If the Discovery Institute Listened to Me

[AV1611VET]

Meanwhile you heavily rely on science just to post here.

I sure do.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

See ... you know exactly where I stand.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Speaking of understanding science, who was it that said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God?"

That's attributed to Albert Einstein, who believed that nature itself was God, and also said:

"I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
(Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University)

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
(Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

 

[AV1611VET]

That's attributed to Albert Einstein, who believed that nature itself was God,

Do you agree with him on this?

(Obviously not, since you label yourself an atheist. But I'm curious to see if you agree with Einstein that nature is God.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you're backtracking.

Too late, chief.

You know exactly what the difference is, and where I stand on it.

No. I am not. And you are quite incorrect. The only difference is that "literalistic" only say that one is reading something too literally. That is exactly what you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I sure do.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

See ... you know exactly where I stand.

Then you are saying that you are a Flat Earther. The Bible does only say that the Earth is Flat in word and deed and covered by a firmament. Apparently a hard dome that God can open to let rain in.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I am not. And you are quite incorrect. The only difference is that "literalistic" only say that one is reading something too literally. That is exactly what you do.

There you go again.

You said "very literalistic" at first.

What happened to the word "very" now?

You have to double-backtrack just to mislabel me, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again.

You said "very literalistic" at first.

What happened to the word "very" now?

You have to double-backtrack just to mislabel me, don't you?

You are grasping at straws trying to pretend that a nonexistent difference exists.

You should be aware of the complete spectrum of Christian belief. You can find Christians that believe different amounts of the Bible. That is why we have OEC's and YEC's. Flat Earthers are only a bit more literalistic. That is all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you agree with him on this?

(Obviously not, since you label yourself an atheist. But I'm curious to see if you agree with Einstein that nature is God.)

I disagree with some of Spinoza's nature/God ideas (such as his use of the label 'God'), but I agree with him that nature/God is deterministic and "does not act according to freedom of the will" but according to the laws of nature and that "neither intellect nor will appertain to God's nature." (Spinoza, Ethics - 'Part 1: Concerning God')

I'm surprised you quote Einstein uncritically when he thought people with your beliefs were "feeble souls" who "cherish such thoughts" "from fear or absurd egoism"

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you are saying that you are a Flat Earther.

Is that what you hear me saying?

The Bible does only say that the Earth is Flat in word and deed ...

Show me.

... and covered by a firmament.

Three, to be exact.

Here they are:

1. First Firmament = Atmosphere = 0 - 62 miles up
2. Second Firmament = Outer Space = 62 miles up - Heaven proper
3. Third Firmament = Heaven proper

Now you know why "heaven" is singular in Genesis 1:1, but plural in 2:1.

Apparently a hard dome that God can open to let rain in.

Apparently not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that what you hear me saying?


Show me.


Three, to be exact.

Here they are:

1. First Firmament = Atmosphere = 0 - 62 miles up
2. Second Firmament = Outer Space = 62 miles up - Heaven proper
3. Third Firmament = Heaven proper

Now you know why "heaven" is singular in Genesis 1:1, but plural in 2:1.


Apparently not.

I was merely apply AV logic to your own claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are grasping at straws trying to pretend that a nonexistent difference exists.

Where did those straws come from in the first place?

You should be aware of the complete spectrum of Christian belief.

I'll leave that up to those who study comparative religion.

You can find Christians that believe different amounts of the Bible.

Yup.

That is why we have OEC's and YEC's.

Yup -- what's your point?

Flat Earthers are only a bit more literalistic.

"A bit more"??

What happened to "very"?

That is all.

What's "all"?

You made a statement about me several posts back; and you've changed those words every time you've posted since.

What's up with this?

 

[AV1611VET]

I disagree with some of Spinoza's ...

I said "Einstein."

Mamma mia.

You guys are on a roll today, aren't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I was merely apply AV logic to your own claims.

You mislabel me, then want to apply "my logic"?

LOL -- okay.

I think the last few posts are what happens when one does that.

GIGO as they say.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I said "Einstein."

Mamma mia.

You guys are on a roll today, aren't you?

Didn't you read my post? Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza’s God..."

Try to keep up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did those straws come from in the first place?

I'll leave that up to those who study comparative religion.

Yup.

Yup -- what's your point?

"A bit more"??

What happened to "very"?

What's "all"?

You made a statement about me several posts back; and you've changed those words every time you've posted since.

What's up with this?

Would you care to try again without breaking up a post excessively?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mislabel me, then want to apply "my logic"?

LOL -- okay.

I think the last few posts are what happens when one does that.

GIGO as they say.

Oh my! Your own statements are garbage in your opinion? Works for me.

How did I mislabel you? Do you think that the term "AV logic" is mislabeling? Let me be a bit clearer, I only use the exact same sort of "logic" that you used. Your own methodology sinks your claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you care to try again without breaking up a post excessively?

Oh, no.

Why would I want to do that?

I'm overliteral ... remember?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, no.

Why would I want to do that?

I'm overliteral ... remember?

If you could do that it might support you denial. Being too literal is once again a spectrum. You are a YEC, they are only marginally different from Flat Earthers. One is only slightly more literal than the other. OEC's are a bit lest literal. And you could find a whole range of beliefs all the way to Unitarian Universalist, who do not seem to take anything literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you could do that it might support your denial.

My denial of what?

My denial that I'm literal? or overliteral?

My standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

My standards, as apparently you see them:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is an overliteral Bible interpretation to be contradicted.

 

[AV1611VET]

Being too literal is once again a spectrum.

That's why I'm not too literal.

I incorporate science into my standards, so as not to go overboard.