Evidence in the bible (hijack/split from how to turn a believer)

[iNow]

The day is the time it takes the world to go round the sun.

There can't have been a day before there was a sun.

Yet the made-up irrational account says the sun only came to being on the 4th day.

You really don't have to get very far into the Bible before it contradicts itself.

Just for clarity, your definition there is for a year. You obviously wanted to define a day as a single revolution of the earth wherein the sun becomes visible over the horizon, appears to sink into the horizon, then becomes visible once more.

 

Your primary point about contradictions and nonsense in the bible, however, is both valid and unchallenged.

[dimreepr]

Like Pymander, you have this the wrong way round, and my answer is the same.

It's the theists who will plainly believe any old nonsense they are told by the priests.

Examples include

" you should worship a man who turned water into wine- but you shouldn't drink alcohol"

"it's vitally important to cut bits of your children's genitals" and

" You should base the way you live your life on that of a man who married a 6 year old".

 

That's ironic, your absolute belief in your position include examples of straw-man arguments.

 

I asked you to provide evidence that religion offers wisdom that is not available to the secular.

 

 

Another straw-man, since I've never said that; my position has always been, the "bible's" TRY to teach contentment, secularism, as a whole, doesn't. Just to be clear, wisdom is available for all whatever 'ism you choose, however, it's not available as common sense.

 

You might also want to consider the effect that religion has had on politics.

 

 

What era?

Edited May 14, 2017 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

 

That's ironic, your absolute belief in your position include examples of straw-man arguments.

 

 

Another straw-man, since I've never said that; my position has always been, the "bible's" TRY to teach contentment, secularism, as a whole, doesn't. Just to be clear, wisdom is available for all whatever 'ism you choose, however, it's not available as common sense.

 

 

 

What era?

It's not enough to just say it's a straw-man.

Those views I cited are genuinely held as part of various religious credos.

They are viewed as pretty much insane by those outside of religion.

 

The Bible tries to teach contentment by stoning people to death.

How well did that ever work?

 

Take your pick.

I had recent politics in mind, but it hardly matters.

Nobody ever made a good decision by saying "Well, common sense and the evidence say A but my religion says B so I'm going with B."

Just for clarity, your definition there is for a year. You obviously wanted to define a day as a single revolution of the earth wherein the sun becomes visible over the horizon, appears to sink into the horizon, then becomes visible once more.

 

Your primary point about contradictions and nonsense in the bible, however, is both valid and unchallenged.

Doh!

 

[Moontanman]

DrKrettin, if I may, upon what evidence then do you base your opinion that Atlantis is just a myth?

 

 

Pymander, this sentence says a lot about what is wrong about your way of thinking. Someone who asserts that Atlantis was more than a myth has the burden of proof. There is no way to prove Atlantis never existed anymore than it is possible to prove there is no bigfoot, or there is no such thing as pixies.

 

Due to a lack of evidence the null hypothesis is that Atlantis wasn't real. Until evidence is provided the subject must remain mythology... God is another one of those things that has no proof, lots of believers, tremendous amount of faith, but no evidence.

 

Now having said that i can show that god, as described in the bible, is either false or deceitful. The Bible is full of things that simply cannot be true, this makes the case for the god of the bible lost before it gets started. The bible not only cannot be evidence of it's own veracity, the bible is the claim that needs evidence...

[Prometheus]

It's the theists who will plainly believe any old nonsense they are told by the priests.

 

What, all near 4 billion of them? Just because Pymander and many others are full of shit (sorry Pymander, but there's no subtle way to put it), doesn't mean they all are.

 

 

No atheist is going to believe nonsense like that.

 

I'm sure if we search the trash can on here we would find something like this from an atheist.

[Moontanman]

All of the sciences are based on hypotheses which model each respective field of research or knowledge. To my mind, chemistry is quite possibly the only rock-solid field. They seem to range from subatomic physics to geology and astronomy in one sense, or to psychology in another, with palaeontology a blend of both. We cannot determine that the senses (earth element to Hermetic philosophers) are or are not some kind of psychic phenomenon, or stated differently, whether the universe has an existence independent of the observer (the key element of Relativity Theory), as claimed by Einstein. From the Hermetic point of view, separate existence and companionship are facilitated by God having created souls in His own image, being irreducible consciousness, and thus giving consciousness to those souls, so that our being is the division of that consciousness into seven levels, the elements symbolised by earth, water, fire and air being the perception of the universe, or elements of nature. From the atheist viewpoint, we now have mass-energy as the source of our evolution and being, and we are very finite in time, rather than eternal, returning to the cosmic dust from evolving galaxies, stars and planets.

 

Here is the problem. These two perspectives, the Hermetic (Emerald Tablet & The Divine Pymander of Hermes) and Materialism (what atheists call science) are indistinguishable, which by scientific principle (to some), would imply that they are equivalent hypotheses for our existence. General Relativity employed the equivalence principle to determine the effects of gravity on space and time for any specific observer in a different non-inertial frame. Einstein stated that acceleration or inertial force and gravity are indistinguishable and therefore each has the same effects. I believe as Einstein probably did, and as Edgar Cayce stated (through his psychic readings), that all force is one force. Edgar Cayce's readings claimed it to be "what we call electricity", so ... electric fields, which propagate at the speed of light c.

 

Our argument, then, boils down to whether we believe that the principle of equivalence is universally valid or not. The Hermetic perspective, of course, implies mysticism in the sense of design. Einstein said "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest is details." The Materialistic perspective alone asks a lot of "natural" laws to effect the evolution, possibly from light as the original creation (electro-magneto-inertial energy in all likelihood, with an anti-photon balancing every photon as matter & antimatter do, currently called the neutrino as well as dark energy), of intelligent and creative life, in my opinion. Hermetic Philosophy underlies the Bible and other world-wide scriptures and traditions of unknown antiquity.

 

My concept of God has thus been defined in scientific summation, and as far as I can see, is not inconsistent with our objective reality. Without God, of course, there are no miracles, fates, souls, prophecies, psychics nor any other supernatural phenomena. We can not prove, only verify or disprove our hypotheses with evidence. We are free to chose which hypotheses we wish to believe. Choose for yourself. Who knows if we are writing to our fates that we must march in columns of four to the strains of a band after taking oaths to kill on command. If God exists, He certainly allows free will on the matter of believing it. That may be, if so, the gravity of ignoring this question. The belief may also be a privilege that needs to be earned and acquired through seeking.

 

Are you seriously giving Edgar Cayce as a source? You say in post #70 that you haven't received a refutation of this post. I can give you the perfect refutation of this post. I have read it over and over and i am convinced this page of obtuse word salad can only be answered by 42. Yes! 42 is the answer! Yes I am serious, 42! How could it not be 42? I have complete faith that 42 is the answer! I believe 42 is the answer!

 

koti: Pymander, how can someone a learned as you believe such foolishness as Hermetic philosophy.

 

Pymander: Because, Sir, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and John Dee have studied it, and you have not.

 

have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called argument from authority? Google it...

 

No refutation for post #59, just taboos to filter answers, but the questions requiring them are okay? And 1767 views means nothing, even in record time? I think I'll stick to chess.

 

See above... and BTW yes 1767 views has no bearing on the worth of your posts. In fact much like a train wreck people like to look at disaster...

Edited May 15, 2017 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

 

What, all near 4 billion of them? Just because Pymander and many others are full of shit (sorry Pymander, but there's no subtle way to put it), doesn't mean they all are.

 

The ones who believe that shit are full of shit.

The others are not actually believers.

[Manticore]

 

What, all near 4 billion of them? Just because Pymander and many others are full of shit (sorry Pymander, but there's no subtle way to put it), doesn't mean they all are.

 

That's like saying: 27 Trillion flies eat shit. They can't all be wrong. Therefore you should eat it too.

[Prometheus]

The ones who believe that shit are full of shit.

The others are not actually believers.

 

There are theists who reject many of the dogmas you mentioned ("it's vitally important to cut bits of your children's genitals" etc...). Equating theists like Pymander with reasonable theists (jimmydesaint comes to mind) is not helpful.

 

It's the characterisation that ALL theists are irrational and ALL atheists are rational which i am railing against. It wouldn't fly if we were talking about any minority group, so why does it fly when talking about a majority group?

 

 

 

That's like saying: 27 Trillion flies eat shit. They can't all be wrong. Therefore you should eat it too.

 

Except i'm not saying they are right.

 

I'm saying the four billion people are all individuals and we should judge them on their own merits rather than automatically condemn them as nut-jobs. It's easy to attack the crass caricatures people like Pymander paint; it is harder to actually reach across the divide to reasonable and learning people like Raider5678 and convince them that things like justice, mercy and agape exist because of man, not because of god. Maybe they even have a thing or two to teach us.

[iNow]

I'm reminded of a quote from Dan Dennett here:

 

"There is no polite way to suggest to someone that they have devoted their life to a folly.

 

There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it."

[Prometheus]

I'm reminded of a quote from Dan Dennett here:

 

"There is no polite way to suggest to someone that they have devoted their life to a folly.

 

There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it."

 

I'm not arguing mistakes shouldn't be pointed out or that we even need necessarily be polite about it - after all i described Pymander's position as being full of shit. I'm arguing that Pymander, and any like him, should be called out for being full of shit, not every single theist. They may still be full of shit, but can we judge them on their own beliefs rather than Pymander's?

 

So theists very likely have got it wrong. That does not automatically make them irrational, and nor does being an atheist automatically make you rational.

[iNow]

I tend to agree with you. Where I struggle is how we separate the person from the belief. The belief is ridiculous even if the individual holding it is otherwise intelligent and rational elsewhere in life.

 

To take just one potential example, the feeling of some theists that homosexuals are nauseating doesn't erase the kindness and generosity they so often show to heterosexuals or children.

 

That means an otherwise rational person continues holding a ridiculous and irrational belief. That means an otherwise kind individual holds some disgusting bigoted views about folks who happen to love differently. What does that say about them? After all, Hitler loved dogs, too. So what?

[Prometheus]

Where I struggle is how we separate the person from the belief. The belief is ridiculous even if the individual holding it is otherwise intelligent and rational elsewhere in life.

 

Theists form a broad spectrum: from Pymander to perfectly reasonable people like Dr Rocket (was he on this forum or another one? - a very rational theist for those who don't know him) and everything in between. For the latter cases we can just shrug shoulders and say live and let live.

 

 

After all, Hitler loved dogs, too. So what?

 

All i can say is that i would value compassion above rationality in admiral qualities in a human, not that they are mutually exclusive of course. I think Hitler was somewhat lacking in the former.