"Turn him loose as a theorist..."

[Tiny genius]

Actually, this is the wrong way to go about proving that "it's incorrect to say that everyone cherry picks."

What I'd need to do is find ONE person who does not (or did not) Cherry Pick.

Maybe...

+ all insuing pictures.

I thought you already knew that I can't see pictures. I mean, that top one's just a mess of colour with some words, "God Hates You" I managed to read, thrown in. That's as far as my eyes are concerned, anyway.

[Boothby]

TG,

They're all pictures of religious extremists who claim NOT to cherry pick, and who claim to know God's Truth, and how they're all a bunch of angry, violent ass-hats.

As opposed to me, who's not violent about it at all.

Actually--I don't cherry pick at all. I reject everything about all the "holy Books." Except when I can point something out that shows the inherent falsehood or contradiction within this or that "Holy Book," or show its followers to be hypocrites.

[Boothby]

EP, re. slavery: (from http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

(Jesus is also seen to be quoting from Spiderman. How tacky)

And:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So, 1) It is OK to sell your daughter a a slave, 2) MULTIPLE wives are OK, and 3) If your daughter is not getting sufficiently f******, she can just leave the marriage.

Cool. I'll go tell my daughter this.



So....Holy Hitler on a snow sled! Your argument is INVALID.

[Tiny genius]

Cchm, yeah. Not violent or agressive at all *cough-cough*.

Yeah, chm, don't cherry pick, only use select verses to show contradiction and reject the rest. Chm, yeah *cough*.

And I thought you're against internal contradictions.

[Boothby]

And...there goes logic.

I am allowed to Cherry Pick. My claim is the Bible is full of holes. That it is full of contradictions.

The opposing (religious, Biblical) claim is that it is inerrant:

http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-inerrant-word-god" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

"If it is accepted that God Inspired the writing of the Books of the Bible, then to claim otherwise would imply that either He made or permitted mistakes in the Bible or that He is nowhere near as all-knowing as we believe He is." Quote taken from the "Believe" website. 1

"The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." Jerry Falwell, from his book Finding Inner Peace and Strength

The claim of inerrancy is a hard one to maintain, and--from a rational/logical point of view--one that should be relatively easy to disprove. All I have to do is point out errors, and the initial claim collapses.

Timothy 3 claims that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Therefore, if ANY scripture should prove itself NOT suitable for (oh, let's say) "instruction in righteousness" then the claim fails. MY claim is that not only is the Bible (Old and New) based on false pretenses and assumptions (namely, that "God exists") but it is also largely unsuitable for "instruction in righteousness."

Religious people use one section of the Bible to apologize for the offensiveness of another. All *I* have to do is show the offensive part. I don't have to care about the apoplectic apologetics.

[Tiny genius]

You missed my point which is that, in the same sentence, you claim not to cherry pick and then say that you reject all of the holy books except where they're useful to prove your point. And now you say "I'm allowed to cherry pick". I just find this ironic because one of your main arguments against the Bible is its many internal contradictions.

However...
Since it's pretty obvious that there's no getting through to you, Steve:
Tiny genius will be maintaining effective silence on this thread until further notice.

[Boothby]

I hadn't realized I needed "getting through to."

I point out one of the nastiest sections in the Old Testament (which, as I expected, is still a major reference for many Christians--certainly the Christians on this thread), which dealt with God-directed genocide, murder, rape, pillage, underage virgin sex slaves, and the response is "The Medianites probably deserved it," and "I really want the part about the underage virgins to be about 'adoption,' even though there's absolutely nothing in the text to support my wish," and "Oh, look---here's a pretty, though entirely unrelated, section about marriage!"

I can read any piece of self-help fiction from "Hay House," and find a better ratio of goodness to holy debauchery than I find in the Old and New Testaments. You want to follow those books, have at it. I can be nice to people (really, I can) without fearing that the violent magic psychopath in the sky is going to lock me in the basement and set fire to me for 100,000 years for not loving him the right way....

[elfprince13]

The opposing (religious, Biblical) claim is that it is inerrant:

This is hardly settled theology, even if it's popular among evangelicals.
From your own link:

On 2007-MAY-25, Gallup reported the results of a national poll on Biblical inerrancy. Those polled were asked which of three statements comes closest to describing their personal views about the Bible. The average of polls taken during MAY of 2005, 2006 and 2007 were:

31% believe that "The Bible is the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word." This would imply acceptance of biblical inerrancy.
47% believe that "The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally."
19% believe that "The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."
3% were uncertain or didn't answer.

Margin of error was ±3 percentage points.

An identical poll taken during 2011-MAY showed little change:

30% believe that "The Bible is the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word."
49% believe that "The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally."
17% believe that "The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."
4% were uncertain or didn't answer.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Therefore, if ANY scripture should prove itself NOT suitable for (oh, let's say) "instruction in righteousness" then the claim fails

I'm pretty sure those are inclusive-OR'd clauses and not AND'd clauses.

I can be nice to people (really, I can)

But, Mr. Reductionist, you haven't yet explained why that's worth doing or what would lead you to do so in your cozy little worldview where all of us are just piles of particles whose every action is governed by the laws of physics rather than any moral law - unless you think the golden rule ought to be taught in thermodynamics, or perhaps Lagrangian mechanics. Maybe E&M, or quantum?

[Boothby]

But, Mr. Reductionist, you haven't yet explained why that's worth doing or what would lead you to do so in your cozy little worldview where all of us are just piles of particles whose every action is governed by the laws of physics rather than any moral law - unless you think the golden rule ought to be taught in thermodynamics, or perhaps Lagrangian mechanics. Maybe E&M, or quantum?

Because there is a social/political aspect to human interaction. And though maybe one day (i'm not holding my breath) some social scientist somewhere might come up wt a set of predictive equations that wend their way through independent human observation, consideration, and action, coupled with a constant input of uncontrolled and unpredictable outside influences (nature. other people, etc.). If you've read Asimov's "Foundation" series (which, obviously, I did not like), it's that level of "Harry Selden" predictability. But until that point, we need to be able to figure out a simple set of rules to try and adhere to in order to make things work out better here.

But as to WHY? Because my life is important to me. Because there is a small group of people that I know, whose lives are also important to me. Because outside my immediate group(s), I recognize that there are other people whose lives are important to them, etc., etc.

Now, there is (of course) the chance that you have no respect or consideration for people's lives unless they are actually souls. Unless they come from God. Perhaps you feel a need for God's breath to animate what would otherwise be simple clay. I don't know. You haven't said. For me, life--breathing, self-aware, inherently pointless life--is all we have. it's important to me for that reason. I put my own meaning into it, and it is important to me.

Besides, what YOU claim as "moral law" (as "provided by God") is, as I've shown, nonsense. God is an evil psychopath, with occasional glimpses of compassion. But, overall, He is an abuser. The Bible is a poor source of moral law. Besides, it is NOT written by God. It was written by men. Men of a certain "age" (time period, epoch), reflecting what THEY thought were appropriate moral laws for them, at that time, in that particular society. Hence the Kosher laws. Hence the directives to be fruitful and multiply (with your father, with your sister, with concubines, with multiple wives, with your dead brother's wife, etc.). The "moral laws" as written in the Bible were specific to that particular period in time, and are now outdated. To attempt and try to defend them is foolish and a waste of time. They are, for the most part, indefensible. Current laws have used some of the laws because they are obvious. Murder is bad (except when God tells you to slaughter entire civilizations, ov course). Treating different classes of people with disrespect (slaves, women, blacks) is bad (except the Bible--Old and New--does this ALL the time).

You are spinning and spinning and spinning in what I consider to be a totally wasteful attempt to justify (apologize for) a religious system that is based on a bunch of uneducated Middle Eastern nomads (first coming into farm-based civilizations). They were cruel, violent, and really hadn't figured much out. Their "God" (no surprise) isn't much different.

Gods were made by Man for a reason. Those reasons are getting old, and we need to think about moving on.

[Boothby]

EP,

But if the Bible is NOT "inerrant," then there must therefore be elements of it that are in error.

If there are elements that are in error, then one would hope to be able to determine what those elements are, and exclude them from doctrine, from reproof, from correction, and from instruction in righteousness.

In other words--one needs to cherry pick.

But you state that you and your family do NOT cherry pick. Do you therefore accept ALL that is in the Bible? Even those parts that are in error? Or, is there a world-wide, agreed-upon STANDARD for what is in error, and EVERYONE knows to exclude those parts? I doubt that last one very much.

So, either you cherry pick, or you follow the Bible, right or wrong.

Or, in MY case...I do not follow the Bible. I do not believe in its tenets. Where there is an OVERLAP, such as the commandment "Do not kill...," I follow those tenets for other reasons outside the Bible, and I acknowledge that the HUMAN authors of the Bible got it right here and there. Something about a broken clock being right at least twice a day...

[CezeN]

A. Regardless, they appeared to have presented a decent summary with a quote or two of the experiment I was referring to. It's not I was linking them for an opinion or disputable information - or anything that factors in their analysis. I was linking them for a factual description of the experiment I was referring to. And, I asked you to tell me why it was wrong "this instance". Not generally. For my purpose, they weren't wrong about anything in this instance.

Because I've never seen them cover a science piece with anything resembling accuracy or factual description.


Regarding this whole mess concerning contradictions and human fallibility, and "impossible things", etc (targeted at both CezeN and TG): The both of you seem to be concluding that because human reason is limited, we should therefore not bothering to apply it all and see what it can tell us within the limitations that it has. There's a distinction between two things that people commonly identify as paradoxes. On the one hand, you have things which seem to violate common sense, but are, on further inspection, quite logically compatible and reveal deeper sophistication when really looked at. There are also things which are actually logically contradictory, but which people would like to believe are both true. One of these sorts of things is worth looking at deeply, and one can be dismissed out of hand for logical inconsistency. You appear to be conflating the two.

Was the piece I quoted not a factual condensed-description? In what way would you have presented a summary of what they did in the experiment to non-physicists?

Actually, that's not what I'm saying or even concluding. My point was that since human reason is limited, even though we apply it practically to go about our everyday lives and use it in our own ways - we can't make any extreme conclusions on what is or isn't possible to do, by someone with more knowledge of the universe, intelligence/understanding, and capabilities as us. I.e. an omnipotent, omniscient being.

I am indeed conflating the two, because I'm proposing that we can draw no conclusions on whether anything is the latter category you described - because of our lack of knowledge and understanding limiting and anchoring our perception of the world and what's possible - and thus we can only put things in the former category. [I mean, the reason people can't understand the reality of some form of the Universe always existing or God having always existed, is because we are born and think of the world as everything having a beginning - i.e. anchored by our perception of time and casuality.] However, I'm amending the former category to: "Things which violate our common sense and - seem - to violate logic, but may be, on deep enough inspection, possible and logically compatible while revealing deeper sophistication."

That's why I'm drawing a parallel between me not understainding and you understanding the logical compatibility of metal paddle being visible both moving and standing still, at the same time. The difference between us....knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Who knows, maybe someone with omniscient knows a mathematical formula showing that 2 is 3 or infinite isn't infinite. Ect.

[Boothby]

The problem is that just because a person does not know something, or has a difficult time comprehending it, it does NOT mean that one can therefore put anything one wants in the gap.

The statement "I'm not exactly sure how the universe began" is NOT properly answered, "Well, GOD did it!"

I mean, sure--you can propose anything you want. Physicists have 'brane theory, and string theory. But (AFAIK), they recognize that these theories are currently unproveable.

Biologists and archaeologists have the theory of evolution. It, however, is one of those exceedingly WELL DOCUMENTED and PROVEN theories. And just because someone doesn't like it, or get it, or is opposed to it on "moral" (biblical) grounds, doesn't mean that they can go ahead and say "Oh, well, GOD did it!"

Unless you're a big fan of the "God of the Gaps." For such an all-powerful being, you'd think he could have done a little better than that.

I always thought of the "God of the Gaps" as a thing named "FERB." Sure--if you don't know how evolution works, say "FERB did it." or, if you don't know how stars progress through the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, say, "FERB did it." Not sure about how the universe started? "FERB did it." But then people go and add all this nonsense: "FERB loves us!" (what?) "FERB loves us so much that he sent a baby FERB to earth so that we could kill and eat him, just to prove that he (big FERB) loves us." (creepy, but if that's what rocks your boat), or (my favorite) "FERB loves us so much that if we don't love FERB, he will lock us up in the stinky basement and set fire to us." (ok....how did you and your father get along? Were you abused much as a child?)

[CezeN]

The problem is that just because a person does not know something, or has a difficult time comprehending it, it does NOT mean that one can therefore put anything one wants in the gap.

The statement "I'm not exactly sure how the universe began" is NOT properly answered, "Well, GOD did it!"

I mean, sure--you can propose anything you want. Physicists have 'brane theory, and string theory. But (AFAIK), they recognize that these theories are currently unproveable.

Biologists and archaeologists have the theory of evolution. It, however, is one of those exceedingly WELL DOCUMENTED and PROVEN theories. And just because someone doesn't like it, or get it, or is opposed to it on "moral" (biblical) grounds, doesn't mean that they can go ahead and say "Oh, well, GOD did it!"

Unless you're a big fan of the "God of the Gaps." For such an all-powerful being, you'd think he could have done a little better than that.

I always thought of the "God of the Gaps" as a thing named "FERB." Sure--if you don't know how evolution works, say "FERB did it." or, if you don't know how stars progress through the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, say, "FERB did it." Not sure about how the universe started? "FERB did it." But then people go and add all this nonsense: "FERB loves us!" (what?) "FERB loves us so much that he sent a baby FERB to earth so that we could kill and eat him, just to prove that he (big FERB) loves us." (creepy, but if that's what rocks your boat), or (my favorite) "FERB loves us so much that if we don't love FERB, he will lock us up in the stinky basement and set fire to us." (ok....how did you and your father get along? Were you abused much as a child?)

I'm confused(since I was the last one who commented in the thread, and it looks like you already replied to other people who recently posted), but is this directed at me?

[Boothby]

I got the sense that this whole "Human reasoning is limited" line of thought was heading towards the typical, "There GOD did it."

[CezeN]

I got the sense that this whole "Human reasoning is limited" line of thought was heading towards the typical, "There GOD did it."

Oh... It actually wasn't. You jumped the gun a bit.

The problem is that just because a person does not know something, or has a difficult time comprehending it, it does NOT mean that one can therefore put anything one wants in the gap.

The statement "I'm not exactly sure how the universe began" is NOT properly answered, "Well, GOD did it!"

That's all true. I was actually arguing that our lack of knowledge/comprehension on the Universe disallows us from drawing extreme conclusions on what's possible in the Universe. Not that it allows us to draw whatever conclusion we like to fill in the gap.

I brought up the Universe to illustrate how the concepts we hold fundamental to our life can bring us to draw incorrect conclusions about how fundamental they are to the Universe--such as birth and beginnings. Specifically, I brought it up because I've read arguments where people proclaim, "Well, if God created the Universe, who created God? Lick my shoes you religious simpleton!" Without realizing that, unless there's been some development I haven't heard of, scientists seem to think the universe always existed in some form or another even if the Big Bang created our known universe. It didn't just occur from a state of nonexistence. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm actually kind of offended that you think I would attempt that "typical", naive you-should-make-up-whatever-since-you-dont-know argument. I don't think I was saying such things even when I was 12. I'm gonna quote Jaime Lannister(since I just ran across it at Tvtropes):
There are no other men like me.*shakes finger* There is only me. (I really want to drop it in a conversation in real life, its so simple... yet brilliant. Completely srs)

EDIT: Last, you mentioned Evolution. I don't think my faith is contradicted by Evolution.(Just as an fyi)

[Boothby]

I wasn't worried about you...

[Dr. Mobius]

But, Mr. Reductionist, you haven't yet explained why that's worth doing or what would lead you to do so in your cozy little worldview where all of us are just piles of particles whose every action is governed by the laws of physics rather than any moral law - unless you think the golden rule ought to be taught in thermodynamics, or perhaps Lagrangian mechanics. Maybe E&M, or quantum?

Because there is a social/political aspect to human interaction. ... we need to be able to figure out a simple set of rules to try and adhere to in order to make things work out better here.

But as to WHY? Because my life is important to me. Because there is a small group of people that I know, whose lives are also important to me. Because outside my immediate group(s), I recognize that there are other people whose lives are important to them, etc., etc.

...

For me, life--breathing, self-aware, inherently pointless life--is all we have. it's important to me for that reason. I put my own meaning into it, and it is important to me.

<3

[Boothby]

Thanks, Dr. M!!!


CeZeN:

Last, you mentioned Evolution. I don't think my faith is contradicted by Evolution.(Just as an fyi)

That's because you cherry pick. You don't believe in a purely literal Bible (Old Testament, because the New Testament does not concern itself with how we got here).

[jotabe]

Thanks, Dr. M!!!


CeZeN:

Last, you mentioned Evolution. I don't think my faith is contradicted by Evolution.(Just as an fyi)

That's because you cherry pick. You don't believe in a purely literal Bible (Old Testament, because the New Testament does not concern itself with how we got here).

I like picking my cherries. Some are still green, some are already past juicy tastiness. The exact point of sugar and water, with the cherry flavour that just explodes in your mouth, and that it doesn't get sour even when you reach the seed inside...

... wait, what were we talking about?

[CezeN]

Thanks, Dr. M!!!


CeZeN:

Last, you mentioned Evolution. I don't think my faith is contradicted by Evolution.(Just as an fyi)

That's because you cherry pick. You don't believe in a purely literal Bible (Old Testament, because the New Testament does not concern itself with how we got here).

Interesting. Why do you believe that I have to take everything literally? When Jesus tells parables, do I have to take those literally as well or am I allowed to take them as symbolic lessons?

Do I also have to take everything in Revelations literally or am I allowed to believe that some of the imagery(of the vision) is symbolic?

When I read a book, do I have to take everything as literally part of the story with the characters and plot - including the foreword, table of contents, dictionary, ect.? Do I have to take the analogies, similes, and metaphors literally or am I allowed to interpret them figuratively without the author telling me to?

Ignoring all of that, why should I take everything literally when I'm aware that it's possible that literal meanings of a word can be lost over time - such as how I've read that the word for "day" used in that verse can actually mean undetermined, lengthy periods of time? So, I should take it as a literal day translated...or what?

I'm sorry if you feel that me interpreting the Creation in Genesis figuratively is cherry picking. I'm just trying to interpret things open to interpretation in a way that makes sense to me and my understanding of the world. According to this definition(the negative one), it's not cherrypicking because I'm not ignoring or suppressing significant evidence to the contrary. If I am, please point it out.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

However, it is cherry picking under this one

Definition of CHERRY-PICK

intransitive verb
: to select the best or most desirable

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cherry-pick" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If it is, then I'm not sure.... I care too much. Cherry picking is a part of human nature. We all cherry pick which information we remember and put into our memory, based on whether it relates to us, how it affects our self-schema, how it relates to people we care about, ect. I'd say that you're cherry picking my venue of cherry picking as if its negative.

EDIT:
Regardless, here is my completely literal understanding of the important parts in it that relate to us:
God formed us from dust in an early day. He breathed life into this dust and it became alive. God made animals that walk on land on a later day. Later on in that animal day, God made us - existing in some form as he already formed us from dust in an earlier day - into his image.
...And yet, I still see some similarities between it and Abiogenesis/Evolution. *shrug shoulders in an exaggerated manner*

[Dr. Mobius]

Don't forget this one.

[Boothby]

Oh my (non-existant) God, CeZen! You even CHERRY PICK THE DEFINITION OF CHERRY PICKING!!!!

There is no hope.

But I said that you DO NOT take the Bible literally. Many (far too many) do.

BTW, if you want to compare the Bible to a "regular book" that's fine by me. I do that all the time (I had a course in "The Bible as Literature" in PUBLIC High School. I knew my Bible better than most of the religious kids). As a regular book, it's great--all this sex, incest, violence, rape, pillage, murder (all sanctioned by your Supreme Being, BTW). It's sort of trashy, actually....sort of like watching Pokemon or Power Rangers. A lot of gratuitous violence, with a few pithy bon-mots and moral vagaries thrown in to get it by the censors.

Ignoring all of that, why should I take everything literally when I'm aware that it's possible that literal meanings of a word can be lost over time - such as how I've read that the word for "day" used in that verse can actually mean undetermined, lengthy periods of time? So, I should take it as a literal day translated...or what?

The problem is, you're also an apologist. As is pretty much everybody who tries to follow the Bible. The older versions are still there, you know. Translations are available. You're the one wanting to live your life by it, so whatever works for you. I don't need or want to live my life by it, and I REALLY don't like it when someone (not you) tries to force their 2000-5000 year old nonsense down my throat or up my daughter's vagina.

[CezeN]

Oh my (non-existant) God, CeZen! You even CHERRY PICK THE DEFINITION OF CHERRY PICKING!!!!

There is no hope.

But I said that you DO NOT take the Bible literally. Many (far too many) do.

BTW, if you want to compare the Bible to a "regular book" that's fine by me. I do that all the time (I had a course in "The Bible as Literature" in PUBLIC High School. I knew my Bible better than most of the religious kids). As a regular book, it's great--all this sex, incest, violence, rape, pillage, murder (all sanctioned by your Supreme Being, BTW). It's sort of trashy, actually....sort of like watching Pokemon or Power Rangers. A lot of gratuitous violence, with a few pithy bon-mots and moral vagaries thrown in to get it by the censors.

Ignoring all of that, why should I take everything literally when I'm aware that it's possible that literal meanings of a word can be lost over time - such as how I've read that the word for "day" used in that verse can actually mean undetermined, lengthy periods of time? So, I should take it as a literal day translated...or what?

The problem is, you're also an apologist. As is pretty much everybody who tries to follow the Bible. The older versions are still there, you know. Translations are available. You're the one wanting to live your life by it, so whatever works for you. I don't need or want to live my life by it, and I REALLY don't like it when someone (not you) tries to force their 2000-5000 year old nonsense down my throat or up my daughter's vagina.

Yeah, I cherry pick. You cherry pick my cherry picking. I cherry pick your cherry picking of my cherry picking. You cherry pick my cherry picking definition. It's like a dance; it's a vicious cycle of us picking cherries and eating berries!

Oh wait- nevermind. I didn't cherry pick because I addressed both definitions of cherry picking. I dismissed one and shrugged my shoulders at the other. Not cherry picking by either definition, since I acknowledged both.

Oh wait- nevermind. One of the definitions I provided was for "cherry picking" and the other was for the "cherry picking fallacy". Two entirely different concepts. One has a negative connotation; the other is neutral. Because, as I've explained, cherry picking itself is not a horrible practice. So in that sense, I actually gave the one, real definition of cherry picking instead of cherry picking it.

But yeah, I don't take the Creation in Genesis literally. But, I do take a great chunk of it literally.
And no, I don't take it as a regular book. I'm also gonna go ahead and ignore your out of context jabs; they have nothing to do with what we've been talking about.

And I understand that you have a great problem with christians trying to share their belief with you, in an apparently, overaggressive manner(seriously, up your daughter's vagina?...that's the imagery you needed to give?-_-). That's been obvious throughout this thread. But, why are you telling me this? And why are you telling me its a problem that I'm an apologist?
Honestly, I'm not defending those people. I'm not defending Christians here. I'm not defending the Bible.(Well, technically I am) I'm defending my faith; my beliefs, and my thoughts. That's all I'm doing in this thread...

[Boothby]

Well, since EVERYONE who uses the bible cherry picks (except for Elf Prince and his family; I guess they are ALL intellectually superior to the rest of us), and EVERYONE who follows God has to be an apologist at one point in their life, or another, I guess it would be unfair to consider those to be "horrible practices." They're necessary practices.

And I don't have any more of a problem with Christians sharing their beliefs with me than I have with people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster sharing their beliefs with me. However, THOSE people aren't trying to punish me for not believing in their particular monster, or change my country's laws over it.

Or, other people, believing in different monsters, actually threatening to KILL me if I don't believe in their monster.

[CezeN]

Well, since EVERYONE who uses the bible cherry picks (except for Elf Prince and his family; I guess they are ALL intellectually superior to the rest of us), and EVERYONE who follows God has to be an apologist at one point in their life, or another, I guess it would be unfair to consider those to be "horrible practices." They're necessary practices.

And I don't have any more of a problem with Christians sharing their beliefs with me than I have with people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster sharing their beliefs with me. However, THOSE people aren't trying to punish me for not believing in their particular monster, or change my country's laws over it.

Or, other people, believing in different monsters, actually threatening to KILL me if I don't believe in their monster.

Meh. I mean, there will always be someone opposing your belief. Whether it's your belief that Easter is a better holiday than Christmas, Twilight is a better book than Harry Potter, Twilight is a horrible book, Pepsi is a better soda than Coke, Flash is a faster runner than Superman, and...almost everything. We're all apologists at some point trying to defend a belief because almost everything is controversial to someonelse. Furthermore, cherrypicking the Bible can be likened to cherrypicking what stimuli we pay attention to--you can't take time to examine everything, because the Bible is a big book and there's so many different stimuli vying for our attention when we go about our daily lives. What I'm saying is, it sounds like you're simply looking down on human nature. It's not necessary; it just happens because of how we are.

Okay, I understand. But, we're not all one big group with the same wills/goals banding together. One christian simply sharing his belief with you is not the same as another who shares his belief with you, tries to punish you, and tries to change laws. Plus, as you know, we have different sects and disagree on different issues, so I'm not sure you should be holding a specific group or person's actions against any another Christian who has their own unique perspective on everything...

[Dr. Mobius]

As amusing as this tangent is, if we can get back on track, whether or not you personally try to force your religion on others is irrelevant. Others are less scrupulous and do so all the time. As Steve and I have repeatedly pointed out, even allowing for the potential existence of a cosmic being beyond our capability to understand, the man-made religions purportely designed to worship such a creature are an outdated and ultimately superfluous cultural artifact. To continue to base modern and future codes of conduct on ancient history is insane.

And now everyone picks apart my post as much because I don't have the philosophical background or debate skills to say what I want to say in the proper way as because they actually disagree with anything I said.

[Boothby]

Okay, I understand. But, we're not all one big group with the same wills/goals banding together. One christian simply sharing his belief with you is not the same as another who shares his belief with you, tries to punish you, and tries to change laws. Plus, as you know, we have different sects and disagree on different issues, so I'm not sure you should be holding a specific group or person's actions against any another Christian who has their own unique perspective on everything...

CeZen, while I recognize that not everyone believes in their particular God to the same degree/extent as everyone else, the same fantasy creature that evangelicals and right-wing zealots believe in is, for the most part, the same as your particular version of that fantasy creature. Same vector, different magnitude. or something like that. The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim gods are all like that.

Some of these creatures are certainly "more loving" than others, but--let's be honest--it's all really a matter of how YOU were brought up. The version of God you believe in is very much more a Rorschach test of who YOU really are.

I've dealt with a few Christians in the past who firmly believed that "everyone but them" was going to be sent straight to hell when they died. When I dared to criticize them for their hateful belief system, they decried, "Oh, no--it's not ME, it's my GOD that says all this" This is similar Anthony Perkin's mom, in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho." Spoiler: You know darn well it wasn't HER who was stabbing all those pretty women in the shower. You chose your own God. The one you picked (the one we'll know by). Or, even worse, the "God" your parents chose for you may distort who you are so that you fit the mold it (the man-made religion surrounding that "God") demands that you fit.

So, unfortunately, as I tilt at this particular windmill, other, more innocent windmills get clobbered in the crossfire.

You may be a very nice person, with a very kind and gentle and actually loving "God" (read: Fantasy father Figure at the top pinnacle of your particular religion's belief system). You and your beliefs may not be the problem. But the underpinnings that hold up that other fella's God--the other fella who is hateful, and trying to spread his (or her) hate, and trying to screw up my country with that hate--well, when I knock out those underpinnings, I also wind up knocking out yours. If his god doesn't exist, then I'm afraid that yours does not either. And they don't. They're a fantasy based on a bunch of 2000-5000 year old stories, told by slightly wise, but mostly ignorant people, based on even older tales from cultures long ago lost to the ravages of time.

[CezeN]

As amusing as this tangent is, if we can get back on track, whether or not you personally try to force your religion on others is irrelevant. Others are less scrupulous and do so all the time. As Steve and I have repeatedly pointed out, even allowing for the potential existence of a cosmic being beyond our capability to understand, the man-made religions purportely designed to worship such a creature are an outdated and ultimately superfluous cultural artifact. To continue to base modern and future codes of conduct on ancient history is insane.

And now everyone picks apart my post as much because I don't have the philosophical background or debate skills to say what I want to say in the proper way as because they actually disagree with anything I said.

I am gonna pick apart the presentation of your post instead of your opinion, because quite honestly, I just don't care about what you're saying. Not because I disagree, though I do, but because it has nothing to do with what I was ever discussing or planning on discussing in this thread.

I'm assuming that you're addressing me initially because of the language in your first sentence. In response to that; back on track to what? To something I was never talking about? Back on track implies we derailed from a conversational thread we were already established in. You're talking about getting back on track to a tangent that Boothby brought us off to? They're both tangents, so why would I care?

Let me put it this way: I said A. Boothby replied to A. I replied back to A. Boothby replied A with A and B. I replied to A and B. B is a tangent. Boothby replies with an additional C. I reply to C.
Dr. Mobius: Amusing, but let's get back to G shall we?

Also, going "well that was amusing, but let's get back to the serious stuff" comes off condescending. Yeah, because this discussion is clearly supposed to be amusing and we're just monkeys dancing around for your entertainment? Rethink how you phrase what you say, next time. Maybe then I would actually try to take the time to discuss it with you.

[Boothby]

Dr. M;

I see your Cherry Picker and I raise you THIS one:



(And I think that might actually be a cherry tree in the background)

[CezeN]

Hey there Pot;

I am black.*shrugs nonchalantly* Moving on...

[elfprince13]

EP,

But if the Bible is NOT "inerrant," then there must therefore be elements of it that are in error.

If there are elements that are in error, then one would hope to be able to determine what those elements are, and exclude them from doctrine, from reproof, from correction, and from instruction in righteousness.

Yes, one would certainly hope that.

In other words--one needs to cherry pick.

I'm not sure how you're defining cherry pick, but where I'm from, it means "ignore the stuff you don't like, and only take the stuff you like". What I'm saying is study all of it in all of it's context, so you're in the best position to evaluate the individual pieces in light of the whole, and in light of historical context.

But you state that you and your family do NOT cherry pick. Do you therefore accept ALL that is in the Bible? Even those parts that are in error? Or, is there a world-wide, agreed-upon STANDARD for what is in error, and EVERYONE knows to exclude those parts? I doubt that last one very much.

I'd say there's a pretty standard procedure. Read the entire Bible. When you don't understand something:

• Find passages on related topics to understand the whole of what is being said on the subject.
• Read the surrounding text for context.
• Study history (from both secular and religious sources) to understand the historical context and perspective of the author.
• Pay attention to findings in, for example, Biblical and ancient near-eastern archeology.
• Ask someone (or several someones) who has studied ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek for help on issues of translation.
• Read people with differing opininons, they may have picked up on different things that you missed, or there may be clear holes in their reasoning that help you find the problem in your own by having listened to them say it.
• Have a higher commitment to finding out truth than a particular ideology.
• Pay attention to textual scholarship and known textual variations. The Comma Johanneum is generally consider suspect, for example. Most Bibles make explicit note of this.

But I can see this isn't going anywhere. So I'm just going to recommend you keep an eye out for this book:

(except for Elf Prince and his family; I guess they are ALL intellectually superior to the rest of us)

Hardly an exclusive club, just a convenient baseline. I suspect that many of the believing members of this board belong to it as well. And it really doesn't have anything to do with intellectual superiority. Just being a careful reader and having a commitment to understand the context of as much of scripture as possible.

Was the piece I quoted not a factual condensed-description? In what way would you have presented a summary of what they did in the experiment to non-physicists?

It was condensed, but it was also non-factual. Here's how lay science-reporting should be done: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ?full=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (this is actually the article I recommended to my non-physics friends on Facebook).

I am indeed conflating the two, because I'm proposing that we can draw no conclusions on whether anything is the latter category you described - because of our lack of knowledge and understanding limiting and anchoring our perception of the world and what's possible - and thus we can only put things in the former category. [I mean, the reason people can't understand the reality of some form of the Universe always existing or God having always existed, is because we are born and think of the world as everything having a beginning - i.e. anchored by our perception of time and casuality.] However, I'm amending the former category to: "Things which violate our common sense and - seem - to violate logic, but may be, on deep enough inspection, possible and logically compatible while revealing deeper sophistication."

That's why I'm drawing a parallel between me not understainding and you understanding the logical compatibility of metal paddle being visible both moving and standing still, at the same time. The difference between us....knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Who knows, maybe someone with omniscient knows a mathematical formula showing that 2 is 3 or infinite isn't infinite. Ect.

What this paragraph suggests to me is that you need to take some classes on logic. I think the problem is that you're confusing axiomatic errors with errors in reasoning. There are fundamental differences between, for example, the Banach-Tarski theorem or the transfer principle turning out to be false because we can show that the Axiom of Choice is wrong (though I'm pretty sure C has been shown independent of ZF, so that would be monumental), discovering new mathematics to prove or disprove P≠NP, the undecidable nature of the Halting Problem or other non-trivial questions about sets of partial functions, and the statement that "this sentence is false".

[CezeN]

Was the piece I quoted not a factual condensed-description? In what way would you have presented a summary of what they did in the experiment to non-physicists?

1. It was condensed, but it was also non-factual. Here's how lay science-reporting should be done: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ?full=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (this is actually the article I recommended to my non-physics friends on Facebook).

I am indeed conflating the two, because I'm proposing that we can draw no conclusions on whether anything is the latter category you described - because of our lack of knowledge and understanding limiting and anchoring our perception of the world and what's possible - and thus we can only put things in the former category. [I mean, the reason people can't understand the reality of some form of the Universe always existing or God having always existed, is because we are born and think of the world as everything having a beginning - i.e. anchored by our perception of time and casuality.] However, I'm amending the former category to: "Things which violate our common sense and - seem - to violate logic, but may be, on deep enough inspection, possible and logically compatible while revealing deeper sophistication."

That's why I'm drawing a parallel between me not understainding and you understanding the logical compatibility of metal paddle being visible both moving and standing still, at the same time. The difference between us....knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Who knows, maybe someone with omniscient knows a mathematical formula showing that 2 is 3 or infinite isn't infinite. Ect.

2. What this paragraph suggests to me is that you need to take some classes on logic. I think the problem is that you're confusing axiomatic errors with errors in reasoning. There are fundamental differences between, for example, the Banach-Tarski theorem or the transfer principle turning out to be false because we can show that the Axiom of Choice is wrong (though I'm pretty sure C has been shown independent of ZF, so that would be monumental), discovering new mathematics to prove or disprove P≠NP, the undecidable nature of the Halting Problem or other non-trivial questions about sets of partial functions, and the statement that "this sentence is false".

1. The only serious difference I see - aside from the fact that the link that you posted put me to sleep faster - is that your link quoted scientists more. Though, of course I only gave it a cursory glance through. Considering my aim was simply to aware whatshisname on the general idea of the experiment, and I had no care for the explanation of it, I would gladly travel through time to the past and post the same link I previously did. My purpose was not to be dry and informative, but to illustrate a point.(If I remember it correctly; I don't feel like review my post, this thread, or what was said)

2. I'm sure others have commented this, but your arguments would go over better if you made your posts less pretentious and used examples that weren't scientific theorems that your audience may not know about or care for.
What's self-evident is that a metal paddle cannot be conceptually still and moving, at the same time. Without using logical or semantic loopholes. Apparently, I'm wrong on that matter, therefore I'm still moderately unphased by your argument that that is somehow different from the logical inconsistency of "this sentence is false".

However, with "deep enough inspection" and considering "deeper sophistication" maybe that sentence is logically compatible. Maybe the sentence is false because it's more than the sentence that is false; it is not only "this" sentence that is false. Maybe it should really be "this whole post is false". and it is false in the sense that it is falsely limiting/focusing the falseness to one particular sentence out of a sea of fals-sea-ty.

[jotabe]

I thought the whole "this sentence is false" thing was explained by Gödel's Theroem :O

[elfprince13]

1. The only serious difference I see - aside from the fact that the link that you posted put me to sleep faster - is that your link quoted scientists more

I guess this is why most science journalists can get away with being hacks.

What's self-evident is that a metal paddle cannot be conceptually still and moving, at the same time. Without using logical or semantic loopholes.

It's in a probabilistic state. i.e., it isn't moving and not moving, it's moving with probability amplitude 1/sqrt(2), and not moving with probability amplitude -i/sqrt(2). Actually, it's even a little bit more complicated than that, but the sum over the squares of the probability amplitudes of the eigenstates must yield 1, so those are two amplitudes that would work in a 2-eigenstate system. In reality, it's likely that there are an infinite number of frequencies it might be vibrating at, which together yield an infinite family of orthogonal eigenstates with diminishing probabilities corresponding to higher frequencies. And this is why quality science journalism (and sharing such with others) is important - without it, people end up believing a load of hooey about science.

Apparently, I'm wrong on that matter, therefore I'm still moderately unphased by your argument that that is somehow different from the logical inconsistency of "this sentence is false".

p <-> not p is a very different from a statement that Prob[p] ≠ 0 and Prob[not p] ≠ 0. But again, the fact that you're unphased is why I just suggested you take a course on logic. It's not just that you're wrong, it's that we're literally not even having the same conversation because you don't know what we're talking about.

2. I'm sure others have commented this, but your arguments would go over better if you made your posts less pretentious

There's a fundamental problem in conversations of this sort between people with different levels of knowledge about the subject matter. If I'm conversing with someone who doesn't know the field, but is friendly and inquisitive, I go into "helpful teacher" mode. This happens pretty much whenever neo, or one of our non-argumentative lady friends politely wander into this thread, because their posts usually start with a statement that they don't know the field and don't like arguing. I also have a "respectful dialog with peers, colleagues, and people who know more about this than I do" mode, which I use when I'm conversing with someone who I may disagree with, but who has at least the same (or greater) level of knowledge about the subject matter as I do.

The one that causes trouble is the "people who know less than me, but want to argue about it" mode, because helpfully explaining things that you're simply wrong about because you don't understand the subject matter doesn't mix well with the semi-subjective aspect of telling why I disagree with your philosophical position. I'm basically screwed in the seeming-like-a-nice-person category on this one, because from your perspective of being-told-I'm-wrong-by-someone-who-thinks-they-know-more-than-me, I'm either going to seem like a condescending a**, or an intellectually snobby a**. Rather than taking the first approach, and treating you like a 2 year old (which sucks all around), I assume you're an intelligent person interested in intellectual self-betterment (and not just someone with a philosophical chip on their shoulder out to prove a point). This means that when you say something which is objectively just wrong, I'm going to assume you're smart enough to understand the issue, and simply haven't had the educational background to have been taught it before, and point you to somewhere that you can learn for yourself from a neutral third party who isn't also trying to tell you that they disagree with you philosophically at the same time. Separation of duties, because ultimately, I'm really only interested in having conversations that fall into the "helpful teacher" or "respectful dialogue with peers" modes. This middle category is generally reserved for trying to correct people who I'm likely to be pigeonholed with philosophically but who display a lack of scientific knowledge that I don't want to be guilt-by-associationed into, or for putting intellectual bullies in their place when they clearly don't have the credentials to be bullying.

and used examples that weren't scientific theorems that your audience may not know about or care for.

As this thread is intended to be about philosophy as well as physics

a) This is a thread as much about science as about philosophy. My "audience" is people who are interested in learning more about those two things (and self-motivated to do so).
b) Those are meant as sign posts towards me not being philosophically hand-wavy. It's much harder to get around arguments that are instantiated in the real world than those off in hypothetical-land.

I thought the whole "this sentence is false" thing was explained by Gödel's Theroem :O

I'm not sure explained is the best word to use, but it did give us a groundwork to talk about systems which are logically inconsistent.



------------------


Here's a pretty phenomenal discussion between two intellectual giants, both with strong backgrounds in the biological sciences:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6&hl=en-GB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't agree with quite everything that McGrath says, but he does quite a good job with most of the arguments he makes, and it's quite enjoyable to see Dawkins undertaking a respectful dialog with believer of similar intellectual standing. Where I think McGrath misses, it has to do with his response to the problem of pain, which I believe is better handled by Open Theism (which I've read that McGrath does not subscribe to).

Another great video series is Christopher Isham's interviews on NOVA:

[elfprince13]

Another example of EFFECTIVE science communication:


Also, learn about the foundations of quantum mechanics!