How many read this forum

dan719

Tim Robbins wrote:

What about Scientists who believe in Religion?
How does that fit into your hypotheisis?

Name five great scientists who you can show were genuinely religeous. I will just respond now with my own list of great atheist thinkers; Einstein(just try and say he was a Jew-would make my day;) Russell, Dirac, feynman, Freud, Susskind, Turing................

PDN

dan719 wrote:

Name five great scientists who you can show were genuinely religeous. I will just respond now with my own list of great atheist thinkers; Einstein(just try and say he was a Jew-would make my day;) Russell, Dirac, feynman, Freud, Susskind, Turing................

Galileo, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Guglielmo Marconi

Dades

PDN wrote:

Galileo, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Guglielmo Marconi

Don't forget that apple watcher, Newton!

Not that I believe a list either way proves anything.

Scofflaw

dan719 wrote:

Name five great scientists who you can show were genuinely religeous. I will just respond now with my own list of great atheist thinkers; Einstein(just try and say he was a Jew-would make my day Russell, Dirac, feynman, Freud, Susskind, Turing................

There's a book of them...

Even that is to ignore the great mass of everyday scientists who have strong personal faiths.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Galileo, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Guglielmo Marconi

Not a bad pre Darwin list.
Post Darwin it changes, you have le Maitre you proved Eintein wrong.

But a more contempory list:
Robert Pollack, Robert Winston, John Hughton (all still alive)

There are also some noted Theologians with a Scientific background.
Alister McGrath and Kenneth Millar.

William Reville who writes a Science column for the IT is also a God believer.

While it's essential that atheists understand that many people who are far more scientifically minded than they'll ever be, believe in a God, theists should also understand that very few of these Scientists believe in creationism or in the veracity of scripture.

pinksoir

Tim Robbins wrote:

While it's essential that atheists understand that many people who are far more scientifically minded than they'll ever be, believe in a God, theists should also understand that very few of these Scientists believe in creationism or in the veracity of scripture.

That's a very good point. Whilst claiming that such and such believes/does not believe in God gives very little weight to an argument for either side in my opinion, there is a huge gap between believing in 'a' god, or the possibility of God and believing in the Christian God, or indeed a god of any other faith. Of course there is absolutely no gap involved in being an atheist and not believing in God. They are one and the same.

The concept of the Christian God is so ridiculous because it is described in terms that we (humans) can somewhat nderstand, even though they are contradictory. If indeed a god did exist it would be so different to what we are used to measuring and observing, so unlike anything else and with properties that the human mind could not grasp, as Dawkins put it "queerer than one 'could' imagine".

The Christian God, to put it bluntly, is just far too simple a concept. Everywhere, everywhen and all powerful. When one takes into account the complexity of the universe, the absolute strangeness of it that we are only beginning to understand, a concept such as that of the Christian God just does not cut it. Now if Yahweh had been described in terms that were not just extremes of already known properties of things, but was described in terms that were completely unintelligible to the people at the time, but somehow involved relativity or quantum mechanics, or indeed even something that we at this time do not understand yet, I would be a little bit more convinced of his existence. Unfortunatley the creators of the god we all know and (ahem) love didn't have the forsight.

Fallen Seraph

Zillah wrote:

You wanna clarify that a little...?

I feel that there's more to my philosophy/belief system than a simple lack of belief in a supernatural being. If you were to ask someone what they believed and they replied "Oh I'm a theist" you know very little more about their beliefs. Are they polytheist or monotheist? If polytheist which of the many pantheons do they believe in and further still which gods of said pantheon do they worship in particular. If monotheist are they Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc. And within these labels are further subsets still.
So too, I feel, is the label atheist; uselessly broad.

That's where the pedantry comes in you see

MooseJam

I'm an ATHEIST, I read here frequently, and in the Christainity forum, there are some very well read atheist's over there and I have learnt a fair bit from them, there are also religious wackos who spout the craziest ideas !

dan719

PDN wrote:

Galileo, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Guglielmo Marconi

You asked me how my hypothesis would be affected by Christian scientists? My hypothesis being that the Catholic Church and Religion in general has held back science. And you try to refute me with this particular list? Galileo is a prime example. Forced to retract his statements and then placed under house arrest. Case closed.

PDN

dan719 wrote:

You asked me how my hypothesis would be affected by Christian scientists? My hypothesis being that the Catholic Church and Religion in general has held back science. And you try to refute me with this particular list? Galileo is a prime example. Forced to retract his statements and then placed under house arrest. Case closed.

I didn't ask you anything. Another poster (Tim Robbins) did.

You asked for 5 religious scientists, and I gave you 5. I didn't try to refute anything as you haven't made any kind of coherent argument.

Galileo was deeply religious and he believed his discoveries to be totally consistent with Scripture. The Church condemned him because his theories contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of Aristotle (which the Catholic Church supported).

Oh, by the way, Galileo reached his conclusions by learning from Copernicus, a Catholic clergyman. This is hardly suprising since the Church provided the sole source of learning & scientific research for over 1000 years. Without the church we would still be in the dark ages and barbarism of the Roman Empire.

dan719

PDN wrote:

I didn't ask you anything. Another poster (Tim Robbins) did.

You asked for 5 religious scientists, and I gave you 5. I didn't try to refute anything as you haven't made any kind of coherent argument.

Galileo was deeply religious and he believed his discoveries to be totally consistent with Scripture. The Church condemned him because his theories contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of Aristotle (which the Catholic Church supported).

Oh, by the way, Galileo reached his conclusions by learning from Copernicus, a Catholic clergyman. This is hardly suprising since the Church provided the sole source of learning & scientific research for over 1000 years. Without the church we would still be in the dark ages and barbarism of the Roman Empire.

I know who Copernicus is. I also know that he was terrified of the reaction that his research would cause. Looks like he knew his church pretty well really.

How can you consider the Roman Empire to be backward with such triumphs of engineering as the Colloseum, aquaducts and so on. The church like to suggest it is supportive of science even when it works against it. In reality many clergymen merely became so in order to embark upon scientific research in relative peace while earning an income.

Also to the poster who talked about Newton being religious, he was also an alchemist. And not much of a Christian either...'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants'...an insult on Hooke.

And PDN you cannot talk about coherent argument, you base your entire life view on a piece of fiction. Ignoring any evidence that you doesn@t support you. I was merely offering galileo as an example of the church holding back science.

pinksoir

PDN wrote:

I didn't ask you anything. Another poster (Tim Robbins) did.

You asked for 5 religious scientists, and I gave you 5. I didn't try to refute anything as you haven't made any kind of coherent argument.

Galileo was deeply religious and he believed his discoveries to be totally consistent with Scripture. The Church condemned him because his theories contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of Aristotle (which the Catholic Church supported).

Oh, by the way, Galileo reached his conclusions by learning from Copernicus, a Catholic clergyman. This is hardly suprising since the Church provided the sole source of learning & scientific research for over 1000 years. Without the church we would still be in the dark ages and barbarism of the Roman Empire.

You are correct in thinking that the church provided a lot of the learning and scientific centres around the middle ages. However, Islam was as important, if not moreso, in the development of science and philosophy throughout that time as it played a mojor role in preserving and transmitting the legacy of classical Greek thought to Europe. Whilst there was a dark ages in Europe, Islamic philosophy and science continued to flourish and develop and was eventually integrated into European Christian philosophy by the likes of Descartes and Aquinas.

To continue, to say that 'without the church we would still be in the dark ages and barbarism of the Roman Empire' is so simplistic an assertion that I feel I need to call you on it. the Roman Empire fell for a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones was because of the Barbarian tribes of Europe, namely the Visigoths and Vandals, who caused the eventual downfall of Rome. These were in fact Pagan tribes, as far as I know, and not anything to do wth the church. I agree that before Constantine the Roman Empire was indeed barbaric, but his changing the official religion to Christianity was hardly teh turning point. The Roman Empire had been i decline for a long time before that and there is much debate over whether constantine changed the official religion out of his own belief (which is reported to be a blend of paganism and Christianity for political purposes) or rather because he was a power seeker. Christianity may have provided the sort of hope to a crumbling empire of people whose own religion would have them believe that it was all inescapable fate.

From what you wrote before it would seem that you believe the Dark ages to be a period within the reign of Rome. This was not so. In fact it is the period directly after the fall of Rome where the dominant culture of Europe was divided between the barbarian tribes that caused the fall of Rome, and also, and more related to your point, the period of time when the dominant religion was that of the early church. It was a period when the philosophy and science (in fact there was no distinction, philosophy was the underlabourer to modern science) of Classical Greece was lost and replaced by a primitive understanding of the world championed by the early church. However, like I mentioned above, it was only a Dark Ages in Europe, and in Persia, Islamic philosophy flourished and kept alive the thinking and teachings of Greece until it was rediscovered much later on by Christian philosophers (though all philosophers at that time were Christian, it was purely incidental - it was the dominant religion in Europe).

PDN

pinksoir wrote:

You are correct in thinking that the church provided a lot of the learning and scientific centres around the middle ages. However, Islam was as important, if not moreso, in the development of science and philosophy throughout that time as it played a mojor role in preserving and transmitting the legacy of classical Greek thought to Europe. Whilst there was a dark ages in Europe, Islamic philosophy and science continued to flourish and develop and was eventually integrated into European Christian philosophy by the likes of Descartes and Aquinas.

To continue, to say that 'without the church we would still be in the dark ages and barbarism of the Roman Empire' is so simplistic an assertion that I feel I need to call you on it. the Roman Empire fell for a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones was because of the Barbarian tribes of Europe, namely the Visigoths and Vandals, who caused the eventual downfall of Rome. These were in fact Pagan tribes, as far as I know, and not anything to do wth the church. I agree that before Constantine the Roman Empire was indeed barbaric, but his changing the official religion to Christianity was hardly teh turning point. The Roman Empire had been i decline for a long time before that and there is much debate over whether constantine changed the official religion out of his own belief (which is reported to be a blend of paganism and Christianity for political purposes) or rather because he was a power seeker. Christianity may have provided the sort of hope to a crumbling empire of people whose own religion would have them believe that it was all inescapable fate.

From what you wrote before it would seem that you believe the Dark ages to be a period within the reign of Rome. This was not so. In fact it is the period directly after the fall of Rome where the dominant culture of Europe was divided between the barbarian tribes that caused the fall of Rome, and also, and more related to your point, the period of time when the dominant religion was that of the early church. It was a period when the philosophy and science (in fact there was no distinction, philosophy was the underlabourer to modern science) of Classical Greece was lost and replaced by a primitive understanding of the world championed by the early church. However, like I mentioned above, it was only a Dark Ages in Europe, and in Persia, Islamic philosophy flourished and kept alive the thinking and teachings of Greece until it was rediscovered much later on by Christian philosophers (though all philosophers at that time were Christian, it was purely incidental - it was the dominant religion in Europe).

What I was saying is that the unscientific attitude of the Romans was indeed a dark age. What used to be called 'the Dark Ages' are now recognised to be a period of scientific & economic development that were anything but dark. It was the intellectual snobbery of early Renaissance thinkers that libelled them as the dark ages. Few, if any, historians would see them as dark ages today. http://www.livescience.com/health/070723_medieval_medicine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

And yes, it is true that Islamic philosophy preserved Greek texts, but this failed to prompt intellectual progress because Muslim intellectuals regarded greek learning as something akin to scripture, where no contradiction of Aristotle was permitted.

By the way, I am not so historically illiterate as not to know how and when the Roman Empire collapsed. The Roman Empire was built on slavery & extracting wealth from conquered nations, which stifled any incentive for scientific enquiry. That was just as true after Constantine's pretended conversion as before. It was the monastries that developed after the fall of Rome that developed (on a significant scale) waterwheels, windmills, efficient harnessing of horses, efficient ploughs, fish farming, three-field crop rotation, powered looms, spinning wheels, chimneys, eyegasses, dependable clocks, roads & wagons suitable for horse-drawn vehicles (the Roman roads were constructed for marching soldiers, not for trade), polyphonic music & orchestration, gothic architectural techniques such as the flying buttress, universities, land reclaimation, stock markets and most of the fundamentals of capitalism.

Tim Robbins

dan719 wrote:

And PDN you cannot talk about coherent argument, you base your entire life view on a piece of fiction. Ignoring any evidence that you doesn@t support you. I was merely offering galileo as an example of the church holding back science.

That's a very poor argument. Instead of dealing with the specifics of an argument you attack him personally. It's the logical fallact ad hominem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Reality is there are theists who are far cleverer than you and me. Why don't you cop that on and get your high horse?

pinksoir

PDN wrote:

What I was saying is that the unscientific attitude of the Romans was indeed a dark age. What used to be called 'the Dark Ages' are now recognised to be a period of scientific & economic development that were anything but dark. It was the intellectual snobbery of early Renaissance thinkers that libelled them as the dark ages. Few, if any, historians would see them as dark ages today. http://www.livescience.com/health/070723_medieval_medicine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

And yes, it is true that Islamic philosophy preserved Greek texts, but this failed to prompt intellectual progress because Muslim intellectuals regarded greek learning as something akin to scripture, where no contradiction of Aristotle was permitted.

By the way, I am not so historically illiterate as not to know how and when the Roman Empire collapsed. The Roman Empire was built on slavery & extracting wealth from conquered nations, which stifled any incentive for scientific enquiry. That was just as true after Constantine's pretended conversion as before. It was the monastries that developed after the fall of Rome that developed (on a significant scale) waterwheels, windmills, efficient harnessing of horses, efficient ploughs, fish farming, three-field crop rotation, powered looms, spinning wheels, chimneys, eyegasses, dependable clocks, roads & wagons suitable for horse-drawn vehicles (the Roman roads were constructed for marching soldiers, not for trade), polyphonic music & orchestration, gothic architectural techniques such as the flying buttress, universities, land reclaimation, stock markets and most of the fundamentals of capitalism.

You are correct of course. But was this a result of Christianity, or incidental to it. Of course we can never know as it was the only route that history ever took. There are certain things there that you mentioned such as the evolution (should I call it that?!!) of music, and certain architectural developments that were a direct result of religion (sacred music and cathedral building respectively), but farming techniques and engineering are hardly a result of Christian worship but more to do with the fact that the monasteries had the wealth and time to pursue those particular areas. They were indeed learning centres, I never denied that, but while christianity was a major part of European history, and during the period of which you speak its establishments were centres of learning and development, I would contend that what was developed was done so not as a result of Christianity, but rather incidental to it.

Put it this way, if Rome had fallen and Christianity had never existed, is it impossible to imagine all of those technical advancements taking place anyway? Christianity as an establishment, of course, provided the sort of stability necessary for such advancments to take place, but I would like to think that it would have happened anyway through some otehr sort of establishment.

And just to mention, I never suggested that you were in any way historically illiterate, I know that you have a keen interest in history, but it was more from the way that you phrased your original point made it sound like the church was responsible for getting rid of Rome. Perhaps other readers are not as historically literate as you!!

dan719

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's a very poor argument. Instead of dealing with the specifics of an argument you attack him personally. IAnd if you re-t's the logical fallact ad hominem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Reality is there are theists who are far cleverer than you and me. Why don't you cop that on and get your high horse?

Get my high horse? Where do I find that so. Yeah and there are atheists far cleverer then them again. And if you re-read my post, i stated my argument, and actually attacked the nature of religious belief rather then PDN. So since I cannot find my high horse, can I borrow yours?

JC 2K3

I don't know what a deity is, and since I can't refute what I don't understand, I can't strictly be an atheist, more like some sort of agnostic. "Atheist" is the label that places me in the demograph of those with generally similar opinions to me, however.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Galileo ... believed his discoveries to be totally consistent with Scripture

Er, that's one interpretation...

Galileo Galilei wrote:

I believe nobody will deny that [the Bible] is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify...

in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error...

the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence...

in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense ­experiences and necessary demonstrations...

Extracted from Galieleo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615

Given the time in which he was writing, phrases such as this were indisputably heretical. While I wouldn't suggest Galileo was anything but a committed christian, it's quite clear what he's saying: where there's a contradiction between scripture and the evidence, you accept the evidence every time.

You will also note that Galileo builds his defence on an extremely elitist view of scripture, believing the 'herd' incapable of understanding the complexities of the natural world. Do you concur, PDN? Do you believe the common people need a comic book version of the truth in the Bible because they're too stupid to grasp the real thing, and that the Bible 'obscures some very important pronouncements' simply to cater for common taste?

Back then, given the consequences of unbelief, it was (just about) reasonable to start from a place of assuming the truth of scripture above all else, even to the point of denying it actually says what it actually says. But these days I can't understand why an independent-minded person would choose to do that

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

You will also note that Galileo builds his defence on an extremely elitist view of scripture, believing the 'herd' incapable of understanding the complexities of the natural world. Do you concur, PDN? Do you believe the common people need a comic book version of the truth in the Bible because they're too stupid to grasp the real thing, and that the Bible 'obscures some very important pronouncements' simply to cater for common taste?

I would not use the same wording as Galileo, but I think he had a valid point (one that I have made on these forums on a number of occasions). The Bible uses poetical and phenomenological language because the vast majority of humankind throughout history would not have been able to grasp concepts that were contrary to how they understood the world (not because they were 'the herd' but because of their point in time).

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

The Bible uses poetical and phenomenological language because the vast majority of humankind throughout history would not have been able to grasp concepts that were contrary to how they understood the wordl

Humans are highly intelligent and I think people in any age could understand anything if it was explained properly. And surely the lord of the universe should be able to come up with ways of phrasing things that would accomplish this without ambiguity or contradiction, and without getting bogged down in ridiculous minutiae. No, it's much more likely that the bible is written the way it is because it was constrained by the limits of the men who wrote it.

But god being omnipotent would also know that human knowledge and literacy would advance to the point we are now at, and beyond to who knows where, with god receding further into the distant past all the time. Why didn't he throw in a couple of more advanced chapters for our benefit? Dealing with the likes of particle physics, advanced astronomy etc. Something that would not make him appear so utterly irrelevant in every respect to his educated 21st century readers.

Oh wait, I have an explanation for that too. The same one in fact.

Try to forget about the Bible being the word of god and all that for a minute. Imagine how it appears to an objective reader for a minute. Try to imagine what a race of advanced super-intelligent aliens would make of it if we gave them the Bible and said this is the last word in truth for our species. They would open it up and read all about misogyny, slavery, wholesale slaughter, intricate instructions for animal sacrifice, a faith built on the appeasement of an invisible deity by human sacrifice...

Do you imagine they'd have any respect for us at all? I suggest they'd think we were relentlessly violent, full of fear and hatred, and barking mad.

I wonder whether they'd bother to sit down and listen to your contorted explanations and justifications as to why the last word in truth doesn't actually say what it means or mean what it says.

Tim Robbins

dan719 wrote:

Get my high horse? Where do I find that so. Yeah and there are atheists far cleverer then them again. And if you re-read my post, i stated my argument, and actually attacked the nature of religious belief rather then PDN. So since I cannot find my high horse, can I borrow yours?

Telling someone they base their entire life on fiction and have no right to talk about a coherent argument is arrogant in the extreme. It does not belong to rational discourse.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

But god being omnipotent would also know that human knowledge and literacy would advance to the point we are now at, and beyond to who knows where, with god receding further into the distant past all the time. Why didn't he throw in a couple of more advanced chapters for our benefit? Dealing with the likes of particle physics, advanced astronomy etc. Something that would not make him appear so utterly irrelevant in every respect to his educated 21st century readers.

Well, how do you know he didn't throw in some more advanced chapters? It is possible that passages of the Bible that seem incomprehensible to us (parts of Revelation, for example) will make perfect sense to better educated generations in the future.

However, this reminds me of another thread where I debated with some atheists & agnostics where they were (deliberately?) misinterpreting a passage of scripture to represent Christians in the worst possible light. When I pointed out that recent textual and linguistic discoveries gave us a better understanding of the text, their response was "How unfair of God to give a revelation that could not be fully understood by previous generations!" So, God gets criticised if he puts something in for future generations, but he also gets criticised if he doesn't. That would indicate to me that some posters have a problem with the idea of God giving a revelation at all, and that they will happily argue that black is white if it will help their cause.

Try to forget about the Bible being the word of god and all that for a minute. Imagine how it appears to an objective reader for a minute. Try to imagine what a race of advanced super-intelligent aliens would make of it if we gave them the Bible and said this is the last word in truth for our species. They would open it up and read all about misogyny, slavery, wholesale slaughter, intricate instructions for animal sacrifice, a faith built on the appeasement of an invisible deity by human sacrifice...

Do you imagine they'd have any respect for us at all? I suggest they'd think we were relentlessly violent, full of fear and hatred, and barking mad.

I wonder whether they'd bother to sit down and listen to your contorted explanations and justifications as to why the last word in truth doesn't actually say what it means or mean what it says.

The problem with introducing Star Trek scenarios into debate is that you can draw any conclusion you want from them. For example, maybe these super-intelligent aliens would be so impressed by the wisdom contained in the Bible that they would wonder how anyone with a shred of intelligence could ever have been an atheist.

The fact is that those who get hung up over slavery etc. in Scripture are usually those who have a long cultural familiarity with the Bible (and familiarity, as we all know, breeds contempt). It is noticeable that China's young highly-educated technological elite, many of whom are now being exposed to the Bible for the first time, are falling over themselves to embrace the Bible's message and are joining illegal house churches in unprecedented numbers.

I find it very interesting to hear how the Bible appears to an objective reader. Unfortunately objectivity is in short supply around here.

Sangre

Has a thread every stayed on topic in this forum?

Scofflaw

The phrase is "get off your high horse", for those who choose to use it...

pedantically,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

PDN wrote:

The fact is that those who get hung up over slavery etc. in Scripture are usually those who have a long cultural familiarity with the Bible (and familiarity, as we all know, breeds contempt). It is noticeable that China's young highly-educated technological elite, many of whom are now being exposed to the Bible for the first time, are falling over themselves to embrace the Bible's message and are joining illegal house churches in unprecedented numbers.

I find it very interesting to hear how the Bible appears to an objective reader. Unfortunately objectivity is in short supply around here.

Why do you think the Chinese have taken so well to Christianity?

Edit: perhaps i should have said 'why do you think the Chinese are so eager to embrace Christianity?'

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Well, how do you know he didn't throw in some more advanced chapters? It is possible that passages of the Bible that seem incomprehensible to us (parts of Revelation, for example) will make perfect sense to better educated generations in the future.

Oh come on, the Bible contains some pretty poetry alright, but not a word demonstrates a single hint, whiff or suggestion of actual demonstrable scientific knowledge beyond that possessed by the people of the period.

This is one of its major problems. It simply has no relevance to a modern sophisticated scientifically aware audience.

PDN wrote:

However, this reminds me of another thread where I debated with some atheists & agnostics where they were (deliberately?) misinterpreting a passage of scripture to represent Christians in the worst possible light.

And once again we're treated to the old "stick to beat christianity with" argument. What have I said to suggest I'm trying to "represent Christians in the worst possible light"? Am I not allowed to refer to the fact the Bible contains all those things? I'm sure it's something you would rather avoid thinking about, but sticking your head in the sand won't change the fact that the inerrant word of god contains at least as much hatred as love, and is based on human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism. If you could face up to that fact rather than accuse me of trying to discredit your faith whenever I mention it, we might start getting somewhere.

PDN wrote:

When I pointed out that recent textual and linguistic discoveries gave us a better understanding of the text, their response was "How unfair of God to give a revelation that could not be fully understood by previous generations!"

How is that relevant to this discussion? I haven't made that argument. Moving the goalposts isn't going to help your case.

PDN wrote:

So, God gets criticised if he puts something in for future generations, but also gets criticised if he doesn't.

Stop straw-manning. I would welcome it if god had included something for future generations and have indicated above why I don't believe this to be the case.

PDN wrote:

That would indicate to me that some posters have a problem with the idea of God giving a revelation at all, and that they will happily argue that black is white if it will help their cause.

If you mean me then why don't you say so directly? And back it up. I have no problem with the idea of god giving a revelation but I'm truly appalled that anyone can deceive themselves into thinking that the Bible is it.

PDN wrote:

The problem with introducing Star Trek scenarios into debate is that you can draw any conclusion you want from them. For example, maybe these super-intelligent aliens would be so impressed by the wisdom contained in the Bible that they would wonder how anyone with a shred of intelligence could ever have been an atheist.

That really isn't the point. I believe it's a valid litmus test of the worth of a book that claims to contain the revelatory truth of the creator the entire universe to consider whether or not you would be happy to give it to a completely objective outsider and allow it stand on its own terms. That is the point. Not what they would or wouldn't make of it, we obviously can't know that, but whether you would be happy to do that.

I can't imagine, if you were really honest with yourself, that you would really be happy with the scenario of giving the Bible to the aliens and that it would stand up on its own terms. To get your message across you would have to append a large compendium of explanatory notes, or better again have the chance to sit down with the aliens to explain and justify it to them, and that, to me, means it must fail as the word of god.

The innerant revelation of god must surely have relevance to all intelligence in the whole universe, and I simply don't accept that anybody with an ounce of objectivity in them would or could make that claim of the Bible.

PDN wrote:

The fact is that those who get hung up over slavery etc. in Scripture are usually those who have a long cultural familiarity with the Bible

Are you seriously saying I shouldn't be concerned by the fact that the 'inerrant word of god' explicitly condones slavery, misogyny and slaughter, and in the new as well as old testaments?

You might be able to ignore it, I can't.

PDN wrote:

I find it very interesting to hear how the Bible appears to an objective reader. Unfortunately objectivity is in short supply around here.

Your only argument seems to be that everybody who doesn't like christianity has some sort of axe to grind. Well, I should let you know that I wasn't brought up in a christian environment, and I didn't have to rebel or anything to escape it's clutches. I didn't used to think about it much at all, but since moving to Ireland and being forced to face its insidious effect on society, I have examined it more closely and have been appalled by it. If you're looking for an objective opinion you've found it.

I could ignore it, but I don't. Not because I'm biased, but because thinking rational people need to speak out against this malignant nonsense.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

The phrase is "get off your high horse", for those who choose to use it...

pedantically,
Scofflaw

Poor use of ... superfluous and not required.

Beruthiel

/Pulls thread back on topic

Hedonistic Atheist

You know I used to be a sorta Agnostic, but from further thinking and reading of books and of this forum on a regular basis, I realised I'm actually a full blown Atheist.

Congrats to those of you who aided me in this journey!
Satan will thank you

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Poor use of ... superfluous and not required.

Heavens...superfluous and not required. To be sure, to be sure, I suppose.

amused,
Scofflaw

Sangre

Scofflaw wrote:

Heavens...superfluous and not required. To be sure, to be sure, I suppose.

amused,
Scofflaw

I proclaim that quip the most whimsical caper of the season!