true, rather than ties to determine if it is.
I'll try and explain this again. You went in to reading the Koran with an idea of God already conceived of. That is, you tried reading the Koran from a Christian point of view. What would you say to a Moslem who, after reading them Bible, simply said that the Bible gets God wrong? On what basis is the Biblical idea of God valid while the Koran's is not? Why are you right and he wrong?
Saying that the Bible's God is the real and true God because it says so, because it's the Bible, or because it's true is presupposing the truth. It is merely assuming the conclusion we are trying to determine when asking "what s God," "who is God," or even "does God exist?"
Why is the Bible the presupposed standard? What makes it so special?
If you answer because it's "God's word" or anything similar to that, you are simply assuming that without justification. You have no basis for using the Bible as the standard for determining the truth of any other scriptures. You cannot merely define or assume the Bible to be the truth, and use it as a standard. If you don't understand why, then ask yourself how you would respond if a Moslem claimed that "without the backing of the Koran, the Bible is just another book of Mormon or Dianetics."
And just because the Bible was written first does not make a difference. Many Hindu and Buddhist texts are older. So are the words of Lao-Tzu and Confucius. And don't forget the Mithra cult...that's another angle to all of this....that's for another discussion.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.