modest Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Sorry. I was being sarcastic. I should have used a smiley or something to avoid confusion. Most people that are familiar with my posts here were probably able to detect it. I'm quite sure anyone following the discussion picked up on your sarcasm immediately. You certainly have no need to apologize. If you are serious about this, let me suggest that we pick one of three thread directions: 1) Is Christianity different, and if so why? (this would follow a narrow portion of the Goku path) 2) Is there such a thing a "right" and "wrong"? This would probably lead back into the prior discussion about morals. This usually is inseparable from a discussion of determinism and free will 3) Are God and science at odds? These have all been discussed and, indeed, debated recently here in this theology forum. You seem to have missed out on all that :( I would NOT directly engage in any defense of the Bible per se, unless we had vented at least 2 of the above first. Incidentally, I certainly wouldn't debate 1 through 3 above until we first debate two of these three: The no hair theorem of black holesThe horizon problem and inflationary cosmologyBaryogenesis and Nucleosynthesis :Bump2: I would NOT directly engage in any defense of the Bible per se... Indeed, How could you? ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I am trying to hide my hostility toward those would try and dictate reality to others or say that reality is circumscribed by belief. Understood. I do think that everyone's reality is circumscribed by belief. But I do understand your discomfort with rejection of opposing opinion. Maybe we can get to some of that definition of the boundaries of belief here. But I have to bail for a couple hours. Bio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Indeed, How could you?The Bible is readily defensible, although it is a little tough in a forum like this that tends to diverge. I did not understand most of your response. Do you want to reference issues raised in previous threads? Bio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 T- I can offer with some confidence that Goku, as sincere as he seems (he?), is not the individual to defend the integrity of the Bible in this forum. Bio Gotta call BS on ya here BC. :Bump2: Ignorance, whether it's your's or Goku's or mine, is no excuse or defense. As I suggested, your, and his, and anyone's observations on who wrote the Bible is for the thread of that topic. You wanna preach, go to a site that invites it. You-all wanna keep flaunting the rules here, then we'll accomadate you-all by throwing you out. It's really not that hard a thing to understand, is it? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The Bible is readily defensible, although it is a little tough in a forum like this that tends to diverge. I did not understand most of your response. Do you want to reference issues raised in previous threads? Bio Why don't you start another thread in the theology forum and I am sure I can engage you on that. The bible is indefensible on any level, except maybe as an interesting mythology:hyper: It would seem we are polar opposites then? :Bump2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The Bible is readily defensible, although it is a little tough in a forum like this that tends to diverge. I disagree with your first point and agree with your second. I did not understand most of your response. Do you want to reference issues raised in previous threads? That's ok, BioChem. It just seemed odd that the three things you mentioned all seem to have been recently debated here in Hypo's theology forum. I wasn't really making a point about it or insinuating anything—just trowin' it out there. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Gotta call BS on ya here BC. ..Ignorance, whether it's your's or Goku's or mine, is no excuse or defense. I am not quite sure what the "BS" is that you are calling. I was suggesting that Goku is not the structured defender sort. And this is certainly a complex topic,As I suggested, your, and his, and anyone's observations on who wrote the Bible is for the thread of that topic. And I would be happy to respond there if someone would like me to do so.You wanna preach, go to a site that invites it. You-all wanna keep flaunting the rules here, then we'll accomadate you-all by throwing you out. It's really not that hard a thing to understand, is it? I was not aware I was preaching. Where was that exactly? I was offering a structure for an academic defense. What rule did I break? This rule stuff is a little complex for me to interpret since they seem so unevenly applied. Bio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Why don't you start another thread in the theology forum and I am sure I can engage you on that. I was offering to respond to issues of interest. Since I have been accused of a) prosletyzing and :) preaching when responding to assertions in existing posts, I am not particularly interested in engaging in autopersecution for my own benefit. The bible is indefensible on any level, except maybe as an interesting mythology:hyper: It would seem we are polar opposites then? :hihi:I am sure you have clean academic support for that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I was offering to respond to issues of interest. Since I have been accused of a) prosletyzing and :hihi: preaching when responding to assertions in existing posts, I am not particularly interested in engaging in autopersecution for my own benefit. I am sure you have clean academic support for that position. More support than you do I am sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I am not quite sure what the "BS" is that you are calling. I was suggesting that Goku is not the structured defender sort. And this is certainly a complex topic, And I would be happy to respond there if someone would like me to do so.I was not aware I was preaching. Where was that exactly? I was offering a structure for an academic defense. What rule did I break? This rule stuff is a little complex for me to interpret since they seem so unevenly applied. Bio :) The BS refers to your pretending your arguments aren't rooted in your religious beliefs, something I find dishonest. Goku is likewise dishonest, always pretending to be the poor unlearnt farmer. Who me? Poor little me? Gee I was just asking a question. :) Give me a break. Grow some stones, spare me the "oh, it's too complex" & be up front about your positions and then show the courtesy to couch them in scientific terms appropriate to this forum. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I disagree with your first point and agree with your second.Nice that we agree on something.That's ok, BioChem. It just seemed odd that the three things you mentioned all seem to have been recently debated here in Hypo's theology forum. I wasn't really making a point about it or insinuating anything—just trowin' it out there. Not sure why this matters. I re-engaged on Hypo this month after an absence, and joined one of the several perpetual Darwinesque discussion. Nothing was new in that discussion that had not been discussed in previous fora. People rarely redirect posters to prior threads here. I have personnally written hundreds of posts here on the topics I mentioned above. If we are going to disallow repetitive threads, probably 50-80 percent of Hypography would get deleted. If Hypography has changed policy on this, someone ought to let me know. My point in my three topics above is that I think (not believe, think) it is senseless to discuss anything spiritual about the Bible unless we know whether people are theists or not. The Bible is not structured as a proof of God. It is structured as a history of communication with a subset of theistic peoples. One could debate the historicity of the Bible in a history or archaeology forum, or the morality of the Bible is a philosophy forum. But we are not likely to "prove up" God with it. It was not written for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 :) The BS refers to your pretending your arguments aren't rooted in your religious beliefs, something I find dishonest. What argument are you talking about? I didn't even make one yet....spare me the "oh, it's too complex" & be up front about your positions and then show the courtesy to couch them in scientific terms appropriate to this forum. :hihi:Sorry T. I don't really know what the heck you are talking about. I did not bring up the Bible, I just offered to discuss some related issues in a structured way. No one took me upon it. How did everyone get bees up their respective sygmoids on this thread??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 :hihi: The BS refers to your pretending your arguments aren't rooted in your religious beliefs, something I find dishonest. By the way, this is massively biased thinking. Everyone on this site is a theist, atheist or agnostic. All have worldviews that affect the way they interpret science. If you are going to contend that being a theist (openly) is somehow more dishonest that contending that atheism does not affect your interpretive filters, that is nothing but perfect bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 More support than you do I am sure.Unlikely. But this thread is particularly out of control. The heinous disregard for other folks opinions in this thread, even academically defensible positions, is a little surprising. This is more like a political rally than a discussion forum. It is a bunch of dogs barking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 By the way, this is massively biased thinking. Everyone on this site is a theist, atheist or agnostic. All have worldviews that affect the way they interpret science. If you are going to contend that being a theist (openly) is somehow more dishonest that contending that atheism does not affect your interpretive filters, that is nothing but perfect bias. Are you suggesting that being an atheist distorts your view of reality? I would say that being atheist causes you to see reality as it is instead of how you want to believe it is. I have no problem with either view but trying to say that religion doesn't distort a believers view away from reality is simply dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Are you suggesting that being an atheist distorts your view of reality? Absolutely. This is a syllogism. Unless you have offered concrete proof that God does not exist (which most would agree is impossible) then you are postulating a set of presumptions.I would say that being atheist causes you to see reality as it is instead of how you want to believe it is. Of COURSE you would. The technical term for this sort of perspective is "bias". I have no problem with either view but trying to say that religion doesn't distort a believers view away from reality is simply dishonest.What I said was that everyone has a wordview based on a set of beliefs. It will affect the filter through which you interpret data. If you are going to honestly content that you do not "rule out" options for data interpretation based on your atheistic world view, I am sorry to hear it. Do you need examples?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Absolutely. This is a syllogism. Unless you have offered concrete proof that God does not exist (which most would agree is impossible) then you are postulating a set of presumptions.Of COURSE you would. So you can offer concrete evidence that God does exist? My only presumptions is the concrete evidence. a religious person must assume the evidence supports his view of god, if not he rejects it. The technical term for this sort of perspective is "bias". What I said was that everyone has a wordview based on a set of beliefs. Not true, only the believer in the supernatural has a filter, the non believer sees reality as it is. Not as his religious views say it should be. Only the believer has a predisposed bias, the non believer has no bias. It will affect the filter through which you interpret data. If you are going to honestly content that you do not "rule out" options for data interpretation based on your atheistic world view, I am sorry to hear it. Do you need examples?? What options for data are ruled out by an atheistic world view, non truth, belief, BS? Yes I would like examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts