Science and the Bible

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Science and the Bible

#261  Postby Pebble » Apr 07, 2017 5:40 am

Passer wrote:
Pebble wrote:
Passer wrote:
Pebble wrote:It is only through the lens of faith that one can construe the bible as true. This seems an odd place to come to get to the point of being comfortable with accepting the veracity of the bible. Does this mean that you want to become comfortable with the lack of veracity of the bible?

I've had my faith for as long as I can remember and I've also had doubts for as long as I can remember. Recently I decided to research what it is I think I know. What I learn might lead me away from Christianity.


Why would the lack of veracity lead you away from christianity? Many christians accept that the bible is written and copied by fallible beings and to be interpreted rather than accepted as the word of god. They treat it as inspired by god, and retain a strong faith in what they take to be its core messages.

The bible is supposed to be the word of God. So I can't help think the message should be clear with no ambiguities. After all we are talking about an omnipotent and omniscient being. If I am saying the errors are down to man, then how can I distinguish that from any other man made book? It's unfalsifiable


Are you actually saying that if you were convinced of a single flaw in the bible, that you would reject the whole text as untrustworthy? If so - which bible is the authentic one? All bibles? - difficult they contradict each other. The one you grew up with? The original Aramaic texts that are available? etc
Pebble
 
Posts: 2812

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science and the Bible

#262  Postby monkeyboy » Apr 07, 2017 7:01 am

The Bible is clearly flawed. Very obvious stories such as the flood simply did not happen as claimed. The high handed claims that it sets some user high standard for morality don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. I would challenge anyone to show me the value of the tale of Lott and Sodom and Gomorrah. Curiosity = instant death but incestuous rape is allowed without a flicker of criticism from this alleged virtuous god? And that would be the tip of a humongous iceberg.
Then there are ridiculous things like the prescribed cure for leprosy, idiotic claims about the number of legs insects have, total ignorance of the world outside of a relatively small patch of the middle east and edges of Africa/Asia, not to mention ignorance about stuff going on outside of the atmosphere and the location of earth within it.
No wonder the church tried to hard to prevent the average Joe from being able to read it for themselves and enforced blasphemy laws on anyone who questioned it. Once you start to pick at the bullshit for what it is, the whole thing unravels before your eyes. The only miracle I see in the bible is that so many people still think so highly of it and even revere it.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5473
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#263  Postby NineBerry » Apr 07, 2017 7:23 am

Passer wrote:
NineBerry wrote:"Behold" is not a hebrew word.

I meant the Hebrew text translates into behold.


Uh. That's not how language works. English and Hebrew belong to very different language families. A complex word like this does not have a 100% equivalent translation from one language to another. There are always nuances of interpretation, not to mention the difference of interpretation the same word has in the same language at different points of time.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 42
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#264  Postby NineBerry » Apr 07, 2017 7:26 am

Shrunk wrote:
Passer wrote:"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?"


I can't recall ever seeing the word used in such a context. From where did you get those quotes?


But even in these quotes, it is assumed that the person who is being talked to already knows the facts. It makes no sense to use "behold" on a fact the person you are talking to does not know or disagrees with.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 42
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#265  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 07, 2017 7:48 am

When are going to answer my question Passer?
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#266  Postby Calilasseia » Apr 07, 2017 10:38 am

Passer wrote:
Pebble wrote:
Passer wrote:
Pebble wrote:It is only through the lens of faith that one can construe the bible as true. This seems an odd place to come to get to the point of being comfortable with accepting the veracity of the bible. Does this mean that you want to become comfortable with the lack of veracity of the bible?

I've had my faith for as long as I can remember and I've also had doubts for as long as I can remember. Recently I decided to research what it is I think I know. What I learn might lead me away from Christianity.


Why would the lack of veracity lead you away from christianity? Many christians accept that the bible is written and copied by fallible beings and to be interpreted rather than accepted as the word of god. They treat it as inspired by god, and retain a strong faith in what they take to be its core messages.


The bible is supposed to be the word of God. So I can't help think the message should be clear with no ambiguities. After all we are talking about an omnipotent and omniscient being. If I am saying the errors are down to man, then how can I distinguish that from any other man made book? It's unfalsifiable


First of all, any entity genuinely living up to the "omnipotent and omniscient" assertion, should be able to devise a means of ensuring that the humans selected to disseminate any message do so without cocking things up on a grand scale. Or, if the humans in question are simply too irredeemably stupid to perform this task, perform the task itself, so that there's no room for error or misunderstanding.

Of course, the whole Genesis story blows the "omnipotent and omniscient" assertion out of the water on a grand scale, because it asserts that the magic man in question purportedly fabricated a "perfect creation", only to build into this "perfect creation" a self-destruct mechanism, whereby the whole edifice could be turned into a gigantic turd, simply because some humans ate the wrong piece of fruit. Worse still, the same magic man then guarantees that the self-destruct mechanism will be set off, by purportedly fabricating humans in such a manner that they are completely bereft of essential pieces of knowledge, and that the only way they will ever acquire that knowledge, will be to eat the fruit in question and set off the whole BSOD episode. The vision we're left with, is not so much that of a fantastically gifted entity forging a marvellous and awe-inspiring universe, but of a 15 year old hacker in his mother's basement, building malware into a game for the shits and giggles.

Then, of course, there's the slight problem of which humans this entity purportedly "chose" to be its special messengers. Instead of choosing, say, the Ancient Chinese, who developed a pretty advanced civilisation with commendable speed, or the Ancient Greeks, whose thought was sufficiently sophisticated for it to remain part of the underpinnings of Western Civilisation to the present, this entity chose instead, a bunch of piss-stained nomads whose idea of advanced thought, was to write ten chapters devoted to the business of setting fire to small furry animals in order to please this entity. Instead of choosing people who had a decent command of philosophy, mathematics, and in the case of the Greeks, had at least some passing connection with a prototype of the modern empirical method, said entity chose the idiots who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses. Who in their right fucking mind, would choose the short bus people to be the 'elect' responsible for disseminating a message of cosmic importance to the species in question? The idea that the prime requirement for the task, was that the chosen instruments be nothing more than a bunch of Chatty Cathy dolls, undermines the entire enterprise from the start, because any reasonably intelligent entity with a message to present, wants that message to be presented by intelligent, articulate advocates, who moreover are capable of demonstrating by example, that said message is worth listening to. The example set at the start was hardly a stellar one, and this theme has continued through to the present, but for now, let's stick with the past, and look what happened - the chosen advocates were, apparently, not even up to the task of abiding by what was, for the standards of the time, a reasonably well-defined set of rules. Though the manner in which some of those rules clashes violently with essential aspects of human nature has a fair amount to do with this.

Indeed, moving on to the present, the same correlation of religious adherence with stupidity continues unabated, and in the modern era, has attained a hyper-Pythonesque level of absurdity. We have fundamentalist "Christians" in the USA, some of the most brashly vocal advocates for their religion, who are incapable of opening their mouths without uttering platitudes of excremental banality. These people routinely embrace ideas that are not merely delusional, but outright psychotic, and cheefully cling to attitudes so explosively at variance with the actual tenets of the religion they profess to adhere to, that the resulting spectacle is frequently beyond satire. Even the so-called 'professional' advocates exhibit either a mental command of elementary concepts that would be laughed at by my tropical fish, or a level of duplicity that calls into question fatally any notion that religion is purportedly a vital necessity for any semblance of ethical awareness, let alone good ethical practice. As for the likes of ISIS in the Islamic world, I wouldn't advise people without requisite protection to touch their fulminations with an extremely long barge pole.

Indeed, the small number of people who do manage to set an example worth following, as a result of their religious adherence, are all the more remarkable and newsworthy against the otherwise depressing backdrop of failure. It's no wonder said small number of worthies become fetish icons in their own right, because they're such a stark contrast to the norm within their respective religions, that the desperation to present them as exemplars becomes an exercise in bathos.

As a consequence of the above, anyone experiencing even the slightest temptation to let religion influence their thinking, should pause and worry deeply about the requisite malaise.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22061
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#267  Postby Shrunk » Apr 07, 2017 1:55 pm

Passer wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Passer wrote:"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?"


I can't recall ever seeing the word used in such a context. From where did you get those quotes?

It's just something I've always considered to be the case. Guess I was wrong


Are you saying you just made those sentences up? See, if you want to demonstrate that a word is used a certain way, you need to provide examples in which the word has actually been used that way. If I wanted to argue that the word "behold" is used to refer to a foodstuff, it would not support my position if I just made up the sentence "Boy, this behold is really delicious when you cover it with pork cracklings, maple syrup, and Hollandaise sauce!" Do you follow why that is?

This is a common problem we often encounter here. You are asking for help with specific facts or pieces of knowledge that might help you answer a particular question. But the problem is you seem to lack certain critical thinking skills, without which you are unable to make use of whatever facts or knowledge we are able to provide you. I'm not sure how to remedy such a situtation.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science and the Bible

#268  Postby zulumoose » Apr 07, 2017 2:28 pm

I do think Passer should have declared his intention with the examples, or maybe just asked if anyone had seen the word used in that way.

It does seem feasible, Consider replacing "behold" with "see here" which is similar:-

"See here! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"See here! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"See here! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?"

In this case "see here" is not being used literally, it is being used as a sort of argumentative exclamation, not sure the right term to use to explain it, yet it can mean exactly the same thing as behold when used differently.

Now as to whether the original words that "behold" was a translation of can mean something similar to "see here", well that is another kettle of fish.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3623

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#269  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 07, 2017 3:11 pm

Still has not answered my question.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#270  Postby Alan B » Apr 07, 2017 3:22 pm

I don't think passer's problem is with the word 'behold' but with 'behemoth' which, when coupled with 'eating grass like an ox', the religious fundies like to suggest is 'proof' of dinosaurs.

'Behemoth', when referring to an animal, (it can also be used when referring to a large building or organisation), just means 'large beast' which can be any large animal.

All the fundies are doing is perpetuating the Mediaeval Bible authors lack of knowledge of the world about them by making this ignorance a virtue. The more gullible a person is the more they 'believe'.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#271  Postby Oeditor » Apr 25, 2017 10:38 am

Tracking back a bit, from etymology to belief, I don't think anyone's quoted this one this time round:
Mark Twain wrote:There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
The very reason food is sealed is to keep information out. - Gary Ablett Snr.
Oeditor
 
Posts: 4581
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#272  Postby Wortfish » Aug 02, 2017 1:32 pm

The book of Job is full of references to zoology and astronomy.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#273  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 02, 2017 1:46 pm

Wortfish wrote:The book of Job is full of references to zoology and astronomy.

So is the koran and virtually every other religious text, if you believe their adherents.
Doesn't mean shit when it comes to claims made in those books, or the bible.
Especially since both the bible and koran contain numerous scientific errors.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#274  Postby NineBerry » Aug 02, 2017 2:03 pm

Wortfish wrote:The book of Job is full of references to zoology and astronomy.


References to zoology? You mean that it says how many heads and horns some mythical endtimes monster has. (The monsters are probably actually metaphors for contemporary states).
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 42
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest