Atheism

[Rosy]

Thanks jayfox but I don't think you answered my question about God loving all people equally yet treating them unequally.

 

[jayfox]

Point out where the Bible is misquoted or quote mined. You and Djevv often speak of context, but that is an interpretation that suits your conclusions.

No it is an interpretation based on study of our own and several other experts who have devoted their entire lives to understanding these texts. I struggle to see how this is different to your studies and your reliance on other scientific research when discussing things scientific. For some reason your study is superior to you than that of mine and other biblical scholars.

The Bible can be read and interpreted in numerous ways, areas of historal literal truth and areas of allegory are often ascribed to different sections. Are these interpretations correct or incorrect? Who knows?

In most cases, with a reasonable amount of study and the correct context, the Bible is very easy to understand. Most mainstream biblical scholars agree on most points much like most scientists agree on scientific theories, if they have studied them closely enough. Again, your study seems superior to you than mine, even though the other clearly knows less of the others expertise.

What you believe is fact? That is what I was asking you to substantiate! Darwin certainly had mainstream, if not more liberal, views on ideas of race, but that was the understanding at the time. The objections you hear about the OT are due to your claims of the Bible as the literal word of God and perfect in every way! No one has made such claims about Darwin. What do his views on race have to do with the validity of his theory of natural selection? Why not point out the flaws in the theory?

You are answering my question like a politician. Forget why I asked it or how liberal Darwin's views were, did he state that and is that acceptable in terms of respect and evolutionary theory?

Addressed above. I thought the Bible was perfect?

The Bible is the Word of God, written by men. It contains everything that God wanted put in there but it was written from man's perspective, in their words, through their observations.

Treat all races equally, unless they are sinners and/or occupying promised lands? Slavery seems to be pretty acceptable too.

Exactly, in the OT they were treated equally unless they were extremely sinful. Today, all are treated equally regardless. Good things happen to bad people, bad things happen to good people as well as the other obvious connotations. You can hardly get more equal than that. Slavery was very different back in OT days. Have a look at the story of the Prodigal Son. He left home and then wanted to return as a slave. Clearly different to today's impression of a slave. In many cases we would call the OT's version of a 'slave' an 'employee' today.

 

[jayfox]

Thanks jayfox but I don't think you answered my question about God loving all people equally yet treating them unequally.

I tried to. God loves all people equally and wants to see no-one perish. That is why He sent His Son to die for all of us and not just those of particular races or heritage. Anyone who chooses to believe in Him will be saved and that is why I say that He loves us all equally. He made the same sacrifice for every one of us. Sure we may not all have equally prosperous lives here on Earth but that is not a reflection of God's love but a reflection of the uniqueness of life, of our parents fortunes, of our place of birth etc. in a fallen world which God allows us to run, and bear the consequences of.

 

[Rosy]

So God loves everyone equally but,  from the aspect of being run  through the drafting race at the Pearly Gates, gives preferential treatment to those who worship and obey him, therefore not treating everyone equally at all?

 

[jayfox]

So God loves everyone equally but, from the aspect of being run through the drafting race at the Pearly Gates, gives preferential treatment to those who worship and obey him, therefore not treating everyone equally at all?

Allright, I should probably have said that he treats all people equally whilst here on Earth. Clearly, those who want a relationship with Him are treated differently to those who don't after death. But He still loves us all the same and doesn't want to treat anyone differently, He just grants those who wish not to have a relationship with Him, their request.

 

[AngryAnt]

No it is an interpretation based on study of our own and several other experts who have devoted their entire lives to understanding these texts. I struggle to see how this is different to your studies and your reliance on other scientific research when discussing things scientific. For some reason your study is superior to you than that of mine and other biblical scholars.

One form of study is empirical, evidence-based and falsifiable, the other is a bunch of people rummaging around who already believe in the conclusions they draw from their "research".

Which form of study seems more methodologically sound to you? Or are they really "equal" as you suggest?

When your Biblical scholars can demonstrate their theories empirically, I'll start to become interested! I'll be particularly interested in them successfully repeating the "Jesus rose from the dead on the Third Day" experiment, but I'll be happy with just a few minor miracles. Let me know when you and your team of researchers are ready Jayfox.

You are answering my question like a politician. Forget why I asked it or how liberal Darwin's views were, did he state that and is that acceptable in terms of respect and evolutionary theory?

No, he's answering your question by questioning its validity and relevance. Darwin was to some extent what we would consider (today) to be racist in some of his views - this was a broad cultural trait at the time and as PT says, Darwin was in fact very liberal compared to many. The relevance of that to contemporary evolutionary theory is precisely zero. As PT suggests, genetic studies and evolutionary theory actually prove that caucasians are genetically very similar to other races - in fact, there is far greater variation within a given population than between two separate populations. Read this for homework and report back. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020

I doubt you will, so here's the explanation. I could be genetically more similar to a person from the sub-Sahara, even though we look completely different, than another person from the sub-Sahara that looks very like the first person. This means that people with dark skin are no more closely related to other primates than people with lighter skin. No matter what Darwin thought or anyone else thinks on the matter.

Hope this clears that confusion up for you.

Clearly different to today's impression of a slave. In many cases we would call the OT's version of a 'slave' an 'employee' today.

That is surely the most naive statement ever written in this thread. I know that's a big call, but just putting it out there.

 

[Tiger74]

One form of study is empirical, evidence-based and falsifiable, the other is a bunch of people rummaging around who already believe in the conclusions they draw from their "research".

Its unfair to say ALL biblical scholars fall into this category, as it is to say all others practice proper research practices.

Medical research has been significantly compromised by commerical interests, and the fiasco with climate change research is my favourite (where both sides of the debate have manipulated findings to push an agenda - again often conflicted by commericial or idealogical biases).

That being said, I think a lot of biblical scholars have been damaged by association by the complete rubbish some of their mates in the US evangelical community have put up. Its kind to call some of the lies some put out there as fraud.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Its unfair to say ALL biblical scholars fall into this category, as it is to say all others practice proper research practices.

Medical research has been significantly compromised by commerical interests, and the fiasco with climate change research is my favourite (where both sides of the debate have manipulated findings to push an agenda - again often conflicted by commericial or idealogical biases).

That being said, I think a lot of biblical scholars have been damaged by association by the complete rubbish some of their mates in the US evangelical community have put up. Its kind to call some of the lies some put out there as fraud.

I guess the common denominator amongst the bad scholars that you refer to are that they all have some sort of vested interest in the outcome of their study (ie they are looking for a particular result before they even begin!). That is anti-science, although, as you point out, it has certainly occurred in the realms of science. I would say it is in the minority though with the peer-review system (ie. BS detector) in scientific publications.

Biblical scholars who study with the intent to prove its accuracy are committing the same fatal error. Not to say that all Biblical scholars fall into that category, but amongst those who do not, the validity of different sections of the Bible is certainly disputed (surprise, surprise! from such an ancient text, with such significance to human culture that has gone through numerous translations and revisions!).

 

[evo]

Yep, "special pleading" in Biblical scholarship.

At least they were honest enough to call the discipline apologetics. Thats exactly what it is,mostly.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

No it is an interpretation based on study of our own and several other experts who have devoted their entire lives to understanding these texts. I struggle to see how this is different to your studies and your reliance on other scientific research when discussing things scientific. For some reason your study is superior to you than that of mine and other biblical scholars.

There is a little thing call verifiable evidence that differentiates the two. Antman sums it up well.

In most cases, with a reasonable amount of study and the correct context, the Bible is very easy to understand. Most mainstream biblical scholars agree on most points much like most scientists agree on scientific theories, if they have studied them closely enough. Again, your study seems superior to you than mine, even though the other clearly knows less of the others expertise.

And if we disagree on the context or interpretation....you (or your biblical scholars) are correct? If the passage is vague or open to interpretation, how can that be changed? By context? I am interested to see how the context is established in these cases (it is all about the methodology).

It is still amazing that an omnipotent God would make the most important message so difficult to interpret and able to be interpreted in many ways (some of them particularly nasty).

You are answering my question like a politician. Forget why I asked it or how liberal Darwin's views were, did he state that and is that acceptable in terms of respect and evolutionary theory?

What? You asked why people might be more critical of OT practices and preachings than Darwin. I pointed out that no one is claiming that Darwin was divine or perfect!

The relevance of Darwin's views on race to evolutionary theory are zero. As for whether he stated it or not, why don't you provide your reference. It was you making the claim after all. Or are you taking someone's word for the fact that he said it and didn't bother doing some fact checking?

The Bible is the Word of God, written by men. It contains everything that God wanted put in there but it was written from man's perspective, in their words, through their observations.

You state this when it is convenient and at other times, when pressed on why you believe the Bible is the word of God, you state that it is the perfection of the text? Which one is it?

Exactly, in the OT they were treated equally unless they were extremely sinful. Today, all are treated equally regardless. Good things happen to bad people, bad things happen to good people as well as the other obvious connotations. You can hardly get more equal than that. Slavery was very different back in OT days. Have a look at the story of the Prodigal Son. He left home and then wanted to return as a slave. Clearly different to today's impression of a slave. In many cases we would call the OT's version of a 'slave' an 'employee' today.

Why the change these days? Yes, I know, Jesus and all, but why did he choose that time? Too bad for all of those OT folk who had to deal with the bad ass Yahweh?

As for slavery, for someone who sees such importance in free will and yet could ever see slavery as anything but the complete removal of freedom (it is the use of humans as a tool or commodity after all) is beyond me.

 

[AngryAnt]

Its unfair to say ALL biblical scholars fall into this category, as it is to say all others practice proper research practices.

Placing Biblical scholarship - and I have not doubt that there are many ethical and intelligent Biblical scholars - as somehow equivalent to the entire body of science relating to evolution, genetics, cosmology and so on and so forth is nonsensical. Are you really agreeing with Jayfox that a small band of eclectic Biblical researchers - that is, they study a text and occasionally some history/archaeology around a text - are on a par with the incredible accumulation of empirically tested, falsifiable theories and hard evidence supporting evolution, genetics, age of the earth and the cosmos and the universe?

The Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old. No amount of Biblical scholars will prove to me that that is true unless they can demonstrate that empirically. They can't, because they study a text, not the real world and universe around us. Slight methodological problem there.

Science is a social endeavour like all human activity, and there are always cases of distortion due to social or economic factors - good point. But, science's method will always win out over fraud or deception in the end - because in the end scientific method doesn't care about these social factors. If a theory is disproved, it's thrown out, dispassionately. When apologists point to scientific fraud and scientific errors, or changes in scientific theories or knowledge, they miss the point most profoundly. The fraudster and the faulty theory never survive in science. Even the best, strongest theories in science are only in the position for as long as no-one can prove them wrong. Prove them wrong , bye-bye. This is the essential nature of science. I mean, some of the sites Djevvy provides refer to the Piltdown Man hoax as a case of "science being wrong" and thus throwing into question the whole of evolutionary theory. Permit me to laugh dismally.

If a Biblical archaelogist found definitive proof that Jesus never existed - an impossibility but nevertheless - what would then be thrown away - their theory of Jesus as a God living among men, or would the evidence be thrown away as faulty, to be discredited or ignored?

 

[evo]

The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, or error. But science is one of the very few human activities - perhaps the only one - in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected... in other fields there is change but rarely progress.

Karl Popper

 

[Disco08]

I tried to. God loves all people equally and wants to see no-one perish.

If God truly wants this, why does he send souls to eternal suffering? Why not make an eternity of something quite pleasant, just not as good as heaven? Or why not just terminate the existence of unworthy souls so they don't have to suffer?

 

[Tiger74]

Placing Biblical scholarship - and I have not doubt that there are many ethical and intelligent Biblical scholars - as somehow equivalent to the entire body of science relating to evolution, genetics, cosmology and so on and so forth is nonsensical. Are you really agreeing with Jayfox that a small band of eclectic Biblical researchers - that is, they study a text and occasionally some history/archaeology around a text - are on a par with the incredible accumulation of empirically tested, falsifiable theories and hard evidence supporting evolution, genetics, age of the earth and the cosmos and the universe?

The Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old. No amount of Biblical scholars will prove to me that that is true unless they can demonstrate that empirically. They can't, because they study a text, not the real world and universe around us. Slight methodological problem there.

Science is a social endeavour like all human activity, and there are always cases of distortion due to social or economic factors - good point. But, science's method will always win out over fraud or deception in the end - because in the end scientific method doesn't care about these social factors. If a theory is disproved, it's thrown out, dispassionately. When apologists point to scientific fraud and scientific errors, or changes in scientific theories or knowledge, they miss the point most profoundly. The fraudster and the faulty theory never survive in science. Even the best, strongest theories in science are only in the position for as long as no-one can prove them wrong. Prove them wrong , bye-bye. This is the essential nature of science. I mean, some of the sites Djevvy provides refer to the Piltdown Man hoax as a case of "science being wrong" and thus throwing into question the whole of evolutionary theory. Permit me to laugh dismally.

If a Biblical archaelogist found definitive proof that Jesus never existed - an impossibility but nevertheless - what would then be thrown away - their theory of Jesus as a God living among men, or would the evidence be thrown away as faulty, to be discredited or ignored?

Conclusion is irrelevant on this point. You can dispute whether they are right or wrong (quite rightly), but their personal ethics is approaching research is different. If they approach their research from an ethical and transparent perspective, good on them. If they distort evidence, hide negative results, etc, then bash them over the head.

Also I am curious you use numbers to justify scientists over the biblical scholars. Given their are more believers of a faith than athiests in the world does this make athiests wrong. Copernicius and Gallileo were in the monority when they stated their views, this didn't mean they were wrong. Numbers don't mean anything, one man in the room can still be the only one right.

 

[Tiger74]

Plastic Jesus has spoken again, this time predicting the coming of the Pelican...

If he goes two for two, I hope Plastic Jesus is plugged into the Carnival.

 

[evo]

Plastic Jesus has spoken again, this time predicting the coming of the Pelican...

If he goes two for two, I hope Plastic Jesus is plugged into the Carnival.

This time it was a question rather than a prophesy.


But in true theistic tradition Plastic Jesus will claim if it comes to be.

 

[AngryAnt]

Conclusion is irrelevant on this point. You can dispute whether they are right or wrong (quite rightly), but their personal ethics is approaching research is different.

No, I was critical of the way their belief systems contaminate their methodological approaches, rather than being unethical. As I said, I'm sure many of them are ethical and act in good faith (pun intended) - in fact I said as much in my last post I believe.

A crap researcher can still be a completely ethical researcher - it doesn't help if the underlying assumptions bias the research method, or the researcher doesn't have the skills to do the job properly.

Also I am curious you use numbers to justify scientists over the biblical scholars.

Again, wrong. I refer to the "the entire body of science relating to evolution, genetics, cosmology".and "the incredible accumulation of empirically tested, falsifiable theories and hard evidence supporting evolution, genetics, age of the earth and the cosmos and the universe". I do refer to a small band of eclectic Biblical researchers - perhaps this is where you got the idea from. Key words - "empirically tested, falsifiable theories, hard evidence".

Even so, my point still stands. The study of a text - no matter how well it is done - is not equivalent to the study of the real environment through science in the fields of biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc etc etc. Sorry, but it's not. Jayfox seems to think it is and that was what I was taking issue with.

Tiger74, do you really maintain that Biblical scholars can tell us more about the age of the Earth, the sun, the solar system, the galaxy than the scientists expert in their fields can?

 

[Tiger74]

Tiger74, do you really maintain that Biblical scholars can tell us more about the age of the Earth, the sun, the solar system, the galaxy than the scientists expert in their fields can?

Did I say that? No I didn't. As I mentioned at the top, I am purely addressing the issue that a biblical scholar is automatically dismissed.

The way I look at it, if you have one scientist who believes in evolution and one who believes in creation, and they spend their life researching the world using all the available methods at their disposal, both have equal validity in their search. Both are out there testing the world and trying to prove/disprove a theory the believe is true.

Its what happens if you find something that contradicts your view that your value as a scientist (IMO) is determined. I heard on the radio the other day that apparently Einstein had big issues with the expanding universe concept (even though his own theory supported it) because it went against his personal beliefs. The fact he didn't turf this, ignore it, but kept examining, that proves worth.

My big issue with a lot of the US evangelicals is some deliberately distort and ignore certain facts as they go against their agenda. The world is 6000 years old is a classic. They believe the bible is literal, and the bible by their calculation says the world is 6000 years old. Therefore any evidence contradicting this is wrong. This approach I hate. Prove the evidence is wrong, find something to show the original finding is flawed. BUT if over and over again, the facts keep pointing in one direction, your original assumption needs to be re-assessed.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Did I say that? No I didn't. As I mentioned at the top, I am purely addressing the issue that a biblical scholar is automatically dismissed.

The way I look at it, if you have one scientist who believes in evolution and one who believes in creation, and they spend their life researching the world using all the available methods at their disposal, both have equal validity in their search. Both are out there testing the world and trying to prove/disprove a theory the believe is true.

This statement betrays a misunderstanding of the whole scientific undertaking.

Put it this way.....why do you think I subscribe to the theory of evolution? Why do Jayfox and Djevv (amongst many others) subscribe to creationism?

Its what happens if you find something that contradicts your view that your value as a scientist (IMO) is determined. I heard on the radio the other day that apparently Einstein had big issues with the expanding universe concept (even though his own theory supported it) because it went against his personal beliefs. The fact he didn't turf this, ignore it, but kept examining, that proves worth.

I am happy to be proven wrong, but I think Einstein had more problems with quantum mechanics, than the expanding universe.

My big issue with a lot of the US evangelicals is some deliberately distort and ignore certain facts as they go against their agenda. The world is 6000 years old is a classic. They believe the bible is literal, and the bible by their calculation says the world is 6000 years old. Therefore any evidence contradicting this is wrong. This approach I hate. Prove the evidence is wrong, find something to show the original finding is flawed. BUT if over and over again, the facts keep pointing in one direction, your original assumption needs to be re-assessed.

Agreed.

 

[Tiger74]

This statement betrays a misunderstanding of the whole scientific undertaking.

Put it this way.....why do you think I subscribe to the theory of evolution? Why do Jayfox and Djevv (amongst many others) subscribe to creationism?

As mentioned before, this is not about who is right or wrong, it is about the instant dismissal of people just because of their job title.

As for being wrong about the initial theory, so what? I watched a doco the other month on a doctor who had a theory that VD developed into syphallis. This theory was wrong, and his research outcome wrong, but he was one of the first pioneers of experimental observation scientific research (rumour is his patient was himself. He needed a clean patient, and infected himself with VD. Experiment went pearshaped though because without knowing, his source of the infection also had syphallis). Now his theory was wrong, his outcome was wrong, but the process and method he used rocked the world.

Plenty of invention and science has been achieved by the initial hypthesis being proven wrong by the researcher. As such, I'm not too worried why you or Jayfox initially choose your belief. Its what happens next IF you decide to test that theory that I'm more concerned about (and frankly I would be stunned if any of are are

I am happy to be proven wrong, but I think Einstein had more problems with quantum mechanics, than the expanding universe.

Not my quote, it was by some English guy on BBC radio (more than happy to be wrong on this one).