D'oh.
What, no Kirth? :P
D'oh.What, no Kirth? :P
Guard: One Swedish-made penis enlarger.
Austin: [to Vanessa] That's not mine.Guard: One credit card receipt for Swedish-made penis enlarger signed by Austin Powers.
Austin: I'm telling ya, baby, that's not mine.
Guard: One warranty card for Swedish-made penis enlarger pump, filled out by Austin Powers.
Austin: I don't even know what this is! This sort of thing ain't my bag, baby.
Guard: One book, "Swedish-made Penis Enlargers And Me: This Sort of Thing Is My Bag Baby," by Austin Powers.
Substitute the Vatican for Austin, substitute child abuse and associated organized cover-up for the enlarger, and replace all traces of humor with equal parts rage and sorrow.
The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its etymology.[1] An argument only constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology, thus distinguishing an alleged "true" (etymological) meaning from the workaday use.[2] - wiki.
You're treating English as 100% objective and Astronomy as 100% subjective.
Do I think the Bible is wrong? Whose interpretation of the Bible and what definition of "wrong"
What's older, Land Mammals or birds?
|
Do I think the Bible is wrong? Whose interpretation of the Bible and what definition of "wrong"What's older, Land Mammals or birds?
Biblically speaking, birds are older -- by 4 verses.
Interpretation is a difficult thing. There's not a nice easy answer to this. Even though, every time "interpretation" is brought up, people seem to love to mention Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 is broken up as a poem or song. Most Bibles are written this way. Songs and poems typically have a point -- but generally not to be scientific.
Look at American songs today. In a few hundred years, how will people "interpret" the media we listen to today?
But since you are apparently an expert in ancient Hebrew poetry -- how should we "interpret" Genesis 1?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do I think the Bible is wrong? Whose interpretation of the Bible and what definition of "wrong"What's older, Land Mammals or birds?
Biblically speaking, birds are older -- by 4 verses.
Interpretation is a difficult thing. There's not a nice easy answer to this. Even though, every time "interpretation" is brought up, people seem to love to mention Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 is broken up as a poem or song. Most Bibles are written this way. Songs and poems typically have a point -- but generally not to be scientific.
Look at American songs today. In a few hundred years, how will people "interpret" the media we listen to today?
But since you are apparently an expert in ancient Hebrew poetry -- how should we "interpret" Genesis 1?
“Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded” Plato
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Songs and poems typically have a point -- but generally not to be scientific.
Amen. The thing is, there is a not-inconsiderable proportion of U.S. citizens who believe that every word written is literal fact, in any way they choose to interpret it whatsoever. To the extent that acceptance of evolution here (more or less settled fact, scientifically) is a minority proposition. Which means that, when dicussing Biblical interpretations, sane and intelligent ones like yours -- while in a majority worldwide -- are not necessarily so here in the U.S. of A.
I don't think genesis could get any clearer. There's a day listed chronologically and a list of things made on it.
Except that the definitions I used aren't just the definitions from 100 years ago, but are used by modern scholars.
But they are not the ONLY definition used by modern scholars, and you're treating them as if they are.
Which is older? I assume you're including dinosaurs as birds, so the answer is obvious isn't it.
1) Your mind reading powers fail to impress.
2) Mammals are almost as old as the dinosaurs. We were in competition with the dinosaurs for a bit, they won, took over the dominant niches , the asteroid hit and we filled in the vacume. We didn't just emerge from that cataclysm, we were there for a while.(quotes from wiki to follow)
The first true mammals appeared in the Late Triassic (ca. 200 million years ago), over 70 million years after the first therapsids and approximately 30 million years after the first mammaliaformes.
Dinosaurs diverged from their archosaur ancestors approximately 230 million years ago during the Middle to Late Triassic period, roughly 20 million years after the Permian–Triassic extinction event wiped out an estimated 95% of all life on Earth
3) A dinosaur is pretty clearly a beast of the earth, so even if you include dinosaurs as birds the earlier ones were not beasts of the air.
I think you're falling into a fallacy of your own - that if I'm defending religion, I must be religious. I'm not. Your fallacy is common among the atheist religion.
I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea what your religion or deal is, which is why I asked a litmus question to find out
The nearest I can figure you're some sort of philosobuddist pantheist that believes in subjective reality.
There's absolutely no justification for calling atheism a religion. Its just a crude insipid insult.
Any chance of you answering what came first, the land animal or the flying one?
Or you could just cut to the chase and tell us what your religion/philosophy/whatever is. I've only seen your level of hostility towards science come for two reasons: it was contradicting religion or it was actually doing what philosophy wishes it could do.
The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes. Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief.[1] For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God. This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.
[1]↑ Michael Martin, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1.
found at http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html#fn1
Ahh.. post modernist. That was the word i was trying to think of to describe you.
|
|
I don't think genesis could get any clearer. There's a day listed chronologically and a list of things made on it.
Your knowledge of ancient Hebrew poetry astounds me.
Just so I'm sure what you are saying -- you feel that you should be able to apply 20th century American thinking to Hebrew poetry that dates about 2500 years old?
Let's go with something a little more modern...
What do you think that African tribal people think is being said with this...
I'm a genie in a bottle, you gotta rub me the right way.
If you want to be with me, I can make your wish come true.
You gotta make a big impression (oh yeah), gotta like what you do.
Or this one?
I lit a cigarette, picked up a monkey skull to go
The sun was spitting fire, the sky was blue as ice
I felt a little tired, so I watched Miami Vice
And walked the dinosaur, I walked the dinosaur
The author there must have "clearly" been rather long lived.
I can do quite a bit of this. But it really won't help. There are far too many people out there who have lost the point of the Bible. And especially Genesis 1.
You want to believe that Genesis 1 was meant to be a scientific analysis of how the earth and life was created. Fine. Just don't imply anymore that Christians are illogical/stupid/whatever for their beliefs if you won't consider trying to look at what the purpose was for ancient Hebrew poetry.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You earlier asked me which came first (birds or mammals), now you changed it to flying animals or land animals. Both questions are irrelevant. I already told you I'm not religious.
He's trying to prove that the Bible is false because of Genesis 1. Kind of poor logic -- especially since he doesn't see the "point" of Genesis 1.
As a counter -- I have science textbooks that are wrong. Therefore science is wrong?
|
You earlier asked me which came first (birds or mammals), now you changed it to flying animals or land animals. Both questions are irrelevant. I already told you I'm not religious.He's trying to prove that the Bible is false because of Genesis 1. Kind of poor logic -- especially since he doesn't see the "point" of Genesis 1.
As a counter -- I have science textbooks that are wrong. Therefore science is wrong?
Moff,
As far as I know, no one's suggested a science textbook is the revealed and righteous word of the one true God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., etc. This isn't the case with the Bible even if you are to sensible to make such a spurious claim. Pointing out contradictions in the Bible (if read literally) is not aimed at Christians like you but at the ones who insist every dot and comma is the word of God and must be true, even if everything we discover through scientific enquiry contradicts such a reading. Of course, being clearer about the target of our criticism would help but would get awfuly repetetive if we had to say it every time.
A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, persuasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in man by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.(Clifford Geertz)
Atheism does not meet this definition. Science oddly enough, might, except that it doesn't set a mood at all.
Atheism cannot be a system. It has, at most, one part: "There is no god"
This is the best case from hard atheism (positive atheism) and it still doesn't fit. There is no system of symbols. There is no mood or motivation established: Atheism doesn't lend itself to DO anything, including even spreading atheism. There is no God------>?????----> tell other people there is no god requires a motivation that is external to atheism.
You earlier asked me which came first (birds or mammals), now you changed it to flying animals or land animals. Both questions are irrelevant. I already told you I'm not religious.
The question is highly relevant still, because you seem to believe in some bizarre post modern narrative that denies any form of external truth what so ever.
He's trying to prove that the Bible is false because of Genesis 1. Kind of poor logic -- especially since he doesn't see the "point" of Genesis 1.
As I said above, the question was a litmus test. Someone that is a literalist would say Birds, someone that was not would say land animals and a post modernist would use a lot of large words without saying anything at all.
I know you don't like to admit it but some people DO take the bible literally and I don't get a sign that goes over heir heads pointing them out, especially on the internet. Proving the entire bible false by showing an error in Genesis 1 doesn't work, but proving a literalist reading of the bible false by that method does work.
Make a convincing argument that what I believe is relevant to whether or not religion has merit. This looks like a distraction on your part because you haven't anything significant left to say regarding the thread's question, "whether or not religion has merit".
The current answer is no. You place equal value on any narrative regardless of its ability to relate to reality. For you all narratives are equal and so religion adds just as much as any other. This is not a rational way to answer the question. You have been completely unable to relate to simple facts about objective astronomy. Why on earth should we listen to you when you make unbacked, insulting arguments for your subjective view of history?
For every example you've shown of religion allegedly advancing something we've had 2 showing it holding society back. Based on the evidence you're loosing. Your response is to make an ad hom against everyone else and then make an appeal to your own authority so that we should accept your judgement of history: so yes, your own opinion is relevant to the question because your own opinion is the only thing you're offering into the discussion.
One step forward and two steps back is not progress.
What you're doing now is trying to shift the discussion away from the thread's question, "does religion have merit?" and onto a particular person participating in the discussion, me. It's called an "ad hominem" and is the last gasp of a desperate man - you.
I answered the question no. I made an argument, provided evidence, provided a rational as to how that evidence supported my position. You responded to neither and simply told me i would agree with you if i had studied history while providing neither evidence nor reason.
You tossed the discussion away from the evidence and onto your own shoulders. We could go back to evidence if you wanted, but you don't accept evidence. I'm trying to figure out WHY you don't accept evidence so the conversation has a ghost of a chance to go forward.
Perhaps it'd be clearer if we discussed other religions. Deism and Pantheism both lack iconography, rituals, liturgy, etc. They both have simple core ideas, "God created the Universe and then left" and "God and the Universe are one". They are both religions.
Equivocation.
You provided a definition which atheism, deism, and (many versions of) pantheism do not fit.
You shift to an unknown definition which includes Atheism ,Deism and Pantheism and then chuck Atheism in too.
Your current definition would include "I am sitting in a chair" because it is a statement about the nature of reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to ignore you....
BNW, this is the best offer you're going to get -- TAKE IT!
|
|
Moff,
As far as I know, no one's suggested a science textbook is the revealed and righteous word of the one true God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., etc.
Yes and no. There are a number here that say "Science!" as though it was the one true god. (And you know it. Of course it doesn't usually seem to be the people that actually know something about science...)
And, pointing out "contradictions" here (if read literally) without aiming at other Christians make it sound like we are including all Christians with the accusations.
I guess I could start talking about Atheists in the general sense as all Atheists are the same. Right?
It just gets really old. I hear time and time again about just how "evil" or terrible "religion" is (of course, they seem to think that saying "religion" is more "civil" than saying "Christianity"), yet I would venture to say that the VAST majority of Christians here (on these boards) are not included in these groups that are being talked about -- at least not directly. If anything, y'all are "preaching to the choir" without realizing it. Then getting upset about it. It's all a little odd to me.
"Of course, being clearer about the target of our criticism would help..."
Maybe ... but why bring it up at all if it isn't directed at Christians here? It's like Bugley's article he recently posted. So his point in posting the article was to have a "civil" "discussion"? Seriously? So you're saying that the question "which came first, birds or mammals?" was directed at those other Christians?
Maybe it would be "time better utilized" to talk about what "civil" actually means, what "science" is and isn't, and what "religion" is and isn't.
The definition I'm using is Geertz', not "any statement about reality".
I'm going to ignore you until you start making sense and are focusing on the thread's topic (which isn't me).
By Geertz's definition Deism is not a religion.
Deism does not have a system of symbols
Deism does not provide motivations.
Deism does not establish a mood
Deism does not establish a motivation.
Yes and no. There are a number here that say "Science!" as though it was the one true god. (And you know it. Of course it doesn't usually seem to be the people that actually know something about science...)
Its absolutely the best thing we have for establishing reality.
And, pointing out "contradictions" here (if read literally) without aiming at other Christians make it sound like we are including all Christians with the accusations....."Of course, being clearer about the target of our criticism would help..."Seriously? So you're saying that the question "which came first, birds or mammals?" was directed at those other Christians?
Now this is completely false. I had it aimed like a lazerbeam at our resident caped crusader of st canard. You literally can't get more specific than that ESPECIALLY when its still in question form. How much more targeted would you like me to get than ONE person?
|
|
This is the best case from hard atheism (positive atheism) and it still doesn't fit. There is no system of symbols. There is no mood or motivation established: Atheism doesn't lend itself to DO anything, including even spreading atheism. There is no God------>?????----> tell other people there is no god requires a motivation that is external to atheism.
And yet here you are.
This is the best case from hard atheism (positive atheism) and it still doesn't fit. There is no system of symbols. There is no mood or motivation established: Atheism doesn't lend itself to DO anything, including even spreading atheism. There is no God------>?????----> tell other people there is no god requires a motivation that is external to atheism.And yet here you are.
Because I like to debate/argue? Its like playing chess with the English language. I put more work into "is the rogue obsolete" discussions.
I really don't have any hope for rational discourse convincing people of anything. That hope died a long time ago.
Maybe ... but why bring it up at all if it isn't directed at Christians here? It's like Bugley's article he recently posted. So his point in posting the article was to have a "civil" "discussion"? Seriously?
Wow, was that a cheap shot. No doubt "civility" was one of the arguments for covering up the damn thing to begin with.
My point in posting that link was to respond to what Kirth was discussing earlier, and an attempt to get this thread aimed back toward anything other than the pedantic clusterf*ck it has become.
|
|
Now this is completely false. I had it aimed like a lazerbeam at our resident caped crusader of st canard. You literally can't get more specific than that ESPECIALLY when its still in question form. How much more targeted would you like me to get than ONE person?
So your point, by asking the question on an open forum, was to show that he was wrong or that he was wrong because the Bible is wrong?
|
|
Maybe ... but why bring it up at all if it isn't directed at Christians here? It's like Bugley's article he recently posted. So his point in posting the article was to have a "civil" "discussion"? Seriously? So you're saying that the question "which came first, birds or mammals?" was directed at those other Christians?
Maybe it would be "time better utilized" to talk about what "civil" actually means, what "science" is and isn't, and what "religion" is and isn't.
Wow, was that a cheap shot. No doubt "civility" is one of the arguments for covering up the damn thing to begin with.
My point in posting that link was to respond to what Kirth was discussing earlier, and an attempt to get this thread aimed back toward anything other than the pedantic clusterf*ck it has become.
I can appreciate what you were possibly trying to do -- but why would you think that posting an article about the evil Catholic church would help accomplish this?
This is the best case from hard atheism (positive atheism) and it still doesn't fit. There is no system of symbols. There is no mood or motivation established: Atheism doesn't lend itself to DO anything, including even spreading atheism. There is no God------>?????----> tell other people there is no god requires a motivation that is external to atheism.And yet here you are.
Now I'm confused. Surely if atheism is a religion, it has a place in this thread? :P
Seriously, though: People of faith can be interested in a discussion, but atheists are necessarily out to convert people, otherwise their presence has no purpose? WTF?
I can appreciate what you were possibly trying to do -- but why would you think that posting an article about the evil Catholic church would help accomplish this?
"possibly?" So...now I lying?
How about because the Catholic Church was specifically being discussed before Dr. Anal checked in? Like it or not, the Catholic Church has displayed a pattern of systematically covering up terrible, terrible crimes -- and covering up molestation seems a whole let less "civil" than discussing it.
On the other hand, if that isn't the direction you would like to see the discussion go, ripping into me isn't the best way to get there. I suppose the irony of calling for civility between attacks is probably lost on you?
So your point, by asking the question on an open forum, was to show that he was wrong or that he was wrong because the Bible is wrong?
Ok, look, i don't have hidden motives. I'm confident enough in my reason and rational that I don't have to try to trick people.
I state, again
I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea what your religion or deal is, which is why I asked a litmus question to find out
As I said above, the question was a litmus test. Someone that is a literalist would say Birds, someone that was not would say land animals and a post modernist would use a lot of large words without saying anything at all.
My point of asking the question was to figure out why the heck someone appears to be defending heliocentrism and geocentrism as equally valid
"narratives". I have seen two people do so: Post modernists , and creationists who have co opted the post modernist position because it denigrates science.
|
|
I really don't have any hope for rational discourse convincing people of anything. That hope died a long time ago.
Then don't be here. If you yourself are not willing to listen and learn (and possibly be convinced of) something different then you are doing more harm than good. I've learned a lot through this thread. I've actually changed my thinking because people have been willing to discuss instead of dictate. Don't screw it up because you don't have any hope for rational discourse.
|
|
My point of asking the question was to figure out why the heck someone appears to be defending heliocentrism and geocentrism as equally valid "narratives".
Why not use an Atheist "litmus"? Or better yet, why not just ask the question?
I understand what you are saying -- I felt (at best) it was in poor form.