A debate about debates
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 13 of 17
Sigh. I almost feel bad for what's about to happen here.
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i agree, the bible for example makes no bones about being a scientific collaboration of evidence for the proof of God;
Show me where the scientific proof of God rests within the Bible. Using the Bible as its own argument is a tautology, a fallacy of the most basic order. You're in effect saying "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." Show me where you can verify within the Bible that God created the world in 6 days, or that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, or how Jonas survived in the belly of the whale. Show me that - but know this - the minute you use the word "metaphor," you've already proven yourself wrong.
Quote:
i dont think that was its purpose,
Its purpose was to give a particular people a shared history and a moral compass for living, not to serve as a scientific manual in the 21st century.
Quote:
and in that way doesnt belong in a side-by-side comparison with the latest scientific theories
Probably the only thing I agree on in your post.
Quote:
but to say that religion doesnt belong in any debate is just biased and unfair.
No it isn't. Let's do what this thread is about, and debate debating. If I say 2+2=4, you saying "but God said 2+2=5" does not change the fact that 2+2=4. Period. It may in your mind, but not in reality. That's the problem with Creation Science. You want to toss your hat into a debate where it doesn't belong. And, let's face it, the vast majority of evolutionary science does not seek to tell the origins of life, it just seeks to explain how it got to where it is now. You want to inject religion into a debate that is about science. Theology is philosophy, which is a TITANIC difference.
Quote:
you may not be a theist, but take it from me.. i constantly debate people on the truth to the messages of the bible. for instance, many people, including christians, believe that polytheism is mythical; whereas the bible itself clearly says that these 'gods' were the fallen angels, which DID exist.
I'd like chapter and verse on that one, thank you. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I have read the Bible (several times; you have to know your Bible to teach literature) and attend church regularly. I'd like chapter and verse on where it says Zeus or Odin are fallen angels.
Quote:
now their is clearly a discrepency here over what the bible actually says... is that not cause for debate? or is it that because every religion is believed to be a fairy tell, it doesnt matter what the specifics of the message are?
Then have those debates as a matter of philosophy or theology, but keep it away from what it isn't, which is science. Morality, whose God is better, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are all nice arguments - where they belong, in a debate about religion. Why Abraham nearly knifed Isaac doesn't belong in a Chemistry class.
Quote:
as a theist, the bible has a clear message, which is why Jesus' himself says to be aware of false doctrines and their destruction. well, such debates have no place in the scientific secular world, because to you all, mans earliest origins have just been discarded as elaborate fantasy.
Bzzt, sorry Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?
First, the Bible is a walking contradiction, and no one has been able to agree on a clear message in, oh, what, 4000+ years, counting the OT?
Next, you're trying to tell me what the evolution debate clearly is not - a debate about the origins of life. Scientists say, "we know what the processes are, we know the time frame, let's do some research and see how it all started, because we don't know yet. But we're curious, and want to advance the knowledge of mankind." Creationists, and IDers turn it around and say, "it was all God, you don't need to be curious (because God did it), and anyone who says otherwise hates Jesus and is a blasphe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, you can debate it all you want but how do you prove your point? In your mind, the Bible is "the truth" but what about the gospel of Judas? In that version Jesus wasn't above a bit of street theater and Judas was his partner, while the rest of the disciples were well-meaning simpletons. Or the Gospel of Thomas? My (admittedly quick) scan seems to reveal an illegitimate first-born son cheated of his place in society with quite a mom complex.
i constantly debate people on the truth to the messages of the bible. for instance, many people, including christians, believe that polytheism is mythical; whereas the bible itself clearly says that these 'gods' were the fallen angels, which DID exist. now their is clearly a discrepency here over what the bible actually says... is that not cause for debate?
Or to go further afield, what about the Bhagavad Gita? Compared to the Bible, we have two weighty religious documents, both with historical authenticity, and both with multitudes of adherents. Which one is correct? Prove to me that the Bible that you refer to is the one I should believe.
I'll bet you can't.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Show me where the scientific proof of God rests within the Bible. Using the Bible as its own argument is a tautology, a fallacy of the most basic order.
wow..thanks mr. scientist. if youll notice, i never made such a claim to begin with.. which was my purpose of responding. what i do is i take the commonality between the bible and other ancient beliefs, and use them as the basis for my arguement, i never tried to substitute evolution with creation.. as much as that would please that insatiable ego of yours
Quote:
You're in effect saying "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." Show me where you can verify within the Bible that God created the world in 6 days, or that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, or how Jonas survived in the belly of the whale. Show me that - but know this - the minute you use the word "metaphor," you've already proven yourself wrong.
was Moses present when God created the world? because he wasnt, i dont expect him to know what took place during its creation.. nor does he attempt to explain it in terms that a modern day scientist could put into a computer model. i take the bible for what it is, as a collection of ancient writings, and work with what it says.. im not interjecting creationism into evolution, i am only considering the totality of the bibles message
Quote:
Its purpose was to give a particular people a shared history and a moral compass for living, not to serve as a scientific manual in the 21st century.
which is the same thing i said..
Quote:
No it isn't. Let's do what this thread is about, and debate debating. If I say 2+2=4, you saying "but God said 2+2=5" does not change the fact that 2+2=4. Period. It may in your mind, but not in reality. That's the problem with Creation Science. You want to toss your hat into a debate where it doesn't belong. And, let's face it, the vast majority of evolutionary science does not seek to tell the origins of life, it just seeks to explain how it got to where it is now. You want to inject religion into a debate that is about science. Theology is philosophy, which is a TITANIC difference.
hello friend... did you not understand me when i said I DO NOT WISH TO DEBATE CREATIONISM ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION?? i guess because im a theist im too stupid to understand your 2+2=4 analogy... your making the same point i was
Quote:
I'd like chapter and verse on that one, thank you. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I have read the Bible (several times; you have to know your Bible to teach literature) and attend church regularly. I'd like chapter and verse on where it says Zeus or Odin are fallen angels.
i refer you to Genesis 6, and the book of Enoch for further details; also, look up Nephilim and Elohim, and compare that with the stories of the Sumerians, and Mayans, and other polytheistic beliefs.. youll notice some profound archetypical similarities
Quote:
Then have those debates as a matter of philosophy or theology, but keep it away from what it isn't, which is science. Morality, whose God is better, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are all nice arguments - where they belong, in a debate about religion. Why Abraham nearly knifed Isaac doesn't belong in a Chemistry class.
which IS EXACTLY WHAT IM TELLING YOU! please read my post again where i said the bible was meant to be a spiritual message for common people, not as a scientific expose'
Quote:
Bzzt, sorry Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?
First, the Bible is a walking contradiction, and no one has been able to agree on a clear message in, oh, what, 4000+ years, counting the OT?
Next, you're trying to tell me what the evolution debate clearly is not - a debate about the origins of life. Scientists say, "we know what the processes are, we know the time frame, let's do some research and see how it all started, because we don't know yet.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You keep saying you never made the claims you made, but look at my post - I was quoting you directly. I didn't edit, nor did I twist. You say flat out the things I'm calling you on; that's the glory of the "reply with quotes" button. It's not that I don't understand you, it's apparently that you don't know how to write (or know the definitions of the words you use).
Your exact words were, "the bible for example makes no bones about being a scientific collaboration," which in English means that yes, the Bible is scientific. "Makes no bones about," in the popular vernacular, means that it does so certifiably. If I say I make no bones about being something, it means I am that something through and through. You need to reread your argument, because I do not think it means what you think you thought it meant.
I'm not going to dissect your whole post again (how's that for a Mr. Scientific word, you nutjob?), but here (again) is where you put the God into the evolution debate:
Quote:You flat out say right there that religion is marginalized in the scientific debate, where it does not belong. Then you waste a whole post telling me how you don't think it belongs there. Which is it? Does it belong or not?
but likewise, maybe science can stop marginilizing what equates to an entire field ancient theology, when it clearly lacks the forms of measurement to detect the spiritual world(ie the religious worlds claim to fame
Next, there's this little gem:
Quote:
i refer you to Genesis 6, and the book of Enoch for further details; also, look up Nephilim and Elohim, and compare that with the stories of the Sumerians, and Mayans, and other polytheistic beliefs.. youll notice some profound archetypical similarities
No, don't refer me anywhere, or cite "archtypal similarites" - you said that the Bible states that other religions were fallen angels. You cite me chapter and verse in the Bible itself. I took a quick look at Gen 6 and it states no such thing; it makes reference to the Nephilim not as "gods" but as natural monsters, "the giants of Palestine." You're interpreting what you think the Bible means and what some authors have told you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything like what you claimed. In fact, a critical reading of the Ten Commandments would show that the Hebrew people believed that there were other Gods; historians and religious scholars will also tell you that God as we know him was probably an amalgamation of many local sky dieties. You made the claim. Chapter and verse- if you can.
Quote:
Jesus' warned about occult perversions and the synogogue of Satan; but 10 years from now you will be eating your words about this occult conspiracy when the world just so happens to be facing a fascist global government
No, ten years from now you'll be telling me to just wait ten more years, and then I'll really see what's happening. I have two words for you -well, two and a half words, since I'm not sure how the hyphen works in a word count - TIN-FOIL HAT.
Make your statements more clear next time.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti- 7% has got you there. Religions shouldn't be "marginalized" from scientific debates, they should be eliminated.
And I'm going to try and make my point clearer because I'm hoping for a response: Religion is not debatable. Period Because religion is ultimately a matter of faith and belief. If you could debate and "prove" it, it wound't BE a religion, it would be science.
I'll give you an example: You believe the universe was created by God. I believe the universe was created by Lakshmi.You point to the Bible with its origins to 1500-900 BC. I point to the Vedas, which go back to 1500-4000 BC. Both religions have a large number of adherents.
Now what?
There is no common point of reference, and worse, there is no way to "prove" whether your religion or mine is "true". We could start poking around in the historical authenticity of the books in question, and I would bring up some recently discovered gospels and show how they contradict at least parts of what you currently believe, and some parts of the Bible that contradict others and then you'll have to start picking and choosing... do I believe this part but not that? It all becomes a matter of what you chose to believe and what you chose to reject/ re-interpret. And then you attach divinity to your opinion and claim that you speak for Jesus. Isn't that just a wee bit self-important?
TO be utterly ridiculous about it, I could claim by divine inspiration that the Universe was made by the of-cited Flying Spaghetti Monster and the only real difference between your beliefs and mine is social acceptability.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ok. im sorry i misunderstood the meaning of "makes no bones", i was under the impression(wrongly) that it meant that/that we never made the claim that the bible was comparable to evolutionary science; some christians can make that claim, but i dont believe its mandated by the bible. but my ignorance shows obviously, because i didnt know the correct definition of that phrase. i also apologize if i come off as contradicting, i should probably reread my statements better
scientifically, we have no way to determine which religion is correct, if any; whether a God exists, whether somehting percieved as a God, or 'gods' could exist, or if all of that was in actuality, baseless superstition. id like to incorporate it all somehow into my worldview, including evolutionary processes.. im just not ready to exlude the two from eachother
as for the fallen angels, the common understanding among the more advanced christian scholars have accepted that the Sons of God could only be the fallen angels; that their offspring with the "daughters of man" (human), and their nephilim suprerhuman offspring, happens to fit in with other myths around the world. is it at all possible that these events actually happened? all we have are stories handed down; but there are many things that we cant prove, like UFOs, but thats open for debate
because i believe the story of Jesus', i willingly take into consideration the 'mythology' that comes with all the middle eastern polytheistic pantheons, and coincidentally, people on other continents share similarities such as the Mayans. i think there something underlying these human archetypes, because they all spawned incredibly civilized and advanced cultures out of now-where it seems. that does make me biased to hold my faith preeminent, but im sure you all have your biases also.. it doesnt mean i flat out reject all evolutionary discovery though.
cant we share knowledge, without being excluded from the discussion as in "religion is not debateable-period"? i dont recall myself getting in your faces about evolution, i often just propose the ancient theories
its obviously a seperate field of study, but does that mean we cant exchange knowledge in any way, as in religion and science are exclusive? i just want to know if that is what your saying
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CAUTION: Purely gratuitous grenade-lobbing follows! >>> If Kaneman is a bio major then I'm Bill Gates <<< END CAUTION
DT, I think there are debates.... and then there are debates. Religion doesn't belong in a scientific debate. So, does religion belong in ANY debate? On what grounds can one "debate" a religion? How do you "prove" a religious tennet anyway? You cna't even look for logical inconsistancies within a religion because it's all a matter of faith: Believe, even if it doesn't match what you see with your eyes or make sense.
But there are other kinds of debates besides scientific, for example debates about ethics or philosophy which one can tackle using logic.
And then there are political debates where mud is slung and facts don't count. Unfortunately, mud-wrestling is a lot more entertaining than scientific debate. A candidate who sticks to the high road and cites facts is a candidate who'll probably lose.
I guess my point is that there are different categories of "debate". Some people are trying to have a scientific debate while others are having a no-holds-barred mud wrestling match.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
I don't think you can effectively debate something that is faith and not fact based.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is no common point of reference, and worse, there is no way to "prove" whether your religion or mine is "true". We could start poking around in the historical authenticity of the books in question, and I would bring up some recently discovered gospels and show how they contradict at least parts of what you currently believe, and some parts of the Bible that contradict others and then you'll have to start picking and choosing... do I believe this part but not that? It all becomes a matter of what you chose to believe and what you chose to reject/ re-interpret. And then you attach divinity to your opinion and claim that you speak for Jesus. Isn't that just a wee bit self-important?
TO be utterly ridiculous about it, I could claim by divine inspiration that the Universe was made by the of-cited Flying Spaghetti Monster and the only real difference between your beliefs and mine is social acceptability.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
We should all try and remember that spaghetti monster not withstanding, the bible is a collection of writings spanning 1500 years, 40 writers and 3 continents.
I am just sayin is all.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im sorry i misunderstood the meaning of "makes no bones", ... i also apologize if i come off as contradicting, i should probably reread my statements better
Apology accepted. As I tell my students, you cannot debate effectively if you cannot communicate well.
Quote:
scientifically, we have no way to determine which religion is correct, if any; whether a God exists, whether somehting percieved as a God, or 'gods' could exist, or if all of that was in actuality, baseless superstition.
Theologically, we don't need to. As Signy said, religion is about faith and belief, not hard evidence and scientific discovery. IMO, what makes a faith important is its message, not its logic. Belief is always going to find itself outmatched in any debate that requires evidence; it shouldn't be in those debates anyway.
Quote:
id like to incorporate it all somehow into my worldview, including evolutionary processes.. im just not ready to exlude the two from eachother
And that's fine. No one, especially me, is going to tell you that you can't or shouldn't do that. However, if you want to run with the ID crowd (and that's what track you are taking), you have to realize that the 'designer' part has no place in a purely scientific argument.
Quote:
as for the fallen angels, the common understanding among the more advanced christian scholars have accepted that the Sons of God could only be the fallen angels; that their offspring with the "daughters of man" (human), and their nephilim suprerhuman offspring, happens to fit in with other myths around the world.
Careful throwing around the term 'more advanced Christian scholars.' What you may consider advanced, others may consider nuts. Just because they're PhD's doesn't mean they're advanced - hell, I think James Dobson has a doctorate in theology, and he's crazier than a shithouse rat.
Also, in any debate (and DT and others -including me on occasion- have been taken to task on this), when you make a point, the weight is on you to back it up. You claimed something was specifically in the Bible. I checked one of those, and it wasn't. Then you come back and say, well, it's 'archtypal' and 'some scholars.' When that happens, you lose all credibility. While the RWED boards may not be the hot spot for scholars, you're still dealing with sharp cookies and some smarter-than-average folks (or solidly average, like myself). Just because your evidence can win debates with the yokels at work, it might not be good enough to win here.
Quote:
is it at all possible that these events actually happened? all we have are stories handed down; but there are many things that we cant prove, like UFOs, but thats open for debate
Sure, it's possible. Probable, maybe not so much. Could the Aztec gods be 'nephilim?' Sure. But I wouldn't jump to a rash conclusion like that just to make something fit into my belief system - you're pounding square pegs into round holes that way.
Quote:
i think there something underlying these human archetypes, because they all spawned incredibly civilized and advanced cultures out of now-where it seems.
Not out of nowhere. Belief systems take hundreds, if not thousands of years to develop. I think they do share common themes, but is that because of a common God or because of shared human experience? Seeing as how most cultures sprung up around water sources (The Nile, the Tigris, the Yucatan, the Tiber, the Med) is a shared flood mythology really that surprising? A pyramid is a basic shape - is it archtypal, or just an easy design to imagine?
Quote:
it doesnt mean i flat out reject all evolutionary discovery though.
Which is good, because you'd fall into the realm of the totally nuts. To deny evolution, to put yourself in the 'world is 6000 years old' crowd at this point in the 21st century is the sign of a mental disorder.
Quote:
cant we share knowledge, without being excluded from the discussion as in "religion is not debateable-period"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is the truth of religion to be decided on how far back it goes? Then the Vedas go back even farther, and animism even farther back than that. Or do we decide on religion based on popularity?
We should all try and remember that spaghetti monster not withstanding, the bible is a collection of writings spanning 1500 years, 40 writers and 3 continents.
Anti: Let me give you another example of why religion is not debatable, one not involving the Xtian religion. Fred believes in Thor while Jane believes in Zeus. Who is right and how do they decide? If EITHER ONE could point to non-ambiguous evidence that their god of choice existed it would be science and not religion. Religion does not rest on evidence, science does.
Also, to reiterate the point about common archetypes: I'll bet that in every civilizations history there is a flood. A really big one. But in SOME civilization's history there are volcanoes. Naturally, they have that archetype in their religion while we don't. In others, thunder and lightening are common- but notably missing from areas which seldom experience thunderstorms. Where experiences are similar, archtypes are similar. Where they differ, archtypes differ. That seems the simplest explanation.
To further the point, cultures without a strong central ruler tend to have a pantheon of gods. Cultures with a strong central ruler tend to have monotheistic religions. And these rulers usually claim a relationship to the gods to cement their control. It's happened in Central and South America, the Middle East, Europe (the Catholic Church, not the Romans) and the Far East... any time there was an religiously-based empire. I think it's useful to STUDY religions, and soem day I'll gt around to it in detail.
But that's not the same as debating them. A debate is where you take a sides. And once again, how do you "prove" your point? You may think you're "debating" your religion with other people but you're prolly just badgering them.
------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME