• In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Creationism vs. Evolution - A Culture Divided

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
CWT36
Sophomore
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:04 pm
14
Location: Riverhead, Long Island
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Unread post

stahrwe wrote: Consider the following:

H’s are stridently racist. They have been so long that is part of their identity. They will cross the street to avoid having their shadow touch the shadow of a non-H. The closest approximation we have of their feeling about non-H’s is that they are people who kidnap, rape and torture babies to death. H’s live apart from other groups, have special symbols and customs which are closely associated with their identity.

You are an H but decide you want to form a group, let’s call them F’s which will do the following:

Include non-H’s in a relationship resembling family
Abandon H’s symbols
Abandon H’s customs

Observable benefits of becoming an F:
None

Negative consequences of becoming an F?
Expulsion from H
Loss of family ties with those who remain H’s
Possible loss of income, the H you work for will fire you.
Possible loss of life as H’s will try to have F’s killed.

How would you convince an H to become an F?
How would you convince a non-H to become an F?
Consider the following:

S posts a diversionary hypothetical riddle
All non S's don't respond
S posts same hypothetical again

How would you convince S his riddle is irrelevant? :pimp:
-Colin

"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain
User avatar
Interbane

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Stah: "Unless you refute my explanation with a specific demonstration that it is iwrong, I will be forced to conclude that your objection is shallow, baselss and indefensible."

There is no need to refute your interpretation. I accept the words as they are written in the bible, which is in error. Unless you can provide evidence for your interpretation, you are wrong by default.

Stah: "How would you convince an H to become an F?
How would you convince a non-H to become an F?
."

Why be an F at all? Would it not be better to do away with anything that causes segregation amongst people? Explain where you are going with this silly hypothetical scenario so I can dismantle it.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2715 times
Been thanked: 2651 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
Interbane wrote:Your interpretation is incorrect, it's nothing more than a rationalization. The authors made an error here.
Think any more on one good reason to believe the bible?
Regarding your first statement above, I presume that you are referring to my theory about Dan. I have let you slide before, but not anymore, Unless you refute my explanation with a specific demonstration that it is iwrong, I will be forced to conclude that your objection is shallow, baselss and indefensible.
But Stahrwe, you are the one who claims, in what appears to be a desperately original innovation, that Dan does not mean Dan but means whatever you want it to mean just so you can save Biblical Inerrancy. Let's all play Humpty Dumpty theology. Will you do the same for the list of Kings of Edom at Genesis 36:31-43, and say Moses did not mean Edom, despite using the word? Maybe Moses meant Cheshire Cat when he said Edom? What about your earlier claim that Moses meant Dan as the place was subsequently called, but was prophesying what his genocidal descendants would call it? And this when we have a perfectly good explanation, namely that the Torah was not written by Moses. Speaking again of projection, it is you who is presenting claims that are "shallow, baselss (sic) and indefensible."
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Interbane wrote:Your interpretation is incorrect, it's nothing more than a rationalization. The authors made an error here.
Think any more on one good reason to believe the bible?
Regarding your first statement above, I presume that you are referring to my theory about Dan. I have let you slide before, but not anymore, Unless you refute my explanation with a specific demonstration that it is iwrong, I will be forced to conclude that your objection is shallow, baselss and indefensible.
But Stahrwe, you are the one who claims, in what appears to be a desperately original innovation, that Dan does not mean Dan but means whatever you want it to mean just so you can save Biblical Inerrancy. Let's all play Humpty Dumpty theology. Will you do the same for the list of Kings of Edom at Genesis 36:31-43, and say Moses did not mean Edom, despite using the word? Maybe Moses meant Cheshire Cat when he said Edom? What about your earlier claim that Moses meant Dan as the place was subsequently called, but was prophesying what his genocidal descendants would call it? And this when we have a perfectly good explanation, namely that the Torah was not written by Moses. Speaking again of projection, it is you who is presenting claims that are "shallow, baselss (sic) and indefensible."
I guess you and Interbane flunked the same reading comprehension class. Do you really want to persist in these ad hoc challenges to the Bible. Are you not comprehendi that they are not working?

For the record, I did not say that Dan does not mean Dan. Pitiful.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Stah: "Unless you refute my explanation with a specific demonstration that it is iwrong, I will be forced to conclude that your objection is shallow, baselss and indefensible."

There is no need to refute your interpretation. I accept the words as they are written in the bible, which is in error. Unless you can provide evidence for your interpretation, you are wrong by default.

Stah: "How would you convince an H to become an F?
How would you convince a non-H to become an F?
."

Why be an F at all? Would it not be better to do away with anything that causes segregation amongst people? Explain where you are going with this silly hypothetical scenario so I can dismantle it.
You don't dismantle anything. You just revert to the old saws, 'you'r rationalizing,' or, 'everything in the Bible is in error so I need not answer.' I thought this was a site that valued discussion and free thought. That is obviously not correct. It is a forum for monolithic, repetitious individuals who lack creativity and the ability to mount anything other than a superficial critique.

I will double check my count, but I think I am at 10 refutations of objections to the Bible.

To the matter at hand.

I guess you might have had difficulty with reading comprehension in school as F's will result in the abolition of prejudice.

A moderately clever person would have recognized that the H's are Jews (Hebrews), the F's are Christians (fish was a symbol for Christians*)
*do you know why fish was the symbol for Christians?

Jesus was a Jew. After His resurrection, his disciples, who behaved cowardly after His death became fiery advocates for Christianity. As a result, many Jews became Christians, but so did many gentiles. This created problems. As pointed out in my little riddle, H's were taught to be racists. They hated gentiles, and now, they were being told that they would be brothers, and sisters with them. A group of Jewish Christians put forward the proposal that Christians be accepted, provided that the men be circumcised and that all obey the law of Moses. This group was opposed by another set of converted Jews, who advocated the abandonment of the Mosaic law and circumcision. This was not inconsequential for though the Greeks practiced their sport activities in the nude, they considered the exposed glans obscene, and therefore circumcision for them was not acceptable. The controversy reached a head (this excuse the pun) with the convocation of a meeting of the leaders of the church representing both sides of the issue

Acts 15 (New King James Version)
Acts 15
Conflict over Circumcision
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to him Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
The Jerusalem Council

6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’

18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.[c] 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d]from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

I know there are a lot of words and that causes you ‘free thinkers’ problems.
What was the source of the radical change in the hearts of those Jews for whom the promised Messiah was now to be shared with the formerly repulsive Gentiles?
What was the motivation for a Gentile to become a Christian which at the time was perceived as just a subset of Jews?
What was the motivation for anyone to become a Christian, when that decision brought with it not only no temporal benefits, but likely severe temporal costs?

I anticipate that this might be the beginning of a discussion and if so I welcome it. However, if you find yourself unable to do anything other then raise the flag of rationalizing save yourself and me the time and trouble of posting a reply.
User avatar
Interbane

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Stah: "You don't dismantle anything. You just revert to the old saws, 'you'r rationalizing,' or, 'everything in the Bible is in error so I need not answer.'

Part of your ignorance is that you think rationalizing is ok. It's not. You haven't refuted any of the objections to the bible. You've given your version of an interpretation, but there is no reason to accept your interpretations. That is what it means to rationalize. If and when I claim you're 'rationalizing', it's a valid assessment, and unless you can show proof that your interpretations are in fact the only interpretations, my assessment remains valid. You accuse us of repetition, but this lesson hasn't sunk into your skull after I've laid it out for you numerous times.

Stah: "I anticipate that this might be the beginning of a discussion and if so I welcome it."

I was hoping for a discussion, but you'd rather play games and pretend you have some profound understanding to give and so ask questions as if you're teaching us something. Cut to the chase and tell me what your reasoning is for me to believe the bible. I'm sure you're able to deliver your reasoning without having to ask questions or quote passages.

Stah: "However, if you find yourself unable to do anything other then raise the flag of rationalizing save yourself and me the time and trouble of posting a reply."

If and when you rationalize, I most certainly will raise that flag. If you're sick of the accusation, then stop rationalizing, because it's not valid support for a belief system. If you're guilty of rationalizing, the critique is 'valid', not 'superficial'. Your repeated attempts to get away with lousy reasoning is what is superficial.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2715 times
Been thanked: 2651 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Moses Danned

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:For the record, I did not say that Dan does not mean Dan. Pitiful.
stahrwe wrote:he pursued the invaders as far as [the place of vindication or judgment of God]*. *Dan...I have rewritten Genesis 14 verses 14 and 15 substituting the meaning of the names Dan and Hobah.
Here is where you state that Dan does not mean Dan as part of your agenda to dismantle and attack all scholarship in what appears to be an objective of promoting obscure patriarchal racist fantasy. If you think it is "pitiful" to read your comment above as stating that Dan does not mean Dan, then you are obviously taking your prime inspiration from Humpty Dumpty. Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
Humpty's point is that by sowing pure confusion he can retain his mastery. This is a noted creationist debating tactic and is entirely without ethics.

A further example of creationist method from Alice in Wonderland is the Queen of Hearts:
Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.'
`I can't believe that!' said Alice.
`Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'
Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one can't believe impossible things.'
`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”