When atheists go too far

philologos

gvn wrote: »

philologos: I've a simple question, I'd be interested in your response. (It's completely hypothetical, but interesting nonetheless.)

What if research in the fields of abiogenesis and emergence progressed to such a degree that in, say, a couple of years scientists created life, by completely natural processes, in the laboratory? The conditions used in their experiments would also mirror the conditions of an early Earth, the implication being that life could have come about on Earth via natural mechanisms and processes.

Would such a discovery cause you to question your beliefs? Would it even cause concern?

I'd have to look at what was being claimed first and give it my consideration. There are several hurdles to get even to the point where we are considering abiogenesis.

Killer Pigeon

I don't know if this was linked before on this thread but here's a video of Lord Dawkins speaking in Dublin recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwV_EJaC1cA

Mark200

gvn wrote: »

Would such a discovery cause you to question your beliefs? Would it even cause concern?

I'm sure at this stage religions are well practised in changing their beliefs when proven wrong.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I'd have to look at what was being claimed first and give it my consideration. There are several hurdles to get even to the point where we are considering abiogenesis.

Indeed, that's why it was a purely hypothetical question. The most important word in my question was "if."

I'm not sure how you'd like to define life--a single definition is nay on impossible to describe--but under the condition that what the scientists produced was life, unequivocally and by any reasonable definition, would it cause you to pause for concern?

Mark200 wrote:

I'm sure at this stage religions are well practised in changing their beliefs when proven wrong.

This would be a discovery a person would find very hard to reconcile with their beliefs, though, I'd imagine.

AudreyHepburn

Firstly I have absolutly no problem with athiesm at all, we are all free to believe or not believe as we see fit.

What I do take issue with is the need some athiests have to mock and belittle believers. By all means question other belief systems, object to them if you wish but why feel the need to behave as though being athiest somehow makes you of higher intelligence than those of faith?

dpe

philologos wrote: »

^^ Yet William of Ockham as a committed Christian would be writhing in his grave at that use of Ockham's Razor :pac:

I don't see how atheism is any "simpler" anyway.

Way to avoid the question. And "God is a made up idea to help early humans understand the world" is a waaaay simpler explanation than the alternative.

Tehachapi

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Firstly I have absolutly no problem with athiesm at all, we are all free to believe or not believe as we see fit.

What I do take issue with is the need some athiests have to mock and belittle believers. By all means question other belief systems, object to them if you wish but why feel the need to behave as though being athiest somehow makes you of higher intelligence than those of faith?

When someones belief system is detrimental to society, it should most definitely be mocked.

Also, generally people who believe in things without evidence are of lower intellect. (I have no problem saying that and stand by it 100%). If you genuinely believed my invisible leprechaun story , I would know there is something wrong with your brain.

philologos

Mark200 wrote: »

I'm sure at this stage religions are well practised in changing their beliefs when proven wrong.

Mark200: How have they been though? You're going to be the first man to present this proof in the world. I'm ready to hear it.

dpe: How?

Ellis Dee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Firstly I have absolutly no problem with athiesm at all, we are all free to believe or not believe as we see fit.

What I do take issue with is the need some athiests have to mock and belittle believers. By all means question other belief systems, object to them if you wish but why feel the need to behave as though being athiest somehow makes you of higher intelligence than those of faith?

Where did you get that idea from? I have read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, for instance, and nowhere in it does he make any kinds of claims regarding the relative intelligence levels of atheists and believers.

An atheist is someone who simply refuses to believe the unbelievable, someone who asks - always vainly - for those who claim they believe in the existence of a supernatural being to provide proof.

However, some of the claims made by believers - that someone changed water into wine, for example - are just so absurd and completely at odds with reason and everything that we know about science that they absolutely invite ridicule.

Atheists probably wouldn't ridicule these beliefs if there was even the slightest hope of believers being reasonable and willing to discuss possible explanations for things like this alleged miracle: mass-hypnosis, perhaps. Just as in the case of UFOs, there is usually a rational explanation if one looks hard enough - a bird, an optical illusion, the possibilities are limitless.

The same applies in a dialogue between atheists, who go only on evidence, and believers, who would need to start producing some or at least look at what atheists provide them with.:rolleyes:

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Mark200: How have they been though? You're going to be the first man to present this proof in the world. I'm ready to hear it.

Off the top of my head: geocentricism?

P.S. Any answer to my abiogenesis question?

philologos

gvn wrote: »

Off the top of my head: geocentricism?

P.S. Any answer to my abiogenesis question?

I've given you my best shot given that it is a hypothetical question. I would certainly think about it. As for what conclusions I would come to would depend on what was presented which I can't possibly know right now.

One couldn't say that geocentricism is explicit in the Bible really.

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

Mark200: How have they been though? You're going to be the first man to present this proof in the world. I'm ready to hear it.

Well the age of the Earth and of humans for a start. Although not a lot of Christians are creationists now (although many are). I wonder why.

Not to mention the countless other things in the Old Testament that Christians used to believe but don't any more. Would you think that these change of beliefs came about due to revelations from god or due to advances in science and society?

philologos wrote: »

One couldn't say that geocentricism is explicit in the Bible really.

Conveniently, very little in the bible is explicit. And those that are explicit but quite obviously inconsistent with modern science and modern society are just labelled as metaphors.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I've given you my best shot given that it is a hypothetical question. I would certainly think about it. As for what conclusions I would come to would depend on what was presented which I can't possibly know right now.

Well, you didn't say whether it would cause you to pause for concern. You just told me that it's a hypothetical question (which I pointed out) and that you'd have to consider what was being put forth (I said it would be life, unequivocally and by any reasonable definition). I wouldn't call that a great answer, to be honest, because you didn't answer my question.

One couldn't say that geocentricism is explicit in the Bible really.

It might not be explicitly stated, but it can be inferred. Take Joshua 10:12-13, for example.

Another example: how about Deuteronomy 14:11-18? Bats aren't birds.

philologos

Alright Mark200, so you have disproven Young Earth Creationism but not Christianity? That's significantly more honest of you.

philologos

gvn wrote: »

It might not be explicitly stated, but it can be inferred. Take Joshua 10:12-13, for example.

Not the first time I have seen this used on boards.

From a human standpoint we say that the sun rises and the sun sets, or that the sun goes up and the sun goes down. This doesn't mean that we believe that the sun is moving. We believe that the earth is moving.

As a result it is a poor example to use Joshua which is talking about the sun much in the same way as being geocentric. Unless you are suggesting that we should change what words we use to talk about sun rise and sun set?

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

Alright Mark200, so you have disproven Young Earth Creationism but not Christianity? That's significantly more honest of you.

I hope you don't read the bible the way you read my posts. I didn't claim to have disproven Christianity. I had said that religions have had a lot of practice in changing their minds, so even if some way of creating life is discovered then there's no reason to think that religious people would admit that they're wrong - since they haven't done so in the past.

gvn wrote: »

This would be a discovery a person would find very hard to reconcile with their beliefs, though, I'd imagine.

They've worked to reconcile evolution with their beliefs, as well as the fact that the Earth is billions of years old instead of thousands. I don't think they'd have a problem saying "but there still must have been a god to make it happen! There were no scientists around that time durr"

philologos

The idea of an old-earth in Christianity predates Darwin by about 1600 years (both Augustine and Origen postulated the hypothesis, and arguably Peter in 2 Peter 3). One could claim that scientific advancement has eradicated what assumptions we have about the world which are usually independent of religion but can affect the interpretation of individuals.

Clearly that's a good thing, but ludicrous claims that it has disproven Christianity are something else. This is what you did imply here:

I'm sure at this stage religions are well practised in changing their beliefs when proven wrong.

philologos

Still no response to my abiogenesis question...

philologos wrote: »

From a human standpoint we say that the sun rises and the sun sets, or that the sun goes up and the sun goes down. This doesn't mean that we believe that the sun is moving. We believe that the earth is moving.

Yes. We know that it's the earth that's moving. I don't believe they did, though. I'll explain below.

As a result it is a poor example to use Joshua which is talking about the sun much in the same way as being geocentric. Unless you are suggesting that we should change what words we use to talk about sun rise and sun set?

If both the Sun and the Moon stopped in the sky, it would mean that earth would have had to have stopped rotating on its axis. Have you any idea of the consequences that would have? It would be catastrophic beyond all comprehension.

You hardly believe they considered the passage to mean the earth stopped rotating on its axis?

philologos

gvn wrote: »

If both the Sun and the Moon stopped in the sky, it would mean that earth would have had to have stopped rotating on its axis. Have you any idea of the consequences that would have? It would be catastrophic beyond all comprehension.

You hardly believe they considered the passage to mean the earth stopped rotating on its axis?

I'm just saying that it is highly disingenuous of you to suggest that suggesting that terms such as the sun going up and down mean geocentricism.

I understand what is meant by Joshua in that book. I don't need to postulate that the earth isn't moving in order to see what he meant.

Now you are moving on to whether or not I believe miracles are possible which is a different question altogether. Ultimately if I believe that God created the earth with all its scientific laws, I also believe that He can manipulate them. If I don't believe that God exists, this is ridiculous.

I've answered your question as best as I possibly can given that it is a hypothetical one.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I'm just saying that it is highly disingenuous of you to suggest that suggesting that terms such as the sun going up and down mean geocentricism.

I understand what is meant by Joshua in that book. I don't need to postulate that the earth isn't moving in order to see what he meant.

Now you are moving on to whether or not I believe miracles are possible which is a different question altogether.

I've answered your question as best as I possibly can given that it is a hypothetical one.

I don't see it as disingenuous. To be honest, I see it as you giving the writers of Joshua (and many, many other passages inferring geocentricism) as much leeway as possible in order that the passage should ring true in at least one respect. If it's not physical truth, it's metaphor or parable or, in this case, the use of colloquial language. When a person interprets passages in any way possible it's next to impossible to show that the particular passage is wrong or misinformed. But this geocentricism debate is pointless: it never gets anywhere, so let's move on.

How about my reference to the Bible stating that bats are birds?

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

The idea of an old-earth in Christianity predates Darwin by about 1600 years (both Augustine and Origen postulated the hypothesis, and arguably Peter in 2 Peter 3).

Well first of all, it seems some religious sources disagree with you:

http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist

The link also includes an interesting sentence:

Early Church leaders like Origen, Augustine and Basil were young earth creationists. This view was commonly held within the Church until the 19th century

Second of all, a couple of people saying "hmm the Earth might be old" isn't really that impressive and has nothing to do with my point. It doesn't matters what the fathers of a religion says considering the vast majority of Christians don't know what they said anyway.

philologos wrote: »

Clearly that's a good thing, but ludicrous claims that it has disproven Christianity are something else. This is what you did imply here:

Again, I never claimed (or implied) that I have disproven Christianity. I was talking about previous beliefs that have been proven wrong. I wasn't talking about Christianity as a belief on its own, I was talking about some beliefs within Christianity that have been changed.

Nollog

Thread about some guy ridiculing peoples beliefs when he has none himself goes on to be about people ridiculing people's beliefs.
FULL CIRCLE.

RichieC

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Firstly I have absolutly no problem with athiesm at all, we are all free to believe or not believe as we see fit.

What I do take issue with is the need some athiests have to mock and belittle believers. By all means question other belief systems, object to them if you wish but why feel the need to behave as though being athiest somehow makes you of higher intelligence than those of faith?

Intelligent people question things, religion doesn't stand up to questioning.

philologos

gvn wrote: »

How about my reference to the Bible stating that bats are birds?

This classification came after the Hebrew language in the Bible was written. It's also a man made classification of species. Biblical Hebrew classified all flying creatures into a single category.

The footnote in the ESV Bible says the following:

Or things that fly; compare Genesis 1:20

Sure enough using my Bible software

עוֹף oph (733d); from 5774a; flying creatures:—bird(17), birds(49), fowl(1), winged(3), wings(1).

Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.

The word also doesn't necessarily mean birds which is why one needs to emphasise that English Bibles are a best-effort translation from the Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and in the case of the New Testament Koine Greek.

I believe the section of the Bible (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14) that you're referring to has to do with Jewish dietary laws rather than ornithology.

Nothing I haven't come across before and it hardly disproves Judaism or Christianity.

Can I ask you what are you using to find these references? (I suspect it is from the Skeptics Annotated Bible or the Reason Project, I would hope that it is based on your own reading because I like to think that if I put effort into discussing this you will too).

RichieC wrote: »

Intelligent people question things, religion doesn't stand up to questioning.

Ergo, there are no intelligent Christians*

* Except that this is demonstrably false.

Either Christianity does hold up to questioning, or there are no intelligent Christians, since the latter is false, the former must be true.

If it didn't hold up to questioning I wouldn't be still professing to believe in Christ.

It's amazing how your atheism produces such a prejudiced world view.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Sure enough using my Bible software

you actually payed for that sh*t?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

This classification came after the Hebrew language in the Bible was written. It's also a man made classification of species. Biblical Hebrew classified all flying creatures into a single category.

The footnote in the ESV Bible says the following:


Sure enough using my Bible software


The word also doesn't necessarily mean birds which is why one needs to emphasise that English Bibles are a best-effort translation from the Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and in the case of the New Testament Koine Greek.

I believe the section of the Bible (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14) that you're referring to has to do with Jewish dietary laws rather than ornithology.

Good explanation, thanks. I suspected that was the case, but I wasn't sure.

Nothing I haven't come across before and it hardly disproves Judaism or Christianity.

Well the idea wasn't to disprove Judaism or Christianity. Mark200's comment was that particular beliefs have been disproven or shown to be wrong. Trying to disprove an entire religion is a pointless exercise, but showing that some particular beliefs inside of that religion have been shown to be erroneous isn't a particularly hard task. That was the intention behind my comments so far: to show that some beliefs are wrong, not that the entire belief system is wrong.

Can I ask you what are you using to find these references? (I suspect it is from the Skeptics Annotated Bible or the Reason Project, I would hope that it is based on your own reading because I like to think that if I put effort into discussing this you will too).

I'm using my own KJV 1611 Bible that I bought a few years ago. I read it with highlighters and have thousands of verses underlined, which I'm flicking through now. It's becoming a pain to find particular passages so I might have to resort to using SAB.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

you actually payed for that sh*t?

I did yeah. I find it incredibly useful and as someone who is both hugely interested in technology / programming and also in the Biblical text I think it was well worth the spend given how many man-hours went into it.

The advancements in terms of computing allow for technology to be used to bring the Bible to a wider audience which is hugely interesting to me.

gvn wrote: »

Well the idea wasn't to disprove Judaism or Christianity. Mark200's comment was that particular beliefs have been disproven or shown to be wrong. Trying to disprove an entire religion is a pointless exercise, but showing that some particular beliefs inside of that religion have been shown to be erroneous isn't a particularly hard task. That was the intention behind my comments so far: to show that some beliefs are wrong, not that the entire belief system is wrong.

Perhaps, but I'm not really sure if you're really doing what you claim to do.

gvn wrote: »

I'm using my own KJV 1611 Bible that I bought a few years ago. I read it with highlighters and have thousands of verses underlined, which I'm flicking through now. It's becoming a pain to find particular passages so I might have to resort to using SAB.

Firstly I want to apologise for jumping the gun. That was a little unfair of me. I just like to determine that I'm not wasting time.

I'd recommend Biblia.com. I find that the KJV was good for its time but more modern translations are more accurate given that we have more Biblical manuscripts in 2011 than we did in 1611.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps, but I'm not really sure if you're really doing what you claim to do.

I understand that you believe the Bible is 100% accurate (for other people reading, note that accurate =/= literal). Given that, I imagine it would be very hard--if not impossible--for me to find a passage or verse that you would agree to be erroneous. My pointing out various passages and verses is probably a pointless and futile exercise for us both, then, isn't it? I don't mean to sound passive in saying that.

Firstly I want to apologise for jumping the gun. That was a little unfair of me. I just like to determine that I'm not wasting time.

No problem at all.

I'd recommend Biblia.com. I find that the KJV was good for its time but more modern translations are more accurate given that we have more Biblical manuscripts in 2011 than we did in 1611.

Yeah, I'd imagine so. I could do with thumbing through a newer, updated version. I chose the KJV for its prose, really. It's a beautifully written book in parts, even if I entirely disagree with most of the subject matter. I'll take a look at Biblia.

AudreyHepburn

RichieC wrote: »

Intelligent people question things, religion doesn't stand up to questioning.

I rest my case. This is exactly the attitude I was talking about.

Turtwig

Aww I love it how anytime he's pushed philogos simply starts providing more non answers after non answers and somehow believes those answers to be valid.

Intelligent people question things, religion doesn't stand up to questioning.
Ergo, there are no intelligent Christians*

* Except that this is demonstrably false.

Either Christianity does hold up to questioning, or there are no intelligent Christians, since the latter is false, the former must be true.

If it didn't hold up to questioning I wouldn't be still professing to believe in Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy