23rd February 2010
“In religious matters, debates cannot take place, since one side claims privileged access to certain insights which it asserts to be evidence but which its debating partner does not share. This does not render the insights invalid or to the believer unhelpful; but it does remove them from the sphere of strictly intellectual discourse.”
Michael Sommer
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:35
You cannot hit a moving target. The varied interpretations for any holy book render the book – and argument about it – meaningless.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m0YYy9lqqs
This is a good video on creation and about Evolution.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:00
I have found THE video that will support sol, tech and grim peters whaling’s…
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:03
John, whaling and nashing of teeth hmmm.
February 23rd, 2010 at 14:23
Grim reaper/Sollie/whatever;
Could you possibly mean wailing, or do you mean to chase Cetacea?
Just checking.
I am not going to get upset, I might start to GNASH my teeth again.
The sphere of intellectual discourse seems like a distant hope.
February 23rd, 2010 at 14:57
If a Christian/religious debate could be initiated without any references from the bible, but allowing all other sources, I wonder how it would end?
February 23rd, 2010 at 15:23
It would be a much more intelligent debate. I would love to hear it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 15:28
I agree. In fact, I think the bible is the only source for information regarding Christianity. You would think that Christians would find that a little disturbing.
February 23rd, 2010 at 15:28
Since none of you understand the Bible Its useless to use as a form of reference any way.
February 23rd, 2010 at 15:31
Perfect! From the words of Tech: “…the Bible, it is worthless any way.”
We finally come closer to agreement.
In truth, I have studies the Bible quite a bit. I have also read Aesop’s Fables. Both have their uses.
February 23rd, 2010 at 15:50
hi steve,
I have read it from cover to cover …and reviewed parts of it several times as well. There is one word in there does interest me. In your opinion, what does the word, “righteous” mean as used in the bible?
February 23rd, 2010 at 16:13
Regarding the quote…it is right on the money. Debating a typical religious person is fun but a waste of time because they have “magic” information about their special book full of bedtime stories that I do not have. Oh well.
“Because the Bible says so” – what a bunch of crap.
If I had only one wish it would to remove all religious and supernatural beliefs from this planet. Can you imagine how much faster science and humanity would advance without the shackles of religion? I can dream!
February 23rd, 2010 at 16:33
If I can dream of a better land where my brothers and sisters walk hand in hand. Tell me why tell why can’t my dreams come true.
February 23rd, 2010 at 17:47
Jose Jose, there is no debate with an atheist.You guys have it all figered out with science So why a debate?
February 23rd, 2010 at 18:15
Wow. What did I step into here? Is this an ESL site? LOL! Ok, that’s not a problem. As long as people can express ideas in a respectful manner, I’m all game.
Tech, I’ll assume you’re a Christian, correct?
February 23rd, 2010 at 18:15
All together now….. Somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high………..la la la la la
February 23rd, 2010 at 18:19
If you want to defend a belief in God, it is possible to do this rationally while taking account of the evidence we can all experience and appraise. It is not possible however to debate rationally based on the revealed knowledge of individuals as noone else has access to the “data” but the person it is supposedly revealed to.
February 23rd, 2010 at 18:32
Solomon, continuing our previous conversation on evolution, because you refuse to clarify what you mean by “ape” I’m left to assume you mean to imply that homo sapien evolved from apes, such as current gorillas, etc.
In this sense you are correct in saying that there are no “gradual transformation of ape to man” because homo sapien did not evolve FROM current apes – we evolved ALONG WITH apes.
This is Evolution 101. Very, very basic stuff which you are COMPLETELY IGNORANT OF. I guess it is just too much to ask you to wrap your little pea brain around such a simple concept.
So, your statement can only mean one of two things:
1. You are completely ignorant of evolutionary theory and are unaware of it.
2. You are knowledgeable about evolutionary theory but DISHONESTLY perpetuate a lie by claiming that man came from apes.
So, which one are you, Solomon? IGNORANT, or a LIAR?
February 23rd, 2010 at 19:21
Holysmokes asked me:”In your opinion, what does the word, “righteous” mean as used in the bible?”
In my opinion its meaning different throughout the Bible, which makes sense when you realize that the book it is a compendium of various scripts cobbled together over several centuries. There is certainly a difference between old testament and new testament righteousness. In the old testament I think it is someone who acts according to the religious tenets of the time. But then, you could apparently be appointed as a ‘chosen’ one and get righteousness in spite of your behavior. God is on ‘our’ side, eh? In one sense, the old testament righteous was decided by the authors.
In the new testament it seems to have a broader meaning; by that I mean to say that in the new testament, a person could be righteous by their own actions, by affiliation, or appointment; still, regardless of the admonitions you had to ‘earn’ it somehow.
I am curious to see why you ask. What is your definition?
steve
As I hip-shot, I think it is similar to rectitude, or ‘walking with god’.
February 23rd, 2010 at 19:29
GoodwithoutGod;
It can be a long story. Sometimes this site’s commentators get to be less than respectful, and I am certainly guilty on that note.
On the other hand, I would like to think that ideas are subject to criticism, and dumb ideas ought to be subject to ridicule.
If I have stepped on any toes, sorry. My initial reaction was to ignore the local trolls, but lately I have engaged them, a little. It is getting boring, since the answer is always the same.
So GWOG, let’s have at it. Please, anything besides the godbots’ usual regurgitation will be welcomed by me.
And apparently the moderators are a very tolerant lot.
Nice to meet you.
February 23rd, 2010 at 19:30
I think I meant to say commentors, not commentators. My bad.
February 23rd, 2010 at 20:37
Tech’s Statement. I believe in God Almighty.I believe he sent his only begotten Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross’ that we might have life and have it more abundantly.I believe the Bible to be the written inspired word of God. I will not argue about it with people who hate or don’t believe in Him.In those cases there is no point. If you have made up in your own mind that God don’t exist,there no point in debating it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 20:46
“In religious matters, debates cannot take place, since one side claims privileged access to certain insights which it asserts to be evidence but which its debating partner does not share. This does not render the insights invalid or to the believer unhelpful; but it does remove them from the sphere of strictly intellectual discourse.” Michael Sommer
“Tech’s Statement. I believe in God Almighty.I believe he sent his only begotten Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross’ that we might have life and have it more abundantly.I believe the Bible to be the written inspired word of God. I will not argue about it with people who hate or don’t believe in Him.In those cases there is no point. If you have made up in your own mind that God don’t exist,there no point in debating it.”
What else needs to be said?
February 23rd, 2010 at 21:01
The problem with this, honest as it is, is that you are, whether you like it or not, in a dialogue with atheists. By definition we do not believe in gods (yours or anyone elses) but, by and large we can offer logical, philosophical and empirically verifiable reasons why we hold that position. Your posts hear come down to “I believe what I believe and if you don’t believe what I believe you are wrong” (polite version) but you offer know evidence outside of your own faith to support it. So I would say to you, go away and believe what you want, but don’t play at being a theologist when you lack the perspective and knowledge to argue your point. This is not an anti-theist site IMHO. Oxy deserves and gets respect from everyone here (except bizarrely you and Sol). All it takes is a realisation that there are contradictions in the religious texts and practices that need reconciling. You will not convert (if that is your aim) or convince anyone posting or lurking here of the veracity of religion by repeating dogma.
February 23rd, 2010 at 21:02
note to self: use an offline editor to compose long comments.
February 23rd, 2010 at 21:22
AthiestMC: I don’t know about the offline editor. You wrote a reasoned, polite, and civil response. You are obviously more patient, or maybe also, more experienced than I am.
February 23rd, 2010 at 21:26
Hi steve,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. My reason for asking is because the most common answer I get regarding the word “righteous” is to be “one with god.” or “to do as god would want.” The problem is, what exactly does that mean?
If one were to go back to the beginning of the bible, where this god appears to barter with a guy named Lott over the number of “righteous” men in particular towns, we can see just how dangerous this can be. The punishment for not finding enough “righteous” men was total destruction of everyone there, Sodom and Gomorrah. Oddly enough, it was apparently “righteous” for Lott to offer up his two daughters to a wild crowd of men in order to prevent them from raping two angels. However, it was apparently “unrighteous” when his wife peered back at the town as god was destroying it. She was instantly turned into salt, with no logical reason given. Late on, it was apparently “righteous” for Lot’s daughters to get him drunk and sleep with him.
My point is that being one with a god who condones such despicable acts seems counterproductive. In fact, I would posit that many who frequent this room show higher moral fiber than this invisible super omnipotent being. If we were to assume he is real, would we truly want a her/he/it with such poor and screwed up morals running the show?
February 23rd, 2010 at 21:30
Tech – thank you very much for proving the quote’s point. I have a question, though: If we take you at your word, that you have no interest in debate with unbelievers, what the hell are you doing here?
Also, yet again, we’ve not made up our mind that god doesn’t exist. All of us are, to one degree or another, agnostic on the question. Our position is that there has never (ever) been put forward any proof that is more compelling than the evidence for the existence of magic faeries.
What is frustrating about these interactions is that you seem to think our intellectual requirement for testable proofs somehow makes US in some way defective – closed minds, bad hearts, whatever, when the opposite is actually true. Each person here would move into the theistic camp were there proof that we were wrong. You on the other hand, are unwilling to consider proof that runs counter to your preconceived notions.
February 23rd, 2010 at 22:03
Holysmokes, I take your point.
Somewhere in this thread, I compared the bible to Aesop’s fables. I did so intentionally, as both contain behaviors that we would consider wildly improper in today’s culture. And yet, as myth, we tend to look past the facts to glean a lesson.
The problem is that there those who view the bible, the koran, etc., as more than myth.
If you have read the bible cover to cover, you know what I mean. Now read ‘One Thousand and One Nights’. (not the Disney version, ‘Arabian Nights’) You will read tales of slavery, murder, mayhem, and the most unabashed misogyny you can imagine.
Sometimes I wonder; if there were not the institution set in place to indoctrinate the young, would religions survive? Do grown, rational people even convert to bible-thumpers? I suppose there are a few.
Well, thanks for the response, and have a good day.
February 23rd, 2010 at 22:07
Steve
Thanks for the compliment but read again for the atrocious spelling 🙂
Holysmokes
You have pinpointed the Euthyphro dilemma perfectly. When “righteous” is whatever God wills it to be, the most morally heinous acts become righteous. So here we are, imperfect fallen mankind, riddled with original sin and we can easily call out the O.T God on ethical behaviour. Why?
February 23rd, 2010 at 22:26
steve & Atheist MC,
This is precisely the reason I believe the two worst words in the English language are “righteous” and “faith.”
1. Let’s choose to believe without evidence. 2. Then let’s follow bronze age morals and do god’s bidding.
I think any rational person must conclude that this is an extremely dangerous combination.
February 23rd, 2010 at 22:30
MC – Since you mention Euthyphro, I think you’ll enjoy Bertrand Russells’ statement on it:
“The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good.”
Russell left unsaid the second implication, that good is independent of God and therefore God himself is subject to its constraints. On this horn, God is irrevelant to morallity because it is higher than herself.
February 23rd, 2010 at 22:35
Thanks for the welcome Steve – nice to meet you, too.
Tech, thank you for responding, but I have a question. If you’ve already decided that you will not change your mind and that you will not argue with those who don’t believe in God, then why are you on an atheist site? Surely you don’t think you can convert an atheist this way?
I know you have a right to be here and I’m all for free speech, but if you’re not here to debate then what exactly are you aiming to achieve by posting here? Are you only trying to aggravate people by goading them into responding to you instead of discussing the quote of the day?
Maybe I’m not understanding your intentions.
February 23rd, 2010 at 23:16
GWOG: “Maybe I’m not understanding your intentions.”
Or, maybe you are.
February 24th, 2010 at 0:33
Tech – you believe in God because you were raised with Him. Right? If you were my kid, I could have taught you to worship a rock and you would have.
Faith (arbitrary brainwashing) is relative to where you were born and who raised you.
You are probably a Rock atheist…well, I am a (insert any God here) atheist.
In all seriousness, you and I have one thing in common which is a faith in something that cannot be validated….you have God, I have my magic Rock. Same thing…it is all bullshit.
February 24th, 2010 at 0:51
Instead of saying “bless you” when someone sneezes, maybe we should say “You rock!”.
Rock be with you, Jose.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:42
Dear Mohammed the Prophet,
I did’nt claim man is from ape. It’s your masters Darwin & your lots that claim man is from ape through evolution.Now you try to turn the table the other way round. What a splitting tounge you have.
You said “we evolved ALONG WITH apes”
Now you yourself are gettin confuse.
If so much so you say that, than its true that theres no evolution from ape to man & you yourself have refute the theory.
Man goes on its own way & ape goes on its own way.Finish.Case closed.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:51
Did solomon strap on a vest and go off?
February 24th, 2010 at 1:57
Jose=raised up by a ROCK
Whaaa….ka ka ka
February 24th, 2010 at 3:10
Oh Solomon, you ignorant twit, you’re such a pleasure to read. Seriously, if I were a psychologist I’d be desperate to study your brain. Or whatever it is between your furry ears.
If you can’t understand the very basics of evolution perhaps you shouldn’t speak on the topic? Just a suggestion.
Keep to what you know best: spewing hate, making ignorant statements and blowing people up.
Sincerely,
Mohammed the Ka-ka-ka-ka-POW (drink up, bitches!)
Praise be to me. Blow some shit up in my name – preferably infidels, etc, etc.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:39
Dear Mohammed the Prophet,
You just can’t win the argument can you, that you resort to pretending by using words as if we are the ignorant and you are the knowledgeable.But the truth are its we that is far advanced than what you thought of.Yeah you can fool most of the viewers but you can’t fool us.
Just witness how many issues that you have failed to reason out.You better stop wasting your time, and get to the safe zone so that you will be saved from hell.
February 24th, 2010 at 9:04
Dear Mohammed the Prophet,
You said [In this sense you are correct in saying that there are no “gradual transformation of ape to man” ]
To correct you I did’nt say there is no gradual transformation of ape to man.I said there should be a gradual transformation from ape to man if evolution is true.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:10
Dear steve,
“The sphere of intellectual discourse seems like a distant hope”
If you think what you have aquire now is what you thought is enough of intelligence & others not, than proove it.
February 24th, 2010 at 16:15
Submitted for your inspection:
“If you think what you have aquire now is what you thought is enough of intelligence & others not, than proove it.” – sol
Sollie, I sure can’t argue with your logic here. I can’t even find any…
Anyone else have any freaking idea what he might intend?
February 25th, 2010 at 0:09
Solomon wrote: “But the truth are its we that is far advanced than what you thought of.”
Holy crap!! How do you come up with this stuff??
“It’s gold, Jerry. GOLD!”
Yes, I’m in the safe zone now: I have a bullet-proof vest and blast-proof windows. You and your toothless friends can blow by any time now….
March 4th, 2010 at 19:28
That is a hilarious reference to Jerry Seinfeld!