To all athiests out there: bring it on

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Preciousmyheart  
Every time science says one thing and realizes it is wrong and changes it (think capillaries) science itself proves that there is a God.

Run this one by me again.  How does science "prove" a deity exists when it alters theories in response to new data?
 
If a person has decided that there is a God but not all of the Bible is true then no one can make that person believe otherwise. I would love it if everyone had had the experiences with him I have (and I have medical proof) but everyone hasn't and I also know that you can't find God by searching, but He has to reveal Himself to you. We really need to believe everything He left us in His Word because we are responsible for all of it.

Wait a minute. Your first paragraph indicated that we could not believe everything in "His Word" because you doubted Smilin would survive the snakes and poison. Care to clarify?

What is your medical "proof"?

Yes, your personal experiences certainly provide convincing evidence to you. 

However, I am puzzled by your assertion that we can't find God by searching for Him, but that He has to reveal Himself.  That certainly lets all us agnostics and atheists off the hook, doesn't it?  Hey, it's not our fault we either doubt or deny deity exists.  It's God's fault for not revealing Himself!!

But I am curious, where did you get this "knowledge" about revelation?  Is it standard Christian doctrine or is it your own?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Agreed, but from a theological perspective, evolution is wrong according to the text as well.

Only if you take the text as 100% literal. Which doesn't make sense, given the contradictory real-world evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"This isn't what the discussion is about. What you have is a theological statement saying God created. Creationism is a specific how God created. So is evolution. So the issue for a Christian is not whether Yahweh created, but how."

Agreed, but from a theological perspective, evolution is wrong according to the text as well.

As Pete said, only if you take a 100% literalistic reading of the text.  Pete says that the evidence in the second book of God shows a literalitist interpretation to be wrong. I agree with him.  In fact, I've posted a lot of that evidence.

However, internal evidence in the text says a literalistic interpretation is wrong. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 are two very different creation stories that contradict each other on major points.   In addition, Genesis 5 (or is it 6) has yet another creation story that contradicts both. Genesis 1 is a highly structured poem with creation divided into 2 -3 day creation periods each with 3 creation events.  Not exactly a way to write literal history -- basing literal history on numerology.

OTOH, the theological statements are set in the best science of the day -- Babylonian cosmology.  However, the theological statements work just as well in  modern science as they did in Babylonian cosmology.

 

[Outspoken]

"Only if you take the text as 100% literal. Which doesn't make sense, given the contradictory real-world evidence."

Nope, not at all, if you want to twist the scripture around, then yes you can take it at nonliteral. There is NOTHING in the passage that indicates its nonliteral and EVERYTHING that indicates it is.

"For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 are two very different creation stories that contradict each other on major points. "

You've got to be joking.

"Not exactly a way to write literal history -- basing literal history on numerology."

They are expansions of one another. I think you're just not reading them???

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Nope, not at all, if you want to twist the scripture around, then yes you can take it at nonliteral. There is NOTHING in the passage that indicates its nonliteral and EVERYTHING that indicates it is.

There's no "twisting" of scripture. Rather, it's interpreting certain stories as just that: stories (or more specifically, allegories).

Saying, there's "NOTHING in the passage that indicates its nonliteral", is nonsensical. There's nothing in Lord of the Rings that says its nonliteral. Does this mean there's really a Middle Earth inhabited by Hobbits, Elves, Orcs, etc?

As for, "EVERYTHING that indicates it is", I ask, like what?

 

[Outspoken]

"There's nothing in Lord of the Rings that says its nonliteral. "

To take the passage as nonliteral you have to 1. show where it starts 2. show where it ends 3. show why it starts and ends at these places and 4. how the context says its nonliteral.

As for your example, its published under fiction, that's a pretty BIG context hint.

"As for, "EVERYTHING that indicates it is", I ask, like what?"

If you want to take it as nonliteral you have to also say that the other things in the text are nonliteral as well. You hav eto say, for example in vers 20 of chapter 1 it doesn't really mean "living creatures" or birds, because that would be a literal statement. You can't pick and choose what is literal and what is not without taking the whole passage that way. See my quote below Pete.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
To take the passage as nonliteral you have to 1. show where it starts 2. show where it ends 3. show why it starts and ends at these places and 4. how the context says its nonliteral.

For #4, easy. Because real-world evidence contradicts it. That's why I could believe Genesis, for example, could be representative of how God created everything, but presented in a manner in which ancient peoples could more easily digest. Could you imagine if the Bible began with, "in the beginning, there was a quantum singularity...". Try explaining THAT to your average medieval peasant.

As for your example, its published under fiction, that's a pretty BIG context hint.

I looked at my copy of Lord of the Rings. I didn't see anything on or in the book to indicate that it is fiction. It even has some really cool-looking maps, which, if anything strengthens the fact that Middle Earth is a real place (after all, how could Tolkien come up with these maps if he'd never been there, hmmm?).

If you want to take it as nonliteral you have to also say that the other things in the text are nonliteral as well. You hav eto say, for example in vers 20 of chapter 1 it doesn't really mean "living creatures" or birds, because that would be a literal statement. You can't pick and choose what is literal and what is not without taking the whole passage that way. See my quote below Pete.

I don't get this argument. If an author sets a fictional story in New York city, does that mean New York city is fictional? Or, that the story is actually real, because New York is a real place? According to your logic, that's the only two ways it can be.

 

[Jerry Smith]

As for your example, its published under fiction, that's a pretty BIG context hint.

Is there a context hint you can identify in Isaiah 11:12 that indicates any part of that passage is non-literal? Or must we conclude that the earth has four literal corners? Do you want to take the whole passage that this appears in non-literally for the sake of non-literal corners?

 

[Hector Medina]

lucaspa,

I believe in a literal Genesis and a infallable Bible that is in conflict with anything that goes against its teachings its as simple as that.

I wouldn't recognize anything that opposes it and I believe that there is a way to refute the opposition.

No I don't place myself above God.

And you could call me a "atheist double agent" or "stupid or "moron" or "crackpot" all you want(thats what many seem to do),I don't care.

So yes I am considered baised because I reject anything that dosent fit my belief and will never ever compromise..............

And *I do* need to do a better job of it.

In Christ,

Hector

 

[Morat]

I looked at my copy of Lord of the Rings. I didn't see anything on or in the book to indicate that it is fiction. It even has some really cool-looking maps, which, if anything strengthens the fact that Middle Earth is a real place (after all, how could Tolkien come up with these maps if he'd never been there, hmmm?).

Not just that. After all, it explains why you don't see anything but Men anymore. It's got all sorts of history in there. Why would anyone writing fiction go through the effort of creating an entire history for elves, an entire theology, just to make the occasional passing reference in song and story?

Goodness. Between the maps, the oral history, the poems and songs, and the explanation of why only Men remain, well....it's got to be real, right?

 

[Outspoken]

"Because real-world evidence contradicts it. "

No, it doesn't. you may think it does, but more evidience will eventually come proving you wrong and blowing more holes into what you define as a 'theory'.

"(after all, how could Tolkien come up with these maps if he'd never been there, hmmm?)."

Its published under fiction, if you want to ignore the biggest contextual hint ever, you're just being dishonest.

"Or, that the story is actually real, because New York is a real place? According to your logic, that's the only two ways it can be."

Nope, not at all, the WHOLE book is set in the context of fiction. The bible's WHOLE context is nonfiction. thus you take a literal reading unless the text says otherwise.

"Isaiah 11:12 "

Good try jerry, but the context shows its not literally 4 corners that is why most translators don't translate it that way. What translation are you using? I think the contextual clues are all there, did you miss them? does God have a real hand? Is a "root" of someone a banner? Check your greek for more details.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
No, it doesn't. you may think it does, but more evidience will eventually come proving you wrong and blowing more holes into what you define as a 'theory'.

It might help you to understand my position, if you think I'm completely uninformed. I came into the whole creation/evolution debate after I became interested in theology. Reading about Christianity inevitabilty led me to places like AIG, ICR, etc. When I first started reading their articles, I was becoming convinced that evolution, modern geology, etc was chock full of holes.

However, a red flag went up once I began to realize that all these sources poking "holes" in evolutionary theory were Christian organizations (since then I've seen other non-Christian groups doing the same, mind you), and all were working from the point of a literal Genesis. So, I began investigating these articles in-depth and once I became more informed on the subject, I found a lot of their arguments severely lacking.

And this is the fundamental reason evolutionary theory hasn't been toppled. All of these counter-arguments come from a non-scientific platform, and none of them stand up to scrutiny. Sure, they look good to the uninformed layman, but if evolutionary theory were really that easy to topple, these people would have Nobel prizes by now.

Its published under fiction, if you want to ignore the biggest contextual hint ever, you're just being dishonest.

So? The Bible's published under 'religion', along with books on Hinduism, Paganism, Buddism, Islam, etc. If the Bible is 100% literal and true, does that mean all those other religions are all 100% true, too? Just because of the category they are published under?

Nope, not at all, the WHOLE book is set in the context of fiction. The bible's WHOLE context is nonfiction. thus you take a literal reading unless the text says otherwise.

You claim the whole context of the Bible is non-fiction, but I've yet to see any context specifiers within the Bible that says, "This is 100% the way it happened, no ifs, ands, buts or maybes.

Since there are overwelming numbers of Christians that take Genesis as non-literal, I'm inclined to believe there's nothing wrong with that stance.

 

[Outspoken]

"And this is the fundamental reason evolutionary theory hasn't been toppled."

No, I think its actually because anyone who does poke a hole into it is ostrosized (sp) from the science relam, its peer pressure at its finest. I've actually seen it in action.

"If the Bible is 100% literal and true, does that mean all those other religions are all 100% true, too?"

*sigh* It means the writings are literal, that's what we are talking about. no red herrings thanks.

"You claim the whole context of the Bible is non-fiction, but I've yet to see any context specifiers within the Bible that says, "This is 100% the way it happened, no ifs, ands, buts or maybes."

Its narrative history. It starts out with a literal statement. The openning context is pretty clear, and its literal.

"Since there are overwelming numbers of Christians that take Genesis as non-literal, I'm inclined to believe there's nothing wrong with that stance."

Usually because they haven't looked at it seriously. I asked someone to find me where the terms used for day and night are, in genesis, ever used for something other then a literal day and night other then the passage in question. I got no answer. Would you like to try?

 

[Jerry Smith]

No, I think its actually because anyone who does poke a hole into it is ostrosized (sp) from the science relam, its peer pressure at its finest. I've actually seen it in action.

That's a convenient explanation, if extremely fishy. Can you give us one of these examples where you saw this "peer pressure" in action. I bet I can dig up some pretty good counterexamples.....

Its narrative history. It starts out with a literal statement. The openning context is pretty clear, and its literal.

Does this, or does this not, apply to Isaiah 11:12??

 

[Outspoken]

"That's a convenient explanation, if extremely fishy."

I would agree if I had not seen it in action.

"I bet I can dig up some pretty good counterexamples....."

If I show an example there is on "counter" example. It shows its exsistance, though I would love to see what you define as a "counter" example.

"Does this, or does this not, apply to Isaiah 11:12??"

Sure it does, but the context shows there are nonliteral statements in it. I have yet to see someone show me that in genesis.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I would agree if I had not seen it in action.

I would like to believe you. Perhaps you could give an example.

I would love to see what you define as a "counter" example.

Ok.. in brief: Gould and Etheridge challenged some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary theory in their hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. Now, many years later, those mechanisms, and their relative importance, are still under debate. The hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium has only gained modest acceptance, but yet, for their crime of questioning the prevailing Darwinist opinions (poking holes in the theory, so to speak) they were not banished from the scientific community. As a matter of fact, Gould was lauded both before and after his death for his many contributions to the science of paleontology.

Sure it does, but the context shows there are nonliteral statements in it. I have yet to see someone show me that in genesis.

Could you possibly explain what context clues show you that there are nonliteral statements in it? I'd love to see that. Then we can compare & see if similar "clues" exist in Genesis 1.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
No, I think its actually because anyone who does poke a hole into it is ostrosized (sp) from the science relam, its peer pressure at its finest. I've actually seen it in action.

I don't buy the "peer pressure" argument. Otherwise, we'd still think the Earth was at the center of the universe, the world was flat, and evolution would never have been accepted by science. Do you know how controversial Origin of the Species was when it was first published?

*sigh* It means the writings are literal, that's what we are talking about. no red herrings thanks.

You're the one using catagorization at a bookstore to determine whether or not things are fictional or not.

Why should I trust the Biblical version of creation over creation stories from other religions?

Its narrative history. It starts out with a literal statement. The openning context is pretty clear, and its literal.

You keep asserting over and over that Genesis is literal because of "context", but you haven't backed that up with why I should take it literally.

Usually because they haven't looked at it seriously. I asked someone to find me where the terms used for day and night are, in genesis, ever used for something other then a literal day and night other then the passage in question. I got no answer. Would you like to try?

"Day", as used in Genesis, just represents a time period, and not a literal 24-hour day (I'm sure you've heard this lots).

I don't know where you see "night", unless you mean Gen 1:18?

Or are you talking about the evening and the morning?

That (again imho) is indicative of chaos giving rise to order (and yes, I've read a bit about the original Hebrew text and meanings of the words).

But since I'm not Christian to begin with, it doesn't really matter too much what it says in Genesis. I'll trust real-world evidence over a presumed creation event in some religious text any day of the week.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Not long ago, Lambslove made the same claim (of having seen the ostracization of "hole-pokers" from science.) She is a scientist herself, in the employ of the government - so I asked her for an example. She continued the discussion for another post in the thread, but never came back and posted an example...

I don't see why it is hard for someone who sees these things happen all the time to present just one puny example that will let others know he is on the level, and that what he observed doesn't have a better example....

 

[Cantuar]

No, I think its actually because anyone who does poke a hole into it is ostrosized (sp) from the science relam, its peer pressure at its finest. I've actually seen it in action.

Well, Stanley Prusiner hasn't been ostracised for his prion theory, which knocks a bit of a hole in germ theory. Nor was Lynn Margulis ostracised for her theory of endosymbiosis. The people who came up with quantum mechanics, thus showing that Newtonian mechanics wasn't a complete explanation, received Nobel prizes. Toppling paradigms is actually a way to make your name, not a way to become an outcast. But feel free to provide those examples.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Cantuar
Well, Stanley Prusiner hasn't been ostracised for his prion theory, which knocks a bit of a hole in germ theory. Nor was Lynn Margulis ostracised for her theory of endosymbiosis. The people who came up with quantum mechanics, thus showing that Newtonian mechanics wasn't a complete explanation, received Nobel prizes. Toppling paradigms is actually a way to make your name, not a way to become an outcast. But feel free to provide those examples.

I would tend to agree with you on these points, but we must remember that evolution is a different matter.  The examples you provided do not have the same religious implications as evolutionary theory.  Therefore, His Exhalted Majesty The Grand High Poobah of the Global Atheist Conspiracy would not demand the extreme ostracism that would be required if some poor fool dared to question evolution. 

-brett