|
Post by galadon on Aug 24, 2007 12:37:45 GMT -5
Even so you can explain the large mistakes in the bible.
If you don't like what he does with a word or two thats fine. But the ill concidered dirvel come from the bible. That is so full of mistakes that people get defensive because it can't be defended, just ignored.
Ignore the mistakes, the myths pretended to be true. The deceptions, the wrong dates. You can say what you want about Graham, Richard Dawkins, or Bertand Russell.
The problem still remains The bible is fill with glaring mistakes. But we are suppose to ignore this and just go along in ignorant bliss. Sorry no, there are only two reasons wars are fought, land and religion.
Tell me dmitri according to the most holy bible. Hows many gods are there?
Do tell, why are people in Brazil leaving the church in droves. Maybe because there is something missing, like the truth.
|
|
|
Post by galadon on Aug 24, 2007 15:08:00 GMT -5
By the way - Dr. Lightfoot from the 17th century is not a compelling arguement against Creationism, let alone against the existence of God. So a single man, a priest as I recall, was possibly incorrect in his date for Creation (though who knows - maybe he was right!) I put this out not a s a compelling argument, but as what some people think. I wonder what a physicist would say if you asked him, "Can ther be light without a source?" And God saw the light, it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Graham wrote: Here again, God saw the light, and thought it good, but how did this priestly scribe know that he did? Did God tell him so trillions of years after the act? No, the world exsists and the author just assumed its various stages were right and proper. That this light is not sunlight is obvvivous, since the the sun, the stars, were not created till the fourth day. Ah but this is hogwash that Graham writes. How so? Well I have a few ideas on that. One your not suppose to asked questions like this. Or you get attacked, thrown in prison or killed. Your not suppose to wonder why the light came before the sun. A priest wrote it just accept it. If you dare question the bible your automatically wrong. It doesn't matter how many foot notes or reference you have. In a highly ignorant world back in the days when the bible was written and re-written and rewritten. The control of people was strong, you could get away with this. Today where there is vastly more intelligence and freedom for people to question things that make no sence, people have the freedom to leave the religion behind. But there is still the few who say its right no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 24, 2007 16:52:12 GMT -5
Wow, never thought I'd defend the bible, at least part way. The Holy Bible as written today appears to be a compilation of history's record of dealing with the divine. In different periods of time, those who held authority over the bible (forgive my ignorance as I know only that these people were, not who they were) saw fit to add or remove material in order to make the message reach the people in good favor. Hence, some matters of controversy were removed. This is pretty damned much fact (vague though I am on account of my own ignorance). It wasn't thrown from the heaven, or released from the bowels of the pope. Think of it like a history book, it grows, shrinks or changes based on what the publishers see as pertinent. This is in no way a challenge to the feasibility of God. It's hardly a challenge of the validity of biblical text. It is only a reminder of the impact of history on us today. God didn't grab Paul's hand and force him to write letters, nor does anyone with much of a wit say he did. If you want to attack the bible for missing a date, or trying to make myth fact, I should show my science book that not only claims the Electron is 5 times the volume of the proton, it has a diagram trying to illustrate that. Text everywhere has mistakes, the Bible isn't any better or worse than some of the garbage I worked out of in school.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 24, 2007 16:59:43 GMT -5
If you don't like what he does with a word or two thats fine. But the ill considered drivel come from the bible. Actually, it's not just a word or two. Graham also postulates that all planets were once stars, and that our sun is likewise a planet as well. On page 174 he explains that the burning Bush of Exodus is "the earth in its post-solar convulsions." He mistakenly takes the name Terah of the OT and extrapolates that it comes from "terra", meaning Earth. He wrote a laughable book attacking the Bible - I simply point this out. His book is available through Amazon if anyone would like a copy - goes for about 7 or 8 dollars used - it's out-of-print.That is so full of mistakes that people get defensive because it can't be defended, just ignored. Ignore the mistakes, the myths pretended to be true. The deceptions, the wrong dates. What wrong dates? The Bible doesn't use a dating system, especially not one we'd be familiar with - the BC/AD system wasn't designed until the Middle Ages. And what you regard as myths, we regard as events that occurred. There was a universal flood, which covered the Earth with water. Neither Graham nor Russell nor Dawkins offers proof or even solid evidence that it didn't take place. They're logic runs "Since the Bible is false and full of lies, then this can't be true." And when asked how they know the Bible is false and full of lies, the say "Because it contains myths like the Deluge." A notable logical fallacy, referred to in debate as "circulus in demonstrando", or circular reasoning.You can say what you want about Graham, Richard Dawkins, or Bertand Russell. I can, but I won't speak to Dawkins as I haven't read his work. But Graham is not an authority anymore than Tim Robbins or Bono is an authority on politics. As for Bertrand Russell, he was primarily a mathematician. Though interestingly enough he did support the ontological argument for the existence of God for sometime before he changed his mind.The problem still remains The bible is fill with glaring mistakes. But we are suppose to ignore this and just go along in ignorant bliss. Sorry no, there are only two reasons wars are fought, land and religion. What about wars for money? Power? Fear? Food? Security? Also, I don't ask anyone to ignore anything. I think that none of my posts to this point has asked any such thing...Tell me dmitri according to the most holy bible. Hows many gods are there? Unless this is a trick question, and I think you are setting this up as an attack on the Trinity concept, there is one God, with three aspects - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If it is a Trinity issue you are having, let me know - I have dealt with that one dozens of time and usually left with my questioners satisfied with my reasoning.Do tell, why are people in Brazil leaving the church in droves. Maybe because there is something missing, like the truth. I don't know why the people of Brazil are leaving the church. My guess would be that given a) Brazil is heavily Catholic, and b) the world is full of "name-only Catholics", they are finally abandoning the vestiges of belief that they have covered their unbelief in. But honestly, the numbers of believers in any region or place is once again not indicative of the truth of their beliefs. It was only 500 years ago that everyone "knew" the world was flat, just like everyone "knows" today that the Bible is a myth. Majority vote doesn't mean truth.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 24, 2007 17:05:11 GMT -5
Oh yeah, as for the devil and deception, why do you think they call him Diablo (diabolic, diabolos [Greek I believe for deceiver] is the actual root) Light without a source? What's your beginning theory? A lot of people just go with the big bang. Good enough. An explosion so forceful that it rendered all of existence from a veritable nothing. All matter and energy in the universe sent forth from one point in an instant. That sounds to me like a rather mighty amount of light with no one source. Shortly thereafter the cooling in the dead cold of space would have allowed the first matter to settle from this explosion, separating the light from the darkness. And then? All of the subatomic particles from quark on up coalesced from gravity- . . . wait, where did that come from? Each one drawn toward the others, forming into real tangible matter. And then bigger, and hotter matter, until the stars became. That's a pretty popular view of the beginning. I don't know what happened in the other days in the "God created it" version, but some of the pieces seem to fit. I'm sure the others could be seen to fit if you let them. So what is gravity? That one is responsible for most of the universe as we see it today. I know that gravity is the force of attraction between to bodies, but that's a kinda weak answer.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 24, 2007 17:16:24 GMT -5
Dates, heh. I don't think any reference to a historical record of historical events has ever been well founded. Every culture had a different calender, some of them were even Sidereal (star based) which means every 7 years or something odd like that they slip in reference to the sun until winter becomes spring. The same goes for lunar calenders. I mean look at the holidays that are planned around a lunar calender, they move as much as 2 weeks on a solar calender. Take that discrepancy and spread it over a few thousand years and you're probably going to have quite a few contradictions that would seem to lies. I really don't think anybody has it close to right, but I guess that is why everyone is still searching for an answer.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 24, 2007 17:33:01 GMT -5
Now for the question of light. Graham asks us if God told the scribe how he created the world. Graham then answers his question and assumes there is no room for disagreement. But what if God did speak to the scribe of Genesis? Then the rest of Graham's reasoning is invalid. Just as easily as the scribe could have fabricated the tale, the omnipotent God of the universe could have spoken to a man and directed him to write what was written. Certainly it was not sunlight - the sun wasn't created till the 4th day. But if God is omnipotent, than it stands to reason He could create light from any source or none at all, ex nihilio. Yet Graham provides no evidence that the scribe was not an instrument of God, only his opinion.
I would also question the statements below:
One your not suppose to asked questions like this. Or you get attacked, thrown in prison or killed. Your not suppose to wonder why the light came before the sun. A priest wrote it just accept it. If you dare question the bible your automatically wrong. It doesn't matter how many foot notes or reference you have.
Um, you seem to be freely expressing yourself here, so part 1 of the above is irrelevant. If you question the Bible, that is not wrong - heck, I questioned it for years. I used to be as diehard as you seem to be, though I was strictly Nietzchian in my approach. You are allowed to wonder. I am not asking you to accept it simply on my arguments. I frankly don't know what would convince you. But I am presenting some ideas, particularly regarding the genesis of morals, that I find rather compelling. I hoped you would too, but apparently not.
In a highly ignorant world back in the days when the bible was written and re-written and rewritten. The control of people was strong, you could get away with this.
This would be considered an ad hominem argument, another classic logical fallacy. The essence of it is that because of the belief in the Bible, the world was ignorant. Not an acceptable line of reasoning in any rationale. Also, with the marked decentralization of government and even religion, the control was more lax than today, not more strict.
Today where there is vastly more intelligence and freedom for people to question things that make no sense, people have the freedom to leave the religion behind. But there is still the few who say its right no matter what.
Um, again - how is there more intelligence today than in yesteryear? Maybe more knowledge about some things, but not more intelligence. The Egyptians did engineer the Pyramids after all, the Aztecs and Mayans had some amazing feats of engineering and astronomy, Pythagoras was a more brilliant mathematician than many we produce today. And people have always left religion behind - simply mouthing words does not produce a Christian, or any other faith for that matter. And there will always be a remnant who will not compromise what they believe in, even when the world says that they can. I still find it funny that the world preaches tolerance toward all - unless they are "radical zealots". We must tolerate every abomination, every perversion, every belief; no one needs tolerate us.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 24, 2007 19:30:39 GMT -5
Honestly, no one need tolerate anyone, you can all just become total xenophobes. As far as control, control was lax in those days, but oppression was merciless. No laws, or morals, governed the treatment of subjects. What the throne wanted to do, it did until a higher power, or a greater power intervened. Wasn't it King Henry the somethingth that founded a whole new national denomination of Christianity just so he could divorce? It isn't control I suppose that was any more lax, but accountability that was lacking. It doesn't look like we're all that far from that now either.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 24, 2007 20:02:33 GMT -5
Another interesting thing to think of - the ontological arguement for the existence of God. I have borrowed the below language from Wikipedia, but it almost exactly matches that of Alvin Plantinga in my old Logic textbook from Millersville. The logical proof is given below:
1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and 2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. 3) Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) 4) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists 5) Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5) 6) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Granted you must accept the S5 axiom of modal logic (most logicians do) and the "possibility premise" (which is a little more controversial, yet largely accepted). It is interesting to note that this is not a true proof for the existence of God, it does rest on the possibility premise and the S5 axiom. But given that there is no proof of either one being false, you could assign a probability of .5 to the above argument. What this does justify is the postition that a belief in God is rational.
|
|
|
Post by galadon on Aug 25, 2007 7:16:40 GMT -5
Red and small letters. Are you trying to drive my eyes crazy dmitri?
Actually I don't have to use any trick question. The bible states there are more than one God. Now when I pointed this out to a person using his own bible, he got all defensive.
"You don't understand,,, your taking the bible to literal,,, you don't understand the cultural difference,,, your using the devil to deceive people.
I thought the devil part was amusing. I'm an atheist does this give you a hint if I think the devil exist.
I believe it was from the God delusion, he spoke on why the religious think they are the privilege class. if you talk about it, people get all crunchy faced and attacking. You can talk about sports, food, stocks or your favorite socks. But talk about religion and some people say "Oh you can't talk about religion." Why? Is your belief so weak that it will leave if you talk about it.
I been talking about religion to people for years. When presented with the facts of their own bible they claim to read,, "Well you just don't understand." and they stomp off in a huff. No, I do understand all to well thats what people don't want to hear. The bible is poorly written for a GOD INSPIRED BOOK.
Did I claim Graham was the authority on the bible? No. Since when do you have to have a PhD and masters degrees from the best university and years of research to point out something that is a mistake, regardless what version they come up with.
God made light before he made the source of light. The sun. Now is this a big unsolved mystery? No it was written by ignorant people who had no idea how things beyond their own little village worked. Now dmitri. Are you saying people in the 7th century have the same knowledge that people in the present have?
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge.
This scibe has no idea about the stars and planets, could this be why they describe the moon as the lesser light. If you go outside, hey that little moon looks bright. The moon does not produce light, but an ignorant scribe wouldn't know that in the 7th century.
Ah but here come the ulimate in cover ups. The only thing you ever have to say about religion and God. This doesn't require any thinking, any practice.
"Because God wanted it that way."
The universal cover answer. Instead of just admitting the bible has mistakes in it.
I think I'll skip the Noah's flood, it would be interesting to see how dmitri explains all those animals in a small boat.
An yes, once you skip all non reasons, the bottom line, the only reason wars are fought is real estate and religion. How many example would you like.
Almost forgot. What is Jupiter dmitri?
|
|
|
Post by galadon on Aug 25, 2007 15:28:02 GMT -5
But I have to hand it to you, dmitri you got it down the subtle rearranging of words, the interesting way you attack someone then say you don't. Seems to me that people who don't agree with your strict line of thinking is wrong. Well wrong without thinking there wrong.
But then you run into someone like me. You see I have no problem with memory. But nice try. I didn't say people were ignorant because they read the bible. They were ignorant when writing it.
You see I read things and remember what it says, not what some power hungry priest wants me to think.
So you dismiss Graham just for putting out an theory of his own. So by your standards we will be getting fully researched, footnoted and references about everything you say
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 25, 2007 16:32:29 GMT -5
This "Meaning of existence" thread is getting a little one sided here and hostile. Lets all takl about politics!!! heh, okay not really that funny. But seriously, I'd like to put forth a different view on the meaning of existence, another one that maybe flies in the face of Dmitri's "Only one right answer" concept, Suppose that the meaning of existence is to give existence meaning. I know, a little sappy, but given that people don't tend to come back, and the ratio of people personally transported by the divine to those transported by UFOs is not as staggering as maybe it should be, maybe the answer is not as cut and dry as it looks. I think I'd like to hear a little more about meaning, and a little less about bible flaws and the flaws in the bible flaws. Or not, whatever.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 26, 2007 6:45:37 GMT -5
Gonna agree with Grond on this one. Galadon, if you would care to continue this discussion in another format, ie. personal correspondance, PM, email whatever, that is cool. But this is getting way too hostile for my taste, and for posting here on the boards. A nice, academic, intelligent debate is one thing - a thing I enjoy and that I feel benefits everyone. It gives us all a chance to air our beliefs, read other views, and respond, thus sharpening our own wits and thought processes. But this has gone far beyond that... this has become more of a forum to express anger and frustration than anything else. I certainly did not intend it go in that direction.
So I'm off to church, then LGG3, then maybe I can look at Grond's last post more thoroughly... I appreciate the depth of some of the thinking apparent in some of the posts we have seen here, and have enjoyed the discussion for the most part. If anyone has felt like I have attacked them personally, I am sorry, please accept my apologies. This was not my intent in the least, and I would be happy to edit any posts that are attacks on someone's person directly, if you can show me that they are indeed so.
I certainly still hold my views on what we have discussed, as I have seen no reasoning compelling enough to sway me against these beliefs, but I think that we all realize that the point of this sort of exercise is less about "conversion" and more about "description". I am personally very intrigued by different lines of thought, and particularly about the way that they deal with scrutiny. Unfortunately, this has gotten a tad bit out of hand here lately, and is probably best described as a justification for the old family rule I hate so much "no discussion of religion or politics at the dinner table!"
|
|
|
Post by Kaber on Aug 26, 2007 19:29:48 GMT -5
Greetings friends. While I would have liked to join more in the conversation above, duites have called elsewhere.
It seems there are some great discussions and great points have been made on both sides. I do see that it has gotten a little warm, however I see nothing that calls for removal or editing. Well done people. It may have been tense at times but you all behaved rather well. Civility can be achieved in such discussions.
I have opinions I would share but let us retire for a time to the lounge where we may have a taste of fine ales and rich cigars (if those be your preference) and talk of things more defined. Whatever your belief I think that we can agree that no matter what lies beyond, it is what lies within us that is the greatest mystery of all.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by grond on Aug 26, 2007 20:57:37 GMT -5
I think Antioch's quote says it best, read it some time.
|
|