OT: What's your religeon?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Fyron's already seen some of these answers on IRC, but other people havn't, so that's why I'm replying to all of them, in case you were wondering, Fyron.

What I'm saying here is that what we have in the bible KJV describes the end result of milenia of scribes occasionally making mistakes, with good accuracy. I'm not saying it all makes sense; I firmly beleive that the bible we have now is not the bible that was given.

Imperator Fyron said:
A few problems there Narf...

No. This does not say, heaven first, then the Earth, just heaven and Earth. There is no order. This is not the same as scientific fact. It is a bit of a stretch to relete "heaven" to "universe," but that is beside the point.

[/qoute]
Heaven is listed first, then earth. It is not unreasonable to think that they would be listed in order of creation. An athiest who beleived/Subscribed to the big band theory would likely say something like 'The big bang pretty much created the visible universe and the earth'. It is less likely they would say 'The big bang pretty much created the earth and the universe'. As for the second point, what do you call the universe when you don't have the word 'universe'?
[qoute]

That is an invalid assumption. There was atmosphere long before water. There are also no "waters under the firmanent," there is magma, and molten cores, and all that fun stuff, especially before the Earth started cooling enough for any water to be present in non-gaseous form.

[/qoute]
Please note that I said 'breathable'.
Actually, you inadvertantly explained it better than I did. What do you call lava when you know it's not fire, but don't have a word for 'lava'?
[qoute]

Dry land was there long before liquid water. The world was never covered entirely in water, then land started appearing. This is backwards. Water started appearing as the Earth cooled from its super hot beginnings (condensation). Unless you want to call lava water...

[/qoute]
Water could mean lava. Or, it could refer to the formation of the supercontinent geologists beleive existed, without altering the meaning of the previous verse.
[qoute]

This is rather ambiguous... doesn't say what sort of creatures the waters brought forth. Land creatures? Sea creatures? What was first, fish or land creatures? Definitely indeterminate.

[qoute]
'the waters' seems to be mentioned as an origin.
[/qoute]

Fowl means one thing, a certain kind of bird. Fowl directly implies (and requires) feathers.

[qoute]
Yes - But I doubt hebrew had a word for 'winged lizard'.
[/qoute]

The waters only "brought forth" marine life and amphibians. Everything else was not "brought forth" by the waters, but evolved from the first amphibians, on land.

[qoute]
See above.
[/qoute]

There was no such implication. If you want to read it literally, as you did before, it implies that great whales were first.

[qoute]
Their were two 'brought forth's' before great whales.
[/qoute]

Again, fowl is a certain class of birds. Most certainly feathers. Can't be anything else.

[qoute]
See above
[/qoute]

I see no such implication. Also, seems to be contradictory. All the living creatures that move were already created on day 5. How can creatures already created be recreated?

[qoute]
Each 'brough forth' mentions a new class, generally expanding on the old 'brought forth'.
All the previous land creatures were amphibions?
[/qoute]

No, not the same. There are a lot of categories of life that evolved after or parallel with humans.

[qoute]
Rephrase: 'Every other order listed.' My mistake.
[/qoute]

It is not that accurate...

I disagree.

[ToxicSlurpee]

I'm a night mage. (or witch, or wizard, or warlock, or nocturnalist, whatever)

It's not something I chose, specifically, it was more of a calling...I started dabbling in the mystic arts and was always nocturnal. The more I learned, the more I found that I'm attuned to the darker energies of reality.

Mind you, it isn't inherently evil, so don't spout off any "OMG! SATANIST!" stuff, please.

[deccan]

For anyone who is interested, Wikipedia has a page:

Geologic timescale

which makes it easy to see which came first and approximately when, so decide for yourself.

[Spoo]

alarikf said:
Allow me to add to this that it is commonly asserted by those with some sort of belief in god that atheists are unable to have a set of morals. This is, of course, not true. Morals exists just fine outside of the beleif in some divine presence. I just always feel the need to point this out whne this topic comes up since non-atheists love to paint atheists as amoral, evil, etc...

Strangely enough, I've heard this accusation made against theists many times, yet in all of my dealings with theists, I've NEVER heard any of them claim atheists are unable to have morals. NEVER.

Now, I can easily imagine that there are people in this world who think they are God's right hand and who would say such a thing. I, however, have never had the (dis)pleasure of conversing with them. I assure you, they are the minority.

To claim that theists "commonly assert" that atheists are incapable of morals is simply untrue.

[Electrum]

Wow! I never would have imagined a simple statement would create such a brew-ha-ha! I sometimes forget that religious fervor isn’t limited to the pro-Bible stance.

Narf, I’m sorry that this conversation has seemed to move your thread away from it’s original intent. That being said, this will be my final post on this subject. I have found that arguments & debates rarely, if ever, change anyone’s views. To the contrary, they usually make a person more set in there opinions.

Deccan, I check out the opinions promoted in the sites you listed. The Bible has never been short of controversies & critics. It was interesting that the majority of the issues were not w/ Biblical accuracy & historicity, rather with the views of those who claim to speak for it, just as I had mentioned. The rest is a promotion of opinions of so-caller “Higher Critics”. Such opinions are nothing new. It is interesting that the standard such higher critics use with the Bible is: If there is no corroborating evidence, it must be a lie.
Son rushes hurriedly into the house to talk with his father.
Son: Dad! Dad! I just saw an albino deer behind the house.
Father: Really! Did anyone see it?
Son: Nope! Just me!
Father (as he starts beating his son): NEVER LIE TO ME AGAIN!

Again, although the Bible was not written as a science textbook, Bible says nothing that is contrary to established scientific facts. The progression of the Biblical creation account is:
(1) a beginning
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water
(3) light (Remember that this is from the perspective of the Earth)
(4) an expanse or atmosphere (second creative day refers firmament (KJV) Others use “Expanse” the Hebrew word use here means to stretch out or spread out or expand. Amazing what a little research can turn up)
(5) large areas of dry land
(6) land plants
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures
(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals
(10) man.
Nothing unscientific there. If fact, science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. The issues usually arise interjecting information that’s not there, such as the 7 creative days being 7 literal 24 hours days, instead of what is being stated, 7 eras or epochs in the preparation of the earth several thousand years in length (interestingly, the Genesis account never states an end of the seventh day. Paul, in his writing states still being in the seventh rest day.)

Think of the mathematical probability with coming up with this order (1 in 3,628,800)

How does this compare to other culture’s creation stories?

the principal Babylonian myth says that the god Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, killed the goddess Tiamat, then took her corpse and “split her like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky.” So the earth and its sky came into existence. As to the creation of human life, this myth states that the gods caught the god Kingu and they “imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels). Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by James Pritchard, 1974, pp. 67, 68)
Other cultures have similar stories. One Egyptian myth relates that the sun-god Ra created mankind from his tears.

Are any of these plausible and in harmony with scientific fact? The very nature on the Genesis account and these stories is so different, is it really reasonable to think the Genesis account was copied from them, as some critics claim?

Again, though the Bible is not a science textbook, it shows remarkable insight in such matters. Especially remarkable when compared with the thinking of the time. While much of the world was believing the world was flat, supported on the backs of elephants, the Bible clearly states the world was a sphere (Isa 40:22) suspended on nothing (Job 26 : 7). While the rest of the world’s medical practices were employing dangerous techniques involving dung & urine, the Mosaic Law instituted hygienic practices including not touching dead bodies and quarantines. Again, well above the standards of the times they were written, why above the standards of relatively modern times, too.

Biblical critics & revisionist historians will continue to give their opinions. Yet the Bible time and time again has stood up against such claims, many times aided by science & archeology.

Again, I apologize Narf for the direction this thread took. This will be my final post on this subject. I just felt that some of the misinformation needed to be corrected. I hope you don’t mind.

[Azselendor]

Electrum,
A lot of your arguments are not supported and highly inacurate and based upon fallacy, not fact. Your arguement is actually based on a number of illogical premises like: Shifting the burden of proof, Reification / Hypostatization, Plurium interrogationum / Many questions, Non sequitur, Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion, Affirmation of the Consequent, Converting a conditional, Bifurcation, and so on.

While condemning other religions for being out of touch, the same religions are used to support the Noah fable. IE, global floods which are entirely impossible. Earth lacks the amount of water needed to support such a flood to the extent described in any fable.

As to disprove your agrument, I will not rely upon any athiestic or non-religious documents but merely point you to the nearest mosque and ask them for pamphlets about thier religion and science. You'll find many of the arguments in them are word-for-word your arguements.

Spoo,
As an Athiest, I have been accused of lacking morality because I lack religious beliefs just as many times as I've been accused of being a satanist. But what this means is that the accuser does not understand what athiesm is. Athiesm is not a denial of simply god, but a denial of fact without proof or facts without proof. When such claims are made against an athiest, it is religion or a relgious individual attempting to define athiesm in the realm of beliefs they understand. Typically it's in a negative light to illustrate an argument or to place someone on the defensive.

My solution to it is, for the satanist claim, is to point out the satan of the bible is a christian for his belief in the biblical god. For the morality charge, I demand they define thier own morality without using the bible or religion.

You are correct, most thiest do not make the morality claim against athiests. The people who make the claims are people on soap boxes invoking the Royal "We". Argumentum ad populum is the fallacy in this case.

Narf, you are very right. The Bibles of today are not the bibles that the first church laid down. Countless tranlations and retranslation mistakes add up over time, then to top it off the bible is drawn for various documents and oral traditions and older religions that further compound things.

But this is not to say some of the parables from the bible are bad ones, some of it is very good and helps to teach life lessons. The problem is when the mindless zeal of zealots are used to push for personal gain and power is when religion directly conflicts with others.

When people argue about the conflict on which religion is right and which is wrong, I can't help but frown in dismay. Our founding fathers in America were able to put aside thier athiest & religious beliefs and realize there are bigger things than religion going on in this world and we need to focus on the world here and now.


Back on topic,

I'm an Progressive Freethinking Federalist Athiest

[Raging Deadstar]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Narf, you are very right. The Bibles of today are not the bibles that the first church laid down. Countless tranlations and retranslation mistakes add up over time, then to top it off the bible is drawn for various documents and oral traditions and older religions that further compound things.

Yeah, The Odd Translation mistake really adds up, as does Blatant editing and censoring of various biblical scriptures by various Churches to support their dogma. (Most evidently the Holy Roman Church of the Middle Ages). But as my friend says.

"I Don't believe in the stories in the bible, I believe in the morals and teachings in the stories. Thats what is Important."

As for Being Immoral, that's just ignorance. Some Atheists are, Some Devout worshippers of Religon are, and Vice Versa. I don't believe just because you have faith in a particular system (or lack of one) means that you are more or less "moral" than others, There are many instances throughout history of people deciding not to "practice what they preach."

At the end of the day, It's tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness and understanding that's needed in this world. And Most religions preach this, maybe we should start listening.

[Azselendor]

As a guy I worked for once said, "it's a case of Do as I say, not as I do."

RD,
I think you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear enough because that's pretty much what I was saying. My point was that when someone or an organization lacks the ability to logically identify something they don't understand, they try to define it in terms they understand. This often ends in a negative description of the individual.

IE, some christians don't understand how anyone can not believe in god, so they must be against him and thus evil and immoral as satan is against god and immoral and evil.

While that example of a flawed arguement, typically that is the reasoning behind false claims athiests are immoral from what I've found. That's not to say there may have other reasons.

[deccan]

Electrum said:
It was interesting that the majority of the issues were not w/ Biblical accuracy & historicity, rather with the views of those who claim to speak for it, just as I had mentioned.

This is too blanket a statement I think. Does this mean that any criticism of Biblical accuracy and historicity is always invalid because of bias and that the Bible cannot be critiqued in this way at all? If not, then which types of criticism are valid and which are not?

Let me, for example, point out that the line "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so" is chronologically incorrect. Plants whose "seeds are in themselves" are flowering plants, whose seeds are located in enclosed ovaries. These appeared in the Jurassic, after the appearance of many types of land animals. Trees yielding fruit came even later, being a further evolution of flowering plants, and after all, from an evolutionary point of view, considering that fruits exist only to attract animals who had help the plant's reproduction, it would make no sense to have fruit trees exist when there are no land animals to eat them.

How can this statement that the Bible is factually incorrect on at least this one matter be brushed aside simply on the grounds that this is not an issue of Biblical accuracy and historicity but "merely reflects the view of those who claim to speak for it"?

Electrum said:
It is interesting that the standard such higher critics use with the Bible is: If there is no corroborating evidence, it must be a lie.

The requirement of multiple, corroborating sources of information is a standard test in the study of history. It is not a requirement uniquely imposed on the study of the Bible.

In any case, the analogy you provide is inadequate: a singular incident of limited scope with only a single eye-witness. Considering the scope and magnitude of the events claimed by the Bible, it would be appropriate to use a larger analogy, say, an ancient text found in a recently discovered ancient city that claims that alien visitors visted that city in vast starships.

Electrum said:
Nothing unscientific there. If fact, science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.

Only if you ignore that the fact that the Bible makes some statements that are curiously specific, and others that are curiously vague. The specific mention of "whale" appearing seemingly together with other sea life is clearly wrong for example, as is the case of the specific types of plants mentioned above. The specific mention of "fowl" is another example. Narf does have a point that perhaps the people at the time had no better term to describe the meaning conveyed at the time, but to judge that would require linguistic skills that I do not possess.

And also only if you ignore the fact that the Bible makes references to things that we have no clear idea what it corresponds to. What is the "firmament"? What is meant by waters above and below the "firmament"? What does the earth bringing forth mean specifically? After all, land animals evolved from sea animals. What does "every living creature that moveth" mean? Does it specifically exclude land animals? Etc.

Electrum said:
the principal Babylonian myth says that the god Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, killed the goddess Tiamat...

...

The very nature on the Genesis account and these stories is so different, is it really reasonable to think the Genesis account was copied from them, as some critics claim?

See this copy of the Babylonian creation myth for example: The Enuma Elish

Is it really so different? The Biblical Version is monotheistic, and God himself is more impersonal while in the Babylonian Version, the deities are more human, in fact, exaggerated forms of humanity. But the content has broad similarities. To orient yourself, consider that in the Biblical Version, creation is organized into six days, while in the Babylonian Version, creation is organized into six generations of deities:

Tiamat and Apsu -> Lahmu and Lahamu -> Anshar and Kishar -> Anu -> Ea -> Marduk.

Electrum said:
While much of the world was believing the world was flat, supported on the backs of elephants, the Bible clearly states the world was a sphere (Isa 40:22) suspended on nothing (Job 26 : 7).

This is controversial. I don't believe the various statements made in the Bible were specific enough to judge what the writers of the Bible actually believed. You can google for references to a round Earth, but I can google for references to a flat Earth as well. The fact is that the statements are just so vague.

Certainly there were early figures in the Christian church who quoted scripture to argue that the Earth was flat, no doubt just as passionately as you quote scripture to argue that the Bible has always stated that the Earth is round.

Electrum said:
While the rest of the world’s medical practices were employing dangerous techniques involving dung & urine, the Mosaic Law instituted hygienic practices including not touching dead bodies and quarantines.

I believe that the practices were religious rituals, not practices justified by medical hygiene.

In any case, justifications of this sort are as spurious as attempts by say Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners who say that since some of TCM's remedies are empirically found by modern scientists to be sound, the TCM theories of chi, Yin-Yang, Theory of Five Elements etc. must therefore be true.

Electrum said:
Biblical critics & revisionist historians will continue to give their opinions. Yet the Bible time and time again has stood up against such claims, many times aided by science & archeology.

Correct, and this goes way back. What you omit is that most of the pertinent and respected criticisms were by Christians theists.

[Instar]

I own several. They make me tons of cash!