Adam, Eve and the Forbidden Fruit

[Peregrine]

Ugh, I've got to stop ignoring these threads for so long....

 

MORGOTH:

 

And just because some people behave and think that stupidly, you have to do the same?

 

I have explained my reasons. Call it stupid if you want, but there's a huge difference between believing every word of a flawed book and debating based on a literal interpertation in the absence of a clear alternate interpertation.

 

The fundamental problem is that people do not believe in the bible. The bible is a collection of texts, if you want to belief in a book, you can belief in Macbeth as well as the bible. People believe in God, not the bible.

 

They do? What about the tiny flaw that there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of god outside of the bible. Without the bible, christianity is based on nothing!

 

What about the fact that there is no "official bible" (with the exception that canon is a clearly defined collection of texts)?

 

Stop word lawyering. You know perfectly well there's an official bible. It's not by coincidence that 90% of the bibles in existence are almost identical in content. And the percentage with the fundamental changes you are refering to is small enough to be completely irrelevant.

 

The existence of "that Jesus guy" as you use to call him is proven fact - look at Tacitus, Flavius Josephus and other non-Christian sources and you'll see that your statement has no fundament.

 

Which says nothing about him being the son of god, or performing all those miracles. There might have been an important priest named Jesus, but the Jesus presented in the bible is pure myth.

 

Maybe your point of view would profit from leaving a position as it would suit the first millenium after Christ. A fundamentalist view on the bible has been dismissed as impossible by most theologists for some time by now. You may have missed its existence, but there is a so-called historical-critical method to deal with the bible which - simply put - does not regard the bible as written by God (of course it isn't, it's written by human beings) and tries to evaluate the authenticity of texts and researches the sources, redactional changes and other influences of the texts.

 

Fine, ignore the parts that conflict with reality. You're left with absolutely nothing.

 

I start to wonder whether it is me as a Christian who is really as prejudiced as people say I am or if it is other people... 

 

So you want to ignore your religion's history of using "the will of god" to benefit mere humans at the cost of the "heretics"?

 

 

As a final statement, you can argue your selective truth all you want, but if you want a useful debate, I have two requests. I will be happy to use any interpertation of the bible you want (at least to reply to your points) if you can do these.

 

1) Give me a clear, specific list of which parts of the bible you consider true, and which are discarded as metaphors/stories/etc.

 

2) Tell me why the reasons you used to discard those sections do not apply to the entire bible.

 

=====================================================

 

MAQUISSAR

 

Acrid, you can not believe in God as much as you like, but that doesn't mean that

he doesn't exist. It all depends on your view of God. An elderly man with a

long beard and a nightie? I'll agree with you he is unlikely to exist. But when we

seek God, we actually look for nothing more than some sense into life's apparent

chaos.

 

Fine, then define god. I can define god as my dog and present absolute proof that god exists.

 

You say you believe in Nature, right? Well, Nature doesn't do thing randomly.

Have you ever heard of Fibonacci's sequence, for instance? Nature has a will of

its own, Nature has a plan, and that is God. (By Nature I don't just mean plants

and trees on Earth, I mean the complex system of physical laws valid throughout

the Galaxy.)

 

I agree entirely. Nature has a clear will of its own, and it can be explained with a single word:

 

Reproduce.

 

If it works long enough to reproduce, it survives. If it doesn't work well enough, it disappears.

 

As for Heaven and Hell... well, that's a completely different matter  But although

I'm agnostic, I am more inclined to believe that there is an entity which created

the universe and its physical laws, rather than believe that the universe is ruled

by chaos and came into existance out of nothing. But I'll agree with you... maybe

it's just because it's easier to accept.

 

So there is no reason to believe in a diety of any form. If the only reason you believe in one is because it is easier to accept, then you're just lying to yourself. So I present you with a challenge as well:

 

Explain why the universe can not be explained without a god, and why the existence of one is more likely than the lack of one. Do this without saying "I just feel it is". The universe must be looked at from an objective perspective in this case, not subjective feelings. Take a look at the laws and the explanations, and find the flaw you need. And when you fail, take a serious look at that "maybe it's just easier to accept" statement.

[Peregrine]

DARNOC

 

Why? Let us assume that we possess all knowlegde and all wisdom and a super-human-intelligence far beyond our imagination.

 

And here is your first fatal flaw. To be able to reduce everything to laws and equations would require omniscience. If one is omniscient, one has knowledge of all future events based on that alone. Calculation and logic are unnecessary.

 

The basis of our universe is logic and rules based on logic. Coincidence is chaos, logic is order. Both can not exist at the same time.

 

Here's your second, and worst flaw. You're trying to use abstract philosophical concepts in scientific laws. Order and chaos are defined terms. Pure order is a perfect crystal at absolute zero. Chaos (or entropy) is the degree of deviation from this state.

 

You can't just define subjective ideas of order and chaos and then expect them to work in scientific/mathematical laws. The associations you rely on are fundamentaly flawed.

[Maquissar]

Peregrine, I said that I am more keen to believe in a divine principle than not,

but you are asking me for scientific evidence that God is more likely to exist than

not when, as an agnostic, I said that I don't feel qualified to provide any

demonstration about its existance or non-existance. I'd have to know more about

both religion and science to be able to do that, and even if I did, maybe I still

wouldn't be able to scientifically prove anything. When I expressed my ideas,

I did so without trying to impose them to other people; I share my beliefs, but

other people are more than welcome to express their own views on the subject.

I don't need to demonstrate anything. Can you provide absolute uncontestable evidence that God doesn't exist?

 

This said, I think it's a pity we all live in different countries, because if we didn't

we could go to a pub and get drunk over the subject, and the final answer to

God's existance would be an obscene tavern song and a laughter ;)

 

P.S. = An interesting site I've found on my online wanderings:

http://www.religioustolerance.org ... check it out!

[Morgoth]

I have explained my reasons. Call it stupid if you want, but there's a huge difference between believing every word of a flawed book and debating based on a literal interpertation in the absence of a clear alternate interpertation.

 

But what is important is that the outcome is the same as far as discussions like these are concerned.

 

They do? What about the tiny flaw that there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of god outside of the bible. Without the bible, christianity is based on nothing!

 

Even the bible doesn't provide evidence for the existence of of God. If there was any proof of God's existence, we would know about him, not believe in him - religion wouldn't be required. There is a difference between what you believe in and the medium that gives you some information on what you believe in. The priest at the local church might also tell you some things about God. But you still believe in God, not the priest.

 

Stop word lawyering. You know perfectly well there's an official bible. It's not by coincidence that 90% of the bibles in existence are almost identical in content. And the percentage with the fundamental changes you are refering to is small enough to be completely irrelevant.

 

I admit I gave quite a spontaneous, not really productive reply. But in fact, you actually shouldn't have any problem with any text in the bible as long as you do not make the mistake to understand them literally. It is not my task or right to say "Cut this text out of the bible." nor is it probably anyone else's.

 

Which says nothing about him being the son of god, or performing all those miracles. There might have been an important priest named Jesus, but the Jesus presented in the bible is pure myth.

 

Of course it does not prove that Jesus was God's son. Again, if there was proof for that, we wouldn't need believe in God, we would know that he exists (so there would be no need for belief). Whether Jesus as the son of God is indeed the case or myth depends solely on your belief/conviction - for someone who asks other people to be objective, you're being quite subjective here. As far as the miracles are concerned, many if not all of them are not regarded as ipsissima facta. Again, we're moving onto the ground of the historical-critical method. The descriptions of all these miracles are additions, not historical accounts. The bible was not written instantly after Jesu death, but people told each other about him orally for nearly a century before they started to write that down. In the meanwhile, and probably also during the process of writing and rewriting, people had started adding episodes that did not really happen, but which they thought would fit to the context and would underline their beliefs.

 

Maybe your point of view would profit from leaving a position as it would suit the first millenium after Christ. A fundamentalist view on the bible has been dismissed as impossible by most theologists for some time by now. You may have missed its existence, but there is a so-called historical-critical method to deal with the bible which - simply put - does not regard the bible as written by God (of course it isn't, it's written by human beings) and tries to evaluate the authenticity of texts and researches the sources, redactional changes and other influences of the texts.

 

Fine, ignore the parts that conflict with reality. You're left with absolutely nothing.

 

To be honest, I do not see how your statement relates to my remark.

 

So you want to ignore your religion's history of using "the will of god" to benefit mere humans at the cost of the "heretics"?

 

I suppose you intend to refer to incidents like crusades or the inquisition? Then I have to point out again that these are not the actions of a religion, but of the institution church, which was and is led by fallible human beings.

[ThetaOrionis01]

*laughs*

 

The universe based on logic and order? :lol:

 

The fundamental, underlying principle of the universe is quantum mechanics. 'Order' is an illusion.

 

 

All worship the Uncertainty Principle, and its prophet, Schroedinger's Cat.

 

 

 

meow

 

 

:lol:

 

Oh, and you may find this enlightening.

 

 

:lol:

[Peregrine]

But what is important is that the outcome is the same as far as discussions like these are concerned.

 

If you'd read what I posted, you give me no choice but to use the default interpertation: the bible is meant as truth. If you'd stop dodging the question and post your relevant beliefs, I would be perfectly happy to base my replies on them.

 

Even the bible doesn't provide evidence for the existence of of God. If there was any proof of God's existence, we would know about him, not believe in him - religion wouldn't be required. There is a difference between what you believe in and the medium that gives you some information on what you believe in. The priest at the local church might also tell you some things about God. But you still believe in God, not the priest.

 

So why do you believe in god? If no evidence can be found, why do you assume that there is a god who hides his existence? Why don't you just accept the idea that there is no evidence because there is nothing to create that evidence?

 

I admit I gave quite a spontaneous, not really productive reply. But in fact, you actually shouldn't have any problem with any text in the bible as long as you do not make the mistake to understand them literally. It is not my task or right to say "Cut this text out of the bible." nor is it probably anyone else's.

 

It is your task when you expect me to debate based on your personal interpertation of the bible, which is not available to me otherwise. I have no problem with my personal view of the bible. The only question is which interpertation is used for this debate.

 

Of course it does not prove that Jesus was God's son. Again, if there was proof for that, we wouldn't need believe in God, we would know that he exists (so there would be no need for belief). Whether Jesus as the son of God is indeed the case or myth depends solely on your belief/conviction - for someone who asks other people to be objective, you're being quite subjective here. As far as the miracles are concerned, many if not all of them are not regarded as ipsissima facta. Again, we're moving onto the ground of the historical-critical method. The descriptions of all these miracles are additions, not historical accounts. The bible was not written instantly after Jesu death, but people told each other about him orally for nearly a century before they started to write that down. In the meanwhile, and probably also during the process of writing and rewriting, people had started adding episodes that did not really happen, but which they thought would fit to the context and would underline their beliefs.

 

See above. If you want to use an alternate interpertation of the bible, just tell me what it is!

 

To be honest, I do not see how your statement relates to my remark.

 

You state that it is reasonable and justified to reduce sections of the bible to story/symbolic/human error/etc status if they conflict with reality. If you apply that principle to the entire bible, you are left with nothing. The entire bible becomes merely a story, and not even a very interesting one.

 

I suppose you intend to refer to incidents like crusades or the inquisition? Then I have to point out again that these are not the actions of a religion, but of the institution church, which was and is led by fallible human beings.

 

A church which organizes a religion. Call it "not true christianity" or whatever you want, but there is a clear history of religion being used for corrupt purposes. Even if you disagree with Acrid's statement as it applies to your personal religion, when you consider religion as a whole, it is perfectly true.

[Maquissar]

LOL... Theta, you have enlightened me... I have found God... although I myself

would prefer blackberry to blueberry!

[Malchik]

As I have emphasised often in these religious threads - atheism is a belief as much as christianity or animism - it has no proofs. Ultimately arguments on either side for 'proof' are pointless and to be frank get a tad boring.

 

My view is that in the absence of proof positive in two thousand years and with all our advances and discoveries amounts to a substantial body of (negative) 'evidence' in the camp for non-existence. I cannot find a corresponding weight of 'evidence' on the other side. But my decision is my own and I have no intention of trying to proselytise the faith of atheism.

 

Peregrine, we atheists should take care not to propound our opinions as facts however strongly we believe in them, or we end up as bad as the god-botherers!

[Darnoc]

*laughs*

 

The universe based on logic and order? 

 

The fundamental, underlying principle of the universe is quantum mechanics. 'Order' is an illusion.

 

 

All worship the Uncertainty Principle, and its prophet, Schroedinger's Cat.

 

I know this, you don't have to tell me. But I also think that Schroedinger is wrong. At the moment it may seem that everything is uncertain, but I think that at the bottom of things we will find again new laws far more complex than anything we can imagine at the moment. Also what we call "chaotic" and "uncertain" at the moment is based finally on laws. Our problem is just that we aren't able to understand them, because they are too complex for our minds (at least at the moment). Even uncertainty follows laws. If the universe wouldn't base on laws, it would collaps and couldn't exist at all. Nothing can exist in true chaos, only in order there is the possibility of existence.

 

To satisfy Peregrine: I define Chaos as the absolute disorder of everything and what I call order is the absolute basic order of things. Those are two extremes and both can't exist at the same time, because they are absolute opposites. Either there is perfect chaos (in which case everything ceases to exist, because everything would fall apart) or there is perfect order (in which case everything exists). You used the example of a crystal at zero degree. At zero degree there is no movement at all. Order doesn't include no movement. There is also an order in movement. But the laws of movement are far more complex than the laws of something standing still (logically). That is why the molecules in a gas may look like they are in a state of chaos, which isn't true. They also follow laws and are in perfect order, we just don't understand those laws and therefore we think that chaos exists.

 

Omniscience doesn't include having knowlegde of everything. Omniscience is when you have understanding of the mechanism, rules and laws of the universe and therefore you understand all processes which leads to that you know everything, because you can calculate everything that is going to happen based on your knowlegde.

[ThetaOrionis01]

*laughs*

 

The universe based on logic and order? 

 

The fundamental, underlying principle of the universe is quantum mechanics. 'Order' is an illusion.

 

 

All worship the Uncertainty Principle, and its prophet, Schroedinger's Cat.

 

I know this, you don't have to tell me. But I also think that Schroedinger is wrong. At the moment it may seem that everything is uncertain, but I think that at the bottom of things we will find again new laws far more complex than anything we can imagine at the moment. Also what we call "chaotic" and "uncertain" at the moment is based finally on laws. Our problem is just that we aren't able to understand them, because they are too complex for our minds (at least at the moment). Even uncertainty follows laws. If the universe wouldn't base on laws, it would collaps and couldn't exist at all. Nothing can exist in true chaos, only in order there is the possibility of existence.

 

Darnoc..... just to clarify: are you actually familiar with the Uncertainty Principle? I get the impression from your last post that you are not sure what it states.