73 replies to this topic

[PhillyB]

I hate to derail this thread, as if it already isn't but I have a question for those of you attacking this dude's viewpoint. Do you believe in a Creator? Not necessarily the God of the Bible, but ANY God? If not, what are your thoughts on how everything around you exists?

yes.

and the existence of a deity and even a creative force and evolution as a mechanism are not mutually exclusive; it is only the narrow-minded religious radicals who claim it is so. unfortunately these factions have a vice-grip on the south, and if you're never exposed to new ideas educationally you just kind of get stuck in the cycle. it's a complete mind fug.

[PhillyB]

interestingly darwin was hesitant to release origin of species in the mid 19th century because he, a theist himself who'd set out to prove creationism by way of his observations of a naturalist, was terrified of the response he'd receive in victorian-era england. and much to his surprise, once he decided to release it, there theological response was pretty underwhelming, largely because most of the geologists who'd worked as darwin's contemporarys were themselves members of the clergy and were able to soften the blow considerably.

in fact through the last hundred years, with the exception of the scopes trial and all that loopy mess (it's tennessee, what do you expect) it's pretty much been accepted that a non-literal translation of genesis synthesizes well enough with evolution... but in the 60's and 70's the whole intelligent design movement was birthed and started a new wave of frenzied defense of literalism because of what are ultimately philosophical arguments masquerading as scientific ones gaining traction with an uneducated public starving for scientific legitimacy. so it's really only been in the last thirty or forty years that we've seen a resurgence in this nonsense

[PhillyB]

more thoughts: mathias, i believe you are well-meaning. you're clearly not coming in here with an ideological axe to grind at the expense of everyone else's freedoms (at least i hope you're not.) you seem to come in with a mind open to free discourse and the exchange of ideas, which is noble, and conducive to good discussion, even if people disagree with your ideas.

honestly you remind my of myself a number of years ago. i was raised in a fundamentalist background, measured my christianity by the fact that i didn't swear, wouldn't drink, knew my baptist theology, registered as a republican when i turned 18, etc. i used to belong to a number of online forums that had a pretty good cross-section of belief systems and spent hours rhetorically grandstanding on political issues and creating ardent, heartfelt, well-written pieces in defense of the faith, usually related to the age of the earth and that great big lie that satan came up with called evolution, meant to deceive the masses into falling away from God.

nothing really could convince me otherwise. i had already decided on my worldview, and instead of using new information and data to shape my worldview, i instead filtered it through what i already believed to be true. i believe most of us do this; it's part of socialization, and it's rare that someone is conscious enough of these processes to transcend them. this does not make me special, or some kind of genius; i was lucky enough to undergo a series of circumstances in my life that led to great existential doubt, and then searching, and in the process of searching for answers about the universe and my place in it i found a great thirst for knowledge and a complete abandonment of the status quo insofar as it related to paradigms.

i believe the fundamental mistake you and other christians make in examining the bible is that you are coming from a place of already assuming it's true. you can't make an unbiased judgement because you're not measuring its veracity by the standards of historical texts, or by historical context, or bronze age historiography, etc. to be truly unbiased you must examine it from an outside-in perspective. have you ever wondered why so few people ever switch religions? it's because the vast, vast majority of individuals within a certain religious influence are taught that their version of god(s) is inherently correct, not really questionable, and that's all there is to it.

if the christian god was the right way, and the jews have a conversion rate of .0005%, does that mean an inordinately high level of jews just aren't smart enough to figure out the truth? or is there some deeper sociological scheme at play here?

[PhillyB]

your methodologies need work too. i think it's critical that you study methods of research, hypothesizing, placement within historical context, and other such disciplines in order to become familiar with the boundaries and parameters with which you are working. there are certain rules you have to follow to retain credibility; they have nothing to do with outcome and everything to do with your methods.

lastly, i think you need to come to terms with the place of science and the place of philosophy and realize that the two are different animals. you can not shove god into a test tube.

[PhillyB]

lastly, matthias, if you are interested in an introduction to some of these ideas, you may find this video illuminating. it's worth an hour of your time. i hope you'll watch it.

[stirs]

you're dumber than the dirt i piss on

hows that for criticism

your love of christ passes far beyond the borders of homoeroticism

go jack off for jesus

thin ice

[Zod]

Can someone explain to me why something someone wrote over two thousand years ago is still relevant?

[Kurb]

Can someone explain to me why something someone wrote over two thousand years ago is still relevant?

It does teach some good lessons.


Proverbs has some great things.

[Kurb]

Also PSC is banned for 24 hours for derailing and abuse in a thread that was actually having some discussion.

[beach]

Jesus was a cool dude and all who I think has been massively misinterpreted as western society has progressed. He taught basic eastern principles. He was an agent of a higher global perspective.

Its when you have institutions concocting a collection of books made many years after his death from different sources to make into a greater book, then create a set methodology of how to properly worship his ideas and how to properly interpret him, it gets convoluted and ridiculous. Then they start playing dress-up and vying for global power through greater institutions like the Roman hierarchy They took another religion's "god" and even 6 of their books and basically claimed he came to earth through a buddhist monk in the middle east and propped it up through the Roman institution.

Its like the early people defining christianity went like: "I got it! Let's take the basic ideas of the people who fled the last great civilization (Egypt) prior to its fall and use their belief system...but then we need to give ours some identity. Let's market that wise hippie"

It wasn't even until 325 bc before they decided how to properly view the guy. I've never really understood why the Apostolic Age is so overlooked. Its like people view the first few hundred years of the church as nonexistent and that was the most important part of all of this.

[PhillyB]

Can someone explain to me why something someone wrote over two thousand years ago is still relevant?

i think you have to create a sort of hierarchy of importance, existentially, for lack of better terminology. in other words, there's no sense determining if the bible is relevant or not if you haven't first determined if you believe there could exist a god or gods, which would give it meaning in the first place.

if you decide there is no god, then something written 2k ya is not relevant as it relates to existential concerns.

if you decide there is a god, then something written 2k ya in this case is worth examining more deeply, if only to weigh it against other religious texts claiming to understand this deity.

i do not think flippant dismissal based on age alone is wise.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

We all use reasoning with regard to every religion and every area of life – except our own dogma. The same Christians who reject the Hindu milk miracle (which was attested by thousands of living witnesses, written about in hundreds of surviving original documents, and captured on video) will happily accept the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (which was attested by a few ancient dead writers, from whom we have no original documents or video evidence).

A Christian may read in the Muslim scriptures that Mohammad flew on a winged horse, and he will dismiss it. He may laugh when he reads the Roman historian Suetonius say that Caesar Augustus ascended into heaven after he died. But he reads in an ancient book that Mary gave virgin birth to a man-god who walked on water, died, came back to life, and flew off into the sky – and he believes.

It is this double standard that I’m calling attention to with the quote at the top of my site:

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2998

[rodeo]

It does teach some good lessons.


Proverbs has some great things.

It teaches some good lessons, but teaches far more terrible, absolutely immoral lessons.

And this is what gets me about the people like OP; young Earth creationists who insist we take the Bible literally, when it's full of stuff like this:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."

If you think we should take the Bible literally, why do we only take some parts literally, but don't think people should be stoned to death for minor things anymore?

[venom]

I believe the earth is 7,000 years old, give or take.

Haha what? Try 4 billion years.

[Panthro]

Glad someone has a direct connection to him