My TE Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Problem is, when you construe it that way you could stick just about any word in there for fools.

Nope --- the literal method of Bible interpretation has strict rules about what can and can't be used. The Bible has a built-in dictionary that's better than a man-made dictionary.

Context plays a big part too ---

[bible]2 Corinthians 12:11[/bible]

--- is Paul saying he's becoming an "atheist" here?

No --- read the verse just before it ---

[bible]2 Corinthians 12:10[/bible]

 

[TheManeki]

Nope --- the literal method of Bible interpretation has strict rules about what can and can't be used. The Bible has a built-in dictionary that's better than a man-made dictionary.

Context plays a big part too ---

You claim there are rules, and yet you violate these rules -- for example by using the Romans passage to refer to Atheists. A literal reading of that passage talks about people worshiping nature, and you have yet to prove atheists worship nature.

While you're not committing the error that many fundamentalist Christians make by using that passage to demonize homosexuals, you're still twisting it to suit your own ends. And doing a rather poor job of it, I might add.

 

[tanzanos]

Even shorter: It's a miracle.

Way to go AV!!! chossing an avatar from MAD MAGAZINE is most appropriate for one who disbelieves in TOE!
I bow to your omnipotent presence!
Evolution trully has an ally in AV1. Creationists must cringe at his arguments. They nullify any credence creationism may have.
All Hail AV1

 

[Skavau]

Let's talk man-to-man, Skavau. You are being "victimized" [for lack of a better term] by our motto --- the Bible says it, that settles it.

No, I am disgusted at your arrogance. According to your own standpoint, you are telling me what I believe. You are telling me that I worship nature because you think the Bible says so.

I, as a self-declared Atheist am informing you otherwise. I do not and have never worshiped nature. I however, do meet the criteria for Atheism. I do not believe in God.

But sooner or later, what goes around - comes around, and our Bible-says-it-that-settles-it motto hits close to home, and suddenly it's not so funny anymore.

What precisely is this supposed to mean?

Are you implying I am in denial?

 

[FishFace]

I can understand your apprehension --- as well as MrGoodBytes.

Let's talk man-to-man, Skavau. You are being "victimized" [for lack of a better term] by our motto --- the Bible says it, that settles it.

Actually I think we are all being irritated by your inability to back up that motto, coupled with your continuing use of it.

When we say things like:

• water canopy --- the Bible says so
• sun and moon stood still --- the Bible says so
• Jesus is coming for us very soon --- the Bible says so

That's funny to some people --- and they get a kick out of it.

Especially since the Bible never mentions a water canopy - you'd have to be a "fool" and know nothing about the old Jewish beliefs to think that, and also since the Bible's obviously been saying Jesus is coming for us very soon for nearly 2000 years.

But sooner or later, what goes around - comes around, and our Bible-says-it-that-settles-it motto hits close to home, and suddenly it's not so funny anymore.

Sooner or later, probably later, you might realise that your motto is irrelevant to the truth, and that not only have you failed to back up your claim that you could demonstrate that atheists worship nature at all, you've also failed to demonstrate it even if we assumed your motto was accurate.

I don't know whether that's funny or just very, very sad.

 

[AV1611VET]

Way to go AV!!!

Where you been, Tan? I haven't seen you around for awhile!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nope --- the literal method of Bible interpretation has strict rules about what can and can't be used.

Rules you've already broken by using "fool" and "Atheist" interchangably.

The Bible has a built-in dictionary that's better than a man-made dictionary.

So that's two dictionaries you've ignored -- bully for you.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

God created Adam and Eve with embedded evolution from dirt and rib, respectively.

Love your buzzwords, AV--they can explain everything!

 

[AV1611VET]

God created Adam and Eve with embedded evolution from dirt and rib, respectively.

Love your buzzwords, AV--they can explain everything!

Evolution is a chain of processes that takes something from Point A to Point B.

Creation is a series of stand-alone acts that are divinely performed.

 

[tanzanos]

Where you been, Tan? I haven't seen you around for awhile!

Happy to see you again. I am in Afrika (tanzania) internet connections here are something not to be desired. When I go back to Greece I shall revert to my usuall debate tactics. We have 1400mm rainfall now and it is something to see.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No --- proving atheists worship gods is the final step in the logic.

Let me change a word here for clarity:

[bible]Romans 1:22[/bible]

I see you are being forced to actually delete and change parts of the Bible when pressed to support your ridiculous claims. Pathetic.

Did you find the verse on atheists being nature-worshippers yet?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evolution is a chain of processes that takes something from Point A to Point B.

And then to point C, then through D, past E, F, G... pretty much through the entire alphabet several times over -- more importantly, the processes involved are still occurring around us in an observable fashion.

So even the most hardcore fundamentalist cannot reasonably and rationally deny that evolution does occur and is occurring -- although that doesn't stop them from doing so.

Creation is a series of stand-alone acts that are divinely performed.

Assuming this is so, there is absolutely no basis in fact for any one series of alleged acts to be any more probable or credible than any other series.

To wit, there is nothing to indicate that the Hebrew creation story is any more or less accurate than the Babylonian story, the Egyptian story, the Greek story, the Norse story, the Chinese story, or the Headhunters of Pago-Pago story.

And yet, those who whine the loudest to "teach the contrversy" are very selective about which "controversy" to teach.

Why is that?

 

[jamielindas]

And then to point C, then through D, past E, F, G... pretty much through the entire alphabet several times over -- more importantly, the processes involved are still occurring around us in an observable fashion.

So even the most hardcore fundamentalist cannot reasonably and rationally deny that evolution does occur and is occurring -- although that doesn't stop them from doing so.



Assuming this is so, there is absolutely no basis in fact for any one series of alleged acts to be any more probable or credible than any other series.

To wit, there is nothing to indicate that the Hebrew creation story is any more or less accurate than the Babylonian story, the Egyptian story, the Greek story, the Norse story, the Chinese story, or the Headhunters of Pago-Pago story.

And yet, those who whine the loudest to "teach the contrversy" are very selective about which "controversy" to teach.

Why is that?

In a slightly off topic note:
The 'Teach the Controversy' angle is SO upsetting to me. There is no controversy in the scientific community, so there is no need to teach it in a science class. HOWEVER, there is a controversy in the political/sociological sense, so perhaps it should be taught in another class. I'm all for that! It belongs in a biology class about as much as Jane Austen does.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In a slightly off topic note:
The 'Teach the Controversy' angle is SO upsetting to me. There is no controversy in the scientific community, so there is no need to teach it in a science class. HOWEVER, there is a controversy in the political/sociological sense, so perhaps it should be taught in another class. I'm all for that! It belongs in a biology class about as much as Jane Austen does.

Less so -- Jane Austin was a real person, after all.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

OK, AVVET, I'll play along. Since you haven't shown me how to fit wheels to a tomato, I don't need to worry about reconciling TE and literal Genesis, so instead, let's deal with this "Atheists worship nature" claim.

1) As has been pointed out, this is all predicated on the Bible being the inerrant Truth. Obviously, atheists don't believe that, but you do. Therefore any arguments from that point on are a little bit pointless.

2) However, since the goal is to show whether the Bible says that atheists worship nature, let's just, for the sake of argument, assume that the Bible is inerrant. Now, your argument starts with "the fool says in his heart 'there is no God'", right?

3) But remember that we're reading literally here. It does NOT say "he who says in his heart 'there is no God' is a fool". The way it is phrased, the subject is "the fool". So the verse says that if you are a fool, then you are an atheist (semantics aside, let's say that that "there is no God" is equivalent to "atheist"; otherwise... well, praise Odin!). ie F => A. But that does NOT imply the converse A => F: "all atheists are fools". That is, fools are a subset of atheists; you can be an atheist but not a fool.

Obviously that completely invalidates the next step in your argument: "fools worship nature, hence atheists worship nature", since there are atheists who are not fools; those atheists do not necessarily worship nature. This is equivalent to the false syllogism "all elephants are grey; all elephants have trunks; therefore all grey things have trunks".

Hence, your logic has failed. (Doesn't mean that you're necessarily wrong, just that you haven't -- despite your claims -- shown that the Bible says atheists worship nature.)

Oh also, BTW, F => A does give the contrapositive ~A => ~F which would mean that if you're not an atheist, you're not a fool (guaranteed) -- ie only atheists can be fools. I don't know what fairyland you're living in if you believe that!

 

[variant]

Is the principle of induction a scientific principle?

No, the principle of induction is a rational principle common to many systems of thought.

The principle of induction is evidenced by using it to consistently reach true conclusions in real world settings.

So the foundation of science, like most other rational systems is consistency.

Consistency is an aim/goal not an assumption, so it is not circular in and of itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

...I don't need to worry about reconciling TE and literal Genesis, so instead, let's deal with this "Atheists worship nature" claim.

You seem to be making a good point here; that according to Psalm 14:1 ---

• All fools are atheists, but not all atheists are fools.

But what you're overlooking is that this is Hebrew poetry; and Hebrew poetry does not work that way. Let me explain.

In English poetry, there are two major types:

• Parallels of time --- called rhythm.
• Parallels of sound --- called rhyme.

But in Hebrew poetry you have neither --- instead, you have:

• Parallels of ideas.

And even then there are three major types of Hebrew poetry:

• Complimentary
• Contrasting
• and Constructive [something or other]

Thus, in Complimentary Hebrew Poetry, a thought is conveyed, then it is reiterated or even made complete by the same thought.

[bible]Psalm 9:1[/bible]

Notice that on both sides of the semi-colon, he is saying the same thing. Thus, forward or reverse, it's the same.

Now notice:

• The fool hath said in his heart...

Hath said what? Complete the phrase, and do it in such a way that the two phrases can be switched and still say the same thing.

• ...there is no God.

And there you have it ---

• The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
• There is no God, says the fool in his heart.

- The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here described is an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor of the world, no Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says this in his heart. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but wishes there were none, and pleases himself that it is possible there may be none; he is willing to think there is none. This sinner is a fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of it: he is wicked and profane, and this is the cause.

Atheists and pantheists are fools in the sight of omniscient God. Psalm 53 is almost an exact replica of this psalm. Also Psalm 14:1-3 is quoted (in effect, not verbatim) in Romans 3:10-12. Evidently the Holy Spirit considers it important to emphasize that those who seek to replace the God of creation with a humanistic or pantheistic philosophy - no matter how wise they profess themselves to be - are really fools in God's sight. (Romans 1:21-23).

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, the principle of induction validates science.

Is the principle of induction a scientific principle?

No, the principle of induction is a rational principle common to many systems of thought.

So science is validated by a non-scientific principle?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

You seem to be making a good point here; that according to Psalm 14:1 ---

• All fools are atheists, but not all atheists are fools.

But what you're overlooking is that this is Hebrew poetry; and Hebrew poetry does not work that way. Let me explain.

Thanks for the explanation (although I do know about the forms used in the Psalms)... do I take it, then, that you are arguing that Psalms 14 and 53 are saying that "fool" and "atheist" are actually equivalent? ie not just F => A, but F <=> A? I'd be careful going there, as a Biblical literalist...

Also, I'm a little confused by your stance on literalism, given this reply. I thought you claimed that only the 1611 Authorized was valid and that it must be read literally. How do interpretations based on the structures of Hebrew poetry fit into that? If the AV is the perfect version, why didn't the translators write these verses so that the equivalent nature was clear *in English*? Seems risky, to say the least, to assume that every sheep farmer and shoemaker in His Majesty's dominions had working knowledge of Hebrew poetry conventions.

And there you have it ---

• The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
• There is no God, says the fool in his heart.

Yeah... I don't really see how this is a parallel of form, though. All you've done here is reverse the order of the sentence, without changing the subject. The subject of the sentence is still "the fool". The way I phrased it links two subjects with the verb "to be", which is how to make a definition or equivalence ("an A is a B" -- ie A and B are the same thing). Both sentences you've given above still just say "A acts in manner B". "Johnny kicks cats" and "Cats are kicked by Johnny" simply describe Johnny's actions; neither defines Johnny and/or cat-kicking, nor makes an equivalence between them.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

So science is validated by a non-scientific principle?

Yeah, neat, huh?