Author Topic: Moral laws of the Bible  (Read 13461 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #551 on: May 09, 2012, 08:06:15 PM »
From what I've been able to gather it [Jesus was a real person] seems to be accepted fact.  I mean even our calender is divided into A.D.  and B.C. 
Could that be because the Church was the most powerful organisation in the world and dictated what people did and thought?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#History

Quote
The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate the years in his Easter table.

The Anglo-Saxon historian the Venerable Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius Exiguus, used Anno Domini dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, finished in 731. In this same history he also used another Latin term, "ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation"), equivalent to the English "before Christ"

However, the Hindu KaliyugaWiki calendar announces this year as being Year 5113. The Kaliyuga, means the "age of [the demon] Kali", or "age of vice" and is the last of the four stages the world goes through as part of the cycle of yugas described in the Indian scriptures.

According to you, proves beyond all doubt that Kali, goddess of Death and Destruction is ruling the earth and must therefore exist.
The Haida calendar has 13 months and follows the cycle of the moon....worked well till the 1700's when Christian's following the Christian doctorate that heathens should be killed wiped out 90% of our population. The ones they couldn't kill the "Christianized". Now with our Haida numbers coming back to pre-contact......WATCH OUT WORLD  in about the year 2159 heheheh
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2693
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #552 on: May 09, 2012, 09:03:12 PM »
Quote
He claimed that it wasn't literally 24 four hour days but that the account was still compatible with scientific findings about the origins of life.

This is not waffling.  It is a statement that is easily supported with the Bible.  You just choose not to accept it.  How is the order of the appearance of life the same from science and the Bible?  Did the writer of Genesis just make a lucky guess?


JST, the Bible makes two guesses about when animals appeared (Gen 2:19), so it's a bet each way. And it can be deduced that plants must have come before animals, because animals need something to eat. Also that animals come before humans, because humans need something to eat. And even still, it could have been a "lucky guess", because the writer of Genesis shows no signs of other intelligence.

Gen 1:24 creates mammals after whales, so there is no order in the statements, and an unlucky guess.
Gen 1:16 creates sun after plants, so unlucky guess.



The reason why Atheists are "reluctant" to admit the existence of "Jesus", is that most people conflate the idea that a man called Jesus may have existed, with Jesus the miracle worker, and also we have no evidence that an Aramaic/Hebrew man named Greek "Jesus" was behind the movement of the Nazarenes (a town that didn't exist). Hillel seems to have started it off. When Dawkins talks about Jesus, he is really being like Einstein (the atheist), saying that "God does not play dice". Dawkins is temporarily playing the "imagine game", and pretending that a single "Jesus" said the kind words in the NT, when really it was likely to be a collection of people. He wants to pretend (for a moment) that Jesus was an atheist who said nice things. Is this the Jesus you really know, or is it one he made up, for poetry?

We can't admit that Jesus existed, unless we can figure out what he was supposed to have been. Sure, the words in the NT must have come from somebody. Words don't appear out of thin air. We will acknowledge that much. And the fact there is an argument about it, shows how weak your position is.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #553 on: May 09, 2012, 10:14:52 PM »
This is not waffling. 

Yes it was waffling. He claimed that the bible was literally true word by word. Then when he got to something he couldn't rationally reconcile he tried to claim that the bible didn't literally mean "days".

It is a statement that is easily supported with the Bible.  You just choose not to accept it.

The typical Jst excuse. Earlier than I expected but at least we got it out of the way soon.

Also a Strawman (another Jst staple) as I never claimed that it wasn't biblically supported. I claimed that he contradicted himself and was waffling throughout the debate.

How is the order of the appearance of life the same from science and the Bible?  Did the writer of Genesis just make a lucky guess?

You're kidding right? I actually have to explain this one to you? Okay.....

First off there are two contradictory accounts.

Second off the earth and heaven are created together. In reality we know that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and the universe is about 13.7 billions years old. So it's only off by a slight margin.

Also god created the world before light (I imagine he had night vision goggles or something). Then he created darkness (which is the absence of light so go figure the logistics on that one).

Then he made the sun and the stars (you know, those bright points in the sky where all the light comes from). This isn't even going into the fact that evening and morning existed before the sun and the stars. Oh yeah, and let's not forget that the god in the bible says that he created the moon as a second big light in the sky. Which would be ok, except that the moon isn't a light. The reason it shines is because it reflects the light of the sun. I could forgive uneducated goatherders for not knowing this, an omnipotent god not so much.

Let's see grass and flowers are created on the third day. You know, the day before the sun that was needed for them to survive came into existence.

He created birds and whales before reptiles and insects. Need I go on? Do I really have to explain how absolutely not in line with science this story is? And I only addressed one of the creation myths.

You've really never once read this book have you?

I did not listen to the entire thing but science and the Bible are in agreement that the universe had a beginning.  This discovery only confirms what the Bible already said.  This is evidence that the Bible is true and not the other way around.

No it isn't. You really want to claim that because the bible claims that the universe had a beginning it proves the bible is true? Really?

Ok, nevermind all the things I could choose to say about that and just point one thing. If the evidence can point to more than one conclusion then it is not solid evidence. The fact that the universe had a beginning proves pretty much every creation story in existence to be true. So it functionally proves none of them.

So no, you have not proved this.

Yes I did. You just choose not to accept it.

And I can tell you how God works.

Yes you can. The question is can you prove it? I can tell you how god works too, it wouldn't necessarily mean that I'm right. You're making another sad attempt to hide behind equivocation. You see I can prove physics. Can you do the same for your god claims?

We also know that "effect" is followed by a "cause".  So this universe must have had a cause and that cause must be greater than nothing.

No actually it doesn't. Cause and effect are only possible within the confines of space time, which began with the existence of the universe. Once you get to before time and space cause and effect no longer have any meaning. So no, there does not have to be a cause that precedes an effect.

Furthermore even if there is, there is no evidence which says that cause is a god. And even further no evidence that it is your god. You do realize how old this line is right? You could have done a one minute google search to find out how wrong you were. It would have saved you a lot of face.

I don't believe you.  You cannot prove this to be true.  You have "faith", based on your knowledge of physics that it occurs and you expect me to accept your faith.  But I simply cannot accept your faith.  I need something concrete.  I need evidence and you don't have any.

No faith is needed. "Faith" is a belief in something without evidence. I have evidence for this. I have evidence that physics works. I gave you evidence. When you move something through the air and it hits a surface you can detect the pressure waves that are caused by it stirring the air. Those pressure waves would still be present if the object moved/struck while you weren't there because they are not caused by you. Since those pressure waves are what sound is, the sound would still exist. You can freely test that evidence yourself if you want (we both know you won't of course, but you could if you actually had the intellectual curiousity).  Really you're just starting to pout like a petulant child now. It's just your "it's not me, it's you guys" argument repackaged.

No.  The entire universe is evidence of God.  This is why there is something instead of nothing.

Base assertion.

If no God exists then tell me why there is something instead of nothing?  How did "something" get here?  Did something come from nothing?  Or did something create itself out of nothing?  This is not logical.

You do realize that there are particles that appear out of nothingness right?

More to the point, what makes you think there is such a thing as "nothing" in the first place. Nothing is an abstract concept, not something that actually exists as far as we know. There's no such thing that we know of that qualifies as a truly empty space. So it's entirely possible that there never was a "nothing".

As a third point, we don't know for certain. As I said it is most likely that there is no such thing as "nothing". Science does not know everything, otherwise it would stop.

BUT
just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with whatever idiotic idea most appeals to you. Saying that the universe is evidence for god is a claim. It is not proof of anything. How does the existence of the universe prove that there is a god? As opposed to some other explanation?

Done

No you didn't. You didn't even make the attempt. You didn't even bother to go to a creationist website and draw out one of their ridiculous arguments. It still would have been wrong, but at least it would have shown some actual effort on your part. All you did was make claims that are born out of ignorance of the subject matter you are using. You didn't even provide evidence for what you were asked to provide evidence for.

You mentioned today in another thread about how whenever you post something you are always derided and called an idiot. You also once made another claim about how people here act superior to theists. Well this is why. After all your claims and posturing you didn't even put a tenth of the effort into proving your claims that any single person has put into questioning them. Even now I've put more combined effort and thought into this one post than you've put into......anything. It's very hard not to appear superior when the other side goes with things like this:

I don't believe you.  You cannot prove this to be true.  You have "faith", based on your knowledge of physics that it occurs and you expect me to accept your faith.  But I simply cannot accept your faith.  I need something concrete.  I need evidence and you don't have any.

I took the time and thought to seriously respond and provide evidence. You responded with the equivalent of "Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo."

If you really want to be shown respect Jst. Then act like you deserve it. If you're not, don't be surprised that you get treated like an inferior.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 04:32:53 AM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6386
  • Darwins +818/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #554 on: May 09, 2012, 11:32:08 PM »
Why do people come here and try to argue that their religious text is clearly the only true and correct one? If that was so obvious, everyone would already believe it and there would be no need for argument. As I have said before, there is no real need to argue about the existence of the sun.

There are not 38,000 competing and equally plausible interpretations about its size, its temperature and distance fropm the earth. Nobody seriously argues that the sun is tennis-ball sized, or frozen, or a painted image suspended a mile above the earth. Because there is no evidence supporting any of those ideas, and nobody expects anyone to believe an idea like that without evidence.

But each of the 38,000 types of Christians (not to mention other faiths) will come here and tell us that their Mormon or Quaker or Seventh Day Adventist faith is right, and the JW's and Catholics and Baptists are wrong. Without any evidence. And we are saying that since none of them have any evidence, we have no reason to believe any of them.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6291
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #555 on: May 10, 2012, 12:00:19 AM »
Why do people come here and try to argue that their religious text is clearly the only true and correct one? If that was so obvious, everyone would already believe it and there would be no need for argument. As I have said before, there is no real need to argue about the existence of the sun.

There are not 38,000 competing and equally plausible interpretations about its size, its temperature and distance fropm the earth. Nobody seriously argues that the sun is tennis-ball sized, or frozen, or a painted image suspended a mile above the earth. Because there is no evidence supporting any of those ideas, and nobody expects anyone to believe an idea like that without evidence.

But each of the 38,000 types of Christians (not to mention other faiths) will come here and tell us that their Mormon or Quaker or Seventh Day Adventist faith is right, and the JW's and Catholics and Baptists are wrong. Without any evidence. And we are saying that since none of them have any evidence, we have no reason to believe any of them.

What could be easier than acquiescing to a simple story. The bad part though is that you have to hide behind it too.

Those of us who are champions of science and reason love all the new discoveries and findings. We have nothing to fear because there is always room for the truth. Rather than trying to match everything we see and experience with a clumsy tome of suspicious origin, ee get to be eager and excited as we and others like us delve into reality. We don't have  to make sure the results match stringent and unrealistic guidelines. I myself could never live my life in a tiny box , hoping that my god of choice is happy with how small I can make myself.

My RSS feeds bring me at least 50 new science stories a day, telling me about everything from the discovery of amazing new sea animals to the finding of new planets. Microbes, string theory, brain research, disease prevention, new fossils, old villages, medium sized ants, itsy-bitsy cell components, gas clouds 10,000 light years away; each telling us something new, each bringing with it new knowledge that cumulatively allows us to start asking even better questions.

Theists come here and ask me to dwell for weeks and months and years on John 3:16, and they wonder why I don't immediately drop everything and dedicate my life to their favorite zombie. I would, if I weren't so busy enjoying everything that is real.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6386
  • Darwins +818/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #556 on: May 10, 2012, 12:15:39 AM »
Damn straight. One Greenland ice core has way more interesting things to tell us about the world than the bible.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #557 on: May 10, 2012, 12:19:48 AM »
What could be easier than acquiescing to a simple story. The bad part though is that you have to hide behind it too.

Those of us who are champions of science and reason love all the new discoveries and findings. We have nothing to fear because there is always room for the truth. Rather than trying to match everything we see and experience with a clumsy tome of suspicious origin, ee get to be eager and excited as we and others like us delve into reality. We don't have  to make sure the results match stringent and unrealistic guidelines. I myself could never live my life in a tiny box , hoping that my god of choice is happy with how small I can make myself.

My RSS feeds bring me at least 50 new science stories a day, telling me about everything from the discovery of amazing new sea animals to the finding of new planets. Microbes, string theory, brain research, disease prevention, new fossils, old villages, medium sized ants, itsy-bitsy cell components, gas clouds 10,000 light years away; each telling us something new, each bringing with it new knowledge that cumulatively allows us to start asking even better questions.

Theists come here and ask me to dwell for weeks and months and years on John 3:16, and they wonder why I don't immediately drop everything and dedicate my life to their favorite zombie. I would, if I weren't so busy enjoying everything that is real.

That's why I've never understood how theists can try to claim that religion is so profound and deep and magnificent. Everything about it seems so small and petty compared to the breadth and scope of reality. Compare the creation account in Genesis to the Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis, and Evolution. Are you really going to tell me that the bible is the deep and profound one? The bible goes from the beginning of the universe to man walking the earth in less than a page.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Timtheskeptic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Darwins +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • atheist and loving it
    • atheist blogspot
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #558 on: May 10, 2012, 12:29:10 AM »
Damn straight. One Greenland ice core has way more interesting things to tell us about the world than the bible.

i agree! I even wonder about that in your previous post.
Me:What are you looking at Eminem?
Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10827
  • Darwins +278/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #559 on: May 10, 2012, 03:10:15 AM »
<snip>
But this is not a unique quality held only by theists.  Athiests do it do.  So will muslims, hindus, etc. etc.

Atheists tend to have a higher degree of intellectual honesty than theists. I remember a quote by some guy who said that atheism is just the result of intellectual honesty. In other words, it's not that their atheism somehow makes them intellectually honest; their intellectual honesty is what makes them atheists.[1]

Perhaps your intent is not to offend theists with your name.

If you think I'm lying, just say so. Don't give me that "perhaps" BS.

But that most certainly will be the effect in most cases.

Don't care. Those theists can bite my shiny metal ass for all I care.

Now true, that may be the fault of their perception, but if you want to catch flies then you need to use some honey and not vinegar.  Well....a little BS will go a long way too haha.

The type of theist that gets offended by a simple name is also the kind of theist that won't last fifty posts here. And I'm being generous with that number.

EDIT: BTW, sorry about not replying to this sooner. You mixed replies to different members in the same post[2], so I missed it.
 1. Just to emphasize - this is only for some of them. Atheism in itself is only a lack of belief in deities.
 2. This is not a bad thing.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 03:12:48 AM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #560 on: May 10, 2012, 04:30:44 AM »
Yes it was waffling. He claimed that the bible was literally true word by word. Then when he got to something he couldn't rationally reconcile he tried to claim that the bible didn't literally mean "days".
Alzael, you are making this too accusatory and personal.   There are a number of widely accepted, indeed, universal principles of Bible[1] interpretation.  2 of them are:

1)  The Bible is literally true except where it is symbolically true.
2)  How do you know if something is symbolically true?  Easy--it's any part that is not literally true.

 1. and other holy books

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2693
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #561 on: May 10, 2012, 04:55:37 AM »
What if it's not literally or symbolically true? I need another punchline for my signature.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #562 on: May 10, 2012, 05:24:25 AM »
What if it's not literally or symbolically true? I need another punchline for my signature.
For the sake of brevity I often curtail my posts.  I will now put back the next principle which I removed:

3)  You just don't understand.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #563 on: May 10, 2012, 08:25:24 AM »
BTW, there's a nice little book on Taoism:

Taoism: The Parting of the Way (1971) by Holmes H. Welch.  It's about all the different meanings the Chinese have ascribed to the Tao Te Ching including an ancient Chinese hippy movement. 

In China an edition of the book would have an original page very small with very wide margins filled with accepted theological commentaries about what the cryptic words mean.


Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #564 on: May 10, 2012, 08:59:32 AM »

How hard can it be for a knowledgeable person like yourself to do this?
You seem to have enough time to log on again and again to post snarky up to insulting commentary yet every time you are asked to actually specify your own arguments and show evidence for your claims, you either can't seem to find the time or you forget how to operate your keyboard which keeps you from posting all your magnificent knowledge that you claim to possess.
There's a trend starting to show.

It's very hard for Jane. She's a mechanical bird.

When have we ever heard of a parrot constructing a magnificent and coherent conversation on its own ?

I've lost count of the number of posters and questions that she has failed to, or is unwilling to, address. She'll only address posts that she has a standard answer to, and of course the substance of all her responses to the questions that she does deem as fit to answer is most times easily predictable before we even see them--or if she's ignorant of an answer, but one that she can't avoid or becomes horny about, will always appeal to the authority of those other talking Psittacines that make up her order.

She's a loyal mimic, but anything she has said in no way shape or form makes her unique or a convincing ally for the truth of the christian dogma. It is quite entertaining however for us to be able to watch her feathered friend Jstwebbrowsing join her on the perch for this one.

Since reason is a powerful weapon when used properly, then perhaps we'll see the idiom come true "Kill two birds with one stone" ? ...Probably not...but us atheists always hope for the best.  ;)
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #565 on: May 10, 2012, 09:23:02 AM »
But there are times that I forget to reply to a post and sometimes I just get tired of typing all night on one post.  As soon as I do this then I'm accused of being and ignorant idiot.  The best I can tell here it's three theists and about 15-20 athiests.  You can't really expect a theist to get to every point made every time.
  and the excuses about how many theists there are to atheists is BS.  You and everyone else has been offered one on one discussions and now the Shelter.  It isn't that theists are overwhelmed, it is that many of them use that as an excuse to lie and to ignore points made against them. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/