mindyourmind wrote:Yes, Gakusei Don, and you can still call yourself a Christian. Shows you the, um, pliable nature of your religion.
Mix-and-match, cherry picking your way into feel good about being christian. But, if it works for you, it's fine by me.

Well, as I always say, cherry pickers always get the best cherries.

nunnington wrote:GakuseiDon

What an excellent list, and I think I have encountered most of those. I was recently on another forum, and was accused, as usual, of cherry-picking, by an atheist who was of course, cherry-picking texts and interpretations as if the cherry harvest had gone into hyperdrive.

Yep. As you pointed out to mindyourmind, cherry-picking is inevitable. Even fundamentalists cherry-pick, they just pretend they don't.

nunnington wrote:But the favourite is definitely, 'at least the fundies stick to their guns, whereas you liberals are all over the place, one minute it's literal, then it's symbolic'.

Yes, it's a Bible-centric approach that some atheists just can't seem to shake.

nunnington wrote:Love the ice-cream!

Thanks!

cool, the concept of God swimming
I think he will be fat and doing backstroke
since he knows all, he will not have to look not to hit his head on the wall at the pool

Secondly, one might claim that God could learn how to swim by thinking about it. But this objection is based on a confusion between two types of knowing how. Of course, God can know how to swim in the sense that He would know that to swim one must move one's arms and legs in such and such a way, take a breath in such and such manner and so on. But this is not relevant to the skill sense of knowing how which consists of actually being able to swim; this is, having the physical skill. Since God lacks a body unless He is incarnate He could not have the skill sense of knowing how to swim.

savvy wrote:The list of "you might be a fundie atheist if . . . " is interesting. And of course such a list works both ways.

My favorite is #10, except I would change it to the following:

You might be a [fill-in-the-blank] if you think that asking why an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God would fail to intervene when a child is abducted, raped, tortured, and buried alive is a question that is as trivial and ridiculous as asking why God doesn't stop ice-cream from being extra drippy.

You might be a [fill-in-the-blank] if you compare the pain and suffering that results when a four-year-old suffers and dies from leukemia or the pain and suffering caused by the earthquake in Haiti with the "pain and suffering" caused by someone getting ice-cream on his shirt.

Yes, fair point.

mindyourmind

The issue of cherry-picking is very interesting, and it can be opened out to consider the ways in which we approach all texts. I would argue that we cannot not cherry-pick in relation to any text. As soon as you start reading a poem, you are selecting a certain set of interpretations.

So in relation to the Bible, one can argue that everyone does cherry-pick. So fundies cherry-pick, liberals cherry-pick, and atheists cherry-pick.

The curious thing is that some people either claim that they don't, or that it would be possible not to. As I said earlier, I can't get my head round that. That would mean that one could interpret the Bible by avoiding all interpretations. Eh?

On the subject of literal/metaphoric, of course no-one is 100% literal - that would be absurd. When Jesus says 'I am the vine; you are the branches', to take it literally would be bizarre. Yet we are already cherry-picking then. We are selecting the metaphoric reading, based on our knowledge of the world, our familiarity with Jewish rhetoric, and so on.

But in a different context, 'I am the vine' could be a valid literal reading. See 'cut open a log of wood; I am there' (Gospel of Thomas).

nunnington wrote:mindyourmind

The issue of cherry-picking is very interesting, and it can be opened out to consider the ways in which we approach all texts. I would argue that we cannot not cherry-pick in relation to any text. As soon as you start reading a poem, you are selecting a certain set of interpretations.

So in relation to the Bible, one can argue that everyone does cherry-pick. So fundies cherry-pick, liberals cherry-pick, and atheists cherry-pick.

The curious thing is that some people either claim that they don't, or that it would be possible not to. As I said earlier, I can't get my head round that. That would mean that one could interpret the Bible by avoiding all interpretations. Eh?

On the subject of literal/metaphoric, of course no-one is 100% literal - that would be absurd. When Jesus says 'I am the vine; you are the branches', to take it literally would be bizarre. Yet we are already cherry-picking then. We are selecting the metaphoric reading, based on our knowledge of the world, our familiarity with Jewish rhetoric, and so on.

But in a different context, 'I am the vine' could be a valid literal reading. See 'cut open a log of wood; I am there' (Gospel of Thomas).

Are you being purposefully dim or do you believe that I am? Atheist do not cherry pick from the bible, because we don't live our lives according to an outdated, anachronistic, vile old book. We pick verses and passages that show up the absurdity of your collective, fragmented belief system. You are the ones with the problem (well, insofar as you are prepared to even acknowledge that you have one).

And your references as to the vine and other stuff, that relates to metaphorical vs literal, not the bits you conveniently decide you should live by. All the different interpretations that make you go "eh?" is exactly what you should acknowledge here as being the problem. As stated before, its all the word of god, or it's not. If its the former you have a problem, if its the latter you have a problem.

Or here is an even better experiment : toss the entire old screed and see how successfully you can lead your entire life without basing a single aspect of it on the bible.

Problem solved.

mindyourmind

Yet you say 'We pick verses and passages that show up the absurdity of your collective, fragmented belief system.' If that's not cherry-picking, then we are using the term differently.

If there is a problem, then everyone has it! Even the person who completely ignores the Bible is choosing that, aren't they?

nunnington wrote:mindyourmind

Yet you say 'We pick verses and passages that show up the absurdity of your collective, fragmented belief system.' If that's not cherry-picking, then we are using the term differently.

If there is a problem, then everyone has it! Even the person who completely ignores the Bible is choosing that, aren't they?

Your obfuscation skills, probably honed on years of cherry picking bible verses, are way too dense for me to even want to unravel here. How can my view on your belief system be "cherry picking"? We are discussing christians cherry picking the bible and the difficulties that raises.

And if I need to make the screamingly obvious even clearer - don't you think there is a difference between cherry picking the bits you like out of "Lie to Me" and cherry picking bits and comfy pieces out of a book that is supposed to direct our current and future lives?

mindyourmind

I don't see why it is obfuscation to point out that when you say 'We pick verses and passages that show up the absurdity of your collective, fragmented belief system,' that that is a type of cherry picking.

Of course, I am not criticizing that, as I am arguing that not only does everyone cherry-pick, but that there is no alternative. How can I interpret any text without selection? That would mean accepting all possible interpretations. But even that would be one selection!

"Selection"?!

How does that work then? Tell us how do you "select" what to follow and what to discard.

mindyourmind

Well, you should be able to answer that one. You have talked of picking verses to show up the absurdity of a belief system. How did you make that selection? I think you are carefully avoiding my argument that everybody selects.

You remind me of those old conjugations: 'he's a racist, you're prejudiced, but I am careful to differentiate who I want to be with'. So your conjugation is that theists cherry-pick, but atheists carefully and rationally pick certain Bible verses to prove their point. Yeah, and old whores don't die, they just charge less.

nunnington wrote:mindyourmind

Well, you should be able to answer that one. You have talked of picking verses to show up the absurdity of a belief system. How did you make that selection? I think you are carefully avoiding my argument that everybody selects.

You remind me of those old conjugations: 'he's a racist, you're prejudiced, but I am careful to differentiate who I want to be with'. So your conjugation is that theists cherry-pick, but atheists carefully and rationally pick certain Bible verses to prove their point. Yeah, and old whores don't die, they just charge less.

I have already agreed with you that we all cherry pick, but that it is you (theists) who have the problem of explaining how this works when you have to pick those cherries out of the book that regulates how we live, and inter alia how we spend our eternal lives. That you seem to wish to duck. Atheists do not guide their lives by your chosen fairy tale, so any verse they wish to pick, or not, is just a simple point of departure, an example of your delusion. There are, according to our lights, no consequences to what we pick or not. You are the one who has some rather serious self-inflicted consequences following on your choices.

Or have you simply never thought of it that way? If you have, answer my question. How does this "selection" work when it comes to our eternal souls and how we should lead our lives from the pages of this "holy scripture".

mindyourmind

My original post was simply to question whether anyone can not cherry-pick. I used to teach literary criticism, and it was perennially fascinating to see how students dealt with this question. To begin with, some of them would say that one should consult the author's intentions, and so on, but this tends to collapse, as often authors don't have a clue what they intended. Or, even more interesting, a creative work can turn out differently from one's intentions.

You mention 'the book that regulates how we live', which I don't really understand. I certainly don't see the Bible as a kind of Haynes manual to life.

nunnington wrote:mindyourmind

My original post was simply to question whether anyone can not cherry-pick. I used to teach literary criticism, and it was perennially fascinating to see how students dealt with this question. To begin with, some of them would say that one should consult the author's intentions, and so on, but this tends to collapse, as often authors don't have a clue what they intended. Or, even more interesting, a creative work can turn out differently from one's intentions.

You mention 'the book that regulates how we live', which I don't really understand. I certainly don't see the Bible as a kind of Haynes manual to life.

You are either avoiding my very simple questions or you need to have a long hard look at what you now really believe as far as your religion is concerned. Either way I don't really see the point of continuing with this particular aspect of the discussion. Thanks for the chat anyway.

nunnington wrote:Well, you should be able to answer that one. You have talked of picking verses to show up the absurdity of a belief system. How did you make that selection? I think you are carefully avoiding my argument that everybody selects.

I think I see the problem here...as is somewhat typical this argument is an equivocation. What is 'cherry picking'?

wikipedia wrote:Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

It seems that the problem is how nunnington has falsely equated 'cherry picking' with 'selection'. If, for example, a skeptic selects a series of bible verses that demonstrate the book's internal inconsistency or self-contradiction, in order to show that the book contradicts itself. How then might a believer point out different verses that the skeptic is ignoring to show that it does not? This is impossible. Therefore, what the skeptic is doing is not 'cherry picking.'

Now, the believer could demolish the argument by debunking all apparent contradiction or inconsistency, and indeed I have seen some of them try. Then one could make a case for cherry picking. But I've read enough of the bible to have a fair degree of confidence that this is impossible.

tytalus wrote:

nunnington wrote:Well, you should be able to answer that one. You have talked of picking verses to show up the absurdity of a belief system. How did you make that selection? I think you are carefully avoiding my argument that everybody selects.

I think I see the problem here...as is somewhat typical this argument is an equivocation. What is 'cherry picking'?

wikipedia wrote:Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

It seems that the problem is how nunnington has falsely equated 'cherry picking' with 'selection'. If, for example, a skeptic selects a series of bible verses that demonstrate the book's internal inconsistency or self-contradiction, in order to show that the book contradicts itself. How then might a believer point out different verses that the skeptic is ignoring to show that it does not? This is impossible. Therefore, what the skeptic is doing is not 'cherry picking.'

Now, the believer could demolish the argument by debunking all apparent contradiction or inconsistency, and indeed I have seen some of them try. Then one could make a case for cherry picking. But I've read enough of the bible to have a fair degree of confidence that this is impossible.

The term is a simple one, and should cause no confusion. I still maintain that we are dealing more with avoidance of my question than with equivocation.

Speaking of efforts to try and debunk these contradictions, have you seen this gargantuan effort : http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
(caution : may cause insomnia, nosebleeds and / or projectile vomiting)

tytalus wrote:

nunnington wrote:Well, you should be able to answer that one. You have talked of picking verses to show up the absurdity of a belief system. How did you make that selection? I think you are carefully avoiding my argument that everybody selects.

I think I see the problem here...as is somewhat typical this argument is an equivocation. What is 'cherry picking'?

wikipedia wrote:Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

It seems that the problem is how nunnington has falsely equated 'cherry picking' with 'selection'. If, for example, a skeptic selects a series of bible verses that demonstrate the book's internal inconsistency or self-contradiction, in order to show that the book contradicts itself. How then might a believer point out different verses that the skeptic is ignoring to show that it does not? This is impossible. Therefore, what the skeptic is doing is not 'cherry picking.'

Now, the believer could demolish the argument by debunking all apparent contradiction or inconsistency, and indeed I have seen some of them try. Then one could make a case for cherry picking. But I've read enough of the bible to have a fair degree of confidence that this is impossible.

Yes but the skeptic's search for inconsistancy is often influenced by the notion that christians believe that the bible is or should be consistant.Surely that is a monumental example of cherry picking itself because it takes the exceptional as normative!Only fundamendalists think in such a way and they are historically speaking( maybe in other ways too ) deviant. It is like saying that there is no romance or psychological insight in Shakespeare because I think Titus Andronicus is his archetypal work.

Ian Tattum wrote:

tytalus wrote:

nunnington wrote:Well, you should be able to answer that one. You have talked of picking verses to show up the absurdity of a belief system. How did you make that selection? I think you are carefully avoiding my argument that everybody selects.

I think I see the problem here...as is somewhat typical this argument is an equivocation. What is 'cherry picking'?

wikipedia wrote:Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

It seems that the problem is how nunnington has falsely equated 'cherry picking' with 'selection'. If, for example, a skeptic selects a series of bible verses that demonstrate the book's internal inconsistency or self-contradiction, in order to show that the book contradicts itself. How then might a believer point out different verses that the skeptic is ignoring to show that it does not? This is impossible. Therefore, what the skeptic is doing is not 'cherry picking.'

Now, the believer could demolish the argument by debunking all apparent contradiction or inconsistency, and indeed I have seen some of them try. Then one could make a case for cherry picking. But I've read enough of the bible to have a fair degree of confidence that this is impossible.

Yes but the skeptic's search for inconsistancy is often influenced by the notion that christians believe that the bible is or should be consistant.Surely that is a monumental example of cherry picking itself because it takes the exceptional as normative! It is like saying that there is no romance or psychological insight in Shakespeare because I think Titus Andronicus is his archetypal work.

I'll ask again : what consequence is there to the atheist's life if he does cherry pick in these instances (which btw is not conceded)? Theists claim to live their lives according to "Holy Scripture". The Word of God. Which words did God really really mean, and which were just him joking? Who decides? Why do these "authoritative words of God" get changed over the ages?

Come on, guys, you are ducking the issue, waving hands at a sufficient rate to fly short distances and really just trying to get this to a position of "so are you, too". Cherry picking the Bible is a simple idea, all theists are guilty of it. Blush and accept the accusation

mindyourmind wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

tytalus wrote:

nunnington wrote:Well, you should be able to answer that one. You have talked of picking verses to show up the absurdity of a belief system. How did you make that selection? I think you are carefully avoiding my argument that everybody selects.

I think I see the problem here...as is somewhat typical this argument is an equivocation. What is 'cherry picking'?

wikipedia wrote:Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

It seems that the problem is how nunnington has falsely equated 'cherry picking' with 'selection'. If, for example, a skeptic selects a series of bible verses that demonstrate the book's internal inconsistency or self-contradiction, in order to show that the book contradicts itself. How then might a believer point out different verses that the skeptic is ignoring to show that it does not? This is impossible. Therefore, what the skeptic is doing is not 'cherry picking.'

Now, the believer could demolish the argument by debunking all apparent contradiction or inconsistency, and indeed I have seen some of them try. Then one could make a case for cherry picking. But I've read enough of the bible to have a fair degree of confidence that this is impossible.

Yes but the skeptic's search for inconsistancy is often influenced by the notion that christians believe that the bible is or should be consistant.Surely that is a monumental example of cherry picking itself because it takes the exceptional as normative! It is like saying that there is no romance or psychological insight in Shakespeare because I think Titus Andronicus is his archetypal work.

I'll ask again : what consequence is there to the atheist's life if he does cherry pick in these instances (which btw is not conceded)? Theists claim to live their lives according to "Holy Scripture". The Word of God. Which words did God really really mean, and which were just him joking? Who decides? Why do these "authoritative words of God" get changed over the ages?

Come on, guys, you are ducking the issue, waving hands at a sufficient rate to fly short distances and really just trying to get this to a position of "so are you, too". Cherry picking the Bible is a simple idea, all theists are guilty of it. Blush and accept the accusation

I will admit to blackberry picking! Some atheists only notice the thorns and fundamentalists seek to gulp down the whole damn bush without incurring any injury

Ian Tattum wrote:

mindyourmind wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

tytalus wrote:

nunnington wrote:Well, you should be able to answer that one. You have talked of picking verses to show up the absurdity of a belief system. How did you make that selection? I think you are carefully avoiding my argument that everybody selects.

I think I see the problem here...as is somewhat typical this argument is an equivocation. What is 'cherry picking'?

wikipedia wrote:Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

It seems that the problem is how nunnington has falsely equated 'cherry picking' with 'selection'. If, for example, a skeptic selects a series of bible verses that demonstrate the book's internal inconsistency or self-contradiction, in order to show that the book contradicts itself. How then might a believer point out different verses that the skeptic is ignoring to show that it does not? This is impossible. Therefore, what the skeptic is doing is not 'cherry picking.'

Now, the believer could demolish the argument by debunking all apparent contradiction or inconsistency, and indeed I have seen some of them try. Then one could make a case for cherry picking. But I've read enough of the bible to have a fair degree of confidence that this is impossible.

Yes but the skeptic's search for inconsistancy is often influenced by the notion that christians believe that the bible is or should be consistant.Surely that is a monumental example of cherry picking itself because it takes the exceptional as normative! It is like saying that there is no romance or psychological insight in Shakespeare because I think Titus Andronicus is his archetypal work.

I'll ask again : what consequence is there to the atheist's life if he does cherry pick in these instances (which btw is not conceded)? Theists claim to live their lives according to "Holy Scripture". The Word of God. Which words did God really really mean, and which were just him joking? Who decides? Why do these "authoritative words of God" get changed over the ages?

Come on, guys, you are ducking the issue, waving hands at a sufficient rate to fly short distances and really just trying to get this to a position of "so are you, too". Cherry picking the Bible is a simple idea, all theists are guilty of it. Blush and accept the accusation

I will admit to blackberry picking! Some atheists only notice the thorns and fundamentalists seek to gulp down the whole damn bush without incurring any injury

Yes, a thorny issue