Χά�ων Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 When someone is a broken record on this forum about a particular subject (and often in a very rude and confrontational manner), is it any wonder when people see a post and think the record is playing the same old tiresome tune? You are aware that this comes across as rude, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 You are aware that this comes across as rude, right? Not to mention smack a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamzanne Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Is the earth cooling? Is the epidermis living? Is the elf on the shelf real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Okay, you got a smile out of me with that quote but I have to admit, I get a little irked when someone arguing for logic and evidence scripture quotes in that way. There is now and has been for some time a healthy secular community of biblical scholars that has established methods and systems for looking at the bible.Not a one would likely agree that pulling a line of scripture out as you did is odd any value. It's rather like pointing to one vague relief on a Cambodian temple and claiming that somehow says something about when the dinosaurs walked the earth, no? No. ;) First, to offer any lengthy theological argument would be a waste of time because, as Queen Goddess pointed out upthread just a bit, the No True Scotsman fallacy is quickly used to dismiss it. Besides, how could I, an admitted atheist, understand scripture when the holy spirit helps one interpret it? No doubt my past years of believing very genuinely would count as nothing because either I misunderstood (which is why I am where I am now), or else I never had the benefit of the holy spirit in the first place and I only convinced myself scripture means what it means. In any case, pulling one line or one long, detailed argument would make no difference in the end. I've learned this the hard way, but if you'd like, I'll offer a more detailed argument. In any case, this one verse is an elegant summary, which is why I chose it. The things the Christians believe are understood through faith, and one without faith cannot be expected to understand it. The one without faith will think the faithful's belief is "foolishness." That seems awfully straight forward, but I would be interested in hearing an alternative reading of it. Is it really so unexpected that nonbelievers aren't going to believe the fantastic claims of the believers? Is it then "rude" to say this out loud? Is it "rude" to make a statement that does not conform to another's personal beliefs? I get that waaaay too many Christians do just that and it scouts a good ironic point but if we're arguing from position of logic and evidence shouldn't we always be careful to demonstrate that in every context? As with the fossil record and the temple relief, so with the ancient documents that the bible represents? There is no biblical evidence among anyone but a select community of those who propose YEC, and when, like AiG, they state upfront that the accept the the bible as having the ultimate authority in understanding the natural and supernatural world, they have abdicated their claim to be arguing logically and rationally. They instead confess to be arguing theologically. Theological arguments are simply irrelevant when looking for, and analyzing evidence. And now that I'm at the end of this response I realize I'm asking myself these questions as well as you because I've done exactly the same thing as you did and I don't challenge Christians on scripture quoting enough. I'll have to think about this myself. Well, I'm not sure how to avoid this. I mean, scripture, personal experience, and history are the three things that can claim authority on the matters of the Christian religion. Personal experience is difficult in a discussion of two or more believers because their experiences will be different, and their subjective interpretations will result in subjective, and oftentimes opposing conclusions. There's no continuity to work with. History is a little more helpful, but historical traditions vary, and, just like scripture, is dismissed when it doesn't conform to one's own personal beliefs. That No True Scotsman comes into play here as well. But the bible is the most convenient of all three sources of authority. It's something that everyone can see, there's no need to trust me or another to be telling a true thing that cannot be confirmed. So that's why I use it, and that's why other Christians use it. Go ahead and challenge them, though, but I think you'll find your conversations look eerily similar after a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 When someone is a broken record on this forum about a particular subject (and often in a very rude and confrontational manner), is it any wonder when people see a post and think the record is playing the same old tiresome tune? If you look around, you'll find many posters engage in certain topics they find personally interesting. Some engage in topics of grammar, some engage in topics of biology, some engage in topics of teaching foundations of math, some engage in topics of Benedict Cumberbatch. My topic of interest is interesting to me, so no, not a "broken record." Perhaps it says more about you and your personal response to the questions I raise or comments I make. I don't intend any bait and switch here, I don't intend to try and change anyone's beliefs, I don't intend to point out the hypocrisy (well I didn't, I just did point it out though, so I messed that one up). I intend only to ask a question that is a legitimate follow up here. If it makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you ignore it and move on. If I make you uncomfortable, you might enjoy the "ignore" feature on the forum. If you'd like to answer the question, you'd be the first and I would be interested in your opinion. If you want to simply buzz around my posts like a mosquito, I'll call you out on it each and every time. If you have a problem with me personally or something I say or do, I invite you to PM me. I won't bite, I promise, and we can leave this awkward personal stuff out of the public conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Library Momma Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I will accept that David Bowie may sparkle but not vampires. I will accept that mermaids likely "glisten" since they are probably wet. I am not sure about sparkly. Honestly people, the only creature mentioned in this thread that is not sparkly is Bigfoot. Now the real question is how long have they been sparkly for? 4,000 years or longer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Honestly people, the only creature mentioned in this thread that is not sparkly is Bigfoot. Now the real question is how long have they been sparkly for? 4,000 years or longer... Longer because humans are actually across between alien DNA and bigfoots. We were created to be slaves to an alien race! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Library Momma Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Longer because humans are actually across between alien DNA and bigfoots. We were created to be slaves to an alien race! Wow! I didn't think someone would come up with the correct answer so quickly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Wow! I didn't think someone would come up with the correct answer so quickly! I am a wealth of knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Longer because humans are actually across between alien DNA and bigfoots. We were created to be slaves to an alien race! I'm so confused. I thought we were a cross between chimpanzees and pigs (and I only wish I were making that conjecture up). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I'm so confused. I thought we were a cross between chimpanzees and pigs (and I only wish I were making that conjecture up). Oh dear! Who has been feeding you such lies?! The ancient Sumerians extensively documented how aliens (they called them 'gods') created humans in a genetic laboratory. When I get back to my computer I will add links and lectures to support this fact of human evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 No, no, no! We're a cross between humanoid aliens and the cyborgs they created and then went to war with, after they made peace and took over this planet from the neanderthals because they blew up all their own planets. Didn't you people watch BSG? It was a very thorough documentary! To actually answer albeto's question, while I tend to be a smile and nod, entitled to their own opinion kind of person with random people I meet who hold what seem to me to be foolish beliefs, I would definitely not be comfortable with someone holding office if they held such beliefs, nor would I want them in any sort of decision making position over things that could affect my life. For example, I would not be okay with someone who thinks dino bones are fake being in charge of a science institute. Fortunately that is very unlikely to happen anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 A little known fact is that Ms. Frizzle is really just the devil incarnate herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alef Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Wait a minute, am I really the only one on this forum who truly believes the world is flat?!? And here I thought this was a divers group. Now y'all are going to tell me that no-one else believes that aliens are controlling the UN either. (And yes, of course the aliens are from another flat world. Not all of us flat-worlders disbelieve in space travel, ya know...) I may just have to find a different place to hang out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 A little known fact is that Ms. Frizzle is really just the devil incarnate herself. She does hang with a sentient lizard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Slightly off topic-if there are posters who regularly get under your skin, then it might time to consider use of the ignore function. It can really make things more pleasant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 No way. I love Ms. Frizzle. No way she is the devil. Church Lady does not approve. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Is the Edinburgh panda pregnant? Back to the important questions here, please! Don't leave us hanging! Is she? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Back to the important questions here, please! Don't leave us hanging! Is she? And is an Edinburgh panda plaid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 No. ;) First, to offer any lengthy theological argument would be a waste of time because, as Queen Goddess pointed out upthread just a bit, the No True Scotsman fallacy is quickly used to dismiss it. Besides, how could I, an admitted atheist, understand scripture when the holy spirit helps one interpret it? No doubt my past years of believing very genuinely would count as nothing because either I misunderstood (which is why I am where I am now), or else I never had the benefit of the holy spirit in the first place and I only convinced myself scripture means what it means. In any case, pulling one line or one long, detailed argument would make no difference in the end. I've learned this the hard way, but if you'd like, I'll offer a more detailed argument. In any case, this one verse is an elegant summary, which is why I chose it. The things the Christians believe are understood through faith, and one without faith cannot be expected to understand it. The one without faith will think the faithful's belief is "foolishness." That seems awfully straight forward, but I would be interested in hearing an alternative reading of it. Is it really so unexpected that nonbelievers aren't going to believe the fantastic claims of the believers? Is it then "rude" to say this out loud? Is it "rude" to make a statement that does not conform to another's personal beliefs? I agree that a theological argument would be a waste of time. As you said, you're atheist so why would you be interested in the study of God?But there are a lot of biblical scholars who are atheists because scripture can be studied apart from faith with tools like textual and historical criticism. Heck, I spent a few years on the old Internet Infidels forum because there were some excellent scholars there who didn't have a whit of faith but were passionate biblical scholars. I'm not expecting a theological argument from you or some pseudo-Christian take on it. I'm expecting a secular reading and approach and there are established methods of evaluating scripture in a secular manner. I'm not swayed by the, "but people will say this if I say that." It seems thin and an excellent way to avoid conversations that might not go down that route. I won't address the rude bit because it wasn't a claim I made or one I support. My concern was in the manner you used the quote in the context of an argument about science and evolution. The epistles were letters to church communities on matters regarding living in and of the church in a culture where the Christians were the definite oddballs. They have a context that we can appreciate through different methods of criticism and the context was most definitely not regarding dismissing the arguments of those in matters of science who's views are informed by the evidence of science. The quote was not a from an epistle that granted all Christians the freedom to regard as fools anyone who disagreed with them on anything. And you don't need faith or the holy spirit to discern that, just a bit of grounding in sound biblical criticism. The atheist Bart Ehrman is a gentle start for that kind of thing. There is no biblical evidence among anyone but a select community of those who propose YEC, and when, like AiG, they state upfront that the accept the the bible as having the ultimate authority in understanding the natural and supernatural world, they have abdicated their claim to be arguing logically and rationally. They instead confess to be arguing theologically. Theological arguments are simply irrelevant when looking for, and analyzing evidence. I agree. Completely. I'm not sure what you think I meant. Well, I'm not sure how to avoid this. I mean, scripture, personal experience, and history are the three things that can claim authority on the matters of the Christian religion. You're a former Catholic right? But that sounds so protestant. :D Where's the church and wider Christian community in that lineup? Personal experience is difficult in a discussion of two or more believers because their experiences will be different, and their subjective interpretations will result in subjective, and oftentimes opposing conclusions. There's no continuity to work with. History is a little more helpful, but historical traditions vary, and, just like scripture, is dismissed when it doesn't conform to one's own personal beliefs. That No True Scotsman comes into play here as well. But the bible is the most convenient of all three sources of authority. It's something that everyone can see, there's no need to trust me or another to be telling a true thing that cannot be confirmed. So that's why I use it, and that's why other Christians use it. Go ahead and challenge them, though, but I think you'll find your conversations look eerily similar after a while. I've had lots of those conversations. I don't really know about claiming authority. Christians have been arguing about what makes a Christian a Christian since before there was scripture. I just don't see the attraction of playing the lazy game of cherry picking scripture, especially when one is concerned with approaching matters from a position of logic and reason and there is a way to approach scripture as a non-believer, if you want to, that is logical and reasonable. Why insist on an approach in one sphere if you abandon it in another? I get the argument that well, lots of Christians abandon it but well, you ain't Christian. That's their problem. As I mentioned before, Bart Ehrman is a start. The Internet Infidels forum is sadly gone though. I haven't seen another forum, atheist or otherwise that had so many well educated bible buffs. :( ETA: I hope this makes sense? I'm sneaking this post when I told my husband I was studying for a course. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 dp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I agree that a theological argument would be a waste of time. As you said, you're atheist so why would you be interested in the study of God? Well, when I was a Christian, I studied a lot. I haven't forgotten what I've learned, and actually learned a lot more since rejecting my faith. Anyway, it's of interest because most of my country is convinced this book is not only a valid explanation of the natural world, but a credible source for morality and ethics. These things affect me, they affect my children. They affect my community. But there are a lot of biblical scholars who are atheists because scripture can be studied apart from faith with tools like textual and historical criticism. Heck, I spent a few years on the old Internet Infidels forum because there were some excellent scholars there who didn't have a whit of faith but were passionate biblical scholars. I'm not expecting a theological argument from you or some pseudo-Christian take on it. I'm expecting a secular reading and approach and there are established methods of evaluating scripture in a secular manner. I'm sure we agree here. None of these scholars agree with the argument that dinosaurs actually lived with people, or even that the bible makes such a claim, as the bible was written long before such creatures' existence was exposed. I'm not swayed by the, "but people will say this if I say that." It seems thin and an excellent way to avoid conversations that might not go down that route. I'm not sure if you're referring to something I said here, or if I'm misunderstanding your comment. I won't address the rude bit because it wasn't a claim I made or one I support. My concern was in the manner you used the quote in the context of an argument about science and evolution. The epistles were letters to church communities on matters regarding living in and of the church in a culture where the Christians were the definite oddballs. They have a context that we can appreciate through different methods of criticism and the context was most definitely not regarding dismissing the arguments of those in matters of science who's views are informed by the evidence of science. The quote was not a from an epistle that granted all Christians the freedom to regard as fools anyone who disagreed with them on anything. And you don't need faith or the holy spirit to discern that, just a bit of grounding in sound biblical criticism. The atheist Bart Ehrman is a gentle start for that kind of thing. So the bible can't be quoted to refer to issues that affect us today? I'm not sure what you mean. Surely most people would consider belief in a flat earth to be an "oddball" belief. This comes as no surprise. It should come as no surprise to find nonchristians consider an earth younger than the Sumerian civilization to be an "oddball" belief as well. Certainly a Christian ought to be aware of this, and not take it personally, right? I agree. Completely. I'm not sure what you think I meant. In context of the comment that too many Christians pull out verses from the bible and use them as single points of argument, but if we're arguing from position of logic and evidence we should always be careful to demonstrate that logic and evidence in every context. I just meant that the comment tagged as "rude" wasn't rude simply because it's referencing the lack of arguing from a position of logic and evidence. But yeah, it sounds like we're agreeing, lol. You're a former Catholic right? But that sounds so protestant. :D Where's the church and wider Christian community in that lineup? I've since learned a broad range of Christian theologies. ;) The church and the wider Christian community in this line up is identified by the True Scotsman who is defending his/her personal beliefs. I've had lots of those conversations. I don't really know about claiming authority. Christians have been arguing about what makes a Christian a Christian since before there was scripture. I just don't see the attraction of playing the lazy game of cherry picking scripture, That may be a part of your tradition and experience, but this notion has not only been accepted as being of utmost importance, it has launched battles and wars for centuries. On a more peaceful note, it's inspired denominations to formally declare divorce from itself for centuries. Currently, it's the kind of thing that inspires rationalization for preventing progressive public policies. You may find it a lazy game, but for others, it's worth killing and dying for. A thread about women's health centers and the need for security is an example of this. I think I understand your point though, in that between us, it's really not necessary. especially when one is concerned with approaching matters from a position of logic and reason and there is a way to approach scripture as a non-believer, if you want to, that is logical and reasonable. Why insist on an approach in one sphere if you abandon it in another? I get the argument that well, lots of Christians abandon it but well, you ain't Christian. That's their problem. I think I lost you here. Where is the approach to scripture utilizing logic, reason, and evidence with regard to dinosaurs living with humans? As I mentioned before, Bart Ehrman is a start. The Internet Infidels forum is sadly gone though. I haven't seen another forum, atheist or otherwise that had so many well educated bible buffs. :( I am familiar with all this, and agree the Infidels site is a great resource to start. I have little confidence in Ehrman, however, which is neither here nor there. ETA: I hope this makes sense? I'm sneaking this post when I told my husband I was studying for a course. :D It does. :) And thanks as always for an interesting and pleasant dialog, and I hope you kick ass with that studying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 So the bible can't be quoted to refer to issues that affect us today? I'm not sure what you mean. Surely most people would consider belief in a flat earth to be an "oddball" belief. This comes as no surprise. It should come as no surprise to find nonchristians consider an earth younger than the Sumerian civilization to be an "oddball" belief as well. Certainly a Christian ought to be aware of this, and not take it personally, right? I think this is just sloppy wording on your part, but there are lots of self-identifying Christians who don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFaerie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Okay, nobody has found the south pole for me yet, but I have another question anyway. If the Earth is flat, does that mean we can drill through it an actually get to the other side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFaerie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Of course! Don't you know that digging a hole is how you get to China ? Wait a minute....I liked your post too fast. China is on the same side of the flat Earth as the US and the rest of us. It is therefore quite impossible to dig through to China. So where would we come out if we did through to the other side? I'm picturing a poor worker pulling that last shovelful and suddenly falling down and into space (no gravity, after all; LOL). And now we'll all have to be careful not to fall into the hole lest we, too, fall through the Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Wait a minute....I liked your post too fast. China is on the same side of the flat Earth as the US and the rest of us. It is therefore quite impossible to dig through to China. So where would we come out if we did through to the other side? I'm picturing a poor worker pulling that last shovelful and suddenly falling down and into space (no gravity, after all; LOL). And now we'll all have to be careful not to fall into the hole lest we, too, fall through the Earth. Wouldn't you land on the giant tortoise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Australia ? I am sending DS out with a shovel now! We can have a party when he is done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 From Albeto, "I think I lost you here. Where is the approach to scripture utilizing logic, reason, and evidence with regard to dinosaurs living with humans?" (On my phone and writing properly is horrid with this) There is none. I meant that in terms of your use of worrying. Sorry! " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Ohhhh, wait. So flat earth people believe everything is on one side? What do they think happens when we reach the end of the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Ohhhh, wait. So flat earth people believe everything is on one side? It seems to depend upon the school of thought. Some think everything is on one side, and that gravity is caused by the planet continuously accelerating upwards. Other people believe "lost worlds" like Atlantis are on the other side, but I am not sure how they solve the gravity issue. What do they think happens when we reach the end of the world? They believe that there is a giant wall of ice around the edge, guarded by NASA personnel (not sure why NASA, but it isn't my thing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 So the bible can't be quoted to refer to issues that affect usple would consider belief in a flat earth to be an "oddball" belief. This comes as no surprise. It should come as no surprise to find nonchristians consider an earth younger than the Sumerian civilization to be an "oddball" belief as well. Certainly a Christian ought to be aware of this, and not take it personally, right? (I think I figured out the quotes) No, I want trying to say they can't be quoted for issues that affect us now, but that when they are it should be with the understanding of what was meant then and use that knowledge to inform how you use the scripture now. I was questioning your use of it implying those who think differently regarding matters of science should be regarded as foolish because Paul is, in context, talking about spiritual matters, but I just realized of course that for another Christian science may will be the spiritual matters your use of Paul would address...It's my tradition, education and experience that's making your use of it inappropriate. Hmmm... In context of the comment that too many Christians pull out verses from the bible and use them as single points of argument, but if we're arguing from position of logic and evidence we should always be careful to demonstrate that logic and evidence in every context. I just meant that the comment tagged as "rude" wasn't rude simply because it's referencing the lack of arguing from a position of logic and evidence. But yeah, it sounds like we're agreeing, lol. I think we likely agree much more often then not.:D The church and the wider Christian community in this line up is identified by the True Scotsman who is defending his/her personal beliefs. Are you going too far with the True Scotsman bit? Certainly there are issues where I think other Christians are wrong but I won't claim that means they're not real Christians. I've seen a lot of disagreement on this board over big issues in Christianity but rarely seen Christians deny the Christianity of others over it. I know it happens but in the context of this board I'm not sure it's such a concern. That may be a part of your tradition and experience... I cut the rest by mistake. On my clumsy phone...shoot me now. *sigh* I think you're letting us of easy. Much more then lazy scripture quoting was responsible for launching those wars. I am familiar with all this, and agree the Infidels site is a great resource to start. I have little confidence in Ehrman, however, which is neither here nor there. The forum is still dead though, right? I haven't actually made use of the site since the forum went away. I'm not sure why you wouldn't have confidence in Ehrman. Most of what I've read of his is pretty non-controversial, old news stuff in the world of biblical scholarship. At least with secular and moderate Christian scholars. It does. :) And thanks as always for an interesting and pleasant dialog, and I hope you kick ass with that studying. Thank you! Next time I'll stay if the phone though. I love it but it's horrid for big replies with lots of quotes. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (On my phone and writing properly is horrid with this) " I think everyone regardless of religion, or lack there of, can agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 It seems to depend upon the school of thought. Some think everything is on one side, and that gravity is caused by the planet continuously accelerating upwards. Other people believe "lost worlds" like Atlantis are on the other side, but I am not sure how they solve the gravity issue. They believe that there is a giant wall of ice around the edge, guarded by NASA personnel (not sure why NASA, but it isn't my thing). Well, if we're not really sending people and satellites into space all that money going into NASA has to be paying for something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I f******** love science just posted this on Facebook. https://fbcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1526188_738471186173895_1381894494_n.jpg?dl=1 With the caption: The next time a creationist tells you that cave paintings that kinda look like dinosaurs (if you squint) are definitive proof that humans and non-avian dinosaurs co-existed, show them this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (I think I figured out the quotes) No, I want trying to say they can't be quoted for issues that affect us now, but that when they are it should be with the understanding of what was meant then and use that knowledge to inform how you use the scripture now. I was questioning your use of it implying those who think differently regarding matters of science should be regarded as foolish because Paul is, in context, talking about spiritual matters, but I just realized of course that for another Christian science may will be the spiritual matters your use of Paul would address...It's my tradition, education and experience that's making your use of it inappropriate. Hmmm... Yeah, I think where you and I would differ in matters of the natural world, I wouldn't have thought to apply that verse. I think science and religion are by nature in conflict, and one accepts one or the other at some point. Some of the points on the spectrum, like belief in a flat earth, are, by modern standards, "foolishness." But so too is the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, or so it is among those who don't accept in on faith. So I don't mean to suggest anyone who is religious is foolish, if that's what you're getting at, but those who do hold beliefs that are contrary to such an established and well known fact, it should come as no surprise that nonbelievers consider those beliefs "foolishness." Are you going too far with the True Scotsman bit? Certainly there are issues where I think other Christians are wrong but I won't claim that means they're not real Christians. I've seen a lot of disagreement on this board over big issues in Christianity but rarely seen Christians deny the Christianity of others over it. I know it happens but in the context of this board I'm not sure it's such a concern. This NTS argument isn't limited to identifying who a Real Christian is. It can be used to rationalize one's own faith (the Real Faith), their understanding of Jesus (the Real Jesus), or most importantly here, what the bible Really means to say (edited to say, how convenient to find an example of this just now). I've been told countless times that Mature Christians know this stuff better than novices, and those of us who didn't agree with the Scotsman Of The Hour were obviously merely novices. You see, if we had Really Believed the Real Faith Of Christ, we would believe like they did. Convenient, don't you think? ;) I think you're letting us of easy. Much more then lazy scripture quoting was responsible for launching those wars. No doubt. But I still disagree that disagreements of any kind are founded in laziness. That's part of the NTS right there - a Real Understanding Of Christianity would make it clear these verses mean XYZ. Disagreements with that mean the person isn't a Real Christian, or at the very least, isn't embracing the Real Christian Faith. It's the speaker using themselves (in this case you) as the measure of what is the Real Christian Belief. You'll hear this come up when people talk about "legalism" or "watering down the faith." These are the same as your accusation of being "lazy," and it just means "not used like I use it, ergo, not the Right Way." The forum is still dead though, right? I haven't actually made use of the site since the forum went away. Never saw the forum, only the articles. Thank you! Next time I'll stay if the phone though. I love it but it's horrid for big replies with lots of quotes. :D I can hardly text three words on my phone. I don't know how people play on forums on their phones at all. It's completely beyond my capabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joules Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 It seems to depend upon the school of thought. Some think everything is on one side, and that gravity is caused by the planet continuously accelerating upwards. I've avoided replying to this topic so far, but this has me intrigued. So instead of a stairway to heaven, we are on a giant elevator to heaven? Does this elevator have a Genuine People Personality? It would explain a whole lot...maybe more than the concurrent theological discussion here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenangelcat Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I f******** love science just posted this on Facebook. https://fbcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1526188_738471186173895_1381894494_n.jpg?dl=1 With the caption: The next time a creationist tells you that cave paintings that kinda look like dinosaurs (if you squint) are definitive proof that humans and non-avian dinosaurs co-existed, show them this. If we follow that line of reasoning, then everything the Ancient Aliens people say is true! Can I be the first in line for the TARDIS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Yeah, I think where you and I would differ in matters of the natural world, I wouldn't have thought to apply that verse. I think science and religion are by nature in conflict, and one accepts one or the other at some point. Some of the points on the spectrum, like belief in a flat earth, are, by modern standards, "foolishness." But so too is the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, or so it is among those who don't accept in on faith. So I don't mean to suggest anyone who is religious is foolish, if that's what you're getting at, but those who do hold beliefs that are contrary to such an established and well known fact, it should come as no surprise that nonbelievers consider those beliefs "foolishness." I disagree somewhat with this. Nearly *everyone* takes some things on faith. It's not true that everyone who holds a belief in a higher power subscribes to ideas that are contrary to science. You may believe that they are contrary to ideas that can be proved by science, but those statements are not equal. It could even be said that you are using a false cause fallacy here, insisting that religion is the cause of beliefs like that in a flat earth or geocentric universe. People may use religion as one of their reasons, but it isn't the cause of their belief. This NTS argument isn't limited to identifying who a Real Christian is. It can be used to rationalize one's own faith (the Real Faith), their understanding of Jesus (the Real Jesus), or most importantly here, what the bible Really means to say (edited to say, how convenient to find an example of this just now). I've been told countless times that Mature Christians know this stuff better than novices, and those of us who didn't agree with the Scotsman Of The Hour were obviously merely novices. You see, if we had Really Believed the Real Faith Of Christ, we would believe like they did. Convenient, don't you think? ;) No doubt. But I still disagree that disagreements of any kind are founded in laziness. That's part of the NTS right there - a Real Understanding Of Christianity would make it clear these verses mean XYZ. Disagreements with that mean the person isn't a Real Christian, or at the very least, isn't embracing the Real Christian Faith. It's the speaker using themselves (in this case you) as the measure of what is the Real Christian Belief. You'll hear this come up when people talk about "legalism" or "watering down the faith." These are the same as your accusation of being "lazy," and it just means "not used like I use it, ergo, not the Right Way." You are making your own logical fallacy here. To insist that something fits in with a logical fallacy, therefore must be false, is a fallacy itself. It's called the Fallacy Fallacy. Many things *do* have criteria to fit a definition. Pluto isn't a planet anymore not because of the "NTS" fallacy, but because it no longer fit the criteria to be a planet as scientific thought progressed. While you certainly hear the terms legalism or watering down, etc, they are usually used in describe people's personal faith. Many/most Christians accept that we're only humans and that different people can interpret the word differently and still be practicing Christianity as long as they adhere to a pretty limited set of criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I f******** love science just posted this on Facebook. https://fbcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1526188_738471186173895_1381894494_n.jpg?dl=1 With the caption: The next time a creationist tells you that cave paintings that kinda look like dinosaurs (if you squint) are definitive proof that humans and non-avian dinosaurs co-existed, show them this. Wait! You mean there are people who don't believe in Time Lords? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I've avoided replying to this topic so far, but this has me intrigued. So instead of a stairway to heaven, we are on a giant elevator to heaven? Does this elevator have a Genuine People Personality? It would explain a whole lot...maybe more than the concurrent theological discussion here. Are you going to name it Eddie? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I disagree somewhat with this. Nearly *everyone* takes some things on faith. Sure. It's pretty well established that people do take assumptions as facts, and these assumptions aren't limited to matters of religion. Access to information, education, and even confirmation bias plays a role in this, and of course there are all kinds of examples, but I think if we're talking about irrational assumptions erroneously believed to be accurate reflections of reality, then we probably do agree. It's not true that everyone who holds a belief in a higher power subscribes to ideas that are contrary to science. You may believe that they are contrary to ideas that can be proved by science, but those statements are not equal. It could even be said that you are using a false cause fallacy here, insisting that religion is the cause of beliefs like that in a flat earth or geocentric universe. People may use religion as one of their reasons, but it isn't the cause of their belief. Science is simply the word we give to reference the methodology by which one can gain an accurate understanding of nature. To assume a hypothesis is a truthful explanation of the natural world without appealing to scientific methodology is to assume a belief is accurate contrary to science. Religion is not the only reason people believe in a flat earth, but when people believe in a flat earth because the bible says so, then religion is the reason. You are making your own logical fallacy here. To insist that something fits in with a logical fallacy, therefore must be false, is a fallacy itself. It's called the Fallacy Fallacy. Many things *do* have criteria to fit a definition. Pluto isn't a planet anymore not because of the "NTS" fallacy, but because it no longer fit the criteria to be a planet as scientific thought progressed. While you certainly hear the terms legalism or watering down, etc, they are usually used in describe people's personal faith. Many/most Christians accept that we're only humans and that different people can interpret the word differently and still be practicing Christianity as long as they adhere to a pretty limited set of criteria. I'm not insisting something fits within a logical fallacy, but instead am suggesting a particular methodology of defense of a belief (what it means to be Christian, etc) relies on the NTS fallacy. Consider the comment: Well, you could believe that [Jesus is not God], but it wouldn't be the truth. And yes, there are groups which believe that, but they are in error. Contrast it with Well, you could believe that [a true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge], but it wouldn't be the truth. And yes, there are groups which believe that, but they are in error. Surely there are many posters on this forum who, like my Scottish uncle who does put sugar on his porridge, read the above quote and shake their heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Sure. It's pretty well established that people do take assumptions as facts, and these assumptions aren't limited to matters of religion. Access to information, education, and even confirmation bias plays a role in this, and of course there are all kinds of examples, but I think if we're talking about irrational assumptions erroneously believed to be accurate reflections of reality, then we probably do agree. I disagree that religion is a primary reason for beliefs taken without studying empirical data. Plenty of people do that. Plenty of people hold beliefs I find irrational that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. You seemed to be implying that religion is a primary reason for what I think are irrational beliefs, but that is not my experience. Science is simply the word we give to reference the methodology by which one can gain an accurate understanding of nature. To assume a hypothesis is a truthful explanation of the natural world without appealing to scientific methodology is to assume a belief is accurate contrary to science.I disagree that it is contrary to science, as do many legitimate scientists. It may be separate from science or not backed up by science, but it isn't contrary to science. For example, I have a friend who is an astrophycist who works for NASA. She doesn't believe in abiogenesis leading to evolution leading to modern man and every other form of life on earth. She thinks the statistics are too improbable. But, she is also a die-hard atheist. Neither a belief nor disbelief in abiogenesis nor any other creation theory is backed by science. To hold a belief in how it started may not be backed by science, but most are not actually *contrary* to science, you are wrong about that. Now, certainly there are theories discredited by science-Lamarck's theories of evolution, a flat-earth, etc, but that is an entirely different claim than the one you are making. Religion is not the only reason people believe in a flat earth, but when people believe in a flat earth because the bible says so, then religion is the reason.Which, is not relevant since the organization linked by the OP does not make such a claim. I'm not insisting something fits within a logical fallacy, but instead am suggesting a particular methodology of defense of a belief (what it means to be Christian, etc) relies on the NTS fallacy. Consider the comment: Well, you could believe that [Jesus is not God], but it wouldn't be the truth. And yes, there are groups which believe that, but they are in error. If someone is asked a direct question about their personal understanding of Jesus, then I think it is fair game to explain according to their own personal criteria. I think it goes without saying that it will be full of strongly held opinions. But, she only said that because she was asked. Similarly, there are people who still insist that Pluto is a planet. They are wrong because Pluto doesn't fit the scientific understanding of a planet at this point. Contrast it with Well, you could believe that [a true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge], but it wouldn't be the truth. And yes, there are groups which believe that, but they are in error. Put the Pluto example in there. It would FIT the criteria you give, but that doesn't make it less true. That is where the Fallacy Fallacy comes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I disagree that religion is a primary reason for beliefs taken without studying empirical data. Plenty of people do that. Plenty of people hold beliefs I find irrational that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. You seemed to be implying that religion is a primary reason for what I think are irrational beliefs, but that is not my experience. I said, "people do take assumptions as facts, and these assumptions aren't limited to matters of religion." I am not seeing how you interpret that as me implying religion is the reason for irrational beliefs. That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I disagree that it is contrary to science, as do many legitimate scientists. It may be separate from science or not backed up by science, but it isn't contrary to science. For example, I have a friend who is an astrophycist who works for NASA. She doesn't believe in abiogenesis leading to evolution leading to modern man and every other form of life on earth. She thinks the statistics are too improbable. But, she is also a die-hard atheist. Neither a belief nor disbelief in abiogenesis nor any other creation theory is backed by science. To hold a belief in how it started may not be backed by science, but most are not actually *contrary* to science, you are wrong about that. Now, certainly there are theories discredited by science-Lamarck's theories of evolution, a flat-earth, etc, but that is an entirely different claim than the one you are making. Although abiogenesis has not been empirically proven, it was not conceived of following an assumed divine revelation, but because evidence suggests it's a plausible hypothesis. Current evidence is generally supportive of it. Your friend could be personally persuaded that panspermia better explains how life started on earth. This is also a hypothesis that can be explored through the scientific method. I am unaware of any particular belief that is simultaneously held by virtue of both religious and scientific methodology. If someone is asked a direct question about their personal understanding of Jesus, then I think it is fair game to explain according to their own personal criteria. I think it goes without saying that it will be full of strongly held opinions. But, she only said that because she was asked. Similarly, there are people who still insist that Pluto is a planet. They are wrong because Pluto doesn't fit the scientific understanding of a planet at this point. Put the Pluto example in there. It would FIT the criteria you give, but that doesn't make it less true. That is where the Fallacy Fallacy comes in. Identifying a planet is not similar to identifying "Christian." The first has a definitive identity by which any numnuts such as myself could see if a rock like Pluto qualifies or not. The second offers no such thing with regard to knowing who qualifies as a Real Christian (ergo the ongoing debate of whether or not to include Mormons, JW, or any number of unorthodox sects). The only thing it does offer is personal opinion, and because personal opinion is not objective, two people can claim opposing identities as being accurate. The only definitive authority here is "I believe it is so." Sometimes, like in the context of my conversation with Dawn, NTS is the attempted defense. If, on the other hand, two people claim opposing identities of Pluto, there is an objective measurement by which to determine which one is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ondreeuh Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Oh, I have known lots of people who believe this. http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=68205 You know the Landover Baptist church is fake, right? Not saying that the stuff they "believe" isn't shared by others. But the website is just a mockery of fundamentalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I thought it would add extra flavor, given the topic. ;) I have personally known many people who believe that dinosaur bones are not real and planted by the devil or similar. Several other people have said the same. Lots of churches teach that. But, it's okay of creek land doesn't believe me, she usually doesn't, lol. I don't see believing that dinosaurs were alive at the time of the flood and were placed on the ark as much different; it is just a different version of that. Direct link http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/500478-flat-earth-how-do-you-even-deal-with-this/?p=5412776 You know the Landover Baptist church is fake, right? Not saying that the stuff they "believe" isn't shared by others. But the website is just a mockery of fundamentalism. She knows. It was brought up earlier in the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.