• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I think i've discovered something...

science is truth, yet so is the bible, therefore they cannot contradict, in fact, religion and science are converge over time, not diverge. Any contradictions are due to gross misinterpretations in either science or religion.

And one can only wonder how its determined whether its science that is "misinterpreted" or the "holy-book".

"Perhaps there need not be any conflict between science and some forms of supernaturalism. For instance, a "creator god" could be proposed to have set the universe in motion and perhaps originated life on various planets - then retire or withdraw and not influence human or Earthly affairs. This proposed scenario would pose no conflict with nature and would not be inconsistent with science. However, some (many?) versions of religion insist that favored Gods interfere with human lives and perform supernatural feats - diametrically opposed to what we know of nature. Some maintain that human prayer can cause God to change the course of events. These claims ARE in conflict with science, and they conflict with reason when the claims and theories cannot be supported with consistent and coherent justification.

Examples include stories about dead bodies coming back to life after three days, donkeys and snakes conversing with humans, the Earth being flooded "to the tops of mountains", the earth ceasing rotation upon command, men obtaining strength from their hair, a man living inside a giant fish, etc are in direct opposition to the real world of nature and science (the study of nature).

Such religions promote a conflict with science and knowledge by insisting that ancient tales about "gods" and "miracles" are literally true. Perhaps if such stories are regarded as ancient "interpretations" of the real world or as "teaching stories" or as "parable", there would be no conflict."
 
And one can only wonder how its determined whether its science that is "misinterpreted" or the "holy-book".

"Perhaps there need not be any conflict between science and some forms of supernaturalism. For instance, a "creator god" could be proposed to have set the universe in motion and perhaps originated life on various planets - then retire or withdraw and not influence human or Earthly affairs. This proposed scenario would pose no conflict with nature and would not be inconsistent with science. However, some (many?) versions of religion insist that favored Gods interfere with human lives and perform supernatural feats - diametrically opposed to what we know of nature. Some maintain that human prayer can cause God to change the course of events. These claims ARE in conflict with science, and they conflict with reason when the claims and theories cannot be supported with consistent and coherent justification.

Examples include stories about dead bodies coming back to life after three days, donkeys and snakes conversing with humans, the Earth being flooded "to the tops of mountains", the earth ceasing rotation upon command, men obtaining strength from their hair, a man living inside a giant fish, etc are in direct opposition to the real world of nature and science (the study of nature).

Such religions promote a conflict with science and knowledge by insisting that ancient tales about "gods" and "miracles" are literally true. Perhaps if such stories are regarded as ancient "interpretations" of the real world or as "teaching stories" or as "parable", there would be no conflict."

It's simple math actually; Faith>Truth. :mrgreen:
 
It's simple math actually; Faith>Truth. :mrgreen:

You must utilize a framework of truth to demonstrate "simple math", which you have done. Your reasoning is self-defeating.

edit: As a side note: lets not assume that "faith>truth" makes any sense to begin with.
 
Last edited:
You must utilize a framework of truth to demonstrate "simple math", which you have done. Your reasoning is self-defeating.
The two are mutually exclusive, therefore, even as a Christian I will never try to philosophically or mathematically equate the two. In my book, Faith trumps truth (whatever framework you apply to it) every time. BTW, I love Purple People Eaters and Dragons (just thought I'd throw that in there since you bring it up in about 90% of your posts). :lol:
 
The two are mutually exclusive, therefore, even as a Christian I will never try to philosophically or mathematically equate the two. In my book, Faith trumps truth (whatever framework you apply to it) every time.
And what framework/reasoning/means/method/etc did you utilize to conclude that "Faith trumps truth"?

Faith offers no test to truth.
Faith offers no way to adjudicate between conflicting Faith claims.
Truth claims based on faith cannot be settled.

Faith is empty. Hollow. Here is why: Faith either makes a truth claim or it doesn't. If it does not make a truth claim then it is NOT a position in philosophy but merely a study in psychology. For where there is no truth claim, one has not entered the arena of truth.
 
Last edited:
You just can't let me get in the last word can you :lol:

Faith either makes a truth claim or it doesn't. If it does not make a truth claim then it is NOT a position in philosophy but merely a study in psychology. For where there is no truth claim, one has not entered the arena of truth.

Exactly! That is why I won't attempt to equate it to the truth. You're leaving out one important aspect however; for many, faith is not merely a study in psychology............it is an actual way of life. This is where the unfaithful fall short in their never-ending quest to discredit the faithful. We just don't have to apply the same truth parameters to give credit to what we believe. We simply believe. And darn it, it just makes me feel good. :mrgreen: BTW I really do like Dragons and Purple People Eaters.
 
And what framework/reasoning/means/method/etc did you utilize to conclude that "Faith trumps truth"?

Faith offers no test to truth.
Faith offers no way to adjudicate between conflicting Faith claims.
Truth claims based on faith cannot be settled.

Faith is empty. Hollow. Here is why: Faith either makes a truth claim or it doesn't. If it does not make a truth claim then it is NOT a position in philosophy but merely a study in psychology. For where there is no truth claim, one has not entered the arena of truth.

BTW Scourge, I just love reading you recent debates with refedjib, LOL. Unlike myself, he simply does not know when to give up the whole mystical consciousness/awareness angle. You seem to make him quite grumpy. Very entertaining :rofl:
 
You just can't let me get in the last word can you :lol:
I am inclined to point out the flaws in incoherent, fallacious, and/or inconsistent arguments.

Exactly! That is why I won't attempt to equate it to the truth.
So if you are not claiming a truth, or something real, then what are you claiming? Nonsense?

You're leaving out one important aspect however; for many, faith is not merely a study in psychology............it is an actual way of life.
OK. How does that make it true? How does that support the claim that faith based claims accurately reflect reality?

The inability to demonstrate or provide a test of truth for faith based claims makes them impotent. Faith in Allah, Zeus, Yahweh, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, or any of the thousands of other proposed Gods, many of which are contradictory, are all equally valid based on such poor standards of credulity. Faith offers no test to truth, it offers no way to adjudicate between conflicting faith claims, and faith claims cannot be settled.

Do you claim otherwise? Do you claim:
1) that "faith" offers a test to truth?
2) that "faith" offers a way to adjudicate between conflicting faith claims?
3) that truth claims based on faith can be settled?


This is where the unfaithful fall short in their never-ending quest to discredit the faithful. We just don't have to apply the same truth parameters to give credit to what we believe.
Please present your "truth parameters" so that we may verify that you are indeed using valid methods for establishing your beliefs.

And darn it, it just makes me feel good. :mrgreen:
Believing I have won the lottery, or that I am the smartest and sexiest, most wealthy man alive would make me feel good too! But I choose to live my life based on REALITY. By what is REAL. Not only do I find it much more practical and useful, its inevitably and demonstrably more rewarding.
 
1) Why should the genesis story be taken allegorically rather than literally?
2) By what means or method do you determine what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others allegorically?

The answer to that is simple: if it's going into "the world was made in seven days" and the "the serpent spoke" territory, it's an allegory.

Before modern biology, geology, cosmology, and astronomy, belief in the literal truth of the genesis account was not silly and far-fetched. Only in recent times when science has shown the blatant falsehood of such claims is it silly to believe in the literal truth of the Genesis account. Even today, we have people who continue to believe in the literal truth (or close to literal truth). Digsbe is one such person.

OK, I will not argue that. You asked what I thought of it and I gave you my answer. My discussion of the Bible and religious philosophy is something I keep confined to a purely academic conversation as I do not discuss my personal faith in detail with anyone on this message board anymore.

It might surprise you to know that even some Christians reject the notion that "faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths". Catholic doctrine rejects fideism because the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that God's existence can indeed be demonstrated by reason. Faith plays a part but they nonetheless recognize and concede that fideism offers no test to truth, that it offers no way to adjudicate between conflicting fideistic claims, that fideistic truth claims cannot be settled.

It does't surprise me at all being that I am catholic, myself. However, I think all that the Catechism does is provide a circular argument for justifying something that doesn't have to be justified. Faith doesn't need justification in the form of reason. It's faith...faith is devotion to and belief in what cannot be rationalized or understood.

Do you claim otherwise? Do you claim:
1) that "faith" offers a test to truth?
2) that "faith" offers a way to adjudicate between conflicting faith claims?
3) that truth claims based on faith can be settled?

Fideism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think fait is personal and I have no interest in the conflict between faiths. I don't think faith and science need to coordinate with one another nor do they negate one another. I think they are completely separate issues and are judged by completely separate standards. Anyone who tries to cross the two is doing so with an agenda to one or the other and not to truth.
 
The answer to that is simple: if it's going into "the world was made in seven days" and the "the serpent spoke" territory, it's an allegory.
You did not provide a method or reason which is what I was really looking for. I.E., why do you interpret it allegorically when it is claimed that a seprent spoke or that the world was made in seven days??

For example,
1) because it contradicts what science tells us?
2) because you feel it in your bones/heart.souls?
3) because you have faith (belief without need of or in spite of evidence) that its true?
4) ....

1) Why should the genesis story be taken allegorically rather than literally?
2) By what means or method do you determine what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others allegorically?


It does't surprise me at all being that I am catholic, myself. However, I think all that the Catechism does is provide a circular argument for justifying something that doesn't have to be justified. Faith doesn't need justification in the form of reason. It's faith...faith is devotion to and belief in what cannot be rationalized or understood.
If you cannot understand or rationalize it then how can it be held in your mind?

"the retreat to mystical and inexpressible experience is inadequate because it is both self-defeating to meaningfully describe the indescribable and impossible to recognize or distinguish it from anything else unless it is describable. In brief, no religious experience as such is either understandable or justifiable apart from some truth framework independent or separate from the experience itself. Experientalist is either meaningless, self-defeating, or begs the issue."
~ Christian Apologetics. Norman L. Geisler p81.

I think fait is personal and I have no interest in the conflict between faiths.
Then your claims have no integrity. Perhaps you should reconsider posting in a public debate forum where you make claims to truth and about reality if you are unwilling or unable to defend valid criticism of them?


I don't think faith and science need to coordinate with one another nor do they negate one another. I think they are completely separate issues and are judged by completely separate standards. Anyone who tries to cross the two is doing so with an agenda to one or the other and not to truth.

"Perhaps there need not be any conflict between science and some forms of supernaturalism. For instance, a "creator god" could be proposed to have set the universe in motion and perhaps originated life on various planets - then retire or withdraw and not influence human or Earthly affairs. This proposed scenario would pose no conflict with nature and would not be inconsistent with science. However, some (many?) versions of religion insist that favored Gods interfere with human lives and perform supernatural feats - diametrically opposed to what we know of nature. Some maintain that human prayer can cause God to change the course of events. These claims ARE in conflict with science, and they conflict with reason when the claims and theories cannot be supported with consistent and coherent justification.
 
Last edited:
Do you claim otherwise? Do you claim:
1) that "faith" offers a test to truth?
2) that "faith" offers a way to adjudicate between conflicting faith claims?
3) that truth claims based on faith can be settled?
No, I don't make any of these claims.


Please present your "truth parameters" so that we may verify that you are indeed using valid methods for establishing your beliefs.
I just got finished saying that the truly FAITHFUL have no need to apply any of these "truth parameters" to their beliefs. I realize that this is illogical and difficult to comprehend through your line of reasoning, but it's just so. There is no "logical" explanation for how Jesus fed thousands with a few fish and a couple loaves of bread, I simply BELIEVE he did it and can do it again. There are parts of my life to which I must/do apply logic, my FAITH just isn't one of them. You may never understand that the truly faithful really have no need nor desire to apply the "universal truth standards" of man to our faith. I know, I know, I may as well be worshipping the Almighty Unicorn Goddess or the Omnipotent Purple People Eater, yeah I get it, LOL.
Believing I have won the lottery, or that I am the smartest and sexiest, most wealthy man alive would make me feel good too! But I choose to live my life based on REALITY. By what is REAL. Not only do I find it much more practical and useful, its inevitably and demonstrably more rewarding
What is or is not rewarding is simply a matter of human perspective. Are you now arguing there is some universal law for what is "inevitably" rewarding for humans? Please. :roll:
 
Last edited:
You did not provide a method or reason which is what I was really looking for. I.E., why do you interpret it allegorically when it is claimed that a seprent spoke or that the world was made in seven days??

For example,
1) because it contradicts what science tells us?
2) because you feel it in your bones/heart.souls?
3) because you have faith (belief without need of or in spite of evidence) that its true?
4) ....

1) Why should the genesis story be taken allegorically rather than literally?
2) By what means or method do you determine what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others allegorically?

To any rational mind, it's a given that when the story says "the serpent spoke" that there was no literal speaking serpent but that the serpent is a symbol for something else. I'm not sure exactly what it is that you are asking in terms of method unless you consider analytical thinking to be a method in and of itself.

If you cannot understand or rationalize it then how can it be held in your mind?

It doesn't need to be rationalized to be understood. Faith is belief without reason. Fundamentals of faith do not require scientific data to prove or disprove said faith; only that you hold the belief.

"the retreat to mystical and inexpressible experience is inadequate because it is both self-defeating to meaningfully describe the indescribable and impossible to recognize or distinguish it from anything else unless it is describable. In brief, no religious experience as such is either understandable or justifiable apart from some truth framework independent or separate from the experience itself. Experientalist is either meaningless, self-defeating, or begs the issue."
~ Christian Apologetics. Norman L. Geisler p81.

And Mr. Geisler is entitled to said belief if he wishes. However, I disagree and feel that faith needs no experience or external framework as faith comes from within and is projected outward onto the world.


Then your claims have no integrity. Perhaps you should reconsider posting in a public debate forum where you make claims to truth and about reality if you are unwilling or unable to defend valid criticism of them?

And we're done here.
 
No, I don't make any of these claims.
You do not claim to offer a test to truth
-> you cannot make a valid claim to truth
You do not claim to offer a way to adjudicate between conflicting faith claims
-> your faith claims are indistinguishable from imagination and all manner of made-up claims, including demonstrably false ones..


There is no "logical" explanation for how Jesus fed thousands with a few fish and a couple loaves of bread, I simply BELIEVE he did it and can do it again.
The question is not just "WHAT do you believe" it is also "WHY do you believe it".

So far you have said you believe because you believe. A nonsensical statement. Is this your way of saying that you believe something WITHOUT reason?

There are parts of my life to which I must/do apply logic, my FAITH just isn't one of them.
If you cannot apply some type of reason or comprehension to what you believe then you have nonsensical beliefs, literally. Without providing a framework, means, or method for making sense of your beliefs then you cannot claim them as coherent, let alone valid.

If all you wish to do is present your beliefs, then you have done so. But if you think that your beliefs are somehow valid, true, or reasonable, then you are mistaken.


You may never understand that the truly faithful really have no need nor desire to apply the "universal truth standards" of man to our faith.
I don't request any "universal truth standard". I am requesting that you present ANY standard in which your beliefs are
1) coherent.
2) reasonable.

What is or is not rewarding is simply a matter of human perspective.
I agree. But what is undeniable is that human beliefs have NO causal influence on reality. That is, you cannot change what is real with your mind.
Are you now arguing there is some universal law for what is "inevitably" rewarding for humans? Please. :roll:
No. I do argue that certain perspectives are optimal and then I would demonstrate and provide reasoning WHY they are.
 
To any rational mind, it's a given that when the story says "the serpent spoke" that there was no literal speaking serpent but that the serpent is a symbol for something else.
Didn't you just agree with me that people did believe it literally hundreds of years prior? So apparently to some minds the speaking serpent and a 7-24hour day earth creation is not necessarily just a symbol or an allegory.

I'm not sure exactly what it is that you are asking in terms of method unless you consider analytical thinking to be a method in and of itself.
Method - a manner or mode of procedure, esp. an orderly, logical, or systematic way of instruction, inquiry, investigation, experiment, presentation, etc.: the empirical method of inquiry.

What procedure, logical, or systematic way of inquiry, investigation, experimentation do you use to determine what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others allegorically?



It doesn't need to be rationalized to be understood.
By what means or framework do you suppose one "understands" if it is not rational (irrational)?

Faith is belief without reason. Fundamentals of faith do not require scientific data to prove or disprove said faith; only that you hold the belief.
And why do you believe faith claims have any basis in what is true and/or what is real?


And Mr. Geisler is entitled to said belief if he wishes. However, I disagree and feel that faith needs no experience or external framework as faith comes from within and is projected outward onto the world.
Please JUSTIFY and EXPLAIN your reason for the claim: "faith needs no experience or external framework as faith comes from within and is projected outward onto the world."

Anyone can make a claim, but justifying and defending claims from valid criticism is what separates TRUE or PROBABLE claims from FALSE and UNLIKELY claims. Are you unable or unwilling to do such?

If you are unable then how is you claim distinguishable from a false claim or a purely made-up claim?
 
You do not claim to offer a test to truth
-> you cannot make a valid claim to truth
You do not claim to offer a way to adjudicate between conflicting faith claims
-> your faith claims are indistinguishable from imagination and all manner of made-up claims, including demonstrably false ones..



The question is not just "WHAT do you believe" it is also "WHY do you believe it".

So far you have said you believe because you believe. A nonsensical statement. Is this your way of saying that you believe something WITHOUT reason?

If you cannot apply some type of reason or comprehension to what you believe then you have nonsensical beliefs, literally. Without providing a framework, means, or method for making sense of your beliefs then you cannot claim them as coherent, let alone valid.

If all you wish to do is present your beliefs, then you have done so. But if you think that your beliefs are somehow valid, true, or reasonable, then you are mistaken.


I don't request any "universal truth standard". I am requesting that you present ANY standard in which your beliefs are
1) coherent.
2) reasonable.

I agree. But what is undeniable is that human beliefs have NO causal influence on reality. That is, you cannot change what is real with your mind.

No. I do argue that certain perspectives are optimal and then I would demonstrate and provide reasoning WHY they are.
You simply cannot accept that there are concepts (such as faith) which may lie outside your (and my) ability to comprehend. Through our arrogance, we've used our constructs of "logic" as an all-encompassing litmus test for what must be either true or false. We assume, that in this vast Universe all laws (including those which govern human logic and reasoning) MUST fit into OUR understanding, or we simply WILL NOT accept it. This line of thinking is arrogant, narrow-minded and dogmatic. Open you mind, stop thinking soley on an "earthly" scale. You "logical thinkers" are the ones bound by your "rules of logic and proof." Our minds are free to believe! :)
 
Didn't you just agree with me that people did believe it literally hundreds of years prior? So apparently to some minds the speaking serpent and a 7-24hour day earth creation is not necessarily just a symbol or an allegory.


Method - a manner or mode of procedure, esp. an orderly, logical, or systematic way of instruction, inquiry, investigation, experiment, presentation, etc.: the empirical method of inquiry.

What procedure, logical, or systematic way of inquiry, investigation, experimentation do you use to determine what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others allegorically?



By what means or framework do you suppose one "understands" if it is not rational (irrational)?

And why do you believe faith claims have any basis in what is true and/or what is real?


Please JUSTIFY and EXPLAIN your reason for the claim: "faith needs no experience or external framework as faith comes from within and is projected outward onto the world."

Anyone can make a claim, but justifying and defending claims from valid criticism is what separates TRUE or PROBABLE claims from FALSE and UNLIKELY claims. Are you unable or unwilling to do such?

If you are unable then how is you claim distinguishable from a false claim or a purely made-up claim?

Frankly, I am starting to find your obtuse questioning of givens a little boring. It doesn't matter that people hundreds of years ago took the Bible literally. In the example of the talking serpent, for instance: obviously no one witnessed a talking serpent because they clearly do not exist. However, in an effort to rationalize an emerging and necessary morality that rose from the shift from nomadic, isolated tribal lifestyles to a more social, settled interaction between groups of peoples who had to develop a means of harmonious interaction, the serpent was an acknowledgement of temptations and a focus and reason for the suffering of man. Whether people hundreds of years ago knew it or not, they created an allegory...a symbol for those things in life they could not explain and wove it into a myth that not only explained creation and the plight of man as a temporal and mortal creature but also emerged as a system of belief that unified society. They wove this imagery into the fabric of the collective concious and it has endured all the way to the modern era where we now know the serpent never spoke or even existed but can look at it as pure symbolism.

I don't know if we are talking past each other or if you are so agenda driven to dispel the importance of myth for whatever reason but I am finding your tone and disposition toward this conversation trite, boring, and less than genuine in pursuit of an academic discussion of what myth really means to modern man. Your consistent charge that my opinions and assertions are not founded in reason are, quite frankly, insulting and the number one reason why I usually don't bother to indulge these conversations with the typical atheist zealot.

Now we can hold this conversation as equal minds with differing opinions or you can continue your course of feigned superiority as a prosecutor of my thoughts on the matter. One will result in a mutual understanding of our differing stances and the other will result in a complete shutdown of discussion and void any productive discourse. That choice is yours now but know this before we proceed: I will not tolerate a condescending tone from here on.
 
Last edited:
This only works if christianity continues to hold the belief that it holds today. Not that God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, rather, God created the everything in 6 days. This belief, that christians hold today, come to find out, is not biblical. From Genesis 1:1-2 of the Masoretic Texts, translated literally.

1 In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth had been without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Tenses mean everything people. There are countless lessons to be learned from these passages but the important one is that when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE, it was just without form and void of all life(and apparently, water was already there, a deep ocean of water.)

Ancient Hebrew - as I understand it - had no past tense. the "now" was meant to distinguish order of time; the earth being formed after the universe.

...a conceivable obstacle to understanding qatal as referring to an event that would have already occurred within an imagined sequence of events is its co-occurrence with עתה ‘now.’ Doesn’t a present time-frame require a verb in the present? In point of fact, no. That’s why, in English, it is legitimate to say, “Now you’ve done it.” Or “Just now I saw his cards; we win!” Now” covers the immediate past and the immediate future, not just the present in the strict sense. A further example from BH narration:

אַף כִּי לוּא אָכֹל אָכַל הַיּוֹם הָעָם

מִשְּׁלַל אֹיְבָיו אֲשֶׁר מָצָא

כִּי עַתָּה לֹא־רָבְתָה מַכָּה בַּפְּלִשְׁתִּים

How much better if the troops had eaten today
from the spoil of their enemies that they found,
for the death toll among the Philistines would now have been greater. (1 Sam 14:30)...
 
Last edited:
You simply cannot accept that there are concepts (such as faith) which may lie outside your (and my) ability to comprehend.
If something is outside the human mind's ability to comprehend (comprehend - to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive) then how is it that you can describe or make any sense of it?

Through our arrogance, we've used our constructs of "logic" as an all-encompassing litmus test for what must be either true or false.
Logic and reason, like all things, are held tentatively. If you have some other means or method which can be verified or confirmed as reliable then please present it.

We assume, that in this vast Universe all laws (including those which govern human logic and reasoning) MUST fit into OUR understanding, or we simply WILL NOT accept it.
This is an incorrect view of science and philosophy. See above.

This line of thinking is arrogant, narrow-minded and dogmatic. Open you mind, stop thinking soley on an "earthly" scale. You "logical thinkers" are the ones bound by your "rules of logic and proof." Our minds are free to believe! :)
I am not bound by any such strawman. If you have some other method or means then PLEASE present it or demonstrate its reliability. I am open to anything if you can do such.

But you do not claim to be able to demonstrate or explain the veracity of this proposed other means or method. You only ASSERT that it works or is true. You expect others to believe it simply because you CLAIM its true. Perhaps those who are gullible or credulous to the claims of others may accept, but I require more than someone's "say-so" when they claim truth about existence and the world. Such claims are indistinguishable from thousands of other claims theories that fail for the same reason.
 
If something is outside the human mind's ability to comprehend (comprehend - to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive) then how is it that you can describe or make any sense of it?
I can describe it because of what I READ in God's Holy Word, and what I FEEL through interaction with others of my faith, and through God's divine intervention into my "spiritual life". Can I PROVE any of this using YOUR standards of proof based on a strictly "earthly" and "humanistic" logic? No. Do I need to justify my beliefs to others to make them "real enough" for me? LOL, no.

Logic and reason, like all things, are held tentatively. If you have some other means or method which can be verified or confirmed as reliable then please present it.
Why should I, I am happy in my beliefs and have no desire to PROVE the existence of my GOD to anyone else. You seem to be the one on a never-ending QUEST to disprove the existence of God or of gods, and to debunk religion. You also seem to have this need to PROVE to posters at DP that what makes religious folk happy, really shouldn't make them happy at all. :confused:



I am not bound by any such strawman. If you have some other method or means then PLEASE present it or demonstrate its reliability. I am open to anything if you can do such.
My method is FAITH....which is measured in how strongly one believes in a particular outcome EVEN if can't be proven logically or scientifically. :)

But you do not claim to be able to demonstrate or explain the veracity of this proposed other means or method. You only ASSERT that it works or is true. .
I only claimed that it WORKS for me, spiritually, not that it works in your logical sequencing. I HAVE NEVER ONCE asserted that my beliefs are TRUE based on YOUR requirements. This is your ad hominem.

You expect others to believe it simply because you CLAIM its true.
I did not make that claim, you must be confusing me with someone else :lol: For some reason, you are motivated by the assumption that all people of Faith (Christians mostly) are out to PROVE to the rest of the World that their beliefs are infallible based on scientific reasoning. I don't know why, but you just can't seem to accept that even educated people, may just have some part of their life that they "turn over" to faith in the unknown and unproveable. Throughout my research in History (mostly of the American variety) I am bound by such limitations. In order to be reputable, I MUST adhere to the "laws" of logical reasoning and apply strict credibility standards to my sources. My religion, on the other hand, is like a breath of fresh air, as my spirituality is not bound by these "earthly standards." In economic terms, this produces a zero-sum gain for me. These two aspects of my life, balance each other, and I'm happy with the "non-sensical" side (as you put it). I wish you luck in your unending quest to discredit the faithful. Perhaps some day you may find harmony in your life and not see the need to discredit others in order to substantiate your own perspectives. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Evolution is goofy :) If one believes the premise that God is almighty then why would anything be strange for Him? Truth is, is that the cosmos point to a creator and a young beginning.

Only if you ignore all the physical laws and accept that God is the supreme deceiver, yes.
 
It doesn't matter that people hundreds of years ago took the Bible literally.
Yet you admitted that some people did and STILL do take some or all of it literally. So apparently it DOES matter. Granted, perhaps not for your personal beliefs.

In the example of the talking serpent, for instance: obviously no one witnessed a talking serpent because they clearly do not exist.
Once again you cannot or will not provide a means or method for distinguishing what should be taken literally versus figuratively within the Bible. You give an EXAMPLE but not a method or means.

Perhaps you can elaborate on why it is OBVIOUS to you that serpents don't talk, but a man:
1) healing by touch
2) magically turning water into wine
3) returning to life after 3 days in the grave
4) flying into the sky

is not OBVIOUSLY literally true as well? If you do NOT believe a man LITERALLY did these things then I apologize in advance for presuming such.

However, in an effort to rationalize an emerging and necessary morality that rose from the shift from nomadic, isolated tribal lifestyles to a more social, settled interaction between groups of peoples who had to develop a means of harmonious interaction, the serpent was an acknowledgement of temptations and a focus and reason for the suffering of man. Whether people hundreds of years ago knew it or not, they created an allegory...a symbol for those things in life they could not explain and wove it into a myth that not only explained creation and the plight of man as a temporal and mortal creature but also emerged as a system of belief that unified society.
That is but one interpretation of the tale. Are aware that there are many more?

There are also many more plausible ideas on how the tale originally emerged.

I don't bother myself with trying to speculate on such things. I merely wish to evaluate whether such claims are true or false, likely or unlikely. We seem to be in agreement that talking serpents, magical gardens, and trees of knowledge do not exist, among other things.

I don't know if we are talking past each other or if you are so agenda driven to dispel the importance of myth for whatever reason but I am finding your tone and disposition toward this conversation trite, boring, and less than genuine in pursuit of an academic discussion of what myth really means to modern man.
A guess we are talking past each other. My contention isn't whether or not some "moral lesson" can be derived from the tale ( I agree that 1 or more can) but whether such things as magical fruit, talking serpents, walking on water, parting seas, healing by touch, rising from the dead, heaven and hell, and Gods are real or whether they are not real.

There are only two choices: such things either exist in reality or they don't.

You seem to reject tales of talking serpents and magical gardens as literally true on grounds of "obviousness" yet you remain ominously silent on tales of magic healing, rising from the dead, water magically turning into wine, etc.

Your consistent charge that my opinions and assertions are not founded in reason are, quite frankly, insulting and the number one reason why I usually don't bother to indulge these conversations with the typical atheist zealot.
Where have I claimed your opinions and assertions and not founded in reason?

I have repeatedly asked you to PROVIDE reasoning or an explanation and have been met with nothing but silence, excuses, and red-herring ad-hom accusations such as your response above.

Re-read my last post and you will plainly see that I am inquiring and debating, not insulting or making ad-hominems.

Please identify which of the following you find "insulting"? If you don't find one insulting then perhaps you can provide an answer to the question this time around:
1) "What procedure, logical, or systematic way of inquiry, investigation, experimentation do you use to determine what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others allegorically?"
2)"By what means or framework do you suppose one "understands" if it is not rational (irrational)? "
3) "Why do you believe faith claims have any basis in what is true and/or what is real?"
4) "Please JUSTIFY and EXPLAIN your reason for the claim: "faith needs no experience or external framework as faith comes from within and is projected outward onto the world."
5) "Anyone can make a claim, but justifying and defending claims from valid criticism is what separates TRUE or PROBABLE claims from FALSE and UNLIKELY claims. Are you unable or unwilling to do such?If you are unable then how is you claim distinguishable from a false claim or a purely made-up claim?"

Now we can hold this conversation as equal minds with differing opinions
There is such thing as truth in this world and as such the notion that we merely have "different opinions" is bunk. Either one or both of us is wrong when it comes to claims to truth. I see no reason to "pretend" that we merely are looking at different sides of the same coin when we are clearly not.

or you can continue your course of feigned superiority as a prosecutor of my thoughts on the matter.
If you present your thoughts on a matter (as you have done) and I disagree with your reasoning (as I do) do you honestly believe I have no place stating my disagreement and my reasoning for disagreement? This is a debate forum!


One will result in a mutual understanding of our differing stances and the other will result in a complete shutdown of discussion and void any productive discourse. That choice is yours now but know this before we proceed: I will not tolerate a condescending tone from here on.
If you will look back at my posts to you, I am NOT insulting, condescending, or offensive. Please directly quote, in context, where you believe I have been.

Many theists appear to be accustomed to “preaching to the choir” – telling their story in a “Christian friendly” environment where they will not be asked to substantiate claims or stories with anything other than personal emotions and bible quotes. It is very difficult for some such people from such environments to engage in debate when their pronouncements are opposed by reasoned and critical non-religious views – and when they encounter searching questions about tales told and claims made. Some feel that such challenges and probing questions are condescending, insulting, and offensive.

Perhaps this does not describe you but it is something I have encountered before.
 
scourge99 said:
Fluffyninja said:
You simply cannot accept that there are concepts (such as faith) which may lie outside your (and my) ability to comprehend.
If something is outside the human mind's ability to comprehend (comprehend - to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive) then how is it that you can describe or make any sense of it?
I can describe it because of what I READ in God's Holy Word, and what I FEEL through interaction with others of my faith, and through God's divine intervention into my "spiritual life".
You can't claim something is incomprehensible then go on to describe it as anything more than incomprehensible! That is a blatant contradiction. See above in red.

With that said, it appears that you believe "faith" can be comprehended. Specifically, by "what you READ in God's Holy Word, and what you FEEL through interaction with others of your faith, and through God's divine intervention into your "spiritual life". "

Please explain how these things describe "faith". You made the claims now please back them up with more than assertions.

Can I PROVE any of this using YOUR standards of proof based on a strictly "earthly" and "humanistic" logic? No.
I have already told you that I will evaluate your claims on whatever means or method you propose as long as you present this means or method clearly and unambiguously.

Logic and reason, like all things, are held tentatively. If you have some other means or method which can be verified or confirmed as reliable then please present it. Otherwise, please stop discrediting yourself by making claims you are unwilling or unable or backup.

Do I need to justify my beliefs to others to make them "real enough" for me? LOL, no. Why should I, I am happy in my beliefs and have no desire to PROVE the existence of my GOD to anyone else.
I agree. You can believe whatever you want. But if you insist on publicly proclaiming and preaching that your beliefs are true in a debate forum, then you shouldn't be surprised if others such as myself disagree and point out flaws and frailties in your claims.

You seem to be the one on a never-ending QUEST to disprove the existence of God or of gods, and to debunk religion.
This is a DEBATE FORUM. Your participation is voluntary. Why is it that you are surprised when others question and object to unsubstantiated assertions in such a place?

"Most Traditional Theists appear to be accustomed to “preaching to the choir” – telling their stories in a “Christian friendly” environment where they will not be asked to substantiate claims or stories with anything other than personal emotions and bible quotes.

It must be very difficult for people from non-challenging environments to engage in debate when their pronouncements are opposed by reasoned and critical non-religious views – and when they encounter searching questions about tales told and claims made.

Many appear to have never thought to question water magically turning into wine or dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave – if that is what they have been taught to accept (particularly if since before they developed discernment and judgment).

Modern or Liberal Theists appear to have reconciled their beliefs with reality – and make few, if any, claims that they possess special knowledge or understanding of supernatural creatures or events. That attitude is not well accepted by more traditional Christians (or Theists of other persuasions).

Evidently the mere thought that some bible tales may not be literally true sends shock waves through the belief system of traditionalists. If Mary wasn’t actually a virgin (and there is no evidence that she was beyond a story), then maybe Jesus didn’t walk on water or come back to life. Oh my, that might indicate that Jesus wasn’t “divine”, was not THE “son of god” (only perhaps "A" son of god – which could be claimed for anyone).

When one’s basic beliefs are questioned, they often feel compelled to defend with whatever is at hand. In debate such efforts are often transparent and are easily defeated unless they can be supported by evidence (other than the source being supported). "


You also seem to have this need to PROVE to posters at DP that what makes religious folk happy, really shouldn't make them happy at all. :confused:
For some reason, you are motivated by the assumption that all people of Faith (Christians mostly) are out to PROVE to the rest of the World that their beliefs are infallible based on scientific reasoning.
I wish you luck in your unending quest to discredit the faithful. Perhaps some day you may find harmony in your life and not see the need to discredit others in order to substantiate your own perspectives. :mrgreen:
Unless a person claims to be omniscient (or at least a mind reader), they CANNOT know the thoughts of another. Claiming to do so ruins credibility.

In Internet debate, credibility is critically important since there is so little else to go on. Squandering credibility by claiming the ability to see into the minds of others may not be the best tactic. But, to each their own.


My method is FAITH....which is measured in how strongly one believes in a particular outcome EVEN if can't be proven logically or scientifically. :)
Yes, you have said this. And I have responded.

You do not claim to offer a test to truth
-> you cannot make a valid claim to truth
You do not claim to offer a way to adjudicate between conflicting faith claims
-> your faith claims are indistinguishable from imagination and all manner of made-up claims, including demonstrably false ones.

If you cannot apply some type of reason or comprehension to what you believe then you have nonsensical beliefs, literally. Without providing a framework, means, or method for making sense of your beliefs then you cannot claim them as coherent, let alone valid.

If all you wish to do is present your beliefs, then you have done so. But if you think that your beliefs are somehow valid, true, or reasonable, in ANY proposed framework then you are mistaken.

I only claimed that it WORKS for me, spiritually, not that it works in your logical sequencing.
What does that even mean? "it works for me spiritually".

I HAVE NEVER ONCE asserted that my beliefs are TRUE based on YOUR requirements. This is your ad hominem.
1) I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is
2) You are unable or unwilling to demonstrate that you beliefs are true under ANY framework or using any means or method.

This whole debate you have presented NOTHING but assertions and conjecture. Such claims are empty, hollow, and worthless in debate. They are indistinguishable from pure imagination.

you just can't seem to accept that even educated people, may just have some part of their life that they "turn over" to faith in the unknown and unproveable.
On the contrary, I very well accept that MANY people do believe such things. Does the acknowledgment that people do believe such things make their beliefs true, rational, reasonable, coherent, or sensible on ANY level? No.
 
Yet you admitted that some people did and STILL do take some or all of it literally. So apparently it DOES matter. Granted, perhaps not for your personal beliefs.


Once again you cannot or will not provide a means or method for distinguishing what should be taken literally versus figuratively within the Bible. You give an EXAMPLE but not a method or means.

Perhaps you can elaborate on why it is OBVIOUS to you that serpents don't talk, but a man:
1) healing by touch
2) magically turning water into wine
3) returning to life after 3 days in the grave
4) flying into the sky

is not OBVIOUSLY literally true as well? If you do NOT believe a man LITERALLY did these things then I apologize in advance for presuming such.

That is but one interpretation of the tale. Are aware that there are many more?

There are also many more plausible ideas on how the tale originally emerged.

I don't bother myself with trying to speculate on such things. I merely wish to evaluate whether such claims are true or false, likely or unlikely. We seem to be in agreement that talking serpents, magical gardens, and trees of knowledge do not exist, among other things.


A guess we are talking past each other. My contention isn't whether or not some "moral lesson" can be derived from the tale ( I agree that 1 or more can) but whether such things as magical fruit, talking serpents, walking on water, parting seas, healing by touch, rising from the dead, heaven and hell, and Gods are real or whether they are not real.

There are only two choices: such things either exist in reality or they don't.

You seem to reject tales of talking serpents and magical gardens as literally true on grounds of "obviousness" yet you remain ominously silent on tales of magic healing, rising from the dead, water magically turning into wine, etc.

Where have I claimed your opinions and assertions and not founded in reason?

I have repeatedly asked you to PROVIDE reasoning or an explanation and have been met with nothing but silence, excuses, and red-herring ad-hom accusations such as your response above.

Re-read my last post and you will plainly see that I am inquiring and debating, not insulting or making ad-hominems.

Please identify which of the following you find "insulting"? If you don't find one insulting then perhaps you can provide an answer to the question this time around:
1) "What procedure, logical, or systematic way of inquiry, investigation, experimentation do you use to determine what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others allegorically?"
2)"By what means or framework do you suppose one "understands" if it is not rational (irrational)? "
3) "Why do you believe faith claims have any basis in what is true and/or what is real?"
4) "Please JUSTIFY and EXPLAIN your reason for the claim: "faith needs no experience or external framework as faith comes from within and is projected outward onto the world."
5) "Anyone can make a claim, but justifying and defending claims from valid criticism is what separates TRUE or PROBABLE claims from FALSE and UNLIKELY claims. Are you unable or unwilling to do such?If you are unable then how is you claim distinguishable from a false claim or a purely made-up claim?"

There is such thing as truth in this world and as such the notion that we merely have "different opinions" is bunk. Either one or both of us is wrong when it comes to claims to truth. I see no reason to "pretend" that we merely are looking at different sides of the same coin when we are clearly not.


If you present your thoughts on a matter (as you have done) and I disagree with your reasoning (as I do) do you honestly believe I have no place stating my disagreement and my reasoning for disagreement? This is a debate forum!



If you will look back at my posts to you, I am NOT insulting, condescending, or offensive. Please directly quote, in context, where you believe I have been.

Many theists appear to be accustomed to “preaching to the choir” – telling their story in a “Christian friendly” environment where they will not be asked to substantiate claims or stories with anything other than personal emotions and bible quotes. It is very difficult for some such people from such environments to engage in debate when their pronouncements are opposed by reasoned and critical non-religious views – and when they encounter searching questions about tales told and claims made. Some feel that such challenges and probing questions are condescending, insulting, and offensive.

Perhaps this does not describe you but it is something I have encountered before.

I am only going to say this and then I am done with the condescension which is there whether you realize it or not: if it can be verified through other, independent accounts (for instance, histories of certain wars, the fact that there was definitely a census by Rome which is mentioned at the onset of the new testament, etc) then you can take it as fact. If it's about talking serpents and pillars of fire and seas parting in half to make a path for people, then you can take it as allegory or some fantastical embellishment.

But you already knew this was what I was saying.

We're done.
 
So the lesson is, the world as we know it was created in 6 days, doesn't necessarily mean the earth, this rock we stand on in the solar system, was created in 6 days.


explain the dinosaurs. the Great Flood that killed everyone but Noah. That many Xians think Earth is about 6000-10000 years old. And that Noah put EVERY freakin animal on his boat.... and where were the dinosaurs if so?

And explain this Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered / Final Edition
 
explain the dinosaurs. the Great Flood that killed everyone but Noah. That many Xians think Earth is about 6000-10000 years old. And that Noah put EVERY freakin animal on his boat.... and where were the dinosaurs if so?

And explain this Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered / Final Edition

i can't speak to young-earthism; but i watched zeitgeist; and the 'astrological' / 'copy-cat' explanations of Christianity that they tried to offer would be hilarious... if these people weren't actually serious.
 
Back
Top Bottom