The Bible Contradictions Thread

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

'Don't read it the wrong way, read it this way instead.'

Am I the only one who finds this a bit disturbing?

The biggest flaw with the idea of biblical interpretation is that you are told to interpret it as the author's meant it under the assumption that it is the inerant word of God as defined by the religion you are part of

Therefore conclusions such as the authors were making stuff up, or misinterpreting earlier passages incorrectly, are excluded from this scholarly enterprise. Which makes it all historically useless in my view.

A good example is how the Isaiah prophecies are required to be read if you are a Christian. They must be read in the context of Christ and the New Testament (a bit of circular reasoning helps).

Funnily enough though if you look at what the Jews think Isaiah means it is nothing like the New Testament.

Christians say the Jews are reading the books wrong.
Jews say the same about Christians.

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

I suppose this is another of my main issues with religion. Why does the "inspired word of god" need thought and reflection?

There is so much that one can gain from reading the Scriptures once through. I gained a lot. However, there are things that I need to examine again, to see if I have got the message clearly the first time, or whether or not I could be putting my modern Western context in the middle of the Scriptures which come from an ancient Middle Eastern context.

If I am going to be involved in a lifetime relationship with God, it will mean that I will constantly have to reassess where I stand with Him, and indeed how I stand with Him as my circumstances change.

For example, I'm reading the Bible from the mindset of an early-twenties college student, however, when I move on in life there may be passages that will be more relevant to where I am later on.

MrPudding wrote: »

I cannot accept that a god of the supposed power and knowledge of yours is incapable of having his word recording in a clear and unambiguous manner. We expect school children to be able to write in a clear and unambiguous manner, why do we not expect the same of an all powerful all knowing god?

Due to the nature of the Bible, there are things in there to be learned no matter what age you are. It isn't as simple as just go and learn and that's it. It's a lifetime thing and I think that was the intention.

pH: I've made my position clear, that it'd be best not to on a public forum. I'm not obliged to.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

There is so much that one can gain from reading the Scriptures once through. I gained a lot. However, there are things that I need to examine again, to see if I have got the message clearly the first time, or whether or not I could be putting my modern Western context in the middle of the Scriptures which come from an ancient Middle Eastern context.

I think the fact that you need to do this was Pudding's point. It seems an odd way for an omnipotent deity to communicate with us, through the religious writings of self proclaimed prophets and religious men that have been interpreted a million different ways by a million different people.

Imagine if the instructions for the H1N1 vaccine were distributed to GPs using a 200 page parable about fig trees.

If you assume for a minute that all this stuff is just the mythological ramblings of ancient, not particularly sophisticated, superstitious peoples then it actually makes a lot more sense.

I think theists greatly underestimate how much of an issue this is for most atheists. The Bible looks like every other set of ancient mythological ramblings. It seems very odd that this is how our creator god would choose to communicate with his people.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Imagine if the instructions for the H1N1 vaccine were distributed to GPs using a 200 page parable about fig trees.

I don't believe that the Bible is merely a set of instructions despite the acronymn put out there by a group of evangelicals in the US:
B.I.B.L.E - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
We have a tendency to oversimplify things.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you assume for a minute that all this stuff is just the mythological ramblings of ancient, not particularly sophisticated, superstitious peoples then it actually makes a lot more sense.

I don't think it does on the grounds that we would actually have to do a lot of recalculating concerning the impact of the crucifixion (and resurrection but the crucifixion alone is worthy of discussion) of Jesus Christ on the world. We'd have to repiece everything together, and find a more cogent and accurate explanation for why this occurred. I have yet to hear of one from anyone.

I think disregarding the Bible as one of the most influential and one of the most enlightened texts concerning a philosophical anthropology alone is highly inaccurate.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think theists greatly underestimate how much of an issue this is for most atheists. The Bible looks like every other set of ancient mythological ramblings. It seems very odd that this is how our creator god would choose to communicate with his people.

I have yet to see how it is if a relationship with God is going to be a lifetime pursuit rather than a pursuit that lasts only a few years.

Panrich

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it does on the grounds that we would actually have to do a lot of recalculating concerning the impact of the crucifixion (and resurrection but the crucifixion alone is worthy of discussion) of Jesus Christ on the world. We'd have to repiece everything together, and find a more cogent and accurate explanation for why this occurred. I have yet to hear of one from anyone.

Wicknight invited you to assume for a minute that the bible is a mythological rambling. From that assumption you must take it that the crucifixion is part of that mythology. No recalculations needed other than to fix your starting point.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe that the Bible is merely a set of instructions despite the acronymn put out there by a group of evangelicals in the US:
B.I.B.L.E - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
We have a tendency to oversimplify things.

The word "instructions" is not the main point of his post so saying you don't see the bible as instructions is irrelevant. It is still neither clear nor unambiguous, something we expect from a 5 year old, never mind the omnipotent creator of the universe

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it does on the grounds that we would actually have to do a lot of recalculating concerning the impact of the crucifixion (and resurrection but the crucifixion alone is worthy of discussion) of Jesus Christ on the world.

No, you'd only have to update your understanding of human nature and realise that false claims have massive impacts on a regular basis because people have an overwhelming desire to believe what they want to believe. Explaining the rise of christianity is no more difficult than explaining the rise of 9/11 truthers. They really really want to believe it and there's just enough going for it for them to cling to

philologos

The Crucifixion is a historically attested event, hence we would have to find a place for it in history outside of the Judeo-Christian context in a way that would make sense. Likewise the Apostles and the motivation for the spread of Christianity is something that we need to think about seriously due to the fact that it also is historically attested.

This falls outside of the Biblical text itself, and as such would demand an explanation.

Panrich

Jakkass wrote: »

The Crucifixion is a historically attested event, hence we would have to find a place for it in history outside of the Judeo-Christian context in a way that would make sense. Likewise the Apostles and the motivation for the spread of Christianity is something that we need to think about seriously due to the fact that it also is historically attested.

This falls outside of the Biblical text itself, and as such would demand an explanation.

I have seen threads here debating the authenticity of an historical Jesus let alone his alleged demise so you'll forgive me if I don't bite on this.

philologos

I'm merely saying that most historians are in agreement:
1) That a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed
2) That this man was crucified
3) That the Christian community grew up as a result of His existence.

Most are even in agreement that he was buried in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The Crucifixion is a historically attested event, hence we would have to find a place for it in history outside of the Judeo-Christian context in a way that would make sense. Likewise the Apostles and the motivation for the spread of Christianity is something that we need to think about seriously due to the fact that it also is historically attested.

This falls outside of the Biblical text itself, and as such would demand an explanation.

I have no problem accepting that the crucifixion happened any more than I deny that L. Ron Hubbard existed. I don't even have a problem accepting that some people believed Jesus had been resurrected. A resurrection is miraculous but large numbers of people believing that a resurrection had happened when it hadn't is not, it's a sad fact of human nature that people believe mad stuff in the face of evidence because they want to. If you want to use the rise of christianity as evidence of its truth, you're going to have to completely explain the rise of every other religion in the world first

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

We have a tendency to oversimplify things.

We certainly do but that doesn't mean complicated things are better. Christians like to go on about how God is by definition simple. It seems odd then that he would choose his primary communication with humans to be through such a complicated convoluted piece of literature.

An analogy that has been made before is with mathematics. There are complicated equations in mathematics. Every once and a while a very bright person comes along and shows how one complicated sum can be represented in a simpler fashion that still conveys all the information. This produces a more elegant, more beautiful, equation.

To me the Bible looks like the complicated sum before this has happened, as if it was written by people who just didn't know any better. Which is again odd if the author was God.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it does on the grounds that we would actually have to do a lot of recalculating concerning the impact of the crucifixion (and resurrection but the crucifixion alone is worthy of discussion) of Jesus Christ on the world. We'd have to repiece everything together, and find a more cogent and accurate explanation for why this occurred. I have yet to hear of one from anyone.

I'm not sure what you mean. Why would we have to do that?

Jakkass wrote: »

I think disregarding the Bible as one of the most influential and one of the most enlightened texts concerning a philosophical anthropology alone is highly inaccurate.

Influential and populist does not imply enlightened. Jordon's first novel sold more than all the Booker Prize nominations put together. :pac:

As if often stated on this forum the philosophical ideas found in the Bible are found in other works where they are presented in much better, more thoughtful ways.

Again this would strike me as odd if the author is God. For example why are the Greeks describing God's ideas better than Jesus did 400 years before Jesus was born? Why is God's description of say the Golden Rule not the definitive one? Why have plenty of other people, before and after, described the concept in must clearer more thoughtful ways?

Again using the maths analogy, it would be like the Bible describing a very convoluted and overly complicated proof of Euler's identity only to have Euler come along and show everyone how it is supposed to be done. The question would be why didn't the Bible do that in the first place?

Replace maths with moral and ethical problems and you have the same conundrum. The Bible is far from the best way these concepts have every been presented, which to me would conflict with the idea it is divinely inspired.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have yet to see how it is if a relationship with God is going to be a lifetime pursuit rather than a pursuit that lasts only a few years.

But that has nothing to do with it. Why would a life time relationship with God require a Bible that needs a life time of study?

patmartino

Jakkass wrote: »

The Crucifixion is a historically attested event,

Crucifixion's are a historically attested event, there is no eye witness proof for jesus's crucifiction.

Jakkass wrote: »

hence we would have to find a place for it in history outside of the Judeo-Christian context in a way that would make sense. Likewise the Apostles and the motivation for the spread of Christianity is something that we need to think about seriously due to the fact that it also is historically attested.

Historically attested at least 90 years after the fact without any 1st hand proof.

Jakkass wrote: »

This falls outside of the Biblical text itself, and as such would demand an explanation.

What?

Flamed Diving

patmartino wrote: »

Crucifixion's are a historically attested event, there is no eye witness proof for jesus's crucifiction.

Well, the bible said that there were eye witnesses. So there ya go. Proof.

philologos

There are historical sources external to the Bible that back up that there was a crucifixion of a man named Jesus of Nazareth, and that a group of followers called Christians arose out of His legacy.

Sam Vimes: It appears that a few of your brethren have issues with the concept.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

There are historical sources external to the Bible that back up that there was a crucifixion of a man named Jesus of Nazareth, and that a group of followers called Christians arose out of His legacy.

Sam Vimes: It appears that a few of your brethren have issues with the concept.

Yup, atheists sometimes disagree. I don't know how reliable the evidence is for the existence of a guy called Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified and who had followers and I'm not really bothered to look it up because it's irrelevant. It in no way strengthens the case for the guy raising from the dead any more than the existence of Joseph Smith makes Mormonism true or the existence of New york makes King Kong true. The strongest evidence against the resurrection is two fold:

1. It violates the laws of nature
2. People have shown millions and millions of times that they are capable of believing something with all their hearts that is not true, even if they have been shown irrefutable evidence that it is not true, even if the person who originally performed the feat told them that it was not true. People are odd creatures

together they mean that actual physical evidence of the resurrection would have to be presented before it would be rational to believe it, eye witness testimony just doesn't cut it

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDSUTjxNuiU

Is the Paul portrayed in the Book of Acts the same as the Paul we encounter in the Pauline corpus? No. This video discusses one of the significant differences.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

There are historical sources external to the Bible that back up that there was a crucifixion of a man named Jesus of Nazareth, and that a group of followers called Christians arose out of His legacy.

The sources that document these items do not, to say the least, back up the claims presented within the gospel texts as they exist today. Josephus' text is almost certainly a later insertion and cannot be trusted; Pliny's text simply mentions the existence of a group of former christians who cursed Christus; Suetonius implies that they're simply a bunch of trouble-makers; while Tacitus, perhaps the most reliable Roman historian, says that christianity is "evil" and treats it as a disease within the Roman Empire. None of the external sources attest any of the crucial, extraordinary claims of the NT texts.

More on these sources, and their failings, here.

The gnostic gospels, on the other hand, add some much-needed color to the rather monochromatic picture of Jesus that we have from the orthodox gospel texts. Some of these texts may predate the more orthodox ones, but as with the latter, nobody really knows who wrote them, nor where, nor when, nor why. More on the gnostics here.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

However, my point is the Bible is a collection of writings gathered at different stages in time by different authors, and often with differing intentions. As such it's best to think about the context first.

You're arguing the atheist position that it's just a bunch of books. Surely the christian "context" is that it was divinely inspired, and as such, should have a single, seamless, perfectly integrated and unambiguous meaning?

philologos

I'd argue that the Bible contains both a big picture, metanarrative, and several smaller and more particular narratives.

The point is the Bible is trying to give us a framework for understanding human living in it's entirety. I'm sure one can gather much from the metanarrative, but to get the deepest view of the Bible one will have to explore the smaller narratives.

It's working inwards I guess. I think I have a good enough understanding of the metanarrative of what the Bible has to say about human existence, now I want to analyse the particular instances that occurred.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is the Bible is trying to give us a framework for understanding human living in it's entirety.

I think the point (mine at least) is that it doesn't do a particularly good job at that, which would call into serious question that it is divinely inspired.

Being inspired by God should make the Bible the best framework for understanding humanity in it's entirety. What ever people think about the Bible being good it certainly isn't the best example we have to this. Other works have described aspects of humanity, ethics, morals, science, etc much better.

Now it could be argued that if the Bible was too perfect it would be too much of a tip off that God exists and thus faith would become irrelevant. But that is a bit of a weak argument since we are supposed to believe the Bible is divinely inspired.

Again using the example of the Golden Rule, why would Greek philosophers describe the Golden Rule better in a much more elegant and profound way than Jesus does if Jesus was speaking with the authority of God?

It leads many, including myself, to the conclusion that the Bible is simply the words of men, and men not particularly good, relatively speaking, in expressing these positions.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is the Bible is trying to give us a framework for understanding human living in it's entirety.

Can you please break down what you think Darwinian evolution does not explain about human life?

For each of these items, can you explain how the Bible explains them better than science currently does?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Can you please break down what you think Darwinian evolution does not explain about human life?

For each of these items, can you explain how the Bible explains them better than science currently does?

Let me ask a question for a change. Do you think that if we based our moral structure on Darwinian evolution it would be a good thing given Natural Selection?

Darwinian explanations should be firmly confined to biology in my view. They are not in any way enlightening in how to live a full life.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me ask a question for a change. Do you think that if we based our moral structure on Darwinian evolution it would be a good thing given Natural Selection?

Darwinian explanations should be firmly confined to biology in my view. They are not in any way enlightening in how to live a full life.

That had nothing to do with the original question.

How does the bible explain life?
Not how does the bible say we should live our lives.

As for your question.
Of course it would be a good thing, natural selection led to religion didn't it?
And you and I know that religion is the source of morality.:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me ask a question for a change. Do you think that if we based our moral structure on Darwinian evolution it would be a good thing given Natural Selection?

Darwinian explanations should be firmly confined to biology in my view. They are not in any way enlightening in how to live a full life.

Well two points

The first is that Darwinian evolution is actually a large testing system, and nature itself has figured out that things humans hold as virtues such as altruism, empathy, cooperation etc "work" in the sense that they provide a better way of ensuring the most amount of people survive at the very least to the point of reproduction.

So we can actually take lessons from biology about this. It is in fact why we hold these things to be virtues in the first place. We have evolved to because that is what works in the sense of helping us survive.

Secondly, evolutionary biology and psychology gives great insights into what makes humans happy in the first place, and why certain things do and certain things don't. It is hard to live a full life if you don't know what that actually is.

philologos

Malty T: Part of life is morality, I personally don't think Darwinian thought offers me any light particularly if I decide to live by the example of Natural Selection.

Malty T wrote:

Of course it would be a good thing, natural selection led to religion didn't it?

God led to Judaism and then Christianity. Not us in Christian opinion.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is the Bible is trying to give us a framework for understanding human living in it's entirety.

Well, yes, it was written by people a long time ago to describe the world as they saw it, and to legitimize the social structures that existed at the time. But it's necessary to point out that humanity's understanding of the world and how it works has increased since the Bronze Age.

Most of us don't think that there are demons out there that tempt us as much as they control our enemies; we don't think that the world was flat or came into existence over the course of a week; the educated (minority, I suspect) don't subscribe to a dualist view of humanity; and most people, religious and otherwise, subscribe logically, if not emotionally, to joint decision-making as exercised via representative democracy, rather than the grim authoritarian modes practiced by kings who claimed a "divine" right to rule much as the OT deities did.

Things really have moved on since the Bronze Age, even if the emotionally-satisfying, but simple and wrong, "explanations" offered within the bible have not.

Xluna

Jakkass wrote: »

Flamed Diving: I have no interest in discussing unless you have -
Read these passages for yourself, and not only read them, but made an effort to contextualise them instead of copying and pasting them from the Reason Project, or the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

I could take as little effort and just google for Christian based answers. However, I want to actually engage with the argument. I expect you to do the same.

Contextualise or compartmentalise?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: Part of life is morality, I personally don't think Darwinian thought offers me any light particularly if I decide to live by the example of Natural Selection.

I find this consistent position from theists truly mind boggling. No one has ever suggested that morality should be based on natural selection, except people that are now listed among the most evil men in history. Evolution is not a social philosophy, it's a natural process. No one has ever suggested we base our morality on the patterns of snow fall either because one has nothing to do with the other.

Secular morality is based on reason and ethics, whereas christian morality is based on an erroneous call to the authority from a book that they think was written by god but was actually written by primitives who got it right in some cases but far from all

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Darwinian explanations should be firmly confined to biology in my view. They are not in any way enlightening in how to live a full life.

Evolution explains how and why we're here. It does not explain what people should do with their lives, any more than the Theory of Gravity should imply that people should choose to spend their lives collapsing into a heap on the floor.

I don't look at my kid simply as the product of natural selection (although it's quite true), any more than I view her as a bag of chemicals (and that's true too). In fact, I'd say that if anybody who held to this stupid, reductionist view is probably unfit to be a parent.

You are being caught out -- as many religious people tend to be -- by the classic is/ought problem where you mistakenly think that anybody who believes that something is observationally true, also holds that this is what ought to be true by social convention.

More on the is/ought fallacy here.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

You are being caught out -- as many religious people tend to be -- by the classic is/ought problem where you mistakenly think that anybody who believes that something is observationally true, also holds that this is what ought to be true by social convention.

More on the is/ought fallacy here.

Brilliant!

This is why I love boards A&A, I never knew these fallacies actually had names.:)

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No one has ever suggested that morality should be based on natural selection, except people that are now listed among the most evil men in history.

Sheesh, Sam, didn't expect you to drop this clanger!

Hitler appears to have been a creationist, to judge from his confused ramblings upon the topic of the origins of humanity (more here). Stalin rejected Darwinism and Natural Selection in favour of Lamarckianism for rather complicated (if interesting) political reasons, and the support of the latter by the appalling anti-selectionist Trofim Lysenko. Mao believed that the political uses to which Darwin's ideas could be put were entirely false (Collected Works, Volume 4, page 455). Not sure about Pol Pot, but I don't imagine he spent much time in the biology sections of the libraries of Phnom Penh.

The idea that all these four nasties were motivated by Darwin is basically just another creationist lie. And even if it were true, then all four would have been caught out, quite straightforwardly, by Hume's is/ought fallacy.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Sheesh, Sam, didn't expect you to drop this clanger!

Hitler appears to have been a creationist, to judge from his confused ramblings upon the topic of the origins of humanity (more here). Stalin rejected Darwinism and Natural Selection in favour of Lamarckianism for rather complicated (if interesting) political reasons, and the support of the latter by the appalling anti-selectionist Trofim Lysenko. Mao believed that the political uses to which Darwin's ideas could be put were entirely false (Collected Works, Volume 4, page 455). Not sure about Pol Pot, but I don't imagine he spent much time in the biology sections of the libraries of Phnom Penh.

The idea that all these four nasties were motivated by Darwin is basically just another creationist lie. And even if it were true, then all four would have been caught out, quite straightforwardly, by Hume's is/ought fallacy.

Ah yeah I know that

I added "except people that are now listed among the most evil men in history" just before I was about to click submit because I didn't want Jakkass to bring us down that particular rabbit hole. I'm too used to him you see

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

I never knew these fallacies actually had names.:)

Lots of 'em:

Try this list of cognitive biases and this list of fallacies (now with a shiny new entry for Hume's is-ought problem )

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah yeah I know that

Ok, I sit corrected!

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Lots of 'em:

Try this list of cognitive biases and this list of fallacies (now with a shiny new entry for Hume's is-ought problem )

Holy Crap!!:eek:

philologos

Sam: There is the constant insistence that all things should be explained through the lens of Darwinian evolution. I for one am saying that such a method of dealing with life is inadequate. Much of what occurs in the biological world is not translatable into other areas of life. Hence why Darwinian evolution does not offer me a complete view of the world as liamw has suggested. That's why I outwardly reject such a viewpoint.

It turns Darwinian evolution into philosophy as well as science. If that is what you wish for yourself that is one thing, however I outwardly reject it apart from as a means of explaining our biological condition.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: There is the constant insistence that all things should be explained through the lens of Darwinian evolution.

No there isn't, unless it's by theists trying to use evolution as a stick to beat atheists with

Jakkass wrote: »

I for one am saying that such a method of dealing with life is inadequate.

Make that two, in fact I think I can confidently say you can make that every member of this forum and richard Dawkins who says it in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

Jakkass wrote: »

Much of what occurs in the biological world is not translatable into other areas of life.

completely true and one ever said otherwise

Jakkass wrote: »

Hence why Darwinian evolution does not offer me a complete view of the world as liamw has suggested. That's why I outwardly reject such a viewpoint.

What you've done here is misunderstand his viewpoint, even after it was clarified by Malty_T here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63206889&postcount=174

Turtwig

Dammitt!!

Left out the rolleyes.:mad:

Post looked like I meant something completely different

Turtwig

Jakkass,

Science can help us to live our lives in certain ways, for example Physics help when I want lots of ice blocks ASAP - I always boil the water before freezing it.
However, I don't go using the general trend of "opposite attract" to decide who I should be friends with.

Likewise,
Biology explains how biological functions work, social sciences and neurosciences explain how humans behave and function. The former isn't going to tell us how we should treat one another or the best way to communicate with one another. The latter however examines the ways we treat each other and communicate with one another. It then picks out the best and most productive ways and even suggests methods to improve them.:)

@Sam, there a dozen more videos that you can post where Dawkins rejects darwinism, can you please stop posting *her*.
Otherwise I might just become a creationist .
"Crea-tor"
*Cringes*

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No there isn't, unless it's by theists trying to use evolution as a stick to beat atheists with

It's a prevailing theme throughout much of the God Delusion. If it isn't as a conclusive ideology, it certainly is used in a lot of contexts outside of legitimate biological reference.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What you've done here is misunderstand his viewpoint, even after it was clarified by Malty_T here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63206889&postcount=174

I'd prefer if liamw would clarify for himself rather than having Malty_T do so.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass,

Science can help us to live our lives in certain ways, for example Physics help when I want lots of ice blocks ASAP - I always boil the water before freezing it.
However, I don't go using the general trend of "opposite attract" to decide who I should be friends with.

Likewise,
Biology explains how biological functions work, social sciences and neurosciences explain how humans behave and function. The former isn't going to tell us how we should talk to one another or the best way to communicate with one another. The latter however examines the ways we communicate with one another and picks out the best and most productive ways.:)

When theists make statements like "science doesn't tell you how to live your life" and "atheists have as mush faith as theists" that they think science is like our religion so they expect it to provide everything that their religion does for them. They find that science doesn't provide a moral code or a way to live your life and say to themselves "that's not the religion for me". Very odd indeed

Malty_T wrote: »

@Sam, there a dozen more videos that you can post where Dawkins rejects darwinism, can you please stop posting *her*.
Otherwise I might just become a creationist .
"Crea-tor"
*Cringes*

I'm going to follow you around posting that until your head explodes. Bwahahahahahaha :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a prevailing theme throughout much of the God Delusion. If it isn't as a conclusive ideology, it certainly is used in a lot of contexts outside of legitimate biological reference.

Dawkins uses evolution to explain the origins of morality. That's a very different thing to saying that our moral code should be based on survival of the fittest. Our moral code in its most basic form is "treat others as you would like to be treated", it's hard wired into us, it's what allows human society to exist. your explanation for why humans all over the world follow this code even if they've never heard of Jesus is that god put it in them, our explanation is that it evolved because our ancestors who helped each other and didn't kill each other survived better. But again, that does not mean we should live in a Darwinian society

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd prefer if liamw would clarify for himself rather than having Malty_T do so.

Can you just take my and Malty's word for it? One big hint that he didn't mean to suggest that we should have a Darwinian society is that that is a bat sh!t crazy thing that only a deranged person would suggest.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Dawkins uses evolution to explain the origins of morality. That's a very different thing to saying that our moral code should be based on survival of the fittest. Our moral code in its most basic form is "treat others as you would like to be treated", it's hard wired into us, it's what allows human society to exist. your explanation for why humans all over the world follow this code even if they've never heard of Jesus is that god put it in them, our explanation is that it evolved because our ancestors who helped each other and didn't kill each other survived better. But again, that does not mean we should live in a Darwinian society

This isn't factually the case. That is my issue. When Darwinian evolution becomes a philosophy, that is when I am not willing to accept it.

Your opinion, and Dawkins opinion on the origin of morality is no more valid than that of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, the Utilitarians / Consequentialists, Jurgen Habermas, Edith Stein, Nietzsche or anyone else.

There is a risk when we abuse science to explain things like Moral Philosophy that people can become dogmatic, and refer to such positions as fact rather than honestly claiming that it is their moral philosophy.

In a sense Dawkins is attempting to pass a moral philosophy as a science. I cannot help but have a profound issue with that.

It is like trying to explain science in mere philosophical terms. Can you not understand how soul destroying that is to someone who actually enjoys his philosophical studies?

It's like how you would regard Creationism in the science class!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you just take my and Malty's word for it? One big hint that he didn't mean to suggest that we should have a Darwinian society is that that is a bat sh!t crazy thing that only a deranged person would suggest.

I prefer listening to people explain themselves. I respect people enough to let them speak for themselves. It's an annoying habit when people speak on someones opinion as if it came from the person themselves.

Turtwig

The word "origin" was bold faced and yet you still completely missed the point.
No one is even suggesting it is a philosophy.

Xluna

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Make that two, in fact I think I can confidently say you can make that every member of this forum and richard Dawkins who says it in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

God she was annoying and condescending. Dawkins must have incredible patience to listen to such crap.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't factually the case. That is my issue. When Darwinian evolution becomes a philosophy, that is when I am not willing to accept it.

Your opinion, and Dawkins opinion on the origin of morality is no more valid than that of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, the Utilitarians / Consequentialists, Jurgen Habermas, Edith Stein, Nietzsche or anyone else.

There is a risk when we abuse science to explain things like Moral Philosophy that people can become dogmatic, and refer to such positions as fact rather than honestly claiming that it is their moral philosophy.

In a sense Dawkins is attempting to pass a moral philosophy as a science. I cannot help but have a profound issue with that.

It is like trying to explain science in mere philosophical terms. Can you not understand how soul destroying that is to someone who actually enjoys his philosophical studies?

It's like how you would regard Creationism in the science class!

Jakkass, please try to grasp this. you are missing the point. No one is trying to explain why we should act a certain way using science. No one. Evolution explains the origins of many of our thought processes such as the fight or flight mechanism, attachment to our young, fear of the unknown etc etc etc etc. It makes no commentary whatsoever on the merit of these particular instincts, it merely explains where they came from. No one is making Darwinian evolution a philosophy, no one that is except theists trying to straw man both science and atheism

Jakkass wrote: »

I prefer listening to people explain themselves. I respect people enough to let them speak for themselves. It's an annoying habit when people speak on someones opinion as if it came from the person themselves.

But apparently not enough to actually read what they're saying and interpret it in the way it was meant

Turtwig

Right that's it, how do I configure my browser to filter out anything that may contain Wendy Wright.

Sam Vimes

Xluna wrote: »

God she was annoying and condescending. Dawkins must have incredible patience to listen to such crap.

When I met him at the RDS and he signed a copy of his book for me that's exactly what I said to him

Sam Vimes

To give an example, science explains exactly how to build an atomic bomb but says nothing about whether you should drop it or not

And science explains why we have an instinct not to do harm to others but says nothing about whether we should or not. That is left for moral philosophers, the ones who use reason and unfortunately the ones who say something is good because god says so

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

When Darwinian evolution becomes a philosophy, that is when I am not willing to accept it.

Could you please say who exactly is doing this?