Support NeoGAF

[Raist]

You can doubt all you want to the evidence is in the Scripture. One did not get cleansed until after they were healed.

So this whole complicated ritual was basically completely pointless. Alright.
So is that kind of playing around with words the basic answer to all innacuracies and inconsistencies in the bible?

 

[Erigu]

If leprosy could be cured

I don't think anyone was wondering if the bird blood actually worked...

 

[V_Arnold]

I most certainly don't say that. A man being sexually attracted to a woman who isn't his wife is often a good thing. And even if this god exists, why would it be worthy of any honor seeing as how morally disgusting it is.

- Is this you? Bungalow Bob 3.42, verse 5, "To the Neogaffers"? How can I follow you?

How and why is that a good thing? You still haven't explained how Jesus is morally disgusting.

To me, it seems like he defines his own morality, and if it is something different, more strict, then it is disgusting

 

[JGS]

I don't think anyone was wondering if the bird blood actually worked...

I don't understand this statement. I'm going to assume it's a serious statement and say the original argument was the Bible makes up a whacky cure for leprosy to prove a contradiction in the Bible.

So the whole conversation revolves around whether the Bible has a crazy cure for leprosy. It doesn't, so naturally bird blood wouldn't work and the Bible doesn't think so either.

If this wasn't a serious post than haha.

So this whole complicated ritual was basically completely pointless. Alright.
So is that kind of playing around with words the basic answer to all innacuracies and inconsistencies in the bible?

Well, that's a different argument. There was a reason why the ritual was there and it's explained throughout Leviticus. The reason isn't one you would agree with, but it was one that was accepted at the time.

Thee point in regards to this is there wasn't an inaccuracy or inconsistency- just you find the ritual weird.

 

[JGS]

For example, Jesus says that if you're sexually attracted a woman who's not your wife, you deserve infinite punishment, and that to avoid that punishment you should blind yourself (Matthew 5:28).

So I ask again: why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god?

I'm actually confused on this one. The Bibles I read don't say anything about infinite punishment for committing adultery of the heart. Further, why would it be the sign of a bad person for them to say focus on your wife rather than someone else?

Would you agree that most adultery starts with being attracted to another person?

 

[Erigu]

I don't understand this statement.

In your post, you said "if leprosy could be cured there would be no lepers considering they even had a clearance sale version of it", and while that would certainly be a good point to make in a discussion about whether or not the bible has an actual, working cure detailed in its pages, that's not what it was about, here. The discussion was about whether or not that excerpt purports to detail a (possibly partial?) treatment.
You argued that it doesn't at all, that it's just detailing a mere formality. In other words, everybody involved knew perfectly well the guy was cured already at that point: they were just "making it official".
I, for one, was wondering if the situation really was that clear-cut for those ("somewhat" superstitious, yes?) people... Couldn't it be that this was part of the treatment, as far as they were concerned? Basically, "the physical symptoms are gone, but we still need to perform this ritual in order to completely get rid of the (sinful) disease." Just a thought (really: I'm not even that interested).

I'm going to assume it's a serious statement and say the original argument was the Bible makes up a whacky cure for leprosy to prove a contradiction in the Bible.

Er... Like I said, that was just a thought (the wording seemed clumsy/ambiguous to me, and I was wondering whether or not they really considered the guy completely healed already). That's all.
Besides, if I wanted to discredit christianity by showing that "the bible says the darndest things", I wouldn't need to look further than Genesis, really... And I say "if", because 1) that wasn't my intention, there, and 2) even if it had been, I don't believe such a demonstration to be necessary in the first place (I think we can agree it would be kinda silly to argue that leprechauns exist, right? did we need to check for internal contradictions in Irish folklore to reach that conclusion?).

naturally bird blood wouldn't work and the Bible doesn't think so either.

The wording was a bit odd, so I wouldn't presume to know what the bible "thinks", personally... Then again, some people clearly are a lot more confident than me about those matters, as I've noted time and again in discussions like this. For example: "don't be silly: that scientifically inaccurate excerpt was never meant to be literal!" Does the bible stop to say "... but that one was just a metaphor, of course!", really? It's like they're reading the bible's mind (and yet often disagree among themselves, oddly enough). Or, well, reluctantly adapting to scientific discoveries. One or the other... [/rant]

 

[Dr Frasier Crane]

I am a committed atheist as I struggle to reconcile an all-powerful god with free will, just so you know my point of view.

However let me ask my god-supporting colleagues:

Do you believe there is only one god, that there are many (as some suggest), or that all gods are actually different manifestations of one single god?

Just as an addendum, whilst I'm not a god-ist I bloody love the majority of your traditonal songs (none of that Christian Rock stuff!). In my eyes the only redeeming quality of having to go to church/chapel when I was younger was a right old sing-along. Ripping out Christmas Carols is box-office.

 

[Sanky Panky]

.

However let me ask my god-supporting colleagues:

Do you believe there is only one god, that there are many (as some suggest), or that all gods are actually different manifestations of one single god?
.

I believe that there is only one god, and people's interpretations throughout history have depended on their culture. Me for example, I'm a non-practicing Catholic that believes in Jesus, but my interpretation of God is that it is a SHE as in female/maternal/matriarch.

 

[Dr Frasier Crane]

I believe that there is only one god, and people's interpretations throughout history have depended on their culture. Me for example, I'm a non-practicing Catholic that believes in Jesus, but my interpretation of God is that it is a SHE as in female/maternal/matriarch.

So when people talk about other gods they're actually just talking about the one god (for you a her) but perceive it differently based on where they come from and how they were brought up?

 

[Sanky Panky]

So when people talk about other gods they're actually just talking about the one god (for you a her) but perceive it differently based on where they come from and how they were brought up?

Yup. That's why I don't believe God would condemn someone that was born in a remote village in the Pacific with no exposure to the words of Jesus, for example. As long as people do good, they are good.

 

[soul creator]

"my interpretation of God" seems to always sound close to "I personally like this interpretation of god"

which is fine and all, but doesn't really mean much when it comes to determining if that God is actually there or not. Unless we're now just saying that God is a pure concept, solely existing in the minds of human beings. Which I would agree with

 

[V_Arnold]

Question to atheists:

1)If you see ahead of you twelve different interpretations of what is basically one concept, and you see flaws in all of them, do you dismiss the concept itself or do you recognize that although all interpretations are indeed flawed, that does not mean that what they are trying to describe does not exist?

2)Let us assume a universe where everything is a projection of the self and beliefs can indeed create ideas, other physical and non-physical manifestations - and where the Earth's current shape/existence is nothing more (and nothing less) than a mutual agreement between all the viewing parties (i.e. you, me, everyone else currently living here). Would you explore this idea to at least recognize the consequences such as how the nature of "proof" is nothing more than a more sophisticated idea - but still existing solely inside one's own consciousness? If not, why?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Question to atheists:

1)If you see ahead of you twelve different interpretations of what is basically one concept, and you see flaws in all of them, do you dismiss the concept itself or do you recognize that although all interpretations are indeed flawed, that does not mean that what they are trying to describe does not exist?

2)Let us assume a universe where everything is a projection of the self and beliefs can indeed create ideas, other physical and non-physical manifestations - and where the Earth's current shape/existence is nothing more (and nothing less) than a mutual agreement between all the viewing parties (i.e. you, me, everyone else currently living here). Would you explore this idea to at least recognize the consequences such as how the nature of "proof" is nothing more than a more sophisticated idea - but still existing solely inside one's own consciousness? If not, why?

1) 12 shitty reviews of a book don't make the book shitty. However, good or bad reviews don't make the contents of the books real.

2) If we lived in a world where thoughts could turn physical, I'd have more interesting things to do.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Question to atheists:

1)If you see ahead of you twelve different interpretations of what is basically one concept, and you see flaws in all of them, do you dismiss the concept itself or do you recognize that although all interpretations are indeed flawed, that does not mean that what they are trying to describe does not exist?

2)Let us assume a universe where everything is a projection of the self and beliefs can indeed create ideas, other physical and non-physical manifestations - and where the Earth's current shape/existence is nothing more (and nothing less) than a mutual agreement between all the viewing parties (i.e. you, me, everyone else currently living here). Would you explore this idea to at least recognize the consequences such as how the nature of "proof" is nothing more than a more sophisticated idea - but still existing solely inside one's own consciousness? If not, why?

1. I have very little idea about anything to do with quantum mechanics and it would be very easy for me and many others to misinterpret an article due to our ignorance. Just because we might present a flawed view of what an article says would not change whether the article was true or not.

2. I'm sorry, but I really fail to see the point in considering that hypothetical and question. An obvious consequence though is that it seems highly likely at least one person has wished the entire universe would die which would be a slight pain for the rest of us.

 

[V_Arnold]

2. I'm sorry, but I really fail to see the point in considering that hypothetical and question. An obvious consequence though is that it seems highly likely at least one person has wished the entire universe would die which would be a slight pain for the rest of us.

Well, if you are designing a system as an intellectual being, you have all the power to limit the potential of every setpiece that goes into the system as you wish. In this hypothetical existence of ours, wishing the entire universe to "die" is not only vague, it is most likely not something that is designed to be really possible. There are however, almost infinite possibilities for every single viewpoint("being") to change its environment: one can change its own behaviors, can remake and abandon/change homes, friends, hobbies, can choose to immerse in almost anything they wish to do - and they would also have the wish to get entangled in certain social interactions that would lead to a different state of being (often percieved as "accomplishments", "wealth", "journeys", etc).

Ultimately though, there are resources available in our current reality to the individuals who wish to kill others - and we are free to do so. The consequences are however programmed into the system as well, be it invoked anger, counterattack, punishment, feeling of guilt, mental breakdown or the loss of being able to interact with others in any way at all.

 

[Zaptruder]

Question to atheists:

1)If you see ahead of you twelve different interpretations of what is basically one concept, and you see flaws in all of them, do you dismiss the concept itself or do you recognize that although all interpretations are indeed flawed, that does not mean that what they are trying to describe does not exist?

It doesn't automatically make the concept irrelevant... but it certainly doesn't lend strong credence to the concept itself!

But the better rule of thumb to exercise is; try to interpret a charitable version of the concept that the various interpretations are trying to elucidate - and assess the strong charitable concept on its merits.

The concept can still be found wanting despite all that.

2)Let us assume a universe where everything is a projection of the self and beliefs can indeed create ideas, other physical and non-physical manifestations - and where the Earth's current shape/existence is nothing more (and nothing less) than a mutual agreement between all the viewing parties (i.e. you, me, everyone else currently living here). Would you explore this idea to at least recognize the consequences such as how the nature of "proof" is nothing more than a more sophisticated idea - but still existing solely inside one's own consciousness? If not, why?

What sense does a world that only exists in the perception of individual viewers make? What's the common element that they're attempting to perceive? What is the substrate from which multiple viewers are able to create their interpretations and share common ground? If there is no such common ground (i.e. reality), then why would there be much if any common ground between the individuals?

Descartes thought the rescue from the eternal demon was the goodness and beneficence of God. I posit that the more relevant rescue from the 'eternal demon' (or rather doubt and uncertainty of reality) is simply one of congruence.

That is; if what I see, is what I feel, is what I smell, and hear... and is what you see, what you feel, what you smell... and it concurs with our memories of the placement, location, behaviour of this item, and maybe even concurs with external elements such as mathematical proofs, or videotapes...

Then even if it was all just placed there a moment ago by the 'eternal demon', it matters nought to me - it is as if all those things have been the way that I percieve them to be.

 

[JGS]

In your post, you said "if leprosy could be cured there would be no lepers considering they even had a clearance sale version of it", and while that would certainly be a good point to make in a discussion about whether or not the bible has an actual, working cure detailed in its pages, that's not what it was about, here. The discussion was about whether or not that excerpt purports to detail a (possibly partial?) treatment.
You argued that it doesn't at all, that it's just detailing a mere formality. In other words, everybody involved knew perfectly well the guy was cured already at that point: they were just "making it official".
I, for one, was wondering if the situation really was that clear-cut for those ("somewhat" superstitious, yes?) people... Couldn't it be that this was part of the treatment, as far as they were concerned? Basically, "the physical symptoms are gone, but we still need to perform this ritual in order to completely get rid of the (sinful) disease." Just a thought (really: I'm not even that interested).

Not from the instruction. Even if one were superstitious, this wouldn't mean that the priest was superstitious which is what matters. The priest coming out to check on the guy was a clear sign of understanding of his role in the process. So if the leper called the priest out too soon because he was superstitious, as oon as the priest saw him not cured, he wouldn't continue on with the ritual aspects of it.

The wording was a bit odd, so I wouldn't presume to know what the bible "thinks", personally... Then again, some people clearly are a lot more confident than me about those matters, as I've noted time and again in discussions like this. For example: "don't be silly: that scientifically inaccurate excerpt was never meant to be literal!" Does the bible stop to say "... but that one was just a metaphor, of course!", really? It's like they're reading the bible's mind (and yet often disagree among themselves, oddly enough). Or, well, reluctantly adapting to scientific discoveries. One or the other... [/rant]

It works both ways. "Since the Bible said "day", it clearly means 24 hour day". I've always stated that when a metaphor is used, the Scriptures generally tell us. It really is that simple.

I'm confident where things are crystal clear and admit to not knowing in places it's not. Basically, I'm confident that there is not a standard cure for leprosy ironically based on the "proof" to show that there was. How creation happened in all it's detail and glory, not so much since the Bible wasn't concerned with it too much.

Do you believe there is only one god, that there are many (as some suggest), or that all gods are actually different manifestations of one single god?

I believe there is one God. I don't believe that other gods are manifestation of this one or that all religions are the same, but I do believe that the most common myths associated various beliefs can often be traced to one source.

 

[V_Arnold]

What sense does a world that only exists in the perception of individual viewers make? What's the common element that they're attempting to perceive? What is the substrate from which multiple viewers are able to create their interpretations and share common ground? If there is no such common ground (i.e. reality), then why would there be much if any common ground between the individuals?

Descartes thought the rescue from the eternal demon was the goodness and beneficence of God. I posit that the more relevant rescue from the 'eternal demon' (or rather doubt and uncertainty of reality) is simply one of congruence.

That is; if what I see, is what I feel, is what I smell, and hear... and is what you see, what you feel, what you smell... and it concurs with our memories of the placement, location, behaviour of this item, and maybe even concurs with external elements such as mathematical proofs, or videotapes...

Then even if it was all just placed there a moment ago by the 'eternal demon', it matters nought to me - it is as if all those things have been the way that I percieve them to be.

Believe me (haha) when I say that you have not even tried with embracing or even seriously considering that concept, you are now glancing at its surface, trying to match it with your own subjective expectations and are trying to reject it as soon as possible.

If you seriously give it a try, you will find many in-depth article lying around in the internet all up for examination where you can find answers to the "why" and "how" is this working.

 

[Air]

I was wondering where this topic went. I should bookmark this, I have a few more questions.

 

[Raist]

Question to atheists:

1)If you see ahead of you twelve different interpretations of what is basically one concept, and you see flaws in all of them, do you dismiss the concept itself or do you recognize that although all interpretations are indeed flawed, that does not mean that what they are trying to describe does not exist?

Well, no, which is precisely the agnostic atheist position.

2)Let us assume a universe where everything is a projection of the self and beliefs can indeed create ideas, other physical and non-physical manifestations - and where the Earth's current shape/existence is nothing more (and nothing less) than a mutual agreement between all the viewing parties (i.e. you, me, everyone else currently living here). Would you explore this idea to at least recognize the consequences such as how the nature of "proof" is nothing more than a more sophisticated idea - but still existing solely inside one's own consciousness? If not, why?

Hold on so do we have to redefine reality to dismiss the concept of proof and make it irrelevant now? Your idea is cute but if this were the case everyone would agree on everything since reality itself had to be caused by everyone's thoughts. As soon as anyone disagrees, it would be annihilated. I don't see the point of this concept.

 

[Zaptruder]

Believe me (haha) when I say that you have not even tried with embracing or even seriously considering that concept, you are now glancing at its surface, trying to match it with your own subjective expectations and are trying to reject it as soon as possible.

If you seriously give it a try, you will find many in-depth article lying around in the internet all up for examination where you can find answers to the "why" and "how" is this working.

I'm sure I can find a sinkhole of inanity to support any view point.

But instead of redirection and condescension, why don't you attempt to elucidate some of the flaws in what I'm saying here instead?

I mean. I don't even know which idea(s) you're criticising right now. You're been vague and dismissive.

 

[Erigu]

Not from the instruction.

You mean, the instruction that doesn't quite seem to make up its own mind about whether or not the guy is fine?

Even if one were superstitious, this wouldn't mean that the priest was superstitious which is what matters.

Well, it's a priest...

The priest coming out to check on the guy was a clear sign of understanding of his role in the process. So if the leper called the priest out too soon because he was superstitious, as oon as the priest saw him not cured, he wouldn't continue on with the ritual aspects of it.

I don't know what you're getting at nor how it relates to the point I was making, sorry.

It works both ways. "Since the Bible said "day", it clearly means 24 hour day".

"... and days are longer on Jupiter"?

I've always stated that when a metaphor is used, the Scriptures generally tell us. It really is that simple.

So simple that there's a "generally" in there... And I even find that hard to believe: does the Bible ever state that Genesis is a metaphor, for example?

I'm confident that there is not a standard cure for leprosy

Again, not what this discussion was about...

 

[JGS]

You mean, the instruction that doesn't quite seem to make up its own mind about whether or not the guy is fine?

It doesn't do that at all. It makes it quite clear what is required if the guy is cured.

Well, it's a priest...

Although I think I get what you're implying, it doesn;t make sense in context.

I don't know what you're getting at nor how it relates to the point I was making, sorry.

The priest wouldn't be superstitious since he knows what his job is. It's irrelevant f the person he is helping is superstitious.

"... and days are longer on Jupiter"?

There are longer days on Earth unless you are a literalist (Not the same as a non-metaphorist- if that's a word)

So simple that there's a "generally" in there... And I even find that hard to believe: does the Bible ever state that Genesis is a metaphor, for example?

Didn't say Genesis was a metaphor. Just that it likely was not a literal interpretation of a 24 hour day.

Again, not what this discussion was about...

Didn't say it was although that is what it started out as. I was giving an example of confidence in something is. The original argument is finsihed as near as I can guess since it appears to be boiling down to "Says you" style of conversation.

 

[V_Arnold]

Hold on so do we have to redefine reality to dismiss the concept of proof and make it irrelevant now? Your idea is cute but if this were the case everyone would agree on everything since reality itself had to be caused by everyone's thoughts. As soon as anyone disagrees, it would be annihilated. I don't see the point of this concept.

No, we do not have to dismiss the concept of proof. That was not my point. My point was to show you a - for me, legitimate - alternative of view where it is perfectly understandable why there is a movement where proof is all that counts and all that matters, yet, that not being the case for the system itself. And proof is not irrelevant - the question just becomes "is proof important to me because it is the core design of this existence or because I convinced myself about its importance?"

Also Zaptruder, do not mind me if you feel that I am being redirective and condescent. I am not determined to behave like that, so pardon if it feels like I behave like that. I am however, not a teacher in this field, I am only a student myself. My goal with the questions was simply to create a potential for a new inner learning for those that are not cemented when it comes to world views - and it is not my part to fill in with all the details, how could I do that?

Let me just say that there is a very strong resistance forming within me immediately when people start to misdirect from quite well-thought out concepts with the above-seen "giant cock monster being God" or "well, I could think of some absurd scenario and say that it is reality, cant I?" Yes, you can, but there is a reason why I did not came up with a giant flying rat controlling our universe concept to ask you about And I strongly believe that there is enough merit for the perception-based view to consider it as a reality, and it is not just a simple "well, anything can be supported by a creative mind" idea amongst billions of potential - and mostly crazy, ofc - concepts. : )

 

[Erigu]

It makes it quite clear what is required if the guy is cured.

In one sentence, it does say that. In others, not so much.

The priest wouldn't be superstitious since he knows what his job is.

Problem being that you think his job is nothing more than performing empty rituals, whereas I'm not so convinced.

It's irrelevant f the person he is helping is superstitious.

I wasn't talking about that person in particular.
Look, let's drop this, shall we? I believe I explained myself already, and I really don't care nearly enough...

Didn't say Genesis was a metaphor.

Would you argue it's not?

Just that it likely was not a literal interpretation of a 24 hour day.

Because... that would be silly? Something else?

 

[JGS]

In one sentence, it does say that. In others, not so much.

What does it say in the other verses?

Problem being that you think his job is nothing more than performing empty rituals, whereas I'm not so convinced.

This isn't true. I specifically mentioned a little ways up that there were reasons for the rituals. There's nothing empty about being clean by God's standards.

I wasn't talking about that person in particular.
Look, let's drop this, shall we? I believe I explained myself already, and I really don't care nearly enough...

Neither do I so that's fine.

Would you argue it's not?

I would argue that Genesis is certainly not meant to be a metaphor. Nothing in the Bible refers to it as that just like nothing in the Bible refers to the days being 24 hour ones.

Because... that would be silly? Something else?

In my day we referred to day being used in any number of ways. It may have start in the Egyptian Empire's day but no one knows for sure.

In any event, it doesn't matter how we calculate a day since God is not beholden to a 24 hour timetable either- something that the writer of genesis was keenly aware of.

 

[Erigu]

I would argue that Genesis is certainly not meant to be a metaphor.

So... that happened, according to you?

In my day we referred to day being used in any number of ways. It may have start in the Egyptian Empire's day but no one knows for sure.
In any event, it doesn't matter how we calculate a day since God is not beholden to a 24 hour timetable either- something that the writer of genesis was keenly aware of.

How do you feel about the week being seven days long, and resting on Sunday?

 

[Zaptruder]

No, we do not have to dismiss the concept of proof. That was not my point. My point was to show you a - for me, legitimate - alternative of view where it is perfectly understandable why there is a movement where proof is all that counts and all that matters, yet, that not being the case for the system itself. And proof is not irrelevant - the question just becomes "is proof important to me because it is the core design of this existence or because I convinced myself about its importance?"

Also Zaptruder, do not mind me if you feel that I am being redirective and condescent. I am not determined to behave like that, so pardon if it feels like I behave like that. I am however, not a teacher in this field, I am only a student myself. My goal with the questions was simply to create a potential for a new inner learning for those that are not cemented when it comes to world views - and it is not my part to fill in with all the details, how could I do that?

Let me just say that there is a very strong resistance forming within me immediately when people start to misdirect from quite well-thought out concepts with the above-seen "giant cock monster being God" or "well, I could think of some absurd scenario and say that it is reality, cant I?" Yes, you can, but there is a reason why I did not came up with a giant flying rat controlling our universe concept to ask you about And I strongly believe that there is enough merit for the perception-based view to consider it as a reality, and it is not just a simple "well, anything can be supported by a creative mind" idea amongst billions of potential - and mostly crazy, ofc - concepts. : )

Look dude. If you're going to call me out for 'scratching the surface' or 'not thinking hard enough about something', then you're going to have to be prepared with sensical retorts rather than rambling non-sequtirs.

 

[JGS]

So... that happened, according to you?

Is there a reason I shouldn't believe creation happened?

How do you feel about the week being seven days long, and resting on Sunday?

I have no problems with a seven day week.

 

[alekth]

Question to atheists:

1)If you see ahead of you twelve different interpretations of what is basically one concept, and you see flaws in all of them, do you dismiss the concept itself or do you recognize that although all interpretations are indeed flawed, that does not mean that what they are trying to describe does not exist?

Not necessarily. However we have seen not twelve but a couple of dozens, which rather than describing the same thing are describing different things using the same pattern, for the same purpose. Or, if you choose to ignore that a deduction of the purpose is possible, there are always the achievements - a version of reality that doesn't match what we know today, but they couldn't have known back then, and a control mechanism. One has to admit, the couple of remaining stories are still doing rather well on the control bit. Then again hundreds of gods are gone before anyone had the opportunity to inspect their flaws, they are gone simply because whoever worshipped them is gone. Logically and statistically one really has no reason to view the concept as viable.

2)Let us assume a universe where everything is a projection of the self and beliefs can indeed create ideas, other physical and non-physical manifestations - and where the Earth's current shape/existence is nothing more (and nothing less) than a mutual agreement between all the viewing parties (i.e. you, me, everyone else currently living here). Would you explore this idea to at least recognize the consequences such as how the nature of "proof" is nothing more than a more sophisticated idea - but still existing solely inside one's own consciousness? If not, why?

Not quite getting it really. Novel ideas about the nature of the world are not readily accepted, so someone would then have to create the manifestations of new physical laws to prove a point, and due to those laws things would work differently. Are we supposed to be forgetting and recreating from scratch?

 

[Erigu]

Is there a reason I shouldn't believe creation happened?

Well... science? But I don't want to spoil it all for you.

 

[Cyan]

Question to atheists:

1)If you see ahead of you twelve different interpretations of what is basically one concept, and you see flaws in all of them, do you dismiss the concept itself or do you recognize that although all interpretations are indeed flawed, that does not mean that what they are trying to describe does not exist?

Certainly if they all shared the same underlying flaws, I'd think it likely that the concept would contain those flaws whatever the interpretation.

2)Let us assume a universe where everything is a projection of the self and beliefs can indeed create ideas, other physical and non-physical manifestations - and where the Earth's current shape/existence is nothing more (and nothing less) than a mutual agreement between all the viewing parties (i.e. you, me, everyone else currently living here). Would you explore this idea to at least recognize the consequences such as how the nature of "proof" is nothing more than a more sophisticated idea - but still existing solely inside one's own consciousness? If not, why?

I'm not sure what you're really asking here, but it's an interesting notion. I used to think about this a lot when I was younger, and for a while I was firmly convinced it was true--that reality was shaped by conscious expectation, and in particular, my conscious expectations could affect the real world.

 

[JGS]

Well... science? But I don't want to spoil it all for you.

Science disproves creation? Please spoil if you can. It would certainly settle a lot of issues out there.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not really wanting to debate this anymore than the leprosy thing. Basically my belief regarding creation has already been mentioned:

- I believe God had a big role in our existence.

- I do not know the details surrounding this because the Bible does not provide details. It's not important in relation to worship, sovreignty, or the wrter's understanding of it.

- The information that is provided does not lead me to believe actual science is in contradiction to the notion of creation.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm not sure what you're really asking here, but it's an interesting notion. I used to think about this a lot when I was younger, and for a while I was firmly convinced it was true--that reality was shaped by conscious expectation, and in particular, my conscious expectations could affect the real world.

I can see where he's coming from... but combined with his first question, it's a delusional idea.

You can't make the world flat through popular perception. You can't make god a more truthful concept through that same method either.

But there is a 'perceptual' reality - this perceptual reality is very real in the sense that it exists in the minds of multiple people and causes them to act in a manner that is congruent with that percieved reality.

e.g. In a ghost haunted world, sudden inexplicable movements of objects, shadows from trees, and howls of winds may be readily percieved as ghosts. Cognitive deficits are less considered - their problems attributed to ghosts. This group perception may cause them to act in a manner that attempts to address the problems of ghosts - instead of finding out what is casting the shadow, they may attempt to flee, or pray to their deity, or some such.

Similarly, things like institutions and money and even national borders are largely based on shared perceptions - these things are real in that they hold currency in the minds of many that would willingly enforce their value.

 

[Kinitari]

Science disproves creation? Please spoil if you can. It would certainly settle a lot of issues out there.

More like, using the Scientific method, creation has been pushed back from it's original form, to a much more obscure form. Abiogenesis for example, has mountains more evidence in it's favour than creation. If we get to the point where we are even half as sure of abiogenesis as we are of evolution, it'll get to the point where creation will be shoved back to reside entirely in the pre-big bang gap.

It gets to the point where it just seems silly. It's akin to believing anything about anything without any evidence supporting it, which I don't think any normal person would do in regards to anything except religion.

Edit: Seeing your edit I'll respect your desire to drop it - as we've gone down this road a million bajillion times, you and I. I will however say, I disagree that creation isn't essential to the Jeudo christian belief. Without doing some serious gymnastics, evolution essentially turns adam and eve into a 'metaphor' - and that's just one of those stories that can't be one. What's it metaphorically referring to?

So I'll ask you this instead - I am aware that you look at the Adam and Eve story more as a metaphor, can you describe to me what it's a metaphor for?

 

[Erigu]

Science disproves creation?

As described in Genesis? I'm afraid so...

 

[Tawpgun]

Question to atheists:

1)If you see ahead of you twelve different interpretations of what is basically one concept, and you see flaws in all of them, do you dismiss the concept itself or do you recognize that although all interpretations are indeed flawed, that does not mean that what they are trying to describe does not exist?

2)Let us assume a universe where everything is a projection of the self and beliefs can indeed create ideas, other physical and non-physical manifestations - and where the Earth's current shape/existence is nothing more (and nothing less) than a mutual agreement between all the viewing parties (i.e. you, me, everyone else currently living here). Would you explore this idea to at least recognize the consequences such as how the nature of "proof" is nothing more than a more sophisticated idea - but still existing solely inside one's own consciousness? If not, why?

1. Doesn't give it much credibility for one. This goes back to the whole idea of disproving something. There are purple space hippos riding the cosmic waves throughout the universe. No one has found any. They must not exist. But what if they're somewhere we haven't looked? It's a somewhat flawed way to prove existence. Because it essentially comes down to an aspect of faith again. We just don't know that something exists because we haven't found it. What's worse is when people assert that God is outside our realm of understanding, somewhere where its impossible to measure, see, observe, anything he does. It's essentially creating a forcefield of bullshit around an idea. But it all comes down to faith. 12 different or more, interpretations of a concept are all flawed. The concept can still exist, but you need to rely on faith to believe it does.

2. Irrelevant for the reasons mentioned already.

Science disproves creation? Please spoil if you can. It would certainly settle a lot of issues out there.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not really wanting to debate this anymore than the leprosy thing. Basically my belief regarding creation has already been mentioned:

- I believe God had a big role in our existence.

- I do not know the details surrounding this because the Bible does not provide details. It's not important in relation to worship, sovreignty, or the wrter's understanding of it.

- The information that is provided does not lead me to believe actual science is in contradiction to the notion of creation.

I believe you only have a problem with the aspect of the big bang, and something like life being able to form naturally. So the origin of the universe and the origin of life. But you recognize that natural selection, mutations, evolution, and time can make simple, replicating life forms become what we see around the world today. And you recognize that once the atoms in the universe are there, they can coalesce into stars which create more, heavier atoms, which in turn creates all the elements.

Would that be right?

I disagree heavily on your disbelief in abiogenesis. It seems you don't like what science has put forward and because you don't have an answer you like, you turn to God.

And because we don't have a conclusive explanation for the big bang, you turn to God.

Is that correct?

Because it seems that this has been happening for thousands of years. If something can't be explained, we turn to God. Then we discovered evolution. So what do believers do? The ones that accept it just push God further back. We are now at a time of human understanding of the universe where a lot of people who still want a God in the picture, but are reasonable enough to look at the evidence science puts out, simply push him to the boundaries of science.

 

[Raist]

- I do not know the details surrounding this because the Bible does not provide details.

I thought how creation happened was quite well described in a straightforward way in Genesis.

 

[Dude Abides]

1. Doesn't give it much credibility for one. This goes back to the whole idea of disproving something. There are purple space hippos riding the cosmic waves throughout the universe. No one has found any. They must not exist. But what if they're somewhere we haven't looked? It's a somewhat flawed way to prove existence. Because it essentially comes down to an aspect of faith again. We just don't know that something exists because we haven't found it. What's worse is when people assert that God is outside our realm of understanding, somewhere where its impossible to measure, see, observe, anything he does. It's essentially creating a forcefield of bullshit around an idea. But it all comes down to faith. 12 different or more, interpretations of a concept are all flawed. The concept can still exist, but you need to rely on faith to believe it does.

2. Irrelevant for the reasons mentioned already.



I believe you only have a problem with the aspect of the big bang, and something like life being able to form naturally. So the origin of the universe and the origin of life. But you recognize that natural selection, mutations, evolution, and time can make simple, replicating life forms become what we see around the world today. And you recognize that once the atoms in the universe are there, they can coalesce into stars which create more, heavier atoms, which in turn creates all the elements.

Would that be right?

I disagree heavily on your disbelief in abiogenesis. It seems you don't like what science has put forward and because you don't have an answer you like, you turn to God.

And because we don't have a conclusive explanation for the big bang, you turn to God.

Is that correct?

Because it seems that this has been happening for thousands of years. If something can't be explained, we turn to God. Then we discovered evolution. So what do believers do? The ones that accept it just push God further back. We are now at a time of human understanding of the universe where a lot of people who still want a God in the picture, but are reasonable enough to look at the evidence science puts out, simply push him to the boundaries of science.

It's not just the Big Bang/Abiogenesis. I'm pretty sure JGS does not accept that speciation occurred, either.

 

[JGS]

More like, using the Scientific method, creation has been pushed back from it's original form, to a much more obscure form. Abiogenesis for example, has mountains more evidence in it's favour than creation. If we get to the point where we are even half as sure of abiogenesis as we are of evolution, it'll get to the point where creation will be shoved back to reside entirely in the pre-big bang gap.

You can't use scientific method on everything. Creation by definition of what you look for is not possible (Except by observing the natural process of how life gets here now). Also, abiogenesis doesn't have a mole hill of information, much less a mountain. The simple fact that there is explanation of creation measn there's more information that abiogenesis.

It gets to the point where it just seems silly. It's akin to believing anything about anything without any evidence supporting it, which I don't think any normal person would do in regards to anything except religion.

you and I think the same way over opposing views. I can't think of a sillier notion of how life came to be than by the standard "scientific" answer. It makes complete sense, on the other hand, to think that something more powerful than us exists and that the capability of creation is within it's grasp - Biblically or not. Humans aren't too far from that now and I'm always surprised that humans think they are top dog in the universe - until someone mentions aliens that are superior in intelligence.

Edit: Seeing your edit I'll respect your desire to drop it - as we've gone down this road a million bajillion times, you and I. I will however say, I disagree that creation isn't essential to the Jeudo christian belief. Without doing some serious gymnastics, evolution essentially turns adam and eve into a 'metaphor' - and that's just one of those stories that can't be one. What's it metaphorically referring to?

So I'll ask you this instead - I am aware that you look at the Adam and Eve story more as a metaphor, can you describe to me what it's a metaphor for?

I don't mind talking about it, it's just that the conversation will turn into someone saying that I have to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis or else it's flawed thinking. The Bible doesn't require me to do that. Another thing that's problematic is anything I do think is purely conjecture which can turn into a wirthless debate too. So I'l explain but not necessarily debate it.

I didn't say creation wasn't essential to Judeo-Christain teaching. I think it's extremely important. The details aren't. If we can't replicate it or aspire to it, it wasn't something to be concerned with especially if the writer couldn't grasp the details.. It is there primarily for us to identify God as the Universal Sovreign of the universe.

I do not think Adam & Eve is meant to be a metaphor. I think during the Biblical history recorded, Adam & Eve clearly existed and are constantly referred to as ones the Jews (at a minimum) are descended from. So in some shape or form, Adam & Eve are as real as anyone else and there's certainly nothing out there that disproves it. Adam & Eve were the last things created and the first things created in God's image. Since we know that God doesn't have a physical body to copy (& we physically have an appearance of monkeys anyway), it stands to reason they were created in his image in terms of qualities/personality. Although the writer may not be aware of of other peoples (there was no reason to since this was a history about his people, of which the promised seed was going to appear.)

As an aside and should be clear by now, I do not think that creation is described literally chronologically. By literal, I mean that the writer is using literary language to explain events that could not be known timewise nor that he could actually understand scientifically anyway even if God told him.

As described in Genesis? I'm afraid so...

OK, thanks for telling me.

 

[Kinitari]

There is a lot to your post I'd very much like to discuss, but I'm on my phone. One thing, JGS, I definitely want to ask you is - why, if God explained the science of evolution, would the prophets or whatever, not have been able to understand?

 

[alekth]

But I don't think the belief that aliens might have something to do with starting life on Earth equates any religion... Just because something is a lot more powerful, it doesn't mean it's a god, or that it actually left any sort of record/guidelines that correspond to one of the many religions.

 

[Raist]

I'm always surprised that humans think they are top dog in the universe - until someone mentions aliens that are superior in intelligence.

That's a common belief among theists. You'd have to blame the bible. I don't think I know many atheists thinking that kind of non-sense.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I didn't say creation wasn't essential to Judeo-Christain teaching. I think it's extremely important. The details aren't. If we can't replicate it or aspire to it, it wasn't something to be concerned with especially if the writer couldn't grasp the details.. It is there primarily for us to identify God as the Universal Sovreign of the universe.

I do not think Adam & Eve is meant to be a metaphor. I think during the Biblical history recorded, Adam & Eve clearly existed and are constantly referred to as ones the Jews (at a minimum) are descended from. So in some shape or form, Adam & Eve are as real as anyone else and there's certainly nothing out there that disproves it. Adam & Eve were the last things created and the first things created in God's image. Since we know that God doesn't have a physical body to copy (& we physically have an appearance of monkeys anyway), it stands to reason they were created in his image in terms of qualities/personality. Although the writer may not be aware of of other peoples (there was no reason to since this was a history about his people, of which the promised seed was going to appear.)
.

Why didn't the book go into detail about this? I would imagine a book meant to be adhered to religiously would be very plain and easy to ready. Why the jump to all these conclusions?

 

[JGS]

That's a common belief among theists. You'd have to blame the bible. I don't think I know many atheists thinking that kind of non-sense.

It doesn't matter if it's a common belief of theist if it's a common belief of the atheist too. This just means it's a universal thought.

The Bible doesn't mention that we'retop dog (Maybe you could provide a verse again). In fact, it specifically mentions that humans are inferior to everything but animals and that we are specks in comparison to the universe.

So you can blame a "theist", but not the text they look to.

Why didn't the book go into detail about this? I would imagine a book meant to be adhered to religiously would be very plain and easy to ready. Why the jump to all these conclusions?

Because it's not important and it was something not understandable by man. We don't understand it now. The bible is very easy and plain to read, but that doesn't mean it's required to be a science book. People can and have lived their lives fine regardless of tech advances. Humans do a good job of advancing scientifically over time although they will always fail at disproving creation which is the best way to describe how life got here- whether it's the biblical version or not.

They can't help but to fail at it since you can't change reality and you sure can't wish nature to show you proof.

 

[Log4Girlz]

It doesn't matter if it's a common belief of theist if it's a common belief of the atheist too. This just means it's a universal thought.

The Bible doesn't mention that we'retop dog (Maybe you could provide a verse again). In fact, it specifically mentions that humans are inferior to everything but animals and that we are specks in comparison to the universe.

So you can blame a "theist", but not the text they look to.

Because it's not important and it was something not understandable by man. We don't understand it now. The bible is very easy and plain to read, but that doesn't mean it's required to be a science book. People can and have lived their lives fine regardless of tech advances. Humans do a good job of advancing scientifically over time although they will always fail at disproving creation which is the best way to describe how life got here- whether it's the biblical version or not.

They can't help but to fail at it since you can't change reality and you sure can't wish nature to show you proof.

What would have been the ramifications if an indecipherable formula had been added to the bible that primitive man could not possibly have understood at the time, and were passed through the ages unchanged, only to be deciphered today? Like, if it included the trillionth digit of Pi? What would this imply?

 

[Tawpgun]

Humans do a good job of advancing scientifically over time although they will always fail at disproving creation which is the best way to describe how life got here- whether it's the biblical version or not.

They can't help but to fail at it since you can't change reality and you sure can't wish nature to show you proof.

No.

No.

No.

The difference between abiogenesis and creation is that abiogenesis is based on scientific law, theories, experiments, models. It was developed with the scientific method and it works. Is it super conclusive? No, but its the best model we have so far until more findings come in. It's a model that doesn't cop out and turn to God for an explanation. This is a fundamental problem with you and other religious folk who claim that science can't explain these kind of things.

I have no problem with you being religious, but to say science will always fail on determining the true origin of life is disgusting. The only reason for ANYONE to believe in creationism is faith and religion. Not because SCIENCE DONT KNOW FER SURE YET.

 

[Log4Girlz]

No.

No.

No.

The difference between abiogenesis and creation is that abiogenesis is based on scientific law, theories, experiments, models. It was developed with the scientific method and it works. Is it super conclusive? No, but its the best model we have so far until more findings come in. It's a model that doesn't cop out and turn to God for an explanation. This is a fundamental problem with you and other religious folk who claim that science can't explain these kind of things.

I have no problem with you being religious, but to say science will always fail on determining the true origin of life is disgusting. The only reason for ANYONE to believe in creationism is faith and religion. Not because SCIENCE DONT KNOW FER SURE YET.

But anyone can understand faith.

 

[TheContact]

How do religious and non-religious people explain alturism vs. darwinism?

Alturism being the feeling you get to want to help someone, like for instance let's say a car veers off the road into a lake and you see people drowning. Most people feel the need to help unless you're a cold person inside. There's no instinct there as far as I can tell, this is a genuine need to help other people at the cost of your own life, which goes against...

Darwinism, survival of the fittest, instinct etc... would all tell you to not even get in that water because something could happen to you.

 

[JGS]

No.

No.

No.

The difference between abiogenesis and creation is that abiogenesis is based on scientific law, theories, experiments, models. It was developed with the scientific method and it works. Is it super conclusive? No, but its the best model we have so far until more findings come in. It's a model that doesn't cop out and turn to God for an explanation. This is a fundamental problem with you and other religious folk who claim that science can't explain these kind of things.

I have no problem with you being religious, but to say science will always fail on determining the true origin of life is disgusting. The only reason for ANYONE to believe in creationism is faith and religion. Not because SCIENCE DONT KNOW FER SURE YET.

This is completely, totally, 100% not true. But I get why you would believe it. Any belief in abiogenesis is indoctrinated into you with no sound basis except that it's the only way to go when God is omitted. It's every bit of an assumption that religion is. It's the model for a scientific experiement, a placebo, not reality. It has no affect whatsoever on any scientific experiment ever done- similar to time travel in that it's great to think about, impossible to accomplish specifically because it is impossible.

What would have been the ramifications if an indecipherable formula had been added to the bible that primitive man could not possibly have understood at the time, and were passed through the ages unchanged, only to be deciphered today? Like, if it included the trillionth digit of Pi? What would this imply?

There would be no point to that in regards to worship. Besides, some would argue that prophecy plays that role.

It would basically be a parlor trick for non-believers to disregard.