Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[mpok1519]

do fish and milano cookies exist ex-creo-materia-nihilism, or they exist because there is no spoon in the past-state universe time-travel theory mechanism bcause dinosaurs existed and Job even had one as a pet....

no, Grant was a general for the North, the abolitionist side, AV.

Lee was a general for the South, the pro-slavery side.

Lincoln was the president of the North.

Davis was the president of the South.

----------

so, anyone hear that tuiton rose nation-wide again? No wonder. Education is becoming unaffordable.

 

[jpcedotal]

fundamentalism = a disease

and theres no such thing as atheistic fundamentalism. lol

you must have tried to google it....good job.

 

[mpok1519]

you must have tried to google it....good job.

no, sure didn't.

I don't need to look up things that are common sense. =)

 

[gaara4158]

Then how do you explain the accusations against the Bible of supporting genocide, slavery, and incest?

One poster that used to post here a lot went head-to-head with me on the slavery issue, and I made this point to him:

Cliffs Notes on the Civil War:

• Grant was on the pro-slavery side.
• Lincoln was on the anti-slavery side.
• God broke the tie.

There was no tie, AV. They both claimed to have God on their side, but the North had better weapons, more soldiers, and better tactics. The South was doomed to fail from the beginning. Southern historian Shelby Foote expressed this view succinctly:

"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back...If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."


But you can go ahead and think whatever you want about everything, don't let reality get in your way.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-134

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then how do you explain the accusations against the Bible of supporting genocide, slavery, and incest?

The people who did these things used a plain literal reading of the Bible as their justification -- just like you do on the topic of Origins.

Are we to understand that Genesis is literal, but the Bible's explicit rules of crime and punishment are allegorical because you want them to be?

One poster that used to post here a lot went head-to-head with me on the slavery issue, and I made this point to him:

Cliffs Notes on the Civil War:

• Grant was on the pro-slavery side.
• Lincoln was on the anti-slavery side.
• God broke the tie.

And people laugh at your point, as always -- Besides, don't you mean Lee was on the pro-slavery side? Grant fought for the Union, don't you know.

If I were you, I'd get a refund on those Cliffs Notes. As I said, if you guys interpret history the way you do, we're all in trouble.

 

[AV1611VET]

no, Grant was a general for the North, the abolitionist side, AV.

Lee was a general for the South, the pro-slavery side.

Lincoln was the president of the North.

Davis was the president of the South.

Yup --- LOL --- messed that up, didn't I?

Here are the original statements: 113 and 23.

 

[mpok1519]

I suppose. =)

 

[Split Rock]

Then how do you explain the accusations against the Bible of supporting genocide, slavery, and incest?

The Bible was used by Christians in the past to support genoside and slavery, though not incest (as far as I know). That is a fact, and not dependent on how any one of us interprets scripture today.

One poster that used to post here a lot went head-to-head with me on the slavery issue, and I made this point to him:

Cliffs Notes on the Civil War:

• Lee was on the pro-slavery side.
• Grant was on the anti-slavery side.
• God broke the tie.

As has already been pointed out to you, it was the numbers and industry that won the war for The Union. Once the North finally found a couple of good generals to lead their armies (Grant and Sherman) it was all over. The North could afford to lose 4,000 men in a battle, while the South couldn't afford to lose 1,000. Even when the South won a battle, they still lost. You can give all the credit to God, if you like, but it is hardly necessary.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible was used by Christians in the past to support genoside and slavery, though not incest (as far as I know). That is a fact, and not dependent on how any one of us interprets scripture today.

Again --- if we could look at the present and do a simple comparision --- I think we can see that most of you guys are making the same mistake today as they did in the past: thinking the Bible supports these things.

I have a poll in progress right now, and so far 83% think the Bible supports execution of witches.

 

[gaara4158]

Again --- if we could look at the present and do a simple comparision --- I think we can see that most of you guys are making the same mistake today as they did in the past: thinking the Bible supports these things.

I have a poll in progress right now, and so far 83% think the Bible supports execution of witches.

Aren't they so silly, taking the Bible literally? Literalists are such a laugh!

Seriously, if you interpret reality the way you interpret the Bible, it's a wonder you made it to 20.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seriously, if you interpret reality the way you interpret the Bible, it's a wonder you made it to 20.

Thank you for not giving any examples.

Here's one where I interpret reality and the Bible the same --- in fact using the same scientific formula: 1.

And, of course, just like my Apple Challenge --- (which supports the conclusion virtually every atheist comes to) --- people want to argue the point!

LOL --- so whether I agree with you guys, or don't agree --- you'll still argue with me just to get an ad hom in, or a laugh or two.

 

[gaara4158]

Thank you for not giving any examples.

Here's one where I interpret reality and the Bible the same --- in fact using the same scientific formula: 1.

And, of course, just like my Apple Challenge --- (which supports the conclusion virtually every atheist comes to) --- people want to argue the point!

LOL --- so whether I agree with you guys, or don't agree --- you'll still argue with me just to get an ad hom in, or a laugh or two.

Your tendency to bring up other epic failures of yours while you're already failing somewhere completely baffles me. Read the rest of that thread, especially my comments, for my counterpoint. I will not take your bait.

Anyway, you've missed my point. You interpret the Bible to mean whatever you want it to mean and call it Dispensation theology. That way, all the bad parts like the condoning of violence toward paid servants, explicit instructions on killing witches, infidels, drunken sons, etc., don't count. If you interpreted reality using Dispensation theology, you'd drink poison thinking it was pumpkin juice.

And yes, call it an adhom when I call you out on your BS.

 

[Hespera]

Thank you for not giving any examples.

Here's one where I interpret reality and the Bible the same --- in fact using the same scientific formula: 1.

And, of course, just like my Apple Challenge --- (which supports the conclusion virtually every atheist comes to) --- people want to argue the point!

LOL --- so whether I agree with you guys, or don't agree --- you'll still argue with me just to get an ad hom in, or a laugh or two.

So how about you give us an example of a passage that us guys would interpret literally and cause great harm thereby.

And the correct literal translation.

 

[atomweaver]

Thank you for not giving any examples.

Here's one where I interpret reality and the Bible the same --- in fact using the same scientific formula: 1.

That is not a formula. That is an assertion, in mathematical form.

 

[Gracchus]

That is not a formula. That is an assertion, in mathematical form.

Actually, it is not an assertion. It is a bad metaphor.

 

[Split Rock]

Again --- if we could look at the present and do a simple comparision --- I think we can see that most of you guys are making the same mistake today as they did in the past: thinking the Bible supports these things.

I have a poll in progress right now, and so far 83% think the Bible supports execution of witches.

What part of "Thy shall not suffer a witch to live," are you having trouble interpreting, AVET?

 

[AV1611VET]

What part of "Thy shall not suffer a witch to live," are you having trouble interpreting, AVET?

You guys are the ones having trouble with it --- not I.

You're the ones who think the Salem Witch Trials were done with the Bible's permission/insistance, then balk when I say that if you ran the world like the Bible permits, we'd be in trouble.

Are you admitting that these women were indeed witches?

 

[atomweaver]

In a lame attemptat a post relevant to the OP, and not witches;

The Pew Center released a poll and study today, which had some tidbits which could be seen as relevant to the impact of recent anti-intellectualism within the Republican party on scientist's political leanings

Article about the study

I found one table really interesting;

I know there's been a general mass-migration from the Republican party, but 6%??!!! IIRC, there was another poll from ca. 2000, which cited ~25% of polled scientists identifying themselves as Republican (couldn't find the older poll... will look for it some more). The mass-exodus of scientists from the Republican party is outpacing even the broader population as a whole, by about a four-fold rate increase!!

This puts data to the impact of the anti-intellectual stance of the Republican Party, paired with the Bush era stifling of scientific findings that ran contrary to party policies (I thought about also putting this in the Physical Science's "Cherry-picking data" thread...)

For you raging factinistas, the complete poll and analysis makes a pretty interesting read...

Thoughts?

 

[atomweaver]

You guys are the ones having trouble with it --- not I.

You're the ones who think the Salem Witch Trials were done with the Bible's permission/insistance, then balk when I say that if you ran the world like the Bible permits, we'd be in trouble.

FYI; we don't balk because you speak Truth. We balk because you speak Irrelevance; works of historical fiction are too subjective in their interpretation to make a basis for a valid system of government. We'd be better off with the 'lobbing scimitars method'...

 

[Freodin]

Are you admitting that these women were indeed witches?

Now that is an interesting question. How does the Bible propose to find out who is a witch?