Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[ratiocinator]

Well, you just cannot speak about scripture without studying them.

Courtier's reply fallacy.

A key element of a courtier's reply, which distinguishes it from an otherwise valid response that incidentally points out the critic's lack of established authority on the topic, is that the respondent never shows how the work of these overlooked experts invalidates the arguments that were advanced by the critic.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t know any Christians who make this claim for the Bible. I met an American pastor once who came to my school 50 years ago and made that claim, but we all thought he was insane.

There are quite a few American fundamentalist pastors that still make that same claim.

 

[F1fan]

If you are to make a case about how theists view scripture and deem it good or bad or neutral, you have to have studied it.

It's that scripture has has many tens of centuries to demonstrate it is objective and true to the facts. What we have to acknowledge is that scripture hasn't been able to do any such thing, while science has been massively successful in just a few centuries.

We clearly observe theists struggle to make their traditional religious texts and beliefs seem relevant and true in a world where science has accomplished more in terms of providing humans what is true about how things are.

 

[firedragon]

Courtier's reply fallacy.

A key element of a courtier's reply, which distinguishes it from an otherwise valid response that incidentally points out the critic's lack of established authority on the topic, is that the respondent never shows how the work of these overlooked experts invalidates the arguments that were advanced by the critic.​

Cute.

 

[Sheldon]

I don’t know any Christians who make this claim for the Bible. I met an American pastor once who came to my school 50 years ago and made that claim, but we all thought he was insane.

That contradiction aside, this has been a traditional claim made by christians for centuries, and I've met theists who've claimed this, and I am not talking about 50 years ago either.

 

[F1fan]

Exactly what preachers generally say.

And we dismiss pastors because they fail to provide facts, reason, and a coherent explanation.

Feel free to present some bit of religious dogma that is factual, objective, and provides humanity with knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

Cute.

IOW: Ouch!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That contradiction aside, this has been a traditional claim made by christians for centuries, and I've met theists who've claimed this, and I am not talking about 50 years ago either.

Some of them make quite a good living at it too. Kent Hovind would be very well off, if he could avoid breaking federal law, and now avoid breaking his significant other.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There are quite a few American fundamentalist pastors that still make that same claim.

So I am learning. I suppose this realisation goes some way to explaining the hostility American atheists have towards religion.

But you should know that America is not the world, and that to assume all people of faith share the perspective of a particular strident subset, is prejudice on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I am learning. I suppose this realisation goes some way to explaining the hostility American atheists have towards religion.

But you should know that America is not the world, and that to assume all people of faith share the perspective of a particular strident subset, is prejudice on your part.

No one has ever assumed that it is. But atheism does allow one to see the harm done by almost all religions. And also how they all appear to be wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Its nice to see so many atheists defending other atheists like members of a cult. Blindly, without knowing the context of any conversation. Tribalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

there a point here?

He is a Muslim. So scripture will have a different meaning for him. He should have been specific instead of playing games.

 

[F1fan]

You didnt claim you have studied them. Correct. But you spoke of scripture and theists and I am not going there again with out any knowledge about them.

The advantage of academia is that we lay people can refer to experts in many fields of study so we don't have to. We atheists have read many books by religious apologists. We've read books by historians who have studied the history of the Bible extensively, and they explain how this in-depth research reveals about how the Bible was put together by mortals, with many flaws, mistakes, errors, and also how various interpretations have been created over thousands of years.

What is there to understand about the truth of the Bible by a believer today? Only that they believe in some sort of tradition of interpretation and meaning, not facts. The non-believe is more likely to defer to the factual history and dismiss the tradition of meaning and belief. So I argue the non-believer will more accurate in what they understand about the Bible as a text versus the believer who will make certain assumptions that not only have no facts, but are contrary to facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its nice to see so many atheists defending other atheists like members of a cult. Blindly, without knowing the context of any conversation. Tribalism.

Oh my! Talk about an ad hominem. Why assume that others could not have followed a conversation where the conversation is recorded for everyone to see?

 

[F1fan]

Its nice to see so many atheists defending other atheists like members of a cult. Blindly, without knowing the context of any conversation. Tribalism.

Your fellow theists must be in church this Sunday morning. Pity to be alone. Too bad you don't have a God on your side to keep you company.

 

[Sheldon]

Some of them make quite a good living at it too. Kent Hovind would be very well off, if he could avoid breaking federal law, and now avoid breaking his significant other.

Creationists in the state not content with doing their level best to have their superstitious myths inserted into children's education, have built an homage to creationism, and called it an institute. They have displays of dinosaurs mingling with humans, and trot out this guff as science, and charge people to see it.

The mind boggles.

If firedragon or anyone else wants to believe the bible is the inerrant or immutable word of an infallible deity, he and they might want to leaf through the creation myth in genesis.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That contradiction aside, this has been a traditional claim made by christians for centuries, and I've met theists who've claimed this, and I am not talking about 50 years ago either.

That the Bible is the immutable and inarguable word of God has to my knowledge never been mainstream Christian theology. How could it be, since the Christian Bible is a compendium of literature originally composed in Hebrew and Greek, translated from a variety of sources the legitimacy of which were themselves often disputed? Such an assertion makes no sense. Arguments over interpretation of scripture have been a characteristic of Christian discourse since long before the Reformation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The advantage of academia is that we lay people can refer to experts in many fields of study so we don't have to. We atheists have read many books by religious apologists. We've read books by historians who have studied the history of the Bible extensively, and they explain how this in-depth research reveals about how the Bible was put together by mortals, with many flaws, mistakes, errors, and also how various interpretations have been created over thousands of years.

What is there to understand about the truth of the Bible by a believer today? Only that they believe in some sort of tradition of interpretation and meaning, not facts. The non-believe is more likely to defer to the factual history and dismiss the tradition of meaning and belief. So I argue the non-believer will more accurate in what they understand about the Bible as a text versus the believer who will make certain assumptions that not only have no facts, but are contrary to facts.

He again is a Muslim, so for him "scripture" is not a synonym for the Bible. He is playing a little game.

Of course it is all an attempt to shift the burden of proof. He cannot support the Quran anymore than a Christian can support the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That the Bible is the immutable and inarguable word of God has to my knowledge never been mainstream Christian theology. How could it be, since the Christian Bible is a compendium of literature originally composed in Hebrew and Greek, translated from a variety of sources the legitimacy of which were themselves often disputed? Such an assertion makes no sense. Arguments over interpretation of scripture have been a characteristic of Christian discourse since long before the Reformation.

People are weird. They can agree that the Bible is the immutable and inarguable word of God while arguing about its interpretation. That is how terms like 'blasphemy' get invented.

 

[F1fan]

He again is a Muslim, so for him "scripture" is not a synonym for the Bible. He is playing a little game.

Games, indeed. He is often vague and sneaky.

Of course it is all an attempt to shift the burden of proof. He cannot support the Quran anymore than a Christian can support the Bible.

It's the trap Christians and Muslims have set for themselves in modern times. They are invited for a way out, yet they reset their traps time and time again.